0 4A - Monday, January 9, 2012 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com 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. FRM T HlE D AILY Raising worry 'U' spending must align with student interests With tuition increasing every year, students are under- standably concerned about how their contribution to the University's revenue is spent. A portion of the funds go to yearly salary raises received by University employees. Spending should follow inflation rates and provide the best resources for stu- dents. Salary increases were improved to attract and retain professors and administrators. While sometimes necessary and earned, salary increases and bidding wars over highly paid professors and executive officers result in tuition increases. Salary increases that students pay for should be used to provide direct benefits and a better education for the students. FROM THE PUBLIC EDITOR I Free speech restricted n October of last year, an e-mail went out to the staff of The Michigan Daily with the subject line of: "Important message about petitions and causes.' That e-mail drew my attention. I saved it, and an excerpt (including original emphasis) follows: "If you are on staff or are in the process of becom- ing a staff member, you CANNOT sign any petitions or post links to petitions on your Facebook wall. This also applies to expressing your opinion about issues on campus. For example, you cannot publicly state your opinion about controver- sial topics like the pro-life exhibit on the Diag." The e-mail reflected a policy that I've seen slowly crystallizing at this newspaper for everal years now - one that Iv never really been comfortable with. In previous (and more benign) forms, the policy was difficult to contest. But as it stands in the final form expressed in that e-mail, that policy is clearly wrong, and can't be the actual rule. The Daily simply can't ban staff- ers from "publicly expressing [their] opinions about controversial top- ics." To do so would be a grave viola- tion of this paper's own free speech ideals, and may even violate actual legal standards pertaining to free speech. Upon digging into the Daily's bylaws, I am happy to report that the strict policy expressed in that email is actually not the Daily's official rule. I write this column to clarify the true rule that the Daily's bylaws have established to negotiate the line between journalistic ethics and personal freedom of speech. It's important that the Daily's current leaders pay close attention to the relevant parts of the Daily's bylaws and stop enforcing the erroneous, overbroad policy expressed in that e-mail. The entirety of this issue is actu- ally governed by just one segment of the Daily's bylaws - Section III.2.A of the Code of Ethics. The relevant excerpt of that section follows: "The Daily's beat reporters should not reveal their bias about their beats ... Similarly, general assignment reporters and photog- raphers may not reveal their biases about stories they are covering. Editors may not reveal their bias about any story or issue they may assign or rewrite. News reporters and editors may not reveal person- al opinions in the Daily that dam- age the news section's reputation of objectivity. Daily staff members who are not covering a specific beat, issue, or event may reveal their biases, but not as a represen- tative of the Daily. Any Daily staff- ers who have identified themselves as representatives of other organi- zations at public events should not simultaneously or subsequently identify themselves as Daily staff- ers in that context." So, that section prohibits beat reporters from expressing their personal opinions about their beats, and it also prohibits "general assignment reporters and photog- raphers" from revealing their bias- es about stories they are covering. That's fair enough, and completely necessary to maintain objectivity of the news section. It also takes further steps to limit Daily staffers from expressing opinions on issues that they may be involved with in their official capacity at the Daily. But you'll notice that at every step, the Code of Ethics hedges and qualifies the restrictions - before ultimately stating that Daily staffers are generally allowed to express their opinions as long as they don't do so as representatives of the Daily. The nuance in that rule is crucial to maintaining the proper balance between journalis- tic integrity and personal freedom of speech of Daily staffers. That nuance should not be lost. Without digging too far into the law pertaining to free speech (because I don't think this issue should even come to that), I brief- ly summarize to underscore the seriousness of the issue. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that pub- lic employees do not lose their free speech rights as a result of their employment. There are many fac- tors to consider, but broad restric- tions on expressing any opinions publicly almost always fail the test. And while Daily staffers may not see themselves as public employ- ees, their checks come from a pub- lic University, and the body of law applying to other public employees will likely apply here. Potential legal violations aside, the Daily has a strong core belief in a broad application of the concept of free speech. It's important that those in charge of the paper apply those ideals to the free speech rights of their staffers outside of the Daily. The Daily's bylaws strike an important balance on this front, and it can't be ignored. -The public editor is an independent critic of the Daily, and neither the editorial board nor the editor in chief exercise control over the contents of his columns. The opinions expressed do not necessarily constitute the opinion of the Daily. Imran Syed can be reached at publiceditor@michigandaily.com 0 Compared to previous years, faculty and staff received below-average salary increas- es. Faculty received a 2.8 percent increase while staff received a 2.2 percent increase. This year's changes are less than the average salary increases over the past five years - 3.7 percent for faculty and 2.5 percent for staff. The executive officers received a 2.7 percent salary increase, higher than the five-year average of 2.5 percent. Salary increases are necessary to retain the best faculty and staff. Instructors of all skill levels should get salary increases to keep pace with inflation. Snyder's 2012 fis- cal year budget brought about drastic cuts to state funding for the University. Asa result, a larger portion of salary increases must come from tuition raises. Students should not pay for large sal- -y raises for teachers who don't necessarily haoe a large impact on them. Top universities engage in bidding wars to attract talented faculty, but oftentimes professors' other University endeavors, like research projects, have little personal impact on students. The professors who interact with the most stu- dents and have a positive impact on the cam- pus community deserve to be rewarded for their work. The highest salary increase was given to executives who declined a salary increase in 2009. While their positions are obviously important, these officials rarely interact with students. University President Mary Sue Coleman recently sent a letter to Presi- dent Barack Obama advocating for afford- able higher education. The executives' raise contradicts Coleman's public declaration that the University is working toward more affordable higher education. The executive officers should once again skip their salary increase if they are advocating for affordable education, even if the denial of the raise is simply a symbolic gesture. Obviously, salary increases are part of a normal, yearly procedure. But as tuition costs and the decline of state funding make higher education less accessible, the University must ensure that all types of spending increases are vital and in students' best interests. CONTRIBUTE TO THE COVERSATION Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and viewpoints. Letters should be fewer than 300 words while viewpoints should be 550 to 850 words. Both must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. Send submissions to tothedaily@michigandaily.com Institutionalizing ignorance NIRBHAY JAIN I Why the world should end We've all heard the news. The Mayan calen- dar predicts the world will end on Dec. 21 - a mere 11 months and 12 days from now. There's no scientific proof. There's no mythological proof. Hell, even Mayan scholars disclaim the theory that the calendar ends. They claim that just the current cycle ends. No matter. The year 2012has become such a phenomenon that there was a movie with John Cusack in it (Note - not at all worth watching). Most people are scared about the world ending. They don't wantto die. There are things they want to do, people they want to see and places they want to visit. I, for one, am excited at the prospect of the world ending. I believe a lot of good will come of it. Besides, there are legitimate reasons as to why the world should end this December. 1. It's the only way to stop the SEC from win- ning more Bowl Championship Series titles, and it stops the BCS controversy. 2. Oil reserves are out? Who cares? Nobody is driving anymore anyway. 3. Global warming? There willbe no globe to warm. Pollution? No big deal. Whatever pollu- tion goes into space will be of no consequence. 4. All the health issues in the world will be gone. Especially obesity. Pizza as a vegetable didn't help stop the world from ending. Noth- ing will. So you might as well forgetaboutexer- cise and eat whatever the hell you want. Who cares aboutchaving a heart attack at 22? At least you went out on your own terms. 5. Genocide and racism? We're all equal when we're all dead. 6. The new Hobbit movie that's coming out won't have a chance to disappoint. Though it probably won't anyway. 7. The U.S. can finally pay off all its debt, which would be $0.00. 8. All the species that are endangered and need protection will be extinct anyway, as will those species that aren't endangered. 9. Republicans and Democrats will finally get along. Also, there will be no more politick- ing. No more mudslinging. No more campaign- ing. No more debates. No more TV ads. No more anything when it comes to politics. 10. We will finally have found the cure for cancer, HIV, HPV, herpes, gonorrhea, polio and the common cold all at once. And it's the same simple thing. 11. Gun control will be solved. 12. Abortion will no longer be an issue. All those unborn babies will be dead anyway. 13. Nuclear reactors will all melt down. Just like the anti-nuclear activists said. 14. We will finally have a storage place for all those nuclear bombs. 15. The Cold War will finally be over. We'll have put Russia in its place. 16. The conflict between Israel and the Pal- estinians will be solved. Neither gets that land. The aliens take it over and everybody loses. That's fair, isn't it? 17. Justin. Bieber. Will. Be. Dead. And. There. Will. Be. No. More. Twilight. How is that not a good thing? 18. We'll all find out if there truly is a God. Also, we'll see if thatwhole heaven thing is true too. 19. Water will finally run out for all of us. Too bad "all of us" might be a few people left. 20. Maybe zombies will finally come to life and eat us all ... at least all those movies will be true then. 21. A few lucky people might be able to visit Mars, or Venus, or even Jupiter. That's assum- ing Earth takes the moon with it. 22. No more tests. No more homework. No more studying. Just an eternity of relaxation. Think of it as an extra-long nap from which you'll never wake up. 23. All those issues with capital punishment will be moot. Those criminals that the liber- als want to save will all be dead. Granted, the innocent ones will be dead too, but that's just a side effect. 24. Teams that won't be able to add one more trophy: The Green Bay Packers, the Miami Heat, the New York Yankees, the St. Louis Cardinals, and the Detroit Red Wings. Play- ers and coaches who won't be in our faces for much longer: LeBron James, Roger Federer, Michael Phelps, Tiger Woods, A-Rod, Derek Jeter, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, James Har- rison, Michael Vick, Joe Paterno, Urban Meyer, and Rich Rod. 25. Michigan Football will end its final regu- lar season where it should. With an unblem- ished record and a complete spanking of that School Down South. There you have it. Whythe world should end this year. It's sad that there are more reasons why it should end than why it shouldn't. We'll always remember the good years, or the good ol' years - which to most of us was when we were told it was the good ol' years. So here's to hoping that the world does end in 2012. I can't stand the world as it is any longer. Something needs to change. Nirbhay Jain is an LSA freshman. oherehastakenacourse in Latino/a studies? How about Afroamerican and African studies? Or Hebrew and Jewish Cultural studies? Wom- en's studies? Ara- bic, Armenian, Persian, Turk- ish, and Islamic studies? LGBTQ DANIEL studies? CHARDELL Maybe a bet- _ ter question is this: Who here enjoys the freedom to learn our his- tory? That, among other things, is a rea- son to be proud of the University of Michigan. Whether we identify with specific cultural studies or simply wish to deepen our appreciation for them, all students here enjoy a safe space in which to pursue our aca- demic interests. That's something to be thankful for, and why I'm so dis- turbed by recent events in Arizona. No, I'm not talking about the state's dubious immigration law, which by some interpretations pro- motes racial profiling as a means to identify illegal aliens. I'm talking about Arizona's efforts to institutionalize ignorance - to curb access to key pieces of Ameri- can history by outlawing the study of minority oppression. That's right. Arizona wants to gloss over anything remotely shameful in our past. Here's what's happening in the strange land of Arizona. In 2010, the Arizona state Leg- islature passed a law prohibiting school districts from having any classes that encourage "the over- throw of the United States govern- ment," incite "resentment toward a race or class of people," are "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group" and/or "advocate ethnic solidarity." Shortly after going into effect, John Huppenthal, Arizona superin- tendent of public instruction, ruled that the Tucson Unified School Dis- trict was in violation of the new law. Why? Because TUSD, which is 61 percent Latino, offers its students a program in Mexican American studies. Huppenthal said he fears that the curriculums "characterize historical events in racial terms." "Absolutely," he said in an inter- view with National Public Radio. "We have to study historical injus- tice, but we need to do that within the context of creating a better society, not creating racial resent- ment that leads students into an attitude of getting even as opposed to getting ahead." Maybe that argument would hold some weight if there were any semblance of truth in it. Instead, according to an independent audit conducted by Cambium Learning Group, Inc. in Jun. 2011, there was no evidence that the Mexican Amer- ican studies program is in violation of the law. In fact, the courses may be doing more good than they're given credit for - reading and writ- ing scores were up, the classes were popular and effective and high school seniors enrolled ina Mexican American studies course, the report stated, "are more likely to graduate than their peers." It's clear from looking at hard facts - the Mexican American stud- ies course is helping to close the achievement gap that has plagued the district for longer than most would like to acknowledge. But that's the funny thing about Arizona - facts don't seem to mat- ter. Less than two weeks ago, an Arizona state judge, responding to a TUSD appeal, sided with Huppen- thal. In spite of Cambium's report, the judge reaffirmed that the cours- es in Mexican American studies vio- late state law. Now TUSD faces a choice. Unless Tucson reforms or abolishes Mexi- can American studies, it is within the state's rights to withhold 10 per- cent of the district's funding-about $15 million per year. So let me be frank, Arizona - this is disgusting. But perhaps equally disgusting is the lack of attention this story has received. All of this made some waves, albeit small, in the national media back in June 2010 when Huppenthal first made the allega- tions against TUSD.. Vet I've heard next to nothing about it over the last few weeks. Now, as Arizona readies itself to deny a significant portion of its students the right to learn and the right to succeed, our media and national leaders are con- tent to stand idly by, watching care- lessly as a blatant affront to justice unfolds before them. The events playing out in Tucson are indicative of a broader worri- some national trend - our inability to question, criticize or condemn our own nation's history. Why have we, Americans, succumbed to a glori- fied mythology wherein the United States can do no wrong? Why have we grown complacent in our concep- tualization of the past? Let me be frank, Arizona - this is disgusting. I have no doubt that we live in a great country, but let's also not deceive ourselves. Our deified Founding Fathers were slave-owners. Our forebears exterminated Native Americans. The United States has ignored fla- grant human rights abuses, and our government has supported dictator- ships. For all its progress, the United States is not yet a society of perfect equal opportunity. And yes, Mexican Americans have indeed been victims of discrimination and exploitation. Like every individual, and like every nation, we have skeletons in our closet. Don't try to hide them or pretend we're perfect. Sure, you and I aren't responsible for what happened hundreds of years ago - slavery didn't occur under our watch. But we do ourselves a dis- service, and we become complicit in those travesties, when we fail to acknowledge the events that make up our history and shape the world in which we live today. Don't put a stopper on historical consciousness - in the classroom, most of all. - Daniel Chardell can be reached at chardell@umich.edu. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Aida Ali, Kaan Avdan, Michelle DeWitt, Ashley Griesshammer, Nirbhay Jain, Jesse Klein, Patrick Maillet, Erika Mayer, Harsha Nahata, Emily Orley, Timothy Rabb, Adrienne Roberts, Vanessa Rychlinski, Sarah Skaluba, Caroline Syms, Seth Soderborg, Andrew Weiner 0I