rSoft selling' SGC to its constituency
Eighty-one years of editorial freedomn
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
"I
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.
News Phone: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints,
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1972'
NIGHT EDITOR: TAMMY JACOBS
Closing research loopholes
A UNIVERSITY POLICY eliminating
most classified military research on
campus is an idea whose time has come
-months ago.
The passage yesterday by Senate As-
sembly, the faculty representative body,
of a comprehensive research policy hope-
fully signals the beginning of the end of
this interminable debate.
The Regents will consider the pro-
posal at their next meeting. They should
approve the Senate Assembly policy with
only minor modifications.
The assembly's policy would generally
prohibit research contracts that limit
open publication of results beyond one
year. This provision would bar most fed-
erally-classified projects since the gov-
ernment cannot specify how long re-
search results will be kept secret. At the
same time, it would allow most indus-
trial research to continue as long as it
can be published within the one-year
limit.
The close inter-relationship between
this University and major industries is
questionable. However, there is little
doubt that industrial research is not even
remotely comparable to secret military
research in the harm and suffering it
eventually brings to human welfare.
The assembly proposal would also
strictly prohibit research "the clearly
forseeable results or any specific purpose
of which is to destroy human life or in-
capacitate human beings."
'JHILE THE interpretation of the as-
sembly's Classified Research Com-
mittee will be important in determining
the ultimate effect of this provision, it is
clear that assembly members and the
University community mean it as a sign
that we do not want research on this
campus that is directly war-related.
Of course all research might eventually
improve the effectiveness of military en-
terprises. But for too long researchers
here have been working on target sen-
sors, electronic warfare and other re-
search directly applied to warmaking.
Other provisions of the policy insure
that the University will be able to dis-
close the identity of sponsors and the
purpose and scope of their research pro-
jects so that the University community
can judge their appropriateness.
Inevitably through the long process
of debate and compromise, this policy
has been watered-down and some loop-
holes added. They are important, not be-
cause they require the rejection of the
proposal, but because without them it
would be a much better policy.
THE FIRST LOOPHOLE allows for ex-
ceptions from policy which prohibits
research whose results cannot be pub-
lished within one year. It states that re-
search that "so significantly contributes
to knowledge so as to infringe the right
to publish openly" can be exempted by
the vote of the Classified Research Com-
mittee.
In the past, this committee has been
i uite close to the secret research estab-
lishment on campus. It it conceivable
that once the present controversy dies
down the committee could use this pro-
vision to approve large numbers of secret
projects.
It is important for the assembly to
prevent this by making wise appoint-
ments to the committee and for the Uni-
versity community to remain vigilant
over its actions.
A second loophole would exempt re-
search which would restrict only "nu-
merical constants and equipment para-
meters or settings" for more than one
year.
This is an ambiguous, dangerous
clause. The Regents should ask some
tough questions about what it means.
The provision was added by members
of the Senate Advisory committee on
University Affairs to the committee re-
port that formed the basis for the policy
passed Monday.
Yet neither SACUA members nor mem-
bers of the committee are quite sure
what "numerical constants and equip-
ment parameters or settings" are, and
how the Classified Research Committee
might be sure of this information before
considering a request for an exemption.
Those responsible for this provision
should do some research on what it ac-
tually means and the Regents should not
approve it unless they can be given the
specific information as to how many pro-
jects this provision might effect.
DESPITE THESE loopholes, it appears
that this policy will eliminate much
of the war research at the University.
That alone justifies its passage by the
Regents at their meeting next month.
-DAVE CHUDWIN
Managing Editor
By JOEL SILVERSTEIN
LATELY, THERE has been an
air of absurdity surrounding
Student Government Council. It
almost seems like Council is a
large beetle, turned over upon its
back, legs flailing madly at the
air . . . The engines of production
have been turned up full: Agendas
have tripled in size, ofice expendi-
tures are running wild - yet ab-
solutely nothing is being produced.
It is for this reason that I am
writing, to finally expose whatever
myths are left about the utility
of SGC. I want ot do so "for the
record" because people have a
right to know.
An SGC election is approach-
ing. This time it will be a special
election, probably next month,
concerning - itself with several
funding proposals.
Appropriate at such a time in
the semester and foremost in the
majority of Council members'
minds is how to come up with the
best public relations in order to
hype people into voting Council
Joel Silverstein was elected
to SGC in the Spring of 1971
and re-elected last November.
more money. Of course, Council
members would be quite content
with people- just not voting at all
- since SGC is the all-campus re-
presentative government of only
the loyal 10 per cent of the student
body that votes.
THE WORI)ING of the funding
referendum, its place on the bal-
lot, and the questions preceding
it are - as in the last election -
all being carefully considered. The
techniques that will be used, and
some members have them down to
a science, are distressingly simil-
ar totany Madison Avenue soft-
sell. It is no different from the
hype inducing you to buy n e w
clothes, cars, records, or deodor-
ent.
S udent Government Cocncil will
again be sold, not on its merits.
but on what it might be able to
do for you.
Reflective people across campus
will sit back and think, "hmmm
. . . just what has SGC done in
the past" - and 'then be hard-
pressed to find answers.
It did vote to publish a list of
police agents recently, but then
some members changed their
minds and Council re-voted against
such a move. And, while Council
made three attempts to unseat
an administrative officer and
charge him with incompetence, it
never could seem to get it to-
gether enough to enforce the laws
it passed governing campus film
societies . . . The list stretches on
and on - at least as long as the
bill of resignations presented
Council over the past year.
STILL, AN election will be held
(section 14.09 of the Election Code).
After all, isn't it also mentioned
somewhere in the SGC Compiled
Rules that advertising surpasses
production in America, that it
doesn't matter what Council has
done but rather, how it is pack-
aged for the voter? Eventually, a
new crew of candidates will strag-
gle in, friends of friends of t h e
old Council. and another funding
proposal will be dusted off.
It's almost too much for an in-
telligent person to bear - this fa-
cade of power, of letting the stu-
dents "decide."
But, nowadays fewer and fewer
people are being drawn in. They
aren't fooled by the hype. It's so
easy really, like switching stations
to avoid commercials. People do
not even trouble themselves to
vote.
It is this intelligent apathy that
is the intriguing phenomena per-
vading campus oday. The aliena-
tion that people were taught to
recognize in every facet of their
lives has now swung full circle
to confront the original teachers.
It isn't just Richard Nixon and
his followers that are viewed as a
hype, but SGC and a whole spec-
trum of the Left on this Campus,
as well.
A lot of words were spoken but
there was very little change.
The last building seizure ended
on campus with radicals looking
forlornly out the window of the
LSA Bldg. for non-existent masses
assembled in support. The last
teach-ins and moratoriums were
sparsely attended because they
reneged on a promise inherent in
them of somehow ending the war.
And through it all, SGC has evolv-
ed into a clique no more repre-
sentative of campus leadership
than he staff of a campus humor
magazine.
IT IS NO time to weep, how-
ever, for thedemise of the Left.
Thore is a process of natural se-
leetion at work on campus and the
dying - out of progressive action
and organization should be view-
ed as part of this natural occur-
rence. In time, old ideas will be
replaced; unfit ideas always die
and are replaced by new ones.
There were just too many weak
nesses in' the student movement
of the 1960s. We were too ambi-
tious, the Vietnamese kept telling
Mayday organizers last Spring.
People became too easily furstrat-
ed with the slogan "Stop the Gov-
ernment" when it went unfulfilled.
But for whatever reasons it is
happening, people should not be
afraid to criticize the final and ab-
surd distortions of that movement.
As the Johnny-come latelys
scurry across campus - peddling
rhetoric from the class of '68, a
lump of nausea.cannot help but
force its way into one's throat.
It is perhaps up to college news-
papers to not be too polite in
dealing with some of this non-
sense. For as any movement on'
the decline unavoidably attracts
certain undesirable characters and
traits, the sooner the con-artists
and power consolidators can be
unmasked, the sooner the rebuild-
ing process can be begun.
THERE ARE bores sitting
around SGC's table, terribly pro-
ficient at turning out small note-
books of governing rules a n d
amendments that no one ever
bothers to read. Council has be-
come a marvelous children's
story: Stuffed-up senior statesmen
strut like male cocks, chests ex-
pansive as they listen to them-
selves talk. Votes aren't.even trad-
ed for pet projects anymore as
Council is no longer even involv-
ed in any projects, but rather for
motions on changes in the operat-
ing procedures or assessing mem-
bers for personal use of the
mimeograph. So many times, no
principles are in evidence totex-
plain a Council members, vote.
Motions rise or fall on individual
whims or fancies.
SO, WHAT HAPPENS when you
givesa revolution and nobody
comes? You could try and sell
your message before "Planet of
the Apes" when it shows in the
Natural Science Aud. Or, you
could spend a few hundred dollars
on an all-new "SGC needs you!"
recruiting booklet. This once-de
funct pamphlet enumerates t h e
many nebulous areas in which
Council has actually pretended to
work: city government relations,
intramural sports, student control
of residence halls . . .
The inescapable thesis inherent
to all of this is the fact that the
drama may soon be drawing to a
close, and that maybe it is time
some of these institutions b e g a n
readying themselves for a f u 11
burial.
The action-oriented Left has for
a time disintegrated on campus
and will probably not even bother
to field a slate of candidates in
the next election. This Left was
the motivating force on Council
for the entire decade of the Six-
ties. And, aside from two very
small cliques, one on the Right
(Responsible Alternative Party)
and one more Moderate (GROUP)
no one else is interested.
BUT AS THE new ' L e f t and
Council have always been replete
with doomsayers, I may be no
exception. The weekly SGC meet-
ings will no doubt continue as will
the calls flr mass meetings that
stem from them - while the rest
of the campus waits patiently for
old ideas to die and new ones to
take their place.
f
SGC's executive officers presde
over a Council meeting
Letters to The Daily.
I
To The Daily:
IT IS REMARKABLE that Dave
Chudwin, or any writer, c o u 1 d
write an article like his "Space
Shuttle: WPA for the seventies"
(Daily, Jan. 18). Here at the Uni-
versity we have a very fine aero-
space engineering department, and
Chudwin might at least have in-
quired there about the S p a c e
Shuttle before writing his feature.
so that he would know what hb
was talking about.
To begin, there is his comment:
"Shuttle launches will only cost
$10 million apiece compared to
10 times that amount at present.
What (NASA officials) do not say
is that $5.5 billion in development-
al costs . . . are not included in
the $10 million figure."
This is like saying, "Airlines
advertise flights toyCalifornia for
$200. What they do not advertise
is that the developmenal costs for
the planes, some $1 billion or more,
is not included in this figure."
Economics distinguish between
these very different costs' -the
so-called "recurring costs" and
"nonrecurring costs." Unfortunate-
ly, Mr. Chudwin does not.
THEN, the article continues:
"NASA is not quite sure what the
Space Shuttle will be used for";
he seems to think it will be used
"only" to launch unmanned satel-
lites. Had he inquired at the De-
partment of Aerospace Engineer-
ing, he would have learned:
-Shuttle-era satellites will be
very different from today's de-
signs; today's are like jeweled
wristwatches while tomorrow's will
be like alarm clocks. Today's sat-
ellites must be very compact and
light, to be launched at all; they
must be extremely reliable, to
work where there are no repair-
men with screwdrivers. All this
makes them very costly, slow to
design, and prone to cost over-
runs. Shuttle-era satellites can be
bulky or heavy, because of t h e
Shuttle's large cargo bay; they
will be roctinely serviced by re-
pairmen. This will reduce their
costs, their rates of failure or loss,
their complexity of design, a n d
their proneness to cost overrun.
-In addition, the Shuttle w i 1
carry out the so-called "sortie"
missions, which are a new form
of manned mission. Today's man-
ned missions are flown by astro-
nauts who spend years being
trained; these astronauts use
equinment which is complex and
costly, since it must meet the
same rigid specifications as un-
manned satellites. Sortie missions
will be flowniby non-astronauts-
by passengers who, like airline
customers, require no special
training for flight. Their e'iiphient
may be of standard laboratory
types, such as Dave Chudwin
might see in any lab about t hbe
campus.These sortieamissions will
open up space flight to all who
can make good use of it. Thus,
many scientists from this univer-
sity alone may fly into space, to
conduct experiments.
FINALLY, I will 'say that if Mr.
Chudwin is seriously interested
in the space program, and does
not merely wish to attack it to
'make political points, let him come
over to East Engineering. He '%ill
find several people there who are
prepared' to give him some back-
ground in the Space Shuttle. We
look forward to seeing him.
-T. A. Heppenheimer
Grad.
Jan. 18
*
Examining personnel review
0
THE ARRIVAL on campus of the Robert
Hayes and Associates consulting
firm should be met with modified pleas-
ure, seasoned with skepticism.
The firm, brought in to untangle part
of the University's personnel office, has
the potential for eliminating some dis-
crimination in employment and improv-
ing the University's faltering efforts to
fulfill its affirmaitve action program.
But considerable handicaps stand in the
way of its success.
Almost inadvertently, it seems, the
University has hit upon a plan which
can benefit some of its female employes.
In the interest of restructuring per-
sonnel, the firm was hired to examine
the job classification in the Professional
and Administrative category (P&A) --
a category which includes over 5,000 peo-
ple afd 860 job titles. As part of this ex-
amination, it will be setting up a uni-
form salary program, writing descrip-
tions of all job titles, attempting to en-
sure salary equity within the University,
and trying to set salaries at a level which
will be competitive with other employ-
er$,
The firm's recommendations will
be submitted to the executive officers for
approval.
ALTHOUGH VICE PRESIDENT for Aca-
demic Affairs Allan Smith claims
that the firm's investigations are related
only loosely to job discrimination, all of
these projected results could conceivably
aid in combatting sex bias. The Univer-
sity's review of personnel files-an as-
sessment of individual files to determine
whether an employe was being paid con-
siderably lower than others doing the
same work-has run into snags as a re-
sult of inequitable job classifications.
In many cases there are different job
titles for men and women doing the same
job-or having the same qualifications-
with men receiving the higher salary. In
such cases, the salaries of the women
cannot be upgraded to the level of the
men because it would mean exceeding
the salary limits set for their own job
title. Redrawing the job titles, however,
could eliminate such discrimination.
The writing of job descriptions, too, is
an important step on the road to affirm-
ative action. This has been long request-
ed by women who suspect that they are
doing more work than the University ac-
tually requires for their job titles-or
takes into account when computing their
salary.
UNFORTUNATELY, HOWEVER, it is
doubtful that this examination of the
personnel office will do as much for wo-
men as it could. Although women could
benefit broadly from a thorough investi-
gation, neither the University nor the
consulting firm has indicated that any
special efforts will be made to achieve
pay equity for women.
Indeed, it may be that quite the oppo-
site is true. The University steering com-
mittee appointed to advise the consulting
firm is composed of 13 men and 3 women
-hardly a representation of the distribu-
tion of sexes throughout the University's
-Daily-Jim Judkis
futurespast
I PIRGIM:
1
Protecting the public interest
4'
by davc ehudwin
IN WASHINGTON, Lansing and other,
seats of government around the coun-
try, there are lobbies for almost every
group one can imagine-from railroads
and riflemen to clergymen and toy manu-
facturers.
Lobbies for everybody but the public.
As government regulation and control
affecting many areas of our daily lives
has increased in the last century, the pro-
cess by which governmental decisions have
been made has changed.
Instead of thoughtful consideration by
disinterested representatives, legislation
and regulation are far too often the result
of conflicting claims by pressure groups,
jostling their political muscle.
The public interest often loses out in the
crush-lobbyists blocking action in areas
such as consumer protection, ecology,
health care and anti-discrimination en-
forcement.
TO COUNTERACT this situation,
groups of students across the country are
organizing to form public interest research
groups, or PIRGs.
Modeled on the efforts of such groups
a Nadfim'R. aiclc,,'elaw rpv-~r,m (ovaa 17-
ing organized on campuses across the
state to support a statewide, student-sup-
ported professional lobby for the public
interest.
The idea behind PIRGIM is simple. Stu-
dents at each university and college
around the state petition their boards of
trustees or regents to collect $3 from each
student per year to be given to PIRGIM.
The $3 is refundable to those who do
not wish to support the program.
Such a plan might eventually raise about
$200,000 annually to support as many as
20 full-time professional staff members-
a director, lawyers and scientists.
WHILE THE professionals would pro-
vide needed expertise and continuity over
summers and school vacations, PIRGIM
would be student controlled. A board com-
posed of student representatives from all
participating schools would set priorities
and direct the professionals.
Students would be more directly in-
volved as volunteer researchers, office
workers and speakers. Students also might
participate in PIRGIM-funded summer
research projects to expand the scope of
the ffru ' ,artiviies
the University Administration and the
Regents.
THERE ARE, HOWEVER, two dangers
with the program. First, students, as well
as many other people, equate giving money
with support and participation.
The bane of guilty liberals is speaking
with their pocketbooks instead of donat-
ing time and effort. If students agree to
give a few bucks a year and this makes
them feel they are really helping to clean
up the environment or improve the laws,
then PIRGIM will defeat its own purpose.
If, however, PIRGIM serves as a cata-
lyst for student action it will make an
important contribution to channeling stu-
dent concern and student energy into con-
crete accomplishment. Hopefully, this will
be the case.
The second possible problem with a
group like PIRGIM is that it will attack
only symptoms and ignore many of the
causes of the difficulties with American
society.
PIRGIM "will provide an effective
means for change within the framework
of the established legal system," accord-
ing to the organization's perspectus. But
Ralph fNader
lize the Regents have been reluctant in
the past to levy fees for non-University
organizations.
For example, one of the demands of
the Black Action Movement strike in 1970
was th collectionnof a iiudnt fee for the