gt@umich.UUCP (Gus Teschke) (02/06/86)
[] In the wake of President Reagan's statements against terrorism, on 4 Febuary, the primary student government here at the University of Michigan (Michigan Student Assembly) passed a resolution to place a question on the ballot of the next student government election. If passed, it asks the administration to bar any group from recruiting on campus if it supports international terrorism. It's not hard to figure out who this is aimed at: the CIA. The CIA, with its well-known record for overthrowing elected governments, murder, and torture, has attempted to recruit here for the last few years, but has been met consistently with protests. They cancelled their last visit in January because of student pressure, saying they didn't need to come. This was revealed to be a lie when several students were contacted later by a prof known to support the CIA -- no matter what it does -- and asked if they wanted interviews with the CIA. UofM already requires that all corporations sign a pledge that they are participating in affirmative action programs, as well as being solvent, honest, etc., so the terrorism pledge isn't without precedent. A committee of 3 faculty, 3 administrators, and 3 student will formulate policy and monitor compliance if everything is approved. I hope it is. I post this in the hope that other student governments might be inspired to do something similar. Gus Teschke ..!ihnp4!umich!gt
frear@ihnp1.UUCP (L. Frear) (02/11/86)
In article <449@umich.UUCP>, gt@umich.UUCP (Gus Teschke) writes: > In the wake of President Reagan's statements against terrorism, > on 4 Febuary, the primary student government here at the University of > Michigan (Michigan Student Assembly) passed a resolution to place a > question on the ballot of the next student government election. If > passed, it asks the administration to bar any group from recruiting on > campus if it supports international terrorism. > > It's not hard to figure out who this is aimed at: the CIA. > ...... > I post this in the hope that other student governments might be inspired > to do something similar. > Gus Teschke > ..!ihnp4!umich!gt I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!! Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean they should bar that organization from campus. Look, Gus, some people want to work for the CIA. They want "exciting" work with the newest toys. They want to be James Bond or whatever. Or they need the job, and don't have the same moral/political views as the MSA. Before I catch any flack, I would like to say that I could NEVER do military work, for the government or a corporation. I find it morally unacceptable. Fortunately, I didn't have to take such a job. Many graduates do. (If you don't work, you don't eat.) I personally know a few fellow engineers who got offers only from defense contractors or the NSA -- BECAUSE OTHER INDUSTRIES WANTED GRADS WITH HIGHER GRADEPOINTS. These guys were good at what they did. Two of them had a lot of relevant work experience (that's why their gpa's where low-- iydw,yde) This is too long already, so I'll stop. After I note that as a member of the alumi association, I'll be trying to get the U to stop wasting students' precious cash on the MSA. -- Lori Frear ihnp4!ihnp3!frear GO BLUE!!!!!!! (or don't bother going at all)
leb78@ihlpm.UUCP (Bosnak) (02/13/86)
> I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of > line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!! > > Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean > they should bar that organization from campus. Look, Gus, some people > want to work for the CIA. They want "exciting" work with the newest toys. > They want to be James Bond or whatever. Or they need the job, and don't > have the same moral/political views as the MSA. > ... > This is too long already, so I'll stop. After I note that as a member > of the alumi association, I'll be trying to get the U to stop wasting > students' precious cash on the MSA. > -- > > > > Lori Frear > ihnp4!ihnp3!frear > > GO BLUE!!!!!!! > (or don't bother going at all) I agree 100 percent with Lori's posting. What ever happened to freedom of choice! I believe a person going to college is capable of making a decision about where they want to work after college. Does the MSA believe everyone at U of M feels the same way about the CIA? I have been reading the net for quite a long time and this is the first time I felt it was necessary to put in my two cents. Lets allow the decision of employement be made by the individual students; not dictated by the MSA. Laurie Donahue Another Michigan Alumni
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/14/86)
> In article <449@umich.UUCP>, gt@umich.UUCP (Gus Teschke) writes: > > In the wake of President Reagan's statements against terrorism, > > on 4 Febuary, the primary student government here at the University of > > Michigan (Michigan Student Assembly) passed a resolution to place a > > question on the ballot of the next student government election. If > > passed, it asks the administration to bar any group from recruiting on > > campus if it supports international terrorism. > > > > It's not hard to figure out who this is aimed at: the CIA. > > ...... > > I post this in the hope that other student governments might be inspired > > to do something similar. > > Gus Teschke > > ..!ihnp4!umich!gt > > I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of > line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!! > > > Lori Frear > ihnp4!ihnp3!frear > Speaking of allowances, I hope those progressive sorts in Michigan decide to ban ALL parts of the U.S. Government from recruiting because of the CIA (just to be consistent, of course). Can you picture our progressive friends trying to keep the REST of the Federal Government's agencies from hiring on campus? Can you picture those students refusing Federally guaranteed student loans, Federal grants, Federal funds to the University itself? Of course not. "He who pays the piper, calls the tune."
johnnyr@ihu1n.UUCP (John R. Rosenberg) (02/14/86)
> > I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of > > line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!! > > > > Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean > > they should bar that organization from campus. > > ... > > This is too long already, so I'll stop. After I note that as a member > > of the alumi association, I'll be trying to get the U to stop wasting > > students' precious cash on the MSA. > > -- > > Lori Frear > > ihnp4!ihnp3!frear > > > > GO BLUE!!!!!!! > > (or don't bother going at all) > I agree 100 percent with Lori's posting. What ever happened > to freedom of choice! > > I believe a person going to college is capable of making a decision > about where they want to work after college. Does the MSA believe > everyone at U of M feels the same way about the CIA? > > Laurie Donahue > Another Michigan Alumni As yet another U of M alumnus, I'll add my two cents. The Michigan Student Assembly thinks that they represent and lead the opinions of an overwhelming majority of students on the Ann Arbor campus. Well, it just isn't so. It is rare that MSA elections draw more than 10 percent of the student body out to vote. So assuming that a victorious candidate wins with 51% of the total vote, what it really means is that only 5% of some 40,000 students elected this person. Note exactly the popular mandate that MSA would have everyone believe. You could say that a 10% voter turnout reflects student apathy. Well, in a way it does, but the real root of the problem is that most are disgusted with the self-righteous overbearing self-importance that the MSA embodies. Nobody cares. Period. So to bring this back around to the original point... So what if MSA brought pressure to bear and caused the CIA to officially leave campus. The pressure is empty, the MSA doesn't represent the will of the people. If people feel strongly about a CIA presence on campus, the number of interviewees will be accordingly small. If people don't care, then the number will be average. If people approve, they will be swamped with people who want to work for the CIA. The same thing happens already with the so-called 'kill-ratio' companies (those in the defense industry). I know quite a few people who would not interview with recruiters from McDonald Douglas or Northrop etc because of the possibility of working on a defense-related project that would go against their personal convictions. No problem. There are some people who want to work in those areas. The MSA seems to have a problem with that. People elected by 5% of the student body want to restrict the rights of all of the student body by saying who should and should not be allowed on campus to interview. Sounds questionable to me...at best. At worst, smacks a little of dictatorship. <Enter Sarcasm Mode> And from an 'elected' 'government' too. My My My. <End Sarcasm Mode> As Lori Frear says... Go Blue (or don't bother going at all) John Rosenberg AT&T-NS ihnp4!ih1un!johnnyr
gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) (02/14/86)
In article <705@ihlpm.UUCP> leb78@ihlpm.UUCP (Bosnak) writes: >> I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of >> line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!! >> >> Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean >> they should bar that organization from campus. Look, Gus, some people >> want to work for the CIA. They want "exciting" work with the newest toys. >> They want to be James Bond or whatever. Or they need the job, and don't >> have the same moral/political views as the MSA. >> ... >I agree 100 percent with Lori's posting. What ever happened >to freedom of choice! > What about the CIA's discrimination against homosexuals? I'm not sure about the situation now, but for many years they refused to hire gays becasue of a Catch-22 type of argument -- becasue gays were scared of having their sexual preference revealed, they would be a security risk. And the reason in the first place that they couldn't be open about their sexual preference is becasue they couldn't get the job in the first place unless they lied about it! On the form that MIT has prospective employers sign, it says "By my signature here I promise that my company does not hire on the basis of color, religion,... sexual orientation... etc." The CIA signs this. The goddman Air Force signs this. I know -- I've seen the signatures!! How can MIT let these employers interview on campus when they blatently do not follow the guidelines which they have agreed to when they interview. If the CIA, the Air Force, etc, want MIT students, they should either hire according to MIT's rules on non-discrimination, or be REFUSED the services of the career planning and placement office. They can recruit off campus. I believe every student should have the opportunity to interview with any company he/she wants to work with. I also think this should work BOTH WAYS -- any qualified student should be able to be considered for any job which is offered by a company that interviews on campus. Personally, I don't care about what the particular company does, (CIA activities in Central America, etc), I care about their hireing practices. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Andrew S. Gerber MIT '87 Systems Manager, Visible Language Workshop | | gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU, gerber@mit-mc.lcs.mit.edu | | UUCP: decvax!mit-eddie!mit-amt!gerber decvax!mit-eddie}mit-athena!gerber | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
gt@umich.UUCP (Gus Teschke) (02/15/86)
In article <388@ihnp1.UUCP> frear@ihnp1.UUCP (L. Frear) replies: >In article <449@umich.UUCP>, gt@umich.UUCP (Gus Teschke) writes: >I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of >line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!! Perhaps you have the wrong idea about what MSA did. It passed a resolution to put a question before the students for a vote. The question was: should any organization that supports or engages in terrorism be allowed to recruit at the University of Michigan using UofM facilities? If the students reply no, then the administration may, but doesn't have to, set up a committee to define terrorism and monitor the groups recruiting at UofM. The committee is composed of 3 administrators, 3 faculty, and 3 students. Note that currently any group that does not sign an affirmative action pledge cannot recruit, nor can any corporations that have taken advantage of students (like not paid them). >Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean >they should bar that organization from campus. Lori, I'm not talking about the Young Republicans or the Chess Club. The CIA isn't merely unpleasant. They engage in ILLEGAL and IMMORAL activities, things like overthrowing elected governments (Guatemala 1954, Iran 195?, Chile 1973, still trying with Nicaragua), torture, and murder. There are numerous reports and I will provide references on request. If they were on trial at something like the Nuremburg trials after WW II, some of the CIA decision-makers would likely be HANGED. WHAT does a group have to do before you decide it should be opposed? >Look, Gus, some people >want to work for the CIA. They want "exciting" work with the newest toys. >They want to be James Bond or whatever. Or they need the job, and don't >have the same moral/political views as the MSA. So? Let them be recruited off campus. No one is stopping anyone from interviewing with the CIA, or working for the CIA. We are just trying to say that any organization that supports terrorism CANNOT use the UofM facilities to interview students. It's one way to show that we don't support or ignore what the CIA does. Part of a university's function, and thus student government, is to criticize society, and this seems to be a valid (if toothless) way of publicly showing that UofM opposes the violation of some of the most sacred principles on which the U.S. was founded, and apply a little public pressure on the CIA. >Before I catch any flack, I would like to say that I could NEVER do >military work, for the government or a corporation. I find it >morally unacceptable. A rather confusing morality, to me. >Fortunately, I didn't have to take such a job. >Many graduates do. (If you don't work, you don't eat.) I personally >know a few fellow engineers who got offers only from defense contractors >or the NSA -- BECAUSE OTHER INDUSTRIES WANTED GRADS WITH HIGHER >GRADEPOINTS. These guys were good at what they did. Two of them >had a lot of relevant work experience (that's why their gpa's where low-- >iydw,yde) As I said, they can still work for the CIA. And you're saying that the CIA gets the people everyone else rejects? Hmmm. >This is too long already, so I'll stop. After I note that as a member >of the alumi association, I'll be trying to get the U to stop wasting >students' precious cash on the MSA. I wish I could get the government to stop wasting BILLIONS on the CIA's outrages. Note that they are also cutting student aid, Lori, but you don't seem too concerned about that. > Lori Frear > ihnp4!ihnp3!frear > > GO BLUE!!!!!!! > (or don't bother going at all) Did you ever do any work in student government, or did you just go to football games? Gus Teschke ihnp4!umich!gt
gt@umich.UUCP (Gus Teschke) (02/15/86)
In <705@ihlpm.UUCP> From: leb78@ihlpm.UUCP (Bosnak) (actually Laurie Donahue) writes: >I agree 100 percent with Lori's posting. What ever happened >to freedom of choice! Freedom of choice has never been absolute. You don't have the choice to murder people, to take an extreme example. >I believe a person going to college is capable of making a decision >about where they want to work after college. I hope so. >Does the MSA believe everyone at U of M feels the same way about the CIA? No, that's why it's a referendum. But I can't imagine people voting FOR terrorism. >I have >been reading the net for quite a long time and this is the first >time I felt it was necessary to put in my two cents. Lets allow >the decision of employement be made by the individual students; >not dictated by the MSA. > Laurie Donahue > Another Michigan Alumni You miss the point. Future CIA employees are not doomed to work at McDonald's for the rest of their lives even if the referendum passes and the administration heeds it. The idea is that if you know something immoral and illegal is happening, like terrorism, you don't ignore it or support it, either directly or indirectly. You fight it. One small way to do this is to deny any group that supports terrorism, like the CIA, access to UofM recruiting facilities. It is a public statement against terrorism, and ANY group that engages in it, EVEN if you happen to want to work for them. They can still recruit UofM students off campus. They could even buy UofM! Isn't this a logical outcome of the moral and intellectual development a university is supposed to foster? (Is that a loaded question or what?) Gus Teschke Yet Another Michigan Alum ihnp4!umich!gt
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (02/15/86)
>Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean >they should bar that organization from campus. Look, Gus, some people >want to work for the CIA. They want "exciting" work with the newest toys. >They want to be James Bond or whatever. Or they need the job, and don't >have the same moral/political views as the MSA. > >Before I catch any flack, I would like to say that I could NEVER do >military work, for the government or a corporation. I find it >morally unacceptable. Amazing, I find this astounding, it's morally unacceptable but 'live and let live'. Sorry, I grew up in the '60s', list 10 other things you find 'morally unacceptable' (rape, incest, murder), do you hold the same views? Courage of conviction is really not an unhealthy thing, don't worry, your opponents can take care of themselves (in this case, boy can they ever!) It is not irrational for someone who finds something unacceptable to try to stop that behavior. ...oooh, nuclear bombs...I don't like them...but if they want them... who am I to say???.... Look, you probably find it morally unacceptable because those people kill people for questionable political gain, deal in international drug smuggling (yes, the CIA was caught with it's hand in this pot, look into the congressional and Department of Justice findings about the CIA and its dealings in Cambodia with the Montagnards I believe, they were supplying safe smuggling of heroin to keep them 'friendly') support with violence dictatorships around the world and do not from the top down answer directly to the voters (or barely anyone else if you can believe some of the reports like congress trying to cut their budget only to have the Air Force replace the missing funds etc.) I mean, we're not talking harmless issues here. Whether true or not those are the kinds of things people are protesting, I suspect they are largely true and sadly being done in our name. I know, those that don't want to believe will use the easy argument 'substantiate', forget it, go look it all up, it's been substantiated over and over again, you're just being a blind idealogue if you think the CIA has not been involved in some pretty morally reprehensible things, even right wingers in Congress aren't that naive, at best they choose to turn their heads. There are limits to freedom (what do they say? the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, that means sometimes you have to take a stand and say 'that is wrong, stop that'). I for one commend the students for taking a stand, even if you disagree with it it's a heck of a lot better than apathy and confusion. -Barry Shein, Boston University
bzs@bucsd.UUCP (Barry Shein) (02/15/86)
>Speaking of allowances, I hope those progressive sorts in Michigan decide >to ban ALL parts of the U.S. Government from recruiting because of the >CIA (just to be consistent, of course). Can you picture our progressive >friends trying to keep the REST of the Federal Government's agencies from >hiring on campus? Can you picture those students refusing Federally >guaranteed student loans, Federal grants, Federal funds to the University >itself? Of course not. therefore, following your argument, citizens should not in any way protest or question their government's actions or any agency thereof unless they are ready to reject the entire government and all benifits derived. Gee, I know some totalitarian govs that would love to have you! You'd be a model citizen. Look, these reductio ad absurdum arguments just make you sound silly, a citizen has a right (maybe a duty) to question and, if need be, protest the actions of their government in a democracy, the opposition has a right to defend itself and somewhere out of that competition should come consensus. Why are people right of center so uncomfortable with this, tending to prefer blind, silent obedience? I find it very disturbing. Express your views, even put some pressure on your opponents within some sense of fair play (which in politics stops somewhere around assassination, not denying access to the privilige of utilizing career centers.) It's ok, that sort of discordance is what this country is all about. It makes people feel more comfortable with the outcomes they end up having to live with, at least their viewpoint was given a chance to be considered and perhaps rejected, but not for lack or fear of trying. -Barry Shein, Boston University
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (02/16/86)
In article <473@umich.UUCP> gt@umich.UUCP writes: >In <705@ihlpm.UUCP> From: leb78@ihlpm.UUCP (Bosnak) (actually Laurie Donahue) >writes: >>Does the MSA believe everyone at U of M feels the same way about the CIA? > >No, that's why it's a referendum. But I can't imagine people voting FOR >terrorism. Nobody supports terrorism, but it is possible to not support terrorism and still support the CIA, if you don't believe the CIA supports terrorism. Like it or not, it is a legitimate political position to believe that the CIA does not support terrorism. This referendum sounds a lot to me as if someone had made a referendum asking if the students support the sanctity of human life. Who doesn't support the sanctity of human life? Therefore the referendum passes, but after it's over, a committee is formed that not surprisingly forbids all pro-abortion groups from any activities on campus. Just substitute "don't support terrorism" for "support the sanctity of human life" and "the CIA" for "pro-abortion groups". What's happening in both cases is that a referendum is taken on a general principle that everyone believes in, but in fact the principle is a code word for something that NOT everyone believes in. -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
chavey@crystal.UUCP (Darrah Chavey) (02/18/86)
> > > I think once again the MSA (Michigan Student Assembly) is getting out of > > > line. Someone please cut off their allowance!!!!!!!! > > > > > > Just because a handful of students don't like an organization doesn't mean > > > they should bar that organization from campus. > > > ... > > > > I agree 100 percent with Lori's posting. What ever happened > > to freedom of choice! > > I believe a person going to college is capable of making a decision > > about where they want to work after college. Does the MSA believe > > everyone at U of M feels the same way about the CIA? > > As yet another U of M alumnus, I'll add my two cents. The Michigan > Student Assembly thinks that they represent and lead the opinions > of an overwhelming majority of students on the Ann Arbor campus. > Well, it just isn't so. It is rare that MSA elections draw more > than 10 percent of the student body out to vote. As yet another U of M alumni, I wish to speak in favor of the MSA having the right to attempt to ban the CIA from campus. I doubt that almost any major campus has student government elections that get more than 10% voting attendance. We certainly don't get that much at the Univ. of Wisconsin. A 10% sample of such a large sample space would be considered representative under almost any circumstances (except by people who disagree with the decision). Pollsters make do with much less than that. Hence I think the MSA has the right to view themselves as a representative body, and to proceed under those assumptions. As to the actual banning of the CIA, it is not a matter of restricting a students choice of whom to work for. Banning recruiting on campus does not prevent the students from seeking out employers they wish to work for. It seems reasonable that a college should have the right to forbid at least certain kinds of recruiting. Although we may have to allow the Moonies, the IRA, the Nazis, and similar groups the right to speak on campus, I don't think the University should be required to give them rooms and give implicit approval of such organizations. With a little thought, I suspect most of us can think of several groups that we would not want to allow recruiting priveleges on campus. The only question is where to draw the line. The CIA has engaged in several illegal activities, activities that Congress had forbidden to them. Some people think that the activities of the CIA are onerous enough to place them in the same category as the above mentioned groups. Others of us disagree. Nevertheless, this is not a case of black and white; attempting to ban one group from campus recruiting based on their illegal activities is something that most of us could agree with in at least some incarnations. As the only reasonable representative of the student body that there is, the MSA has the right to attempt to decide where this line should be drawn.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/19/86)
> > >Speaking of allowances, I hope those progressive sorts in Michigan decide > >to ban ALL parts of the U.S. Government from recruiting because of the > >CIA (just to be consistent, of course). Can you picture our progressive > >friends trying to keep the REST of the Federal Government's agencies from > >hiring on campus? Can you picture those students refusing Federally > >guaranteed student loans, Federal grants, Federal funds to the University > >itself? Of course not. > > therefore, following your argument, citizens should not in any way > protest or question their government's actions or any agency thereof > unless they are ready to reject the entire government and all benifits > derived. Gee, I know some totalitarian govs that would love to have you! > You'd be a model citizen. > I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If the opposition is to terrorist organizations, and you define CIA as a terrorist organization (a point I wouldn't argue with you about), you should be consistent and get the rest of the governmental apparatus that CIA is part of as far from you as possible. But that would hurt, so most progressives start to make minor distinctions between "good" parts of the government and "bad" parts of the government. If you really believe in democracy, that means you need to be willing to go along with democratic decisions ONCE THEY ARE MADE. If you believe that freedom is more important than democracy (as I do), there's no reason to go along with the majority view -- just don't pretend you believe in democracy. > Look, these reductio ad absurdum arguments just make you sound silly, > a citizen has a right (maybe a duty) to question and, if need be, > protest the actions of their government in a democracy, the opposition > has a right to defend itself and somewhere out of that competition > should come consensus. Why are people right of center so uncomfortable > with this, tending to prefer blind, silent obedience? I find it very > disturbing. Express your views, even put some pressure on your opponents > within some sense of fair play (which in politics stops somewhere around > assassination, not denying access to the privilige of utilizing career > centers.) It's ok, that sort of discordance is what this country is > all about. It makes people feel more comfortable with the outcomes they > end up having to live with, at least their viewpoint was given a chance > to be considered and perhaps rejected, but not for lack or fear of trying. > > -Barry Shein, Boston University I'm not looking for blind obedience -- I'm a firm believer in violent overthrow of the U.S. Government. What I object is the hypocrisy of supporting unlimited democracy on the small scale (MSA prohibiting CIA recruiting on campus) while opposing it on the large scale (the foreign policy of the United State).
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/19/86)
> As yet another U of M alumni, I wish to speak in favor of the MSA having > the right to attempt to ban the CIA from campus. I doubt that almost any > major campus has student government elections that get more than 10% voting > attendance. We certainly don't get that much at the Univ. of Wisconsin. > A 10% sample of such a large sample space would be considered representative > under almost any circumstances (except by people who disagree with the > decision). Pollsters make do with much less than that. Hence I think the MSA > has the right to view themselves as a representative body, and to proceed under > those assumptions. > A pollster uses a REPRESENTATIVE sample of the general population to make estimates of general public opinion. The 10% that vote on my college campuses are disproportionately political, and my impression is they are strongly disproportionately leftist. Who does MSA speak for? I would be very skeptical that they speak for anything but a small chunk of the students. > As to the actual banning of the CIA, it is not a matter of restricting a > students choice of whom to work for. Banning recruiting on campus does not > prevent the students from seeking out employers they wish to work for. > It seems reasonable that a college should have the right to forbid at least > certain kinds of recruiting. Although we may have to allow the Moonies, the > IRA, the Nazis, and similar groups the right to speak on campus, I don't think > the University should be required to give them rooms and give implicit approval > of such organizations. With a little thought, I suspect most of us can think > of several groups that we would not want to allow recruiting priveleges on > campus. The only question is where to draw the line. The CIA has engaged > in several illegal activities, activities that Congress had forbidden to them. > Some people think that the activities of the CIA are onerous enough to place > them in the same category as the above mentioned groups. Others of us disagree. Except the CIA is a part of the government that PAYS THE BILLS! Show your real independence of the CIA and the rest of the evil institution! Refuse their money. Or would that hurt too much? > Nevertheless, this is not a case of black and white; attempting to ban one > group from campus recruiting based on their illegal activities is something > that most of us could agree with in at least some incarnations. As the only > reasonable representative of the student body that there is, the MSA has the > right to attempt to decide where this line should be drawn. You seem to be saying, "There's no real student government, so the only people around interested in calling themselves that will make the decisions for the rest." Lenin would be so proud!
g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (02/20/86)
In article <> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Except the CIA is a part of the government that PAYS THE BILLS! Show your >real independence of the CIA and the rest of the evil institution! Refuse >their money. Or would that hurt too much? > I am surprised that anyone of a conservative or libertarian bent would make this kind of statement. It is not, my friend, the government that pays the bills -- it is you and I and all of the other taxpayers that pays the bills. The government, in its infinite goodness, has lifted the money from your pocket with one hand and returned it with the other (taking a percentage in the process.) When they hand it back they tell you what you can do with your money that they are giving you. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
frear@ihnp1.UUCP (L. Frear) (02/20/86)
Cc:
Bcc:
Oh, geez, here we go with the sentence-by-sentence breakdown of
who-said-what. Look Gus, how about you guys in the MSA trying
to get more companies to recruit on campus. Seems like a better
deal for the students. I know a lot of people who graduated
in my class (May 85) who don't have jobs yet. And yes, they are
trying. Some of them are ce's and cs people, so it's not just
a poor choice of majors.
And, sorry Gus, football games are more fun when you stay home
and your roomies go ;-). I did not get into student goverment--
it's like PIRGM, it sucks money/time that I didn't have. Besides,
if the CIA is sooo terrible (and I'm not saying it isn't) then none
of our alums would interview with them (no matter how desperate the alums
were) and the CIA wouldn't bother to come back. Do you propose to
not let defense contractor interview on campus because they build
bombs etc? I protested by refusing to interview with them. I
don't want them banned--there are other people who feel differently
(patriotic maybe?) and they have the right to interview with whomever
they wish. And it's really hard to interview with some one who
doesn't come to campus. At least it was for this broke, pedestrian
engineer.
Perhaps, if no one joins us, we can go off line?
--
Generic Disclaimer--Bell Labs may own my inventions, but these
are my opinions.
Lori Frear
EMAIL ihnp4!ihnp1!frear
SNAIL AT&T Bell Labs
IH 1b223
Naperville, IL 60566
PHONE 312/979-3609
GO BLUE!!!!!!!
(or don't bother going at all) suhina@kodak.UUCP (02/21/86)
> > As yet another U of M alumni, I wish to speak in favor of the MSA having > > the right to attempt to ban the CIA from campus. I doubt that almost any > > major campus has student government elections that get more than 10% voting > > attendance. We certainly don't get that much at the Univ. of Wisconsin. > > A 10% sample of such a large sample space would be considered representative > > under almost any circumstances (except by people who disagree with the > > decision). Pollsters make do with much less than that. Hence I think the MSA > > has the right to view themselves as a representative body, and to proceed under > > those assumptions. > > > > A pollster uses a REPRESENTATIVE sample of the general population to make > estimates of general public opinion. The 10% that vote on my college > campuses are disproportionately political, and my impression is they are > strongly disproportionately leftist. Who does MSA speak for? I would > be very skeptical that they speak for anything but a small chunk of the > students. > (Other comments followed in the original) The sampling may in fact be disproportionately political and leftist but everyone else had a chance to speak and chose not to. Their reasons are their own but I would guess apathy is probably the biggest reason. Who does MSA speak for? It looks to me like they speak for those who have something to say and are willing to say it. The big question is why is everyone else quiet?
chapman@miro.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Brent Chapman) (02/22/86)
In article <39@crystal.UUCP> chavey@crystal.UUCP (Darrah Chavey) writes: > >As yet another U of M alumni, I wish to speak in favor of the MSA having >the right to attempt to ban the CIA from campus. I doubt that almost any >major campus has student government elections that get more than 10% voting >attendance. We certainly don't get that much at the Univ. of Wisconsin. >A 10% sample of such a large sample space would be considered representative >under almost any circumstances (except by people who disagree with the >decision). Pollsters make do with much less than that. Hence I think the MSA >has the right to view themselves as a representative body, and to proceed under >those assumptions. But consider WHICH 10% votes: the 10% that have an opinion or an interest. That means that 90% of the people JUST DON'T CARE! And I don't blame them! We've got other things to worry about, like the problem set that's due tomorrow, the midterm next week, the term project we haven't even LOOKED at yet, (sound familiar?) ... 10% may be a very good sample IF the rest of the body can be assumed to have roughly the same characteristics in the same proportions as the sample, which is DEFINITELY not the case in elections. Enough. I'm probably going to get flamed royally about this, but what the hey? After all, I'm at Berkeley, and such things are sort of expected around here... :-) Brent Chapman ucbvax!miro!chapman
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (03/06/86)
In article <39@crystal.UUCP> chavey@crystal.UUCP (Darrah Chavey) writes: >As yet another U of M alumni, I wish to speak in favor of the MSA having >the right to attempt to ban the CIA from campus. I doubt that almost any >major campus has student government elections that get more than 10% voting >attendance. We certainly don't get that much at the Univ. of Wisconsin. >A 10% sample of such a large sample space would be considered representative >under almost any circumstances (except by people who disagree with the >decision). Pollsters make do with much less than that. Hence I think the MSA >has the right to view themselves as a representative body, and to proceed >under those assumptions. If the 10% were a random sample of the student population, it would indeed be adequate. There is every reason to think it is not, however. Those who vote are very much more likely to be political activists. Furthermore, with a turnout that small, it is relatively easy for a small minority with an axe to grind to get its members to all vote, resulting in a very unrepresentative body. (I'm not saying that this happened in this case, of course; I have no idea whether it did or not. The fact that it can easily happen is a reason not to give too much power to a body selected by such a narrowly-based vote.) Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108