4 -TheMichigan Daily - Wednesday, May 3, 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
I
Unless otherwvise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of a miiajority
of the Dailyi editorial board. Al oiither articles, letters aid artoos do iot
necessarily reflect the opinnon of the Dour 's editorials board.
.
e University is all too eager to join the
national trend in having a code of non-
academic conduct. Such codes have become
the norm at American universities. The
University's own code, otherwise known as the
Statement of Student Rights and Responsibili-
ties, came up for review, along with several
proposed amendments, at April's Board of
Regents meeting. Although the administra-
tion decided to scrap the interim policy, it
predictably is creating a new and perma-
nent code of academic conduct - against
the urging of several major student organi-
zations.
Regents mostly agreed with the proposal
first set forth by Regent Rebecca McGowan
(D-Ann Arbor). Her main plug dealt with stu-
dent input rather than other issues. She stressed
that students be involved in the drafting of the
new document. Also, Regent Andrea Fischer
Newman (R-Ann Arbor) graciously allowed
Michigan Student Assembly President Flint
Wainess to speak during the code discourse in
the interest of student representation.
While some individual and prominent stu-
dents have been involved, the University show-
cases them as if the student body fully supports
the code. Even students who support some type
of document depart fromthe views of Hartford
Everyone's doing it
Why shouldn't we adopt a conduct code?
and the University. Students are kept mostly on
the outside looking into the process. Bogged
down by apparent incompetence such as the
botched amendment hearings, they remain vir-
tually powerless.
Efforts to keep students at bay are evi-
denced by the regents' cool response to the
student protest at the last regents' meeting.
The demonstration was dealt with in stride,
but ignored as if students they were spoiled
children. This is where the paternalistic atti-
tudes of the regents become apparent. "We
listened hard," said Regent Philip Power (D-
Ann Arbor), referring pointedly to the students
who, according to his standards, behaved civ-
illy by speaking at the limited public com-
ments. But Power also said firmly and finally,
"There will be a code." Like well-intentioned
parents, the University listens for a moment,
but does what it would have done in the first
place. The regents retain a condescending
attitude toward students: They feel that the
code will be a learning experience. Regent
Shirley McFee (R-Battle Creek) said she
believes that serving on a code jury will
give students practice for the real jury in
"adult society."
Regent Deane Baker (R-Ann Arbor), the
only regent who spoke against a code, dam-
aged his credibility. He confused the current
code of non-academic conduct with a speech
code. One valid point could be gleaned from
Baker's fight - a conduct code, improperly
written, has the potential to turn into a speech
code.
However, the code's problems are far
larger. Its language is open to misinterpreta-
tion at every turn. A classic example of this in
the interim code is the modifier "sexual." In
everyday speech the phrase "sexual harass-
ment and assault" reads smoothly - but from
a legalistic viewpoint, meaning changes.
While the regents intend to make the code
less legalistic, they will find it impossible to
write a document of this gravity without cros,
ing into legal territory. They would like s
more simple document and thereby would be
more dangerous. A policy open to endless
interpretation is also open to endless abuse.
There are complaints and problems with
the code, from the incorrect interpretation of
the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act,
to the objectionable in loco parentis doctrine.
Many student and faculty leaders oppose the
code, and it raises many legal questions per-
taining to civil rights. Despite all of this, on4
fact is indisputable: The University is not set up
to handle a policy of this magnitude. It cannot
handle simultaneously being legislaturejudge
and police. Any attempt to do so would be
positively foolish. The University is not
equipped to enforce the code that it intends to
put in place - it will open itself to numerous
kinds of legal vulnerabilities.
No legal basis exists for the University to
follow the trend of developing a code of no1
academic conduct. As an educational institu-
tion, the University cannot afford to keep any
such policy.
Mousetrap
Juvenile offender's rights must be protected
Walking the line
Increased vigilance must accompany civil liberties
Iwo steps forward, three steps back. That
seems to be the rule that applies to Gina
Grant's life. She pulled herself up to the top of.
the heap and was accepted early decision to
Harvard University. Then mysterious news
clippings appeared, indicating that she had
killed her alcoholic abusive mother at 14
years old. Harvard reneged on Grant's admis-
sion, claiming that she had lied on an applica-
tion question and in a student interview.
The grounds on which she was refused are
ludicrous. She committed an offense as a
juvenile and served her time. Juvenile crime
records are sealed once the child reaches
adulthood. Hence, Harvard essentially placed
Grant in a mousetrap: She was not legally
obligated to provide the information that the
question asked - yet she was required to
answer every question - and truthfully.
Grant's situation has set up a paradox of
semantics. Harvard cannot expect her to talk
about a sealed case, then accuse her of lying.
The right to higher education is something
that even women in prison are allowed. Grant
should be allowed the same. This position, of
course, is somewhat compromised by the
rights and liabilities of educational institu-
tions. Naturally Harvard retains the right to
choose its students - it is a private institution
and is not bound to the same laws as, for
example, the federal government. However,
Harvard's Kennedy School of Government
once admitted a high-ranking foreign official
well-known for his involvement covering
genocide and allowed him to stay throughout
his court trial - how is the current scenario
any worse than genocide?.
Evidently, Harvardis running scared. Grant
received great amounts of negative unrelated
publicity. Everything from her IQ to the gory
details of her mother's death have been re-
ported. The underlying concern in everyone's
mind is whether Grant is a danger to the
Harvardcommunity. Uponcloserexamination
it becomes evident that the circumstances were
likely extenuating. But justifying her crime is
pointless and irrelevant. What is important to
notice is that Harvard is making agrave errorby
equating a juvenile crime with an adult crime.
Grant's rights have been overlooked. She
has served her time and her rights technically
have been restored to that of any citizen.
Moreover, the infringement on Grant's rights
goes far beyond admission to Harvard. The
talk of opening her records is more than
alarming - it is blatantly illegal. Until the
laws are changed, the seal on juvenile records
must be kept intact. And any move to change
the law would be an egregious mistake.
The bottom line is this: Children deserve
another chance. That is why the juvenile
offense laws are in place - the records are
sealed for a reason. In particular, Gina Grant
has done well with this chance. She volun-
teers helping high-risk youth, effectively turn-
ing her bad experiences into a positive trend.
In addition, Grant worked to support herself
during high school, and all the while earning
high grades and participating in extracurricu-
lar activities - a model student and citizen by
any standard. Every indication of full reha-
bilitation has been shown by Grant's record.
Harvard should consider this as it reevaluates
her admission.
Tn the wake of the horrific attack on Okla-
homa City, Americans are just beginning
to come to grips with the fact that the greatest
threats in our society often come from within.
The bombers in Oklahoma were not Arab
terrorists as early speculation reported, but
were part of American society. The greatest
danger to our safety is the criminal element
that exists here at home.
In therush tocreate anti-terrorismmeasures
aimed at preventing another such attack on
American soil, the question needs to be asked:
At what point are we willing to trade our civil
liberties for increased control over lunatics on
the fringe of society?
In the past, this has not been an equitable
trade. Government success in infiltrating
groups such as the Ku Klux Klan paved the
way for numerous lawsuits brought against
the group and the convictions of members on
previously unsolved crimes. Clearly, without
effective monitoring and detective work, many
groups would never be brought to justice. Yet
this same power to openly investigate politi-
cal and social groups resulted in reprehen-
sible abuses of power, such as character assas-
sinations of civil rights workers and privacy
infringements of anti-war protestors during the
1960s. The severity of the abuses resulted in an
executive order that must establish a link to an
actual or suspected crime to investigate a
political or social group. One such link that was
established between Terry Nichols to Tim
McVeigh and the bombing is what allowed the
FBI to obtain warrants to search and subse-
quently arrest James Nichols for weapons and
explosive charges, possibly resulting in further
suspects in the case. 4
As the Justice Department moves into the
federal law enforcement following the bomb-
ing, it is of vital importance that the fine line
that exists between threat and free speech not
be breached. Being a part of the Michigan
Militia does in no way make a person more of
a threat to society than being of Palestinian
descent would make one a terrorist in Israel.
Civil liberties remain in place even for those
we try to make guilty by association: namel
right-wing extremist groups with antigovern-
ment views. Are the residents in Decker who
claim that the bombing was a government plot
dangerous? For law enforcement officials, the
answer should be no. There is no way to deter-
mine whether such ideas are spoken out of
hatred, bias or simple misinformation. That
some people believe everything they hear is a
severe problem in an information-based soci-
ety, but it cannot be solved by legislation and
detective work. The best way to counter suc
perceptions is by criticism and correction -
not eradication.
Anti-terrorism legislation will undoubt-
edly pass Congress with little debate. The
challenge will be to ensure that in respond-
ing to the threats of a few, the civil liberties
of all are not left by the wayside. Law
enforcement cannot create a climate of fear
and paranoia by insinuating guilt by asso-
ciation in a group alone. Individual men
bers deemed threats to society need to be
brought to justice while maintaining the
right of others to speak their mind, however
unpopular their views may be. Attack vio-
lent actions, not violent words.