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 A2 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 referendum. 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 anymore. 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 ,glasses. 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 machine. 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 program. 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 commodity? 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 game.4 -~ -a 4B - 14 k '1 . Julie Rovner is a Daily night editd I LETTERS TO THE DAILY 1 I 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 years. 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: THiE SNAN OP 1iAL) 15HAJ. " { jC 4 1t R OS i lX, A,.Ia CJMr' AH 1 %-e t TDAO FAST HAS CONEi6 TO ___ (p t t CMR6M)TW A HI X / t \.