4 - The Michgan Daily Summer Weekly - Wednesday, July 15, 1992
t .hr
OPINION[I
EDITOR IN CHIEF
ANDREW M. LEVY
OPINION EDITORS
GIL RENBERG
DAVID SHEPARDSON
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion
of a majority of the Daily's editorial
board All other cartoons, signed articles,
and letters do not necessarily reflect the
opinion of the Daily.
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
764-0552
Edited and Managed by
Students at the
University ot Michigan
0
I
Where was Ede?
MSA refuses to act - or even comment - on the
most critical issue to students: a tuition increase
T he Michigan Student Assembly,
which primarily exists toserveandrepresent
its studentconstituency, has failedmiserably to
take a stand on the one issue that affects all
students -the annual tuition increase imposed
by the University Board of Regents.
Tomorrow morning the regents will prob-
ably vote to raise tuition by approximately 10
percent. That the regents and administration
intended to increase the cost of our education
has been far from secret the past few months;
and yet, no one in MSA sought to oppose any
increase or even question it.
It would be possible torespectMSA'sreluc-
tance toact if President Ede Fox and her fellow
student-politicians,really did believe that the 10
percentincreaseis warranted. However,mostof
MSA's members arepersonally opposed to the
regents' plans.
Atthe June11thregentsmeeting,Rep.Roger
DeRoo, acting on behalf of MSA and perhaps
even the students, asked that the mandatory
student fee which funds MSA be increased from
$6.27 to $7.05. The regents refused to grant this
request. A month later, as the regents are about
toraisetuition,Fox and DeRoo feelthatitwould
be hypocritical to oppose the tuition increase in
lightofher recent exhibition of a tax-and-spend
mentality.
MSA's reason for permitting the increase to
pass without comment demonstrates that Fox
and the others lack foresight but do have arather
unhealthy disregard for the needs of their stu-
dent constituency. Surely Fox was aware last
month thatthe decision toincrease tuition would
be made this week. Did she value raising MSA
fees over holding down tuition? Or did she fail
to plan ahead so much as one regents' meeting?
Either way, it was a grievous fault, and griev-
ously are we all paying for it.
It is absurd that MSA believes that opposi-
tion to the tuition raise would be inconsistent
with their desire for increased MSA funding; it
is more absurd that this served as their lame
excuse not to confront supporters of the in-
crease. Apparently, it did not occur to MSA's
ruling elite that the two stances can easily be
reconciled: in seeking to increase MSA's fund-
ing, the group claimed to be acting in the best
interest of the students, while itis not difficult to
see that most students do not wish to see their
tuition increased.
Fox and the rest of MSA failed to note that
there isatremendousdifference betweenthe78-
cent increase they sought and the hefty sum the
regents are on the verge of imposing.No matter
how one looks at it, MSA's decision not to
oppose the tuition increase is idiotic.
Having decided not to take issue with this
new tuition increase, Fox and her associates did
not even pass one of their usually toothless
resolutions condemning the regents' failure to
seek studentinputin this and other mattersor the
fact that the tuition increase was caused in part
by the skyrocketing salaries of University ad-
ministrators.
The students who put Fox and the rest of
MSA in office need the student government to
gotobaton this issue. However, MSA placed its
own desire for more money above the students'
need to pay less. MSA's failure to oppose the
regents on this matter is reprehensible, but it is
not too late for them to change their minds.
Members of the public -and this includes Fox
- have until six o'clock tonight to sign up to
speak at tomorrow's regents' meeting. If you
happen to see Fox or any other high-ranking
MSA official, tell her or him to call the regents'
office and get on that list before it is too late and
the increase is approved without dissent.
0
Paying our
Bill lessens the middle cla
progress in creating direct
st'w e ekthe conference report on the Higher
Education ReaathoritzatiAct passed the
House of Representatives with strong bipartisan
support by a vote of 419-7. This bill promises
more college aid for the poor, but the House
Appropriations Committee decreased the total
amount per loan. Before the end of the summer,
the bill will be ready for President Bush to sign.
While some aspects of the bill are political in
natureandneed work, the billis generally agood
one in making college more affordable for the
financially-strapped middle class.
The bill would change two major programs
of federally guaranteed loans by removing lim-
its on how much most parents can borrow and
also by letting students -regardless of income
-borrow through the other loan program.This
reauthorization bill would bethe most far-reach-
ing educational bill since the original passage of
the Higher Education Act in 1965, costing $115
billion over five years. The program would also
experiment with the federal government's by-
passing localbanks andlending money directly
to students. These aspects of the bill will allow
many students who run out of available loans to
continue attending college.
One of the most detrimental aspects of the
bill is that it while it raises the maximum pos-
sible amount of a Pell Grant from $2,400 to
$3,700, the increase is only a paper one. In
separate legislation, the House Appropriations
Committee ina closed-door meeting last week
voted to cut the appropriation for individual Pell
Grants from $2,400 to $2,300.
This was done to stay within the 1990 Bud-
get Agreement. This practice builds false hope
that Pell Grants will rise; in reality, most fami-
lies are unaware that their aid will be cut by
$100. For Congress, to make this politically-
charged decision is a great step backwards in a
bill that is generally forthright with the Ameri-
can public about the amount of financial aid
available to the working class.
way Troubled w
ss burden and makes Disclosures on naval pro
government loans oversight and a willingne
William Ford (D-Mich.), the chair of the very day, it seems, we learn about yet an
House Education and Labor Committee, said other scandal or misjudgment on the part of
that the bill will increase the number of students the U.S. Navy. The Tailhook scandal, which
eligible for loans by one million and allow three broke after revelations that naval personnelhad
million students to borrow more. The billmakes sexually harassed female officers at an official
available loans to a huge number of students function, is only one in a series of serious errors
who have heretofore been unable to secure the in judgment perpetuated by officers high up in
aid necessary to attend college. In addition, the the Navy hierarchy.
bill provides federal guidelines for campus po- In 1987, the U.S.S. Stark was hit by an
lice dealing with rape victims. This section of Iraqi missile. The Iraqi attack was accidental,
the billwillensure adequate attention for college but disaster could have been easily avoidedifthe
students who are victims of rape. crew had not allowed the jet to getclose enough
The bill is significant for two reasons. First, to fire.
it attempts some radical experimental changes In 1988, the U.S.S. Vincennes was well
in the educational aidsystem. Direct loans from within Iranian waters when it shot down an
the federal government to students will save Iranian passenger plane.Over290civilians were
millions of dollars and allow the government to killed because of a tragic mistake that the Pen-
re-invest the savings in additional aid. Until tagon tried to conceal until recently, when the
recently, the Bush administration had threat- media finally pierced through the cover-up.
ened to veto the bill based on this new provision. In 1989, an investigation of an explosion
It is about time that the president withdraw his aboard the U.S.S.Iowaincorrectly placed blame
opposition to try this innovative program. on one of the dead sailors, whom the Navy
Second, thisbillshowsthatCongress-and portrayed as despondent over a homosexual
the system, for that matter - works. Eighteen relationship. Even after this story was proven
months ago, the reauthorization process began wrong, the Navy took over a year to apologize to
with both Democrats and Republicans on the the family and retract the accusation.
opposite sides of the fence. During this time, It has been almost one year since the events
both sides have compromised, made hard of the Tailhook affair. One year since female
choices, and worked toward a common goal: enlisted persons andevenofficers were attacked
making education affordable to the middle class. by their colleagues in a drunken celebration of
As a result the bill passed almost unanimously. male superiority. One year since 26 of those
This attitude must also be applied to many of the women mustered the courage to confront the
other areas of congressional gridlock: economic establishmentandmake formal complaints about
reforms, health care, and foreign aid, to name a what happened to them. One year since Navy
few. Secretary Lawrence Garrett drank beers in a
Yet, the bill falls short of the radical change room next to one in which drunken aviators
necessary to make a college education a reality danced with strippers and prostitutes.
for everyone. The bill does not incorporate the Last week, the scandal was topped off with
national service objectives of Gov. Clinton's areport that Laney Spigener, arepresentative of
proposal or those of student groups across the the Naval Investigative Service, made numer-
country.Itis astart-but itmuste followed up ous unwanted advances toward the chief com-
by arenewedefforttomakefundamentalchange plainantintheTailhookcase,LtPaulaCoughlin.
in the U.S. educational system. He even allegedly called her "sweet cakes."
aters
cedures indicate a lack of
ss to deceive the public
Despite the obvious unprofessionalism of
Spigener's actions, his harassment of Lt.
Coughlin portends a widespread disregard for
women's feelings and for the seriousness of the
personal violations which occurred.
Senior Navy officers attempted to water
down areport of the incident after a preliminary
investigation. Fearful of an outcry, they tried to
tone down the language in order to make the
incidents seem less offensive. Almost a year has
passed and criminal charges have yet to be filed.
In response to public pressure, the Navy has
already begun to increase education and aware-
ness about issues of sexual harassment. Admiral
Frank Kelso, Chief of Naval Operations, has
promised to develop a new mandatory curricu-
lum to address gender issues.
Despite this stab at "sensitivity training" the
boys are continuing to be boys. At a banquet for
oneof the squadrons which attended the Tailhook
Convention, two high officers permitted a skit
which made reference to oral sex and Rep.
PatriciaSchroeder(D-Col.). Schroederhasgone
out of her way to voice disapproval of the
Tailhook scandal and the Navy's handling of it.
While the Navy took immediate action to
punish these officers, what can women in the
Navy expect when many of their co-workers are
notsympathetic?As Rep.Schroederhaspointed
out, "I think they now realize that culturally they
have a terrific problem. They have a whole
group of people who don't believe that things
have to change."
The Navy needs a major overhall. Officers
and enlisted men alike need to be forced to learn
about the damage thatsexualharassment causes.
The Navy administration must open itself up to
investigation and criticism so that scandals like
this one are not permitted to simmer as the Navy
drags its feet while half-heartedly conducting
internal investigations. Only through openness
and communication can incidents like Tailhook
be prevented in the future.
0