4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, May 8, 1996 Edited and managed by ERIN MARSH stdnsa y~ LAURIE MAYK PAUL SERILLA students at the Editor in Chief PU EIL University of MichiganUn Opinion Page Editors 4 ness otherwise noted, unsigned editorials ri f lect the opinion oft 420 M ay nard Street majority of the aily'editorial board^,llof er articfes. tatters and Ann Arbor, MlI48109 cantons oli ~ lt ntcessarily reflect the opinion tof The Michig'an Daily By all rights, the case of Ann Arbor's serial rapist should be fading into the realm of bad memories by now. Unfortunately, due to bureaucratic postur- ing by the Michigan State Police Crime Lab, one aspect of the case may linger indefinitely. State police have wrongly decided to disobey a repeated court order from Washtenaw Circuit Judge Kurtis Wilder, dictating the return of certain blood analysis records to their owners. The Ann Arbor Police Department ordered the DNA-derivation tests as part of the investigation leading to the July 1995 conviction of Ervin Mitchell. In the months leading up to Mitchell's arrest, the AAPD came under great criti- cism for its poor handling of the investi- gation - the biggest uproar resulting from its perceived treatment of black males during the investigation. The police released a vague, general descrip- tion of the suspect as a light-complex- ioned black man between the ages of 25 and 35, standing approximately six feet tall and weighing about 170 pounds. The AAPD proceeded to collect blood sam- ples from approximately 160 men, acting on anonymous tips from frightened citi- State must relinquish DNA records zens deluded by an extremely vague description. Even though a comparison of the suspects' DNA with genetic mate- rial in samples retrieved from the victims cleared most men from suspicion, the damage - in terms of vicious rumors and slander - was done. Lawsuits followed closely thereafter. Blair Shelton, one of the men forced to supply blood, may have lost his job as a result. In response to that and other alleged incidents, he filed a lawsuit in April 1995 claiming undue harassment by local police. Besides resulting in a $60,000 out-of-court settlement for Shelton, the suit also indirectly led to a ruling last December. Wilder's original ruling instructed the state laboratory to return the blood samples and the analysis records to the AAPD, so that it could return both to the cleared men. The state eventually turned over the blood samples, which remain available for pickup by their owners. However, the state lab retained the test records, necessitating a second court session before Judge Wilder. Thus, last Wednesday, nearly five months after his original ruling, Wilder had to reissue his order that the lab return the DNA records to Ann Arbor. As of yet, the lab has not complied with the ruling. In addition, the state is considering an appeal of Wilder's deci- sion. Although it seems doubtful the state will succeed in its appeal, the very fact that it ponders challenging the ruling is disturbing. In defense of the state's disobedience, officials cited a need to keep the material for record-keeping purposes. In response to critics concerned about state police using the files in future investigations, officials offered to label the files off-lim- its for any future investigations. This is clearly an inadequate solution. By insisting they keep the DNA test records, state officials reduce the cit ' action - relinquishing the blood sampi - to an almost meaningless gesture. If the state successfully appeals Wilder's order to turn over the records, the city's action to return the blood samples is pointless - the state would still have on file all the information obtained from the samples. The state's arguments in favor of retaining the DNA records are invalid. The fact remains that the men who donat- ed the samples are innocent of the crino in which they were suspects. If these men are not guilty of this crime, the state police should not retain their records. The state police must overcome its reliance on paperwork and do the right thing in this case: turn over the records to the Ann Arbor police so they may be released to their rightful owners or destroyed. Following a series of debacles and wrongful accusations, it is time the case of the serial rapist and its sho - dy aftermath to finally be put to rest. Survey the damage Pharmacology must release survey results D uring the past several years, the University's medical school departments have been fraught with racial tensions. The medical school's survey, completed earlier this year, revealed chronic inequalities and inadequate representation of minorities. Similar find- ings may arise from a recently conducted survey in the Department of Pharmacology. Though problems of racism are strongly suspected, the University community remains uninformed because the pharmacology department has not yet released the actual results of the survey, despite repeated requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Dr. Peggie Hollingsworth, a pharmacology research faculty member, filed the initial grievance against the Department of Pharmacology earlier this year. She cited depart- mental racial hostility as the reason for unfair performance evaluations, resulting in pro- motion refusal. The department ordered a survey in response to the grievance, but failed to release the actual survey results - the only information the department released was in the form of a "committee report." The report concluded that "the environment with- in the Department of Pharmacology is acknowledged, by all accounts, to be one of ten- sion, anxiety, one-to-one confrontation, and hostility. It is acknowledged that offensive incidents and experiences have occurred, as well as some highly contentious interactions concerning the role of race in admissions and promotions. Nonetheless, the committee did not find evidence that the environment in the Department was racially hostile." The department's "committee report" and the actual results of the survey may be very different. Dr. Thomas Landefeld, a pharmacology professor, filed the initial request for the survey information under the FOIA. The department failed to comply, providing instead its committee's vague report. The FOIA request specifically demands the actual survey results - not the pharmacology department's version of the survey results. Although concrete statements are impossible, the department's disobedience seems to strengthen suspicions of racism. Allegations of racism are not new to the department of pharmacology. In 1994, Landefeld accused Dr. William Pratt - also a pharmacology professor - of racial insensitivity. This year, the department chose to honor Pratt in the Distinguished Faculty Lectureship in Biomedical Research - a poor choice that looks worse in light of the recent survey concealment. The pharmacology department must stop stalling and comply with Landefeld's FOIA request. Department administrators must realize that survey studies are meant to identify problems as a first step toward corrective action. The University commu- nity is concerned about racism, and it has a right to the survey results - positive or negative. Pharmacology's purpose in conducting the survey was not to produce a glowing report, nor a reassuring or comforting one - the department has a responsi- bility to report the truth. Protecting asylum Bill takes wrong approach to immigration L ast week the U.S. Senate approved a bill that will greatly change the status of il gal immigrants in this country. The bill generally carries on the tactics tMe Republican Congress and the Democratic White House have adopted toward immigra- tion in the last few years - with provisions to increase the number of law enforcement officers on the border and to make the deportation process for illegal immigrants more efficient. However, the law that might result from this bill has some disturbing implica- tions. The problems lie not with the Senate's proposal, but with the bill's counterpart in the House of Representatives - which includes provisions that would greatly infringe on the civil liberties of those immigrating to this country for political asylum. Until recently, this country held its arms open to people fleeing their nations of ori- gin because of political persecution or similar violations of their human rights. Th* who came to this country without valid travel documents, as is often the case with those trying to escape a hostile government, had a hearing before an immigration judge and usually were released on bond until that hearing date. Earlier this year, Congress passed an anti-terrorism bill and it was enthusiastically signed into law by President Clinton. The law has a vague provision that has been interpreted to allow immigration officials to hasten the deportation of many immigrants without valid documents, or at least deny bail to the person requesting asylum. The bitter irony of a person fleeing political per- secution, only to be imprisoned by the country from which they are seeking aid, seri- ously questions the principles of individual freedom this nation claims to champion. The present immigration bill, should it pass in the form approved by the House, would only increase these trends to a dangerous extent. The House bill holds a provision that would allow the fate of a person seeking po& ical asylum without valid travel documents to be decided by a single immigration offi- cer and supervisor. That officer would have the option to bypass judicial review and immediately call for the deportation of the person filing the claim, or imprison the per- son until a means of deportation could be arranged. Not only does this provision give an inordinate amount of power to a single official, but it diffuses the power from its proper place in the judiciary. Any person, regardless of their citizenship status, has the right to due process of law when charged with a crime. This political persecution should be treated no less seriously. This country would never allow a law enforcement official to take on the added responsibilities of a judge and jury in any other situation, and this should not be made an exception c0 The members of Congress's joint conference committee are taking on very serious precedents as they decide which provisions will end up on the president's desk. Since it seems inevitable that this bill will pass, Congress needs to reaffirm its support of human rights by passing a version devoid of added restrictions on requests for political asylum.