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.