4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, June 28, 1995
420 Maynard
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
RONNIE GLASSBERG
Editor in Chief
ADRIENNE JANNEY
JOEL F. KNUTSON
Editorial Page Editors
Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of a majority of
the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not
.... ..vnecessarily reflect the opinion of the Daily's editorial board.
J ake Baker is a free man. Much to the
chagrinoftheFBIU. S.DistrictCourtJudge
AvernCohnruledthatthe charges against Baker
wereunsubstantiated, dismissing the case.How-
ever, the public may not be pleased with this
ruling - the reaction to Baker's graphic rape
fantasy makes it difficult to sort out the en-
trenched legal issues. Still, when the case is
analyzed carefully and objectively, it is clear
that Cohn's decision was in the spirit of the First
Amendment.
U. S. Attorney Saul Green based his case on
anerroneous interpretation of the word "threat."
Private messages to an alias "Arthur Gonda"
that allegedly constituted a threat did not in-
clude a specific time, date, place or an intended
victim's name. The fantasy, including the name
of a University student, was posted as a fictional
fantasy in the directory alt.sex.stories. But
Baker's messages to Gonda did not contain
evidence implying that he may not have made
concrete plans. All that Baker's messages indi-
cate is a sick obsession with a perverted fantasy.
"True threat" is the phrase used to limit the
First Amendment. It was impossible to ascer-
tain if Baker was a true threat. Cohn wrote in his
decision, "The confusion results from far too
loose a use of the phrase 'true threat."'
To cast further doubt on Baker's alleged
Once upon a time.
Baker's dismissal sets good precedent
plan, his psychologicalreport states that he was
stable. Those who evaluated him do not believe
he is capable of carrying out the actions illus-
trated in the messages or the story.
Moreover, the interference of the FBI into
private communication between two individu-
als is perhaps the most valid reason for the
dismissal. Except for a direct threat to a person,
his messages should have remained exempt
from prosecution under the First Amendment.
Without precedent,e-mailmust be treated as the
same type of communication as U.S. mail until
new laws governing the Internet are formed.
The only other standard to compare e-mail to
besides written communication is oral commu-
nication - leaving a less strict standard, be-
cause it is difficult to substantiate, and often not
taken as seriously.
As e-mail is relatively uncharted territory,
the case raises many unique questions. Baker
waived his Miranda rights to show the FBI his
e-mail account -but did he realize that he had
the option not to do so? Furthermore, the e-mail
messages were obtained en route to gathering
evidence for some initial charge pertaining to
the story. Itdidnothold,butthe furtherevidence
seemed incriminating enough to for an indict-
ment on a different charge: transmitting ob-
scenities across state lines. From the method
used it appears that the FBI was looking for a
way to incarcerateBaker becausehe was seen as
a potential threat. But, however much potential
there is, he has to begin to act on it for it to
become criminal.
The decision should in no way be taken as
condoning violence against women-menshould
not have to becensoredto protect women's bodies.
Another approach should be taken.
In suspending Baker the University acted
protectivelyandinthe bestinterestofthewoman
named - his story violated the woman's rig
to a free and safe academic environment wh
it mentioned her name.
However, if the woman felt that her rig
were violated, she could have pressed char
and still could. Sufficient grounds exist f
civil suit, possibly harassment, and she may
able to obtain a restraining order.
If Baker ever returns to the University s
may choose to do so for her own protection.
course, bringing charges against Baker wou
put her name in the papers and end any anony
ity she may still retain.
Baker faces a hearing under Regents' Byla
2.01 ifhechoosestoreturntothe University.
long as he is admitted through the proper e
nels, the University should lift his suspens
Official charges have been dropped. He h
every right to continue his education here.
Whatever happens to Baker, the groundwoi
has been laid for future Internetstandards.
convicting Baker, the justice system would has
embarked on a slippery slope of censorship.
With new technologies at hand, governmet
tal manipulation becomes more of a possibilit
Any legislation concerning the Internet must
on the side of protecting privacy and free sp
- or else the Internet will no longer be
gateway, but a locked door.
The numbers game
Legislature wisely remioves 70/30 request
eMichigan Legislature took the right port.Tomaintainacademicquality, theUniversity
step by removing its request that non-resi- needed to admit more non-residents during this
dentenrollment at the state's public universities period of low high school enrollment.
remain below 30 percent and providing the ItisimportantfortheUniversitytobeshielded
University withmore flexibility and autonomy. from state lawmakers, whose concerns for the
Under the Michigan constitution, the Legisla- state universities come with political aims. A
tion cannot enforcesuch arequest, but it contin- state legislator who attacks the University for
ued to include the clause in its appropriations to the number of non-residents may appeal to a
the state universities. In this year's funding voter whose son, daughter or neighbor was
battle, Rep. Morris Hood(D-Detroit) proposed rejectedfrom the University. Instead of turning
putting the University's increased funds into to Lansing politicians to serve their interests,
escrow after he discovered its non-resident Michiganvotersshouldinsteadturntotheeight-
enrollment had risen above the artificial guide- member Board of Regents that they elect. The
line to 33.4 percent. board is elected to oversee the University for the
While the House included the Hood amend- people of Michigan. Unlike a state legislator,
ment, the Senate did not. In conference, the the regents' constituents include the entire state
request itself was removed from the final legis- and not just an individual district. The regents
lation. The appropriation now asks that can make the decisions on whether trickling
Michigan's public universities serve its resi- down below 70 percent would improve the
dents first - a request that makes sense for a University for the state.
state-fundedinstitution. The administrationaid The removal of the 70/30 guideline will help
Board of Regents also continue to support the further protect the University from the politi-
principleofserving Michiganresidents. Before cians in Lansing. The Hood amendment would
the passage of the final bill, the University have unfairly penalized students - who cer-
admitted 333 in-state residents from its wait tainly could not have been held accountable for
list, showing its commitment to serving Michi- the change in demographics. The difference
gan residents. would surely have come out of the pocket of
The number of in-state students decreased these innocent students in the form of increased
below 70 percent in the past years because of a tuition and fees. Moreover, the University did
declining enrollmentin the state's high schools. not violate a mandate when it allowed more
By keeping in-state enrollment at the same non-residents this year - it only ignored a
level during these years, the University would suggested guideline that was not enforceable.
have taken students from other state universities, Finally, out-of-state students at the Univer-
which cannot attract out-of-state students. The sity come from across both the nation and the
University, however, can attract non-residents, globe to add diversity to the campus. It is they
who add to the University's diversity, and with who carry theUniversity's reputation across the
higher tuition dollars, provide morefnancialsup- world.
Pass the mic
Student rep. should be student regent
After a three-year fight, the students have
ome in tied with the University. At the
June Board of Regents meeting a resolution was
passedforinstatea"studentrepresentative."Itisnot
quite the non-voting student regent that students
wanted,butitiscertainly astepintheright direction.
However, the students again have to settle for what
they can get, not what they choose.
The student representative willnot be able to
sitatthetable-asifitisbeyondtheUniversity's
resources to purchase a new chair and pull it up to
the table. Halfof theregents willhavetheir backs
to the representative, who will have a designated
seat to differentiate from mere observers.
Of course, the representative willhave space
in the regents' packet, two presentations a year
and permission to speak before spoken to-that
is, the representative may participate in the
discussion without first being asked.
Itis writtenintotheresolution that the Michi-
gan Student Assembly President, currently Flint
Wainess, or an appointed delegate will be the
representative. Wainess proposed the student
representative to the regents, and was chastised
by Regent Rebecca McGowan (D-Ann Arbor)
for a statement that was quoted in the Daily:
"This is a trial run. Let's take the step and see if
it works, andifit doesn't,then we cangobacktothe
drawing board." McGowan supported the pro-
posal fully, stating that this was to be a permanent
situation, not an trial run or a foot in the door.
Having a student representative is a wonder-
ful opportunity to further student/administra-
tion communication. Students will be poten-
tially empowered by this measure, with a voice
in the regents room. Still, the fact remains that
students are treated as second class -even the
press have better seats at regents meeti
Because of the imbalance, students must
tinue to push for more in the years ahead.
The position ofstudentrepresentative need
to be expanded to student regent. Former MS
President Julie Neenan stressed the importance
aseat at the table, and she was correct. The student
cannot sacrifice powerinmaking concessions-
compromise should not go so far as to diminis
effectiveness.WhileWainessandtheregentsaret
becommendedintheireffortsatmakingthestud
representativeareality,Wainesshasto ensure
the strength of the position is not lessenedby th
legacy he will leave.
As an elected official, the MSA president i.
the most appropriate individual for the job. N
other student on campus can claim the suppo
of the student body such as the MSA president
Furthermore, as the recent record turnout for MS
elections indicates, students are increasing thei
involvementin University affairs.Linking the heac
ofMSAwiththeBoardofRegentswouldundot
edly establish a better working relationship .
tween the regents and student government.
At the same time, future considerations
should include the possibility of creating a sepa-
rate office for a student representative. Having
a position at regents meetings radically changes
the position and duties of MSA president. In the
future, the option of expanding the position of
student representative so that it is a separate
office must be considered, to ensure that MU
continues to be a more effective student gov-
ment. Conflicts of interest could be all toe
common if candidates became more concerned
withserving onthe boardofregents than serving
as president of MSA.