To the Daily:
While I believe that it is important that U of M and other universities and colleges build campuses with a diverse student body, I believe that the idea of lowering standards for minorities cannot be relied on forever and that it will not solve problems that face minorities and this country in the long run.
When standards are lowered for minorities, there is a direct message being sent to school districts that have these minorities as a majority of their student population. The message is that their standards for education and graduating seniors are sufficient and competitive. Obviously, their standards are neither sufficient nor competitive, otherwise their students would not be given lower standards for entering universities in the United States.
The real crime here is not the University's policy of lowering its standards to increase minority enrollment. The real crime is that minority K-12 students are receiving subpar education and that trail-blazing institutions like the University are doing nothing about it.
My point is that universities that have relaxed minority enrollment standards in the name of diversity are not doing anything revolutionary or doing a favor for society or minorities. In fact, a domino effect is occurring that could make minorities worse off. The universities are rewarding the students who go to college, and the students who don't go are on their own with a poor education.
I propose that a gradual change be made to the way minorities are aided when it comes to education. Universities can take the lead by analyzing all immediate and underlying problems of inner-city schools. Once the data is published, advocates must go to the funding source of those school districts and demand change in the quality of education and the educational standards.
As disadvantaged school districts improve the way they educate their students, standards for minority students could be gradually raised to the standards of non-minority students because they would be more competitive. Eventually, the differences between an inner-city school and a suburban school would be the same as the differences between two suburban schools under the current system.
The quality of education for all in disadvantaged schools would rise. Even the non-college-bound students would be better prepared for life after graduation. Since students from inner-city schools would be more competitive with their suburban counterparts, college campuses around the nation would become more diverse.
Universities need to create better solutions in shrinking the competitive and cultural gaps between minorities and non-minorities. Low standards for students who come from disadvantaged school districts is only a temporary solution. A creative and well thought out plan from our universities will provide a permanent solution.
Daniel Schaupner
University alumnus
Like many students on campus, I have done my share of fund raising for various activities and groups and seen many strategies and programs for this purpose. Bucket drives are, by far, the least creative, least inspired and lowest effort fund-raising scheme I have seen. All I have to do is take two steps into Angell Hall to see other groups rake in funds by selling donuts and coffee - offering a service much appreciated by passersby.
This is not a criticism of the students who volunteer their time to swing those buckets in the cold Ann Arbor winds - but instead, it is a complaint to the leaders of student groups who really do their causes an injustice by associating their names with what has become the Diag's greatest annoyance (and that's no small feat). To these leaders I would ask: If you cannot come up with something more creative and effective than bucket drives, you should check your motivation for supporting these causes. Are you a leader because you really care and are willing to put some brain power into your cause? This university is blessed with resources; with a little effort, you can make them yours.
Patrick Oh
LSA senior
To the Daily:
Upon joining my high school newspaper, one of the first things I was taught was that if taken out of context, any phrase can be misconstrued to have a variety of meanings. So you can imagine my disappointment to discover that some of the Daily's staffers have yet to learn this lesson. In her review of Safehaven's album "Catching Rain," Marquina Iliev labels the group as "religious rock." As someone who has listened to their album for the last five months, I was absolutely shocked by this characterization.
Iliev backed up her thesis by pointing to the titles of three songs on the album. I would say that there are 11 songs on the album - so to label the band religious based on three titles is misleading. What is more surprising is her religious interpretation of the song "Roadtrip." Those who bother to read the full set of lyrics will learn that the song is about a dead loved one and is not particularly religious.
The only quote Iliev gives us are the sole references to Heaven and angels found in the song. Furthermore, it becomes increasingly obvious to those who read the review that Iliev probably didn't bother to listen to the album but rather came up with a sweeping generalization and simply read enough of the lyrics to support it. Lyrics are only part of pop music today, but they are the only topic of Iliev's article. She never mentions the superb playing to be found on the disc - implying she never bothered to listen to it.
Finally, she closes the article with one glaring contradiction. She declares that SafeHaven will be successful in the Christian Rock scene because "more emphasis is placed on specific lyrical messages." But the lyrics have been her sole complaint throughout the entire article. These poor lyrics are their strength? It seems as if she should have listened to the album and maybe her article would have made sense.
Matthew LaPointe
LSA sophomore
To the Daily:
In the State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton spoke about the threat that greenhouse gases pose to the environment and the need to implement programs to combat this growing problem. The tax incentives and research program, while a laudable effort, do not go nearly far enough to significantly reduce fossil energy pollution and curb global climate change. Efficiency standards for cars, light trucks and appliances must be set and the carbon dioxide emissions from power plants must be reduced. More programs to increase the use of clean, renewable energy sources must also be set in motion.
Along these lines, the tax breaks and subsidies that the president has granted to the oil and coal industry - the chief greenhouse gas emitters - can only serve to encourage more coal and oil burning. This is a policy that must be stopped. In addition, the president's proposal to spend tax dollars on nuclear power research is foolhardy. Nuclear power is dangerous, expensive and generates highly radioactive waste.
The president's proposals, while a step in the right direction, do not go nearly far enough. More pervasive measures are needed for the serious problems facing out environment.
Noah Miller
LSA sophomore
02-10-98
| Previous Article |
should be sent to: daily.letters@umich.edu | should be sent to: online.daily@umich.edu |