4A - Wednesday, January 27, 2010

The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com

SMi iigan Batlg
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard Sc.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
4 tathedaily@umich.edu


These are out of control.
Our city has more of these then Starbuckses."
- Councilman Ed Reyes, describing the number of medical marijuana dispensaries in
Los Angeles, as reported yesterday by the New York Times.

JACOB SMILOVITZ
EDITOR IN CHIEF

RACHEL VAN GILDER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR

MATT AARONSON
MANAGING EDITOR

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles
and illustrations represent solely the views oftheir authors.
Mind over money
University presidents should work for a purpose, not a salary
t may come as a surprise to some to learn that University
President Mary Sue Coleman makes more than the president
of the United States. The U.S. president makes a base salary
of $400,000, while Coleman receives a base salary of $553,500.
And, when you factor in other bonuses from the University, her
total compensation package comes to a whopping $783,850 this
year. But as steep as Coleman's salary is, what's more troubling is
the increase of presidents' salaries across the country. University
presidents - including Coleman - should reject high salaries to
show their commitment to the mission of public education.

ELAINE MORTON

E-MAIL ELAINE AT EMORT@UMICH.EDU

.....-0,"'i'. . p ow'
have no th o Pa
4hm,$d of dA rs 0 year +0 rus oro 4n
On-the-record conservative

0

According to data released by The
Chronicle of Higher Education last week,
Coleman is the sixth highest-paid public
university president in the country. Cole-
man has declined in salary ranking over
the past few years, falling from the highest-
paid public university president in 2002 and
fifth in 2008. Despite the fact that Coleman
accepted a 4-percent base salary raise in
the 2009 fiscal year, she ranked sixth this
year behind presidents at the University of
Washington, the University of Delaware,
the University of virginia, the University of
Texas and Ohio State University.
Previous University presidents haven't
been paid nearly as highly as Coleman.
Former University President Lee Bollinger
earned $326,550 in 2001, the year before he
resigned from his position at the Universi-
ty of Michigan and became the president of
Columbia University. Though some of the
difference can be attributed to inflation,
the wide disparity shows that universities
have started to shift their priorities. Cole-
man's exorbitant compensation is remi-
niscent of a for-profit private sector rather
than a public service salary.
Coleman's high salary is indicative of
a disturbing trend in public education:
increasing administrative salaries. The
purpose of public education has gotten
lost amid the high-stakes competition for

the best president, which comes complete
with high salaries and monetary competi-
tion. Though the argument that the Uni-
versity must offer a competitive salary to
retain Coleman's services may be a reality,
it is representative of the core problem now
facing public education. The focus of many
public universities has shifted from educa-
tioi to enterprise, making salary figures
more important than the mission of uni-
versities: to educate. Those who work in
public education shouldn't do so because of
the monetary rewards, but rather because
of the purpose of improving students' edu-
cation and lives.
And though salary costs are only a drop
in the bucket of costs that have trickled
down to students through tuition, those
in public education should never be paid
at the expense of those they are meant to
serve. Presidents' places at state-funded
universities shouldn't be motivated by
money. It should be motivated by a genuine
dedication to public education and admira-
tion for academic prestige. As long as the
presidents of public universities accept
high salaries, they aren't showing that
dedication.
Public education should go back to its
roots. And that begins, at least symboli-
cally, by lowering the salaries of university
presidents.

t's time for the truth, Univer-
sity of Michigan community. I,
Rachel Van Gilder, The Michi-
gan Daily's edito-
rial page editor,
am a self-identified
Republican. That's
right. You heard
me. I don't sup-
port affirmative
action, abortion or
stem cell research, ( ,
and I felt a twinge
of schadenfreude RACHEL
when Republican
Scott Brown won
the open Massa-
chusetts Senate
seat last week,
placing a potential stumbling block
in the way of Democrats' costly
health care bill. I'm a social and fis-
cal conservative.
I can imagine campus's response
to this news. Members of the College
Republicans are high-fiving, imagin-
ing that the Daily will now endorse
only red candidates and denounce
President Barack Obama at every
opportunity. The College Democrats,
meanwhile, are throwing down the
paper in ahuff, outraged that a con-
servative could take the reins of the
historically progressive Daily opin-
ion page. But campus. liberals and
conservatives alike can be assured
that in reality, nothing's going to
change: The Daily is still the paper
it has always been, and its editorial
stances aren't going to suddenly take
a one-eighty now that I'm the edito-
rial page editor.
I always see eyebrows shoot up in
surprise when I inform people that,
yes, I work for the Daily's opinion
section and that, yes, I'm a conser-
vative. The Daily's editorial reputa-
tion precedes it, and I would classify
the Daily as a liberal paper. I would
also say that I disagree with about

half of the Daily's editorials. But I'm
perfectly capable of upholding the
Daily's precedent without agreeing
with it.
"How?" I can almost hear liber-
als and conservatives alike gasp in
confusion. How can you write about
things you don't agree with? Isn't
that wrong? Doesn't that feel dishon-
est? And these are valid concerns -
ones I myself have had to resolve.
It helps that many Daily editorial
stances are on issues that most stu-
dents, regardless of party lines, can
agree on. For example, most students
agree that the Michigan Student
Assembly isn't living up to its poten-
tial to better students' lives. They
also agree that textbooks are too
expensive, and that a quality educa-
tion is important.
But though I'm not a far-right con-
servative, and I'm not conservative
on every issue, I do disagree with the
Daily on a lot of issues. I can usually
reconcile the differences because of
my outlook on party politics. You may
label me naive for thinking so, but I'm
of the opinion that most people are,
in general, good people. That means
that, while I don't agree with liber-
als on most things, I can respect that
they're coming from a good place.
I view party politics in terms of
values. As a conservative, I value per-
sonal responsibility. Liberals place
more value on social responsibility.
This doesn't mean that conservatives
don't care about other people, or that
liberals have no sense of personal
accountability. It simply means that
each party has prioritized their val-
ues, and one has come out on top.
And one thingthat Ivalue above all
- and that the Daily values - is dis-
cussion.And that's what I reallythink
the Daily's opinion page is about.
In reality, polarized thinking never
makes for good law. Both sides serve
a purpose in the lawmaking process:

Liberals' idealism pushes the status
quo that conservatives often hold,
and conservatives' steadfast practi-
cality grounds necessary change in
realism. Talking about issues is the
only way to find the middle ground
that actually leads to the best policy.
This belief is what makes doing this
job possible - and worth it.
It's not my place
to reinvent the
Daily's identity.
Honestly, though, sometimes it's
hard to edit and defend positions that
I don't agree with. When the Daily
tackles issues that I have strong moral
objections to, like stem cell research,
I sometimes get an ashen taste in my
mouth. I have to make a concerted
effort to leave my feelings at the door.
I shut those feelings out, and focus on
my job: to make the Daily's editorials
as logical as possible.
I do it because I've realized some,
thing during my rise from Edito-
rial Board member to editorial page
editor: The Daily isn't about me. It's
much, much bigger than simply me
and my opinions. The Daily is its own
entity that has developed its own
opinions and thoughts over decades,
and it's not my place to reverse its
legacy. I'm just one part of the insti-
tution, and my views don't drown
out 120 years of precedent. The
Daily's editorials are usually liberal.
And they will remain liberal - even
though I'm a conservative.
- Rachel Van Gilder is the Daily's
editorial page editor. She can be
reached at rachelvg@umich.edu.

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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
Nina Amilineni, Emad Ansari, William Butler, Nicholas Clift, Michelle DeWitt, Brian Flaherty,
Jeremy Levy, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Emily Orley, Harsha Panduranga, Alex Schiff,
Asa Smith,Brittany Smith, Radhika Upadhyaya, Laura Veith
JEREMY LEVY |
User-friendly science

0


The better clean-up crew

Do you know why it's hotter in the summer
than in the winter? If your answer has to do
with the Earth's tilt, then congratulations! By
the standards of scientist Robert M. Hazen,
you can brag that you're more "scientifically
literate" than 90 percent of Harvard Univer-
sity's graduating class of 2002. A few weeks
ago I was assigned to read Dr. Hazen's article
- which argues that even non-scientific people
should understand basic scientific concepts -
in a science class that I'm only taking to finish
my natural science requirement. Speaking as a
non-scientific person, I'm not convinced that
knowledge of the Earth's tilt is ever going to be
a useful piece of information in my life.
The logic behind the naturalscience require-
ment is essentially the same as Dr. Hazen's.
The Collge of Literature, Science and the Arts
wants all students to graduate with enough
general scientific knowledge to comprehend
the scientific debates that occur during their
lifetimes. But as far as I can tell, most attempts
by science professors to provide life lessons for
students who will never be taking another sci-
ence class again are laughable.
One common activity in biology or environ-
ment classes is for students to measure their
individual carbon footprints. Aside from the
fact that this tends to be done via a shoddy
looking Internet site that asks no more than ten
questions about your individual carbon usage, I
have little faith in the value of such an activity
anyways. I doubt that it convinces many stu-
dents to suddenly recycle their beer cans and
monitor the amount of water they use when
they shower.
Nearly all classes that fulfill the natural
science requirement focus on too much infor-
mation that is useless to non-science majors.
I don't care about the names of the Earth's
biomes or the classification of vertebrates. I
bet that I would be much more interested in
a class called "Environmental and Resource
Economics" than a class called "Ecological
Issues." But guess which one fulfills the natu-
ral science requirement.

The problem is that science classes are being
taught in a vacuum. There isn't enough discus-
sion about how ecological issues take place in
a political and economic environment. It's too
easy for students to walk out of a biology class
feeling guilty for about ten minutes before con-
tinuing to resume their lives as normal. If the
two classes mentioned above were merged into
a class that counted towards the natural sci-
ence requirement, the resulting class would
be way more beneficial to non-science majors
than the current options.
This is why I propose the creation of a new
natural science course specifically geared
towards people who aren't majoring in a sci-
ence. It would be called, "What you need to
know about science...really." While I'm not a
professor, here are some ideas for topics that
I think would provide more beneficial discus-
sions for students who will only be taking two
science courses at this school:
First: There are many educational initiatives
about the environment - like the University's
"Planet Blue" initiative - that seek to convince
individuals to change their routine behaviors
for the benefit of the environment. What are
the qualities of an effective initiative?
Second: If a large mass of people in an area
where there is an abundance of water decides
to drastically reduce its water usage, will that
help people who live in an area where there is a
shortage of water?
Third: If a country, such as the United States,
signs an international agreement to reduce its
carbon usage, how would it go about doing
that? Is cap-and-trade enough?
I'm sure that science majors have similar
complaints about their distribution require-
ments. But requirements aren't going to go
away, no matter how much we complain about
them. Seeing as most of us non-science folks
are not going to take Orgo or neuro-biology,
something can be changed to make the avail-
able options more applicable to our lives.
Jeremy Levy is an LSA sophomore.

These days, the Obama admin-
istration can't get anything
right. It failed to adopt an
effective strategy
with respect to
health care reform,
and instead for-
warded a policy of
compromise that
forced President
Barack Obama to
make repeated
concessions while
allowing the TOMMASO
Republican minor- PAVONE
ity to frame the
health care debate.
It, in the words of
Vice President Joe Biden, "guessed
wrong" regarding the longevity and
severity of our current economic
downturn, predicting much rosier
unemployment rates than actually
occurred. Then its promise to begin
a phased withdrawal from Iraq and
Afghanistan was replaced by a politi-
cally sour surge of troops in Afghani-
stan. Its pledge to end the military's
"don't ask, don't tell" policy has been
abandoned - at least for the time
being. What happened to the hope
and change we were promised?
I understand it has only been a year
since Obama assumed office, but it's
clear that the Obama team has had
trouble transforming an energized
and relatively flawless campaign
model into a policymaking model. No
wonder morale among Democrats has
plummeted. Republican Scott Brown's
surprising win in the Massachusetts
U.S. Senate race last week perfectly
encapsulates and foreshadows a grow-
ing problem of Democratic malaise. If
a state where only 12 percent of reg-
istered voters identify themselves as
Republicans elected a conservative
to replace the late Edward Kennedy,
famously known as the "liberal lion
,of the Senate," the Democrats should

know they're in trouble.
In short, despite the left's claims,
Obama and the Democrats' perfor-
mance has been less than satisfy-
ing. In such disappointing times, the
temptation is to stab the Democrats in
the back and elect some good-lookin',
truck-drivin', tax-cuttin', gun-ownin'
Republicans like Brown.
The problem with such a strategy:
Republicans have largely been worse
than the Democrats.
Let's remember that for the vast
majority of George W. Bush's dreadful
tenure in the White House, Congres-
sional Republicans were more than
happy to rubber-stamp his propos-
als. Let's not forget that the economic
recession was in large part caused by
a relaxation of financial regulation, a
cause championed by the Right. And
let's keep in mind that a majority of
Republicans still denies that climate
change is occurring. Or consider their
eagerness to kill health care reform
without making any concrete alterna-
tive proposals. And, while we're at this
depressing exercise, let's recall all the
moronic statements Sarah Palin made
- such as referring to Africa as a coun-
try - even as she is lauded as a poten-
tial savior of the Republican party.
All this would be irrelevant if the
Republicans showed any sign ofrepen-
tance, but they seem more defiant now
than ever before, uniting against any
Democratic efforts at reform. And the
consequences of placing yourself on
the opposite end of change amount to
indirectly promoting the status quo
fostered under the Bush administra-
tion. Indeed, despite the criticisms of
the Bush years, the Republicans seem
determined to re-institute the Bush
era under the guise of opposition to
Obama's supposedly "socialist" agen-
da. When I think about the Repub-
lican platform for the 2010 midterm
elections, I'm left to borrow from the
rhetoric of their beloved late President

Ronald Reagan: "There you go again!"
Let me relate the current situation
to the case of my home country of
Italy. The current Italian Prime Min-
ister, Silvio Berlusconi, is considered
by many to be an undignified and cor-
rupt politician with the added ben-
efit of being the laughingstock of the
international community. So why do
Italians keep electing him? Because
the left - mostly composed of com-
munist politicians who conveniently
became champions of democracy after
the fall of the Soviet Union - isn't any
better. Just because the ruling party
is less than satisfying is no reason to
shoot yourself in the foot and support
the opposition in backlash against the
Democrats and without any consider-
ation of the Republican platform - or
lack thereof.
The GOP couldn't
fix the country's
problems either.
Looking forward to the midterm
elections later this year, I think it's
likely that the Democratic majority
in Congress will evaporate. No doubt,
the Democrats will largely have them-
selves to blame for the losses. But I ask
you to consider if Democratic under-
performance is any reason to reward
the Republican Party - a party that
latelyhashad no ideasexceptbadideas.
Gloomy times call for gloomy mea-
sures. Sometimes the least worst
option is the best option. It's time to
hold your nose and give the Democrats
a second chance.
- Tommaso Pavone can be
reached at tpavone@umich.edu.

6
I

I
I