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