4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, July 17, 2000
Edited and managed by GEOFF GAGNON PETER CUNNIFFE
students at the Editor in Chief JOSH WICKERHAM
University of Michigan Editorial Page Editors
J Unless otherwise noted, tnsigned editorials reflect the opinion of th
420 Maynard Street majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters an
Ann Arbor, MI 48109 cartoons do not necessarile reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
) 0 n almost any given' summer evening,
Elbel Field is brimming with student
activity. Games of ultimate frisbee, softball,
basketball, cricket, rollerhockey, football,
soccer and volleyball represent no small
minority of the summer student body.
Students come together with a mindset
unique to Elbel Field: they are there purely
to have fun, with no hard competition, no
strict rules, no cultural or social bound-
aries, no talent requirements, no drugs or
alcohol and most significantly, respect for
each other's space, activities and mutual
enjoyment of the peaceful camaraderie
inherent in cool summer evenings.
This respect is the key to maintainmg
facilities such as Elbel Field, and the
Athletic Department is ignoring this as it
creates yet another varsity team without
first providing adequate space for practice
and competition.
The University has had a club soccer
team for over fifty years; the decision to
pursue varsity status was not made
overnight. There has been ample time to
prepare for this addition, but instead of
Giving away Elbel Field
Athletic Department violating student space
designing a program and facility while the
club worked toward becoming a varsity
team, the men will be forced to share their
space with the entire University student
body, competing on a field that the march-
ing band tears up on a regular basis. This
disadvantages the men's soccer team as
well as students who would otherwise use
the field.
At the July meeting of the University
Board of Regents, Interim Athletic Director
Bill Martin said he didn't believe the
Athletic Department was ready to move the
men's soccer and women's water polo
teams to varsity status, "but we have them
and we're going to support them like any
other team."
Perhaps in the eyes of the Athletic
Department, an open field and temporary
bleachers are equal to a permanent stadium
facility for practice and performance. In the
eyes of the students, however, this is a fol-
low-up to a precedent set previously, when
the women's soccer team was given the
same playing field. This precedent allows
the Athletic Department to co-opt student
recreational areas for their varsity teams.
The Athletic Department is not just a
University department, but a business. As
such, it should not be allowed to operate
beyond its means. The Athletic
Department does not currently have the
space to fully support a new soccer team;
this should not make it possible for the
department to take space away from stu-
dents, especially without permission from
the body elected to represent those stu-
dents.
Student use of Elbel Field is a long-
standing tradition at the University. At one
of the largest universities in the nation,
Elbel Field is one of only three open spaces
reserved especially for student use. The
Athletic Department is always quick to
defend University tradition.
Unfortunately, too little spoken too late has
once again allowed for the tradition of a
sacred space for student recreation to be
violated.
The Athletic Department and the
University have set a precedent of disre-
spect for students. This department disre-
spects the men of the new varsity soccer
team by leaving them at a disadvantage to
other University varsity teams, as well as
the teams against which they will compete.
Perhaps more significantly, the Athlet
Department is disrespecting the rights o
University students. The Athletic
Department's actions set a poor example
for students: one of disregard and disre-
spect for the sharing of space that is pre-
cisely contrary to what Elbel Field pro-
motes.
Missile offense
New missile defense
The latest failure of a missile defense
system being developed by the United
States illustrates the extremely dangerous
position our government is putting this
country in. The failed test that took place
earlier this month was the third trial and
second failure of new interceptor missiles
designed to protect America from nuclear
attack.
Billed as protection from possible mis-
sile assaults by countries such as North
Korea, Iran and Iraq, the deployment of an
anti-ballistic missile system has been fer-
vently pushed by defense hawks and the
defense industry that stands to gain bil-
lions of dollars from the project. Sensing
an opportunity to score political points
and funnel more money into unnecessary
military projects, some right-wing groups
have embarked on a campaign to scare
Americans with dire warnings of immi-
nent nuclear attack.
These groups and their allies in
Congress pushed through legislation
requiring the United States to deploy a lim-
ited ballistic missile defense system that
could protect against a few attacks from
rouge states as soon as technologically pos-
sible. Probably fearing they would look soft
on defense or run afoul of public opinion,
most members of Congress voted for the
measure and the President - though his
advisors had long opposed a missile
defense system - signed it.
Proponents of this system claim that we
have a pressing need to protect ourselves
from hostile regimes, ignoring the fact that
the rouge states they frequently cite as
dangers do not have missiles capable of
reaching the United States. It is possible
they could develop such weapons in the
future, but it is not certain that they will do
system anything but
so. Additionally, building an anti-missile
system, even a limited one, will violate the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and effec-
tively nullify every nuclear arms control
agreement the United States has ever
entered into. Russia has made clear that
should the United State pull out of the
ABM treaty, it will no longer adhere to
any other nuclear weapons limitation
treaties and will agree to no more in the
future.
The issue of a ballistic missile defense
system has already strained this country's
military relationship with its European
allies, who oppose the system. Building
this may cause serious damage to the
NATO alliance.
China has also made clear that if the
U.S. builds an anti-missile system, it will
increase the size of its currently miniscule
nuclear arsenal to prevent its nullification
by American defenses. This course of
action would likely prompt its neighbor,
India - with which China has a tense and
distrustful relationship - to increase its
nuclear capabilities, which would doubt-
less prompt its enemy Pakistan to do the
same and, well, anyone can see where this
is going.
The United States, despite the end of
the Cold War and its achievement of polit-
ical, economic and military dominance in
the world, is about to set off a global
nuclear arms race. And all for the promise
of a piece of technology that is, so far,
nothing more than a dream full of period-
ic tests with a two-thirds failure rate. This
system may never work and continuing to
push it at the expense of alienating our
allies and throwing away all our current
arms control treaties is the real threat to
the United States.
Not a temporary fix
Hospital's violation of contracts unjust
E2ven with a proposed budget surplus of shaft.
$18 million, the University Hospital With over $1 billion in cash reserve
recently announced plans to cut or outsource University Hospital has more than en
many food service and janitorial jobs. These money to take a loss in order to reevaluo
jobs are currently held by union members infrastructure and re-appropriate fu
who allege a breach of contract with the that will savejobs. Lopping offjobs froi
University Hospital and the Regents. This lowest rung may be a quick fix, bu
recent announcement highlights the disturb- effects are detrimental to the communit
ing increase in the outsourcing of labor and the hospital environment through decr
hiring of temporary workers in both private loyalty, lowered productivity and disgru
and public sectors to increase profitability employees as a result of reduced wage
above human needs. It also puts the decreased benefits. Although the Ho
University in the position of harming work- makes claims that profitability is Intel
ers and their families because of lowered tied to increasing the number of lowe
wages and inadequate insurance benefits. temporary workers, this is no reason f
Unlike private interests, the University alleged breach of contract.
has some degree of time and bureaucracy to It is the University's position to cut
investigate claims like those presented to the only when and where absolutely nece
Regents by members of the American Especially in the light of decreased ft
Federation of State, County and Municipal funding for the hospital system, some c
Employees union on behalf of cafeteria and operating costs and increases in patient
janitorial workers. These workers allege that are fairly essential. But the health si
the organization is top-heavy and that costs should not benefit only those at th
could be cut from the higher levels of the Costs should be cut from less importan
hospital and the University administrations. grams and other areas, not at the expet
Allegations such as these are easily launched disrupting a cohesive community of we
without proof, especially by workers who and cutting their health care services.
stand to lose their jobs, but may not be far off The outsourcing of food servic
the mark. Yet the responsiveness of the Aramark, a food service company, wil
administration to these accusations has been the University Hospital $4 million an
minimal. This despite increasing frustration but there are long-term economic. con
from students, professors and staff members that should examined. The more wt
who find the system ever more bloated. This who are pushed to the breaking point b
kind of top heavy setup shows a disdain for ered wages, fewer hours, revoked1
workers and the hypocritical nature of these benefits and highly mobile work pa
job and benefit cuts. Where are the cuts from the more the bottom of the economy4
the middle and the top? While most admin- bles toward instability. The Univ
istrative salary increases have risen with Hospital has an obligation to honoi
inflation, there have been few cuts from all tracts, adequately provide for its worke
other levels of the work force or the admin- thoroughly evaluate its expenses on a
istrative bureaucracies in the University and els. Without measures to retain loyal
Hospital. Unionized workers are getting the ers, the Hospital has much to lose.
s, the
rough
ate its
nding
rm the
at
tyam
eased
untled
s and
spital
grally
r paid
or the
Iss.
ederal
cuts in
costs
ystem
e top.
it pro-
Anse of
orkers
es tc
na y
ncerns
orkers
y low.
health
tterns
crum
ersit3
r con
rs
l lev
work