Seventy-Second Year EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNiVERSITY OF MICHIGAN UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS "Where Opinions Are Free STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG. * ANN ARBOR, MICH. Phone NO 2-3241 Truth Will Prevail" Editorials printed in The Michiga Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints. TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: HARRY PERLSTADT The Union's New Look: progressive, But Unclear t S ' 'n f. f p6 x r} ":1 x J 1 j I r ' r f r a I THE MICHIGAN UNION, often reviled for extreme stattts quo-ism and lack of vision, has at last responded to the campus grumbling with a laudable and somewhat daring blue- print for future operation. The recently-approved report of the Facilities Committee recommends many improvements and revisions in the physical facilities of the Union, and also puts forth a long overdue shift in basic philosophy: from a "private men's club" into a "University facility." Before students can feel inspired to un- mitigated joy, however, at least three basic questions regarding the report and the Union's new role will have to be clarified. THE FIRST OBJECTION, as was clearly brought out at last Thursday's Union Board of Directors meeting, is that nowhere in the report was the Union's past, present, or future philosophy clearly stated. The Union officers say that the "drastic change" in philosophy is a change in emphasis, as the "University facility" function supersedes but does not eliminate the "men's club" role. Unfortunately, the very important line where Union stops being a men's club and starts to operate as a University facility is never defined or even hinted at in the report. In addition, it was never made clear just what motivated the request for a change in Union philosophy. The report mentions only an economic reason: the Union at present is barely breaking even financially due to disuse of facilities and increasing private competition. Hence, facilities must be improved and the Union must serve a greater area-that is, the University community rather than just its male segment-to attract more business. If economic considerations were the domi- nating reason for the change in Union outlook, then there is no reason to term it a "drastic change in philosophy." Philosophical changes are inspired by philosophy; the economic ser- vices are then fitted into the philosophy. In the case of the Union, for example, if there were no immediate fiscal danger, would the report still have urged a "drastic change in philosophy?" The answer is not yet clear. THE SECOND OBJECTION was that the report never specified the Union's new constituency beyond the hazy statement that it now "furnishes services to the University community." During the debate, one of the proponents of the report hastily attempted to come up with a definition of the University. It was voted down. One board member pointed out that the definition omitted the Regents from the University community. THE THIRD MAIN QUESTION left untouch- ed by the report involves the legality of any of the changes in relation to Regental policy. The Union officers plan to ask revision of the relevant statutes. This is certainly necessary, because not only the proposed changes but also many current Union functions appear to conflict with Regen- 'tal policy. For instance, Regents Bylaw 30.11, setting up the building as a private men's club, also states that the Union "shall provide a meeting place for students, former students, alumni and faculty." Such a meeting place would obviously be the MUG and cafeteria in the lower floor of the building. However, a Re- gental policy statement drafted in 1959 says: the Regents shall not "encourage or approve the establishment of cooperative merchantile organizations . . . under circumstances that will give such enterprises special advantages in the way of lower rents, freedom from taxa- tion or other cooperation on the part of the University." Union services such as the sale of food and school supplies, on which no sales tax is charged, definitely appear to contradict the Regents' policy. In light of the Union's in- sistance that the proposed changes represent a major 'shift in philosophy, there certainly should be some authority established in the Regental policy to make the operations legal. T HESE THREE OBJECTIONS to the report were brought up in the Union board debate. The Union officers-Paul Carder, Todd Fay and Michael Balgley, correctly pointed out that none of the changes suggested in the report are final. In fact, the board itself can com- pletely reject the philosophical change, al- though the suggestions for specific physical improvements are "99 per cent binding," ac- cording to Carder, because the mandate of the committee was to consider long-range use of the facilities rather than the Union's guid- ing philosophy. Also, the Regents would veto any of the proposals if they felt the changes were unjustified. This explanation, however, ignored the fact AM*W Editorial Staff JOHN ROBERTS, Editor that if the board adopted (accepted and ap- proved) the report, some of the "99 per cent" binding suggestions would involve a basic com- mitment to policy which the Union has no authority to institute. For instance, the pro- posal to convert the swimming pool into a game room or bag-lunch room with vending machines would indeed mean a change from a service only to men to a service to the community. But in spite of the fact that they were committing themselves to a course of action which remained unclear in three important areas, the board members adopted the report after three hours of unclear discussion by a 9-1-2 margin. Eight of the affirmative votes came from members who also had been on the committee that formulated the report. THE HOURS of debate were almost ex- clusively devoted to the issue of philosophy and "University community." Unfortunately, the specific proposals of the report were left untouched. Undoubtedly the most controversial of these concerns the recommendations on the MUG. The report states: "it is hoped that the MUG will not be a dining room or study hall, but rather a place where students may meet friends over a quick snack or coffee-in short, a campus gathering place for all students." This statement is first of all a contradiction in terms. Usually, when people "gather," they wish to remain with one another for a some- what long period of time, much longer than "a quick snack." Of the much more important connotation, however, is the Union leaders' conception of the MUG and cafeteria facilities as an area pri- marily for eating. This is a function which dozens of private restaurants in Ann Arbor can perform just as well, if not better. On the other hand, the Union dining facilities can provide a service which no other establishment (excepting the League) can give; as a place where people can meet and talk and study,- with the food merely abetting these actions. Although President Carder afterwards said that the middle of the three cafeteria rooms would remain open to studying, there was no mention of this in the report. Also unmentioned in the report was any statement concerning "un- desirables," certainly a major factor in stu- dents' use of the MUG and cafeteria. A com- mittee examining long-range use of Union facilities should have taken this factor in ac- count and clarified or revised policy on it. Aside from the views on the lower floor din- ing operations, however, the specific proposals in the report are excellent. The Union plans first of all to set up a committee to make final preparations for implementation of the recommendations on specific physical changes. The areas slated for improvement include the hotel rooms and services, cafeteria and MUG facilities (such as more booths and use of wood in the MUG, a more formal decor in the cafeterias), recreational facilities (including a revamping of the much-shunned swimming pool) and personnel (encouraging more friend- liness). After these improvements and revisions are maderin the existing facilities, the Union plans to expand, primarily with a new, multi-million dollar Conference Center. This idea borders on greatness, as the campus desperately needs a.building to house and serve participants in the many conferences this University hosts, as well as provide the assembly rooms. Not only would the Conference Center provide a needed financial windfall for the Union, but it would also attract more conferences, with the cor- responding academic benefit for the University. NOW THAT THE UNION has shown its desire to serve the campus as a whole, in- stead of just its male segment, certain steps must be taken. First of all, the officers should (as promised) ask the Regents to amend the relevant bylaw and policy statement so that the Union can legally act in its new role. Second, it must make clear to the campus just what its philosophy will be. In what areas is it a private men's club and when is it acting as a University facility? Just what constitutes the "University community" it will serve? Exactly what is the policy regarding student and non-student use of the MUG and cafeteria? If there are illegal or questionable activities going on down there, the Union must deal with them openly rather than fur- tively, making known just what its standards for a "desirable" atmosphere are. Third, the Union must realize that as it becomes a "University facility," it assumes a responsibility to that University. The Union can no longer justify its position as a "private club," if in fact it ever could. Nowhere in the Regents Bylaw is the word "private" used in relation to the Union. The Union is a corpora- tion only by grace of the Regents. Its policy is set by a board of directors consisting of ad- ministrators, alumni, Regents and elected stu- dents (who hold 11 of the 20 seats). By Re- gental decision, every male University student is forcibly a member of the Union. And now that it proposes to serve the entire University communitv. the Union has a greater respon- t1 1 INTERSTICE?: Wolgamot Tome TurA ORN i6 i Mrt i $ t F' e . a J4.