4- The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, September 20, 1995 Ui1JZ idi!1uu &Ut~IIJ 1 :3 420 Maynard Ann Arbor, Ml 48109 Edited and managed by students at the .University of Michigan MICHAEL ROSENBERG Editor in Chief JULIE BECKER JAMES M. NASH Editorial Page Editors JORDAN STMrCIL LAST-DITCH APPEAL a Opportucnity knocks on the door oft brave new world uless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of a majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters, and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. Guaranteedcode loan Duderstadt's adopt-a-code plan a mistake something has been working at an- other large university for 20 years, it could certainly work here." So goes the logic according to President James J. Duderstadt for adopting an interim student code of con- duct from another university if the student committee on revamping the code fails to present an adequate revision to the Board of Regents. Duderstadt's logic is flawed. Even if the newly proposed code is unacceptable, adopting an interim student code of non- academic conduct at the October regents meeting from another large uni- I Z J$ g only make matters worse. If the University adopts an interim code from another school, students will have to abide by a code that they did not help create - effectively eliminating the student voice from any such code. But the regents have made it clear to Hartford that a code written without student input is unacceptable. How, then, is a generic document going to be a satisfactory replacement? Harvard University's equivalent to the emco van Eeuwjik, however unwit- tingly, created a Vision last week of a society driven almost entirely by consider- ations of race and gender. It is strange that he did something so important and interesting partly because he is a Michigan Student Assembly representative, but mainly because he did not intend to do anything other than come up with a "representative" Budget Priorities Committee. The BPC makes recommendations to the full assembly about funding for student groups. It determines, with the assembly's approval, which groups get money and how much they get. The BPC has a chair, a vice chair and eight members. Van Eeuwijk, a Rackham representative in the assembly, is chairperson this year. To him fell the task of choosing committee members. Since he doesn't like "ad hockery," he created a sys- tem by which points would be assigned to each applicant, thereby taking the decision out of his hands and exonerating him before the fact of any charge of personal bias. Van Eeuwijk used "observable" traits: prior experience, gender, race and school. Females got one point, males none for the gender category; non-whites got one point for race while whites got none; prior experi- ence got one point, none got none. For school, each applicant got one over n, n being equal to the number ofapplicants from that school. There were about nine from LSA, so LSA students got one-ninth of a point in that category. Sexual orientation was not a factor because it wasn't observable. According to van Euwijk, these shenani- gans were supposed to yield a new and improved BPC, representative of the student body. Even if it wouldn't be perfect, it would be different from last year when the commit- tee was lily white. After the committee was approved, some- one pointed out that it had no Jews. "There were probably some categories I didn't think of," said van Eeuwijk. Right. Like a quarter of the campus. The point isn't that this would have been a good system if accounted for every "cat- egory." The significance - in fact, the only significance - of this year's BPC is that it raises the question: How should we decide who gets hired and fired, admitted and pro- moted, accepted, elected and rejected? Van Eeuwijk attempted to answer that question with his own system, since MSA rules don't provide guidelines for commit- tee selection. He thought it would be a change from partisan politics and the old-boy net- work. But he was also playing a form of race-based politics by trying to make sure that "no group feels like the deck is stacked against them (when they apply for funding) because they're a black nationalist group or a feminist group or even a white nationalist group." There are two problems with this: First, I think white nationalist groups should feel that the deck is stacked against them, and second, I find it very dehumanizing. Discrimination on the basis of race and gender is wrong. Discrimination on the basis of merit is desirable. Van Eeuwijk's system uses the bad discrimination to discourage the good kind. Like other affirmative action and diversity programs, as currently prac- ticed, its defining characteristic is its use of a person's race and gender as a qualification. Van Eeuwijk's system may be a stark ex- ample of quota-based thinking, but the con- cept behind it is typical. It is the logical result ofthis country's (andthis University's) struggle to deal with racism which, ironi- cally, has not decreased our preoccupation with race but merely changed its nature. We can't figure out why the BPC was all white last year but we can fix things so it doesn't happen that way again. Never mind the underlying social reasons. Just get some minorities. Unfortunately for all of us, that kind of thinking is being exposed for the chicanery it is. It has robbed the civil rights movement of its moral thunder, allowing the far right to take the high ground, however ingenuously, on racial issues. So what's the answer? Go back to the good old days of networking? Back to the early form of affirmative action that relied on increasing opportunities rather than achieving certain outcomes? Or pure color- blindness- ifanybody believes it possible? I don't know. But one thing's for cer- tain. The current race-based thinking leads straight to van Eeuwijk's brave new world. - Jordan Stancil can be reached over e-mail at rialto@umich.edu versity would result in a mismatch. Since the regents di- rected the Division of Student Affairs to rewrite the code, the results of endless committees, fo- rums and laughable stu- 'lLi r?.< . vLl.W'3.:++A.6 Y~fCFV '7sC.'fhhF4C ... " .: University's code, which is included in its 100-page "Student Handbook," is very similar to the University's existing code. Why import a code from Harvard with the same flaws the University has dent surveys have been fruitless. The work group has attempted to communicate with students, but failed to reach even an adequate percentage of students. With the October deadline looming ever near, the administra- tion is not surprisingly conceding defeat on the summer forum -and the entire rewriting process. The University needs to show that it can handle its own affairs. By lifting a conduct code from another school, the University would essentially admit it is incapable of resolving tensions between students and the administration here. Students will correctly see the work group and Hartford's efforts - and ultimately, the leadership of the Univer- sity - as a failure if their proposed code flops. And pirating yet another code would been unable to rem- edy for two years? This would defeat the purpose of dumping the old code, creating a student-friendly policy on non-academic con- duct. Furthermore, if the University does adopt an interim code, there is no guarantee that the Division of Student Affairs will continue its work on a new code. An interim policy might become a permanent mistake. The "need to have appropriate guidelines in place (by Oc- tober)," of which Duderstadt spoke must not override the need for continuing aggressive efforts to create a code satisfactory to all parties - but especially for students. The University is unique. It is not Harvard, Stanford or Berkeley. Students cannot be expected to tolerate a conduct code designed at the hands of outsiders. - a I [im LASSER I I NOV/ PASS 17 'r I TH E9 CAVE II7 IrO M I * x~x1 SHARP AS TOAST 1 NOTABLE QUOTABLE 'You print It and he doesn't kill anyone else; that's a pretty good deal. You print it and he continues to kill people, what have you lost? The cost of newsprint?' -Arthur . Sulzberger Jr., publisher of The New York Times, referring to the decision to print the Unabomber's manifesto ,'' t" " . The gift that keeps on giving. f jj Time to START Congress is impeding treaty ratification IS The world watched in amazement in Janu- ary 1993 when President George Bush and Russian President Boris Yeltsin signed the far-ranging START II treaty. Coupled with the earlier START I treaty, START II marked an historic agreement between the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals by two-thirds. Congress readily ratified the START I treaty and it went into effect last December. However, Congress is now dragging its feet in ratifying START II. The first obstacle to the ratification of START II arose when members of Congress tacked onto a defense authorization bill a provision mandating the deployment of a "multi-site national missile defense system." This plan, which critics have described as a defense boondoggle on par with the discred- ited Star Wars fantasy, would have cost bil- lions to construct. Many defense officials consider it impractical and ineffective. Be- yond the downfalls of the proposed system, the Russian national legislature deemed it a violation of the spirit of START II and has vowed to hold up its ratification as long as Congress insists on implementing it. 'Last week, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) successfully led a vote to eliminate the anti- missile system from the defense authoriza- tion bill. That move was received warmly by HOW TO CONTACT THEM, University Regent Daniel Horning (R-Grand Haven) 600 S. Beacon Blvd. l- r mn - A 0mm A A 4 7 both Russia and the White House. However, not all is in place for a speedy ratification of START II. Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) has also put the treaty in his cross- hairs. He has vowed to keep START II bottled up in the Senate Foreign Relations Commit- tee - which he chairs - until the White House agrees on a reorganization of the State Department. Also bogged down in Helms' committee is a 1993 treaty that would ban all arsenals of chemical weapons. The United States, long a preacher to the world on the evils of nuclear proliferation and testing, has often been accused of saying one thing, yet doing another. While it aggres- sively pushed other governments to forgo nuclear weapons, it indulged in an arsenal of unimaginable destructive force. Even during recent negotiations that extended the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the United States had to answer to these cries of hypocrisy. Now that the government has finally be- gun to correct its course, congressional bun- gling is blocking the way. Enough is enough. The reduction of nuclear arms is no place for domestic political cat-fights. START II is praised by many experts as effective and comprehensive. The reduction of mass de- struction weapons is clearly in the interest of all. Congress should put domestic political quibbling aside and ratify START II. University Regent Shirley McFee (R-Battle Creek) 611 Jennings Landing D a++t rraak It AQnI R W imsatt's cartoons substandard To the Daily: One question I've been pon- dering lately is Mookie's Di- lemma. I've decided there are two ways of looking at this so-called dilemma. The first is from Mr. Wimsatt's perspective. He asks himself before every deadline, "How can I, a person without much talent and virtually devoid of a sense of humor hope to com- pete for accolades with Jim Lasser, a cartoonist of superior artistic ability and greater wit?" By the way, wasn't Gary Moeller fired this summer? Maybe Matt should read the newspaper and at least be current if not original. Since Mr. Wimsatt represents the Daily, the dilemma can be seen as applying to the Daily and especially to its leadership. Henceforth, the question may be posed as being: How soon can Mr. Rosenberg terminate Mr. Wimsatt's (un)artistic career and restore Mr. Lasser to full time? Hopefully, the sooner the bet- ter. Steve Gralnes LSA senior Pitts dares to challenge PC atmosphere of University To the Daily: Please do not be angry with Antoine Pitts. He is not a bad person, hejust misunderstood the way in which freedom of speech nna ., innr,.. 1++1 ,t.;rnn nit sports editor,'and he is supposed to write editorials. Never mind that all kinds of other editorializ- ing goes on in the sports page (e.g. "For the second straight week, it was the Wolverines' de- fense which keyed their attack," 9/18/95). Never mind that he lives in America, land of the free. The important thing is, he questioned a feminist viewpoint, and that's wrong. Antoine, you can't do that here at Michigan -didn't you hear the limits on the First Amend- ment during Orientation? No? Well, you live and learn, and now you know not to question any- thing that is even slightly PC. But what about his jab at women's sports in general? Once again, Antoine never saw the feminist beast rear its whining head. We should all feel proud of our women's sports, and we should continue to work for equal opportunity in athletics. Never mind that men's gymnastics, men's soccer, and men's volley- ball do not have varsity status, while their female counterparts do. Never mind that this is a bla- tant violation of Title IX (no dis- crimination based on gender, re- member sisters?), which feminists hold dear to their hearts. The im- portant thing is, women are not being discriminated against. When I read Antoine Pitts' column, I suddenly felt in danger. After all, he is a man, and he just attacked feminists. That makes him the worst kind of criminal in Ann Arbor. What's even more ridiculous, the police allowed him to roam free! Thank God the thought police's crack storm- troopers (Alicia Smith, "Pittsdis- plays sexism in column," and Michele A. O'Toole, "Pitts' re- marks offend women," 9/18/95) made him understand the law of the land here at the U Iniversitvo nf but the Title IX violations are still there. Never mind those issues, though, let's get back to more important things, like trying to get Ms. Nolin and that sexist "Baywatch" show off the air. Courtney Faller LSA senior Work group misrepresents code issues To the Daily: President Duderstadt's state- ment that the University may adopt another school's non-aca- demic conduct code ("President considers options on code," 9/15/ 95) is completely at odds with the professed beliefs of the work group and Vice President Hart- ford. At the open forum on Sept. 13, both Hartford and the work group explained that the code being drafted will include a dec- laration of community values de- signed to emphasize the unique nature ofthe University of Michi- gan community. Federal and state requirements for a code say nothing about a value declaration. The only rea- son provided by the work group or by Hartford for including a value declaration in the code is that we should not let our com- munity be defined by outsiders. I fail to see how adopting Harvard's code, even as an in- terim measure, could be consis- tent with this goal. A policy writ- ten for another school cannot rep- resent the unique values of the University of Michigan commu- nity. If another school's code is acceptable to the University ad- ministration, perhaps the value declaration is nt a itmportant as Cho's column incomplete picture of MSA budget To the Dally: In his Sept. 18 column, "MSA audit uncovers some surprisesin- student money," James Cho raises some interesting questions. How- ever, the addition of a few facts should help to provide a more thorough picture-of what MSA does, and how it spends your money. First, it is important to re- member that the mandatory fee paid to MSA through your tuition is decided democratically. Through ballot questions at MSA elections, students decide electorally how much money MSA deserves; MSA cannot re- ceive more money than students approve. Second, not only has MSA fee-inflation been nearly non-ex istent, a number of years have actually seen a decrease in our student fee. Today, MSA's fee remains at a paltry $2.94. Not many students drop out of school over those three dollars. In addition, if Cho had talked to more than one MSA represen- tative, he would have learned that the $0.36 per student that pays for representation for University stu- dents in Lansing, by no means extravagant to begin with, has been zeroed out in our proposed 1995-96 budget. Instead, the crux ofthe money is slated to be given to student groups in many ways, the civic and intellectual epicenter of this University in the form of a $17,000 increase.