4 - The Michigan Daily -- Wednesday, July 5, 1995
420 Maynard
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
RONNIE GLASSBERG ADRIENNE JANNEY
Editor in Chief JOEL F. KNUTSON
Editorial Page Editors
Unlessotherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflectthe opinion of a majorityof
the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not
necessarily reflect the opinion oftheDaily'seditorial board.
4
sthe BoardofRegentsreviewedtheMichi-
an Student Assembly audit at its June
meeting, the fate of Student Legal Services was
couched within the process. By voting to hold
the 23-cent proposed increase in escrow until
November, SLS may have been saved from
collapse. At that time the money willbe distrib-
uted"ifandonly ifastudentreferendumpasses
to allow for a $ 0.23 increase in the MSA fee
cap." The idea was formed in a collective
proposal drafted by MSA President Flint
Wainess, MSA Vice President SamGoodstein
and Vice President forStudentAffairs Maureen
A. Hartford - a collaborative effort by MSA
and Student Affairs, showing the mutual desire
to help SLS.
The measure taken is important to SLS
because it would help to prevent any further
downward slide. SLS is already facing lay-
offs and cutbacks, but with the escrow ac-
count, funds will be available for SLS use
immediately, rather than in the next round of
the game -preventing further decline of the
organization brought on by simply waiting
Responsible employers
SLS cannot continue with half-hearted support
for funds. However, it preserves the integrity
of MSA's fee cap by allowing for an equally
immediate return of the funds if the referen-
dum fails.
MSA, through SLS, employs a full-time
staff--and therefore must be equipped to be a
responsible employer. Regent Philip Power
(D-AnnArbor) assertedthat "MSA's money is
MSA's business," and that the regents should
"notbesuckedintodiscussing MSA's money."
Moreover, he explained that "MSA has the
obligation to act like a permanent employee,"
and that it was taking the steps to do this
properly.
If the referendum fails, drastic steps must
be taken to keep SLS. It provides a vital
service to the University community: legal
counsel and representation for free, provided
that it does not involve a conflict of interest,
such as a student to student or student to
University dispute.
The action request stated in bold letters,
"We should stress that this is only a short
term, one-time solution to what is clearly a
long term financial problem."
Some have proposed that SLS be gov-
erned through other parts of the University,
such as the Law School in the form of a law
clinic. There are several problems with this
solution, including the practice limitations
placed on law students.
In any case, SLS needs to retain some
insulation from the University administration
-and the University administration has shown
little desire to take SLS under its wing.
It would be beneficial to all involved t
settle once and for all who is responsible fo
SLS. The lines right now are hazy, which
causes a tendency for inaction.
The actionrequesttentativelyrecommended
that MSA change its constitution to allow for
inflationary increases each year without con-
stantly returning to the ballot for approval. If this
can be worked out it would be a good start.
According to attorney and SLS director
Douglas Lewis in his annual report, "the mo-
rale of the staff is at an all-time low." SL
cannot continue to provide its vital services
with lackadaisical support. The employees
are in limbo from one referendum to the next.
Whatever solution is chosen, it needs to be
long-term and all-encompassing. Two points
are not to be compromised on: SLS must re-
main, and its employees must be treated fairly.
Supreme Court: 2 steps forward, 3 steps back'
Christian journal correctly allowed funding based
on free speech, not separation of church and state
Minority voting blocks will be cut up by reckless
decision to disallow special voting districts
e Supreme Court upheld its commit-
ment to freedom of speech by overturning
a funding policy at the University of Virginia
that discriminated against a magazine because
of its religious content. The paper in question,
"Wide Awake," is a student-run paper that is
overtly Christian as part of its mission. In the
interest of fairness to all student groups, the
court ruled that the public university must un-
derwrite the cost of the magazine the same as it
does for other student publications.
In a prudent attempt to properly avoid any
mixing of church and state as dictated by the
Constitution, the university mistakenly with-
held money from the group's journal. Mean-
while, due to the policy of the school, other
student publications received funds from the
University of Virginia to offset their printing
costs.Hadthegroupbeenanyothernon-religious
organization,the wrongfulsuppressionofspeech
would have been evident. However, the reli-
gious agenda of the club obscured the First
Amendment issue at stake and left the case
tangled up in the judicial system. Supreme
Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described
the case as "the intersection of the principle of
government neutrality and the prohibition on
state funding of religious activities."
In fact, the circumstances of this case clearly
extract the matter from the realm of the separa-
tion of church and state. The University of
Virginia, as a publicly funded state school, is not
endorsing the Christian viewpoint - nor is it
giving the group any specialrights or privileges.
It is restoring the rights that the publication was
unfairly denied, as the university ignored its
own policy to fund student publications. More-
over, the money in question will not circulate
directly from the state to the group. Rather,
student activity fees will generate money which
will be handed to private printers for the cost of
publishing.
The funding process for the journal is actu-
ally similar to this University, where student
religious organizations such as Campus Crusade
for Christ - and eight other religiously affiliated
student organizations -are welcome to apply for
funds the same as any other group fromthe Michi-
gan Student Assembly.CCCmemberTerry Weiss
stated that the goal of the organization is "to make
Jesus Christ known on campus and to draw Chris-
tians into a closer fellowship with Jesus Christ."
Although funding of CCC has not yet been
challenged, its function does not involve freedom
ofspeech.WideAwake,asapublication,createsan
entirely different scenario. Therefore, this particu-
lar case should not be looked upon as something
that will negate or even challenge the separation of
church and state. This is not a precedent-setting
case. Itmerelyreaffirmedandprotectedtheconsti-
tutional right to freedom of expression.
It is reckless to speculate that the case will
curb the rightful boundaries that separate church
and state. In fact, Justice O'Connor, who voted in
favoroftheChristianmagazine,stressedtheunique
circumstances of the case and cautioned against
inferring any new precedents regarding the estab-
lishmentclause-whichprohibitsthe government
from officially promoting religions.
No matter how it is looked at, the ruling
cannot be stretched out enough to give hope to
those who crusade against separating church
and state. The case left firmly intact the division
because it was irrelevant to the case. The viola-
tionof the First Amendment was the real danger
addressed by the Supreme Court.
very year since the civil rights move-
ment, an increasing number of minori-
ties has been elected to Congress to represent
their communities. A ruling by the Supreme
Courtlast week,however,could obliterate the
margin of progress earned over more than 30
years.
In a 5-4 ruling, the court struck down a
Georgia congressional district drawn to ensure
a Black majority. Thoughleaving many ques-
tions unanswered, the decision calls into ques-
tion similar districts across the country, includ-
ing contested districts in Texas andNorthCaro-
lina. Using race as a "predominant factor" in
constructing Congressional districts, the court
declared, is unconstitutional.
Gerrymandering has a long history in the
United States, dating back to the early 1800s
when Gov. Elbridge Gerry drew a district in
Massachusetts which resembled a salamander.
Like most gerrymandered districts, this one
was drawn to linktogethercommunities which
voted for a particular party.
The Supreme Court has not ruled party
politics, regional considerations, or any other
reason for gerrymandering illegal - thus,
racial minorities are the only group whose
interests may not be taken into account when
districts are drawn. And therefore Democrats
and Republicans have the right to draw con-
gressionaldistrictstosuittheirelectoralfancy.
but communities of racial minorities may not
be joinedtogether to elect a Black or Hispanic
to the overwhelmingly white Congress.
As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg points out
in her dissenting opinion, "no constitutional
infirmary has been seen in districting Irish or
Italian voters together ... If Chinese-Americans
and Russian-Americans may seek and secure
group recognition in the delineation of voting
districts, then African-Americans should not b
dissimilarly treated." Thus ethnicity may be
used a "predominant factor" for drawing
districts, but race may not. This is patently
unfair.
In addition, the decision "eviscerates the
Voting Rights Act," as a New York Times
editorial opined Friday. In the Court's major-
ity opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy called
for the political system to "cleanse" itself of
discrimination--then, he claimed, everyong
will have a equal chance of being elected to
office, regardless of race. America is not
cleansed of prejudice as yet, and the purpose
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was to
protect the rights of minorities until that per-
fect state was reached. The court's decision
flies in the face of this historic legislation and
may leave minorities without fair representa-
tion in the U.S. Congress.
The court's decision will also most likely
produce a storm of lawsuits. Any distriae
joining togetherracial minorities may be called
into question, from city council districts to
state legislature districts. "Any white candi-
date who loses in a district that is majority
black has an invitation to try to win in the
courts after losing at the polls," said NAACP
Legal Defense Fund Associate Director
Theodore M. Shaw in The New York Times.
This decision, like many other recent rul-
ings of the court, moves America back into thg
past instead of looking toward the future. If
racial minorities are to continue to be repre-
sented in Congress, other forces must move
now to keep them there.