vol_25_no_6

The Michigan Review T he J ournal

Inside News

M Crackdowns in Ohio and Michigan target underage drinkers.

P. 7

ITCS focuses on worst spam it has seen in years.

P. 10

Features

Pointless Classes Bog Down Graduation, Waste Money P. 3

Fast Food on Campus, Explained; Coke Debate Makes a Comeback P. 9

R Opinion

The Review’s ‘Blueprint’ for Diversity P. 4 Columns by Michael O’Brien and Brian Biglin P. 5-6

Arts & Culture Book Review: White Guilt

P. 11

MR

of

C ampus A ffairs 12.05.06

at the

U niversity

Volume xxv, Issue 5

of

M ichigan

Will “Diversity Blueprints” Political Dancing with Suffer From a Lack of Diversity Ideological Diversity?

Recently-formed task force designed to promote diversity, but students remain unclear on who exactly will serve on the committee, and how students can get invovled

By John O’Brien, ‘10

I

n a post Proposal 2 Michigan, President Mary Sue Coleman is doing her best to preserve diversity as a way of life.

In her speech to students on November 8th, Coleman pegged the passage of Proposal 2 as a threat to diversity at Michigan, and indicated that the administration would challenge the measure in court.

With a far less defiant tone, however, President Coleman recently announced the creation of the “Diversity Blueprints” task force. Ostensibly, the task force hopes to “leave no stone unturned as we explore ways to encourage diversity within the boundries of the law.”

Serious questions remain, however.

What has been unclear to many members of the student body is the exact process

for selecting the members of the “Diversity Blueprints” committee. Many worry that this “diversity” task force will suffer from a lack of ideological diversity.

The membership of the committee will not be determined by an application process. According to Dr. Monts, one of the chairs of this committee, the first step in becoming a part of this committee is by nomination, be it by faculty, alumni, or self-nomination.

From these nominations, several are selected, and a list is sent to President Mary Sue Coleman, who will have final power over who is on the committee.

Those recommended include important and relevant faculty members and leaders of student organizations and MSA. Also, in the selection process, the University is actively seeking people of various backgrounds.

Dr. Monts stressed that the Diversity Blueprints task force was not meant to be an affirmative action task force. The University is “beyond those who are for and against Prop 2.” “Proposition 2 is law and no one wants to be involved in

President Coleman’s Post-election speech met with criticism, opposition in Ann Arbor

See ‘Blueprint,’ Page 3

See ‘Backlash,’ Page 3

By Brian McNally, ‘08

P

resident Mary Sue Coleman’s postProp 2 speech on the Diag harkened back to a speech made by Winston Churchill half a century ago. “We will not be deterred in the all-important work of creating a diverse, welcoming campus.

We will not be deterred.” (We shall fight on the beaches.) “Today, I have directed our General Counsel to consider every legal option available to us.” (We shall fight in the fields and in the streets.) “I have asked our attorneys for their full and undivided support in defending diversity at the University of Michigan. I will immediately begin exploring legal action concerning this initiative.” (We shall fight in the hills.) “I pledge that the University of Michigan will continue that fight.” (We shall never surrender.)

Coleman’s defiance, however, was

Dean Eklund Speaks on Prop 2; Bias

By Michael O’Brien, ‘08

W

hen President Mary Sue Coleman took to the Diag the afternoon after Election Day, she appeared baffled and unprepared for the passage of the MCRI. Her expressions of broad policy maneuvers to preserve “diversity” on campus have evoked criticism from many on campus, and throughout the country, in the subsequent weeks to that speech.

The widespread reaction to Prop 2 has been policy-based.

Discussions of the MCRI’s aftermath have ostensibly focused on how future generations of Michigan students will be admitted. Seldom noticed is the election aftermath for current students.

Dean of Students Sue Eklund and her office have been shepherding students through the political drama of the past month, an often-overlooked component of the Coleman administration’s comprehensive response to November 7’s aftermath.

While the policymakers in University administration appeared to many—of all political persuasions as having been

blindsided by the election, Eklund’s office has been preparing for the outcome of Prop 2 since an office retreat in May. “Given the traditional stance of many of our faculty and staff,” said Eklund, “we were particularly concerned that [their] silence would be seen as ‘backtracking.’” This led the Dean’s office to set up the numerous—she estimates about forty—panels in the election lead-up to give faculty, staff, and students an outlet for discussion.

Dean Eklund’s office additionally produced an open, nonpartisan gathering for students to watch election returns, and was responsible for the numerous events, from suggestion forums to poetry slams, in the week and a half following Prop 2’s passage.

Eklund, hired as Dean of Students in 2004, supports affirmative action and “diversity” like many in the administration.

But she is cognizant of the political implications that the word “diversity” has assumed on campus over the past few years. “I don’t think that is the way the University intends to speak about diversity,” she said. “In college, ideas have to be tested in every possible way, and See ‘Dean,’ Page 10 diversity is needed

W W W. M I C H I G A N R E V I E W. C O M First two copies free, additional copies $3 each. Stealing is illegal and a sin. (Exodus 20:15)

P. 2

12.5.06

Serpent’s

Review Editor Assaulted

by Newsstand

M

ichigan Review Layout Editor Amanda Nichols suffered a concussion on Sunday night after being assaulted by a Michigan Review newsstand in East Hall. Nichols, 20, was struck in the noggin late Sunday while attempting to dismantle a screwed-in newsstand. The injury is her second such awkward injury suffered in recent years.

“I once threw out my back while doing the hokey pokey” said Nichols, “I’m a mess.”

Nichols will continue to serve as the Review’s Layout Editor while chained to her desk in the office. Editor-in-Chief Nick Cheolas has decided to place Nichols on newsstand probation for the foreseeable future.

“I think it’s pretty clear that Ms. Nichols has proven herself to be the Dwight K. Schrute of our staff,” said Cheolas. “As Regional Manager, I cannot allow Nichols to be in a position where she can harm herself, others, or our newsstands. Although she did take out a Michigan Daily stand in the process.”

Mike O’Brien will continue to serve as Assistant To the Editor-in-Chief.

The Michigan Review salutes President Mary Sue Coleman on composing her first ever e-mail to students that did not contain the word “diversity.” Coleman achieved the feat while announcing her sadness at the death of Michigan coaching legend Bo Schembechler, which coincidentally marks the first time Coleman has expressed sadness at the death of a rich white male.

A huge “thank you” to Notre Dame for trying valiantly to screw up our season

even though we beat them by 26 points in South Bend. I guess that’s what happens when you’re coached by a guy who looks like he rolled out of bed hungover ten minutes before the game, threw a sweatshirt and sweatpants on, and then proceeded to run his team into the ground.

Congratulations to Florida Coach Urban Meyer for whining his way into the BCS national championship game. Meyer proved once and for all that he’s like the kid in the class who gets a 95, but then complains to the professor to raise the grade to a 98, just so he can get an A+, even though there’s no change in his GPA. NFL Defensive Tackle Warren Sapp recently alleged that his food has been tampered with on road trips previously in his NFL career while playing for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He claims, however, that he had not faced similar treatment while playing for the Oakland Raiders, adding “I guess they’re more liberal out here.”

For those of you keeping track at home, please add “food poisoning” to “ways The Man keeps minorities and defensive tackles down.”

A Colorado homeowners association recently voted to ban a wreath in the shape of a peace sign. Rumor has it that the conservatives wanted to ban the wreath because it was in the shape of a peace sign, liberals wanted to ban the wreath because it was an offensive Christmas symbol, and libertarians wanted to roll up the wreath and smoke it.

A recent survey indicated that both English and Scottish citizens want home rule, and would prefer to separate after 300 years of unification, although Scots want to reserve the right to make 2am drunk dials and 4am booty calls to England.

In the hours leading up to the BCS selection show, BCS commissioner Mike Slive held a short conference call with Florida Coach Urban Meyer and Michigan Coach Lloyd Carr.

The Review has obtained an exclusive transcript of that call: Slive: Gentlemen, I’d first like to congratulate you both on your outstanding seasons. Both of your football teams have been…

Meyer: WAHHH!!! They already took a turn!! It’s my turn!! They always hog the spotlight! I want to play!

Carr: Florida coach, that was inappropriate. Just tremendously inappropriate.

Slive: Urban, please. The decision is in the hands of the voters now. And six computers. And our special BCS Ouija Board.

Meyer: Well it’s a good thing I hooked up with Gary Danielson at halftime of the Arkansas game. Did you see that “Strength of Schedule” graphic he put up in the second half ? We did about a half ounce of blow and put that together in about five minutes.

Carr: What’s blow?

Slive: Coach Carr, why do you think your team is deserving of another shot at the national title.

Carr: Are you serious, Mike? Did you see that Florida-Arkansas game

yesterday? Urban’s quarterback had a two yard pass intercepted and returned for a touchdown, and their punter made the biggest play of the game. Hell, they put in a 230 pound white quarterback to run the ball!

Meyer: Hey cut me some slack Lloyd. I’m from Utah. I didn’t even know black people existed until about 2003.

(Click…)

Lloyd: Who’s that? Who just picked up the phone?

Mary Sue Coleman: We are Michigan, and we are diversity.

Lloyd: Mary Sue! Get off the line!

The adults are discussing football!

Mary Sue Coleman: Diveristy…diversity…diversity…diverrrrrrrrrr Lloyd: Great. Now she’s frozen.

Let’s continue while she reboots.

Meyer: Diversity…wasn’t that an old, old wooden ship used in the Civil War era?

Slive: Coach Meyer, Coach Carr, it’s almost time to make our selection, so I’ll have to let you go. Best of luck to you both, gentlemen.

Lloyd: It’s been tremendous talking to you. Best of luck, Florida coach.

Meyer: (Kills a kitten, eats a baby, and pushes a child into oncoming traffic). You too, Larry.

The Michigan Review The Journal of Campus Affairs at the University of Michigan Nick Cheolas Editor-in-Chief Michael O’Brien Executive Editor Adam Paul Managing Editor Amanda Nichols Content Editor Assistant Editors: Brian Biglin, Karen Boore Webmaster: Shawn Olender

Staff:

Andrew Barinov, Steven Bengal, Maria Blood, David Brait, Erin Buchko, Kelly Cavanaugh, Jenni Chelenyak, Rebecca Christy, Tom Church, Jane Coaston, Marie Cour, Lindsey Dodge, Blake Emerson, Danny Harris, Ian Kay, Eun Lee, Anna Malecke, Brian McNally, Miquelle Milavec, John O’Brien, Eddie Perry, Danielle Putnam, Shanda Shooter, Jonny Slemrod, Evan Wladis, Mary Wilcop, Christina Zajicek, Zack Zucker

Editor Emeritus

James David Dickson

The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the University. Contributions to The Michigan Review are tax-deductible under section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code. The Michigan Review is not affiliated with any political party or any university political group.

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

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

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.

P. 3

12.5.06

Features

Debating Distribution

Designed to expose students to a broad range of courses, distribution requirements struggle to balance student freedom with academic mandates

By David Brait, ‘10

F

or many Michigan students, navigating the maze of distribution requirements while scheduling is a bi-annual nightmare. In the name of providing students with a world-class education, the University has erected a set of requirements that students must fulfill before graduation.

According to Esrold Nurse, the LSA Assistant Dean of Student Academic Affairs, these requirements allow students to “explore several different modes of thinking and inquiry.” By exposing students to classes that go beyond their major curriculum, Nurse explains, these requirements ensure a diversified educational experience for Michigan students.

This “diverse” educational experience remains a noble goal, but the requirements are beginning to seem more like a burden to many Michigan students.

While the University of Michigan prides itself on providing an affordable education to all students, regardless of race, gender or socioeconomic status, one struggles to reconcile the University’s stated commitment to socioeconomically disadvantaged students with the University’s desire to expose students to more than their concentration.

For example, a working-class student, ‘Backlash,’ From Page 1

not as well received as she may have hoped. Even in the liberal, anti-Prop 2 basion of Ann Arbor, support has been hard to come by.

While legal action has still not been ruled out, rising grassroots sentiment throughout Michigan has made it clear that the University is not likely to enjoy as much support as it did during the Gratz v.

Bollinger legal battle. Despite this, in Ann Arbor, a city where many of the residents are UM graduates, many Letters to the Editor of the Ann Arbor News in the past two weeks have expressed a desire for President Coleman to follow the will of the voters of Michigan.

On November 19th, in a “Focus: Proposal 2” section of the letters, six of the seven letters printed either supported the ideals of Proposal 2, or admonished the University for fighting the will of the people. Among letters printed on the following days, 3 of 4 admonished the University, while the fourth was written by faculty member John Hagen, who stated that diversity has proven to be valuable at UM. A letter-writer from Saline voiced the sentiment of much of the opposition when he declared in a November 19th

the first in his family to attend college, enters the University hoping to get a degree in Sociology in three years. Instead, he is stuck prodding away in foreign language and natural science courses for a semester or two – and paying thousands of dollars to do so.

To be clear, the University has not been blind to concerns about student freedom in course selection. However, this concern has conflicted with the University’s desire to expose students to a broad curriculum. Rather than force particular courses on its students, students may choose from a wide array of courses that fall under general headings such as Natural Science, Humanities, or Foreign Language.

While this setup has given students greater flexibility in course selection, it has hurt the ability of the University to ensure that students gain a foundation in multiple disciplines. For example, ANTHROBIO 362 - Problems of Race and BIO 118 – Aids and other Health Crises fulfill the Natural Science requirement.

WOMENSTD 308 - Law and Politics of Sexuality, AMCULT 208- Post World War II American Sub Cultural Movements: Beatniks, Hippies and Punks, WOMENSTD 357- Feminist Practices in a Global Context fulfill the Social Science requirement. AMCULT 235- From Harems to

Terrorists: Representing the Middle East in Hollywood Cinema and MUSICOL 123- Introduction to Popular Music fulfill the Humanities requirement.

While the University has tried to maintain student flexibility in scheduling by offering a wide array of classes, they have not yet allowed students to use relevant high school AP credits to fulfill certain distribution requirements, although these courses do count for general University credit. The reasoning behind this decision is that “AP courses are not representative of Michigan equivalents,” as Nurse explains.

Furthermore, many courses that students feel should fulfill a particular requirement are not listed as fulfilling that requirement. For a course to be considered as a distribution requirement-fulfilling course, a request needs to be submitted by a faculty member for review in front of the LSA committee. This leads to many courses not being listed for requirements which they fit under, and students not getting distribution credits for courses which they should. The Asian Studies department provides the best example; none its courses fulfill the race and ethnicity requirement.

The primary problem with the distribution requirement system at the University of Michigan is that balancing student

freedom with the University’s desire to mandate certain courses has proved to be a difficult, if not an impossible task. The University is not wrong to ensure that students receive an excellent education, but Michigan has seemed to reach too far in an attempt to provide a “diverse” education.

With new requirements come new class choices to balance University mandates with student freedom. This, in turn, leads to students skirting the requirements, taking whichever courses sound “easy,” and taking them pass/fail, in an attempt to fulfill requirements with as little effort as possible. This certainly is not what the University intended, but it is the reality for many students when it comes to course selection.

Caught in the middle of the University’s mandated curricular diversity are disadvantaged students who simply want to get a degree as quickly as possible. Seniors majoring in Psychology are stuck with second semester schedules that include History of Witchcraft and Gender Roles in 18th Century India.

The University’s distribution recruitments are well-intentioned. But the University would be wise to review the effectiveness of its policies, lest they harm the very students they were intended to benefit. MR

letter that the “implication is that you [Mary Sue] and U-M know what is best for the entire state. Getting your corps of lawyers, paid for with public funds, to overthrow the will of the state’s voters speaks to the arrogance that’s often associated with U-M.” Julie Peterson, the University’s Vice President of Communications, could not be reached for comment. However, the office produced a letter by Sullivan, who indicated that legal action might still be undertaken and that “we have a great deal more work to do before we are ready to announce our next steps. We continue to have serious concerns about equity in admitting this year’s class. But we have not made any final decisions about how to address those concerns, and anything that implies otherwise is incorrect.”

Catherine Niekro, the Vice President of Marketing and Communications for the Alumni Association, said that they are communicating to Alumni through the e-newsletter, informing them of the new Diversity Blueprint taskforce, and encouraging them to send in suggestions.

The Alumni Association released a statement prior to the election, which stated that this “initiative significantly threatens the Alumni Association’s ability to fulfill

its mission, would severely limit U-M’s ability to attract, support and maintain a diverse student body and academic community, and is harmful to U-M’s students and alumni and society.” The Alumni Association offered no comment on whether it would support legal action by the University.

It seems as if President Coleman’s November 8th speech was a great miscalculation. Her defiant message has not been followed by defiant actions, and has instead been met with staunch opposition from Michigan voters, even in the most unlikely of locations. MR

President Coleman will soon have a list from which to choose the people who make up this task force, and the first meeting of this committee may be before the holiday break. At that time, people are encouraged to vocalize their opinions.

Even now, the administration is still receiving and reviewing nominations to the task force and suggestions regarding the proper solution.

After the passage of Proposal 2, the Diversity Blueprints task force was commissioned to save the fabric of diversity as seen today on this campus. Some fear that without the old preference system in admissions certain groups will not be able to compete for top positions in this highly competitive university. Having a diverse and interesting student body is an important goal, but the people have spoken, and this cannot be done through affirmative action.

Whatever solutions this task force decides on, this university contains many qualified people of all races, gender, and ethnic background; diversity will survive in this post-affirmative action Michigan.

MR

‘Blueprint,’ From Page 3

anything unlawful.” The University is not looking for people who were for or against the proposal because that is no longer the question; the question is how to preserve diversity. Other criteria are used for selection to this committee such as continuing activity in student groups like MSA, and leadership in Mary Sue Coleman’s administration.

The Diversity Blueprints program is also meant to be open to the suggestions of the public, so other students can voice their ideas on how to ensure diversity without using affirmative action.

P. 4

T

The Michigan Review

Editorials

he 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:

The newly-announced “Diversity Blueprints” task force is a step in the right direction for the administration, who seems to have decided that it is time to move forward in the post-preference area.

Here are some suggestions to keep Michigan among the leaders and best.

Does the Administration Place Students First? J

ust before the Thanksgiving holiday, the University asked students via e-mail to submit suggestions to a “Diversity Blueprint.” The University promises to take this student feedback into consideration when deciding which policies to pursue in the wake of Proposal 2. We at the Review have several suggestions that we intend to submit and want to share them with our readers.

We all can agree that diversity is a positive aspect of the college experience. If the University wants to find a fairer way to incorporate many levels of diversity on campus, why not utilize more socioeconomic methods of capturing diversity? Unlike the completely subjective methods from the pre-Prop. 2 days, the University may look to the examples of Florida and Texas, both of which have found concrete methods to maintain racial diversity through a defined percentage plan. These programs shift the focus from racial balancing to leveling the field for low-income students in failing districts. Yet, at the same time, these programs will inevitably help not only the overachieving black students stuck in an awful situation, but also the white student from a one room rural schoolhouse.

Obviously, Michigan is neither Florida nor Texas, and implementing this change would require an overhaul of the current statewide admissions process. The University and state would both have to intensely research the Florida and Texas plans and tailor them toward the state of Michigan. The most important result of examining other states’ experiences is to force the University to look outside of itself. In doing this, we hope that the University ceases to portray itself as a victim whose lifework—creating a racially balanced utopia—has come under attack from the voters.

Another option, which the University will likely pursue, is to add new questions and factors into the undergraduate application. For instance, applications to the University of California schools ask questions regarding socioeconomic disadvantage that are far more accurate in detecting actual disadvantage. These questions probe into the circumstances in which students were raised. By expanding the scope of the application, it could also provide disadvantaged students with an opportunity to shift their personal statement onto different experiences.

The University should also restructure its outreach programs. A vast number of the University’s minority students come from a surprisingly small number of locations, such as Detroit’s Cass Technical High School. One way to do this would be to use high school counselors as intermediaries between the University and high school seniors.

Rather than attempting to convince individual students to apply, whole high schools should be motivated to encourage students to attend.

Furthermore, the University should expand its efforts at outreach in conjunction with student groups on campus. In a cash-strapped state and at a university where student services are already spread thin, entrusting the middle and high school outreach programs to minority student groups and community service organizations is a win-win for all involved.

First, the University can focus its efforts on currently enrolled students, and improve life on campus. After all, how much of the University’s time and money is spent on outreach programs when the administration could—and should—be focusing that work on making UM a better place for those students who have already earned admission?

Second, through this reassignment of duties, minority student groups will be given a worthwhile, lasting charge to fulfill, and a project through which they can see concrete results. Often, campus groups of all kinds find their work stifled here because of general apathy, but by reaching out to communities that are looking for ways to improve their lives and futures, student organizations can make a difference for those who actually need it.

Finally, and most obviously, the underprivileged students would benefit from this interaction, not only because they will see the possibilities their future holds, but also because they will gain college-aged role models and mentors for their educational journey. After all, students are more apt to listen to their peers than members of a university administration several decades their senior.

The University should not shy away from experimenting with a number of options simultaneously. Rather than try to find the panacea for its diversity concerns, maybe it is time to diversify our approach. MR

MR

The University has a reputation for looking out for its students. But has that reputation waned in recent years. A number of factors indicate that the ‘U’ may not be all about you.

T

Our Blueprint for Diversity on Campus

he University of Michigan has derived much of its reputation from its consideration for the welfare of its students. Presidents have consistently boasted over the university’s position as “the ivy of the public schools.” That this was the first university to accept a black man into its law school, among other historical facts, bolsters the image of the university as a groundbreaking public school.

As time has passed, however, more and more undergraduates begin to realize that the University does not function for their benefit. Michigan now functions as a political engine of its President and faculty, and seemingly reflects their initiatives more than the welfare of the students.

Often enough, this disregard for the students is reflected by mildly trivial occurrences that sum to benign neglect. The Michigan Union, for example, is advertised as a place for the students, of the students. Unfortunately, it functions as a place for the university, and its budget. Many a student group has discovered to its dismay that they may not hold a meeting in the building with food, unless the food is provided at an exorbitant price by union caterers. This has discouraged many groups from holding events between these allegedly public walls.

Furthermore, there have been a series of break-ins and assaults across campus, usually targeting undergraduate women. There was an unidentified man breaking into sororities, and a series of break-ins and thefts around the Hill area. This is not to mention a number of attacks against female runners that the Ann Arbor News has reported, but the University did not feel compelled to inform its students about.

Another significant issue created and then consistently ignored by the University is the distribution requirements for undergraduate students. Often to “complete” their education, students find they have to enroll into a series of classes such as “The History of Witchcraft” or “Sex on the Beach: a study of Polynesian sexual cultures and mores.” These unnecessary requirements drain student funds, and warp educational emphases into what the University desires, not what would truly reflect a well-rounded education. Furthermore, an engineering student, who got into the University partly because of his extracurricular brilliance at the flute, will find his way to taking a single music course barred by miles of red tape. This demonstrates just one, comparatively smaller, element of the lack of consideration for students and their wishes.

The subject reached a boiling point with the aftermath of the November 7 election, which determined that affirmative action, as the University knows it, would no longer be legal within the state of Michigan. True, many current students and community members supported the “No on 2” movement. However, a large constituency, represented by current and former students, voted for the proposition, reflecting a state-wide decision against the actions at U-M. Not only did President Coleman decide to ignore the consequence of this decision, but she actively sought to overturn the decision legally to continue her political aims at the University. Regardless of the president’s opinion about affirmative action, the state of Michigan decided against it. Her stubborn opposition sparked some alumni backlash of its own, as dozens of letters poured into local newspapers, condemning the position of the University of Michigan on this point. The effect of this backlash was evident in President Coleman’s subsequent “Diversity Blueprints” e-mail, offering a far less militant tone than her November 8th speech.

Despite loud and boisterous claims regarding the importance of diversity, the University of Michigan cannot truly claim diversity when it drowns out diverse views with the one voice of its faculty and President. The University should remember that it is the students who make this institution great, and therefore give them the attention they deserve. MR

12.5.06

P. 5

■ The Deep End

T

here is a battle that has been raging on campus the past few years, though it might not be one of the ones that comes to mind for you.

This battle is a bit more subtle, but is more vital to students, faculty, and all others in the university community than any other skirmish in recent campus memory.

This fight is over the soul of a university; over exactly what it means to be a Michigan man.

One camp is led by a woman named Mary. She is a biochemist from Kentucky who spent some time in Iowa before making her crusade in Michigan. Mary is a petite, soft-spoken woman, with the demeanor Michael of a sweet, but stubborn grandO’Brien mother.

You might be quick to buy into the pre-packaging if it weren’t for the savvy and smooth talking she’s been known to employ. She wears her enlightenment on her sleeve as a badge of honor, never letting an opportunity to prove her commitment to progressive ideals pass her by.

The other camp was led, until recently, by a man named Glenn. By all accounts, he was as tenacious of a man as there could ever be, with plenty of opinions to share. Stout and portly, many might not have expected the kind of fire

Bo: The quintessential Michigan man

in the belly Glenn was capable of so often. He might have been rough around the edges at times, but he commanded re-

Columns

Glenn and Mary

spect from everyone who came into contact with him, leaving lasting impressions on every single one of them. But more than anything, he emphasized tradition and honor. These, he thought, were what made Michigan truly great.

Now Mary may be unassuming, but as Glenn started receding from campus life more and more, Mary and her ilk came into greater prominence on campus.

Mary made herself and her university the poster child for what “diversity” means on the modern college campus. She even played her part as a staunch politico, with a starring role in Mrs. Coleman Goes to Washington only a few years ago.

Mary came to Michigan not even five years ago, but her impact can be seen everywhere. Mary has made a lot of friends, and now those friends are in high places. Sue, Marvin, Julie, and Royster have all joined Mary in her quest to redefine what it means to be a Michigan student.

They’ve helped Mary considerably, using

of his subordinates announced right before leading his men into battle that he would be heading westward the following fall, Glenn fired him without a second thought, saying that a “Michigan Man” would be the only man to lead a group of Michigan Men. Glenn understood the importance of “The Victors,” and understood that it is a proud tradition not only as a sports anthem, but as an exhortation to all who sung the song: that they, themselves, would strive to be the leaders and the best.

It was why he stressed being a “Michigan Man:” a man of class and integrity who strives at all times to be a ‘victor,’ and why so many whose lives he even marginally touched went on to become Michigan Men (or Women).

Mary is a bit more broad-sighted.

She’s less focused on the traditions that motivate the students and alumni of Michigan to be faithful to their alma mater. She will, though, co-opt the terms of

Bo symbolized the rich traditions that drew so many of us to Michigan. Tradition is what drove so many of our parents to brainwash us to come to Michigan. It’s “The Victors” on Saturday afternoons and the Brown Jug on Friday nights. It’s the shared experience, and the values that bind us together—all 25,000 of us—into some sort of community. their power to put into effect dozens of programs and policies that make sure students understand the official position of what it means to be a Michigan Wolverine. And if you don’t buy that, well then they’re going to sure as hell try to make life here uncomfortable for you. Mary summed it up well a few weeks ago, when, on a stroll through the Diag, she made it clear, “We are Michigan, and we are diversity.”

Glenn was a bit different than that. He certainly might have concurred that the diversity of campus has some positive aspects, but not that it defines us. Rather, Glenn understood that it was the traditions of Michigan that managed to bind together such a, yes, diverse crowd—not only on Saturdays, but in life. Glenn understood that these traditions made up the spirit of Michigan, and that was something worth fighting for; it was something that deserved respect and undying fidelity. It was why Glenn led, foremost, by example. It was why, when offered millions of dollars to head westward, he turned it down, saying that some things in life are more important and meaningful, and one of those things was the University of Michigan. It was why, when one

these traditions to serve her own purposes. When Mary talks about “the leaders and the best,” she’s almost always talking about it in the context of “diversity.” To Mary, Michigan isn’t a school of traditions. Ours isn’t a campus where the past is revered, honored, and incorporated as much as possible into daily life. The wisdom of our forefathers was theirs alone.

Mary’s Michigan is one that pushes the envelope further, provided that it’s in her direction, to forget the past and embrace all that’s new and enlightened, for the sake of it.

But now that Glenn Edward “Bo” Schembechler has passed away, an era may well have ended. Bo symbolized the rich traditions that drew so many of us to Michigan. Tradition is what drove so many of our parents to brainwash us to come to Michigan. It’s “The Victors” on Saturday afternoons and the Brown Jug on Friday nights. It’s the shared experience, and the values that bind us together—all 25,000 of us—into some sort of community. Bo understood that. Indeed, it’s no shock he was a member of the often-maligned group Michigamua. The group’s motto instructs its members to, “Fight like hell for Michigan.” A group counting Bo as a member would have no less of a standard.

But to “fight like hell for Michigan”

12.5.06

assumes that there’s something left about Michigan that’s worth fighting for. And that ambivalence among students is at an ebb is in no small part due to President Mary Sue Coleman and her cohorts over the past few years. After successfully politicizing student life, she’s been alienating any student who dares question the prevailing mindset she and her friends advocate. It is, of course, painfully ironic that a university president claiming the need for diversity and community would alienate so many students in her pursuit of those ideals. Now that the era of Glenn is over, the Mary may start to prevail in a new era of influence.

Bo may have been out as coach for some time now, but he was the last true, public bastion of tradition on this campus. And that, I think, was something important to a good number of students.

And it was fitting that Bo’s domain was sports, particularly football, where the traditions and sense of community are so pronounced.

It’s quite pointed that students often chant, “It’s great! To be! A Mich-i-gan Wolv-er-ine!” ad infinitum when leaving sporting events, on their way back to campus. They’re leaving an event where tradition and community are well-defined.

Mary Sue: The quintessential diversity woman

Sports on campus, which Bo represented, are in a sphere where what it means to be a Michigan Wolverine is somehow not only grasped, but it is celebrated. But as students leave these events, they return to campus, where Mary reigns. It is where the traditions and meanings of Michigan are under assault, largely due to Mary.

And more than ever, she appears unencumbered in her increased encroachment.

Fight like hell for Michigan, indeed.

But after Mary’s finished, will we even recognize what the hell it is we’ve been fighting for? MR

P. 6

12.5.06

Opinion

■ Big Talk

Peace and Pessimism: Why Mideast Solution Needs a Miracle

U

sually, hearing about plans to create peace, especially in a place such as Israel, makes one hopeful and optimistic. Sadly, my optimism disappeared after I heard the Palestinian representative to the US, Afif Safieh, deliver a speech meant to outline solutions for a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine.

More than likely, this is because the speech was hardly about creating peace and rather about indicting Israel and the western world for the ‘oppression’ which began somewhere in the early 20th century with modern Zionism and the British Mandate. More than likely, it was because Safieh--who is nonetheless a good speaker and interesting man with some potential as a diplomat--does not have official recognition from the Brian US government. He is not an Biglin ambassador, which means he readily gets to speak as if it were off the record.

The perceptive envoy probably also remembered that he was speaking in Ann Arbor, at the University of Michigan, and no matter how large the Jewish community may be here, the ranks of militantly anti-Israel liberals are always larger. The nods of approval seen when Safieh told the congregation that the current Israeli government is set on ethnic cleansing, and the effusive compliments from hippie-type, career-counterculturalists after Safieh mused about the possibility of a peaceful uprising of Palestinians against the mighty Jewish

legions, all serve as illustrations of that fact.

The latter was one idea on which I agreed with Safieh. After committing the length of his regular speech to disparaging the entire history of Israel, Safieh, after an audience question, correctly pointed out that terrorism should be abandoned and that a series of non-violent demonstrations should instead be utilized. One of the Arabs’ goals, said Safieh, is to achieve a right of return for all the recently-displaced refugees; this certainly is not irrational. What was irrational was Safieh’s ‘territory for peace’ statement, which said that the Palestinians will not acknowledge the state of Israel until that state hands over the 1967 contested territories, along with an apology, to the Arabs.

This is perhaps the greatest obstacle to the peace process, other than the terrorists themselves. The idea that one faction cannot acknowledge the other’s right to exist is unacceptable and does not bode well for starting any peaceful talks. Israel is legitimate, no matter what kinds of issues the Palestinians take with regards to how it came to be.

There is also a human element. If either side can recognize each others’ equality as humans, then perhaps the bloodshed can stop. It was the dehumanization of the Jews which led the Nazis to have no qualms about exterminating all Jews during the Holocaust. This is how most genocidal mindsets work, and how most terrorist extremists think as well. The Palestinians could go far by not characterizing the Jews as infidels with bloodthirsty machines running their government.

Finally, and most disturbingly, I must mention the tactic used by Safieh in his final appeal to the US and world community to help the Palestinians achieve an independent state. He appealed directly to the audience,

telling us how nice things would be if our government intervened on Palestine’s behalf, that we would be loved and adored by the world, rather than hated and feared.

These statements—targeted perfectly to the largely receptive crowd—make clear that the Palestinians, and most of their anti-Israel friends worldwide, believe that the United States’ support for Israel is the chief problem in the world, and that we would have peace by giving in to the Palestinians, regardless of whether they use peaceful protest or terrorism.

This is the ultimate carrot-on-the-stick approach to diplomacy, and it is unacceptable. It is one thing for the US to become a fair arbiter in the Middle East, in holding Israel accountable for their role in creating peace, and in creating appropriate boundaries for a Palestinian state—all things that are reasonable. It is wholly different to approach the situation trying to achieve a certain outcome, fair or not, just so that we will not have to worry about terrorist attacks and anti-Americanism in the Middle East anymore.

But, of course, millions of people, even in America, and definitely some in that auditorium, would nod and say yes to Safieh’s suggestion. If moral equivocation yields peace, and if the Jews and their state are expendable in our pursuit of new friends around the world, then I guess coming to that conclusion is easy. Yet things are more complicated than this, and a fair arrangement in Israel-Palestine has no guarantees of making America more well-liked.

In the end, having come to these rather pessimistic conclusions after hearing the envoy’s speech, one thing is for sure: the Holy Land, that crossroads of religious history, should be on our minds during this holiday season. It is in need of everyone’s prayers. MR

By Lindsey Dodge, ‘10

He argued for a more simplified monetary policy, whose sole goal was long-term stable growth rates. This idea has impacted recent Fed policy, especially its commitment to steady and announced change in interest rates.

Friedman’s major literary contribution was “A History of the United States, 1867-1960.” He invented

cornerstone of the historical understanding of that event. Other books were “Capitalism and Freedom” and “Free to Choose,” which were accessible to not only his fellow colleagues but the average Joe as well. This was perhaps what ensured his influence; Friedman related to his scientific colleagues and those not majoring in economics with equal ease.

Friedman spent the majority of his life as Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, and was also a member of the Hoover Institution at Stanford.

The Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellowship, currently held by Thomas Sowell, establishes his memory at the Hoover Institution. Although chiefly concerned with monetary theory, he was also a popular proponent of school vouchers and the privatization of education.

He used his economic background and understanding to spearhead the movement.

Friedman was not alone in his studies and research.

His wife Rose D. Friedman, an economist herself, assisted him and co-wrote much of his work. Their intellectual partnership is memorialized by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.

Their ideas were adopted in part by the Nixon, Ford, and Reagan administrations, and their life-long romance brought them much media attention.

Through his influence on political economics, education, and monetary research within the scientific community, Friedman’s contributions enshrine him as one of the most influential figures in economics, not only of the 20th century, but in American history. MR

M

The Legacy of Milton Friedman

ilton Friedman, champion of economic choice and free markets, died on November 16, 2006. With his passing concludes a highly influential life, both in his development of macro-economic theory as well as politics. Highly credited in the development of “Reaganomics,” he won the Nobel Prize in 1976 for his contribution to monetary theory.

Although not as famous as John Maynard Keynes, Friedman was arguably the most influential economist of the 20th century. He challenged the Phillip’s Curve, which argued that the economy faced a trade-off between rates of inflation and rates of unemployment.

Friedman believed that even a high rate of inflation would not reduce unemployment if inflationary policies became so common as to be expected. The “stagflation” of the 1970s undeniably promoted his theory, and politicians began to incorporate this new development in their economic policies.

Friedman also envisioned the permanent income hypothesis. He argued that people base consumption on expectations of “permanent income” over a very long time frame. According to this idea, fluctuations in yearly income have only a small effect on consumption patterns.

It was also Friedman who coined the terms “observation-lag,” “decision-lag,” and “effect-lag.” This commenced a still relevant discussion about the correct timing for stabilization measures during a “business cycle.”

Friedman’s economic thinking defined a generation

many ingenious studies in the field of economics, and his study of governmental economic policies in 1929 and their adverse effect on the Great Depression is a

P. 7

Drinking News

12.5.06

With new laws, large grants, and tougher enforcement, Michigan and Ohio counties renew the war on underage drinking Bootlegging for the 21st Century “Party

Ohio troopers step up enforcement to combat interstate alcohol transportation

to stop underage drinking, officials may have some reason for choosing it. In an interview, University of Toledo student Marc Resnick, noted that he “guesses it would be tougher to get [a keg] in Ohio”

By Adam Paul, ‘08 than in Michigan. Since none of the lirafficking across the quor stores in Toledo sell kegs, Resnick Michigan-Ohio border is nothing “would drive the extra ten minutes if it new. Michiganders have been bringing was worth it.” He also claimed that there fireworks, many of which are illegal in is a perception that liquor prices are Michigan, in from their southern neigh- slightly lower in Michigan. Brent Beckbor for years. Yet in recent weeks, it has ham, who attends Miami University, near been Ohio residents facing punishment the state’s Kentucky and Indiana borders, said he would have agreed with Resnick “up until about three months ago,” when a local liquor store began a keg ordering service.

Despite any possible success in reducing underage drinking, the policy has been terminated in Ohio. Toledo Municipal Court Judge Gene Zmuda ruled against the law in a recent case. According to the Toledo Blade, Zmuda found the law “constitutional on its face” but held that its current application erects an “impermissible burden on interstate commerce.”

While Article I, section 8 of the US Consitution contains Ohio residents would be wise to avoid the bottle the commerce clause, that when traversing state lines this holiday season allows the federal government to regulate commerce for transporting goods across the border. “among the several states,” the power They are charged with “illegally trans- of the individual states to regulate comporting alcohol or possessing illegally merce has traditionally been a point of transported alcohol,” a good which is it- controversy. self legal in Ohio.

Beckham expressed some concern According to a recent story by Robin over interpretations of the law that Erb of the Toledo Blade, Ohio has official- place the interstate transportation of ally had a law restricting the importation of cohol under the commerce clause, askalcohol from Michigan for years. The new ing “Wouldn’t that make a lot of people focus on enforcing the law comes from bootleggers? That’s a term we haven’t police agencies surrounding the Univer- heard in years.” sity of Toledo. Using the law, the Toledo, Since Zmuda is a local judge, the Ohio Department of Public Safety of- city could appeal to a higher state court. fice attempted to decrease the number It is yet unclear if the Ohio will seek to of kegs that were “headed to underage salvage the law, although due to the large drinkers.” Over the course of October amount of time and money required to 5-6, the weekend of University of Tole- do so, it looks unlikely that they will atdo’s homecoming football game, officials tempt. This means that Ohio police now made 15 arrests under the law. The crime have one fewer means at their disposal to qualifies as a first degree misdemeanor tackle the problem of underage drinking. and is punishable by up to six months in Yet since this particular tool could only jail and a $1,000 fine. The increased en- be used in isolated locations, it may prove forcement of the statue functioned as a to be a minor loss for law enforcement. part of Toledo’s “Binge Drinking Opera- As Beckham reacted to the recent ruling, tion 2006.”

“I do not think it will effect underage While the tactic seems round-about drinking either way.” MR

T

Patrol,” $50,000 Grant Launches Assault on House Parties

By Rebecca Christy, ‘08

murder, suicide and almost everything that is negative and harmful for young eminiscing about her high people.” school antics, junior Cara Mozola Unfortunately, underage drinking is tells a story about a party the police had not the number one killer of children unbusted in her hometown of Williamston, der 21. Drunk driving, however, is a leadMichigan. When the kids knew the two ing killer of children under 21. MADD’s police officers were coming in the house confusion has drawn criticism in recent everyone tried to find the best hiding years, even from its founder, Candy spot. The only student not fined with an Lightner.

MIP was a girl who opened an umbrella “[MADD has] become far more neoand crouched behind it. Apparently cre- prohibitionist than I had ever wanted or ativity is on your side when outsmarting envisioned...I didn’t start MADD to deal the police. More likely it’s the fact that with alcohol. I started MADD to deal usually there are only one or two officers with the issue of drunk driving.” to deal with 30-40 patrons.

Regardless, Compton explained the Those days could be a distant mem- necessity of the program and current ory for high school students in Oakland problems which exist for local police: County. A state grant of $50,000 will al- “There is a shortage of police officers. low local police departments to begin the The beauty of the Party Patrol is that Party Patrol. It will consist of two teams currently many officers have other prioriof ten police officers who will work over- ties and are not on the lookout for undertime on the weekends to bust underage age drinking parties. Party Patrol will be drinking parties in a dedicated force Troy, Novi, Royal “[MADD has] become far specifically lookOak and Farming for these parington Hills over more neo-prohibitionist than ties.

Secondly, the next year. Stu- I had ever wanted or envi- many officers dents suspected sioned...I didn’t start MADD are not familiar of drinking will be to deal with alcohol. I start- with how exactly given breathalyzed MADD to deal with the is- to process these ers and if guilty situations.” sue of drunk driving” will be ticketed.

One parIn an economticular processing ically depressed -MADD founder Candy Lightner in aspect is the Conthe Washington Times in 2002 state, and in a trolled Dispersal crime-ridden reProgram which gion, the $50,000 is an operational grant has drawn some criticism. Howev- plan used to safely and efficiently close er, the $50,000 is actually allocated from down a party. Not only will the funds federal government money earmarked provide for the overtime pay of officers, for specifically this type of program. The but will also pay for materials needed to grant was offered through the Office of train officers in the operational plan, as Highway Safety Planning, and the Oak- well as perform compliance checks on loland County chapter of Mother’s Against cal stores using decoys to make sure indiDrunk Driving (MADD) was influential viduals are properly carded. in informing the Oakland County area The effectiveness of the Party Patrol police departments about the availability remains to be seen. Previous crackdowns of the funds. on underage drinking have been futuile The baby boom generation is con- and ineffective at best. Here’s to hopstantly scorned for its apparent lack in ing Will the Party Patrol be effective? As discipline when it comes to underage a college student, it is easy to forget the drinking, while college students are im- difficulties which already arise for underbedded in a culture which romanticizes age drinkers in the suburban landscape. drinking. Michele Compton of Oakland underage drinkers have resorted to more County MADD noted that, “Underage laidback drinking environments while at drinking has been trivialized and mini- home with only a few friends. Regardless, mized for too long. It is the number one there are enough kids willing to take the killer of children under 21. It needs to be risk to keep the Party Patrol busy. MR a very high priority. Not only is drinking dangerous on roadways, it is the major cause of many unwanted pregnancies,

R

News

P. 8

12.5.06

Amid Condemnation of Israel, Palestinian Envoy Calls for Two-State Peace

By Brian Biglin, ‘08

I

n front of a diverse, largely receptive crowd in the Modern Languages Building, Afif Safieh, the current Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) representative in the US, spoke on November 15th about current relations with Israel and his hopes for a future peace.

Safieh was born in Jerusalem in 1950 and his experience includes a stint in Yasser Arafat’s government in the 1970s, a stay at Harvard University as a visiting scholar, 15 years as PLO ambassador to the United Kingdom, and now a year as PLO ambassador to Washington, D.C. After conveying his love for America and democratic values, which he says the Palestinians share, and explaining that he sees a window for peace negotiations currently opening, Safieh launched into a historical-based condemnation of Israel.

He said that he wished the British Mandate, set into motion by the post-World War I Balfour Declaration and led to the eventual resettlement of Palestine by the Jewish people, had never happened. From the start of the modern movement of the Jews back to the region, outside nations have not dealt with the Arabs evenhandedly, Safieh said.

“We are the victims of the victims of European history, and have paid a high price for crimes committed elsewhere,” said Safieh, referencing the for-

mal creation of Israel after the genocide of World War II. The conditions among Palestinians are terrible, says Safieh, with 70 percent living in poverty. Just as aggravating to Safieh is the fact that Israel is the same as it was at its inception, when it denied the Arabs their physical existence, their rights, and their statehood, as he put it.

When the well-spoken, persuasive, and at times humorous Safieh stated that recent Israeli governments have been “set on ethnic cleansing,” he drew exasperated groans from some in the crowd and nods of approval from others, one had to conclude that the “unofficial” nature of Safieh’s mission in America allows him to speak with such indignation about Israel.

Safieh spoke about the recent summer spent in Washington, as war broke out between Israel and Lebanon, and as Hamas gained new power through the Palestinian elections. He said that the “absence of a peace process” led to the controversial Hamas victories. Regarding the outbreak of terrorism and war, Safieh spoke about how the media portrays the violence, and how American leaders are quick to condemn terrorism, but not Israeli force. Using past incursions of the Israelis into Gaza as an example, Safieh proclaimed that those who refuse to equate such incursions with suicide bombings are not morally qualified to speak on Israeli-Palestinian relations.

Late in his speech, Safieh began to address the topic of the lecture, which was about solutions for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. After saying that he believes that the Palestinians are on the verge of having a functioning representative, constitutionalist government, and stressing that a third party international entity (with the US at the forefront) needs to get involved to mediate with Israel, Safieh fell back into acrimony at the end. In his view, the Israeli strategy of trying to capture as much of “our” territory as possible is the same as it was in 1948.

His speech ended with an interesting appeal. He asked America to “help us,” and to “adopt a foreign policy that will make America loved and respected rather than hated and feared.” Whether or not he was advocating appeasement for nations that harbor terrorists that threaten the US was unclear.

Safieh was promptly asked to give details about what he sees as the keys to peace from the Palestinian standpoint during the question and answer segment. He endorsed a two-state solution, orchestrated by the global community, with the United Nations and US as the architects. The goal for the Palestinians is to reclaim 67 contested territories (which, says Safieh, is only 22 percent of what they believe is legitimately theirs), to have a right-to-return for refugees spread

across the region, and to receive an apology from Israel for the decades of oppression. In this case, they will recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel and co-exist in a two-state system. He boiled his argument down to “territory [in exchange] for peace.”

A nonviolent movement on the part of the Palestinians is the most useful means in working for this, Safieh said, because no one can stand up to Israel in a violent struggle, and because in that case all Palestinians, women and children included, could be involved in the demonstrations. Help from non-government organizations and the UN would be key.

The goal is a win-win situation, not one where there is always as loser, as Safieh characterized Israel’s current goal.

In the end, Safieh proved an intriguing speaker, and he kept the tone in the auditorium civil. His speech, for all of its controversy, was an explanation of the PLO platform, and carried much weight.

Ann Arbor, with its many liberal, pro-Palestine residents and students rubbing shoulders everyday with one of the Midwest’s largest Jewish populations, in the midst of an academic powerhouse, seems to be the ideal place to bring this debate, which will hopefully continue in a constructive manner here and abroad.

MR

Pro-Israel Speaker Sparks Small-Scale Riots

By Jonny Slemrod, ‘10

president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s current reign, calling it an “Iranian fascist regime.” The bottom line of hen Raymond Tanter, former staff Tanter’s speech was his belief that Islamic ideology, as member of the National Security Council and reflected in the current Iranian government, is that of current Georgetown University Professor of Political regional hegemony and wishes to “control the neighborScience came to campus Thursday night to speak con- hood,” meaning of course, the Middle East. cerning contemporary Iranian-U.S. relations, the Ann According to Tanter, modern-day Iran is “more of a Arbor Police Department was out in full force. threat to the Sunni-Arab world than Israel,” because of In the audience was Blaine Coleman, an Ann Ar- its fundamentally expansive nature. “The regime must bor resident infamous in the Jewish community for his have nukes, must dominate Iraq, and must send rockets to Hezbollah,” Tanter bellowed, amidst the moans Tanter blames the United States’ occupation of Iraq for the creation of four sub-wars: Al-Qaeda vs. everyone, the Sunnis of the aforementioned protestors. vs. the Shi’ites, the US vs. the Shi’ites, and the US vs. the Sunnis.

However, military intervention by the United firey rhetoric condemning the University of Michigan States or Israel towards Iran in the case of failed diploand the city of Ann Arbor for their investment in Is- macy is not a wise choice, he said, for several reasons. rael. He came with a group of eight sixty-something The first is the military capacity of Israel, which Tanter year-olds clad with homemade posters with statements believes is not sufficient to carry out attacks against nusuch as “Zionists are Racist Murderers,” and “No Wars clear facilities in Iran. Tanter, who has worked with infor Israel” (complete with the letter “s” as a swastika), fluential and important politicians, such as Condoleezza destined to disrupt the lecture.

Rice, both here and in Israel, believes that Israeli governDespite Mr. Coleman and the other the protestors ment will carry out an attack if they lack confidence that obstructions, Tanter provided a surprising the wealth the United States will agree to conduct an attack of their of information concerning diplomacy and dialogue be- own. He stressed that diplomacy should be the first optween the United States and Iran today. tion towards Iran, and that the United States must take a Tanter began his lecture with a diatribe on Iranian neutral stance when dealing with Iranian politics.

W

While Iran may be a international menace on the brink of achieving nuclear weapons, the United States is certainly at fault for a large portion of the current-day turbulence in the Middle East, remarked Tanter. He attributes the United States occupation of Iraq with the creation of four sub-wars: Al-Qaeda vs. everyone, the Sunnis vs. the Shi’ites, the U.S. vs. the Shi’ites, and the U.S. vs. the Sunnis. And while Tanter initially supported the toppling of Saddam Hussein and his Ba’ath loyalist party from power, he does not support the current occupation of Iraq by American and British forces.

When a member of the audience asked why his presentation seemed only to speculate on what is best for him, and not actual Iranian citizens, Tanter responded with an account of his experiences with Iranian resistance to the current government. He frequently appears on radiocasts and television programs in Iran devoted to resisting the current government. His experience has led him to the conclusion that “They don’t want this government, but they don’t want American imperialism.”

While the fanatical anti-Israel protestors came out hoping to disrupt the speech in any way possible. But as the lecture continued, their shouts gradually lessened as Tanter delivered an educated speech which helped paint a picture of the Iranian regime’s motivations and what the international community, specifically the U.S. and Israel, can do about them. MR

P. 9

The Lack of Fast Food On Campus Explained

News

Many students lament the lack of Taco Bell and other establishments on campus, but few know the reasons why U-M lacks a lot of fast food facilities.

By Jenni Chelenyak, ‘10

T

he golden arches. Crunchwrap Supremes. BK Value Menu. All of these symbolize something near and dear to many University of Michigan students: fast food. McDonald’s, Taco Bell, and Burger King are restaurants that are familiar to nearly every student. When it comes to pizza, there are even more familiar options: Domino’s, Little Caesar’s, Pizza Hut, Hungry Howie’s. However, all of these restaurants are decidedly absent from University of Michigan’s Central Campus—a fact that puzzles many.

While students often lament the lack of fast food on campus, finding food is certainly no tall task. There are four Jimmy John’s restaurants on campus, two Starbucks, two Espresso Royales, a Great Wraps, a Panchero’s and a Potbelly’s. Pizza House has been a college staple, both here and at our rival East Lansing, since 1986; and NYPD has been successful in Orlando for 8 years.

Within a few miles of campus, there are also the essentials: two McDonald’s, three Burger Kings, three Taco Bells, and twelve of the pizza establishments listed above. A few miles? Sure, that’s fine and dandy for those of us lucky enough to have a car—but what about the rest?

“We only have so much space,” commented Bob Yecke, of University Unions.

University Unions offers many fast food options—a favorite of many students. Entrée Plus, which the Union’s restaurants accept, presents both convenience, and in many cases, the ability to spend Mom and Dad’s money rather than our own.

The University currently offers Subway and Wendy’s—traditional, familiar fast food chains. In addition, many local restaurants are growing fast food franchises. Villa Pizza operates over 300 locations across the nation, while Magic Wok, based out of Toledo, OH, is seeking to expand both in the Midwest and across the globe.

How does the University choose which operations come to campus? John Taylor, Ed.D, Director of University Unions, responds that the Unions “operate about half of the food restaurants…while the other half are leased out.” The main goal is to supply a wide variety of choices for students. Through the Request for Proposal process, both local business and national franchises receive invitations to come to campus.

Businesses are then evaluated based on “food quality, experience, and customer service,” Taylor explains. Finally, a committee recommends which businesses should be offered contract. Taylor also notes that this selection committee “includes students from our advisory boards.”

According to Yecke, there are no city ordinances prohibiting certain restaurants from operating on campus. This is not a matter of promoting good health or a certain image of Ann Arbor; it is a business decision. The ultimate selection of restaurants is based on “what fits with the business plan of various corporations and our campus community,” says Yecke. Restaurants must also “comply with regulations established by the University’s Department of Occupational Health and Environmental Health,” according to Taylor.

Selections of certain restaurants could also reflect strategies of the University.

Bonici Brothers, a branded solution of Tyson, offers low start-up costs, without franchise or royalty fees—and still has high quality products. Selecting Bonici Brothers, as opposed to a high profile pizza chain, may be a cost-cutting strategy. According to the 2005-2006 annual report of University Unions, Perfectly Chilled at Pierpont Commons “created healthy food options for students”—perhaps a simple reflection of student demand.

In response to the lack of McDonald’s on campus, Taylor comments that “there was a McDonald’s a few years ago at Pierpont Commons. That space now has a Panda Express in its place.” Yecke also notes that “Taco Bell has never shown any interest in being on campus.” For those students distressed by the lack of such restaurants on campus, time may offer a solution: Taylor notes that “food operations change over the years, most often when a contract expires.” MR

12.5.06

Something More than a Soft Drink

Panel discussion revives the “Coke on campus” issue

By Evan Wladis, ‘10

T

he University of Michigan’s official motto is a Latin phrase that means Arts, Science, and Truth. In recent years, however, the university has seemingly pursued a new , pursuing new responsibility as a self-proclaimed “global citizen.”

Last year, facing pressure from a student coalition, the University suspended Coca-Cola’s $1.4 million contract. Although the Coca-Cola Company was never found guilty of any of the alleged human rights infringements or environmental abuses, U-M officials maintain that the soft drink giant violated the University’s Vendor Code of Conduct. The popular beverage’s reinstatement this April did little to quell the divisiveness of the issue.

This was the backdrop for a discussion held last Thursday, which examined the implications of the soda’s temporary exile from campus. The presentation, entitled “The University as a Global Citizen,” focused on the University’s role in a global society and its responsibilities as a “citizen of the world.” The six panelists represented administration, faculty, and students.

Most members of the panel, including Andrew Hoffman, a professor at the Ross School of Business, and Lindsey Rogers, a member of Amnesty International, fully endorsed the ban on Coca-Cola; some were more critical of the University’s embargo.

Panelist Elizabeth Cowen, who spent the last year as a volunteer in Columbia with the union SINALTRANAL, which represents Coca-Cola’s workers there, focused on her Colombian heritage. She explained that her work has lead her to believe that “citizenship provides the framework of rights” Panel member Ryan Fantuzzi, founder of the Student Liberty Party, discussed the impacts of the Coca-Cola ban in Ann Arbor, claiming that Coke’s suspension “harms the wrong people.” He argued that it hurts the local bottlers and could have put their factories out of business if the ban had persisted.

For many, though, the issue is not even about defending Coca-Cola. As Coke’s official slogan from 1965 implies, it’s about “something more than a soft drink”: it’s about defending personal choice.

In the past few months, numerous complaints have been raised about the University’s new role as the “students’ conscience,” which some say decreases the capacity for independent thought on campus. From U-M’s banishment of Coca-Cola to its defiant stance on Proposal 2, the University has been taking stances more often and with more resolve on political issues, even if the administration does not shy away from telling its fellow citizens that it knows best.

And while Rogers means well when she says that “good parents teach their children by example; universities should do the same [by permanently banning Coke],” it leaves many to wonder if the university should really be playing the role of a parent and treating its students like children. Instead of working to educate scholars and turn them into informed decision-makers, the University, it seems, has decided to make the decisions for us. In this sense, U-M has abdicated its primary responsibility as an educator and a moderator and assumed the role of a censor.

Fantuzzi, for one, believes that the purchase of Coke should be the “students’ right to free choice,” citing his conviction that an unforced student boycott would prove far more effective than a university-imposed sanction against the soda.

Amidst all this, the future of Coca-Cola at the University of Michigan still hangs in the air, as its contract has only been conditionally reinstated. Meanwhile, feelings of apprehension and an uncomfortable peace ominously linger. The issue may be a sign that the University is increasingly accepting a belief exspoused by Hoffman, that it should be a “change agent.” MR

From U-M’s banishment of

CocaCola to its defiant stance on Proposal 2, the University has been taking divisive stances more often and with more resolve on political issues.

News

P. 10 ‘Dean,’ From Page 1 to achieve this.”

With an office in the third floor of the Michigan Union, down the hall from MSA chambers and not holed up in the Fletcher building that provides office space for many of her colleagues, Dean Eklund is the administration official most directly responsible, and responsive to, student interests.

Her office, for instance, heads up the much-ballyhooed “Expect Respect” campaign, as well as the recent “hate crime hotline” established in concordance with Expect Respect.

Eklund, unlike many of her subordinates and program coordinators who have agreed to interviews in the past year, acknowledged that the campaign was launched in the aftermath of the “Asian urination” incident in the fall of 2005 (Even the Dean fumbled with how to term the now-infamous event). Eklund maintained, however, that the impetus for the campaign and hotline were the students who came out of the woodwork in the weeks following the incident. Expect Respect is a response to “what we learned about the campus,” Eklund said, adding that the impression that students had no knowledge of a central office to which they could report incidents as a “significant” factor in the creation of Expect Respect.

Many students have claimed an increase in racial hostility and incidents in the wake of the MCRI, which would assumedly be reported to Expect Respect.

Dean Eklund did not dispute such claims directly, but said she was not aware of any allegations of hate crimes, and reported that the hate crime hotline has seen a “slight uptick” from numbers that were “rather small to begin with.” Interestingly, according to Eklund, most of these reports stem from incidents in the dorms, and the vast majority of incidents reported to the hotline have been due to LGBT issues, and not race.

Finally, Eklund denied rumors, reported by some, that she had assured some student leaders that the University was trying to process as many applications before the late-December certification of the MCRI. “I don’t know where or how I said that,” Eklund said, “I’ve always tried quite hard to refer people to admissions itself.” She added that she did not know if there was any truth to the rumor about admissions. Neither the Office of Undergraduate Admissions or the Media Relations Office responded to our repeated attempts at contact.

Eklund seems less a crusader for affirmative action than someone who is interested in doing her job—and she seems to be performing rather well. Her tenure is sure to see more controversial moments on campus, but she has certainly emerged formidably as an administration figure commanding respect. MR

12.5.06

Hypocrisy Among Jewish Voters?

Why did some Jewish voters fail to support a pro-Israel candidate?

By Zack Zucker, ‘10 n November 7, incumbent Joe Lieberman trounced Ned Lamont in the rematch of the Connecticut Senate race after being beaten in the Democratic primary. It is essentially the political equivalent of the Michigan football team losing to Ohio State in the regular season and beating them in the National Championship game.

Of course, Lieberman is an observant Jew, and he does not try to hide the fact that he is vehemently pro-Israel. This raises an important question: nationally, around 87 percent of Jews voted Democratic in this year’s election. However, only around 60 percent of Jews voted for Lieberman. Why, then, did fewer Jews support a pro-Israel Jew than the average run-of-the-mill Democrat in Connecticut?

The Democrats are the party of Howard Dean, who argued during the Democratic primaries that it is not America’s “place to take sides” in the Israeli-Palestinian debate. A major critic of Howard Dean has been his then-rival for President in 2000, Joe Lieberman. Moreover, last summer, national Democrats such as Neil Abercrombie, Pete Stark and local chums John Conyers, John Dingell, and Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick voted against condemning Hezbollah after their recent attacks against Israel?

The answer may hinge on Lieberman’s support of military

O

Staff Opinion

action in Iraq. According to a survey conducted by the American Jewish Committee, 65 percent of Jews disapprove of the war in Iraq. After all, on almost every other issue Lieberman is a liberal like the vast majority of Jews in this country.

Indeed, Lieberman and Lamont appeared two hold almost identical beliefs on nearly every other major issue besides Iraq.

The only difference between Lieberman and Lamont was that Lieberman was more pro-Israel and supported military action in Iraq. It is likely that Liberman’s support for Israel is why he continues to support the war. Regardless, 35 to 40 percent of Jews voted for Lamont over Lieberman.

It is possible that these Jews do not care about Israel, or do they simply value peace over security? The American Jewish community forgets that in 1981, Hussein planned on building nuclear weapons. This prompted Israel to destroy his nuclear reactor at Osiraq. In the beginning of the first Gulf War, Saddam launched dozens of SCUD missiles into Israel, even though Israel was not even involved. While still in power, Saddam offered $25,000 to the family to all Palestinian suicide bombers.

It is interesting that so many Jews rejected a man whose only significant difference in political views with their own was for the benefit of Israel. This is the same man who won the support of nearly the entire Jewish community when he ran for as Vice-President in 2000. Perhaps it is time for the American Jewish community to take a good, long look in the mirror. MR

Rise in Spam E-mail Causes Concern at ITCS The son of a Nigerian Prince will pay you $1,000,000 to buy some Vi@gra to please your woman. Interested? Read on.

By Mary Wilcop, ‘08

F

eel like there’s more junk in your university mailbox than ever before? You’re not alone.

Just last week, CNN reported that spam mail now accounts for 9 out of every 10 e-mails. And though the problem has become more noticeable over this past year, Amy Brooks, director of the U-M Computing Environment at Information Technology Central Services (ITCS), responsible for managing student e-mail servers, says the past two months have been the worst– especially for university students.

Several factors account for this increase in junk mail. Just a few years ago, companies paid individuals to send mass web advertisements. But now, Yahoo! News reports, professional groups use sophisticated technology to send more e-mails and avoid detection. Only a few products need to be purchased for senders to make a profit.

ITCS, responsible for computer technology at U-M, faces more challenges than typical corporate web servers. “With corporate accounts,” Brooks says, “if I send someone a picture attachment, they can’t get it [through their server].” But as a learning institution, the university cannot block the types of files other organizations can. “Basically,” Brooks continues, “there could be people doing research on spam or pornography. So we can’t just prevent those kinds of things from going through.”

One of the biggest problems for students is signing up for several student organization e-mail groups as freshmen. Though many are no longer active, these groups become targets for junk mailers. And groups owners, who have the ability remove students, often graduate, with little stake in managing their old accounts. ITCS prevents students from removing themselves because many groups are, for example, class lists. “Students could drop out from the group and say they never received assignments,” Brooks explains.

Brooks’ group at ITCS has proposed several solutions to address these issues.

One project, the “Group Expiry Policy,” was proposed this year. Group owners would be notified on a yearly basis with an e-mail asking them to renew their groups. Those that did not respond would be deleted. However, this proposal was shot down by concerned university groups. Professors on sabbatical, for example, might not be able to respond. Graduates might want to stay in contact with old housemates. Overall, Brooks says, “we can’t assume that people don’t want to be contacted.”

Another project is called “Penalty Box.” If implemented, ITCS would mark addresses sending high rates of e-mails to university accounts. A program would “penalize” these senders by limiting the amount of e-mails they send. “The plan is, hopefully, spammers will go somewhere else,” says Brooks.

And even giant servers like Google and Microsoft have made suggestions, offering to sponsor free student e-mail maintenance to U-M and other universities. With more money and resources to devote to spam-prevention, these corporations may prove a viable option to ITCS. One more successful tool has been the comprehensive spam information page on the ITCS website. The site, developed over the past two years, provides information about antispam tools so one can better protect their account.

The “Do Not Spam” list, started last year, has also been helpful, blocking some known spammers from accessing e-mail accounts. Next year, this service will be turned on automatically for incoming freshmen.

But, according to Brooks, the biggest problem for ITCS is student responsibility. “When freshmen come in for orientation,” Brooks says, “the last thing on their mind is e-mail accounts.” ITCS has launched advertising campaigns in the past two years, but still feels students are largely unaware of spam and its relation to group accounts.

“We are limited in what we can propose,” Brooks says. “Ultimately, [owners] need to be responsible for maintaining their groups.” MR

P. 11

Events Calendar Second City: Dysfunctional Holiday Second City Detroit Ongoing: Wednesdays - Sundays, Times vary $15-$20 Make your shy friends and relatives more uncomfortable than your drunk Uncle Bob at Christmas dinner. Second City Detroit, just northwest of A2, performs its seasonal interactive holiday improve show. Taking jabs at Christmas films, plays, and family gatherings, the comedy is fun alternative to the traditional holiday routine.

The Nutcracker Power Center Wednesday, December 6 and Thursday, December 7, 8pm and 2pm $15-$20, $8 for students Based on the classic play by David Hammond, the Nutcracker will be presented

by U-M’s Department of Theatre and Drama.

Skating with the Stars!

Yost Arena Thursday, December 7, 8-10pm $5 The Make-A-Wish Foundation of Michigan sponsors a skate night with players from the Michigan Men and Women’s hockey teams to raise money for kids.

Califone Michigan Union U-Club Friday, December 8, 9pm $14 Its 12 degrees outside, but you can celebrate the holidays with the sunny tones of laid-back, Los Angeles-based Califone. The band is on tour for “Roots & Crowns,” its recently released album that met with rave critical reviews. The event is sponsored by the student music scene group, New Beat Happening.

A Christmas Carol Michigan Theater Saturday, December 9 11am It might be the first Saturday since football you’ve been up before 1, but a little Christmas spirit might just be worth it.

The Michigan Theater sponsors the live play through its “Not Just for Kids” series.

It’s a Wonderful Life Michigan Theater Sunday, December 10, 4pm Free No one makes suicide loveable like James Stewart. See the holiday classic on the big screen for free before the TBS 24-hour marathons begin and ruins it for the rest of the year.

12.5.06

Arts & Culture

FuZion Game Center Entertains Local Geeks

By Mary Wilcop, ‘08

I

t’s Friday night.

In front of you, it’s dark, except for the quick, bright flashes of light.

And then. You start to feel your body shaking as looped hyper-techno beats blast from the speakers. Spinning balls of neon light are orbiting in front of you.

It’s loud and disorienting and you feel like dancing, but…you’re not at a club or a bar. You’re not anywhere, really, except in front of your laptop. It’s the intro page to the FuZion Game Center website, which has an atmosphere not much different from its actual store. And if you have actually been to this site, you’re one of only about 1600.

What everyone has been dubbing, “the weird videogame place” on South University, FuZion Elite has been around for little over 6 weeks. And its newness is not the only reason why little is known about it. “It’s kind of intimidating,” says Krane Future (his real name), founder and CEO of FuZion. A large glass plate window gives a clear view of its inside: two rows of seated gamers staring intently at the monsters and machine guns on the screens in front of them. “People walk past and they’re like, whoa, what is that?” laughs Future.

The CEO designed FuZion with partner Tony Wu about a year ago. Since opening in October, the owners have been operating with no actual marketing.

“We did this 100% cash,” says Future, who is waiting to turn some profit before beginning any real ad campaigns begin.

“So far,” he says, “It’s just been word-ofmouth and MySpace.”

Which is appropriate. Future markets his business as appealing to the “next-gen” gaming that has emerged in the past five years. FuZion has yet to install gamer’s latest fetishes Nintendo Wii and Playstation3, but wants to keep upto-date on new systems. Xboxes are the current consul, with webcams installed on top so friends can check out who’s there from their home computer. Even the staff has a gaming background: “Our Concept and Design Team is made up of actual gamers, not by big wig corporate entities.” And though it seems intimidating, FuZion is set up as the anti-aesthetic of traditional arcades. “We designed it around things we like ourselves,” says Future, “We got plush rocking chairs and HDTVs. Its just like a hang out place.”

And in this way, game-crazed co-eds will be able to get their hands on Xbox 360s and other expensive systems without shelling out hundreds of dollars.

FuZion charges by the hour and even offers “one-year play passes” for zealots.

And that’s not all. Future sees this center as only the first of many. He hopes to eventually market the idea as franchises, targeted especially at university campuses.

FuZion has even come to the attention of graduating B-school students, some of whom have shown interest in the concept.

So if “next-gen” interactive videogames, a social life via MySpace, and comfier chairs are the new vogue, what does this mean for student life? Let’s face it. FuZion is open from mid-afternoon “until gaming ends,” which, Future explains, can mean as late as 7 in the morning. With a city license to hold late hours, FuZion’s in-store DJs will be pounding techno much later than Necto’s can. Although they cannot serve alcohol, FuZion offers soda, snacks, and energy drinks for late night benders. And if videogames aren’t really your thing, the center will be installing high-definition computers and high-speed internet so you can update your blog in style. So, if Future is the future, at least you won’t have to dress up to go out. Unless, of course, you’ll be on the webcam. MR

A Non-Guilty Pleasure for Your Favorite Guilty Friend

By Shanda Shooter, ‘10

A

re you having a tough time finding that perfect holiday gift? Well, look no further than Shelby Steele’s White Guilt, which is great for both your conservative dad and those anti-Prop 2 friends that need a little ‘enlightenment.’

Steele’s childhood experiences in pre-Civil Rights America and his college participation in the “black pride” movement lends credibility to his arguments. He claims that the blame and outrage white America faced in the wake of the Civil Rights Era caused them to give up any moral authority and instead replace it with a stance of “white guilt.”

He asserts that the promise of an equal playing field created by his parents’ generation and the Civil Rights Era was destroyed by the next generation’s victimization of minority races. It was thought that because minorities had been held down for so long by the white race, it would be impossible to expect them now to compete fairly- something that Steele’s parents’ generation believed they could do.

Steele asserts that “white guilt” comes simply from white America’s fear of being associated with white supremacy or slavery in any way. As Steele sees it, white guilt takes the responsibility of being successful away from minorities which in turn causes many people to stop trying to better themselves. This is the downfall of many social programs because once they are

Book Review

gone, the people they were helping no longer know how to take responsibility for themselves and ultimately fall to the situation they were in before the program.

Thus to “level the field,” programs such as affirmative action and social welfare were created. Steele worked for a time in one of these programs and saw firsthand that throwing money at the problem and lowering the standards did nothing to help the “victimized” minorities.

He uses the example of a young black boy on a basketball court: if he cannot dribble well, the other children aren’t going to make concessions for him and lower their standards. He must work hard on his own to better himself and in the end when he becomes great he will have only himself to thank and the satisfaction will be worth it.

On the other hand, if the same boy and place him in a school where he has a tough time reading, money and tutors will be thrown at him and standards will be lowered to make him feel better about himself.

Steele believes that, on any day, the boy would rather be on his hypothetical basketball court than in the classroom where he’ll never be good enough to make it on his own.

Although Shelby Steele may hold some uncommon and sometimes unpopular ideas about poverty and race, by telling the stories of his personal experience he ties together his ideas and clarifies how he came to his conclusions. He offers many convincing arguments about today’s issues that make this book a great read, no matter what side of the fence you’re on. MR

P. 12

Feature

12.5.06

Bo’s Review Interview In 1997, the Coach gave an interview to the Review, with Sports Editor Robert Wood. Here’s a copy of the interview, in memoriam. --Ed. Robert Wood, ‘98 I’m just wondering how many legacies one person can leave behind. I know I, and just about all of the students, am wondering what you’re up to nowadays.

“I’m only here six months or less [per year]. My first wife died of adrenal cancer, a very rare cancer found mostly in females, and there’s no cure. I found out during the year that she was ill that the only treatment for it was experimental and that, of all the places we checked, the University of Michigan Hospital knew the most about it.

“It’s not a disease that can get a lot of financial support from the Cancer Institute or other areas, because there aren’t enough incidences of it. When Millie died, I asked those people up here ‘What would it take to make Michigan the center for adrenal cancer research?’

“They said ‘Not much,’ and calculated that if they had a $2 million endowment and $1.2 million to endow a chair for adrenal cancer research (a total of $3.2 million) they would have it.

“So I said ‘Okay, I’m going to get it,’ and I started a golf tournament five years ago...[It is] on the Monday before the baseball All-Star game,...[and] nets $250,000 in one day. Then, we got some support from the Towsley Foundation and other places. We now have $2.1 million, in five years. We’re going to have the $3.2 million by the year 2000, and we’re going to have a huge celebration.

“Now that takes some work, because we have to bring 36 celebrities in here, every year. I mean, I’ve got to get a Bobby Knight, Danny Dierdorf, a Sparky Anderson, a Lou Holtz. I’ve got to get all these guys to come in here. We have it right here, at the University golf course and it’s been hugely successful, but it takes a lot of time.

“I’m also on two boards. I’m on the Ridell board, which makes protective equipment; headgear...and shoulder pads. And, I’m the Chairman of Midland Company in Cincinnati, which I have been for over 25 years. I went to school in Miami [Ohio]. I’m on those two boards, and then I do quite a bit of speaking. Too much.

“I’m gone quite a bit. [For] some of it, I get paid, but most of it is for charity.

Let’s say you were Bobby Knight, and I say ‘I want you to come to my tournament. I want you to come every year,’ “[He’d say] ‘Okay, come to mine,’ And there’s 36 of these guys. So I have more things to do than I have time to do, and I’m busy. I’m not in here very often.

You probably had a hard time getting hold of me...” “...I spend the winters in Florida.

We have a condo down there in Boca Grande.”

knock their tails off. Now if you go down there, in September, they’ll knock your tail off, because they’re playing outside and throwing that ball every single day.

In regard to the kind of football you’re known for, the hard-nosed, smashmouth football...

Do you think that sometimes, just because it’s Michigan, the officials call things a bit unfairly. Maybe it’s just because I’m a fan and I notice our calls a lot more...

“It’s interesting about that. See, when I came here, for two years, [we] had Don Moorhead at quarterback. He was really a good quarterback. ...And [we] had Jim Mandich at tight end. The first year I was here, Mandich caught fifty balls...Then, in 1971, Moorhead had graduated, and [we]

“I think you do. Ya’ know, I joke about it a lot, and I think that sometimes, officials have done a poor job. Like the guy who called that play a touchdown in the Rose Bowl...It was a tied-up game, and in the fourth period, Southern Cal went down there. That’s Charles White

didn’t have anybody. [We] had a quarterback who didn’t come through. He threw the pass well, but he didn’t have the other attributes; toughness [and] all the things you need, to stand back and throw the ball...So I took a guy by the name of Tom Slade...I said ‘Tom, we’re going to run option football. Don’t throw very much.

We’re going to play defense. That team scored like 475 points, and they held the opponents to less than 120. I mean, we just ran ‘em over. When that happened, then immediately, that’s how I got the reputation. But the reputation was such that you took what you had, and you did what you could do best and [didn’t] try to do something that you weren’t capable of doing.

“That’s how I got the reputation to run the ball, and I still believe, to this day, that the best teams in the country will always be able to run the ball. Now, if they can pass, that’s fine, but these pure passing teams, just like Florida; if you bring Florida up here in November, hell...we’d

with the ball, and...I’ll show you a picture...”

At this point, Coach Schembechler leapt from his chair and went to the left wall of his office, to his photo of the infamous “Phantom Touchdown” in the 1979 Rose Bowl. If you know the coach’s personality and have a good imagination, you can probably guess what he did next. He grabbed that photo by its frame and pointed out (rather fervently) what happened.

In my mind’s eye, I could see the Bo Schembechler of eighteen years ago going out of his skull and charging down the sideline to give the referee a few anatomically impossible instructions to follow after the game.

“That’s the ball. That ball was eventually recovered on the three-yard line... and there was an official from the Big Ten Conference,” (points) “right here. [He] called that a touchdown, and,” (stabs at

photo with finger) “this guy and,” (stabs again, even harder) “this guy did not have guts enough to overrule it...He eventually stayed in the Big Ten. I did not let him officiate here [at Michigan Stadium], again.

And the first year that I’m retired, I see him out there as a referee.

“But anyway, [in regard to] officiating, I don’t think they consciously [do it], ya’ know? I mean, we get bad calls, but so do the other guys,” There are a lot of stories about how Woody Hayes really didn’t like Michigan much. I’ve heard that while recruiting in this state once, he ran out of gas just after he had crossed the state line, and he pushed his car back into Ohio to get gas, and things like that. Were you good friends?

“I was his best friend in coaching, by far. When he...had the problem with that Clemson player, I was the guy who got him out of his house...The reason that we were so close was that the two programs and the two coaches had tremendous respect for each other. We had great respect for each other. That’s why you wanted to beat them all the time...When I came here, I told my staff– and I came here with some young whipper-snappers, some of them were right out of high school, and nobody [among them] had ever coached in the Big Ten but me and I was an assistant; I wasn’t a head coach. I said ‘Hey, we’re here to beat one, and only one, team...Ohio State,’” “Now, we [Woody and I] never talked. For the decade that we played against each other, we did not talk during the year. We did not call each other on the phone. We only saw each other at the Big Ten meetings in July, and for about two minutes at the fifty yard line when we were warming up. That’s it...That was real competition. “...We won in ‘69, but we lost to Michigan State, and they all said ‘Well, you don’t understand the importance of Michigan State,’ “I said ‘Okay, okay. Well, we’ll do something about that,’ So we lost in ‘69, and in the next twenty years, we beat ‘em seventeen times,” I ran out of questions, and it was still before 10:00 am. I knew that Mr. Schembechler had a busy day ahead of him; still, he knew just the right way to exit the interview, gracefully.

“Well, you got enough stuff ?”