Vol_16_No_1 by Karen Boore

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW Volume 16, Number 1

September 17, 1997

The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan

Couzens Hall Remodeling Crisis covers ." In addition, Malarney also noted the lack of bathroom facilities in the 1100 and 2100 Corridors of Couzens HalL "We have to go to the the third

fected by the construction would receive any monetary compensation, Zeller replied that "we aren't doing that," noting the project would hopefully be completed within the next couple weeks. As for the remodeling project itself, it is proceeding slowly but surely, although behind schedule. As of press time, carpeting scheduled to be installed in the noo, 1200, and 1300 Corridors of Couzens Hall during SeptemberlO through 12 had not yet been installed. Tile installation, which was to be completed September 9 in the 2200 Corrid<lr and near Couzens Hall ' mailboxes, was also not yet completed as of press time. Radiator grills were scheduled ·to be installed over heating boxes on Monday, September 15 and Tuesday, September 16. A fire alarm system is still being installed as of press time. "Welcome Freshmen!" And you.thought your dorm was bad. · Couzens Hall staffers have been workfloor to take a shower." His reason for not wanting to be ing around-the-clock on "fire watches," His next door neighbor , LSA identified? He didn't want to deal with in case a fire does occur, and smoke sophomo~e Pav~ Guernsey, was .also . having the University come and fix deteetorsin rOotD$ and tecycliQg clos- .. the problem, figuring that would reets are operational. quire more work and take more time . ... And hopefully, the project will be that he didn't have. . worth it. "My room is nicer than last Bill Zeller, Director of Housing year, I will say that," Guernsey said. for the University, said of the Couzens However, it remains to be seen how Hall project that "we hope to have long the 1100 Corridor will take.to be that completed soon." When asked in a state nicer than that of last year. whether Couzens Hall residents af1m.

BY BENJAMIN KEPPLE

OR THE RESIDENTS OF Couzens Hall, the completion of a costly remodeling plan meant that most students would be the beneficiaries of newer furniture, new lighting, and a better paint job ih their room . New curtains, floor tiles, and carpeting would make the rooms and hallways far more cheerful and more enjoyable to live in. There was just one problem: the 1100 Corridor of Couzens Hall was not yet fmished. It is still not finished, two weeks after the beginning of classes. And residents are not at all pleased about the situation. ''I'm paying $6,300 for this room and I ain't getting s_!" said Eric . Malarney, one of the beleaguered residents on the 1100 Corridor. "It's just pathetic." At the beginning of September, ',vhen most students arrived at Couzens, the 1100 Corridor ofCouzens Hall could reasopably be compareQ"to. the run-down .. ". .' . s tate housing projects from Stanley Kubrick's filmA Clockwork Orange. Tiling and carpeting were! absent from the' .J hallways, leaving residents to walk on the concrete slab. The ,(\{ . ',c-'" slab itself was dirty and covered with sawdust, dirt, and de bri s. Wood scraps and Some showering facilities at Couzens Hall are "out of order." standing water were present. Temporary lighting was displeased. "Four months [ofconstructhe only lumination in the hallways . tion) and they still don't have this The bathroom facilities were compart done . I love climbing three flights pletely useless, forcing residents to . of stairs to take a shower." hike up to the third floor. Guernsey, a member ofthe MarchMalarneys reaction upon first aring Band, also complained that due to riving to his as-yet uncompleted corconstruction he was unable to move ridor was "What the hell is this?" into his room on time. . "I knew they were doing construc"I got here Friday, the 22nd of tion, but my God! We had no carpet, August, and I was told I could not get we had no tile . The floor was cement, into my room until the 25th. It wasn't and dirty. There was a two-by-six and until that following Friday that I was a puddle of water in front of my door," -able to move into my room." Guernsey he said. Inside the room, he said, it lived in Alice Lloyd until Couzens was was also uncompleted . "There was a completed. hole in my ceiling. We had no register One resident, who declined to be

identified, said that "the light switch [in his room) is' wired completely wrong," leaving his overhead flourescent lamp and his mirror lamp tied to the same switch.

INSIDE! • Page 3 features a story by Evan Knott on the upcoming affirmative action lawsuit against the University.

'~":'

,~,

L.'_

'~.~.'

• Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Kepple returns with another installment of "Lost In The Eighties TM" and blasts the defenders of affirmative action. See page 5.

_ __ _ _ _ _" ' - -

>'"''''''''''-''~

_ _'''__

'~'

___

<_>M' '' ~_~",~,,,

'"""''' _

_ ,.. •• '' _

_ _ ." _

_ __

I I

~ ..,_'"'~>'' ~ '~m

• Sports Editor Robert Wood brings you a preview of the upcoming U-M Ice Hockey Season on page 9! He also examines the quite disturbing phenomena of really, really, really lopsided football games.

• Join Managing Editor Evan Knott as he takes a look at free speech here at the U-M in his new column, "To Here Knows When," debuting on page 6 .

• Arts Editor Kristina Curkovic reviews "The Full Monty," while Matt Buckley plays "The Game." See page 10.

• Managing Editor Matt Buckley examines the connection between Robert Bork, Catherine MacKinnon, and Lee Bollinger on page 7.

• And Music Editor Chris Hayes presents U-M music fans with an exclusive interview with indie rock band Superchunk. See page 12.

• Staffer C.J. Carnacchio takes · a look at the smoking deal on page 8.

~._ .'

ALL THIS AND MORE ... INSIDE!

_ _ _''''''''..__

September 17, 1997

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

E MICHIGAN

o SERPENT'S TOOTH ' .

REVIEW

The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan

'"':ts-<'"'

"OOOOOH! NAVY SEALS!I" EDITORIAL BOARD

Tempers flared at the last NWROC meeting as it degenerated into a large fracas . Participants, working to save affirmative action ona national scale, got into a drawn-out imbroglio over the order which minority groups woule be listed on their flyer in defense of affirmative action. This however, is a step up from the NWROC meetings of last year, when NWROC members left their imperialist Wendy's food for the proletariat to clean up. Ah, what glorious progress, comrade!

Dina Anastasia, a Campus Consulting Sites manager for lTD, recently said "In computers, nothing ever stops changing. It's a constant cycle of upgrades and improvements." Oh, really? Why is it then, that: • Pagemaker is completely shot on the Macintosh machines?

Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) President Mike N agran t recen tly proclaimed that the University should not only support racial diversity, but also intellectual diversity. What is this, an implicit demand for more dumb blondes and Kinesiology majors on campus?

The Nectarine Ballroom has recently been the focus of racially charged in• lTD knows full well that certain cidents involving students and Necto software is installed improperly and employees. With this in mind, we've they are apparently doing nothing come up with a new Nectarine dance about it? schedule to reflect this turn of events: • TUESDAY-Insensitive to Minori• Nice, usable Power Macs are sud,ties Night, with "DJ? You can't have denly being replaced with less than your own DJ!" nice, usable Mac II-SIs? • WEDNESDAY - Rough up Indian What upgrades? What improvements? sJ;udents night - with DJ Punchy . ·~THURSDAY- Be snide to Hispanic Customers Night- with "DJWhitey" We're glad to see that the Daily's __ • FRIDAY - Deny Racially Charged Events Occurred Night movie reviews 4a'V~ progressed from a level of''Thisis cool." or ''This sucks,"· • SATURDAY -Make Whiny Excuses For The Employees Night - with "DJ but did it reallY, require a total of Mike" seven people from the Daily to review ''The Game?"

Since so many people on campus are in favor of diversity. it is perfectly obvious we need to recruit more conservative students. We're 40 percent ofthe electorate, for God's sake . And how many conservatives are on campus? 19? 20?This is bloody ridiculous! We ask - no, scratch that, we DEMAND -that for every prospective NWROC member admitted to the University,' we get at least three prospective Steve Forbes voters, plus two rich, cardigan - wearing, Ivy Leal.'l!!" rejects.

Like what you see? Qr do you hate it with an intense, burning passion? ,..

Write the Review and let us know how YOU feel! Send a message with the subject "Letter to the Editor" to mreV@Umich.edu, and we'll print it (we may edit for clarity, length, and we reserve the right not to print it, of course). Just give us your name and year, and we'll be glad to do so, whether you love us, hate us, or want to take off our heads. Or, you can write us The Old Fashioned Way by sending a letter to: The Michigan Review 911 N. University Street, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: MANAGING EDITOR: MANAGING EDITOR: ARTS EDITOR:

Benjamin Kepple Matthew Buckley Evan Knott Kristina Curkovic

EDITORIAL STAFF ASSISTANT EDITOR: SPORTS EDITOR: MUSIC EDITOR: ILLUSTRATOR:

Lee Bockhom Rob Wood Chris Hayes Astrid Phillips

STAFF WRITERS: Simon Einspahr, Calvin Hwang, Nora Obringer, Maureen Simal. Jamie Smith. Nate Teismann. CORRESPONDENTS: Tom Jolliffe (Madrid), Dan Succan:le (Los Angeles) EDITOR EMERITUS:

Geoff Brown

The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the Uni· versity of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the U--M. Contributions to the Michigan Review are lax-Oeductible under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Review is not affiliated with any political party or university political group. Phew! What a summer! little did the world know that we were on the verge of extinction, almost being eaten by Walter, the thing that lived in our fridge in Nicaragua. But then, we were saved at the zero hour by a koala-fishmutant-bird. Crazy shit. And then, Buckley and Evan got into a fight over Berk, and all hell broke loose. It was almost as-embarassing as those pictures we have of Ben in the - •sombrero getting funky at Simon and Jamie's party last year. We are in full support of the •James Earl Jones for Crisp Lady' group, but however, we have a feeling that soon Certain Groups will demand Mumia (Mumial Yeah, huh huh, huh huh) be Crisp Lady. But we've got to stand hard against those crazy commies! For some reason, members of our staff do not like the Canadian flag we have on the wall. Don't ask me why. They just don't. Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the editorial board. Ergo, they are unequivocably correct and just. Signed articles, letters, and cartoons represent the opinions of the author and not necessarily those of the Review. The opinions presented in this publication are not neces· sarily those of the advertisers or of the University of Michigan. We welcome letters, articles, and comments about the journal. Please address aI/ advertising and subscription inquiries to: Publisher do the Michigan Review. Editorial And Business Offices: 911 N. University Avenue, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1265 EMAIL: MREV@umich.edu URL: http://www.umich.edul-mrev! Tel. (313) 647-8438 Fax (313) 936-2505 Copyright !) 1997, by The Michigan Review, loc. All rights reserved. The Michigan Review Is a member of the Collegiate Network.

Love us or hate us, write us . The Michigan Review Letters to the Editor 911 N. University Ave. Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109 or email with subject "Letters to the Editor": mrev@umich.edu

_ _ "" ~< __ ·

>v.,<>'_

~'_>_~ ff'''''''

_ __ _'~''''' ' __ '''''-'-'-'-~ _ _~ . _"""" '_,~

;:u

$ "

September 17, 1997

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

o CAMPUS AFFAIRS

Mfirmative Action: The Beginning of the End? " ill'"

BY EVAN KNOTT

OUR REPUBLICAN MEMbers of the Michigan State House ofRepresentatives have undertaken an ambitious effort to challenge affirmative action policies at U-M. The University may face a multifaceted probe in its admissions policies later this fall if state representativesDeborah Whyman (R-Canton), Michelle McManus (R-Lake Leelenau), David Jaye (R-Washington Township), and Greg Kaza (RRochester Hills) convince attorneys at the Washington-based, non-profit Center for Individual Rights (CIR) to take legal action on behalf of numerous Michigan high school students who were denied admission to the University. Additionally, Representative Jaye, an alumnus ofthe School of Public Policy, has introduced House Joint Resolution W that would institute a California-style, anti-affirmative action referendum on Michigan ballots. The four lawmakers targeted the U-M due to the manner in which it. !'rants admissions, scholarships, and

grants to prospective students in ways that constitute the "most blatant and extreme minority preferences in Michigan." However, the four lawmakers are not alone in describing the University's admissions procedures as "shamefully selective and secretive." U -M Professor Carl Cohen also admitted resistance from administration officials in obtaining admissions data. Dr. Cohen has written and spoken extensively about his findings in the University's affirmative action policies, some of which appear below. The Center for Individual Rights, a public interest law firm that represents deserving clients free of charge, won the groundbreaking case Hopwood vs. State ofTexas that eliminated race-based preferential treatment practices in the University of Texas' Law School admissions system. The Hopwood decision, which applies to states in the 5th circuit such as Louisiana and Mississippi, is not binding in lI6ichigan, which is in '. the 6th circuit:CIR also defended theconstitutionality,.of the California Civil Rights Initiative, which bans affirmative action practices in the

AnMISSIONS DATA FOR

University of California system. Michael Greve, the executive director of CIR, has indicated that the firm has received numerous requests for legal assistance in reverse discrimination lawsuits in light ofits Hopwood victory. CIR is currently considering a suit against the University as the four state lawmakers continue to solicit information from over 200 Michigan students who feel that they have been discriminated against by the University. Once a credible grievant is found to serve as a plaintiff in a case against the University, a lawsuit will likely proceed. A group of lawyers, Reps. Jaye, Whyman, Kaza, and McManus, and concerned parents are scheduled to deliberate this matter during a public forum slated for September 29 in Shelby Township. Despite the initial hype surround\ilg this development, only a handful of editorial letters have appeared in the pages of University publicationssome of which were even in support of a potential lawsuit. Although the University administration professed in an April 24, 1997 New York Times advertisement that "we want to ex-

1995, VARIOUS SCHOOI..S

UNDERGRADUATE ADMISSIONS

LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS

Non -Minority Applicants: # of Applicant~ G.P.A. SAT Scores

Non -Minority Applicants: # of Applicants G.P.A. LSAT Scores

478

2.80-2.99 1100-1390

# A~~~pt~g 56

:e~n;~ntag~

Qf TQtal

12%

Minority Applicants: !It of Applicants Q.P,A. SAT Scores 48 # A~~~pt~g 48

2.80-2.99

1100-1390

:e~rc~ntag~

Qf Total

100%

238

3.25-3.49

Percentage of Total

First Review Admissions Criteria Non-Minority Applicants: G.P.A SAT Scores ACT Scores 3.8+

3.25-3.49

1320+

30+

(out-of-state) 3.6+

(in-state)

MinoEity Applicants: # of Applicants G.P.A. LSAT Scores 17

AND PROGRAMS

INTEFLEX ADMISSIONS

156-163

# Accepted

press our strong conviction to take into account a wide range of considerations- including ethnicity, race and gender- as we evaluate the students whom we select for admission," they have since remained silent on the recent news of a lawsuit. The National Women's Rights Organizing Coalition (NWROC) at U-M is planning a public demonstration on September 17 in support of the University's policies, although the group couldn't win a Michigan Student Assembly endorsement. Many at U-M and other institutions ofhigher education will be watching the events related to this matter unfold in coming weeks. Kaza has cited a poll by MRG, Inc. showing that 76% ofMichigan residents disapprove of preferences in admissions. The Michigan GOP had little success in pursuing this matter. when it controlled the legislature in 1995-1996. The body is currently controlled by a Democratic majority, which likely explains why the four Republican lawmakers have decided to pursue action through the courts rather than the legislature.I\'R

First Review Admissions Criteria Minority Applicants: G.P.A. SAT Scores ACT Scores

156-163

# Accepted

Percentage of Total

100%

3.4+

1170+

26+

(in/out-state)

~'N 0 person in the United States shall, on the gronds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." -Title

VI, The Civil Rights Act of 1964

'<~'~"~""ÂŤ~-~""""W'~<''''<''';'<i~''~''-='W'''''"'''~'I''W~_ _'W~

ÂŤWtG:IU,

'It

September 17, 1997

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

o FROM SUITE ONE

Time to End the Race Game ~

:;p .

EE BOLLINGER BEGAN HIS FIRST FULL YEAR ON A VERY SOUR note . Not even an entire month into the 1997-98 school year, and four Republican lawmakers in the Michigan House of Representatives

alreadyannounceplanstoconductam~orprobeintotheUniversity'saffirmative

action policies in admitting students. This multifacted investigation will confront the University's illegal and secretive use of race-based preferences in admissions through legislation, a ballot initiative similar to the California Civil Rights Initiative passed last year, and a potential lawsuit with the help of attorneys from the non-profit, Washington, D.C .-based public interest law firm the Center for Individual Rights. At the very least, an investigation of this magnitude is long overdue at the University of Michigan. The efforts of these lawmakers and attorneys will provide the citizens of Michigan a great service in calling upon the University administration to seriously defend their blatantly discriminatory admissions practices and attempts to stonewall anybody intending to inquire about them. University Vice-Presidents Walter Harrison and Lisa Baker continually deceive reporters and concerned parents of Michigan students by stating "we consider race among many other factors" in their quest to achieve intellectual diversity. However, the exhaustive efforts of Professor Carl Cohen have demonstrated that admissions officers classify all applicants first and foremost by their race, and secondly by relevant intellectual characteristics such as grade point averages, test scores, and high school curriculum. Even a brief glance at records and data from various admissions offices on campus clearly demonstrate the separation of applicants into dehumanizing grids and tables bearing special decision codes for minority and non-minority applicant$-'. Rather than actually considering individual char9eteristics, talents, or qualifications for each applicant, the University ih essence predicates an admissions decisions solely on the factor of race. Admissions officers are explicitly instnlcted in these racially separated admissions tables to hold all non-minority applicants to higher grade point average and test score standards than minority students. For example, in-state non-minority applicants to the University's highly selective INTEFLEX program must have a minimum GPA of3.6 and ACT score of30+ while in-state minority applicants can enroll with only a 3.4 GPA and ACT scores of26+. The University goes even further by giving minority applicants with qualifications equal to non-minority applicants a nine to ten times higher rate of acceptance- sometimes as much as a 100% acceptance rate in certain categories of G PA and test scores. . Indeed, the so-called factors considered by the University in its admissions amount only to race-based evaluations of high school grades and test scores. Thus, one can conolude that a prestigious institution such as Michigan builds its student bodY;With no regard for academic merit or other factors worthy of consideration, as-the administration and MSA President Mike Nagrant would like you to believe. All decisions are based on numerical categories separating non-minority and minority students. This is exactly the information the administration does not want the public to know and has made numerous efforts to delay attempts by Professor Cohen and others to acquire it. The harm inflicted by the University's policy of racial preferences in its admissions extends beyond the discrimination suffered by non-minority applicants . Many of Michigan's minority students are among the best and the brightest in the nation, and we are lucky that they have chosen to atten~ U-M over the many other competitive institutions of higher education. Yet the administration severely discounts the intelligence, talents, and qualities of these top students through its racially-preferential policies and lowering of academic standards for minority students in general. Undergraduate admissions Dean Ted Spencer is determined to convince the University community that without affirmative action, and thus the use of preferences and lowering of standards, minority students could not succeed at Michigan. This implication is an insult to the hard work of Michigan's many bright minority students. As the top public university in the nation, the demand for a University of Michigan education is extremely high. The only fair method for selecting students from this highly competitive pool of applicants is through strict evaluation of merit-based academic factors regardless of race or ethnicity. Diversity is an ideal worthy of pursuing at U-M, but should not be engineered by guilt-ridden, white administrators at the expense of highly qualified students that don't meet the University's "goals" for a racially diverse campus. The four Michigan lawmakers conducting this probe against the University should be commended for their efforts to force our deceptive administration to finally foster a genuine discussion of affirmative action and its detriments at U-11.l\R

_____.

o COMMENTARY ~The

GOP's Identity Crisis

HE GOAL OF A LINE-ITEM VETO HAS BEEN ONTHE COLLECTIVE GOP mind for years. Since the Reagan years, during which a Democratic Congress consistently submitted higher budgets than the executive wanted, Republicans have wanted a tool to trim down budgetary fat. A lineitem veto, which gives the prt:::::ident th~ .power to eliminate small provisions in larger bills, is an excellent way to helpcontrol excessive Washington spending. .So Republicans should hi:lYe been exuberant when Pre~ident . Clinton became the first president to use the line-item veto power early this August. Vetoing three small provisions in the huge balanced-budget deal, while an infinitesimal step, is a welcome one. Yet Newt Gingrich and some other Republicans are finding themselves somewhat allergic to the Clinton vetoes. A Gingrich spokesperson said that the President's veto meant that the previous budget deal had not been in good faith and were representative of "petty politics." Gingrich claims the budget agreement was carefully constructed and any changes violate the agreement. This is ludicrous. First, the changes are tiny_ The budget deal creates savings of over $120 billion over the next five years, making this cut of $600 million a breach of good faith to the tune of 0.5 percent- a pitiful amount. In looking at the specific programs, the Gingrich position is indefensible . It forced New York state's health-care providers to pay taxes paid in every other state in the Union . It ended certain tax deferment packages for food-processing plants, and the third cut limited various financial services companies ability to defer tax payments on overseas profits . In other words, the Republicans are on the side ofN ew York, wealthy agribusiness, and financial service multinationals. Who thought up this brilliant gem of strategy? ..... To be sure, there are other arguments against the line-item veto. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan CD-NY) has argued against the line-item veto for . some time, noting that it would give the executive branch of government too much power over the legislature. Ifthe president has the power to knock out any particular provision in any bill, could he not exert pressure on the pork-barrel antics? Perhaps, but these concerns are overblown. The line-item veto granted to Clinton is one approved by Congressional Republicans , and the terms are relatively strict. The president can only strike down things affecting 100 taxpayers or less, and even then his veto is subject to a two-thirds override vote. If the Congress vvishes to demand legislative power, let them unite behind their pork-barrel projects and let the public count the votes for wasteful spending. For now, Senators like Moynihan are working on a Supreme Court case for airing out the line-item veto dispute, after some setbacks this summer. One should hope that the veto remains, and that presidents continue to use it to save taxpayer dollars. Working to cut pork spending used to be the Republican mantra. Heaven forbid that now, given the tools, Gingrich and other Republicans - Matthew Buckley tlU'ow it away via their own petty politics. m

. ---'--

'---~-----"-'----"'---.--.:-::='--- --.-,-

September 17, 1997

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

o loST IN THE EIGHTIESTM

For Every Affirmativ~,Action, There is a Reaction BY BENJAMIN KEPPLE

THE AFFIRMATIVE ACtion debate heats up, it appears that a shroud of implicit fear has spread across the University. The planned rallies, the speeches, the essays in praise of affirmative action, that hideous monstrosity, are all the same. The rhetoric has faded, molded really, into a cacophony of noise where essays and speakers shout about diversity and equality and privelige, and from which nothing substantive comes forth. "Diversity, diversity, diversity!!!" cry the proponents of affirmative action, that being their sole justification for the program now, and no one responds: some because they agree, and some because they don't agree but don't want to have to deal with the backlash from those that do. They know that, God forbid, you not SI\lpport or believe in the affirmative action rhetoric -constantly shoved down our throats around this campus. I thought about this myself as I wrote my column. After all, with affirmative action being in the news, what better topic to write upon? This posed a problem. I mean, I'd be attacking diversity and preference and all those other good things, and before you would know it, angry crowds would be outside the Review office. The Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) would condemn me within two hours of the paper hitting the stands. Then, the National Women's Rights Organizing Coalition (NWROC) would find me and drag rile through the streets as if I were Mussolini. I would have my fingernails ripped out after a trial under the Code of Student Conduct. But we have to stand up against the affirmative action tyrants. After all, let's take a look at some of the mindless rot that's been spewed out in favor of this bloated cadaver of a program over the past couple weeks. Daily Editorial (9/8/97): "Equality Threatened." • "Forcing the University to serve only a homogenous cross-section of white and privileged state residents would leave graduates unprepared to face the working world." In typical Daily fashion, their Editorial department has once again produced this stunning example of idiotic, mindless drivel, as if the end of affirmative action would suddenly

Benjamin Kepple is Editor-in-Chief olthe Review. He has been inflicting his opinion on campus since January 1996. E-mail him at bjhepple@umiell.edII

leave the entire campus population resembling the cast of "Leave It To Beaver." Yes, there would be most likely be a drop in minority enrollment, but incoming classes would not appear as ifthey just graduated from "Happy Days." I sincerely doubt that students would somehow be unable to function as productive, workingmembers of society even if campus were taken over by Eddie Haskel clones. • "... the University also gives similar consideration to children of alumni, exemplary high schools, and applicants from under-represented regions of the nation and Michigan." No, it doesn't. It has been documented - it is policy - of the undergraduate admissions department to give preferential treatment by race or ethn'icity. This has been well documented by Prof. Carl Cohen and was reported (first, as usual) in ~ the April 2nd, 1997 issue of the Review by our very own Maureen Sirhal and Evan Ktfbft. There is no perf,prmance grid for the children of alumni or exemplary· high schools favoring one student over another without those characteristics. There is one for race. Similar, we should note, is not equivalent to same. In addition, what's with the headline? "Equality threatened?" What kind of vapid talk is that? The whole idea of affirmative action is to make things unequal, to give preferential treatment to a certain group! Equality doesn't enter into it! Daily Viewpoint (by Paul Bhasin, 9/8/97): "Affirmative Action is Misunderstood." • ''What needs to be clarified is that affirmative action supporters realize that the policy in itselfis flawed ... This is irrelevant, however, when one realizes that the entire point is to integrate minorities into academia and professional culture." Hey, who cares ifthe policy doesn't work? It's for diversity! I thought this rationale - who cares if it's wrong, it's for a good cause - was only believed by fascist dictators. It is also "irrelevant" ifthe writer is not being screwed over by the policy at hand. • "American soci~ty is based completely on the individual. America unlike nations such as Japan or Africa (sic) - has built a social ecosystem around the concept of the individual over the group, rather than allowing times where the group is more significant than the individual." if. Am I right in thinking this would be the same Japan where Koreans, blacks, and "untouchables" are routinely shunned and discriminated against? This would be the same Af-

rica where tribal warfare has caused millions of deaths in the past twenty years? The same Africa that has fostered such society-friendly group leaders as, say, Idi Amin, Mobutu Sese Seko, and dozens of other two-bit strongmen? Perhaps we should be rather thankful we don't have the individual subverted to the group? Furthermore, what in hell is a social ecosystem? You can't compare the combined acts of a nation-state to an ecosystem! An ecosystem is something like a fish pond or a bog, something you studied in ju~ior high. It's nonsense! Irascible idiocy! • "Try to understand that this idea is at most a gentle tug at the sleeve of the empowered white male American elite when one takes into account the three centuries ofmisrepresentation and exploitation ofAmerican people on the basis of gender, race: and even class." Oh, for God's sake. Here we go again. "We need affirmative action because The ManlWhiteylThe Powers That BelEvil Conservatives is in control of everything." What kind of idiocy is this? Any person of any rac.e today is fighting an uphill battle. Our formative years were during the disco age. Most of us went to rotten primary schools, taught by uninterested teachers and stuck with idiot classmates. High school sucked for all of us (if you enjoyed it, you should be at Michigan State). We're going to have to find work in a tough job market. Sonie of us may have to become lawyers or legislative aides. The AARP is scheming to take all of our money. We've all been royally screwed in some way or another, and we've got to live with it. Another thing we seemingly have to live with are the endless cliches used in defense of affirmative action. For example, MSA President Mike "Better Weather Boy" N agrant (Daily Viewpoint, 9/12/97) cries about the need for "true discussion," which can only take place with affirmative action, apparently. My own personal favorite sentence in the Cover Every Group Possible category is "the fact that minority groups have been able to transcend the difficulties of patriarchal, racial, and prejudicial enslavement ... " Patriarchal enslavement? What is this garbage? It's also a high point when he contradicts himself with this little snippet: "After all not everyone has artistic ability and it's unfair that this ability would be considered over my high ACT score. I'm not saying race is like artistic ability ... " He just used it in his sentence to describe affirmative action, as if Johnny Evil

'",,,,,",,,~w"''''''''~'''='~'"''''''''''''''''''<''>,~e

White Suburbanite with the artistic skills of a slug was passed over by a budding Rembrandt, and Johnny blamed it on affirmative action. This is absolutely ridiculous! I realize I am supposed to feel guilty at this point for Not Supporting Affirmative Action. I, after all, am a white male, and the enemy of all that is good and decent, according to some affirmative action proponents. These ~ same people are probably condeming me right now, because I, like Anthony Burgess's fictional Professor F. X. Enderby, "[don't] understand the ethnic agony." Like one of Enderby's fictional students, they task affirmative action opponents: "You play your little games with yourself ... Closing your eyes to what's going on in the big big world ... You bastard. You misleading reactionary evil bastard." I'll be called this and worse because I don't think that diversity for the sake of diversity is worth sacrificing a righteous system we term a meritocracy. What is this fascination affirmative action proponents have .with diversity? I am not averse to it, ofcourse, but for God's sake, I saw the word "diversity" used to describe the latest musical offering by Phil Collins. The "diversity" excuse is offered because it is the only one left that people might actually buy. We all know what affirmative action is really about. Affirmative action is about left-wing paternalism and liberal guilt. It is used about having Women's Studies and African-American Studies Departments. It is about soothing the mad rantings ofleftist faculty. It is to secure money from public-relations conscious corporate foundations. It is about power. The only reason that this abuse of power is not being protested is because the people losing out from that abuse don't happen to be very popular. It is time that we took power back from the racialists, back from the mad administrators, back from the scheming bureaucrats, and made things truly fair by instituting an admissions and financial aid system that looked only at merit and need, not the color of one's skin. Affirmative action causes tension and resentment by elevating certain racial and gender groups over others. There are numerous problems for both those benefited by and harmed by affirmative action. Finally, on a purely moral level, it is wrong to elevate one racial group or gender group over another. I like to think that both supporters and opponents of affirm ative action would agree on that. l\R

_ _._~'I''''''''_'

__IWIf\ ....

_~'\'\~!H'"

........_____!1iI'

w"""""-"*".......,.,~_

o TO HERE KNows WHEN U-M'sFree~,peech BY EVAN

September 17, 1997

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

KNorr

s STUDENTS AT THE UNIversity of Michigan, we are fortunate to live in an intellectual and cultural environment comprised of a vast diversity of people, ideas, and opinions. Theverypremise of learning and communicating in our University community is founded on the highest regard for an open, rational, tolerant, respectful, and reflective arena for exchanging thought and opinion. However, the climate that was once ripe for the free exchange of ideas and thought on this campus has started to deteriorate in the past decade. The roots of this decaying arena lie in the University's attempt to regulate thought on campus through a controversial speech code in the late 1980's and extend all the way up to several recent incidents offree speech policing on campus. The University of Michigan's now defunct speech code arose out of an increasing series ofracial harassment incidents on campus. During 1987, fliers declaring "opf'n season n on blacks were posted through the Diag and a WCBN-FM disc jockey allowed racist jokes to be broadcast during a radio show. In response, the University administration initiated a policy that applied to "educational and academic centers, such as classroom buildings, libraries, research laboratories, recreation and study centers" which subjected "any behavior, verbal or physical, that stigmatizes or victimizes an individual on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, creed, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, handicap or Vietnam-era veteran status" which involved "an express or implied threat to an individual's academic efforts, employment, participation in University sponsored extra-curricular activities or persollal safety [that] creates an intimidating, hostile, or demeaning environment for educational pursuits" to sanctions such as sensitivity training, suspension, and even expulsion from the University. To many at U-M, such a policy at first seems laudable and appropriate for maintaining the integrity of the academic community. However, events following the policy's implementation demonstrated just how undesirable a speech code is at Michigan, A psychology graduate student specializing in biopsychology contested the speech code in 1989 on the

Evan Knott is a junior majoring in political science and is a Managing Editor of the Review.

Dilemma

to have the effect of truth, by being grounds that his right to freely and exaggerate'd into falsehood." openly enter into classroom discusSo how do Mill's lofty utilitarian sion concerning controversial theoconceptions ofliberty and free expresries about biologically based differences between sexes and races might sion relate to problems of free speech suppression at the University of be sanction able under the policy. InMichigan? Consider these cases in deed, the courts ruled in favor of this student's concerns in Doe v. Univerrecent years. The Ku Klux Klan orgasity ofMichigan , citing that the policy nized a rally at city hall two summers encompassed a large scope of potenago to promote their agenda of bigotry tial "verbal conduct" or "verbal beand ignorance to the people of Ann havior" that is unquestionably proArbor. In response, militant members of the National Women's Rights tected under the First Amendment. Organizing Coalition (NWROC) and Furthermore, the very wording ofsuch a policy is extremely vague and poses other outraged community members engaged a protest of the rally until a a stifling barrier in the pursuit of violent riot broke out. In the afterscientific knowledge similar to the research conducted by Doe. math, members ofNWROC and other protestors declared outrage and treaDefenders of speech regulation son against those in the community contest the extent to which the First who did not join their efforts to supAmendment applies to certain forms of expression, most often by claiming press the Klan's right to hold a rally. 'ihe protestors attempt at creating a that racist and discriminatory sJ)eech "you're either for us or you're against is the functional equivalent of fightus" mentality instead demonstrated ing words. The theory of fighting just how hypocritical and foolish the words posits tla1!t'racist speech inflicts injury, 'dampens dialogue and" protest became. NWROC's attempt at promoting tolerance for people of mutual participation in deliberation, color in light of their blatant intolerand ultimately fosters submission by ance for others' right to speak defies its victims. logic. Furthermore, the content of Regardless of the pernicious effects of hate speech in the Univetsity NWROC's message paled in comparicommunity, the case involving son to their excessive actions, thus Michigan's speech code perfectly illeaving truth buried in the commolustrates the dangerous precedent tion of that hot summer day. The established through policing thought protestors would have been much and ideas in campus discourse. Unwiser to have expressed their sentifortunately, strict observance of the ments to the Klan rally through more protections outlined in the First rational means such as letters to the Amendment forces us to confront Michigan Review or Daily. ignorance and hatred so that legitiA short while after the Klan riot, a nearly identical incident of speech mate deliberation and genuine inquiry suppression on campus occurred when into matters can take place in our several cowardly members ofthe "Ad society. John Stuart Mill, in his classic work On Liberty, cleverly argues Hoc Committee Against the Bullshit that human liberty comprises "lib- . in the Daily" decided 拢0 steal half of erty of thought and feeling; absolute the Michigan Daily's circulation one freedom of opinion and sentiment on morning last fall. The group, formed all subjects, practical or speculative, out of a belief that the Daily was scientific, moral, or theological." filling its pages with racist content Once an uncoerced marketplace and was not sympathetic to racial of opinions, ideas, and thought is esminority groups on campus, later held a protest march to the Student Publitablished, Mills argues, society protects ''the limits of reason and sanity" cations Building. Once gathered in because all discourse is "expressed front of the Daily staff, they took with equal freedom, and enforced and turns burning issues and defiantly defending their illegal actions. In defended with equal talent and energy, there is no chance of both eleeffect, this factious group decided that ments obtaining their due; one scale the members of the University community were not fit for making their is sure to go up, and the other down." When speech and thought become own determinations about whether regulated, Mill reasons that "not the the content of the Daily was racist or violent conflict between parts of the not. As a result, truth was once again truth, but the quiet suppression of ~mpromised to prejudice and the half of it, is the formidable evil; there childish leftists who staged the event came offlooking like the foolish hypois always hope when people are forced crites they are instead of presenting to listen to both sides; it is when they campus with a legitimate grievance attend only to one that errors harden into prejudices, and truth itself ceases worthy of redress.

Finally, consider the malicious attack on the University's homosexual community last fall when Nick Kirk and the College Republicans defaced the sidewalk chalkings of Michigan's chapter ofQUP during National Coming Out Week. The College Republicans did not' exercise their right to respond to QUP's gay pride chalkings tastefully, but rather wrote hateful messages over top of them. The University went into shock the following day, even prompting Interim President Homer Neal to condemn the actions in a letter to the Michigan Daily. Many speculated about whether or not members of the CRs would be sanctioned under the Student Code of Non-Academic Conduct or face expulsion. None of the CRs were ever formally reprimanded by the administration for its repugnant and uncivilized display of disapproval ofthe homosexuallifesty~.

The CR chalking incident illustrates an ideal scenario by which the "marketplace. of ideas" and free and open exchange of ideas and opinions govern civilized discourse in society. . It路 did not take a University sanctioned speech code to demonstrate the outrage felt by faculty and students on campus to this unfortunate event. It did not take a formal Code panel or an administrator's recommendation to expel members of the CRs from the University for the Corlege Republicans to realize that their methods of expressing their feelings about homosexuals on campus were not in the best interests ofthe group's membership or efficacy in local politics. While many places in this world are ripe for the free exchange of ideas and opinions, few can foster an environment more conducive to free speech as a scholarly community such as the University of Michigan. As we strive to learn and to teach from one another on campus, let us not forget the lessons these recent speech incidents provide us. Mt The Wealth of Nations The Spirit of the Laws Democracy In America On Liberty The End of Racism

The Michigan Review Classics ofliberty, justice, and democracy.

647-8438

",",,,.",,,... ,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,>,,,,,,....""=,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_~,_~_\O>._~._ _ _ _,_ _........ ~,_ _ _ _- - -....- - -.........- - - - - - -...

September 17, 1997

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

o CAMPUS AFFAIRS

Bollinger, Bark, &cMacKinnon, Oh Why? By MATIHEW BUCKLEY AND LEE BOCKHORN

EW UNIVERSITY PRESIdent Lee Bollinger is wellknown for his First Amendment expertise. Any Internet search engine can find for you multiple college courses recommending his books for hi; First Amendment stance. Bollinger stresses an expansive view of the First Amendment, in which the essence of free speech passes beyond political speech and into other areas of artistic life. Over the course ofhis career, however, Bollinger has been linked to two individuals who seriously disagree. During the 1987 Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Robert Bork, Bollinger (then dean at the U-M law school) was a key witness opposing the conservative jurist. In 1992, still the law school's dean, he was integral in the hiring of feminist legal theorist Catharine MacKinnon. What do the two cases tell us? While clearly recognized as an academic, Bork was very conservative. With a largely laissez-faire attitude in economics combined with a social conservatism seen in his recent best-seller, Slouching toward Gomorrah. Bork's nomination wlJUld have swung the Court rightward, and his "borking" was applauded on the left. Bollinger was one of the first to testify against Bork. Limiting his remarks to analysis of Bork's position on speech rights, Bollinger labelled Bork as a pro-censorship radical. Bollinger made several comments about Bork's more restrictive First Amendment views: Bork had said on several occasions that First Amendment protection should be applied mainly to expressly political speech. Bollinger argued that he opposed the Bork nomination on (hese First Amendment grounds. Bollinger certainly had a point about Bork's paper trail. In law reviews and conferences, Bork made his theoretical point that First Amendment protection had gone beyond parameters the Founding Fathers would have allowed. Yet Bollinger largely ignored points made by RepUblicans in the committee, which indicated that the theoretical Bork often turned quite mainstream in the practical affairs of judging. Bork noted during the hearings that he would accept stated principle in First Amendmen t areas, even given his philosophical disagreement. Getting to the nitty-gritty of actual jurisprudence didn't favor Bollinger's position either. As Sena-

tor Alan Simpson noted during the hearings, Bork served on the D.C. Court of Appeals for six years, a court second only to the Supreme Court in importance. Bollinger himself noted that the nominee's record in first amendment matters was quite good. Why oppose him, then? Bollingerworried about Bork's ability, on the high Court, to "create law." While judges making law is a serious matter (a point on which the conservative Bork would agree with Bollinger), this argument seems slightly off-base. If any court below the Supreme Court can make law, it is the D.C. Court of Appeals, and in his tenure Bork did not show such inclinations. This is not to say Bollinger's opposition of Bork was necessarily wrong. As Bollinger himself notE;!d, "[It's} inappropriate to regard being provocative or challenging to conventional views as necessarily being a virtue." Bork was right-v.:jlrg, and Bollinger is certainly well-versed in First Amendment law - if-he thinks Bork posed a serious threat even after Bork's assurances and legal record, that is his area of expertise.

Enter Catharine MacKinnon. The University hired MacKinnon in 1992, after after she floated through 7 schools in 10 years. MacKinnon is known for her work with feminist legal theory, particularly for trying to censor pornography. In her 1993 book, Only Words, MacKinnon sounds chords sure to ring chills in ACLU bones. Viewing pornography as contributing to a climate of hostility towards women, MacKinnon would have much constitutional protection for hay ing such material stripped. It's not every day that a law school hiring attracts attention in the New York Times, but MacKinnon's controversial appointment did. Joseph Weiler, then a U-M law professor heading the appointments committee, called examining her work a "tr.nsformative experience." Bollinger also expressed his glowing ~upport, praising her as an innovator in the up-and-coming school offemi"'nist legal theory. Yale Law faculty member Geoffrey Hazard saw the matter somewhat differently, noting"it is not clear that [MacKinnon} has genuine comprehension ()flaw."While this

may be overreaction on Hazard's part, it does raise a question ... ifU -Mis the first of eight schools to hire MacKinnon, is it possible that those involved saw the provocative, controversial, and Bork-like views of MacKinnon as a virtue? While MacKinnon will rarely be confused with Bork, their views on freedom of expression are similar. Though they emerge from different perspectives, both MacKinnon and Bork find current First Amendment protection of pornography and other material problematic. Given that most ofthe focus on the pair's FirstAmendment views revolves around their views on censorship and pornography, in this respect they seem remarkably similar. This poses a question. If a flimsy, unestablished caseis eaough for President Bollinger to have opposed the candidacy of an academically-gifted jurist, why is a similar threat to First Amendment freedom ignored during Catharine MacKinnon's search for a teaching position? Is this the sort of cq1l$istency that will mark President Bollinger'S tenure'? Mt

U-M Needs America Reads? By MA'ITHEW BucKLEY

MERICA READS APPEARS well on its way to becoming a tenet ofU-M's communityservice. The Clinton education initiative, emerging as a campaign pledge in the August 1996 campaign skirmishes, is hitting campuses all over the country, with a goal of saving America's youth from the serious problem of illiteracy. In what seems to be an education "two-fer ," workstudy students here at the University will begin working with over 150 children in Ann Arbor and in a nearby suburb. With college students getting financially preferable workstudy packages and young children learning literacy, the program has the potential to help all ages of the educational spectrum. Yet there are serious concerns about the effectiveness of the program. First, federal illiteracy programs are nathing new. Even without the America Reads programs, the federal government spends $8.3 billion dollars on 14 different literacy programs. This is part of an education bureaucracy which spends close to $100 billion a year in a staggering array of programs in all types of education. The President has asked for federal funding of $1. 75 billion dollars

over the next five years to fund the program; with some matching funds and other resources, total funding for America Reads will reach $2.75 billion. Assuming an average teacher salaryof$40,000 a year, such funding could hire over 13,000 teachers over the five years. Notice that such an alternative would give the country thousands more teachers; America Reads create& reading specialists and tutors. As America Reads national director Carol Rasco noted in the New York Times, eventually America Reads will incorporate 30,000 reading specialists teaching over a million tutors, who will proceed to spend time with over three million pupils. Though the U-M plan puts workstudy students into direct teaching contact with young children, in general the program's tutors will not work in the classroom. Rather, they will provide more readingtime for children outside the classroom, particularly on the weekends. Interestingly, the America Reads program seems to be aimed at hitting t.l;lOse kids with basic reading skills who need some slight additional reading to gain somewhat more proficiency. Yet this ignores the more serious problem of kids getting through school without basic, much less supplemental, reading time. As

noted by various educational experts,it is doubtful tutors with eight hours of experience will be able to aid children without basic ,reading skills. Instead of focusing on the arguably more serious problem of kids not receiving basic skills in schools, America Reads throws money into tutors for children with less serious problems. It's also fair to note that a massive expansion ofthe program is foreseen. The Michigan Daily reports that while the current program is using 85 students, this number will need to rise to 1,500 students to meet program requiremen ts, about half all work study students. Much ofthis expansion will probably be at the expense of more traditional work-study jobs of recordkeeping and other tasks. While no doubt these can be boring jobs, such a switch in emphasis will either require other students going from other workstudy roles into the more clerical tasks, or will result in the loss of this U niversitywork force altogether. This could have some deleterious side effects on the University's efficiency, a serious concern given the U-M's scale. There are al ternatives to a Clinton package of volunteerism and tutors. While America Reads has laudable motives, it should not be expected to radically aid our nation's schools in the fight against illiteracy. Ml.

Septembet;: 17,1997

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

o NATIONAL Focus: SMOKING AND THE STATES

Where There's . Smoke, There's Fire. • • BY C.J. CARNACCHIO

OBACCO IS STILL A LEGAL product in this country and yet its manufacturers, distributors, and users are increasingly being denied their rights and treated as if they· were criminals. Cigarette companies are being black-mailed, over-regulated, and demonized. Smokers are forced to endure open persecution and government sponsored discrimination. The big tobacco settlement of June 20,1997, which is about to go before Congress, represents a most frightful encroachment ofthe paternalistic State on industry and individual liberties. The settlement basically boils down to the federal government extorting money from an industry that manufactures a legal product. Tobacco companies will be forced to pay $368.5 billion in the first 25 years after the settlement and then $15 billion a year indefinitely. I thought only the Mafia did this sort of thing. The forty State Attorney generals claim that they and their states are merely seeking reimbursement for Medicaid funds spent on patients with alleged smoking related illnesses. Will these attorney generals also go after fast-food chains and liquor companies for all the health costs they have racked up in heart disease, liver disease, and drunk-driving accidents? The message is clear. Individuals aren't repsonsible for their actions, manufacturers are. Consumers are just victims.' But as the politicians and lawyers greedily wait to carve up their ill-gotten gains, it must be remembered that smokers who will be forced to pay for the deal through price increases. In the ultimate irony, smokers will be made to pay for antismoking propaganda which portrays them as social outcasts. In addition, smokers will be coerced into paying $25 billion to provide health care for uninsured children. Since when did the nation's uninsured children become the responsibility of smokers? When did smokers collectively decide to tackle the country's health care problems? This reeks oftaxation without representation. The part of the settlement that is most blatantly extortion is the clause that states that the tobacco industry is subjected to fines if youth smoking does not drop 30 percent in five years and 60 percent in ten years. There's C. J. Carnacchio enjoys smoking, like most olus here in the newsroom. He is a staff writer lor the Review.

even a penalty of $80 million for each percentage point by which the target is missed. Tobacco companies cannot and should not be held responsible for the choices individuals make of their own free wilL If an underage youth decides to take up smoking, the choice is his alone and no one else can be held accountable, not even the evil Joe Camel and that desperado the Marlboro Man. Doesn't individual responsibility count for anything anymore? Another facet of the June settlement included even more restrictive regulations governing tobacco advertising. All of which are blatant violations of the· First Amendment. Tobacco companies will bebarred from advertising on billboards, using human and cartoon figures in ads, advertising on the Internet, sponsoring sporting events, merchandising, anti product placement in movies and TV. If a product is legal to sell, then it should be1egal to advertise. 1f the government is allowed to place these severe limitations on the speech of tobacco companies in the name of public welfare, what's to stop them

places have received a temporary exemption. Business people should be allowed to establish their own smoking rules on their own property without the the interference of the State. The settlement's true agenda comes to light in the clause that allows the Food and Drug Administration to regulate nicotine as a drug but not ban it from cigarettes before 2009. This is a clear first step toward the eventual prohibition oftobacco. With the FDA being able to define a drug as any substance "intended to affect the structure of the body of man," the agency has been able to overstep its boundaries and usurp power left and right. Of course, it was the FDA's highly questionable definition of cigarettes as "drug delivery devices" that gave them the authority over the cigarette inudstry in the first place. With such broad sweeping definitions and power, soon the FDA will be regulating the fat content in your Big Mac and the sugar in your Twinkie. After smoking has been eliminated, just what will be next? A ban on unhealthy foods. A return to Prohibition. Mandatory exercise p.re·

from eventually doing this to the media, political groups, and even individuals on the same grounds? In the past year the Supreme Court decided a case which dealt with advertising restrictions. Rhode Island had a law that banned the advertising ofliquor prices. The state was attempting to reduce liquor consumption through the ban. A retail store that sold alcohol, 44 Liquormart, sued Rhode Island claiming the ban violated its First Amendment rights. In a 9 to 0 decision, the Court sided with the store and struck down the ban as unconstitutional. Hopefully, this case will strike a blow for the tobacco industry:s rights as well. The anti-smokers claim these advertising bans are necessary to curb underage smoking. But in other nations the restrictions have proved ineffective. In 1975 Norway banned all tobacco advertising and today its smoking rate exceeds the United States by a third. Canada banned all tobacco advertising in 1989 and there has been no significant effect on its smoking rate which still exceeds the u.s. These bans serve as little more than political tools devoid of sub~ stance. The State's relentless assault on private property rights is also included in the settlement. The deal bans smoking in public places and most workplaces that do not have separately ventilated smoking areas. Ca. sinos; restaurants, bars, and bingo

grams for a nation of couch potatoes. As the great columnist H.L. Mencken once observed, "You know the type as well as I do ... Give him Prohibition, and he launches a new crusade against cigarettes, coffee, jazz, and custard pies." How far are we willing to let the State and fanatical do-gooders dictate policy on our personal habits? The anti-smokers want us to surrender all notions of personal responsibility in favor of an ideology of victimization. To them, we are a nation of children that just don't know any better. When an indiviudal surrenders his personal reponsibility he surrenders his freedom as well. The act of smoking is a personal and private choice. Only someone of a totalitarian mindset could conceive of depriving others of that choice and dictating their personal habits. But the health Nazis are the self-appointed and self-righteous guardians of civilization, sent here to save us from ourselves. They won't let little things like the Constitution and civil liberties interfere with their higher purpose. Fanatics always view individual freedoms as merely annoying obstacles in their relentless march toward Utopia. The anti-smoking crusaders have carefully camouflaged their assault on personal freedom under such banners as public safety and "saving the children." By allowing them to run amuck using these political Trojan . horses, they' n<fve becolne 'the l;-ogue

elephants of society ready to trample over everyone's rights. Whenever the people are deprived of liberty based on the rational that "it's for their own good," then no right is sacred and no freedom is safe. Smoking has become a badge of honor signifying one's refusal to submit to the health fascists' social tyranny. The war over tobacco is not just a battle to be waged by smokers alone. It's a fight that demands the attention of all liberty loving people. Rarely is freedom lost all at once. It's gradually stripped away. At first, it's the seemingly insignificant things such as smoking. But it's the smallest freedoms, the day-to-day choices about our own lives, that affect us the most. As the French political observer Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, "It must not be forgotten that it is especially dangerous to enslave men in the minor details of life. For my own part, I should be inclined to think freedom is less necessary in great things than in little ones, if it were possible to be secure of the one without the other." l\'R

•

WE'RE BACK!

This summer, the staff of The Michigan Review moved its office back from the confines of the Perry Building to our Modern Corporate Office suite in The Michigan League, where we bask in climate-controlled luxury. Well, maybe not, but we have moved. Our phone is now:

647-8438 Our office is now at:

911 N. University, Suite One Ann Arbor, MI 48109

This is on the third floor of The Michigan League, near the rest of the student offices.

',.>""+~<n."];'/,,*'ff',,,"v,''''=m'=\'k''''''''''''''''''~_i'''_'''''''''''~'!'f~~~\'l(I¥WW%W~10.~<I>~i'lli;I"l'~JOel'j''lfIll:i$ ~",....... ~~""_ _. . . ._ _ __

September 17,1997

THE MICHIGAN REVIEW

DSPORTS

Wolverine Ice Hockey 101 BY ROBERT WOOD

O, YOU THINK YOU'RE A Wolverine, eh, incomingfrosh. You've started classes. You've had your books for a couple of weeks now. Heck, maybe you've even learned how to sing the refrain to "The Victors." Not bad. You're getting there. I bet you even look forward to your first set of midterms (the "wait11- theygetta-Ioad-of-me," Joker mentality). Just be sure you don't miss one of the most fun things of being a sports fan atU ofM. But you say, "We've already been to our first home football game," of course. Well, yes, football is right on up there. I love a good gang tackle as much as the next guy. What I was referring to was (for those of you who've been here awhile, all at once now, 1 ... 2 ... 3)HOCKEYTICKETS!!! That's right, ladies and gentlemen. Hockey tickets went on sale the 8th, and are going fast. Now, Yost Ice Arena doesn't seat the 105,000 people Michigan Stadium :ioes, and it doesn't have Robert !'raylor or the hardwood floors of Crisler Arena. It does, however, provide a haven for the most hard-eore, rowdy, spirited bunch of Wolverines and Wolverine fans this side of the Mackinac Bridge. If you want loud fans, it's got the loudest and best. If you want fast, hard-hitting guys in helmets and pads, it's got the fastest and toughest. If you want NCAA national championships, we've got eight. If you want to be a true Wolverine, with all the rights and privileges thereof, you've GOT to order your tickets. Hell, if you even want splitseason tickets like you got for the football season, you'll probably get those, too. Are you excited yet? Are ya ready for more? Well, here's a primer on the important points to remember for the upcoming season: The Coacb: GQrdon "Red" Berenson Coach Berenson is one of the alltime greats in Michigan hockey, both :is a player and a coach. In just three 3easonsatMkhigan,from 1959-1962, h.e scored 78 goals and had 59 assists, in III minutes played. In 21 seasons .n the NHL (five with Detroit), he had 397 assists and 261 goals (6 in one ?ame). As a coach, he was head coach of ;he St. Louis Blues for three seasons, ;ompiling a .559 win percentage, and HiS coached the Maize--and-Blue for Robert Wood is Sports Editor of the Review and as a Senior in Aerospace Engineering, has obviously spent way too much time in the wind tunnels.

thirteen seasons, with a 335-175-29 record. He will start his fourteenth season at the helm on October 10, at Minnesota. He has guided our hockey program to the NCAA tourney for the past seven straight seallons and has led us to the Final Four in five of the

Time for some bad news. At the end oflast season, Michigan lost nine starting seniors. Lucky for us, we've got these four guys (along with several other stars) to keep the juggernaut alive this season. In no particular order, we have: Marty Turco, a 6 foot tall, 171Ib senior, to start in goal. He's been a brick wall for the Wolverines for the last two stellar years. He has a career save percentage of .894 and a career win percentage of. 783, with a goalsagainst average of2.38. Yikes .. Next, there's Matt Herr. He's a 6'2", 194-lb left wing. He finished second on the teamlll scoring, last sea- .~ son. He has 58 goals and 44 assists in the three seasons ae's been here. He's the B.M.O.C., along with Turco this year. He's also the team captain, ready to lead our maize and blue troops into the fray. Then, we've got Greg Crozier. This 6'3", 199-lb left wing has the capacity to be a real force on the ice. If you're on the opposing team, you'd better watch him, because he'll either score through you, pass through you, or plow through you. Even after a broken forearm kept him out of ten games last year, he came back and provided three assists in the very next game, along with two goals in the game after that. In his two seasons with Michigan, he's scored 19 goals, and had 25 assists. Finally, rounding out my top four is Bubba Berenzweig, a 6'1", 200lb, evil-lookin' defenseman. He's got the bulk to be an enforcer for the Wolverines, and just needs to be pushed the slightest bitfurther to snap. He's been relatively calm so far (only 17 total penalty minutes), but one can't help but grin at the possibility of him going into a berzerker rage on some poor opposing forward who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, with his stick just a bit too high. Did I say time for some bad news? Home Schedule Highlights The important home games to attend this year (as if you didn't want to attend them all, home and away, by now) start with perennial ri val Michigan State, on October 25th. They were the only team to pull off two wins

against the Wolverines during the regular season last year. That's okay, the fans are sure to have a nice, friendly welcome for them when they drop by next month. The second home game you most definitely will not want to miss is the Minnesota game, on November 28th. This team is always a powerhouse, and like Michigan has a long winning tradition. While there is no Big Ten in college hockey, and Michigan is not even in the same conference as the Golden Gophers, this is still a bit of a rivalry. Each team is out for blood. Speaking of blood, the January 9th Bowling Green game ought to be a frenzy. Last season, when the two teams met in Ann Arbor, it wasn't a game; it was all-out war. Fun to watch, too. This year will make a hell of a

grudge match. Enjoy it; I know I will. The last huge game of the season will be against Lake Superior State University, on February 28th. Lake State and Michigan are the Titans of the CCHA, right now. It's kinda like the UMiOSU football game each year. Be there or be ... well, on spring break. This ought to be an interesting year in Michigan hockey. You can't count the Wolverines out of the title hunt this year, even after graduating the seniors they did since last season. They still have the necessary punch in the right areas to be a force to be reckoned with, and the fan base here in Ann Arbor to scare the absolute bejesus out of their opponents. Join in the fun. Mt

~Pick

on Someone Your Own Size!

BY RoBERT WOOD

LORIDA GATORS' HEAD Coach Steve Spurrier must be feeling pretty good about himself right now. A six-year, $11.8 million dollar contract can do that to a guy. Of course, being paid that much money and being worth it are two entirely different things. It's true,he is an exceptional football coach and his coaching skills are what his employer pays him for. His team is defending its national championship this year, he's won five SEC titles, and his starting quarterback from last year's championship team won the Heisman Trophy. As a coach, he may be worth that much money. As a man, however, he is not worth one red cent. 826. That was the score Mr. Spurrier decided was necessary to eke out a victory against the mighty Central Michigan University Chippewas. If any other word than obscene comes to your mind, you probably still beat up freshmen for lunch money. 59-14 was the score, when those great sportsmen, the Nebraska Cornhuskers played Akron. This, of course, is nothing new. Nebraska has been running up scores since the year they won their first national title under Tom Osborne, in the '94-'95 season. The pollsters didn't seem to mind. That was the same year Penn State went undefeated without obliterating all oftheir lesser opponents. JoPa was just a bit miffed that his team

....

couldn't at least share the title. Both Steve Spurrier and Tom Osborne have shown, time and again, their utter lack of respect for their opposition. No, these scores not only indicate a lack of respect on the parts of Spurrier and Osborne for their opponents, but also for the opposing teams' head coaches, hard-working players, athletic programs, and institutions in general, they also indicate a lack of respect for the game itself. "It's horrible. I think it's very degrading for teams like Akron and Sam Houston State and stuff to get waxed 84-6. This game is a lot more than just winning. It's about sportsmanship and playing the game right," according to Ricky Williams, running back for Texas. "We don't do that at Colorado, and honestly, I think teams should be embarrassed about doing it," agreed John Hesseler, Colorado's starting QB. Generally, the problem starts with scheduling. While teams like our Michigan can take pride in regularly scheduling non-conference games with the likes of Colora~ and Notre Dame, teams like Florida and Nebraska are careful not to schedule those types of games. They look at the bottom line: wins and losses. Why show your pride in your program by See PICK on Page 11

<,~<"~"..",""N",,,''''''','''"l><''~'w''''''''''''"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''~'''"'''''''~''F >eN""''''''''W~"v,''''#'\~~,>""r.''''''''~N''~'' ..mx~:\>.'''fi.~~~~_I'iS

:firm

Let's GO All the Way

BY KRISTINA CURKOVIC

TRIPPING IS ESSENtially about bodies: the display, the showing-off, and the ogling of bodies. So when moviemakers set out to present a presentable movie about stripping, beau-

The Full Monty Directed by Peter Cattaneo. Featuring Robert Carlyle, Mark Addy.

tiful bodies are a necessity-enter figures Demi Moore in the recent bomb Striptease, and actresses in the similarly dismal Showgirls. Now, with the arrival of yet another movie based on intricate removal of clothing, we have a delightfully different scenario: men, whose less-than-perfect bodies set the pace for a near-perfect English comedy, The Full Monty. Welcome to once-thriving Sheffield, where optimistic industry crumbles under gloomy unemployment and personal misery. Surviving

on the dole and spending their days in the career office or bumming about, former steel workers Gaz (Robert Carlyle of Trainspotting) and Dave feel hopeless until they sneak into a ladies-only Chippendales' perfomance. Having discovered what they see as an easy way to make some fast money, the pair decide to form their own group of dancers. And then the fun begins, for stripping in front of the ladies isn't quite thejoyride they'd anticipated. In order to draw a crowd as big as that of the Chippendales, Hot Metal (as the group hails itself) realizes they need something extrasomething that even the Chippendales don't have. They'll have to go the full monty-that is, take it all off, and in a way so cleverly choreographed the theater audience claps and cheers as heartily as the one within the movie. . However, the road toward even- ~ tual infamy is a rocky one, for while all ofthem desperately need the mon€y for variousre'asons, they still hav~ to cope with problems ofself-esteem and embarrasment; wondering if they're too big in some spots and too small in

candybar binges and attempts to conceal his bulges are both amusing and pitiable; all of which cummulates when he is finally on stage, and the surprise he feels there is liberating for himself and for the audience. The other characters-like Horse, a nearelderly man whose dance repetoire is a little outdated; odd, red-haired Lomper who transforms from suicidal to happily in love; and sexy, wellendowed Guy, who's the only one in the group with no problems baring it all-are each unique, and the interaction and friendships between them are believable and fun. So forget, if you haven't already, Striptease and Showgirls: here is a hilarious, unembarrasingmovie about stripping, in which the characters' final performance is on the scale of classics like Dirty Dancing and Strictly Ballroom. Its ingenuity lies in the fact thatThe Full Monty isn't about displaying physical perfection, or about phenomenal dancing; it's a successful moyie about personal triumphs that defies conventions and rips some clothes off in the process, too.l\R

others, and, in some terrificly funny scenes, whether they'll be able to conquer those tricky dance moves (set to a great soundtrack that includes Sister Sledge aQd Tom Jones). Their insecurities, while sometimes emotional, are the source of the movie's funniest moments; however, for all the hilarity, the film is not cruel to its characters, and we come to realize that the men need to present their performance not only for the money, but to rescue themselves from a deeper misery built on problems of trust, self-loathing and loneliness. Granted, the movie is not a deep one, and the comedy is often based on one of the most basic sources of comedy: body parts. Yet this is an intelligent, well-organizedfilm, with quick looks into each of the characters lives that never stray too far from the story or distract us from the real purpose of their actions. The characters themselves are priceless and well-played, especially Dave (Mark Addy), whose weight problem makes him insecure but still cute. His disappointment with himself is evident, and his secret r'"'~

Everybody Play The Game BY MAITHEW BUCKLEY

HAT EXACTLY IS IT that is so frustrating with boredom, particularly the boredom that comes with great accomplishmenU Maybe it's a matter of realizing that Me simply can't throw more challenges at you; maybe having nothing to do gives you time to brood upon your life's little personal agonies. In David Fincher's new thriller, The Game, Nicholas Van Orten (Michael Douglas) is one very successful, very bored man. A shrewd businessman holding the reins of a prosperous family business, Van Orten walks through high-rolling financial days to come home to a hulking shell of a house, watching endless financial news telecasts before retiring to wake again. The suicide of his father during his youth and his own wrecked marraige consume his thoughts, klrning a life of subsidized ennui into a very private hell. Birthdays for lonely people are never fun, and Van Orten's is no different, receiving calls and well-wishing from those he cares nothing about. Lunch with dysfunctional brother Conrad (Sean Penn) launches Van Orten into applying for a slot with

(

Consumer Recreations Services, a company which, in Conrad's ominous words, "makes your life fun." Van Orten takes Conrad up on the offer, and the story gets underway. As a series of seemingly innocent accidents quickly escalates into near-misses with serious bodily harm, Van Orten quickly finds himself almost clueless as to his situation. What was believed to be "fun" turns into an elaborate mess. Just exactly who can be trusted is, of course, all up in the air. The alluring Christine (Deborah Kaye Unger) seems friendly enough, but when it dawns on Van Orten that the entire "game" could be a setup to fleece him and his company for $600 million in pension money, Christine's motives are suspect. Even the true intentions of Conrad are unclear .. , is he trying to help Nicholas have a good time, or is he caught in something far deeper? The Game clicks in a lot of ways. As a grand conspiracy movie, screenwriting is clutch: either by ditracting the audience or by being properly intricate in the plot, one has to keep the audience suspending their disbelief without making them scoff. The screenwriters here do that in remarkably good fashion, and are able

to keep an audience involved with plot rather than loads of all-out action bonanzas. The ending is deftly handled, though improbable, and the total script is really quite an accomplishment. Two of the writers, John Brancato and Michael Ferris, are taking a big step up from their previously biggest movie, The Net. As for Andrew Walker, he already has experience both with endings with a twist and with director David Fincher as a member of the dark thriller Seven. Fincher has quite a distinctive directing niche. The Game, likeSeven, is a movie that requires repeat viewing to completely "get." Both movies have a very jarring, dark quality. Scenes are often amazingly dark with hostile flourescent lighting, or at best dim lights with little warmth at all. Fincher, ~ho is slated to do some work with the new Star Wars movies in 1999, is really an interesting talent doing interesting projects. Fincher also does a fine job with his actors. I t probably helps that some of them need remarkably little help. As the repressed Van Orten, Michael Douglas goes from brooding to vengeful to scared with definite skill. In one scene, when he hears that Cons1lJller Recreation Services has rejected his

"application," Douglas gives a look of disgust that perfectly fits the scene: one of Thomas Wolfe's Masters of the Universe, used to getting his way, rebuffed. No Oscars for Douglas, but definitely an entertaining role. Sean Penn, enjoying lots of recent acclaim for Dead Man Walking, is also solid as the cocky, troubled Conrad. As the emotional opposite to Douglas' Van Orten, Penn gets to do a requisite bit ofscreaming and yelling. Lots of this is due to the lines, but Penn is good and does his job well. Fincher really succeds with Unger, whose usual role is that of a static, "attractive blonde" who does nothing while other people evolve and change. In both Keys to Tulsa and Crash, she basically sat there while James Spader and Eric Stoltz went through their headlining roles. Here, though, Unger gets to shift character roles a little bit; she takes a role not unlike that of Sharon Stone in the convoluted Total Recall and plays it about twice as well. The Game is a twisted flick don't sit there with a huge beverage and run to the bathroom six times; you11 end up missing stuff. Sit back and watch Fincher do his stuff .. , this beats the "summer blockbusters" hands down. Ml

>"'"

JOIN THE MICHIGAN REVIEW! ,~

\j ,.,. ,t~tf"

The Campus Affairs Journal of the University of Michigan is searching for BUSINESS STAFF AND WRITERS FOR ALL SECTIONS. No experience is necessary! We'll teach you everything you could ever want to know about writing at and working for a newspaper. • HAVE the advantage of taking on major responsibility right from the get-go! • WRITE well-written and provocative articles, editorials, essays, and satire! • GET hands-on experience in journalism and business that looks great on a resume!

A MERE ELEVATOR RIDE AWAY FROM WENDY'S AND TIM HORTON'S! (This isn't so much of a reason tojoin, but we consider it a side benefit, or one of the few perks of being at the Review.)

Come to our MASS MEETING in our Modern Corporate Office on the Third Floor of the Michigan League on Thursday, September 18 or Monaay, September 22 at 7:00 p.m., or email mrev@Umich.edu for more information! II

SUPERCHUNK CONnNUED from page 12

Jon: Yep, You know their next album is going to come out and sell half of what <Villains) will. MR: Ideally, where do want you see yourself five years from now. Do you think yeu will still be playing? Jon: I can still see' us around in five years, I think we were fortunate enough to start when we did in 1989 beforo all these bands that are happening now came in the rush of '94, Where all the bands sounded identicaL So we were lucky to start back then and chisel out our own sound and find our own niche. So I think we can keep going, and make more records, and I think we stand a good chance of getting a little bigger, and keep doing it. That is the main thing. I'm lucky I haven't had to have a real job in five years. That's all I ever wanted anyway! MR: So your main priority is not to fill stadiums, but to keep doing what your doing? Jon: Exactly. The best case scenario is that each record will sell ten thousand more than the last one. And we're sorta on that course now. I think it would be really hard to be a band like Soul Asylum. They slugged it out so long and then had a huge hit record. Then the next one ('anw out and did a lot less, and now

they're in this weird limbo. I think it would be hard to taste that superstardom, and then BAM-it's gone. I would rather not taste it at all. MR: If you hate 99 percent of the stuff you hear, what do you listen too? Jon: I haven't been listening to a whole lot. I'm really into comedy shows that I have taped over the years. I'm really more into that these days. But musically, I like Son Volt a lot. And I saw Cheap Trick about a month ago and it reaffirmed my belief in rock. That was great and I have started to listen to those records again. But not too much new stuff. MR: I know what bands you don't want to become, but who are you envious of and can say 'Yeah, they did it the right way.' Jon: REM did it right. But then again, their first album was in the top twenty. But I think they had the right grass roots approach. Soul Asylum too. I'm always kind a suspicious of a band like Matchbox 20. I hate to harp on these guys, but I saw them open for the Lemonheads about six months ago. At that point Matchbox 20 was completely unheard of. I remember just thinking that in twenty years when someone wants an example of a rock band in the mid to late nineties, this will be the example. The most generic sounding thing I have ever seen or heard. They could have been anybody. That is why I was amazed

when that song ("Push") got huge. It actually made me feel better about what we are doing. God, I hate to sound like a jerk. MR: What has made Superchunk successful, above other bands who started off like you guys? Why didn't you become a Matchbox 20? Jon: There are a few bands who have stayed on their own label who have had minor success, like the Dead Kennedys, Fugazi. None of them have had any mainstream success, I think that is out of the question when being on your own label. But I think we retained a large degree of integrity and people seem to appreciate that. That doesn't make a great song, but I think we have some great songs to go with that integrity. Eventually, a great song will prevail and rise. It also helps that we never had a game plan. You can see a band and tell they have their next ten years set and how they wan tit to go. We don't even know what we are doing in January. And I think that looseness helps. MR: All right, I think I have grilled you enough. Jon: All I ask is that you~on't title it 'Superchunk Hates Matchbox 20!' l\R.

You can catch Superchunk playing at the Magic Stick on October 25th.

PICK CONTINUED from page 9

scheduling top 20 teams, when you can take the easy victory by scheduling teams like CMU, Akron, and for Nebraska this past weekend, Central Florida. What a barn-burner out in Lincoln, eh? Too bad UCF couldn't hold on. One small point these schools like to make is that they have to score as much as they can just to move up (or stay on top, as in the case of Florida) in the polls. However, would it also not have been a respectable victory for the Gators to score one-quarter of the points they accrued? It is more than likely that 20-6 would have maintained their #1 ranking and would still have allowed the Chips their dignity. Ah well, one can only hope for the day that justice comes to Tombstone (or Gainesville, or Lincoln, as the case may be) in the form of Central Nowheresville State defeating these juggernauts. On a more realistic note, once the Super-Alliance of college football comes in to play in a couple of years, Michigan might get to play one of these teams in a nice, cool Arctic Bowl. Until then, we'll all just have to continue seeing these nauseating, lopsided scores, and pressuring our AD to challenge the bully on the playground to a schooling. lVR

><'.>.">'"''''"''''''~'''''''''''''''8't'''N(..''''''n',.,r;~~''·=''''''~'''">,,,,,,>,,~.,,,",-,,.,,_,'lO)->,,,,,,,,,»'Jl~~~'-',"1~,'W'J;'I;m'\,;~;;~~~,,,:,<~~;o:;;&;~,~~'"

l" ,'" .,' -;,

.. - .-.----'---...,....~-.

';" :

i12

,";"

, i'

- :-":-" --"

.- - - - -...- ,,-. - --

...., --

.- - -

.. - - - - ----.......... --;-

MICHIGAN REVIEW LIVING CULTURE _._-_.. -".-.-

..-~--------..--.-

9V,(lL5ic

. _ -..-..

.-..

....-.-.-

--.-- - ....

'.• ,1

September 17, 1997

...

----~.

Superchunk:.Qn Their Own Terms

BY CHRIS HAYES

UPERCHUNK IS EVERY indie rocker's hero, They have been playing since before this decade on their own terms, No large labels, no hype, no bull shit. They have made a living doing what they want without anyone controlling there strings. This month, Superchunk released their eighth LP, Indoor Living, on their own Merge Records out of their home town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The Review was fortunate enough to have the chance to talk to Jon Wurster of Superchunk about/ndoor Living, as well as life and rock and rolL MR: What's been going on? Jon: Not much. Doing errands and preparing for the upcoming. onslaught of rocking. MR: When do you guys nit the road? Jon: Not until the first of October. We have a couple of pre-tour shows coming up we need to get ready for. There are a couple here in Chapel Hill, one at Duke, and one in New York City. MR: So what have you been doing since you finished Indoor

Living? Jon: We've been doing a lot of press, and we filmed a video that is still getting edited ... MR: That's for "Watery Hands," right? Jon: Yeah. And the release date \ of the album,got pushed back a week because of the UPS strike. So if all goes well, it hopefully will be out on the 9th. We're playing Detroit on the 25th of October. MR: Where at? Jon: The Magic Stick. I've heard good things about that place; What's it like? MR: It's pretty cool. It's quain t. Jon: You're in Ann Arbor, right? MR: Yeah. Jon: We played the Blind Pig once. MR: What do you enjoy more: Recording or playing live? Jon: I actually get more satisfaction out of recording. Strange, because playing live you get that immediate gratification. But for me, hearing something back that soundsreally good on tape is a little more exciting. MR: How do you think this record differs from what you have

Chris Hayes is Music Editor of the Review and strives to get his foot in the door of the cool indie rock scene.

Superchunk (from left): Laura Ballance, Jon Wurster, Jim Wilbur, and Mac McCaughan

done in t}:ut past? I think it is alot different' than the stuff yoU"put out five yeQ,rs back. What were you looking to accomplish with this album? Jon: Consciously, we weren't trying to do anything, really. It just came out the way it came out. We never sat down and stated what we wanted to do or how we wanted this record to sound. Mac had some ideas for keyboards, whichlwasallfor. We wanted to experiment a bit and we had time to try out some new sounds and new instrumentation. It was hit or miss. Some things worked and some didn't, but there was no real game plan. The songs are a little slower, but there are the trademark faster numbers. I think on a whole it is our best record - I know everybody says that, but I am very pleased the way it turned out. I mean, it sounds like Superchunk, but it sounds like Superchunk a step further. This is the first album we have ever made that I actually listen to by choice. In the past I would play a record to remember how to play a song. With Indoor Living, I want to listen to it. I think the songs are really good and on a whole it really works. I hate to say 'I think it is really matun~,' but in a way it is. It is obvious that the people who made it aren't kids anymore. There is more to the songs than before. The songs are written better and we experimented more. They are more memorable that way. MR: I read in an interview with Mac a few years ago where he stated that he didn't think anyone was going to do anythingrevolutionary in the genre of music.

"",.

He then stated that as long as songs are well written, things will fall into place for you guys. Now with the massive talk of rock changing into an electronic age ana ··Inale rOCK" on the way.: out;' what is your reaction to- tWs, and howis Superchunk changing with these trends? Jon: 1 guess 1 would only consider ourselves indie rock in that we are independent. I was listening to the college radio yesterday and heard these two songs that sounded like the typical indie rock sound to me - not so much distorted guitar as atonal. You know it when you hear it. It's like the description of pornography: 'I know it when I see it.' Music is cyclical. There always has to be new things coming. No genre can have a lasting surge for more than five years , it seems. It is getting even quicker now because the public's attention span is getting shorter and shorter. I think we aTe our own band and whatever happens , happens. MR: The goal for most bands is to get a major record deal and get big. Superchunk has stayed on Merge and turned down major label offers. Why did you guys chose the route you did? Jon: On a personal note, I was in a band about ten years ago that was on a major label. It was a total disaster. I mean, we never even finished our record. I kinda got a 'worse case scenario' there. We just knew that in the long run it wasn't worth it. Look at all the bands who got major deals in the

feeding frenzy after Nirvana . Where are any of them now? There are only a handful who have sold any more albums than they would have if they were on the label they started on. ';ure, there is the instant gratification of 'We got money up front.' And then you make your record and it doesn't do as well as the label thought it would. Then you record your next record and you realize there is a new band that the label likes a lot more and they are more of a priority. Then you're kinda low man on the totem pole. Then most likely your A&R guy leaves and you get a new A&R guy who is assigned you and of course he isn't into you. So you're screwed. 1 think we saw that as a great possibility of happening. There is a local station here and I don't want to be a jerk, but 1 hate 99 percent of the stuff I hear on it. These bands get signed and sure they get a hit right off the bat, but - like this band Matchbox 20. Are we even going to be hearing from these guys in four years? MR: It is just like what happened a decade ago. I still stand by a few glamour rock bands, but for a while there were so many big hair bands who hit big with a single, but then fell of the face of the earth because they sucked. The same thing is happening now. Jon: Like your homies Sponge. MR: Or the Verve Pipe. Jon: That's right! Yeah, they are the standard bearer, 1 guess. MR: The ballad sells. CONTINUED on Page 11