100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

May 27, 1988 - Image 6

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily Summer Weekly, 1988-05-27

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

OPINION
Page 6 Friday, May 27, 1988 The Michigan Daily
Pfl i Racism strikes at shanty

I

Vol. XCVIII- No. 4S
Unsigned editorials represent the majority views of the Daily's
Editorial Board. Cartoons and signed editorials do not
necessarily reflect the Daily's opinion.
Secretive search

THE UNIVERSITY BOARD of Re-
gents is violating the essence of the
state of Michigan's Open Meetings
Act (OMA) by secretly conducting
their search for the University's
next president. The OMA, enacted
eleven years ago, requires public
bodies to conduct most business in
open meetings. Last Friday, the
Ann Arbor News filed a lawsuit
against the regents in hopes of
compelling them to publicly iden-
tify the candidates and obey the law.
The OMA states that closed
meetings are permitted when re-
viewing "the contents of an
application for employment or ap-
pointment to a public office when
the candidate requests the applica-
tion to remain confidential." How-
ever, the rule also states, "all inter-
views by a public body for em-
ployment or appointment to a pub-
lic office have to be conducted in
an open meeting (emphasis added)."
By ignoring this stipulation, the
regents are blatantly violating the
intent and spirit of the OMA.
With less than a month left to
choose Harold Shapiro's replace-
ment, the regents have yet to dis-
close the names of the candidates.
The applicants are unknown be-
cause the Board of Regents has been
interviewing candidates privately in
small groups, and skirting the
OMA by not having a quorum
present at the interviews.
By deliberately circumventing the
OMA, the regents are displaying a
flagrant disregard for public opin-
ion. The University community has
a right to know and to examine the
candidates in question; for example,
the community has a right to know
if the regents are considering wo-
men and people of color. Also,
considering the racial and sexual
antagonism on this campus, there
is a true need for the public to
examine the backgrounds of poss-
ible candidates.
The regents fear that many of the
candidates would withdraw their
names if faced with publicity, thus
leaving the University with fewer
applicants. Supposedly, some can-
didates have requested that their
names not be made public because
of the friction it might cause at

their present occupation. Though
the regents' actions may be sympa-
thetic to the needs of the candidates,
their shroud of secrecy must be
sacrificed for the sake and needs of
the public.
If the Senate Judiciary Commit-
tee had conducted its search for a
new Supreme Court Justice last
year in private and not in the public
eye, Robert Bork might have been
appointed. President Reagan's at-
tempt to install Bork was blocked
in large part by the public outcry it
aroused. This is just one example
of how laws like the OMA have
worked in the public's best interest.
It is the regents' responsibility to
uphold the law and bring the presi-
dential selection process out of the
closet. Even without the legal im-
perative of the OMA, the regents
should feel accountable to the Uni-
versity community and encourage
its participation in choosing the
most qualified candidate for this vi-
tally important position.

ON SATURDAY, MAY 14, one an anti-apartheid structure is clearly
anti-apartheid shanty on the diag an expression of racism.
was burned, and the other w a s When campus security found the
doused with gasoline. Campus Se- shanty ablaze early in the morning,
curity was slow to respond and is a "suspicious" looking group of
not continuing its investigation. four men were spotted in the vicin-
Predictably, the University admin- ity. "Security" recorded the license
istration, which continually es- plate number of the car they drove
pouses its concern about racism on away in, but they have undertaken
campus, has also not responded no follow up investigation. Addi-
seriously to this act of vandalism tionally, they delayed their standard
and racism. notification of the Ann Arbor po-
The burning of the shanty is a lice until Thursday - fully five
premeditated act of racism. This days after the incident occurred.
vandalism is a direct attack on what This weak and slow response by
those shanties symbolize: the campus security to the racist attack
struggle on this campus to end makes their professional priorities
racism at home and abroad, specifi- and commitment to equal protection
cally in Southern Africa. There are on campus highly suspect.
several potential targets (even other Response by the University ad-
shanties) for vandals on campus - ministration has been no more
that these vandals singled out only reassuring. Fleming claimed that
LDOKS SUSPICIOUS
AOCRACK DEAL?
NAl, ITS JUST
REGENTS INTERYWING L
MOTtR CANDIDATE.

the destruction of the shanty could
not necessarily be considered a
racist act. "It's a shame that it hap-
pened," he said, "the question of
what you can do about it is a
different matter." This is merely
rhetoric spouted by an administra-
tion concerned about their image
and apparently unconcerned about
racism on this campus.
The establishment of the code -
the self-heralded policy against
racial harassment - is a perfect
example of how Fleming and the
regents opt for public relation ploys
instead of dealing with real issues.
The burning of the shanty indicates
that the code, Fleming's superficial
answer to racist attacks, is useless
in deterring them.
Any sincere effort to address
racism must be accompanied by a
change in University policies and
structure, such that it works to
dismantle the institutional racism
which pervades this campus. One
small step in this direction would
be for the administration to recog-
nize acts of racism, such as the
burning of the shanty, when they
occur.
In response to the shanty burn-
ing, the University community
should demand that campus security
conduct a full investigation, and
President Fleming to condemn the
act as an act of racism. Campus se-
curity and the administration must
fulfill their duty to create an atmo-
sphere intolerant of racism on cam-
pus.

i

The nriminiotration

nnralere na nlidlnxit clcepn't iindrfroctnd:

Regents ignorant of MLK day

AS USUAL, PRESIDENT Fleming
and the Board of Regents have re-
sponded inappropriately and hypo-
critically to an important campus
issue, this time the observance of
Martin Luther King's birthday.
More awareness and understanding
of Dr. King and his teachings is
vitally needed on this campus, per-
haps now more than ever. Yet the
administration is dealing with this
issue in a nonproductive, reaction-
ary manner.
Last term, predominantly-student
groups forced the administration to
deal with the King holiday b y
protesting and organizing a boycott
of classes. Since the regents
couldn't make the students' demand
for a King holiday subside, they
took their second favorite option
when faced with student and minor-
ity outrage: to pretend that what
students had forced them to consider
was actually their idea from the
start.
As a result, the administration is

V V

looking for a way to cause the least
amount of damage to their "author-
ity" while still appearing to be
concerned. In fact, during their
discussion of their planned "obser-
vance," the regents did not mention
the student protests once.
The idea of designating the Mon-
day after Dr. King's birthday as a
University holiday (it has been a
legal public holiday since 1983)
was originally brought up as one of
the BAM III and UCAR demands
last spring. The University typi-
cally decided to "recognize" the
holiday without actually doing
anything about it, like cancelling
regular classes in favor of alterna-
tive classes about Dr. King's life
and beliefs, or providing financial
support for these alternative events.
President Fleming has said he is
considering designating January 16,
1989 as "Diversity Day," and that,
while classes would be cancelled,
employees would not be given a
day off. In these statements Flem-

ing shows all too clearly his warped
and inadequate understanding of the
meaning of MLK Day and of the
situation of workers on this cam-
pus.
MLK day is a reminder of the
past and present oppression against
minorities across the world; the fact
that they are all members of the
human race is to be emphasized.
Celebrating only "diversity" on this
day omits the more radical and basic
message this day stands for.
Dr. King's message has immense
value to the many struggles against
oppression in this world today. It is
for this reason Dr. King's birthday
requires special recognition and
honor over and above other legal
holidays which are not observed by
the University.
Of all groups within the Univer-
sity community, the employees
have without question the largest
minority population; they are also
the most oppressed by the Univer-
sity and its policies. They are the

primary target for MLK's message;
however, Regent Smith said at last
week's meeting: "If you give stu-
dents a day off, the staff will want a
day off as well... It will cost the
University a lot of money." That
doesn't sound like the statement of
a person whose concern is spreading
MLK's message; rather, it sounds
like someone whose "bottom line"
is finances.
It is highly offensive for Fleming
and the regents to put up this pub-
lic relations farce of recognizing Dr.
King's birthday when they clearly
haven't heard or understood much of
what he said or stood for. The ad-
ministration would do a much
greater honor to Dr. King by re-
flecting on his message, giving
time off for workers and students,
and altering its repressive policies.
This would be much more
acceptable than granting hypo-
critical tokens in an attempt to still
the growing discontent of students
and minorities.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan