4A - The Michigan Daily - Thursday, October 5, 1995
i
UjE £td~i!1un w-w ~ug
T
JUDITH KAFKA
Amendment
2:,
THE FINE PRT
A bellwether
420 Maynard
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Edited and managed by
students at the
University of Michigan
I 'I
MICHAEL ROSENBERG
Editor in Chief
JULIE BECKER
JAMES M. NASH
Editorial Page Editors
casefor US. Supreme Court
Unless 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.
LSA-SG Dro the sW
LO-.SGleader pushes constructive reform
t is not a scarlet "A" but a registrar's "W"
that stigmatizes students at the University.
It is a different kind of scarlet letter system,
one LSA-Student Government President Rick
Brnstein correctly is working to modify.
1The current LSA drop/add policy states
th at students who drop a class before the
third-week deadline receive no notation on
their transcript that they were ever enrolled in
tl class. Students who withdraw after the
third week need special permission to do so,
and receive a "W" on their transcript.
Brnstein's current proposal requests that
the LSA drop deadline be moved to the ninth
week of classes, enabling students to con-
tinue to drop before the ninth week but elimi-
nting the sanction of the "W." The add
deadline would remain at the third week. The
Joint Faculty-Student Committee will review
Bernstein's proposal at its October meeting.
If approved, the proposal will be recom-
mended to the LSA faculty.
Because no student has ever been denied
permission to drop a class before the ninth
week of classes and because the "W" serves
no educational purpose, Bernstein's efforts
to modify the LSA drop policy are appropri-
ate.
Extending the drop deadline will end the
punishment of students who give a class a
chance before deciding to drop. The current
policy discourages students from enrolling
in difficult classes - f the work seems too
overwhelming after the third week, when
students are beginning to accurately gauge
their workloads, the student must choose
between possibly receiving an "F" or accept-
ing a "W." If these are the only options
afforded to a student, he or she will likely
avoid the choice and enroll in a less difficult
class from the beginning of the semester.
A student facing the choice of withdraw-
ing from a class or failing it will almost
always drop the class anyway, so it makes no
sense to punish students with a useless "W."
The only role of "W" seems to be to provide
fodder for conversation in an already intimi-
dating interview with a graduate school or
employer. This is not enough to justify the
continued use of the sanction.
LSA is one of the few schools at the
University to maintain the third-week drop/
add policy. Although all colleges require
students to add classes by the third week,
students in the College of Engineering, for
example, have until the ninth week to drop a
class without receiving a "W." The College
of Engineering has not subsequently low-
ered its standards or attracted inferior stu-
dents as a result - it is simply providing its
students with a choice they deserve.
Bernsteinacknowledged this discrepancy
in February in his LSA-SG campaign plat-
form. He pledged that, if elected, he would
work to eliminate the drop/add deadline.
After conferring with faculty and students,
Bernstein revised his proposal and requested
the ninth-week deadline instead, as it is more
feasible and is in keeping with other colleges
at the University. It is only October, and the
effects of Bernstein's efforts are beginning
to be felt. His determination to fulfill his
campaign promises is to be commended.
The current LSA drop/add policy is obvi-
ously flawed and students are forced to cope
with the consequences. Bernstein has pro-
posed a workable solution, and there is every
reason for the policy to be changed.
The U.S. Supreme Court reconvened this
week, ready to make decisions on the
constitutionality of everything from legisla-
tive districting to limiting punitive-damage
awards.
Possibly one of the most important cases
on the docket, however, involves Colorado's
Amendment 2.
It's the first of its kind to reach the high
court, and the outcome of the case could
have a huge effect on gays, lesbians, and
bisexuals - not to mention anyone inter-
ested in maintaining the concept of civil
rights in this nation.
Passed by public referendum almost three
years ago and consequently added to
Colorado's state constitution, Amendment
2 nullifies existing state and city laws pro-
tecting homosexuals and bisexuals against
discrimination, and prohibits the passage of
any such statute in the future.
Essentially, the amendment prevents non-
heterosexuals from seeking protection un-
der the political system, and thus prevents
them from receiving their basic rights as
U.S. citizens.
Some proponents ofthe amendment, both
in Colorado and in other states where similar
measures have been debated, assert that the
goal is not to rob gay men, lesbians and
bisexuals of their civil rights, but merely to
eliminate the special privileges they have
supposedly acquired as a group in recent
years.
Other supporters are more honest, claim-
ing that homosexual behavior is immoral,
unnatural and often illegal (the last of which
is sadly true), that those who participate in
such acts are not worthy of rights granted to
others, and that laws like Amendment 2 are
thus necessary in maintaining the dignity of
the American people.
This line of reasoning, while unfortu-
nately appearing in presidential conventions
and campaigns, is so obviously full of hatred
and ignorance it will probably not make an
appearance in the defense of Amendment 2
before the court, at least not overtly.
Instead, the state of Colorado will use the
first argument next Wednesday, claiming
that the "No Protected Status Based on Ho-
mosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation"
amendment does not limit anyone's rights; it
merely prevents a special-interest group from
gaining disproportionate influence in the
legislative process.
One has to wonder what laws Amend-
ment 2 is serving to nullify. What kind of
power are gay-rights groups earning their
constituents?
Well, for one, equal access to housing.
These laws make it illegal to deny a couple
the right to rent an apartment or buy a house
solely because the couple is comprised of
two members of the same sex.
Likewise, some cities in Colorado have
laws prohibiting discrimination in employ-
ment based on sexual orientation. This means
that it is illegal to not give someone a job
solely because she is a lesbian, or to fire
someone after he announces that he is gay.
These laws do not prevent discrimina-
tion, nor do they guarantee equal and fair
treatment.
They don't let open homosexuals into
the military; they don't require schools to
acknowledge the existence of homosexual-
ity within their curriculums on sexual edu-
cation; they don't end gay bashing; they
don't even repeal anti-sodomy laws.
What these laws do is provide legal re-
course for those who suffer under discrimi-
nation.
That gay men, lesbians and bisexuals are
often discriminated against is rarely dis-
puted. Yet the state of Colorado is asking the
Supreme Court to deny them the right to
seek justice through the law, to deny them
the same constitutional rights that every
other group discriminated against is granted.
Amendment 2 is not about "a special-
interest group with disproportionate influ-
ence over the legislative process," although
that is the argument that will be heard in
court. Amendment 2 is about women and
men being treated like second-class citizens
and Amendment 2 is about legalized preju-
dice, bigotry and hatred.
If the amendment is somehow allowed to
stand, other states will undoubtedly follow
suit. There is already a movement here in
Michigan to pass a similar measure.
How much this would affect the day-to-
day reality of queer lives is difficult to say;
undoubtedly, it would be a huge step back-
ward in the fight for gay rights.
Furthermore, if the court finds Amend-
ment 2 constitutional, it will be finding the
act of limiting a minority group's civil rights
constitutional. If gay rights aren't protected,
no one's rights are protected. Put another
way, ifthey can do it to someone, they can do
it to anyone.
What is more likely, however, is that the
Supreme Court will strike down the amend-
ment, but without declaring gay men, lesbi-
ans and bisexuals a group with protected
constitutional status.
This will at least affirm the legality of
Denver's and Boulder's anti-discrimination
laws, and preserve the ideal of American
civil liberties.
But without a statement asserting the
exact opposite of Amendment 2, without a
legal declaration affirming the right of ho-
mosexuals and bisexuals to be constitution-
ally protected from discrimination, the ha-
tred on which Amendment 2 was founded
will continue to fuel othermovements equally
as contrary to the basic principle of equal
rights.
It would be nice if the Supreme Court
were to surprise us, but given the national
political climate and the "moderate" tenden-
cies of the court, I won't hold my breath.
- Judith Kalka can be reached over e-
mail atjkakfa@umich.edu.
MAT WIMSATT
:Moo'~s DiLEnMrAI
. IPS WELL, IF You 1)0So MibCN
P~S To SUGGEST THE IDEA of
N4uIrAN RIHT5 'p) Us AGbAIN
.; THrEVN THE. IRANIANS (~ET
SHE tcoRS.
_ _ _ NAo C
SSA
long
NOTABLE QuOTrABLE
'You might
describe them
as pork. And
they will oink
appropriately.'
-- Mike McCurry,
spokesman for President
Clinton, remarking on a
GOP-piloted military
spending bill that Clinton
did not veto
Cooling down
City Council foes defuse pointless conflict
1,fMonday night, after charges and coun-
tercharges and threats of a recall cam-
paign, Ann Arbor City Council members
Pter Nicolas and Stephen Hartwell reached
a fragile peace. The breakthrough occurred
vwhen Hartwell, a4th WardDemocrat, backed
a resolution affinning support in city depart-
ment heads. Nicolas, a 4th Ward indepen-
dent, had threatened his fellow council mem-
ber with a recall campaign after Hartwell
asked for a legal opinion on whether the
council can fire department heads.
For once, cooler heads seemed to prevail
at the council table Monday night. Hartwell,
vwhose provocative query made some depart-
ment heads fear for their jobs, was wise to
affirm his support for the officials. And
Nicolas, who appeared petty and vindictive
in his attacks on Hartwell, prudently backed
down from the conflict by supporting a reso-
lution that was weaker than his own express-
irig support for department heads.
Before Monday, the two men were nearly
a! each other's political throats. Hartwell
ridiculed Nicolas for his misstatement that
council could only suspend -not terminate
-- city department heads. Nicolas shot back
by saying Hartwell should be recalled for
overstepping his bounds as a council mem-
ber by implicitly threatening department
heads' jobs. The city administrator normally
decides whether to fire department heads;
only the council can fire the city administra-
t6r. Ann Arbor is currently without a city
administrator while contract negotiations
cOntinue with the council's administrator-
designate, Neal Berlin.
Hartwell's question about whether coun-
cil can unilaterally fire a department head
was tactless and ill-conceived. Leaders ofthe
city's departments are currently functioning
with two interim bosses in a very disjointed
hierarchy at City Hall. For a renegade coun-
cil member to exploit this power vacuum by
placing department heads' jobs at risk is
irresponsible. Council members should main-
tain at least the semblance of stability in city
government as they seek a new city adminis-
trator and city attorney. While Hartwell's
question was legitimate, the timing of his
inquiry was terrible. It seemed like a ven-
detta against certain department heads, whom
Hartwell would not name.
Nicolas, sensing an opportunity to bring
down his council adversary, took Hartwell's
bait. He responded tartly - and wrongly -
to Hartwell's question about whether the
council can fire department heads. While
Nicolas later corrected his mistake, he con-
tinued to make inflammatory statements
about a recall campaign. Hartwell was wrong
to make department heads feel vulnerable -
but not wrong enough to deserve recall.
Both fighting council members set their
differences aside long enough Monday night
to approve a resolution by Councilmember
Jean Carlberg (D-3rd Ward) that was essen-
tially a diluted version of Nicolas' resolu-
tion. The resolution should reassure city of-
ficials who feared for theirjobs without tying
council's hands. Nicolas and Hartwell -
after engaging in a political spat that served
no purpose - deserve some credit for pre-
senting a facade of unity in uncertain times.
I
LETTERS
Contract still
a threat to
social welfare
To the Daily:
I feel it is my duty as a respon-
sible, concerned citizen and a
member of the Coalition Against
the Contract "On" America
(CACOA) to respond to the re-
marks made by Mark Fletcher
("Contract foes misguided," 9/
22/95) and Doug Hester ("Liber-
als miss real issues," 9/22/95) in
their letters to the Daily.
First and foremost, while Mr.
Fletcher claims that "most Ameri-
can voters supported" the changes
Republicans in Congress are at-
tempting to implement, the facts
are not on his side. As Hays Ellisen
noted in his critical analysis of
the Contract "On" America, of
the 38 percent of Americans who
even voted in the last election,
only slightly more than 19 per-
cent voted for Republicans, and
of those voters, only 1 in 6 said
that the Contract had any influ-
ence on their vote. Does less than
5 percent of American voters con-
stitute a "mandate for change," as
Republicans claim? I think not.
The factthatthe Contract"On"
America is ever-present in virtu-
ally every issue currently debated
in Congress and has yet to be
"F..II~a " oa mc t 1"a a 011AP
;:
4 5.
": z;
to Families with Dependent Chil-
dren (AFDC) are facing:extinc-
tion, what rationale could defend
a $500 per child tax credit for
families making $200,000? This
is apparently less a matter of
money than of priorities.
In reference to affirmative
action and minority group rights,
Mr. Hester proposes a purely
merit-based society and cries out,
"Why must everyone be labeled
and identify with some minority
victim group?" Well, to put it
simply for you, the past is haunt-
ing America. More than 250 years
of institutionalized slavery and
many centuries of institutional-
ized racism, sexism andhhetero-
sexism have created what one
might call a warped society -
these oppressed persons have not
chosen to be in "minority victim
groups." Furthermore, this is a
country where 95 percent of the
top jobs are controlled by white
males, who compose only 23 per-
cent ofthe population! And while
the short experiment with affir-
mative action has yet to make a
real dent in this disparity and the
program is in need of reform,
angry white males like yourself
want to pull the plug on it and
replace it with ... nothing! To
infer that America is ready to
become a purely merit-based so-
ciety is absurd. Despite your years
ofexperience with minorities and
the poor through working "in an
GOP welfare
reform bill a
smokescreen
To the Daily:
Between 1980 and 1994 we
have seen consumer prices rise
80 percent while the minimum
wage has only risen 37 percent;
factory wages have only risen 75
percent (AFL-CIO News, 1995).
Average Americans are finding
that their dollars are'not going as
far as they used to. So we look
toward a scapegoat.
The GOP-sponsored "welfare
reform" bill, which will be the
first piece of legislation from the
"Contract With America" to reach
President Clinton's desk, provides
one scapegoat, the welfare re-
cipient. The bill attempts to pun-
ishpoorpeople forthe long-stand-
ing socioeconomic problem of
poverty by imposing time limits,
child and immigrant exclusions
and eliminating the entitlement
status of AFDC. It further at-
tempts to pit the middle class
against the poor, claiming that
AFDC drains our tax dollars. The
reality is that AFDC in 1994 cost
$14.8 billion, less than 1 percent
of the federal budget (Congres-
sional Budget Office, 1994).
The reality is also that corpo-
rate profits are up 205 percent in
the~ nact~ 1 A pr anA tat ~rm
Fax him. Tell him to veto the
Congressional Welfare Reform
Bill, and other bills that take away
our rights, and tax dollars, and
siphon them to corporations and
to the rich. It doesn't trickle down.
Clinton's fax: 202-456-2461.
Clinton's phone: 202-456-1111.
Brian W. Stuli
Fourth-year student
School of Social Work
McCartney
strict but fair
To the Daily:
I couldn't believe what I was
reading when I saw the article
blasting Bill McCartney ("The
wrong answer," 9/21/95). The one
thing that stood out in my mind
was the attack on the man's integ-
rity. Michael Rosenberg cited the
Colorado Buffaloes for having a
long string ofex-convicts on their
roster. Well, don't they deserve a
second chance? How big was the'
issue of several members of the
Fab Five shoplifting? How much:
did Lawrence Phillips get away
with, before Tom Osboe finally
said enough is enough?
You wonder what goes on'
behind the closed walls of Col-
lege Athletics when things like-
that happen. Except in Colorado.
McCartney was known for giv-
ing youths the second chancethey
HOW TO CONTACT THEM
. .......................... ...