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.