To the Daily:
The Michigan Mandate has advocated diversity as its underlying premise. It has operated much in the same way as the most traditional approach for increasing diversity. This approach adopts a mathematical formula and focuses on increasing the quantity of the racial components, rather than taking a more quality-oriented approach.
The University campus is viewed as diverse. There exists, however, a serious problem: the quality of the relationship among the diverse groups. This campus is very segregated. Not only are many students not open to other cultures, there is also discernible tension and animosity.
The degraded quality of the relationships is partially a by-product of a common assumption that all people are the same and have the same needs. The truth is that different groups are quite different and have distinct needs and expectations. The traditional approach toward diversity is the expectation that minority groups should compromise their unique values, conform to the behavioral framework set by the majority and dominant group and assimilate in the big melting pot.
The Michigan Mandate thus far has simply thrown some colored marbles into the jar, while providing less effective mechanisms to ease the ever-increasing tension and the current all-encompassing racism by all groups against the others. The quality of the relationships could be augmented not only through cross-cultural education and communication, but also through increasing respect and recognition for other cultures. This can happen by providing mechanisms to teach about why people are different, why they exhibit different behaviors and what these behaviors symbolize.
This kind of education would be stimulating and thought-provoking. And it has a greater potential to change one's opinion and level of respect for differences. The University administration should have the integrity to re-evaluate the merit of the Michigan Mandate and create an emergency task force to study the emotionally charged issue of diversity in an unbiased fashion.
Afshin Jadidnouri
LSA senior
To the Daily:
I find myself distressed by the discrimination this University shows with regard to health care access and choice. Every enrolled student pays health service fees. So why do students who live or attend classes on North Campus get penalized if they choose to use the North Campus Family Health Services?
If any student on North Campus gets sick, he or she must either travel to Central Campus for uncharged service at UHS, or pay out of pocket to use NCFHS. Furthermore, the University is unwilling to ensure NCFHS is properly funded. In essence, the University has established a system that discourages all students from using NCFHS. Students must be allowed to use the University health service clinic that is most convenient at the time service is required.
Why should students be limited in choice or access when it comes to healthcare? What student is limited in their choice or access when it comes to recreational facility usage or the bell tower they hear chime? Health care access must be handled the same way. President Bollinger and Provost Nancy Cantor should allocate University general funds towards the expansion of University Health Services.
Nick Vasquez
Medical School
First-year student
To the Daily:
Once again, James Miller proves how much wiser and/or perceptive he is than the rest of us "dorks," by enlightening us as to the error of our collective fashion ways ("'U' students just a shave, haircut away from adulthood" 11/19/97). I know he has his own column and can write about whatever he desires, but there has to be something better he can do than use it as a place to spout out gross generalizations and ridiculous stereotypes, all in the name of making himself look witty and oh-so-clever.
I thought James got all of this out of his system last spring when he took the "your music sucks and you look ridiculous" approach to ravers and fans of electronic music in general, when he decided to criticize a genre of music and a group of people he knew nothing about. Well, once again James has decided to don the jacket of Daily fashion and lifestyle critic, this time taking his closed-minded, why-don't-you-conform-already viewpoint and directing it at those of us who he deems have inferior tastes.
Apparently, since he believes my baggy pants look "heinous" (reason enough to go on wearing them), I guess I should grow up and dress like an adult. Thanks, but no thanks. I like how I dress, and I am in no hurry to rush on down to Abercrombie and Fitch to catch the latest shipment of khakis coming in, whether it makes me look like an adult in his eyes or not. Besides, I don't believe an adult is someone who looks a certain way, but someone who thinks and acts a certain way - like not thinking you can judge somebody based solely on their choice of clothes, nor having the arrogance to criticize what is essentially a matter of personal expression.
In addition, there is nothing particularly mature or "adult" about the statement, "you look like somebody's retarded, middle-aged spinster aunt." Making fun of the mentally ill was humorous up until about the seventh grade, and certainly shouldn't come from one who is busy telling everybody else to grow up. In short, it is not wardrobe choice, but attitude, that makes people "look like 12-year-olds."
If you really want people to think you've entered into adulthood, James, forget about how others dress and focus on your own attitude. And in the meantime, stop being condescending to people who are way more interesting than you.
Brad Nash
LSA senior
To the Daily:
After reading the Daily articles on police tactics after the game this Saturday, I am compelled to write with my own personal experiences. As an "early rusher," I was quick, smart and lucky enough to avoid the police. But I witnessed many others who were not so lucky.
Let's not fool ourselves - the police were present for one reason. The University was concerned with its own liability in the case of any injuries. However, anyone with an iota of common sense must have known that there was no way of preventing thousands of students from rushing, not even with 10 times the police presence that was at the game. A better way to handle the problem would have been to make an official statement against rushing, then utilize law enforcement personnel in the true interest of student safety (i.e. helping those who may have fallen, preventing a true riot, etc.).
Instead, police were sent out to subdue us with riot gear and pepper spray. When they made the realization that they could not possibly do any good, they settled on a new strategy - pulling one student away at a time, beating him or her, then releasing that person back into the crowd.
Athletic Director Tom Goss said, "Our direction was to keep the kids safe." Is one somehow "safer" in a crowd once they have been blinded? How could they even leave the field in such a condition? I came across several people who could not even see a foot ahead of them through the tears. Thank goodness for their concerned friends who helped them through the rest of the incident.
This unwarranted police brutality served only to vent the anger and frustration of the officers, and was actually counterproductive to what the University claims was its true goal. Reading that some police were even "laughing" makes me sick. It is lucky for the students that no one was badly injured due to police actions; it is lucky for the police that they have not yet received any lawsuits.
Jason Martin
LSA senior
11-26-97
| Previous Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |