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.

April 05, 1979 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1979-04-05

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

Page 4-Thursday, April 5, 1979-The Michigan Daily

Twor,01,

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom
Vol. LXXXIX, No. 148 News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and rpanaged by students at the University of Michigan

SACFA head
S HE ISSUE OF whether the
University should divest itself
from stock in corporations dealing in
South Africa has been a highly-
emotional one for the last two years. A
new wrinkle in the drama unfolded this
week when it was revealed that the
chairwoman of the group charged with
drawing up a advisory report for the
Regents sits on the board of a company
which holds South African investmen-
ts. Members of the Washtenaw County
Coalition Against Apartheid (WCCAA)
are charging that this constitutes a
conflict of interest, and that she should
resign her post immediately. We agree
on both counts.
Patricia Longe, professor of
V gsiness Administration, and chair-
woman of the Senate Advisory Com-
61ttee of Financial Affairs (SACFA),
sits on the board of directors of the
; Warner-Lambert corporation, which
Shas a subsidiary in -South Africa. The
*'University owns almost one million in
*stock in the corporation.
$ Longe denies that her position with
:The company : is a conflict of in-

should resign
terest, and she is supported by some of
the other SACFA members.
Her defenders claim that simply
because Longe sits on the -corporate
boards does not mean her opinions will
be affected, and also that the chairper-
son does not have undue influence on
the committee's decisions. Both of
these arguments are unconvincing.
The fact remains that Longe,
however well-intentioned, has less
than objective interests in what hap-
pens to Warner-Lambert and in what
the University may do with its stock in
other companies. Even if her opinions
are not affected, her presence on the
committee,.especially as its chairper-
son , cannot help but detract from the
credibility of the report the committee
will ultimately issue to the Regents.
If the University community is to
believe that the Regents are sincerely
interested 'in studying the problem,
then officials will have to deliver
massive doses of credibility. Unfor-
tunately for Longe, her resignation is
of crucial importance to regaining this
lost trust.

Wome
Picture yourself at 35 with a
Ph.D. You could be a tenured
faculty member. If you're a
woman, chances are you're not.
As female graduate students at
the University of Michigan, we
are dismayed by this picture. We
are deeply disturbed by the con-
tinuing underrepresentation of
women in the faculty, and more
importantly, by the un-
derrepresentation of women
among the tenured faculty.
HOW DOES SEXISM work in
the tenure process? Is the
discrimination we witness a mere
product of the individual
prejudices of powerful people?
Are the sources of this sexism
more systematic, deeply rooted
in the structure of the university
itself?
There are several aspects of
existing university structures
which discourage tenure
decisions in favor of women
faculty. Male networks or the
"old boy" system serve to main-
tain the status quo in hiring,
publishing, grant-getting, etc. by
denying females access to these
resource and information net-
works. The exclusion of women
from these important social snd
professionaltnetworks not only
generates the perception that
women are marginal, it reinfor-
ces their marginality.
Furthermore, tokenism works
to place the female faculty in a
double bind. On the one hand, the
small number of female faculty
may force them to accept more
administrative tasks than their.
male counterparts. On the other4
hand, administrative overbur-
dening detracts from the female
faculty member's ability to per-
form more "valuable" labor:
research.
THE FEMALE faculty who are
able to walk the tightrope of ad-
ministrative and research
responsibilities face a more in-
sidious problem: overvisibility
makes the token woman subject
to greater and more critical
scrutiny. All of this occurs in a
context in which research and
teaching by women may not be
perceived as having the same
significance as that done by men.
In particular, research and
teaching based on feminist
analysis or simply centered on

topics relevant to women is con-
sistently trivialized.
For faculty women who have,
or plan to have children, ad-
ditional pressures arise: a
biological time clock on child-
bearing age which coincides with
the years faculty women ,are
most likely topbe considered for
tenure, the problems of coor-

A report by the Chronicle of
Higher Education (10/18/78) on
the employment of American
Ph.Ds. showed that 25.6 per cent
of all male Ph.Ds. have jobs in
non-university settings compared
to only 12.1 per cent of all female
Ph.Ds. Female Ph.Ds. are more
dependent on academic jobs than
are male Ph.Ds. yet they are less

By the Coalition of Gradute Student Women

neglected in tenure

"As well,

women

who

are

considering accepting employ-
ment at the University of Mich-
igan are likely to think twice

about

coming

here when

they

are confronted with the fact that
in regard to women, this univer-
sity has a revolving, not open,
door policy."

that we will be among the chosen
few who will be allowed to con-
tinue a university career.
MANY OF US who stay, know
that our individual chance for
success is remote given the com-
bination of the economic crunch
and the institutionalized sexiam.
This knowledge alone can
negatively affect our academic
performance and progress.
Others of,,us who have less
resources, lesseconfidence, or
who have been' consistently
discouraged decide to throw in
the towel and leave the university
without Master's degrees,
hoping that doors won't be closed
or revolved in other settings.
Graduate student women who
remain in their programs despite
their dubious futures also must
suffer by witnessing their peers
drop out, and the women of the
faculty leaving without tenure,
whilehalf-heartedly hoping that
the remaining female faculty
members who work with, them
will be able to stay until they
have completed their Ph.Ds.
Finally, undergraduate women
are also hurt. Since there are few
female professors, except in the
traditionally female programs
such as nursing, they can be
discouraged from greater am-
bition. Undergraduate women
are not provided with enough
female role models who demon-
strate that at least in academia,
there is a place for intelligent and
competent women. Without
female role models, un-
dergraduate women have no
reason to believe that their effor-
ts will be rewarded if they choose
a non-traditional path; indeed,
they are implicitly encouraged to
accept the lifestyle assigned to
their sex: a family and/or a low
paying, alienating, dead end job.
Both individual prejudicewand
systematic discriminating work,
against women in universities.
The exclusion of women con-
tributes to the intellectual
stagnation of academia and is an
inexcusable waste of human
resources, and ultimately
benefits no one.
s
The Coalition of Graduate
Student Women is an ad-hoc
group of graduate women and
departmental women 's
caucuses.

4

a

4
4
HEV
Three
win Middl
:seems tok
;the Nucle
(NRC) h
:hydrogen
ytherebyl
meltdown
}begun ag
the plant
are nearl
But the
near disa
eady c
fists to
ose dou
kYet, w;
shows th
.ower's s
'-pful to
o~perating
-states.
A*ation's
the consu
boo great
Onergyv
_ortion
4equirem
rely more
,Iranianc
United St
The Orga
fing Coun
4he nation
price inc
Ueek. Th
Say even1
fer the in
result fro
-pariably1
7ut down
totentiall
But' it
beep nucli
Dccidents
'Rave hap
4gain. Sin
:tragic inc

A Slow end to Nukes
WEEK OF suspense at the ago in Brown's Ferry, Alabama, at the
e Mile Island nuclear reactor Fermr plant in Michigan, and at
etown, Pennsylvania now various other plants in the country.
be almost over as officials of Amidst the uproar on Capitol Hill af-
ear Regulatory Commission ter the first news came from
ave managed to reduce the Harrisburg, countless politicians
bubble in the reactor, called for a tighter review of all plants
lessening the chance of a now in existence. Responding to this
. Normal life activities have call of urgency, federal energy of-
ain in the area surrounding ficials, including Energy Secretary
and the evacuation centers James Schlesinger, have promised a
y empty. more extensive review process before
drama has only begun. The any plants are granted licenses to
ster at Three Mile Island has operate.
aused anti-nuclear power ac- These federal officials argue that
intensify.their campaign to greater methods to insure safety at
wn operating plants. specific nuclear power plants would
hile this incident clearly dispute the contention that nuclear
he uncertainty of nuclear energy isn't a safe energy solution for
afety, it would be very har- the country.
suddenly close down all But when can there be complete,
:' plants across the United satisfying assurance that nuclear
T*~ ramifications on the power plants are safe? And wasn't the
economy, and subsequently plant at Three Mile Island guaranteed
timer's pocketbook would be to be safe by federal authorities?
L a burden. Without nuclear What the government must instead
which supplies a significant do, is move within the next few
of this coun try's energy decades, away from harnessing
ents, citizens would have to nuclear fission and toward other
on oil and coal. As the recent energy sources such as fusion and
crisis, so sadly showed, the solar enerav.
ates has'severe oil problems. The government has cut
nization of Petroleum Expor- back money allotted for the develop-
itries (OPEC) have added to' ment of solar energy - a trend which
trie (OEC)havaddd should be quickly reversed.
's crisis by approving sizable shou qu y r s
-reases in its meeting last In the meantime, the government
erefore, to ask Americans to should declare an immediate
higher prices for oil, or to suf- moratorium on the construction of any
icreased pollution that would more plants and stop work on those
m more coal, which would in- now being built. Consumers must also
happen if nuclear energy was try to do their best to compensate from
n, would be an unfair and the gradual loss of nuclear energy by
[y dangerous request. conserving as much energy as
would also be dangerous topossible.
earw er lsbangperting-But, as the past shows, voluntary
ear power plants operating - conservation methods are not widely
used. If this unobservance continues,
pened before and can happen- the government should use its power to
nilar but less publicized near- enforce certain mandatory measures
cidents occurred a few years to curtail the excessive use of energy.

dinating a two career family, and
the lack of available, quality
child care. Apparently, what
faculty women need are good old,
fashioned wives.
In short, the academic system,
does not structurally seem to be
able to absorb women as
colleagues, does not value the
work they perform, and imposes
a male model on the female life
pattern.
THIS FAILURE to accom-
jnodate to female faculty has
several negative consequences.
The women who are denied
tenure are put in the uncomfor-
table position of having to find
another job. If they stay in a
university community, it is likely
they will have to accept a lec-
turer position, in effeO4, a
demotion. Women academics,
like all women workers, are more
likely than males to have dif-
ficulty obtaining satisfying
careers outside of the university.

likely to be promoted in them.
Many studies have indicated that
the average female Ph.D. is
likely to earn as much money as a
male high school graduate.
For the faculty women who
have not yet come up for tenure,
the news of their peers denial of
tenure is demoralizing and can
inhibit their own job performan-
ce. As well, women who are con-
sidered accepting employment at
the University of Michigan are
likely to think twice about coming
here when they are confronted
with the fact that in regard to
women, this university has a
revolving, not open, door policy.
Female graduate students such
as ourselves are learning from
this process that our own
prospects for tenured university
employment are diminishing.
This awareness forces us to re-
examine the rationality of a con-
tinued uphill battle to obtain a
Ph.D. A few of us persevere in a
single-minded fashion, hoping

Letters

a

How safe is nuclear power?

To the Daily:
The reactions of many
politicians and much of the press
to the nuclear accident at Three
Mile Island indicate that it will
become harder than ever for
nuclear power experts to main-
tain a sensible dialogue with a
frightened public. Rationality
seems almost too much to hope
for.
Among the misguided
criticisms of nuclear power, two
stand out:
1) HONESTLY concerned
journalists and politicians
frequently treat safety as an ab-
solute - the Detroit Free Press
headline "Are any nuclear power
plants safe?"
This question, like the question
"Are trains or sidewalks safe?"
cannot, of course, be answered
without specifying what we mean
by "safe." Critics of nuclear
fission have had good reason to
avoid dealing with quantitative
standards of safety. Based on
current evidence, it seems that
any standard of safety that would

flunk nuclear power would easily
flunk other sources of power. Ex-
perts are virtually unanimous in
agreement that nuclear power
generation is subject to safety
standards no other industry can
meet.
2) Many people make the
mistake of viewing uncertainty
about the safety of nuclear fission
as an argument for halting or
reversing nuclear development.
But uncertainty about (for
example) the safety of waste
disposal, or about the effects of
low-level radiation on the human
body conveys no information
about the comparative safety of
nuclear power, and therefore is
neither an argument for nor'
against its development.
SENATOR- CARL LEVIN
makes this mistake repeatedly in
his call for a moratorium on
licensing nuclear power plants.
Those who are clairvoyant
don't need statistical estimation
to deal with these important
questions. The rest of us do.
On the issue of safety, a
rational approach to evaluating
nuclear power would be to
estimate and compare expected
values of injuries and fatalities
resulting from exploiting nuclear
power to corresponding values
resulting from rejecting the
nuclear option. Consider a stan-
dard, simple illustration.
1) Which method of power
generation causes a higher
fatality rate per unit of power
generated, coal or nuclear
fission?
2) If we reduce nuclear power
output, will this result in greater
reliance on coal?
Questions this large involve
many factors, and cannot be an-
swered with certainty, but if
one had to bet something of great
value on his or her standard(as

Double standard
To the Daily:
Fifteen years ago James Bur-
nham wrote a book, a chapter in
which he called "Liberalism vs.
Reality." The Daily's editorial
page regularly demonstrates this
relationship. In order to fulfill the
ideological abstraction that all
nations are equal, Tanzania
merits condemnation for in-
vading Uganda, never mind that
Uganda attacked Tanzania and is
ruled by the murderous Idi Amin.
Amin was to be allowed to con-
tinue massacreing his own people,
which, according to these
ideological abstractions, is his
"internal affair."
Simultaneously, Vietnam's in-
vasion of Pol Pot's ,Cambodia
receives condemnation even
though the Pol Pot regime mur-
dered between one and two
million Cambodians.
SUCH A standard apparently
does not apply to South Africa,
which U.S. companies are urged
to withdraw from, never mind
whether their presence helps
blacks or whether European
companies would fill the vac-
cuum. The tremendous selec-
tivity in suggesting that U.S.
companies withdraw from South
Africa is staggering. Professor ,,
John Roche, in speaking of the:
United Nations, noted that the
representatifves of the
democratic countries could con-
vene in his living room. Just so;
South Africa is a special hate ob-
ject for liberal ideology even
though a hundred other nations
violate human rights in the worst
fashion.
And what of the companies
doing business with the Soviet

- strategic benefit? Burnham
provided the answer to such a
question: for liberalism the
preferred enemy is always on the
right.
Or tale the debate over a
magazine printing plans to build a
hydrogen bomb: its backers
claim the Progressive could print
the plans in order to comply with
the ideological abstractions that
certain rights are practically ab-
solute.
A GREAT DEAL has been
written lately about America's
"turn to the right." Perhaps this
turn is nothing more than a rejec-
tion of ideological solutions in
favor of practical ones. This turn
has caused liberal ideologists to
adopt a number of curious
arguments, witness those against
a constitutional convention to
balance the budget. Suddenly,
they are concerned about the
sanctity of the Constitution, after
doing such things as, in the words
of Harvard Law professor Raoul
Berger, "transforming" the
Fourteenth Amendment by
"government by judiciary." In
the same breath, some will talk
about the need for consumer ad-
vocates, but get mad when voters
decide to do something about the
biggest consumer rip-off of all:
government. Those same liberal
ideologists complained about
voter apathy, but decide to fight
back when voters initiate and
pass a Proposition 13 by
threatening to cut such essential
services as police protection
rather than their high social ser-
vice bureaucracies. Perhaps the
label for the change in the
political landscape should be
America's "turn to reality."
-Emil Arca

4 y
4
-'4..,
Ix 1

_ }

((( r J)UNNO.-_
WRAT WE NEVER,
vo WE: PEC"7" E Ta is
po NO TO HAPPEN j
r

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan