To the Daily:
I am writing to the Daily in response to Richelle Mead's well-written letter ("Response was in poor taste," 4/13/98) regarding my comment on Tom Strait's ostentatious correction of Pi ("Pi's decimal approximation was wrong," 4/1/98).
Richelle, do you want answers? I believe you think you are entitled, and you probably have the gall to want the truth. Well, you can't handle the truth!
Richelle, we live in a world that has disenchanted engineers, and these disenchanted engineers have to be reprimanded by people with a sense of humor. Who's gonna do it? You? I think not.
I, as a well-rounded engineer, have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Strait and curse the engineers - you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that Strait's chastising, while tragic, saves lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about in LSA classes, you want me to belittle Strait, you need me to rebuke Strait. We, as hard-working engineers, use words like "aerodynamics," "torque" and "friction." We use these word as the backbone of a life spent building structurally sound buildings. Richelle, you don't even understand those words.
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a person who rises and sleeps under the security of the very bridge that I build and question the manner in which I ridicule a fellow engineer. I'd rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a calculator and start crunching numbers. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!
Richelle, no hard feelings, just please leave the tongue-lashing of engineers to my girlfriend and me.
Darin Glasser
Engineering senior
To the Daily:
Because this campus has focused its attention, with great justification, on such issues as affirmative action and discrimination, an injustice of different sorts has gone unnoticed by the student community.
This institution has built its reputation on athletics and research, and while it's exciting to see a touchdown scored by the Wolverines, or to read an article written by University faculty, that is not why we are at this University.
Have you ever broken down the figures to see how much you pay for each hour spent sitting in a lecture hall, listening to the words of a talented, successful researcher who, unfortunately, also happens to be a horrible teacher? Have you ever skipped out on a dull lecture? That is thousands of your dollars down the drain.
Very few professors have been worth the amount of money I pay to learn from them. In fact, I can count on one hand the teachers who have been memorable in my academic career here at the University.
One of these teachers, after 23 years of dedicated service, has just been informed that she is expendable to the University's curriculum.
No teacher has been more genuine, enthusiastic or giving to her students as Dr. Sherry Hatcher, an adjunct associate professor in the department of psychology. Responsible for its conception, Hatcher is the heart of the psychology department's Peer Advising Practicum; a program that, over the past seven years, has provided invaluable services to the student community. She has played a central role in every peer-helping program on this campus. In stepping outside the research arena, in dedicating herself to her students, Hatcher has been a positive, influential figure in the lives of so many graduate and undergraduate scholars.
Recently, Sherry Hatcher was nominated to receive tenure at this institution. She was turned down. In doing this, we believe the University has issued a statement that it cares more about research status than about students and the education they receive. At the expense of talented, caring teachers, this University too often supports research-oriented faculty. Slighted by the University, Hatcher has handed in her resignation. This is an incredible loss to the community, and the students will suffer. We are curious to learn more about the process of gaining tenure, because we honestly feel that Hatcher is a most-deserving professor, held in highest regards by all her students present and past.
We have not been the most active of students but we are incredibly passionate about this issue and feel the need to be heard. We are hoping the administration will acknowledge our stance. If anybody feels strongly about this or similar issues, take action. Show support for professors like Sherry Hatcher. If we can be heard miles away cheering from the stadiums, certainly we can raise our voices to a level, loud and clear enough, to be heard in the academic arena.
Daniel Kessler
LSA junior
Melissa Fernandez
LSA senior
To the Daily:
I'd just like for everybody to know of U of M's skateboard policy where it is illegal for anyone to operate a skateboard on University campus. Rollerblades, no problem. Bikes, have fun. But skateboards, now, you are going to get a $50 ticket. We all know the skater stereotype: rude, obnoxious, destructive and belligerent. But this is no reason to deprive them of their enjoyment. After all, not all skaters are like that. When I illegally skateboard to class, I carefully pass people so as not to hurt them. I don't consider myself rude or destructive, but rather kind and caring. And why make skateboards illegal? I can't tell you all of the times when I've almost been ran over by some biker while walking to class. What about rollerblades? If the University is complaining about rounded edges on curbs, they will soon learn that rollerbladers grind on curbs too. The only reason there could possibly be to prohibit skateboards is that a skateboard might fly out and hit somebody. Well again, this points back to irresponsible skaters. I'm very careful when I do tricks and make sure nobody is around to get hurt.
The fact of the matter is that the University doesn't want to accommodate skateboarders. Z-roller trucks could be purchased. These trucks roll on curbs rather than slide, and would therefore cause no damage. If the University is complaining about damage to sidewalks, soft wheel can be purchased. They not only ride smoother, but prevent ruts in the pavement. Of course, those huge University trucks driving on the pavement wouldn't have anything to do with this. If it is liability there worried about then just show me where to sign. And besides, it's not like my $26,000 tuition wouldn't cover any damages to the school.
The bottom line is that the school cannot prohibit something on the grounds that it could potentially hurt somebody. That's prior restraint. If a skater hurts somebody because of his recklessness, then never let him skate again, but don't punish everybody because of one degenerate. You'll always have a crazy man with a gun, an alcoholic in a car, and a degenerate with a skateboard, but it's unconstitutional to make guns, alcohol or skateboards illegal.
Aaron Tartof
Engineering first-year student
To the Daily:
Although I was glad to see a photo of the "giant shoe" on the cover of the April 16 Daily, I was disappointed when I could not find any article about the reasons for this protest. The "Just Don't Do It Campaign" urges the University to suspend its contract until Nike pays a livable wage, not based on overtime, promote working conditions consistent with human rights, allow workers the freedom to join a union, and allow independent monitoring by local human-rights organizations.
In 1994, the University's Athletic Department signed a multi-year, $7-million contract with the Nike Corporation. Since that time, there have been numerous reports of serious and widespread labor abuses in Nike factories overseas. Nike employs over 400,000 women and young girls in dozens of factories in China, Vietnam, Indonesia and other countries. Many human-rights and labor-rights organizations have visited factories and talked with the workers over the last few years. They have found that workers are routinely paid below the minimum wage and are often not making enough to live on. Forced overtime is commonplace, as workers are often required to work from 60 to 80 hours per week. The factory conditions are environmentally unsafe, with high levels of toxic solvents and glues used in the shoe production. Physical and even sexual abuse of workers for minor infractions occur. Independent labor unions or other worker organizations are discouraged, and many workers have been fired, beaten and jailed for organizing activities. Independent monitoring of these factories by qualified outside observers is forbidden. These are sweatshop conditions, and workers across Asia risk their employment and their lives by going on strike and struggling against these abuses on a day-to-day basis.
Unfortunately, the University has chosen to publicly ally itself with a corporation that has a history of seeking out low-wage labor and authoritarian governments that keep that labor cheap. The shoe and apparel industries thrive on sweatshop labor, and the University, through its contract, advertises for Nike and helps Nike profit. The University is known throughout the world as a superior institution of scholarship and learning, representative of the best ideals of the liberal democracy. A stand against Nike and its abuses would show the world that corporations cannot buy silence from a respected public University.
The University should expect and demand the best behavior from its corporate partners, rather than submit to the so-called realities of the global sweatshop marketplace.
We should all be aware of the effects of corporations on people and the environment. The entire industry should be forced to improve their practices. Since Nike is the largest shoe producer and an industry leader, other shoe manufacturers such as Reebok and Adidas may follow Nike's example in their improvements. The University can and should be leading the way toward ending the use of sweatshop labor.
Michele Rudy
LSA first-year student
To the Daily:
This past semester, a group of 22 interested students enrolled in a section of English 225 class. What made this particular section of this course unique was the fact that it was an English class devoted entirely to service learning. Requirements for this class included multiple reading assignments, a final service writing project and keeping a personal journal based on our experiences at individual community-service sites.
The humanities aspect of this course allowed us to reflect and discuss our personal situations and transferred them to writing. Through this English service-learning class, we were able to devote our time and build relationships with the community, which in turn gave our writing more meaning and substance.
Students have always complained about the lack of quality humanity classes. We can assure you that this particular class, if continued, can and will fill that void. While there are other community-service courses, what made our English 225 class so unique was that we integrated both a service and humanities course that can be used toward distribution requirements. Since there are not many classes similar to this one, we ask you to take the initiative and encourage the University to add these courses.
Aside from the fact that it is a class that requires community involvement, it has also introduced us to the many different organizations that need aid in our community. Now that we know they exist, we have more incentive to continue our relationship with them in the future. We can say that through this class, we not only gave back to the community but were able to receive much more and develop skills and experiences in and out of the classroom. This is what it means when we participate in community service, and if it means taking classes such as this one to discover that true meaning, then we hope many of the Daily's readers will take the initiative to enroll in a class like this.
The students of English 225, Section 016
To the Daily:
I enjoyed the Daily's thoughtful and welcome insights into the many public benefits of federal investment in civilian research and development ("Scientific cents," 4/17/98). Thanks, too, for mentioning the Institute for Social Research in the context of your argument. We are gratified that the Daily deemed us a worthy example. Student involvement in our research is vital to its openness to new approaches and to intellectual boundary crossings (i.e., interdisciplinary projects). We can and shall do more in this regard. Thanks, again, for the Daily's thoughtful editorial.
David Featherman
Director, ISR
To the Daily:
Kenneth Jones, Minority Affairs Commission chair of the Michigan Student Assembly, wastes too much time criticizing others which he could be using to program real dialogues on minority issues. He should be thanking Brian Reich for compensating for his inaction, not scolding him for an unfortunate communication error. I personally asked Jones to help Reich with the Town Hall Meeting on Race. He told me that he was too busy.
MSA must promote constructive dialogue on campus, and they have started to do that this year with two very successful events. The first was November's Affirmative Action 101, programmed by the MSA Women's Issues Commission. The second was the Town Hall Meeting on Race, which Reich and a few other MSA members programmed independently. The Minority Affairs chair should learn from the success of his fellow MSA members and build an active movement on campus that does not consist only of complaints and post-hoc criticism.
Gregg Lanier
LSA junior
To the Daily:
Affirmative action in college admissions, or giving preference to an individual on the basis of race, is designed to directly counter the "unequal playing field" of racial prejudice. The basis for this is that because of racial prejudices, minorities will not have and have not had the same opportunities as the majority, and therefore will end up in sub-par inner-city schools. They will then receive sub-par instruction and guidance, as well as be subject to a whole host of more difficult social distractions, and will therefore not score as well on standardized testing, the current standard evaluation method for college entrance.
To try to level the playing field, admissions adds points to what it sees is the most affected group, minorities. But this is attempting to correct the effect, forgetting the cause. A white person with the same lack of opportunity should receive the same benefits as a black person in a similar situation, just as a black person who has had all the benefits that are unfortunately more frequently possessed by the white majority should not receive these benefits. I therefore propose that affirmative action in admissions should be based not on race, but on socio-economic status, ensuring that it serves its original purpose, that those with fewer opportunities are given some preference. This preference must be enough to acknowledge that if these students had been given more opportunity, they would have had the merit to accomplish more.
Also, to address Avi Derrow's letter ("Affirmative action is racism," 4/9/98), "socially adjusting" the scores is not unfair to him in any way. Colleges want the students who will add the most to the diversity and advancement of their campus. As for diversity, which you don't seem to address as a legitimate concern, socio-economic status should bring students from a greater variety of backgrounds than merely those whose skin color happens to one color or another. What you do seem concerned about is that you are given your full, fair chance to get into the best college you can, and that adding points to someone else's scores is unjustly taking away from your chances. But if you are attempting to say that your standardized test scores accurately represent your academic merit or capacity to learn from and add to this college, this is incorrect. If you went to a good suburban high school, you will do better on your SAT than someone from an inner-city school in Detroit (black or white) because you were better instructed and prepared for it, not necessarily because you had more capacity. That is why the adjustment is necessary - to truly establish a basis for merit that transcends your race and the opportunities you've been given. A fair evaluation is all anyone wants, right?
Nate Walker
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
The April 8 article, "Dialogue addresses race" quotes Michigan Student Assembly Rep. Brian Reich as saying, "you cannot represent every single group on this campus - in this nation - in one panel." I am not sure that Reich recognizes the irony of what his statement says about the American system of government.
Let me begin with some of the more obvious problems with the view taken by the Advisory Board for the President's Initiative on Race and now echoed by Reich. First, it is near impossible to separate issues concerning Native Americans as individuals from natives as sovereign nations recognized by law. To permit a Native American voice to be heard would promote questions about that sovereign status. That is the last thing the Department of State wants. In examining Reich's statement, it takes no leap in logic to see that he, like the board, is denying the possibility that there exists more than 300 nations within the United States, and that those nations can have distinct ethnocultural characteristics. At the same time the board and Reich deny the U.S. citizenship of Native Americans, as guaranteed by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, anyone who researches that law will discover that Native Americans did not have to give up the citizenship or allegiance to their nations. Very few non-Native Americans understand this.
But suppose for a moment that we temporarily suspend our disagreement with Reich's notions and then historically assimilate the Native experience into the experience of other minorities. We should at least be able to assume that even without direct representation on the board, that such a board would not overtly discriminate against Natives. We should be able to, but we can't. The Advisory Board has a pool of attorneys from the Department of Justice to assist them. The problem is the Advisory Board removed the names of all Native American attorneys from that list. OK, so no Native Americans on the Advisory Board and no Native Americans as attorneys to consult. We should at least be able to presume that Natives can exercise their right to free speech at the Town Hall Meetings. We should be able to, but we can't. Recently, there was a Town Hall Meeting on race in Denver where Natives were escorted out of the building by police after they attempted to exercise their right to free speech.
Surely, the Advisory Board has demonstrated a pattern of overt discrimination against Native Americans and their nations. How can one rationally entertain the goals of the board to promote the value of diversity when the board arrogantly and without apology discriminates against Native Americans and their nations? Reich thinks that we should go listen to the views of those who support the initiative when those same people seek to censor Native Americans' thoughts.
Richard Eckert
Rackham
04-21-98
| Previous Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |