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


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.

December 01, 1978 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1978-12-01

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

Page 4-Friday, December 1, 1978-The Michigan Daily

bhe mtch gan Bat'&I
420 Maynard St., Ann-Arbor, MI 48109
Eighte-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom

The professionalism of college
football has taken the fun away

Vol. LXXXIX, No. 70

News Phone: 764-0552

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan


needs $5

T HE SEARCH for a fair penalty
to the new drinking law in
Michigan already has spurred several
alternatives. One seems clearly more
stable than the others.
Two days ago The Public Interest
Group in Michigan (PIRGIM)
launched a drive to place on the city's
April ballot a referendum calling for a
five dollar fine for the consumption of
alcohol by 18- to 20-year-olds.
PIRGIM is also working to have a
second proposal added to the ticket
which would institute a five dollar fine
for individuals buying liquor for
underaged friends.
Proposition D, which will raise the
Michigan drinking age from 18 to 21
after being approved by Michigan
voters last month, does not include
penalties for its violation. The
proposal, which will go into effect on
Dec. 22, lost by a two-to-one margin in
Ann Arbor.
Though we would have preferred to
see Proposition D fail at the polls,
PIRGIM'S proposal may be the next
best thing. The fine, which would be
issued in ticket format much like the
five dollar marijuana fine, would make
the role of police one of confiscators of
the contraband rather than punishers.
This is only fair since the violators will
simply be doing what they could
previously do legally.
Though the state legislature is
responsible for determining penalties
for the violation of Proposition D,-only
one bill has been introduced so far. The
resolution, introduced by Perry
Bullard (D-Ann Arbor), would make
the crime a misdemeanor, calling for a

iquor fine
$20 fine for the first offense, a $50 fee
for repeating the crime, and a $100
charge for the third offense.
Enrollment in an alcohol abuse
program could also be required after
the third offense.
Bullard's bill would also allow local
governments to institute their
own penalties provided they don't
exceed the guidelines stated in the bill.
Even if Bullard's bill is approved,
Ann Arbor would still need a lesser fine
for violating the new law. If a city had
to deal wih the legislation as it stands,
it would mean a higher fine for
drinking alcohol than for smoking
marijuana, which would seem ironic.
The only other present alternative
for the five dollar liquor law sits in City,
Council. Last week the council reviewed
such a proposal introduced by Earl
Greene (D-Second Ward), but the
motion was tabled. Mayor Belcher,
however, said he expects such a motion
to pass "by the end of December."
Though a ballot referendum would
certainly be more secure than a
council resolution, the latter would be
an admirable act by the
representatives. The possibility of
council later repealing the act,
however-as they did with the five
dollar marijuana law-should not be
ignored. On the contrary, it is all the
more reason to back a ballot
We urge support, both now and in
April for supporting PIRGIM'S
proposals. A ballot referendum is the
best way to insure that Ann A rbor
gets a Proposition D enforcement law
that is fair to the citizens.

I have a confession to make.
When I heard Tuesday , that
Rick Leach had not won the
Heisman trophy, I was glad. It's
not that I have anything against
the Michigan quarterback, or any
doubts about his abilities, but
rather it is the award itself and
what it stands for that I don't like.
In fact, I'm not even sure I like
what Michigan football stands for
Maybe its because my father
was a college quarterback, or my
hometown of Washington D.C.
has no baseball team so
everyone is a Redskin fanatic, or
that my mother went to the
University and exposed me to
Wolverine football at a very
tender age.
But whatever the reason, I am
today a hopelessly devoted
football fan. I grew up hating
Tom Landry (Coach of the
Redskins' arch-rival Dallas
Cowboys) and Woody layes.
I was quite disappointed to
discover, as a freshman, that I
couldn't sit on the fifty yard line.
After all, I thought, if the stadium
holds over 100,000 people, then
logically most of the students
must get pretty good seats. I was
so naive.
Another surprise was having to
pay for my football tickets. I had
never heard of students not being
able to atend athletic events for
free, or at least very cheaply. But
I underestimated the motives of
the Michigan athletic department
and itshprofit-minded director.
Don Canham.
Football is different here.
When I think of football, I think of
fall afternoons and summer
games on the beach. I think of the
two-hand touch games in the field
behind my house with the other
kids in the neighborhood.
When I was about ten, I
discovered the Washington
Redskins. I soon became
completely engrossed in the
team, collecting all the
paraphenalia I could get-from
matching burgundy-and-gold
hats and gloves to drinking
I knew that my fanaticism was
being exploited by businessmen
and team owners striving to
make money, but they were
professionals and never tried to
hide their intentions. The players
want to win because it helps them

By Julie Rovner

earn more, the fans want a
winner because it gives them a
sense of pride and the owners are
out to make the big bucks.
But that's the pros and not
college football. College football
should be less like the pros and
more like the backyard games.
Maybe its just my naivete
cropping up again, but I think
college football has lost its
direction. The athletic
department seems to have
forgotten that the game is played
for fun.
Once upon a time there was no
college draft, and college
students played football, because
they liked the game and not
because they wanted to be picked
up by the pros. So many alumni
liked to come back and watch
their friends or children play that
the nation's athletic departments
began to realize that they could
earn big profits and the game
then took a back seat to the all-

American money-making
And Wolverine football has
been hit hardest by the new goals
of college football. The game
here, as well as at the other so-
called football powers, has
become little but a thin disguise
for making money.
Defenders of the big money
theory in college football say the
huge profits have allowed the
University to build up a strong
intramural and women's sports
This argument has some
validity but I still don't think it's
fair to spoil football for it. after
all., it's the students who are
geting the short end of the deal.
Why can't we simply pay a small
athletic fee at the beginning of
the year and seetall the games for
free? Why can't the student
section extend from one 10-yard
line to the other 10 on one side of
the field, giving all students a
chance to watch the game the

way it was meant to be watched
and why won't they stop osellin
Michigan football as if it were
Football doesn't need a sal'
pitch. There are plenty of fans
like me who will watch the gam
even if the home team loses all
the time, and who just enjoy it for
what it is-a game.
Which brings us back to Rik
Leach and the Heismhin.
Allegedly, this is an awa'd
presented to the best college
football player of the year. It has,
however, developed into the
award given to, the best public
relations job-that is the coaches
University officials, and loca
sports journalists who convince
enough of the voters that their
candidate is the new 0. J
Simpson (who won it in 1968).
Witness the fact that only twQ
linemen have won it in the entire
44 year history of the award.
In years past, the athletic
department has pursued a policy
of not promoting one player over
another. This year, however, that
policy seemed to take a back seat
when it became apparent that the
University had a realistic chance
of producing its first Heisman
winner since Tom Harmon won it
in 1940. Unfortunately for Leach,
though, most of theapromotion
(and his fine game against .thew'
Buckeyes) came too late for most
of the voters.
So the athletic department lost
on two counts-Leach didn't
win and officials compromised
themselves by staging a,1ast-,
minute media blitz. Put i&.+
perspective, though, the-
department's actions are,
becoming very traditional among
many of the nation's best
universities. Instead of coming t
the University to learn, moslt,
students are using their college
years for vocational training.
Some are pre-med or pre-law,
and many of the Wolverines are
pre-professional football. I guesp
what I would really like, then, is
not to go back to the days p
watching football from woo,-
bleachers, but to, see it tale
more for what itireally is-just a
-~ -a




Julie Rovner is a Daily night editd





U. S. Labor Party
To the Daily:
Recently, the Daily editorial
page has contained various
statements about the US Labor
Party that are (we shall be
polite) "inaccurate." I would like
to try and clarify this situation.
There is only one thing that has
ever interested the Labor Party:
implementation of a "Grand
Design." This is an international.
policy of rapid economic and
industrial development
emphasizing advanced
technology in order to raise the
material and cultural living
standards of the world's
population. As a political
organization, our primary
activity is in assmebling the
social and political forces
capable of implementing this
policy. We hasten to add that
such a conception is neither
unique nor original with
us-though we are certainly the
foremost spokesmen for it today.
Indeed, this approach can be
traced to antiquity. Plato and his
Academy, Cusa, Erasmus,

Bruno, Leibniz and his political
networks, Franklin and the
Federalists-these are but the
more well- known proponents.
each of these men recognized
that man's successive
development of his mind, as
evidenced by an increasing
control of nature, offered a
unique demonstration that the
powers of human reason were
consonant with the lawful self-
ordering of the physical universe.
As such, they were ruthless
political organizers on behalf of
exactly the same "well-
ordering" principle as the Labor
Party-their politics were
derived from their goal of
improving man's mastery over
the forces of nature. Such a
perspective is, of necessity,
global: it requires diverse
organizational activities to
secure the necessary foundations
for implementation of this kind of
"Grand Design." (The new
European Monetary System is a
good concrete illustration of the
kind of program the Labor Party
has fought to bring into being.)
However, to those who do not
bother to familiarize themselves

with the Labor Party's method or
aims, our activity must appear as
hopelessly "mysterious." Since
there is nothing' in their
particularized, local actions or
world-view which immediately
suggests our conceptions, these
credulous persons believe we
must be deployed by some
outside agency. (Hence, the
lunatics of the right-wing claim
that we are funded by East
Germany or Syria or the Soviet
Union, etc.; while the left, not to
be outdone in foolishness, insists
that the Labor Party is "CIA" or
"police agents" or "KKK" etc.).
Superstitious belief-structures
of this type are frequently
encountered among primitive
peoples, so it is no surprise to find
the anti-nukes parroting them.
Their response (Daily 11/29) to
my original article (Daily 11/15)
demonstrates once again their
ineptitude when confronted by a
serious question.
Although the Labor Party
clearly favors nuclear power, I
did not really write about nuclear
power as such. This is because
the anti-nukes, for all their talk,
are quite innocent of

thermodynamics, health physics
engineering, or any of the
disciplines prerequisite to a
competent discussion of the
subject. My article was written to
demonstrate systematically
from the standpoint of political
economy the necessity -of
technological advance a-n.d
increased energy consumption
and the imbecility of the solar.
conservation approach. Whether
or not USWA District 31 likes
nuclear energy may be
sociologically interesting, but(.it
is irrelevant. whether the Arbot
Alliance really all of a sudde n
favors "advanced technologies'l
(though in fact they do not) is
equally irrelevant. The point is
that whatever the anti-nukes or
UAW Local 1618 may claim, the
advancement of society ' is
crucially dependent on increased
throughputs of energy, and any
attempt to implement solar
conservation schemes on #.-a
significant scale would lead i o
devastating economic and social
consequences. This is the issue
the anti-nukes have ignored.
-R. L. Marsh
U.S. Labor Pare~

Doctors should compete

A MARYLAND consumer group
was effectively thwarted in its
efforts to compile a directory of local
physicians when the state medical
authority threatened doctors that it
would be unethical to provide
information about their services and
their fees.
This is an example of how a ban on
advertising by physicians, enforced by
the American Medical Association,
(AMA), discourages competition. The

finding patients because they can't
spread the word fast enough.
Lawyers and engineers have been
given the right to advertise in recent
The ban against physicians has come
under fire this week when a Federal
Trade Commission (FTC) judge
ordered the AMA, which represents
roughly half of the 350,000 doctors in
the U.S.,to permit advertising. Before
going into effect, the ruling must be
n .n ..-nirniq hlA l .. ... . " rnr.

Thi P5 SYrN:
OP 1iAL)
15HAJ. "


1t R OS i lX, A,.Ia


1 %-e t

HAS CONEi6 TO ___ (p

t t


/ t \.

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan