4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, August 9, 2004
420 MAYNARD STREET
ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 NIAMH SLEVIN SUHAEL MOMIN
w.gb tothedaily@michigandaily.com Editor in Chief Editorial Page Editor
L Wf tt EDITED AND MANAGED BY
P STUDENTS AT THE Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect 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.
Two recent events in Tennessee
show that racism is still alive, if
not well, in the United States. In
one situation, James Hart, a self pro-
claimed "intellectual outlaw" won the
8th Congressional District Republican
primary. Hart, among other things,
advocates eugenics as a means of pre-
venting the nation from becoming "one
big Detroit" as a result of welfare and
immigration policies that aid "less
favored races." Of course, the district
has fielded a Democratic representative,
John Tanner, for the last 16 years. In
2002, Tanner won re-election with 70
percent of the vote, so it is unlikely that
Hart will be elected to Congress. Even
the local Republican party is vehement-
ly opposed to his candidacy, running a
write-in candidate at the last minute in
an attempt to defeat Hart, whom the
local newspaper described as "odious,
disgraceful and racist."
While Hart's renegade candidacy can
be dismissed as the last gasp of past
Not quite colorbind
Events raise concerns about vitality of racism
racism in the South, another event in
Memphis - part of which is represented
by the congressional district in question
- is indicative of a new form of dis-
crimination in the post-Sept. 11 world. A
delegation of Iraqis on a State
Department sponsored tour of the United
States to learn about local government
tried to meet with Memphis City
Councilwoman Carol Chumney, only to
be denied entry to City Hall. The coun-
cil chair, Joe Brown, claimed that the
delegation posed a potential terrorist
threat, questioned whether the FBI had
been informed of their visit and report-
edly threatened to evacuate the building
and call in the bomb squad if the group
attempted to enter. What is disturbing in
this situation is that an elected official -
not a fringe candidate - is responsible.
In this case as well, the community
has expressed outrage over the incident,
and apologies have been profuse. This is
a positive sign that social norms have
shifted and that the vast majority of
society no longer tolerates racism.
However, this does not mean that racism
and discrimination have ceased to exist.
In a recently completed survey of the
large Arab-American and Chaldean
population in the Detroit metropolitan
area, the University's Institute for Social
Research found that 15 percent of
respondents had personally suffered a
bad experience due to their ethnicity
since Sept. 11. These experiences
ranged from verbal insults or targeting
by law enforcement to cases of physical
assault. More than a quarter said that
someone in their family had been ver-
bally harassed since Sept. 11.
While these figures are a clear cause
for concern, it is heartening, however,
that one-third of those surveyed reported
that they received support from non-
Arabs after the attacks. Certainly, our
nation has reacted far better to the
attacks on Sept. 11 than it has to past
attacks. Clearly, there have been no
internment camps for Arab-Americans,
and various agencies - both indepen-
dent and governmental - have made a
serious commitment to interethnic and
interreligious cooperation. Nonetheless,
the ISR report is still somewhat trou4
bling, as it indicates that there remain
those who regard racism as a legitimate
response to a national tragedy. We must
not become complacent in the face of
racist actions that occur in the present
day. That the community as a whole voic-
es its disapproval is not comfort enough
to those who encounter racism.
Unnecessary aid
Drug patent helps corporate profits, not patients
Reckless recordkeeping
Prospective terrorist database a threat to civil liberties
a
ast Wednesday, the National
Institutes on Health refused to null
patents on the AIDS drug Norvir
despite the fact that the drug was devel-
oped with the help of government funding.
This refusal gives Abbott Laboratories, its
manufacturer, a monopoly on this type of
drug and free rein to effectively quintuple
the price from $1.71 per day to $8.57 per
day, far beyond the reach of many who
depend on the drug to stay alive. While it
is one thing for a company to hold on to a
patent for a cosmetic or non-essential
medical procedure it developed indepen-
dently, it is abhorrent that a corporation is
able to contain the proliferation of a criti-
cally important drug developed, in part,
with taxpayer dollars.
While patenting lifesaving drugs in
the name of profit is in itself ridiculous,
this case is a particular outrage because
the government helped offset develop-
ment costs. In reaching its decision, the
NIH cited the 24-year-old Bayh-Dole act,
which gives companies the ability to
patent inventions that are developed with
the help of taxpayer money as long as
they are readily available to the public.
While the drug is available to all, the fact
that Abbott Laboratories alone can sell it
means that they are free to inflate the
price as much as they please. Considering
that AIDS patients will never willingly
abandon treatment because of high
prices, drug manufacturers who don't
have to be competitive have nothing to
stop them from artificially raising prices
to unreasonable levels.
Upon further investigation, it
becomes clear that Abbott Laboratories'
decision to quintuple Norvir prices is
part of a larger financial scheme. The
high prices are only put into effect when
the drug is combined with medications
made by other companies - not when it
is purchased along with other Abbott
Laboratories products. Norvir is a drug
that increases the effectiveness of other
HIV medications; it is used as part of a
large "drug cocktail." While Abbott is
the only company that can sell Norvir,
the drug can be used with a wide variety
of other "cocktail" medications that are
not manufactured by Abbott.
Since the drastic price hike only
affects patients buying Norvir indepen-
dently of other Abbott products, there is
a strong incentive to purchase solely
Abbott drugs. Therefore, the patent and
pricing scheme force people to use not
only Abbott-brand Norvir, but also
other medicines which are made by
Abbott Laboratories.
Because American-issued patents
apply only within the United States,
generic versions of Norvir are legal out-
side of the U.S. and can be purchased for
as much as 80 to 90 percent less in
Canada or Britain. The low prices of
generic Norvir abroad suggest that
Abbott Laboratories is artificially inflat-
ing its price in the United States with the
protection of the government. This
potential price hike is unacceptable, and
the patent on the drug should be revoked
to effectively rescind Abbott's monopoly.
powers. While the NIH has made its
decision, the misguided ruling can be
overruled by the Secretary of Health and
Human Services. The AIDS epidemic is
simply too severe to allow companies
such as Abbott Laboratories to charge
obscene, uncompetitive prices for treat-
ments needed to survive.
The America Civil Liberties Union
of Michigan, in conjunction with
former Republican Governor
William Milliken, has recently initiated
litigation to prevent the Michigan State
Police from participating in a multistate
crime and terrorism database. The ACLU
asserts that The Mulistate AntiTerrorism
Information Exchange, also known as
MATRIX, illegally shares criminal
records, arrest records and other types
personal information. For the basis of its
litigation, the lawsuit cites a law which
Milliken himself signed in the early
1980s. The law was signed after it was
discovered that the Michigan State Police
collected personal information on hun-
dreds of citizens, whose only crime was
that they were involved in anti-war and
civil rights activities. If the Michigan
State Police were allowed to collect and
share personal information using this ter-
rorism database, it would be a major and
unwarranted infringement on the civil
rights of Michigan citizens as well as a
foreboding marker for the future of our
American free society.
The invasion of citizen's privacy on
the part of government agencies is cer-
tainly nothing new in this country.
However one cannot let the rationality
for the last invasion be the reasoning for
a new one. The governmental restriction
of fundamental rights can be a slippery
slope. Each new intrusion into the civil
liberties of citizens must be vehemently
attacked with renewed specific scrutiny.
This most recent attempt, courtesy of the
Michigan State Police, is no exception.
The mere labeling and tracking of mar-
ginal criminals will not successfully
deter or hinder terrorist acts. The goal of
better ensuring the national security
within our borders is a noble purpose,
but this terrorism database comes at too
high of-cost to our personal liberties with
too little to gain. Such personal liberties
were cast aside during the 1960s and
1970s, and as Governor Milliken noted
in an ACLU news release, "Nearly 25
years later, the technology has changed,
but the privacy rights of Michigan citi-
zens remains the same." We must not let
the mistakes of our past come back to
haunt us again.
Without question, the aftermath of
Sept. 11 has left much insecurity about to
the safety of this country. Suddenly,
America woke up into a nightmare where
fear was rife and the feeling of safety was
a nostalgic memory. Ever since that time,
personal liberties have been in constant
tug of war with policies enacted under the
excuse of national security. Chief among
these policies was the USA Patriot Act
that makes personal documents, such as
books checked out in college libraries,
accessible to national law enforcement
agencies. Unfortunately, citizens will
have to suffer the societal repercussions
of the Patriot Act for years to come, bu*
other fields of civil protection can still be
ensured. The advent of the Internet and
the rapid modernization of technology
have created many new domains that
question the limits of privacy rights and
other civil liberties and is therefore why
the parameters of such liberty protection
must be established now. Americans must
form the standards for electronic privacy
before such rights are reprehensibl*
restricted. The state of Michigan should
be an example to follow by not participat-
ing in the MATRIX database.