4 - The Michigan Daily - June 19, 1996
Edited and managed by LAURIE MAYK ERIN MARSH
students at the Editor in Chief PAUL SERILLA
g University of Michigan Editorial Page Editors
Unless otherwise noted.unsigneedditorials reflect the opinin of the
420 Maynard Street na<rit of the Da torial hoard. .11 other articles. 'etters and
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 "a""o's""""teeeidt rehcthe opinion tj *The Mi"hig"an Da

O n June 30, an era will come to an end.
James J. Duderstadt, the 11th
President in University history, will step
down from his post. Since 1988,
Duderstadt has overseen many important
changes at the University. Some of these
changes have benefited the student popu-
lation while others have had a negative
effect. The days of the Dude have been a
mixed success.
Duderstadt must receive his greatest
applause for his work on promoting equali-
ty among students. Early in his term, he
unveiled the Michigan Mandate, an initia-
tive for increasing minority representation
among students and faculty. The Mandate
has led to greater efforts in recruiting and
retaining minority students, and an increase
in professors of color. The results have been
encouraging -minority representation rose
almost nine percent from 1988 to 1994.
Duderstadt has also helped further the
standing of women at the University. In
April 1994, Duderstadt announced the
Michigan Agenda for Women, which stat-
ed, "by the year 2000, the University of
Michigan will become the leader among
American universities in promoting the
success of women of diverse backgrounds

The Dude departs
Duderstadt helped and hurt 'U' students

as faculty, students and staff." A bold
claim - but as a recent report from the
Center for the Education for Women has
shown, there is a long way to go toward
living up to the claim. However,
Duderstadt deserves credit for instigating
progress toward amending injustices
against women.
Also in regards to equality, Duderstadt
has been a friend to the University's gay, les-
bian and bisexual population. Thanks to the
efforts of Duderstadt, the Board of Regents
amended bylaw 14.06 - the University's
non-discrimination statement - to include
sexual orientation. This led to the change in
which same-sex domestic partners were
granted the same benefits as heterosexual
couples. Duderstadt has advocated equality
for the University's minority, female and gay
populations.

For all the positive things Duderstadt
has accomplished, his time in office has
been marked by an unprecedented effort to
place repressive and excessive University
control over students' lives.
The first example of this came with the
deputation of the University's Department
of Public Safety and Security. Despite
widespread student opposition and protest,
control of DPS was transferred to the
University Board of Regents in 1992.
Although Duderstadt was aware that such
a move was massively unpopular among
students, he decided to ignore the stu-
dents' cries of protest.
The willingness to ignore students'
wishes resurfaced again in 1993 with the
Statement of Student Rights and
Responsibilities, by far the most dubious
and unfortunate product of the Duderstadt

administration. Purporting itself to be nec
essary for a safe and friendly student env
ronment, the Code has instead created
mockery of justice. The Code has seen th
University meddling in an area that shoul
be reserved to the Ann Arbor, Mich'
and U.S. justice systems. Duderstadt kne'
how unpopular the Code was among stt
dents; he simply chose to ignore them.
For students today, President Dudersta<
may be best remembered for making td
Diag a permanent construction zone. Whil
this is certainly an inconvenience (and
prolonged one at that) the new buildint
will be an important part of Duderstadt
legacy. With that, and the Campaign ft
Michigan that has raised more than oneI
lion dollars, Duderstadt will leave
University ready to enter the 21st century.
In the end, Duderstadt has given Vic
President for Research and Interi
University President Homer Neal - an
whomever the next president may be -
examples of the good and bad a presider
can do. Good, in helping to further equal
ty among students; bad, in forgetting to li:
ten to those students. Duderstadt's pr
dency will be remembered as a mixed
of accomplishments and disappointmentt

Due compensation

Protecting the Internet

'U' must not break its agreement with GEO Judges challenge unconstitutional CDA

F or several months, the Graduate Employees Organization has battled the University for
a fair new contract - including sufficient pay increases, fairer hiring practices, a ceil-
ing on class sizes and compensation for mandatory training. An apparent GEO victory on
one front now appears to fade as the University searches for loopholes to avoid paying up.
The University requires all international graduate student instructors to come to Ann
Arbor for three weeks in the summer - either in May or June - for an intensive train-
ing session. In most cases, the IGSIs must find and pay for temporary housing, meals
and other staples of daily life, none of which come cheap in Ann Arbor. The University
has never paid the IGSIs for the mandatory training - forcing out-of-pocket costs that
can sting the average graduate student.
In April, GEO convinced the University to support the IGSIs with a $700 stipend for
their expenses during summer training. The non-contractual agreement included plans
to start giving the stipend this year, but failed to issue retroactive pay to IGSIs who
trained last summer. The University is now balking at the agreement, claiming that it
never intended to pay IGSIs who train during May. Members of the negotiations com-
mittee claim that the stipend for "summer" training implies that only August training is
included, since the month of May is technically considered part of spring term. The bar-
gaining team's manipulation of the agreement language personifies the University's
reluctance to allow any concessions in the negotiations.
The University's current wavering on the stipend issue is devious and ultimately
harmful to future bargaining. It also issues a learn-by-example warning to GEO. The
April agreement may have appeared to be a victory for GEO members - a breath of
fresh air after tense negotiations and a series of ultimatums that culminated in a two-day
GSI walkout. Surely, the realization that the University is not going to pay up is a crush-
ing blow. It will leave many GEO members angry and cynical about negotiations - if
these feelings did not already exist.
To protect themselves from future broken promises, the GEO bargaining team must
demand explicit, signed agreements. The University's vagueness cheated GEO of the
deal it expected - GEO must now demand that all agreement provisions are defined
and clarified to the letter. It must also insist on signed agreements - while April's non-
contractual agreement implied mutual trust, the University obviously did not live up to
its half of the good intentions. It is an unfortunate lesson, but GEO must take this expe-
rience and apply it to future bargaining efforts.
Now, the University should redeem itself by paying the stipend for both May and August
training sessions. If the University is going to require training, then it must pay for time and
accommodations. Basic business practices do not require training without compensation -
the University can afford to treat its IGSIs fairly.

T he Communication Decency Act was the first major attempt to censor the Intei
After passing in Congress several months ago, the CDA has finally been challenge
The CDA included a clause that would allow the Justice Department to quick
appeal to the Supreme Court in case of a judicial challenge to the law. That clause mig]
prove useful now that a panel of three federal judges has unanimously and emphatica
ly denounced the CDA as unconstitutional.
While writing a bill that could ostensibly create a "safer" Internet, politicians ove
stepped their bounds. Perhaps due to their lack of understanding of the Internet, the
presented the CDA as merely a tool to protect children from online "smut." As a resul
when politicians came to the public with that promise, the public - who, for the
part, also does not comprehend the nature of the Internet - embraced the CDA a
effective tool for protecting children.
What the general public did not realize were the far-reaching consequences of the CD
Written with vague and malleable terms like "indecent," the CDA would have prescribe
jail time and fines up to $250,000 to people transmitting material judged to be offensive
Unfortunately for the constitutionality of the law, its sponsors did not adequately defit
its terms, leaving an extremely large range of material vulnerable to prosecution. F
beyond affecting only pornography, a functional law would have affected much materi
of merit - including art and literature - if it fell under a court's definition of obscenit
The three judges' main objections revolved around the law's extreme vaguenes
While it could reduce children's access to pornography, it would have violated adult
First Amendment rights to view whatever material they chose, no matter how offer
others might deem those materials.
Congress should never have created the CDA. While children should have supe
vised Internet use, a number of forces are in more appropriate positions to govern the
exposure to the Internet without trampling on adults' rights. Foremost among these
parental responsibility. The first step in restricting children's access to potentially harr
ful material should always be in parents' hands. Ideally, parents should exercise contr
through active supervision of a child's cyberspace travels. They can also monitor the
children by using programs designed to block access to sites parents designate as una
ceptable - there are several options available to parents interested in keeping their ch:
dren from viewing potentially harmful material. Furthermore, numerous laws
restrict child pornography and obscene material already exist. Given the levels of
tection already in place, the CDA was not necessary.
But Congress passed the CDA, and as written, it represents a grave threat to fri
speech. The federal judges' decision to declare the CDA unconstitutional protects Fit
Amendment rights and should give pause to those who would like to censor the Interne