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.

November 09, 1969 - Image 4

Resource type:

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


Sercenty-rnie years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Lditorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.




0 *.0

PHILIP ANDERSON is an activist medical student who believes that
too many decisions are made in the University without appropriate stu-
dent participation. A proven leader, he was instrumental in pressing the
medical school to adopt a pass-fail grading system for all courses. Ander-
son understands the futility of powerless student advisory committees
and realizes the necessity for real student decision-making authority.
As a graduate student, he will help make SGC more representative
of the entire student body.
DAVE BRAND is a sophomore with a solid comprehension of the
University. Furthermore, he has a good understanding of the technical
realities that face SGC when it must take action. He expresses refreshing
indignation at the presence of ROTC and military research on campus.
Brand can be counted on to fight vigorously the rigidity of the University
and its slowness to accept necessary change.
JERRY DEGRIECK has helped lead the campus Young Democrats
away from the disaster of Hubert Humphrey. He has proven his concern
during the bookstore controversy as a member of the central coordinating
committee. His position on the major issues before the University is
excellent. DeGrieck has a good grasp of the political realities necessary
to affect change. Like Brand, he realizes the need for nonviolent disruption
when normal channels are blocked.
MARTY SCOTT is a well-intentioned incumbent who has shown signs
of becoming a valuable member of Council' during his short appointed
term. He displays a growing knowledge of the University structure and a
good understanding of the directions must take to achieve the student
involvement in all areas of University decision-making.
JOAN MARTIN is running on an action program for increased admis-
sions of minority students, removal of ROTC, abolition of war research and
academic reform. She sees the necessity of making student leadership re-
sponsive to a mass movement of students. Her orientation is toward a
well-thought out program of student power.
Not endorsed ..
THE FOLLOWING candidates are not endorsed but have been evaluated
according to their programs, knowledge of the University community
and ability to represent various interest or political groups on campus.
JAY HACK exhibits a good understanding of both the need for radical
reform in the University and the need for concrete grass-roots organizing
to spark that reform. His knowledge of the University is impressive for a
to spark that reform. But it is unclear how serious he is about his candi-
dacy and whether he is capable of providing four years of insight and
MIKE FARRELL is the only moderate candidate who can be at all
effective on SGC. He is running on a somewhat radical platform to suit the
mood of the times. However, while his goals are realistic, his voting record
on council reveals a reluctance to take measures necessary for imple-
mentation of his more radical programs. Farrell is genuinely concerned
about students but in a crisis situation, he is willing to accept an easy
compromise with the faculty and administration.
Un IacceptablIe
WALTER LEWIS is a black candidate whose goal is "making the Uni-
versity experience relevant to all people, black people in particular." While
we support his impressive platform, we find him unwilling to enumerate
a program for achieving this goal. Black students should have greater
representation on SGC, but we feel that Lewis' conservative tendencies
might stymie SGC on many issues.
BOB NELSON is a plodder in a day of supersonic jet travel. An
incumbent, Nelson has a good working knowledge of the University but
has not learned the lessons of experience and is reluctant to apply
pressure when needed. He is so obsessed with realpolitik that he is often
incapable of action.
JAY DILLON describes himself as a "liberal Republican," but his
political views seem to be more progressive than that. However, he has
not thought very seriously about the problems facing SGC and the Uni-
versity. In addition, he does not have the zeal necessary to implement
meaningful change in the University. He does not seem capable of pro-
viding the kind of inspiring leadership that SGC needs.
REBECCA SCHENK is a lackluster candidate running on a pro-
gressive platform that she does not seem to understand. A freshman,
her view of the University is simplistic and would profit greatly by
working with SGC for a year before running at a later time.
MARK HODAX knows all the appropriate radical rhetoric but has little
understanding of how student movements work. He has even less under-
standing of the University decision-making process. While Hodax would
like to be an activist student leader, he can at most be expected to be only
a devoted follower.
ARCHIE BROWN is an almost perfect stereotype of the docile student

of a bygone era. Brown thinks that SGC is too radical but has no alternative
program of his own. He cannot understand student concern over tenure
since he thinks they have no right to participate in decisions to hire and fire
faculty members. An extreme conservative, Brown supports the war in
Vietnam and opposes increased admission of disadvantaged students.
GLENN GILBERT is vice chairman of the College Republicans. An
apologist for Spiro Agnew, he hopes to represent the "great silent majority"
of students. He does not think that SGC should take "political stands" on
campus and community issues, which makes us wonder if he thinks SGC has
any function at all. He is likely to detract from Council's effectiveness.
AL WARRINGTON has been an interim appointee whose conservative
voting record accurately reflects his political outlook. He views SGC as a
campus service organization and even thinks it should organize students
as "scabs" if any of the local unions go out on strike and impair University

The lo
- R ElERI NDVM 1 1 Shall a University
bookstore with a sttideit-iactiltv policy
board be established as follows":
1) The money to establish the si ore
wvil come from $100,O00 from the "Stu-
dent vehicle Fund" and the remainder
from a $5 returnable fee to be paid by
all students;
2 The 45 deposit, will be returned to
each student on request wvhen he
leaves the University as= long as the
bookstore is solvent;
(3 The deposit will be levied iii
Sept., 1970 on all students currently en-
rolled. 'Thereafter ,newly entering stu-
dents wil pay the deposit on enter-
ing. The deposit wilt be collected
through the normal University admin-
istered method for collecting student
TIHE STUDENT bookstore is a
tired, old issue.
In its recent history, it has
struggled through (in this order)
one student referendum, t h r e e
regents' meetings, a couple of
buildings and 107 arrests.
Nevertheless, the bookstore is-
sue had retained importance and
the new bookstore plan is the best
yet presented to the students. It
should be passed.
a change to transform the student-
run bookstore from a catch-
phrase into a reality. Students
will be asked whether they are
willing to assess themselves $5 -
refundable upon departure from
the University - to provide capi-
tal for the establishment of a
student-faculty controlled s t o r e
where students can buy books
they need for less than the prices
of local merchants.
The store would be funded by
$100,000 from the now-defunct
student parking fund and a $5
deposit from each student and
faculty member. The money would
be returned on request when the
donors left the University - pro-
viding the store remains solvent.
If it does not, they would only be
liable for their $5.
But the bookstore students are
now being asked to approve is a
vastly-improved version of the one
passed in last spring's referen-
dum. Last term the store would
have been partially funded through
a one-time $1.75 student fee as-
sessment, which might not have
provided the necessary monies to
fund the store.


behind a discount

point to the failures-of other uni-
, rsity discount bookstores. About
80 per cent of the universities in
the nation opcrate their own book-
stores. Althou-h only 10 per cent
of those offer discounts, those in
the Big Ten that cio are generally
The University of Wisconsin
store listed a net profit of $250,000
last year, although it gives a five
per cent rebate to students. The
University of Washington and the
Eastern Michigan University stores
get state tax exemptions, and both
have been making profits steadily.
Indiana University is the only
store bookstore managers cite as
losing substantial money last year.
But bookstore officials contacted
at Indiana indicated they expect-
ed this to end with a new book-
store to be constructed with more
facilities and probable increases in
business volume.
THlE MANAGERS also suggest
that the bookstore may eventual-
ly be able to give less and less dis-
counts. But, if anything, the store
should be able to grant a larger
discount as it becomes more sol-
vent. Both leading student and
faculty members have repeatedly
said that the store can offer
more discount if students patron-
ize it. The store can accumulate
more capital and expand-as the
present SGC discount store is ex-
panding now in the Union. Clear-
ly, the bookstore owners are wor-
ried that the bookstore will cut
into their business.
AND WITH good reason. A stu-
dent-faculty controlled bookstore
operating on a break even basis
would provide difficult competi-
tion for the local merchants.
Bookstore owners are naturally
running their operations in order
to maximize profits; their own in-
terests precede those of the stu-
dent and faculty consumers.
The University bookstore will be
precisely the opposite type of op-
eration. Established as a non-
profit corporation, the store will
gear itself to minimizing costs
and maximizing services to those
who support it.
But this is only logical.
And so is a "Yes" vote in the
SGC election.
proposal of intramural construc-
tion should vote "yes" on referen-
dum 2.
They will then get a chance to
express their sentiments on the
specific proposal in the spring.


The assessment provides a more
certain initial source of capital
and a more constant long-range
OVERALL THE bo kstore is a
sound proposition. Perhaps the
best way to understand this is to
review the arguments of the main
Ann Arbor bookstores against the
University store.
The stores-- Follett's Over-
becks, Slaters, Ulrich's and Wahrs
-contend it would not be worth
it for students to patronise a store
that will on'v handle "core" bocks.
First, co' e books refer to a larve
proportion of required books for
most courses. And while it is true
that the store's first year stock of
books will not, equal that of the
major Ann Arbor stores, most
bookstore experts sr ticipate that
if students do pat rnize the store

at first the store will gradually be
able to accumulate the supply.
Second, the private stores, claim,
the five per cent discount will
amount to only one per cent if a
state bill is passed. The bill would
extend to all private campus book-
stores the four per cent sales tax
exemption on books sold to "bona
fide enrolled" students at educa-
tional institul!ions.
But, there is no guarantee that
the bill will, in fact, pass. Rep.
Charles Zollar (R-Benton Har-
bor . the powerful approp iations
chairman. is adopting a "wait and
see" attitude until he determines
hov. much the bill will co:t the
In addition most bookstore ob-
servers agree that any losses the
store incurs the first year will be
more than offset in later years.
SGC President Marty McLaughlin

argues that the large discounts of-
fered on items other than books
will more than compensate.
State Attorney General Frank
Kelley has yet to rule whether the
store can qualify for the state in-
stitution tax exemption since it is
controlled by students and faculty
members - -not the University.
Lawyers, including University Law
Prof. Robert Knauss. ao-ree the
state will probably rule the store
has such tax exemption status.
also c&aim that students will be
liable for any and all economic
failures of the store. This is plain-
ly disproved by the store's charter
which stipulates students will be
liable only to the extent of the $5
The bookstore managers are on
equally shaky ground when they

Who wants

to pay for the Ad.

REFERENDUM 2: ;Iiall the stu-
t:,'nt bodly have the authiority to die-
Termine when nwstudent fees
sal be added to tuition tor (o0-
traion of Univermity fac lities?
AT PRESENT-- and for a good
while to come-- students are
paying for two buildings.
The University Events Bldg.,
which has provided minimal serv-
ices to the students at high rental
fees, is costing even those who
don't use it $5 per term. The fee
will be assessed for the next 30
years to pay off bonds on the
multi-million dollar structure.
The new Administration Bldg.,
hardly one for student use-
is also being paid for by a $5 per
student per term assessment. Cer-
tainly the administration has no
idea, one way or the other, whe-
ther students want these build-
'THESE TWO building projects
which together cost the aver-
age undergraduate $80 during his
four years at the University -
drew little notice when they were
initiated. But since then, stu-
dents have apparently learned
their lesson. Last spring, when the
administration came up with a
similar plan to fund two new in-

tramural buildings, students mov-
ed into the open revolt.
This time, the construction
would cost students "up to $15 per
Coupled with thc present assess-
ments for the Administration and
Events Buildings, the intramural
construction would cost students
5 -00 over tour years- a signifi-
cant sutra especially for students
having trouble paying high Uni-
veisity tuitions.
Given the cost of the new pro-
ject, it was hardly surprising that
almost every student group which
considered the plan last spring
said it should not be executed.
SO. AFRAID to move on the
proposal for fear of student ac-
tion on the issue, the administra-
tion has been sitting on the plan
waiting for the storm to blow
over. Recently they have devised
a compromise plan under which
only one of the two structures
would be constructed at hal f
the cost.
But the compromise proposal
begs the question. The Legislature
and the federal government norm-
ally provide the University with
all the money it needs for con-
struction, and it is the students

not the executive officers or
the Regents - who should be
able to decide when extra pro-
jects will be funded out of the
students' pockets.
Why did the University turn to
student fees to provide for con-
struction costs?
THE HISTORY of this solution
to the funding problem - espec-
ially in relation to the Adminis-
tration Bldg. itself - provides an
interesting portrait of the men-
tality behind some administrative
practices in the University.
The shortage of office and
classroom space around the Uni-
versity is a well known fact and
has been put forth as justifying
construction of the Administration
Bldg. By moving out of the old
Administration Bldg., now the
LSA Bldg.), the administration
was able to provide some space for
the literary college.
tioned, is that the building short-
age itself was caused by the half-
hearted and bungling legal ma-
neuvers used by the administration
over the last few years.
In Public Act 124 of 1965, the
State Legislature put a number of
restrictions on the expenditure of
capital construction funds requir-
ing the approval of the architect
of the building plans.
The Regents, arguing that this
was an infringement on their con-
stitutional autonomy, initiated a
court challenge of the restrictions.
In the meantime, on advice from
legal cousel, the University accept-
ed no money for new building
Three years later-enough time
to secure funds for the new Mod-
ern Languages Bldg. and thus re-
lieve the space shortage-the Uni-
versity switched legal counsel and
was advised ghat it was not, in
fact, necessary' to refuse new con-
struction money in order to con-
inue the court challenge.
In the interim, the Regents ha'd
begun assessing the students for
construction of the Administration
Bldg. The court suit is still tied
up in appeals court, where, hav-
ing lost the first round, the Uni-
versity is apparently now stalling.
THE CASE OF the Events and
Intramural Buildings is somewhat
different. The Legislature simply
is not interested in this kind of
construction because it does not
relate directly to the academic
functions of the University. With
federal funds also out of the ques-
tion, the administration has ap-
parently felt compelled to turn to
the students.
And possibly, the students would
be willing to pay for these con-

right to veto the project if they
decide it is not desirable or does
not merit the cost. Students should
nake their feelings on this issue
clear to the administration. Even
those who support the specific

! 4
, k _,
. .
. ...__-_ , ss

SOC electios
q~c BC tons
~efoibles and follies'
Daily Guest Writer
1EFORE LAST March when the SGC elections were held enough
times so that the "right" candidate could finally win the presi-
dency, and even unto the present day when a candidate (well known
to the Credentials and Rules committee) is allowed to petition and
run for council after petitioning has been closed for a second time,
student government remains a duplistic organization. The name of the
SGC game is accuse the other guy of what you are doing. Needless to
say, personality clashes have been frequent because of this philosophy.
The recent bookstore carnival represents the personification of
an "issue" which involved considerable, if inconsiderate, statements and
activities by council leaders. Only in times of great stress have so many
done so much for so little. The present regime asserts that it has
radicalism in its background. Perhaps it should bring a little of this
radicalism to the foreground when it chooses "issues" to radicalize the
campus with.
What real radicalism is involved in spending every waking moment
gathering the howling band of partisans behind the calm, resolute
leader for a revolt so that students (from a median family income
of $12,000 to $18,000 a year) may pocket $5 to $10 per year, when sub-
stantive issues on this campus remain unresolved.
OSTENSIBLY, the idea of the whole affair was to reduce oppres-
sion by bookstore owners and in this way also keep this University from
being the preserve of the elite middle and upper-class (white) intel-
If this was, indeed, the intent of the recent attack on capitalism
on campus, would it not have been better to demand-ill the same
way-that the "qualifications" barrier be shattered by increasing black
admissions at this state \niversity to the percentage of black people
in the state (because, surprisingly enough, almost all of the fifteen
to seventeen per cent black people in this state do pay their share of
taxes and are not on welfare)?
The essential question is: Does SGC really want to change the
University in a basic way or simply reform the present system? Cur-
riculum reform and a basic re-evaluation of admission criteria strike
unresponsive chords within the University and do not, as issues, lend
themselves to fast or simple solutions.
SELFISH CONCERN for middle and upper class issues obstructs
significant change. But then anyone who, could quietly accept the in-
stant replay of the March "elections" (with a somewhat smaller cast)
would not be concerned about the choice of issues for a student protest
Returning to the present, the foibles and follies of electioneering
have reappeared. Many of the same campus cut-ups talk of re-vitaliz-
ing student government. The same editorial called "Endorsements"
appears in this "newspaper." As the "Endorsements" editorial only
reflects the viewpoints of the senior editors, so the appointive power of
student government to fill the vacancies on council only reflects the
najority viewpoint of the executive board and council, and so the


: ' N . .

Back to Top

© 2022 Regents of the University of Michigan