0 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. SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1969 NIGHT EDITOR: DAVID SPURR Endorsements 0 *.0 Excellent 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. (food 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. Qualified 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 fees By RICK PERLOFF 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. TOMORROW, STUDENTS have 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. gic 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 prospering. 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. Bldg.? 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. bookstore The assessment provides a more certain initial source of capital and a more constant long-range source. 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 state, 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. THE BOOKSTORE managers 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 deposit. 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? By MARTIN IIIRSCIIMAN 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- ings. '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 term." 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. WHAT IS USUALLY not men- 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 projects. 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 _, . . i . ...__-_ , ss SOC electios q~c BC tons ~efoibles and follies' By DARRYL GORMAN 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- ligentsia. 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 experience. 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 4. : ' N . .