OPINION Page 4 Wednesday,. .''394 EDITOR IN CHIEF James M. Nash EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS Patrick Javid Jason S. Lichtstein 420 Maynard Street Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan. 0 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 University of Michigan has come one step closer toward developing a stronger andmoreequitable campuscommu- nity. On Friday, the Board of Regents tacitly approved implementation of the amended Regental Bylaw 14.06--which adds sexual orientation to the list of specific characteris- tics that the University cannot discriminate against. Last fall, President James J. Duderstadt appointed a task force to investi- gate the ramifications of implementing the change in Bylaw 14.06 with respect to em- ployment benefits, family housing, financial aid packages and student residency status. The report of this task force, supported by the regents last Friday - save the homophobic rantings of Regent Deane Baker (R-Ann Ar- bor), who attempted to vote down 14.06 implementation - is very encouraging. The task force conducted research that debunked many of the myths surrounding gay and lesbian partnerships. One of the biggest fears is thatduetoadifferentlifestyle, same-sex partners will require more expen- 14.06: Equal Rights for Campus Gays Regents clear the way for implementation sive medical treatment. The task force con- tacted many universities with same-sex part- ner benefits to test this theory. In all cases, it was disproven. In fact,the predicted increased costs will be minuscule. The task force esti- mates that the increase will be in the range of $100,000 to $250,000 -nothing in the face of the $2.6 million doled out by the Univer- sity for all benefits. Another major issue examined by the task force is the extension of family housing to same-sex couples. This is not as radical a change as one might think. Gay and lesbian students andstaff are already allowed to live in University housing by themselves or as single parents. Extending benefits to same-sex couples would obvi- ously not be a great departure from protocol. The extension of benefits to same-sex couples is a good idea -however, the nature of the partnership needs to be more accu- rately defined. The task force recommended that same-sex couples not be put under a series of tests to prove their commitment to one another. An example of this would be a requirement to show financial interdepen- dence though documentation such as a joint lease or joint ownership of an automobile The task force correctly realized that a quirement of this sort may represent a b against lower-income employees. The recommendation of the task forci with respect to gay and lesbian partnership, was to initiate a documentation process de signed toresemble heterosexualmarriages a, closely as possible. However, there are stil undercurrents of unfair treatment and ques tions that need to be answered. For example Michigan law requires a 60-day waiting rinod between the filing and finalizing of divorce between heterosexualcouples, while the University task force recommends a 90 day waiting period for same-sex couples Moreover, although the task force recom mends the usage of Ann Arbor's Domestic Partnership Ordinance, the University stil has not decided firmly on a workable defini tion of same-sex marriage. Despite this cr' cism, the recommendations of the task fol are positive. They deserve a speedy and ef fective implementation. Jones v. Clinton Keep elected officials within the law Health care: progress Prospects bright as consensus builds I L V P resident Clinton'spastcontinues to haunt him. Last week Clinton's prominent Washington,D.C.,lawyer, RobertS. Bennett, and the Justice Department announced they are trying to rid Clinton of the sexual harass- ment suit brought by a former Arkansas employee, Paula Jones. Both are planning to support a motion to ask a federal judge in Arkansas to grant immunity to presidents from any lawsuits filed against them while they areinoffice. Ineffect, ifthe government's argument is upheld, it would unnecessarily impede the judicial process by delaying both criminal and civil suits against the president submitted before he takes office, and all purely private cases filed during the president's term. This motion would unduly put presidents above the law, and even more importantly, severely hinder the rights of plaintiffs in private suits-howeverecredible their case may be. Several weak arguments are at the core of Clinton's latest legal maneuver. The reason- ing goes that lengthy and highly publicized lawsuits, testimony and court proceedings could undermine - even paralyze - the president and national government. Clearly, the national security of the United States is not being threatened by the likes of Paula Jones. Moreover, Bennett claims that Clinton could be harassed by hundreds of aggrieved people if the judge decides not to grant the president such immunity. We hope Clinton has not aggrieved by that many people. And even if these "aggrieved" people are mere imposters, they should still have the full rights of the judicial system: namely, their right to a fair and speedy trial, and their right to the full due process of the law. In the meantime, Paula Jones - despite the fact that her charge levelled against the president seems suspiciously sensationalis- tic - may well have been approached by Clinton in that hotel roomin 1991. The public simply cannot know at this point. The fact that the defendant happens to be an important public officialshouldnot hinder women from initiating sexual harassment suits. Yet few women are speaking out against the Justice Department's motion, and several women's organizations, including the Na- tional Organization for Women, are even questioning Janes' credibility. True, Clinton has been the first president in 12 years to support women's issues through his advo- cacy of a woman's right to an abortion, the Family Leave Act, and his political appoin- tees. But the fact remains: this motion at- tempts to subvert basic American legal prin- ciples in closing the door on a sexual harass- ment case. The president of the United States must be held accountable for his actions and behavior at all times. Paula Jones, like any man or woman, should be allowed her day in court. ' Radically restructuring one-seventhof the U.S. economy is not a task to be taken lightly. In large part, government programs like Social Security have been successful because they were passed with a broad man- date - as the American people widely ac- cepted that the hand of government is oftentimes necessary. This is precisely why the recent news from Capitol Hill should be welcomed. As Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Fla.) and his right-wing cronies continue to rail on 'socialized medicine," and as many liberals stand by the misguided belief that only a single-payer system can work, the rest of us can breath a sigh of relief: the Senate appears to be crafting a sensible, bipartisan approach to health care reform. The final health care bill is most likely going to be a compromise between bills produced in the Senate Labor Committee and the Finance Committee. But ever since Presi- dent Clinton opened the health care flood- gates, political factions have been dominant within these committees. Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.), a member of the Finance Commit- tee and centrist Republican, put forth a bill echoing the president's pledge for universal coverage. Yet, he asked that this be achieved not by requiring employers to pay for their employee's health insurance - so-called employer mandates - but by forcing indi- viduals to obtain insurance. Conservative Democrats were also wary of politically un- popular mandates. And on the left, presiden- tial allies held fast to their belief that price controls and employer mandates were the only way to achieve real reform. Last Thursday, political stalemate an slim partisan margins were avoided. Indian Republican Sen. Daniel Coats joined a Labo Committee vote to pass cost-control mea sures that were fullofsubstantialconcessic on both sides. Sen. John Breaux joined wh a small group of conservatives to decide tha employer mandates could be acceptable if it excluded employers of 10 or fewer workers. And in a related move within the Senate Labor Committee, Sen. Edward Kennedy's (D-Mass.) own health care reform legislation gives numerous concessions to small busi- nesses. Ideologically, this page supports a Ca* dian-style system. But the fact is, the most important social innovation in decades can- not be left to the whims of a few vacillating senators. As long as each and every Ameri- can can be assured day in and day out that health care is a right - as congressmen and women can - all should be satisfied. In terms of specific concessions, though, here is something to think about: employer m- dates have been tested before. They wei implemented in Hawaii in 1985. Contrary tc direpredictions, thishasnothurt the economy in any significant way, and it has resulted in near universal coverage for all.