4- The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, July 26, 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 I necessarily reflect the opinion of the Daily's editorial board. With a 14-10 vote, the California Board of Regents shocked college campuses across the country. The regents, mostly ap- pointed by California Gov. and GOP presi- dential candidate Pete Wilson, have suc- cumbed to the fervor of his No. 1 theme for his presidential bid: ending affirmative action. The vote orders the dismantling of affirmative action programs in hiring and admissions in the University of California system. That Wilson has the gall to use a university systemwith 162,00 students as a battleground for his politics is an abhorrent abuse of power. That the regents passed an issue that failed to garner support from any of California's college presidents is equally reprehensible. Wilson has given fodder for affirmative ac- tion opponents' cannons by setting an example forother conservative boards to follow.With the politicalclimate of Michigan becoming increas- ingly conservative, it is imperative that the Uni- versity of Michigan not only uphold its commit- ment to diversity but also strengthen the positive trends begun by the Michigan Mandate and the Michigan Agenda for Women. The Board of Regents have publicly issued support for diver- sity in the University, mindful of the fact that as minority enrollment andretentionrates increase - enrollment of people of color currently Cynicism as policy Affirmative action maligned by Calif. regents stands at an all-time high of 24.2 percent - so does the quality of life at the University. California schools are continuing to pledge support for minority recruitment, even after the ruling. The University must follow this lead, focusing now on minority retention.Everything from financial aid to fostering dialogue that goes beyond the surface rhetoric will improve the position of minorities beyond enrollment. Opponents of affirmative action call for a "color-blind society, an end to racial and gen- der preference." In reality, issues surrounding diversity are far more complex. California Regent Ward Connelly said, "From now on, you will know when you see a black or a brown face, they got there because they deserve it, not because of some racial preference." His igno- rance of the real problem typifies the short- sighted response many have to affirmative action in college hiring and admissions. First, the assumption among many is that only whites are naturally competent, whereas minorities have to be expected to raise to their level and prove their worth. If this were notthe case, why would anyone expect to look at a Black student and think "not qualified?"Wilson has taken this cynical view and used it against a program trying to erase this image. It is not the fault of diverse colleges that he andhis conservative ilk, both Black and white, are largely ignorant. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evi- dence to support the assertion that hordes of minorities are robbing whites of their jobs and admissions. A mere 1.3 percent of senior man- agers in American companies are African Americans, Latinos or Asian Americans. Women fare barely better, occupying a 3 to 5 percent of senior positions. Minority college graduates earn little more than the white high school graduate. Taking into consideration loan statistics, pay scales and educational opportunity, it becomes clear that the major- ity is not getting the shaft at the expense of expanding minority opportunity. Currently, California admissions stan- dards require 40-60 percent admissions on straight academic standards. The move wJ4 require 50-75 percent. Of course, race is only one consideration. Sports, extracurricular activ- ity, children of alumni and donors, quality of education in a given area and geographical origin willcontinue to play arole in admissions. Race alone has never been a single deciding factor: the most important consideration, after all, is whether a student has what it takes to succeed at the University. If white students are reliant on well-roundedness to get into college it should not be assumed that minority sti dents are only there for the color of their skin. The burden of desegregation should not rest on minority shoulders. It is not an issue of less-than-qualified applicants entering solely on the color of their skin, something that can just as easily happen with whites, but an issue of opening doors to productive levels of society. By no accident the University of Michigan, one of the premier public universities in the world is also one of the most diverse - and it mu4 work to retain and strengthen that diversity. Waiting for results Keep the code work group on its toes Disguised assault Cost-benefit analysis not applicable to clean water e group has grown, from four to three to six," said code work-group member Jack Bernard. With only three months at most to complete its task of gathering student input and submitting a policy to the Board of Re- gents, the members of the group have their work cut out for them. But in the rush to meet the regents' slightly unreasonable deadline, the group must not lose sight of its primary goal: student input into the new conduct code. From the original four members, it dropped to three when Student Rights Commission Chair Anne Marie Ellison left the group, ap- parently because she did not approve of the way the process was being run. Before leav- ing, Ellisonhad vowednot to participate in any type of closed meeting the group conducted. She also complained of the overall tone of the proceedings - that it was pro-code, anti- student. At the public comments of the July re- gents meeting, Ellison proposed her solution to this problem. She suggested off-campus mediation as a means of hashing out the particulars of the new code. A company that would have a vested interest in neither the students, nor the University administration. For obvious reasons, a mediator without a stake in the outcome could be helpful - or detrimental. In any case, the University is not likely to agree to mediation and lose its upper hand. When asked, Judicial Advisor Mary Lou Antieau said, "I don't understand why the process would have to be mediated." Bernard was equally unclear. He said, "I don't even know how that would be done. I don't know if it would be a good idea or a bad idea." So the group will probably continue on without Ellison, but with three newcomers, some experienced, some merely interested. Bernard will be leaving the group early in August, as previously arranged, because of. other commitments. He said, "I came into the process with opinions ... the idea, though, is to try to be as open as possible." Makeup aside, the group may experience a time crunch. Summer leaves group mem- bers with a lot of time --and few students from whom to gather input. While they appear to be making serious efforts, it is uncertain whether they can do the best job possible by October. Bernard said, "As a committee, we have yet to discuss any substantive issues." He did say that the group has asked the input of underrepresented minorities on cam- pus - people who are often affected, but not asked to contribute information. This is a very positive step in the code-writing pro- cess. However, the controversial issues that have surfaced in the past three years - open hear- ings, representation, the 30-mile radius, etc. - must be addressed in student forums. The success of the group will not be proven until results are delivered. "I don't believe there's a code that can make everyone happy." No, but it must be acceptable to the majority of students on this campus. To give input to the code work-group contact them at workgroup@umich.edu hile Congress is embroiledin Whitewater hearings, the Republican assault on the environmentmarchesonquietly. Sen. BobDole (R-Kansas)hasintroducedaproposalthatwould significantly alter the regulatory capabilities of the Clean Air and Water acts by holding them accountable to vague "cost-benefit analysis." Dole'sproposalwouldhave allfederal regu- lationsrewrittentoinclude cost-benefitanalysis of each standard. Naturally, the idea of cost- benefit analysis is positive. If a federal regula- tion costs an exorbitant amount without conclu- sively proving to be beneficial, then it should not be on the books. There have been cases where a frightened public has resulted in wasteful regulatory ac- tion. Laws against benzene in gasoline, for instance, were written before a conclusive link between the exposure from gasoline andcancer were established. However, for each benzene example, there is an equal and more egregious example of the cigarette industry lobbyists un- doing all regulations and inquiries into the to- bacco industry during the past four years. If Dole's proposal is enacted, necessary legisla- tion protecting the environment and people may be stricken from the books. Although conservatives generally try to dis- mantle every existing environmental statute, many moderates, most notably Senator John Chaffee (R-Rhode Island), are pushing Dole to modify his current proposal. As the current chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a major proponent of the Clean Air Act of 1990, Chaffee has been a voice of sanity in the oversimplified "cost vs. benefit" debate. On the other side of the aisle, Sen Pat Moynihan (D-West Virginia) has introduced a similar bill that would include but not limit environmental impact studies to cost-beneq analysis. What Congress must realize is that as useful as a program of cost-benefit analysis might be, it is incapable of addressing all health and environmental regulations alone. The benefits oftheClean AirandCleanWaterActscannotbe counted in terms of dollars. A clean environ- ment is often taken for granted. People should be able to expect clean water flowing through their taps without political wrangling. How can Dole put a dollar sign on the improvementintheGreatLakesoverthepast24 years? Not too long ago, Lake Erie was near extinction. Are pollution standards enacted to save it issued on a "dollar per hour" basis? Perhaps to fully understand the significance of environmentalandfoodsafetyregulations,Dole should visit other nations in which the air is polluted and the water must be boiled before it is safe to drink. It is impossible to put a mon- etary value on a sense of security. The Clean Air and Water acts preserve America's national forests, wetlands and public lands. By banning some substances and indus- trial practices, nature is preserved for future generations. If Dole rams his proposal through Congress, he had better be prepared to offer a dollar value on the bald eagle and pacific salmon. The damage to the environmentcausedby some legislators and their friends in big business, in both ecological and economic terms, will be fS greater than Bob Dole could ever imagine. He and his followers should consider if that cost is worth the benefit of short-term political gain.