4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, July 6, 1999 Edited and managed by EMILY ACHENBAUM NiCK WOOMER students at the Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor y ; v University of Michigan w f Unlss otherw ise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the o not o 420 Mlaynard Street tnjorit of the Dailvs editorial hoard All other ortieleletters and Ann Arbor, MI 48109 eartoons do not necearil/reflect the opinion of The Michigan Dail L ast month, the Michigan State Supreme Court reversed a state Court of Appeals decision holding that public universities that conducted searches for new presidents in private violated the Open Meetings Act which requires all official meetings of public bodies to be held under the scrutiny of the public. While the ruling will undoubtedly benefit public universities in some respects,- especially those like the University which compete directly with wealthy private schools. But, despite this benefit, the ruling is damaging as both a matter of practicality and a matter of principle. From a practical standpoint on the side of the Court, it makes sense for public universities to keep their presi- dent selection process secret. Candidates are often wary of participating in a pub- lic process because it draws the attention of their current employers. Given that Closed up Open Meetings Act must apply to universities these selection processes often consider more than 100 candidates in their incip- ient stages, many qualified candidates have backed out of the selection process as their chance of being selected does not warrant any potential and unneces- sary grief they may bring to the institu- tion currently employing them. The Court's ruling was relatively strict in that it only granted state univer- sities the liberty to keep their presiden- tial process secret up to a certain point and only during "informal" meetings. From a practical point of view, the loop- hole the Court has granted universities may lead to serious problems for the public and for the press in the future. It is not hard to imagine a university using the Court's ruling to cloak ques- tionable behavior. The most damaging behavior occurs when central control is weak - as it is between university pres- idents - and yet, it will be during this time that it will be easiest to conceal any potentially controversial administrative actions. Another consideration is that, if the presidential selection process is kept in the open and presidential search com- mittee members are held accountable, the public will be able to play some sort of role in the selection process itself. A university president plays an instrumen- tal role in shaping the character of the university .and it would make sense to allow everyone in that university com- munity to voice their opinions as to who should have such influence. As a matter of principle, it is simply better when all government meetings are open to the public. The public needs know what their public officials doing. Democracy can only work if deci- sions made by public servants are made out in the open - this almost always comes at the expense of efficiency, but this exchange is a necessary component of a free society. It is difficult to not feel sympathy for public universities trying to find a presi- dent - the Open Meetings Act surely interferes with an already frustrating process. The benefits of strict adhererv to the Open Meetings Act, by all gove - ment bodies, outweighs the luxury of a closed presidential selection process. Closed meetings are a virtual invitation to corruption. Government must be kept open and accessible at all levels in a functioning democracy. Gene screen Genetic tests by employers should be banned Budget blues Clinton must preserve government programs F or the past century, Americans have witnessed great advancements in eliminating discrimination in the work- place. Legally, a job applicant's race, gen- der, or religion can not be considered as legitimate grounds for their hiring or fir- ing. Recently, the fight has begun to counter yet another form of workplace discrimination. Advancements in genetics currently allow companies to screen job applicants and employees for a predisposi- tion towards acquiring certain diseases. This new type of job discrimination can- not be tolerated. Although the Michigan Civil Rights Commission recently passed a policy statement to investigate job dis- crimination resulting from genetic tests, an investigation is not enough. A state law needs to be passed to ban genetic testing in the workplace. The case against genetic testing begins with a very simple idea - jobs should be awarded on merit and nothing else. Still, some may argue employers have a right to know if a future employee is highly sus- ceptible to a certain disease. But this point only brings to light increased flaws in genetic testing. As the American Civil Liberties Union reports, although some genetic tests can accurately predict an increased likelihood of disease, the tests often cannot predict how severe the symp- toms will be, or when the individual will develop the symptoms. In other words, the tests do not take chance into account -- and employers are always taking a chance when they hire a new employee. Genetic tests do not guarantee anything, except that qualified workers will be turned away. Further increasing the need for a law banning genetic testing is the unbelievable fact that American workers currently enjoy no protection against invasion of privacy from their employers in regards to genetic information. As the ACLU reports, the Americans with Disabilities Act bans workplace discrimination, but does not comment on privacy. Disregarding extreme cases in which dan- ger is posed to fellow workers, employees should be allowed to withhold information regarding disease susceptibility from their employers. A new law banning genetic testing would be one step toward guaran- teeing this. Opponents to a law banning genetic testing may assert that the tests do not occur enough to warrant a new law. But the fact remains that genetic testing occurs more than the average person would like to believe. In a survey conducted by the American Management Association in 1997, 6-10 percent of employers were found to be conducting genetic tests. In addition, according to the ACLU, in a sur- vey of nearly 1,000 individuals who were genetically at risk for certain diseases, over 22 percent reported being victims of discrimination. However the statistics are manipulated, the fact remains that dis- crimination does occur as a result of genetic testing, and something needs to be done. Twelve states (including California, Illinois, Iowa, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin), have already passed legislation protecting employees from genetic testing in the workplace. With other states currently pending legis- lation to eliminate genetic testing, it is past time Michigan jumped on the band- wagon. Jobs should be based on merit and nothing else. As a state that prides itself on equal opportunity of employment, genetic testing cannot continue. tudents may begin to entertain realis- tic thoughts of receiving Social Security when they retire after all - if politics and Republicans in Congress do not get in President Bill Clinton's way. Last week Clinton announced plans to use the growing budget surplus to save Social Security and Medicare, pay off the national debt by 2015 and funnel money into domestic social programs. Republicans, who are planning to push for a $775 billion 10-year tax cut plan soon, did not receive Clinton's proposal with complete disapproval. The scene appears to have been set for the possibility of a bipartisan compro- mise with important implications for next year's elections and the Clinton adminis- tration's historical legacy. In the midst of the deal making and negotiating that will undoubtedly ensue over the next few months, Clinton must hold fast against internal and external pressures and remain committed to preserving and strengthening Social Security and Medicare. The existence of these two programs is easily justifiable and necessary, and the tremendous amount of money spent to maintain them reflects this. Many elderly individuals have paid taxes for most or all of their lives into the programs, and have done so with little regret since they rely on Social Security and/or Medicare for their basic financial needs. Social Security and Medicare were established to make sure that individuals' financial situations do not result in their death from starvation, homelessness or inade- ,quate health care. Conservatives and libertarians have long argued that these two programs ought to be privatized. These positions ignore the undeniable reality that many people do not make enough during their lives to put money away for retirement or they simply did not take the time to pre- pare for living on a fixed income. Many people are also unable to predict their future state of health - shortsighted individuals may regard health insuran@ as a luxury, but for the elderly, it is an obvious necessity. The sheer size of Social Security and Medicare make both of them important political issues, and with elections near- ing in 2000, Clinton will face political pressure from both the left and right to change his position. Republicans touting "small government" and tax cuts and will almost certainly try to forge a deal wi@ the Clinton administration on Social Security and Medicare, and this will be fine so long as the current vitality of the two programs is maintained. Democrats have legitimate fears that the disadvantaged may suffer from a deal between Clinton and the Republicans, but they can not let their fears hurt the elder- ly by putting the future of Social Security and Medicare in jeopardy. Even worse would be if any pressure came from th campaigns of Presidential-hopeful W Gore or New York Senator-hopeful Hillary Clinton. A weaker deal with Republicans for Social Security and Medicare - or no deal at all - will make sure that Social Security and Medicare remain strong Democratic issues in the 2000 race. It would be nothing short of a tragedy for Clinton to give into political coercion from either the Republicans W Democrats as he tries to secure long-term solvency for Social Security and Medicare.