Page 4-Sunday, April 15, 1979-The Michigan Daily
TCTHE YEAR
.X IN REVIEW
Regents Presidential Search
non-discriminatory Sullivan Principles. greeted by 100 vocal spectators who by the political science tenured faculty
By Mitch Cantor The Board expressed satisfaction, with had come to voice their demands that in his bid for tenure.BB
the responses in which the corporations the school grant tenure to Political Many of the sympathizers were at the
affirmed the principles. Science Assistant Professor Joel meeting for another reason as well. Af-
Since last September the average Samoff. ter various speakers backed Samoff Seven months and one day af- resolution to boycott the selection
WHEN THE REGENTS came back Samoff, a Marxist political ter Robben Fleming announced process until adequate represen-
s meetings asp rise adramatical. to town in November, they were economist, has been turned down twice See REGENTS, Page his resignation from the Univer- tti was guaranteed by the
Several issues brought before the sity presidency, control of the The crucial test over the
Board in the last seven months have at- search for his permanent suc- ofThe crcltdet oe uthe powerum
tr cted large crowds of spectators, com- cessor rests firmly in the hands of of the student, faculty and alumn
prised mostly of students. " the University Regents. Despite advisory groupssapointed byo thera e'
And there were significant the determined efforts of a han- n
issues which didn't draw nearly as dful of students to pry loose some Ieeage, MS Prese Eic
much attention as others. But whether significant decision-making Arverage, m e bers
one looks at the attendance at each power, the Board has suc- Mervat Hatem and Katembis
meeting, it is clear that the Regents this cessfully resisted all attempts to approached SACUA in
year have addressed some of the most return the choice of the Univer-p
controversial issues on campus today. sity's chief administrator to the comittee prese a unife it.
University community. And
THE YEAR started out rather abrup- while students probably have of candidates to the Regents. By
tly in September when President Rob- more of a voice in who will be the oopeag, e ee ed,
might the advisory groups could narrow
ben Fleming announced his next president than they thmiedoicniatsadtae
resignation, effective Jan. 1, 1979. have, had they not protested more of an effect on the ultimate
During those same September some aspects of the process, they choice of the University's next
meetings, the Board approved former still occupy only an advisory role. choient
Vice-President for Academic Affairs The search mechanism began But while the members of the
Allan Smith to serve as an interim to move almost immediately af- faculty's executive committee
University president while the Regents ter Robben Fleming confirmed ad some reservations about how'
scout for Fleming's permanent the speculation surrounding his well they would be represented,
replacement. future that had circulated aroundt ylre
The October meetings were less the University in the first two the MSA proposal or join the
dramatic. The Regents travelled to 5 weeks of the academic year. And te M roposa or o the
Flint for their annual examination of along with the beginning of the set groc ott Wfthe.
the campus. Much discussion there was search process came the first selection process. Without
devoted to the status of specific projec- student fears that the would not fhoculty support, MSA could not
ts on the Flint campus. inbe significantly represented in enough to fore concessions from
The board did, however, accept a
report on the responses from banks and "THEY (THE Regents) are THE STUDENT boycott con-
corporations holding University stock, going to pick a president from tiued with MSA ePresentatives
which do business in South Africa. their own damn list," said MSA ting with ep tatives
In their March, 1978 meeting the representative Irving Freeman, negotiating with the Regents for.
Regents voted to review "within a voicing the students dworst fear; the demands they desired. On Oc-
year" reports determining whether e' .'be2, MSA then responded with a the Regents releaseddO"
these companies actually endorse the 75
thee cmpaiesactall enors th haLeonard Bernstein covered the their 17-point guidelines for the .
Students are shown here behind several of the Regents and University administrators at the March meetings in which . advisory committees, guaran-
Mitch Cantor covered the Regents the Board refused to discuss the issue of divestiture. The Regents were required to obtain a temporary restraining presidential search process for the
for the Daily. order allowing them to meet behind closed doors. Daily. See PRESIDENTIAL, Page 5
0be Mdcb4an iBailQ
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedom
MSA
Academics
By Julie Engebrecht
By John Sinkevics
Vol. LXXXIX, No. 157
News Phone: 764-0552
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Court stifl<
THE RECENT court ruling allowing
the University Regents to move
their April meeting to exclude anyone
who breaches the peace is a
dangerously short-sighted inter-
pretation of the 1977 Open Meetings
Act. The precedent set by the ruling
threatens a fundamental right which
the Regents have successfully denied
to students concerned with the
divestiture issue: the right to be heard.
When the Washtenaw County
Coalition Against Apartheid (WCCAA)
organized a disruption of the Regents'
meeting in March, the 200 students in-
volved acted out of frustration after
exhausting all other formal appeals to
the Regents' attention. Their
frustration was caused by the Board's
repeated refusal to reconsider the
divestiture issue.
The Regents claim they did review
that policy in October, but the lip-
service they paid to this crucial moral
issue at that time angered the Coalition
and others advocating divestiture.
Members of the WCCAA claimed they
had new information which deserved
consideration by the Regents on the
"action" part of their agenda in which
the Board would have to discuss the
issue. The Board told the group it could
speak during the public comments sec-
tion of the meeting. But that forum has
traditionally been used by the Regents
as a means to dodge more serious con-
sideration of sensitive issues.
Recognizing this, the demonstrators
continued to disrupt the Regents
meeting. The Board recessed and ob-
tained a temporary order barring
everyone but the press and selected in-
dividuals from the remainder of their
monthly session.
The same scenario was played out
this week when Circuit Court Judge
Ross Campbell granted the Regents
the right to move the meeting if a
hreach of the neace occurs. The court
es
students
like the Regents, is now being invoked
to allow them to once again closet
their proceedings.
To disrupt a Regents meeting is
unquestionably an extreme act. But
when the Regents can no longer be
trusted to give careful consideration to
issues that are important to a
significant portion of the University
community, those disruptions are
warranted to reach the eight in-
dividuals who have for too long ignored
opinions that conflict with their own.
Broad powers have been invested in
the Regents for the governing of this
University. But responsibility accom-
panies power. Unlike other levels of,
government, there are no checks on
the Regents to ensure that their powers
are fairly wielded. The Regents have
the unquestioned power to decide what
issues deserve attention, when they
should be placed on the agenda, what
action to take, and now what con-
stitutes a breach of the peace along
with who is comNritting such disrup-
tions. Such a monopoly on power is
neither condoned nor permitted to
exist in any other branch or level of
government.
Since the Regents cannot be trusted
to address important matters, some
mechanism must be developed to en-
sure that they consider issues like
divestment, affirmative action, and
tenure to name just a few. The Regen-
ts' inflexibility to sensitive issues
justifies the formulation of an alter-
native means of placing items on the
"action" section of the Regents agenda
if they refuse to do so. Petitions might
be used to learn if an issue has
gathered substantial support from a
significant portion of the University
community.
But the best method of making agen-
da decisions fairer and more
democratic is not clear at this time.
Such methods must be explored and
Ironically, it was at the end of
a year in which the Michigan
Student Assembly (MSA) had
racked up such an impressive list
of accomplishments when the
group's credibility suffered the
most. And unfortunately, it oc-
curred during the most visible
time of the year-elections week.
Last week's invalidation of MSA
elections due to various
irregularities puts the Assembly
in anew crisis. The Assembly
must come up with new
suggestions to repair the badly-
damaged elections procedure.
But despite the elections
catastrophe, it was still a good
year for MSA.
LAST YEAR'S. passage by
students of the proposal for man-
datory funding gave a big finan-
cial boost to the Assembly's
budget. No longer would it have
to scrape for funds from the
University to aid the various
campus organizations. The man-
datory funding package gave the
organization more money to work
with than ever before-money
which was largely funneled to
subsidizing projects for campus
groups. Many groups, seeking
financial assistance for speakers,
forums and other projects,
brought their bids to MSA who
usually obliged them.
The mandatory assessment has
also been responsible for Student
Legal Services, a course
evalution project and aid to the
Julie Engebrecht covered
the Michigan Student Assemn-
blyfor the Daily.
Tenant's Union.
While the Assembly did have.
some initial problems adjusting
to the expanded budget, it even-
tually developed a more accoun-
table system of -allocations and
expenditures. The- Budget
Priorities Committee began just
at the end of the year to become
moredcritical of the Assembly's
spending policies. This strong
concern was clearly showr when
the Assembly suspended the
status of student groups which
would not indicate how they spent
the money MSA had given to
them.
AND ONCE IT learned how to
spend its money, MSA started to
work on one project after
another.
Item: When the University
reduced the bus hours to North
Campus, MSA members were in-
furiated. In response, these
angry activists organized a
strong lobbying effort which
finally pushed the University to
extend the hours so that North
Campus residents would have
ample time to spend on Central
Campus.
Item: In an effort to save ex-
penses, the Regents began to
consider a plan to construct a
consolidated center on the Hill for
residents of the dorms. there to
eat together. But MSA members,
finding that students opposed the
plan, worked hard to convince the
administration to shelve it. The
Regents finally did reject the
plan.
See MSA, Page 5
A year. of inaction for the
faculty and administration. A
year of frustration for the studen-
ts.
TENURE
Perhaps the issue which has
captured the attention of students
more than any other, is the sub-
ject of tenure. Assistant Prof.
Joel Samoff of the Political
Science Department was denied
tenure for the second time in
February of 1978, and his first
appeal of the decision was unsuc-
cessful. His second appeal is still
under consideration but it ap-
pears as though this procedure
will also fail.
The Samoff case has been the
focus of student criticism
because they place the evaluation
of an instructor's teaching above
all other considerations in the
tenure process - a value which
has been disputed by many ad-
ministrators and faculty mem-
bers. The students claim that a
professor's research is con-
sidered more heavily than the in-
structor's teaching ability, and
because of this, many students
suffer. This is not an inaccurate
assessment of the tenure process
for a variety of reasons.
First, as far as Samoff is con-
cerned, it is quite obvious that
this professor is a highly respec-
ted and extremely .capable in-
structor. His courses are intensive
and popular, assessing issues
which often are missing in the
John -Sinkevics covered
A cademics for the Daily.
University's curricula. He has
published extensively, and it
seems he meets the criteria
necessary from a tenuro1
professor. He has also beei
called a Marxist, and student
say it is the University's fail*~
to allow unconventional thinki
into classes, that has resulted ;n
an unfavorable stance towards
Samoff. Samoff has said thM
University's tenure process isi'
way of labeling people rathor
than assessing their capabilitis,
and that the structure of the a%-
ministration is such that gt
refuses to acknowledge anyone
who might threaten' the existin
order of things.
Second, the administratioiz
(Vice President for Academic
fairs Harold Shapiro in pat-
ticular) refusal to have Univ -
sity-wide course evaluations
professors is another indicatian
of the responsiveness to studeit
opinion. The Student Counseli
Office (SCO) has struggled wi
the problem, however, mad
departments across campus t
only refuse to release completei
evaluations to students f
perusal, but they also leave- t'
decision to evaluate at all in te
hands 'of individual professoi~
Because this is true, the tenu.+
decision-making process is oft ,
hampered by inaccurate or
complete information.Obvious
this course evaluations c
*1
See ACADEMICS, Page 5
the Democrats and Republicans;
Appearing frequently on they
Council agendas this year are 01
dinances designating variout
" d
Last April Mayor Louis Belcher
took his seat at the head of the
table to preside over a
Republican-dominated City
Council. The election of Belcher
and three Republicna Coun--
cilmembers ended a 'three-year
partisan deadlock, giving the
GOP a seven-to-four majority.
Belcher's first year in office
resulted in what the mayor him-
self called a "bipartisan" session
marked by "gutsy votes" by both
parties, and Democrat Earl
Greene spoke of as "A lean year
for Democrats." And the mayor's
assertion, following his re-
election earlier this month, that
the two narties "get along iust
City
By Elisa Isaacson
.i
1
two private citizens and the local
chapter of the League of Women
Voters, filed a successful suit in
the Ann Arbor Circuit Court last
June, charging the Republicans
with violating the state Open
Meetings Act by holding a closed
party caucus meeting.
LAST MAY, Council
Republicans held a privte caucus
meeting at which, the Democrats
claimed, changes in the city's
pretation of the Open Meetings
Act, which advised that local par-
ty caucus meetings with a
quorum present must be held in
public places and open to anyone
who wishes to attend.
Although Belcher has since
said he believes he and his GOP,
colleagues were mistaken in the
suit, he pointed out that opening
weekly caucus meetings to the
public has had the effect of
development. sites as single
family residential districts.
City Democrats have accuse
the Republicans of approving the"
new zonings to maintain their
footing in elections. s n
Many of the rezonings concert
ned the Fourth Ward, the contrjl
of which has always wavered
between the two parties. Formep
Fourth Ward Councilman Ronald
Trowbridge-who resigned last
January-said in a farewe
speech on 'WPAG radio tha
people living in apartments ten4