A perennial problem for religiously observant students at the University is missing classes, tests, paper deadlines and other academic responsibilities on religious holidays.
The University has been wary to address the issue in the past, and students have been tacitly expected to check their religion at the door while in class. Consequently, students have been confused about their academic responsibilities on religious holidays, and faculty have been equally uncertain. Individual professors and graduate student instructors have attempted to patch this administrative hole by developing their own de facto policies on religious-academic conflicts.
While most students work out agreeable alternatives with their instructors, some are not so fortunate. Professors have been known to penalize students who miss class on religious holidays, and some students have even had to drop courses or accept failing grades because of grievously intolerant instructors. The new University policy on religious-academic conflicts - approved by the offices of the Provost and Vice President for Student Affairs - will help alleviate this problem. It articulates the rights and responsibilities of students and faculty. The policy is fair, applies to all religious traditions, and empowers students to prevent the negative outcomes of missing class.
While The Michigan Daily has demonstrated that it does not understand the history of the problem or the policy ("Holydays," 9/11/96), those of us involved in drafting the policy appreciate the publicity it has received.
Sunday evening through Monday evening, thousands of Jewish students on campus will observe Yom Kippur, the solemn Day of Atonement. Thanks to the Daily, Jews and all other religious students now know that we will not be penalized for missing class on our holy days.
Anthony Scaglione
LSA senior; Chair, Hillel Governing Board
I would like to protest the fact that Bob Dole is "reneging on his pledge" to stay out of the congressional spotlight ("Undue Influence," 9/17/96).
Dole left the Senate to be able to devote more time to his political campaign, not so he could stop exhibiting his influence in government. Dole, by exhibiting opinion on the chemical weapons treaty, is representing his own views and the views of his voters. He has simply chosen to make his campaign one of actions, not promises. Putting forth his wisdom toward this weapons treaty was the correct thing to do. The "rogue states" that you seem to address as insignificant are where the concern for this treaty should be directed. This element is important for the fact that when declaring to destroy a portion of one's defenses, that country is leaving themselves vulnerable, to attack or otherwise. Only if all parties are in agreement does this declaration have any meaning. Without full participation from all involved, the treaty is more dangerous than beneficial.
Christian Spencer
Engineering first-year student
In response to your editorial on parking ("Cooperation," 9/9/96), I have to make a few points. Much of the editorial discusses the lack of parking and the problems faced by commuters trying to park their cars. The University offers a free parking lot on South State Street to any student or staff. I parked in this lot for two years and never found it more than half full. The University provides a free bus to campus from this lot every 15 minutes. In my two years of parking there, the bus nearly always ran on schedule. There is also a free commuter lot next to Crisler Arena. Are people so lazy that they have to park on campus because they refuse to wait a few minutes for a bus?
Your editorial complains about the cost of parking meters and parking tickets. What are you comparing these costs to? Parking tickets in many cities can easily run $15 and up. Ann Arbor charges $5 to $7 for an expired meter. Most parking meters in other cities charge a much higher rate than the one cent a minute in Ann Arbor. How can you possibly call these fees "outrageous?"
You suggest that the University open staff lots to students. Yet you don't mention that fees are charged of staff to park in these lots, some of which cost hundreds of dollars per year for a permit. Certainly if these lots were opened to students the University would not waive these fees.
There have been many complaints about the ongoing construction on campus. Yet the Daily is advocating that the University build more high-rise parking structures. You do not suggest who will pay for new high-rise structures. Either the people parking in them will have to pay, or the expense would be passed on in higher tuition.
You should consider that there is available free parking in commuter lots. The convenience of on-campus parking will always cost something, whether it is in parking permit fees, meters, or tickets.
Instead, try using the free commuter lots. These are not just for long-distance commuters, but are fine for people living in Ann Arbor.
Steve Pert
University Alum
Political parties have turned the Michigan Student Assembly into a joke.
How can I say that? I've served on the assembly for more than a year, only to see it go from a forum of debate to a dramatized version of "Lord of the Flies."
Where once we might debate affirmative action, we now argue over parliamentary procedure. Where once there was substance, there are now personal agendas. And where there was once order, there is now utter chaos.
Why have things gotten to this sorry state? I believe it is a direct result of partisan politics on the assembly. For evidence of this, let us play a quick game of "Where Are they Now?" starring the candidates for president in last spring's MSA election.
Among the candidates from the smaller parties, not a single one has attended an MSA meeting yet this fall. Jonathan Freeman of the Students' Party has left the country. Andy Schor of the Wolverine Party has since cast off his affiliation with his former mates. Finally, the winner of that mock election, Fiona Rose, has been going blue in the face trying to tell everyone within earshot that the partisan days of the assembly have passed, so as to somehow save face before The Michigan Daily prints another negative editorial.
The common thread? All of the candidates have been pursuing their own personal interests, not those of whichever party they held allegiance to in the spring. The explanation to this is very simple, but also very important: There are no real issues debated by MSA.
Sure, the assembly does all sorts of good things, from funding student groups to promoting student interests in Lansing. But these aren't issues; they are tasks better handled by bureaucrats than politicians. So, if there are no real issues, why do parties exist? Why, for personal gain, of course. There is a simple contract between party members at campaign time: Tell your friends to vote for me, and I'll tell my friends to vote for you.
When one party has more "friends" than the rest, all the crafty politicians jump ship to get in on the bandwagon. It is no coincidence that both our current president and vice president changed their party affiliation before their successful bid for office.
The Daily has stated several times that parties are necessary to avoid MSA elections turning into popularity contests. I submit to you that with the current party system, we simply elect the most popular gang, and we force aspiring representatives to pledge allegiance to the most popular gang-leader. It is no way to run a student government; the system will continue to flounder so long as these pointless political parties persist.
David C. Burden
MSA Engineering Rep.