Edited and managed by JACQUELYN NIXON AUBREY HENRETTY Students at the JACtEo n AUBfEd H Editor University of Michigan +B++ Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor 420 MUnless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of th 420 M ay nard Street majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters a Ann Arbor, MI 48109 cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Da Amidst heated affirmative action court cases, debates and rallies across the country, a new key player has emerg ed. President George W.B ush recently nominated former Center for New Black Leadership presi- dent Gerald A. Reynolds to head the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. The Center of New Black Leadership- is a nonprofit, Washington-based organ- ization which advocates a conservative stance on civil rights issues. Reynolds has also served as counsel to the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Washington- based organzation that also has a histo- ry of attacking affirmative action. The EO's website maintains that affirma- tive action is often abused by wealthy minorities or used as an excuse to fire otherwise qualified white employees. Given Reynolds' backgroun propo- nents of affirmative action are not pleased with his nomination. The OCR is a division of the Department of Edu- cation that enforces laws pertaining to discrimination in America's public schools and universities. Reynolds flat- Dieversity in jeopardy Reynolds poor choice to head OCR out disagrees with the means by which affirmative action promotes equality of opportunity. He and other conservatives feel the current system of quotas and set-asides for minorities may succeed in creating diversity, but it fails signifi- cantly when it comes to promoting the best interests of minorities. In a public statement on the subject, Reynolds said that "beneficiaries of affirmative action [in its current mani- festation] are unable to learn what the real world standards are. The bottom line is-that only excellence will do." Reynolds fails to realize there are many factors that contribute to "excel- lence" in a learning environment. In order to come to terms with the "world's real standards," students must learn to work alongside others from racial and socioeconomic backgrounds different from their own. It seems peculiar that someone who disagrees with affirmative action poli- cies has been nominated to enforce those very policies. However, Reynolds' nomination is consistent with Bush's stance on affir- mative action. As governor of Texas, Bush did away with quotas for minori- ties in the state's public universities and replaced them with a policy that guar- antees all high school graduates in the top 10 percent of their classes admis- sion into the state's public university system. Until his Senate confirmation hear- ings, Reynolds avoided making public statements. However, his anti-affirma- tive action background speaks for itself; with Reynolds heading the Department of Education's OCR, the future of diver- sity on college campuses hangs in thi balance. Reynolds has stated that a mor effective means of addressing problem; of equal opportunity would be to alloy" school choice. He maintains that racia quotas and set-asides at the post-second ary level would not be needed if chd dren in poorer school districts we given an opportunity to choose to atteni better schools in neighboring suburbs. While this would supposedly rescu< disadvantaged children from poverty school choice fails to address the man3 problems that cause these socioeconom- ic conditions to exist and does no attempt to fix them; this further neglec of substandard schools could prove dis asterous in the long run. While Bush's choice to nominati Reynolds is not surprising given the t men's similar takes on affirmati action, it is disappointing that ou nation's highest authorities - those tha have the power to ensure diverse learn ing environments for all - would givi so little consideration such an importan program as affirmative action. ranish "gwetlands Bush, Sr.'s environmental plan all wet W hen most land developers think of wetlands, they envision unat- tractive swamps better suited to condominium development than to alli- gator breeding. But wetlands occupy a unique and important position in the global ecosystem; not only do they house many interesting species of plants and animals, but they have also proven effective in controlling pollution and floods in the areas that surround them. Former President George Bush prob- ably realized wetlands' important eco- logical roles in 1989, when he instituted the "no net loss" plan to conserve the areas. The plan - in operation since 1993 - mandates that for every acre of wetlands a given developer destroys, he or she must construct 1.8 new acres of wetlands elsewhere. Ideally, the plan would allow construction to continue while preventing any "net loss" of scarce wetlands. It sounded great on paper. But a recent study by the National Academy of Sciences reminds us that when something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. With a lack of enforcement, funds and manpower, compliance with this decade-old plan has been poor at best. In order to ensure that we don't lose an invaluable portion of the ecosystem, the United States Army Corps of Engineers - the organ- ization responsible for issuing permits to developers and enforcing the plan - needs more discretion and more money. And who better to provide this than President George W. Bush, the son of the program's implementer? While the original President Bush promised "no net loss" of wetlands, The NAS report indicates that this promise has not been fulfilled. Along with a May report from the General Account- ing Office, it points to internal prob- lems in the Corps of Engineers respon- sible for approving projects involving wetlands destruction. Without the resources to make the correct decisions and track the results, the Corps has often failed to confirm that developers actually rebuilt the requisite 1.8 acres. But the wetlands problem extends beyond mere numbers. When wetlands are artificially constructed, the benefits they may provide pale in comparison with those of the original wetlands. According to the NAS, the new wet- lands fail to control pollution or floods or to support wildlife nearly as well as the naturally-occurring variety. When developers move to re-build wetlands, they often fail to consider extenuating environmental conditions; former President Bush's plan does not require them to do so. Under the plan, it is be perfectly acceptable to build the 1.8 acres of replacement wetland any- where developers can find an extra 1.8 acres of land. It is essentially worthless to build a patch of wetland, say, next to a city; industrial fumes, harmful chemi- cals and even certain types of fertilizers can easily upset the wetland's balance of life. If the standards remain this low, U.S. wetlands will soon become things of the past. If the Corps of Engineers was afforded ample funding and adequate power, it could better ensure that devel- opers did not continue to deplete the ever-shrinking wetlands in the United States. Developers could be made to provide quality land in return for the opportunity to develop on the surround- ings they desire. George W. Bush, who campaigned as an environmentally friendly president yet shown himself to be anything but eco-friendly, would be wise to make this a first step in making the United States more ecologically sound. inor imp Well-intentioned bil n a solid 59-36 vote, the U.S. Senate decided Friday to pass the latest form of the long-debated patients' bill of rights. While the bill - current- ly awaiting consideration by the House - would make some necessary changes to the U.S. health care system, legislators should not consider it a mir- acle cure; passing it would be a small step forward in a seriously flawed sys- tem. Among the most disputed facets of the bill in the Senate was the question of whether or not patients should be able to sue their Health Maintenance Organizations over benefits. In the end, senators decided to allow this. Under the bill, patients can take their HMOs to state court over coverage denials if they have medical evidence that said denials negatively affected their health. In addition, most patients could sue in federal courts over contractual and other non-medical issues. The majority then answered the minority's concerns that the measure would flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits, thus driving up insurance pre- miums - concerns also voiced by President Bush - by voting unani- mously to require patients to exhaust all possible avenues of appeal before attempting to sue. All in all, allowing such lawsuits would be a positive change. HMOs, like individual doctors, should be held responsible for decisions that affect patients' health and well- being. If they act negligently, they should be ready to accept the conse- quences and change their behavior in the future. Another commendable change to the status quo proposed in the bill would guarantee patients medical care in the nearest hospital whether or not it was affiliated with their HMO. This move would be a welcome change for the Hrove ent .1 won't cure system many HMO patients currently forced to travel significant distances to hospitals officially tied to their insurance plans. Under the current system, many doctors are not supposed to inform their patients of any treatments not covered by their HMOs. Should the patients' bill of rights be passed, doc- tors would be permitted to discuss * possible forms of treatment - even those not covered by their patients' health plans - thus enabling patients to make well-informed decisions about their health. The patients' bill of rights would also guarantee all insured patients access to emergency treatments and certain medical specialists. For instance, women would be able to s gynecologists of their choice and pa ents could choose their childen's pedia- tricians. All of the aforementioned changes would improve coverage for insured Americans; the New York Times esti- mates that the bill would cover "almost all of the 231 million Americans with health insurance from any source." This would be no small achievement and for that, the bill's supporters should be praised. However, legislators should not use the passage of this bill as excuse to neglect health care reform bills in the near future. They must not forget that more than 42 million Ameri- cans do not currently have health insur- ance and would not reap the benefits of this bill. The House should pass this bill and President Bush should sign it into law, but with the understanding that the improvements it promises are onl postponing the inevitable. Everyon insured or not, deserves quality, afford- able health care; those in power should make it a priority to ensure that every- one gets it.