9 - The Michigan Daily - Orientation Edition 2004
420 MAYNARD STREET
ANN ARBOR, MI 48109
hw 4W tothedaily@michigandaily.com
EDITED AND MANAGED BY
STUDENTS AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
uu 1 1

NIAMH SLEVIN
Editor in Chief

SUHAEL MOMIN
Editorial Page Editor

Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of
the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other pieces do not
necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.

WE WILL WO
WE
University President Mary Sue
Coleman has signaled her intent
to accept Gov. Jennifer
Granholm's budget proposal to keep
tuition at or below the rate of inflation.
By doing so, the state's 5 percent cut to
funding for the University will be low-
ered to 2 percent. Coleman announced
that by agreeing to Granholm's lan, the
University would save about $20 mil-
lion in state funds this year and for
many years to come. But according to
Coleman, the plan is not a sound solu-
tion for the long run.
It is important that Granholm is
addressing the issue of tuition, as it is
clearly one of the more pressing and
problematic issues at the University. As
a result of the agreement, in-state stu-
dents would see a tuition increase about
equal to the rate of inflation.
While a tuition increase tied to the
rate of inflation will no doubt come as a

RK TO ATTAIN AND PROTECT AN ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT, STUDENT-RUN NEWSPAPER ...
WILL STRIVE IN ALL CASES TO UPHOLD A SENSE OF JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY.

Inflationary tuition
Tuition freeze nice, but State control troublesome

relief to students used to increases of
more than 5 percent a year, the proposal
is not without faults. By accepting the
plan, the University runs the risk of los-
ing some of its autonomy, as it appears
the state can control vital aspects of
University policy.
Coleman was placed in a very diffi-
cult position. If she rejected Granholm's
proposal, then the state would levy an
additional 3 percent penalty that would
total an 18 percent cut over the next 2
years, as opposed to a 12 percent cut as
written in the plan. Faced with threats of
a $40 million budget shortfall, Coleman
did the only thing she could - bow
down to the state. The only other option

would have been to raise tuition an
astronomical 15 to 20 percent. Still, the
University faces a sizable shortage,
necessitating further cuts.
Needless to say, students favor a
lower tuition hike, but any change in
the tuition increase should come from
the University - not the state.
Granholm's method, forcing the
University to accept her proposal,
might work to the advantage of the stu-
dents on this occasion, but in the future
Granholm might subject the University
to other critical choices that are less
suitable to students.
Furthermore, the agreement is only
favorable to a select population. While

the University is a public school and has
a duty to educate in-state students, it has
historically welcomed out-of-state stu-
dents. Granholm's proposal certainly
alleviates the problem of rapidly grow-
ing tuition for in-state stu ents, but it
actually could hurt out-of-state stu-
dents. The plan does not mention out-
of-state tuition, but because the
University will lose money over the next
year as a result of the new plan, it is
likely that out-of-state tuition rates will
rise significantly.
The University prides itself on auton-
omy from the state. While Coleman
claims that the agreement does not jeop-
ardize that ideal, perhaps it is not the
subject of the agreement that poses the
problem, but rather the nature of the
agreement. It is critical that the
University remain wary of, and avoid
succumbing to, state pressure in future
situations. - March 25, 2004


Troubling numbers
Decrease in minority applications raises concerns

Don't cross the line
Students should support lecturers

Seven months ago, the U.S. Supreme
Court struck down the University's
undergraduate admissions policy,
forcing of icials to create an entirely
new application within the span of a few
months. In what may be related news,
the University's current number of
minority applications is down 23 percent
from this time last year. While this sta-
tistic may prove to be meaningless as the
last group of applications are processed,
if the gap persists following the end of
the application period, the University
will be forced to recognize its signifi-
cance. In preparation of this possibility,
the University should begin brainstorm-
ing programs that would be aimed at
restoring diversity among future appli-
cant classes.
Minority applications have not been
the only ones to decrease thus far; over-
all applications are down 18 percent as
well. The real worry, however, becomes
the 5 percent difference between these
two statistics. According to the
University's Center for Statistical
Consultation and Research, the drop in
the proportion of minority applicants is
*statistically significant. What this means
is that, in comparison to the decrease in
overall applications, this year's propor-
tion of minority applicants is signifi-
cantly lower than last year's.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that
the decrease in minority applications is
significant only as of now. e 5 percent
disparity could, and hopefully will,
change by the time the University has
finished reviewing all of its appliea-
tions. Because the deadline was Feb. 1,
the University still has thousands more
applications to process before it can
definitively announce the final numbers.

If the decrease does remain signifi-
cant, there are a number of possible
causes for it. In rewriting its affirma-
tive action policy, the University
replaced its point-based admissions
system with one that includes short-
answer questions and an optional essay.
The new application is more difficult
and more time-consuming than the pre-
vious one, possibly encouraging stu-
dents who were ambivalent about the
University not to apply. Another factor
that could weigh in is the cost of
tuition. The University is one of the
most expensive public schools in the
country, and with ever-increasing
tuition due to decreased state funding,
perhaps more students are unable to
afford the high price of attendance.
However, none of those issues can
adequately explain the disparity
between minority and non-minority
applicants. If the disparity persists, it
will be important to ascertain what spe-
cific factors affect minorities. Perhaps
parents of minority students do not
want their children to be in an environ-
ment in which race and ethnicity have
become central issues and their chil-
dren may face possible alienation as a
result. The Michigan Civil Rights
Initiative, which will bring an increased
and potentially discomforting, focus on
race may also have discouraged
minorities from applying.
Whatever the causes of the decrease
in minority applicants may be, the
University needs to recognize the
severity of such an occurrence. As a
school that prides itself on its diversity,
there must be a conscious effort made
to maintain diversity among applicants
in the coming years. - Feb. 13, 2004

T he Lecturers' Employee
Organization, the union that rep-
resents non-tenure-track faculty,
has authorized its members to vote on
whether to hold a one-day walkout on
April 8to protest the unfair treatment
they receive. Despite contributing much
to undergraduate education, this group
still does not receive the fair wages,
health benefits and job security that it
deserves. Students, especially under-
graduates, should support the lecturers
in their fight.
Lecturers account for about 25 per-
cent of all undergraduate teaching in the
College of Literature Science and Arts,
with numbers as high as 75 percent in
the Department of Romance Languages
and 67 percent in the Residential
College. They are hired primarily to
teach and, as such, can devote more of
their energies to their students than
tenure-track research professors can.
Yet these valuable employees are not
recognized for their contribution to
undergraduate education at the
University. For example, the average
lecturer with a doctorate who teaches in
the Romance Languages department
makes a paltry $32,013 per year and.
will not see significant increases in this
salary over time that would reflect years
or decades of service to the University.
Many lecturers do not know whether
they will still have their jobs a year
down the road. Lecturers are employed
through short-term contracts, and once
these contracts expire, a lecturer must
reapply for his job. These lecturers are
treated like temporary employees, and
many of them must reapply every year
even though they might have been
teaching for decades.

The effect that this has on the quali-
ty of undergraduate instruction is
noticeable. Many lecturers, especially in
the Romance Languages department,
are only on contract or the semester
and must balance their in-class duties
with the difficult reality of only being
able to count on roughly four months of
work. How can these individuals be
expected to deliver top-quality educa-
tion while at the same time having little
to no long-term investment in the
University or its students?
Increasing the quality of health ben-
efits will have the same effects as
ensuring job security. Many lecturers
lose their health care benefits over the
summer when they are not teaching, a
loss that can cost up to $800 per
month. LEO is asking for the
University to extend health care bene-
fits over the summer for all who teach
at least half time. This extension will
lift a burden from their backs and allow
them to devote even more energy to
their students.
The University has been a leader in
pushing for better treatment of its
teachers. In 1975, Graduate Student
Instructors in the Graduate Employees'
Organization won their first contract
after a month-long strike, setting the
standard of fair treatment for graduate
student employees in public universi-
ties across the country. There is no rea-
son why LEO cannot follow in the foot-
steps of GEO's victories and establish a
standard of fair treatment for lecturers
as well. Lectures deserve their stu-
dents' backing in their fight for fair
wages, job security and health care dur-
ing the possible day-long work stop-
page on April 8.-- March 31, 2004