Page 4-Wednesday, March 14, 1979-The Michigan Daily
The H-bomb article: The courts need tim
assess the alleged threat to national securi
It may seem peculiar for two aspiring
, journalists to tolerate the government's
k right of prior restraint of the press. In
fact, we believe that in most con-
ceivable cases such restraint would be
abhorrent and a threat to the cherished
right of freedom of the press.
The spectre of prior restraint should
only be raised in the gravest of circum-
stances, when, it is very possible that
the security of the nation may be
seriously compromised. Such a case is
now pending before a Wisconsin judge
concerning an article scheduled for
-'.publication in Progressive magazine
about the hydrogen bomb.
THE U.S. government believes
publication of the article endangers
national security because the infor-
mation contained within it could enable
some countries to quickly assemble a
hydrogen bomb.
Editors of the Progressive
acknowledge that some of the infor-
mation in the article is considered
secret, but maintain that such material
may be obtained through conventional
methods. Magazine personnel believe
the restraining order is a clear violation
of the First Amendment guaranteeing
freedom of the press.
U.S. District Court Judge Robert
Warren is not sure which side is right,
but he has apparently been convinced
that the matter is serious enough to
warrant further consideration. He has
therefore issued a 10-day restraining
order prohibiting publication of the ar-
ticle and has scheduled a hearing on the
matter for this Friday.
THE ISSUES in the case, are ob-
viously not simple. To allow the
Progressive to publish without any con-
sideration of the government's grave
concerns would be foolhardy. The
judge's restraining order is responsible
because it allows him time to consider
the alleged consequences of the article.
It can be argued that such restraining
orders may make itmuch easier for the
government to suppress publication, at
least temporarily, by simply claiming
that the material in question violates
By Howard Witt
and
Mark Parrent
national security. But only judges can
issue such orders, and the judicial
system is capable of weeding out
check on possible encroachments on the
rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
In the controversial Pentagon Papers
'It is a rare and extraordinary article
which truly concerns national security,
and such articles therefore deserve rare
and extraordinary consideration in the
judicial system.'
government documents. This example
shows the extent to which the- gover-
nment must go to prove that infor-
mation, if published, might endanger
national security; the judiciary is not
overly willing to limit the press.
INDEED, THE government itself has
not often challenged the press: The
Progressive case is the first since 1971
in which the courts have issued a
restraining order.
Also, the inevitable publicity which
comes with any such government-ver-
sus-press case helps to insure that the
government will not wantonly
challenge the freedom of the press.
Because in recent years several
college students and others with limited
scientific backgrounds have stumbled
onto atomic secrets, it may seem that
the government has a weak case.
Perhaps such information is readily
available to anyone who wishes to look
for it, as the Progressive claims. But
such issues are better handled in the
courts than in the public.
unreasonable requests that certain ar-
ticles be forbidden.
In fact, the judiciary is the public's
case in 1971, the Supreme Court refused
to honor a
prohibit the
government request to
publication of classified
e to
ity
'EW PEOPLE have actually see
i particular article, and do not kno
t how damaging it might be. I
ms preferable to allow a judge
sented with all sides in the case, t
ke a reasoned, well-informe
ision. It does not seem reasonable t
lish potentially dangerous infor
tion with a "come what may" at
ide. What may come might b
rorist ultimatums, further nuclea
liferation, and possible nuclear war.
cannot be stressed tootoften tha
dom of the press is of the utmos
portance. It is a rare and extraor
nary article which truly concern
ional security, and such article
refore deserve rare and extraor
iary consideration in the judicia
tem. The press is far too powerful t
nain oblivious to the consequences o
publications.
HJoward Witt covers the facult
the Daily and Mark Parren
orts on the University adminis
tion.
dustries (eg. computers, motor
vehicles, petroleum).
-corporate taxes paid to th
South African government.
-sale of strategic materials to
the South African government.
-direct support of the military
as in the case of the Chevrolet
dealers' 1976 raffle to- raise
money for the South African Ar-
my Fund.
The Sullivan Principles are too
little compensation for the harm
done to black South Africans by
these corporations which, in the
words of one black South African
leader, "favor profits over
human aspirations." The
Sullivan Principles are too late to
avert the course of the freedom
struggle in South Africa.
The Real Update
In March 1979, only one con
clusion can be reached from
real update: the-University o
Michigan is pursuing an ineffec
tive strategy with ineffectual tac
tics.
1) We don't know whether o
not most of our corporations
comply with the Sullivan Prin-
ciples.
2) We may never find this out.
3) Full compliance with the
Sullivan Principles will not
change the course of events in
South Africa.
We call on the Regents of the
Unviersity of Michigan to make a
real update, to put South Africa
on their March agenda, and to
endorse the only real solution:
full U.S. corporate withdrawal
from South Africa.
A nne-Fullerton wrote this
article representing the views
of the Washtenaw Count)
Coalition Against Apartheid.
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Ireedom
Vol. LXXXIX, No. 129
News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
I
Tuition hik(
WHEN THE REGENTS receive
tomorrow, the administration's
tuition recommendations for next fall,
they will likely approve the proposal to
send tuition rates for undergraduate
residents upwards for the seventh time
in eight years.
While rampant inflation has led un-
derstandably to increasing costs of
operating the University, the Regents
r should consider various alternatives to
keep the tuition hike as minimal
as possible.
The recommendations, compiled by
the University's committee on budget
administration under the direction of
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Harold Shapiro, call for an increase of
between 8.4 and 10 per cent for in-state
undergraduate tuition.
The estimate for this portion of the
student population must be approved
by the Regents this month to meet the
deadline for the Student Financial
Assistant Services of the State
Education Department. Final ap-
proval of the tuition rates for all
students will come this summer after
the state's appropriations to the
University have been finalized by the
legislature.
There is still time for the ad-
ministration, as well as students and
faculty members, to petition the
Slegislature to be generous with its ap-
Atd to Yeff
mHE CARTER Administration,
frightened by the loss of Iran as a
safeguard against Soviet infiltration in
the Middle East, has recently sent
emergency aid to Yemen to help the
- :country battle forces from the Soviet-
-'backed South Yemen regime. The $390
r million arms package of planes and
tanks, which is being shipped to Saudi
Arabia, Yemen's close ally, is an un-
fortunate but necessary step by the
United States to protect its vital in-
terests.
After the unexpected loss of Iran as a
major source of American oil imports,
the United States must protect its oil
interests in Saudi Arabia, which would
be greatly threatened by a Soviet
takeover in Yemen. The aid is also in-
tended to appease the Saudis so that
they will continue to export oil to the
United States and not resume
- inlrnatir rlaltinns with the Snviet
etoo costly
propriation. Demands on the state
budget makers are considerable, but
higher education must remain one of
the top priorities.
The state and the University will lose
out if higher education becomes
available only to those who can pay the
rapidly soaring tuition rates. It is the
community#'s responsibility to educate
its citizens, and not just the ones who
can afford it. If rising tuition rates
discourage high quality students from
enrolling at the University, the in-
tellectual environment of this campus
may be severely damaged for many
years.
But not all the blame should be
placed on the state legislature. The
Regents and the administration must
make a more genuine effort to reduce
costs of campus operations. And the
place to start is in administrative
costs, which have risen at a far greater
rate in the past ten years than
necessary expenditures such as labor
or physical development.
Financing the University is
generally considered one of its
greatest challenges of the 1980's, but if
the Regents and the administration
cannot find a way to operate without
continually passing the buck to the
customer, then the University could
find itself out of business. And that
would be a loss for everyone.
In March 1978, the University
of Michigan decided not to divest
but instead affirmed the Sullivan
Principles as a road to peaceful
change in South Africa. The
Sullivan Principles (designed by
Rev. Leon Sullivan who sits on
the board of General Motors) call
for : 1' desegregation of
facilities; 2)dequal and fair em-
ployment practices; 3) equal pay
for equal work; 4) development
of training programs for blacks;
5) increasing the number of
blacks in management positions;
6) improving the quality of em-
ployees' lives. These principles
have been endorsed by over 100
U.S. companies.
The March Regents Resolution
stated that the Regents would ask
the corporations in which they
held stock to affirm the Sullivan
Principles and would sell their
stock if the corporations did not
"within a reasonable period of
time take reasonable steps" to
implement the Principles. The
University also sent letters to the
banks asking them to make loans
to South Africa conditional upon
governmental action to end apar-
theid. The March Resolution
promised a full review within a
year.
ONE YEAR later we asked the
Regents to review their policy
and they replied that a review
had been done in October 1978
which was publically available
and satisfactory to them. This
review is not satisfactory to us
for the following reasons:
1. The review only shows that
these corporations have signed
the Sullivan Principles. This in-
formation was already publicly
available for most of our com-
panies. The review does not
provide detailed proof that the
'U' advocacy in
Sullivan Principles
Supports apartheid
By Anne Fullerton
corporations are in compliance
with the Sullivan Principles.
2. For various reasons, one
third of the corporations in our
endowment portfolio which are
involved in South Africa either
did not receive a letter from the
University or did not provide an
adequate response.
TO BE A Sullivan signatory,
however, does not necessarily
signify compliance with the Prin-
ciples. In fact, the University of
Michigan cannot evaluate the
South African labor practices of
one half of its corporations
because they have not provided
an effective response either to the
Clark Committee's 1978 survey or
to the Investor Responsibility
Research Center's South African
Review Service.
Moving on to the next level, we
find an additional group of cor-
porations who have given so little
evidence that it is impossible to
assess their compliance with the
Sullivan Principles over time.
These represent a further 20-25%
of the relevant corporations in
our endowment portfolio. For the
remaining corporations we find:
-two years after signing the
Sullivan Principles, most cor-
porations are still not completely
desegregated.
-the work force of these com-
panies is disproportionately (30%
or more) white.
-only 1-2% of the senior level
management positions, at most,
are filled by blacks.
-blacks are still not receiving
much supervisory or managerial
training.
Too Little, Too Late
There is another reason why
the Regents should review their
policy at this time: the Sullivan
Principles arehuseless for
bringing about change in South
Africa. Why?
1. The Sullivan Principles are
.endorsed by the South African
government which means that
they do not conflict with the fun-
damental apartheid policy of
South Africa.
2. The Sullivan Principles do
not give the black South African
the right to vote or own land.
They do not give him equal ac-
cess to education and medical
care. In fact, the Sullivan Prin-
ciples do not affect the lives of
most black South Africans who do
not work for U.S. companies.
3. The Sullivan Principles do
not address the numerous ways
in which U.S. corporations uphold
the South African system:
-control of important in-
Letters
Committee works to
ien necessary
But this new bold step by American
diplomats also presents another
example of possible U.S.-Soviet con-
frontation in a local border conflict in
an isolated area. This kind of
peripheral duel can only serve to
deepen the hostility of U.S.-Soviet
relations just on the eve of a new SALT
II pact. It smacks of the old Cold War
mentality that the U.S. must do
anything to keep the Russians out.
However, the obvious risks are
clearly surpassed by the vital interests
of the U.S. in securing oil from Saudi
Arabia. And when this country's
national interest conflicts with a
possible confrontation with the Soviets,
the country's interests rank supreme.
It is because of the government's
failure to produce alternative sources
of energy in order to rely less on
foreign imports that the ad-
ministration has been forced to take
To the Daily:
During- the five years that I
have been a student at the
University of Michigan, I have
become increasingly aware of
several problems and issues that
affect the student body. One of
these problems is the ineffective
dissemination of general student
information to the student body.
My understanding of this
problem has been facilitated by
my involvement as a former LSA
Student Government president,
as an editor for the student han-
dbook Disorientation, and as a
student representative on the
Michigan Information Network
Improvement Project
(M.I.N.I.P.) Committee. I would
like to take this opportunity to
clarify to students and staff the
importance of M.I.N.I.P., which
was the subject of the February
28th Daily article ("Committee
Strives to End U Info Woes").
The M.I.N.I.P. efforts began
when a group of over fifty studen-
ts, faculty, and staff met in
February 1978 to discuss infor-
mation flow problems. Today the
M.I.N.I.P. support base is exten-
C.sP Tt rarih, oe'vi ll frnte
Although many improvements
in the information network are
yet to be realized, much has been
accomplished already. A resour-
ce/contact network has been
established to facilitate com-
munication among information
disseminators in the various
subunits of the University. Seven
Publications Information Centers
(P.I.C.'s) are in their second
year of operation. Although
students are not standing in line
to use the centers, the service is
utilized by nearly 100 users each
week. The utilization of these
centers, which have been
designed for self-use, is in-
creasing as the awareness of the
P.I.C.'s increases.
One of the most successful
M.I.N.I.P. projects has been the
compiling each term of the
unCLASS SCHEDULE. This
schedule, which is included in the
Time Schedule is a lsting of all
the nontraditional academic and
experiential educational oppor-
tunities that are available to
students each term. Inclusion in
the Time Schedule of these ac-
tivities allows students to con-
uirrentlv nlan their ex-
conducted thus far have been ex-
tremely conclusive in that over 70
per cent of the students surveyed
are dissatisfied with the flow of
information on this campus.
I for one think that if 70 per cent
of the students surveyed are
dissatisfied with the way in which
they receive information, then
serious difficulties exist.
M.I.N.I.P. has demonstrated that
it can solve problems of this
nature. If these efforts continue
to move forward, then infor-
mation that is distributed to
students will be more organized,
more accurate, and more easily
accessible. M.I.N.I.P. deserves
our strong support.
-Dick Brazee
Animal House
To the Daily:
Re "Cashing in on 'Animal
House' " in the Feb. 11 Daily
Sunday Magazine, there are
numerous inaccuracies in this ar-
ticle which would cause one to
question the validity of the
author's viewpoint.
To begin with, CBS' "Coed
Fever" was not given "the kiss of
death" hv dehting at 10:0 nrm
nform
Incidentally, CBS was right
Out of about 60 programs i
primetime that week, "Fever'
was rated 19th by the A.C
Nielsen ratings-that is, in the to
p one-third.
The overriding fault of the ar
title is the author's prejudic
against what he calls "situation
comedy wasteland." For exam-
ple, he describes the "Animal
House" spinoffs as "Slapstick
which was a bit too in-
ventive for 'Laverne and
Shirley.' " However, television
cognoscenti describe the physical
("Slapstick") comedy o
Penny Marshall and Cindy
Williams as reminiscent o
Lucille Ball at her best.
Moreover, TV comedies us
the best talent in the business.
Williams and Suzanne Somers
("Three's Company") went
directly from the popular movie
"American Graffiti"' to ABC.
From the Broadway theater
came Hal Linden ("Barney
Miller"), Bonnie Franklin ("On
Day at a Time") and Adrienn
Barbeau ("Maude"). And the t
exposure of John Travolta
( "WAlonme ke IKAtler") an