4- The Michigan Daily Summer Weekly - Wednesday,July 7,1993 C.he jiftrhignu T-Ilaltn JOPINIONI EDITOR IN CHIEF Hope Calati OPINION EDITORS Sam Goodstein Flint Jason Wainess Unsigned editorials present 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 76-DAILY Edited and Managed by Students at the University of Michigan I For61 yearsUniversitystudentshaveflocked tothefamous"rock"onWashtenaw Ave.and Hill St.to paint, party and celebrate. Be it Greek organizations, the University bird-watching so- ciety, or a group of rape survivors, students have had the opportunity to express themselves by painting their thoughts, emotions or simply their names on the rock. Now that opportunity is in jeopardy.Becauseresidents of the neighborhood adjacent to the rock have complained of noise, littering, and pornographic material painted on the rock, the city is threatening toban painting of the rock and make the it an untouchable monu- ment. Sincethecity claimstounderstandtheimpor- tance of the rock, a few proposals havebeen laid on the table to "save"it. One proposal is to place a fountain in the middle of the rock to prevent people from painting it. Mortal words cannot properly describe how ridiculous thisideais.The second proposal is to bronze the rock with a substance thatcannot be painted on, leaving it as a tribute to an increasingly defunct heritage of Save the rock University should intervene on students' behalf student activism. Thisproposalisequally absurd. Therockis not only an object to remind usof our predecessors activism, but a living sybol of the voices on campus. Thatis tantamount to conced- ing that activism is merely a thing of the past and hasno place in the present. Any compromise that leaves students without a paintable object some- where near campus (certainly within a 30 mile radius) is unacceptable. This is where our trusty administrators enter the picture. Because the rock is not on University property, the administration has no control over its fate. Our first inclination is to rejoice that someone other than Maureen Hartford is behind our troubles. However - for once - students need Ms. Hartford's help. While the University has no legal responsibility to intervene, this is a perfect opportunity to show support for students. If the University were to intervene on students behalf, admittedly an unlikely scenario, maybe a compromise could be worked out. One thing the University should consider, in the unlikely event that they offer their help, is moving the rock to University property, more removed from resi- dential areas. This would appease the irritated families, while saving our very important me- dium of expression. However, when one consid- ers the fact that the administration will not even allow us to chalk the Diag, or rally on the grass surrounding it, it is unlikely that it will be fond of the notion of us painting a rock on University land. If the rock cannot be moved off city property, all future rock-painters may be stopped. It is, unfortunately, another episode in the age-old struggle between Ann Arbor residents and stu- dents, be'it members of a Greek organization or otherwise.Complaints that Ann Arbor's children are wrongly exposed to pornography painted on therock should fallon deafears-however they may not. It is a form of free expression to paint whatever thepaintersodesires,withinthe bounds of obscenity laws, and a right that should not be impeded.Furthermore, complaints that the paint- ing of the rock creates an inordinate amount of noise and littering are suspect. It is doubtful that rock-painting creates nearly as much noise, or litter, as the typical fraternity, co-op, or private party. It appears that the residents of Ann Arbor may not be happy until the city becomes asclean and quiet as an gigantic, quarantined library. Of course compromise is the premier alterna- tive. If the rock can be moved to a location that will not disturb residents, all the better. However under no circumstances should we see our rock turn into a fountain, ornament or any other unpaintable object. 6 Smok'ing's out Finally, the Michigan Union has banned smoking e Marlboro man must be spinning in his right tosmoke,buttheirrightends where thenon- grave. smoker's noise begins.'This is an essential prin- Throughoutthe United States, local,state and ciple of individual liberty and prohibiting smok- federalburaucracieshavetakensignificantsteps ing in public buildings is a victory for libertarian towards limiting smoking solely to the Great democracy. Outdoors in the pastmonth. Behind the mystical These principlesbecameextremelylucidona columns of the Supreme Court house came a talk radio program last week. Host Tommy landmark decision accepting a prisoner's argu- McIntyre, a smoker, went to bat against the ment that being forced to live with a five-pack-a- SupremeCourt'sdecisiononsmoking.Heseemed day smoker constituted "cruel and unusual pun- to believe deeply in the rights of the smoker. But ishment." In Los Angeles, smoking was banned the vociferous McIntyre was at a loss for words fromallpublicrestaurants.Since July lst, smok- when the airwaves were flooded with emphy- ing is proscribed in all areas of the Michigan sema and lung cancer patients, slowly relating Union.Andallwecandonowisbreatheasighof their sad stories. All of the callers had been relief and say, "It's about time." diagnosedatreputablehospitals.Allof the callers Smoking has been an acceptedpartof Ameri- had never smoked a cigarette. Most importantly, can life forcenturies.There wasevenatime when though, all of the callers were dying because of television advertisements donned medical doc- secondhand smoke. to proclaiming that 9 out of 10 doctors smoke In light of these facts, the Michigan Union Marlboro. But times have changed. Over the BoardofRepresenatives dida great service to the years, people began losing their loved ones to University community by banning smoking in emphesyma and lung cancer, the number of chil- the MUG. To have a smoking section sitting not dren bornasthmaticburgeonedandanti-smoking more than 20 feet from Subway and Wendys was campaigns took totheairwaves. And then, in late unquestionably ridiculous, uncomfortable and 1992, came the straw that broke the Camel's probably unsafe. back. The Environmental Protection Agency Moreover, the board enlisted student input (EPA)releasedastingingandcontroversialstudy beforemakingitsdecision, insuringthatstudents that classified secondhand tobacco smoke as a wanted smoking out of the MUG. However allis lethal carcinogen. notwellonthestudentinputfront.Indeference to Even though the EPA is being sued over the campus smokers, why didn'ttthe Union Board of validity of its study on secondhand smoke, many Representatives gather enlistment on whether or of the anti-smoking triumphs would not have notstudentsarein favorof spending themoney to been possible without the EPA's findings. But create a well-ventilated, closed-off smoking sec- regardlessof whattheoutcomeof thelitigationis, tion in the Union. banning smoking in public buildings is a needed It is time to realize that smokers are not just step. Opponents of these bans will continue to hurting themselves. They are hurting the people produce diatribes on the rights of the smoker. that breathe their smoke-filled air. The Supreme Unfortunately, these opponents miss an es- Court has realized this, Los Angeles has realized sential element. We do not want to ban smoking this and, now, the University has realized this. simply because it is politically incorrect or be- Finally, frequent EntreePlus users can enjoy cause it smells bad. Secondhand smoke is a the Union without worrying about facing afuture documented health hazard. Smokers have the Hof lung cancet.^ Conflicting interests? Questions abound over Duderstadt's role at NSB besuccessful,scientificresearchmustmain- tain a fragile balance between integrity and results. When this balance falters, reputations, careers and large amounts of money are jeopar- dized.Tomaintain this equilibrium theremustbe accountability. That accountability comes in the formofregulation-which should be fostered by organizationssuch as the NationalScience Board (NSB). In the past, the NSB has been viewed as a watchdog protecting the integrity of scientific research and sniffing out incidents of miscon- duct. But what happens when the dog goes after its master? Anallegedconflictofinterestinvolving James Duderstadt's roles as both the University's Presi- dent and chair of the National Science Board has created a situation which could have adverse effects on the integrity of scientific research. As chair of the NSB, Duderstadt is in a position to oversee all federally-funded scientific research -as well as cases in which federal grant money is misused. At the same time, he is the president of one of America's premier research institutions -an institution that regularly receives millions of dollars in federal science grants. Former University researcher Carolyn Phinney informed the NSB of possible miscon- duct at the University in 1985. The University summarily investigated her claim and filed its findings with NSB investigators. By its own admission, the NSB had serious misgivings with the University's report - yet failed to initiate a federal inquiry. The investigators told the Uni- versity that a lack of funds prevented them from pursuing the matter, but felt Phinney's allega- tions had foundation. As a result, the matter was dropped. There is little doubt that Duderstadt's back- ground and professional affiliations make him uniquely qualified to chair this federal organiza- tion,butasthefinalgovernmentaldecisionimaker on any questionable activity that emanates from the University,his dualroleisaseriousconflictof interest. It is true that no such conflict has yet been proven toexist-and both Duderstadtas wellas scientific fraud investigators have stated that Duderstadtmustremove himself from any direct involvement with a federal investigation of the University. However, contradictory statements issued by officials at the NSB and James Duderstadt demonstrates a clear confusion over his role in any University-involved investiga- tions. Duderstadt stated he has never had to step aside in a case concerning the University, while NSB officials affiumed that the University was targeted in previous NSB investigations of mis- conduct - during Duderstadt's tenure on the board and at the University. It would appear that as chair of the NSB, Duderstadt has the power to determine whether or not the board has the resources or the inclina- tion to investigate allegations of scientific mis- conduct involving the University. The integrity of the NSB has been seriously jeopardizedbyitsdecisionnottoprobethePhinney case.Furthermore, thereexists the possibility that Duderstadtmayhavepreventedtheinvestigation -by direct order or by virtue of his position - and this sets the stage for a possible conflict of interest. TheNSBhasnot clearly definedtherole of its chair. It must clarify its bylaws to create a way that allows for investigations of organizations tied to board members -members thathold the decision making powers - to avoid the appear- ance of a conflict. If the NSB does not take the steps necessary topreventthisconflict, scientific research will be put in serious danger. There must be a clear systemof accountability and until the NSB clari- fies its bylaws, the current systemnwill be worth- less. 0