4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, November 22, 1995
UI 4e £4iiar&l
.41
JORDA STANCIL
LAST-DITcH APPEAL
420 Maynard Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Edited and managed by
students at the
University of Michigan
MICHAEL ROSENBERG
Editor in Chief
JULIE BECKER
JAMES M. NASH
Editorial Page Editors
CompromA'se makes an idealisth
enemy but apoliiian s ar/form
Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion ofa majority of the Daily 's editorial board.All
other articles, letters, and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily.
E*.
Spreadingthe 'pain'
Salary gap favors administrators over faculty
Tast year, salaries for the University's
L administrators grew 5.8 percent, while
salaries for faculty went up just 4 percent.
The gap in salary increases has increased
compared to past years. Considering that
administrators are paid more than almost all
faculty members already, this is a troubling
sign that the University may be unwilling to
devote the resources necessary to maintain a
world-class faculty and a quality educational
environment.
The trend favoring administrators in sal-
ary allocations is fundamentally unfair. Ad-
ministrators should be fairly compensated
for their important work -- however, the
University's limited resources should not be
given disproportionately to a single group.
The gap between administration and faculty
salaries grows wider by the year. In fact, this
trend is accelerating. The discrepancy indi-
cites that the University has forgotten the
faculty is its backbone.
Vice President for University Relations
Walter Harrison has argued that these latest
figures are misleading. Ie claims the num-
bers for the administrators represent the sala-
ries for only a small number of people, while
the faculty statistics are the average for a
large set of individuals, with a wide range of
salary levels. However, his argument does
not explain recent salary growth. The fact
remains that administration salaries grew at a
faster rate than faculty salaries. Salary growth
has nothing to do with income diversity.
Provost and Executive Vice President for
Academic Affairs J. Bernard Machen offers
the explanation that the University's General
Fund allocation growth was only 2 percent
last year, as opposed to 2.2 percent the year
before. This, he says, is the culprit in holding
faculty salaries down. This argument does
not holdup to scrutiny either. First, the "pain"
from a lower General Fund allocation should
have been spread evenly between the admin-
istration and faculty-or, even better, placed
entirely on the backs of the administration.
Machen correctly asserts that the reason for
the lower general fund growth level was the
smaller state appropriation this year. By most
accounts, the Legislature was loath to appro-
priate more money for the University be-
cause of perceived arrogance on the part of
University representatives in Lansing. Who
were these representatives? The administra-
tors.
The situation raises concerns for the Uni-
versity. First, it makes for bad public rela-
tions. It may hurt recruitment of quality fac-
ulty, and it harms the overall reputation of the
University. Perhaps most important, it inhib-
its the University's ability to function. As
Senate Advisory Committee for University
Affairs Chair George Brewer said at last
week's Board of Regents meeting, the issue
is not salaries specifically, but more gener-
ally the fostering of a sound academic envi-
ronment. This is very difficult when the
administration sends signals that the faculty
is of secondary importance at the University.
The new salary figures show an alarming
trend. Try as the administration might, the
disparity in wage growth cannot be explained
without acknowledging that the stats are a
slap in the face to the faculty. It is time for
faculty members to be properly acknowl-
edged - and rewarded - for their work.
Fortunately for the entire nation, compro-
mise is still the basis for doing political
business in Washington. After the longest
shutdown of the federal government in its
history, Republicans and Democrats came
up with a compromise that allows the gov-
ernment to run until Dec.15. Some liberals
and some conservatives will claim that their
side gave up too much in the continuing
resolution, and these ideologues will see
further evidence of a sellout in the coming
battle over the real budget. What these mal-
contents fail to understand is that the Ameri-
can political system is uniquely dependent
on compromise. In fact, last week's standoff
over principles and this week's pragmatic
compromise are evidence not ofthe system's
breakdown but of its continuing vitality.
Recently there has been cause to doubt
that vitality. The new Republicans in the
House of Representatives practice an ideo-
logical brand of politics foreign to that fa-
mously pragmatic and formerly pork-friendly
chamber. The tone of political discourse has
sunk to new lows. Negative campaigning is
the norm and the public thinks everyone is
lying. While the system of representative
democracy is predicated on compromise and
tolerance, disgust with utterly unprincipled
politicians led to the ascendance of a large
number of uncompromising Republicans,
whose intolerance was seen as an asset.
The new Republicans have shown an
almost religious devotion to the idea of a
balanced budget. This has had its effect on
presidential politics. In a recent campaign
speech, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) told the
touching story ofa young girl who looked up
at him with hopeful, trusting eyes and asked
whether there would ever be a balanced
budget in her lifetime. In addition to this sort
of nonsense, we have been treated to the
spectacle of representatives insisting that
they will not vote for any budget bill that
doesn't abolish the Department of Com-
merce or Energy or some other agency that
they really hate. These new members of
Congress often claim to speak for "the
'Merican People" rather than for the mem-
bers of their own districts. They seem to
have forgotten that politics isn't about strict
adherence to principle but about being able
to compromise your principles without for-
saking them.
Most people would probably say that, if
they were in Congress, they wouldn't sell
out, that they couldn't be bought off, and
that they couldn't live with themselves if
they didn't "vote their conscience." Luck-
ily, most of these people will never be poli-
ticians. Unfortunately, too many of them are
currently in Congress.
The good part is that it won't matter
because the American government holds
within itself a certain institutional stability.
This is due to the fact that it can withstand
ideological attacks and turn even the most
ardent purist into a first-rate horse trader.
This was demonstrated in last week's
budget standoff. Each ofthe two sides threat-
ened to hold out 'til it got everything it
wanted. Bill Clinton said that he would wait
all the way until the next election. But we
don't have a parliamentary system, and our
governments can't be toppled by a bunch of
loonies with red and blue striped ties. So
even after an intense week of drawing lines
in the sand, each side gave a little ground and
everybody can go to Yellowstone once again.
Last week's principled pontification was
really no more than political posturing by
the Republican leadership and Clinton. That
shouldn't make us cynical, it should be taken
as a sign of the system's health. After all, do
you really want the government paralyzed
while Congress fights over ideals? Ofcourse
not. We've got a country to run here.
My prediction is that there's no need to
fear that the government will be held hos-
tage by some demented practitioner of the
balanced budget religion. In the coming
budget negotiations, we are going to see.
wheeling and dealing like never before.
And that's how it should be.
-- Jordan Stancil can he reached over e-
mail at rialtoQ)umich.edu
I
Jin LASSER
WfRA1 KIND
B1SL E 15
*l
!r -
SHARP AS TOAST.
OF - THOU 614AL-rNoT 6)VE
'H-AT ? -MONEY lToi4EDICAgIF...
1i*)V SHAM-" NOT SopfoRT
TH-E NEW, T ,.AFF~tRf~rMrATIE C1ON...
-TE5AMNT- 1--e*EyPX. F
7jE/,~y~ '
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
'So, basically, I
paid $8 to get
the flu.'
- Pharmacy student
Corinne Patrick, who got
aflu shot Oct. 13 and
developed the flu
afterwards
A
i
Read and delete
Forwarding e-mail is protected free speech
LETTERS
T he list of "75 Reasons why women
(bitches) should not have freedom of
speech" posted by four Cornell University
students has become an ironic statement on
freedom of speech on the Internet. While
Internet users across the country were under-
standably appalled by the message, the sub-
sequent threats of death, bodily harm and e-
mail harrassment made against the four stu-
dents and the entire Cornell network point
toward a"free speech for me but not for thee"
mentality among other Internet users.
The students initially sent the message to
agroup of friends, who proceeded to forward
it across the country. In response to com-
plaints, Cornell administrators correctly ruled
that the students did not violate sexual ha-
rassment codes because the list was not aimed
at anyone in particular. Nor, administrators
decided, did the students violate any code of
non-academic conduct, as the list was ini-
tially kept within a small circle.
However, the pressure from members of
the Cornell community to discipline students
was intense. While Cornell administrators
have found no justification for formal disci-
pline, the four men have committed to 50
hours of community service and a class at the
school addressing rape issues. While this
may be a reasonable apology from the stu-
dents to their community, it is not clear how
"voluntary" the students' admission of over-
stepping the bounds of decency was. The
case sets a dangerous precendent in a com-
munications network with no established sets
of guidelines or laws.
Certain offensive messages must be toler-
ated in a nation that values the right of all to
speak freely. If a message on the Internet is
deemed offensive, then who is the guilty
party - the initial sender, or the person who
forwarded the message? If a list demeaning
women is to be considered "abuse," then
what is to be done with Anarchist Cookbook
recipes or the Ku Klux Klan web site avail-
able across the Internet? While some may
consider e-mail privileged access, it is none-
theless a valid means of communication and
must be protected under the same freedom of
speech laws as other forms of expression.
The problem with punishing people - such
as the Cornell students - who distribute
such messages over the Internet is that it
holds them to different standards than other
means of communication.
Fortunately for the University of Michi-
gan, the Information Technology Divison's
Conditions of Use Statement outlines the
definition of harrassment, and, had the case
occurred at the University, would not have
interfered. Unlike the Jake Baker case - in
which threatening messages were posted on
a bulletin board describing a possible attack
on a specific student - forwarding a mes-
sage or list cannot be construed as harrassment
on an individual level.
Though the prospect of instantly sending
a threatening message across the world can
be discomforting, it is no reason to hold the
Internet or its users to a different set of
standards of free speech. People reading e-
mail have a "delete" key as well as a "for-
ward" key - if they read an offensive mes-
sage, they should use it.
Daily's Glee
Club article
inaccurate
To the Daily:
This letter comes to you re-
garding the inaccuracies that ap-
peared in the preview of the
Women's Glee Club concert,
"Glee Club reappears," which was
printed on Friday, Nov. 17. The
article was very distressing as it
did not accurately portray the Glee
Club and its activities. Please note
the following facts about the
Women's Glee Club:
The Women's Glee Club
was established in 1893 and was
disbanded in 1953. The Club was
reorganized in 1976, and has been
a part of campus ever since. It is
made up mostly, but not entirely,
of non-music majors who are se-
lected by our director, Theodore
Morrison, through an audition
process. The women in Glee Club
are far from inexperienced per-
formers and have been singing
for quite some time.
Professor Theodore
Morrison is a professor of con-
ducting as well as Co-Director of
Choirs at the School of Music,
not a voice professor.
a This year's Women's Vo-
cal Arts Day will be the third
annual event.
The Women's Glee Club
toured last May for a week to
Cincinnati and Chicago.
In the future, it would be in
the best interests of both student
groups and your publication if
more care was taken when re-
searching information for articles.
Tamar Galed
Women's Glee
Club President
LSA senior
Code passage
i s not fcs iIt of
is preposterous! It was clear that
there was only one regent who
opposed any code that went be-
yond the existing laws of the state
of Michigan and of the United
States.
Flint has tried effortlessly to
increase student input on the
Board of Regents and this tabloid
headlining by the Daily is brain
dead.
After you're done burning
Flint to the stake, why don't you
leave your typewriters and try a
stab at it ? It's so easy for carping,
captious ignoramuses to scream
and yell!
When you're in the arena, you
have to make tough choices. Any
writer with a Daily pass can write
whatever misinformation he or
she chooses to without any ac-
countability.
While you're at it, why don't
you change your name to the
Michigan Enquirer.
Jonathan Winick
MSA representative
LSA junior
Wainess tried
to minimize
losses on
Code issue
To the Daily:
The Daily seems to believe
that MSA President Flint Wainess
is a sell-out because he negoti-
ated for a better, or a less bad,
non-academic conduct code.
There is, however, an alterna-
tive explanation for Wainess'
tack. It stems from a simple busi-
ness principle: If you can't maxi-
mize profits you at least try to
minimize losses.
The regents made it very clear
that students were going to have a
code; the only question was how
extensive that code was to be.
open your mouths about a par-
ticular issue, read about it. 2) For
my second and bigger point, I
will, as simply as possible, delin-
eate the ideologies and goals be-
hind affirmative action. Before I
do that, let me tell you what affir-
mative action is not.
Affirmative action does not
blame anyone. It does not blame
a particular group, nor individu-
als. It attempts to correct injus-
tices in the workplace and schools
that are happening now.
Affirmative action is not pen-
ance for historical grievances. For
instance, through slavery, blacks
were involuntarily inducted into
American culture with inferior
social and economic status. This
is an important historical fact.
Affirmative action battles current
injustices, it does not sink to an
eye-for-an-eye mentality and de-
mand special privileges.
Affirmative action does not
force schools or employers to
'muster a collection of
underqualified minorities or
women. "Equal" qualification is
an abstraction. People get jobs
for many reasons and paper or
numerical qualifications is only
one of them. There are plenty of
qualified minorities, but they are
denied jobs because of racism.
How? Employers are usually not
blatantly racist, but racism has
been so conditioned into our so-
ciety that sometimes people do
not know when they're acting
racist. Let me ask you some eye-
opening questions.
When you are walk past a
group of black youths, how do
you feel? Do you clutch your
purse tighter? Do you feel intimi-
dated? Why? When you are at a
party, whom do you most associ-
ate with? Are there particular
people you do not put effort in
getting to know? Now apply this
mindset to what goes on at com-
pany outings. Is it no wonder that
promotions occur among people
who know each better? Is it no
effects of a racist society.
Affirmative action has a large
role in combatting these un-
founded assumptions about mi-
norities by forcing prejudiced re-
knowledge their racist tendencies.
Before you attack affirmative
action, educate yourselfaboutthe
reality of the situation.
Zeno Lee
LSA senior
Blame budget
deadlock on
Clinton, not
Republicans
To the Daily:
Your recent editorial on the
budget impasse states that Con2
gress is to blame. However,the
"cuts" to Medicare will not hurt' a
seniors at all. The Republican plan
calls foran slight increase in premi-
ums, at worst adding up to about a
$5 increase in monthly premiums
for Medicare than what they're pay-
ing now. Currently, the people on
Medicare pay 31.5 percent and the
government pays the rest. Clinton,
wants the ratio to go down 25 per-
cent for next year. The difference:
between his 25 percent recommen-
dation and the Republican plan is
$11 a month on premiums. The
other fact is that in the out years,
when Clinton increases the Medi-
care premiums in his budget, the
difference between the plans then
shrinks from $11 to $4 a month.
Clinton is fighting us for $4 a
month?
Even under the Republican
plan, seniors will get increased
social security payments. This
will negate the effect of the in-
crease.so seniors won't even feel
it.
The Medicare savings even
with the small Republican change
are large when you consider the
HOW TO CONTACT THEM
University President James J. Duderstadt
2068 Fleming Administration Building
764-970