6 4 - The Michigan Daily - Monday, July 3, 2006 4 1'd ga Qrig JEREMY DAVIDSON Editor in Chief IMRAN SYED Editorial Page Editor JEFFREY BLOOMER Managing Editor EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890. 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their author. Editorial Board Members: Amanda Andrade, Emily Beam, Jared Goldberg, Theresa Kennelly, Christopher Zhrozek FROM THE DAILY Stand and fight Alumni Association right to speak against MCRI FROM THE DAILY A proposal to kill Death penalty still has no place in Michigan Despite all the death sentences address these problems, although the strict carried out in other fine states, guidelines that would be needed to keep rac- Michigan has not executed any- ist attitudes from influencing jury decisions one since it became a state in 1837. That aren't exactly in place. might change if State Rep. Dan Acciavatti Buteventhemostcarefully constructedsys- (R-Chesterfield Township) has his way. In tem of executions remains problematic. The reaction to a brutal crime spree that includ- limitations on appeals that would be needed ed two murders in his district, Acciavatti to make the death penalty a cost-effective hopes to amend the state constitution to endeavor would also invite the execution of allow capital punishment for first-degree innocents. If horror stories of public defend- murder. But doing so would be a step back ers in capital cases sleeping through court or for a state that was perhaps the first gov- using cocaine weren't enough, the fact that ernment in the English-speaking world to Barry Scheck's Innocence Project has used abolish a punishment that is legally, finan- DNA testing to free 14 people who had been cially and, above all, morally indefensible. sentenced to death should make anyone More responsible legislators should ignore who thinks all those on the nation's death Acciavatti's pleas and refuse to write this rows deserve to die think twice. It requires a unjust practice into Michigan's laws. unique strand of cold-blooded utilitarianism Appealing to a frightened public, Accia- to justify a system that inevitably will lead to vatti says Michigan needs harsher punish- the occasional state-sponsored murder of an ments, including death, to deter would-be innocent citizen. criminals. He makes no pretense at proving Fundamentally, giving courts the author- the dubious proposition that the death pen- ity to kill is an immoral act - as the old alty is actually an effective deterrent. More adage goes, two wrongs don't make a right. tellingly, he completely ignores the host of If punishment is meant to protect the public problems associated with capital punish- and provide for the eventual rehabilitation of ment that would make it unacceptable in a those who can be reformed, the death pen- civilized society regardless of any supposed alty should have no role to play in the cor- efficacy as a deterrent. rections system. Indeed, it is curious that Those problems range from the mundane more religious conservatives, who purport and perhaps tractable to the profound and to believe ina religion that preaches forgive- insolvable. In American society, the death ness and tells them to love their enemies, penalty is expensive to carry out and is dis- don't share the same view. Michigan has proportionately imposed on minority defen- held the correct moral stance on capital pun- dants. Limiting appeals and careful use ishment since statehood, and there's no rea- of sentencing guidelines might, in theory, son to change it now. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR For the first time in its history, the University's Alumni Association has taken an official stance on an issue. Consider the words "for the first time," and then reconsider the Michi- gan Civil Rights Initiative. That proposal - which will appear on the November ballot - seeks to end most affirmative action programs in the state of Michigan, especially at the University. That's a thought the Alumni Association deemed urgent enough to blaze a new trail in speaking out against it, saying MCRI would "severely limit U-M's ability to attract, support and maintain a diverse student body and academic community, and is harmful to U-M's students and alumni and society." The Alumni Associ- ation has thereby added itself to a long list of MCRI's strong opponents, including both Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Republican challenger Dick DeVos. The Association itself also straddles party lines, speaking to the broad ideological spectrum that now recognizes the poten- tial dangers of the proposal. Though some criticism has arisen regarding the Alumni Association's deci- sion to take a stand, such arguments are misplaced. Until 2003, the Association had no set protocol to speak out and was therefore unable to address officially Gratz v. Bollinger or Grutter v. Bollinger, the two Supreme Court cases challenging the University's admission policies. Pre- paring for the future, the Association then developed a protocol precisely so it could respond if another issue contentious and important enough were to arise. LIVE ON YOUR FEET MCRI is that issue. The Association's decision to come out against the proposal is not only appropriate, given how it would alter the University community, but also serves a symbolic role. For those eager to dismiss the debate as a mudslinging match between extremists on both sides of the political spectrum, the willingness of the Association to speak out suggests just how critical this issue is to the general public. Proponents of MCRI would like us to believe that since the 1960s, our society has progressed to a point where women and minorities no longer face any dis- crimination in access to education and opportunities for work. But, studies con- tinue to show that reality paints a starkly different picture. Affirmative action was intended to miti- gate some of the very basic disparities that exist within our nation's social fabric. While few would argue that the system is without its flaws, a society that champi- ons civil rights is a society that strives for equality of opportunity. A wholesale ban on many of these programs guarantees precisely the opposite. As a significant voice of the University as a whole, the Alumni Association has not only the right, but also the responsibility to come out against MCRI. In doing so, it followed all the rules by going through its recently created process. Those who oppose the Association's action, therefore, have lit- tle stable moral ground to stand on, and the minor backlash the Association has faced should not deter other groups from speaking out against the defective and counterproduc- tive proposal that is MCRI. Issue advocacy n for Alumni Assoc TO THE DAILY: Since when is political act University Alumni Associ (Expressing opposition to MC ciation makes history, 06/19/2 Association had had the good membership on this issue bef lic stand, is it fair to enlist 1 resources even to support the If the leaders of the Assoc personal beliefs about the is to spend their own time andm them. But I strongly object t organization's name and my either side of the issue. Ann Arbor must c flaws of instant-ru TO THE DAILY: Last November, when New Prof. Steven Brams gave a lec tems at the University's Mather he pointed out that proponent voting often ignore how tha operates. The Michigan Daily voting system for Ann Arbor instant-runoff voting, 06/19/20 point. Under the Hare System ot a job based, it is not correct, as Prof. John Chamberlain is quoted as suggesting, that "Adopting (IRV) :ationg generally makes sense when multi-candidate elections are common." As Prof. Brams has pointed out, "The Hare Sys- tivism part of the temmay eliminate a centrist candidate early onand ation's mission? thereby elect one less acceptable to the majority. It RI, Alumni Asso- suffers also from "nonmonotonicity" in which vot- 006). Even if the ers,by raising the ranking of a candidate, may actu- d sense to poll the ally cause that candidate to lose -just the opposite fore taking a pub- of what one would want to happen." the organization's An example of the first problem is the last majority view? presidential election France. In the runoff, Lio- iation have strong nel Jospin, who probably would havebeaten both sue, they are free Jacques Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen in a one- noney to advocate on-one race, was eliminated, just as he would be o their use of the under IRV. The monotonicity problem with IRV dues to advocate arises because, under that system, a candidate who would otherwise win can wind up losing if Michael Smith more voters make that candidate their first place Alum choice - surely a perverse result. 1 Approval voting is a system where, in an elec- lonsiaer tion with three or more candidates, voters can ,noff voting give one vote each to the candidate or candidates of whom they approve, and the candidate hav- ing most votes wins. This is an alternative system without the drawbacks of IRV. It would provide w York University much-needed reform to our electoral system not ture on voting sys- only in Ann Arbor, but also at the national level. satics Department, Had AV been in place in Florida in 2000, George s of instant-runoff W. Bush wouldnever have been elected because it it system actually is clear that an overwhelming proportion of Ralph 's article on a new Nader voters would have supported Al Gore over (Residents Push for Bush under AV. 6 0 6 OI-IN OQ)) F- DAD, CAN AMERICA E CALLED THE 0 PEOPLE ARE DYING IN IRAQ TO "LAND OF THE FREE' WHEN PEOPLE PROTECT PEOPLE'S FREEDOM TO DENY CANT MARRY WHO THEY WAT OR EACH OHER OF THEIR RIGHTS? THAT'S r EVtN BURN AN AMERICAN FLAG? . EVCRYONES GOD-GIVSN IGHT? tLSON THIS COUNTRY WSsFOUNDED ON THE THAT'S DEMOCRACY SON. PRINCIPLE THAT EVERYONE YOO SURE DO LEARN FAST. w IS ENTITLED TO - FREEDOM. F 06) illustrates this , on which IRV is John Howard Wilhelm Alum