Ure fid~iguu ~&itg
OPINION
EDITOR IN CHIEF
James M. Nash
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
Patrick J. Javid
Jason Lichtstein
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan.
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.
T he Michigan Legislature has voted,
and the outcome appears bright for the
University ofMichigan. Lastmonth,the Leg-
islatureapproveda2.3-percentincreasefund-
ing to the University. While this money is
earmarked for the University's general fund,
the administration is quick to point out that
tuition will continue to rise next year, and
there is no guarantee that students will ever
see the benefits of this increase. The admin-
istration, the regents and students themselves
must make it clear that this funding increase
belongs to the students of the University,
with no exceptions allowed.
The increase in funding was proposed by
Gov. John Engler late last fall, and has been
widely supported ever since. The increase
marks a shift in the recent state-funding pat-
tern: In 1992, the state increased funds by a
mere 0.1 percent, and gave the University no
increase for the 1993 fiscal year. Even with
the additional money, it is important to note
that the state still only provides 37 percent of
the University's General Fund.
More Money for the
University
State funding increase must go to students
In these two years, as state funding added
little to the University budget, tuition costs
soared. In 1992, tuition jumped 9.9 percent,
and in 1993 students saw a 9.8 percent in-
crease in their tuition bills. With the newly
added revenue from the state, the University
will finally be able to give students a much-
needed financial break. Beware, however:
The University often has its own agenda.
Provost Gilbert R. Whitaker Jr. has ex-
plained that the University needed at least a5-
percent increase in state funding to offset any
tuition increase for the upcoming 1994-95
school year. Thus, as we all expected any-
way, tuition costs will rise yet again.
But because the University did receive
extrafunds fromthe statethetuition increase
should at the very least be less severe than
those of the last two years. Students should
not expect an increase of close to 10 percent,
and the University should not be able get
away with it if such an increase is imple-
mented. Therefore, this page has a message
to both the adminstration and the regents: If
you must raise tuition this year, think of both
the increase in state funding and the students
who deserve the biggest chunk of it.
Clearly, the stateLegislaturemustbecom-
mended for passing Engler's proposal virt
ally unscathed. However, the governor's
motives must be addressed in further detail.
Engler is not a liberal, education-minded
official, but rather a conservative, money-
pinching administrator. He is up for re-elec-
tion this November and needs to show some
sort of accomplishment in the area of cam-
paign promises. His proposal to increase the
University's state funding fits the bill nice
and is sure to be mentioned in his re-electioW
campaign. One question for the governor -
where was this money three years ago?
The Board of Regents will decide the fate
of students' pocketbooks this month when it
votes on a tuition increase. Students must
watch this decision carefully. The University
has no need to increase tuition as drastically
as in the past. And, if by chance the regen
vastly increase student tuition anyway, s -
dents at the University know exactly where to
lay the blame.
Accuracy in schooling
Leonard Jeffries rises from the dead
Health care: almost...
Universal coverage must be guaranteed
U
C an it betrue? Is Leonard Jeffries, anoted
anti-Semite who once claimed that "rich
Jews" masterminded the slave trade, advis-
ing teachers in the Detroit public school
system in an official capacity? This week the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of Michi-
gan made this vital bit of information known
to the public - a body politic that should be
wary of pseudo-intellectual bigots, who have
been exposed as frauds. The Detroit commu-
nity, both Jew and non-Jew alike, must con-
demn men like Jeffries and Khallid
Muhammed, for under the guise of history,
hate and lies flourish. Their rhetoric and
politics must not be allowed to infiltrate the
Detroit public school system.
The point must be made that the ADL's
protestations are not directed against the
school board's movement toward a more
Afrocentric education, nor the district's
Afrocentric schools, but the indisputable fact
that a card-carrying anti-Semite is advising
the district's faculty. Maybe it is just a myth
ofaliberal education thatpublic teachers and
professors should be unbiased, tolerant dis-
seminators, not politicized ideologues. So
Cleotha Jordan, head of the district's social
studies department, is off the mark when she
opines: "Why dothey(the ADL) seeAfrican-
centered education as a threat?" And so De-
troit school board member Kwame Kenyatta
is misguided when he suggests that "It's not
their (the ADL's) business... I don't know
what they're teaching in the day schools in
synagogues. What gives them the right to
walk in here whenever they want to and talk
about taxes when they don't even live here?"
Mr. Kenyatta, isn't there a difference be-
tween private and public schools?
Surely, any resident of the state of Michi-
gan has a right - as a taxpayer - to attack
prejudice in the public school system. The
bulk of the Detroit school board's funds
come from the state's general fund.
Another important issue: that of free
speech. Kenyatta, Jeffries and even NAACP
leader Benjamin Chavis have of late de-
fended their associations with anti-Semites
as a matter of free speech rights. There can be
no doubt that an individual has a right to
affiliate oneself with another individual or
political group of any persuasion, as long as
violence is not espoused. But for national and
local Black political leaders to suggest that
free speech rights entitle them to protection
from public criticism or censure for their
associations with bigots is ludicrous. And for
a public school board to officially enter into
a relationship with a proven racist is clearly
objectionable. Especially in this case, as
Jeffries is being financed by public dollars.
This is wrong. Jeffries, and others like him,
must be denounced and not sanctioned by
institutions of the state.
This is crunch time. Now that all of the
congressional committees considering
health care reform legislation are finished
with their deliberations, the leadership of the
U.S. House of Representatives and the Sen-
ate must come up with a acceptable bill that
has a decent chance of passing to present to
their respective chambers. It is imperative,
for the health of the nation, that Congress
pass a comprehensive bill that guarantees
every American health care coverage (not
just "access"), that provides expanded cover-
age to the middle class and basic coverage to
the uninsured, that spreads the cost of in-
creased coverage and that relies on an em-
ployer mandate to bring in the revenue to
make these changes possible. This is what
America wants - and needs.
Although President Clinton has not been
able to seize the rhetorical high ground and
has lost the ability to frame the issue to the
GOP and moderates on both sides, an over-
whelming majority of Americans still sup-
ports the president's health care agenda.
America's need to cover the uninsured and
provide health care security to the middle
class must not be held hostage to the danger-
ous Senate Finance Committee, nor to a
GOP-led filibuster(which would most likely
be conceived by the presidential hopeful,
Republican Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas).
The time is now and the votes are there. A
0
bill thatensures real healthcarereform-not
simply tinkering with insurance rules or rely-
ing on "the market" - can pass the U.S.
Congress this summer if the Democrats and
President Clinton stand firm behind the con-
gressional leadership's final product. True,
Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell's
bill may contain compromises such as the so-
called "hard trigger," a smaller tax on cigo
rettes and no new taxes on ammunition sales.
But this is the legislative process at work, and
this is the best that can be passed by a Con-
gress running scared of the upcoming No-
vember elections. The White House should
take what it can get, and declare victory.
Sen. John Breaux's (D-La.) and Sen:
Daniel Patrick Moynihan's (D-N.Y.) "hard
trigger" proposal is a notion that Congress
should consider, as a way to make the pro
ise of universal coverage more palatable to
small businesses and critics of the plan. If
insurance reforms and other measures in the
package still leave between Sand7 percent of
theAmericanpeopleuninsured,theemployer
mandate would kick in around the year 2000.
It is crucial that in some form, the president's
promise of universal coverage be left intact.
This could be a historic year for the fir*
major piece of social legislation since the
1960s. The Democrats must come together
and deliver what the American people desire:
health care and health security for all.