6


Etie St$td9an Dai j
Eighty-one years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

superscription
The Universty as PESC-exterminator

by ly n

p

weiner

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.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 15, 1972

NIGHT EDITOR: ALAN LENHOFF

Miliken s proposed primary

WITH THE acquiescence Wednesday of
State Senate Democrats, it appears
the chief obstacle blocking Gov. William
Milliken's proposal to hold a state presi-
dential primary has been passed. While
the effect will doubtless be beneficial for
those wishing a greater say in which
Democrat faces Nixon this fall, it is hard-
ly more than a beginning in overhauling
an electoral system badly in need of
reform.
On the surface, admittedly, Milliken's
proposal seems promising enough. State
Secretary of State Richard Austin would
give all the announced candidates in the
twd major parties a chance to appear on
a statewide May ballot provided they
supply him with lists nominating dele-
gates corresponding to the state's 19 con-
gressional districts.
The ballot would supposedly indicate
each candidate's group of delegates for
the given district. The overall Republican
and Democratic victor would gain an ex-
tra one quarter of the allocated at-large
delegates of his or her party.
THE IMPROVEMENT such a plan rep-
resents is clear enough. Up to this
time, the state legislature - which de-
termines the general outline for the dele-
gate selection process -- has abided by
the hackneyed method of precinct elec-
tions. Almost invisible elections have sent
from each precinct a group of unknowns
who in turn selected another group of
party members to fill the allotted num-
ber of state seats to the party's national
conventions.
Not only was it never certain who the
candidate you were voting for supported,
but because these elections were held
midway in time between Presidential
elections, there were seldom any candi-
dates to identify a precinct delegate with.
In all, it was a good way of keeping the
election of the two main parties' con-
vention delegates in the hands of party
leaders.
HOWEVER, the history of Milliken's pro-
posal and others that preceded it
indicates that the Democrats and Repub-
licans contemplate very little to increase
the average citizen's input into who he

has to choose from for the country's
highest office.
In this state, as in most others, the
Democratic and Republican organizations
have adopted primary systems of delegate
selections only when necessity dictated it.
Rules that for all practical purposes
elected national convention delegates two
years in advance - like Michigan's -
went largely unquestioned until the
debacle at Chicago in 1968 forced the
Democrats into a crash program of "re-
form" led by presidential contender Sen.
George McGovern. This commission has
had little effect in making uniform rules
for conducting primaries and conventions
because several state parties ignored the
commission's recommendations com-
pletely.
IT IS NOT surprising that such a pro-
posal, formulated out of political ex-
pediency rather than a basic desire to
involve more people in the political pro-
cess, has several serious flaws. It gives
the state Secretary of State the arbitrary
power to determine who is a candidate
and discourages the candidacy of minor-
ity view candidates by making it im-
possible for them to run unless they have
party supporters in every area of the
state.
Finally, there is no guarantee that
delegates attached to a candidate will end
up voting for that candidate at the con-
vention.
In the final analysis, Milliken's pro-
posed state primary is an imperfect im-
provement over the existing too-tightly
closed system of nominating presidential
candidates. Currently only 22 states plus
the District of Columbia hold presidential
primaries and will produce 60 per cent of
the delegates for the Democratic Nation-
al Convention.
Insofar as the primaries increase pub-
lic involvement in delegate selection and
subject candidates to closer public scru-
tiny, they should offset some of the more
blatant methods of manipulating the
convention selection process. And with
the current group of candidates so de-
serving of critical examination, a presi-
dential primary here could hardly worsen
the field.
-MARK DILLEN

PERHAPS THE UNIVERSITY should hire uni-
formed guards to demand student identification
outside every classroom.
Otherwise, members of the community m i g h t
infiltrate academia and sneak in some education.
For free.
This won't happen, though, if the University en-
forces its ruling on the Program for Educational
and Social Change.
PESC, self-described as a "community of stu-
dents, teachers, and workers within and outside the
University of Michigan," dared last month to
publicize a program where instructors of regu-
larly scheduled courses would open up their class-
rooms this semester to community members at no
cost.
The first day of class was barely waning, how-
ever, when Vice President for Academic Affairs Al-
lan Smith released a dry memorandum "correcting"
the PESC statement that "all classrooms described
in this booklet are open to all, and free to non-
university people."
After all, the Vice President pointed out, in the
literary college, in-state part-time students must
pay $30 per credit hour if they wish to audit a
class. And the cost for non-residents is $90 a credit.
Further, Smith said, as the majority of the
courses offered in the PESC booklet are culled from
regular university areas, the decision to open them
up "is not within the province of the program per-
sonnel nor the individual professor, and it is not
University policy."
UNIVERSITY POLICY, of course, is to restrict
the availability of learning resources through narrow
criteria which rigidly define students within stand-
ards of class, age, and 'competence.'
But PESC members see the University in a dif-
ferent manner.
Program participants both inside and outside
the established structure have volunteered their
own time, resources, and extra clasroom space
to the community.

Their course catalog includes a mixture of over
50 courses in anthropology, economics, English,
geography, history, physics, community control,
and other fields ralating in some way to social
and educational change.
PESC critics - critics ultimately of the broader
issue of an open university-charge that an influx
of people into the classroom changes the very na-
ture of that classroom, and thus infringes upon the
people who pay high tuition rates for a certain 'qual-
ity' of education.
But PESC has a response which is based on a
different philosophy.
"We believe first and foremost that the Univer-
sity should be open and free," they state. "As a
great public university, its resources belong to so-
ciety and should be used as fully as possible by the
people whose interests and welfare it must serve."
The issue,- then, is ultimately one of the very
nature of the University - its admissions stand-
ards, academic criteria, and basic functions.
TO AUDIT A CLASS means to sit in with no other
aim than the learning itself - no credit, no de-
gree, no grade. Just knowledge. For full time stu-
dents, auditing is free. PESC is initially asking that
auditing be free to all members of the community
-that the right to knowledge be available without
restriction.
Actually it would be difficult to clamp down on
non-students sitting in, unless there were desk-
checks, guards checking identification, or other
means of restricting classroom entrance.
SURELY THIS PROGRAM - limited as it is -
should be allowed to proceed in its effort to illus-
trate that the University and the community have
-much to teach each other. And the theoretical
policemen of 'qualified admissions' should not re-
strict and chain the educational resources which
the University offers.

**

*i

Re port asks research

plan changes

4

INTRODUCTION
In March, 1971, Senate Assem-
bly requested its Committee on
Research Policies to "examine the
question of classified and propri-
etary research at the University of
Michigan and to make recom-
mendations for action to Senate
Assembly." The Committee was
also asked to "work out means of
barring classified military re-
search whose clearly forseeable
purpose is to destroy human life
or to incapacitate human beings."
Part I of this Committee's report,
primarily devoted to classified re-
search, was submitted to Senate
Assembly on September 1, 1971. At
that time the Committee promised
a later discussion of proprietary
research in a Part II.
This present report examines
proprietary research, as originally
intended, but should not be re-
garded as Part II of the initial re-
port. In September, 1971, Senate

Senate Assembly's Research Policy Commit-
tee completed a report early this month recom-
mending new guidelines for propriety research
at the University, as well as changes in the assem-
bly's resolution on restricting federal classified
research. This article contains excerpts from
the yet-to-be- released report.

Assembly changed the conditions
of its charge to the Committee.
The Assembly substituted its own
policies for several of the policies
recommended in Part I. The sub-
stituted policies place greater em-
phasis on ensuring "open publica-
tion of results" than on "barring
classified military research."
It became evident during this
Committee's examination of pro-
prietary research under the more
recent charge, that the policies ap-

McCracken reviews White House years

EDITOR'S NOTE: Prof. Paul McCracken,,
who resigned last month after three years
as Chairman of the President's Council of
Economic Advisors, returned to the Univer-
sity this term to resume his duties as Ed-
mund Ezra Day Professor of business ad-
ministration. In this second excerpted por-
tion of an interview conducted by The
Daily, McCracken describes his experiences
as a top-level advisor in Washington.
Q: The President's Council of Eco-
nompic Advisors is only one of several
bodies that advises the President on
economic matters. How influential is the
Council compared to the Treasury De-
partment and the Federal Reserve
Board?
McCracken: Looking at the objective
statistics it really ought not to have any
influence at all since it's so small. It
manages nothing. The Secretary of the
Treasury manages the debt and has
responsibility for tax policy. The director
of the bureau of the .budget runs the
budget side; the expenditure side. The
Council does not have operating func-
tions which inherently have a major im-
pact on the economy.
Yet over the years, the role of the
council has become more important.
One reason is that economic policy is
much more important. I think another
facet is that the founding fathers at least
had the foresight to position the coun-
cil in the executive office of the Presi-
dent. So whom did I report to - I re-
ported to the President. The only person
in between was the appointment. secre-
tary. This is important, you know.
Another point is that the council has a
good deal of status and respectability
within the administration, because the
various other senior people in the admin-
istration don't fear us. Or they don't find
themselves in an adversary relationship.
Q. What was the chairman's role, your
personal role in formulating administra-
tion economic policy?
McCracken: With the reorganization
action taken in 1953, the authority of the
Council of Economic Advisors is legally

Q: Would you be'"able to give any par-
ticular instances of things like this that
were sort of shot down?
McCracken: Let me give you one that
took a lot of pulling and hauling before
it finally got there. The bill the admin-
istration put forward on rationizing the
regulation of transportation. Transporta-
tion is over-regulated. Over the years we
have had a case of where the president
of a railroad almost had to get the per-
mission of the ICC to go to the bath-
room. And what have we got? We've got
an industry that's in a mess.
Well, there are a lot of political prob-
lems in this kind of thing. I think you
can envisage some. We took a great deal
of the leadership there.
But then they'd say, "Oh well, that
won't fly." Maybe we could comprom-
ise a little bit, give a little ground. Bet-
ter to have half a loaf than none. And
this goes on until there might be a
meeting of the mind.
Q: You didn't enjoy all the politicking
as much as some other people?
McCracken: Well, I don't. I think
I understood what was going on. A per-
son mustn't go down to be chairman of
the council with the starry-eyed notion
that he will run policy. The President
runs policy. Economic policy's too im-
portant.
A lot of other people are going to in-
sist rightly on having their say. And
if you understand this then the ques-
tion you really have to ask is: Are they
always listening? If you get shut out,
then you don't have any way to in-
fluence policy. But you have to under-
stand that.
Q: But you don't personally have to
like it?
McCracken: I think one of the more
difficult things for a professor, for some-
one who comes out of academic life, is
to find himself in a position of having
to defend publicly policies which intra-
murally he would oppose. Now I haven't

plying to classified research
adopted by Senate Assembly could
be extended to proprietary re-
search provided certain modifi-
cations and interpretations were
made. These changes are also
presented in this report.
NATURE OF
PROPRIETARY RESEARCH
The term proprietary research
is used to designate a subset of
sponsored research projects in
which the sponsor, whether- it be
an industry, group of industries.
trade association, non - profit
foundation or association, or a
unit of government, by any form
of legal document retains rights
with respect to input of informa-
tion or output of results.
Accepting the existence of pro-
prietary rights does not mean, of
course, that these rights are con-
sistently implemented or acted up-
on; ordinarily they are under-
standings created to prevent fu-
ture confusion over legitimate pos-
session of any valued aspects of
the research. The legitimacy of the
sponsoring organization's rights
stems from the interest it has in
the research problem as well as
the financing it provides to sup-
port the investigation.
The Committee considers clas-
sified research to be a subset of
proprietary research, as the gov-
ernment in classified studies has
rights and interests similar to
those described above. The prin-
cipal distinction between classi-
fied and unclassified proprietary
research is in the legal basis upon
which any allegation of a breach
of contract would stand.
An unauthorized disclosure of
classified information is a crimi-
nal act and would result in a pro-
secution based primarily upon the
National Security Act of 1947 as
amended, and the Internal Secur-
ity Act of 1950, Title 50, U.S.C. An
unauthorized disclosure of un-
classified proprietary information
is usually a civil offense and pro-
secution would be based on laws
governing contracts and laws cov-
ering damages that the sponsor
(or researcher) may claim as a
result of disclosure.
As was mentioned in its previous
report, members of this Commit-
tee believe it is important to de-
velop general principles that will
apply uniformly to all types of
research, not solely to classified
or proprietary research, at the
University.
Amount of Proprietary Research
The dollar volume of proprie-
tary research funded by industry
or trade associations has been be-
tween five and six per cent of the
total research budget on this cam-
m~ig Ptuh wa sd,np 1962 _n 197

fied research. we may note, would
add about $5 million to the above
amounts.
Resolution On Classified Research
By Senate Assembly
In September 1971, Senate As-
sembly voted to recommend to the
Regents its own set of policies
governing only classified research.
These policies and procedures are
summarized below:
The following policies and pro-
cedures shall apply to classified
research at the University:
I. The University will not enter
into or renew federal contracts or
grants that limit open publication
of the results of research. This
general policy will be suspended
only in cases where the proposed
research is likely to contribute so
significantly to the advanc'ment
of knowledge as to justify in-
fringement of the freedom to pub-
lish openly. In all cases the bur-
den of proof rests with the fac-
ulty member who proposes the
contract or grant.
II. The University in its en-
deavors through research to
broaden knowledge will not enter
into any classified research con-
tract mny snecific purpose or
clearly forseeable result of which

pointment, and (ii) two persons
who indicate that they are philo-
sophically opposed to classified re-
search.
(b) Formal approval of any pro-
posed research requires at least
seven affirmative votes.
(c) The Committee will make
full minutes of its discussions and
a record of its votes.
VI. It is the intent of the Sen-
ate Assembly that no proposal for
classified research shall be for-
warded to the sponsor by the Uni-
versity Administration that has
not been formally approved by the
Review Committee.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Although, the set of policies
adopted by Senate Assembly was
specifically designated as apply-
ing to classified research, this
Committee believes that policies
governing research should be uni-
formly applied. If these proposed
policies were to be extended to all
research, the acceptability of
many significant investigations of
a proprietary nature might be un-
c rtain unless th° policies were
el15rified by r-wording or interpre-
tation. In ord~-r, that the academic
freedom of colleagues not be lim-
ited in unintended ways, this

4

4

THE INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH. where a substantial
portion of the University's proprietary research is conducted.

expect in any agency between the head
of the agency and his immediate lieu-
tenants. A little bit like the difference
perhaps between a secretary and an
undersecretary.
The subject matter was divided into
two areas with the other members each
taking one of them in the immediate
sense. To an astonishing degree the
chairman's work was outside the council
area. If there were cabinet committees
I would be the chairman.
Q: It's hard to imagine exactly what
an economist does.
McCracken: One thing the Council is
not is a remote think tank. I could show
you my calendar. My day began with an
8:15 meeting with the senior staff peo-
ple at the White House. And it was very
important because it kept us sort of

public housing. That has budgetary im-
plications, and it has an impact on the
economy. Before you know it the Secre-
tary of HUD and the director of the
budget and the chairman of the council
and the secretaries of commerce and
labor are very much interested. So you
have a lot of this kind of activity. My
day usually ended around 7 or 8.
Q: In the course of day-to-day opera-
tions or perhaps over the long run, what
were some of the minor frustrations you
ran into as chairman?
McCracken: Anyone who became chair-
man who didn't understand that this is
a council of economic advisors not a
council of economic managers would find
himself frustrated. As a matter of fact
the President runs policy. So there can
be frustrations. You find yourself re-

is to destroy life or to incapacitate
human beings.
III. The University will not en-
ter into any contract which would
restrain its freedom to disclose (1
the existence of the contract, or
(2) the identity of the sponsor,
and if a subcontract is involved.
the identity of the prime sponsor.
IV. The University will not en-
ter into any contract which would
restrain its freedom to disclose the
purpose and scope of the proposed
research. This policy will permit
informed discussion within the
University concerning the appro-
priateness and significance of such
research.
V. A Review Committee will
consider all requests for suspen-
sion of the general policy stated
in Paragraph I and will determine

Committee recomm-nds certain
modifications of the proposed
policies.
As earlier observed, there are
many limitations to open publi-
cation in contracts for proprietary
research. If the current Policy I
of Senate Assembly is to be ap-
plied to all research and to be im-
plemented. it is necessary either
to define more precisely the na-
ture and extent of an acceptable
limit to open publication or to re-
fuse many proprietary projects.
This Committee r-com ends that
Policy I as recommended by Sen-
ate Assembly include a phrase
which more specifically delineates
the nature and time of this limi-
tat on. Policy I should be reword-
ed. and irternretive footnotes be
added as follows:
T The Un~ivrity will not enter

I'

I