100%

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

Share

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.

January 27, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-01-27

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

Sevent y-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF TITE UNIVERSITY OF MICTIJGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

Letters: Regents Editorial Criticized

ere Opinions Are rree. 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN APsOR, MicH.
Truth Will Prepail

News PhONE: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
THURSDAY. JANUARY 27, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: LEONARD PRATT
The Free University:
Includes Students for a Change

WITH CONSIDERABLE fanfare, warm
self-congratulation and stifling seri-
ousness, the Free University of Ann Arbor
has begun registering students for cours-
es in everything from historical theory to
"Poetry, Now?" A satirical piece which
recently appeared on these pages, noting
what picturesque difficulties the Free
University would have if it were similar
to the University, appears to have both
tickled and soothed. Evidently the chal-
lenge of the Free University has success-
fully been ignored, and everyone can now
go back to the Cave.
But the Free University will not be
similar to the University. True, at its
worst the Free University is amusing in
its delusions of grandeur. But this sim-
ply reflects what characterizes the Uni-
versity at its worst-a lack of grandeur,
its fatigue and its decreasing relevance
to the questions of the world in which.it
exists.
New Power
InAlabama
IN A HEATED DEBATE last week, the
Alabama Democratic Party voted to
withdraw its "white supremacy" slogan
from the party's ballot emblem.
Because of new federal voter laws, the
Negroes in Alabama are now for the
first time registered in enough strength
to pose a real threat to Alabama politi-
cians. Negroes will comprise approximate-
ly 200,000 of the state's 850,000 voters
in this fall's election, and, with federal
supervision, their votes are sure to be
counted.
Thus it becomes evident that no party
in the South, if they want to win elec-
tions, will ever be able to afford a white
supremacy clause again.
JUST HOW IMMEDIATELY significant
the official removal of such a slogan
could be is doubtful. The man who cried
"I never thought we'd substitute black
supremacy for white supremacy in Ala-
bama," and his colleague who resigned
the party over this issue obviously feel
no different towards Negroes than' they
ever have. The politicians who removed
the slogan also can be expected to think
no differently merely on the basis of
purely practical politics.
But hopefully, the next generation of
Alabama Democrats, after working with
Negroes becomes a fact of political life,
will not even remember that a "white
supremacy" clause ever existed. Con-
currently it would be expected that they
won't even think in terms of white su-
premacy, as this generation did.
BIT BY BIT, federal legislation may be
leading us where we want it to-to-
wards a new vocabulary, and a new mor-
ality.
-HARVEY WASSERMAN
Editorial Staff
ROBERT .TOHNSTON. Editor
LAURENCE KIRSHBAUM, Managing Editor
JUDITH FIELDS ......., Personnel Director
LAUREN BAHR.. .... Associate Managing Editor
JUDITH WARREN Assistant Managing Editor
G3AIL BLEIMBERG. Ma aze Editor
TOM WEINBERG................ ... Sports Editor
LLOYD GRAFF .............. Associate Sports Editor
PETER SARASOHN............ Contributing Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Robert Carney, Clarence Fan to,
Mark Kilingeworth, John Meredith, Leonard Pratt.
Harvey Wasserman, Bruce Wasserstein; Charlotte
Wolter

DAY EDITORS: Babette Cohn, Michael Hefter, Merle
Jacob, Robert Moore, Roger Rapoport, Dick Wing-
.field.
ASSISTANT NIGHT EDITORS: Alice Bloch, Deborah
Blum, Neal Bruss, Gail Jorgenson, Robert Klivans,
Laurence Medow, Neil Shister, Joyce Winslow.
ASSISTANT DAY EDITORS: Richard Charn. Jane
Dreyfus, Susan Elan, Shirley Rosick, Robert Shiller,
Alan Valusek.
SPORTS NIGHT EDITORS: Rick Fefernan. Jim La-
Sovage, Bob McFarland, Gil Samberg, Dale Sielaff,
Rick Stern, Jim Tindall, Chuck Vetzner.
Published daily Tuesday through Sunday morning.
Business Staff
CY WELLMAN, Business Manager
ALAN GLUECKMAN ...........Advertising Manager
SUSAN CRAWFORD ..... Associate Business Manager
JOYCE FEINBERG .............Finance Manager
MANAGERS: Harry Bloch, Bruce Hillman, Marline
Kuelthau, Jeffrey Leeds, Gall Levin, Susan Per-

To be sure, the best of the University's
formidable talent is in the vanguard of
the nation's intellectual elite. But it is
precisely because some professors in the
University have maintained such a con-
sistently high standard of excellence that
those who do not are so bitterly disap-
pointing to students. Lectures are very
often mere exercises in textbook reading.
Discussion sections frequently have the
vigor and intellectual excitement of an
autopsy; indeed, the Honors Program is
distinguished for its perennial attempts
to rouse itself from rigor mortis.
31ORE IMPORTANT, in the last analy-
sis, than its loss of vigor is the Uni-
versity's loss of relevance. At its worst,
the University teaches not ethics, but
techniques; not ends, but means. Eco-
nomics courses become exercises in "ob-
jective" analysis of the status quo-a sort
of pecuniary taxidermy - rather than
an evaluation of its desirability.
Political science courses become statis-
tical exercises in voting behavior rather
than an examination of the questions of
the day. Literature courses descend into
an arcane evaluation of spondees rather
than a discussion of the issues their texts
raise. At its best, the University's grad-
uate is a liberally-educated man. At its
worst, he is a Certified Public Accountant.
At its best, therefore, the Free Uni-
versity. offers an exciting change from
the dismal realities of the University at
its worst. The Free University will scarce-
ly be dull, and it may represent an excit-
ing return to educational relevance.
Its focus on such modern artists as
Luigi Nono and Gunther Schuller may,
for example, bring amused smiles of con-
tempt to the faces of traditionalists. But
tradition is often an unfortunate disre-
gard of the relevant present for an exclu-
sive and deadening preoccupation with
the defunct-the democracy of the dead.
The Free University's economics cours-
es, to continue, do not merely analyze
economic matters, but relate them to
their social and political context - and
evaluate them. This approach may find
little sympathy from so-called "new"
economists, or even old ones; they are all
satisfied in proving the eminent virtue of
thrust brassieres and Toronadoes by not-
ing the increment they bring to the Gross
National Product. But the Free Univer-
sity's approach to subjects like economics
may appeal to students. Juding from ex-
perience, it already has.
IN SHORT, the Free University is, in
some degree at least, not simply a
change, but a challenge. It indicates by
actions, not words, that the University
must regain vigor and relevance. For all
its faddishness and esoterica, this is the
essence of the Free University and its
implication for the University. Education
without virtue-relevance to society-is
like pearls on a dunghill, Cervantes ob-
served; and, at its worst, such is the sit-
uation in the University today.
Hence the need for action. The Univer-
sity appears in some respects to be a
long way from the days when an econom-
ics class literally wrote Michigan welfare
laws. But it has shown that, at its best,
it is surpassed by no other institution in
intellectual and moral excellence. Its
taste, then, is to extend this excellence
throughout its activities by regaining the
relevance and vigor, of which it appears
to have been.losing sight.
ONE IMPORTANT WAY to regain vigor
and relevance in the process of educa-
tion at the University is to establish stu-
dent advisory committees in each depart-
ment of the University. Composed of

graduate students and upperclassmen
majoring in the department, the com-
mittee would give counsel to the depart-
ment on matters ranging from course
offerings, content and assignments to
faculty tenure.
Such committees would add the in-
sights of responsible and able students on
matters which, needless to say, are vi-
tally important to them and of which
they have intimate knowledge. Such
committees would constructively mobilize.
the interest of all students in their edu-
cation-something which, as establish-
ment of the Free University indicates, is
sometimes their desneration.

To the Editor:
PEOPLE who value The Daily
as a medium of communication
and of constructive criticism sore-
ly needed in a large and complex
university, who take pride in the
quality of the product which has
been typical of it in the past, and
who admire its young staff for
the ability and the effort which
they devote to their tasks, were
cruelly disappointed when it cast
away, as it did Sunday,. its claim
to be taken seriously by the com-
munity. For there should be no
illusion: not just the individual
writer, but The Daily itself, and
its entire staff, are judged each
day on the reportorial competence
and maturity of judgment exhibit-
ed in each story and editorial ap-
pearing in its pages.
Sunday's editorial was a perfect
example of juvenile criticism. It
purported to report thoughts and
motivations of others, to which
the writer could not possibly be
privy. It painted an unbelievably
naive picture of administrative of-
fiacers and Regents of this univer-
sity as bad guys dangling from
strings. In its lack of sensitivity
and decent respect for the dig-
nity of others, it was childish.
NOBODY at this University
questions the right and duty of
Daily writers to' criticize the deci-
sions of the faculty, the admin-
istration, the Regents, or any oth-
er decision-making group on this
campus, if they believe those deci-
sions unsound. A fundamental
principle of discourse in an aca-
demic community, however, is that
it shall consist of the exchange
of reasoned views ratherthan of
vituperation. Sunday's editorial
writer has apparently not learned
this.
It would be regrettable if the
subjects of his attack were to al-
low it to affect their sense of re-
ward derived from service to the
University, or their zest for the
problems they face every day. For-
tunately their sense of proportion,
as it has in the past, will probably
protect them.
There is nothing, however, to
protect The Daily from the griev-
ous -injury that has been done to
its standing as a medium of ma-
ture criticism and persuasion; nor
is there anything to protect the
other members of the staff from
the adverse reflections that have
been cast upon them. It is a pity.
THE SIGNERS of this letter are
all members of the Executive Com-
mittee of the Board in Control of
Student Publications. In this let-
ter, however, they have chosen and
intend only to express their indi-
vidual opinions.
-Prof. John W. Atkinson,
Psychology Dept.
-Prof. Oliver A. Edel
Music School
--Prof. Luke K. Cooperrider,
Law School
To the Editor:
EVERYTHING is out of propor-
tion in Roger Rapoport's full-
column epic editorial Sunday. Ra-
poport writes like the shocked,
naive child who believed storks de-
livered babies when first told the
facts of life. Outrange and in-
credulity are not in order; rather,
a searching overview of the sys-
tem which houses Regents, ad-
ministrators, faculty and students,
followed by thorough analysis of
particular issues.
The Regents are charged by the
state constitution with "general
supervision of its institution and
control and direction of all ex-
penditures from the institution's
funds." They are elected by the
people of Michigan and represent
the people's ownership of this in-
stitution.

Reply
THE DAILY is accused above of
running an intemperate edi-
torial ("The University's Re-
gents: Resignations Are in Or-
der," by Roger Rapoport, Sun-
day).
The three members of the Exec-
utive Committee of the Board in
Control of Student Publications
state in their letter, "Sunday's
editorial was a - perfect example
of juvenile criticism . .. In its lack
of sensitivity and decent respect
for the dignity of others, it was
childish."
L. Hart Wright, a distinguished
professor in the Law School,
writes, "I consider Sunday's edi-
torial attacking the Board of Re-
gents and senior officials of the
University irresponsible on several
counts."
SUPPOSE, first, that we grant
this criticism-admit that there
were elements of undisciplined in-
temperance in the editorial. Then,
rather than argue about exactly
which words and phrases are in-
temperate and which aren't, which
vituperative and which not, we
are in a position to review the
facts presented in the editorial
(those offered seriously and not

However, the Regents quite
wisely have chosen to delegate the
running of the University to the
administration. They will set the
institution's general policy while
the administration runs it. This
is the basic arrangement of Uni-
versity government here. It is the
lynchpin of policymaking, the cen-
terpiece around which University
politics revolve.
IF THE REGENTS chose to ac-
tively run the University, their
jobs would become full time ones.
Even then, they could not obtain
the necessary information to ef-
fectively administer.
So the Regents meet two days
monthly and in occasional special
sessions. They meet in secret
Thursday night at Inglis House
and Friday morning in the Ad-
ministration Bldg. and hash out all
the policy issues brought before
them by the administration.
Then on Friday afternoons, all
concerned stage a little drama for
press and public. With the debate
concluded and the decisions made,
the Regents and administration
announce, usually with joyous
unanimity, what they've done.
They use the opportunity to pro-
mote the University in the public
eye.
But nobody really knows why
the decision was made, what al-
ternatives were available, who
stood for what and why and the
manner the decisionwas reached.
Was it rammed down minority
Regents 'throats, was it a com-
promise, did the administration
snow the Regents into doing some-
thing they didn't know about or
understand ?
REALLY ACTIVE, aggressive
Regents under these conditions
would be a disaster for the Uni-
versity. Most Regents don't know
and lack the time. to find out
about the University community.
They don't share the community's
values-they are much more utili-
tarian.
Rapoport surely doesn't want
Regental interference in academic
or civil freedoms of students and
faculty: nor would he want the
University tied any closer to the
"military, industrial complex" than
it now is. What he wants are Re-
gents with different attitudes and
outlooks-Regents who read Paul
Goodman instead of Adam Smith,
These seven men and one woman
needn't work any harder than they
now do.
Regental outlook translates it-
self into administration 'in two
crucial ways. The most important
is through appointments-partic-
ularly the President. The Regents
elect the President, then turn the
University over to him. If the
President is liberal, then the Uni-
versity will be liberal, conserva-
tive Regents being only a mild
influence. If the President is con-
servative, liberal Regents will serve
as only a mild prod.
The president willethen appoint
men he trusts, respects and feels
congenial with to top administra-
tive positions. And so on down the
administrative line. Thus the tone
is determined and range of policy
alternatives is narrowed.
Regents also set policy by en-
couraging certain types of activi-
ties, men or ideas and discourag-
ing others. If they did their a
pointing well, they will never re-
ject a decision the administra-
tion makes, for they are all men
of the same mind. If not, policies
and administration decisions do
get rejected.
THUS CRITICISM of the Uni-
versity should really focus on the
administration. The Regents don't
have the information and really
-rightfully - don't care to be
dragged into the institution's day-
to-day operations. If students

want to change a policy, they
should argue it out with admin-
istrators who really decide. If
they want to dump an adminis-
trator, they should make his po-
sition untenable, a la Berkeley.
To avoid the risk of Regental
interference, students should not
appeal to Regents except in the
direst of emergencies.cUsually, if
students win over the administra-
tion, they can ram a policy
through the Regents.
Students must enter the state's
political arena to influence the
Regental outlook. They would most
importantly have to fight battles
at state party conventions to get
men and women of the proper
orientation nominated for Re-
gents. Then they would have to
elect their candidates.
Unfortunately, most students
are too young to vote. Only in a
very tight election would students,
their parents and other poten-
tial allies contribute enough votes
to make the parties take notice,
However, only a small percentage
of Potential student voters and
their allies are liberal.
WITHIN this framework, let's
look at some of specific issues
Rapoport raises:
* The Daily and Wilbur K.
Pierpont, vice-president for busi-
ness and finance, suffer from a
serious communications problem-
particularly The Daily. It is doubt-
ful that the two will agree on
very much, but Pierpont cannot
be effectively criticized unless The
Daily sheds the stereotype it holds
about him.
Calling him a "Calvin Coolidge
businessman," Rapoport clearly
sketches the stereotype: "Pierpont
has consistently enunciated a pol-
icy of fiscal conservatism which
impedes progress and innovation
at the University. A penurious
type, he systematically excludes
faculty and administrators from
any policy decisions involving
money." .
Pierpont is committed to the
basic values of the University
Unlike many others who might
have filled his role, he can com-
prehend that the University is not
simply an education corporation
and that the University should
foster some immaterial values,
even at the cost of much money
Any attempt to pressure Pierpont
from his job takes the serious
risk of replacing him with a busi-
nessman who is much more nar-
row-minded.
The Residential College seems
more stalled by the administra-
tion's inability to make a commit-
ment to it and then to round up
the necessary funds. Pierpont is
probably not opposed to it, but
the entire administration can't de-
cide whether to make the effort
and sacrifices elsewhere for the
college.
MEETING over lunch with the
1963-64 senior editors, Pierpont ex-
Pressed a lively interest and un-
derstanding of the University's
aims and non-fiscal problems. Per-
haps another candid and search-
ing meeting is in order.
0 Neither the administration
nor the Regents 4 alone can be
blamed alone for the University's
failure to comprehend the need
to defend the students' economic
interests. Roadblocks abound ev-
erywhere and UMSEU is right
seeking to lower them through
statewide lobbying and influence.
The first thing students will
have to fight is the concept that
public enterprises should not com-
pete with private ones. This is ver-
balized in the Regents 1929 rul-
ing, but is much more widely held.
Three Republican Regents are
businessmen or executives, the
fourth is a prominent corporation
lawyer.
The Democrats boast one large

businessman, one small business-
woman ,an educator with UAW
connections and an engineer cur-
rently in Spain. Thus a majority
of Regents are unlikely to sanc-
tion anything that would com-
pete and possibly ruin a major
Ann Arbor industry. Only pressure
from the outside or from the ad-
ministration could force a change.
REGENTS with this back-
ground are indifferent to student
economic welfare almost by tem-
perment, and certainly by class
background. The poor, who can't
afford to send their children here,
pay as little attention to Regental
elections as the rest of the citi-
zenry.
Inthe case of the bookstore, the
proposed venture is dubious at
best, and thus drew little or no
administration support. Priorities
count. Should the University spend
money it could use elsewhere, say
for purchase of library books, to
make up a bookstore's deficit? Re-
peated studies have indicated that
savings to students - particular-
ly on new books-do not merit
the proposed bookstore's cost to
the University.
The discerning fighter for bet-
ter economic conditions for stu-
dents should not flail at adminis-
tration or Regent "devils." This
may gratify the ego, but not
bring results. Rather he should
develop the most effective pro-
gram possible and then develop a
variety of strategies and tactics
to achieve it.
" The University made the
wrong choice when Roger Heyns
was offered the chancellorship of
the University of California at
Berkeley. The chancellorship there
is equivalent to the presidency
here. While Berkeley is somewhat
smaller than the University, it has
much more stature than the Uni-
versity and many more problems.
It was a hard offer to turn down.
To keep Heyns, the Regents
would have had to make him in
effect president-elect, the heir to
Hatcher. Hatcher then would be-
come a lame duck in his two re-
maining years in office.
If The Daily's information is
correct, it is unfortunate that
Hatcher cut the Regents off from
weighing this choice.
However, this status context
both here and at Berkeley must
be consideredwhen making judg-
ments about the Heyns affair
THUS the crucial issues focus
around the administration and
Regental orientation. Dumping
the Regents is no solution.
-Philip Sutin, Grad.
To the Editor:
CONSIDER Sunday's editorial
attacking the Board of Regents
and senior officials of the Uni-
versity irresponsible on several
counts among which was reliance
on a number of non-sequiturs. Per-
haps it Is because I am a law
professor thatIuwas most pro-
foundly disturbed by your writer's
tendency to attribute shameful
motives and inner feelings to a
number of those castigated.
The editorial itself offered no
proof regarding the attributed im-
proper motivation and feelings.
Thus, there surely is a serious
risk that your writer has thought-
lessly damaged the most precious
attributes of those human beings,
their integrity and decency.
Many of us in the academic
community know a few of our
senior officials fairly well, but
others scarcely or not at all. Nor-
mally, our attitude toward only
the latter category is likely to be
significantly affected by The
Daily's appraisals. In consequence,
I can best Illustrate the potential
damage which most concerns me
by referring to comments your

writer made concerning officials
with whom I am not acquainted.
FIRST. of Vice-President Cut-
ler, the editorial said: "Cutler who
originally favored the bookstore,
changed his mind after learning
of the financial problems of oth-
er university bookstores and the
opposition of Pierpont and the Re-
gents"
Use of the conjunction, "and,"
clearly implies that Mr. Cutler, in
shaping his own personal recom-
mendation regarding the book
store, was affected at least in part
by a desire to cater to a colleague
and to certain Board members,
as distinguished from acting sole-
ly on the basis of personal con-
viction. Does your writer really
know Mr. Cutler was in fact so
indecently motivated?
Again, the writer categorically
asserts: "And the Regents view
the students with contempt-they
have no real respect for their
views or interests." Further inr
assessing the Regents' private dis-
cussion regarding the University's
effort "in recruiting and support-
ing the economically disadvan-
taxed," your writer concluded:
"They did not want to give the
impression of being too strong
about it." Is it even remotely pos-
sible your editorialist knows each
member of the Board so intimate-
ly that he is able to accurately
assess their inner feelings?
Free and open discussion of dif-
ferences regarding substantive is-
sues is imperative. But when we
carry on our dialogue, integrity
and devotion to the University-
absent proof to the contrary -
ought not to be considered the
attributes of a select few, say
the editorial writers of The Daily
and some members of the faculty.
The educational environment in
which our discussion takes place
surely suggests that all of us
should conform to a standard
more demanding than that of the
late Senator Joseph McCarthy.,
--Prof. L. Hart Wright
Law School
-z
Parking
To the editor:
HEARTILY endorse Professor
Shaffer's protest against auto-
mobiles without Paid -Permits
hogging into the University park-
ing structures. My rough count is
that they occupy about 40 per cent
of total space between Monday
and Friday. My guess, based upon
elevator eaves-dropping, is that
most of these automobiles belong
to townspeople who avail them-
selves of what is really a Univer-
sity subsidy in order to park all
day for fifty cents-a real bar-
gain in this town.
it would be helpful to those of
us with season tickets if we knew
what we ought to do when the
structures (and the lots) are full.
Perhaps the University has a fund
which covers the costs of parking
violations by faculty who have
been unable to devise a way of
teaching classes without being in
the classroom.
A colleague has suggested to me.
an alternative. "NO PARKING-
NO TEACHING." This seems like
a drastic remedy for amminor
virus. It would not take a special
act of the Legislature to restrict
the number of non-permit auto-
mobiles which would be allowed in
the parking structures.
A TELEPHONE call from some-
body would do it.
-Prof. Cecil D. Eby
Engineering College

4i

'a,

1o

.

This University Is Ill-Served'

vin Coolidge businessman and a
sesquicentennial obsessed Presi-
dent the Regents are kept in the
dark";
-THEY "HAVE chosen to vir-
tually ignore every crucial prob-
lem faced by the University";
-"IN LARGE measure they act
in ignorance, few of them talk
seriously with students, and fewer
pay any attention to what they
do say":
-"QUIETLY acquiescing to the
irrelevant whims of President
Hatcher, the Regents seldom
check, question, or propose with
force enough to get answers or
get things done",
-"LAST SUMMER ... the Re-
gents were ready to remake
Heyns' position here to make it
more attractive. But Hatcher dis-
suaded them and handled the
matter himself. He let Heyns, who
was receiving more University-
wide acclamation than he ever
had, know that his welcome here
had worn thin";
--"FROM THE START most of
the Regents, along with Vice-Pres-
ident Pierpont, staunchly opposed
the bookstore," and

way if there are quarrels with
any of them.
At this point, if we accept these
facts, at least for the sake of ar-
gument, we are ready to begin a
"free and open discussion of sub-
stantive issues," to use Prof.
Wright's phrase. We are ready,
to quote the letter of Profs. At-
kinson, Edel and Cooperrider, "to
criticize [or applaud] the deci-
sions of the faculty, the adminis-
tration, the Regents, or any oth-
er decision-making group on this
campus, if [we] believe those de-
cisions unsound.
This, however, is the first and
basic substantive issue on which
the official views lof the admin-
istration (referring here to Presi-
dent Hatcher and the Regents)
diverge from those of Daily edi-
toral writers, including myself.
THAT IS, it takes two to dis-
cuss, and thus far The Daily, fac-
ulty interested in similar issues,
and less well-placed administra-
tors have alternately coaxed,
shouted, begged, pleaded, de-
manded, accused and cried-to no
avail.
It is impossible to criticize de,
cisions if one is both unable to

ing as a stimulus to dialog. No
such dialog presently exists -
and not for lack of criticisms.
President Hatcher and the Re-
gents do not acknowledge the
right of the students-and they
subvert through secrecy and mis-
information the right of the fac-
ulty-to have any effect (not di-
rect control but just influence) on
the decision-making process (even
when the decisions involve these
groups directly) through free, open
and honest discussion of issues,
problems and alternatives.
EXAMPLES:h
-Is there going to be a theatre
built using Regent Power's $1 mil-
lion pledge, and where will the
remainder of the funds (probably
$2-3 million) come from?
-How are student fees allocat-
ed and what policies govern their
allocation?
-How much money does the
University receive for indirect cost
reimbursement and how i s it
spent?
-What are the various "other
University sources" given in the
University's financial report for
sources of money for most of the
new buildings being constructed

sity intend to pursue with respect
to growth?
THESE ARE A FEW issues that
presently lie buried in the depths
of the administration's decision-
making process. And it would
probably be a good bet that for
every one The Daily knows about
several others are yet uncovered.
Weare interested in discussion
of these issues. As the University
grows ever larger and more com-
plex the more views and perspec-
tives that can be brought to bear
on any problem of policy or choice
among alternatives, the better the'
ultimate decisions will be.
There can be no such discus-
sion if secrecy is the general rule
of administrative operation and if
violation of this secrecy and at-
tempt at criticism of both it and
what it hides is taken for insult
and systematically ignored public-
ly and passed off privately as
misinformed and misdirected.
In such an environment com-
munication aimed at analysis and
furtherance of the University's
best interests is effectively stym-
ied, yet it is with the protection
of the University's vital interests
that- everyone here must surely
be concerned with.

*1

*

*4

a

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan