vol_24_no_5

The Michigan Review the michigan review

Page

The Campus Affairs Journal at the University of Michigan

Volume XXIV, Number 5

November 8, 2005

MR November 8, 2005

and so it begins...

mcri hits the ballot MCRI Panel......................Page 3 Private “U’ Face-off.........Page 5 Ward Connerly................Page 11 Life After the MCRI.........Page 4 Edwards and Kozol..........Page 7 BAMN and Sharpton......Page 12

www.michiganreview.com

Page 2

the michigan review

■ The Serpent’s Tooth A letter to the Daily last week indicated that BAMN members made disparaging comments against a student of Asian descent, and proceeded to throw a packet of soy sauce at her. Review Editors Nick Cheolas, a Greek, and Irishman Mike O’Brien experienced similar treatment, finding themselves on the receiving end of a barrage of gyros and corned beef.

We’re hedging our bets that Michigan Daily “Sex Columnist” Brooke Snyder is actually a virgin.

A recent protest on the anniversary of George W. Bush’s reelection drew a sparse crowd. The rest of the protesters were said to be in Canada.

A drunk George Clooney punched a film producer this week for criticizing his acting ability. Let this be a lesson to critics of Review Editor-inChief James Dickson.

Foxnews.com reports that “A Vatican cardinal said Thursday the faithful should listen to what secular

Serpent’s Tooth

modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into “fundamentalism” if it ignores scientific reason.” In other news, the Vatican has set a new record for the quickest excommunication.

Employing The Michigan Review’s headlining tactics – which have produced such gems as “Cox Stands Firm” and “Granholm Stiffs Cox” – the Tennessean.com news service elaborated on the injury troubles of Titans Quarterback Steve McNair with the headline “McNair’s sack pain lingers.”

The publishing and copyright assets of M.C. Hammer went on sale last week nearly a decade after the rapper declared bankruptcy. Fans worldwide scrambled to collect the change in their couches to secure the purchasing rights.

ing the withdrawn nomination of Harriet Miers. This marks the first time an individual has received sloppy seconds in the White House since Monica Lewinsky.

Yahoo! News reports that “Eightysix percent of people in Britain aged 18 to 30 think the French deserve ‘a popular negative stereotype.’” France promptly surrendered.

According to ABC News, many schools around the nation will now celebrate “fall-o-ween” instead of Halloween to placate groups opposed to the holiday. This move will occur two months before this year’s “Chrismanakwanzamakah” celebration and “secular period of not going to school coincidentally centered around December 25” break.

CBS White House correspondent John Roberts, in a question to Press Secretary Scott McClellan, wondered if Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito was “sloppy seconds” follow-

Thanks, Stuart Wagner

The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan James David Dickson Editor in Chief Paul Teske Publisher Sekou Benson Managing Editor Nick Cheolas Content Editor Michael O’Brien Campus Affairs Editor Victoria Shapiro Prague Bureau Chief Assistant Editors:

Chris Stieber, Tomiyo Turner, Staff: Brian Biglin, Karen Boore, Rebecca Christy, Tom Church, Stephen Crabtree, Blake Emerson, Aaron Kaplan, Kole Kurti, Jeremy Linden, Frank Manley, Brian McNally, David Millikan, Alexandra Miller, Amanda Nichols, Adam Paul, Danielle Putnam, Yevgeny Shrago

The Michigan Review is the independent, studentrun 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.

To the Review,

In the future, please contact MSA representatives (or former ones) for the facts, so that you can produce effective editorials.

The Michigan Review

Editor Emeritus: Michael J. Phillips

■ Letter To the Editor: While I appreciate the props you gave me in your article on MSA, it is terribly flawed. The argument, that a fee increase shouldn’t occur without 20% of students voting in an election, is irresponsible. While it would be great if the “oligarchy” of MSA could increase the fee whenever it received a majority vote in favor through a ballot question, the reality of the situation is that it is the Reagents who pass the budget, the reagents who pass the student fee, the reagents who could theoretically cut MSA’s funding. Moreover, the provost makes the budgetary recommendation to the reagents.

In fact, MSA’s ballot questions simply provide evidence to the administration in our lobbying efforts. This evidence is judged based on student support and student involvement.

The ballot question results do not determine policy. This, in itself, contradicts the basis of your editorial.

November 8, 2005

Love us? Hate us?

Write us!

Visit our blog:

www.michiganreview.com

or email us:

mrev@umich.edu

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

Page 3

By Sekou Benson, ‘06

O

the michigan review

MSA Election preview

n November 8-9 students will log online to cast ballots for the fall midterm Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) election. This year 40 candidates are running for 23 seats on the assembly. Two sets are being contested for the Business school, three seats in Engineering, nine seats in LS&A, one in Music, one in Nursing, one in Pharmacy, one in Public Health, four in Rackham, and one seat in Social Work. When students log on to the voting website (https://vote.www.umich. edu/), they indicate their college. Then, a slate of candidates comes up on the screen in a random order. Students then cast a vote. In races with multiple seats such as LS&A, students rank their preferences. Each vote is worth a certain number of points. For example in LS&A someone’s first choice candidate would receive 9 points since there are nine seats being contested in the election. The winners of the election are determined by the number of total points instead of the number of total votes.

The parties for the election remain the same as last year with Students 4 Michigan and the Defend Affirmative Action Party. Also, several independents are running for spots on the assembly.

The Defend Affirmative Action Party has the longest tenure of any party being around since 1997.

A large fraction of the party’s membership is part of BAMN, an affirmative action group on campus. The party has fared poorly in the past in terms of elections in LS&A but has done well in terms of races for the graduate schools.

The Students 4 Michigan party (http://www. votes4m.com/ ) was formed in October of last year and holds a majority of the seats on the Assembly including

By Nick Cheolas, ‘07

O

n Wednesday, October 26, the LSA Student Government presented a spectacle rarely seen on this campus: civilized debate over affirmative action and the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. Panelists - University professors Carl Cohen and Maria Cotera, Oakland University professor Howard Schwartz, and general counsel of the University Marvin Krislov–took time to explain their views on racial preferences, and then took several questions from the audience. The discussion was opened by law professor Richard Friedman, and after, each professor was then given 15 minutes to present a case in favor of the MCRI, designed to end racial preferences, or in favor of the University’s use of race as a factor in admissions.

Each panelist argued persuasively, and each argued with a particular theme. University professor Carl Cohen, widely known on campus for his views against racial preferences, relied heavily on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing “If you support the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you support the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative!” He showed a strong disdain

the presidency and a majority of the executive board.

The party does not have a fixed ideology considering there are a mix of conservatives and liberals running on the party ticket. The Review sent out questionnaires to each candidate of the Students 4 Michigan party and each independent to elicit a response on their goals for MSA if elected, what role they felt MSA should play at the university, and should MSA take positions on controversial issues where there is not a clear consensus among the student body such as the Iraq war or affirmative action. Due to their hectic campaign schedules, the Review received few responses from the candidates.

Peter Borock LSA candidate

Borock is a second year student and is a member of the College Democrats executive board running on the Students 4 Michigan ticket. Borock’s main emphasis once elected would be to expand Entrée Plus to local restaurants and work with LSA-SG and the university administration to establish an online bank of old exams.

Borock also believes MSA should not be shy in taking stands on controversial issues. “MSA representatives are elected to serve the student population, and voting on contro versial resolutions is part of their duties in certain situations, as long as it is serving its primary function to improve campus life[,]” said Borock.

Michael Moses LSA candidate

Moses is a second year student and running as an independent. If elected, Moses main goal would be to create a wireless internet network accessible to every part of the university including the Diag and residence

halls.

Moses takes a different tact than Brock in that he believes that MSA should refrain from taking stands on issues without a clear student body consensus. “If there is not a clear consensus among the students, I do not think that the MSA has a right to vote in one direction.” Moses describes his political views as moderate but did not give specifics on his views.

Andres Ramos LSA candidate

Ramos is a second year student running on the Students 4 Michigan ticket. Ramos main goal is to increase dialogue among students with diverse backgrounds. His campaign platform provided to the Review says, “More [Inter group dialogue] programs for freshman during the first week of classes and programs for all students during the course of the year will help individuals challenge personal conjectures and misconceptions in order to facilitate greater learning and understanding on campus.”

Ramos refrained from providing information about his political views, but on his platform he describes an interest in the Bill Clinton presidency and his facebook profile lists his political views as ‘very liberal’.

Kat Walsh Rackham candidate

Walsh is a Rackham candidate running as an Independent. Walsh’s main focus if elected is to establish a Sexual Assault Awareness programs on campus. Walsh’s wants to create a peer program called “Men talking to Men about Rape.” Walsh also supports current affirmative action programs, and was against US involvement in the Iraq war. MR

Debating the MCRI

for the term “affirmative action,” arguing that the original intent was articulated by President Kennedy in Executive Order 10925. In a speech rife with the words of Thurgood Marshall, John F. Kennedy, and praise from the 1954 Brown v. Board case, Cohen’s speech would have drawn voracious applause on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. Instead, he received sparse applause from the panel crowd.

Marvin Krislov presented his opinion next, arguing that many students from segregated communities have their first opportunity to interact with diverse backgrounds. Krislov also relied heavily on the experiences of California after Proposition 209, similar to the MCRI, passed. He pointed to instances in California where programs aimed at educating female and minority students were cut out of schools, as well as the loss of scholarships for minority groups. He also pointed to a 50% reduction in minority students at UC Berkeley and UCLA.

Professor Howard Schwartz argued next in favor of the MCRI, and blasted “affirmative action” programs for propagating a campus-wide political correctness. He focused not so much

November 8, 2005

on affirmative action and the MCRI, but rather on the effects of racial preferences and its surrounding ideology. What resulted was the teaching and mandating of untouchable “correct attitudes.” He discussed the recent “incident” involving two white students allegedly urinating on two Asian students, thus precipitating widespread “campus mobilization.”

Schwartz speculated that alcohol, rather than hate, was to blame, and argued that the following mobilization, without any sort of review of facts, was indicative of the mandatory PC attitude on campus that precludes students from forming independent opinions.

The panel presentations concluded with University professor Maria Cotera. Cotera relied heavily on statistical evidence indicating inequality in America, resembling a form of apartheid. Cotera, a Women’s Studies professor, focused on a wide array of inequality, including gender.

She asked the audience why our prisons, businesses, and government institutions did not reflect the actual composition of our nation. Cotera relied heavily on statistics indicating inequality, many of which accurately displayed the degree of the problem. However, some numbers

she cited - claiming the nation was 75% “white” and 25% “minority,” alleging there were 683,000 rapes per year, and that 99.9 victims of sexual assault were women – were quite suspect, bordering on the absurd. Nonetheless, Cotera effectively displayed many areas of inequality plaguing our nation.

Whatever one’s political ideology, the forum was a much-needed step toward civil debate on the merits and pitfalls of racial preferences, and was rather well-attended. Conspicuously absent was the swarming BAMN crowd, who were apparently scared into the shadows by the appearance of civilized debate. Their absence could be attributed to the fact that only six of their members actually attend this University, or the fact that most of their “members” had to be in bed before eight. LSA Student Government President Andrew Yahkind indicated that the organization may sponsor such panel discussions in the future. If so, we will hopefully continue to see this campus move away from fist-pumping, name-calling protest and back toward civilized debate.

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:

Life After the MCRI

Polls indicate Michiganders will ban race preferences in 2006; What then?

E

ven the staunchest opponents of affirmative action must admit there are problems and inequities in our educational system. While private school students and those who live in areas with quality public schooling are availed of the resources necessary for effective college preparation – computers, science laboratories, and college planning centers – many poorer students in urban or rural areas are not afforded the rudiments of a quality education, such as textbooks.

Affirmative action is little more than a band aid on the bullet wound that is ineffective public education, and has obscured the problem of educational inequality. But what can be done to fix our underperforming public school system? Educational reform should focus on school district efficiency, teacher quality, student incentives, and community involvement. More money, per se, is not the solution. Nor are measures to “level the playing field” through college admissions policies rather than addressing the problem at the source.

In recent weeks the deeper problem of affirmative action has become more apparent: it creates a dependency beneficiaries, reinforces a groupthink mentality in minority communities, and pits its supporters in a fatalistic Us v. Them struggle for race preferences rather than addressing the problem: school inefficiency.

BAMN’s diag rally on National Take Affirmative Action Day was a disgrace.

Already a long-time foe of the Michigan Review, BAMN managed to offend fellow liberals in both the U-M chapter of NAACP and the Michigan Daily by bringing uninformed, angry black youth from Detroit to defend affirmative action. Rather than staging a productive dialogue, such as the MCRI forum, BAMN staged a confrontational rally which unfairly and prematurely dichotomized the campus into blacks benefiting from race preferences and racist white “crackers” opposed to it. While many of the high school students brought to campus to defend race preferences likely attended failing schools, their attention was re-directed to defending a public policy living on borrowed time as opposed to community-based solutions to making schooling fair for all.

Meanwhile, NAACP’s National Take Affirmative Action Day protest lent credibility to the idea that minority students would not be on campus without race preferences. Some of the most intelligent minority students on campus wore gags over their mouths to symbolize the absence of the voices in a world without affirmative action.

The implicit statement behind both BAMN and NAACP’s action on National Take Affirmative Action Day is that white racism, rather than underperforming schools, is the reason there aren’t more black students at Michigan. Nothing could be further from the truth. While the Bridge Program exists specifically to raise the caliber of disadvantaged students, little is said and less is done about the actual disadvantages they face.

But perhaps affirmative action’s most invidious effect is to link black successes – no matter how meritorious – to social policy initiated by white liberals. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a case-in-point. Thomas, a black man who no doubt benefited from race-preferences at one time, opposes them out of principle today – to the chagrin of liberals championing preferences. As New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd wrote of Thomas during the University of Michigan’s affirmative action cases in 2003: “It makes [Thomas] crazy that people think he is where he is because of his race, but he is where he is because of his race.” Translation: no black person in America, certainly not Clarence Thomas, has earned his spot. No. They had to be given those spots be benevolent, liberal whites seeking to “level the playing field.”

November 8, 2005

Even liberals who would typically argue that affirmative action is necessary as a corrective measure to America’s sordid history with race tend to fall back on the idea that blacks opposed to it are traitors. As Dowd went on, “it’s impossible not to be disgusted at someone who could benefit so much from affirmative action and then pull up the ladder after himself.” Not only is black achievement tied to white social policy, but the blacks who benefit from it are expected to fall in lock-step with supporters of that policy, lest they be considered hypocrites. In the clamor to achieve “diversity,” diversity of thought is denied to black beneficiaries of race-preferences.

But would affirmative action even be necessary if public schools were doing their job? Probably not.

In rural and inner city schools it is important to hire better teachers. This seems obvious, but it has been historically been difficult. Raising teachers’ pay is an important step, but it alone cannot improve the quality of teachers, especially in traditionally underperforming areas such as science and math. Teachers play an important role in our society; they shape the minds that will drive our economy. We should not settle for anyone who will take the job. Another obstacle to improving our schools is unionization. While unions are an important way to make sure workers are not experiencing extremely harsh treatment, unions cannot continue to force regulations that protect ineffective teachers from being removed.

And it might be prudent to disregard the notion of teaching ‘careers,’ or to be creative in attracting qualified people. Rather than worrying about a potential teachers time spent “studying” education, we should consider their knowledge of their discipline. This way, we give individuals who excel in their field an opportunity to help students part-time or for a short term without committing themselves, for life, to a lower-paying career. It simply is not fiscally feasible to make teaching school comparable in pay to developing chemical compounds for Pfizer. As it stands now, people will not likely be willing to sacrifice that career to become a teacher. However, they may be willing to take a year or two off work or to work part-time as a teacher at an inner city or rural school, especially if it does not require extensive training in education. Students are much more likely to respect someone who is an expert in his or her field. Professionals will also give students a greater understanding of the benefits of education, and help them feel less alienated from those on professional career paths.

Programs like Teach for America should be strengthened and expanded to make the field of education more flexible and attractive.

Schools can be run more efficiently. We can demand this efficiency by making dollars per pupil an important criterion in measuring the progress of schools, and allowing private educational firms, rather than bloated bureaucracies, to allocate funds.

Achieving efficiency is often difficult because those making financial decisions are often deeply entrenched in the bureaucracy. Therefore, the state government must take the initiative and make tough choices which may harm teachers’ unions and bureaucrats but benefit students. We must ask what we value more – the educational system as it stands, or school children, our future?

It is also important to institute student incentives for performance. Students face real financial difficulties and the costs of college can seem so great in comparison to the potential benefits. Students not intending to pursue higher education have no incentive to do well in school, and generally drain the system. Newt Gingrich has suggested an experimental scheme paying students who take challenging math and science courses and succeed. Pay that is competitive with work at McDonalds will help low income students avoid pressure to work rather than study. It will also encourage performance that will help to attract scholarship money and may encourage students to consider college. At the very least, incentives will give those not interested in college the motivation for success in high school, and options for the future.

All of these reforms can help schools, but many issues remain unsolved.

Schools plagued by gang violence, hard drugs, and communities largely apathetic or outright unsympathetic to educational goals are often simply not substantially changed by outside initiatives. A more fundamental change must occur, especially in the inner cities. It is time for community leaders to step up and remind students that education is a better way to escape the struggles of life than gangs or drugs. In minority communities it is time to end the distracting rhetoric about white oppression, and time to remember that minority students are as capable of learning and achieving as anyone.

Rather than supporting programs like affirmative action leaders should not only affirm the ability minority students have to achieve. Rather than perpetuating racist stereotypes, it is time for minority leaders to see the potential in students of every race. It is time not only to make academic reforms, but it is time for minority leaders to step up and call for accountability, not excuses. MR

Page 5

the michigan review

Privatization of the ‘U’

November 8, 2005

This week, Editors at the Review face off against the Michigan Independent, debating the merits of privatizing the University of Michigan Privatization Would Destroy Education for “All” U of M Students Affordability

By Amanda Nichols, for The Michigan Review

O

MR

ften deemed “The Harvard of the Midwest,” the University of Michigan is constantly compared to elite, top-ranked private universities. Is our business school superior to Stanford’s program? Where does our medical school rank in relation to the Ivies? And how do our undergrads compare? Many of the students who apply to Boston College, Columbia, and Northwestern are the same students who also apply to, and frequently end up at, Michigan. Why, then, is this university public rather than private? If Michigan seeks to be thought of among elite, private universities, shouldn’t it actually be one?

Yes. Although its public status was perhaps of some significance in the years following its founding or in the tumultuous time of Vietnam and Students for a Democratic Society, Michigan no longer needs to remain a public institution. In fact, it would be far better for Michigan to privatize than to remain public and thereby dependent on a state government determined on streamlining an already restrictive budget.

The University is well known for efforts to establish diversity on campus and provide “education for all.” But, it should be asked, is the principle of education for all in serious jeopardy if Michigan were to go private? More students admitted would, theoretically, mean more students enrolled. And as more and more students enroll, the University’s resources become increasingly strapped. Michigan’s interpretation of “education for all,” then, really just means a lesser-quality education for as many as possible. Were Michigan to become private, however, this influx of students could stop and those admitted would receive a better education.

In the 2005-2006 academic year, the price of tuition at Michigan increased 12% from its 2004-2005 level. For many students, this is astronomical, and for some, reason enough to look for cheaper educational options. Given that tuition increases do not correspond directly to inflation, scholarship increases are often insufficient for those middle-class students who may not receive financial aid or academic awards – how are they to compensate for this increase? Ask their boss at Jimmy John’s for a 12% raise to counteract Michigan’s price hike?

Michigan cannot be an elite institution so long as it dependant on funds from the state of Michigan. Privatizing Michigan would encourage the University to seek out increased private donations, More private donors means more scholarship money available both to disadvantaged students and to those students who get by without any help, but just barely. Harvard University recently announced a financial aid plan under which students from families earning less than $40,000 attend school for free. The University of Michigan, try as it might to compete with the Harvards of the world, is hopelessly behind its private peers when it comes to offering opportunities to economically disadvantaged students. Less students would allow more resources to go to those who truly need them, and the University’s mission of “education for all” would mean just that – education for all actual U-M students.

A private, and smaller, institution means more interaction with professors as opposed to GSIs; less crowding of the dorms (and therefore a nicer living space than the standard-issue Markley box); and, in general, a better educational and social experience. Furthermore, the privatization of U-M would also force Michigan’s other public universities to raise their standards of education. After all, if the University of Michigan ups its selectivity, increasing numbers of smart and well-rounded students will end up elsewhere; such students will choose the best academic institution available, and therefore, the state’s other colleges will become more academically competitive.

Influxes of strong students would improve the academic community at these various schools, and Michigan would become a state of many good and great universities, rather than just one.

After all – whom is the university kidding? If tuition prices, room and board, and other educational expenses are totaled, the price is barely under $20,000 for instate students. This is not what the price of a public institution should be. “Education for all” is but an empty notion given skyrocketing tuition. In a town like Ann Arbor, the University shouldn’t be so afraid of coming out of the proverbial closet and admitting to everyone that, at heart, it’s a private school with visions of grandeur as an elite university. It’s the best move for everyone—the students, the government, and the University itself. MR

I

By Ryan Werder, for The Michigan Independent

n 1817 the University of Michigan was founded to provide an affordable and excellent education to all students who wished to learn. Today, despite consistent hikes in tuition, U of M does everything in that power to stick to that goal. The barelyconsidered, but still frightening, idea of privatization would eliminate the “affordable” part of Michigan’s mission.

The cost is a simple one to understand: The exclusion of in-state students and anyone who isn’t, well, rich. One can argue that there would still be financial aid, but to what extent? Here is a sobering statistic. The state of Michigan allots over 1.6 billion dollars ($1,600,000,000) to higher education. If the University of Michigan is privatized most all of that sudden deficit will be coming out of students’ and their parents’ pockets.

Privatizing U of M is little more than a poorly veiled attempt to keep out all those who aren’t wealthy and “elite.” The conservatives’ tendency to examine the stats column before looking at the actual impact on real people stands out more prominently than ever in this half-baked idea. The University of Michigan is one of this state’s greatest assets. Each year it takes in scared freshmen from across the state, and then in only four years, it escorts them out into the world as educated, ambitious, and experienced young professionals. Take away the opportunity that this University provides for Michigan students and you tear out a vital organ of the state itself.

Private institutions have many benefits with great facilities and high-paid professors chief among them. But they also come at a very great cost: massive tuition. Along with tacking on thousands upon thousands of dollars in tuition, privatizing the University would also strip students of vital programs such as work-study, tuition grants, the Michigan Merit Award Program, the tuition incentive program, and it would reduce the Michigan Education Trust (MET). The MET allows parents to pay a fixed rate into a designated account over a child’s lifetime which, by the time that child reaches college, will have accrued enough capital to pay the fixed tuition at which it was originally set.

We’re already one of the top 25 schools in the country. As of 2003 we were the 4th priciest public University in the nation. Finally, and most sobering of all, the average U of M student’s family income is well above $120,000. Do we really need to set the bar any higher?

Able to express your views in editorials longer than 350 words?

Want to write stories that take up a whole half of a page?

Then join the Review email: mrev@umich.edu

Page 6

the michigan review

November 8, 2005

The Czech Republic and the Future of European Politics Thoughts and Reminiscences of Jan Sokol, prominent Czech Intellectual and Political Figure

By Victoria Shapiro ‘05

T

here’s something gentle yet subtly commanding about Jan Sokol, the well known and highly respected Czech academic and political figure, whose posture may be less than pin straight and whose tread lacks the sprightly vigor of youth. Currently the Dean of the Faculty of Humanities at Prague’s Charles University, Sokol ran as the Social Democratic candidate in the 2003 Czech presidential election. A jack of all trades, he’s a man who has left a golden imprint on the political and intellectual landscape of the Czech Republic.

Sokol faced the oppression of the Communist regime in his youth, from ages 15 to 28, working a goldsmith, clockmaker and precision maker, taking classes at night because his Catholic religious affiliation meant exclusion from the university. Prague’s 1989 ‘Velvet Revolution,’ in which popular public demonstrations encouraged the downfall of the Communist regime, led to Sokol’s involvement with politics. He was an instrumental in helping the nation unfurl itself from Communist strings, working as Vice-chairman of the Chamber of Nations, Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia and speaker of the Civic Forum caucass from 1990 until 1992. Sokol served as Education Minister at one point and in the past twelve years. He has written five books, over 300 articles and translated hundreds of major texts into Czech. He speaks seven languages and holds a doctorate in philosophy.

course had models for this though…But privatization was a completely new task. It was a huge problem.

In 1990 everything in the country except for small personal property belonged to the state. It was clear property couldn’t only simply be sold, that was huge.

The task of ending the Communist period was another issue. There was the question of what to do with the criminals. Who did the crimes of the communists? On the one hand, the punishment had to reflect the crimes but we couldn’t say every communist was a criminal.

Alexander Dubcek (who was chairman of the Federal Assembly), himself was previously a Communist (former Secretary of the Slovakian Communist party).

Most of the Communist crimes however happened in the 1950’s. We ended up making a law about excluding some people from public office. People who have been in leading positions inside the Communist party, people whose collaboration with the secret police could have been documented. Of course, we also had to review all foreign policy, to prepare for the European Integration, to somehow cleanse the state apparatus to be screened.

MR: What was it like being the Civic Forum Deputy and Vice Chairman of the Chamber of Nations? That must have been such an interesting and important time, with the ‘Velvet Revolution’ having just happened.

What types of issues did you face? What were the biggest challenges for you, personally and professionally?

M.R.: What specifically were you involved in? What were you doing?

J.S. The whole legislative change, the whole process of transitioning government from a Communist regime to a Parliamentary Democracy. We had to change most of the important legislation…In the Civil code, defining what a contract meant was huge. There was also the commercial code that needed to be worked on, we of

Another issue at the university level is more than half of the students have some job. They need to earn money during their studies, this somehow needs to be taken into account. The university education has to be organized not to give additional burdens to working students. What we get for funding is $1000 per year per student- hardly sufficient for teacher salaries and running the school. I am therefore happy that at least we have a law that students who stay longer than five or six years, have to pay tuition fees. We can give stipends to very good students. These great students don’t have to have additional jobs.

M.R.. Related to the previous question, a Constitutional Law Professor noted that in a globalized world, patriotism is dieing, people are jumping from country to country, where opportunity lies. Now a member of NATO and the European Union, the past ten years have proved to be a time in which the Czech Republic has moved toward integration into the world markets, do you perceive brain drain as a potential issue for the Czech Republic? How do you ensure keeping talent here?

In an interview, Sokol shared some of his thoughts on past and present issues of the Czech Republic and the future of European politics.

J.S. Well, becoming involved in politics was the experience of coming into something you were never before confronted with. I had some doubts but then I saw that my colleagues were not that better off than I was in terms of knowledge (smiles). I had some insight into the economic questions that they didn’t have because of my practical background (worked for a software company before entering politics). I also had a nice advantage over the others in that I had been working with workers, as a craftsman. I was old enough to know that we were bound to make mistakes. I didn’t expect that we wouldn’t.

medical doctors and scientists and intellectual academics. Most of our students will not go these ways. They will be in banking, the tourist industry and offices.

There are plenty of jobs which are not academic and which require a university education. The university education has to be made more flexible. There is also the huge problem of how to do it… How do you teach three times as many people without giving up quality.

M.R.: What are the biggest problems in the Czech educational system now? What is responsible for them?

How does the student graduating from college this year compare to the student who graduated 15 years ago?

What will need to be done to ensure 15 years from now, his life will be better?

J.S.: All is more or less good in elementary education as far as the books have been newly written. However, the teacher’s education had to be changed. Teachers should be more motivated. Teachers are paid without respect to their performance. As minister, I was in favor of enhancing the authority of school directors. They are the only ones that can judge this.

M.R..: How about at the University level?

Universities have gone through the highest change.

Where as twenty years ago, some 10% of the population were attending, now we have 40%. That means that the university has to be seen as teaching not just economics and science… Traditionally the university was seen as a place for educating teachers, lawyers,

J.S. That patriotism is dying is nonsense. Patriotism is blossoming in the United States and here in Europe.

We are not so mobile. Only for a tiny fraction of us, scientists, bankers etc. are really mobile. Brain drain is a certain problem. However, in this respect, I am not so patriotic. Clever kids from villages go to large towns.

There is a brain drain in every village. This is normal, why not throughout Europe or throughout the world?

The task for the Czech Republic is to make itself attractive to talent. The issue is making this country attractive for some clever, gifted people. I am not afraid of this. We probably won’t be so attractive for people pursuing careers in computer science of pharmaceuticals etc. However, there are plenty of other opportunities here and we need to concentrate on those. We are attractive to students from abroad. Charles University for example needs to systematically improve its attractiveness.

M.R.:. What do you perceive as the biggest national issues facing the Czech Republic in the coming years?

J.S.: Who knows? My view is a view from a certain point and therefore is necessarily limited. What is very important is the future of European politics, the growing egoism of the individual nation states. The European zeal of the past is gone. European politics is more driven by national politics. We should not fall back into nationalist times of the past. There should be more of a true solidarity. The modern world is perhaps too competitive and in sometimes dubious fields. MR

the michigan review

Page 7

November 8, 2005

Edwards Rocks Activism; Forgets Opportunity

By Paul Teske, ‘06

O

n Friday, October 29th, John Edwards spoke on the Diag preaching a message of change to our generation in his ten college “Opportunity Rocks” tour. Intended to get students “involved in our communities and advocating policies that expand opportunity”, Edwards’s non-partisan movement to fight poverty seemed to carry an underlying pragmatic approach to social change. A message preaching active involvement in communities who suffer greatest from poverty.

Everything on paper leading up until his speech pointed towards a truly idealistic sense of change via non-partisan “doing” instead of political stumping.

To give a little background, “Opportunity Rocks” is an off-chute of John Edwards Center for Promise and Opportunity (CPO) at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. CPO is a think tank, whose mission is dedicated “to exploring new ways to expand opportunity and realize the promise of our country for all Americans. CPO’s mission encompasses much more than just proposing ideas — it will lead efforts to build public support for change, and will serve as an incubator for solutions, conducting real-world trials.”

In his speech, the former Senator and Vice Presidential candidate started off with a clear message on the complete despair amongst African American’s in the economic scheme of America. Rambling off atrocious statistics about poverty in America and citing the global exposure of Hurricane Katrina, Edwards remind-

ed the audience that the world is watching and waiting for our response. There is no doubt that an opening for drastic changes in the way Americans treat poverty has been created since the hurricane.

The question is what is the most effective way to direct efforts from here? This is where Edwards showed flashes of politics instead of local pragmatism, and lost a lot of the gusto that made “Opportunity Rocks” an appealing cause for groups of all political ideology. When the former Senator laid out his plan for housing vouchers and encouraged student leaders to petition for a higher minimum wage, it became apparent that Edward’s is already gearing up for another run for governmental office and is possibly more interested in students being activists for liberal agenda issues rather than students be physically active in combating poverty.

As a result, naturally the campus activists have already mobilized the petition effort, sadly showing how the campus enjoys looking towards the unrealistic activist side of social change than towards the pragmatic hands-on side of mobilizing change and empowering impoverished communities. The end game of “Opportunity Rocks” appeared to be to get people active in communities that need the resources our generation has to offer, at least this would be what you would think when Edward’s asked everyone to commit 20 hours of community service. However, this message appeared to get lost in the fray of Edwards’s critique on the President’s handlings in Russia and North Korea.

One aspect of Edwards’s visit

share of $.54 compared to $.39 in 2004.

It could be argued that if SOLE aimed to make sure that workers were ensured jobs with living wages and good working conditions, they would be working directly with businesses in impoverished areas, and on developing the skills of workers to become more adaptable to a changing marketplace. It is much easier to make an impact on the micro level than trying to hit a corporation in the only place it cares, its balance sheet.

The bottom line is, there are many organizations on this campus that do a lot of active work, instead of activist work, and this does much more to help “progressive causes” than organizing rallies and signing petitions, things that the loudest progressives on campus use to champion their causes. When it comes down to it, the main goal of “Opportunity Rocks” was to engage students into social change, something that both conservatives and liberals should aim towards. The question is, do you want to be part of the end game, working on the ground to solve the problems, or be the person championing the cause while doing nothing to fix it? It can for sure be said that conservatives, if they choose to, will always be the ones taking it upon themselves to actively make change because of their tendencies to shut up and do, versus protest. The question is, when will the loud liberals realize they can be much more effective when they get in the trenches with the rest of us? MR

Kozol: Shaming the Nation

By Aaron Kaplan, ‘08

O

that sadly received little or no press was his visit to a site project in Detroit with the Detroit Project, a pro active student organization. Sadly, the DP, or other student organizations that directly relate to Edward’s speech topic were not mentioned. Organizations like the DP, Habitat for Humanity, Project SERVE (who heads up Alternative Spring Break, Alternative Weekends, etc.), Black Volunteer Network, the Food Stamp Advocacy Project, and the Michigan Community Scholars Program actively pursue change locally by actually engaging with the people who Edward’s claims our generation must help raise up.

One interesting thing about liberals on this campus is how much they preach social change, yet do nothing truly active to achieve this. Somehow these organizations think getting petitions signed or organizing events on the Diag are going to end poverty and bring social justice to all. For example, recently SOLE has devoted ample energy towards removing Coca-Cola from campus. They have devoted countless hours to organizing and mobilizing students to remove Coke and garnered national attention to the Killer Coke campaign. One might ask if this is actually the best way to create labor equality. Has their effort really done anything to ensure living wages and job security for workers of the world? It can certainly be argued that their campaign has done nothing to hinder the Coca-Cola Company. Straight from their 2005 third quarter report, net operating revenues increased 8% in the third quarter compared to last year and they reported earnings per

n October 26, author Jonathan Kozol spoke about educational inequality to a full house at the Power Center. Kozol began his career as a teacher and over the past twenty years has become a preeminent activist on education. Kozol’s speech was part of a nationwide tour to promote his new book, The Shame of the Nation: The Restoration of Apartheid Schooling in America. Attendees who are familiar with Kozol recognized that the speech hit his typical themes: education, poverty, race, and the problems of the inner cities. Kozol, 69, roused the crowd, asserting that his audience, the next generation of activists, are the people that can solve America’s education problems.

Kozol’s books and his recent speech use personal interviews and vivid imagery to describe a parallel education system that is far removed from the world of privilege. He told the story of a bright young black girl who wanted to take Advanced Placement English but instead was forced to take a sewing class. Kozol decried these low expectations while also attacking the use of high-stakes standardized tests to fix our failing schools.

Kozol claims this testing movement, which was started by the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, is misguided because it forces educators to merely ‘teach to the test’

and thereby takes the joy out of teaching and learning.

He questions the validity of proficiency tests at the early stages of kindergarten and first grade.

Kozol stressed that America’s social problems are not limited with education. Many people, he said, forget that many poor children don’t come to school ready to learn. Many kids in troubled urban school districts don’t have a background in Head Start, a pre-kindergarten program for disadvantaged kids. Here, Kozol draws on his background to make a stark comparison.

Many of his wealthy friends in New York, he said, send their children to exclusive pre-school programs that cost as much as $22,000 per year. He even described a peculiar bit of New York absurdity: the industry of pre-K interview coaching. These programs for $500 an hour can get a child into one of the programs known as the “Baby Ivies.” According to Kozol, this is the real shame of the nation: that while wealthy children have every advantage, the country as a whole is rapidly slipping back into the time before Brown v. Board of Education, a time of separate and unequal schooling based on poverty and race. The biggest problem, Kozol said, is that very few people are willing to admit to this, including the principals of large, entirely black schools.

A standard critique of Jonathan Kozol’s work is that he is good at diagnosing problems, but doesn’t offer valid solutions. Kozol mentioned a time when he

testified before the Senate on education issues and was asked by a Republican senator whether education problems could be solved simply by “throwing money at it.”

He responded by simply saying yes. Clearly, Kozol supports increased school funding, but it is striking that after working on these issues for a lifetime, no one knows what Kozol would do if he became Secretary of Education. There are no ten-point plans in his work. Kozol doesn’t write or speak from a statistical viewpoint.

Rather, he speaks from the heart, relying on sympathetic ten-year-olds and personal anecdotes to drive home his message. To make his point about the problems with sterile, standards-based curricula, Kozol told the audience about when he brought a Langston Hughes poem into his fourth grade class and excited a girl who had never shown any interest in school. The next day, Kozol was fired because Hughes was considered too subversive.

Kozol’s riveting, ninety-minute speech ended with a plea for the audience to get involved in education and become part of the solution to end educational inequity in America. The time to act, he said, is now – while we’re still young and before taking on the responsibilities of marriage and children. This is good advice, and anyone who can rouse an auditorium of college students to passionate idealism deserves a long standing ovation.

MR

the michigan review

Page 8

November 8, 2005

Big House, Big Changes The clash of modernity and tradition

By Blake Emerson, ‘09

B

UILT IN 1928, Michigan Stadium is one of the most revered athletic venues in the country. People from all around the nation make the journey to the Big House to sit amongst the 110,000 fans packed into a traditional bowl that, compared to the stadiums of today, has resisted the wave of commercialization. In December 2004, various sources picked up on a proposal which promised to cause controversy in the eyes of diehard Michigan traditionalists. The plan was to modernize the trademark of the University of Michigan: The Big House.

When U of M Athletic Director Bill Martin took his position in 2000, he realized something needed to be done to improve the facilities at the U of M athletic department’s cash cow, Michigan Stadium. “I liken it to a house built in 1928 that has just had three bedrooms added to it, but nothing else,” Martin stated in a recent interview. The stadium has never added restrooms or concession areas, and has a lack of handicapped seating, something which has recently prompted an investigation from the Office of Civil Rights. All signs pointed to the necessity to give the stadium a long-deserved facelift, with the question being, how much is too much?

In addition to the Stadium’s aforementioned shortcomings, Bill Martin stated in our interview that data from fan surveys indicate that the majority of fans complain about the small size of the seats. Unfortunately, this primary request stands directly against another request from the fans: that Michigan Stadium remains the largest stadium in the coun-

try. Widening the seats would cause the stadium to lose 4,300 seats, reducing the stadium capacity well under the secondplace Penn State Stadium, and reducing revenue by an estimated $500,000 per year. With renovations viewed as a must by the athletic department, the bigger question of cost is being addressed.

The cost of simply replacing concrete, upgrading restrooms, and widening seats and isles will cost anywhere between $60-70 million, begging the question of where the money will come from.

Unlike many other schools, no general fund dollars are offered to the athletic department by the University, such that academics remains the University’s number one priority. Throughout Michigan’s history, athletic costs have been self-generated, a testament to the strong alumni base and sound financial management.

However, a program issued this year designed to create revenue has created some controversy.

The Preferred Seating program requires season ticket holders to contribute a mandatory donation to the athletic department to not only fund possible future renovations, but to maintain the numerous varsity sports, only three of which turn a profit. A full 6% of season ticketholders did not renew their season tickets this year, up from the normal 12%. While Bill Martin actually sees the greater turnover as a positive, since 15,000 people are on a paid waiting list for season tickets, some believe that a mandatory donation to the athletic department will lead to a smaller donation to the general university. According to Bill Martin, Joe Parker, associate director of Athletics at the University of Michigan, who has been in charge at University of Texas and

Oklahoma University, enacted a similar program, and no significant changes in alumni giving were detected. Furthermore, outside of Michigan, 19 of the top 20 largest football programs in America already had enacted a similar program.

Perhaps most controversial is a plan which the athletic department hopes will pay for most of the renovations. Enclosed luxury boxes have been a major money-maker that has worked to increase revenue at other schools around the country. However, much criticism has been made over this proposal, since Michigan Stadium has always had a traditional, bowl shaped look. Enclosed seating is undoubtedly a sign of modernization, and what many consider to be a slippery-slope of commercialization at one of the most traditional college stadiums around. However, if we look closely at Michigan Stadium history, we see that it has already undergone major changes.

In 1969, artificial turf was placed into Michigan Stadium. As recently as 1991, the turf was torn up and the field was lowered in order to add more seats.

As a result of this change, cheerleaders could no longer perform their traditional back flip off the wall. The video scoreboards, which were added in 1998, were controversial at the time. All of these changes faced the same sort of criticisms levied today. However, as evidence of people’s forgetfulness, a 2002 poll conducted by the athletic department, most people stated that the scoreboards are one of the best aspects of the stadium.

Other “traditional stadiums” have undergone similar controversial changes, such as Fenway Park in Boston and Wrigley Field in Chicago. It wasn’t until 1988 that Wrigley Field in Chicago

added lights after 5,687 consecutive day games. As expected, many Cubs fans were reluctant to give up the one part of their stadium that made it so special.

However, most people still consider the stadium historic, just as the athletic department thinks the renovation proposals will play out.

The proposal has the possibility of including very few of the changes mentioned, since the issue of financial feasibility is being debated. As protocol, any renovation proposal must go before the Board of Regents three times. Before it is submitted to the committee, an agreement must be struck about the cost, which will be the foremost hurdle that the proposal faces. Bill Martin gives the proposal no time-table because he understands the ramifications, and “wants to make sure it is done right.”

This issue is a tough one since the implications are so high. Not everyone will be happy with the end decision.

However, we as fans should be thankful that there is an ongoing debate from both sides. Critics and supporters of renovations are offering the power-players much needed feedback which, likely, will be taken into consideration. While critics of any sort of renovation have their reservations, rest assured that members of the athletic department have working experience about such projects, and have made decisions about how to keep everyone as satisfied as possible. The final decision made by the Board of Regents will take both the fans’ wishes and the financial stability of the athletic department into account so that Michigan Stadium always remains the best place in America to watch a football game. MR

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 REVIEW

email us: mrev@umich.edu

the michigan review

Page 9 ■ The Deep End

I

The Leader and Best, for how long? out-of-state proportion at University of Wisconsin, and constitute diversity is for a different day), but our admis-

n debates on-campus and elsewhere, there exists a broad, simmering debate over the future of higher education, and our University. Whether in debates over affirmative action, state funding cuts, or associated tuition hikes, the underlying dispute seems clear: is it the duty of the flagship public university, especially particularly elite ones, to stake out paths of meritocracy or egalitarianism?

Colleges and universities across the country are at the crossroads of the twenty-first century, where an increasingly specialized economy demands a college diploma or some kind of advanced trainMichael ing in order to succeed and socially and economically. Here at Michigan, O’Brien it is time for the administration to decide whether the University’s duty is to be a catalyst for broad social change, or for it to provide the best product it can (education) to its paying customers.

For those concerned with the social makeup of campuses, a walk across the Diag on any given day must certainly be an awfully disconcerting experience. David Brooks noted in an October 6 column that last year “there were more students at the University of Michigan from families earning over $200,000 than there were from families earning less than the national median of about $53,000.” Michigan has a substantially higher percentage of out-of-state students enrolling at the University, at 36% of last year’s freshman class. And this proportion has been trending upward. Compare this to the 6.5% of out-of-state freshmen enrolling at Berkeley, the 26%

By Stephen Crabtree

O

November 8, 2005

11% at University of Illinois. Schools in Virginia, as well as North Carolina, have institutionalized policies giving a strong preference, or even setting a quota, for in-state students. Also, according to the Chronicle of Higher education, Michigan has the highest out-of-state tuition, at $27,601 per school year.

In his recent book, Equity and Excellence in Higher Education, former Princeton president William Bowen, along with co-authors, analyzes the reasons for disparities in getting a college degree among races and socioeconomic statuses. He says of Michigan, particularly our law and business programs, that charging tuition at market levels, openness of enrollment to students from any states, and our low levels of state funding have been key components of our success. Bowen writes, “It is no coincidence that they are, in many ways, the most successful and highly regarded units at these prominent state universities.” What Bowen sees as the components of our success, though, are in many ways antithetical to the egalitarianism that many would seem to prefer the University to pursue.

There’s a careful threshold in the matter. Affirmative action policies, more likely than not, might skew towards in-state students whose qualifications may, in certain cases, not match the average. Ever-higher tuition will squeeze out students from lower socioeconomic statuses, and, quite often, discourage their applications altogether.

The lack of formal residency preferences in admissions allows for more access to Michigan for out-of-state students. Yet the simple reality is that there is a trade-off to be had in the matter. Racial preferences may make us more “diverse” (although whether skin-deep differences

sions process is thrown into disequilibrium because of it. Lower tuition and residency quotas would potentially increase socioeconomic diversity, and residency-based quotas might better service student from this state. But at what cost?

The truth is that the University is our client. Instate or out-of-state, our tuition represents what we pay this school to educate us. The difference in tuitions is only represented by subsidization by taxpayers. The University’s responsibility is to be an educational institution, not an institution, in itself, to drive social change.

Colleges, in general, can drive social change. The real income disparity between those with a college diploma, and those without, widens by the year. But it follows from this that the importance doesn’t lie in any one institution itself, but the conferral of a diploma. And existing state universities and bourgeoning community college systems nationwide help – at lower costs – to diminish this gap. But the University of Michigan cannot exist as just another state school and as an elite, flagship ‘public ivy’ at the same time.

The status associated with Michigan is undeniable. The iPod is a staple, and is as much a statement about oneself than anything else (Rio mp3 players simply wont do here). North Face jackets and Ugg boots are ubiquitous. And there may just be as many students from the Upper-West Side as the Upper Peninsula.

But for better or for worse, this is who we are. Whether the amenability of this makeup is desirable shouldn’t be for the University to decide, though—the decisions they make must regard how to best serve their clientele: the students. MR

The court unanimously agreed on the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania abortion restrictions such as a waiting period, and a statement of informed consent for the procedure. However, the court declared Pennsylvania’s husband notification requirement unconstitutional. Alito dissented on this point.

Despite the unanimous votes on the other amendments, abortion-rights groups such as NARAL and NOW have already begun petitioning senators to reject Alito’s nomination, based, on that single dissent.

Another notable decision came in the case of ACLU v. Schundler (1999), in which Alito wrote for the majority that a Jersey City’s holiday display was constitutional because it included a variety of images from different religions, as well as a plastic Santa Claus. His opinion here is being highlighted by the ACLU as grounds for rejection.

In United States v. Jesse Kithcart (1998), Alito wrote for the majority that Kithcart, an African-American, had his rights violated under the Fourth Amendment against unlawful search and seizure. Though Kitchart was arrested and convicted for illegal possession of a firearm in his vehicle, the officers were found to lack probable cause for the search. The search requirements in the police bulletin were unduly vague, as Kithcart was stopped by police simply searching for “two black men in a black sports car.”

Two final cases of note are Shore Regional High School Board of Education v. P.S., (2004), and Saxe v.

State College Area School District (2001). In both cases Alito concurred with the majority. In Shore Regional, the school was accused of failing to protect a student from harassment over his lack of athletic skills and rumored

“free education.” In Saxe, it was decided that the school’s “harassment” policy was too vague to be appropriately enforced, and thus punishment for many offenses violated the First Amendment right to free speech.

In light of the exposure given to these votes, there has been some talk of a filibuster. It is unclear whether there is sufficient support among the Democrats for this action. Three members of the “Gang of 14” – Sens. Mike DeWine (R-OH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Ben Nelson (D-NE) have already announced their approval of the nominee.

Interestingly, nineteen Democrats, and Independent Sen. James Jeffords (VT), voted for Judge Alito’s confirmation to the Third Circuit in 1990, including several members on the influential judiciary committee.

Some of these senators have rationalized their recent opposition by citing his record on the Third Circuit. Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary committee, has denounced the nomination as “provocative,” but currently is the only committee member to “officially” oppose it. Others have voiced their regret that Bush did not appoint a minority or a woman, but none have questioned Alito’s competency or qualifications, as many did with Harriet Miers.

Regardless of how the senators regard Alito’s philosophy, it is clear that his addition to the court would swing the bench notably to the right, as he would be replacing an acknowledged moderate. Still, it is unlikely that Americans in general would support a filibuster of the nomination, as they are concerned more with credentials to sit, not where one sits in the judicial spectrum. For that reason, he will be confirmed within the next few months.

MR

A Planned Little Look at Alito Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania (1991). sexual orientation, and thus failed to provide the student a

n October 31, President Bush nominated Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Conner on the U.S. Supreme Court. While some Democrats are declaring his nomination to be a dirty Halloween trick, conservative Republicans are seeing this nomination as a great treat.

Samuel Alito was born in New Jersey on April 1, 1950 to Italian Catholic immigrants. He attended Princeton University, graduating in 1972, and then went on to graduate from Yale Law School in 1975. While at Yale, he served as editor of the Yale Law Journal. Alito’s first legal experience after graduation was a clerkship for Judge Leonard Garth of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals from 1976 to 1977. He was shortly thereafter appointed as an assistant U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. In 1981, he was chosen by President Ronald Reagan to be Assistant Solicitor General of the United States. During this appointment, he argued twelve cases before the Supreme Court. In 1985, Reagan selected Alito to serve as Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Two years later, he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate to be the U.S. Attorney of New Jersey.

President George H. W. Bush nominated Alito for his current position on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. His most famous nickname, “Scalito,” refers directly to his ethnic, religious, and supposed philosophical ties to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Alito, like Chief Justice John Roberts, has illustrated in his dissents a penchant for deference to the states over the federal government in constitutional matters.

Alito’s most notable dissent came in Casey v.

Page 10

the michigan review

LSA-SG: The Other Student Government

By Adam Paul, ‘08

O

N CAMPUS, THE MICHIGAN Student Assembly (MSA) is everyone’s government. Literally, it includes students from every school and college at the University. While MSA has large amounts of money and an even larger bureaucracy, how many students know what MSA does on campus? Determining their job, if one uses the MSA website as a guide, is difficult to do. In a list of “Completed Projects this Year” provided on the website, the most recent project on the page is “Michael Moore Visit (924-04).” This past week, MSA brought recording artist Ludacris to campus for a concert.. Even though the event was highly publicized, MSA President Jesse Levine still needed to circulate several campus-wide e-mails in order to fill Hill Auditorium.

There is another student government on campus, however, the College of Literature, Science and Arts Student Government (LSA-SG). While MSA is given a $250,000 annual budget, correspondence with LSA-SG President Andrew Yahkind reveals that LSA-SG only receives $30,000, which he admits “does restrict some of the initiatives and projects we can tackle.”

While MSA has some services

By Brian Biglin, ‘08

W

November 8, 2005

HO WOULD HAVE thought that something as trivial as video games could serve as the context for a landmark court decision? In a case pitting business interests and First Amendment rights against decency standards, a challenge to the punitive law concerning retailers who sell violent video games to minors is being mounted at the United States District Court in Detroit. This has sparked a debate over what, if anything, should be proper punishment for selling violent videogames to minors.

The Entertainment Software Association, Video Software Dealers Association and Michigan Retailers Association sued Governor Jennifer Granholm and other enforcers of Public Act No. 108 in September, a week before the bill was to be signed. Should the law hold up, it will go into effect December 1st.

A similar case is pending in California, where the Video Software Dealers Association sued Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for signing another punitive law regarding videogame retailers

Judge George Caram Steeh will have to decide whether or not this law, which would fine a business owner up to $25,000 and carry a three month jail sen-

aimed at improving student life, many of them are not well publicized. For example: MSA has set up a system to allow students to comment on their houses or landlords. At the time of this writing, however, only about 60 posts have been made on this website, most likely because so few people know that it exists, rather than not liking the service.

In contrast, LSA-SG clearly states its mission on its website: ”To seek a continuous role for students of the College in College policy and decision making when the interests of students are involved. The Government shall also work to improve the quality of both academic and non-academic life for students of the College…”

Recently, LSA-SG has been living up to this goal. While membership and votes for LSA-SG are only open to LSA students, many recent LSA-SG functions have been free to all students. Yahkind described a bipartisan MCRI forum that was put on to fill a “pressing need for an open, balanced intellectual discussion of MCRI.” As an another example, LSASG is planning an International Studies forum. Yahkind hopes for it to “kick-off the introduction of a new International Studies minor.” He stated that U of M is the only Big-10 school without an International Studies program and that getting

one started “represent[s] several years of persistence in research and lobbying” by LSA-SG.

During the last week of October, LSA-SG hosted the first ever “Taste of Michigan” event. This event brought 15 local restaurants on to the Diag to give out free samples of their food to students. Franchesca Gayadan, an LSASG representative and Vice-Chair of the Public Activities committee, which organized the event, commented on the event during an interview describing it as “a fantastic event that a lot of people worked very hard on.” She explained that the multicultural nature of the food served was used to bring several representatives of study-abroad programs to the Diag to distribute information. She said the event helped to promote small local restaurants and get “students more involved in the campus community” by giving them a chance to taste local restaurants they otherwise might not know about. Gayadan was disappointed, however, with the coverage given to the event.

She said the Daily posted a front page picture of a student sampling local food on the Diag, with the caption that named the “Taste of Michigan” event but gave “no explanation of what the event was for or who put it on.”

In the realm of academics, LSA-

SG recently pushed a proposal to change the much-debated language requirement.

The proposal, which was recently defeated in a close faculty vote, would have allowed students to opt to take two semesters of two different languages rather than the four semesters of one language currently needed to meet the requirement. Gayadan explained the LSA-SG helped the proposal by taking an online student survey that “showed that students were interested in taking languages outside the romance language department” which it seems many students feel trapped into completing because they are able to test out of several classes because these languages were offered in their high school. LSA-SG also passed a resolution in favor of the proposal. Gayadan stated that even though this particular resolution was defeated that “it doesn’t rule out other options.” LSA-SG is hoping to continue working with the administration in exploring such options.

While MSA will remain a powerful organization and continue to be a forum for students of different colleges to address campus-wide issues, it is also time for students to recognize the efforts of smaller, often-forgotten, but influential LSA-SG. MR

tence for allowing a minor to view or play a an “ultraviolent” video game, is unduly harsh. His ruling may set a precedent for the California case and others like it.

To put the law’s punitive measures in perspective, a retailer who sells tobacco products to someone under 18 is charged, at very least, with a misdemeanor and fined $50 for each offense.

Peddling alcohol to a minor carries a fine of up to $500 or up to 90 days in jail for the offender. Selling a violent video game to a minor would thus be considered 500 times worse than selling cigarettes to a minor.

But the heavyhandedness of this measure was only the beginning of the software industry’s and retailer’s complaints. Critics of the law say that the “ultraviolent” standard is unclear (since it is not the same as the industries current rating scheme, which designates violent games “mature”), and would cause retailers to have to play every level of every game searching for minute details which might fall under the state’s definition of ultra violence. Furthermore, they contend that the subjectivity of the law, the burden on the retailer, and severity of the punishment infringe on the First Amendment right to free expression.

The movement to punish ped-

dlers of violent games was punctuated by several acts of crime in which offenders claimed that video games such as “Grand Theft Auto” gave them inspiration to lead police on wild chases. The governor commissioned an investigation last May which found that in 26 of 58 stores across six counties, retailer sold violent video games like the aforementioned “Grand Theft,” “Resident Evil” and “Manhunt” to children as young as 9 years old.

No one, not even critics of the proposed law, is contending that violent games should be available for sale directly to minors. Videogame retailers and the gaming industry have suggested that instead of cripplingly high fines for retailers, proprietors should be allowed to govern themselves, and use the industry rating system as the metric of what they may sell to whom. The proposed law would merely bring down costly penalties on retailers while giving them little direction in determining what, exactly, “ultraviolent” means.

Retailers such as Best Buy and Circuit City feel they already have measures to achieve effective self-governance in keeping violent games away from kids.

They offer cash incentives to employees who deny video games to ‘decoy’ minors, enforcing what are effectively voluntary

measures. Similar measures, if enacted across the industry (even if only as an act of self-preservation) would certainly ensure enforcement without proving fatal to small-scale retailers.

Still, it seems likely that, even if this law is revoked, the days of voluntary enforcement of game ratings by retailers are over. While a new law may not provide for such harsh punishment, current events and the zeal of many legislators will likely cause some sort of enforcement structure to be derived.

Whatever one believes about the products being churned out of game studios, or, the failure of parents to govern what their children play with, the videogame controversy would not be one today if not for the actions of videogamers. Recent incidents involving allegedly videogame-influenced criminals have put the industry in the public eye, as concerned parents and opportunistic lawmakers have determined to end youth access to violent games. Hopefully a solution which minimizes cost for businesses without hindering free expression – or compromising minors – will be achieved.

MR

Gamers v. Granholm

Page 11

the michigan review

November 8, 2005

Five questions with Ward Connerly

Assistant Editor Chris Steiber talks with Ward Connerly, a key proponent of next year’s MCRI ballot initiative. Connerly talks about the fight now, and the battles in the year to come.

MR: As highlighted this week by Rosa Park’s death and the following funeral, there’s been a dramatic change from the times of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks to the fractious debate about affirmative action. In your opinion, what has happened to the civil rights movement?

Connerly: Well, I think any time you start appealing to people on the basis of their identity, you end up building a cautiousness about that identity, and it really doesn’t matter if we’re talking about farm subsidies or whether we are talking about race, once people get something on the basis of their identity, they don’t want to let go of it. And I think that is what is happening in what is called the civil rights movement, people don’t want to let go, nobody wants to work themselves out of a job. At its essence that is really what it’s all about, now I think it is extremely unfortunate that some of those who profess to be “civil rights champions” are using the death of Rosa Parks as an occasion to suggest that the clock is being turned back. Rosa Parks did not put herself on the line for the purpose of preferential treatment. She put herself on the line to ensure that she would be treated with dignity as a human being and accorded the right to equal treatment. Al Sharpton’s suggestions that MCRI would be a set back linking Rosa Parks to MCRI- it’s really disgraceful.

MR: Simply put, why not have affirmative action?

Connerly: First of all, let’s get our terminology straight, we’re not talking about affirmative action as a concept of treating people equally, the way affirmative action started out with Executive Order 11246. Affirmative action, in its original state, was an aggressive government action to ensure that all Americans, black people, whites, and everybody else, would be treated equally, without regard, and I underscore that, without regard to their race. Not because of it, but without regard to it. We have a 1964 Civil Rights Act, and I would urge people, who haven’t already, to read the Civil Rights Act. It does not contain any reference to treating people differently, to the contrary. It does not include the words “affirmative action.” Affirmative action is an amorphous term that means different things to different people. If you are talking about affirmative action based on income, based on need, based on the

fact that some people have not had a parent go to college, I can support many of those forms of affirmative action. But nowhere in the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative or in Proposition 209, or in Initiative 200 in Washington, all of which I have played a role in, are the words “affirmative action”, because it means different things to different people.... The words of MCRI are very clear and eloquent in their simplicity: the state, including universities, shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, in the operation of public education, public employment, or public contracting. To answer your question, there is no justification in my mind for presuming that all black people, for example, that all those of Mexican descent, for example, are entitled to differential treatment on the basis of race. Why should we discriminate in favor of a wealthy Latino in favor of a low-income Vietnamese person? That makes no sense given this country’s history and given the 1964 Civil Rights Act… it makes no sense for the government to sanction treating people differently.

MR: You mentioned Proposition 209, could you respond to some of the charges regarding the legislation? Has there not been a large fall-off in minority enrollment numbers, for example? Or how about inner-city education or women-in-science programs?

Connerly: Well, yeah, there’s been a fall off. This isn’t rocket science. If you give people extra points to enable them to get into the more select campuses of the University of California, for example, such as Berkeley, UCLA, or San Diego, and you take those points away, what is going to be the result? They’re not going to get into those more select campuses.

The real question, however, is: is it morally, constitutionally, ethically right to be discriminating in order to accomplish that objective? For some, the end justifies the means, but in this country that is not supposed to be the case. So, yes, there has been a drop-off at the more academically rigorous campuses that I’ve mentioned. But in the overall UC system, there are more “underrepresented minorities” than there were before Proposition 209 went into effect. But every student at every campus can walk with the assurance that they got in because they were competitively admissible to that institution. Now that raises the question, why

the more selective campuses, like UCBerkeley or the University of Michigan, should have to use preferences in order to obtain this amorphous diversity that they profess to want? There are other campuses that people can attend. I didn’t go to a selective UC campus, I went to a community college and a four-year state college, and I don’t feel that my education is deficient because of that. We have worked ourselves into a lather believing that either a black person goes to Yale or jail, that if they don’t go to Yale or one of the selective institutions, their life is in ruin. That’s ridiculous! As we talk about this issue, we need to address that. It is not the lower income inner city kids who are applying to the University of Michigan, they aren’t the ones getting preferential treatment.

MR: What does the black community need to do to insure that the next generation does not need affirmative action? What is the role of educated blacks in ending this dearth of quality students?

Connerly: Let’s be clear again: preferences. We are concerned with is preferential treatment. You can still give affirmative action if you find some student who is academically competitive, but are on the bubble, and they need some sort of assistance, it doesn’t matter if they are black or white or Asian or Latino or vegetarian, it doesn’t matter. You can give him a little bump because neither of his parents went to college. That’s affirmative action, but that is not what the MCRI is concerned with. We are concerned with treating someone differently because of their skin color.

In response to what needs to be done, I think that black people need to recognize there is an academic gap, between them and between whites and Asians.

We should stop hiding behind the crutch that “Oh, the schools are so poor and the schools and teachers are inadequate,” much of which is true. For time immemorial, however, black people have been living in less than desirable circumstances, but that did not impede them from getting an education. The mantra “We Shall Overcome” guided black people, like when they formed their own colleges when they were systematically locked out of other institutions. So they have never hidden behind the claim of “there’s an academic gap here and our kids can’t get educated in these inadequate inner city schools.” That is a convenient excuse,

with a capital E. So, first of all, black people need to acknowledge the academic gap.

But why do we have this gap? I think that Bill Cosby and others are beginning say why: take personal responsibility as a family for the direction of your children.

These kids are not coming to school prepared; they are dropping out in the 8th and 9th grade. They are not recognizing the ultimate imperative of education in order to propel themselves into the middle class. Black people, I regret to say, don’t attach the same importance to their education. Kids are coming to the first grade inadequately prepared. They don’t know their ABC’s, they don’t know how to read. Back in the 60’s, black kids were taught this stuff at home. There was a value on education, you were told you had to be “twice as smart” in order to overcome the discrimination. That discrimination isn’t there anymore. We’re not talking about the 60’s today, with doors being slammed on people. We are talking about institutions that will bend over backwards in order to get black kids in. The family unit has broken down, and things are not being done at home to get these kids to learn. 80% of what you need to learn is done outside the classroom, in the home.

The classroom provides the structure, the direction for you to go home and your parents to work with you to learn.

MR: Do you believe that the MCRI will help repair racial relations in the state? Michigan has had a history of less-than-perfect interaction between different races – will MCRI ameliorate or exacerbate the problem?

Connerly: I think it will ameliorate the problem. I think once we can get to the point where a person’s skin color is not a defining characteristic, that cannot help but augur good things for the country. The point that should be obvious is that people should be treated equally in a government that is fighting overseas to make sure that there is democracy and fair treatment of all the citizens in Iraq and elsewhere. How the hell can we profess to be doing that if we don’t believe in it right here at home? MR

Page 12

the michigan review

November 8, 2005

BAMN, Sharpton on Parade Race-baiting obscures real issues, prevents dialogue to get other people to listen, but some of clearly laid with the crowd. She accused described how she had become interested the people here are detrimental.” She ex- the protestors of “spew[ing] this garbage in this rally, due to BAMN’s frequenting FFIRMATIVE ACTION IS rac- pressed disgust with the profanity and the at us,” referring to signs claiming BAMN recruiting trips to her school. did not care about black people. Kiwosz Although the students had varyism!” “Opposing affirmative action low level of discourse.

The protestors came from conseemed most concerned Detroit students ing motives for attendance, they did have is racism!” On October 27th, Michigan servative groups like Young Americans would be unduly influenced by racist coma certain common ground. None of students received a firsthand view of this for Freedom (YAF), College Libertarians ments made by YAFers, but when asked them seemed to understand the purpose divide at an anti-Michigan Civil Rights and College Republicans, as well as others, for a specific example of such comments, of the rally.

Questions about the MCRI Initiative (MCRI) rally in the Diag. The who opposed BAMN or she replied: “I can’t remember.” were met with blank stares and shrugs. event was hosted by the affirmative action.

Pro Davis summed it Coalition to Defend Aftestors held signs claimBAMN

had up best by saying firmative Action, Integraing that BAMN hated recruited sev“they (BAMN) tion & Immigrant Rights black people, affirmative eral hundred probably did [tell And Fight for Equality action was racist, and students from us about it], but

By Any Means Necessary demanding the enforceDetroit pubwe weren’t pay(BAMN).

The scope ment of the Civil Rights lic schools ing attention.” of this event was larger Act of 1964.

The counto attend the The students than the university, as ter protest was the target rally, ostensiclearly had not Al Sharpton and several of taunts of racism from bly because it been educated hundred Detroit pubboth the schoolchildren in is their future about how the lic school students were the crowd and the speakthat BAMN MCRI would afbrought by BAMN to iners.

Opposing studnet claims it is fect them, nor crease visibility.

A BAMN Protestor: “Some say did they seem groups and individuals campaigning for.

The Michigan denied these claims, argu- Cass Technical these kids should be in school. concerned about Civil Rights Initiative ing that affirmative action High School bilearning.

They They are in school!”

(MCRI) is a proposed itself was racist. ology teacher and were more interballot initiative for the Another BAMN Protestors reported U of M Class of ’69 alumnus Jack Albert, ested in blindly supporting BAMN, askNovember 2006 election protestor up past being pelted with water one of the chaperones, described the ing passersby if they were members of that seeks to eliminate his bedtime bottles and other objects, event as “like a field trip.” Students at this BAMN, and swearing at several who said preferences based on race, as well as being spit on. school who wanted to come had signed they were not. gender or ethnicity in While interviewing protesters, this report- permission slips and upon arriving on the Although the rally’s centerMichigan public universities, and public er was hit with an unidentifiable projectile.

Diag were left to wander in small groups. piece was supposedly the Reverend Al sector employment. Affirmative action LSA freshman Aaron Willis, an unaffiliWhile they were intermittently called up Sharpton’s denunciation of the MCRI, it supporters argue that the MCRI is an afated protester, claimed DPS officers told to the steps to be recognized, BAMN seemed like a sideshow compared to the firmative action ban couched in confushim to “back off ” when he complained organizers did not attempt to keep the other events.

His arrival was met with ing language. There was also controversy about objects being thrown at him.

Offistudents away from the protestors.

Alscattered applause, and many continued over the signature gathering process for cers on the scene did not comment.

One bert supported this trip because he saw their activities, ignoring his speech. He the MCRI petition. The Michigan Court speechmaker it as a “good stayed for about five minutes, spoke of Appeals, however, upheld the validity claimed that lesson in how briefly and then quickly left. of the signature collection. was social change Sharpton compared the MCRI

The rally took place between there not a single is made”, and to Mississippi in the 1960’s, drawing 11:30 AM and 1 PM and was centered on black student compared the parallels to segregation.

He then seized the front steps of the Graduate Library. in the counactions beon the recent death of Rosa Parks, deBAMN had an open microphone, and ter-protest. ing taken by claring that “It is hypocritical to mourn encouraged the audience to share their When it was BAMN to Rosa Parks and at the same time, deny her views, experiences, and incite the crowd. d i s c o v e r e d the civil rights grandchildren an education in Michigan.”

The “speeches” ranged from calm apthere struggle during Sharpton proceeded to attack the seempeals regarding civil rights and equality that were several, the late 60’s. ing manipulation of ballots, heaping atto profanity laced attacks, directed not the crowd

Most of the tacks on Ward Connerly. After an appeal against the MCRI, but rather against the a d v a n c e d Detroit stuto increase street activism, Sharpton expeaceful counter protesters. One speechtowards the dents sincerely ited to applause considerably louder than maker declared, without any voiced provprotestors in believed afthose that greeted him. MR ocation, “you want a fight, I’ll give you a a confrontafirmative acfight!” tion is their

These personal attacks had tional manner.

Many only chance mixed results. Some students passSharpton rallies to succeed. Cass Tech juof those who most veing through hurried by with their heads down, but others stood and watched. hemently confrontational supporters on the nior Miah Davis declared “we’re taking a stance bediag While some were attracted to BAMN’s were high school students.

Desiree Kiwosz, cause we need a chance.” pro-affirmative action stance, many were a third-year Eastern Michigan student Others thought this movement was more put off by the group’s rhetoric. LSA and BAMN member attempted to mainabout black unity.

Segun Gubair, a Cass freshman Rachel Brody, self-described tain separation between the crowd and Tech senior opined that “I think it’s great as “very mixed on affirmative action” the rally protestors, but her sympathies black people can come together.” Davis pointed out “you need to be intelligent

By Yevgeny Shrago, ‘09

A