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.

March 16, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-03-16

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

Seventy-Sixth Year
j EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
-* UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

March 16: The

View From Lansing

ere Opinions Are Free. 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARABOR, MICH.
Truth Will Prevail

NEws PHoNE: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This mus t be noted in all reprints.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 16, 1966

NIGHT EDITOR: CLARENCE FANTO

Johnson and Congress:
Rebellion Threatens

By LEONARD PRATT
Acting Associate Managing Editor
A LEGISLATIVE SOURCE re-'
Gently hinted that the Univer-
sity's $65 million budget request
for next year-of which only $54.2
million was recommended by Gov.-
George Romney-may be cut even
further.
The coming hearings and state-
ments will make up the latest in
a long series of conflicts between
the University and the Legislature,
conflicts also lying behind the
present struggle with the unions
and between the University and
the Legislature concerning con-
trol over the University's building
programs.
The current series of conflicts,
much more intense and wide
spread than those of a few years
ago, are moreover a re-enactment
of past conflicts between the two
institutions.
FROM ANN ARBOR it is diffi-
cult to understand why the Legis-
lature should take such a seem-
ingly perverse delight in making
the University's job more difficult
than it already it. Like so many
human concerns, the Legislature is
simply much too complex to un-
derstand from a distance. All in-
quiry into what the University

seems like from Lansing would be
illuminating.
The basic impression one gets
from legislators and Lansing ad-
ministrators about the University
is a sense of consternation about
its rather special status--under
Michigan's Constitution the Uni-
versity, like all state universities,
is not run by the state govern-
ment, but by its own Board of
Regents.
And the consternation is inten-
sified by the fact that this in-
dependence extends into the fi-
nancial sphere. Once funds have
been awarded to the University's
budget, they may no longer be,
directed by anyone but the Re-
gents.
CONSTERNATION about this
independence has been a part of
Lansing's feelings toward the Uni-
versity for a long time. During the
state's past fiscaltcrisis, state ad-
ministrations have strained to ob-
tain educational funds for their
own administrative purposes.
Their failure to do so has not
engendered any great love for
that most expensive of the state's
colleges, the University.
The University thus seems al-
most impudent to the Legislature,
asking for more money each year
but never cooperating with the

state in determining how that
money will be spent.
IN ADDITION to financial fac-
tors, the University is perennially
regarded as a rather elitist in-
stitution. University officials re-
enforce this impression every time
they argue for more funds on the
basis of the expensive, high-
quality educational program of-
fered here.
To legislators who feel the need
to serve the state's people on an
egalitarian basis, this image is
more than enough to make them
see red. This has gone so far as
to inspire a member of the State
Board of Education-a body re-
sponsible for the overall coordina-
tion of state education-to say
that he was determined to see the
University "humbled, and darned
soon at that."
There are many other factors
that add tothis fundamental, al-
most mystical distaste for the
University. Legislators are busy
men. without the time to spend
hours pouring over budgets and
statistics, trying to understand
any one of the state's colleges.
They are thus overworked and
underinformed 'when the time
comes to decide on the universities'
budgets. It is only natural to
blame the universities themselves

for this lack of information.
When legislators have asked for
this information there has often
been-as in the Faxon' hearings
on the tuition hike-a very obvious
communication problem. Neither
side was clear on what the other
wanted and felt rather piqued
that they weren't trying harder
to understand "us."
RECENTLY the union issue has
further embittered relations. The
Regents, taking a strong stand
on the autonomy issue, refuse to
bargain collectively with Michi-
gan unions. Their stand is taken
on grounds removed from tradi-
tional antiunionism, yet theirpro-
testations to this effect have fallen
on deaf ears.
To legislators, the Regents po-
sition is a joke. Michigan is a
union state; the speaker of the
House has been a United Auto
Workers member for almost as
long as the union has existed.
About 40 per cent of the House
is from Detroit and many of them
owe their positions to union back-
ing. The AFL-CIO runs a legisla-
tive reference service that virtually
writes many of the bills sub-
mitted to the House's hopper.
The University's position in

Lansing, therefore, is often little
short of blasphemy.
MANY LITTLE irritations pile
on top of these considerations that
are now so pressing:
i Everyone likes personal at-
tention, especially legislators. The
University's relations with the
Legislature provide for very little
of this.
9 Constituents' children often
do not get into the University,
with the result that angry letters
find their way to Lansing.
* Young state representatives
are now resentful of established
legislators' powers, and these legis-
lative leaders have often been
more moderate in their relation-
ships with the Univtrsity. Bitter-
ness against the "old guard" thus
also becomes bitterness against
those causes which it has de-
fended.
CONSIDERING the combined
effect of these factors, to say that
the University's Lansing image
suffers is to be very kind. Legis-
lators neither know what is hap-
pening here nor do they under-
stand the University's refusal to
go along with many of their de-
sires.
A $10.8 million budget cut is
only one of the results.

0
'I

N TRYING TO MAKE good his promise
that Americans can have both guns
and butter, President Johnson, rather
than increase taxes immediately, is at-.
tempting to make up for the $12 billion
increase in defense spending for the war
in Viet Nam by trimming back federal
programs in other areas. And, in the
process, he is running up against stub-
born opposition from Congress.
Federal-supported education programs
are prime targets for cutbacks: school
aid for big city schools ($400 million), aid
to areas with federal employes on school
rolls ($446 million), and federal school
lunch programs and grants to land-grant'
colleges.
Johnson also "requested in his. budget
that the National Defense Education Act,
up for renewal of appropriations, be
transferred to a new program of federal-
guaranteed loans financed by a reluctant
banking community.
Congressional pressure caused him to
later reinstate the NDEA, but with the re-
quest that the funds be cut from $190
million to $150 million. Indications are
now that Congress may try to pass the
bill at the original $190-million in spite
of the request.
SINCE THIS is an election year, congres-
sional politics dictate that the mem-
bers restore any requested cutbacks in
voter-sensitive areas like education. The
feeling aimong the legislators is that
Johnson picked these areas for cutback
legislation so that the blame could be
shifted to Congress, when-after they un-
derstandably refuse to cooperate-direct
taxes become necessary to meet the addi-
tional appropriations at home and for
Viet Nam.
The war is estimated to cost from $12
to $15 billion for the coming fiscal year.
Such expenditure will substantially in-
crease the national debt and cause con-
gressmen more embarrassment at having
to vote to raise the ceiling on deficit-
spending, further inflating the currency.
FEED-BACK from the position into
which the Johnson administration has
forced the voter-conscious senators and
Acting Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor
CLARENCE FANTO HARVEY WASSERMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
JOHN MEREDITH .........Associate Managing Editor
LEONARD PRATT.......Associate Managing Editor
BABETTE COHN.........Personnel Director
CHARLOTTE WOLTER ;... Associate Editoral Director
ROBERT CARNEY .. . Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT MOORE...................Magazine Editor
Acting Business Staff
SUSAN PERLSTADT, Business Manager
JEFFREY LEEDS ...... Associate Business Manager
HARRY BLOCH ................Advertising Manager
STEVEN LOEWENTHAL........Circulation Manager
ELIZABETH RHETN..............Personnel Director
VICTOR PTASZNik....... ....... Finance Manager

representatives can be seen in the guise.
of increased congressional debate on the
handling of the war, and association of
the war with even the most uncontrover-
sial domestic issues.
An open rebellion against the admin-
istration's handling of the war has not
fully materialized but more and more
congressional members are tentatively
reasserting their independence by stating
that their present "yea" votes for ad-
ministration-backed measures are in no
way a rubber-stamp approval of its for-
eign policy.
AT WHAT POINT the rebillion will ap-
pear is difficult to predict. There is a
strong, but very minor, faction of Con-
gress which is critical of the administra-
tion's handling of th foreign policy as-
pect of the war; this group could spear-
head a drive to force a re-evaluation of
the military objectives and expenditures
of funds.
But more conservative members of Con-
gress would sidestep the Viet Nam issue.
These congressmen would rather ac-
quiesce in the domestic cuts or even vote
in the larger appropriations than base a
"rebellio" on the war issue.
IF JOHNSON is to suppress an open re-
bellion in the Congress, he is either
going to have to force the war to the
conference table and begin a financial de-
escalation, or else take full public re-
sponsibility for increasing the financial
burden on the taxpayer and inform the
voting public that they can't have their
butter and shoot it too.
-DAVE KNOKE
Hatcher Tea
THE TIME: 4:00 to 6:00 today. The
place: 815 South University, the grey-
and-white house behind the Graduate Li
brary. The occasion: the semester's sec-
ond Hatcher Tea.
The days when a university could be, as
Tames Garfield said, himself on one end
of a log and Mark Hopkins on the other,
are gone. But it is unfortunate, and per-
haps dangerous, for a student to pass his
entire existence on campus without ever
meeting the man who mustlead it.
Slightly over a year and a half ago,
President Hatcher told a presidential stu-
dent convocation-the first in many years
-that "seeing (the University) from
where I live and work, I am troubled to
realize that for many of you the windows
into the University are so limited.",
Ironically, only about 250 students came
to Rackham Aud. to hear him speak.
THE HATCHER TEAS (contrary to rum-
or, they don't put saltpeter in the tea)
are a good way to open an important win-
dow into the University. Hopefully the
place will be packed tomorrow.
I don't think they'll mind.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

t

Wagtman Defends Library- UMI Relations

To the Editor:
TIE EDITORIAL that appeared
in last Saturday's Daily re-
garding the resignation of Regent
Eugene B. Power leads me to
break a long silence that I had
felt compelled to maintain while
official investigations were being
conducted.
The present Acting Senior Edi-
tors have reason to feel dismay
over Mr. Power's resignation. They
themselves were not involved in
the events that led to this un-
fortunate conclusion of Mr.
Power's distinguished service to
the University, but their attempt
to justify the journalistic irrespon-
sibility that brought about the
present situation by stating that
the Daily had had an obligation to
print the facts about the business
transactions between Mr. Power's
concern and the University" and
that these facts.merely "suggested
the possibility of a technical con-
flict of interest" is something less
than candid.
The fact is that both the Daily
article of October 23 and the
editorial that appeared on the
same day contained serious mis-
statements of fact, misinterpreta-
tions that have persisted tena-
ciously through three investiga-
tions and willful misrepresenta-
tions of my attitude as well as
that of Mr. Power toward the
ethics and legality of the rela-
tionships between the Library and
University Microfilms, Inc.
THE PATRONIZING IRONY of
the editorial, its charged language,
its implication that Mr. Power,
myself and other university offi-
cials had a rather cavalier dis-
regard for the legality or ethics
of that relationship implied that
much more was involvel than the
mere "possibility of a technical
conflict of interest." Had the Daily
reporter spent more time research-
ing the files, closely examining the
documents and heeding the ex-
planations he was given of the
technical matters concerned, the
story would have been quite dif-
ferent and the editorial might
never have been written.
Both he and the then Editor of
the Daily were warned that if a
story was written reflecting the
bias that the reporter seemed to
feel, the immediate consequence
might well be repetition of his
charges in various news media and
damage to Mr. Power's reputation
and to the University. They were
warned also that another con-
sequence would be a long and
expensive investigation, possibly
even a legislative inquiry, and that
after all the smoke had cleared
away, it would have been demon-
strated only that the relation-
ships in question were legal, pro-
per, and in the public interest.
The Daily went ahead with its
story anyway, fully aware of the
possible consequences.
AS PREDICTED, the allegations
in the article and editorial which
reflected on Mr. Power's probity
were repeated on television, in
newspapers throughout the state
and in a lengthy article in a na-
tional journal which is read by
almost all who do business with
University Microfilms, Inc. As pre-
dicted, we have suffered through
not one but three tremendously
time-consuming and costly in-
vestigations. As predicted, the At-
torney General has made it clear
that there is no question of Mr.
Power's motives, his integrity or
his devotion to the interest of the
University.
Contrary to my prediction, how-
ever, he holds that because of
changes in the character and
quantity of the relationships be-

FOR THE BENEFIT of any
members of the University com-
munity who might still have some
lingering doubts as a consequence
of the allegations in the Daily
article and editorial of last Oc-
tober, I should like to make it
very clear that the Library has
not and does not make its services
or materials available to Unier-
sity Microflims, Inc. on a quid
pro quo basis. It gives no services
to University Microflims, Inc.
which it would not supply gratis
to any other reprint publishers, all
of whose activities benefit scholar-
ship and libraries, make available
books and other materials that are
out-of-print or are deteriorating
physically, or are available only
in unique copy or only in remote
places.
Just as other reprint publishers
located elsewhere in the United
States make heavier use of the
library collections closer to their
offices, University Microfilms, Inc.
has utilized the collections most
proximate to its cameras. The fact
that Mr. Power has given the
University microfilms, Copyflo
books and other services valued at
more than $200,000 since he be-
came a Regent is completely ir-
relevant.
Second, Mr. Power and I have
always believed that we were pro-
ceeding correctly under the law,
as the Attorney General indeed
points out, since there had been
two opinions by the Deputy At-
torney General in 1956 and an-
other by the Attorney General in
1958 which gave him full authori-
zation, to borrow books, film them,
sell copies of the film, purchase
microfilm from the University
Library and sell copies of that,
all for profit.
SOME OF the confusion which
was touched off by the reportage
in the Daily last fall and indeed
was compounded by misunder-
standings on the part of the in-
vestigator for the Auditor General
have found they way into the body
of the Attorney General's report.
Thus, for example, one of the
major issues seems to be the sale
by University Microflims, Inc. of
copies of the Undergraduate Li-
brary shelflist. This is merely the
inventory in catalog card form of
the books in that one collection.
It has no value whatsoever to any
other library except as information
regarding the titles that we have
found it advisable to make avail-
able to our younger students.
Microflim copies of that shelf-
list made by the Library's Photo-
duplication Service were sold at
standard rates to University Mi-
crofilms, Inc. initially so that the
University of Texas which was
engaged in developing an under-
graduate library of its own might
have this bibliographic aid avail-
able as a selection tool for its own
faculty. Since the Library could
not afford to publish the list of
titles in its undergraduate collec-
tion as a selection aid for other
libraries and was eager to help
the University of Texas or any
other institution that would pro-
fit from having such assistance
in its own collection-building, I
agreed to Texas' request that Uni-
versity Microflims, Inc. be allowed
to reproduce the shelflist in the
form of a Copyflo book.
I have been glad to let Univer-
sity Microflims, Inc. serve other
libraries engaged in developing
undergraduate libraries by making
copies of this shelflist available.
No royalty was charged because
it is not our policy to collect
fees from libraries, which we
carry on various cooperative en-
terprises, for letting them use our
books or catalogs and the royalty

least, the Attorney General states
with respect to the Undergraduate
Library shelflist that although "no
effort was made to charge Uni-
versity Microflims any portion of
the cost of cataloging," according
to an exhibit attached to the re-
port of the Auditor General, "the
University Library had on other
occasions sold certain portions of
the shelf list to other subscribers
at a price which paid for the
Library's cost of cataloging." This
is absolutely not the case.
TheUniversity Library has not
sold any portion of its Under-
graduate Library shelflist or the
shelflist of any other library, to
my knowledge or the knowledge
of any member of my staff, at a
price which included the cost of
cataloging. It hastbeen engaged in
an enterprise with 42 other li-
braries for the past 28 years
whereby the University Library,
acting on behalf of the other li-
braries as well as in its own
interest, catalogs microfilm copies
of the books listed in Pollard and
Redgrave's Short Title Catalog of
Early English Imprints. It sells
catalog cards for these books to
42 libraries at 50 cents per set
for each title so cataloged.
The returns from the sale of
these cards pay for a considerable
part of the cost of performing the
cost of cataloging as well as the
multilithing of the cards. This
project is completely unrelated to
the Undergraduate Library shelf-
list or any other shelflist. Appar-
ently the investigator for the
Auditor General's office misunder-
stood this arrangement and relat-
ed it to the subject in question.
SIMILARLY, there has been
confusion regarding the question
of a differentialhrate for filming
undertaken by the Library's Pro-
toduplication Laboratory on behalf
of University Microflims, Inc. and
other customers and this confu-
sion is carried over even into the
report of the Attorney General.
The fat is that all laboratories
have a dual-rate system for short-
run and long-run filming. For
quite a long time and without
the knowledge of either Mr. Power
or myself the Library's laboratory
had adopted the practice of treat-
ing all the orders from University
Microflims, Inc., many of which
were for very long run jobs, as one
continuous order, backlogging the
materials to be filmed and working
them off as time allowed. This
situation was clarified for the
Attorney General after it had been
confused by the investigator for
the Auditor General and the At-
torney General seems to feel that
the whole question here hinges
on a technicality which can easily
be corrected.
The Attorney General's conflict
of interest ruling is based on the
contention that the nature and
complexity of the relationship be-
tween University Microfilms, Inc.
and the University Library has
changed radically both in amount
and character since Mr. Power's
initial days as a Regent. First, be-
cause "the amount of use measur-
ed by the number of photographic
exposures taken annually by Uni-
versity Microflims of materials in
the various libraries of the Uni-
versity of Michigan has increased
seven-fold over the past decade.
Secondly, the nature and com-
plexity of the relationship has
been sharply altered.
For instance, where before books
were microfilmed at the company's
office, now because of the volume
the company has placed two cam-
eras on University property; where
before the microfilming was limit-
ed to books and periodicals, now
it has been extended to the film-

the University. He points out fur-
ther that arrangements for plac-
ing cameras in libraries "is com-
mon in libraries throughout the
world, and we have learned of no
case where any library has ever
requested that rent be paid for the
space for cameras placed there
for this purpose."
Finally, he points out that Mr.
Power had properly requested the
opinion of the Attorney General
twice in 1956 and again in 1958,
regarding the legality of his copy-
ing books and selling reproduc-
t ions of the microfilms so pro-
duced as well as of buying micro-
film from the University Library
and selling copies of the film so
purchased, and had been assured
that in both procedures "there is
no conflict of interest or legal
involvement." Now, however, it
seems that these activities reflect
a substantial conflict of interest.
I, for one, fail to see how an ac-
tivity which has been ruled as not
involving a conflict of interest
(substantial or insubstantial)
should suddenly become illegal be-
cause the volume of the activity
has increased.
THE CHARACTER of the rela-
tionship has changed, however,
according to the Attorney General
because microflim cameras owned
by the company had been placed
in the University Library without
rental. But if the University had
charged University Microfilms,
Inc. rental for the space occupied
by the cameras, would this not
have constituted a contract and
if so at what stage would it have
become a substantial conflict of
interest under Article IV, Section
10 of the new Constitution?
Similarly, the key words in the
Attorney General's opinion with
respect to the sale of copies of the
Undergraduate Library shelflist
(another change in the character
of the relationship) seem to be
"sold without royalty payments to
the University." University Micro-
films, Inc. would have been glad
to pay royalties on the sale of
copies of the Undergraduate Li-
brary shelflist but I did not re-
quest them. Moreover, if royalty
payments had been made would
this not also have constituted an
illegal contract involving a 'sub-
stantial conflict of interest under
Article IV, Section 10?
FINALLY, theAttorney General
indicates that the nature of the
relationship was altered by the
fact that copies of doctoral dis-
sertations were sold by University
Microflims, Inc. and the fact that
microflims of doctoral disserta-
tions were stored in the company's
vaults rather than in the vaults of
the University Library. Here again
we are involved in a very compli-
cated arrangement which it seems
to be difficult to explain ade-
quately.
One of the most original and
useful contributions that Mr.
Power has made to scholarship
has been his development of the
microfilm dissertation program.
Under this program 155 univer-
sities pay University Microflims,
Inc. a fee for which University
Microfilms, Inc. produces a nega-
tive microfilm of each doctoral
dissertation submitted at the re-
spective universities, publishes an
abstract of each dissertation in
its publication entitled Disserta-
tion Abstracts, deposits a positive
film copy of each dissertation at
the Library of Congress, stores the
negative microflim in its fire-
proof, air-conditioned vaults, and
sells copies of the dissertations on
demand.
When Mr. Power became a Re-

has no facilities for making Copy-
flo books. At that time the Li-
brary's laboratory had no equip-
ment for developing negative mi-
crofilm, for printing positive mi-
crofilm, 'or for splicing in the
"leaders" that identify the in-
dividual dissertations.
As a consequence Mr. Power
agreed not only to publish the
abstract of the dissertation free
of charge but, also free of charge,
to develop the film, splice in the
leaders, make two free positive
copies, one for the Library of
Congress and one for the colle-
tions of The, University of Mihi-
gan, and return the negatives of
the dissertations to the Library
for storage.
UNFORTUNATELY there was
an administrative snefu. Memor-
anda and instructions that should
have gone to people at the imple-
menting level never reached them.
Mr. Power, Vice President Sawyer
and I were all unaware that the
original plan was not being fully
carried out in that the negatives
of the dissertations actually were
being stored in University Micro-
film, Inc. vaults along with those
or the 154 other universities.
Whatever occasional orders may
have come in for them were filled
by University Microflims, Inc.
The assumption that the sale
of copies of these dissertations
was profitable without the pay-
ment of the fee in addition is very
arguable. In many cases profit on
the few copies of a' dissertation
sold is negligible relative to the
providing the storage space,mak-
inggthe free copies for the Library
of Congress and, in our case, for
our Library. The implication,
therefore, that there was a sub-
stantial conflict of interest be-,
cause the dissertations were stored
by accident and contrary to in-
tention in the company's vaults
rather than in the University Li-
brary is puzzling to me. It might
perfectly well be argued correctly
that this was a service given free
to the University for which 154
other universities must pay.
Finally, it should be pointed out
that this accidental arrangement
worked to the advantage of the
University and the student also
since it included his dissertation
in the national indexing and ab-
stracting service, made it possible
for any scholar including the
graduate student himself to pro-
cure a copy of his dissertation.
Despite this, however, there is no
question that the present agree-
ment between the student and
the University has not been hon-
ored fully and should be. Steps
are being taken to revise the
entire procedure so that it will be
correct and proper.
IN SUMMARY, whether or not
an activity which is legal and
does not reflect a conflict of in-
terest becomes illegal when Its
volume increases, at what point
that increase in volume makes it
illegal, whether or not there really
is a difference in kind between
the sale of a copy of a book and
the sale of a copy of small cata-
log, both in the interest of
scholarship, education and the
strengthening of libraries; wheth-
er or not an arrangement on the
handling of dissertations which
was probably disadvantageous to
University Microflims, Inc. rather
than a source of profit and which
was the result of administrative
errors that are in the process of
being corrected, all constitute a
substantial conflict of interest
seem to me to be questionable.
One does not, however, argue
with the Attorney General's opin-
inn isy h1 nlhvinuly 1Ufaoerwith

#i

4

Subscription rate: $4.50 semester oy carrier ($5 by -MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH
inal: $8 yearly by carrier ($9 by maill ,ActingEditor
Second class postage paid at Ann 'Arbor, Mien. Atig Eio

-. A.IR uII wI

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan