Last week’s midterm election was one for the history books.

Democrats staged a decisive comeback — which many have attributed to
the growing unrest with the Iraq war and President George W. Bush’s
presidency.

Never before in our young generation has the power of democracy been
so apparent.

The voters’ message was clear: “We want change.”

Michigan voters made something else clear: “We don’t value
diversity.”

Michigan banned affirmative action programs with the approval of
Proposal 2 — the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.

This decision — endorsed by 58 percent of Michigan voters —
threatens the integrity of this university and all other Michigan
institutions.

CMU should not sit back and watch this happen.

When the election day dust settled Wednesday morning, University of
Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman spoke emphatically at the
university’s Student Union flanked by deans and regents.

“I will not allow our university to go down the path of mediocrity,”
Coleman said. “That is not Michigan. … We are Michigan. And we are
diversity.”

Last week, University President Michael Rao was mostly silent on the
passage of Proposal 2.

When asked about the proposal at his open forum Thursday, Rao would
only speak generally about the university’s commitment to diversity.

Rao said it was not in the best interest of the university to make a
public statement as it may be perceived as an endorsement or opposition
to an issue.

Isn’t that the point of making a statement?

To be fair, Rao eventually did issue a statement on Proposal 2 — it
appears on the following page.

It may be too late for some, however.

Proposal 2 was the most emotional issue on the ballot.

Rao had to know how important the decision was to his students.

Not in recent memory have they been so outspoken and passionate.

The next morning, many students were unsure about what the future
would hold for them — and for people who looked like them.

Our university was silent.

What students need right now is a fighter — someone who will stand
up for what is right.

We have no reason to doubt Rao’s intention or his sincerity in his
quest for diversity.

But the figurative ball is now in Rao’s court.

It remains to be seen how Proposal 2 will affect CMU’s population.

What is certain is Rao and Affirmative Action Officer Michael Powell
have some work to do.

But it still is not over yet.

Despite forums being conducted almost two weeks ago and two of the
five candidates dropping out (one after her trip to CMU), officials
remain silent on the subject.

No one wants to talk until a decision is made.

The search has been going on for a long, long time.

It lasted through the summer and brought two candidates to forums —
before rejecting them both.

Four more candidates have sat before students and faculty this
semester. The university has spent money on their travel and boarding
while they were on campus.

So what is the status of the decision?

The fact that officials won’t talk about the process — and that
so much time has passed — raises suspicion.

Are these candidates going to get refused just as the last two were?

This search already has cost the university in time and money, and
ProfEd still is without a permanent leader.

Officials need to speed up the process.

Obviously the off-campus VP search committee knows the candidates
well. It has their resumes. It has interviewed them in person.

It’s time to put this search to rest and make a recommendation so
University President Michael Rao and Provost Tom Storch can hire
someone.

Granted, the decision is an important one and officials should take
the time they need to decide.

But its been nearly three years since this department had a
permanent leader, and the university has spent plenty of money.

Enough time has been lost.

Enough money has been spent.

Filling a single position in a public university can’t be this
difficult.

Of the five candidates the university has had to choose from to
date, a suitable option should be available.

And if this search should start over again as it did in July, the
university will need explain itself a little better than by saying the
candidates didn’t possess the “total package.”

And they have every right to be.

Tonight’s football game against Western Michigan was booked at the
beginning of the season to possibly air on either ESPN Classic or ESPNU.

The key word there is possibly.

ESPN never promised the game would air to a national audience.

However, acting on a hunch, both universities, as well as the
Mid-American Conference, decided to schedule the game on a Friday night.

Big rivalry, national audience — what  could be better for CMU,
right?

Wrong.

As the season progressed, ESPN realized it couldn’t televise the
game on any of its networks — the only option was ESPN 360, ESPN’s
Internet service.

Once CMU AD Dave Heeke, Western AD Kathy Beauregard and Mid-American
Conference Commissioner Rick Chryst found this out last week, they
scrambled to come up with a contingency plan.

One of those plans was to move the game to Saturday — so as to
garner a larger Kelly/Shorts Stadium audience. But it was too late;
game preparations already were in place.

Beauregard even said in a Wednesday Central Michigan Life story she
knew the risks associated with taking the chance and booking the game
on a Friday night.

Well, unfortunately for Beauregard, Heeke and Chryst, their hunch
backfired.

They were willing to sacrifice a sellout at Kelly/Shorts for some
national exposure — which makes sense. Everyone knows coach Brian Kelly
and Heeke want as much national exposure as possible.

But to risk it without knowing for sure the game would be on the
ESPN family is irresponsible — for CMU, WMU and the MAC.

And both universities assuredly are hearing the dull roar from
out-of-state alumni who can no longer watch the game because Comcast
Local is just that — local.

Tonight’s matchup against Western Michigan will be the biggest
football game in the storied rivalry since the Chippewas beat the
Broncos 22-10 in 1980 in Kalamazoo.

Tonight’s winner will all but assure itself a place in the
Mid-American Conference Championship game Nov. 30 in Detroit.

But having the game tonight most likely means Kelly/Shorts will have
some empty seats — seats that would have been filled had the game been
played at the usual 1 p.m. Saturday time.

CMU ran into this problem — only much worse — on Oct. 19, when just
11,262 fans showed up at Kelly/Shorts.

While many more than 11,000 fans will show tonight, a sell-out won’t.

The game should have been scheduled for Saturday to begin with.
Missing out on a marginal national audience is a small price to pay for
a sell-out crowd.

Any alumnus or alumna will agree.

And it could happen as early as fall 2009.

The Steering Committee for Studying General Education has been
working on a solution for more than a year, and it presented its final
report at Tuesday’s Academic Senate meeting.

Now it’s up to A-Senate members to decide which model is worthy.

The right model for change is Model A.

Model A, more than Model B, gives students options and a better
selection of courses.

For example, students would have the option to take a “quantitative
literacy course,” instead of a math or statistics course.

The natural science courses listed under Group II would become one
area instead of two subgroups.

Both these changes will work in students’ favor.

Model B, on the other hand, leaves the University Program similar to
what it is now, with the exception of eliminating Group IV A:
Integrative and Multi-disciplinary Studies.

Many people agree the University Program needs to change.

Model A is the best way to approach this change.

Students will appreciate being able to have more options within a
required system of learning.

And hopefully, a few years from now, they won’t view the University
Program as a chore they have to complete before they graduate.

Instead, they’ll be able to embrace and appreciate it for what it’s
designed to do — create adjusted and well-rounded people.

Enough is enough.

The building, which was constructed in 1997, was billed as one of
the most intricate and technologically advanced buildings of its era.
To further enhance its uniqueness, officials constructed it to resemble
a massive piano — a point many tour guides talk about when taking
prospective students on tours throughout campus.

But now, on the eve of the Music Building’s 10th anniversary,
students don’t see a work of art when the walk through campus. They see
a building surrounded by ugly metal scaffolds, more and more of which
seem to be erected with each passing day.

The university has even gone as far as to place signs around the
building during recruitment days on campus excusing the mess while CMU
“continues to improve campus.”

They’re not fooling anyone.

Officials have said the problem lies with discolored and cracked
bricks.

But when asked if any progress is being made to fix the building and
rid it of some discoloration, no one seems to know any timetable.

And what’s worse? No one seems to know whos is supposed to make the
next move.

Steve Lawrence, associate vice president for Facilities Management,
said in a Nov. 1 Central Michigan Life story that no repairs can be
done on the Music Building until the university hears back from the
state Department of Management and Budget about what entity will have
to pay for the repairs.

But when CM Life asked Greg Bird, director of communications for the
State Budget Office within the DMB, about the state’s progress in the
matter, Bird was oblivious.

“I don’t know if Central has requested a project,” Bird said.

If that truly is the case, someone needs to be held accountable.
According to past CM Life stories, the investigation into the cost of
the repairs has been ongoing for more than a year. And CMU has spent
$10,000 to purchase scaffolds and hire a consulting firm to investigate
further.

More than a year is entirely too long if all CMU is dealing with is
some discolored bricks. And what’s the point of spending

10 grand if more money will be spent later to fix the bricks later?

Later in the Nov. 1 story, Lawrence, although he declined to comment
further on the matter until all parties agree on who will pay for the
repairs, he voice his displeasure.

“There’s obviously a problem there,” Lawrence said.

It just doesn’t make sense it would take this long to fix some
bricks. But that’s the only problem wrong with the Music Building,
according to officials over the past two years.

If that is the only problem, CMU and the state need to come to a
decision soon. People need to own up to who is responsible at this
phase and make a decision.

Get the ball rolling, because the Music Building is getting uglier
and uglier with each passing month.

And more and more people are taking notice.

Hopefully this time more than seven people will show up.

Rao has made it a priority to periodically set aside time for
students, staff and others on this campus to ask him questions.

But last spring when Rao hosted his forum, no students showed up,
despite buzz that many students wanted the president to be more
available.

Well, Thursday is their chance.

If students have a question to ask Rao, the forum is the time to do
it.

A few weeks ago, the Board of Trustees sent a survey to students and
other members of the university community asking them to evaluate Rao.

The students who bothered taking that survey probably noticed it
wasn’t written with them in mind, asking questing about Rao’s
leadership abilities and if he is effective when it comes to “consensus
building” and “fiscal management.”

The average student at CMU probably hasn’t seen or spoken to Rao,
let alone know enough about the man to evaluate him.

Besides, the results from the evaluation won’t be available until
next year.

At Thursday’s forum, students will have a chance to instantly
evaluate Rao.

Dean of Students Bruce Roscoe said people don’t appreciate the fact
CMU’s president makes an attempt to be available.

Roscoe is right.

Rao is a busy man, far busier than any student on this campus.

But on Thursday he’ll be waiting from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. in Bovee
University Center’s Lake Michigan Room.

There’s no excuse for not knowing about it this time around.

No matter which way each of the elections go, things will be
different Wednesday morning.

The question is, who will decide what Michigan’s new face will look
like?

Students traditionally are considered the worst political
demographic —that’s why neither Gov. Jennifer Granholm nor Dick
DeVos bothered to stop by CMU to campaign with the more than 20,000
impressionable possible voters.

They think we don’t care.

But Michigan policy affects every student at CMU. Initiatives like
Proposal 2 won’t just change university admissions —they’ll
change the state job market.

They’ll change things for our children and their children.

The decision for the next governor of this state also could affect
the job market, and much more. It definitely will affect the Board of
Trustees of this university, and possibly CMU’s funding.

It will affect everything that goes on in Michigan, just as the
decisions for state and national representatives will.

Do we really want others to decide what’s best for us?

Voting doesn’t take long. It isn’t difficult.

Don’t leave the decisions of what should be done with this state up
to other people.

Go to the polls Tuesday.

That statement should be insulting and offensive to every educated
citizen of Michigan.

Racism is alive and well in Michigan.

Michigan is one of the most segregated states in the U.S.

The undercurrent of racial tension still is felt on many college
campuses, including our own.

The approval of Proposal 2 would set Michigan back years in the
quest to create public institutions that are equally representative of
the population.

If passed, Proposal 2 would amend the state constitution to ban
affirmative action programs in regards to race, gender, color,
ethnicity or national origin for public employment.

The proposal would affect employment or admissions at government
institutions, as well as public colleges and universities.

Debunking the myths

Affirmative action is not quotas.

Affirmative action is recruitment programs that allow access to
public institutions to the underrepresented.

Affirmative action is not a handout for unqualified candidates.

Affirmative action is a systematic attempt to level the playing
field for all applicants, ensuring that the pool of applicants reflects
the population as a whole.

Affirmative action is not about black people.

Affirmative action affects all underrepresented populations —
including women firefighters and even male nurses.

Leading language

The proposal’s language, printed above, uses the phrase
“preferential treatment” to categorize affirmative action.

This is a blatant attempt to confuse Michigan voters.

Of course “preferential treatment” sounds bad. No one wants that.

Unfortunately for the MCRI, that isn’t what affirmative action is.

Proposal 2 even goes as far to include a second bullet point, also
printed above, that would prohibit institutions from discrimination —
something that already is in our state’s constitution.

Voters should not allow themselves to be confused by the innocuous,
yet wildly irresponsible language.

Origins of the MCRI

The creator of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative is, in fact, not
a Michigander.

Ward Connerly, a Californian millionaire, brought the proposal here
and has no stake in the outcome.

Voters in his home state approved Proposal 209 in 1996 — a
similar proposal that outlawed affirmative action.

The facts on the repercussions of such an act are clear.

According to an Oct. 20 report in The Detroit News, black enrollment
at the University of California dropped more than 50 percent
immediately following Proposal 209 and has yet to recover.

Also, Hispanic students accounted for 37 percent of California’s
high school graduates in 2005. The freshman class at the University of
California that same year was only 15.5 percent Hispanic.

The Detroit News also reported the UC campus has added 8,000
students in the time since Proposal 209 was approved. Black enrollment,
in that same time period, has decreased by 36 students.

This should not be what voters want to see for Michigan’s future.

A clear choice

Voters have a clear choice to make on their ballot on Nov. 7.

Opponents also include Gov. Jennifer Granholm, her Republican
challenger Dick DeVos, Sen. Debbie Stabenow and her Republican
challenger Mike Bouchard.

If you respect diversity, you should vote no on 2.

If you respect your education, you should vote no on 2.

If you respect the future of this state, you should vote no on 2.

It’s no secret Michigan is at or near the bottom in nearly every
nationwide economic statistic.

It’s easy to point a finger at our current leader, Gov. Jennifer
Granholm.

But the reality is it’s not Granholm’s fault.

Michigan’s dependence on the dwindling automotive industry has
crippled the state’s economy.

Plants have shut down; thousands have lost work.

In response, Granholm has created a Jobs Fund initiative which will
pour more than $2 billion into new sectors including alternative energy
and the life sciences.

Granholm also inherited a state with a $4 billion deficit and has
had to work during her first term to pull ahead.

Starting over is not what our state needs. Voters will be investing
in the future of Michigan by voting to re-elect Granholm.

Education first

It has become apparent our state must evolve from our auto
industry-dependent roots to a more diverse economic climate.

How does a state begin an evolution? Education.

Under Granholm, K-12 education funding is at an all-time high of
$7,085 per student. The governor also has proposed a New Merit Award
scholarship, giving each Michigan high school student $4,000 for higher
education.

Granholm is investing in the state’s future by keeping education a
priority.

Granholm also has a plan to make health care available to all of
Michigan’s residents.

The governor’s Michigan First Health Care Plan would make private
health care available to more than 500,000 uninsured Michiganders.

Reducing the number of uninsured citizens will help lift the burden
from those who are forced to subsidize the uninsured.

West-side kingpin

Granholm’s challenger, Republican Dick DeVos, is quick to point out
all he has done to improve Grand Rapids.

The DeVos family has spent millions on improvements in the state’s
second-largest city.

Downtown Grand Rapids is thriving, and DeVos helped make that happen.

But the ability to write million-dollar checks to build up a city is
not a commendable trait for a governor.

DeVos simply is a former CEO who had the means to run for governor.

According to campaign finance reports filed Friday, and as reported
in The Detroit News on Saturday, DeVos has spent $34.6 million of his
own money during his campaign.

A large checkbook cannot buy the governor’s office.

While DeVos’ success and exorbitant bank account may be a flashy
beacon for frustrated Michiganders, the fact remains this family
businessman is not equipped to lead our state.

A dedicated public servant

Before becoming governor, Granholm was elected Michigan’s first
female attorney general in 1998.

Granholm is a Harvard-educated lawyer who also has served as a court
clerk and federal prosecutor.

DeVos, in contrast, inherited a family business — albeit a
multibillion dollar global corporation — and has a bachelor’s degree
from Northwood University in Midland.

Not to say that DeVos isn’t well-educated, but in comparison to
Granholm, he is lacking in education and experience.

Granholm already has the tools necessary to lead Michigan; not only
does she have a mastery of the law, she’s familiar with the territory.

A tough road ahead

The road ahead will not be an easy one for Granholm.

She must actively work to create an environment in Michigan that
fosters growth.

The governor needs to make allies wherever she can — including in
the White House, a power DeVos has mentioned his ties to more than once.

If Granholm is to take Michigan out of its slump, she needs to pull
out all the stops. She needs to foster a strong working environment
with Republicans and Democrats alike.

Pulling the governor from office now, halfway between a $4 billion
deficit and a struggling economy, will only create more problems by
setting someone new on that tough road — someone who hasn’t
already walked it.

This isn’t the time to bring in someone new.

Vote Granholm.

There is little that is more heartbreaking than the death of a young
person.

Remembering, reflecting and reminiscing all are important parts of
the grieving process for those left behind.

But a $78,000 check from the Board of Trustees is not necessary to
do that.

The Student Government Association has $11,000 of the more than
$88,000 needed to construct a student memorial.

The tri-fold granite structure will not contain names of deceased
students, but will include the university seal, alma mater and quotes
from several philosophers.

There also will be benches constructed to give students a place to
reflect.

Our university does not have the means to spend money to foster
student reflection.

If students want to reflect, they will find a bench, light a candle
and do it.

They don’t need $78,000 to do so.

This project undoubtedly will be rubber stamped by the board at its
December meeting.

The board’s vice chair, Jeff Caponigro, already has endorsed the
idea.

“We absolutely think this a great idea,” Caponigro said in an April
24 Central Michigan Life story. “Any time a student passes away it’s a
terrible tragedy and anything we can do to honor their memory is a good
idea.”

This memorial will be good PR for the board and the university,
something they would never turn down — no matter the price.

The memorial likely will not face student opposition either — who
can argue against honoring the deceased?

In this tough economic climate, tough stances must be taken.

Allocating the $78,000 from the Campus Improvement budget needed for
the student memorial is something the Board of Trustees would be wise
not to do.

The Campus Improvement budget is fed by the now-hidden fees that
derive from the CMU Promise. It’s impossible to argue the money should
be spent on under-funded programs such as the Speaker Series. The money
cannot be spent beyond campus improvement.

However, surely SGA and the board can do better than a piece of
nameless granite and some benches.