4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, May 5, 2003 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 SRAVYA CHIRUMAMILLA JASON PESICK letters@michigandaily.com Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY W STUDENTS AT THE Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials refect the opinion of UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not SINCE 1890 necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. very April, thousands of University ' ,. .. . and these guidelines limit the amount of cer- students find themselves facing the l 10n solstiCe tain types of aid any single student can fall term with a crammed schedule receive. Students who may now be eligible and are forced to enroll in spring and sum- 'U' shou1 be flexible i s aid distribution for certain federal funds will not receive mer classes. A lucky few have secured a sholds emorefin stbthem if they were not eligible two years ago. spot in an affordable, credit-transferable Universities like Harvard and Princeton course at Eastern Michigan University or of-state tuition tab is a financial burden too two years ago in order to estimate the stu- make use of their alumni bases and corpo- another college closer to home. Many of heavy for most families, and the meager dent's need today. Because so many students rate connections to offer a variety of non- those who must remain at the University, financial aid available offers small relief. submit FASFAs, in the aggregate, using old federal need-based funding, including low- however, start the mad scramble for spring Enabling students to take the courses data might make sense, but at the individual interest, non-federal loans. This type of aid and summer funding as soon as they close they need over the spring and summer level, it is grossly unfair. A flux in family is less restricted and is not based exclusive- the books on winter finals. requires more than an influx of cash. The income during that two-year period can sig- ly on the FAFSA, so that a student experi- The University recognizes that most stu- University needs to make major changes in nificantly impact a student's ability to meet encing financial difficulty not accounted dents will need some financial assistance and the way spring and summer aid is adminis- the cost of tuition. The University would for in federal calculations can seek addi- attempts to distribute funds equitably among tered. One glaring flaw lies in the way that better serve its students by beginning to base tional aid. With the world's largest alumni those who have applied for financial aid. The student need is assessed. The assessment of its assessment of student need on more base, the University should seek to diversi- 4 typical financial aid package is a threadbare a student's need - and therefore the distrib- recent documents, such as the next academ- fy the types of aid available to those stu- patchwork of federal loans and other institu- ution of aid funds - is based upon the pre- ic year's FAFSA, which is based on the cur- dents seeking spring and summer assis- tional funds and falls far short of the signifi- vious academic year's Free Application for rent year's federal income tax return. tance. This is especially necessary because cant financial support most students need. Federal Student Aid. A student applying for Compounding this problem is that most the University is the country's most expen- Many students are forced to take out high- financial aid this summer would submit the of the aid available for the spring and sum- sive public institution of higher learning. interest private loans or to make significant 2002-2003 FAFSA, which is structured mer is federal aid and subject to federal Until the University becomes more flexi- changes in their academic plans and disen- around his/her family's 2001 federal income guidelines. Without exception, the rules for ble in its financial aid distribution, students roll. Out-of-state students face a particularly tax form. In effect, the University is looking distribution of federal aid depend upon that who need to take classes over the summer difficult situation. The $6,000 per-term out- at a snapshot of the family's finances from same FAFSA used to estimate student need, will be faced with a funding nightmare. LEO has roared The University must listen to lecturers' concerns Surging sharers Strategy of going after students too aggressive ast Tuesday, 64 percent of the University's non-tenure-track faculty voted by for union representation in the Lecturers Employees Organization. As a union, this group of faculty members, including lecturers, adjunct faculty and visit- ing faculty on the University's three campus- es, has new leverage in negotiating with the University. Previously, the working conditions of lecturers have been shaky at best - job security, pay and poor healthcare were at the forefront of lecturers' concerns. Individually, lecturers could often be over- looked or dismissed. But unionized, the pro- tection of their livelihood as well as their financial and physical well-being can be strongly voiced and reinforced by their numbers. LEO's formation can have immense positive effects on undergraduates' educa- tion as well. If paid fairly, lecturers will no longer have to work part-time at multiple universities to make a living, as some are currently forced to do. As a result, they will be able to pay more attention to and spend more time on the education of their students at the University. The University should pay special attention to the formation of LEO. If the University does not comply with the group's needs, it is a direct threat to the education of University students. In recent years, full-time professors have been steadily replaced with part-time lecturers. Considering this ever-increasing depen- dency on lecturers, their satisfaction with the University is key to the quality of edu- cation that students receive. As recent experiences with the Graduates Employees Organization that took place in the winter of 2002 show, when unionized educators' needs are not met, they have the power to University activity. With LEO's new power, the University can choose between fair pay and benefits or sacrificing its main objective, educating. But due to recent budgetary setbacks, the new advancements for lecturers may pro- voke the University into cutting corners con- cerning these non-tenured staff. As a way of cutting costs, the University might attempt to implement a hiring freeze or eliminate non- tenure positions. Putting a halt on the hiring of new lecturers would jeopardize the quali- ty of a University education. As lecturers move up the hierarchy of academia, the number of University lecturers is bound to decrease. Were this to happen, class sizes would increase while students' opportunities for direct interaction with their instructors would decrease. Already, many departments do not offer enough sections for all of the students who want to take certain classes. Reducing the number of lecturers will only exacerbate this problem. Though the unionization of LEO will likely translate into more expenses for the University, this is no time for the University to be skimpy. The Ann Arbor News reported on Thursday that in the face of the state- imposed financial crisis, the University will likely admit more students in order to create more tuition revenue. This projected combi- nation of fewer instructors and a larger stu- dent body bodes poorly for the individual student's education. LEO should be applauded for the success of its formation. But, more importantly, the University community must continue to stand behind LEO and support these union- ized educators in their future efforts to obtain just treatment, job security, fair pay and appropriate benefits. Recent lawsuits and settlements between the Record Industry Association of America and indi- vidual college students have marked the beginning of a new battle revolving around Internet file sharing. The RIAA sued four individual college students who hosted sites that enabled users to down- load copyrighted material. Each student was fined $150,000 per file, adding up to an enormous expense that the students could not possibly afford to pay. The set- tlement reached required each student o pay a fine of only about $12,000 to $17,000. While the fines may be reduced, the overaggressive litigious actions of the RIAA have only just begun. Only a few years ago, the RIAA thought it had won the battle against Internet pira- cy when it won its case against Napster, shutting down the popular and user-friend- ly music sharing site. Much to their cha- grin, the technology has changed, making the decisions of the Napster case null and void for the current types of file-sharing found online. Napster's Achilles' heel was its centralized server; new programs and Web sites now are decentralized to avoid the fate of Napster. Because they extracted settlements from the college students against whom the RIAA has taken legal action, these first four lawsuits may be just the beginning. The success may bring about continued lit- igation in an attempt to instill fear and deter people from sharing files and skating on thin ice regarding copyright laws. By attacking college students, however, the record companies could ruin students' futures. Even the reduced settlements may be enough to hinder one of the students' educations and further lawsuits will proba- bly attempt to go after more college stu- dents. College students may be the source of much of the methods of file-sharing and for its popularity, but bankrupting them to earn more money for one of the largest industries in the country is overhanded. File-sharing and Internet piracy are not going to disappear no matter how aggressive the record industry becomes. One lawsuit or many lawsuits will simply make the methods of sharing evolve, not eliminate the practice of file-sharing. The RIAA should be looking at ways of work- ing with the technology to promote their product, not to deter people from using a technology that is already in place and readily accessible. The inability of the RIAA to evolve to meet the popularity of file-sharing is one of the main motiva- tions driving their lawsuits. If they could find a way to benefit from file-sharing, it is likely this legal activity would come to an abrupt conclusion. The difficulty of shutting down file- sharing programs like Kazaa all at once has led to the decision to isolate individuals who are easier to sue. With their success in court thus far, it is inevitable that the RIAA will continue its fight and attempt to dis- mantle the large file-sharing networks. Without a centralized server and without the names of the individual users, the RIAA still has no ability to immediately end all Internet file-sharing; however, their recent actions seem to show that the RIAA would have no qualms about suing every individ- ual user on Kazaa or other Internet file- sharing programs in order to achieve its goal. Protecting copyrights is understand- able, but the antagonistic approach that the record industry is pursuing is not only predatory, but will ultimately be ineffective.