4A - Monday, January 23, 2012
paidligan 4:al
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
ASHLEY GRIESSHAMMER
JOSEPH LICHTERMAN and ANDREW WEINER JOSH HEALY
EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS MANAGING EDITOR
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
Imran Syed is the public editor. He can be reached at publiceditor@michigandaily.com.
Employees, not students
'U', GSRAs and GEO must have civil dialogue
The unending battle between the graduate student research
assistants and the University continues to grow in drama and
complexity. The GSRAs are fighting for their right to union-
ize and the University's Board of Regents, in a party-line decision,
voted to give the GSRAs the right to vote to determine if they could
unionize. Key administrators - including University President Mary
Sue Coleman, Provost Philip Hanlon and deans from every school and
college - have publicly said they believe GSRAs aren't employees and
shouldn't be able to organize. Growing frustration has led the GSRAs
to become more active in their protests, but the battle has moved to
state courts. The University needs to engage GSRAs in a civil debate
to ensure a fair resolution to this matter.
FROM THE PUBLIC EDITORI
Learning from
The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com
r mistake
This newspaper often makes
mistakes. How's that for an
uncontroversial opener?
Producing a daily newspaper is
generally an intense, deadline-driv-
en endeavor where errors are bound
tooccur; newspaperswouldn'tboth-
er with a corrections section if the
problem could somehow be cured.
However, at a student publication
such as The Michigan Daily, where
everyone is always learning to be
better, and those that get better are
probably about readyto depart, mis-
takes are even more common.
Rarely though, do such mistakes
rise to a level demanding an apol-
ogy and explanation from the editor
in chief, as appeared on page 2A of
the Jan. 9 edition of this paper. The
issue addressed in that editor's note
was a columnist's failure to properly
attribute borrowed ideas, and edi-
tors' failure to catch a fairly obvious
instance of insufficient attribution.
Failure to properly attribute being
about the biggestsinthere is in jour-
nalism and academia, the issue cer-
tainly deserved all the attention it
got from the Daily's top editor.
Plagiarism scandals are nothing
new for college newspapers, and for
the Daily specifically. Thankfully,
the specific violation addressed in
the Jan. 9 editor's note was not near-
ly as egregious as most others. In my
nearly seven years as a staff writer
for this paper, I observed the fallout
from several very serious incidents
of plagiarism. I learned that two
paramount issues arise from such
situations, and both must be dealt
with very delicately by management
desk - the group of senior editors
that governs the Daily.
First, there is the human ele-
ment of such incidents. All editors
on the Daily's management desk
mean well, but as young college
students, they probably have little
or no experience being in a serious
management position, where their
decisions are critical to someone's
future and to the continued sur-
vival of this paper. The challenge
they face is responding strongly to
negate the violation while main-
taining perspective and treating
fairly the violator, who is, after
all, just another young person who
made a mistake.
Second is the institutional ele-
ment. With every major mistake
this paper makes and has to rec-
tify, its reputation takes a slight hit.
Over time, people forget, but in the
present, years of good reporting
by a newspaper can be tarnished
by just one serious incident of pla-
giarism. Though the incident of
improper attribution that inspired
this column was not fatal in itself, it
is nonetheless a hit that this paper
took. In the aftermath of such a dif-
ficult situation, editors are charged
with rectifying and resuscitating
the paper's reputation by ensuring
that proper procedures are in place
to protect against a recurrence of
similar violations.
The Daily's current editors have
already passed the first test by
dealing superbly with the personal
aspect of this incident. The editor
in chief and management desk's
response was quick, measured
and cognizant of the broader issue
involved. While the writer who
made the mistake must shoulder
much of the blame, the editor's note
rightly recognized an institutional
failure in this instance. Even though
the writer included the title of the
column from which he drew inspi-
ration, none of the several editors
responsible for content on the edi-
torial page read the source column.
Had they done so, the similarities of
wording would have become obvi-
ous, and the incident would have
been avoided.
I hope that the mere fact that they
recognized an institutional failure
in this case is a sign that the Daily's
leadership is poised to deal thor-
oughly with the broad institutional
element involved in such incidents.
Previously, editors have promised
sweeping reforms in the embar-
rassing aftermath of such incidents,
but those reforms faded out quickly.
Those failures in the past to engrain
proper reforms into the core of this
newspaper - failures that my own
generation of editors must share
the blame for - are the reason there
remained a lack of awareness and
vigilance about plagiarism in the
current generation of Daily writers
and editors.
I hope this minor incident will
be enough of a wake-up call to
the Daily to revitalize plagiarism
checks and ensure full understand-
ing of the issue among all writers. If
that is done, and the steps taken are
memorialized for all future classes
of writers and editors, then this
current class of editors will have
accomplished something several
past classes failed to do. And with
that success, incidents like the one
that necessitated this column can
become one less mistake that this
paper has to worry about.
-The public editor is an independent
critic of the Daily, and neither the editorial
board nor the editorin chief exercise
control over the contents of his columns.
The opinions expressed do not necessarily
constitute the opinion of the Daily.
lmran Syed can be reached at
publiceditor@michigandaily.com.
The Michigan Employment Relations Com-
mission turned over the debate to courts in
December, where a state judge will rule on
GSRAs' employment status. A decision is
expected next month.
On Aug. 30, Jennifer Dibbern, a GSRA in
the Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, was allegedly fired due to her
involvement with the Graduate Employees'
Organization. The University claims its deci-
sion was purely academic and not in retaliation
to Dibbern's activism, even though evidence
from a University e-mail seems to say other-
wise. It's unclear what exactly happened, but
loud voices aren't making it easy to understand
the matter.
It's unfortunate that University adminis-
trators have taken such drastic measures to
clamp down on the protests. University admin-
istrators say these students shouldn't union-
ize because they don't consider them public
employees or their research to be a legitimate
job. According to Dibbern's account of the
situation, her professors were content with
her performance at the University as a GSRA
until her involvement as the treasurer of GEO
became apparent.
GSRAs are student researchers who earn
money by assisting a professor, who is their
mentor, in research. Being a GSRA is not
a mandatory prerequisite for a graduate
degree. Many GSRAs take on the research
positions to gain experience and some uti-
lize their wage to help fund their education.
The GSRAs earn money for their services as
research assistants to professors and there-
fore are University employees.
Though University administrators argue
that GSRAs are merely students and research
is simply a step in their education, the fact
that they are accepting pay for their work
legitimizes their employment status. They
could be fired for poor performance, and they
have to pay taxes for what they earn. If there
were no students who volunteered to do the
job, the University would hire others, most
likely non-students, to do the same work. The
GSRAs are employees and deserve the right
to unionize.
All employees have the right to collective
bargaining. The GSRAs should have the right
as active employees of the University to push
for the benefits of a union. The University
administrators' unwillingness to talk has led
to annoyance on the part of the GSRAs. This
matter can't be solved without proper dialogue.
Administrators need to realize that it can no
longer slide this pressing issue under the rug,
and acknowledge the need for and importance
of collective bargaining power for GSRAs.
--the Hear Me Out: Maggie Chang doesn't think Adidas
has destroyed the University.
podiu m Go to michigandaily.com/blogs/The Podium
Brightness of the blackout
like Wikipedia.
Before I'm barraged with
angry e-mails from professors
who believe that
ELLEN STEELE W
(Un) documented burden
Wikipedia is the
downfall of aca-
demia, let's talk
this out. Stu-
dents here are
smart enough to
know when it is
and isn't appro-
priate to use
Wikipedia for
academic pur-
poses. Trust me,
DANIEL
CHARDELL
While the University has sought to cultivate
a diverse, welcoming student body, the enroll-
ment of in-state students and underrepre-
sented minorities has fallen in recent years. To
demonstrate its commitment to the reversal of
this trend, the University must end its policy of
charging higher tuition to undocumented stu-
dents. Though qualified undocumented immi-
grants graduate from Michigan high schools
every year, they are required to pay out-of-
state tuition, and thus pay more than $25,000
extra per year in tuition than their fellow class-
mates in Michigan. Tomorrow, the Central
Student Government will vote on a resolution
that could potentially improve undocumented
students' access to the University of Michigan.
The Undergraduate Chapter of the American
Civil Liberties Union at the University, along
with the newly formed Coalition for Tuition
Equality, urges CSG to approve this resolution.
Undocumented students from foreign coun-
tries have either entered the country without
authorization, or had authorization but stayed
past its expiration. They typically move to
the U.S. with family members at a young age,
so they do not make the choice to immigrate.
There are an estimated 21,000 undocumented
youth who call Michigan home.
Like U.S. citizens and permanent residents,
undocumented immigrants pay Michigan
income and sales taxes, which help fund this
University. However, undocumented students
are denied in-state tuition despite their aca-
demic achievements and their parents' sub-
stantial contributions to the state of Michigan
and its communities.
Undocumented students are guaranteed a
public K-12 education, but upon graduation,
they are barred from receiving federal finan-
cial aid. In-state tuition, at $12,634 per year
for freshmen and sophomores, is burdensome
for most Michigan families, but out-of-state
tuition, at $37,782 per year, is more than the
typical annual income of undocumented fami-
lies. The sum of out-of-state tuition and living
expenses, combined with a lack of financial aid
and access to student loans, prevents undocu-
mentedstudents from attending, or even apply-
ing to, the University of Michigan.
The lack of higher education options for
Michigan's undocumented youth threatens
their social and economic mobility. Recogniz-
ing this injustice, concerned student organiza-
tions, including the University's chapter of the
College Democrats, the ACLU, Migrant and
Immigrant Rights Advocacy, Human Rights
Through Education, and the Peace and Jus-
tice Commission banded together to form the
Coalition for Tuition Equality. The Coalition
defined tuition equality as in-state tuition to
undocumented students and for improvements
in affordability of tuition for all students -
especially those who are undocumented. The
Coalition for Tuition Equality believes that
access to higher education should be a right, as
is K-12 education, and not a privilege.
While public universities are barred under
federal law from providing in-state tuition
to undocumented immigrants, the Supreme
Court recently refused to hear a case regarding
California's in-state tuition policy, effectively
enabling states to base policies on high school
graduation instead of legal residency. Twelve
states have approved in-state tuition for undoc-
umented students, and efforts are underway
across the country. The similarly motivated
DREAM Act seeks to grant citizenship to
undocumented students, but additional poli-
cies are necessary to improve the affordability
of higher education. In conjunction with the
passage of the DREAM Act, in-state tuition
policies will improve employment opportuni-
ties for Michigan's undocumented youth.
In Michigan, each public university deter-
mines its tuition policy, so this decision hing-
es on the University's Board of Regents. The
University's residency policies are notoriously
strict, and graduation from a Michigan high
school does not necessarily qualify one for in-
state tuition. We believe that undocumented
students who meet other residency guide-
lines should be considered for in-state tuition.
Grantingin-state tuition toundocumented stu-
dents will demonstrate the University's contin-
ued commitment to diversity and social justice.
Michigan's residency policy effectively
bars talented, qualified Michigan high school
graduates from attending the University on the
basis of their immigration status. Central Stu-
dent Government should pass our resolution
to demonstrate that Michigan students stand
for tuition equality and believe undocumented
students deserve the opportunity to become
Michigan Wolverines.
Ellen Steele is chair of the ACLU-
University of Michigan Undergraduate
Chapter. She is an LSA senior.
you certainly won't find Wikipedia
in any of my research papers' lists of
works cited.
But like many of my peers, I
wasn't exactly thrilled when Wiki-
pedia blacked out last Wednesday,
for 24 hours in protest of the Stop
Online Piracy Act and the Protect
Intellectual Property Act currently
being considered in the House and
Senate, respectively. Wikipedia's
blackout was part of a broader
online movement in which Google,
Reddit and thousands of other sites
stood in solidarity against the pro-
posed legislation.
I won't delve into the convoluted
history of anti-piracy legislation -
if you're interested, just (ironical-
ly!) Google it - but it's worth noting
that the bill was largely a product of
lobbying on behalf of powerhouse
media orgs like the Motion Pic-
ture Association of America, which
hired former senator turned Hol-
lywood lobbyist Chris Dodd as its
chairman last March. But with last
week's virtual protests, the animal
that is the Internet, the very thing
Dodd seeks to regulate, proved just
how formidable an opponent it real-
ly is.
The Wikipedia blackout was
beyond successful. It induced Rep.
Lamar Smith (R-Texas) to tempo-
rarily shelve SOPA. It provoked
Dodd to essentially threaten black-
mail against any politicians in
Washington who don't support the
legislation while implicitly prom-
ising Hollywood-sponsored cam-
paign funding for those who do.
But the most important success
of last week's blackout and the most
important lesson to take away from
it is this: a coordinated Internet
protest has the power to send our
government a message that can't be
ignored.
In an age of political gridlock and
Congressional ineptitude, that's
pretty powerful stuff.
The SOPA debacle is simply the
latest incarnation in the long-run-
ning tragicomedy that is Wash-
ington's relationship with the
American public. Congress is out
of touch. If that much wasn't clear
pre-SOPA, it should be common
knowledge by now.
So here's what I'm thinking.
First, can we please finally start
having a conversation about get-
ting "corporate" needs specificity
money out of politics? Or can we at
least talk about permanently shut-
ting that so-called revolving door
between public service and private
gain? Dodd went from being an
elected representative of his con-
stituents in Connecticut to being
a hired lobbyist capable of using
his political clout for the benefit of
Hollywood producers. Is that all
right?
Second, the Wikipedia blackout
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS:
has me thinking about the potential
good that concerted Internet pro-
tests might do in the future. Forbes
reported that 4.5 million people
signed Google's anti-censorship
petition. Meanwhile, Wikipedia's
lockdown compelled 8 million
Americans to call their representa-
tives and demand an end to the anti-
piracy legislation. That, I think, is a
good thing.
The Internet
proved how
formidable it is.
Perhaps these Internet giants did
our democracy a favor. When was
the last time millions thought it
worthwhile to contact their elected
leaders for a specific cause? .I'd be
hard-pressed to remember a time
when so many Americans, particu-
larly young people, cared this deep-
ly about any political issue.
As long as people are aware of
the absurdity that our political sys-
tem so often seems to foster, let's
keep an eye on other political issues
that might be blackout-worthy -
like going to war, for instance, or
indefinitely detaining American
citizens without trial. You know,
other important stuff that receives
too little attention.
So thanks for the blackout, Wiki-
pedia. We needed it.
-Daniel Chardell can be reached
at chardell@umich.edu. Follow him
on Twitter at @DanielChardell.
*I
Aida Ali, Laura Argintar, Kaan Avdan, Ashley Griesshammer, Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein,
Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Harsha Panduranga, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts,
Vanessa Rychlinski, Sarah Skaluba, Seth Soderborg, Caroline Syms, Andrew Weiner
III@CampusCorner&other campus
stores Price-gouging students w/o
- transportation leads to
AA corporatization
#7-77 #CVS
-@michdailyoped
0I