Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

July 13, 1994 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily Summer Weekly, 1994-07-13

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

P'g " , W edn a, !ly1,94

James M. Nash
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.

The administration has submitted its pro
posal for next year's tuition to the Board
of Regents, and many parts of the proposal
must be seriously questioned. Tuition for all
full-time students is increased in the pro-
posal, as is spending for financial aid, faculty
salaries and other vague initiatives. The re-
gents will undoubtedly approve the proposal
at their meeting tomorrow, so students must
expect to pay more money to attend the
University during the 1994-95 school year.
True, tuition will not be raised as drasti-
cally as it has been in the past few years. For
1994-95, in-state students will pay 6.9 per-
cent more and out-of-state tuition will in-
crease 5 percent. These numbers are far less
thanlastyear, whenin-statetuition alonerose
11.7 percent. And in the last five years, the
regents have passed tuition increases that
average 10.1 percent. In a strange way, then,
students willbe getting abreaknext year. But
tuition will still be increased substantially,
and for dubious reasons.
Approximately 34 percent of the increase

Tuition Soars Again,
But Whys?
Proposal must be questioned by students

will go directly to a cost ofliving increase for
University faculty. While it can be argued
that the faculty already earn too much, they
deserve a yearly increase that is in line with
inflation. However, the remainder of the tu-
ition increase is not so justified. Nearly 9
percent of the increase will go to a reserve
fund that the University will hold as a check
against spiraling inflation during the school
year. But the administration itself does not
agree on what the fund will go toward if it is
not used up throughout the year. Some say
the money will go to building construction,

others say the money will go to University
salaries. Either way, this money can be better
spent on undergraduate students.
Moreover, the University allots 4.5 per-
cent of the increase to hiring more female and
minority faculty to help achieve both the
Michigan Mandate and the Agenda for
Women. While these are both noble causes,
they clearly deserve more money than this
mere increase, at least more than a reserve
fund within the administration. And while
the proposal raises financial aid funding by
18 percent, it highlights a paradox within the

administration. A general rise in tuition only
reinforces the economic bias and de facto
discrimination. In 1994, it seems thatthe onp
individuals who can afford a true college
education without financial aid are those
from an upper-middle class family. This is an
unfair burden on most of the population, and
will only continue with the administration's
newest proposal.
Finally, the proposal gives only 5 percent
of the tuition increase to vague "undergradu-
ate initiatives." If the administration wou
truly shape up its undergraduate programg,
this money would be more than justified. But
when has the administration been really con-
cerned about its undergraduates and their
education? In all probability, this money
would never affect the majority of students
and should not be taken out of their tuition in
the first place. All in all, the tuition increase
remains a financial break for students. Bu
the proposal, if amended, could give studen*
an even larger break. We hope the regents
will take our recommendations seriously.

Generation Xa Hapless Haitian policy
Pearl Jam battles Ticketmaster 's monopoly Clinton administration dabbles in racism

nally the 13th Generation has some idols
that actually deserve tobe emulated.Pearl
Jam's guitarist Stone Gossard and bassist Jeff
Ament are battling a corporate giant and
standing up for what they believe in. On June
30, Gossard and Ament testified before a
House subcommittee looking into antitrust
charges against Ticketmaster, the billion-
dollar ticket distribution agency. Fedup with
Ticketmaster's unreasonable "service
charges" that prevented Pearl Jamfromjoin-
ing a "low-price" summer tour in 1994, the
group filed a complaint with the U.S. Justice
Department. Ticketmaster's "monopoly" of
large venues is made possible by question-
able arrangements with major arenas around
the country-deals whichgive the company
the sole rights to distribute tickets that are not
sold at the box office. Pearl Jam thankfully is
trying to change this.
Ament and Gossard broke the genera-
tional mold by filing a legal complaint and a
civil lawsuit, and then ventured to Capitol
Hill. For most, Generation X carries the ste-
reotype of lazy, ignorant, bored youth who
expect everything to be "their" way without
having to work for it. Contrary to this, the
members of Pearl Jam didn't just sit back and
hope someone else would change the system.
Many members of the "20-something" gen-
eration have probably complained to their
friends about high ticket prices. But when it

comes down to it (in almost all aspects of our
lives), nobody does anything about it. Too
many of America's youth let this culture take
advantage of them. Pearl Jam didn't do this,
and neither should America's youth. This
should apply to everything our generation
does. We -the members of so-called "Gen-
eration X"-should do as much moving with
our feet as we do with our mouths. This
generation should actually go out and fix
what needs to be fixed.
It is not the fault of America's youth that
the social and economic system is as back-
ward as it is. No concert should cost $504to go
to. College should be affordable to all. There
should be jobs for college-educated people.
No one can assume that the system will be
designedto benefit America's youth.Ifsome-
thingshouldbe, then it is our responsibility to
make it that way. It is said that "Generation
X" will be the first generation to make less
money than their parents. But as history is not
written yet, this all can change.
We, as young Americans, need to take
action with the issues we care about and not
let the world pass us by. To quote the band
Aerosmith(anotherbattlerinthe Ticketmaster
war): "Life is a journey ... not a destination."
Let's change our path now, before it is too
best idols to date, the members of the group
Pearl Jam.

n another perversion of a campaign prom-
ise, President Clinton seems to be seri-
ously considering the unilateral use of force
to oust the military junta in Haiti, while
persecuted refugees are continually being
turned away from U.S. waters. And Army
rangers conducted alarge scale, Panama-like
military operationin the panhandle of Florida
two weeks ago, preparing for the seizure of
airfields and ports in Haiti. Meanwhile, air-
craft carriers have been dispatched to the
Caribbean. It is unbelievable that Clinton is
now leaning toward military invasion, and
the perpetuation of a flawed refugee policy,
after all the 1992 campaign rhetoric slam-
ming President George Bush's Haitian poli-
The revised (to be revised, again) refugee
policy, heavily influenced by presidential
adviser William Gray, was dead on arrival in
Panama. Ten thousand "political" refugees
fleeing the chaos of Haiti were to be admitted
to Panama. But, inan ironic turnofevents, the
U.S.-installed president, Guillermo Endara,
withdrew his offer of asylum - forcing the
administration to pressure Antigua, Grenada
(remember the invasion?), Costa Rica,
Suriname, Guyana and Dominica to accept
their share of refugees. It is all too clear that
a U.S. invasion of a Latin American nation
will do little for the cause of democracy and
stability in the Western Hemisphere. It will

only be counterproductive.
This diplomatic legwork was supposed to
let President Clinton avoid admitting 20,000
BlackHaitiansintothiscountry, theso-called
land of immigrants. True, the Haitians do not
have the political muscle to secure their im-
migration rights that other ethnic groups have.
They must rely on the Congressional Black
Caucus, human rights organizations and tl
collective conscience of the Americanpeople
to ensure the legacy of America as a place
where political, religious and economic refu-
gees can call home and escape the horrors of
persecution and oppression. Unfortunately,
to charge the Clinton administration with
racism is not without foundation. At the very
least, this Democratic administration is
complicit in the most despicable applicatiob
of immigration policy since World War II.
This is not the time to invade the sovereign
nation of Haiti. This is the time to reverse the
Clinton-Bush refugee policies and open our
borders to those Haitians who desire asylum
in the United States. While it is lamentable
thatFloridais confronting the enormous costs
of absorbing legal and illegal immigrants,
these economic considerations should not
dictate national policy, especially consided
ing the fate of those Haitians who attempt to
flee to the United States and are turned back
by the Coast Guard. Ultimately, death awaits
them. This must not stand.

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan