11w £rtioan Drimj
Fleming on sex bias
Eighty-one years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
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 rioted in all reprints.
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1972
NIGHT EDITOR: PAT BAUER
VE CASE OF Cheryl Clark, the first
woman in the nation to demand back
wages from a university on grounds of
sex discrimination, clearly presents the
University with an important opportun-
ity to positively implement their totally
unfulfilled public commitment to the
payment of back wages lost by women
employes due to sex discrimination.
Final appeal hearings opened last week
on Clark's charge of sex discrimination
using the University's new complaint ap-
peal procedure. Clark, a. research asso-
ciate in the University's Highway Safety
Research Institute, first filed a com-
plaint last January charging that she
was receiving a salary $3,400 less than
a man doing the same job.
After her request for back pay and in-
creased wages was rejected, Clark's law-
yer, law professor Harry Edwards, ap-
pealed the verdict, also charging that the
grievance procedure that was used denied
a complainant due process of law.
JN RESPONSE, the Commission for
Women and the University's execu-
tive officers formulated the current com-
plaint appeal procedure being used for
the first time in Clark's final appeal.
The new procedure, used only in cases
of sex discrimination, seems to be -a pro-
wising improvement over the old pro-
cedure, involving presentation of the case
before a three member arbitration
board, composed of one member selected
s sex bias case
by the defendant, one member chosen by
the plaintiff and an impartial chairman
selected by both parties.
Following last week's opening of the
final appeal hearing into Clark's land-
mark case, both sides have a 30-day limit
in which to present written summaries
of their arguments to the board. The
board then presents one or possibly sev-
eral recommendations to President Rob-
ben Fleming for the final decision.
IF CLARK'S charges are again rejected,
the case could end in federal court,
thus proving once again that the Uni-
versity is unable to handle its own de-
Clark's case rests on charges that
though she had more experience, senior-
ity and training than a male employe
doing an identical job, he was paid more.
In response, the University claims that
the man was overpaid and that Clark's
lower salary did not result because of her
sex but because of standards applied to
all employes, a self-contradictory argu-
WITH THIS TEST case of the new com-
plaint procedure, the University must
honor her demand for equal pay for equal
work and thereby take one very small,
but positive, step toward the elimina-
tion of wide-spread sex discrimination
in University employment practices.
This interview with President Fleming is re-
printed from the Jan. 28 issue of Res Gestae, the
law school weekly. It was conducted by Resa
Gestae Associate Editor Mike Slaughter in De-
Q.: Why do you think there are so few women
college administrators, and there's such an uneven
distribution of women faculty across all depart-
ments? Are they unsuited for the positions or what?
FLEMING: No, I don't think they're unsuited or
unqualified. Women applicants (to college) are
very able, and all their test scores, their grades and
so forth show this.
When they go into graduate work and get de-
grees there is no question that they have not been
considered historically or. the same basis as the
men. Now, you can call that discrimination, or
you can say that was the way our total society
looked at the problem.
Q.: How are the two things different?
FLEMING: Because something isn't necessarily
discrimination if the society accepts those rules.
If that's the way you believe about it, why, it
seems to me it is not necessarily discriminatory.
Discrimination is in the eye of the observer;
if you think that something is discriminatory, it is,
but, if two people are not competing for something
then you may think it's wrong but it's not neces-
sarily discriminatory. '
Women ought to be considered in the same way
as men in respect to the professional life. I think
that will come about. J
That answers the previous question, why doesn't
one find women in. the administrative ranks. Well
you don't find them .by in large because if you
look at the way male administrators come up the
chain, you'll see that they tend to be department
chairmen, deans, vice presidents and that sort of
thing. Now because women have not been in the
chain at lower levels, they haven't had the. same
exposure as men. Now I'm not arguing whether,
that's right or wrong.
Q.: Do you think that's right or wrong?
FLEMING: Let's leave aside that question for
the minute. They have not had the same experi-
ence. Therefore when you go to choose a person
at a higher administrative level you won't find
many that have had there that kind of experi-
ence because they have not had an opportunity
to be in the market. Now we've concluded that's
wrong, and part of thej painful transition is going
to be the usual problem, when you make a signifi-
cant social change, of how do you get 'an instant
Q.:'Since you were appointed to the American
Council on Education committee to advise HEW,
what kind of things do you expect to do on that
FLEMING: I want to make one thing clear in
the first place, there's been a very wide misunder-
standing, particularly on the part of the women,
that it is not a committee to advise (HEW) Sec-
retary Elliot Richardson in the sense he asked for
any such committee. It is a committee of the
American Council on Education, which is the um-
brella educational organization, to bring to Sec-
retary Richardson, assuming he's willing to listen,
some of the administrative problems that colleges
and universities have in trying to cope with
Q.: Then would you compare ACE to a lobby
among other various lobbies?
FLEMING: The national academic organiza-
tions are groups, whether you want to call them
lobbies or simply groups that press to represent
the interests of academic institutions.
Q.: There's probably no difference except in the
mode or quality of lobby. A lobby represents in-
FLEMING: In a sense, the only difference is
that they have a different point of view. The
concern of the ACE people is going to be largely
in how does HEW administer these programs.
It is quite apparent to those of us in the iniver-
sity world in administrative positions that HEW
does not have a well-coordinated program around
The first question that usually arises is that
they come to your campus and say they want to see
all your files. We don't just let people see our files.
Here's a very curious thing and it's one of the great
inconsistencies of the academic world that's kind
of fun to watch.
If the House Un-American Activities Committee
came to our campus and said we want to see your
files we'd have a tremendous uproar around here.
HEW walks in and says we want to see your
files and our women, particularly, say naturally,
well of course they should see your files. How else
are they going to tell whether you're discriminat-
And we said how else is HUAC going to tell whe-
ther we have subversives if they can't look at our
files. Well's that different (they say.)
Anyway, HEW comes in. We finally made some
compromises with them; we say, okay, we under-
stand that if you wan't to tell whether we're dis-
criminating in our salaries, you've got to know
what our salaries are.
So we'll show you that; we'll show you hiring
dates; we'll show salaries-without names-we'll
tell you who's a woman and who's a man.
But we're not going to show you, for instance,
when a typical academic appointment is made we
write around for a half dozen references and say,
on a confidential basis, will you give us your analy-
sis of X. Now those are all in the file; we have
assured the people who write to us that those are
confidential, we won't show them.
It's not that we want to make their program
ineffective, it is that we say to HEW you ought to
have some policy in this respect.
Q.: How have your closed sessions with the Com-
mission on Women gone? Have you been satisfied
FLEMING: Well, there really haven't been any.
I was quite amused at the ilast one. They asked
whether it should be public 'or private, and I said
I really don't care . . . So it ended up with a pri-
vate session, but just as soon as the private ses-
sion was over they held a press conference and
related everything that had been said.
Q.: Why do you think PROBE and some wom-
en's commission members so disagree with your
policies; are they out to discredit you or are they
sincere or what?
FLEMING: You have to make your own assess-
ment of that. They are highly activist women who
believe vigorously that all women have been dis-
criminated against and that no serious effort has
been made to do anything about it.
I don't agree with them that all women have
been discriminated against if you want to make
that as a blanket statement. It think it can be
demonstrated that that is not so, but they have a
point of view.
HRP* In the right direction
NEXT WEEK the Human Rights party
of Ann Arbor (AAHRP) will choose
candidates for a City Council race that
will possibly create a unique three-party
In this year of the youth vote, neither
the Democrats nor the Republicans are
sleeping too easy as the city's newest
party-now with its coveted slot 'on the
ballot-plans for a council race in sev-
The question of whether AAHRP can
prove itself a viable alternative to the
two parties in power is one which will
be decided during the campaign,-and
an important step the party must take
is the adoption of a realistic platform.
It is fairly evident that AAHRP will be
very badly hurt if it gets the image of
having utopian but unworkable ideas for
city government, and it is apparent that
those at work on platform planks at last
weekend's convention realize this.
Although-the platform will not be com-
pleted until next weekend, planks for
JIM BEATTIE DAVE CHUDWIN
Executive Editor. Managing Editor
STEVE KOPPMAN............ Editoria± Page Editor
PAT MAHONEY .... Assistant Editorial Page Editor
LARRY LEMPERT....... Associate Managing Editor
LYNN WEINER.......... Associate Managing Editor
some of the maj or areas in which AA-
HRP seeks to challenge the Democrats
have been formulated. Despite the ten-
dency towards rather sweeping rhetori-
cal statements, AAHRP has taken posi-
tions on several specific issues which in-
dicate both its difference from the other
parties and its ability to devise reason-
AMONG THOSE planks passed last
weekend was the economics proposal,
which emphasizes AAHRP's long-stand-
ing opposition to Mayor Robert Harris'
plan for a personal income tax-the
voters face an advisory poll on the tax
Feb. 21-and suggests instead that the
city push for a progressive personal in-
come tax, while providing low-cost serv-
ices to the community.
Another major plank passed last week-
end takes a strong stand against sex dis-
crimination - hopefully, the party will
put teeth into this by running qualified
women in some of its ward races.
The job, for AAHRP, has just begun-
next weekend the party will discuss its
community services and planning planks,
which are certain to be of paramount im-
portance during the campaign.
IF THE TOTAL platform reflects the
realistic views on specific issues re-
lating to Ann Arbor city government that
some of last week's planks suggest,
AAHRP will be well on its way to becom-
ing a strong force in the community.
Behind a mushroom
cloud, a true patriot
By JONATHAN MILLER
R. C. PUT his Scotch on the coffee table, his arm around his mini-
skirted cockney wife, and smiled broadly. "Actually," he answered
my question, "before coming over here I worked for a small company
which I'm sure you never heard of."
My curiosity was aroused.
He mentioned the name.
"You're right, I've never heard of them, what did you make?"
"Actually," he replied, laughing, "we make atom bombs." And
then, turning to another of Mrs. K's guests, he added: "That always
shakes 'em up at parties. They ask you what, you do, you tell 'em
you made atom bombs."
"You made atom bombs," I asked incredulously. This was a respect-
able party. "That's very interesting. I used to go on all the peace
marches myself, Aldermaston to London and the like."
"Oh, you were one of those were you," he said. "I remember.
But frankly,. I don't know why you people got so upset. These atom
bombs, they're really not as destructive as they're made out to be.
And besides, you know, I only made small ones."
He grinned broadly.
"How big is small, or small is big?" I asked.
"Oh, the ones we were making were only a megaton or so. Then
the bottom fell out of the atom bomb market, at least in England, and
I came over here to work on the manned space flight program. Now
that I've got here, the bottom's falling out of the Apollo program too."
C WAS A LANKY MAN with an accent adulterated by wears in the
United States. He dressed conservatively - blue worsted suit Fjnd shiny
black FBI-style brogues - an accurate reflection of his personality.
Though he now is facing lay-off by the electronics firm, located on
the outskirts of Ann Arbor, where designing components for the next
moonflight, he is not worried about finding a new job. He scoffed at
suggestions that he, like Werner Von Braun in the Tom Lehrer song,
should "start learning Chinese."
"Hell no, cut me open and my insides'll say British Property."
HE HAS A LOW opinion of foreigners, including Americans, and espec-
ially of the French. When he was in the army, he recalls, stationed
in Vietnam and assigned to covert British radar unit aiding the French
- this was prior, to Dienbienphu - he rather resented "the colonel
kissingume all the time."
But C knows who his friends are.'
"I'm a hawk's hawk to tell the truth. If you don't arm to the teeth
the enemy'll get you."
"The enemy?" I queried. "Who is the enemy?"
"I know who the enemy is," C said. "Don't you?"
I confessed I was in some doubt.
I drained my glass and got up to leave. C shook my hand warmly.
"It's been nice talking to you," he said.
"A pleasure," I said. Outside I walked briskly to my car. The
first flurries of strontium-90 filled snow swirled out of the sky.
Letters: Support for Rackham referenda
To The Daily:
WE FEEL that the recent edi-
torial (Daily, Jan. 14) which op-
posed two of the three referenda
on the Rackham Student Govern-
ment ballot was based on a mis-
understanding of the issues in-
The first referendum resolves
that thegraduate student govern-
ments through the Graduate Fed-
raetion should have the authority
to make appointments .to SACUA
and other University committees.
Opposition to the Federation has
been based on two arguments: that
SGC should have the authority to
make all appointments, and that
GF is undemocratically con-
stituted. In the past SGC has not
had the power to make all com-
mittee appointments, and we feel
that most graduate and profes-
sional students do not consider
SGC, as presently constituted, to re-
present their interests. RSG and
the seven other graduate govern-
ments formed GF primarily in or-
der to preserve strong graduate
student nortiination in University
dorsement of the action of t h e
THE PRINCIPAL issue involved
in the referendum on autonomy
from SOC it not judicial review
(as the Daily editorial stated), but
the reformation of the structure
of student government at the Uni-
versity In a recent survey of 3,777
graduate students, only 144 (38 per
cent) thought a campus-wide stu-
dent goevrnment with representa-
tives elected at large (such as
SGC) was the most effective form
of student government., I
While graduate students will al-
ways want to cooperate with un-
dergraduates on matters of mu-
tual interest (the current negotia-
tions between GF and SGC on ap-
pointments to SACUA committees
are laying the groundwork for such
cooperation), we feel that drastic
reorganization of student govern-
ment is necessary, and the refer-
endum is a first step in this direc-
We are happy to be in agree-
ment with the Daily on the fund-
ferendum fails, RSG will remain
dependent on the Dean of Rack-
ham for funds.
A great deal of misleading pro-
paganda about these referenda has
been published by the GROUP
political party. We hope that Rack-
ham students will read the refer-
enda carefully and vote yes on all
three to support their government
in the actions it has taken in the
past nine months.
Rackham Student Govt.
To The Daily
THIS LETTER concerns the ar-
ticle regarding the 1972-73 resi-
dence hall lease which appeared
in the January 28, 1972 issue of
basically an accurate report of
The Daily. While the article is
what occurred at the meeting of
the Housing Policy Committee one
statement in the article may be
misleading. That statement was
the report that the provision per-
mitting cancellations of one's lease
"would be financially damaging
to the University . ..
It is important that your reader-
ship be aware that the financial
consequences of the residence halls
can not legally affect University
financial resources other than stu-
dent housing resources. In o t h e r
words the full impact of a financ-
ial deficit will be borne only by
students living in University own-
ed and operated housing not by the
University's General Fund or other
financial resources. The c o n s t i-
tution of . the State of Michigan
prohibits general University re-
sources being affected by housing
Director of Housing
I1 s~uip 1i