vol_24_no_3

The Michigan Review the michigan review

Page

The Campus Affairs Journal at the University of Michigan

Volume XXIV, Number 3

October 4, 2005

MR October 4, 2005

The Campus Divide Inside: Editors on Race, Page 4 Book Reviews, Page 11 www. michiganreview.com

Columns, Page 5 & 7

Munich to Mackinac, Page 6

License to kill? Page 7 John J. Miller, Page 8

the michigan review

Page 2

Serpent’s Tooth

■ The Serpent’s Tooth

L

ast week on the diag, student groups held a “coming out day” for conservative students. We here at Serpents have devised a “to-do” list for these newly minted open conservatives to annoy their liberal roomate(s): 4. Type over your friends’ favorite episodes of The O.C. with episodes of The O’Reilly Factor.

3. Replace the Kerry 2004 bumper sticker on your roomate’s car with a Bush/ Cheney 04 sticker.

2. Play the audio version of Ann Coulter’s Book “How to Talk to a Liberal if You Must” at the highest level while your roomate is in the room.

1. Give your roomate a copy of The Michigan Review.

Republican State House Representatives Tom Casperson and Rick Jones have introduced a bill to make it easier for people to shoot at home invaders for selfdefense. In other news, there have been a string of shootings of teenage boys, caught sneaking into their girlfriends’ parents’ houses.

In the most recent Detroit mayoral poll, Freeman Hendrix is leading mayor Kwame Kilpatrick 51 percent to 32 percent. Through inside sources, Serpent’s has learned of some new Kilpatrick campaign strategies. “Elect me and I will give you a fully equipped Lincoln Navigator for your wife,; “Vote for me and I will in-

vite you to a stripper party at the Manoogian mansion;” and finally, “Why have a fully equipped police unit on the street, when you can have your own squadron of 20 body guards for the same price?”

Actress Paris Hilton recently broke off her engagement with Greek shipping heir Paris Latsis, saying, “I’m not ready for marriage.” In other news, Ms. Hilton has been seen around town with a small baby and rock star Tommy Lee. This past week, singer and actress Barbara Streisand tried to make a connection between Hurricanes Katrina and Rita along with Global Warming, stating, “There could be more draughts, dust bowls.” In a related poll, most flooded New Orleans residents state they support an increase in global warming.

Here at Serpent’s, we have to admit that we’re particularly excited that the new Republican Majority Leader in the House of Representatives has the last name “Blunt.” We’re looking forward to the months of jokes ahead. Cheers!

Serpents has standards for hooking up, the stated policy being that we wouldn’t hook up with anyone that we couldn’t put in our proverbial trophy case. But we wonder, would that mean we have to move our fourth-place trophy in the annual Michigan Review Bowling Tournament.

October 4, 2005 The Michigan Review The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan

Reuters reports that two top German hairdressers are fighting over who deserves the credit for Angela Merkel’s new hairstyle after the conservative leader traded a low-maintenance page-boy cut for a more stylish look just before the election. Merkel is, however, blaming both for the confusion in the election saying, “If they would have cut my hair in the euro mullet that I requested, Schroeder’s fat ass would have lost by a margin larger than the beer girl’s tits at Oktoberfest!”

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power came under fire from many Christians in Roman Catholic Ireland on Friday over a billboard depicting Jesus and the Apostles gambling at the Last Supper with the caption, “There’s a place for fun and games” below. In order to please the Catholics, Paddy Power changed the billboard back to its original ad of Jesus doing Irish car bombs with St. Patrick with the caption, “Jesus’s version of a suicide bomb”.

Things Michigan State is better at than Michigan: 1) Football 2) Rioting 3) Being our bitch

Want to write fluff stories about how students study more during finals, or how out-of-state students are lonely during fall break?

Join the Daily Want to write thought-provoking, well-reasoned analysis and commentary on campus and national issues? Then join The Michigan Review, the campus affairs journal at the University of Michigan. For the past 24 years, The Review has been delivering a unique and valuable perspective to the the campus, and having fun doing it. Interested in Journalism? Politics? Law? Campus or national affairs? Just interested?

JOIN THE TRADITION

JOIN THE REVIEW email us: mrev@umich.edu

James David Dickson Editor in Chief Paul Teske Publisher Sekou Benson Managing Editor Nick Cheolas Content Editor Michael O’Brien Content Editor

Victoria Shapiro Foreign Correspondent Assistant Editor: Tomiyo Turner Staff: Brian Biglin, Karen Boore, Rebecca Christy, Tom Church, Stephen Crabtree, Blake Emerson, Eric Hassett, Aaron Kaplan, Jacob Lee, Jeremy Linden, Brian McNally, Alexandra Miller, Amanda Nichols, Danielle Putnam, Yevgeny Shrago, Chris Stieber Editor Emeritus: Michael J. Phillips The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the University. Contributions to The Michigan Review are tax-deductible under section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code. The Michigan Review is not affiliated with any political party or any university political group.

Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the editorial board. Ergo, they are unequivocally correct and just. Signed articles, letters, and cartoons represent the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of The Review. The Serpent’s Tooth shall represent the opinion of individual, anonymous contributors to The Review, and should not necessarily be taken as representative of The Review’s editorial stance. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily those of the advertisers, or of the University of Michigan. We welcome letters, articles, and comments about the journal.

Please address all advertising, subscription inquiries, and donations to “Publisher,” c/o The Michigan Review:

Editorial and Business Offices: The Michigan Review 911 N. University Avenue, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1265 mrev @ umich.edu www.michiganreview.com Copyright © 2005, The Michigan Review, Inc. All rights reserved. The Michigan Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.

mrev@umich.edu

the michigan review

Page 3

By David Millikan, ‘09

October 4, 2005

Campus Affairs

SAPAC Addresses Sexual Assault

S

INCE THE SEXUAL Assault and Prevention Awareness Center (SAPAC) began organizing freshman seminars on sexual assault in 1987, the program has garnered considerable controversy among many incoming students, who feel that the mandatory seminars are a waste of time and few find them beneficial.

Rape is a problem at the University and in this country as a whole. However the question pertains as to the best way to combat it—through elimination or prevention.

The University has chosen the path of eliminating rape, and while it is a worthy goal, it is a long-term goal, and is unlikely in the short term. Were the university truly committed to its students, it would focus on the preventing assaults, rather than cleaning up afterwards.

To this end, the SAPAC seminars stress the idea that victims are essentially not responsible for their attacker’s actions. Yet these two ideas do nothing to stop sexual assault, and serve only to comfort students—after they have become victims. The student body would be better served by a program that teaches the tools needed to avoid becoming victims.

The university sponsored sexual awareness seminars focus almost entirely on the elimination of sexual assault as social problem, while neglecting the tools necessary to prevent the crime. This approach stems from SAPACS’ overriding message that victims are not at fault. Yet, as far as this may go to alleviate stigma, or comfort victims,

it leaves students without the common sense needed to avoid the problem, preferring instead to champion personal freedom—that is, the right to wear revealing clothing at parties. A person has the right to wear whatever she wants, but a person cannot just shrug off personal responsibility in the name of low-cut tops and mini-skirts. In another example people avoid muggers by not walking alone, and not flashing expensive jewelry.

Sure, It would be nice to live in place where people don’t steal or use violence to get what they want, but until that time, the best way to not become a victim is through common sense . Not that common sense means allowing the possibility of assault to control your life, rather it means staying in control, and preventing others from taking advantage of you. Yet, it’s as if SAPAC was telling each and every incoming student, “Hey, you might get raped, but don’t worry about it, there’s nothing you could have done to prevent it.” It is exactly this fatalistic attitude that leads to sexual assault. Instead of babying students SAPAC should be empowering young men and women by letting them know about the consequences of their actions.

A no-nonsense approach to sexual assault would be of benefit not only to students, but also to the university as a whole, and would not be difficult to implement.

Instead of role-playing and passing out candy, SAPAC should take the straight forward role of presenting the consequences of sexual assault for both the attacker

and the victim. What is the prison sentence for violent sexual assault? How many years of therapy do victims often go through? What does it mean to be a registered sex offender? Answers to these questions might give might give new students a better idea of college freedom means.

Another main theme of these seminars was that “Alcohol is a tool, not a cause of sexual assault. ” And while it may be true, the statement only undermines personal responsibility, and shows University’s acceptance of the problem of underage drinking. And while it would be naïve of the university to think that it can completely stop the problem of underage drinking, it is irresponsible to do nothing, and even worse to give implicit approval by doing so. The university would not say, “Crack cocaine, heroin, and ecstasy are tools, not causes of sexual assault.” Why? Because that statement is ridiculous and unbelievable: anyone taking part in dangerous (and in the case of most freshmen, illegal) activities bears some responsibility for those activities. Telling students other wise is misguided and dangerous.

However, the sexual assault seminar is not without its own merits. SAPAC did make a concerted effort to inform students of the dangers of date rape drugs, and what to do incase of sexual assault; here lies the strength of this program: by providing students with honest, serious information to combat a serious problem. After all, while consent may be sexy, being a victim never is. MR

MSA Off to a Good Start

By Tomiyo Turner, ‘09

T

he Michigan student assembly has made significant changes to the rules regarding potential conflicts of interest and ideological discrimination.

This resolution, sponsored by MSA President Jesse Levine, and Campus Improvement Chair Stuart Wagner, the Campus improvement chair deals primarily with guidelines for funding MSA sponsored events. The resolution deals with procedures for members’ involvement, specific qualifications and restrictions for events, and funding procedures.

The procedures for sponsored events clearly dictates that members take a more active role, and provide clarification to prevent potential conflicts of interest. The first subsection mandates an “active and significant role in the planning stages, implementation, and operations of all MSA sponsored events.” This has the obvious goal of increasing MSA involvement to a meaningful level. It will also help restrict spending and increase the yield on MSA projects, by preventing members from making endless funding commitments with little intent of following through. Sub-Section 3, entitled “Voting Rights” prevents individuals in “compensated” positions from voting on funding allocations. Personal interest alone does not remove a member from voting, although members must declare this interest. Of course it would be ideal to remove any individual with a vested in-

terest from voting, but personal interest is a vague term that could not be consistently enforced. Given the relatively small number of “compensated” positions in organizations seeking MSA funding, few members will ever need to recuse themselves from a vote. Furthermore, such action may already be forbidden by Article VI Section A, 3, b, of MSA’s constitution which states “No member of the Assembly possessing a conflict of interest with a student organization may participate in debate or vote on any matter regarding the organization with which there exists a conflict of interest.” The constitution also provides for measures as strong as removal from office. The strict penalties for violation, including the potential for removal from office, provide a strong incentive for cautious abidance.

Of particular interest to conservatives is the revision to sponsored event procedure and the introduction of a “viewpoint neutral basis” test. Namely the committee “shall not consider political or social ideology or message when allocating funds.” This is a victory for fairness. The subsections below that heading clarify the criteria and state: “Funding shall be allocated solely with regard to the extent a particular student groups contributes to the educational and social environment of the University.” The second subsection reaffirms MSA’s commitment to neutrality to “political or social ideology.” It is yet to be seen how this will be implemented. Will contribution to

the social environment necessarily entail the advancement of certain broader social goals? Or will these criteria be fairly applied to all groups? This legislation is an important step in ensuring that those with unpopular views recieve equal treatment, but it is only as effective as its enforcement is strong. The resolution does provide for the adjudication of disputes through the Central Student Judiciary, which is a very promising step.

The Applications Requirements are also clarified. The conditional allocation of funds specified in this section provides a noteworthy dilemma. Attaching conditions is an important way to maintain standards and prevent abuses, but can also be a danger to the liberty student groups have.

Finally, the resolution explains funding considerations. This includes eight criteria without any degree of preference. Several of these are primarily administrative and attempt to prevent ineffective targeting of funds. These include “completeness of funding application,” “effort to receive funding from other sources,” and “prior utilization of MSA funding allocations, if applicable.”

Another set of these qualifications deals with the extent and degree of impact on the university community. These criteria: “quantity of students affected,” “degree of effect on students,” and “degree of effect on the Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, and general Michigan community.” In this particular case, let us suppose

there are two groups, one supporting the MCRI and one opposing it. Under these criteria, assuming the groups are equal in all other ways, even a politically neutral body would allocate more funds to the larger group. On this campus it is all too easy to predict the political cause which will attract more students. However, it is difficult to argue a minority cause should receive the same funding, because that would necessarily allow for the favorable treatment of the minority. This may be harmful to students with minority opinions, but there is not an obvious and feasible alternative that would not allow for unchecked spending on causes few students support. These unpopular causes invariably exist both on the right and on the left. The criterion dealing with the degree to which funding will affect “the general Michigan community” is an important one because of what it does not say. It does not mention the potential impact on national or international politics.

This could severely disadvantage organizations with goals like punishing international corporations for their actions in foreign countries. The final remaining criterion is the “unique nature of the event.” MR

Page 4 The Michigan

the michigan review

Review

Editorials

The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Editorial Board. Ergo, they are unequivocally correct and just. Signed articles, letters, and cartoons represent the opinions of the author, and not necessarily those of the Review.

You can contact the Editorial Board at: mrev@umich.edu

■ From Suite One:

I

October 4, 2005

Visit us online:

www.michiganreview.com or email us:

mrev@umich.edu

Truth does matter The University community must examine racial issues more deeply

t seems as if, even before the sun rose on the morning of Friday, September 16, the campus community and administration had already mobilized for the latest of race battles waged on this campus. The previous night, two white students had allegedly yelled profanities and urinated on two Asian students walking below the balcony of their apartment.

What followed was an intense effort by the University’s Asian community, as well as the Administration, led by no less than President Mary Sue Coleman, to counter the “discriminatory” climate of the University. Students from around campus came forward with other alleged acts of racism and discrimination, and called for the heads of the two alleged suspects – demanding their expulsion and prosecution “to the fullest extent of the law.” “Shocked and appalled,” student groups around campus wasted no time in seizing the opportunity to counter the oppressive fires of racism that caused this “felony of ethnic intimidation.”

But there was one problem: the incident may never have happened.

Days into the crusade about racism, oppression, and bias, the campus community finally became privy to the fact that there were indeed two parties involved in the incident, and that surprisingly, they had divergent views of what had occurred that fateful night.

Campus groups and the administration, however, would not let petty “facts” get in the way of their pending avalanche. Administrators, including Coleman, omitted the word “alleged” when composing an e-mail to the entire University community, denouncing the “incidents that have targeted our students based on their race or ethnicity.” Groups around campus quickly proclaimed that it simply did not matter whether or not the incident occurred because incidents of ethnic intimidation occur all the time – they simply just do not make headlines.

The two students who had been accused of these crimes could face misdemeanor and felony charges, sex offender registration, and potential disciplinary action by the University, and the facts don’t matter? Campus groups can call for heads and the administration plans to promptly address these matters “through education and dialogue and, where appropriate, disciplinary sanction or criminal prosecution” – all this sparked by an incident which may not have even occurred?

Do not confuse the message: something certainly occurred on the night in question. But we do not know the facts any more than any other campus group or administrator does, and so we feel it best to refrain from casting judgement until such facts are known.

On this point we must be crystal clear: if the alleged incident happened as the victims reported it, we will absolutely and adamantly support the prosecution of these offenders.

Students, of course, should not be so naïve as to believe that incidents of racism and discrimination do not occur on this campus. However, as a whole, the student body is overwhelmingly tolerant and accepting of the varying races, religions, and ethnicities of which our student body is composed.

The real race problem here may be our extraordinary and myopic focus on racism as the sole source of numerous conflicts on campus, incidents which need not necessarily touch on race. The University seems to believe that its students are incapable of judging their peers based on factors other than race. If Asian students fail to socialize with a certain number of Jewish students, not only must racism be the cause, but the University must take proactive steps to counter that “racism.”

Such is the case with these two individuals accused of ethnic intimidation. Perhaps alcohol was at fault for the incident in question. Perhaps the incident was a misunderstanding – two students simply cleaned out a keg case, and disposed of the contents over the balcony of their apartment, unfortunately, too close to two students – and even more unfortunately, two students of a different race.

Since the University’s defense of its affirmative action admissions policies in 2003, Michigan has been known nationwide as the model for race relations and racial interaction on campus – good and bad. Thus, news of this latest “incident” has traveled as far as Berkley University, where Michigan students have been stigmatized for “peeing

on Asians.” Without knowing anything resembling the “facts of the matter,” students on campus have mobilized to fight racism and this University’s reputation has been sullied.

“True or not,” indeed.

This University seems to have an obsessive preoccupation with dealing with incidents – even those not racially motivated – in racial terms. Our classes study other cultures and races like National Geographic films analyze small tribes in southern Nepal. We are trained how to think in terms of race. Therefore, when students are confronted by their peers of a different race or ethnic group, the interaction becomes almost a scientific process. Students spend more time wondering what to say or how not to offend a fellow student of a different race than in finding the common ground on which their interactions could stand. We stop seeing others as people, and start seeing each other as things—almost a perverse experiment in human interaction on the part of the academic environment here.

Likewise, we treat any incident or conflict between two students of different ethnicities as racially motivated. The call to arms goes out around campus, and the administration is essentially forced – in the name of “diversity” – to outline an explicit and effective “remedy” for the situation, even in the face of an ongoing investigation.

The University environment tends to see racial interaction as a zero-sum game.

That is, what is enriching or uplifting for one group on campus must necessarily come at the expense of another. But it becomes especially important, in training people for the real world to let the notion of the individual transcend all the superficial. The argument by professors from Sociology and elsewhere is that race is a social construct, and that any notions of difference existing between groups are only xenophobic figments of the imagination.

Very well then—let us then begin to treat one another in our interactions as such. The best way to achieve the ambiguous “diversity” for which this University has sought and been acclaimed for for so long is to allow an environment that permits a more frank exchange of ideas. This includes, but is not limited to, moving away from the idea that interaction between members of opposite races on this campus must necessarily be attributed to racism.

This campus indeed has a race problem. A big one. The race problem is not a matter of numbers and graphs, though, and identifying ways to rectify it is much harder than merely identifying the problem. Some on this campus would have us believe that the only solution to the racial friction on campus is to set up arbitrary “critical masses” of minorities that must, by any means necessary, be imported to campus. But the militancy with which these students berate all those who disagree do disservice to the community, and only seems to create more tension. Some on this campus would have the admissions offices and University administrators throw out the idea of “diversity” altogether. But this ignores an intellectual synthesis here and at other elite institutions that becomes necessary in the fermentation and formulation of ideas on a college campus. . Enrollment numbers in no way equate to diversity, and neither do required classes informing students of the proper way to think. We may not have all the answers, but believe that perpetuating attitudes that tend to treat people, first, as members of a group, then, secondly, as individuals, are backwards if not hurtful. If nothing else, the pecking order needs to be reversed.

We can all agree that a solution to the race problem is desperately needed on this campus. But this issue cannot be effectively resolved before we as a community change the way we approach race on this campus.

And this alleged incident perfectly illustrates that. This campus buys into groupthink and a mob mentality before anyone engages in a sober examination of the facts. Just as these pages have often argued that diversity is not “skin deep,” neither, too, are the interstudent conflicts which can, do, and will occur on campus. Not necessarily, anyway. To be able to think critically and speak frankly about these issues is, indeed, the most important step to alleviating the racial problems that have been bearing down on the back of this University for years. MR

the michigan review

Page 5

■ The Deep End

Opinion

October 4, 2005

Campus Conservatism in our time

B

eing a young conservative today is tricky. On this campus, conservatism creates intrigue, disgust, and confusion. Conservatism is often viewed as a blind belief in Republican Party leadership, but few understand conservatism in terms of life style and beliefs, especially in the context of being a college student. But conservatism and college life need not be at odds. From the ideologues to casual right-wingers, there are diverse ways for the diverse ideas on the Right to make their life on campus gel in a way that works perfectly.

Michigan Review alumnus Matt Mulder wrote a memorable column two years ago, entitled “Portrait of a Republican as a Young Man.” His column embraced the concept of “metroconservatism” as what should be the defining ethic for conservatives on this campus and elsewhere. Mulder wrote, “In sum, we believe in the power of sophistication.

We have no problem taking the great aspects of liberalism and applying them to our conservative natures.” His vision still defines many campus conservatives. For all of the many portrayals of Tom DeLay, Pat Robertson, or Ann Coulter, there are just as many people who vote Republican, believe in conservative ideals, but go on quietly building bridges, rather than demonizing the other side.

In writing this piece, I interviewed campus conservative leaders about their experiences as conservative college students. The ultimate conclusion must be that while conservatism, as a political ideology, may have its philosophical implications, the application of that philosophy manifests itself in entirely unpredictable and invariably diverse ways.

There just simply is not a secret coterie of campus conservatives sitting in a wood-paneled room somewhere in Ann Arbor, smoking cigars and enjoying brandy, wearing sweater-vests, blazers, and bowties, doing their best Tucker Carlson impression.

In many ways, this might have to do with the transcendence of conservatism in political and popular culture in the past quarter-century, as the Right has taken on more of a populist streak. The Right today is not a monolithic voice.

Contrast this with the American (especially the campus) Left, which is united almost entirely in their hatred of the GOP and George W. Bush. Granted, there are plenty of conservative reactionaries, and their ability to make incredulous statements often leads people to mischaracterize the Right.

But conservatism is more coalitional today than before. One of the most fascinating components of the American polity is that we align ourselves with parties much more differently compared to other countries, who do so almost exclusively on the basis of class. Today’s right-wing alliance is broader than most would imagine. The Pew Research Center released a study in May of this year entitled “BeMichael yond Red vs Blue,” in it helped analyze O’Brien which the political orientations of Americans in the aftermath of the 2004 election. It subdivided both the Republican and Democratic Party into three subcategories. The Pew Study argued that Democrats consist of “Conservative Democrats,” “Disadvantaged Democrats,” and “Liberals,” with Liberals overwhelmingly having control of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, Republicans can be divided into “Enterprisers,” “Social Conservatives,” and “Pro-Government Conservatives,” all competing in a grand battle for the soul of the GOP. So where do these categories, and everything else in between, fit into campus politics? LSA sophomore Danielle Putnam, co-executive for Caucus for Conservative Action, argues, “You can never generalize a large group of people, especially on this campus, into one mainstream idea.” She does, however, believe that in general, conservatives are a bit more moralistic today than before, but this is more due to culture. Christina Talamonti, the head of Students for Life, agreed with Putnam’s assessment. Jon Boguth, the head of Young Americans for Freedom, conversely believes that many students practice a libertarian, almost libertine ethos. He says many students “go out and have a good time Saturday and then go to church Sunday. There’s nothing contradictory about that.”

The fact that these campus leaders have different views on whether conservative students have an internally consistent vision of morality illustrates the coalitional (rather than monotonous) nature of conservatism on the U of M campus. They all do agree that conservatism embodies diverse meanings for many students on campus. When each asked about what conservatism connotes on a college campus, Putnam says it carries a stigma of money and social status, while

Talamonti contends that conservatism is associated heavily with our parents’ generation. (She argues that this reactionary association may be a large factor in why so many college students are liberals.)

And most interestingly, Boguth laments the association of conservatism with Republicanism, which he labels a “gross misconception.”

But there seems to be a certain consensus here and elsewhere for conservatives to join the campus dialogue more forcefully. In the past, the caricature of the campus conservative was the withdrawn, knee-jerk complainant against every subtle instance of a vociferous liberal opinion making its way into the classroom. While this generation of conservatives feels it certainly needs to be proactive in making its points, it does not need to be simply the louder voice in a campus screaming match. Battles are won intellectually, in the classroom, not in the diag. And it’s here that making intellectually powerful and stimulating points becomes important. Concern for Leftleaning professors is waning, or at least at low tide. Boguth, for instance, believes classroom bias is overstated, and comments, “Professors are liberal. So what?”

As long as grading is fairly determined, there shouldn’t be any hostility towards professors. One encounters ardently liberal professors who, more often than not, cherish the unambiguously conservative student in class who stimulates discussion.

The result of thoughtful class participation is to advance conservatism as an ideology. By willing to listen and always ready to illuminate class discussions, conservatives often represent their ideology better than elected leaders or pundits.

A frank exchange of important ideas is increasingly important in a society where the power of ideas have driven the course of history. Talamonti says, “Listening is knowledge. Why wouldn’t students want to be more knowledgeable?”

Enterprisers, Social Conservatives, and Pro-Government Conservatives are demographically dissected by the Pew study, but they hardly drive at the synthesis of ideas on the right today. Conservatism today is dominated by prefixes.

There’s the often-pejorative neoconservative, along with paleoconservatives, the aforementioned metroconservatives, Burkean conservatives, classical conservatives, crunchy conservatives, religious conservatives, compassionate conservatives, libertarian conservatives, and fiscal conservatives, just to name a few. Putnam

argues that the existence of these different labels provides for a more dynamic atmosphere, which she claims “allows for new ideas and the possibility of expansion of the conservative base and mindset.” And to a large extent this is true. The battles within the Right are hardly about what conservatism will mean in the future, but rather, which component is the true heir to the past ideological heritage. And this is why it’s impossible to profile a campus conservative, in terms of how they spent their time, and what causes they support.

This isn’t to say that the Right’s soul is transient. Conservatism fundamentally believes in relying on traditional institutions of society rather than state sponsored institutions. Conservatism seeks liberty and freedom for all from the state. Conservatives believe that the institutions like general faith, values, common sense, and patriotism are sacrosanct, and that no state should seek to enforce the views of the minority by fiat. Conservatives believe in the value of these societal institutions, as they reflect community desires. However, the rights of individuals and the privileges of these institutions extend only to the extent that they don’t infringe upon the rights of another. All these scions are, in their varied ways, derivatives of this fundamental goal.

And so we end up here in Ann Arbor. In the Democratic primaries in 2004, the conservative PAC Club for Growth ran an ad where a farmer said of Howard Dean, “[He] should take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading...” when his wife interjects, “Hollywood-loving, leftwing freak show back to Vermont, where it belongs.” The first two critiques are well and good, but lattes are staple for students here regardless of politics. Sushi and organic food are delicious. And as for the Times, David Brooks’ columns are worth reading, if nothing else. As for Vermont—hey, at least they gave us Ben & Jerry’s, the politics of the owners be damned.

Not many campus conservative seek to score cheap points. We want to win, but in the war of ideas. It’s not so much about winning a vote, it’s about winning a mind. And on this campus, most conservatives would rather graduate and work in a blue state or an urban blue city than in a rural red state. The class wars and party stereotypes offer no assistance in trying to understand rightleaning students on this campus. A good conversation usually will, though. MR

the michigan review

Page 6

October 4, 2005

Explorations

Gonzo Journalism: Mackinac Island

By Jeremy Linden, ‘06

O

N FRIDAY, OCTOBER 23, and Saturday, October 24, the Republican Leadership Conference was held on Mackinac Island, in Northern Michigan.

This event was designed to bring Republicans across the state together to network and share ideas and strategies for electoral victory, as well as just to have a great time with other like-minded people on a beautiful island.

Apart from the good-natured information sharing and partying, however, there was a more interesting and political undercurrent: the races for the upcoming Republican primaries for the 2006 elections. Most candidates faced little to no competition, but the race for the Republican nomination for US Senate against Debbie Stabenow is hotly contested. The current frontrunner is the Rev. Keith Butler, a minister in the Word of Faith International Christian Center Church in Southfield, MI. Butler is a very strong social conservative, and focuses much of his campaign on a pro-life, pro-family message.

He has been endorsed by most of the Republican leadership, as well as many elected officials statewide, and is seen as being the party-supported candidate in the race.

Challenging Butler is the Rev. Jerry Zandstra, a former pastor of three Western Michigan churches. Zandstra portrays himself as a more intellectual and well-balanced alternative to Butler. For five years, Zandstra has worked as the Director of Programs for the Acton Institute, a Christian libertarian think tank focused on economic and social issues from a limited government Christian perspective. He has also taught classes at Calvin Col-

lege and Calvin Theological Seminary. Zandstra’s main criticism of Butler is that he is not knowledgeable on the economic issues facing Michigan in the upcoming election, focusing his campaign mostly on the social conservative positions, which Zandstra also shares. Butler does not often mention economics in his speeches, and has made statements supporting “fair trade” over free trade, and advocating for trade barriers between the United States and other countries. Zandstra strongly supports free trade and makes it one of his key issues in his campaign. Another criticism of Butler from the Zandstra campaign is his status at the CEO, financial leader, and head minister of his own mega-church, which is often seen to resemble a cult, focused on a charismatic personality. Many Republicans cynically state that the Republican leadership is only supporting Butler because he is black, and the Republicans are making winning the black vote a key priority in the upcoming election cycle.

The two campaigns used vastly different campaign strategies at the conference in Mackinac. While Zandstra employed the traditional methods of throwing receptions with free food and drinks, Butler used methods oddly similar to BAMN on campus, busing inner-city kids from middle and high school to Mackinac and having them stand on streets yelling and campaigning for Butler. The more confrontational style may have put off some of the more traditional Republicans at the conference, but since Butler was already the front-runner, it is unlikely it affected his chances much at all.

Perhaps the biggest guest at Mackinac was Mitt Romney,

governor of Massachusetts. He visited the state in a campaign trip for his upcoming run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination. Visiting Michigan is a very political move for the governor, as its swing state status makes it a very influential state for any presidential campaign, and the fact that it has gone Democrat the past two elections no doubt aggravates many in the Republican leadership, who are surely looking for a candidate who can secure a GOP victory in Michigan. The fact that many of the delegates appeared pleased that such a high-profile candidate was spending the weekend there appears to speak for the effectiveness of the Romney campaign’s strategy.

The Republican Party acknowledged the fact that the conference was not only a way for Republicans to share ideas by holding a straw poll for the upcoming primary elections. Yet, instead of each person getting one vote, you could “buy” votes in the straw poll for one dollar per vote. Apparently, the organizers did not notice the ironic social commentary inherent in this event.

While the conference was certainly filled with politics, thankfully it never permeated the event enough to stop everyone from enjoying themselves and leaving with a great deal of useful information from Republicans across the state. It appears that everyone was very focused on winning the 2006 general election in Michigan, and that regardless of which candidate the nominee for an office ends up being, Republicans will rally to support him. MR

Straight Outta’ Munich

By Victoria Shapiro, ‘05

Y

ou know those rare moments in life when everything conspires to make something go right? Such was the case for me and four other study abroad students in Prague, looking to be wayward travelers, hopping about Eastern and Western Europe, in the fleeting weeks before the beginning of fall term. “Where do we go?” was our fortunate and operative lingering question. It just so happened the week we were looking to travel, overlapped with the biggest, most hyped, annual international beer festival in the world, Oktoberfest- the shimmering holy grail of drinking culture worldwide. Out of dutiful respect to the spirits, 4 girls and one token guy, Doug, took off to Munich, Germany to explore and partake in the much raved about, legendary festival of the year. The following is my account of our two days spent in the debauchery and great fun that is Oktoberfest.

Munich itself is an interesting city, rich not only in history but in architecture and yearly to-do’s; it’s dynamism of events and historic sites draws an international and flavorful crowd. Especially during Oktoberfest, there are some fantastic tours given to hung over audiences by witty, free-lance tour guides. As our Australian guide explained, Munich

was made the capital of the kingdom of Bavaria in the early 1800’s and under a succession of kings progressed to become an epicenter of culture and arts, peaking in the 19th and 20th centuries.

During Oktoberfest, partakers garbed in traditional Bavarian ware, such as lederhosen and dirndl dresses abound.

Munich is definitely worth seeing aside from a festival pilgrimage. The city still has a vibrant artistic scene and many museums. Munich is of significant note to World War II buffs for its’ being the birth place of Nazism and the Nazis headquarters during Hitler’s rule. The building where Hitler and his cronies drafted the plan for Kristallnacht still stands. It’s eerie.

Oktoberfest has been an integral part of Munich’s culture since the early 1800’s when the crown prince Ludwig of Bavaria married princess Therese of SaxonHildburghausen. The wedding festivities lasted five days, after which there was a horse race. An international trade show was added to the festival a year after it started. Over the years, the horse race and trade show were repeated and “Oktoberfest” became a regular event. Carrousels and swings were eventually added and in 1896, beer tents were set up as a business venture among the proprietors of

different breweries. Eventually, the horse races stopped and the beer took over as the thrust of the festival. To this day, only Munich breweries are allowed to sell beer at Oktoberfest. The festival starts in September and lasts until October.

We spent a total of two days in Munich, but went sight seeing during the day.

Many of our fellow more ambitious traveler friends looked to the morning as an opportunity to hit the tents, which was certainly a possibility. The festival starts in the morning daily and goes until 10:30 pm.

The festival is quite a show. It takes place in a huge park area where there are a multitude of rides and vendors selling traditional Bavarian food such as spanferkel (suckling pig), bratwurst and Sauerkraut.

The food is wonderful! Tents are set up with rows and rows of tables for hundreds of boisterous beer drinkers. Inside each tent there is a live band and everyone drinks beer, chants, sings, dances and carries on for hours. Hussy looking fraulein waitresses, dressed in corsets, carrying whistles around their necks, bravely force themselves around the crowded drinking rooms, carrying the 2.5 pint mugs of beer.

What is especially neat about an international festival such as Oktoberfest is

the vast array of people one meets. The environment bristles with chatter and as the evening progresses, blossoms in the spirit of comradery. At any given table, will be an assortment of people from places all over such as Rome or England or France. We met many Australians for whom working and then taking time off to travel seems to be fairly normal.

For us girls, the experience was a little overwhelming at times. The festival is mostly a male attended event and for that reason, girls find themselves especially well received. Doug unfortunately found himself on guard as pseudo-protector, male vetter for most of the trip.

Oktoberfest is so much fun and certainly something to do with friends. If you decide to go though, be weary of a number of things. Make sure that you book your hostels way in advance and be careful of the German police. As there are rows of tables with long benches, often people dance on the tables, a strictly verboten move. The German police can be downright frightening if you do not obey them. One of them grabbed a dancing girl’s arm so badly she bruised! MR

the michigan review

Page 7

October 4, 2005

Opinion

■ Say-What-Coo?

T

Butler is no Lucas

he 2006 Michigan Republican Senatorial primary race for the right to face Democratic Sen. Deborah Stabenow currently is a two person contest between the Rev. Keith Butler and Rev. Jerry Zandstra. In a recent strategic vision poll, Butler led Zandstra 27% to 18%. Despite that fact that neither candidate has been able to gather a clear lead among the electorate, Butler is the presumed favorite because of endorsements from seven of nine Republicans in the state Congressional delegation and numerous other statewide officials, including former Lt Gov. Dick Posthumus and State Sen. Majority Ken Sikemma. Because of his background, the nomination of Butler could open numerous swaths of the electorate to the GOP-particularly, black Christians.

While the chances of Butler upsetting Stabenow are slim, a Butler candidacy would do better than expected, and might help other GOP candidates on the ballot.

Keith Butler is an African American pastor of Word of Faith church from Troy, Michigan and was a Detroit City Council member from 1989 to 1993. His ethnicity and ties to Detroit could erode the Democratic dominance in the predominantly Black city. In the 2004 presidential race, John Kerry garnered 93.6 percent of the Detroit vote compared to 51 percent statewide.

Butler has been compared to another African American Republican who ran statewide: Bill Lucas, who unsuccessfully ran for governor against Democratic incumbent James Blanchard in 1986. At the time, Lucas was the Wayne County executive, and gained about a

third of the vote against Blanchard. Many people, including Metro Times columnist Jack Lessenbery, believe that a Butler candidacy is a last ditch effort by the GOP and would mirror the Lucas outcome. He writes, “What may be puzzling is why Butler is seen as a legitimate candidate at all… Because he is black, that’s why.” Lessenbery goes on to explain the Lucas candidacy and other Black Republicans who have run in statewide races, such as Alan Keyes for an Illinois Senate seat and Ken Blackwell, who is currently running for the Ohio governorship.

What makes Butler’s candidacy unique compared to Keyes or Lucas is his consistent loyalty to the state and the Republican Party. When Lucas ran for the Republican nomination in 1986, he had just switched ekou his political affiliation, thus giving enson many voters the impression he was a political opportunist. In contrast, Butler has been a Republican since 1980, serving openly as a Republican on the Detroit city council.

One point that could complicate Butler’s candidacy is an Affirmative Action ban called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) slated to go on the 2006 ballot. Interestingly, there is no mention of an Affirmative Action position on Butler’s website. He does, how-

B

S

ever, go in depth about his support for the Bush tax cuts, opposition to abortion, support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and the right to bear arms.

Opposing the MCRI, notes Lessenebery, could hurt Butler among the regular GOP faithful, but conversely supporting the MCRI would doom him with many Detroit voters. However, the pragmatic voting principle is left out of this scenario. If Butler comes out against the MCRI, it might make no difference with Republican voters, because it’s a state issue and Butler’s running for a national office. More importantly, Sen. Stabenow is also expected to come out against the proposal. This would give the conservative GOP faithful the choice between supporting a candidate who agreed with them 95% compared to a candidate they agreed with 20% of the time. Butler has also had a history of going against the tide of the GOP when it comes to racial issues. For instance, he was for sanctions on the apartheid South African regimes during the 1980s, in contrast to the typical Reageanite’s position at the time.

Regardless of ethnicity or political affiliation, every candidate needs money in the bank. Butler has that: he is a multimillionaire and, according to July Federal Election commission campaign reports, has raised over $800,000 for the campaign. This is well below Stabenow’s $2.5 million, but the race is still young. MR

Bring Lawyers, Guns, and Money

Michigan legislature debates expanding self-defense rights

By Nick Cheolas, ‘07

R

ECENTLY, REPRESENTATIVE RICK Jones (R-Grand Ledge) of the Michigan State Legislature introduced a bill in the sate House intended to “clarify the rights and duties of self-defense…to provide for criminal and civil immunity…to regulate the investigation of incidents involving self-defense or the defense of others; and to provide for certain remedies.”

Those who favor the legislation hail it as a major victory for the Second Amendment; those who favor gun-control say the bill amounts to “frontier justice” and will result in widespread vigilantism. However, most Michigan residents, as is the case with most bills in congress, will cast judgment on the bill based on sound-bytes and the scare tactics of both sides of the argument.

Fortunately, Representative Jones has been very clear with the intent of the bill and its two major provisions: 1) Citizens are permitted to use deadly force if they are confronted by a person who has unlawfully and forcibly entered or broken into their home or vehicle.

2) Citizens who are in a public place no longer have the duty to “retreat,” and

now have the ability to “stand his or her ground” and “meet force with force, including deadly force.”

Those who favor gun-control, understandably, have concerns about the bill.

They allege that the need for these laws has not been displayed, and worry about how freely citizens will be to use their firearms in public and in defense of their homes. Fortunately, the bill does contain many restrictions on gun-owners. First, citizens may use force, but not deadly force, to protect their own property. The use of deadly force outside the home is still legal only when one believes it is necessary to prevent a “forcible felony.”

Furthermore, citizens may not fire “at will” in their own homes - citizens must positively identify whether the individual who has entered their home has a right to be there. In other words, shooting your drunken roommate for climbing in the window at 3am is not an option.

Gun-control advocates also speculate as to the need for such a bill.

A bill introduced into the US House in May of 2003 by Joe Wilson (R-SC) – and cosponsored by 50 other representatives – provides many facts indicating the need for such a bill.

For example, in 1989, the US Attorney General reported that there were “168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.”

The bill also makes reference to the 2.4 million Americans who use a gun to defend themselves from crimes – indicating that “firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” And of these 2.4 million cases, less than 8% result in actual harm to an attacker. Over 92% of the time, the mere display of a firearm will suffice to prevent a crime.

Wilson’s bill also makes note of citizens who have been prosecuted for possessing or using a firearm when confronted by violence. For example, the bill describes the experience of Don Campbell, a Michigan resident. Campbell “was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell’s store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm.” Intense community pressure subsequently forced the prosecutor to drop the charges.

The bill in the Michigan House will certainly have far-reaching consequences in the state. As The Detroit News recently reported, Detroit has the highest murder rate per 100,000 citizens of any major American city – although the “justifiable homicide rate” was in line with the national numbers. Law-abiding Detroiters will certainly appreciate the ability to defend their homes and families from harm without fear of criminal prosecution. And while criminals usually could not care less about which gun laws are passed, they will now be confronted with the possibility that the next house they break into or car they attempt to hijack will be their last.

Think of the stories right here on campus that seem to appear on a monthly basis. Students wake to find intruders in their room, or are confronted in their own kitchens by criminals. These stories have almost invariably ended with intruders coming away with a laptop and jewelry, or simply getting away and moving on to the next house. But the first time it ends with a thief on the receiving end of a bullet may very well be the last.

MR

Page 8

the michigan review Spotlight on Alumni

October 4, 2005

An Interview With John J. Miller

Staff writer Chris Stieber talked to Review alum John J. Miller about his time at the Review, and his upcoming book.

MR: First, tell us about your new upcoming book, A Gift of Freedom: How the John M. Olin Foundation Changed America.

JJM: The book is a history of the conservative intellectual movement told from a venture capital standpoint. It is the story of the John M. Olin Foundation, which over the past 30 years has been the most important financial supporter of conservative intellectuals and think tanks. This foundation is spending its last dollar this year, as it is going out of business, a deliberate decision that founder John M. Olin made three decades ago. So, they are making their final grant decisions by the end of this year. They contacted me a couple years ago about writing their history, opening up their archives, sitting down for long interviews, doing things they have never done with anybody before. Well, they invited me in, giving me full access to everything they have, and told me, “Write our story.” So that’s what I did. It turns out, this foundation has had its hand in everything, from helping with early checks to the Heritage Foundation, to being behind the first money that the Federalist Society ever received, to helping provide some of the seed money for the Collegiate Network itself, the consortium of papers to which the Michigan Review belongs.

MR: 15 years ago, back in college, could you ever have envisioned yourself to be given this position with exclusive access to internal documents of the foundation, writing their history?

JJM: Specifically, that, no, I didn’t even know what the foundation was back then. But it is funny that you ask the question, because, right now I have the job I wanted to have when I was in college. When I first set foot on campus, in the fall of 1988, I lived in Markley. One of the first things I discovered was a little library for the dorm, that had a pretty good selection of magazines. I would go in every so often, thumb through them, and catch up on the news. It was there that I discovered National Review, and fell in love with it. I began to read every issue, at the same time I joined the

Michigan Review. I felt like MR was the minor leagues, and National Review was the big leagues. I just felt that this was a magazine that spoke to me, and my world view, and I thought, “Wouldn’t it be neat to write for National Review some day.” Lo and behold, it ended up happening.

MR: Entering as a freshman, were you interested in politics, or did you come open-minded, and were persuaded by your readings?

JJM: I certainly didn’t consider myself a really strong conservative when I came to campus. I was interested in world affairs and politics, and I followed them regularly. This was 1988, a year of a presidential election, and I remember as I was graduating high school, with my first vote upcoming, wondering if I was going to vote for the Republican or Democrat. I followed the primaries, and I really didn’t know. I worked at a restaurant while in high school, and I would get into debates with the owner of the restaurant, a typical small-business owner, very much Republican. I would play devil’s advocate, and we would go back and forth, it was a lot of fun.

I was probably trending Republican through out the year, I was a conservative and I didn’t know it. I definitely knew, however, when I arrived in Ann Arbor, that I wanted to write for the school paper. I had worked on my high school newspaper, writing was something I enjoyed, and I tho! ught that it would possibly be a profession for me, so I figured I would join the Michigan Daily, which is what everybody does. It was not a very good newspaper, and it was so unbelievably left wing, that I knew there was no way I could be part of it. If I tried to join, they wouldn’t have had me. The big controversy on campus, there always is one, had to do with these little boxes distributed in the dorms when you come to campus in the fall. They were full of trial-sized toothpastes, deodorants, things very handy for a new student to have. There was a version for the men, and a version for the women, and the big controversy was that the women version contained tampons. The feminists were outraged at this. This, to them,

suggested that women were unclean, that they should be ashamed of their body processes. I wasn’t going to get involved in that. I had found an issue of MR in Markley, and I found it was quite well-written, the politics of it seemed amenable. So, to make a long story short, instead of joining the Michigan Daily, I joined the Review.

MR: Was the Review more subversive at that time? Did it relish itself as counter-cultural -- for instance, Serpent’s Tooth -- or was it a more intellectual publication?

JJM: The Serpent’s Tooth has been around nearly forever, almost since MR was founded. It was a full-page joke, full of light-hearted material.

I remember in the first issue I saw, there was a full-page satire of something or other. The issue itself was a mix of weighty stuff with humor, including book reviews and editorials.

It changed over the four years, however, while I was there. It had to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the staff at the time, as well as the interests. But it was a reasonably eclectic newspaper, published monthly at the time.

MR: What do you think the Collegiate Network does that is so effective in bringing out excellent writers like yourself ? Does its sponsorship of publications like MR or the Dartmouth Review and its writers (Dinesh D’Souza, Peter Robinson, etc.) encourage students to speak out on relatively unpopular ideas in an eloquent fashion?

JJM: Absolutely. Apart from meeting my wife, joining MR was the most important thing that happened to me when I was a student at Michigan. It gave me my career, and I owe it a huge debt. At least when I was on campus, MR was the club that intelligent rightof-center students joined. It was were you went to go talk about issues with a right-of-center perspective, whether you were a conservative or a libertarian. You would meet other smart people, all with a real social feel to the meetings, almost my fraternity. Also, it forced upon me the discipline of putting my ideas into writing, which

helped to sharpen my views. You have those ideas thrown out to the world, tested and challenged by others. It’s great training to learn how to argue, to score a point in a debate. Some become lawyers or professors, one I worked with owns a gun shop, others in the military, all people I knew and hung out with at the Review. All of them, though, would return to the notion that MR helped them learn how to develop arguments, debate points, and write reasonably well.

MR: What kind of frustrations did you have in your years at the Review?

In retrospect, what would you have done differently, if anything at all?

More aggressive writing, perhaps, or focused on different topics?

JJM: I do think we put out a pretty strong product while I was there.

While I was editor, I was blessed with a talented staff and a core group of people who were willing to work hard to put out a quality product, and I think it showed. We did, to the best of our ability, emphasize local campus issues, but if I were doing it again, I would have done that even more. The most important thing that the Michigan Review can do is develop young reporters who learn how to report objectively, take that information, and give it the slant that the Review does, turn it into the kind of opinion journalism that the Review excels at. We did a fair amount of that, but I would have done it even more. The best thing you can do rather than writing your opinion on a health-care bill that is passing through Congress, is go to a student government meeting and write about that. It is your beat, it is something only you can do, and it will be far more interesting than anything you will have to say on what, on the face of it, seems to be a more important subject.

MR: As a sidebar, you being a man who got married to a girl from U of M, what’s a word of advice you can extend to us young bachelors on landing a wife?

JJM: [Laughing] Hang out in Markley. MR

Page 9

W

the michigan review Campus & Beyond

Reconsidering Housewivery

HAT IS THE ULTIMATE goal of education?

Is mere personal advancement a legitimate goal?

These questions race through one’s mind when they read an article describing a trend among women in elite universities whereby many young women are choosing to forego careers in order to take time to raise children.

The traditional family structure is gaining appeal as the problems women with careers face are increasingly portrayed in the media, including the evident disintegration of the traditional family.

So it seems natural for advocates of traditional family structure to support the decision of a young, well-educated woman to stay at home and raise children.

However, if this is allowed to happen in today’s competitive academic environment, individuals who do intend to participate in professional careers may be denied access to the best education because those who do not intend to contribute to the professional world are attending the top universities instead.

If those who intend to pursue a more traditional family role are better qualified, this may lower admissions standards at elite institutions. We cannot quantify the potential for professional success gained by an elite education. The relative likelihood of “success” after attending an elite institution is clearly skewed by the fact that students at these universities have proven intelligence and motivation prior to admission. It is also skewed by the relative wealth of students attending these

By Stephanie Kershner, ‘09

F

October 4, 2005

universities. Therefore, we do not even know how much benefit is derived specifically from university careers.

Furthermore, no one at 18 is able to completely predict how his or her personal and professional choices in later years. Those individuals admitted into elite universities may intend to work for the rest of their lives but often change their plans, or are physically unable to carryout their intended goals. It would, for instance, be absurd to prohibit those with a family history of a chronic disease to attend universities, but there are also many unpredictable circumstances such as alcohol or drug dependency, as well as general burn out.

Of course, one notable difference between the aforementioned examples and the situation involving stay at home mothers, is the element of choice. No one would choose to be predisposed to a chronic illness or to fall into alcoholism. In some ways the element of choice adds legitimacy to a potential policy that should prevent those who never intend to have a professional career to be denied access to the most elite universities. However, this choice cannot be binding and those with the intention of matriculating at an elite university would easily be able to lie and gain admission. Even though this is a choice, whereas other factors are not the result to society would be the same lost potential, and at least in theory the level of accountability should be the same.

Therefore we cannot simply limit women with no intent of pursuing professional careers from pursu-

ing elite educations (even if this were demonstrated to be of the best interest to society) without necessarily eliminating other groups of individuals. This area is nearly impossible to form a fair public policy on because net benefit to society and the harm to the individual become incalculable. There are additional problems when you consider the appropriate scope of government and the unknown consequences to society.

But that does leave the remaining moral question. Personal education and attentive child rearing are beneficial to our society, and one cannot argue that pursuing both is immoral. But when you deny the advantage of attending an elite institution to others, or take it for granted with no feelings of accountability toward the society that created these academic institutions and provided you with opportunities, it is important to explore the broader moral implications of what we do with the benefit of elite education. Obtaining this benefit, which is denied to many obligates us to service in return, as agreeing to obtain any other service comes with a form of payment. In a business, you must simply pay the company that provided the service, but tuition money does not provide for a similar arrangement because the purpose of a university is not profit but rather to further the goals of the community. Thus our debt is not simply that paid in tuition dollars, but rather that which must be paid to society as a whole. MR

students with information about right leaning student groups. “As conservatives, we are one of the biggest minorities around, and it is important for other conservatives to know that there are groups here for them to be a part of. It is extremely common for conservatives to be looked down upon by fellow students and professors at

by left-wing intellectuals. Conservative Coming Out Day was an attempt to let these people know that we are not ashamed of our beliefs and in fact, we are quite proud of them. That’s why our point was to stand in the Diag and proclaim our beliefs in front of everyone,” said Gage. MR

Coming Out Conservative conservative presence, but to also provide conservative top-tier universities like Michigan, which are dominated

or conservative students, there is little tolerance. They learn quickly that deviating from the liberal norm is almost as bad as being an Ohio State fan, and the only thing worse than being a conservative is being open about it. In the words of Matthew Bostwick, a second year engineering physics major, conservatives are apprehensive to share their views at a liberal school.

On September 21, 30 groups held the first annual National Conservative Coming Out Day, an event created to put conservative students at ease and promote conservative causes on campuses nationwide.

The College Republicans joined forces with the Leadership Institute’s Campus Leadership Program, a foundation that works to place young conservatives nationwide in public policy processes, to bring the event to the university. Matthew Gage, a political science senior and the events chairman of the College Republicans, was responsible for bringing the event to Michigan. “I read an article on TownHall.com about a conservative coming out day, and I thought it was an awesome idea. So, I contacted the Leadership Institute in Washington D.C. They put me in contact with Jason Miller, the regional director for Michigan, and he helped me put the day together,” said Gage. During the event, brave conservatives could be seen holding a sign that said, “I came out on Conservative Coming Out Day” and having their pictures taken for the College Republicans’ website.

At Michigan State University, students had the opportunity to “come out” of a mock closet. According to Gage, the purpose of the day was not only to make the University of Michigan community aware of the

the michigan review

Page 10

Commentary

October 4, 2005

Battle on Education Funding on the horizon

By Tom Church, ‘09

T

HE K-16 COALITION, a group of statewide educational organizations, is kicking its petition for the Educational Funding Guarantee Law into high gear.

The petition would put a floor at the funding level for public K-16 educational institutions at the rate of inflation. If it becomes law, the bill would likely slow the increasing tuition costs with which university students are inevitably faced. The bill’s drawbacks are that it would force legislators to make painful decisions and it lacks other reforms that are needed to be truly effective.

The bill takes advantage of a unique Michigan process that allows bills to originate outside of the legislature.

If organizers receive 254,706 signatures from registered Michigan voters, the bill automatically receives an up or down, roll call vote. If the bill does not pass, it goes to a statewide referendum in the fall of 2006. It is not amendable and Governor Granholm does not need to sign it for it to become law. The creators hope that a roll call vote on an education bill will put state legislators in an awkward place – voting no provides future opponents ample ammunition to claim that the in-

cumbent is inherently opposed to education.

The bill encompasses public education as a whole, but for the purpose of this article we will focus on higher education. Proponents support the bill because of the recent decline of public funding for education, the rise in student enrollment, and dramatically rising tuition costs for college students. At the university level, state funding has fallen from 7,000 dollars a student in 2000 to 5,646 dollars last year. Universities claim that they are struggling with less funding for more students: Granholm has made it a priority to double the number of Michigan college graduates in the next fifteen years. Universities say that current funding mechanisms leave them no choice but to increase tuition.

In an ideal world, educational funding would be steady and appropriate – and that funding would allow universities to productively produce large numbers of increasingly intelligent students every year, all for a smaller price tag. But that is not the case. Legislators have to balance education funding with Medicare and police funding and educators have to balance government funding with tuition

funds. Even worse, most education funding is set aside as a proportion of taxes collected. When the economy is booming, money flows to universities readily. But in times of poor tax revenue, or quite simply whenever the state of Michigan collects taxes, funding is tight. Opponents and fiscal conservatives ask where extra funding is going to come from. Recent budget cuts have not been out of spite for public education. Rising Medicare costs eat up a large part of the budget and leave little room for other spending. Increased educational spending will either have to be met with tax increases or cuts to other programs.

Many opponents claim that the difference between public and private universities is that public universities have little or no incentives to cuts costs.

This argument is very true. But that is not to say that Michigan universities have not been cutting costs or getting serious about efficiency. The last four years of funding cuts has certainly made them get into gear. Universities have been forced to look around and find unnecessary administrative bodies to trim down and non-educational functions to outsource in order to cut costs. Finding unneces-

sary components to eliminate is certainly a good start to acting like efficient private universities, as long as there is no strain on educational quality.

Enacting the Educational Funding Guarantee Law will moderately diminish tuition rates for students at Michigan’s public universities - and all indicators look like the petition will collect the signatures necessary to get a yes or no vote from the legislature and if necessary the people of Michigan. But much more can be done. If this bill becomes law, a strong complimentary bill should be passed as well. The complimentary bill should urge universities to cut costs not by any means necessary, but in ways that make sense: use technology effectively to increase productivity, outsource non-educational functions like food service, and implement strong cost control measures that measure the beneficial aspects of the university – and allow for the elimination of those that negatively affect performance. Most importantly, the University of Michigan should publicly pledge to make lower tuition costs a top priority, and then deliver on that pledge. After all, making education affordable to everyone is the purpose of public education. MR

CAFTA and the Implications of Free Trade

By Brian Biglin, ‘08

A

SIDE FROM JUDICIAL nominations and the post-hurricane blamegame, one of the most politically divisive (yet, oddly under-reported) issues of recent months has been free trade. Somehow, the mantra of “trade makes everyone better off ” has been almost silenced by shouts from those against outsourcing and, even more so, those representing special interests.

Liberalizing trade used to be a widely embraced notion that Democrats and Republicans agreed on. Among experts, the consensus remains that free trade, and everything that comes with it (for example, lower prices but higher short-term unemployment in some sectors) should continue to be embraced; sadly, almost all Democrats and several Republicans in congress have allowed political expediency and big-money lobbying obscure the clear facts.

Case in point: in late July, the US House of Representatives passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement, to create new and more unfettered trade links with five central American nations plus Costa Rica, by a 217-215 margin.

While CAFTA followed the same path as the very popular, Clinton-endorsed North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1993, the difference in congressional support is astounding. Given the clamor against outsourcing, and the

grumbling against the jobs lost to Mexican firms in the wake of NAFTA, the political climate has changed quite a bit since 1994. While it was disappointing that some Republicans did not follow the commonsense stances ingrained in the party platform, it is even more alarming that only 20 Democrats backed President Bush on CAFTA, when over 100 of them backed Clinton on NAFTA. Times have changed.

The Republicans opposing CAFTA were beleaguered by sugar and textile bigbusiness interests, many of which are located in Republican states, or Republican regions of blue states, like central Lower Michigan. Somehow, thanks to subsidies and restricted trade flow from Central America (even with CAFTA our designated sugar-import levels from other nations will remain low), we have a shortage of sugar, and artificially high prices to boot.

You see, if American individuals and firms had unfettered access to sugar at the world market rate and could procure it from central America, then local producers would have to reduce their prices to stay competitive, thus denting their profits and causing the government subsidy program to pretty much go awry.

The USDA sugar subsidies are such that farmers can have the government buy sugar from them if market prices go below a certain level per pound, as they

most certainly would if domestic industry had to compete with Central America.

To this point, import quotas have kept the domestic industry fat and happy, but experts also report that there could be circumstances where the subsidy program could go bankrupt, and the government, rather than private industry, would produce sugar. This is all more akin to economies of the former Soviet Union, not what the American economy should be.

So it boils down to this: to allow free trade with our neighbors to the south, we’d first have to remove the USDA program which cradles the domestic sugar industry. The farm bill won’t be renegotiated until 2007, so even with CAFTA we’ll have to put quotas on imports of central American sugar so that the public budget doesn’t balloon (and the government sells us sugar).

By the way, in considering how the price of sugar affects you, looks at all of the products you purchase that have sugar in them, not just the rare bag of sugar that you purchase if you ever bake.

Consider how artificially high prices--and a supply shortage, of all things--affects soda companies, snack-makers, and bakeries. They will have much higher costs, may have to be faced with reducing employment or wages, and will also pass the price along to the products we enjoy.

Back to the Democrats. In the name

of saving American low-skilled and manufacturing jobs, and since it is just so easy with a pro-business Republican president at the helm, they are almost lockstep against any movement towards free trade, a movement which the experts say will leave all parties, including depressed Central American countries who deserve our help, better off. Like the Republicans, the Democrats have special interests that plague them, such as labor unions and Leftist anti-globalization groups.

The essence of why America should continue to act sensibly and support free trade as we did in 1994 with NAFTA, in spite of the pleas from big sugar, was summed up very nicely by a Louisiana Democrat who broke ranks, Rep. William Jefferson, and said that “at our door stand our neighbors from Central America, literally pleading with us to approve this agreement…Instead of turning a deaf ear to them, we ought to heed them.”

While America stands to gain from CAFTA in the long run (even though our combined export and import activity with included nations only totals around $30 billion per year right now, compared to nearly half a trillion with Europe), let’s not forget that opening the trade door wider to Central America will have enormous effects on the standard of living in some of the world’s poorest countries.

MR

the michigan review

Page 11

By Danielle Putnam, ‘08

T

Here Come the Men in Black

he US Supreme Court has greatly altered the political arena. Controversial decisions in Roe v.

Wade, Grutter v Bollinger, and Rasul v. Bush (a case challenging racial profiling) have shaped the standards of American society. Because of the controversy caused by such cases, many have become skeptical of the Supreme Court’s powers and their application. It is widely understood that the Supreme Court’s duty is to uphold the spirit of the Constitution. Mark Levin, president of the conservative Landmark Legal Association, addresses the extent of the court’s power, in his new book, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America.

One of the major malfunctions of the Court, according to Levin, is the lack of term limits. Because Supreme Court Justices are allowed to serve for life, many of them become too weary (Hugo Black), or even too senile (Thurgood Marshall), to uphold the vitality and duties of the Court. Not only is age an issue, but so are political views. Nominations only occur when a judge dies, retires, or resigns. The president, then, seizing on the opportunity to fill an all-too-rare vacancy, typically replaces the retired justice with one whose views match his; at least, this has been the apparent trend. Therefore, the bench can and often does become extremely polarized with liberal or conservative justices.

Levin points out that justices are not “imbued with greater insight, wisdom, and vision” than most, but instead are people with imperfection and frailties. The problem with judicial activism, according to this view,

By Chris Stieber, ‘07

I

October 4, 2005

Book Reviews

is that it could lead to the decline of American democracy by encroaching on the powers of Congress and the President. Just as political commentators once bemoaned the “imperial presidency,” the prevailing political climate situates most Americans against the “imperial judiciary.”

By declaring laws unconstitutional, often without making sufficient reference to the Constitution, Supreme Court justices have become more like legislators than judges. Levin describes judicial review as the “counter-revolution.” Levin’s biggest concern with judicial review is that the court has repeatedly gone beyond simply interpreting the founder’s intentions. For example, Levin explains the intentions of the First Amendment as simply protecting religious minorities and preventing religious intolerance. He then expands his argument to explain the origination of “separation of church and state,” a phrase borrowed from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. Jefferson stated that the Danbury Baptists did not have to recognize other faiths because the First Amendment created a “wall of separation between church and state.” Clearly, there is no separation of church and state in the text constitution, nor, it is arguable, did contemporaries of the Constitution view the First Amendment in the way it has come to be interpreted.

Even a case such as Roe v. Wade, which gives women the right to abort a pregnancy within the first three months, is justified through “the right to privacy” constructed by the Supreme Court (the word “privacy”

itnever appears in the Constitution). Bush v. Gore, in which the court intervened in a state election recount, was justified in terms of 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. Regents of the University of California v.

Bakke, which upheld affirmative action programs, was also justified because of the equal protection clause.

In each of these cases, Levin argues that the founders would not have foreseen that the basic mandates of the Constitution would be twisted so radically.

Levin suggests that there is a way to defend Americans’ rights and to keep judicial activism out of the democratic system: Americans must “not quietly accept the fate of the courts have in store for us.” Much of American society as we know it has been decided by the Supreme Court: the right to have an abortion, the integration of schools, among other issues. Mark Levin asks us, though, if as a unified, democratic nation, we are willing to have the Court control and dictate every aspect of our life. Or should we demand that the Court remain loyal to interpreting the Constitution strictly at face value? The answer to these questions depends on whether one feels that the meaning of the Constitution changes over time, or if the Constitution has only one interpretation. That decision is left to the people, but as Levin suggests, it must be made before the Court is given the opportunity to make more decisions affecting Americans’ lives. MR

Free Choice and Organized Labor

n the second half of the 20th century, despite overwhelming physical and political powers, labor unions’ vicelike grip on labor laws and legislation was dramatically weakened by the hard work of a handful of concerned Americans.

In August, this group of intrepid men and women, the National Right to Work Committee (NRWC), celebrated its 50th year in existence. In celebration of this golden anniversary, George C. Leef has written a book, Free Choice for Workers: A History of the Right to Work Movement. Outlining a movement consisting of shrewd legislative tactics in Congress combined with earnest grassroots efforts in the states, Leef ’s book, while sometimes stuffy, demonstrates what one small committee of citizens can accomplish in the face of powerful interest groups.

Beginning in the New Deal Era of the 1930s, President Roosevelt’s big government projects and expenditures went hand in hand with the union bosses’ vision of an America run by Big Labor.

With a highly regulated labor force and the deep pockets of the labor unions, the bosses were eager to wield the power of the federal government to expand their dues-paying power base. In 1934, the Wagner Act enabled unions to force laborers to join, and the Supreme Court, threatened by the court-packing tactics

of Roosevelt, allowed the patently unconstitutional legislation to remain effective. It is from this low point, with almost no freedoms granted to the individual laborer, that the fight of the NRWC took off.

Leef, executive director of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, emphasizes from the beginning that the NRWC is not antiunion at all. In fact, the opposite is true: many of the founders of the committee were either formerly or currently involved in their unions, but simply did not want to see compulsory unionism forced on their workmates. Starting in several states such as Kansas and Wyoming in the late 1950s, NRWC began grassroots efforts to pass bills called “Right to Work” laws.

The express purpose of these bills was to ensure that a worker did not have to join a union in order to be employed by a company. This infuriated Big Labor, and it accordingly poured massive amounts of money and manpower into defeating the legislation. In the 1958 elections, Labor came out the big winner, squashing the bills in nearly every state. When the Right to Work movement seemed dead in the water, it took the courageous action of people like Reed Larson, president of the NRWC, and Senator Dirksen of Illinois, a pivotal supporter of Right to Work, to resurrect the idea of freedom in

the workplace.

Throughout the rest of the 270page book, Leef explains in great detail both the legislative maneuvers and overwhelming public support that arose in defense of worker freedom. However, it is hard to overlook that much of the writing in this book is rather bland and repetitive, as government action is wont to be.

This is not a criticism of Leef ’s style, but rather recognition of the tedious subject matter. Beyond this shortcoming, there is still a lot to be learned from this book.

Conservatives posit that a large federal government is a burden upon the growth of society, full of politicians who legislate and regulate far too extensively.

If there is any lesson to be learned from the organized labor movement, it is that this large government, when paired with a shrewd political force like the unions, can become a nearly insurmountable obstacle. It is not impossible to overcome, however, if the general public supports your efforts. One of the expressed purposes of the book is to illustrate the efficacy of groups that enjoy grassroots popularity but very little support in Washington. This fact should inspire all who work for change in today’s society.

Even people who have little interest in organized labor would learn much from the effective direct-mail campaigns, the shrewd targeting of duplicitous politi-

cians, and other successful moves made by the NRWC. From the 1930s until the Reagan Revolution of the 1980s almost all of the federal government, both Republicans and Democrats alike, were sympathetic to Big Labor’s demands for compulsory unionism. All of this political support was in spite of a decisive majority of the public opposing such policies. However, the inexorable force of the public opinion, as well as the work of the NRWC, slowly turned the tide of Congress and the White House in favor of workers’ freedom. Obvious parallels can be drawn to any number of current issues, such as abortion and border control, where public opinion diverges from the conventional wisdom of Washington.

The story of the growth and decline of organized labor in America is one that should not be ignored by any serious student of American political history. While much of the college generation has never lived in an era of strong unionism, it is important that we read and educate ourselves on Big Labor’s rise to power. Leef ’s book Free Choice for Workers, though dry and overly wonkish, does an excellent job of summarizing this interesting history. MR

Page 12

the michigan review Race Relations

October 4, 2005

So Far Still to Go Race Relations and the ‘U’

By James David Dickson, Editor-in-Chief

T

HIS CAMPUS HAS racial issues to work out. This was clear upon hearing about the alleged incident of ethnic intimidation on campus and the University community’s response to it. Last week’s Letters section in the Michigan Daily, which rightly took the Daily and DPS to task for printing vague descriptions of the suspect in a campus shooting, revealed yet again how far we have to come in terms of race relations.

Our race issues became clearer still when I opened my Facebook account this weekend. I opened the message to read one of the stalest one-liners and oldest tropes I have ever heard on this campus: “I just wanted you to know that you are a disappointment to all the Black men and women who came before you,” the message read. No argument was made, of course. No explanation given; but none was necessary. I had seen this movie before. By daring to think for myself, expressing political beliefs independently formed, and taking the helm at the Michigan Review, apparently I am a disappointment to the black men and women who preceded me.

Funny thing: no one who fits that description seems to agree. No black alums I’ve met, not even those who have graduated since the Michigan Review has been on campus, seems to think so. More often than not they are intrigued that a paper they disagreed with so virulently, a publication which opposed affirmative action so strongly, is run today by a black man. They see my role as Editor-in-Chief for what it is: a sign of the times. A sign that college students are different than they were

decades ago, different than they were even five years ago.

A sign that black people in America are now “up for grabs” politically, and that the color of one’s skin no longer determines political affiliation.

The political arena is more wide-open for blacks than ever. Bishop Keith Butler, a black Republican minister from Southeast Michigan, is gearing up for a campaign race against Senator Debbie Stabenow, while Lynn Swann is toying with the idea of running for Pennsylvania Governor on the Republican ticket. This all comes after J.C. Watts recently ended a 4-term tenure in Congress during which he rose to fourth in House leadership. These examples are not isolated incidents, but rather a much needed, long-in-coming expression of open political choice on the part of black people, and a serious challenge to the close-minded idea that the 40 million blacks in this country all must think, act, and vote a certain way if they are to be considered truly “black.”

Anyone in the know has seen how Catholics, and, lately, Jews, have reaped the benefits of allowing both political parties to compete for their votes, rather than conceding their political power to the Democrats uncontested. Putting one’s vote up for grabs, and deciding political affiliations in terms of merit rather than history, or rhetoric, has implications on public policy decisions by both parties. After the MCRI campaign to ban racial and gender-based affirmative action in Michigan – was announced, the Michigan Republican party declined the opportunity to endorse it. Why? Because, when political parties believe that votes are up for grabs,

it becomes less important for them to placate their “base” and more crucial that they seek converts. That the Republican party of Michigan would make policy choices with potential black voters in mind is an encouraging sign that things have changed. Why anyone would want to deny black people the chance to be politically courted and to demand change is beyond the scope of logic.

At the end of the day I’m most disappointed by the unthinking, unquestioning acceptance of simple answers to race-related issues on this campus. Someone breaks ranks with what is “expected” of him politically, so he must be a sellout. Asians are sprayed with a liquid which may not have been urine (nor is it known whether the accused knew the victims were Asians before spraying them), so it must be a hate crime. These simple answers may be good for playing on emotions or mobilizing people in the immediate term, but as an approach to race relations, we lose as a community by engaging in such reductionism. The campus dialogue on race has yet to begin, and if we continue to approach race issues in the framework of what we think we know, as opposed to considering how much we all have yet to learn, we lose out on the advantages of diversity which the University trumpets so proudly. MR