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.

January 21, 1979 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1979-01-21

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

Page 4-Sunday, January 21, 1979-The Michigan Daily

..
',

ir Mdigan4a ai9lQ
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom

In support of the CIA

Vol. LXXXIX, No. 93

News Phone: 764-0552

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Astudent victory

AT FORMER University President
Robben Fleming's last Regents'
meeting the Regents considered a plan
to transfer the administration of the
Michigan Union to the Office of-Student
Service (OSS). The Regents had some
trouble accepting a part of the plan
which would transform the Union hotel
into dorm space for students. The
discussion went on and on about the
responsibility the Michigan Union had
to its life-long members, anyone who
graduates from the University, and
what alternatives were available.
Mr. Fleming spoke eloquently for the
students' right to have a place to call
their own. He remipded the Regents,
that the Student Activity Building was
built with a student assessment and
that now, with the exception of the
student-operated radio station, WCBN,
there is no student space in the
building; over the years the ad-
ministration has moved in and pushed
the students out.
Mr. Fleming told the Regents that if
the Union would be renovated with a
student assessment, as it is, then it
would be difficult to justify keeping the
hotel and not turning it into dorm
space.
But the Regents seemed to ignore the
president's advice - a rarity indeed.
They continued to plague OSS vice
president Henry Johnson with more
questions about the Union's hotel.
When it appeared certain that the
Regents would table the Union
proposal, Mr. Fleming leaned forward
in his chair, rubbed his forehead with
his hand, and shook his head from side
to side; his disappointment was ob-
vious.
When Regent Robert. Nederlander
asked the president why he was
shaking his head, Mr. Fleming smiled
and replied: "This is one of the first
things I tried to do when I came here.

I've been here ten years; this is my
last meeting." Everyone had a good
laugh - the Regents tabled the motion.
It would have been nice had the
Regents voted in December to accept
the Union proposal. But rest assured
that now Mr. Fleming, even as
president of the Corporation of Public
Broadcasting, takes satisfaction, as we
do, in the Regents' decision to make
the Union a true student center.
The most heartening aspect of the
Union debate was the level of student
interest and participation. The Regen-
ts received hundreds of phone calls,
letters, and telegrams urging them to
support the Union proposal. It is easy
for the Regents to play deaf to a few
students asking for just the smallest
favor. But as this demonstration has
shown again, a strong, unified student
voice speaking with confidence and
reason cannot be ignored.
The Regents seem to be reasonable
persons and as such they decided that
students had a right to the Union: they
also decided, on the basis of reason,
that students didn't need a super
cafeteria behind the Hill dorms. But
what the Union debate also shows is
that the Regents must constantly be
reminded of what is best for students.
This does not mean that students only
want what is best for them; students
have demonstrated a willingness to
compromise.
Too often, Regents make decisions
which only make the University easier
to operate; the student factor is sadly
neglected or discounted. It is the
responsibility of all students to make
the Regents aware of how decisions af-
fect their lives. We hope that students
find the Regents' actions on the Union
and the meal consolidation plan en-
couraging and that students continue,
to let the Regents know what they
think.

Editor's note: What follows this note
is an affidavit by Michael Oksenberg
submitted in the case of Nathan Gar-
de/s vs. Central Intelligence Agency.
Mr. Oksenberg is a professsor at the
University of Michigan on indefinite
leave to serve on the National Security
Council as an advisor on China.
Mr. Garde/s is a graduate student at
the University of California where he
studies political science. In 1976, after
the Senate Select Committee on In-
telligence Activities revealed that the
CIA uses academics at mnore than 100
A mercan colleges and universities to
make "introductions for intelligence
purposes" and other tasks, Mr. Gar-
de/s submitted to the CIA a Freedom of
Information (FOIA) request asking for
access to all documents relating to CIA
contacts at the University of California,
specifically including all contractural
arrangements and personnel relation-
ships.
The CIA provided Mr. Gardels with
more than 800 documents, some o1
which revealed that a UC vice president
had received CIA training and operated
on campaus at a covert agent for the
Agency. The CIA informed Mr. Gar-
dels that it would neither confirm nor
deny the existence of any additional
documents which would be responsive
to his request and added that if such
documents did exist, those documnents
would be withheld pursuat to section
(b) (/),of the FOIA which allows the
CIA to protect the identity of its per-
sonnel.
Last February Mr. Garde/s initiated
a lawsuit against the CIA asking the
court to order the CIA to produce the
requested documents for inspection
and copying. The court has not yet
reached a decision on the case.
Affidavit of

Security Council Staff, I entered
graduate school in 1960 and ser-
ved since 1966 as a member of the
faculties of three major United
States universities. I am curren-
tly on academic leave from one of
these universities, and I intend to
teach there once my government
service ends.
3. Soon after entering
academic life, I began to meet
members of the Central In-
telligence Agency at various
professional meetings: annual
conventions of such national
associations as the American
Political Science Association,
academic conferences and
seminars, and public meetings.
CIA employees openly identified
themselves at these meetings;
they made no effort to hide their
institutional affiliation. I soon
found that these CIA officials
were professional colleagues of
mine; that is, although we did not
agree on all matters nor was any
pressure placed on me to alter
my views, we shared many
common interests, we had
similar academic backgrounds,
we worked with similar un-
classified data, and, therefore,
we face many similar
methodological concerns. As did
many other of my university
associates, I gradually came to
realize that I could have the same
kind of professional association
with CIA personnel, as well as
State and Defense Department
officials, that I had with my
university colleagues-criti-
cizing one another's papers
before publication, correspon-
ding about research problems,
and so on. As with my
professional exchanges with my
academic colleagues, these ex-
changes were held in confidence
by the parties involved. Further,
we dealt exclusively with un-
classified information.
4. My conctacts with Agency
personnel were not unusual;
many other academics had
similar contacts. But I have
decided to go on record and to
acknowledge publicly this
relationship with Agency person-
nel because I strongly believe

that requiring the Agency to
disclose the names of other
academics who developed
similar personal relations will
destroy associations that benefit
both academics and the foreign
policy interests of the United
States. I have made this decision
in full awareness of the fact that
the action ' am taking will lead to
questioning and criticism of my
part in these relations, and may
in fact adversely affect my future
academic career.
5. The free exchange of ideas
with counterparts both in and out
of academe is one very important
way in which academics are able
to advance and gauge their in-
tellectual growth and currency
once their formal schooling has
ended. I benefited greatly from
the comments and criticisms that
I received from Agency members
with whom I shared my work.
Similarly, I like to think that
some Agency members benefited
from my comments on their un-
classified papers and thoughts
(many of which were subsequen-
tly published with CIA authorship
acknowledged.) Further, the
relations that I developed over
the years with our government's
foreign policy community were
an important factor in my
deciding to enter government
service for a perios, and my ef-
fectiveness in the government
certainly has been enhanced by
the personal contacts that were
established during my academic
years.
6. The cornerstone of my
relations with Agency personnel,
as with my other professional
colleagues, is that our exchanges
are conducted in strict confiden-
ce. It is common practice for
academics to share their
hypotheses, research designs,
and writings prior to publication
with a substantial number of
colleagues on a confidential
basis. Any breach of confiden-
tiality would destroy the candor
and utility of the exchange. I
believe it would be unfortunate if
American academics could not
have confidential professional
associations with their

professional colleagues in the
government, with every piece of
correspondence thus becoming a
possible matter of public record.
A barrier to communication bet-
ween university and government
.personnel would thereby be erec-
ted that would not serve our
national interest.
7. Confidentiality of
correspondence with Agency
personnel is also a necessity
because the CIA is much
maligned and misunderstood on
today's campuses. Even the hint
of an association with the Agen-
cy, including a professional
association dealing exclusively
with unclassified materials on
academic topics, subjects
academics to abuse and scorn,
and very well may endanger
their academic careers. In fact,
given the climate. on today's
campuses, even the disclosure of
the fact that such associations
exist at a particular university
would lead ultimately to strong
pressure to identify the
academics involved.
8. Therefore, if the Agency is
required to disclose any infor-
mation that would identify, or
lead to the identification of
academics who have association
with the Agency, such
associations would be effectively
terminated, because those
currently involved would be
smeared, while young professors
would be dissuaded from en-
tering into similar situations.
Because I believe that this result
is harmful to the academics and
their institutions, as well as to the
general foriegn policy interests of
the United States, I would respec-
tfully urge that disclosure of such
information not be required.
MICHEL OKSENBERG
Staff Member
National SecurityCouncil
Washington, D.C.
Subscribed and sworn to before
me this 8th day of September,
1978.
SAMMIE L. NEWMAN
Notary Public
My commission expires:
March 26, 1980

Michel

Oksen berg

Michel Oksenberg, Staff Mem-
ber, National' Security Council
Staff, being duly sworn, deposes
and says:
1. I was appointed as a mem-
ber of the National Security
Council Staff on January 20, 1977,
and I continue to serve in that
position.
2. Prior to joining the National

EDITORIAL STAFF
Editors-in-chief

SPORTSSTAFF
BOB M ILLER .......... .................. .. Sports Editor
PAUL CAMPBELL.. ............Executive Sports Editor
ERNIE DUNBAR .................. Executive Sports Editor
HENRY ENGELHARDT.............Executive Sports Editor
RICK MADDOCK .....................Executive Sports Editor
CUB SCHWARTZ ..................... Executive Sports Editor

DAVID GOODMAN
Managing Editors
M. EILEEN DALEY
DAN OBERDORFER

GREGG KRUPA
Editorial Director
RENE BECKER

LOOKING BACK: THE WEEK
IN- REVIEW

The Regents cast votes
for a 'student' union
and a new hospital
It was time again last week for the Regents' monthly
appearance on campus. At these regular intervals, the
part-time board members confront a parade of proposals
from the University's full-time administration, and signal
thumbs up or down.
This month, the Regents took the first big steps towards
conversion of the Michigan Union into a real student center
by turning over control of the building to the Office of
Student Services (OSS). The board also voted to convert
most of the Union's hotel rooms into dorm rooms for
students.
The board's actions followed an intensive lobbying drive
by student leaders for implementation of the student center
concept. The Michian Student Assembly (MSA), University
Activities Center (UAC), and the Union Programming
Committee (UPC) all joined forces to push the plan, after
the Regents tabled it last month.
Efforts to make the Union more useful for students began
several years ago, and have been carried on by successive
UAC and MSA presidents. The idea got its biggest boost,
however, when a nine-month study requested by the Regen-
ts was released in November, calling for a major revam-
ping of the Union.
The proposal, known as the Sturgis report after commit-
tee chairman William Sturgis, called for transfer of the
Union to OSS, establishment of a "short order" food service
in the building, and other measures to increase student use
of the facility.
"We fought to get the job and now we've got to make the
Union work," said an elated Larry Pulkownik, who headed
the Union's Board of Directors and- fought hard for im-
plementation of the Sturgis report. "The Union as a student
center is going to make a difference to a hell of a lot of
people."
The Regents also laid to final rest a plan for consolidated
food servcies on the Hill. The joint dining plan, which had
hben a net nrniect of Housing Director Robert Hughes.

In the child's
best interests
A mother's sexual preference was not sufficent reason
to take her child from her, according to a ruling last week
by the Michigan Supreme Court. As a result of this lan-
dmark decision, Ann Arbor mother Margareth Miller, a
lesbian, will be able to keep her daughter Jillian with her.
For Margareth Miller, 38, the high court's action meant
the end of a two and a half year struggle to maintain
custody of Jillian. who had stated a preference to stay with
her mother. In 1976, Margareth Miller's former husband
Paul went to court to take custody of their children, Jillian
and Rick. The children had been in their mother's care sin-
ce their parent's divorce four years previous. An Oakland
County Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of Paul Miller, a
decison which Margareth Miler sought to overturn since
then.
In the interim, Jillian has lived with her mother, wiile
Rick, now 16, has been in his father's custody. Last Wed-
nesday's Supreme Court ruling affected only Jillian's
custody. While the ruling did not specifically cite
Margareth Miller's lesbianism, it appears to pave the way
for other openly-homosexual parents to raise their children
without government interference.
A housing official
under investigation
It was revealed last week that an assistant housing direc-
tor was under investigation for his year-long use of a North
Campus apartment. John Finn, 36, who was named
assistant housing director two weeks ago, said he used the
apartment to provide a place to stay for needy students. "It,
was not for my convenience, but for the convenience of
others," Finn said Friday.
Housing ,Director Robert Hughes said Finn exercised
"misjudments when he took the apartment off the rental
roles. However, he expressed confidence in Finn's personal
integrity. Former University President Robben Fleming,
Vice-President for Student Services Henry Johnson, and
Hughes himself were all aware of Finn's action at the time
of his promotion, Hughes said.
In fall, 1977, Finn checked out a key to an apartment at
2241 Hubbard Rd., in the University-owned Northwood
Apartments, and returned it last October, according to
University officials.
University auditors are now investigating Finn's action,

Margareth Miller and Jillian

attempts to revive the plan by allocating all of the federal
match funds originally targeted for the facility to a Univer-
sity energy conservation program.
Consolidated dining may come back in a different form, if
a recommendation of the student-dominated Rate Study
Committee-is okayed by the Regents. The rate panel called
for closing South Quad, Mosher-Jordan, and Alice Lloyd
cafeterias on weekends, with residents eating at other dor-
ms.
The Regents also took one more step towards construc-

The Stechuk controversy

Literary College Student Government (LSA-SG)
President Bob Stechuk found himself surrounded by con-
troversy recently over his endorsement of a rally protesting
the appearance of Israeli leader Yigal Allon on campus last
month. Stechuk lent LSA-SG's name to a flyer calling for a
demonstration against Allon without a formal vote of the
council itself, claiming authority to do so under his powers
as "advocacy coordinator" for the government.
The controversy was fueled by the actions of some of the

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan