OPINION
Friday, May 16, 1986
4
Page 6
The Michigan Daily
01 e fii-an D aflu
Vol. XCVI, No. 2S
96 Years of Editorial Freedom
Unsigned editorials represent the majority views of the Daily's Editorial Board
Cartoons and signed editorials do not necessarily reflect the Daily's opinion.
MSA negligence
THE MICHIGAN Student Assembly's failure to respond to the
University Council's Emergency Procedures is also a failure to
safeguard student rights.
The council's "discussion draft," released last month, addresses how
the University should respond to violent acts commited by students. The
document represents the first step in formulating a code of non-academic
conduct that would regulate student behavior outside of the classroom.
Despite student protests and the questionable need for any code, the
administration's desire for a code has not changed. Student leaders must
recognize this and continue their opposition-or at least take a stand.
But Kurt Muenchow, who was elected MSA president partially on a "no
code" stance, has adopted a "stalling" tactic. Admitting that he has
barely read the Emergency Procedures, Muenchow says the assembly
will not address the issue during the summer.
MSA is also ignoring its own important role in preventing a code.
Regents' By-Law 7.02 mandates that the assembly approve any code
proposal. Such a provision is a powerful instrument for a student gover-
nment otherwise devoid of decision-making authority.
University President Harold Shapiro has publicly stated that the ad-
ministration may disregard the by-law and ask the Board of Regents to
implement a unilateral code. Board members have supported this
scenario.
The assembly's leaders promised to maintain vigilance against a
code during their election campaign. Now it's time for them to keep that
promise.
Guaranteed proficiency
T HE UNIVERSITY has always worried about state infringements
upon its autonomy. Ironically, the Michigan State Legislature has
recently presented administrators with an opportunity to demonstrate
this autonomy, but only if the University acts to establish an English
competency test for foreign faculty members before the legislature
requires one.
Last week, State Sen. Joe Conroy (D-Flint) introduced a bill in the
legislature that would require Michigan public universities to test all
foreign-born faculty for competency in English before allowing them to
teach (Daily, 5/9/86). The bill is currently in committee.
Some opponents of the bill claim the bill would make foreign-born
faculty feel less comfortable at the University. University administrators
argue that what gives foreign-born faculty the most problems are "the in-
formality of (American) classes."
The idea of a competency test, however, will help rather than exacer-
bate these existing problems. Faculty members who are proficient in
English are less likely to encounter problems because of their different
cultural backgrounds. The bill is not designed to limit the number of
foreign faculty, but to ensure that students receive the best education the
University can provide.
The University, in a demonstration both of its autonomy and of its
commitment as a learning institution, should establish specific standards
for competency in English for all faculty. The word "autonomy" implies
action, and if the University fails to take action in this case, it should not
blame the State Legisipiure for trygng its best to solve the problem.
Worthy inconvenience
THE ANN ARBOR Save the Schools Committee (SOS), a group
of parents who oppose an already-approved desegregation and
reorganization plan, have launched an ugly campaign to recall seven Ann
Arbor school board members who voted for the plan.
Approved last winter after much revision, the plan calls for the closing
of seven predominantly white elementary schools in order to draw new
boundary lines for attendance. At two of the schools, Freeman and
Lakewood, the student population is 90 percent white. Students from the
closed schools would be redistributed among the 19 remaining Ann Arbor
elementary schools, resulting in a better racial balance and a more
fiscally efficient usage of school facilities.
Parents opposing the plan have claimed opposition to its specifics, not
to the idea of desegregation itself. They argue that the problem of
segregated schools is rooted in the larger issue of city planning and
housing costs, and that a large-scale busing plan is shortsighted an inef-
ficient approach.
But it is difficult to accept the attitude of these parents when reviewing
the history of this long-standing debate. All reorganization plans in recent
years have met with opposition. Alternate plans, offered by the SOS
group and others, such as establishing magnet schools and prestige
programs, may be desirable in theory, but they would not implement
substantial changes quickly or conclusively.
While the SOS group does profess a concern for the quality of education
in Ann Arbor, its recent actions suggest the opposite. Last December,
SOS initiated a successful drive to defeat proposed tax increases. These
funds, had they been approved by voters, would have been used to im-
plement many needed improvements within the schools.
The committee's opposition was an attempt to communicate its
dissatisfaction with the school board's acceptance of the reorganization
plan. It is disheartening that an opportunity to improve the quality of
education was sacrificed - by parents - in order to make a political
statement.
The segregated Ann Arbor school system has been tolerated far too
long. This situation necessitates a severe response, a fact recognized by
the Ann Arbor school board. Busing children to different schools is an un-
settling and unpleasant process, but the existence of segregated schools
is a problem that should outweigh personal inconveniences. Sadly, it ap-
pears that the members of the SOS group have different priorities.
Bering
A FEM HUNDRED UNDERRROU D iUCLEAR ThST JiATER
F SAFE FRo1