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.