Page 4-Saturday, November 11, 1978-The Michigan Daily , 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom Something of a comeback Vol. LXXXIX, No. 57 News Phone: 764-0552 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Dropthe GEO case W HEN IS AN employee not an the University to claim that TAs are employee? That is the question not employees; what were all those the Michigan Employment Relations TAs we had our first two years of Commission (MERC) has been trying college doing? Clearly, in most instan- to answer for the past nine months with ces, they were teaching our classes. regards to the teaching and research They ran the discussion groups, and assistants at the University. graded our tests and papers. Surely the The shenanigans began nearly two administration does not deny this. But years ago, November 18, 1976, when then, how can the University possibly negotiations broke down between the claim that TAs are not employees? The Graduate Employee Organization concept simply boggles the mind. They (GEO) and the University. GEO work for the University by teaching charged that the University was com- students, and they are paid for their ef- mitting an unfair labor practice by forts. Does not this constitute em- refusing to sign a contract, and ployment? threatened to take the matter to The only possible explanation for the MERC. The University bargainers University's action is that it simply warned that if GEO took such action, wanted to break this union as it broke the University would challenge TA's the clericals' union, and handcuffed status as employees. Both sides kept AFSCME. This is an outrage. TAs need their promises, and that is where the and deserve a union to represent them, issue now stands. else they would be at the mercy of the On December 5, GEO leaders will University, and we students know how meet with the Regents to attempt to bad that can be-tuition hikes nine out settle this matter. Regent James of 10 years. They have been without Waters (D-Muskegon) has said he is recourse against the administration considering a motion to drop the case for nearly two years now, and that has against GEO-it's about time. That severely undermined GEO's ability to would be the first sensible move the represent its constituency. The Regen- 1niversity has made in this affair for ts should take immediate steps to rec- 4j least two years. - tify this injustice by dropping the ill- It is an insult to our intelligence for found case against GEO. Since the turbulent era of the late 1960s, when riots and- protests at various college campuses dominated our television screens and law and order became the issue of the day, there has been little to say about college activism. When the Vietnam War ended mercifully and American troops came home, the nation enjoyed what Secretary of state Henry Kissinger called, "peace with honor." The country's youth, accepting the cue of the older generation, shifted their concern and energy to combatting the economic recession. Apathy became the national pastime as the youth, who just five years before had received votingprivileges in a 1971 constitutional amendment, showed a deep lack of interest in the 1976 presidential campaign. Unlike Robert Kennedy and George McGovern's "youth constituency" in 1968sand 1972, neither of the candidates in the 1976 race had a strong youth following. The students were more interested in each other's grade point average rather than political philosophy. One was a liberal, conservative or moderate. The new an significant voice of the youth which had cropped up in 1972 as such a crucial factor in the political scene had dissolved into a wasteland. But in the last two years, youth has made something of a comeback; facusing on a new issue - the question of United States involvement in South Africa, a nation which consistently upholds apartheid practices. The United states government has maintained close military and political ties with the south Africa regime through the last few years. Unable to muster a strong attack on the government's role in South Africa, the college students have focused their efforts on forcing universities to divest their holdings from banks and corporations operating in South Africa. The new group of student activists have tried vigorously to make university governing boards to withdraw their stock from these banks and corporations. They have held rallies, sponsored teach-ins and lobbied extensively to get the university out of South africa. Although the divestiture movement is still in its early' stages and comes nowhere near the level of the anti-war activism in the 60s, success has been recorded at a number of major universities. Last spring,the University of Wisconsin Regents voted to divest their stock from South Africa under the order of the state's'attorney general. While it isn't clear that student pressure forced the action, it is certain that student-sponsored rallies and teach-ins had an effect.I Just a few months ago, the Michigan State University (MSU) Board of Trustees also voted to divest from South Africa. By Michael Arkush Although the date of divestment may be delayed by certain technicalities, students at MSU were influential in pressuring the Trustees to cut south African ties. However, since the nucleus of the divestiture movement is still veyy small and possesses few resources, many of the group's efforts have been unsuccessful. Besides this spring's failure in Ann Arbor, there have been many fruitless attempts across the nation in colleges where student pressure was just minimal and thus had no substantial effectton the school's governing board. Three weeks ago, I attended the Midwestern Conference on University - and Corporate Involvement in South Africa at Evanston, Illinois.. Over 350 representatives from 50 midwestern colleges and universities showed to voice their concern and discuss tactics to make universities divest from south africa. My first impression during the conference's session was of an organization which contained too much internal dissention and factionaltdispute to effectively coordinate a sound regional policy. At one extreme of the ideological spectrum was the Spartacus Youth League and on the other side was the Revolutionary Student Youth Brigade. In between, were the more moderate groups dedicated to U.S. withdrawal from south africa. Although the -elegat could concur on the importance of university and corporate divestiture, it became apparept that an agreement on standard tactics to achieve that goal would be much more difficult to reach. But as the weekend wore" on, the factions were able to set aside' their ideological conflicts artd agree on consistent regional policy to fight apartheid and thie U.S. contribution to that system. On the last, day of the conference, they approved several resolutions designed againstthe, U.S. government, universities and corporations and the South African regime itself. When the resolutions were passed, I began td feel like I was at the birth of a strong and potentially influential movement. -i began to think that I would some day look back at this weekend and view it as the rebirth of unified college, activism.' The sdelegates agreed to establish a steering committee to coordinate regional activities against U.S. involvement in South Africa. The committee's first meeting will be in the Michigan Union Ballroom on Sunday, November 12 at 11:00 a.m. The new wive of student activism has received the push" from various core groups. What remains to be seen is whether the majority of students will follow. Michael Arkush is a Daily Night Editor. t ... t ,.p-A The drinking age T HE OVERWHELMING vote to raise the drinking age back to 21 was disappointing. Despite all the logical arguments against Proposal D voters seemed to think there was a need to keep alcohol out of the hands of 19- and 20-year-olds - 18-year-olds would have lost the right to purchase alcohol in January anyway. The problems, however, which ensue as a result of a higher drinking age are minor compared to the problem of which Proposal D is only a symptom. It is fairly easy to extrapolate the effects 6f proposal D. Many students in this area are already beginning to stockpile their favorite alcoholic beverages. There has been a decline in the use of illicit drugs in the past few years - that will probably change. There will also probably be a return to drinking in automobiles and therefore more alcohol-related accidents. But most disastrous are the effects which have not been addressed: what happens in a college town or community like Ann Arbor where bars are such an important part of everyone's social life. The new restriction on drinking could effectively split the campus in half - legal drinkers and non-legal drinkers, those who can go to a bar and those who can't. What happens to those households or groups of friends where age never before made any difference - now it will. And what happens to lovers, one of whom is 21-years-old and the other who is 19-years-old, not an uncommon match. If a person is given the responsibilities of an adult she or he should be given the privileges which accompany those duties. It is only fair and logical. There was some problem with increased alcohol-related accidents among 18-year-olds since they have been able to drink legally. The law was amended and the drinking age was to be 19 or over this January. That was also fair and reasonable. The one-year difference would have cut down drinking problems in high schools. To raise the drinking age to 21, however, - indicates a growing intolerance in society - and, of course; the first to be repressed are those with the least ability to defend themselves. What privilege or even right will be taken next, and what will be allowed to be taken? The University: Love it or leave To the Daily: How soon we forget! What with the clericals gearing up for the union representation election, it might be well for us to remember what happened the last time we let a few "representatives" do ,our bargaining for us. With all the talk about the "University" slashing our wages, remember what happened when we had to pay union dues or "service charges" for nothing. What about that kind of wasted money out of our pockets? The OCC cries that we will have a democratic union. That would be fine but what true guarantees do we really have that this new union will be any better than the previous one? A few people have said that this union will be run by the membership and not a few high- paid officers. It would be nice if this would happen, but when one is realistic about the future of the clericals at The University of' Michigan, one can really believe that this will happen and that the union will not choose to be represented by organized labor? How far will we get with dissatisfied with the working conditions at The University of Michigan, do clericals (or anyone for that matter) still hang on and collect their paychecks? Perhaps the University of Michigan is the only institution that will hire them? As a state-supported institution, the University has only so much money to go around. If you get serious about the economic situation, you will realize that the $40,000/year employee is in as much "trouble" financially as is the $7,000/year employee. The $40,000/year employee may enjoy a higher standard of living by society's standards, but there is still rent to pay, tuition to pay, utilities to pay, etc. There probably are very few americans who are not feeling the "pinch" associated with the present economic situation of the United States, but The University of Michigan cannot be held responsible for acts of Congress and our country's leaders. Demand all you want, there is only so much money legislated to the University and you can't get blood out of a turnip! Our first obligation (as UM clericals is to the students: None COLA? The 1978-79 fiscal budget has already been set and implemented. The Union cannot possibly hope to gain anything in the foreseeable future; i.e., before fiscal 1979-80 at the very earliest. Instead of sitting around and moaning and complaining about the low pat grades and salaries, if you realize you will be working for the rest of your lives, be realistic and try to improve yourselves. Don't wait for University Management to help you and complain if they don't. You must watch our for yourself (singular) or no one else will. Look at the list of demands and remember that you will be fortunate if only one demand is met. The University just cannot conjure up more money where there is none. Strike if you think that will win:, anything - just ask an honest AFSCME employee who participated in their strike how much was gained and if lost monies were ever made up. As on the bumper sticker, "American-love it or leave it," why not one that says, "Univesity of Michigan - love it or leave it." -Mary Hoffman may not have an accurate. understanding of the purpose of' the mandatory $2.92 fee" and then proceed to provide a breakdown of where the money goes. Nowhere in the letter does MSA bother to say what my misunderstanding might be. Indeed, MSA confirms my point that they regularly use mandatory fees for a host of activities students might find objectionable, such as political causes or the recent Gay Teach- in. MSA says its "allocations do not necessarily comprise political endorsements" which says, oh, approximately nothing. 1) What does "necessarily" mean? - that using mandatory fees for political groups in an endorsement sometimes? 2) In any case, MSA's allocation of mandatory fees for political causes is a de facto endorsement because all its programs share a similar ideological bias. I would suggest that my understanding is quite accurate, and that it is based on the same principles of freedom and individual choice that the. Letters to the Daily -! "