4-TheMg y-mmrWe d syeJe16,1993
EDITORIN CHIEF 420 Maynard Street
C aDHope Calati Unsigned editorials present the opinion of a Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other 76-DAILY
OPINION EDITORS cartoons, signed articles and letters do not Edited and Managed by
Sam Goodstein necessarily reflect the opinion of the Daily. Students at the
Flint Jason Wainess University of Michigan
7eUniversity Board of Regents approved someone outside the University. These allega-
E the fist step in an eventual separation of tions by non-University people can be punished
Student Legal Service (SLS) from the Michigan S u e tS r i e under theCd. Will thpuSao n sh red
Student Assembly (MSA) at the Regent's June to tell Student Affairs that a student is being
meeting. Currently, MSAhas controlof theSLS MSA offers SLS as budgetary sacrifice chargedwithacrimethatisdefinedasaviolation
board and SLS's budget is part of the larger under the Code?We would not doubtitconsider-
budget of MSA. The requested separation would fully deserve. the assembly's budget. Students will be able to ing the recent actions of the University adminis-
allow MSA to continue to control SLS's board, If SLS becomes an independent service vote on MSA's fee and SLS' fee, which con- tration when dealing with the Code.
but SLS would be completely dependent on funded by the regents, students will never again sumes two-thirdsof the MSA budget, separately. The MSA leadership must look for creative
regents for funding. The request for financial control it. Although MSA leaders have made The MSA leadership argues that SLS' growing solutionsto.itsbudgetproblemsinsteadofrelying
separation is a shortsighted solution to the finan- assurances that the SLS board willremain domi- financial demands are cramping the assembly's on this shortsighted solution which sacrifices
cial woes of both organizations. Losing financial natedby MSA appointees, those appointees and ability to adequately fund student groups. Atfirst student control. While losing money is upsetting
control of SLS is a loss for students. SLS representatives will listen to the wishes of glance, the separation is a laudable step toward to the groups that won't receive their complete
SLS is an organizationthatprovides free legal the source that funds salaries and overhead. No financial responsibility - but at what price? funding requests, the entire student body will
representation for studentsexceptincasesagainst matterhow hard SLS tries, it will be only natural If students lose this control, then SLS could suffer if protection of student rights continues to
the University and against other students. Most for it to take its orders from its new financier- become yet another facet (or shall we sayvictim) be eroded.
students aren't aware of the existence of SLS and the regents. Andhistory has proven that students of the University's own justice system, in which MSAmust set clear philosophicalprioritiesto
those that are generally do not care. But the do not bode well when leaving their fate in the a deputized police force reports incidents to the guide fiscalpriorities. The protection ofstudents'
function of SLS is extremely important. Wait hands of those people who run our school from OfficeoftheVice PresidentofStudentAffairs for rights' must be the first priority.
until you find yourself atthemercy of a landlord their clandestine ivory towers. punishment under the Code. Although SLS attor- Students must remain in control of one of the
trying toexploitcollegiaterenters.For those who The MSA leadership states that the financial neys cannot represent a student against the Uni- few University offices created by students and
have found themselves in this situation, SLS has separation of SLS is necessary because the ser- versity or against another student, they are still managed by students that exists toprotectstudent
proven to be a resource that students need and vice consumes an increasingly large portion of free to defend a student against allegations from rights.
I
I
I
24-hour paternalism
Pro-life and pro-choice views both ignore women
Supreme screw-up
Court allows religion at public school graduation
lifers, pro-choicers - put down your
xing gloves, some advice for the both of
you.
The Michigan legislature is considering abill
to mandate a 24-hour waiting period for women
seekingabortions.Notsurprisingly,this willmean
differentthingsto pro-lifeandpro-choicegroups.
The usual cries will ensue, defending the in-
volved state, husbands, parents, boyfriends or
fetuses. The bill will reinvent the same tiresome
rhetoric and, as usual, in the end no minds will
have changed on the controversial issue of abor-
tion.Unfortunatelythestatusquoinsuresthatthe
most important person in this debate will be left
out. Somewhere in this war zone of states rights,
back alley abortions, ballof tissue vs.human life,
there is a pregnant woman. Since any laws that
emerge on abortion will undeniably affect her, it
is time to examine what these laws will say to and
about her.
V iewing 24-hour waiting periods from this
standpoint automatically develops a viewpoint
in the life vs. choice conflict and that is not what
this argument is about. Instead, it is time tolook
attheimplicationsof a24-hour waiting periodon
some common ground.
Ifpassed,24-hour waiting periods willallow
awoman to make her own decision, butmake her
wait an entire day -supposedly so that she may
evaluate and re-evaluate what she has decided.
Does the state feel that a woman is incapable of
making an educated decision with out the use of
24 hours to reconsider? If president Bill Clinton
wanted to send 4000 American troops to Bosnia
thisafternoon,he surely wouldn'thave to wait24
hours to think it over. A military action effects
thousands of lives. An abortion affects one or
two.Therehave always been insulting discrepan-
cies in the way our government distributes deci-
sion making power. The fact that this law has
already passed the Michigan Senate and only
needs the vote of the House proves that the
legislature continues to doubt that women are
capableofmaking informedandintelligentdeci-
sions.
And why the magic "24"hours?Noscientific
research points to this amount of time as special
to allowing a person to make the best possible
decision. If the Michigan legislature does not
believe that a woman can lay down an intelligent
decision to beginwith, what is that big day going
to do.'The inherent assumption that women are
making spur of the moment decisions and act
emotionally relays an archaic and patemalistic
attitude. Somebody somewhere doesn't seem to
understand that when a woman discovers that she
is pregnant, she knows what this means. Her
doctor informs her of the medical implications
and the multi-faceted decisions she has to face.
We can assume she knows her financial situation
as wellas hermaritalstatus and her potential to be
a good mother. As crazy as it sounds to some
fatcatsin thelegislature,most women are capable
of making a morally and physically sound deci-
sion before they declare that they want an abor-
tion. Thisisnot about whatis a "moral"decision.
This is about the ability to make one.
The social implications of a waiting period
are insulting in theory. Logistically, they are no
better. A 24 hour waiting period could delay an
abortion for over a week and would require
repeated trips into the abortion clinic. At first
glance this does not seem like such an inconve-
nience.
However, for a woman traveling from
Michigan's Upper Peninsula thiscould take a toll
on her time and finance, as there are no clinical
facilities north of Saginaw. It is not enough to
deem the women of Michigan as fickle creatures,
but in the process they are causing these women
unnecessary delaysand financialburdensas well.
This bill is not about what defines life and
death..It doesn't even speak about a woman's
body. This bill is about a woman's mind-or in
themindsofthebills' proponents,thelackthereof.
We can only hope that when the house goes to
vote, they make the right decision. But on second
thought, maybe we should let the house vote and
then give them some time to reevaluate.
Twenty-four hours should do the trick.
A week ago yesterday, the Supreme Court
declined to hear an appeal in the case of
Jones v. Clear Creek Independent School Dis-
trict. The religious rightcounts the decision asa
great victory for their cause. But it should be
remembered that the court did not hear the case.
It did not pass judgment in the matter. While it is
arguably too early for the religious right to rest,
secure in the knowledge that they have brought
down the wall separating Church and State, it is
none to early for those of us concerned that the
wall is imperiled.
Jones involved the question of whether a
public school student has the right to deliver a
graduation speech which conveys a religious
message. The case raises serious questions about
the limits of conflicting First Amendment prin-
ciples. It is an important study in the conflict and
balanceof fundamentalconstitutionalrights. The
Court's decision not to hear the case leaves lower
courts adrift, seeking guidance about what to do
as more cases like Jones are brought into our
nation's courts. Unfortunately, the result is that
the leading precedent in this highly complex
constitutional area is a case that seems, on the
surface, totreat theissue with an alarming lackof
subtlety. The Court of Appeals, whose ruling the
Supreme Court's action leaves standing, viewed
and decided Jones as if the only question pre-
sented was one of free speech. Not surprisingly,
therefore, the Court of Appeals found that as a
matteroftheFirst Amendment,thestudentspeaker
had a right to speak his (religious) mind.
Especially in light of last year's Supreme
Court decision in Lee v. Weismann, a decision
which held clergy-led prayer at a public school
graduation ceremony constitutionally impermis-
sible, the Court of Appeals' decision is surpris-
ing. It is difficult to understand how a federal
circuit court could hold that a speech given by a
member of the clergy could be somehow differ-
ent for constitutional purposes than the same
speech given by a student. The judges deciding
Jones wrote: "Clear Creek does not unconstitu-
tionally endorse religion ifitsubmits the decision
of graduation invocation content, if any, to the
majority vote of the senior class." Little could be
more of ashock to anyone with an understanding
of what the First Amendment and the Bill of
Rights, generally, represent. The First Amend-
ment is a check against the majoritarianism that
the above quote encourages. According to the
logic of this opinion, Clear Creek would not
unconstitutionally endorse religion if it were to
submit to a majority vote of the entire student
body whether or not to say a daily moming
prayer. To submit the content of a religious
speech by a student graduation speaker to a vote
of the student bodyis oneofthe worst idea we can
think of. The impact of such a vote would be to
stifle minority rights.
Though we firmly believe that it is important
to give the First Amendment's guarantee of free-
dom of speech the widest possible scope, the
court should realize that one must not consider
free speech rights in a vacuum. Where, as here,
fundamental constitutional rights are in conflict,
and where we must seek to strike a balance
betweensuchrights,wemustexamineourunder-
standing of the constitutionalsystemin which we
live, and seek to accommodate the rights of all as
best we can. In the narrow set ofcases like Jones,
astudentspeaker atagraduationceremony speaks
with the full force of the state behind him or her.
After the speakerascends the dias' stairs, whenhe
or she takes his place behind the podium, when
the message is transmitted over the public an-
nouncement system to those assembled to cel-
ebrate graduation from a public institution of
education, that student become an agent of the
state-speaking with the benefit and backing of
the state.
This ceremony is the wrong time and the
wrong place if one wishes to convey the word of
theLord.Religionhasitsplace.Andapublichigh
school graduation is not it. Amen.