4 - Friday, November 13, 2009
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
C 14e Mic4igan +aily
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@umich.edu
ROBERT SOAVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR
I've never seen anything like this. We used to
pretty much be an open door."
- LaGuardia Community College President Gail O. Mellow, commenting on having to turn prospective students
away because of the recent flood of students to two-year colleges, as reported yesterday by the New York Times.
GARY GRACA
EDITOR IN CHIEF
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position ofuthe Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles
and illustrations represent solely the views ofntheir authors.
Pushing the limit
Appropriate behavior a must for University leaders
T he University prides itself on projecting an image of
integrity. An important component of this image is the
example provided by the University's leaders. But the
recent behavior of University Athletic Director Bill Martin com-
promised this image. On two separate occasions, the athletic
director shoved students working for the Department of Public
Safety as part of the Michigan Stadium safety staff during foot-
ball games. Though Martin has since apologized for the incident,
his rash behavior reflects poorly on the University and its admin-
istration. This incident should serve as a reminder that Univer-
sity leaders are role models for the University community and
must be held to the highest standards of behavior.
BELLA SHAH
s '
E-MAIL BELLA AT BELLZ@UMICH.EDU
l1ov '
0
fons yao,
,',tS.lc LO
0
The fastest growing minority
This week, Martin apologized for shov-
ing students working for DPS at Michigan
Stadium on two separate occasions. At the
games against Notre Dame and Delaware
State, DPS student staffers denied Mar-
tin entrance to the Regents Guest Area,
requesting he present identification. On
both occasions, Martin responded that
he was the athletic director and after a
stand-still, pushed the students aside. He
released a written statement on Monday in
which he apologized for the incidents, not-
ing protocols caused his frustration.
Martin's claim that his actions were the
result of confusion over new safety protocols
is a dubious defense. As athletic director,
Martin should have been aware of the rules.
His lack of knowledge exposes a breakdown
of communication that reflects poorly on the
University - especially since it happened
twice. He should have made the effort after
the first incident to understand why he had
been denied immediate entrance.
But no amount of confusion would
excuse Martin's actions in these cases.
He shouldn't have responded to the safety
staffers - who were simply doing their
jobs - in the way he did, and it was wholly
inappropriate to use physical contact to
force them out of his way. Martin's posi-
tion as athletic director doesn't exempt
him from interacting with those around
him in a respectful manner. Using physical
force in such a situation isn't acceptable for
anyone - and Martin, especially.
That's because the public faces of the
University should be held to the high-
est standard. Martin, President Mary Sue
Coleman, coaches and administrators rep-
resents the University and must be cogni-
zant of the fact that other people will make
judgments about the University based on
their actions. Martin's actions reflected
poorly on not just himself, but also on
the institution as a whole. And those who
speak for and lead the University must
never be derelict in their responsibility to
live by and demonstrate the positive quali-
ties they want others to emulate.
While it seems as though Martin under-
stands the severity of his offense and has
apologized to the workers he pushed,
officials should remember never to forget
their responsibilities. Shoving students is
not acceptable behavior for any member of
the University community, let alone a high
level official who represents the institu-
tion.
ne of the most impor-
tant criticisms that I have
received for writing columns
primarily about
racial oppression
between blacks
and whites has
been that I do not -
address Latino
issues. After all,
Latinos are the
fastest growing
minority popula-
tion, and whites MATTHEW
oppress them. This HUNTER
nation's social and
economic prog-
ress depends on
Latinos. And certainly, all oppressed
groups and their unique social strug-
gles deserve more attention in popu-
lar media.
For every racial struggle unique to
black Americans, there exist compa-
rable oppressive forces against Latinos.
Latinos in the U.S. must bear being
stigmatized continually because they
are seen as people who don't belong
in the U.S. - with illegal immigrants,
with stupidity, with people who want
to strip our nation of American values
and impose their inferior language.
Rush Limbaugh, host of America's
most listened to radio show, weighed
in when speculating as to whya Mexi-
can won the New York marathon: "An
immigration agent chased him for the
last 10 miles." Racism against Latinos
runs rampant, when perhaps they have
a greater claim to our land than whites
do.
Limbaugh's sentiments are echoed
in hate crime cases across the nation.
This year, on May 1, two men were
acquitted of aggravated assault, reck-
less endangerment, ethnic intimida-
tion and third degree murder for the
death of Luis Ramirez, according to a
May 3 CNN.com article titled, "Some
satisfied, others outraged with ver-
dict for immigrant's death." Ramirez
died of blunt force injuries after a con-
frontation with Derrick Donchak and
Brandon Piekarsky. They were both
only found guilty of simple assault.
The legal leniency given to these
whites, from an all white jury, echoes
countless court cases where the law
doesn't protect minorities with guar-
antees of justice. Why was anyone sat-
isfied with a verdict that put two racist,
violent men back on the streets when
they are obviously a danger to society?
There are countless examples of
oppression against Latinos in every
nook of white America, from edu-
cation disparities to dehumanizing
immigrants, legal or otherwise. But
rather than fret about the depressing
status quo of our nation's racial track
record, I have two recommendations
that will increase cultural under-
standing and Latino acceptance and
thus decrease racism and the numer-
ous disparities Latinos face.
First, immigration reform should
include mandates to empower
respectable, racially conscious, Span-
ish speaking officers, who seek the
best interests of Latino immigrants
while acknowledging the difficulties
of overcrowding in important immi-
grant cities. Immigrants should not
be treated inhumanly - we should
instead understand that they are
either looking to be with their fami-
lies in the Land of Freedom or trying
to escape their own country's evils,
like whites did when they came to
America. Conversely, Latinos are
not looking to enslave or massacre
anyone. Rather, they have populated
our workforce to the point where the
survival of most Americans depends
on Latinos in the U.S. going to work
everyday. Legalization should be a
prospect possible for all Latinos who
want to live a respectable life, which
is, of course, the vast majority.
Second, Spanishshouldbe made an
official language of our nation, along-
side English. Despite the cultural
differences between various Latin
American people, their language
unites them. If all schools in the U.S.
were required to teach a comprehen-
sive Spanish curriculum comparable
to the English curriculum, we could
better identify with Latinos. In addi-
tion, intelligent children who are held
back in school because they don't
understand English could advance
Latinos face their
own civil rights
struggle.
in classes alongside American chil-
dren who struggle with Spanish.
This is better than letting our Latino
children fail and be stigmatized as
stupid and lazy, which perpetuates
the cycles of educational disparities
in which Latinos live. These chil-
dren need proper preparation for our
nation's leadership positions.
An Aug. 13, 2008 CNN.com article
titled "Minorities expected to be the
Majority in 2050" reported that the
Hispanic population is expected to
triple, making Hispanics 30 percent
of our nation's total population. They
are the fastest growing minority, and
rather than framing the relationship
as "us" and "them," learning their
language will allow Americans to
gain cultural understanding through
being able to talk to one another.
- Matthew Hunter can be
reached at majjam@umich.edu.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, Emily Barton, William, Butler, Ben Caleca, Michelle DeWitt,
Brian Flaherty, Emma Jeszke, Raghu Kainkaryam, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Erika Mayer,
Edward McPhee, Harsha Panduranga, Alex Schiff, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith,
Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Laura Veith
SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU
A better fix for state roads to put us on a better path.
would be privatization Alexander Franz
Business junior
TO THE DAILY:
The Daily's prescription for Michigan'sfpiped-in music is here to
crumbling public infrastructure (The road not m st
taken, 11/11/2009) overlooked a significant stay, make itaood
potential remedy: privatization. Any funding
for repairs or mass transit is constrained by
the state's collapsing budget, but privatization TO THE DAILY:
offers the government a considerable source Whether we like it or completely hate it, it
of revenue. The lease payments from priva- appears that the Athletic Department has decided
tized highways could be invested into roads, piped-in music is here to stay. So that's where we
bridges or green initiatives. stand - every week we are subjected to some mys-
The idea of private infrastructure isn't terious DJspinning"Jock Jams, Volume 76". Most
new. In 2005, the city of Chicago leased the students eat it up, falling victim to a mob mentality
Chicago Skyway to private investors for $1.8 that forces them into an inane chant or "8-mile"-
billion. The new owners gained control of the inspired hand motion. A smaller sect pine for the
toll road for 99 years, and are responsible for days of the Michigan Marching Band being the
maintenance expenses. Anticipating returns sole auditory component to the game.
for over a century, the owners have an incen- But if we are going to go down the piped-in
tive to invest in high-quality materials that music rabbit hole, one thing we should all be able to
create future savings, rather than push pot agree on is that we need to do it right. There needs
hole repairs from one budget to the next. If to be more thought behind what is being played.
road conditions are bad, drivers will commute Anyone who watched the Ohio State-Penn State
elsewhere. game may have noticed that Penn State's band
Michigan is a major junction for trade with plays The White Stripes' "Seven Nation Army" in
Canada. A 2004 study by the Border Transpor- between nearly every play. This is nothing new -
tation Partnership determined that $13 billion Penn State has been playing "Seven Nation Army"
in goods crosses through the Detroit-Windsor for years now. When you catch the Ohio State-
border every year. Highways along this trade Iowa game this Saturday you may again hear
route could attract significant attention from "Seven Nation Army" during kickoffs - an Ohio
private capital. The steady traffic tolls would State gameday tradition. Anyone who's been up
make these investments less risky for inves- to Michigan State for a game knows that they play
tors and more lucrative for the government. AC/DC's "Thunderstruck" as their entrance song
With hundreds of millions of dollars in and have been doing so for years.
cash, local roads in Washtenaw County and For all the problems there have been with the
elsewhere could receive the attention they music at Michigan Stadium - poor sound qual-
desperately need. And just as Chicago used a ity, playing at inopportune times - the biggest
portion of its revenue to pay down debt, Lan- problem is lack of originality. There are thousands
sing could invest in energy efficient reforms to of songs out there; why can't we find something
reduce its carbon footprint and future expens- unique to Michigan? We are supposed to be the
es. "Leaders and Best." It seems that we've instead
Privatization offers a proven, viable alter- settled on copying our rivals - following, not lead-
native to budget fights and higher taxes. ing.
Decades of public monopoly have driven
our roads to their current condition, so Tom Ward
don't overlook the power of private capital LSA senior
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be less than 300 words and must
include the writer's full name and University affiliation. Letters are edited for style, length, clarity and
accuracy. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not print anonymous letters.
Send letters to tothedaily@umich.edu.
I
TRISHA JAINI
Stupak isn't so stupid
It was an eleventh-hour addition. Here's what happened:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi needed another chunk of votes
for the health care bill to pass. She knew that the Stupak
Amendment, which would trim abortion coverage from
subsidized insurance plans, would reel in support from the
pro-life Democrats. She agreed to let the House vote on the
amendment. It passed with flyingcolors and swept 41 more
signatures onto the health care bill, which then just barely
passed (220 votes to 215).
And then pro-choice America wentberserk.
They argued that President Barack Obama violated his
promise - he had promised that no one would lose his or
her present coverage with the advent of health care reform,
didn't he? Currently, more than 85 percent of insurance
plans cover abortion, but the government will deprive all
of these plans of subsidies. In the new "exchange" - the
market of blended public-private insurance policies created
by health care reform - an unsubsidized plan will find it
too costly to survive. Consequently, the plan will "sell out"
abortion coverage for a subsidy in order to stay competi-
tive, or else languish and die. Obama promised, though, and
abortion is a medical procedure like any other that should
be readily available. Will we stop covering tonsil removal
next?
The problem is that abortion is not a procedure like any
other, and the Stupak Amendment is, both morally and
practically speaking, a sound and intelligent piece of policy.
I am pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. I wholeheartedly
support your right to choose abortion, but I would strongly
encourage you not to. It would have been none of my busi-
ness - your private insurance is exactly that, yours and
private - but when we as a nation pleaded for health care
reform at any cost, we pleaded to make it my business. We
removed the line between public and private and made it
our collective business. Now, my tax dollars will subsidize
your insurance policy to make it affordable, and yours mine.
And unlike the choice to remove your tonsils, your choice
to undergo abortion is heavy. It's loaded with religious and
moral significance - make it, by all means, but please don't
ask me to pay for any part of it.
Granted, my tax money is already used for wars I don't
support, but at the very least, those wars are intended
to protect me and every other citizen. Your abortion is a
decision that affects only you. To present an exaggerated
analogy - emphasis on exaggerated - would you, in turn,
subsidize my purchase of a gun? A government that recog-
nizes a right is by no means obliged to provide for it.
It is fascinating that this issue has the most liberal of the
liberals speaking in Republican tongue. Planned Parent-
hood opposes the entire reform bill on the grounds that
it strips women of this crucial choice and that these sub-
sidized insurance plans should not be the only available
options - and right there, they have drifted onto Republi-
can grounds. Strangely, though, most of us share their atti-
tude. We liberals are still incredibly idealistic in imagining
the consequences of reform. The reality is, even Obama's
comforting rhetoric cannot change the fact thathealth care
reform will, without a doubt, whittle down the range of
available policies. The Stupak amendment is just the first
controversial cut.
But by garnering the votes of pro-life Democrats for the
health care bill, the Stupak Amendment has essentially
given 47 million Americans access to insurance. As for the
whittled-down range, I have no doubt that a private organi-
zation with thick-walleted, pro-choice donors will emerge
shortly to fund abortions for those who cannot afford them
out of pocket. It is not and was never the government's place
to do so. It is the government's place to ensure that the low-
income woman with a high fever can see a doctor, and that
medical care for the rest of her body is not held hostage for
the sake of her ovaries. In that regard, Stupak is anything
but stupid.
Trisha Jain is an LSA freshman.