MSA’s emphasis on Moore seems a bit


To the Daily:

I think we can all agree: The most ridiculous item of the day
yesterday was the Michigan Student Assembly resolution that, if
passed, would allocate $12,000 to bringing Michael Moore to campus
(MSA offers to pay for Moore visit, 09/15/04). Why so
ridiculous? Three reasons:

One: The MSA budget is formed from a fee that is levied on every
single student – MSA should think long and hard about using
this money for such an overtly political event. Further, MSA plans
on further charging students at the door! Come on, MSA – if
you’re going to fund the sloppiest man in a Sparty hat this
side of Lansing, make it free for students to attend.

Two: Yet again, MSA is sidetracked by an overtly political
agenda. This is a clear and obvious ploy to take advantage of a
huge sum of student money in order to get someone’s favorite
liberal to espouse his rhetoric on campus. Common sense and
responsibility dictates that an effort of this kind should only be
considered if “fair and balanced.”

Three: Not only is the Moore plot absurdly costly and
left-leaning but this type of programming isn’t really what
MSA should be focusing on! MSA was created to represent students
– getting a fall break passed, assisting students eager to
register to vote, etc. — and is not a programming body.

Mironov and the rest of the assembly probably have good
intentions, but should leave this type of effort to the College
Democrats or other left-leaning groups – where it probably
developed in the first place. I urge you to prove that MSA
doesn’t think of its student-funded budget as a liberal slush

Jessica Cash


Former MSA vice president


MSA should spare ‘U’ a visit from Moore


To the Daily:

Universities invariably have an obligation to support an
environment of respectful discourse. With that premise, I ask that
MSA reconsider its intention to bring Moore to speak (MSA offers
to pay for Moore visit
, 09/15/04).

It is of little importance to me that Moore be of a liberal or
conservative ideology. That which must be considered is the subtext
of the message that would be maintained were Moore to speak at this
University as facilitated by academic funds. I support the right
for Moore to make mockumentaries and disparage people who are not
of his own persuasion. Sadly, Moore has become the de facto
representative of a trend in thought that holds that the
embarrassment of the other side is more valuable than debate
(according to his popularity, seemingly more effective as well).
This is a trend that leads to viewing all Palestinians as
terrorists or all Israelis as oppressive hate-mongers. It is a
trend that sees the war in Iraq in all respects wrong or in all
respects honorable. It is a trend that supports the shaking of
heads when your best friend talks about abortion or gun control. It
is Moore’s prerogative to support a trend that turns friends
into head-shakers and walk-awayers. Yet, how much more dangerous is
such a trend when you personally do not know the other side? I do
not support the premise that a university can be acting in its
academic responsibility when it uses funds to support a man who
clearly values discourse only insofar as it is inflammatory in
character. Moore’s polarization of political and moral issues
clearly indicate that he is neither an academic nor an individual
that typifies values that are consistent with a university
promoting the integrity of thoughtful and respectful discussion. It
is our responsibility in academia to promote the exchange, analysis
and integration or demurring of ideas, and not just free

Dillon Kuehn

Law School


Daily confused, sending mixed messages to readers


To the Daily:

You both applaud free speech restrictions and decry them. In the
first editorial (Big Brother in class, 09/14/04), the Daily
opposes the establishment of an advisory board overseeing
universities, and rightly so. It correctly points out that such an
advisory board would inevitably lead to restrictions on class
content and the development of government-approved material. In
this editorial, the Daily makes the case that government oversight
and regulation thereof is detrimental to free speech.

However, in the second editorial, (527 Freedom,
09/14/04), the Daily applauds the free speech restrictions inherent
in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill. The Daily states that
McCain-Feingold has succeeded in “restoring a sense of
democracy,” which is a dubious claim in and of itself. If
government oversight and regulation of speech on campus is
unacceptable, then what makes such oversight and regulation
acceptable when financial contributions are involved?

Free speech is not a “pick and choose” concept where
one can determine in what situations such freedom is acceptable,
and who may exercise it. If we want to truly enjoy the freedoms set
forth in the First Amendment of the Constitution, then we must
endow all people with freedom of speech, regardless of
circumstance. Political contributors deserve the freedom to do as
they please just as much as University faculty. It seems as though
the Daily editorial staff is content to restrict the freedom of
wealthy political contributors, but will not stand for said
restrictions when they reach campus.

Andrew Moylan

LSA senior

Chairman, College Libertarians


Bush lacks much-needed ‘moral clarity’


To the Daily:

Mike Saltsman’s interpretation of George W. Bush having
“moral clarity” (Bush is the candidate of
‘moral clarity,’
9/15/04) in his opposition to stem
cell research because “the life of a human being is still
being terminated,” is lacking serious consideration. What
happened to Bush’s “moral clarity” while he was
governor of Texas and refused to grant clemency for even one of the
152 death row sentences that came across his desk during his entire
term, setting the record for the most killing governor in the
history of the United States? Are these not also human lives? And
where is Bush’s “moral clarity” when sending our
troops to Iraq to fight and die in an unjust war of his own making,
for reasons he had to lie about in order to get some people to
agree to it? Are these not also human lives? Is it “moral
clarity” to lie in order to push an agenda that will enrich
defense contractors and oil companies, at the expense of the lives
of soldiers and civilians? Or, as Saltsman quips, “does the
value of human change simply by changing their size, location,
development or level of dependency?”

Julie Herrada

Senior Associate Librarian, Special Collections



Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.