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.