4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, July 16, 2001 Edited and managed by Students at t e JACQUELYN NIXON AUBREY HENRETT University of Michigan Editor in Chief Editorial Page Edito C 4J~ I I 4 4Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of 420 Maynard Street majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other article, letters a Ann Arbor, MI 48109 cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan D, T he Washington Post recently allegedly obtained an internal Salva- tion Army document stating that the White House had made a "firm commit- ment" to put forth legislation to protect those religious charities receiving federal money from local laws that bar workplace discrimination. This new federal legisla- tion apparently would override state and municipal laws that revents discriminat- ing against gays in hiring and providing benefits. The Post alleges that at the same time the Salvation Army would agree to boost support for Bush's faith-based initiative to increase funding for those charities pro- viding social services. The document sug- gested that in return for the request, the alvation Army would spend approxi- mately $1 million lobbying for Congres- sional passage of legislation to simplify the funneling of federal money into social programs administered by religious groups. There are many problems with this legislation. First of all, the process by which this legislation is negotiated involves a sort of demographic hierarchy. Denying civil rights Federally funded charities must not discriminate The federal government wants the Salva- tion Army to use its reach into society to rovide social services for the needy; the alvation Army is perfectly willing, except it doesn't want to have to provide full benefits for gay employees; the gov- ernment agrees. Implicit in this agree- ment is the idea that the needs of poor heterosexual people are somehow more important than the needs of gay employ- ees. Another big problem with this legisla- tion is that it would allow discriminatory distribution of public service to exist. Gay employees of the Salvation Army pay taxes just like the straight employees, but under the proposed legislation they would not receive the same level of benefits. If this proposal sought to deny coverage based on gender or ethnic background, there would be a public outcry and no politician would dare support it; why should the reaction be any different toward anti-gay legislation? The Salvation Army - a church as well as a charity - contends that it does not want to be obliged by local laws to ordain gay ministers. For example, its members do not think they should have to provide benefits for same-sex partners of their employees. These arguments are grounded in two different foundations - one is ideological, the other more practi- cal. Federal laws currently exempt reli- gious groups from anti-discrimination legislation which violates their creeds; the Salvation Army's request to not be forced to ordain gay ministers is legal. The sec- ond contention stems from controversy over the legalization of same-sex mar- riages. The Salvation Army does not want to be forced to recognize same-sex mar- riages when dispensing employee be fits. It feels that spouses of employees same-sex marriages should not recei the same level of benefits as spouses heterosexual employees. Thus, fede legislation on the legalization of same marriages should come before legislati fulfilling the Salvation Army's requests. Thankfully, recent events suggest t type of legislation the Salvation Ar hoped for will not come to fruition. T White House has ceased to consider t Salvation Army's request for exempti from local anti-discrimination laws. T Bush administration has expressed reg that its recent actions have caused much controversy. Vice President Di Cheney said that the administration me ly wanted to be sure that receiving p money for social service work would"n re uire fundamental changes in [th underlying principles ... of the organiz tions that participate." Private organizations have the right maintain their religious beliefs, but on they start spending taxpayer dollars, th< must abide by the same laws as oth publicly funded institutions. Blaming the victim Zero-tolerance policy hurts women 0 According to the Nation Organiza- tion for Women, conservative esti- mates indicate that two to four million women are battered by the men in their lives each year in the United States. Of these two to four million women, only about 572,000 report their batterers to the authorities. Women are ten times more likely than men to be victims of domestic abuse. Battered women face more than twice the health care costs of other women; adding insult to injury, many insurance companies still refuse coverage to repeated victims of domestic abuse on the grounds that they have a "pre-existing condition." But battered women face discrimina- tion from institutions other than insurance companies. Just ask Oregon resident Tiffani Ann Alvera, who was asked to leave Creekside Village apartments just two days after filing a restraining order against her abusive husband. Creekside Village Apartments is one of the many government subsidized low- income housing projects in the United States that has a zero-tolerance policy toward issues of domestic violence. This means that if any member of a family commits an assault, the entire family will be evicted. According to the New York Times, Alvera tried unsuccessfully to transfer to a single-person household and to have her husband s name taken off the lease before receiving the eviction notice. Left with no other choice, Alvera filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. HUD found in April that Creekside's zero-toler- ance policy discriminates against women, a violation of the Fair Housing Act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, race, religion, disability, familial sta- tus and ethnicity. This provided Alvera with solid grounds for a lawsuit. As summarized by American Civil Liberties Union's Women's Rights Pro- ject director Lenora Lapidus, "It's partic- ularly difficult for low-income women who are depending on subsidized hous- ing to find stable living arrangements and when they're in the crisis of domestic violence, it's all the more difficult ... Because domestic violence affects women disproportionately, this kind of zero-tolerance policy hurts women far more than men.' Other groups backing (and funding) Alvera include the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund and Advocates for Victims of Domestic Violence. Creekside Village supervising proper- ty manager still defends the policy, claim- ing that a "hard stance on the issue of violence" is the only way to "maintain a peaceful living environment for all ten- ants." While it's important to keep housing projects safe for the people who live there, evicting entire families is not a pru- dent way to do so. According to www.now.org, low-income families are five times more likely than others to face domestic violence. Also, families who would live in subsidized housing often have nowhere else to go; they should not be condemned to the streets just because one amongst them has violent tendencies. Alvera, for example, was not guilty by association. She posed no threat to her community and was unfairly removed from her only refuge. Subsidized housing projects like Creekside should abandon zero-tolerance policies for domestic violence that require whole families to pay for the sins of one. Alvera and her supporters deserve commendation for taking action against these discriminatory practices. A victory against Creekside would mean a victory against these policies nationwide; hope- fully, the lawsuit will end in Alvera's favor. Unhappy family Barney's lawyers ignore first amendment it's a familiar scene: You're sick as a ment of their intellectual prop dog. You have a fever of 104 degrees. rights." You can't blink without feeling nau- Most recently, according seous. You're sprawled out on the couch wired.com, Barney's lawyers have t in the living room, when one of your flexing their purple muscles at a housemates takes pity on you and turns Francisco-based civil liberties organ on the television as she walks through tion called The Electronic Frontier F the room. The screen lights up with dation. Apparently, EFF carried something sickening - probably a food underground electronic magazine f commercial of some kind. You think etext.org in 1994 that described nothing could be worse than this, but as dinosaur as a child-molester and a cr soon as the programming starts, you dresser, among other things. Since b realize you were wrong. A large purple notified of their "offense ' by Barn dinosaur dances across the screen, belt- lawyers, neither EFF nor etext. org ing out, "I love you, you love me ..." remove the questionable material or I You'd change it, but you lack the energy sued. to lean forward and reach the remote The Lyons Partnership and is 1 control. team should stop trying to scare t1 Normally, you're a very calm person, site owners out of their first-amendr but something about that terrible singing right to express themselves. As etext lizard brings out your repressed violent hacker-lore editor Brendan Kehoe, side. wired.com, "Instead of being an an A simple internet search reveals the lance chaser, you can be a copyr extent of this problem: A plethora of infringement chaser." sites dedicated to bashing, slashing The real issue for Barney's crea and/or maiming the children's character, and their lawyers is not whether tt Barney. In a fevered stupor, one might sites are harmful to their charact find t em humorous. But according to image; it is whether they can mal wired.com news, there's at least one profit and how large that profit can group of professionals that's not laugh- By bringing charges against these ha ing: Barney's lawyers. less (if somewhat irate) site owners,t The law firm Gibney, Anthony and are only paving the way for other attz Flaherty - which represents Barney on not-for-profit, private websites. rights-holder, the Lyons Partnership and lawsuits against these anti-Barney pZ includes University Law school gradu- are frivolous. ate Matthew Carl in - has allegedly The internet is an amazing too been busy sending threatening letters to allows everyone to share his or her in the owners of Barney hate sites. The let- mation and opinions, however unp ters, signed by Carlin, inform the sites' lar, with others around the world. To owners in no uncertain terms that the aggressive lawyers are trying to st Lyons Partnership does not approve of few mischievous Barney bashers f the sites' use of the Barney character. expressing themselves. Who will t They contain the phrase "copyright attempt to silence tomorrow? Thef infringement." According to defenders amendment protects every U.S. citiz of Barney -haters, Ference and Associ- right to free speech; it must not be tr ates, the Lyons Partnership has filed "77 pled by anyone for the sake of pers lawsuits in 20 states alleging infringe- gain. U ,ert bee S in da ro th *os ein iey h bee me .o tol nb ig Ito hes er ke b t ack Th age A;i for Op u da o, the firs en' am ona