4 C,-
Technocracy will not "withdraw in
the midst of splendor"; in violence
j or otherwise, it must be surpassed.
(Continued from Page 17)
higher and not a l o w e r
state. In: fact one of the
g r e a t metaphysical prob-
lems of current radicalism
is that dialectical solutions
to current crisis are all too
slow to emerge, that our fu-
ture condition s e e mn s still
very distant. But it does not
become any clearer w h e n
located in the past.
The Cubists, as art his-
-torian John Berger discuss-
es them, had a vision in
their art of the Future but
the bourgeoise suburb; vic-
tory will b r i n g formerly
colonized man into a Future
that transcends the mind-
less, uncreative, additive
regime of industrialization,
of specialized labor and in-
terchangeable parts. Tech-
nocracy will not "withdraw
in the midst of splendor";
in violence or otherwise, it
will be surpassed.
As for w h i t e radicals,
their musicians have been
all too eager to use the elec-
tronic equipment of t h e
Future, creating w a 11 s of
sound which, like the Cub-
ist art, seemed to contain
the Future in the present.
More important, rich white
middle class kids grew up
r e a d i n g Science Fiction.
The F u t u r e, emerging in
the writing of H ein e in,
Asimovh and Bradbury, let
alone the sci fi magazines
and movies, is a part of
their dreams.
Roszak's s h a m a n does
not apply to that Future.
B PlOT/Kf,4
TACKS
had not the faintest idea
how much energy and
struggle would be necessary
to reac hthat Future.
Black musicians like John
Coltrane a n d particularly
Sun Ra have written music
to the universe, to O u t e r
Space. In s o m e of Leroi
Jones' poetry, black' libera-
tion fighters meet visitors
who travel in Flying Sau-
cers. The end of struggle
fought from the rooftops of
the ghetto and from the
hamlets of the Third World
will not be the takeover of
other styles and
stack
colors in our
$16.-0 0
61
\04
a
new
fresimess
-A
VAN BOVEN SHOES
No. 17 Nickels Arcade
lLs~fS
iB
_
$k2 S LtaE V14S
Ann Arbor. Mi J..
I * i1IiW~t~~" ~ 5- *1Y
BELL
Ii
302 S Stae St
AF ror mi
Plenty of womei
get secretaria
posts-nice clerica
work at low pay
nepotism rule poses problems in the employment
of academic women. Just as peasants- tend to
marry peasants, professors often tend to marry
professors. The official University Policy and
Procedure Guide for Personnel, Employment of
Relatives, states: no person should be assigned
to a post from which he (more often than "she")
might affect the performance or promotion of a
family member.
Officially, says vice-presidential assistant
Allmand, "If a husband and wife have always
worked as a research team, of course we'd ex-
pect them to continue to work together. If they're
in the same department but in very different
areas, that's all right. If they're in the same area,
we'd try to put one in a department and one in an
institute. If there's no way around it, and both
are needed, they might both be hired in the
same area."
That's the official policy.
"Now of course," Mr. Allmand continued,
"most of these decisions are made on the depart-
mental level. While we would probably approve
such an arrangement if there were no alterna-
tive, it's up to the department to decide if it
wants to risk the potential problems such a sit-
uation might create."
Departments rarely wish to run the risk.
What this means: since departments don't want
a husband and wife working together, they hire
the husband, and send his wife looking else-
where-like Eastern Michigan University or Oak-
land. One professor at EMU told me the English
department is fed up with feeling like a Univer-
sity refuse heap.
Other aspects of University life reflect, if not
flat-out discrimination, a certain benign neglect
of women's rights. Since many aspects of decision
making at the University are decentralized and
discretionary, individual attitudes can have as
much affect on women as University-wide pol-
icy. Women students and professors frequently
encounter individuals who reflect and propagate
the sexiest attitudes of the institution. I've run
into these examples, and I imagine many aca-
demic women could cite their own:
The director of an institute told a psychology
professor: "I rarely promote women. Men have
better use for the extra money."
An LSA department head: "I don't like hav-
ing women around because then I can't tell my
dirty jokes."
An English professor: "All these uppity
women need is a better sex life."
Ad nauseum.
Admissions
As with academic appQintment practices, the
freshman admissions policy both reflects and re-
inforces the sexiest attitudes of society. The
automatic application of sexually bigoted norms
emerges especially clearly in the case of fresh-
man admissions. In recent years, the ratio of
men to women in the freshman class has hovered
around 55-45 per cent.
"Gosh, I always thought that was just a
natural, happy coincidence," commented James
H. Robertson, dean of the Residential College and
long-time member of the admissions commit-
tee.
'Well, I didn't know the balance was mani-
pulated," said George R. Anderson, d e a n of
fres inan-sophomore counseling and a member
of the all-male admissions committee.
Well, gentlemen, perhaps the time has come
for a less mythic approach to admissions. Here's
a bit of history:
"Until about 10 years ago, the admission of
women wasn't a problem," recounted G. C. Wil-.
son, executive associate director of admissions.
"In the last decade, however, the proportion of
women among qualified applicants began to creep
up, and it became apparent that unless something
were done, women would soon outnumber the
men in the freshman class. The Literary College
was particularly interested in maintaining at
least 50 per cent males in the entering class."
Consequently, the Admissions Office be-
gan admitting men who, by the traditional in-
dicators of test scores, high school grades and
recommendations, were less qualified than women
who were not admitted. The office looked at
other factors, such as athletics, to determine
which of these marginal men should gain en-
trance.
"Why the concern over sex balance in the
freshmen class'?" I asked Mr. Wilson. He puz-
zled over this and finally suggested several pos-
sibilities: Male alumni give more support to the
University in money, work, and recruiting ef-
forts. Male students do better, are more likely
to complete the course of study. Finally he said,
"Well, it's mainly the Literary College that has
been concerned over this thing." He suggested
that I talk to John E. Milholland, a psychology
professor who sits on the freshman admissions
committee. Dr. Milholland provided me with the
least cordial interview of this entire project.
"Dr, Milholland," I began, "I've discovered that
there is a somewhat discriminatory policy with
regard to the admission of freshman women.. ."
"Well, he broke in, "would you have us discrim-
inate again men?"-
I continued, a little flustered: "No, sir, I
wouldn't want you to discriminate against any-
one," I said. "But I've been wondering why the.
policy exists."
"It's your privilege to wonder," he replied.
Finally, however, Dr. Milholland and I man-
aged to overcome a now-mutual hostility suffi-
ciently to discuss the genesis of the policy. Ap-
parently, when the admissions committee was
told that female frosh would soon outnumber
the males, the automatic reaction .of the mem-
bers was that steps must be taken to prevent
this "overbalance."
"We just felt maintaining parity was a good
policy," according to Dr. Milholland. "It was just
a feeling in our bones. I don't know that we ever
discussed it at all.
"We're all men on the committee," he added.
On reflection, however, Dr. Milholland was
able to suggest several reasons (or rationaliza-
tions) which might lie behind such a policy.
* Men are culturally disadvantaged. They
don't mature as fast, don't please teachers as
high school on grade a
factors, such as extrac
to be considered to c
advantage.
In reply, I heartily
sider factors besides thi
test indicators in deter
fit from a college educ,
as for men. In this case
vation was to maintai
male balance. The de(
aspects of a student's re
sexually bigoted princip
arisen had it not been
peril.
I might add that
disadvantages growing c
sexes does not exist in
and colleges. Entrance r
cal school or the engine
for women, despite th
socialized to do les wel
and scientific pursuits a
lower on relevant tests
get in the schools. ThE
out of 1,583 medical stud
Engin school student boc
Once admitted, m
Perhaps men do bet
record would indicate,
better than women? T]
grade point averages ir
In winter, 1969, senior
senior men averaged
averaged 2.84. Freshmar
same pattern is repeat(
grade levels.
One way of men "do
missions man Wilson,
course and getting the d
four year span. Mr. Wil,
drop out. There is no evi(
Admissions Office stati
Registi'ar's Records Offi
on the problem. Since nc
crete evidence, it occurr
pletion story might be .
male admissionsbusines
to check it out:
Fall, 1965--Ent(
Men
2531
55.8%
Winter,
Men
1540
50.21r
Woi
20
1969-Gr:
Wor
15
To put this chart an
of graduating male senic
of the number of enteri:
number of graduating fe
cent of the number of ent
If Admissions is voin
its sexist policy on the
factors, perhaps it's time
old computer and found
0 Dr. Milholland fel
THE DAILY MAGAZINE Sunday, April 12, 1970 UiGpr LP/
muhan cneqenlyteydo'td-a wlli
-:
beindo r,. A.pri.! YZ ::1970
THE DAILY MAGAZINE.