Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

February 19, 1972 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1972-02-19

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Eighty-one years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

Should the

U' faculty unionize?


420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
ur the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.



Regents: Defying,
a research mandatet
JT TOOK 11 months for the University community to arrive at a con-
sensus on changing the current policy regarding campus classified
research. Those months were filled with wide-ranging debates, delicate
negotiations, careful compromises and painstaking refinements-all
in an effort to present to the Regents the most accurate sentiment of
the people on this campus.
Yesterday, after no more than a few hours of discussion with
President Fleming and the vice presidents, the Regents abruptly cast
aside the proposals before them. In their view, a change in current clas-
sified research policies was unnecessary; the 11 months of work had
failed to produce anything worthy of their support.
To simply label the Regents' action an affront to the community
does not do it justice. It represents, unequivocally, the most blatant
disregard for the views of the faculty members and students we have
seen here in a good many years. Furthermore, it makes a mockery of
the efforts of Senate Assembly, the Faculty Reform Coalition, and
Student Government Council to bring about a change in University
policy through calm, rational processes.
MOREOVER, THE REASONS regents gave for their decision show they
are far behind the rest of the University in understanding this com-
plex issue. First, they contended that the current research policy has
failed to prohibit objectionable research due to its unworkable enforce-
ment mechanism. If that were to be improved, these regents argued,
such projects would no longer be permitted.
Second, they reiterated their commitment to transfer Willow Run
Laboratories outside the framework of the University. Since Willow Run
conducts 90 per cent of the University's classified projects they argued
that its departure would diminish the need for a more restrictive re-
search policy.
Both points are as fallacious now as they were when students and
faculty members discussed them last fall-and discarded them. The
current policies, adopted in 1968, forbid the acceptance of classified
contracts whose "specific purpose . . . is to destroy human life or to
incapacitate human beings."
Nevertheless, the chairman and members of Senate Assembly's
Classified Research Committee, which reviews all projects, have com-
plained that the policy is vague, and impossible to administer. As a
result, only a few research proposals have been rejected. Consequently,
University professors have continued to engage in research to bolster
the government's new electronic battlefield, despite the 1968 guidelines.
That seemed to convince the faculty representative body that the
policy itself needed to be changed, and they labored long hours to draft
a document which would accomplish this. Yet the regental statement
issued yesterday ignorantly stated that the only change needed was
the creation of a "simpler administrative mechanism" for the 1968
guidelines. This statement was not explained-although it challenged
the basic conclusion of the University community's 11-month effort.
SIMILA.RLY, the Regents' belief that removing Willow Run would
remove virtually all objectionable classified research completely
ignores pages of testimony to the contrary-testimony that did not
escape the faculty's careful investigation.
Completely aside from Willow Run, the engineering college continues
to perform a significant amount of classified military research, much
of which is intended for use by U.S. forces to better locate human targets
for destruction.
Nevertheless, the Regents chose to ignore the existence of this
research. Through their fallacious reasoning, they were able to avoid
squarely facing the issue: Should the University of Michigan engage in
projects which significantly enhance the U.S. military's capability for
destruction, and whose results are hidden from the academic com-
A GENERAL CONSENSUS had developed on campus that classified
research should be restricted. Many students and faculty members
worked hard toward this end. Despite these efforts, the University
community faces further weeks of negotiation on the issue. We find
this intolerable.
We urge the assembly, SGC, and others involved in the consultation
process to return to the Regents once again with the mandate of the
University community and to insist on a policy that would rid the
University of classified research.

Not et
FOR THE LAST six years I have
been increasingly concerned
with collective bargaining as an
officer ofhthe Michigan Confer-
ence of the American Association
of University Professors (AAUP).
I have seen the issue grow from
a small one, not clearly of signif-
icance for higher education, to
one of major importance affecting
every college and university cam-
pus in the state.
Public Act 379 was passed by the.
State Legislature in 1965. It per-
mitted public employes to bar-
gain collectively relative to wages
and working conditions. The op-
portunity offered was not 1 o s t ,
and soon essentially all teachers
in elementary and high school edu-
cation and many in community
colleges were organized. Other,
groups of public employes, such as
policemen and firemen, also took.,
advantage of the law.
The four-year colleges and uni-
versities were initially uninterest-
ed. But the presence of such a
wave sweeping through the ranks
of other teachers could not be
ignored, and profesors soon be-
gan to weigh the matter carefully.
In 1967 the AAUP held a one-day
conference at Eastern Michigan
University on "Michigan's Public
Employment Act and the State's
It became clear that AAUP fac-
ed a dilemma. By a 50-year-old
tradition, it espoused loose cooper-
ation between faculty and admin-
istration in decision processes at
universities. The introduction of
collective bargaining would set the
two groups in opposition, in an ad-
versary relationship. Hence the
AAUP could hardly urge faculties
to turn to bargaining.
But onhcome campuses there
was no hope of cooperation be-
tween faculty and administration
and the AAUP chapter itself was
in the vanguard of a movement to
organize for bargaining. H o w
should the national organization
AT FIRST the response Rv a s
timid - under certain conditions,
chapters might be permitted to of-
fer themselves as bargaining
agents. As the years passed and
the pressure from chapters, b e-
cause of inflation and the compe-
tition of other groups, became ir-
resistable, the AAUP gradually
changed its position to one of
much more positive support.
On October 30, 1971, the national
council adopted the following re-
Wilfred Kaplan is a mathe-
matics professor and past pres-
ident of the Michigan Confer-
ence of the American Associa-
tion of University Professors.

The possibility of faculty unionization on the university
level has become a source of controversy during the past several
years. Professors at Eastern -Michigan University and Wayne State
University are Presently in the process of voting on collective
bargaining units. Senate Assembly members will discuss a pro-
posal for "consultative negotiations" at their meeting Monday.
Today, we have asked tivo University professors to present
their views on this issue.

IN THE LIMITED space allowed, let me say the following: The
University faculty will find itself inevitably backing into some
form of association amounting to professional unionization in about
five years - give or take a couple of years.
It will make a good faith try to comport with administration
proposed measures for joint considering, planning, and even administer-
ing the vast educational and economic affairs of the University enter-
prise. It would equally do so should the administration and faculty
parties embrace a form of "consultative negotiations."
This faculty, except for a few, is one that clearly seeks not to
take an adverse course to any part of the University community from
the Regents through the students.
Nevertheless, when an administration truly tries to give first prior-
ity to garnering funds for salaries and benefits - as this one has -
the faculty will learn, as it participates in the experimenting, that
only as an honestly independent body can it effect legislative: regard
for its fair needs.
In this connection, the administration has annually gone at it with
the governor and the State Legislature more than several times and has
had to report full or partial failure each time.
SO WHERE can a faculty stand? Where can it go when it compares
its economic diminishment with the economic enhancement experienced
by employes, professional and otherwise, in unionized parts of the
public sector including some small universities - and, of course, the
private sector?
Then again there is the propitious reality that some years ago
the state legislated public policy supporting collective bargaining for
public employes - and our faculty is surely so covered. Then must
not the University and, of course, the Legislature give heed to what
may result? How can both escape the bargaining process?
A faculty should not image itself as a teamsters, auto workers,
steelworkers, or airline pilots union when it associates for collective
bargaining purposes. (Though faculty ought to know about the annual
salaries and benefits a well-established pilot receives - about twice
that of the ordinary full professor; and that an over the road full-
time truck driver annually receives approximately what the average
literary college full professor gets. The time on job perquisites are dif-
ferent but it is the annual wage on which you feed the kiddies.)
A FACULTY can create any kind of independent association it
wants to form. It can affiliate with a professional teachers organiza-
tion or higher education asociation or not affiliate.
In bargaining it can enhance communication with the administra-
tion and with the Regents. In economic matters has SACUA engaged
in effective communicating? And certainly SACUA does try, does it
In bargaining a faculty can eschew or embrace any "common rule'
it believes to be fitting the peculiar, involved nature of the university
form. Speaking solely for the faculty it can, with the administration,
bargain out and tailor the commonality and rarity aspects of university
professional economic existence. Set-offs can be negotiated to fair
accommodation whereas now they will be inevitably imposed.
It can innovate by seeking realistic salary minimums for various
university schools and units with studied allowance for teacher subject
markets. And it certainly must allow for personal annual salary rates
befitting inputs of teachers of reputation, who really teach and re-
searchers who really research.
THE FACULTY has a great deal to give in these areas. With
recognition for its independence of domination in so giving, its con-
tribution can be much toward a rationalization of salary structure.
(Have you seen the horrendous faculty salary structure at Michigan
State University? pne hopes this is not true of the University struc-
Timidity and fear sometimes spawn prideful but genteel poverty.
The gentle pretenses of a higher calling most tines are sadly rubbed
away by the abrasive realities of dollar paucity.


solution: 'The AAUP will pursue
collective bargaining as a major
additional way of realizing t h e
Association's goals in higher edu-
cation, and will allocate such re-
sources and staff as are necessary
for a vigorous selective develop-
ment of this activity beyond pre-
sent levels."
The AAUP is thus now support-
ing strongly many chapters vig-
orously moving towards collective
bargaining. It is not seeking to
stir up such activity where none
exists, and there are many cam-
puses on which there is little in-
terest - in particular, because
many statesdo not have a law
such as Michigan's encouraging
bargaining by public employes.
The AAUP has taken a frther
step of major importance in the
whole development. It has re-
cognized that collective bargain-
ing can take many forms and
that throughskillful shaping of its
form, bargaining can in fact
achieve the basic goals of AAUP
- academic freedom, fair pro-
cedures for appointment, promo-
tion and tenure, meaningful fa-
culty role in decision making.'
WHAT SHOULD the University
faculty do? My own view is that
collective bargaining is not now

called for here. We have had an
excellent framework for working
with the administration and re-
cent modifications give promise of
an even more effective faculty role
in leadership of our institution.
We shall come under great pres-
sure to "unionize," but I would
not advocate doing so unless our
procedures have - clearly failed.
Those procedures are going to be
very severely tried in this period
of economic stress. However, I
am optimistic that they will not
mittee on Faculty Rights and Re-
sponsibilities, commissioned to re-
port on present and future faculty
input into University financial- and
organizational policies, has pro-
posed that the Economic Status
Committee serve as a quasi-bar-
gaining committee on certain is-
sues, without legal status as a bar-
gaining agent.
I am skeptical about the suc-
ces of such "consultative negotia-
tions," but they have worked (for
example, in Ontario) and, if pro-
perly designed. may serve as one
additional means of strengthening
the faculty's role.

Meyer Ryder is a professor of industrial relations
of Senate Assembly. He has served as an arbitrator

and a mem&.t
in many tabor

--- (grassroots


Blacks and whites

by mark dillen

__ _

Don't be fooled-all is not well
D ON'T WORRY. The University
tells us via the University
Record that everything is going
just fine with the enrollment of
black students here. The latest
issue of the administration mouth-
piece heralds the recruitment of
the 1,700 black students on campus
right now, one-half of the Uni-
versity's ten per cent black en-
rollment "goal."
Well, don't let it fool you. The
University may be meeting its
liberal commitment by getting
more blacks here physically, but
most people - including students
- are failing to build any sense of
community between the races.
This in itself, considering t h e
scope of the task, would not be so
great a cause for fault-finding.
After all, no one should expect
this institution surrounding us to
magically reform the orientation
that made this a'lily-white status
factory in the first place. Even
the most idealistic white k i d s
should not have been expected
to divest themselves overnight of
the racism and ignorance they

by institutionalized attempts to
make them a part of a society
which is alien to them. In t h e
dorms, blacks congregate w i t h
friends - those with whom they
share an identity. And, naturally,
a suburban white kid has little
in common with an urban black.
In this larger context, the pro-
posal for black corridors within
dormitories which seems headed
for final approval by the Univer-
sity, does not further separatism,
but is ierely an acknowledge-
ment of the separatism which al-
ready exists. It won't "solve
things by a long shot, but it will
enable blacks to relate to the
University environment in a more
comfortable and consistent way.
. Luckily, John FeldkaMp, direc-
tor of housing, seems to have re-
cognized this. Other officials and
students are hung up over whether
it means segregation. If they were
really concerned with more than
the word, the University w o u I d
have been changed long ago.
Old Ladies don't rate
A FEW DAYS ago, it was a
rather wet, dismal day in Ann
Arbor. An old lady was sitting on
the 'sidewalk near the Huron Va4-
ley National Bank on N o r t h

University. On the hour, as class-
es changed, students and their pro-
fessors would fill the sidewalk,
sometimes turning to take a quick
glance as they passed by. A sign
said "Here shoes shines."
No one stopped.
It seems that old ladies j u s t
don't rate anymore. Especially if
they're immigrants. And too
young for Social Security. And
live in Ann Arbor.

Tmy 040% ON OSN

O F 5 600 0 0$''

probably brought with them.
BUT THE LOW degree of aware-
ness 'and high degree of fear in
every segment of the campus
community right now is sufficient
testimony that many have not
even been trying to construct a
community with blacks and whites
living and learning among each
The University - and thus this
community - inherited and has

perpetuated this problem and has
done little beyond making it more
possible for disadvantaged blacks
and other minorities to come here.
As long as those coming here shar-
ed the prevalent attitudes tow-
ard the University as an insti-
tution - reflecting values of white
middle class youth - no more was
BUT NOW that is not the case
and blacks rightly feel intimidated

' '
, 4


Anniversaries o
Y'ESTERDAY AND today were anniversaries. Of
On Feb. 18, 1970, 12 people were arrested as a
General Electric job recruiter was locked in the West
Engineering Bldg., 2,000 marchers confronted police
at City Hall to protest the Chicago Conspiracy trial
convictions and black students were preparing the
demands which were to virtually shut down the
University in March.
A year ago today ,two people were arrested trying
to enter a locked Administration Bldg., several hun-
dred persons marched aiound campus, and there
was a brief sit-in in the LSA Bldg in protest of
regental rejection of an Office of Student Services

of actions past
with no fanfare, no outcry, they voted it down.
WOULD IT HAVE made any difference to the
Regents if opponents of the research had flocked
to yesterday's meeting, chanting and waving signs.
The violence, the arrests, sit-ins and demonstra-
tions didn't help last year or the year before, one
might say with relative accuracy. Why complain
about a lack of action now?
But, while the blood and thunder of one and two
years ago might not have helped, it did focus at-
tention-it was alive, it showed a caring for the
issues involved.
And the deadness yesterday when the most recent
of student-faculty dreams went down to the drain
was stifling. And indicative of the times..

Letters to The Datly*

A14 ~ SI OTd8Ui A 6H
Iwo PUimse OF

Oak 41AiW ON
M A4 1~~oNS. ,{

Ashamed of city,
To The Daily:
AS A CITIZEN of Ann Arbor
and mother of four school-age
children, one of whom is black,
I am ashamed of and saddened
by the school board's decision
Wednesdayto reject Dr. McPher-
son's plan for effective greater
equality at the beginning level of
school experience in one section
of +e-ta +nn whprp. it nr a i

it is well to work for equality in
Selma and Little Rock but not in
Ann Arbor. I am ashamed that
this is so. i
But the decision also saddens the
because I thought that we, every
person white and American, had
over the last ten. years had our'
racist ,fears, ambivalences, and
emotions sufficiently exposed and
examined so that we would be able
to recognize them when they ap-



Back to Top

© 2022 Regents of the University of Michigan