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