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 . .......................... ...