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.

January 26, 1979 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1979-01-26

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

Page 4-Friday, January 26, 1979-The Michigan Daily
lbe 3tcbig


rnt 1taiI

High noon in Diablo Valley

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

Vol. LXXXIX, No. 97

News Phone: 764-0552

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

Academics and the CIA

LAST SUNDAY on this page we
published a statement by Michel
Oksenberg wliich supported the CIA's
, position in the case of Nathan Gardels
-vs. Central Intelligence Agency. Mr.
Gardels is suing the CIA to obtain in-
formation about the agency's covert
activities on University of California
campuses; he is a graduate student in
:: Political Science. Mr. Oksenberg is a
": Political Science professor at the
:.University of Michigan on indefinite
leave to serve on the National Security
: Council as a China expert.
: In his affidavit Mr. Oksenberg ad-
; mits having had a confidential
relationship with the CIA while he was
- teaching on campus. Mr. Oksenberg
explained that soon after he entered
academic life he began to meet CIA of-
ficials at scholarly conventions, con-
ferences, and seminars. "I soon found
that these CIA officials were
professional colleagues of mine; that
is, although we did not agrie 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 unclassified data,
and, therefore, we face many similar
methodological concerns," he said.
x The "cornerstone" of his relation-
ship with the CIA, he said, is strict con-
fidentiality. Mr. Oksenberg said he felt
that if' the CIA were to reveal not just
the names of other professors with
similar relationship, and he said there
are many, but even the names of in-
stitutions where these academics
work, it would "destroy the candor and
utility of the exchange" - an exchange
:which he said is beneficial to
academics and the national interest.
, Mr. Oksenberg said this confiden-
tiality is needed to protect academics
from public criticism and scorn which
would follow the revelation of such a
relationship, because the "CIA is much

maligned and misunderstood on
today's campuses.
On the contrary, the CIA is very well
understood on college campuses today.
Perhaps this is the reason these
academics would be subject to public
criticism and scorn.
At one point, Mr. Oksenberg defends
his relationship with the CIA on the
premise that a "free exchange of
ideas" is important to his counterparts
in the agency and at the university.
Certainly no one would deny that the
free exchange of ideas is not only the
principle on which a university fun-
ctions, but the foundation of
democracy. The CIA, however, seems
to be involved in a rather one-sided ex-
change. Its secrets or cooperation are
rendered only to those who would be of
service to the agency. Relatively few
academics receive the benefits Mr.
Oksenberg enjoyed as a result of his
secret relationship.
Mr. Oksenberg's statement raises
many serious questions as he suspec-
ted it would. It is important to bring the
discussion of CIA campus activities in-
to the open; in this, he has done a great
service to this University community
and others. It is unfortunate that his in-
tentions were to preserve a system
which smacks of favoritism and has
impinged on the civil liberties of those
who become victims of the CIA's
covert recruiting operation.
In its final report, the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence Activities
expressed concert "that American
academics involved in such activities
may undermine public confidence that
those who train our youth are
upholding the ideals, independence,
and integrity of American univer-
sities.' It would be wise for everyone
to consider the Select' Committee's
concern when pondering the questions
raised by Mr. Oksenberg's defense of
the CIA.

l -

-1 , \
'C - I

By Harvey Wasserman

SAN LUIS OBISPO-A decade-long battle
over one of the nation's most controversial
nuclear power plants is drawing to a head.
Opponents of the giant Diablo Canyon
facility have dubbed it "Seabrook west,'' af-
ter the New Hampshire nuclear plant that has
become a symbol of nuclear power op-
position. The Diablo Canyon battle has
resulted in more arrests than any nuclear
power fight except Seabrook, and the issues
raised here run the gamut of the nuclear op-
position. They include cost and safety, ear-
thquake hazards, public financing and the
sticky legal question of whether critics should
be permitted to state their case in the courts
and before public' agencies that regulate
nuclear power.
But unlike the Seabrook battle, in which the
plant is far from complete, the 2,212
megawatt twin reactor here on the Pacific
Coast is almost ready to fire up, awaiting only
final approval of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC).
Opponents intervened soon after the project
was first announced in 1966 by the Pacific Gas
and Electric Company, the second-largest
private utility in the country, after New
York's Consolidated Edison. PG and E soon
ran into the sorts of delays and cost overruns:
that have plagued nuclear projects
throughout the country.
The legal challenges raised questions about
faulty welds discovered at the facility, as well
as about problems of evacuation, and
Most troublesome, however, has been the
discovery in 1971 of a major offshore fault less
than three miles from the plant. Two Shell Oil
geologists found the fault while surveying the
area for possible oil exploration. In 1973, PG
and E officially informed the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the fault's
existence. In 1974, Mothers for Peace asked
the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(ASLB), a three-member NRC panel, to grant
a stop-work order while the nature of the
Hosgri Fault-named after one of its
discoverers-could be fully explored.
The ASLB refused the request but issued a
public statement that money spent in con-

tinuing construction would have "no bearing"
on the ultimate decision as to whether or not
Diablo could open.
Meanwhile, evidence surfaced that thev
Hosgri fault might well be capable of
producing shock waves far greater than had
been accounted for in PG and E's original
construciton plans, which were aimed at
safeguarding-against a quake of roughly 6.75
on the Richter scale. A study by the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) indicated
.the Hosgri might well be capable of a 7.5-scale
quake. Other estimates put the potential at 8,
and a report issued by the California Division
of Mines and Geology late last year warned
that earthquake activity in the area should be
considered a "major hazard."
In early December, the ASLB opened final
hearings on the question. A final decision ot
whether the plant can open is expected in
March or April, perhaps later if appeals drag
That decision will be watched carefully
throughout the country. Major reactor
projects in New Hampshire, New York, New
Jersey, Virginia, and elsewhere in California,
have come under legal attack because of their
proximity to earthquake faults.
License approval for Diablo Canyon would
almost certainly signal a new wave of demon-
strations and arrests, both at the site and in
cities around California where anit-nuclear
groups have been growing.
If the plant does open, the California Public
Utilities Commission will have to consider
how much of the final cost will be written into
the rate base, which must be paid by con-
sumers, and how much will be charged
against PG and E stockholders as penalty for
the company's misjudgments. -
PG and E cannot ask to charge its
ratepayers for Diablo until the plant fires up.
But if the switch is pulled, roughly a billion
dollars in cost overruns will become the focus
of a tug-of-war in utility rate-setting. The
utility commission's decision could-set an im-
portant precedent for parallel rate fights
around the country. Original estimates put
construction at around $350 million, but final
costs are expected to reach more than four

times that. PG and E opponents charge that
much of the overrun is due to company
negligence in not fully researching seismic
conditions before building, despite frequent
warnings that they should.
Aside from the issues of earthquake safety
and cost. the other big controversy in Diablo
Canyon involves the critics' right to be heard
by public agencies that approve nuclear
power projects.
On December 8, the ASLB denied inter-
venor attorney David Fleischaker's motion to
subpoena two expert witnesses, Mikhail
Trifunac and Enrique Luco. Both had been
engineering consultants to the NRC and had
questionedgthe plant's ability to withstand
seismic shock. The Board ruled it would
require only written testimony.
"These two men had participated in the
review process from the beginning," com-
mented Fleischaker. "It is extremely
depressing that the ASLB fails to see the need
to hear all thescientific viewpoints."
An NRC appeal board is likely to hear a
challenge on the ruling.
Meanwhile, in Municipal Court here, Judge
Robert Carter also barred testimony on
behalf of critics-in this case from John Gof-
man, a leading expert on the health effects of
nuclear power and the former director of
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.
-Gofman was brought to San Luis by the
Abalone Alliance, twenty of whose members
were standing trial for occupying the Diablo
Canyon site last August 6. The ten men and
ten women, who ranged in age froml9 to 71,
hoped to "put nuclear power on trial" by
staging a defense based on the claim that
atomic energy was so dangerous it demanded
drastic action. Similar defenses have been
tried by nuclear opponents in numerous other
states, and have been almost uniformly
barred by trial judges.
On December 13, Judge Carter proved no
exception, ruling that nuclear safety
questions were "irrelevant" to charges of
criminal trespass, and that Gofman would not
be allowed to testify. "The case was taken
away from the jury," commented defense at-
torny Phillip Kelly. "When you exclude our
ability to present the jury with facts on the
dangers of nuclear power, you've taken away
our whole defense."
Just before Christmas, the jury found the
Abalone occupiers guilty, though a later poll
showed they had done so reluctantly, spen-
ding hours trying to find a legal loophole for
acquittal. Jury foreman Bernard Cox retur-
ned the day after delivering the verdict to
appeal to Judge Carter for leniency in senten-
cing. "These people are not criminals," he
Carter, however, meted out $400 fines in
addition to 90 days hard labor or two years
probation. An appeal in the case seems likely.
Still pending is an appeal stemming from
1977 arrests at Diablo, in which Abalone oc-
cupiers asked that their convictions be over-
turned because of police infiltration of their
ranks. The case, which went to the California
Supreme Court on June 8, hinges on whether
the presence of an undercover sheriff on the
Alliance legal committee constituted a breech
of attorny-client privilege. That decision is
expected soon, and may be viewed as a lan-
dmark by other political action groups wary
of government infiltration.
Resolution of all these issues at Diablo, one
of the largest of the nation's reactors now
coming on line, is sure to have a heavy impact
on nuclear power development elsewhere,
and on the future of the anti-nuclear
Harvey Wasserman is a former Daily
editorial director and writes regularly on
energy issues.

Editorials which appear without a by-line represent a con-
sensus opinion of the Daily's editorial board. All other editorials,
as well as cartoons, are the opinions of the individuals who sub-
mit them.
W.sah..........'......:..... .'.... . h...............
Who ls ccating whom?


T HE LITERARY College (LSA) is
T considering a set of guidelines
that will, if adopted, seriously inhibit
students' rights to due process during
the litigation of cheating incidents.
The proposed Manual of Procedures
of the LSA Academic Judiciary more
clearly defines the powers of the board
comprised of students and faculty
members which decided cases of
academic cheating. A new clause in he
manual allows "individual faculty
members to handle minor cases of
plagiarism, fabrication, aiding or
abetting dishonesty with minor con-
sequences, and impulsive cheating."
According to Eugene Nissen,
assistant dean for academic affairs,
the intent of the clause is to encourage
the faculty to use the Judiciary. The
general theory is that faculty members
are inclined to handle most cases of
cheating on their own authority,
because the Judiciary process is time
consuming and cumbersome. Mr.
Nissen said the new clause would en-
courage faculty members to take
significant problems to the Judiciary
by allowing the faculty to handle minor
cases. But students opposed to the new

should not be the sole punitive
authority in his or her classroom under
any circumstances, regardless of how
petty the cheating incident. No
professor has the right to be both
prosecutor and judge in situations
which may result in punishing students
and permanently damaging
reputations. If the mechanism is adop-
ted it would put unnecessary pressure
on the faculty to not only police
their classrooms for possible cheaters
but also to punish them on the spot.
That is a responsibility that no
professor should have.
It is apparent from the small number
of cheating cases handled by the
Academic Judiciary every year that
professors are already bypassing the
Judiciary and that most students are
not cognizant of an appeal process.
That is unfortunate. Due to the
vagueness of the current manual most
students are unaware that they can
bring a case to the Academic
Judiciary. However, the new manual
clearly outlines students' rights. This
would be a valuable addition.
It is also worthwhile for the ad-
ministration to try to bring more cases
before the Judiciary. But the logic

Inteflex program: maligned but good

To the Daily:
Recently, the Daily published a
letter from Damian Kiska to the
Inteflex program. In it, Damian
stated that he felt the Inteflex
program to be inconsistent with
and destructive of its member's
individuality, compassion, and
personal growth.
The fundamental question
raised by Damian is whether or
not Inteflex and medical
education in general is consistent
with the development of com-
passion and empathy. Damian
felt the "useless memorization
and regurgitation of infor-
mation" stifled his independence
and his sensitivity toward others.
The fact is, the emphasis in
medicine today is on science and
technology. In order to learn
medicine, a certain number of
facts must inevitably be commit-
ted to memory. Indeed, the
revolution in medical education
early in this century was in the
direction of science and

technology, a direction we've
been following ever since.
I do not mean to deny the im-
portance of compassion in
modern medicine. In fact, a
strong case can be presented
showing that empathy and caring
are even more important than
mere technical skill in many
cases. The point it, the modern
physician needs both.
Inteflex is designed to train
scientifically competent, com-
passionate physicians. Scientific
skill is a subject easily learned by
some. Empathy, on the other
hand, is not reducible to a two
semester sequence. It is a way of
living, a way of approaching the
world that is constantly
developing as one matures. Some
may never attain it, others seem
to have a natural gift. Damian
has such a gift. Unfortunately, as
I stated before, the practice of
medicine requires more than
empathy alone.
The duty of Inteflex and

medical education is not to teach
empathy, but to teach scientific
medicine to empathetic in-
dividuals while not destroying
their humanstic values. Inteflex
does an excellent job of teaching
the more scientific aspects of
medicine, as verified by objec-
tivemeans. '
The program, through fresh-
men seminars and through the
Introduction to Patient Care
Course (where students are sent
throughout the state to observe
the personal side,of health care)
is attempting to encourage em-
pathy and compassion in the

practice of medicine.
Nevertheless, these efforts will
only reinforce the pre-existing
qualities of the people in the
program. Humanism is com-
patible with medical education
and practice, but it requires ef-
fort. It requires sensitivity from
faculty and administrators. It
requires reflection and
evaluation from each student.
And most importantly, it requires
the secure belief in humanistic
ideals that all students of the art
of medicine need to possess.
-Lewis G. Sandy,
Inteflex-class of 1982

c l e l[ cl igttn ttil


Managing Editors

Editorial Director


Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan