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