vol_24_no_8

The Michigan Review the michigan review

Page

The Campus Affairs Journal at the University of Michigan

February 7, 2006

Volume XXIV, Number 8

MR February 7, 2006

Our State, Our School

For Better or For Worse

UPrep..........................Page 3 Vagina Monologues...Page 12 State of the State.........Page 9 Ford’s Failures.............Page 5 Michigamua................Page 4 Serpent’s Tooth...........Page 2

www.michiganreview.com

Page 2

the michigan review

■ The Serpent’s Tooth

Serpent’s Tooth

We don’t think it necessary to run the traditional ‘Michigan Delay’ this year after reading this year’s Senior Issue of the Daily.

Correction: We understand it was actually a normal copy of the Daily.

The Canadian government is testing a new GPS system to prevent cars from exceeding posted speed limits on the highways.

Unfazed US liberals still want more government.

Millions of Muslims were recently outraged at depictions of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper cartoon. Many thought the cartoons also perpetuated stereotypes of Islam. In response, Muslims confirmed them.

In other news, “cartoons” have now been added to the list of “things that may incite a jihad,” now joining “Israel,” “America,” and “breathing.”

The US unemployment rate dropped to its lowest level since July 2001 this past month. You can find this news on page 27-G of the New York Times. Down there. In the corner. Beneath the movie advertisement.

A company called “toy presidents” has created a talking George W. Bush action figure. Of the 25 phrases, a whole 11 make any sort of sense.

The California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) recently held a joint-rolling contest. Contest promoters mistakenly thought the event was the first of its kind, before realizing that East Quad holds a similar contest on a daily basis.

The University has experienced a recent backlash against the “secret society” Michagamua. Several campus groups expelled members associated with the group, saying that they cannot accept individuals who are affiliated with an organization with a “racist history.” The groups then announced plans to cut ties with any individual who lives in the United States.

A Canadian governmental agency is investigating whether flight attendants should receive the same pay as airline pilots. We’re all in trouble if this news reaches U of M’s Graduate Employee Organization, who may opt to extend their annual strike this year.

The Vatican reported that a young French nun who was cured of Parkinson’s disease after praying to Pope John Paul II may serve as the late pope’s “miracle.” This would allow Pope John Paul to be declared a Saint in the Catholic Church. The porcelain god scoffed at this, citing the thousands of college students he cures of nausea accepting their offerings.

Exxon-Mobil posted record fourth-quarter profits in 2005. They look to post even higher profits once Dick Cheney completes his weather control device.

A suspect who shot four men at a gay bar in Massachusetts was caught after being wounded by police. He is now expected to get a hands-on crash course in tolerance while in prison.

The Michigan Review wishes you a Happy Valentine’s Day Show your love for us! Send donations to:

The Michigan Review 911 N. University Avenue, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1265

February 7, 2006 The Michigan Review The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan James David Dickson Editor in Chief Paul Teske Publisher Sekou Benson Managing Editor Nick Cheolas Content Editor Michael O’Brien Campus Affairs Editor Assistant Editors:

Chris Stieber, Tomiyo Turner, Staff: Brian Biglin, Karen Boore, Rebecca Christy, Tom Church, Jane Coaston, Stephen Crabtree, Jay Dickinson, Blake Emerson, Kole Kurti, Jeremy Linden, 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 © 2006, 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

■ The Angry Greek

A

Column

February 7, 2006

Token White Guy Sounds off on Education

s the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative threatens to end affirmative action programs in November of 2006, many fear the victory would kill the college aspirations of inner-city youth. The truth is, however, that the college aspirations of most inner-city youth have been wiped out long before affirmative action can have any effect. The state of urban education in America – especially just down the road in Detroit – is in disarray. In the Detroit public school system, nearly a third of the 15,000 students who enter high school as a freshmen fail to make it to their senior year. While these numbers account for transfer students as well, they certainly highlight the dismal graduation rate in the city. Thus, for many Detroit students, all the scholarship money and affirmative action programs in the world fail to have any impact. Dreams of an education, a job, a family, and a better life are lost before many of these children even reach adulthood.

The history of public education is littered with funding increases, mandates, and the lost words of countless politicians who have vowed to fix the system. The Detroit school system – once one of the finest in the state – has been reduced to a shell of its former self.

Many have tried reform: No Child Left Behind has promised to “hold schools accountable.” CEO’s have asked for children motivated to learn. Jennifer Granholm has pledged to increase the number of college graduates on countless occasions, and has proposed programs to do it.

But graduating well under half of your students – and sending even fewer on to college – is little more than an abysmal failure. Many claim to know what to do; few know how to do it.

Doug Ross seems to have found the way. The former assistant Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, Ross has dared to venture where few would look to find educational success. In 2000, he founded the University Preparatory Academy charter school in Detroit.

One hundred and thirty-five sixth graders comprised the inaugural class at the Academy, and each year since, a grade has been added. The first senior class is set to graduate in 2007, and this year, the Academy opened an elementary school to go along with its middle and high schools.

The results have been nothing short of astounding: The University Prep Academy class of 2007 is set to graduate well over 90% of its students, and plans to send over 90% of its graduates on to

college.

Given the statistics, many would believe that Ross has selected the “cream of the crop” in Detroit. However, admission to the school is based on a blind lottery. The school advertises itself as a business – placing the burden of motivating and educating its students on the school itself. University Prep sends postcards throughout the zip-codes in the center of Detroit, and asks for parents to fill out a simple application. After that, applications are randomly selected, and students are enrolled.

There is no meeting or contact between prospective students and Nick school officials before Cheolas admission.

Simply put, University Prep has achieved these results with the same students who seem so prone to failure in the Detroit Public School System. Based on factors such as socioeconomic status, previous test scores, and ethnicity, these students differ little from those in the public schools.

Given these facts, one may believe that University Prep must outspend their rivals in the Detroit Public School System. But they don’t. In fact, the Academy spends $2,000 less per pupil than the Detroit Schools.

So while the Detroit Public Schools spend approximately $10,300 per pupil to graduate under half of its students, University Prep Academy graduates over 90% of the same students for just over $8,000. What’s the difference?

It’s the school.

Doug Ross set out with a vision – in his words, to “prove that urban kids can succeed in post secondary schools.”

To achieve this, however, Ross could not simply tweak the current public school system. He chose to completely overhaul that system.

The key, Ross explains, is motivation. “Public schools are designed for skill development and knowledge acquisition,” he says, “not to motivate students.”

Thus, Ross designed a school with certain resources and techniques designed to motivate students. For a multitude of reasons, many students in urban settings simply don’t come to school with the motivation to learn. Many come from single-parent homes. Many grow up in an atmosphere where failure is the norm.

Few have role models, relatives, or par-

ents who have graduated from college.

So to assume that these students inherently value education, have clear goals, and are motivated to learn is simply naive.

Yet nothing in the public school system is designed to provide that motivation.

University Prep takes the burden to motivate students and places it on the school. Confronted with unmotivated students who struggle to value education, Ross has designed a system that differs from the public school curriculum in three fundamental ways.

First, the Academy places a strong emphasis on a long-lasting relationship between students in teachers.

Students join one group, called an “advisory,” during their freshman year of high school. These groups consist of 16 students, and operate almost as a “family” for all four years of a student’s high school career. Ross tells his advisors that “you are the aunt or uncle who went to college, and these kids are your nieces and nephews.” This arrangement allows students and teachers to form intimate relationships, ensuring that none are able to “fall through the cracks.”

Second, University Prep opts to stray from the “one-size-fits-all” approach to learning, and provides individualized learning plans for each of its students. Since various students learn at varying speeds and levels, Ross explains, it is important to make sure students succeed early on, saving them humiliation in front of their peers. As the humiliation mounts, many are simply driven away from school. “If a child reads at a 5th grade level, it makes no sense to hand him a 9th grade American History textbook,” he comments. Making sure kids succeed early in their educational careers – regardless of their ability – is crucial to keeping the kids in school.

Third, the Academy provides its students with internship opportunities throughout the community. Students at the school usually spend two days a week gaining extensive hands-on experience in a real-world setting. This allows students to build their confidence working in professional settings, establishes relationships with professionals, and also gives kids a unique sense of identity and accomplishment.

And all this has been accomplished for $2,000 less per pupil than is spent at public schools. This is for a number of reasons. First, University Prep does not offer the course selection of many large public schools. If a student wants to study art, cooking, or work

with machines, Ross explains, they can do so through their professional internship. This allows the school to focus on college prep classes, and still allows for hands-on experience in a certain field of interest. Second, the Academy contracts out all non-educational functions.

Custodial work, landscaping, building operation services and the like are all performed by private companies. Third, the school doesn’t have to deal with – and pay for – the centralized bureaucracy as do the public schools. Teachers, however, are paid salaries on par with those in the public school system, and are of the same quality.

Ross’s model has indeed proven that urban students can perform and succeed at the same levels as their affluent suburban counterparts. Why, then, hasn’t this model been copied by the public school system. While Ross explains that politicians, teachers, and parents are wellintentioned when it comes to education, four major factors have prevented his model from succeeding citywide.

First, charter schools such as University Prep operate without a centralized bureaucracy. Thus, to mirror the structure of a successful charter school would eliminate the centralized bureaucracy – i.e., those working for the Detroit Public Schools. It is unlikely that the powers that be in secondary education would ever adopt a system that puts them out of a job.

Second, the “closed shop” Detroit teachers union, bargains with the centralized bureaucracy. As such, eliminating that bureaucracy would force the union to bargain individually with hundreds of schools, and the increased competition may impact salary and benefit packages.

Third, contractors sell their goods and services to the Detroit Board of Education. Such a large district obviously leads to massive business transactions. A decentralized district would logically lead to much smaller transactions, and would possibly open up local markets to competition because each school would be able to contract on its own.

Fourth, politics play a major role. Ross explained that many public officials would stand up and oppose the current system have trouble making it out of any primary election due to the low voter turnout.

Continued Page 11

Page 4 The Michigan

the michigan review

Review

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:

Editorial

February 7, 2006

A Vision for Real Leadership on Campus

S

New Elite Institution Needed to Serve Camus

tudents in self-described “progressive” groups recently were expelled from leadership in those organizations due to their association with Michigamua, a supposedly secret society maintaining allegedly racist undertones in its rituals and practices.

Michigamua had faded in its controversial stature in recent years, waning not into secrecy so much as obscurity, in the aftermath of a prolonged occupancy of the group’s closed office in the tower of the Michigan Union several years ago. At issue has been the use of Native American iconography in its rituals and practices, which critics say reek of racism and simplistic stereotypes of traditional rituals and sacred ceremonies of North America’s indigenous people. These progressive groups, in their enlightened wisdom, found it appropriate to expunge from their membership those who would dare to associate themselves with a group whose professed mission is to serve the University of Michigan above all else.

We certainly commend Michigamua for its public efforts to repair its oncesullied reputation by embracing the campus shibboleth of diversity, equality, peace, justice, love, understanding, etc, etc, etc. It is important to demonstrate that the leadership of this group understands the impact of past practices, but understanding is largely separate from succumbing to pressures of political correctness. Michigamua members, facing the public despite the critics’ alleged secrecy of membership, have fired off letters and viewpoints to the Daily, saying they are now a group committed to change and progress—fitting the form and making the motions for which their assailants have always pushed, but never to the satisfaction of the liberal establishment at large.

We don’t blame Michigamua for taking its actions; they have little choice.

And those opposed to Michigamua cannot be taken seriously as long as it remains manifestly apparent that their opposition is not principled, but token, tired, and expected—fighting the good fight where one might not even exist. But to blame the most in this most recent blip on the campus radar are the progressive groups, who, not content to let Michigamua wither on the vine (or come up with any other alternative group of elite standing students), had to raise the issue one more time. How could they, after all—we must expunge this wretched legacy at all costs! But many on this campus would have had less knowledge or concern than they do for MSA but for the persistence in raising the point. Their insistence keeps Michigamua more vital, relevant, and influential than it otherwise would have been.

The fervor surrounding Michigamua, according to their opponents, stems from the organizations “racist past” as well as its “secret present.” Their “racist past,” places the group in the company of many other organizations, particularly, The United States of America. The members of Michigamua are no more responsible for the “racist” actions of their 1960s counterparts as members of the Michigan Daily are responsible for any racist undertones held by former writers. In regard to the “secret present” of the group, their present secrecy is apparently not enough to prevent “progressive” campus groups from judging the group as “far from reformed.”

In short, progressive groups on this campus rejected the opportunity to let a controversial organization, and its supposed “discriminatory” ideology, wither away.

As is often the case on this campus, the left has opted not to let a supposed “controversial” entity fade on its own, but has chosen to proactively eradicate an ideology they happen to deem unworthy of existence. Thus, the “war on Michigamua” has given the group far more exposure and relevance than it should merit.

It is important to have an institution on this campus where students who work themselves into high esteem can convene and discuss how to give back to the University that has given so much to us. But we sincerely doubt that Michigamua can adequately serve in that function anymore, by fault of its own as well as plentiful dogooders on this campus. There are students today who will one day have a great deal to offer back, in guidance and leadership to generations of students in the future. We would applaud the creation of such a new institution that can last for perpetuity, and bring together the best minds of our generation to go out and be the public face of alumni for the next quarter century. If progressive groups want to show that they can be beacons of leadership on this campus, they might start by supporting the creation of such a group. MR

the michigan review

Page 5

State Issues

February 7, 2006

Onward and Upward Recent Auto Layoffs Indicative of a Shift in the Economy

By Karen Boore, ‘09

T

he situation is serious in the American automotive industry these days. Last November, General Motors announced plans to cut 30,000 jobs in North America, and DaimlerChrysler has recently announced some worldwide job cuts. This January, Ford announced sweeping changes, including devastating cuts affecting up to 30,000 workers, both blue-collar and white. These cuts will hurt many families and communities, yet they may also mark a turning point for the industry.

As part of its “Way Forward” plan, Ford announced, on January 23rd, cuts of hourly and salaried employees.

Fourteen North American plants, seven of which are vehicle assembly plants, will be closed by 2012. One of these plants is in Wixom, Michigan and employs 2,600 workers. Cumulatively, these cuts will affect approximately one in five of Ford’s hourly employees and ten percent of salaried employees. But Ford’s downsizing is not restricted to blue-collar workers, as auto industry layoffs have been in the past. By the first quarter of 2006, Ford will reduce its executive offices by twelve percent as well.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, and Vice President Gerald Bantom, director of the UAW National Ford department, issued a statement saying that the Way Forward plan was “disappointing and devastating news for the many thousands of hard-working men and women who have devoted their working lives to Ford.” While some workers have enough seniority to retire, many others will have to look for employment elsewhere after spending more than a decade on the job. While the devastation is great for these Ford employees, the job cuts’ effects will reach beyond them and their families. The auto industry supports many other industries, like steel and glass, and spending by autoworkers supports local retailers. Not only will the plants be closing, but the restaurants around them and retailers in the communities will also be affected.

According to an article in the Washington Post, for every 100 U.S. auto industry jobs approximately 460 other jobs are supported. This adds up to 138,000 jobs lost or affected by Ford’s plans.

While Ford remains profitable, North American losses were said to be

approximately $1.6 billion. Job cuts are ten imported from unstable parts of the being made because plants are currently world. The best way to break this addicrunning at three-quarters their capacity. tion is through technology.” Bill Ford Realizing the need to put production wants people to know that he and the in line with demand, Ford will reduce Ford Motor Company are dedicated to production capacity by 1.2 million units, developing this technology to reduce or by about 26%, by the end of 2008. fuel consumption and help the enviThrough the cuts of white collar and ex- ronment as well. Ford’s plans for the ecutive jobs, Ford hopes to increase ef- company include the use of biodegradficiency within able materiits bureaucraals and the cy—a task as “Some believe the days of the creation of difficult as it is hybrid Big Three are over and that those more thankless. vehicles. For

S o of the Big Six, including Toyota, example, the how did things huge conget to this Honda, and Nissan, are upon us. cept pickup, point?

How But it is too early to completely the F-250 did they get Super Chief quite this bad? give up all hope in the American which apMany analysts peared at automotive industry.” point to the the North high costs of American retired workers’ pensions and healthcare International Auto show featured a Tribenefits, both of which are entitlements Flex fuel engine, an engine that runs on which automakers cannot really avoid. hydrogen, ethanol (E85), or gasoline.

They compare them to the Japanese Also, the concept Reflex Hybrid Coupe companies’ legacy costs which are much featured solar panels and insulation lower. These costs, however, would not made of recycled shoes. By 2010, the be so much of a concern if revenues company plans to expand the gas-elecwere increasing, and if well-designed tric hybrid option to half its models. cars could offset the higher prices nec- Despite the troubles of the essary to support retirees’ entitlements. time, management at Ford is remarkably Yet they aren’t. optimistic. They hope that bold leader Declining sales have exacer- ship and a new “change or die” mentalbated the problem. Since 2000, Ford’s ity will help them to innovate. Executive market share of the auto industry has Vice President Mark Fields believes that fallen from 25% to around 17%. Many this commitment to innovation will “inblame the decline in the popularity of creasingly differentiate us in the market sports utility vehicles since the nineties place.” New models for the company and the lack of something popular to are increasingly bolder as Ford also tries replace them for this loss. Recently, the to revamp its image in the eyes of conUAW has blamed senior management sumers. for its “failure to halt Ford’s sliding Even if the auto industry does market share” and has said that instead take a turn for the better, what about of aligning production capacity with laid-off workers, now and in the future? demand “the focus should instead be Governor Jennifer Granholm, in her on striving to gain market share in this State of the State Address, announced competitive market by offering consum- plans to create more jobs and to attract ers innovative and appealing products.” more businesses to Michigan. Already,

While some considered it ‘too Michigan has cut red tape, business taxlittle, too late,’ gaining market share is es, and waiting time for permits so as to exactly what Ford plans to do. The em- encourage businesses to relocate. Other phasis now is on producing desirable projects to improve state infrastructure fuel-efficient vehicles. America can no will create jobs, while training programs longer afford to pay the high prices for will retrain former industrial workers gas. In his State of the Union Address, for jobs in fields that need workers. The President Bush said of our oil problem: need to diversify Michigan’s economy “America is addicted to oil, which is of- and attract technological businesses is

very important and very apparent with the rash of layoffs crippling the economy. Political leaders in Michigan have taken note of the risks of a non-diversified economy more suited to the industrial era. No single industry should hold such sway over the economy in the future.

It has been clear for quite some time that high-paying, low-skill jobs are in decline. The next generation will need more education. Governor Granholm addressed this issue in the State of the State address, stressing the importance of all Michigan children gaining more than just a high school diploma. The MERIT scholarship will now ensure $4,000 for every student who completes two years of college. Education in the primary and secondary public schools needs improvement, Granholm said. Finally, public schools will be expected to demand more of their students. Education is most important when laying the foundations of a new state economy. It will allow people to make more money at their jobs while simultaneously attracting more businesses.

Some believe the days of the Big Three are over and that those of the Big Six, including Toyota, Honda, and Nissan, are upon us. But it is too early to completely give up all hope in the American automotive industry, which has been the mainstay for the Michigan economy for so many years. While recent layoffs are far more than just a wake-up call, the situation at Ford has opened the eyes of its executives to the challenges it is facing, and they exude a determination to face those challenges boldly. Yet, as Ford Executive V.P. Mark Fields admitted, “The challenges we face are the result of decisions made-or not made-over many years…we won’t fix them overnight.” As the American automotive companies try to turn their businesses around, we must lay the groundwork for a better Michigan economy today by diversifying it and better educating our citizens. MR

the michigan review

Page 6

February 7, 2006

Campus Affairs

MSA Article

By Michael O’Brien, ‘08

U

nder criticism last semester for losses in student funds following sponsorship of the Ludacris concert, the Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) is now considering a resolution that might begin to impose greater fiscal discipline on future Assembly-sponsored events.

MSA representative Rese Fox recently floated a resolution that would create a new select committee to review MSA expenditures in future appropriations for concerts or similar events. The resolution would create the “Event Financial Review” Select Committee (EFR), to oversee outside appropriations, as well as MSA’s own spending on events. As currently written, the resolution would neglect from jurisdiction funding and/or sponsorship of student groups (that is, money given to groups like College Democrats and Dance Marathon) to use in those groups’ regular functions. Nor would the EFR’s jurisdiction include programs subsidized by the Assembly such as the Airbus program, which provides rides to the Detroit airport at a discount rate, thanks to MSA subsidies. This would theoretically include, however, any future concerts MSA helps bring to the University.

Under the current resolution, the EFR’s review process would kick in for all appropriations above $1,000. In the past, above this threshold, sponsorship by MSA has included the Ludacris concert, the Congress to Campus Program, Gayz Craze, and CHANGE (Creating a Healthy and New Generation of Equality), according to Representative Fox. The EFR jurisdiction would apply to appropriations from MSA’s sponsored activities account, which included $45,000 last semester to pro-

vide for the concert, and will amount in roughly $10,000 this semester from student fees to spend on activities and events.

Before MSA on activities or events can occur, the EFR must internally review the initiative to make sure money is spent wisely. The resolution, though, remains vague in terms of what the EFR’s role is in monitoring organizations using student funds after the money has been granted, beyond requesting information from organizers of a sponsored activity, and then reporting back to the Assembly. There is also some question over whether the resolution’s enforcement mechanism is sufficiently rigorous on offenders who misuse student funds. According to the current process, if a grantee’s malfeasance is discovered, the EFR refers the inconsistency in the appropriation to the Student General Counsel, pending a re-submission of the budget in question.

But the resolution as currently written only instructs the Student General Counsel to “take appropriate action to prevent violations of the most recently approved budget.” And for groups in violation of budget appropriations, Section 4.4 of the resolution only instructs the EFR to “alert” the Assembly, Treasurer, Administrative Coordinator, and Advisor. Whether this “alert” necessarily implies action on the behalf of the Assembly remains ambiguous.

The original resolution submitted for consideration created a threshold of $3,000 to trigger EFR review, but in the final version submitted to the assembly, the minimum appropriation at which the review process is invoked has been lowered to $1,000. This will include more spending than the previous standard had

involved.

However, the EFR is far from a permanent institution for MSA spending. The resolution contains a sunset provision that would make the EFR last only for the next school year, pending renewal by MSA at the end of the next school year. Fox has real hopes for how the resolution might shape attitudes on fiscal responsibility in the year to come, though, saying, “The EFR will force event planners to take a realistic look at their budget proposals early on so that they won’t have problems with non-budget compliance later. As seen with recent budget inconsistencies, non-budget compliance can cost MSA thousands of dollars.”

Ms. Fox argues this resolution is a good start in reforming MSA spending, but acknowledges that a more stringent resolution might not gain support, saying, “A stringent resolution might get less support because it would open up more Assembly members’ events to EFR’s jurisdiction.”

A spring election now looms on the horizon, with two new parties challenging the dominant and incumbent Students4Michigan Party, which has maintained power for some time now. Both new parties focus more intently on reforming spending in the wake of the Ludacris concert’s losses, and this resolution might lend Students4Michigan some credibility as they will almost surely combat charges of financial mismanagement. It is still unclear, however, whether this will substantially affect MSA’s spending habits, or if future resolutions will be necessary to toughen spending reforms in the year ahead. MR

The Miami of the Midwest??

By Brian McNally, ‘08

T

he Miami of the Midwest, known for the ease of hooking up with members of the opposite sex at wild frat parties, has its largest claim to fame in football, to which everything else takes a back seat. “Everyone wakes up at . . .

9 am and just starts drinking” before going over to the game where they cheer so much that “half the time [they] don’t even know why [they’re] cheering.” The most popular program is LSA, where the students study 5 hours a day, while the “just a little more intense” engineering students crack open their books for an extra two hours. With the exception of the amount of time spent studying, this must be referring to our dear friends in Columbus, right? Wrong. According to the producers, however, and the students they interviewed, this description fits our beloved University to a “T.”

As soon as one sees that The U bills itself as “a new DVD series featuring MTV-like tours of colleges”, everything starts to make sense. Since the DVD series is “hosted by stars from the WB,” it

becomes understood that there won’t be much real research into the college that is being toured, and the “MTV-like” phrase simply drives home the fact that relatively little actual information is actually going to be given. Instead, we are treated to varying degrees of pointless and incorrect assessments of the party scenes at the various colleges, such as: the big place to go in Ann Arbor is Studio 4—though Rick’s and Ashley’s get mentioned in passing.

Inaccuracies ranged from “your major pretty much determines your dorm” to the temperature being rated as “very cold.” If those were not enough, the humiliation of seeing the Diag M painted green would ruin the DVD for anyone.

If the party and Greek scenes were so poorly reported, one can only imagine what will be done to the academic credentials of one of the top universities in the country. Schools like Illinois, Purdue, and Ohio State suddenly seem to have programs that are on par, if not surpassing, those offered at UM. The Illinois tour beats into the watcher’s mind

that “Illinois is where the first web browser was created,” yet during the UM tour of the College of Engineering, it fails to mention that the founders of Google are listed among the alumni.

In fact, the video hardly mentions that UM has a top ranked undergraduate program in Engineering (ranked 5th overall, though individual rankings vary) and rankings in the top 10 for graduate programs in Business (2nd), Medicine (9th), and Law (8th). The failure to even move off Central Campus to conduct interviews was extremely surprising.

Instead of sampling a wide demographic that was sampled, the majority of the interviews were with LSA students, not Med, Business, Law, School of Art and Design, or Engineering majors. As a result, the perception of the overall depth of this University suffered.

For all of its faults, The U does some things right. Student ratings are given on everything from the social scene to the teaching abilities of the GSIs. There are also postings on the diversity as well as the size (26,215) and SAT scores (630 V, 672 M) of the student body. Inter-

estingly, for all of the University’s hype on diversity, UM and OSU’s black enrollment percentages were roughly equal, though more students attend OSU.

The few attempts at trying to put out an actual college review were, at times, informative and gave would-be freshmen a quick outline of what the university is like in terms of size and academic entry qualifications. The passing mention to the largest football-only stadium in the US was also positive, as was the montage of touchdowns as the voiceover asserted that football is a way of life in Ann Arbor.

Unfortunately, these positive qualities only serve to remind one of the old adage of dressing a pig in nice clothes.

Someone might try to make the pig look nice, but a pig is a pig. Though The U attempted to emulate MTV while providing insight into our campus, it ended up being just another inane WB production complete with actors from shows that will have already been canceled by the time this issue is printed. MR

the michigan review

Page 7

February 7, 2006

National and International

Oh Canada!

Our Northern Neighbor Gets a New Government

By Tomiyo Turner, ‘07

A

fter twelve years with conservatives in the minority, Canada now has a new conservative government. In the January 2006 election, Stephen Harper, the leader of the Conservative Party, received 36.25% of the vote, putting him 6.03% ahead of the Liberal candidate, former PM Paul Martin. Although Martin’s scandal-racked administration was hurt by Harper’s Accountability campaign, much of the Conservative Party’s appeal is based on the move to a smaller, more economically-efficient government. Furthermore, the Liberal Party’s attack ads against Harper, which are somewhat taboo in Canadian politics, actually aided the Conservatives’ campaign.

The Conservative Party’s founding tenets include general principles of equality, rule of law, freedom of speech, and also, “A belief that a responsible government must be fiscally prudent and should be limited to those responsibilities which cannot be discharged reasonably by the individual or other.” Specific policy initiatives include lowering taxes, reducing the crime rate, reducing wait times at medical centers, and helping cover the expenses related to raising children. As a whole, the party will work to pass the Federal Accountability Act which, in addition to general tax cuts, includes additional incentives meant to encourage young people to pursue skilled trades and to stimulate the hiring of new apprentices by skilled labor-oriented businesses. Harper has proposed serious changes to the criminal justice system, including mandatory prison sentences for drug traffick-

ing and both violent and sexual crimes. Other proposals include the elimination of the gun registry, direction of savings to police departments, strengthening border security, and deporting non-citizen criminals.

the United States, and Harper has made it a priority that, “The new government will reflect the unity and diversity of our country.” For example, one of the policies proposes giving $100 per month to all parents with children under six. And although they support reducing wait times at medical clinics, the Conservative Party does not support any major changes to the Canadian system of socialized medicine.

However, there will need to be some degree of cooperation among parties despite new conservative leadership. Harper’s government will have only 124 seats in Parliament, 31 fewer than needed to pass a vote.

It is also widely speculated that Harper will make structural changes to the government. He may reduce the size of the Cabinet and include a Cabinet position to work on US-Canada relations. Even if he does not create a new Cabinet position, Harper’s government will probably ease some tension in US-Canada relations because of his emphasis on heightened border security.

MR

New Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper

The Conservative Party also has some ideas that would delight even the most liberal politicians in

Is the United States Ready for a Woman President?

By Rebecca Christy, 08’

T

he onset of a nuclear holocaust would almost certainly occur because of PMS. It appears that no matter the political scenario, Premenstrual Syndrome is why a woman will never be capable of holding the title of President of the United States. In the time it would take to build up a political career suitable for the job, menopause will have set in.

There have been women leaders in over forty countries around the world in the 20th Century, but the United States has not yet jumped on the bandwagon. Two prominent female politicians are receiving support across the nation to run for the United States presidency in 2008, and the recent election of Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf as the president of Liberia has made us wonder if we are ready for a female president. However, a more important question to ask is, would a woman win the presidential campaign for truly being the best candidate or for the wish of many Americans wish to see a change in the status quo? There is little doubt that popularity plays a large role in political campaigns, but how specifically does this affect female candidates?

Political campaigns have always

been the ultimate popularity contest. The first televised Presidential debate ever was between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy added a new dimension to the politician’s image. Seventy million viewers saw a pale and nervous Nixon contrasted with a tan and rested Kennedy.

The live audience at the debate agreed that Kennedy had indeed won the debate, and nearly half of all voters interviewed claimed it had influenced their voting decision. What may have begun as a way to create an image of a politician has gone in a questionable direction for political campaigns. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura are notable examples, both having not been necessarily the most qualified for the job, but their unique personal coverage may have won them their positions.

Personal coverage plays a significant role in political campaigns and the ability to show that a multimillionaire politician is just like the guy next door portrays an image that wins votes. When a woman runs for political office the amount and type of personal coverage she receives appears to stress on issues which have less to do with her qualifications. The White House Project, an or-

ganization established to advance women leadership, conducted a study during Elizabeth Dole’s presidential election campaign in 1999. In both areas of quantity and quality of coverage Dole suffered when compared to Governor George W. Bush, Arizona Senator John McCain, and publisher Steve Forbes. In 35% of all paragraphs about Dole in papers such as the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times more time was spent on personal coverage, including issues such as attire and personality, rather than politics.

Other candidates’ personal coverage was Bush 27%, McCain 22%, and Forbes 16.5% respectively.

With this information is it really that difficult to see why President Bush replied “never” when asked if his wife Laura would run in a senate race for the state of Texas? Bush was quoted as saying, “She’s a great lady. She’s not interested in running for office.” President Bush was criticized for his comments not only for speaking for his wife, but also seeming to imply that she was not capable in some capacity. The Associated Press followed Bush’s comments with the following, “Mrs. Bush’s popularity well exceeds her husband’s, leading some to speculate that

she might follow in the footsteps of her predecessor as first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.” In Bill Schneider’s Political Play of the Week, the writer also used popularity as a qualification. “The First Lady is the only person in the Bush Administration who’s popular with both Democrats and Republicans.” It appears that a woman being elected to office has more to do with her popularity than any solid political experience. With a master’s degree in library science, and no experience holding an elected political position, Laura Bush is not qualified to run for senate, regardless of her gender. She has had no political title without a First Lady preceding it.

This subject is by no means a women’s issue alone. If Virginia Democrats are discussing Ben Affleck as a possible candidate in the 2006 Senate race, the importance of popularity over qualifications is universal. The main opponent of President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf in the Liberian race was George Weah, a famous world soccer player. If a woman achieves the title of Commander-in-Chief, hopefully she is well-qualified and, yes, has some sense of style. MR

the michigan review

Page 8

Commentary

By Blake Emerson, ‘09

I

The Democratic Rift

n the Democrats’ view, the American people feel like Dorothy from the Wizard of Oz. The Republicans are the twister that has just leveled our homes, leaving us confused. The Democrats are the Munchkins, telling Dorothy to follow the yellow brick road. The problem is that they aren’t telling Dorothy where the yellow brick road is, or even how to find it. The Democrats should know from experience that when they simply point out the problems and neglect the solutions, the twister will turn on them.

While the Democrats may be convinced that the twister resulted from global warming, they simply have lost the finesse and political savvy that they had with Bill Clinton at the helm. Clinton brought the Democrats back to the political center, gaining so much support that he was able to perjure himself and yet maintain a positive approval rating. He was also a man of ideas and optimism. Bush doesn’t have a fraction of the political skill Clinton embodied, which is exactly why the Democrats should be ashamed that they missed their golden opportunity to unseat him in 2004. Let’s take a quick look at the Bush presidency.

In addition to tax cuts, the first three years of the Bush presidency saw a 20.8% increase in non-defense spending, effectively creating massive deficits that our generation will be dealing with for years. Furthermore, still fewer than half of Americans view the war in Iraq in positive terms. Around 500,000 illegal immigrants cross the Mexican border every year, costing

America somewhere around $15 Billion per year. In a recent Gallup poll, only 25% of Americans supported President Bush’s handling of the borders, the worst approval rating of all areas surveyed. What good is it to fight terrorists abroad when they can enter the country so easily? President Bush has been wearing a target on his back for years regarding border security.

I am not a politician and I don’t pretend to have the answers to the problems of the Bush administration. However, is it wrong for me to have faith that somewhere within the Democratic Party, one person has a concrete solution to better protect the border, to turn around the economy without Staff spending even more on failed programs, Opinion and to unite this country again? With the recent moves from the leaders in the Democratic Party, they continue to prove me wrong.

We need look no further than Howard Dean, the Democrats’ supposed answer to Republican dominance, to explain the Democrats’ ineptitude. Picking a chairperson who severed a large part of his brain during a campaign screech is not typically considered sound political strategy. Since he has been Democratic National Committee chairperson, Dean has stated that Republicans have “never made an honest living in their lives.”

He also has stated that “the idea that we are going to win this war [on terror] is wrong.” Dean stands for the pessimism that the Democrats have embodied and the strong move to the Left that the Democrats have embraced. Yet recent evidence suggests that Dean’s mismanagement of the DNC budget has now left the party

February 7, 2006

with a paltry $5.5 million warchest, compared with the Republican’s $34 million.

If one looks at the other “leaders” of the Democratic Party, they see Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and John Kerry, all left-wing members of their party.

The influence from the liberal Democrats is not going unnoticed. Last week, the liberal Democrats almost succeeded in joining together to filibuster Samuel Alito, a man considerably more centrist than Clinton appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was approved on a 96-3 vote despite her explicitly strong pro-choice views and her support for Roe vs. Wade. In Justice Samuel Alito’s first Supreme Court decision last week, he broke with conservatives to grant an extension on a Missouri man’s execution, effectively making a mockery of the Democratic opposition’s claim that he was simply another tool for the evil conservative agenda.

The Democrats’ dissolution is coming at the expense of Americans. Effective and levelheaded political discourse is essential for the well-being of the body politic, and I am concerned that the criticisms levied by the Democrats are not constructive. There is plenty to improve in America, and plenty of the improvements are the direct result of the Bush administration. Partisan politics happens on both sides of the aisle, but times in America call for cohesiveness – and some actual leadership would be nice. Democrats made a strong claim that “There’s a better way,” in their State of the Union response; now, it’s up to them to actually show the American people and the Republican Party exactly what that better way is. MR

East Versus West: The Next Great Clash?

By Brian McNally, ‘08

F

or over 400 years, a relative truce existed between the Western European nations and the Muslim world. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 to the Ottoman Turks marked the end of the great Christian empire which had once stretched from the British Isles to the Red Sea, encompassing the entire Mediterranean Sea. It also marked an end to the religious wars, including a Muslim conquest of southern Europe and several Christian Crusades into the Holy Land, which had consumed both the Western Christians and the Middle Eastern Muslims since the rise of the Islamic empire in the 7th century. The creation of Israel in 1948, however, upset the balance.

Once again, contention has arisen in the cradle of civilization.

Though Israel may have been the spark, the fire has spread to a different arena altogether. Recent Muslim riots in Europe following the publishing of several cartoons demeaning the Prophet Muhammad, as well as the terrorist attacks aimed at the United States and European nations, cannot be explained away by the creation of a Jewish state.

The truth is that the old war has never stopped, but has instead evolved. Rather than a war between two religions, this war has become one between two ideologies:

one that has evolved beyond religion and one that has stayed in the fundamentalist stage of religion.

The governmental system of America is one in which religion and state exist amicably and with equal power. Our belief that “we have been endowed by our Creator with certain Staff unalienable rights that Opinion among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments . . . [derive] their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed” illustrates this beautifully. Though there is the acknowledgement of a Higher Power, there is also the charge that Governments are not instituted by God, as monarchies and theocracies were, but rather through the People that are governed. We are not forced to follow a certain religion, nor are we held accountable to a religion’s laws, discounting those that are compatible with the ideals of good government. It is this freedom which worries the Muslim world.

The Muslim world never experienced an Enlightenment, a time when philosophers come forth with new ideas regarding the rights of man and the limitations necessary for those in positions of power. Rather, it became a rigid theocracy, cracking down on the “infidel”

religions within its borders. Though the Western world also went through such a period during the inception of the Holy Roman Empire as well as revivals during the Inquisitions, the Enlightenment largely ended such practices. Christianity and government by the people became compatible practices, which most of the European nations would go on to accept.

Consequently, the Muslim world became afraid of the influence of our idea of Democracy. When they compare the Christians, and West, of old to the symbiotic relationship that exists today, they perceive ills that it has caused; in their minds, a decline of values has occurred.

They see Hollywood and protesters that demean the Christian church, the decline of modesty in public, and the taking of the Lord’s name in vain, and they are scared.

Should they also sacrifice their religion should Democracy take root? Will Allah fall by the wayside should people be free to take other gods, or none at all, should they so choose? What will the morals of future generations resemble? Asking themselves these questions has led to the revival of fundamentalism. Believing that the acceptance of democracy would lead to the destruction of their religion, many, including bin Laden, have taken it upon themselves to defeat the western nations

to preserve their way of life. The leaders incite mobs, and violence ensues.

In one way, America is at a disadvantage. We have a very short history, a mere 200 years, and so do not understand the trends of history as well as our European cousins. For many, a five year war becomes a “quagmire”, an eight year term in election causes “irreparable damage”, and the next Supreme Court justice will forever destroy women’s mythical right to abortion. The Cold War, an eternity by our standards, took only a fraction of the time that this millennial conflict has.

Yet we offer something to the people of the Muslim world that the Muslim leaders cannot offer; we offer hope and the key to unlocking the people’s unalienable freedoms.

Right now we stand at a crossroads in this war, with bin Laden on one path and Bush on the other. The next 50 years will decide which way the war will go, as it can, realistically, go in only one of two ways: the two sides once again declaring a truce and isolating themselves from each other, or Democracy triumphing in the Middle East and toppling the totalitarian house of cards. MR

Page 9

the michigan review National Issues

February 7, 2006

Granholm Article

By Michael O’Brien, ‘08

I

f Governor Jennifer Granholm wants to save the state of Michigan, she might start by taking the focus off Detroit and looking down the road to Ann Arbor and other university campuses across the state.

As the economy shifts away from rote automotive production and towards a system that encourages specialization, skills, and knowledge, Michigan’s universities can help drive the state into the next century. Yet, while Granholm’s language in her recent State of the State address may pay lip-service to Michigan’s higher education system, her past actions and outlined priorities only indicate that she has little skill in navigating such a tumultuous period.

The past successes of both Michigan’s universities and companies have come through mutually beneficial partnerships, a key catalyst of growth in the past century. Granholm’s proposed plans, however, are hardly conducive to the continuation of such relationships.

Granholm’s focus on the automotive industry is myopic. She must realize that problems in both the automotive industry and the state economy are far more serious than any perceived threats from liberalized trade. Diminishing productivity and high labor costs, which the governor glaringly neglects in her plan, are to blame more than any of the bogeymen she targeted in her speech. She talked about saving industry, especially for unskilled workers, but has now endorsed a rise in the minimum wage. This is a frivolous gesture, especially

when compared to the actual needs of Michigan’s economy. She called for increased regulations on companies, with a stringent review process for those located out-ofstate. Rather than encouraging companies to invest in Michigan, Granholm’s plan is isolationist.

Fighting outsourcing is a temporary solution to a long-term problem. Men and women looking for new opportunities must enter the new knowledge-based economy. With the help of Michigan’s colleges and universities, citizens can be trained to meet the demands of the 21st century. The Governor’s attitude, however, fosters a sense of entitlement in every industry, which will be the inevitable downfall of Michigan’s economy.

Most economic forecasts point to health care as the booming sector. The University of Michigan Health System has been integral in developing better treatments not only for patients in Southeast Michigan, but nationwide. Governor Granholm’s ‘Michigan First’ health plan, though, will only work against the lean, efficient industry that could possibly emerge. The plan may be well-intentioned, but it is emblematic of the Granholm administration’s misguided priorities. While we may have computerized records in the Emergency Room in the near future, it will come at the cost of investments in research that discovers cures, increases treatment efficiency, reduces long-term health care costs, and aids the growth of a health-centered economy which could drive economic growth for the next 50 years. It also means focusing on everyday cures, not a long-shot, high-stakes game of embryonic stem cell research that raises serious moral questions in the first place. (Ed. Could this go in

another place?)

Price controls and subsidies in Gov. Granholm’s health insurance plan similarly divert resources from where they would be most effective. Her litany of social programs hardly addresses the pertinent issues, and puts our future growth at risk. Furthermore, it ignores the bloated health care costs, a burden on the state’s most important industries in the past half-century.

What is commendable from the State of the State speech is the Governor’s plan for curriculum requirements for Michigan students, better preparing these future workers in the knowledge-based economy.

Increased spending under the guise of ‘access’ to better education, however, ignores the dire need for greater efficiency and practicality in today’s system. Anti-bullying laws are not at the top of this list, either.

Higher education is the key to Michigan’s future. The government must create stronger incentives, bolstering schools and encouraging students to stay in the state, to counter the lamented “brain drain.” The key to growth is the re-investment of Michigan’s intellectual capital.

The problems in Michigan are not insurmountable, but they do require a comprehensive, radical shift in the way we prepare our students for the world. Governor Granholm’s overwrought optimism in last week’s State of the State address indicates her plan does not properly prioritize these problems. These next few years require tough, honest, and open leadership –traits that the Governor seems ill-prepared to offer her constituents. MR

A New Curriculum for the Twenty-First Century

By Sekou Benson, ‘06

A

s evidenced by the latest report of 6.7% unemployment, Michigan’s economy is in dire straits.

A major factor in the state has been the decline in the manufacturing industry, as recent cuts at Delphi, Ford, and General Motors indicate.

There is a viable solution, however; to help the state weather the tough economy and: more post secondary education for workers. In December of 2005; Daniel Howes of the Detroit News reported that the Chrysler manufacturing plant in Dundee was an exception to the worsening economy. The key difference between the Dundee plant and others is the requirement for each new hire to have some sort of post secondary education, or a skilled journeyman’s card. As the Michigan Review editors wrote last December, “Technology and skill-based jobs requiring high levels of education and specialization will compose a greater share of the nation’s economy. Michigan has ignored this fact at its own peril, and now boasts the nation’s largest jobless rates.”

According to the 2000 census, only 21.3 percent of Michigan residents are college graduates compared to the national average of 24.3 percent. To her credit, Governor Jennifer Granholm has proposed reforms to the current state-mandated curriculum to make sure every Michigan high school student has a shot at post-secondary education and the American dream. The only current requirement laid out in the curriculum is a class on

American government. Aside from those reforms, Granholm also has proposed increasing the Michigan Merit scholarship for post-secondary education from $2,500 to $4,000.

The new proposal by the Granholm administration and the state board of education would require four years of math and English, three years of science, two years of foreign language, one credit each of visual arts and one course in economics.

The proposal, currently before the state legislature, has drawn the ire of groups on the left and the right. Teachers’ unions have come out against the proposal, complaining about the lack of additional funding in the measure to local school districts. Lu Battaglieri, president of the Michigan Education Association, wrote in a Detroit News piece last month that, “The proposed changes will necessitate that some districts hire additional teachers, purchase textbooks and equip science labs.”

Conservatives such as columnist Thomas Bray of the Detroit News have cited the infringement of local control in school districts, saying, “One reason education has always been left to the local level is that passionate debate about such issues, which is inevitable and often healthy, doesn’t paralyze the entire state system.”

While the concern of usurping local control is a valid one, desperate times in the state call for desperate measures. This was evident when the state took control of the failing school districts in Detroit and Benton Harbor. The same is also true with statewide deficit of col-

lege graduates with the decline of unskilled industries in the state.

Also, the requirements could force districts to spend more efficiently. For instance the Detroit News reports that the Detroit school district spends $10,200 per pupil compared to a new charter school that spends $2,000 less and has better results. If the new standards are implemented, it would force Detroit and other school districts to trim the bureaucracy and put more teachers in the classroom. How can school districts complain about spending more money in the classroom?

With the current political landscape, the new high school proposal seems log-jammed in the state legislature with Republicans sending the bill to a special committee for studying. Also many lawmakers have proposed diluting amendments, which would, for instance, remove the foreign language requirement. To their credit, most state legislators agree with the principle of an expanded state curriculum to prepare students for post secondary education. Michigan residents on the other hand have not, in an EPIC-MRA conducted last year only 30 percent of parents insisted on their children attending college. Only time will tell if Michigan can move forward with a properly equipped and educated citizenry. MR

Page 10

By Chris Steiber, ‘07

the michigan review

You Can’t Handle the Truth

T

uesday night near Kupang, Indonesia, 55 people died as a ferry sunk in stormy waters.

Friday, a ship traveling from Dubai to Egypt caught fire, resulting in 900+ deaths (current estimates).

Saturday, 79 people died in a stampede at a stadium in Manila, Phillipines.

Altogether, that’s over 1,000 deaths from tragic accidents around the world in the past few days. This is a smattering of the stories I found by searching on Google News for “death.” Many of you will have the same reaction as I: furrow your brow, say to yourself “How tragic!” perhaps offer up a small, unspecified prayer for the victims and their families, and turn the page. Is this appropriate behavior? Furthermore, what does this say about our high-speed information society and its capacity to handle tragedies?

At first glance, what I did was extraordinarily calloused. How could I just turn the page upon reading of such great misfortune? If we were all being honest, however, what I did was the “normal” reaction. I have a limited capacity for sympathy and compassion, and it would be imprudent of me to expend all my reservoirs for events beyond my con-

■ Let’s Hug it Out

O

Opinion

n Sunday, January 22nd, Evo Morales, who ran on the campaign that he would be “George Bush’s worst enemy”, was sworn in as the president of Bolivia. At this point, Bush has to be callous to threats against his policy making, and in all fairness, America has received far worse threats from countries more capable than South America’s poorest country. What makes the election of Morales a key concern to the Bush administration is not his powerful state, but his promise to de-regulate the production of the coca leaf, the key ingredient of cocaine, stirring up many concerns in the Bush administration and the War on Drugs.

Often under great scrutiny for its large budget (around $11.4 billion in 2003, spent for drug education, incarceration, intelligence, interdiction, and treatment) and what critics see as “minimal” results (a record 1.1 million people were admitted to treatment facilities in 2002), the War on Drugs is often seen as a separate and unrelated entity to the War on Terror, a much more explicitly visible exercise of foreign policy in the media.

With the War on Terror and the US-Mexico border problems drawing much of the media attention; it is important to see

trol and on the other side of the world.

Mankind, in fact, is limited not only in his capacity for grief, but in every emotion.

Do I really care if Bayern Munich wins a Bundesliga match? No, I simply do not have enough joy and happiness “in me” to expend on something in which I have no vested interest.

From the beginning, mankind’s knowledge was limited to events and people that directly affected him. A farmer in France would never hear about the destruction of Pompeii in 79, except by myth or in a story told years later. Thusly, when something happened that deserved an emotional response, people were able to respond with legitimate feeling, whether it be grief or joy. With the advent of the international press, however, the growth of the Internet, man and his emotions are under assault from too much information, too much for us to “care about,” and the results are quite grave.

Our feelings are stretched so thin we have become, to create a phrase, “emotionally nihilistic.” Regardless if the story is thousands dying in a tragic accident or a brutal double murder in our own city, we have programmed our responses so there is no true outrage, and no true sympathy.

Unless the event is of a personal nature, automatic responses are all that we have.

Television plays an especially large role in this mass desensitization. In his book Amusing Ourselves To Death, Neil Postman says, “Entertainment is the supra- ideology of all discourse on television. . . that is why even on news shows which provide us daily with fragments of tragedy and barbarism, we are urged by the newscasters to join them tomorrow.

What for? One would think that several minutes of murder and mayhem would suffice as material for a month of sleepless nights. We accept the newscasters’ invitation because we know that the ‘news’ is not to be taken seriously, that it is all in fun, so to say. . . the good looks and amiability of the cast, their pleasant banter, the exciting music that opens and closes the show, the vivid film footage, the attractive commercials—all these and more suggest that what we have just seen is no cause for weeping. A news show, to put it plainly, is a format for entertainment, not for education, reflection or catharsis.” Prolonged exposure to such “news” further reinforces the unserious nature of real events, and soon a cynical populace, one that immediately politicizes every event for its own ends, runs rampant, consuming all that is offered.

The especially worrying aspect of this phenomenon is the irreversabil-

February 7, 2006

ity of it. This Pandora’s box has been opened, and the reach of knowledge can’t be thwarted. Any time someone tries to draw a line in the sand, impose limits on the scope of what someone deserves to know, he is met by cries of “Censorship!”

Perhaps this is the best way. I will grant that liberty, with all its drawbacks, is the best choice possible for a society. If there is no defined boundary, however, liberty devolves into a tyranny by the press or other peddlers of information. What is needed is a stern rebuke of humanity’s greed for information and gossip. In a limited sense, Colonel Jessep from A Few Good Men was right when he said, “You can’t handle the truth!” If we are provided too much information outside our individual “bubbles,” all we become is emotionally desolate beings that ravenously move from source to source for the “latest” events. I, for one, have made a conscious effort to avoid things that don’t really affect my life. I would rather not hear about a tragedy if I can’t give it the proper amount of grief that the victims deserve. MR

Teske, Out! how these two key policy areas are tied to the War on Drugs and national security.

Essentially, the War on Terror and the War on Drugs are a dual front attack on non-state actor enemies of the United States. We grew up seeing the War on Drugs as a campaign to cut demand through anti-Drug commercials and programs like D.A.R.E., but these programs are a small part Paul of a larger battle related Teske to our national security.

From a foreign policy standpoint, the War on Drugs is a critical means of disrupting the finances of leading non-state actor forces such as rebellion groups and terrorist organizations.

As you can recall, the Taliban, and subsequently Al Qaeda, was primarily funded by the large opium production capacity in Afghanistan. Terrorist networks do not fund themselves through baked cookie sales and bar nights, they do it through illegal markets and the sales of contraband.

Given this information, it should come to no surprise that the United States was in uproar over Morales’s vow to increase coca leaf production. In reality, Ameri-

can policy makers are not so much concerned with the moral quandary of drug use as they are the major financial benefits de-regulation of coca leaf growing will have for potential threats to America.

(I say that they are not concerned with the “morality” of drug use because Evo Morales legalizing coca leaf production is not going to suddenly create more coke heads in America. It will however, create more coke that can be sold elsewhere in the world and sold at a profit by enemies of America.)

It is interesting to think that a large portion of cocaine, heroin, and even marijuana might come from cartels that have links to terrorist organizations.

I would not be surprised if the next antidrug campaign warns American drug users that every time they smoke a joint or snort a line of cocaine they are funding terrorists groups. Given the links between the War on Terror and the War on Drugs, it will be interesting to see if the government will ever consider erasing the black market from which these groups fund their operations. That is to say, legalize and produce drugs. Certainly, the social health of the country would rapidly decline if hard core drugs such as heroin and cocaine were legalized, but I do think

it is possible that we could see looser relaxations on laws regarding marijuana given the recent ballot initiatives across the country.

Albeit interesting, this situation of legalization is far fetched and I would still argue that the focus of the War on Drugs should be heavily weighted on attacking the supply side, leaving the American people to approach the demand. I think that the United States will have to examine itself socially to truly reduce the amount of cocaine, heroine, and methamphetamines that we consume on a yearly basis. In the mean time, the government should keep fighting the two front battles on drugs and terrorism in order to strengthen our national security and hopefully the American public will someday see that the War on Drugs is not the failure they claim it to be.

I would also like to note that this is my final column for the Review. I have enjoyed writing “Let’s Push Things Forward” and I hope you have at least mildly enjoyed or hated some of my writings and opinions. It is now time for me to relinquish my half page to some very capable underclassmen who will be far more motivated to reach deadlines than I am. MR

the michigan review

Page 11

By James David Dickson true history of National Review will likely never be written. Lead editorialist and thoughtshaper, James Burnham, passed away in 1987 after nearly a decade of battling various afflictions, while William F. Buckley, Jr., its founder and lead voice recently retired as editor, perhaps foreshadowing the inevitable when he remarked, upon his retirement, that “no one wants to die on stage.” We might soon be without the memories and anecdotes that round out the publication that introduced conservative ideas to the American political imagination.

Author Jeffrey Hart’s task in writing an intellectual history of National Review was a tall one, and one hard to do well, especially given the reader’s expectation for something a bit...different. Not better, just different. This isn’t Hart’s fault, but an issue which needs to be addressed by an intelligent publisher in the near future. William F. Buckley’s Miles Gone By, a literary autobiography rather than a memoir in the strictest sense, intensified, not satisfied, the need for a conservative thought shapers to write their memoirs for posterity to enjoy. In that sense, National Review’s memoirs have yet to be written.

While Hart clearly lacks formal training as an historian, his multifaceted relationship with National Review – as reader, contributor, and court historian – permits him a unique insight into the personalities which shaped the publication. With Hart providing a peek into National Review’s inner workings, the exact impact of each editor is properly accounted for, which is a great service to young conservatives.

Likely as a function of his

A

February 7, 2006

Commentary

A Beautiful ‘Mind’ longevity relative the co-founders of the publication, journalists tend to give founder William F. Buckley, Jr. sole credit for National Review’s success; but it wouldn’t have been the same, or even close, without the contributions of James Burnham, whose willingness to coach young writers was a boon to the development of the “conservative mind,” and whose aversion to ideology kept the magazine honest; or without Russell Kirk, whose intellectualism gave the National Review an element of polish and a scholastic touch which served well a publication which had to prove its points in detail to a skeptical public.

The story of the emergence of American conservatism as a political and intellectual movement remains yet to be written. Hart’s contribution to National Review’s history is a worthy one, but one which begs the completion of an official history, written by an historian.

National Review’s half-century history is a tale of the persistent tension between Utopia and Reality; between what conservatives truly want and the best they believe they can get. In this way, William F. Buckley’s political journal mirrored, not shaped, the postwar conservative movement.

The 1950s was a bittersweet decade for American conservatives.

Although Republican president Dwight Eisenhower was elected to two terms and served as president for much of the decade, his tenure is often viewed as taking place within the supposed “New Deal consensus” from which no mainstream politician could diverge; making Eisenhower, in so many words a Republican in Name Only – a liberal in conservatives’

Continued from Page 3 “Envision a game of checkers,” Ross says. “Everyone is behind you, and they all want you to win. But every time you go to move a piece, somebody says ‘no, that’s my piece. Don’t move that one!’” In short, we have a surplus of officials and politicians with good intentions, but too few noble ones.

When students go to a college, they weigh a number of factors: size, curriculum, location, reputation. They choose one that fits their character and their ambitions – one that is customized to suit their academic needs. Yet many still believe that the “one size fits all” approach to secondary education can work. We speak

clothing. Though Eisenhower has undergone considerable image reform as historians have considered his administration more National Review led the conservative chorus against Eisenhower supposed equivocation and his “morally repugnant” policy of minimal conflict and peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union.

Eisenhower’s 1952 election did nothing to indicate any national shift toward conservatism, but rather a conservative’s ability to co-opt and institute the liberal agenda. The situation was so dire that conservatism was pronounced dead by the liberal intelligentsia. In a 1953 turn of phrase now-infamous and quite ironic to conservatives, literary critic and author Lionel Trilling wrote:

“In the United States at this time, liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition... there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in circulation, [merely] irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas.”

Conservatives longed for a leader, not a compromiser; they wanted a politician who would buck convention, not one who merely operated within a consensus that conservatives took no role in forming.

Following the conservative tide of the times in demanding a “choice, not an echo” in 1964 – which comes from a belief that Nixon’s loss in 1960 was somewhat attributable to his failure to meaningfully differentiate himself from Kennedy – National Review saw its champion as Barry Goldwater. Though Goldwater was lost, his failed candidacy put conservative ideas into the gene pool of American politics, and introduced an emerging conservative voice to the national stage: Ronald Reagan, whose speech,

of the drastic inequalities between suburban and urban students, yet we foolishly try to educate them in the same way. We pretend the children of two upper class, college educated parents could learn in the same fashion as those who come from single-parent homes in the inner city. We think programs like affirmative-action can have an impact, and ignore the real problem that needs tackling.

Ross holds out little hope for the Detroit Public Schools – and even the state of secondary education as a whole. “We have many who knows something needs to be done, but they aren’t experienced enough to do it,” Ross explains. Indeed, there are few politicians

“A Time for Choosing,” put him on the political map.

The difference between Reagan and Goldwater is best explained by the old adage that, “it’s not what you say, but how you say it.” While the Goldwater and Reagan platforms are identical in philosophical terms, Goldwater’s “extremism” conjured images of nuclear holocaust; Reagan made us hopeful for a world in which nuclear power was neutralized. Goldwater was the Moses to Reagan’s Joshua, bringing conservative ideas to the precipice but never himself making it to the Promised Land – but conservatives would make it out of the political wilderness in sixteen years rather than 40.

Reagan’s 1980 election was not merely the culmination of thirtyfive years of unapologetic conservatism – “What we all worked for,” as Hart calls it – but a told-you-so to naysayers and so-called moderates who, since National Review’s founding, have insisted that the movement would never be able to elect a true conservative. Eisenhower’s realism and Nixon’s detente was thought to be as close to confrontational foreign policy the country would get until Reagan’s election changed all that.

Still, there may never have been a Barry Goldwater but for National Review and its insistence that, not only was there no “consensus” consigning America to welfare state status and non-aggression toward the Soviet Union, but that there was another, better way of looking at the world.

James’ book review was also published in the February 2006 edition of CAMPUS Magazine online.

CAMPUS Magazine can be found at www.campusmagazine.org. MR

– those who dole out the tax dollars for schools and scholarships, and implement programs like affirmative action – who boast numerous educational credentials.

As such, Ross would predict a collapse of the Detroit public school system before he would envision wholesale change.

Next fall, 15,000 students will enter the Detroit public high schools. If education is the key to a successful life, as many believe it is, then 15,000 lives are on the line. How many of those succeed is up to the powers that be in the world of education.

The blueprint is there; why are we waiting to build it? MR

the michigan review

Page 12

February 7, 2006

MLK Day

Seeing Red Examining the Vagina Monologues

By Amanda Nichols, ‘08

C

unt. Pussy. Twat. Snatch. Box. All these words, often insulting, are used to describe vaginas.

They are mostly used as emasculators between frat boys or across the beer pong table on Saturday nights. But in Eve Ensler’s play, The Vagina Monologues, these words are empowering. They are used by women in the play to break through the system of patriarchy by helping to reclaim bodily autonomy in the broader context of society.

Performed on campus since 2001, the Monologues are part of a larger non-profit organization called V-Day. Began in 1998, V-Day’s specific mission is to end global violence against women and girls. The rights to Ensler’s Monologues are given out for a certain period each year (meaning any group under the V-Day umbrella can perform the play free of charge) so communities across the world can raise money. Currently, V-Day exists in 76 countries and in many cities across the United States. Eighty percent of proceeds from the U of M play go to SAFEhouse, a local domestic violence shelter, while 10% of proceeds are donated to the Michigan Battered Women’s Clemency Project and 10% go to a national VDay charity. This year, V-Day’s charity focuses on “comfort women,” who were sex slaves in Southeast Asia during World War II.

But this year, the University of Michigan’s vaginas decided to become ‘colorful.’ Controversy has ensued. After the organizers decided the cast would consist only of women of color, Whitney Dibo of The Michigan Daily argued that, instead of achieving Ensler’s objective of female solidarity against domestic violence, “this year’s production of The Vagina Monologues has widened the chasm between white women and women of color on this campus.” According to this year’s producers and directors of the Monologues, there previously hasn’t been enough of an effort to reach out to communities of color for actresses. Therefore, they wanted to include as many of these oppressed groups as possible. According to Dibo’s column, 44% of the actresses in last years’ production were minorities. Twenty-seven percent of the university’s population is a racial minority. So, rather than under-representing minorities, the Monologues have previously overrepresented many groups in proportion to their statistical presence in Ann Arbor. Organizers also assert that women of color experience sexism differently than white women. Really, all people experience racism, or sexism, or any other ism differently. Therefore, is it really possible to group the experiences of all women together based on their color, or their creed, or their sexuality? Isn’t this just as limiting to women looking to reclaim their own power within a patriarchal society?

While initially seeking to centralize excluded groups of women, the Monologues turned off a large segment of the student body. According to The Michigan Daily, the producers and directors began pushing for an exclusive minority cast in late October 2005. Because V-Day prohibits modifications to the script, the organizers believed an all-minority cast was the only way

to adequately showcase the plights of minority women.

They assert that, in past years, the production has excluded women of color except for the roles focusing on violence or anger. In fact, at an informational meeting regarding this year’s production, Women’s Studies Professor Megan Sweeney claimed the play “tags” certain monologues for women of color.

However, only three of Ensler’s monologues are tagged in the 2001 edition of The Vagina Monologues. One is indeed intended for a “Southern woman of color.” The other two are tagged for a woman with “a slight English accent” and for a “Jewish” woman with a “Queens accent.” Perhaps those previously involved in casting the Monologues have chosen women of color for pieces such as “My Angry Vagina” or “My Vagina was my Village,” but Ensler and the V-Day organization make no such designations. In fact, “My Vagina was my Village,” which describes soldiers’ and doctors’ sexual violence against a young woman, could easily describe the Holocaust, or perhaps the violence in Bosnia in the early

so tense with racial issues, is this year’s V-Day worth the extra strife? The Monologues’ organizers insist that women of all colors will be represented, including one who identifies herself as “pink,” according to Alvarez; after all, white is a color. Therefore, the drama henceforth should be kept at a minimum, especially since the producers and directors have backed off their purported exclusionary stance.

But other questions remain unanswered. Lauren Whitehead, one of the show’s directors, cited the dismal ticket sales for last year’s production. Therefore, this year’s organizers sought to revitalize the V-Day movement and create more publicity through a somewhat radical concept. Therefore, was this year’s casting process a true exercise in centralizing the marginalized, or was it a way to create controversy and increase ticket sales? Although perhaps it was a shrewd business move, what will the organizers do in 2007 and beyond to fend off apathy towards feminist causes and violence against women? Will an all-Jewish, or all-Muslim, version of the Monologues come next? Or, as in a film production of the play called Beautiful Daughters, will the next cast be composed of all transgender individuals? How far can the organization push the V-Day envelope without losing support even on this liberal campus, and to what extent are all women able to relate to a single, centralized group?

How full the Power Center will be during the Monologues remains to be seen, and many questions remain unanswered. But the production has become less about feminism and women’s issues and more about race. Although Whitehead claimed, “This is the first time white women are feeling excluded on campus,” the production’s effects could be much more far-reaching than the hurt feelings of some white women. As perhaps the central V-Day committee recognizes, the initially aggressive stance taken by the local organizers can alienate people of all races and genders, not just Caucasians. According to the Daily, the V-Day College Campaign director Shael Norris and the national organization praise this production’s efforts in making a diverse cast, but could not endorse a production that excluded any groups.

Here, perhaps, is the driving force behind the casting changes: the all-color performance was in danger of being shut down. Although Women’s Studies Professor Maria Cotera called the Monologues “flawed,” must they be perfect and encompassing of all women? After all, Ensler asserts she had no intention of creating a movement when she wrote the play. Instead of making a pure social feminist statement, then, perhaps she meant it to be like many other stage productions: a piece of art.

Rather than being a “white thing,” as claimed by both Cotera and Sweeney, perhaps The Vagina Monologues are just an Ensler thing, and organizers should recognize it as such. MR

“What will the organizers do in 2007 and beyond to fend off apathy towards feminist causes and violence against women? Will an all-Jewish, or all-Muslim, version of the Monologues come next? Or, as in a film production of the play called Beautiful Daughters, will the next cast be composed of all transgender individuals?

1990s as well as sexual assault in developing, war-torn countries. Therefore, although this monologue emphasizes pain and damage, it is not necessarily specific to a woman of color.

But since their initial stance, the show’s organizers have backed off their “women of color only” stance. The group’s official spokesperson, Sashai Alvarez, asserts that nowhere in any of the informational flyers regarding the Monologues were white women excluded. Furthermore, there is no set standard or mold a “woman of color” must fit; instead, she simply must be self-defined as such. Alvarez implies there are women in the production who identify themselves as women of color as well as those who sympathize with the struggles of women of color. She specifically cited that, throughout history, white women have been staunch supporters of movements for racial equality; in fact, some of the most powerful 19th-century abolitionists were white women. Both Alvarez and the play’s producers and directors emphasized this year’s casting isn’t a “numbers thing,” but instead a diverse representation of women.

Furthermore, Alvarez feels the production is already a success because it has raised awareness and forced people to recognize the issues of racial inequality on campus.

But because our campus environment is already