4- The M~chigan DaiySumner Wee14 -Wednesday, Jul 14, 1993 Lhe itigan 1 ill JOPINN [I EDITOR IN CHIEF Hope Calati OPINION EDITORS Sam Goodstein Flint 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 a n ssummer'sadministrative"surprise"comes tithe form of an alcohol policy that aims to curb off-campus drinking at University spon- sored events (i.e. fraternity and co-op parties). Becausethepolicyisstillbeing draftedwecannot pick it apart clause-by-clause (although we will surely be able to upon its release), however it is safe to assume that it will be another oppressive policy that will infringe upon our rights - all under the guise of being a document designed to help us. If those people hiding behind the tiny windows of the Fleming building truly want to help us, they will leave us alone and let the members of the Ann Arbor Police Department, and their trusty friends at DPS, worry about our drinking problems. Thedrafting ofthispolicy isactually anything but a surprise. In fact, it is part of anational trend where universities are increasingly reverting to the in loco parentis theory, which delegates university administrations the power to act as guardians on behalf of their students. Deputized police forces, speech codes, behavior codes and now alcohol codes all exemplify attitudes of current university administrators nation-wide. Alcohol policy Yet another example of oppressive in loco parentis Michiganishardly the soleschooladopting these restrictive measures. Administrators claim that federal laws mandate that they adopt such poli- cies - and there are indeed such laws - how- ever these laws tend to serve as agreen lights for administrators to adopt whatever restrictive poli- cies they so choose, above and beyond what the law callsfor,andthendefend the policies with the claim that they are legally bound to adopt them. Student activists in the 1960s vehemently fought against the doctrine of in loco parentis, procuring newrights forstudents that were previ- ously unthinkable. However it appears that we may be heading for a retun to the dark ages where administrators watch over us like our parents. Beyond our concerns about the growing na- tional trend for administrators to play the role of parents, there are immediate questions concern- ing our impending alcohol policy. Consumption of alcohol is currently included in the Statement of Student "Rights"and Responsibilities(Code), and it appears that the two policies may unneces- sarily overlap. The federal law concerning alco- hol consumption stipulates that university stu- dents must be made aware of the health hazards associated with drug and alcohol use, state and local drug laws, and counseling available to stu- dents. The Code appears to more than meet these requirements, except it does not outline health hazards associated with alcohol use. However it would be easy enough to include this in the Code without drafting an entirely new policy. It is rather unclear why the University has decided to create this policy -although if Vice- President for Student Affairs Maureen Hartford and her crew did not come up with a new policy every so-often, what else would they do? It is especially disconcerting that they plantoregulate off-campus alcohol consumption - again, the policy is not completed so nothing is set in stone, but it is becoming increasingly clear what the policy will entail. In order for the University to have any reason to restrict off-campus drinking, it should at least demonstrate exactly how it will impact the academic environment. So far, no cogent argument has been presented as to how drinking at aco-oporfratemity party is detrimen- tal to the academic environment. Nevertheless, the administration will con- tinue to claim that they are legally bound to adopt these procedures. As we fall further and further into in loco parentis, there is no telling where it will end. The manner with which the policy will be enforced is still unclear. It is feasible that a Kangaroo-court system similar to the one used to enforce the Code will be adopted. Or possibly it will be enforced by little blue people who run around Ann Arbor looking for open beer bottles, or maybe students will just ignore it. 4 The numbers game University should change treatment of minorities Te University advertises itself as a diverse, I multicultural entity and promises an educa- tion that gives students exposure to a student body comprised of people from all walks of life. TheUniversityupholds the Michigan Mandateas the major step toward amulticultural University. TheUniversity doesnotliveupto these promises. While the University has done alaudable job in increasing enrollment in the four recognized minority categories - African American, His- panic/Latino,Native American and Asian Ameri- can - the University seems to be comfortable with this diversity of appearances. The University calls for a diverse student body to "build a model of a pluralistic, multicul- tural community for our nation," but delivers a student body similar in socio-economic status. For instance, Asian Americans are considered "overrepresented" on this campus because the percentage of Asian American students isgreater than the percentage of Asian Americans in the state. But within this relatively large group of students,portionsof the Asian American popula- tion are not represented. Southeast Asians and Pacific Island students are not represented pro- portionally to students of Chinese and Japanese ancestry. Populations such as the Hmong chil- dren in central Detroit, who often live in poverty and do not have easy access to higher education, get squeezed out of admissions because the ad- missions process sees them in the same light as more affluent Asian American students. The University should not rest on its success in recruiting Asian American students. The Uni- versity should begin recruitment on the basis of area of origin and economic status to secure a complex diversity which goes beyond definable groups. The University faces the temptation to add minority studentstoitsenrollmentnumbers with- out looking closely to see if there isatdiversity of origin and economic status within the groups. The University must achieve its target numbers forNative American, African Americanand His- panic/Latino students. But if the University is in search of true multiculturalism, it must not rest once the target percentages of enrollment have been achieved. The University projects that it will enroll numbers of African American, Hispanic/Latino and Native American students roughly propor- tionate to that of Michigan's population by 1996. This will only be achieved through rigorous recruitmentthatmustincludereaching outtonew areas, looking for African American students outside of Detroit, recruiting Native American students from a variety of tribal origins and promoting aUniversity of Michigan education to Puerto Rican andMexicanhigh school students. The University already has spaces on the admissions application that allows students, if they wish, to identify their ethnic group in more detail than the four groups identified as target groups.'This is a small, but important statement that the University is capable of looking beyond four target groups when striving toward diver- sity. The University mustnow recruit within the underrepresented subgroups by taking its lead froniminority student groups such as the United Asian American Organizations which tells Hmonng children about the possibility and ne- cessity of a college education. The University must strive for adiversity that is more than a label. Although the University is moving toward ethnic diversity, it does not have economicdiversity. The University must look at the composition of the pool of minority students comprised by itsrecruitmenteffortsandaskitself if the students within each minority group are diverse in their regions of origin and economic status.In this way only can itspromise to current and incoming students be fulfilled. Television violence Labeling violent shows targets wrong audience It has been said that the fabric of politics is for the most part, from stable families, graced woven in compromise. The most recent ex- withboth theinterest andthetime tomonitor their ampleof thisis the agreementreached this month children's viewing. On the other hand, the chil- concerning television violence. Several "watch- dren most at risk for committing violent acts, the dog groups,"claiming that violence on television ones whose homes are often more violent than is a major contributor to violence in our society, their televisions, will not be helped by the labels. have been pressuring Congress torequiremanda- These children often come from homes run by a tory programratingsor,preferably,toban violent single, working parent. And, because of the out- programs from prime-time television. Fearing rageous costs of decent child carein this country, this kind of legislative control, the networks the child generally is home alone. Therefore, no suggested a compromise: They agreed to volun- parentorguardian is presenttoevensee the labels tarilyplace"warning labels"ontheirmostviolent in the households that the labeling is designed to programs, cautioning parents of "violence that reach. may not be suitable for younger viewers." Thedanger in this agreementis that people on Is this voluntary labeling a form of censor- all sides feelthat they havereally donesomething ship? No. Will it make legislators and anti-vio- good. They will congratulate themselves that lence groups feel that they have accomplished progress has truly been made in the effort to something?Yes.Willit,ultimatelydoany good? reduce violence in our society - while outside Probably not their doors, the real problems rage on unabated. Someareobjecting tothisagreementonFirst- At its heart, this agreement is nothing but a Amendment grounds, claiming that any refer- convenient excuse to avoid the real issues. If ence to the content of a television program vio- legislators, networks,and"advocates"were truly lates the networks' right to free speech. This is concerned about curbing violence, they would ridiculous. Our main argument against censor- work for effective gun control laws, so that the ship is that itis not the government'sresponsibil- primary instruments of brutality would no longer ity to decide what is and is not appropriate for be available on every street corner. They would children to see (or hear or read). The parents, we put more attention in to inner-city schools, teach- argue, have that responsibility. Yet, with the vast ing children that true power does not have to amount and variety of programming availableon come from one's fists, but rather from one's television, judging each separate program is not mind. They would try to find a meaningful cure always an easy job. When networks themselves for poverty, rather than letting the cycle of hope- label their shows, they are assisting parents with lessness grow worse with each passing genera- the task, suggesting merely that aparticular show tion. is one parents might want to examinemore care- It is much easier to deal with the fictional fully. This is a far cry from banning programs or world of television. It is more comforting to relegating them to the abyss of late-night view- pretend that placing warning labels on violent ing. The present compromise merely helps par- programs will suddenly make everything okay. ents to make more informed decisions. This most recent agreement is not worth object- Unfortunately, this agreement is little more ing to - it does no harm, and it makes many than aband-aid for the problemofviolenceinour legislators and lobbyists feel better. Yet we must society. Even assuming one accepts the premise constantly remind ourselves that it is not a true that television violence affects children's behav- solution. Until we confront the real problems ior,thisagreementstillservicesthewrong people. plaguing society, the violence will continue un- The parents who are clamoring for labeling are , checked. No label has the power to take it away. 0 0