4 - The Michigan Daily - Tuesday, May 3, 2005 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 STEPHANIE WRIGHT tothedaily@michigandaily.com Editor in Chief EDITED AND MANAGED BY T |CI|lu uSTUDENTS AT THE Unless otherwise noted, unsig UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN the majority of the Daily's edit SINCE 1890 necessarily reflect the opi I DONN M. FRESARD Editorial Page Editor ned editorials reflect the opinion of orial board. All other pieces do not nion of The Michigan Daily. The Michigan Student Assembly has recommended three student fee increases for the fall semes- ter, and pending approval by the Uni- versty Board of Regents, $3.50 will be added to each student's tuition bill. The increases will provide two additional lawyers to Student Legal Services as well as increased funding for student groups. These fees are not excessive and will serve important purposes for students next year. The regents should approve all three fee increases, and MSA should act quickly and responsibly in implementing the new programs that the higher fees would make possible. On average, student groups currently receive only 33 percent of the funds that they request from MSA's Budget Priori- ties Committee. A $1 increase to stu- dent fees, as a part of MSA's proposal, is projected to increase that number by 12 percentage points. This means that all student organizations should receive more money next year, improving the undertakings of every campus group. While we expect that this increase will benefit the University community, we predicate this belief on our trust that Bring on the fees Student fee increases wilt improve campus life MSA will distribute these additional funds fairly. Because the fees come from every University student, MSA must resist the temptation to give extra funding to groups that it favors or whose members overlap with MSA's. In addition to aiding student groups, MSA will use the remainder of the increase to bolster the legal rights of student tenants and international students. They will do so by adding two new attorneys to SLS. The first new lawyer will focus on issues pertaining to immigration law, acting as a resource for more than 4,000 international students currently attend- ing the University. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, immigration laws in the United States have become far stricter; as a result, the number of international students at American uni- versities decreased last year for the first time in three decades. With these new laws, the University's international stu- dents will increasingly need legal help to ensure their immigration status. Through private attorneys, these students would have to spend $2,000 to $3,000 to liti- gate an international law issue. With the fee increase, MSA will provide this service to international students for only $7 per case. Offering affordable legal assistance to international students will help to maintain the University's status as one of the most prolific in the country in terms of international enrollment, and MSA should be commended for recog- nizing and addressing this issue. The second new lawyer provided by the student fee increase will specialize in housing as part of a program called Hous- ing Legal Reform Project. This addition will affect thousands of students who are exploited by Ann Arbor landlords each year. The HLRP, which can give legal advice to student tenants and undertake class-action litigation against landlords, is a step toward a tenants' union similar to the Ann Arbor Tenants' Union, which for more than 30 years protected students in Ann Arbor from abusive landlords before MSA defunded it in 2003. Ann Arbor's student housing problem needs to be addressed further, and it will take many lawyers and innovative city ordinances before University students are completely protected. This new attorney is a good start, however, and he or she will be able to help students immediate- ly; while MSA should continue to work toward comprehensive reform in the long term, this lawyer is a good use of resourc- es for students who need housing-related help now. MSA must do its part and make these changes happen as soon as possible so as many students as possible will benefit from these new services. In addition, the student body needs to be aware of the availability of these two new attorneys, and it is up to MSA to be sure that happens. If not, this increase will not be a service to all stu- dents, and the additional money paid by every student will go to waste. Game over State must not restrict video game sales The endangered filibuster 'Nuclear ontion' threatens confirmation nrocess Gov. Jennifer Granholm urged the swift passing of a bill that would criminalize the sale of violent video games to children last Monday, reiterating the request made in her State of the State address earlier this year. The bill, sponsored by state senators Hansen Clarke (D-Detroit) and Alan Crospey (R-DeWitt), would make it a misdemeanor, punishable by a maxi- mum fine of $5,000 and up to one year in jail, to distribute games rated "M" to a person under 17. Granholm said scientific research and "common sense" have shown that violent video games can have damaging effects on young minds. "As a mother," she told legislators, "it is my job to protect my children. As governor, it is my job to make sure everybody's children are protected." While Granholm's commitment to moth- ering Michigan's youth is well-intentioned, this legislation is ultimately unnecessary and oversteps the state's powers. This bill is merely the latest episode in a long history of hysteria surrounding media violence and its effect on children. Video games are the newest culprit to be blamed for violent behavior among chil- dren, with many politicians jumping on the bandwagon in the interest of appear- ing socially responsible while often ignor- ing larger, more relevant social problems. With the popularity of games such as "Grand Theft Auto," it is easy to assign blame to those who sell and create video games. But for all Granholm's "common sense," it is still unclear whether there is any correlation between violence in entertainment and youth violence, and scientists are far from reaching a consen- sus on the matter. One thing, however, is clear: For all the media hype surrounding school shootings and violent games, arrest rates show that youth violence over the last decade has hardly been an epidemic. According to 2003 federal crime statistics, juvenile vio- lent crime since 1993 - the year that, with the release of both "Doom" and "Mortal Kombat," video game violence entered the public consciousness - has dropped 46 percent, while juvenile homicide arrests have fallen 75 percent. Concerned parents should have the right to decide for themselves what they feel could harm their children - and there are already voluntary standards in place to help them. The Entertainment Software Ratings Board is a nonprofit organization that rates video games, with each rating specifying for which age groups the game is appropriate. Ratings range from "E," for games that are suitable for all age levels, to "M," for games with mature content. "M"-rated games are con- sidered appropriate only for those over the age of 17, and it is this class of games that the bill would affect. In addition to the ratings, the ESRB provides "content descriptors," which list those elements that triggered the rating. These ratings make it easy for par- ents to determine what is and is not appropri- ate for their children; parents who choose to use them can do so without help from the state, and parents who choose to ignore them should have the right to do so. This bill erroneously targets violent video games while ignoring the real causes of juvenile violence - social problems, such as poverty and inadequate schools, that require solutions more courageous and dif- ficult than attacking video games.The state Legislature must be willing to take a stand against this bill's misguided finger-pointing and instead turn its efforts towards address- ing the real causes of juvenile violence. n retaliation for Senate Democrats' repeated use of the filibuster to block President Bush's judicial nominations, Republicans have proposed the "nuclear option" - changing Senate rules to deny the use of the filibuster on judicial nominees. Democrats have successfully used the fili- buster to block a handful of Bush's judicial nominations, circumventing the usual up-or- down majority vote. Because a three-fifths vote is required to end the floor debate, the majority in the Senate must work to gain support from the minority. By stripping sen- ators of their right to filibuster, Republicans would have an easier time obtaining con- firmation for their judicial nominees, and the change would apply to future Supreme Court justice nominations. To garner support for this effort, the con- servative Family Research Council organized a rally entitled "Justice Sunday - Stopping the Filibuster against People of Faith." Dur- ing the controversial event, speakers accused the Democratic Party of using the filibuster specifically against nominees of the Christian faith and called for a change in Senate rules to combat this alleged discrimination. With speeches from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and others, the event was a disturbing attempt to use religion for political gain. Furthermore, it was inherently offensive to people of faith who are not Republicans, as the basic premise of the rally linked religion with the Republican Party's platform. Senate Democrats are obstructing nominees not on the basis of their reli- gious beliefs, but rather because of their ultra-conservative and activist judi- cial philosophies. Many of the potential judges threaten to overturn years of legal precedent in cases such as Roe v. Wade. One nominee, former Alabama Attorney General William Pryor, is an outspoken advocate of the "greater role of religion in government" - an idea that rightfully makes Senate Democrats uneasy. The filibuster is a unique and powerful tool used exclusively in the Senate for the pur- pose of mutual restraint in a system of check and balances. Historically, both parties have4 implemented the filibuster during the judicial confirmation process for federal judges and Supreme Court justices. Without this check, judicial nominations could be approved with only a slim majority vote, and the minority party would have no way of halting a judicial confirmation it firmly opposes. Considering that only a majority vote is needed to change Senate rules, an end to the filibuster is feasible. But just because Repub- licans have the ability to alter the rules in their favor does not mean they should. Bush has argued that Senate Democrats should allow an up-or-down vote to proceed for those nominees who are qualified for a posi- tion on the federal bench. And they have: the Senate has confirmed 205 of the 215 judges Bush has nominated since his election. It is only 10 of Bush's most radical nominees that Democrats have used the filibuster to block. Ending the judicial filibuster would weak- en the process of judicial confirmation by eliminating the need for bipartisan consen- sus. Federal judges play an important role as a check on the executive and legislative branches, and the elimination of the filibus- ter would jeopardize the Senate's ability to pick fair judges that satisfy members of both parties. Despite the temptation to manipulate Senate rules for their party's immediate ben- efit, Republican senators should recognize that it is in the best interest of the Senate and the American public to leave the judicial filibuster intact.