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.

March 25, 1979 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1979-03-25

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

Page 4-Sunday, March 25, 1979-The Michigan Daily

Judge terminates
restraining order

courages student input in the tenure
process, particularly through teaching
evaluations. But he argued that studen-
ts should not be involved in the actual
voting for tenure. "Only the most
carefully selected committees should
make these decisions and they should
not be diluted by inexperience," said
On Friday, University Vice-President,
for Academic Affairs Harold Shapiro
offered his comments on tenure to a
Guild House audience of about 20
students and professors. He agreed
with Frye that students should not be

involved in the final voting process but
he also raised questions about the
tenure system in general.
"A more important issue than
student involvement in the tenure
process, in my opinion, is whether
tenure is a viable idea altogether,"
said Shapiro.
Shapiro said the role of tenure in
academia has changed somewhat from
its original inception, and that because
it has become an increasingly complex,
process, it may not preserve the full
"flow of intellectual freedom" it was
intended to.

On Friday, visiting judge George
Kent, insisting that "people should not
have prior restraint placed on them,"
terminated the ex-parte restraining or-
der which allowed the University's
Regents to meet behind closed doors a
week ago Friday. The judge's action
this week means the Regents' sessions
in April will be open to the public.
But because Kent refused to rule on
the constitutionality of the original
issuance of the restraining order, it is
still unclear whether another such or-
der could be obtained in future cases of
Washtenaw County Coalition Against
Apartheid (WCCAA), the defendants
named in the restraining order, have-
already said they expect more than 200
spectators to attend next month's
Regents meetings.
Thomas O'Brien, the attorney
representing the WCCAA, charged the
order directly violated the 1977 Open
Meetings Act. He blasted the order in
court, saying that "it's not restraint,
it's allowing them (the Regents) to
break the law."
Peter Davis, representing the
University, claimed the order was the
best way to restore peace to a meeting
interrupted by protesters. "We are
talking about a disruption. The Con-
stitution does not protect the right to
disruption; it is a misdemanor."
JUDGE KENT, however, added that
the Board had another option: to con-
tinue to hold an open meeting and sim-
ply have the disrupters removed.
But Kent, apparently unwilling to
listen to rambling comments from both
attorneys, said that he could not allow
the restraining order to continue to be
in effect.
"Your temporary order did its job,"
Kent told Davis.
"I hope you're not going to ask me to

restrain future meetings. Who knows
what the future will bring?
"The court finds, without going into
the constitutionality of it (the court or-
der) . . . that it did hold the pupose the
Regents wanted. As far as future
restraints are concerned, the court fin-
ds that (matter) separate and distinct
from what we are concerned with
here," Kent concluded.
The order was originally issued
Friday, March 16th, after the Regents
were forced by demonstrators to call
for a third recess in two days.
Tenure proceSs
The campus-wide debate on tenure
procedures continued this week with
open statements by students and 'key
University administrators.
On Wednesday about 50 students at-
tended a day-long workshop on tenure
which was sponsored by the Academic
Affairs Committee of the Michigan
Student Assembly (MSA). The students
held two two-hour sessions and rallied
between meetings on the Diag to
- protest the University's current tenure
policy and the denial of tenure to
Political Science Prof. Joel Samoff.
DURING THE meetings, the students
complained they have no input in the
tenure process. They also charged that
there is a strong bias toward granting
tenure to professors who are good
researchers, but not instructors.
Tenure decisions allegedly based on
racism, sexism and political repression
were also blasted by the students. And
many complained that professors who
are granted tenure often lapse into
what one student attending the meeting
called "on-the-job-retirement."
LSA Dean Billy Frye, in response to
the protesting students, said he en-

'U' Hospital
After years of countless reviews
and reports, the proposed $252 million
University Hospital replacement plan
is now in the final stages of public ap-
On Thursday, Hospital ad-
ministrators laid out their replacement
plans for scrutinization by the Com-
prehensive Health Planning Council of
Southeastern Michigan (CHPC-SEM).
And despite conflicting views on
several components of the plan, the two
sides unanimously approved the
AN AMENDMENT was passed,
however, calling for a five-day
evaluation period before the next
hearing which is scheduled to be held in
Detroit on Tuesday. Hospital ad-
ministrators and CHPC-SEM members
hope to iron out some of their conflicts
before that time.
A CHPC-SEM report questioned the,
fact that the project would make
University Hospital the most expensive
University-owned hospital in the coun-
try and would cost state taxpayers $5,
million per year in subsidies for the
facility which serves only two per cent
of Michigan's hospital patients. The
report also states that the proposed
number of beds for the hospital would
add to excess bed capacity in
southeastern Michigan, and accused
University administrators of ignoring
the possibilities of 'U' Hospital
becoming part of a cooitdinated net-
work of regional hospital facilities.
Hospital administrators countered-
saying the population figures used by
the CHPC-SEM to compute future
hospital bed needs were outdated. They
also suggested that 'U' Hospital should
not spread its resources throughout the
area, but act instead as a "core"
The five-day time limit on the
evaluation was agreed to through the
urgining of Hospital Director Jeptha
Dalston who said any further delays
would cost an extra $2 million a month.
"We're on the fast track now," he said.
But at least one CHPC-SEM member
doubted five days would be enough time'
for the evaluation. "We can't review

the whole thing in five days," she said.
"The University spent five years
evaluating it, there's no way that we
can possibly do it in five days."
MSA Elections
The campaign for seats on the
Michigan Student Assembly (MSA) got
underway this week with over 100
students filing to run for office. Ilec-
tions will be held April 2, 3 and 4.
This year's major issues seem to be
centering on the philosophy of. what
MSA should or should not do. Many of
the candidates have come out clearly
on whether they believe MSA should
take a stand on national and inter-
national issues, or strictly University,
THERE HAS also been discussion on
whether MSA should make every effort
to work with the administration, or take
matters to the Regents, or should try to
initiate change by itself.
Continuing a trend that started last
year, campus political parties are in-w
creasing in strength. Normal platforms-
have been written by many of the par-
ties and of the 100 candidates, only 20
are running as independents.
Three proposals will also appear on
the ballot. One of the questions will ask
students to reaffirm support for a man-
datory $2.92 per term fee, and another,
which hasn't been formally presented
yet, will back student participation in
the tenure process.
But of all three proposals, the most
controversial one would eliminate a
provision in the All-Campus Con-
stitution which prohibits MSA officers
from receiving salaries. The funding
proposal could pave the way for as
much as $9,000 to be set aside in the
MSA budget for salaries.
Elections Director Emily Koo predic-
ted the elections would run smoothly
despite MSA's history of troublesome
elections including individual can-
didates and accomplices who have
sabotaged ballot counting and:
destroyed opponent's campaign
The Week In Review was written by
Editor-in-Chief Sue Warner and:
Night Editor Mitch Cantor.

'Daily Photo by DAN OBERDORFER.
Students rally on the Diag Tuesday for more imput in the University's tenure
process, and for the school to grant Political Science Professor Joel Samoff


420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedornt
Vol. LXXXIX, No. 139 News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
MSA deserves funds but

The folio wing is an editorial
from the Indiana Penn, the
student newspaper at the In-
diana University of Pen-
nsylvania in Indiana, Pen-
nsylvania. This space is reser-
ved weekly for comments

Studeints barred
from.open meeting
Editorial from Indiana University
of Pennsylvania student newspaper




less than
A MIDST THE popular complaint in
the 1970s that college students have
become apathetic, there lies a small
contingent of active students who work
vigorously to achieve student goals in
the University. The group, the
Michigan Student Assembly (MSA),
lhas effectively given students control
over the Michigan Union, longer bus
hours to North Campus, and a greater
role in the selection of the next Univer-
sity president.
But while this dedicated group
deserves some financial reward for its
efforts, the ballot proposal on next
week's elections that would allocate
MSA officers as much as $9,000 from
the Assembly budget would be very
harmful to students. The proposal to
fund MSA representatives, which
would allow the Assembly to remove a
restriction against members receiving
salaries would take too many funds
from student organizations on campus
4nd might attract candidates just in-
terested in financial gain - and who
are not sincere in enhancing student
Proponents of the internal funding
plan argue that time constraints on of-
ficers who must also hold another job
aiakes it harder for the group to
Achieve firm objectives. Therefore;
they claim that that they would have
more time to put creative effort into
MSA's work. In essence, they are
asking for money so that they can do a
snore responsible job..
The reasoning that a responsible and
effective organization will evolve once
members are naid assumes that



newspapers across the ccun-
try. This week's article focuses
on the school's involvement-
with the state's Public Meeting
Law requiring all meetings of
state agencies be open to the
public. ,
An unforgivable disrespect for
students occurred two days ago.
They were excluded from one of
the meetings which will have an
effect on how their $72 activity
fee is spent.
Monday night the Farm-Lodge
Committee went into executive
session, and all but committee
members and some of the Co-op
Board of Directors were forced to
leave. A member of the audience
questioned the legality of this ac-
tion under Pennsylvania's Public
Meeting ILaw (Sunshine Law),

One unofficial proposal would have
key offi ers and coordinatorso f the
Assembly receive substantial tuition
subsidies for their work in MSA. The
plan would specifically allocate a full
year of in-state tuition funds for the
Assembly's president and vice-
president. Also, the other key officers
would receive an amount equivalent to
a half-year's tuition rate.
These figures are too high; while
MSA work is indeed important, it
doesn't justify. a student receiving a
total tuitioh subsidy. This kind of
generous salary allotment would en-
courage too many insincere aspirants
to seek the job when all they really
want is the money. It would also
detract a substantial amount from the
crucial subsidies needed by campus
organizations, and possibly take away
from beneficial MSA projects.
A more reasonable figure would be
half that amount. While some
organizations would still lose out as a
result of internal funding, Assembly
members should receive a reward for
the effort they put into aiding students.
The current ballot referendum,
while not assuring that Assembly
members would then vote for the total
package of $9,000, would still leave
them that option. Therefore, students
should reject the internal funding
proposal on next week's election ballot.
Although MSA members should be
paid and the proposal's defeat would
eliminate that possibility for the up-
coming year, the risks and dangers of
them voting to give themselves the
total amount outweighs the advan-

which requires that all meetings
of state agencies be open to the
permit committees to hold closed
executive sessions of no longer
than 30 minutes when personnel
matters or labor negotiations
must be discussed. If indeed the
Co-op does come under the
jurisdiction of the Sunshine Law,
it violated the law on two counts.
First, the executive session
lasted for one hour, a half hour
longer than the law allows.
Secondly, more than personnel
matters were discussed in the
closed session, according to

reports by some committee
Chris Knowlton, Co-op
manager and member of the
committee, said although the Co-
op usually follows the statute, he
has been advised the Co-op does
not come under the Sunshine
Law. A representative of the
Pennsylvania Newspaper
Association (PNPA), said this is
probably true, because the Co-op
is a private corporation.
But the Co-op is a special kind
of corporation. Funds for the cor-
poration consist entirely of the
student activity fee. Granted the
Co-op does have investments
now, but there would be no in-

vestments, or Co-op, if the $72 per
student fee was abolished. Since
students in every sense are the
owners of the Co-op, they have a
right to know exactly what is
going on in their corporation.
shine Law sets a dangerous
precedent. Just as open meetings
conducted under wa'tchful
scrutiny are conducive to honest
decisions, secret closed meetings
have a way of leading to selfish,
closed-minded decisions. And
when thousand-dollar projects
are being discussed (the Farm
and Lodge proposed budget for
1979-80 is almosy $150,000) every
determination better be a good
We urge the Co-op Board of
Directors to adopt a policy
requiring the board and all Co-op
committees tt abide by the Sun-
shine Law. There is no reason the
Co-op should be exempt from a
statute which governs every state
agency. And students should not
ever be refused admission to
proceedings which affect them in
the most direct way.

GEO wants more publicity

To the Daily:
I am writing to bring your at-
tention to a serious problem in
your events advertising
procedure: the \coverage of
community events is capricious,
at best. On Saturday March 17,
the Graduate Employees
Organization held a benefit which
showed three films related to the
labor movement: (1) "With
Babies and Banners" (2) "A Song
of the Canary" (3) "The Fight
Against Black Monday." We took
out a feature advertisement
which was published in the
Friday, March 16 paper. As well,
we had posted some of our flyers
around the Daily office to adver-
tise the event to the Daily staf-
fers. Nonetheless, in the Friday
paper in the "Happenings for the
Week of March 16" column, you
listed our event as "Two short
women's films, both at 7 and 9 at
Aud. B, Angell Hall; The Fight
Against Black Monday and With
Babies and Banners (an entry in
this year's 16 mm. Film

still curious over what exactly is
a "woman's film."
Even more horrendous was the
Saturday March 17 "Today"
column where you listed the
movies as "With Babies and
Banners, The Fight Against
Black Men,' and a Song of the
Canary." What kind of racist
imagery are you trying to project
on our union?
It is' disapointing to us that
many of our flyers that we posted
were torn down, apparently by
anti-unionists. We have learned
to understand this form of
resistance to the organization of
working people. However, when
the student newspaper plays a
role in undermining the event
through careless sloppiness in
advertising, we cannot help but
question the paper's commitment
to progressive organizations and
fair reporting of events. For-
tunately, our benefit was 'suc-
cessful but how many people
would have come to learn about
the struggles of working people if
th Dnl ~nrt-,, th infnr-

against University investments
in firms doing business in South
Africa motivate consideration of
the reasoning behind such
protest. The rationale appears to
be that the University is indirec-
tly supporting apartheid in
South Africa and that such is
"wrong"; i.e., that the South
African government practices
apartheid, corporations support
the government by paying taxes,
etc., and the University supports
these corporations by investing in
them-and that anyone par-
ticipating in this "chain" is ac-
ting "immorally."
In examining why there is
protest, the hypocrisy of the
demonstrators is brought out.
Students and teachers are the
next "link" in the chain of in-
direct support of apartheid; they
pay tuition and render vital ser-
vices to the University. Secondly,
a more important source of sup-
port to companies than the in-
vesting in them is the buying of
their products. How many
nrotesters are even aware of all


To the Daily:

As an avid reader of the Daily
and one who is concerned with
the issue of divestiture, I have
been following with great interest
the coverage of the protests of
last week's Regents' meetings.
Many students support the fight
for divestiture of the University's
South African holdings and,
whether or not we agree with the
protesters's tactics, we under-
stand the frustration which led to
their actions.
Unfortunately, articles like
Mike Taylor's (Apartheid Comes
Home: Students Taste of Tyran-
ny") continue to crop up. His ac-
cusations of "tyranny" on the
part of the Regents is not only
patently absurd, but harmful to
the' valid arguments for
divestiture. Indeed, he believes
,the injustices of apartheid by
comparing the University's
"governing system" to that of the
nn-re i-:- r tnina-a nm n

Back to Top

© 2022 Regents of the University of Michigan