Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

April 18, 1970 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1970-04-18

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.


EheUtz t an atl
Seventy-nine years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan

Maynard St, Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Doily express the individual opinions of stoff writers
or the editors; This must be noted in oll reprints.


The Regents'
declaration of tyranny

ranical disciplinary procedures by
the Regents yesterday is intolerable
both in form and content. The Re-
gents and the administration should
be condemned, and implementation of
the procedures opposed by all members
of the University community.
Since last August, the Regents have
been considering a draft of bylaws
on the discipline question which was
approved by both Student Government
Council and Senate Assembly. But al-
though the student-faculty draft was
the product of two years of constant
study the judiciary procedures creat-
ed by the Regents yesterday bear no
relation to that draft at all.
Furthermore, student and faculty
mPmehrs were never apprised of the
imminence of the regental action, nor
were the snecific steps they took ever
discusesd with members of SGC or
Senate Advisory Committee on Univer-
sity Affairs, the ton faculty body.
THE MOST odious portion of the
statement aedonteA by the Reppnts
inrvolved the ere-tion of a new dis-
cinliharv mechanism to adiidicate
rules which the board also enacted.
Under the nrocedure. President Rob-
ben Flemina would annoint an ontnide
hearine officer who would act as judee,
jury and exeeutionir for accused mem-
bers of the University community.
As it is written, this section is ob-
viously designed to Droduce the con-
viction and ePniil1nn of wilrnne whose
(ontiniied nrPene1n at the TTnhierity
is undelrqble to the adminitrntion.
For ni thini. the idea thna t a hear ..
in of'7ioo'r hand-nicked anld hirpd by
+ .o ri't + prmo t illha i*Ynscrtih1 i ah-
r,, vinr nYd +ho vaavtt. oh-
i'4ciiv'l rrno-prd hv rite. ilo they hnie
rpeIved diirinq- the reent con-
troversy over black enrollment, have
been looking for a way to crack down
o01 rlic-eyert Now thni hnvl found it.
Tnr1dei the nprifir pomers rqnted
to t~he hearing officer underline the
impression justice will. he only in-
cidents.1 to "law and order."
Under the ruils. tip hearing offl-
cer will have the Dower:
-To limit the number of people
attending the hearing "to assure de-
rni '" ..
-"T'o limit the nuvmher of witneces
in order to avoid dilatory tactics;"
-To epel from the hearing any
narty. including the defendant, should
he "deliberately conduct himself in
a, manner disruntive of the hearing."
In addition to these provisions, there
is a stipulation that the hearing may
take place if the defendant does not
attend' - even though procedures for
notification 'of charges are so inade-
quate that the defendant might never
know he was being tried.'

MANY OF these procedures obviously
run counter to the major Ameri-
can concepts of judicial fairness.
Most important the judicial pro-
cedures established by the Regents ig-
nore the age-old right to trial by a jury
of peers. At present, such a judicial
structure - Central Student Judiciary
- is indeed available. PSJ has drawn
considerable. criticism in r e c e n t
weeks, but all of it has been unfound-
ed. Contrary to widespread opinion,
the judiciary has in several cases con-
victed and penalized students charg-
ed with disruptions - while at the
same time adhering to the principles
of due process.
In additionto this, the limitation
on the number of witnesses that may
be called is an obvious violation of the
right of an accused person to present
a complete defense.
THE CONDUCT rules adopted by the
Regents yesterday also contain a
number of unnecessary and repressive
provisions. For example, the statement
bars the use of force or violence against
persons and property, while these cas-
es could be handled in the civil courts.
The rules also bar "continued occu-
pation of a University facility after be-
ing ordered to leave by the President,"
even where t h e demonstration is
peaceful, non-disruptive and takes
place during hours when the building
is normally open.
Other rules prohibit "unauthorized
interruption" of a class or other Uni-
versity activities. Presumably students
who interrupted an activity to notify
those present of a fire would not be
prosecuted - but what if they happen-
ed to be people the administration does
not want around?
SOME WILL insist that, while odious,
the Regents' new, discipline policy
is only, as they evasively state, an in-
terim one. But all the evidence points
against this.
For one thing, the University has
been operating under interim judicial
procedures for the past two years.
During this period, the Regents have
had more than adequate time to study
the problem, especially during the last
eight months when they have been sit-
ting on the student-faculty proposal.
Now, they say,,we should re-new the
study of judicial procedures with the
establishment of a tri-partite commis-
sion. Not surprisingly, this is precisely
the origin of the bulk of the content of
the present student-faculty proposal.
The rules adopted by the Regents,
and the arbitrary manner in which
they were formulated, constitute an
obvious notice to the University com-
munity that dissent will not be toler-
ated. They were a declaration _of tyr-
anny that must not go unchallenged.

-Daily-Jay Cassidy
Ot. 15 marked the national moratorium on the war and the University devoted the entire day to anti-war events. The day was
capped by an evening rally at the Stadium which included speeches by Chicago 8 defendant Tom Hayden, above, and Sen. Philip
Hart (D- Mich).


Useful turmoil?

-Daily-Jay Cassidy
In March, the Black Action Movement intensified its drive' for increased minority admissions which
culminated in a 12-day class strike.

The advent of finals marks the end of
the year at the University and also means
that someone somewhere should tie every-
thing together, highlighting significant
events, people, and places.
We shall not abandon tradition.
In addition to the BAM strike, the Rose
Bowl and the Oct. 15 moratorium, 1969-70
featured a four-day teach-in on the environ-
ment in March which attracted national at-
tention to the issue of 'ecology.
Students for a Democratic Society revived
in January, and managed to spearhead a
three-month drive against corporate recruit-
"Trashing" became - and probably will
remain - part of the everyday vocabulary.
And' the first major student action last
fall, the bookstore fight, netted one Univer-
sity bookstore and 107 people arrested after
a sit-in in the LSA Bldg.
Nationally, the ear unveiled Judge Julius
Hoffman in Chicago and Vice President Spiro
Agnew in Washington as spokesmen of sorts

for President Nixon's new-found Silent Ma-
jority. Hoffman filled large segments of the
country with disbelief by his rulings in the
Chicago 8 conspiracy trial. Agnew's month-
to-month pronouncements on "effete snobs",
"ideological eunuchs", and "fisheyes" cast
at University diplomas made us alternate
between laughter and dismay.
The Senate asserted its constitutional pre-
rogative by rejecting two candidates for the
Supreme Court. Judges Clement Haynsworth
and G. Harrold Carswell both failed to win
confirmation when subjected to intense and
lengthy Senate investigations.
And the Vietnam war goes on despite the
President's glittery November address prom-
ising. troop withdrawals and "Vietnamiza-
tion", irregardless of the 250,000 people who
marched in Washington Nov. 15.
None of us, as individuals, can do much im-
mediately about national problems. And about
the University, who knows? In fact, with
the tuition increase, maybe most of us
won't be around next year to find out.

-Daily-Jay Cassidy
Need we say more? Well, we lost . .

Regental statement on 'U' disciplinary procedures

Tuition increase: Is'
the U' worthth money?

FOR THE UNIVERSITY administration
and the Regents, maintaining the
quality of education h e r e has always
meant securing additional funds.
As a result, each year the University
goes to great lengths to convince the Leg-
islature that it merits vast amounts of
state aid. And when it is unsuccessful,
the Regents turn apologetically to the
student body, and ask that they pay a
higher price for using the University as
a learning mechanism.
While it is perhaps true that the main-
tenance and scope of education offered
by the University requires continuous in-
creases in the size of its general fund
budget, one questions whether it is worth
maintaining what is being subsidized.
For as it stands now, the University ex-
ists as an inefficient, and largely irrele-

fail option throughout the University
which would only require a commitment
to the concept of learning through per-
sonal motivation.
And by discarding programs which
play minor, a n d sometimes inhibitory
roles in the activity of learning, the Uni-
versity would require considerably 1 e s s
funds with which to operate. Two obvious
candidates for this status are intercol-
legiate athletics ($550,000 of "this year's
general fund) and ROTC (an estimated
Further, while many of the schools and
colleges have recognized the need for re-
ordering priorities to fund increased mi-
nority enrollment, they have not both-
ered to examine the countless academic
programs which consume the general

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The follow-
ing is the text of the controversial
discipline policy approved by the
Regents at their meeting yester-
On March 31 we issued a state-
ment containing the following
"Faculty and student groups
have worked for some months
on revision of rules and enforce-
ment procedures. This the Re-
gents welcome because they un-
derstand that a key element in
rule enactment and enforce-
ment is participation by those
who will be governed thereby.
Nevertheless, and until such
procedures can be perfected, it
is essential that there be more
effective internal sanctions."
To provide a temporary mech-
anism, we do now issue these In-
terim Rules and Disciplinary Pro-
cedures, to be applied to offenses
occurring hereafter. They may be
supersededor supplemented by
our adoption of rules drafted by
the University Council and our
establishment of a more perm-
anent judiciary.
A. The following forms of con-
duct, being incompatible with the
purposes of an academic com-
munity, are prohibited:
1. Use of force or violence

5. Continued occupation of a
University facility after be-
ing ordered to leave by the
President or his agent; and
6. Defacement, damage to or
theft of University property.
B. Engaging in any of the forms
of conduct set forth in preceding
Paragraph A shall subject t h e
violator to sanctions provided in
Section II of this document.
A. The following saictions may
be imposed on ,violators:
I. Warning: Notice, orally or in
writing, that continuation or
repetition of conduct found
wrongful may be cause for
more severe disciplinary ac-
2. Censure : A written repri-
mand, includingnt h e possi-
bility of more severe discipli-
nary sanctions in the event of
the finding of a subsequent
violation of a University reg-
ulation within a stated per-
iod of time.
3. Probation: Exclusion f r o m
participation in privileged or
extra - curricular University
activities for a period not ex-
ceeding one year.
4. Restitution: Reimbursement
for defacement, damage to or
misaponroriation of property.
5. Qiisnension: Exclusion f r o m
classes and other privileges or

ment of tle procedures set forth
in Section III of this document.
A. Charges of violations of these
Interim Rules may be made by
any member or guest of the Uni-
versity community or' by any rep-
resentative of any department or
agency of the University.
B. Charges shall be in writing and
shall be filed with the dean of
the school or college in which the
student charged is enrolled.
C. Upon filing of the charges, the
dean immediately shall forward
them to the Office of the Univer-
sity Attorney.
D. If the evidence is determined
by the University Attorney suffi-
cient to warrant proceeding fur-
ther, the Office of the University
Attorney shall prepare and serve
on the person charged a com-
plaint setting forth the nature,
time, and place of the violation
charged. Thehcomplaint shall be
served on the person charged
promptly and within thirty days
of the filing of charges. Service
of the complaint shall be personal
or by registered mail addressed to
the person charged at his last
University-recorded local address.
The complaint shall be accompan-
ied with notification of the date.
time. and place of the hearing.
whichdate shall not be less than
five nor more than fifteen days

disposition at the trial court lev-
el of any pending criminal pro-
ceedings arising ,out of the same
conduct, provided, however, that a
student w h o is convicted of a
criminal offense arising out of the
same conduct and is charged with
violation of a University rule shall
be ineligible to register at t h e
University in the semester follow-
ing his conviction and thereafter
unless and until the University
charges against him have been
heard and decided.
G. The hearing shall be governed
by the following rhles of proce-
dure :
'1. At the request of the person
charged, the hearing shall be
conducted in private.
2. The person- charged shall
have the right to have his de-
fense conducted by an advis-
er of his choice, the right to
hear and examine adverse
witnesses in his own behalf.
3. If the person charged shall,
after due notice, fail to ap-
pear or if, having appeared.
he shall make no response to
the complaint, t h e hearing
officer shall proceed with the
H. The hearing officer is author-
ized :
1. To limit the number in at-
tendance at the hearing to as-
sure decorum;
2. To limit the number of wit-
nesses in order to avoid di-
latorv tacetics:

ed is found guilty, the hearing of-
ficer shall impose any sanction
or sanctions. The report shall be
filed with the dean and served
on the person charged in person
or by registered mail. If the hear-
ing was conducted in the absence
of the individual charged, the re-
port shall so indicate.
J. Sanctions may be appealed to
the Regents on the record by
filing a notice of appeal in the
Office of the President within five
days of service of the hearing
officer's report. The Regent's de-
cision on the appeal shall be serv-
ed on the appellant in person or
by registered mail, and shall be
K. Pending completion of the
hearing and imposition of sanc-
tibns, the status within the Uni-
versity of the person charged shall
not be. altered unless his contin-
ued presence on campus shall
be found by the President or his
delegated representative to con-
stitute a serious threat to the
University community or to the
property of the University. Such
findings shall be preceded by an
appropriate hearing unless ex-
traordinary circumstances pr e-
clude 'a hearing. In any s u c h
case, the President or his delegat-
ed representative is authorized to
suspend the person charged, the
suspension to remain in effect
pending completion of the hear-


Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan