vol_24_no_7

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

Page

The Campus Affairs Journal at the University of Michigan

Volume XXIV, Number 6

January 24, 2006

January 24, 2006

MR

The Most Dangerous Case on Campus Killer Coke...................Page 3 MLK Day....................Page 12 Iran..............................Page 8 Columns..............Pages 5 & 6 Editorials.....................Page 4 Campus Culture.........Page 11

www.michiganreview.com

the michigan review

Page 2

■ The Serpent’s Tooth

I

s it fair to make fun of the new Provost’s husband because his last name is “Laycock”?

After the University cut contracts with the Coca-Cola Corporation for lack of expediency in cooperating with the Dispute Review Board’s audit process for possible ethical violations, students this semester have been giving an all new meaning to “going on coke binges.”

In other news, the Greek system was the most vehement critic of the new development--until they realized it was against the beverage the University was talking about.

French leaders recently suggested the option of nuclear repercussions in the event of an Iranian attack, second to their first option of learning “surrender” in Persian.

A Nashville strip club has been exempted from the rule requiring strippers to remain three feet away from patrons because the club is simply too narrow.

In other news, there has been a run on stripper poles among Markley freshmen.

A mayoral candidate in Sao Paulo, Brazil, has denied claims that he was planning to sell the 1,100 pounds of cocaine he imported to finance his campaign. To further demonstrate his innocence, he has fired his campaign strategist, former Washington, DC mayor Marion Barry.

Ohio State University researchers have released a stunning study indicating that overweight mothers are more likely to give birth to overweight children. Researchers backed their findings by citing

Serpent’s Tooth

the massive female applicant pool in Columbus.

A drug ring calling itself the “cartoon network” was broken up in New York last month. Police Chief Bruce Grady announced the arrest of Mr. John Chimpo, said to be the head of the cartel.

Following last month’s proposed boycott of the Michigan Daily, the NAACP has decided to boycott snow this month, citing its lack of diversity and oppressive whiteness.

According to a recent poll, President Bush’s approval rating jumped 5 points in December. The mass media was last seen folding its arms, sticking out its lower lip, stomping its feet, and calling the poll a “doodiehead.”

The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan

New Zealand police are searching for a man who fled a hospital wearing a spinal halo and casts on both his arms. DPS has been called in, and hopes to nab its first suspect ever.

Human rights groups are claiming that the US tortured Afghani detainees by blasting Eminem and Dr. Dre music into their cells for hours on end. Officials defended their tactics, arguing that while detainees may have been beaten, lashed, sleep deprived, and drowned, they were careful never to subject detainees to an Ashlee Simpson CD.

Paul Teske Publisher

Kobe Bryant dropped 62 points on the Dallas Mavericks last month, making him the league’s highest scorer both on and off the court.

Mohamed El-Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Eenergy Agency, warned Iran about its nuclear program, saying the world was “losing patience.”

Failure to comply would result in a spanking, and repeated infractions would send Iran to bed without supper, he added.

An Islamic Judge has declared last year’s Tsunami was the result of wicked, whoreish, revealing women. Kappa Kappa Gamma has denied this charge, claiming “we love Asians. We even have one in our sorority!”

Following last month’s embarrassing loss

Liberals around the country wet themselves last month following a revelation that the Bush administration had secretly been looking at facebook profiles.

In sports news, Tyler Ecker finally got out of bounds. About a month too late.

And when there was no time left on the clock. With Steve Breaston 3 yards behind him.

■ Letter to the Editor This week’s news has been reporting the vitriolic criticism aimed at Orange County, California NAACP chair’s political affiliation switch.

As an African American member of the GOP I am tired of the unreasonable expectation that African Americans’ politics are as permanent as skin color. I have run into so many Blacks who believe in the principals of the GOP but are afraid of the harassment that comes with the switch. This is America!!! America was formed to escape the tyranny of the British. Why are we oppressing and suppressing ourselves?!?

My party affiliation does not mean that I purposely want to shun the poor; or that I am ashamed of being black or even hate my race; I DO NOT wish that I was white either.I am a Republican because I am PRO BLACK and PRO LIFE. Abortion has killed 13 million black babies since 1973. Abortion has taken more black lives than crime, accidents, cancer, heart disease, and AIDS combined. This has to stop. Life is too precious.

I am a Republican because I believe that the homosexual lifestyle is a choice unequal to skin color. In addition, I

The Michigan Review

to Nebraska in the Alamo bowl, University officials discovered that Lloyd Carr went the entire season with the playbook from 1988’s “Techmo Bowl” for Nintendo.

Sixty New Orleans cops were ordered to turn in their badges last month, but were allowed to keep the shoes, pants, TV, microwave, golf clubs, laptop, and stereo.

The Australian government is sending terrorist suspects to anger management classes, and ordering them to undergo psychological counseling and job training, hoping to change their ways. American liberals responded by kicking themselves for not coming up with the idea first.

February 7, 2006

am offended when many democrats agitate to put this choice on par with being black. I did not chose to be born black.

I am a Republican because I believe that churches, non-profits, and businesses of all sizes are more efficient in providing goods and services to those in need (the poor and consumers) than the government. Locally, I know many Republicans that continue to support organizations that bring aid to the less fortunate. On a national scale, giving in Democratic strongholds such as Massachusetts and Vermont pales in comparison to the southern red states.

African Americans fought and died for the freedom to do as they choose as they engage in their civic duty. Let’s not forget that: true freedom means that you have the right to make up your own mind for yourself. This includes one’s party affiliation and politics.

Zhe Clampitt Ford School of Public Policy Chairwoman, Republican Party of Redford Township

James David Dickson Editor in Chief

Sekou Benson Managing Editor Nick Cheolas Content Editor Michael O’Brien Campus Affairs Editor Assistant Editors:

Chris Stieber, Tomiyo Turner, Staff: Brian Biglin, Karen Boore, Rebecca Christy, Tom Church, Jane Coaston, Stephen Crabtree, Jay Dickinson, Blake Emerson, Aaron Kaplan, Kole Kurti, Jeremy Linden, Frank Manley, Brian McNally, David Millikan, Amanda Nichols, Adam Paul, Danielle Putnam, Yevgeny Shrago Editor Emeritus: Michael J. Phillips 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.

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

Please address all advertising, subscription inquiries, and donations to “Publisher,” c/o The Michigan Review: Editorial and Business Offices: The Michigan Review 911 N. University Avenue, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1265 mrev @ umich.edu www.michiganreview.com Copyright © 2005, The Michigan Review, Inc. All rights reserved. The Michigan Review is a member of the Collegiate Network.

mrev@umich.edu

the michigan review

Page 3

Campus Affairs

February 7, 2006

Killer Coke Kills Coke on Campus But what are the facts behind this most recent development?

By Adam Paul, ‘07

S

ince the University cut contract with Coca-Cola Corporation in December 2005, a heated debate about the decision has swirled around campus.

With students and activists on either side, a campus-wide debate has emerged, but with very little knowledge available.

Over the last year, the University has been involved in a dispute between the Coca-Cola Corporation and a student group, which alleges crimes against human rights and the environment. This group is part of a national student action against Coca-Cola, lead primarily by the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke. The student group brought their allegations before the University’s newly formed Dispute Review Board (DRB), which was designed to enforce ethical standards on companies who are contracted by the University.

After a long process, including a presentation by the DRB, the coalition, and Coca-Cola representatives at a Michigan Student Assembly meeting, the DRB recommended that Coca-Cola agree to an independent, third party investigation.

Over the winter break, the University, following suit with New York University, decided that Coca-Cola was not agreeing to the timetable for this investigation and suspended the University’s contracts with Coca-Cola and bottlers who sell CocaCola to the University.

The Coalition specifically accuses Coca-Cola of unethical practices in two countries. First, in Columbia, the Coalition cites the murders and disappearances of several union leaders as evidence of a Coca-Cola strategy to stop union growth by killing union leaders. These murders were all carried out by paramilitary forces, with whom the Coalition believes Coke is in collusion. Coca-Cola claims, on their website (cokefacts.com), that an assessment by Cal Safety Compliance Corporation found no “instances of anti-union intimidation.” Independent of Coke, Columbia is a dangerous country. The State Department issues safety warning about travel in Columbia stating that, “Violence by narcoterrorist groups and other criminal elements continues to affect all parts of the country, urban and rural, including border areas.” The Coalition rules out any possibility that the murders are not related to Coca-Cola, and cites Coke’s ability to operate easily despite ongoing violence as proof of collusion between Coke and Columbian paramilitary forces.

Another set of allegations in-

volves water pollution in India. According to documents produced by the DRB from open argumentation, the Coalition is chiefly concerned about Coca-Cola production allegedly lowering the water table. Coca-Cola maintains that good water is paramount to the production of their product and that “it is in the longterm interest of our company to be good stewards of our most critical ingredient.”

The Coalition alleges that Coca-Cola sold contaminated “fertilizer” to local farmers, and criticizes Coke’s Indian operations because “the quality of work provided by the Coca-Cola Company, mostly contract work, is poor.”

The Coalition to Cut the CocaCola contract formed on campus last year. The campaign began when Students Organizing for Labor Equality (SOLE), brought a complaint against Coca-Cola to the Dispute Review board. The Coalition is composed of different campus groups who have come together to work on the issue. According to the Coalition’s website, they are composed of about 20 campus groups, including UM Amnesty International, GEO, Environmental Justice, and Association for India’s Development.

Coalition member and spokeswoman Deepti Reddy said the primary goal of the Coalition that “having come to understand the role that certain businesses have around the world and seeing their irresponsible practices, part in reforming their ways.” Reddy stressed that Coca-Cola “has a privilege, not a right in doing business with the University.” The Coalition dismisses those who argue that this should be something fought out in courts, although most of the Coalition’s are currently being tested in a Miami, Fl, court case being brought on behalf of foreign union. Reddy stated the Coke has “already lost in other [foreign] courts,” and the University as “an institution of conscience” should make its own evaluations of the allegations against CocaCola.

The national Campaign to Stop Killer Coke is a large national organization whose largest and most public supporters are pro-union groups. One is SINALTRAINAL, the Columbian based union that claims Coke is killing its workers. The union represented workers at Columbian Coca-Cola bottling plants, but due to the alleged murders of several of its organizers by the bottling plants, it has asked workers to protest. Its website (www.sinaltrainal.org) asks readers

to “vivimos esta navidad sin Coca-Cola” (roughly “Live this Christmas without Coca-Cola”).

The director of the Campaign to Stop Killer Coke is not a SINALTRAINAL member or an activist from India but a long time American based activist named Ray Rogers. Rogers is also director of Corporate Campaign Inc, a consulting firm which claims to have more than 25 year of experience working with labor unions. This group bills itself as the “#1 strategist for Labor Unions” “(www. corporatecampaign.org). The group aids labor and other campaigns by providing research and media relations services.

Corporate Campaign, Inc. promises, on its website, that “[They] know where to find and how to package and disseminate information that will place union adversaries on the defensive and sway public opinion in favor of the union.” Rogers Corporate Campaign, Inc. has been hired by workers at Hormel Foods, Northwest Airlines workers, and Eastern Airlines flight attendants, among others.

While the campus group is affiliated with the national organization, the campus group claims to have received no financial aid outside the University. According to Reedy “all funding has come from individual [campus] groups SOAS accounts.” SOAS, Student Organization Account Services, is a part of the University that handles the financial accounts of campus groups. Much of these finances come from Michigan Student Assembly disbursements. Members of the coalition have also done fundraising through collecting bottles and through events.

One such event was the Killer Coke Carnival a party which according to the Coalition website (www.umich. edu/~coke), “held at a Coalition member’s house on campus for fundraising purposes. Admission was charged upon entering the party and activities included water balloon throwing at ‘campus personalities’ and hookah smoking.” College Democrats chair Libby Benson said that while she attended the party, “the College Democrats did not sponsor this event and were not involved.”

Since the University suspended its contracts with Coca-Cola, the Coalition has received increased press coverage. The Coalition views press coverage as essential to spread its message and to increase the impact of the University’s primarily symbolic action. Reddy commented that through the media the Coalition hopes “that if we can’t make it

profitable for them [Coke] to be socially responsible, then we will make it unprofitable to be socially irresponsible.”

There has been a great deal of local coverage, especially in the Michigan Daily, but the campaign has started to receive more prominent national coverage.

A story on CNBC’s “On The Money” highlighted that ten campuses nationwide have now banned Coca-Cola and that over 100 colleges have active campaigns.

Students running a similar campaign at New York University called on Coke to recognize real “human rights standards.”

Not all the press has been positive. John Sicher of Beverage Digest appeared on the same CNBC program and criticized the campaign. The University’s action even caused negative reactions at other campuses. Several articles were run by the Harvard University student newspaper, the Harvard Crimson. An editorial in the Crimson condemned the University’s suspension of the contract. The editorial states, “We can’t help but express skepticism about the logic used by Michigan to end its contract with Coke.

Both its process and its weighting of the burden of proof appear suspect.” The Crimson further criticized the University for disregarding Coca-Cola’s continual reassurances that it was acting in good faith.

With the contract currently suspended, it seems the Coalition is spending most of its time doing something it should have done better in the first place, explaining -- itself to students.

The conflict with Coca-Cola is complicated enough to warrant continued press coverage and discussion. According to Reedy, the Coalition is going to work to put continued pressure on Coca-Cola (vis-à-vis the University) to allow an independent investigation. When asked if the Coalition intends to act against local companies that carry Coca-Cola, Reedy explained that the Coalition is “giving local companies information about CocaCola and encourage them to switch” but plans no direct actions against such places.

What remains clear is that the campaign against Coca-Cola is not over.

With campaigns on over one hundred campuses, Coke may have to divert more resources to defending itself. The effect of the University’s symbolic action against Coca-Cola remains to be seen.

MR

Page 4 The Michigan

the michigan review

Review

Editorial

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:

O

MLK Symposia Miss the Point; Debate, don’t Denigrate

n Monday, January 16th, the University of Michigan commemorated Martin Luther King, Jr. day, arguably the most anticipated and celebrated holiday in Ann Arbor. Classes were replaced with more than twenty events on the MLK Day, while the larger symposium consists of more than 50 events over a month-long span, and serves as “a time to break the silence.”

Dr. King is known throughout the land as a pioneer in the fight for civil rights.

The symposium, however, encompasses an incredibly wide range of topics. Events cover Creole language variations, Indonesian music, ethnic skin cancer, photography, and health care. With such a wide variety of topics, one may wonder how much each event really contributed to the real purpose of the Martin Luther King holiday, which is to promote a broad dialogue on the issues of racial equality in America today. But as much as we would love to pretend otherwise, the Martin Luther King Day symposia succumbed long ago to politicized agendas.

When speakers such as University of Pennsylvania professor Michael Eric Dyson are invited as keynote speakers, it is indicative of the priorities of the University. They are scarcely interested in promoting dialogue, but are moreso fanning the flames of the dense fog of the racialization of all issues that clouds the clarity on campus. The Review has editorialized on this annually, and on all issues, particularly the alleged “Asian Peeing” incident at the beginning of this school year. (We are still wondering where the charges are for the alleged perpetrators) We reiterate our point, though: the key to ameliorating racial disparities between people and groups are to focus primarily on people first as individuals, and relegate group affiliation to secondary status.

The event calendar as published in the Daily featured prominently the motto for the symposia, saying, “It’s time to break the silence.” Maybe so. But after nineteen years of symposia, and given the breadth of topics covered, we doubt that this campus has been “silent,” per se on issues of race, or even Dr. King’s legacy. But inasmuch as speakers like Dyson break the silence, it is not via discussion or dialogue—it is by virtue of a onesided screaming match. And the events hardly lend credence to the gravitas of the day’s purpose. Many cater to the esoteric and special interest, which may be interesting for the few academics that attend such events, but are inaccessible to the average student. And in terms of silence, maybe a lack of heated disagreement and vocal opponents on either side is not exactly indicative of a hostile, racist environment, but rather a student body driven to apathy by the multitude of events.

It is our belief that the most constructive forms of racial engagement come in spontaneous, well-thought out conversations that happen on this campus every day. But these aren’t sponsored by the University, and not featured in the Daily. They are largely ignored, while the campus’s attention is myopically focused on controversial speakers that are supposed to provoke thought instead of actively encouraging this sort of personal dialogue, the most conducive way to remedy the problems on this campus.

Furthermore, the harsh tone of speakers leads to serious alienation. Where students might honestly enter an event with the expectation of scholarly discussions, they are met often by speakers who do not share that interest. No student goes to events to be guilted and yelled at by speakers with little more credibility on such issues than themselves.

The structure of events, as it stands now, provides a strong disincentive against students attending symposium events in the first place. Indeed, many students take the opportunity to either skip town and visit friends for the weekend, and for those who stay on campus, it’s largely an excuse to sleep in and catch up on homework. And let’s not forget those extra Sunday night parties dedicated to the memory of Dr. King and his legacy.

A day purported to serve as a remembrance of a legendary crusader for civil rights seems to have involved into a spectacle encompassing any and all liberal concepts in the name of equality. The current format of the MLK symposium is simply not conducive to stirring the “silent” portion of this campus to action. We at the Review have only consistently asked that the campus community engage in rational, dispassionate discussion when dealing with hot-button issues, particularly race. The MLK symposia still fall far short of that goal–and will, until we change the way we do relate on this campus. MR

February 7, 2006

Contract Suspension Unfounded for Now, Out-of-Touch

W

hen the University administration suspended its contract with CocaCola recently, a dangerous precedent was set. Not only were these leaders swayed by a handful of students on a campus largely indifferent on the issue, they chose to make million-dollar decisions based on allegations. While this is hardly surprising on a campus that sent out a call-to-arms after two students claimed to have been urinated on last semester in a “racially motivated incident,” it is clear that certain individuals and groups need little “evidence” to convince a seemingly predisposed administration.

The decision is faulty for a number of reasons. For starters, the suspension of the Coke contract is not, as many have argued, consumer action within the confines of the free market. In fact, this represents a liberal perversion of the free market.

Unsatisfied with providing information necessary for students to make an informed decision as to the merits of the charges, and adjust their consumption accordingly, the Coke Coalition has chosen not simply to make a free-market choice, but impose their choice on the student body.

Many have also argued that Coca-Cola has been given an ample opportunity to come clean by submitting to an independent investigation of their practices. However, anyone privy to the basics of law would explain that Coke should not acquiesce to an independent investigation that may hurt it in court. The company would, rationally, be far more interested in protecting itself from a costly loss in court than losing the small change of a University contract.

One could also question the effects of a Coke contract severance. Losing a 1.3 million dollar contract means a loss of less than one-hundredth of a percent of their business. This is unlikely to fundamentally alter their way of conducting operations. The Coalition thinks it can force Coke to change without exerting pressure on it bottom-line. The question still remains: if the strategy of fighting Coke is effective in causing Coke to change its policies, will this change be positive in the long run?

There is little evidence that these actions will make Coca-Cola any more socially concerned. The owners of the bottling plants have one goal: to make a profit for themselves. Obviously, bottlers should be punished and forced to pay the consequences if they are found guilty of illegal action. This is the purpose of a legal system.

But the Coalition’s critique seems to extend beyond allegations of murder or pollution to issues of “fair” working conditions and “living” wages. It is important to note that no one is forcing anyone in Columbia or India to work for a local bottling plant.

People are choosing to work at bottling plants. Why? Because the jobs that the bottling plants provide are better paid than others in the area. Also, in a nation where 4% of workers are unionized, 31% of the workers in the bottling plants are unionized. Coke may represent one of the few companies in Columbia who is even willing to deal with unions.

This sort of activism is somewhat short sighted and fails to address the long term ramifications of boycotting Coke. If Coke no longer finds operations in Columbia to be profitable because of higher labor standards or succumbs to public pressure and leaves Columbia, what will happen to their former employees? Because bottling plants are independently owned, Coke has no long-term commitment to maintaining operations anywhere, especially in a small impoverished country involved in a civil war.

While Coke can easily move operations or gain contracts with new bottlers, its former employees will be hard pressed to find comparable jobs. When the demand for labor is so great the people are willing to work in conditions unimaginable in the developed world, the removal of Coke is likely to only worsen labor conditions by increasing the demand for labor

One may also question why the Coke Coalition has seemingly chosen not to promote their ideology on entities other than the University and Coca-Cola. They don’t seem to have attempted to determine where students actually buy their Coke. If the Coalition to Cut the Contracts with Coca-Cola is so bothered by Coca-Cola being sold in Angell hall, why are they not acting against Coke being sold at Potbelly’s or Jimmy John’s – action that would be far more detrimental to Coke’s business interests?

Furthermore, why wouldn’t the organizations supporting action against Coke pursue the same action against a nation like China? With a deplorable record of human rights abuses, wages so low American companies are flocking to their shores, and a legal system branding individuals as guilty until proven innocent, why wouldn’t groups like SOLE stand up for the billions in China?

The point here is that instead of appealing to a sense of morality that transcends students’ choices, they seek to subvert the process—showing how out-of-touch the Coalition really is. MR

the michigan review

Page 5

February 7, 2006

Columns

■ The Deep End

Blah, Blah, Blahnik

F

orget Friedan, Stienem, or even Professor Kirkland; the four most recognizable commentators on the state of modern femininity are Charlotte, Samantha, Miranda, and Carrie. College women on campuses here and abroad frequently crowd into dorm rooms and apartments for leisurely enjoyment of Sex and the City, with all six seasons’ DVDs serving as their testament to the modern female experience.

It’s easy to see why the interest threshold in this former HBO staple is popular among young women, especially on this campus. The main characters experience a world ripe with post-feminism, exploring the nature of independence, romance, and intersexual power dynamics—with no less than upper society New York City, in the midst of its renaissance, as its backdrop. Meanwhile, not at all unlike their male counterparts, college females explore newfound independence in the campus context, in Ann Arbor’s relatively cosmopolitan environment.

While most women on campus watch Sex and the City for laughs and entertainment, the shows we identify with say a good deal. The best art, in any form, incorporates the thoughts and emotions we experience in our own lives. Given how much time and effort (or lack thereof) put into watching this show, it seems almost as if the four women of that show have assembled the broadest and most highly developed cultural dialogue on what it means to be a woman in the post-2000 era. This begs the question: Is this a good thing?

‘Sex’ represents an ideal without very few boundaries. Beautiful women with few, if any, financial problems and utter ease attracting the opposite sex fill the main roles. Their dream jobs require little apparent devotion, leaving them plenty of time to catch a few

girly drinks at the bar during happy hour. The characters may be independent, to the extent that the writers seem to have neglected to include in the plot any substantial impediments to their epicurean pursuit of happiness.

While fantasy jobs and hyperbolic sexual prowess may represent the aspirations of many people, male and female alike, the darker spots of ‘Sex’ come in its portrayal of independence, as the fundamental tenet central to the characters’ femininity. It is this conception of the feminine ideal that makes the show’s popularity on campus troublesome.

The characters, ever in the pursuit of the perfect man, choose partners in characters who don’t exactly exude masculinity. The men are often submissive, or at least deferential, skewing the power dynamMichael ics in relationships portrayed in the This isn’t to say that the men O’Brien show. should be domineering or patriarchal. Rather, the ideal should be mutualism, a partnership.

Instead of exhibiting any semblance of real life, where relationships require give and take on the part of both sexes, the characters’ uber-independence never has to be sacrificed. Indeed, the most hostile reaction to a male character otherwise considered “perfect” by many viewers comes at a point in the series when he is the least bit forceful in pushing for a real partnership in marriage. Is a more matriarchal power dynamic any healthier than an excessively patriarchal one? This seems doubtful. While the show succeeded in marrying asser-

tive behavior and professionalism with femininity, where stereotypes might have otherwise prevailed, that doesn’t make the proposed dynamic that much more healthy.

Need this be a state of relations to which college-aged women aspire?

The show seems to often resemble a middle school, all-girl slumber party, but manifest 20 years later, and with adult-oriented themes. Maybe women can identify with the chattiness over the trivial, in which the characters often partake. But this all proves a scary reality from the male perspective. Smart, assertive, attractive, and professional women are nothing by which to be intimidated. But surely the focus on the more frivolous aspects of relationships and romance are something to steer clear of.

Moreover, the effect of Sex and the City is not without notice on campus. Cliques of girlfriends seem to turn inward, with pronounced focus on fashion (ugg boots, anyone?), sex (sororities?), and splashes of alcohol thrown in. (One wonders by how much sales of flavored or designer vodkas have risen since the debut of ‘Sex.’) There’s simply no doubting that our contemporary culture represents a significant point in modern femininity. Second-wave feminism has largely withered, women are a majority of University students, and issues of civil rights significance, like equal workplace access, have waned. But for all the possible interlocutors on behalf of young females in the context of a new, technology-revolutionized world, I’m not sure the four fictional flauntresses of Manhattan are the best ones for the task.

MR

Join The Michigan Review!

Come to our mass meeting, Monday, January 30 Room 351, in the Michigan League Email:

mrev@umich.edu

for details

Or visit:

www.michiganreview.com

Page 6

the michigan review

February 7, 2006

National Affairs

Better Late Than Never: Border Control

By Brian Biglin, ‘08

L

ast month the US House of Representatives took the first step toward immigration reform, passing a bill tightening the border and increasing penalties for illegal immigration. Much of the legislation, like the much talked about wall with Mexico spearheaded by Reps. Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) and James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), has highlighted the divergent views within the Republican Party.

The most effective response to the drastic proposal for a wall along our southern border came from outside the walls of congress, though.

Meeting in Mexico City about three weeks after the House passed a bill now bound for the Senate which would construct border a fence, make illegal immigration a felony, and spend more for military and police presence at the border, diplomats from Mexico and Central American countries made their views clear.

“Migrants, regardless of their migratory status, should not be treated like criminals,” they said in a combined statement.

Their complaints did not come without solutions.

“There has to be an integrated reform that includes a temporary worker program, but also the regularization of those people who are already living in receptor countries,” said Mexican Foreign Relations Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez.

Now step back for a moment. In most points in time over the last few decades, Derbez’s statement would merely sum up an average Republican’s view.

Many consider it good economics. Others consider it compassionate conservatism. These days guest worker

permits and amnesty plans are being seemingly overpowered by calls to lock down at the border.

Without question, the Latin American leaders’ argument stems from a rational point of view, because remittances from the US help those in poverty at home, and if their labor supply decreases, their wages will increase. While the likes of Mexican president Vicente Fox receive criticism for not taking measures to uplift the Mexican economy, the reality is, poverty reigns in much of Mexico and migration to the US is rational for many Mexicans.

At home exists an interesting division within the Republican Party. Traditional pro-business conservatives cite the benefits of freer flow of labor (which are analogous to those of free trade) such as lower prices, increased low-wage labor supply and support accommodation of immigrants. At the other end of the spectrum, security hawks, those fearing for the loss of American jobs, and probably more than a few nativists are taking to cable news and getting the attention of many in Congress to protest the current immigration situation.

Proposals to curb immigration have become more popular, but this view is not shared by a majority of conservative voters. According to a recent poll by the Tarrance Group cited in the Wall Street Journal, 72% of likely Republican voters support increased border security but also guest worker permits and a plan to allow previous illegal aliens to come forward and move towards citizenship. Only 21% favor tougher enforcement without guest worker permits and assimilation provisions.

While the mantras of “saving American jobs” and “enforcing the laws” that anti-immigration lobby

uses may appeal to a growing number of rural and suburban voters, most Americans favor proposed laws which accommodate immigrants and remove the incentive for illegal migration. Among this majority, most believe that America is a nation of immigrants, and diversity is a positive aspect of a society.

Compounding the problem is the fact that Republicans do not want to lose Hispanic voters, in the same way they lost Irish and Mediterranean immigrants before World War II. All of this makes the House bill tough to pass through the Senate.

One sad irony is that many Republicans, in this age of a ballooning budget, support the mantra of “tougher” border control. For multiple decades, and especially in the post 9/11 era, border enforcement has been everyone’s focus, but many are starting to question the effectiveness of spending more on a tight border. In a recent editorial opposing Tom Tancredo’s wall proposal and endorsing guest worker permits, the Wall Street Journal declared, “by any measure, the results [of spending more on border patrol] are pitiful.” A Migration Policy Institute study supports this: the number of unauthorized migrants in the United States has nearly tripled over the last twenty years, despite a 519% increase in funding and a 221% increase in staffing for border patrol programs,” according to the Institute.

The upcoming Senate deliberation is a major crossroads in American economic policy. America could become a more open labor market, or one big gated community. If a guest-worker permit program does not materialize alongside the plan to spend more on border patrol which will very likely be approved, then the legislation will truly be an utter failure. MR

Staying Afloat: NAIAS and the Auto Industry The International Auto Show Showcases the Best Detroit Has to Offer

By Karen Boore, ‘09 here was a buzz coming from the 2006 North American International Auto Show in Detroit these past three weeks. The show drew a lot of media attention as a test of Detroit’s preparations for Super Bowl XL and because of the current situation of the American auto industry. Yet, instead of focusing on the present circumstances of the industry, the auto show gave car companies an opportunity to direct customers’ attention to the future.

This year’s auto show had a little something for everyone. Indeed, if you tried making it through the crowds, you probably thought that everyone was there. Through the mass of people, however, anyone could see that cars ranged from the classic to futuristic, from the luxury to the everyday, and the large to the more-than-compact.

The show saw the comeback of the Dodge Challenger and the Chevy Camaro. Though it remains uncertain whether these cars will return to streets,

T

they brought back memories for the older crowd and raised the hopes of the younger. The unveiling of the Nissan Urge brought young gamers one step closer to the realization of their dreams, too. This small car has an Xbox 360 built in, so when the driver wants to play a game of Project Gotham Racing 3, he can simply throw the car in park and play. The steering wheel and pedals become the controls for the game, and a screen that acts as the rearview mirror while driving becomes the display screen.

Just as gamers might have taken a break from reality in the Nissan Urge, show goers may have forgotten reality by imagining themselves in some of the luxury vehicles at the show. Barricades prevented them from hopping into the driver’s seat of the two-tone Ferrari 612 Scaglietti or the Rolls-Royce Phantom on display. However, they could have gotten less than an arm’s reach away from the magical emblem on the Rolls-Royce.

On the other end of the price scale, the Chinese Geely 7151 CK, a five

passenger sedan, became the first Chinese vehicle ever displayed at the show. The car ruffled a few feathers with its projected sticker price -- just under ten thousand dollars. While the price is threatening, American auto makers do not appear too worried about the competition, as critics question the quality of the vehicle. And the 7151 CK must still pass U.S. safety and emissions tests before it enters the U.S. market, which it won’t accomplish until 2008, giving the American auto industry ample time to respond.

And respond it should. After years of clear consumer preference for fuel-efficient automobiles, the U.S. auto industry has begun to adapt to the demands of the market. American cars on display also tried to reform the image of SUVs and trucks, generally known for their gas guzzling character. The huge Ford Super Chief prototype debuted with a Tri-Flex fuel engine which can run on hydrogen, ethanol (E85), or gasoline.

GM also displayed its Tahoe Two-Mode Hybrid which uses technology developed

in collaboration with BMW and DaimlerChrysler. Though not all were hybrids, the many subcompact vehicles that debuted at the show also reflected the growing consumer concerns about gas consumption. To be sure, the trendiest hybrid there was the Ford Reflex Hybrid Coupe. This car takes the hybrid from the environmentally friendly gas-saver to a level of coolness not known before by any hybrid. Solar panels on the roof and the headlights work to cool the car in the sun and recharge the lithium-ion battery for this diesel-electric hybrid. Its sleek design is sure to turn heads.

While many of the cars aren’t destined for street use, the auto show showed that companies are becoming more responsive to the needs and wants of American car buyers. In addition, the show allowed US auto makers, with their strong showing amidst the foreign competitors, to restore some faith in the American auto industry -- even if only for a short time. MR

the michigan review

Page 7

Campus Affairs

Non-Provocative Provost Appointed

By Blake Emerson, ‘09

O

n January 3rd, while students were on Winter Break, President Mary Sue Coleman was busy completing her final staff decision of her stillyoung tenure as president. President Coleman confidently appointed Theresa A. Sullivan to replace Interim Provost Edward Gramlich.

James Jackson, chair of the Search Advisory Committee, stated that the committee, aided by a professional search team, began conducting a search both locally and nationally in April 2005. Among many other factors, the committee screened applicants based on their ability to act as both the Chief Academic Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the university. As a longstanding member of the University of Texas system, Sullivan certainly has an extensive background of expertise in both areas. Despite claims that the search suffered from a lack of discussion among faculty members, James Jackson ensured “everyone had a say in the process,” and stated that hundreds of faculty members and former provosts were involved in the decision. Pending approval by the Board of Regents, Sullivan will officially take office on June 1st.

Before being selected as Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs in 2002, Sullivan served as the Vice President and Graduate Dean for seven years at the University of Texas-Austin. In addition to her experience with student affairs, she has authored or coauthored six books. With a P.h.D. in Sociology from the University of Chicago, she recently co-authored the

■ The Angry Greek

A

February 7, 2006

2002 book, “The Social Organization of Work,” which has been said to be one of the leading textbooks on the sociology of work. Her co-authored 1990 book As We Forgive Our Debtors: Bankruptcy and Consumer Credit in America won her a Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association. The book explains bankruptcy not as a function of irrational spending by the American consumer, but as a function of social factors such as divorce and job loss. With an extensive background in the fields of academics and finance, she certainly seems qualified for the job. While Sullivan certainly has a distinguished professional record, what will her service at the university bring for students?

Student satisfaction and academic well-being unfortunately hinges upon a state government that has cut university funding by $20 million in recent years.

With Sullivan now in charge of budgetary aspects, she will face the challenge of making the budget cuts unnoticeable to the students. Sullivan is no stranger to budget issues. In the University of Texas system, funding has stayed virtually flat while the enrollment at the University of Texas has increased by 14% since 2000. In addition to her experience, her expertise in “labor force demographics” and “marginality and consumer debt” will be sorely needed as the University weathers the budgetary storm.

President Coleman and Sullivan reportedly see “eye to eye” on many issues, without giving specifics on what those issues are. However, University Spokesperson Julie Peterson stated that diversity is an idea to which both are strongly committed. The University of Texas

system boasted that Sullivan’s efforts kept up levels of minority attendance despite the Hopwood vs. Texas decision in 1996 that forbade racial preference in college admittance. With the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative likely to hit the ballots in November 2006, this experience could prove valuable.

President Coleman and Sullivan discussed improving undergraduate education, perhaps indicative of administrative concern over the university’s drop from 22 to 25 among national universities, according to U.S. News and World Report. Furthermore, Coleman is seeking to provide more study abroad programs and more course offerings. As Dean of Graduate Affairs at the University of Texas, Sullivan increased research funding by 7.7%, which may have been a major factor in the selection process. As provost of an undergraduate institution, however, she will have to reconcile her background with research funding with the current more “academic” goals of the University of Michigan.

Regardless of her credentials, Sullivan will have to face the challenges confronting the student body with diminished financial resources. It has been encouraging to hear, that undergraduate studies will be a major focus – especially given the recent decline in the University’s ranking. By battling financial hardships, reducing class size, and improving the opportunities available to undergraduates Theresa Sullivan can hopefully stem the tide.

MR

You Think You Know, But You Have No Idea

nybody who even remotely pays attention to the world of politics has, at one point or another, borne witness to a politician or analyst citing the results of the latest “public opinion poll.” These polls, it is alleged, give accurate representations of the will of the general public, and as such, the reasoning goes, should draw the attention of our elected officials. After all, that is the idea of democracy.

But as one who would characterize himself as far more interested in politics and policy than the common citizen, I must take every poll – and every politician citing such a poll as evidence of the “will of the people” – with a grain of salt. Is a poll of a few Americans who have never been to Iraq supposed to represent the millions of Americans who have never been to Iraq? While perceptions are important, are these Americans truly aware of the actual situation on the ground in Baghdad?

What about polls that say that “X percentage of Americans disapprove of President Bush’s economic policy?”

Perhaps we should be told exactly what percentage of those respondents posses even a rudimentary understanding of economics or Bush’s policy. How many of those who either approve or disapprove of Samuel Alito have watched a minute of his confirmation hearing?

How many of his court decisions have they read?

Winston Churchill once opined that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Of course, few would ever consider or advocate a monarchy or dictatorship in this land founded on democracy, but the point is well taken.

The vast majority of the American populace simply does not understand the intricacies (or even the basics) of

things like foreign policy, economics, or health care.

And politicians know this as well. The same politicians who will flaunt the latest opinion poll that happens to support their cause have reduced the complex world of politics to a mass of “buzzwords” which carry simple, uniform connotations. For example, “working families” are good; “corporations” are bad. The “environment” is good; “oil companies” are bad. You can never cut spending for “health care” or “education” because these entities are inherently good.

In reality, however, the very people who should understand the nuances Nick and paradoxes of these terms are the ones obscuring their true nature.

Cheolas Don’t corporate executives work, and don’t they have families? How about high oil prices caused by “greedy oil executives?”

A few months ago, senators hauled these CEO’s into the capitol and berated them for their heartless exploitation.

These are the same Senators whose regulations and taxes, which were meant to protect our environment, account for almost a third of the cost for a gallon of gasoline. Where were the CEO’s of Citibank and Microsoft – corporations that almost triple the profit margins of the oil companies? And heaven help the ruthless leader who proposes cutting any funding from “untouchable” industries like health care and education. Of course, the government has been doing a splendid job in these two fields, and any and all problems that arise can easily be handled by increased spending and bureaucracy. During

every campaign, every politician vows to improve our public schools and solve our health care crisis, and two, four, or six years later, we’ll have the same debate again.

Despite this, politicians will keep “fighting for working families” (because doctors and lawyers don’t work and don’t have families.) Any American on the street will chastise the oil companies and their profithungry executives. Many others will tell you that all the money we’ve wasted in Iraq could have gone toward health care or education. But these views, however ignorant, will find their ways into opinion polls. These polls will then be used politicians to support their attacks on oil execs and blast President Bush for abandoning “working families” and “the children.”

But it’s hard to place the blame solely on the American people. Most Americans spend their days at work or in school. Gaining a comprehension of economics or international diplomacy requires substantial effort, which is understandably a tall order for many citizens. That is, after all, why we elect individuals to represent our interests.

But our leaders are doing the public a disservice by attaching certain stigmas to certain issues. Believe it or not, elected officials can take some of the blame for increasing energy costs, corporate executives go to work just like the rest of us, and strong arguments can be made in favor of reducing the government’s role in fields like education and health care. The political world is far more complex than it is portrayed, and the so-called “experts” do us no good by perpetuating this view. MR

Page 8

By Chris Stieber, ‘07

the michigan review

February 7, 2006

International Affairs

The Inevitable Conflict with Iran

L

ast week, the Islamic Republic of Iran reopened enriched plutonium production facilities that had been sealed off by the United Nations, ending a two and a half year freeze of such activities. The United States and the EU-3 (Britain, Germany, France) broke off diplomatic discussions with the Iranians, threatening to refer the issue to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions. In the days following, many politicians, including some who opposed the war with Iraq, expressed alarm at the serious threat Iran has become to peace and stability in the Middle East. Senator George Allen (RVirginia) said in Newsweek, “What matters at the end of all this is that these maniacal theocrats in Iran cannot possess nuclear weapons.” In a surprisingly hawkish speech earlier this week, French President Jacques Chirac warned that he would consider use of nuclear weapons against a rogue state that would use weapons of mass destruction against French interests, considered by many a not-so-veiled threat directed against Tehran.

We are too late.

After years of diplomatic grandstanding and scoffing at the increasingly worrisome intelligence reports, the West is too late to stop the Iranian government from acquiring the technology for nuclear weapons. While the mullahs in power do not currently have a nuclear weapon, the U.S. and allies remain powerless to prevent the Iranians from building their own. In a discomfiting October 2005 report from the U.S. Army War College titled “Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran”, Henry Sokolski writes,

“When it comes to Iran’s nuclear program, most U.S. and allied officials are in one or another state of denial. . . few understand just how late it is to [prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons]. Iran is now no more than 12 to 48 months from acquiring a nuclear bomb, lacks for nothing technologically or materially to produce it, and seems dead set on securing an option to do so.”

The Western powers have few, if any, diplomatic strategies left in their arsenal. They have offered “carrots” of improved diplomatic and economic relations and threatened with “sticks” of international sanctions and U.N Security Council involvement. Neither has significantly affected the actions of the mullahs. The underlying assumption under much of the West’s diplomatic efforts has been the alleged existence of “moderates” in power in Tehran, men who choose power and stability over possible destruction at the hands of the West. Recent history, however, makes one question the validity of this assumption. In October 2000, one of these “moderates,” former President Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, boasted, “In a nuclear duel in the region, Israel may kill 100 million Muslims. Muslims can sustain such casualties, knowing that, in exchange, there would be no Israel on the map.” Clearly, many in U.S. State Department and other foreign services were deceived into believing that there were people in Tehran who could be persuaded into détente.

The contumacy of the mullahs does not stop with Rafsanjani, for the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is even more fanatical, recently calling to “wipe Israel from the map.” After giving a speech at the

United Nations in 2005, he returned to Iran boasting of a near-religious experience: “One of our group told me that . . . he saw a light around me, and I was placed inside this aura. I felt it myself.” If this man’s messianic complex is not frightening enough, consider the implications of a nuclear Iran. First, if Iran has such potent weaponry, other countries in the region (Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, etc.) will demand nuclear weapons for their “self-defense.” Second, Iran, as the 2nd largest producer in OPEC, can easily drive the oil market into pandemonium, with prices soaring above $100 per barrel.

Though the number of problems in Iran continues to grow each day, solutions are few. Iran has its nuclear facilities so well-hidden that an aerial attack, whether from America, EU-3, or Israel would be questionably effective at best. With the majority of our troops stretched thin battling insurgents in Iraq, America is hardly prepared to wage war on a country of 70 million people, three times the size of Iraq. Finally, both Russia and China have been doing business with Iran for years, and each is reluctant to condemn Iran for any actions.

The largest state-sponsor of terrorism is soon to acquire nuclear capabilities. The West, in a toxic mix of willful ignorance with toothless diplomacy is now handcuffed, left with only a few viable options. As military historian John Keegan wrote in the January 12, 2006 Daily Telegraph (UK): “This is a bad and worrying time in world affairs.” MR

Can Life Happen After Sharon?

By Yevgeny Shrago, ‘09

T

he toughest man in Israel fights for his life. Ariel Sharon, the prime minister of Israel, served with distinction in every major Israeli conflict, led missions into Lebanon and just weeks ago, abandoned his own Likud party, boldly gambling that Israelis wanted a centrist government that favored eventual compromise with the Palestinians. Now, however, Sharon lies helpless at Jerusalem’s Hadassah Hospital, leveled by a massive stroke, his second in the last month. Israel and the world carefully watch the health of the man that, many believe, is the only one with enough force of will and inclination to move Israel towards peace. Where does the peace process go from here?

Just before his first stroke, Sharon broke away from his old party, the right-wing Likud. Hard-line members of the Likud party had been dissatisfied with Sharon’s leadership since his decision to pursue unilateral disengagement in the Gaza Strip in August 2005, and were clamoring for change. Sharon replied by announcing his intention to leave Likud, and take much of the party’s center with him to form a new, centrist party called Kadima (Forward), which he planned to

run with in the next election. Kadima was seen as a cult of personality centered around Sharon, as most Israelis polled declared their support for the party based entirely on their trust in the Prime Minister. Sharon received endorsements from much of the Likud membership and from major Labor leaders, including exLabor Prime Ministers Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak. Party unity, however, soon received its first major test.

Sharon’s first stroke, at the end of last year, was relatively minor, and although it led to calls for the release of pertinent medical records, it did nothing to affect Kadima’s standing. Sharon’s second stroke was far more devastating, leaving him in a coma from which he has not yet recovered. It seemed unlikely that Sharon would survive, but he has successfully achieved a stable, if still critical, position. Sharon’s doctors declare that most stroke victims who spend as much time as Sharon in a coma never return to full function, but spokespeople for the prime minister maintain that Sharon’s political plans are unchanged.

Ehud Olmert’s recent actions belie this position. After forcing Peres to cede his claim to Kadima leadership, the acting Prime Minister and possible heir

apparent has initiated a far more aggressive policy of removing nominally illegal settlements in the West Bank. Olmert’s greatest flaw may be his lack of military credentials, an asset Sharon repeatedly used to his advantage in convincing Israelis to support his policies. Olmert first declared his policy would continue unchanged until the next election, upcoming in March, but his policy toward settlers and recent meetings between high-ranking Kadima members and Condoleeza Rice throw this assertion into doubt.

Israel’s political system may be a major stumbling block to peace. Current polling numbers show Kadima easily defeating Likud and Labor, but still short of the sixty votes necessary to form a government. Allying with Likud seems unlikely for Kadima; new Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu is not new at all, but rather an ex-Prime Minister whose policies led to contentiousness at home and with the Palestinians, little love from the Americans, and a quick exit. Likud now clearly stands for “no compromise” with the Palestinians and a refusal to cede land. Labor, after ousting ex-PM Ehud Barak, returns with a youth movement led by Amir Peretz. Although they are amenable to compromise, Labor’s insis-

tence on involving Arabs and Druze in the Knesset may prove unpalatable for much of Kadima’s base. With neither of the major political parties an appealing choice, Kadima will have to follow the time-honored Israeli tradition of allying with several minority parties. Any minor party alliance will necessitate some degree of compromise. Kadima may be forced to strike a deal it will come to regret.

The other major obstacle to peace may come from the other participants in the conflict. Even before Sharon’s stroke, the Palestinian Authority suffered from corrupt Fatah leadership, and reeled from a revolt by young members tired of the way things were run. The upcoming elections may unseat current PM Mahmoud Abbas in favor of a fundamentalist Hamas leader. Hamas’s inclusion suggests a hope that participation in democracy will temper its willingness to use suicide bombing to achieve its goals. Islamic Jihad, another group that acknowledges the use of suicide bombings as a legitimate means to achieve their ends, recently took credit for a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv that injured thirty.

If these groups cannot be brought to the table for peace talks, the violence may never end. MR

the michigan review

Page 9

National Issues

February 7, 2006

Abram-off Limits

By Aaron Kaplan, ‘08

O

n January 3, lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion charges and agreed to cooperate with federal investigators in a wide-ranging corruption investigation.

Abramoff operated an extensive pay-to-play influence peddling scheme, providing lawmakers with money and gifts in exchange for their agreement to support his clients’ bills. He also defrauded many of his clients, especially Indian tribes, out of millions of dollars. The unfolding scandal spread shock waves around Washington as senators and representatives of both parties scrambled to distance themselves from Abramoff. Rep. Bob Ney, an Ohio Republican who has been identified in the corruption probe as Abramoff ’s “Representative No. 1,” has already stepped down as chairman of the House Administration Committee. The Abramoff scandal also follows former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s recent indictment on conspiracy charges in Texas, which forced DeLay to step down from his leadership post.

But the effects of corruption are further ranging than the careers of individual politicians. Both DeLay’s troubles and the Abramoff scandal could play a part in the 2006 midterm elections. The Democrats, who are attempting to gain control of both the House and Senate, will undoubtedly make corruption a central issue -as they should. There is widespread agreement that the recent scandals show the need for a major shakeup in Washington to restore public trust in the federal government. Before the people go to the polls in November, both the House Republican leadership and Congress as a whole will have the ability to make a strong statement that they believe in this worthy objective.

House Republicans have the opportunity to do just that in the weeks to come, as they choose a new

permanent majority leader to replace DeLay, who says he will not attempt to regain his post even if he manages to clear his name. The three main contenders are Representatives Roy Blunt of Missouri, John Boehner of Ohio, and John Shadegg of Arizona. Blunt, the current majority whip, has been the acting majority leader since DeLay stepped down.

Blunt is a DeLay protégé whose election would send exactly the wrong message to America: that the Republican Party is committed to continuity and seniority in all circumstances and at all costs. Although Blunt is undoubtedly sincere in his desire to fight corruption, now is simply not the time for him to move steadily up the leadership ranks.

John Boehner and John Shadegg are both much more appropriate candidates. A veteran Ohio representative, Boehner is best-known for his opposition to wasteful pork-barrel spending in Congress. He also has a background as a reformer, having been part of the “Gang of Seven” who uncovered a House banking scandal in the early 1990s. Boehner has recently called for stricter lobbying standards.

Shadegg, a well-known fiscal conservative, wrote in a letter announcing his candidacy that “we need to reform the earmark process and end secret backroom deals. We must also reform our antiquated budget process, and take a clear stand for open and honest government.” Selecting either Boehner or Shadegg as the next House Majority Leader would send a clear signal that the Republicans are committed to substantive reform, and that the conditions in Washington that people like Jack Abramoff have thrived on must be changed immediately.

While only the House Republicans have a say in the election for Majority Leader, Congressmen and

Senators from both parties can change the Beltway culture of corruption. The time to act is now, while the American people are tuned into the problems. The reforms should be bipartisan and swift – this is not the time for President Bush to ram a piece of legislation through Congress over Democratic objections, and it is also not the time for the Democrats to delay constructive action in order to use corruption as a political issue.

Recently, John McCain (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have introduced the Lobbying Transparency and Accountability Act in the Senate. It includes longer “revolving door” restrictions, which would lengthen the required time between serving on Capitol Hill and becoming a lobbyist from one year to two, as well as requiring lobbyists to file financial disclosure reports quarterly instead of twice annually and expanding the types of contributions that must be disclosed. Other senators have submitted bills of their own, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has called for a ban on fundraising in D.C.while Congress is in session.

The Abramoff scandal has made it abundantly clear that Washington needs major institutional reform.

Now is the time to act, while the American people are tuned into the systemic corruption inside the Beltway and hoping to see leadership on the part of elected officials to stop it. House Republicans can distance themselves from Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff by choosing a new leader who represents a clean break from the past.

Both parties can and should join together to end lobbying abuses and show the people that they can believe in the transparency, fairness, and honesty of their government. MR

Vouching for a Better Education System

By Danielle Putnam, ‘08

M

any students at the University of Michigan attended private or parochial schools so many do not consider what a voucher system would mean for students who were not given that option and its possible effects on the state. Vouchers allow students to choose which school they attend. Under a voucher plan, tax money from the assigned school district would pay for the student’s tuition at the private or parochial school of his or her choice.

Recently, the Florida Supreme Court struck down the first statewide school voucher program in the nation, the Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), signed by Governor Jeb Bush in 1999. Students who failed to meet the minimum criteria set by the state were given the opportunity to participate in OSP. Every participant was given two options: (1) The student could move to another public school that has a satisfactory record with the state, or (2) the student could receive funds from the public treasury to pay tuition at the private or parochial school of his or her choosing. The Supreme Court’s decision centered on the section of the Florida Constitution which states, “It is…a paramount duty of the state to make adequate provision for the education of all the children residing within its borders….

Adequate provision shall be made by law for a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools.” In its ruling, the Court said that the program violated these statements because it transferred money from the public schools and to private schools which were not “uniform” in comparison to the public schools.

The decision only affects 733 students who, after completing this year, will be required to attend their local public school. Disabled students and low-income students who have been granted scholarships from a privately-sponsored fund will remain unaffected by the decision. The Supreme Court did not address the issue of “separation of church and state” which was grounds of the lower courts rejection of OSP.

Opponents of the program argued that OSP took public funds away from needy public schools and gave them to private schools, schools that are not required to follow state requirements such as teacher credentials and the requirement to teach about certain topics including women’s rights, civil rights, and world history. Others argued that, because religion was not addressed, many parochial schools dodged the ruling of the program as unconstitutional, creating large loopholes. Supporters of the voucher plan, however, argued that the program gave low-income students unable to

escape failing public schools the opportunity to attend better schools outside their district. They also argued that the program encouraged competition among public schools to achieve higher standards in return for increased funding.

So why worry about Florida’s education system and the ruling on school vouchers? Many provoucher supporters nationwide have looked to Florida’s Opportunity Scholarship Program as a good model for other voucher programs. With deteriorating public school systems nationwide, Congress and interest groups are looking for ways to improve the education system. Vouchers could help achieve the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act passed by Congress and signed by President Bush, another strong advocate of voucher programs. President Bush has encouraged the formation of vouchers in smaller towns where public school systems are often neglected and rarely meet state standards. Vouchers also improve the education of minority students in underprivileged neighborhoods with under-funded schools by allowing them to relocate to better schools in wealthier neighborhoods. By giving these students the option to use vouchers, their education is substantially improved, along with their quality of life. MR

the michigan review

Page 10

February 7, 2006

On-Campus Events

Alit-ism and the U.S. Senate

By Tomiyo Turner, ‘08

S

pecter’s statement set the tone for much of Alito’s confirmation hearing. He said, “It has been my experience that the hearings are really, in effect, a subtle minuet, with the nominee answering as many questions as he thinks necessary in order to be confirmed.” Senator Arlen Specter on the opening day of the hearings for Supreme Court nominee.” Alito opened by telling heartwarming family stories, rather than starting out with judicial philosophy. This more personal approach differed from Chief Justice John Roberts’s initial remarks as Roberts began with a firm commitment to impartiality in the judicial process. Alito also incorporated his views on the importance of an open mind in reviewing cases, but chose to save his remarks on judicial philosophy for the end of his testimony.

During the first day of questioning, Alito reaffirmed his belief in the right to privacy as a basic concept, reassuring those concerned about the future of Roe v. Wade. Soon thereafter, Alito stressed the importance of judicial independence from public opinion.

The variety of views Senators expressed on the subject of judicial independence was astounding. They ranged from Senator Patrick Leahy’s remark on Harriet Miers’ nomination: “It gives the impression that there are those who do not want an independent federal judiciary. They demand judges who will guarantee the results that they want,” to Senator Coburn of Oklahoma: “the real fact is we’ve made a mistake going down that road in terms of saying we can destroy our unborn children and there’s

no consequences to it.” It seemed clear that the Senators, in attempting to appease their constituents while maintaining neutrality and avoiding a policy-driven judicial selection, were facing a dilemma. Members of both parties mentioned the importance of neutrality in the confirmation process, then proceeded to pose their own policy-driven questions.

Senator Specter’s extensive and directed questioning covered the appropriate role of the Executive Branch - specifically, the power the President has to conduct roving wiretaps and to engage in other means of surveillance. Alito also addressed concerns about the power of the executive branch to engage in torture as a part of intelligence gathering. He repeatedly reaffirmed his commitment to the rule of law and the need to keep the executive branch from abusing its power.

In this process liberal senators asked the toughest questions regarding the protection of civil liberties.

For liberal Senators unlikely to get any definitive information on Alito’s views regarding abortion, the general privacy issue became a major topic. This concern, which has been more traditionally espoused by libertarians and advocates of smaller government, became the hot button issue for Democrats. Senator Kennedy’s opening remarks included the concern that, “…in an era where the White House is abusing power, is excusing and authorizing torture and is spying on American citizens, I find Judge Alito’s support for an all-powerful executive branch to be genuinely troubling.”

Another major issue was Alito’s participation in Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP), an organiza-

tion that opposed admitting female and minority applicants to Princeton. Alito responded to these concerns with a vague statement about having only a limited recollection of the organization. He stressed that he had not been an active member and that he had joined primarily out of concern regarding the expulsion of the ROTC program from campus. Long after women and minorities were admitted, CAP favored the use of a quota that would keep only 80-90% of the school male and white - a goal that was advanced from the founding of the group. Although the ROTC issue was a priority for the group, it was not a prominent one, as the ROTC had, in fact, returned to campus by the time CAP was founded.

Jerome Karabel, a guest columnist for the Daily Princetonian posits the theory that, “Alito… highlighted his membership in the organization for the most prosaic of reasons: he thought that it would signal to the movement conservatives who controlled appointments in the Justice Department that he shared their values and was a member of their network.”

Alito presented an image of a man who knew exactly what to say and when not to say anything at all.

Whether he is right or wrong on the issues, he managed to navigate a tough series of questions without any sound-byte worthy confirmation-wrecking phrases.

Many Democrats still oppose his nomination and intend to use their position as a campaign issue. Whether Democrats will be able to unify against Alito remains to be seen as will whether Americans choose to pay much attention at all. MR

Roe v. Wade: Thirty-Three Years Later

By Matt MacKinnon, ‘08

I

t is the deadliest place on Earth. One fifth of those who find themselves here do not make it out alive, resulting in more than 1.2 million deaths per year. These victims’ lives are suddenly taken when they feel the most safe and secure. In this place, nothing is sacred. In the blink of an eye, your life can be taken by the person closest to you; the one person you thought you could trust with your life. I am talking, of course, about the womb.

Thirty-three years ago, Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun delivered a groundbreaking opinion, stating “The right of privacy…is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” The Supreme Court had made the decision that a woman’s right to abortion was protected by the right to privacy outlined in the United States Constitution.

Is our right to privacy really broad enough to include a mother’s right to terminate a child? The grounding of the right to privacy and its extension to abortion is weak at best. Few legal scholars agree completely with the reasoning of

the Court in Roe. Even Laurence Tribe of Harvard law agrees that “…the substantive judgment on which [Roe] rests is nowhere to be found.” John Hart Ely of Yale, Harvard, and Stanford law schools goes as far as to say “Roe is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Roe set up a complex set of guidelines for evaluating the appropriate limits of the right to privacy. These guidelines have little, if any Constitutional foundation, and represent arbitrary arbitration.

Edward Lazarus, who is both utterly committed to the right to choose and was Justice Blackmun’s own clerk, admits “As a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes, if you administer truth serum, will tell you [Roe] is basically indefensible.” Perhaps weak legal grounding is the reason behind the pro-choice movement’s hesitancy to see Roe reevaluated.

The pro-choice movement has relied on the policy implications of abortion to carry a weak legal argument.

Sometimes the pro-choice movement makes rational arguments for allowing abortion, but all too often we hear

simplistic slogans. We are constantly bombarded with the all-too-well-known phrase “Keep your hands off my body.”

The prohibition against abortion is no more of an invasion of a woman’s body than the surgical regulations that limit the types of procedures that can be formed.

A child is not part of its mother’s body.

The child is its own separate body, with different DNA than the mother.

We know how the mothers feel about the issue, but how do survivors of abortion feel? A survivor referred to only as Amy experienced three attempted saline abortions between September 1975 and January 1976, but she just would not die. She writes “My mother had no right to try and abort me, no matter what the circumstances were, no matter how inconvenient her pregnancy was…I can speak out against abortion from the baby’s perspective. Any baby would choose life.”

In addition to the testimony from survivors and lack of constitutional support, pro-choicers have lost their almighty leader, Roe herself. That’s right; the infamous Roe (Norma McCorvey) of Roe vs Wade became a pro-lifer in 1995

and now works for the anti-abortion group “Operation Rescue.” She states “I am dedicated to spending the rest of my life undoing the law that bears my name.”

The pro-choicers have lost the person responsible for their pro-choice movement..

Despite the insecurity of the pro-choice movement, the abortion rate in the United States has been held to approximately one in five pregnancies, according to data prepared by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Despite the horrific numbers, the pro-choice movement continues to fight to preserve this frightening reality.

So, on January 23, 2006 we remember not only the thirty-third birthday of legalized abortion, but those 46 million Americans who never got to celebrate a single birthday; those victims of a conflict whose yearly death rate is higher than the total number of Americans ever killed in war. This month, we remember those Americans who were denied their unalienable right to life. MR

the michigan review

Page 11

February 7, 2006

College Culture

Unacculturated College Culture

By Amanda Nichols, ‘08

H

ERE IS A SCENE: it is a weeknight—pick any night you’d like—and students around Ann Arbor are crowded around televisions. Is the President addressing the nation—has something happened? Are they watching news footage of the war in Iraq as their parents watched of Vietnam? No. Wife Swap, or Laguna Beach, or Dancing with the Stars is on. In fact, a good deal of students’ free time is consumed by “reality” or melodramatic television, Instant Messenger, and the ubiquitous Facebook.

This preoccupation with visual media isn’t isolated to Ann Arbor, or even to colleges and universities. According to preliminary Nielsen Media Research data, 35.5 million Americans tuned into American Idol’s fifth-season premiere on January 17, 2005, the show’s highest-ever season premiere. The US Census bureau estimates the 2005 population at just over 296 million, so this means almost 12% of Americans were preoccupied Tuesday night. Clearly, reality show fever has increased exponentially since The Real World, television’s first foray into unscripted reality, hit the airwaves in 1992; not only is that show entering its seventeenth season in Key West, but it has spawned various other reality shows, such as Real World-Road Rules Challenge and The Gauntlet (as well as their subsequent sequels).

Meanwhile, well-written shows have become relegated to cable networks because, there’s no room for them in programming schedules if they don’t turn a profit. But instead of saturating the programming schedules with intelligent, witty, or thought-provoking programs, the major networks fill the airwaves with

Dancing with the Stars, Extreme Makeover, or one of the multiple shows featuring nannies teaching parents how to deal with out-of-control children. The ratings for such shows suggest that, not only would many Americans not recognize culture if it stared them in the face (which it often does in museums, galleries, theaters, and other venues), but many college students wouldn’t recognize a true expression of quality entertainment if, for lack of a better analogy, it got all up on them at Rick’s on a Thursday night.

However, culture in entertainment isn’t gone quite yet, and the battle over the sitcom Arrested Development is a classic example of this conflict. The show, which debuted on FOX in 2003, tells the story of the dysfunctional and strangely comedic Bluth family. Arrested goes beyond cliché sitcom dysfunction. It is shot from a single camera angle, and there’s neither a live audience nor a laugh track. Audiences, then, must find the humor independently. While it has garnered critics’ praises and won Emmys and Golden Globes, Arrested has failed to score high ratings. The show is brilliant, hilariously funny, roundly praised by anyone who’s seen even an episode, and most of all, refreshing. When Everybody Loves Raymond went off the air, there was talk of the death of the sitcom, but one Newsweek critic thought Arrested could save the whole genre—if only Americans would let it. Alas, they have not. Although it’s not been officially cancelled, FOX cut the order for the show from 22 to 13 episodes, and Arrested hasn’t aired since November. Its replacement? Skating with Celebrities.

Even in the darkest times, there are still flickers of hope. On December 5, 2005, a group of University of Michigan law students held a petition drive to save Arrested. According to The Michigan Daily, the group not only provided stationery to students interested in writing to FOX, but they also handed out t-shirts from the show’s publicist. It is yet to be seen if such efforts have succeeded, but the general public outcry from the show’s fans has sparked interest in other networks. Both ABC and Showtime are rumored to have interest in the show, so perhaps hope for Arrested isn’t lost. Nonetheless, the battle to keep such a strongly written series with excellent actors on the air represents the general lack of current American appreciation of what a pre-reality TV fanbase may have enjoyed.

But perhaps that’s not the issue. Perhaps the real problem lies in what American culture has become.

Maybe we really do have the ability to recognize art that isn’t necessarily Whistler’s Mother or by Norman Rockwell, talent that exists outside of our athletes and pop stars, and important world events that aren’t covered by VH1 or The New York Post’s Page Six. That ability is somewhere, hidden under layers of shows like NEXT and The Surreal Life or the sudden trend of fame for being famous. Everyone’s guilty of these little indulgences, these forays into the mindlessly entertaining world of The OC or Desperate Housewives. Occasionally, though, we have to venture out and at least try shows like Arrested Development, Curb Your Enthusiasm, or LOST so that strong writing and meaningful television doesn’t disappear forever. MR

Emily’s List

By Rebecca Christy, ‘08

University students with the name Emily beware; especially those with a Facebook profile. Students sharing the name at the University of Wisconsin- Madison found out quickly why one student they were not familiar with kept trying to friend them. After accepting a friend request, it was apparent that every person he had sought friendship with was in fact an Emily.

Did Mark Zuckerberg anticipate all the issues created by the Facebook when he designed the program? Stalking may have been easy enough to see without foresight. Zukerberg discussed the issue in the Winter 2004 issue of Current Magazine, observing “It’s surprising, but we have actually received far less complaints about stalking than we otherwise would have expected.” Beyond stalking, Facebook around college campuses has done more than distract students. In light of recent events, students nationwide are accusing campus police and university departments of violating both the First and Fourth Amendments.

Facebook has become a resource for information beyond the original intent. College campuses around the

country have been using it as an aid to catch students involved in crimes. Penn State students who rushed the field after a football game were identified from their pictures and comments on the website.

Facebook members at George Washington University upset by their campus police’s choice to use the website took matters into their own hands. Fed up with countless party busts due to advertising on the website, a group of students decided to throw a little trickery. After a media blitz on Facebook, they sat back and enjoyed the look on the faces of campus police when they came to bust their “Beer Blast.” When the police entered the party, they found a few students enjoying cake, cookies, and cupcakes with the word “BEER” written on each in frosting.

While one can never underestimate the ability of a college student to find creative ways to stick it to the man, there are some serious incidents involving the Facebook which bring into question about a student’s freedom of speech. In May 2005, Matt Coenen and Eddie Kenney were notified by the Louisiana State University Athletic Department that their swimming scholarships would not be renewed the following fall. The two team-

mates had created a Facebook group called “The Fantastic Four Coaches,” which included negative comments about LSU swim coaches as well as individual performances. As a result both athletes were dismissed from the team, and two other swimmers made the choice to leave following the controversy.

In October of 2005, Ryan Miner, a student at Duquesne, fought to protect his first amendment rights after postings on his Facebook profile were found in violation of the University’s code of conduct. In opposition to a gaystraight student alliance, Miner made comments on his profile using the word “subhuman” when writing about the gay community. One offended student approached Duquesne administration officials. As a consequence, the school made Miner remove the comments off the internet. Duquesne also wanted Miner to submit a ten-page paper on homosexuality in the Catholic Church. Miner refused to write the paper, claiming that his post was an issue of free speech. In an interview he claimed he was willing to be expelled from the school to maintain his position. In regard to Duquesne University’s code of conduct, the administration

stands by its punishment saying students are responsible for following the code on or off campus.

Facebook.com was originally created as a way to get some socially awkward Ivy League kids to lighten up. The Internet has been available to the general public for years, and the issue of the freedom of speech centuries before that.

What is it that makes the Facebook so much more volatile? There appears to be a conflict of interest between the issues of public of private. Facebook provides a sense of security because the individual has a password and has some control over who is allowed to see their information.

However, the internet is a public forum to which everyone has access. The point of Facebook and the entire World Wide Web is to let as many people as possible be connected to one another and share information. Internet material has the potential to be seen by anyone, which is something to keep in mind the next time you confirm “hooking up” with someone or post a picture from that raucous party on your profile. MR

Page 12

the michigan review MLK Day

February 7, 2006

MLK Day Symposia Recast King’s Legacy Speakers Dyson, et al, Put Their Spin on the Civil Rights Leader’s Work

By Jane Coaston, ‘09

T

he legacy of Martin Luther King, and the question of how best to fulfill his dreams, has been interpreted in a myriad of ways. Two of those interpretations were presented during the annual Martin Luther King Symposium and during panel discussions held throughout the week.

The first, and arguably the best publicized, event was University of Pennsylvania Professor Michael Dyson speaking at the Ross School of Business. Best known for his books Why I Love Black Women and Navigating the Color Line: Between God and Gangsta Rap, the name of his talk was based on the title of his most recent book: Is Bill Cosby Right? Or Has the Black Middle Class Lost its Mind? . The talk was packed, with hundreds of people moved to overflow rooms to view the presentation through a closed-circuit television connection.

Robert Dolan, dean of the School of Business, introduced Dyson as a “public intellectual”. Michael Dyson began his speech by directly addressing the MCRI legislation, saying that Ward Connerly, its main proponent, was “a man who after climbing the ladder wants to tear down the rungs.” He would go back to the issue of affirmative action several more times during his speech. He quoted Martin Luther King as saying that “the nation must do something for the Negro, especially in defense of the Negro”. He said that Martin Luther King had, since his death, been a victim of “ahistorical appropriation”: people were unwilling to admit the more radical concepts of his message, and his points had been picked apart until they were left almost meaningless. Michael Dyson said that we “must not forget the Martin Luther King who was opposed to the Vietnam War… (who said) ‘I cannot in good conscience tell boys and girls in Watts not to practice violence… I cannot in good conscience ignore my moral awareness.’” He then moved on to present some interesting parallels, alluding to the use of wiretapping against King by the FBI and the use of wiretapping today. Dyson said that the reason we hesitate to give the president “carte-blanche” is because we have seen the historical pattern, first with King and communism and now with terrorism.

Branching out on the topic of terrorism, Dyson said that the main threat is that one never knows where it will come from, “that’s why its terror.” He then said that

slavery was a form of terrorism, and racism, lynchings, and rapes it spawned were also forms of terror. He then said that we have to expand our definition of terrorism to include other forms of hatred, including homophobia. The mood of the room notably shifted. He then noted that many espousers of homophobic rhetoric used the Bible as justification, saying in one of the best quotes of the afternoon, “God is not dead- do you think that when you close the Bible you close the mouth of God?” Dyson mentioned various gay civil rights workers, saying that we would not be where we were today without them. And to those who use the phrase What Would Jesus Do, Dyson says, “Let’s not guess what Jesus would do, let’s do what he did!” He ended his point by saying that “you cannot deny your brothers and sisters legitimate access to the Tree of Life”.

Then Michael Dyson moved on to the real heart of his talk: comments made by Bill Cosby regarding the state of black culture. First, he mentioned other parts Cosby is commenting that did not make it into the national media, for reasons Dyson guessed related to the idea that certain celebrities do not say certain things. He quoted Cosby as saying that in the future, “you’ll need a DNA card to tell if you’re making love to your grandmother”. Then Dyson spoke about his trip to Baton Rouge, Louisiana, where he met a poor black grandmother in her late-forties. She would be a perfect example of Cosby’s point, but Dyson used her instead to show how, in his opinion, Bill Cosby had wrongfully maligned the poor. This woman, Dyson said, had many grandchildren, all with jobs, all struggling to make ends meet. “How can you link moral aspersion and social status?” Dyson asked. Dyson believes that Cosby is “using a sledgehammer where a scalpel is needed”. He then spoke about how a main issue facing the black middle-class is that so many look down on the poor and “use (their) education to denigrate them”. He made the point of saying that we cannot forget the inner city- we must be examples there. Dyson said that he, too, is a P.I.M.P.- a Public Intellectual with Moral Principles, and the poor need his and our examples. He then touched on the subject of Ebonics, saying that it was designed for the use and survival of Black Americans, and today we “deny the people and accept the language”. But he alluded to the issue of “selling out” in the

black community using the phrase, “You ain’t sellin’ out, you buyin’ up!” All of this was directly linked to his point that Cosby’s statements were part of one of the lasting legacies of white supremacythat black culture “lacks sophistication” and does not warrant further study. Basically, Bill Cosby criticized what he did not understand. “Let’s hold up Bill Cosby to the standards of acumen to which we aspire”, Dyson said. “Cosby is reproducing the ideas of bigotry when he should be fighting them.”

Dyson then moved back to the topic of affirmative action, saying that Ward Connerly had benefited in every sense from affirmative action, including in his marriage to a white woman. He said that he and other prominent black men and women, including Condoleeza Rice, were extremely intelligent but should be using their talents to help other strong, intelligent black people. Getting back to the subject of the day, Michael Dyson said that we must not entomb the words of Martin Luther King, but use them as an example. He challenged every authority of his day, Dyson said, including the vanity of the very black churches he spoke at. King “tried to give the necessities of survival of those whose backs are against the wall”, and we should not hesitate to do the same.

Another event held in the days following the King Holiday was a panel discussion entitled “Toward the Achievement of Educational Parity”. The four panelists were Larry Rowley, Assistant Professor at the School of Education; Steven Ward, a professor in the Residential College who specializes in Black Radical Thought and the “Black Power” movement; Elizabeth Burr Moje, Thurnau Professor and Assistant Professor of Education at the School of Education, and Ed St. John, Professor of Higher Education, also at the School of Education.

Professor Ward began the discussion by speaking about the changes Martin Luther King experienced after his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. Firstly, King was challenged by a rising militancy by youth in the civil rights movement, and he “recognized this striving for recognition of black cultural autonomy”, dialoging with proponents of a more radical stance. Secondly, he was challenged by the urban “rebellions” in Watts and Harlem (Ward made the point of saying that “those in the movement called them rebellions, those in the mainstream media

called them riots”). Thirdly, he was challenged by the Vietnam War, making statements of belief in nonviolence in society and throughout the world. According to Ward, in King’s perspective the violence being done in the jungles of Asia was the same being perpetrated upon children in urban areas. King began to see three major problems throughout American cities: racism, militarism, and extreme materialism. He saw education as a solution.

Then Moje began to peak directly of the issues of disparity in education.

First she touched on the very essence of the problem: some people are achieving, some people are not, and the structures (not the people) are affecting the ability to succeed. The root causes, according to her research, are poverty and the effects that it causes within neighborhoods, schooling (not only the quality of the material but the quality of the teachers and the teachers’ knowledge of the culture of their students), and violence. Doctor St. John spoke specifically about racial disparity in higher education, saying that the gap in achievement has widened since 1980. Interestingly, a white high school graduate had the same chances of attending college as a Black or Latino graduate in 1975, but those numbers have since dropped off at an alarming rate. The panel then opened up the floor to discussion, and questions were posed regarding testing, mental health, and affirmative action.

Dyson’s talk had a powerful effect on the attendees. For some, his talk was a “shot in the arm” and “motivational”. One of the more interesting reactions was from an elderly gentleman who said that Dyson “refocuses the movement (and) reminds us of the work we have left to do… we still have a long way to go.”

Hopefully, for those who attended either the lecture or the panel discussion, the issues both brought up will continue to resonate, despite political leanings. MR