100%

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

Share

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 19, 1995 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily Summer Weekly, 1995-07-19

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

4 -The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, July 19, 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 4
the Daily's editorial hoard. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not
necessarily reflect the opinion of the Daily's editorial board.

Proposed tuition increases for in-state stu-
dents are the lowest in 10 years - and
still rather steep at 4.9 percent for the fresh-
man/sophomore level, 5.8 percent for the jun-
ior/senior level and 6.8 percent for out-of-
state students.
The University feels that it has to raise
tuition at least to the rate of inflation. Accord-
ing to the Consumer Price Index this year's
rate of inflation is 3.9 percent, pushing the
lowest University proposed increase over CPI
by 1 percent and the highest to almost 3
percent. It is contended that universities expe-
rience a different inflation - it is a more
expensive environment than the family that
CPI is based on.
However, if tuition continues to increase
above the rate of inflation, higher education
will be completely unreachable. It is barely
attainable now for the portion that make it.
Students are taking out heavy loans, scram-
bling for grants and spending quality studying
time on'the job instead. College will go from
the American dream to the American myth.
On the state level, few are receptive to
University pleas for funding, which fell on
deaf ears in the Legislature. After struggling
to get a mere 3 percent increase in appropria-
tions, almost 1 percent lower than CPI, the

Like the dinosaurs
Higher ed. made endangered species by the
increasing cost - college soon to be extinct

University may still have to rough it. Its status
as a prestigious-yet-public university does
not seem to get results in the Legislature.
Rather, much of the state views the University
as a college full of snobs, an image that does
nothing for winning friends and influences.
The only bright spot was the lifting of the 70/30
enrollment ratio requirement.
Nationally, the environment is no less
hostile. Republicans are on the budgetary
warpath, targeting grants and subsidized loans
and adhering to the ideology that students
must work for it. But students on financial aid
are working for every minute of their educa-
tions - and they will spend years afterward
paying for it as well.
As the University scrambles to compensate
for these realized and potential losses, in-state

appropriations and financial aid, it must keep in
mind the reason for playing the game: the stu-
dents.
At June's Board of Regents meeting, Re-
gent Shirley McFee (R-Battle Creek) made a
case for the opposition, tearing into families
who do not plan ahead. However, McFee's
mistake was equating middle class America
with her own family. Not everyone has the
resources to save for college, but those people
should not be denied an education.
McFee criticized those on financial aid,
speaking about a "buy-now, pay-later syn-
drome." She views the problem narrowly, say-
ing, "What started out as a means of assistance
has now become a way of life."
Regent Nellie Varner (D-Detroit) re-
sponded as the voice of reason, pointing out

that those who cannot afford it "should not
sacrificed to put (the system) back in order ...
poor kids really suffer by the cuts."
In line with this is that much of the recom-
mended tuition increasewoul go for financial
aid, an area badly in need of support --one th
directly and dranatically benefits students.
Tuition increases are not, by any means
preferable, but at least it would not be put
toward new and extravagant projects.
Realistically, there will be financial prob-
lems in the next several years. The question is:
How shouldthe University dealwiththe crunch?
Raising tuition is not a favorable answer.
Provost Gilbert R. Whitaker Jr. asserted
that had the University received a higher
appropriations increase fromthe state, it wou
have been able to remain under the CPI infla-
tion rate.
Hopefully next year the University will
know better, arriving at the Legislature with
truckloads of alumni, lobbyists and influen-
tial supporters. Perhaps it could be demon-
strated to the state that the University is not a
frivolous playground, but a valuable resource
to the state.
Regents will probably pass the propose
tuition increase - but they must search for t
better solution.

Equal protection
Discrimination laws must include sexual orientation

o words. In order for gay men, lesbians
and bisexuals to be accorded equal rights
against discrimination in the workplace, hous-
ing and public accommodations that apply to
heterosexuals in Michigan, the words "sexual
orientation" need to be added to existing laws
against discrimination.
Michigan'scivilrightslaw,knownasElliot-
Larson, is one of the most progressive laws in
the country. It prohibits discrimination on the
basis of race, gender, creed, age, disability,
physical characteristics (including height and
weight) and religion. Although the idea that
homosexuality is abnormal or a preference has
long since been scientifically dismissed, resis-
tance toward ensuring human rights for gays,
lesbians and bisexuals is actually increasing as
the Legislature becomes more conservative.
Although some cities across the state such as
Ann Arbor have enacted patchwork laws en-
suring civil rights for gay men, lesbians and
bisexuals, at a local level, it clearly needs to be
done at a statewide level.
An amendment to Elliot-Larson would in
no way provide special rights to gays, lesbians
and bisexuals as many opponents claim. Rather,
it would ensure that neither heterosexuals nor
homosexuals would have the freedom to deny
housing or discriminate based on a person's
sexual orientation. Ironically, the most vapid
crusaders against gay men, lesbians and bi-
sexuals are those who profit most from another
protected right: freedom of religion.
Rep. David Jaye (R-Shelby Township)
claims that a bill protecting homosexuals from
violence and discrimination wouldleadto"child
molestation and sodomy," and spews hate to-

ward gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Religious
right-wingers like Jaye forget that all humans
have a sexual orientation, and that, unlike reli-
gion, it would be inclusive of all citizens, not
just gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
The argument thatgays, lesbians and bisexuals
choosetheirsexuality,andthusarenotdeservingof
specialrights isoutdated.Firstofall,choosingalife
where society forces one into a closet or a world
of discrimination would be nothing if not mas-
ochistic. Furthermore, choice is not even a valid
argument. People can convert religions without
fear. Why not sexuality? Not every human is
religious. Every human being has a sexuality.
Thereligiousrighthasthe righttotheirbeliefs.
Unfortunately, many are exploiting this right to
oppress others. Including sexual orientation in
anti-discriminationlaws would not make people
have to accept homosexuality. But whether or not
someoneagreeswithbeinggay,lesbianorbisexual
does not give them the right to deny them public
accommodationsorhumanrights.Everyoneshould
be accorded the necessary rights that enable them
to be upstanding members of society.
The desire for a safe and meaningful life,
one that includes the right to raise and provide
for a family in a positive environment, is the
most basic of human rights. That lawmakers
lack the courage to bring a bill inclusive of
sexual orientation to the floor is a backhanded
approval of prohibiting gays, lesbians and bi-
sexuals from acquiring equalrights as members
of society.
Including sexualorientationin anti-discrimi-
nation laws at a state level does not equate
special rights for a small group. It will ensure
civil rights for all.

Double standards
U.S. needs to persuade France to stop nuclear testing
O n July 9, nearly 10 years to the day after has refused to detonate any on their own soil.
French divers blew up the Greenpeace Although the French government claims th
ship Rainbow Warrior and killed a photogra- testing poses no health problems, the 180,
pher, French commandos boarded, tear gassed inhabitants in the fallout area around the explo-
and seized journalists and the crew aboard the sions suffer frommarked increases in leukemia,
ship Rainbow Warrior II as it sailed toward the thyroid disease, unarable land and unpotable
Mururoa Atoll to protest the resumption of water consistent with similar testing areas in
nuclear testing. The moratorium on nuclear Nevada and Kazakhstan. AssignedFrench doc-
testing established by former French President tors, in a published 1990 document that was
Mitterrand has been lifted by the newly elected supposed to concern the negative effects of
Chirac. Ignoring the 40 percent unemployment, radiation fallout, became far more interested in
class warfare and sickness, the French military addressing the economic benefits of a French
has already brought to the 180,000 inhabitants military support center in Tahiti.
of the South Pacific islands affected by French The French people do not want to re-estab-
nuclear testing. Chirac has planned eight lish nuclear testing. Seventy percent of the
nuclear tests in the atoll starting in September. voters disagree with Chriac. No wonder, since
France's renewal of nuclear testing is indica- testing in French Polynesia costs the country $1
tive of the superpowers' arrogant attitude con- billion a year. A cost-benefit analysis of nuclear
cerning the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, testing clearly demonstrates that the United
approved by 174 nations. The treaty seeks to States and other testing countries have wasted,
limit the spread of nuclear weapons, but essen- and will continue to waste, far too much money
tially allows the above countries to maintain on establishing the reliability of warheads de-
their arsenals while expecting countries with signed to generate greater explosive yield -.
nuclear technology such as India not to develop missiles that will supposedly be dismantled.
weapons. Although President Clinton has called The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and
for an end to nuclear testing, and adopted a the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty were ma-
statement for a complete test ban accord, the jor steps on the road to nuclear disarmament.
U.S. State Department has done nothing to Yet, it is not hard to understand why some
suggest that NATO countries cease testing. countries want no part of the treaty. If the United
Promises from Britain, France, Russia and the States fails to stand up to France, it will have no
United States tocease testingby 1996 are empty right to criticize China or North Korea. The
if current moratoriums on testing are ignored. trend that France's resumption of testing sets is
Chirac's decision to resume testing brings to one that would allow nuclear powers to follos
light many arguments in favor of bringing an suit by modernizing their weapons and embao
end to nuclear testing. Since 1966, France has on a full nuclear program.
detonated 187 nuclear weapons on the Mururoa It is impossible to put nuclear weapons to
and Fangataufa atolls. At the same time, France rest before an end to nuclear testing is achieved.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan