4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, June 30, 2003 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 SRAVYA CHIRUMAMILLA JASON PESICK letters@michigandaily.com Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor MEUEDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorals reflect the opinion of UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN the manorty of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not SINCE 1890 necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. -4 The U.S. Supreme Court's decision last week on the use of race as a factor in university admissions compels the University to revise the point-based admis- sions policy uaed by the College of Literature, Science and Arts. The college's admissions policies are in need of a- signifi- cant overhaul, and the model that the Law School uses can guide any new system. In order to create trust among the University community in a new policy, it would be wise for University President Mary Sue Coleman to assign the responsibility of developing a new system to a representative committee that includes administrators, faculty, admis- sions officers, members of the University's legal team, alumni and students. One important aspect of such a commit- tee's task will be to examine the Law School's system and extract from it those elements that enable a constitutionally sound pursuit of diversity. While the LSA point system relied heavily on numerical comparisons, the Law School makes essays and interviews a promi- nent part of its admissions process. The Law New admissions criteria Time has come for drastic admissions policy adjustments School admissions staff is able to consider factors such as race and socioeconomic status in the context of an applicant's personal struggles and achievements. As the University's legal team argued to the Supreme Court, the University is one of the nation's most elite schools of higher learning. As such, it is past time for LSA to adopt a system befitting such an elite school - a system that makes a holistic assessment of each applicant. Other schools of LSA's ilk use interviews as an important part of the admissions process and give serious consid- eration to application essays. In order for the admissions officers to learn more about each applicant, it is important for the college to begin interviewing its applicants. With the world's largest living alumni base, this should not be an overwhelming task. In addition, the LSA application would be improved by requiring more essays and if the admissions officers paid more attention to these essays. Essays are one of the rare opportunities for the applicants to speak to admissions officials and for the officials to get to know the appli- cants. Until now, LSA's reliance on applica- tion essays has paled in comparison with other colleges at other competitive universi- ties. LSA and other colleges using point sys- tems, such as the College of Engineering, will need to hire many more admissions officers and tap their alumni bases to provide individ- ual attention to the many thousands of people who apply to the University annually. Besides the lack of weight that LSA has traditionally put on essays and the lack of an interview process altogether, other serious flaws have existed in the school's admissions policies. The University would make a bold statement by eliminating any "legacy" prefer- ence given to the relatives of alumni when applying for admissions. Acceptance should be based upon each individual's merit, not upon his family name. The University should avoid changing its rolling acceptance policies to a system based on early decision, as early decision favors wealthier applicants at the expense of those less fortunate and forces students to make premature decisions. It is also important to continue to consider socioe- conomic, regional factors and race as part of the holistic evaluation of each candidate. While the Supreme Court handed the University a partial defeat by ruling its undergraduate admissions policies unconstitutional, the decision also pro- vides the University with an opportunity to improve its undergraduate admissions policies. The proposed committee can rework the process in order to make it more personalized, more probing, more progressive and more in line with the policies comparable schools use. Keep the press free Recent efforts to limit freedom of press must be halted VIEWPOINT Where's my check? 4 In theory, the college experience is geared toward helping students pre- pare to become active participants in society, yet the recent decision by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to rehear the case of Hasty v. Carter en banc questions how seriously public officials take this objective. An extraor- dinarily significant case regarding the free speech rights of those college newspapers dependent upon their uni- versities, Hosty vs. Carter has been in perpetual motion since October of 2000, when the Innovator, the Governors State University student newspaper, ran stories and editorials critical of the school's administration (the evident final straw being a front- page story regarding the motives of the dismissal of the Innovator's faculty adviser). The administration claims that journalistic professionalism was in dan- ger and therefore decided to intervene. Dean of Student Affairs Patricia Carter decided that no further issues would be printed until the implementation of prior review by school administrators. In front of the court, which is based in nearby Chicago, Governors State University argued that according to a prior U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, which limits First Amendment protections for high school students by allowing prior review by administrators, they could legally demand prior review of articles. But on April 10, a three-judge panel of the court rejected that claim by the university when they stated that the overbearing Hazelwood opinion was not a model for the college press and that prior review of college papers is unconstitutional. On April 24, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a petition for an en banc rehearing. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals granted the rehearing on June 25, and while an en bans victory would carry great moral weight, it is possible that the court will agree with the attorney general. If the court rules in favor of GSU, it would be the end of First Amendment protection for college journalists at schools across Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. Essentially, this means that student papers could possibly be pre- vented from writing anything of impor- tance if it may be damaging to the uni- versity it serves, which defies the pur- pose of journalism. In addition, a triumph for GSU would mean that the case could be used as precedent for future cases involving stu- dent-run, university-funded publica- tions, not to mention other school-fund- ed activities. Radio, television and the- ater, among many other events, could also be restricted or censored, making college feel a lot more like high school. First Amendment rights to free speech and free press are in place to serve as a foundation for American soci- ety, and are vital for keeping powerful institutions in check. Freedom of speech and press are also necessary for the pro- gression of society. It is alarming that Governors State University, an academic institution charged with the task of preparing its students for the future, is attempting to legally implement prior review to cen- sor its own journalists. This certainly does not fulfill the university's role of teaching its students citizenship; rather it would prefer to censor dissent. BY SRIKANTH MADDIPATI Around noon on Monday, I went to my mailbox thinking I had gotten a refund for my tuition, or maybe they sent out a notice that the University of Nebraska had relin- quished its share of the 1997 NCAA national football title. To my disappoint- ment, I had no such luck, so why then was University President Mary Sue Coleman talking about how "We," the University had won? I, along with about 50 percent of the University community, haven't won a damn thing! Has our out-of-touch presi- dent not realized that a little over 50 per- cent of the University community does not support racial preferences? Maybe I'm being a bit harsh on ol' Mary Sue, considering the national media that swarmed campus made it appear as if every student had marched on Washington, supporting the ill-conceived notion of a "critical mass." In all honesty, however, you can't blame the media completely. Given our elected representatives, such as Michigan Student Assembly President Angela Galardi, were about as accurate in representing student opinions on affirma- tive action as former President Bill Clinton was about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky, it's no wonder the student senti- ment seemed so skewed. The only people who made any noise about the decision were those in favor of racial nepotism. Some of the blame for the misrepresen- tation, however, must fall on those of us who oppose affirmative action. We are sim- ply too lazy and lily-livered. We have already dodged the racist bullet and were admitted in spite of racial preferences, so our attitude is, "Eh, I made it," and we move on, enjoying college life. Additionally, most do not want to deal with groups like the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action and Integration and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary, who will label you a racist or Uncle Tom simply for standing up for what you believe is right. Their militan- cy and intimidation tactics scare people into being quiet. It should outrage all of us that the posi- tion adopted by the University and its pres- ident does not truthfully reflect the majori- ty opinion of the University community. This University has spent millions of dol- lars supporting a policy that the majority of us don't even want. After wasting our money defending an unpopular policy, they held a celebration at the president's resi- dence, to which we were all invited. Why were all of us invited to a party, when only half of us were truly welcome? Granted, you could have gone for the cookies and punch, but there certainly wasn't anything for most of us to celebrate. Racial preferences were wrong, are wrong and will always be wrong, and the majority of us understand that. The U.S. Supreme Court had its say, and now it's time for the people of the state of Michigan to have theirs. As citizens in a democracy, we are given the power to decide what we believe is right and wrong. We must use our voting power and do what the courts would not and ban racial preferences and discrimination of any kind. Those who oppose the mandate of the people will scream and shout at the top of their lungs, and when they lose their voice, we will simply step up and say, "Sorry, equality is the compelling state interest". Maddipatiis a ate student in the College of Engineering anda meberoftheDaily'editorial boand 4