LETTER TO THE EDITOR The Michigan Daily - Monday, June .14, 2004 - 5 Confessions of a Republican BONNIE KELLMAN A BiLNT EDGE should not be absolved of blame TO THE DAILY: The falling application rates recently released by the University indicate a disturbing trend that must be recognized and acted upon now to ensure that a diverse campus com- unity remains intact. The 25 percent drop in African American, 22 percent drop in Asian Pacific American, 13 percent drop in Latino and 8 percent drop in Native American applications are not simply an idication that these students have less interest or are less committed to attending the Univemsity. Nor does it indicate that these students come from poor families who cannot afford to pay tuition. The Daily's assertion (Dwindling Diversity, 6/7/04) at economics is the main reason stadents of color are choosing not to attend the University makes a gross generalization by assuming that all people of color "are more likely to come from socio-economically dis- advantaged families" who cannot afford a "University education.' It is also detrimental to stereotype minori- ties by saying that they would sacri- e a more comprehensive education attending a community college in order to save money. Not only is the implication that the majority of stu- dents of color are poor and thus choosing not to attend the University offensive in itself, it also removes blame from the school. Further, it is harmful, while sup- posedly talking about diversity and minorities on campus, to exclude the Asian Pacific American population from the discussion. The most prob- natic part of the editorial was that, nowhere in the text, was the Universi- ty itself held accountable for the drop in minority applications. The Univer- sity administration, press and national community use a number of factors to rationalize the drop in student of color admittance but leave out other crucial ones. The burden of such a drop does not rest on the shoulders of jority high school students, as the versity has tried to portray. Look- ing beyond such rationalizations, one can see that more pressing systematic issues are at hand. What is really at the heart of the problem is a serious lack of high school outreach and an unsupportive campus climate. The University is not doing enough to attract minority students. The Office of Multi-Ethnic Student Affairs, one of the few spe- cialized resources available to stu- dents of color, consistently lacks the funding necessary to maintain a full staff and comprehensive program- ming. The Trotter House multicultur- al center is rapidly deteriorating and has been consistently neglected. The gravity of hate crimes and inci- dents has been historically ignored and inadequately addressed. Further, the University continues to deny its involvement with the racist secret society Michigamua and refuses to remove it as an "honor" society from transcripts. The University showcases its diverse student body, yet fails to pro- vide adequate support for it. The abovementioned problems are linked to the drop in student of color appli- cations, which directly relates to the drops in admissions. These problems create a campus climate which is not safe, supportive or welcoming for potential applicants and students. Assuring racial diversity at the Uni- versity is pertinent. Minority students are part of our diverse democracy and the services developed for and discussion on inclusion that address the needs of these students should never take a back seat to administra- tion misadventures in the name of color blindness. What happens aththe University is a microcosm of how much better the global picture may function if we plan for the future. The causes of the "dwindling diversity" in applications are not just because people of color are too poor to pay tuition or too confused about the recent court ruling - it is a direct result of the University's inaction on major issues that are key to attracting all students. STEPHANIE CHANG ANDY CADOTTE HARLYN PACHECO LSA seniors LISA BAKALE-WISE MATr STEHNEY ROcIO VALERIO LSAjuniors s you've prob- ably guessed from the title of this column, I am a Republican. In the eyes of many Univer- sity students, this makes me the enemy. Well, to be hon- est, I'm not actually a Republican anymore. Two years of living in East Quad and working at The Daily finally rubbed off on me, and now I'm nothing more than a good, moderate Independent. (Nobody can object to an Independent.) But nevertheless, I was a conservative for the first 18 years of my life. Somehow, I have the sneaking suspi- cion that my early Republican loyalties are more a result of my upbringing than my actual ideology. They probably have some- thing to do with the red, white and blue stuffed elephant lying on my brother's bed, the picture of George and Laura hanging on our refrigerator or any one of the small American flags hidden in strategic loca- tions throughout our house. But whatever the reason, I became a Republican. Ironically, I've always lived in liberal communities. I grew up near San Francis- co and then moved to Ann Arbor, where I was surprised to find even more liberals than in the Bay Area. I'll never forget the way the workers in East Quad's Halfway Inn changed the name ofAmerican cheese to "Racist, War-monger cheese" in retalia- tion for the Freedom Fries incident in the White House last year. Somehow, I had managed to find an area even more liberal than California. I wanted to save myself unnecessary grief, so I kept my political views quiet. Not secret, but beneath the surface, only to be brought into the light when directly asked. As a Republican moving silently among liberals, I've witnessed firsthand what both sides of the political spectrum think of each other. And it's not pretty. According to most Republicans, liber- als are evil. Conservatives think they will destroy the country with their dangerous, radical ideas. First, Democrats will corrupt America's youth by slowly disintegrating their morals. Then, they will abolish per- sonal property and establish communism. But Democrats, I discovered, are no better. Despite priding themselves on open-mindedness and acceptance, liberals are just as intolerant (if not more) of the rival political party. They think Republi- cans are all money-hungry capitalist war- lords who will happily tread on the little people in their efforts to make a dollar. A fellow student put it best: Republicans kill kittens. Obviously, we need a difference of opinion for democracy to function. We need to fight and argue, or the public will become meek and complacent. And to be honest, sometimes a little political scape- goating can be fun. Former President Clin- ton's affairs and President Bush's bad grammar provide great entertainment, come Saturday night. The problem is that the relationship between Democrats and Republicans is so hostile that the parties are more concerned with destroying each other than achieving social goals. They're so focused on work- ing against one another, they fail to see how they could work together. At times, their relationship seems even more con- tentious than relations between racesor sexes. Perhaps this is because political par- ties are the only groups left that are social- ly acceptable to hate. But whatever the reason, their mutual abhorrence is nothing less than ridiculous. Often, members of the minority group aren't given a fair hear- ing. They are automatically ridiculed and dismissed as wrong simply because of their political label. This undermines the most basic values of democracy. In reality, Democrats and Republicans aren't nearly as different as they would like to believe. Not only are the two parties close to the center of the political spec- trum, but underneath it all, they both want the same thing: for the United States to be the best country possible. They just go about achieving it in different ways, according to their differing ideologies. And really, both parties are necessary for our country to function. Democrats chal- lenge the status quo and move the country forward; Republicans rein the liberals in, making sure they don't go too far, too quickly. Democrats dream while Republi- cans keep the country grounded in reality. Both are important; both are necessary. Kellman can be reached at bankell@umich.edus. Whose strategic alliance? SAM SINGER TAKE Two SAM BUTLER THim SOAPBOX INTE LLIGENC B y the middle of the 1980s, Afghanistan had become a critical theater in the ongoing proxy war between the United States and U.S.S.R. During this time, in a calculated effort to frustrate Soviet expansionism, the Central Intelli- gence Agency, with assistance from Pak- istani intelligence, funded and armed Afghani rebel groups who were resisting Khalq militants and their Soviet benefac- tors. Much thanks to their Western spon- sors, these Mujahideen freedom fighters emerged victorious, eradicating the threat of communism and splintering the nation into a multitude of disjointed, warlord-con- trolled territories. The subsequent power struggle was as foreseeable as it was vicious - affording victory to the most well-trained and preponderant Mujahideen bloc: the Taliban. After almost a decade of despotism, religious fanaticism and reck- less state-sponsored terrorism, it took the heinous brutality of Sept. 11 for the United States to recognize the consequences of abetting radical and vehemently anti-West- ern organizations in order to address short- term geopolitical threats. In the late 1980s, a Central Asian policy expert with even the slightest sense of foresight could have told you that funneling weapons to fervent Islamic extremists with ties to international terrorist networks wasn't in the U.S's high- est security interests. Yet despite having been severely scald- ed for our reckless foreign policy of the '80s, the Bush administration continues to flout the value of historical hindsight. Even in the face of historical red flags and a wary State Department, the Pentagon has grown increasingly cozy with some of Afghanistan's most ruthless outlaws. In order to compensate for an overstretched military and virtual geographic illiteracy, the U.S. has relied upon the Northern Alliance, a coalition of formerly repressed ethnic warlords and their private militias, to assist in cleansing the embattled nation of al-Qaida cells and their Taliban supporters. Unfortunately, minus any direct assaults on U.S. soil, members of the Northern Alliance share a similar violent and malev- olent notoriety with their Taliban counter- parts. Taliban fighters were not the only combatants who indiscriminately murdered masses of innocent civilians in the 1994 clash between rivaling clans in Kabul. Tal- iban headmen are not the only leaders who subdue and torture political opponents in their private penitentiaries. And Taliban clerics are not the only figureheads who spout anti-Western venom to crowds of submissive fundamentalists. Still, in spite of their bloodstained his- tories, the U.S. continues to finance and equip these warlords - often offering them political elevation in exchange for tactical military support. Abdul Rashid Dostum, the Afghan President's special envoy for Northern Afghanistan, Muham- mad Fahim, the current Defense Minister and Burhanuddin Rabbani, an influential power broker, each infamous for their col- lusion with the widespread brutality of the early '90s, have all managed to navigate themselves into authoritative roles within the new government. As the U.S. had hoped, the warlords of the Northern Alliance have generated the strength to demolish the Taliban infrastructure. They have aided U.S. troops in peacekeeping and security operations and have provided invaluable tactical support. Regrettably our new bedfellows have grown increasingly recalcitrant. It is now abundantly clear that the U.S. and the Northern Alliance view their rela- tionship ina very similar light: a temporary strategic partnership to further ambitions of control over the war-torn Afghani state. Regional headmen have grown progres- sively unresponsive to U.S. Central Com- mand as scores of clandestine militias begin to wield more muscle. Despite the Bonn Agreement's prohibition of private or mercenary forces from remaining in the capital city, Muhammad Fahim refuses to withdraw his army from Kabul. As the warlords stride towards financial and polit- ical independence, the U.S's footing as a legitimate and conciliatory occupying force continues to slip. It is almost certain that once again, the U.S. will suffer from its shortsighted foreign policy. Milton Bear- den, former CIA liaison to the Mujahideen fighters, best explains the diminishing rela- tionship: "At what point, with all of this money coming in, do they look at us ... and say 'Thank you very much, we are quite happy with the way itis?"' Singer can be reached at singers@umich.edu.