AMHERST
Continued from Page 4
"un-American" as his
detractors have stipulated;
his efforts to create debate
are at the center of the
democratic process.
Rather than support this
exercise in independent and
critical thought, the Univer-
sity administration has
shunned Rene Gonzalez. In
so doing, they have put a
stain on their reputation as a
university and institute for
intellectual discourse far
worse than anything caused
by a controversial opinion
columnist.
The Amherst SGA, a
functional equivalent of the
Michigan Student Assembly,
is unknowingly threatening
its own freedoms by con-
demning the Collegian. The
Hazelwood case that estab-
lished the right to prior
*review for high school
administrations extended to
cover all "school-sponsored
expressive activities," mean-
ing the administration can
censor student-selected
speakers, films, theater and
even governments. In siding

The Michigan Daily - Monday, May 17, 2004 - 5
Reuniting old friends
SAM SINGER TAKE Two

with the administration
today, SGA may be digging
its own grave for tomorrow.
Though the Collegian
may have monetary ties to
the University, the campus
.community should stand
behind it as a forum for
diverse opinions; if it does
not, the paper will simply
be a mouthpiece for the
University and other sup-
porting institutions. The
importance of a free and
independent press cannot be
overstated.
The controversy regard-
ing the Collegian is truly
worthy of national attention.
It demonstrates not only the
essential place that college
papers have within our
country's media dynamic,
but also the unique impor-
tance of student opinions.
The Michigan Daily stands
in solidarity with all college
writers who seek to create
dialogue and debate at both
the campus and national
level, despite all efforts to
stifle their freedoms and
steal their voice.

ver the past
f 3three decades,
vthe People's
Republic of China has
taken remarkable
strides toward eco-
nomic liberalization.
As the autocratic
stronghold on the
economy has steadily
relaxed, privatization and the proliferation
of open markets have spawned an entre-
preneurial middle class and planted the
seeds of what may become the world's
largest capitalist economy. The Bush
administration has recognized the new
face of China for what it is: a lucrative,
low-wage-induced export market and an
untapped cache for foreign direct invest-
ment. Accordingly, earlier in his term, the
President showed no reluctance in pro-
tracting the Clinton administration's cam-
paign to institutionalize these trends by
pressuring China to accede to a framework
of Permanent Normal Trade Relations
within the World Trade Organization.
However, although securing normal trade
relations with China brought a predictable
wealth of political and economic divi-
dends to the United States, few foresaw
the costs that would accompany China's
new found clout as a global economic
kingpin. Unexpectedly, the Bush adminis-
tration's infatuation with China's goldmine
of cheap labor has clouded its judgment
about foundational concepts of strategic
diplomacy - allowing for the modifica-
tion and neglect of bedrock U.S. foreign

policy positions.
While it requires an agonizing wince
to admit, the recent neoconservative out-
cry over the abandonment of Taiwan has
not been completely erroneous. Indeed, as
of late, the Bush administration has
shirked from the U.S's time-honored role
as a protector and champion of Taiwan's
political sovereignty. On more than one
occasion over the last two years, Bush has
explicitly endorsed the mainland's "One
China" policy - an unprecedented devia-
tion from the State Department's conven-
tional approach to cross-strait relations.
Deserting Taipei is not only reckless, but
also unnecessary.
Nonetheless, for some inexplicable rea-
son, the Bush administration has allowed
China's recent rightward economic tilt to
elevate Beijing's footing in negotiations
over Taiwanese independence. The Presi-
dent has gratuitously pandered to Chinese
regional aspirations under the misconcep-
tion that if he doesn't, the country's free
enterprise train will reverse course. Fortu-
nately, Chinese economic liberalization
can no longer function as a carrot to be
dangled over the heads of investment-hun-
gry foreigners. At this point, Chinese lead-
ership is simply incapable of applying the
brakes to the nation's rapidly snowballing
force of market liberalization. By effective-
ly galvanizing a new commercial class of
capitalists and entrepreneurs while simul-
taneously failing to grant the populace
complementary political liberties, Beijing's
one-party dominion has staked its legiti-
macy on a perpetually booming economy.

Thus, a closer reading of internal Chinese
politics would make it abundantly clear
that China can no longer use the retreat
from liberalization as leverage against the
West; Ironically, the Communist Party is
actually dependent on further market
reforms to ensure its rectitude. As a case in
point, despite the central government's
recent refusal to allow democratic elec-
tions in Hong Kong and the subsequent
fury of protest, President Hu Jintao
emerged unscathed by catering to Hong
Kong's business leaders -appointing cap-
italist friendly headship to the city's legisla-
ture and governing council.
With China on an inexorable path
toward further liberalization, the Bush
administration is presented with a rare
opportunity. The recent re-election of Tai-
wan's pro-independent President Chen
Shui-bain gives the U.S. a window to
resuscitate a faltering strategic alliance.
China has threatened to go to war over Tai-
wanese secession, but if the U.S. supple-
mented China's self-imposed global
economic interdependence with a resolute
declaration to defend Taiwan in its pursuit
of independence, Chinese pre-emptive
military action would equate to political
suicide. Straying from a five decade-
strong political alliance for reasons of eco-
nomic imperative would be difficult
enough to justify, but given China's impo-
tent bargaining power, Bush has no excuse
not to stand by an old friend.
Singer can be reached at
singers@umich.edu.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR
0

Democracy is the
right priority in
Iraq
TO THE DAILY:
Suhael Momin's apparently
well-meaning prescription to
delay demands for democracy in
Iraq (Is there a different answer in
Iraq?, 5/10/04) is unwise and
*may well bring neither democra-
cy nor economic progress.
Although there is some truth
to his claim that economic sta-
bility and growth are crucial to
functional democracy, an
overemphasis on the economy
may lead to an underemphasis
on democracy, as in China,
where impressive rates of
growth have not led to a democ-
ratic society.
Similar things happened in
Chile, where mere economic

gains certainly did not make
dictator Augusto Pinochet's
tyranny into a democracy. Of
course, Momin could argue that
economic security is just a pre-
requisite of democracy, not a
guarantee that a democratic
society will happen. Even so,
one should still not let democra-
cy slip into being an inferior pri-
ority at any point. Momin's
appreciation of how economic
factors can bolster democracy is
admirable, but he would have
done far better to suggest devel-
opment in Iraq of the economy
and democracy simultaneously
instead of vainly hoping that
democracy will somehow spring
up later on after having been
shoved into second place. Why
follow Saddam's failed example
in undervaluing democracy - at
Abu Ghraib or elsewhere?
DAVID BOYLE
Alumnus

Changing the laws, opening the closets
BONNIE KELLMAN A BLUNT EDGE

SAM BUTLER TiH SoAsB0X
rSut-e. o c + G . o
WEL COME U-M
4 Here's a few extra bucks
DONOR, for the B-School bidets.
e(ro i
orbooks .

CALIFORNIA -
esterday, gay
couples in
setts were allowed to
marry for the first
time in the nation's
history. Even as many
celebrate this break-
through in gay rights,
however, others are fighting to outlaw gay
marriage in other parts of the country.
They have already succeeded in Califor-
nia, Nebraska, Ohio and Georgia, and are
currently attempting to do the same in
Michigan. In April, Citizens for the Pro-
tection of Marriage launched a ballot ini-
tiative to legally ban same-sex marriages
in Michigan. If they collect 317,757 signa-
tures by July 6, an amendment prohibiting
gay marriage will be placed on the Nov. 2
ballot that, if passed, would be added to
the state Constitution.
As a native of the San Francisco Bay
area, I should be an authority on homosex-
uality - or so many Michiganders
believe. For many, San Francisco is as
much a symbol of homosexuality as a
rainbow. This view is a little extreme, but
they are right about San Francisco having
a large and vocal gay community. And
although my high school was not very
accepting toward homosexuality, I did
attend Stanford University last summer,
where I met many openly gay people.
Despite recent progress in gay rights,
society still has certain expectations about
how gay people are supposed to treat their
homosexuality. They are expected to be
ashamed of their sexual orientation, or at

least pretend they are, as they creep from
closet to closet, only daring to venture out
to a few close friends in the form of melo-
dramatic confessionals filled with tears
and halting pauses.
One of my Stanford friends, however,
did not do any of this. He informed our
clique of his sexual orientation as happily
and easily as he mentioned it would be 90
degrees over the weekend. He simply said,
loudly and clearly, that a certain male liv-
ing in our dorm was hot. Then, he smiled,
laughed and gazed around the dinner table,
observing our reactions.
Our friends were silent as the truth
slowly dawned on them. You could see the
war going on behind their eyes as their ini-
tial unease fought with their affection for
their friend. The signs were small - a
rapid blink, a small twitch, a laugh of dis-
belief. But their affection would always
win in the end. Eventually, they would nod
and force themselves to smile. "Oh, you're
gay," they said. And that was that.
The point is that my friend did not tip-
toe around his homosexuality or hide it in.
any way. He was proud of it. So proud that
he threw it in the face of the people around
him and dared them to accept it.
And so they did.
Although most people would think that
being openly gay would make others
uncomfortable, it actually has the opposite
effect. The more open my friend was, the
more comfortable I became. Walking
down the street, we would point out cute
guys and predict which ones were gay, as
if we were on a treasure hunt. My friend
made homosexuality normal, everyday
and, well, fun.

Luckily, Ann Arbor is accepting
toward homosexuality. However, there's
still a lot of hatred in the world. In some
parts of the country, my friend would have
been beaten or even killed for his behavior.
Many people are not okay with homosexu-
ality. They are disgusted and revolted and
would like to ban same-sex marriages as a
way to push homosexuality underground,
where they'll be able to forget about it as
they go on with their lives. By banning
even the possibility of same-sex marriage,
they are sending the message that homo-
sexuality is wrong and unacceptable, that
it should be treated asa shameful secret.
Same-sex marriages, however, should
be legalized precisely because so many
people hate homosexuality. Hatred is
caused by fear, and fear is caused by the
unknown. Without people like my friend,
homosexuality would remain so obscure,
hidden in closets around the world, that it
could only be feared and hated by an igno-
rant population.
Bringing homosexuality out into the
light, on the other hand, will eventually
breed understanding. Legalizing same-sex
marriages sends the message that it's okay
to be gay, which would encourage more
and more people to come out. Then, once
the public begins to meet and interact with
openly gay people on a daily basis, homo-
sexuality will become more common and
acceptable. Eventually, people like my
friend will show the rest of the world that
homosexuality is not something to hate or
fear at all. It's simply a part of life.
Kellman can be reached at
bonkell@umich.edu.