4 -The Michigan Daily -Wednesday, July 12, 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 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 necessarily reflect the opinion of the Daily's editorial board. 4 eMichigan footballteam's defenseneeds serious help, and that does not mean the linebackers and cornerbacks. The issue now resides high into the offices of Weidenbach Hall, into the secret realm of the leaders of the University's athletic department. In the wake of former Michigan football coach Gary Moeller's resignation, there has been much talk of integrity, leadership and responsibility. Many asked how a man who drank excessively in public could tell his players not to indulge in alcohol. Many won- dered how a man who embarrassed himself and his school could demand discipline from his troops. However, no one asked how an athletic department could run a University program without telling the student body and the public the whole truth about its operation. In May, Sports Illustrated ran Moeller's picture on its cover as part of a story about delinquent coaches. The headline read, "Lead- ers of Men?" He seemingly answered that ques- tion when he stepped down as head football coach, saying nothing and accepting his fate. How could he lead his team after what he had done?LloydCarrtookoverbutdidn'tmove into the head coach's office right away. Perhaps he knew what he would be getting into. The Wolverines' head coach must face Secrets and shame Athletic Department hurts its reputation an athletic administration that feeds off of its own image. Coaches are expected to bleed maize and blue, but such loyalty is not re- turned in the face of controversy - when Michigan's proud image is threatened. Moeller made a mistake and essentially had little choice but to leave the Athletic Depart- ment. The problem does not lie in his leave, but in the way it was handled. If Athletic Director Joe Roberson felt that Moeller's drunken inci- dent at a Southfield restaurant warranted his release, he should have said so. Instead, he fed the public words of support for Moeller. "Gary will always be a part of the Michigan family," hesaid. But, quietly-alone athiscourthearing - Moeller faded into Michigan history. However, behind the scenes, there was a disorganized, turbulent effort to make the situation go away. Roberson granted Moeller aterminationsettlement-eventhoughMoeller resigned-worth nearly $400,000. The regents were not consulted, nor was the Board in Con- trol of Intercollegiate Athletics. Roberson, with University attorneys, acted alone and then said that such a resolution was common. A buyout is common for a person who was fired. According to documents faxed to the University by Moeller's attorney, he fit into this category. The letter stated that Moeller did resign, but that it did not change his legal position that it "was not voluntary." In other words, the letter holds that Moeller was forced to resign. Does that indicate integrity? Lead- ership? Responsibility? Unfortunately, for Michigan, absolutely not - because it hid behind vague comments and denials, rather than straightening out the truth. However, Moeller's attorney Deborah Gorden stated in response to the publicized letter that Moeller did resign. As tough as it may be to swallow, the facts still point to voluntary resignation - until Moeller him- self says differently. Having integrity does not refer to those free of mistakes; it refers to those who react to them in a positive way. The department did not ac with integrity when they handled Moeller's problems. Instead, they hid behind a maize and blue facade and pretended to make a smooth transition by naming Lloyd Carr head coach. By not releasing the letter -it didnot tell thewhole truth to the students and the public, and for that the department should be chastised. Integrity would have been admitting that Moeller would have to pay dearly for his mistake. It could have meant firing him- then making him an example of how not to act, whit praising him for his years of service. Leadership would have been naming Carr headcoachimmediately andannouncing thathe would have the job throughout the 1995 season. It would have meant showing confidence in a coach later tagged as a "Michigan man." Responsibility wouldhave beendealing with matters directly, immediately and up front. However, the University did not act with these values in mind. It remained secretive i4 the interests of damage control, and tarnished the Wolverines' reputation in the process. The right to dissent Efforts to outlaw flag burning a disgrace Healing bitter wounds Clinton re-establishes relations with Vietnam T he heated issue of flag burning is slipping through a Republican-controlled Congress, and may quietly become the first modificationto the First Amendment in its 200- year history. Sadly, the movement to ban flag burning is nothing but a colossal waste of time, especially when pressure to balance the budget is at a feverish pitch. The U.S. House of Representatives ap- proved a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress and the states to outlaw the desecration of the flag. The amendment is, at best, a feel-good measure that does nothing to improve themoralfabric ofthe nation. It willset a terrifying precedent of using the Constitution to silence critics. If the Senate fails to step up and kill the amendment, it will be sent to the states, requiring the approval of 38 state legis- latures for ratification. This amendment will be a test oflegislators' courage to stand up to useless politicking. For lack of substance, rival candidates may use a vote against the amendment as fodder for cam- paign dreck. Given voter preference for style over substance, it may be easy for candidates to paint a legislator as "unpatriotic" rather than a defender of free speech. Predictably, the Republican-dominated House's only agenda is to pass every single piece of legislature they were unable to force through in previous years. There were only three such reported flag burning incidents dur- ing allof 1993-thatis ample proof that itisnot necessary to legislate devotion to the flag. Fur- thermore, the attempt to do so is not only ludicrous, but also will create the same effect censorship always has: Everyone will want to go out and burn a flag. This issue is so shallow and so worthless that not even the "Contract with America" dealt with flag burning, as it has nothing to do with economics or the social fabric of the country. Ironically, many of the amendment's sup- porters are those who were the quickest to defend militias and right-wingers who espouse hate and violence on the radio after Oklahoma City. To them, advocating violence against the institution they seek to protect is OK, but those few who would burn a flag rather than shoot a federal agent should be outlawed. Passing an amendment against flag-burning is no more acceptable than passing an amendment prohib- iting the airing of fadio host James "Bo" Gritz. This amendment is a black-and-white issue: free speech. It has nothing to do with desecra- tion. Regardless of how abhorrent the idea of flag burning may be to some, the right to do so is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. Inherent in the proposed amend- ment is the idea that burning flag is so great an insult to the nation that prohibiting the act is worthwhile, even to the point of repressing our rights to free speech. The amendment contra- dicts itself by nature, destroying everything this country standsforbyprotecting apiece ofcloth. The government cannot prohibit an idea from being expressed just because it is unac- ceptable to society. To silence some of these voices under the guise of protecting the flag is a cowardly maneuver. America's flag is a symbol of liberty and freedom. To restrict the right of dissent is a far more disrespectful act than the act of flag desecration itself. It has been over 22 bitter years since the last American troops left Saigon. The Viet- nam War has been a scar on the psyche of the American public and military ever since. The 50,000 American lives lost in the battles in Southeast Asia will never be replaced. Yet, the past five years has produced great progress between the United States and Viet- namin establishing diplomatic relations aimed at easing the pains the war left on both coun- tries. As the Vietnamese government has co- operated in the location and returning of U.S. MIA/POW remains, the economic embar- goes on Vietnam have been lifted and a huge new market is emerging for American busi- ness. Clinton's decision to normalize rela- tions marks the beginning of a new era. Establishing full diplomatic ties with Viet- nam is a move that has broad-based support in Congress and American businesses. This sup- port ensures that the long festering wounds between the United States and Vietnam can begin to heal. Although many veterans are understandably disturbed by the recent deci- sion, the move by Clinton is in the best inter- est of both the U.S. and all of Southeast Asia. Vietnam represents a colossal opportunity for American business. Construction firms can begin to build highways, ports and air- ports for a country with no current infrastruc- ture. Telecommunications systems will have a new market with more than 20 million people as potential buyers. Ailing companies like Boeing and General Electric may be able to save jobs at home by producing airplanes and hydroelectric plants for use throughout southeast Asia - a move that will offset some of the losses from defense plant cuts. Beyond economic benefits, opening u4s trade with Vietnam will put an end to the bitter destruction of the country that the United States devastated for over 10 years. Unlike Germany and Japan, the U.S. Government had made it difficult, if not impossible, for Vietnam to develop itself and prosper after the war with embargoes and hostile relations. As America moves closer to the 21st century, those responsible for the war itself such as former Secretary of Defense Robe S. McNamara are owning up to its crimes. The United States got involved in a war it had no business being in, and too many sons of poorer and middle class Americans were sent to die for a cause that stood for nothing but the willful destruction and annihilation of North Vietnam. That over 1 million Vietnamese were killed in the war during bombing raids and warfare should serve as testimony to the moral obligation that the U.S. provide a chance for the country to improve itself through tradci TheusualdeconstructivepoliticianslikeRep. Bob Dornan (R-Calif.) criticize the naturaliza- tion ofrelationsunder the "Enemy"rationaliza- tion. They are hiding behind the MIA/POW flag, notrealizingtheprospectofreturningmore bodies, if in fact there are any left to be found, will only increase with full diplomatic ties. Clinton's decision may serve to create in one swift move what two decades of warfare failed to do: establish a freer Vietnam. AS trade increases, the Vietnamese people will begin to see the benefits of a free economic system and a free society. Dollars will work to this end far better than bullets ever did.