4- The Michgan Daily Summer Weekly -Wednesday, July 28, 1993 C- I r chtgan,+1tl! OPNIN, 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 0 Once again Michigan's children have been used as pawns in the gubernatorial chess game.Of course, whenStateSen.andgubernato- rial candidate Debbie Stabenow dared congres- sional Republicans to cut state property taxes in Draconian proportions last week, she was sup- posedly attempting to force the state to find anew way to finance public schools. An admirable and neededgoal.ButwhileStabenow'spoliticalchutz- pah is impressive, the slashing of $5.6 billion in propertytaxeswasfiscallyirresponsibleandleaves the Engler administration and Michigan's con- servative legislature virtually free reign to create a new system of financing schools. The result could be disastrous. Many state senators, along with both the DetroitNewsandFree Press,havenoted that any new system of funding public schools would be more equitable than the status quo-astatus quo which allows, for instance, Bloomfield Hills schoolstoreceivealmosttwice asmuchper-pupil spending as Ypsilanti schools.'There are several gaping holesinthisargumentthough.First,"more equitable" is subjective. It is not unlikely that a Cutting choice Property tax cut leaves Michigan schools in limbo new system could be one of school choice, or the voucher system where parents can send their children to any school in the district. This could be, quite possibly, the worst happening in the history of the state of Michigan. A system of schooltchoice would lead to socio-economic and racial segregation on an unprecedented scale, the exactantithesisofequality.Conservativesloveto call competition the great healer, but it is not. Competitive schools will simply leave behind children of unmotivated parents and allow the privileged to segregate their children. The segre- gation phenomenon can be witnessed anywhere school choice is currently allowed. Just look at Bloomfield HillsSchools,consideredexemplary. After school choice was initiated, many parents yanked their children out of Andover and into Lahser. Last year a Free Press article quoted many Lahser parents as saying the reason was to get away from the large Jewish population at Andover. This is merely a microcosm of the problems school choice will foster. The other problem with the tax cut is that the govemor and the legislature could simply vastly reduce the amount of money schools receive. While it is true that more money does not neces- sarily mean better schools, taking money away from schools willsurely provideirreparable dam- age to already underfunded schools. And don't assume that decreased funding will simply be for affluentdistricts.The poormay also getless.This will not force schools to be more fiscally respon- sible, it will simply force them to provide less services for Michigan's schoolchildren We understand that Stabenow was desperate to stop using property taxes as a means for funding schools. After all, the neighborhood school has been one of the primary tools for the affluent and the political class tohold the poorand minorities down in the post-Brown v. Board of Ed. era. But Engler and Michigan's current legis- lature are far from the ones that have presented ideas to fix the current system. Where is the talk of tax-based sharing? Where is the talk of equity and faimess? It seems to have been lost in the debate. Before we can work on making our schools more competitive in the changing global economy, we must get back to basics. Before we worry about where schools spend their money, we need to make sure that - on the basest level - schools receive equitable funding. We once said that if Proposal A didn't pass, Engler would railroad property tax cuts through anyway. The only difference would be that he would leave the schools in limbo. We were wrong. Engler didn't have to do the railroading, Stabenow did it for him. The voters of Michigan will surely remember that on election day. I I Joint oppression "New" gays in the military policy still unfair Joycelyn Elders Nominee for Surgeon General victim of ignorance 4 'dictably, President Clinton has backed down on his campaign promise to allow gays to openly serve in the military. Succumbing topressure from the JointChiefsofStaffandSen. SamNunn(D-Ga.),chairmanof the SenateArmed Services Committee, the president endorsed a "don't ask, don't tell, don't pursue" policy. This policy will allow gays to serve in the military, as long as nobody is conscious of the fact that they aregay andaslong as they takeavow of celibacy. Besides being oppressive, this policy does not create any improvement for the disgruntled, and closeted, gays serving the United States. Candidate Clinton promised to allow gays to openly serve in the military and gays contributed millions of dollars to his campaign. However PresidentClintonhasopenlyshunnedthem,leav- ing proponents of equality for all hopelessly wondering what went wrong. The entire gays in the military fiasco typifies thestrugglesthatClinton'syoungadministration has endured. From the inception, administration officials lacked the courage to step up the pres- sure on Congress, and the president refused to enact an executive order forcing the military to stop the discrimination. Clinton claimed an ex- ecutive order would alienate key members of Congress, members whose votes he needed to pass his budget. Somehow, Clinton hasrmanaged to use the pending budget vote as an excuse for notpressing Congressonopening the doorstoour military.Ofcourse,notallof the faultlieswith the President. Sen. Nunn has proven to be a colossal thorn in the sidle of proponents of gays openly serving, continuously threatening to derail other legislation if the administration pressed the issue. Of course, no discussion of this issue would be complete without mention of the Joint Chiefs and their backward ways. Leading the cry that homosexuals would disrupt morale and threaten nationalsecurity,they managed topotray homo- sexualityas wrong andbackwards.Furthermore, in light of the fact that all but one of our industri- alized allies allow homosexuals to openly serve, the whining of the Joint Chiefs makes the United States appear foolish. All of this is old news, of course. Gays have been discriminated against in the military for decades and the new policy will change very little. Instead of asking incoming troops about their sexual orientation, the military will not inquire. However, as soon as they get an inkling of an idea that a soldier is gay, that person is doomed to be discharged. Furthermore, the new policy is rife with ambiguities. For instance, a servicemember can hang out ina gay bar, but if they are seen holding hands in a gay bar, they are faced with the "rebuttable presumption"that they are not practicing celibacy. Furthermore, servicemembers are strictly prohibited from dis- playing their sexuality off-base as well. This is absurd, and leaves us to wonder why hetero- sexual servicemembers are allowed to display their sexuality off base. Ironically, we have a military that has a nasty track record of men sexually degrading women (the Tailhook inci- dent comes to mind), and instead of cracking down on this issue, it further oppress homosexu- als. What makes the Joint Chiefs conduct almost laughable is the fact that they ordered two studies on the feasability of gays openly serving in the military, and completely ignored, and will not even release, the one that states that gays would not threaten national security if allowed to serve. Ultimatelythepresidentmustacceptthe blame for this entire disaster. Like a nasty cloud, it hovered over the first six months of his adminis- tration, and like an inept leader he failed to quell the storm. He did face pressure from the military and members of Congress, however he told the nation, during the campaign, that he couldnever accept the oppression that gays face in the mili- tary and would do everything in his power to change it. Heclearlydidnotdoeverythinginhispower, and once again, instead of change, Washington has left us with a status quo of inequality. gain? Yes, the Clinton administration is again embroiled in a controversy over a presidential appointee. The person under fue this time is Clinton'sSurgeonGeneralnominee,Dr.Joycelyn Elders. As she began her confirmation hearings last week, conservatives were up in arms, object- ing toher"radical"viewsregarding health educa- tion and digging up every smear they could find - from allegations of financial misconduct to herhusband's failure topay SocialSecurity taxes on an employee - in an attempt to derail her confirmation. First, let us recognize what the real issues are here. The allegations regarding finances, Social Security and any other supposed misconduct are nothing but a smokescreen, a way for opponents todrag herdown withoutputting theirenergy into a true ideological debate. The real issues are Elders's supposedly "radical" and "dangerous" ideas: supportforabortionrights,publiclyfunded family planning, broad-based sex education and contraceptive distribution in schools. While con- servatives would have us believe that even one of these would lead to a breakdown in the moral healthof the United States, in truth they add up to amore sensible health policy than this nation has seen in years. As ahealth specialist, Elders has said repeat- edly that she wishes abortion were unnecessary - a view which most abortion opponents un- doubtedly share. Yet, unlike her opponents, she realizes that the only way to make abortion less necessary is to provide adequate family planning informationandcontraceptive devices-even to those unable to pay for them. Many abhor this idea, feeling that their tax dollars shouldnothave to pay for contraception in which they do not themselvesbelieve.Yet theonly alternative is the rising rate of unwanted pregnancies among im- poverished women and, consequently, a higher rate of abortions. However, the real heart of the Elders opposi- tionisnotfocusedonabortionorevenonnublicly funded family planning. It focuses on her views onsex education, which favoranapproach begin- ning atkindergartenand culminating with condom distribution in high schools. Conservatives de- nounce these views as radical -but they simply deal in reality. They are necessary. Opponents of sex education claim that to educate schoolchildren about sexual activity will only encourage them to engage in it. Yet let us consider that in today's world an estimated 70 percentofhigh schoolseniorsaresexually active. These students need no encouragement - with or without education, they are going to continue to have sex. Once we understand that, the ques- tion becomes only one of common sense. At this moment, teenage pregnancy rates are higher in the United States than in any other industrialized country. At this moment, an epidemic of AIDS is raging, withnoendinsight.Those whothink that to educate is to encourage, who repeat "absti- nence"asthoughiftheysayitenoughtimesitwill come true, are burying their heads in the sand while the real world goes on around them. The government must confront the fact of teenage sexuality, and deal with it as frankly and safely as possible. There is very little we can teach teenag- ers about abstinence -they realize it exists, and will decide for themselves whether ornotitis the correct choice. We can, however, teach them a great deal about caution, about prevention, and about responsibility. The chances that teenagers will listen to adults are much greater if the teens are treated as intelligent human beings, rather than as little children who cannot make decisions for themselves. Dr. Elders recognizes this. She is a voice of leadership, workingnotforsomemythical"moral value" but rather for individuals' well-being. President Clinton should be commended for her nomination-and must, as he has pledged to do, stand behind her every step of the way. Elders's nomination is too important for any political waffling. Her leadership on health issues is pre- cisely what this nation needs.