100%

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

Share

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 16, 1971 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1971-02-16

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


Mfr4i0an Dalig
Eighty years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

British currency: Chaos

over coins
By JONATHAN MILLER

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.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, '1971

NIGHT EDITOR: LYNN WEINERI

t

Halfpenny New Penny

Th e budget crisis

BY NOW, University administrators have
had a chance to express their collec-
tive disgust at the governor's budget re-
quest for the next fiscal year-Just like
they do every February.
And in subsequent weeks, it is certain
that influential state legislators will be
bombarded with cries from the Univer-
sity that it Just eannot get by with only
$124.3 million in its general fund budget.
This on-going c o n t e s t between aca-
demia and politics has become an annual
affair, with the University continually
portraying itself as a martyr to the fiscal
mismanagement of the state.
And, after years of extracting sym-
pathy from the Uniersity community
over its fiscal woes, it is perhaps time for
the community to question whether this
sympathy is justified. Are the roots of
this institution's financial plight in Lans-
ing? Or could they be in Ann Arbor?
IN HIS BUDGET message last week, Gov.
Milliken recommended that the state
keep the increase in its appropriation to
the University for fiscal year 1971-72
down to $2.8 million. With the Univer-
sity's general fund budget currently at
$121.5 million, this represents a 2.4 per
cent increase, in a year in which infla-
tion may be triple that amount.
Thus, unless the University can obtain
e n o u g h additional funds from other
sources of revenue, such as student tui-
tion, it will have to curtail certain aspects
of its operation in order to keep from
going into deficit .spending.
It is this development which adminis-
trators view as a strong threat to the
"academic prowess" of the University.
They argue that the budgets for the
various units within the University have
been sharply cut during the past several
years, and now express a certain horror
that some units can no longer be main-
tained.
Their assumption, of course, is that the
ways in which the University has spent
its funds over the years, have been
sound; and that each of the expenditures
in the general fund budget needs to be
maintained.
i And here is the basic question. Does
the University actually require upwards
of $120 million {annually to maintain it-
self as a worthwhile academic com-
munity? And is the state, at a time when
economic and social problems should oc-
cupy the highest priority, making best
use of its funds by financing nearly two-
thirds of the $120 million?
THE UNIVERSITY'S budget is an out-
growth of the nature of the school-
a state-supported multiversity, a con-
glomerate among institutions of higher
education.
As a multiversity, it stands as the most
effective of the machinery which society
has created to process individuals into
the established framework. It is not iso-
lated to one discipline, or even a few-it
encompasses an almost complete variety
of trades, vocations, and professions. It
attempts, in a sense, to have something
for everyone who has an orthodox career
goal, and can afford to enroll.
But this is only one-half of its opera-
tion. Besides imparting what has come to
be called an "education," the multiver-
sity is a sprawling institute of research,
a cornerstone in the technological ad-
vancement of society-and in its degen-
eration as well.
Thus, the University's funds are not
only used to finance the teaching process,
but to finance research. And the money
in both of these areas is not devoted to
a few fields, but spread among hundreds.

In total, the University spends millions
trying to do everything; and when it is
short of funds, rather than give up any
of its numerous functions, it cuts each
of them to the bones.
THE ACTUAL price of the University's
academic endeavors can be traced
primarily to the enormous cost of paying
faculty members, lecturers, and graduate
students to carry out the teaching process
and research in each of the many disci-
plines.
A full-time faculty member currently
spends an average of only 6-10 hours a
week teaching, with the remainder of his
salaried time devoted to research and
nthpr nn~-t nhinL activities-

Thus, the entire teaching function of
the University is funded by only about
one-third of the salaries paid to mem-
bers of the teaching staff.
This imbalance in favor of research
occurs merely because the University-
indeed most m a j o r universities-have
chosen to allocate their resources in this
manner. And the lower the teaching load
of each faculty member, the more people
that must be hired to adequately cover
the University's teaching function. Thus,
the swelling size of the University's salary
budget stems from a general policy aimed
at keeping the faculty teaching load at
a minimum.
Meanwhile, the University has chosen
to take on a variety of other expenses
w h o s e appropriateness is questionable,
from a philosophical as well as a finan-
cial perspective.
For example, it continues to pay
$200,000 to $300,000 annually to rent of-
fice space in private buildings, because
it cannot use the space in North Hall, the
ROTC classroom and office building.
While the Department of Defense is
investigating possible payment of rents
to the University for the use of North
Hall, the wisest solution would be to re-
move the program from campus, a step
which would also stem the involvement
of the University in training members
of the U.S. military.
Another example of a questionable ex-
pense is the operation, of the various
placement offices at the University. Cost-
ing about $250,000 annually, this expen-
diture amounts to a subsidy from the
University to corporations-many of them
racist and militaristic-who are seeking
employes. These corporations should be
made to recruit off-campus, establishing
and funding their own placement offices.
The list of unwarranted expenditures
is endless, and they deplete the resources
of the general fund.
THE SHARP reduction of state financial
support for the University has neces-
sitated a sorely needed reorientation of
the entire budget.
To accommodate the necessary cuts,
the University will have to get by with a
smaller teaching staff. But this reduc-
tion need not be coupled with a decrease
in enrollment and course offerings, and
an increase in class size.
What is required is a systematic in-
crease in the teaching load of each fac-
ulty member, with the recognition that
the current 6-10 hour a week average is
insufficient to handle the academic needs
of the student body.
Such an increase would allow the Uni-
versity to operate on a basis which is at
the same time fiscally sound and edu-
cationally sound. The excessive size of
the teaching staff could be reduced, al-
lowing a larger reduction in the salary
budget. At the same time, the greater
availability of teachers at the University
would allow:
-An end to the large number of course
* closings e.rly in the pre-classification
period. This term, the number was about
200, and included several introductory
courses which students must take before
being able to enroll in h i g h e r level
courses;
-An increase in the University's en-
rollment, rather than the decrease which
would be required if the teaching load
were not raised.
Admittedly, there are a few problems
with increasing the teaching load of the
faculty, primarily the firm opposition of
faculty members to taking away more
time from their research. And there is
concern that such a step would prompt
the more research-oriented professors to

seek positions at other institutions.
However, this would make it all the
more easier to separate those who are
devoted to teaching from those who view
it as an obstacle to overcome.
Increasing the teaching load is only
one measure which will bring the Uni-
versity's budget more in line with what
it can and should afford. The University
must end its wasteful efforts to main-
tain offerings in every possible disci-
pline. Elimination of selected academic
programs, institutes, and centers would
allow the other fields to be adequately
funded.
Finally, the University must hasten to
Antl +he numousn non-teaching eXnendi-

EP and $
BRITAIN (New) U.S.A.
£1.00 (Note) $2.40
95p 2.28
90p 2.16
85p 2.04
80p 1.92
75p 1.80
70p 1.68
65p 1.56
60p 1.44
55p 1.32
50p (Coin) 1.20
45p 1.08
40p .96
35p .84
30p .72
25p .60
20p .48
15p .36
10p (Coin) .24
5p (Coin) .12
21/2p .06
2p (Coin) .0484
1ip (Coin) .024c
1/2p (Coin) .0120
NOTE ON WRITING CHECKS
Han,. riting
£29-00 Twenty-nine pounds only
£29-08 Twenty-nine pounds 08
£ 0-26 Twenty-six pence
Typing
£29.00 Twenty-nine pounds only
£29.08' Twenty-nine pounds 08
£ 0.26 Twenty-six pence
p E- Pounds, New Pence

New Two Penny New Five Penny

New Ten Penny

New Fifty Penny

PUBLIC DISCUSSION
Text of Lind's letter asking end
to 'U' classified research

THINKING OF visiting Britain this year? Think again. While in the
past a trip to Britain was an experience to the liking of many
Americans, the problems of money will make themselves felt with re-
newed gusto in 1971 as not only tourists but natives struggle to master
Britain's perplexing currency.
The conversion to decimals yesterday could have been a compara-
tively simple matter. The pound (2.40) was comprised of 20 shillings
12c) each divided into 12 pennies (1c each). Therefore the logical way
to decimalize would- have been to take 10 shillings (1.20) as the stand-
ard unit, just as a dollar is the standard unit in the United States, and
abolish the pound.
The mathematics of this are simple. The ten shilling unit, called
for the sake of simplicity, the British dollar, could have been divided
into 100 smaller units each of the value of 1.2 old pence. The units could
have been called British cents.
This change would have been easy and would have resulted in little,
if any, turmoil for the British public.
The old coins could have been retained for a while, there would be
no need for substantial alterations to existing coin-box facilities and
the basic unit of a cent would have been worth something.
BUT NO. Too easy by far for the British civil service, the real gov-
ernment. It was decided that the pound should be retained as the basic
unit and that it should be divided into 100 units, called for the sake of
confusion, new pence. Each new penny is worth 2.4 old pennies, a vir-
tually incomprehensible arrangement, and because 2.4 pence is worth
exactly 2.4 times as much as an old penny, the government in its infinite
wisdom decided that we needed a new half-penny-to be worth 1.2 pence.
while the logic of creating a new unit and then destroying the pur-
pose of decimalization completely by splitting it is typically British, the
furious reaction by the long-suffering public is not.
Banks are closing their doors on the population for four days so
that bank clerks may learn how the new money works and stores are
conducting similar courses for their employes who must now learn to
operate dual-standard cash registers.
But what Lord Fiske, chairman of the Decimal Currency Board,
proudly calls the most massive public education effort ever, has failed
to persuade the masses of the wisdom of their government.
Britons are not amused that all goods will have two prices for at
lease several years to come. It will be a matter of complex calculation
to determine whether something which costs one pound and thirty-seven
new pence is more or less expensive than the alternate price of one
pound, seven shillings and fivepence. (In fact the exact equivalent of
the new decimal price is one pound, seven shillings and four point eight
old pence.)
Although some prices will fall, what used to be a sixpenny phone
call from a telephone box will now cost two new pence, 4.8 old pence--
1.2 pence cheaper. And many articles and services will rise in price,
especially transportation costs. The basic bus fares will go up because
of the value discrepancy between the new and the old money.
AND IT SEEMS likely that each individual will have to carry two
r kinds of money around, both for economy and because of the fact that
banks will deal only in terms of new money.
This is no joke for a population with an average school leaving
age of about 16 and a standard of education in the mathematical
sciences that leaves a lot to be desired.
. Britons find no solace in the way this crazy situation developed. In-
terminable reports by Royal Commissions had certainly convinced most
people of the value of metricization, both monetarily and industrially,
but the final plan for decimalization was a compromise developed out
eof a reluctance by certain top civil servants to see the disappearance of
the pound-with a desire by others to decimalize athallcosts.
e THE RESULT IS chaos and while the theory of decimals seems easy
its practical application is proving tiresome. There have been floods of
complaints by bus conductors and shopkeepers for a rethinking of
e decimalization but the government insists that evrything will eventually
e work out and that the complaints are simply the natural manifestation
of concern over the switch.
Publicly the government has been quick to show its faith in the
f new'system, photographs of government officials smiling behind deci-
s mal cash registers have swamped not only the desks of British editors
e but have been appearing on Associated Press and United Press Inter-
r national Photos for several weeks.
However conservative Conservatives are privately furious at the
o mess left them by the Labor government which finalized arrangements
f for the change while Labor party supporters claim they only followed
d the recommendations of a conservative appointed Decimal Currency
Board.
And the Associated Press reported yesterday that Lord Fiske
himself received the wrong change after a visit to Woolworths.
THE MOST pleasing thing is how cheerful everyone is, even if they
don't know what's going on," he said.

*

4"o.

,To the Daily:
MICHAEL KNOX, a member of
the Committee on Classified Re-
search, has written what is now an
open letter to the University com-
munity regarding his. concern
about thenature of some of the
research which is being done and
the effects of the lack of informa-
tion on the basis of which the
community could judge for itself
whether the research is or is not
appropriate. Mr. Knox does not
criticize the work of the commit-
tee or the appropriateness of the
guidelines under which it oper-
ates, but he does suggest that the
university community be m o r e
alert.
Considering that the policies and
procedures for operation were de-
veloped three years ago, it is cer-
tainly time for a reappraisal of
our involvement in classified re-
search. The matter was surround-
ed by controversy at the time and
was dealt with essentially by re-
posing the university's "con-
science" and "open discussion"
principles in a small group, a
committee, offering them little to
guide their work but the debate
which preceded the establishing of
the committee, plus the four very
general criteria set forth in the
Assembly charge, which became a
university bylaw.
Apparently two things would
have to happen for the general

university community to be better
informed . . . One would be that
more information on the nature
of the projects be available to us.
I understand that it has been sug-
gested that , the committee rou-
tinely release summaries outlining
the nature (purposes and possible
consequences?) of the proposed
projects under consideration. This
would seem to be both necessary
and possible without violating se-
curity requirements. And o n e
might observe that if that cannot
be done then the research would
not meet minimum criteria of
openness which receive so much
emphasis by University faculties.
THE SECOND item would be
public discussion of the criteria
under which the committee is re-
quired to operate and of their use-
fulness as guides to deciding about
the appropriateness of proposals.
Knox argues that we conduct re-
search in systems and subsystems
which are implicated in the kill-
ing and incapacitating of human
beings, possible results which we
state in the criteria to be inap-
propriate. If the criteria are too
general or vague to be helpful, this
should be corrected. It may be
pointed out that the evaluation
is not a question of the quality
of the research but ofhits faith-
fulness to the criteria.

For me this is not solely a ques-
tion of classified research, o
secretiveness, but also of.military
purposes, or death and destruction
and both these aspects are cover-
ed in the criteria. In the earlier
debate some emphasis was placed
on doing away with classification
It appears that this objective can-
not be achieved by simply arguing
for reduction in the classificatior
levels of individual projects. Th
strongest means of pressure to-
wards declassification is probably
withdrawal from participation in
classified research. Although we
pride ourselves on being first in
many aspects of university devel-
opment, perhaps this should b
one area in which we follow the
lead of such other academic in-
stitutions as Minnesota, Harvard
and Michigan State.'
Some will probably be critical o:
the manner in which Knox has
communicated his concern. I hope
that this does not become amajor
item of debate. The openness of
the university intellectual com
munity should include freedom to
raise questions in a variety o:
ways. The initiating point shoul
not be important. The substance
of the issues should be our focal
concern.
-Rorer Lind,
Prof. of Social Work
-Vice Chairman, SACUA
Feb. 14

4*

Sex oppress io
By ANDY FEENEY
Daily Guest Writer
WITH REVOLUTIONARY consciousness growing among
women, gays, lesbians and other sexually oppressed
groups, a new organization is now being formed to fight
for the interests of the sexual "Silent Majority." The lower
class silent majority, whether it realizes it or not, faces the
same class enemy as do revolutionay youth, black people,
and the Third World. Even so, we in the Nebish Liberation
Front (NLF) realize we face the same institutional enemy
as do other sexually oppressid groups-namesly, male
chauvinism.
Like women and homosexuals, Nebishes 'have been
forced by male chauvinism into artificial and constrictive
roles, and punished when we failed to fit. We aren't gay,
and some of us still retain some male chauvinist attitudes,
but nobody has ever accused us of having any Machismo.
WE HAVE watched helplessly, inarticulately, while male
chauvinism operated to benefit a tiny majority of men.
Nebishes have been humiliated in gym classes, where we
are always the last chosen to play ridiculous Macho games.
We have been made to feel inadequate at dancing classes
and sexist mixers.
We have been oppressed by media which teach us self-
hate because of our dandruff, our acne, our total inability
to drive motorcycles, surf, sing, dance, fight or play foot-
ball. It is Nebishes who are the most oppressed group in
the Army, and even the Movement has made us feel guilty.
In fact, it even tried to make us feel guilty for feeling
guilty, and despised us for not living up to some Macho
Weatherman ideal. Now sexual liberation groups are
threatening our identity, and we have formed NLF to pro-
tect ourselves while we struggle with others to overthrow
the whole sexist system.
The NLF is not out to dominate women. The NLF is ter-
rified of women. All our lives we've had women telling us
that we were wearing the wrong color socks, that we were

The ze bish

fightis

back

handsome objects, quite durable and very reasonably
priced, we can make a concession to our Flesh, as it were,
without exploiting anybody- No more guilt! No more anxi-
ety about "performing" well! Not even the Radical les-
bians, we feel, can criticize the pristine purity of this
approach to sex-and nobody better criticize it, because
we're fed up to here with criticism.
It used to be, we Nebishes weren't aware of our oppres-
sion. We adjusted a long time ago, for instance, to not
getting any dates in high school. We accepted it. But we
began to wonder when every new dance went out of style
as soon as we learned it. We were suspicious when helf
the psychologists writing in the New York Times Maga-
zine told us we were sexually starved while the other half 4
told us we were sated. We were irritated when we dis-
covered that most of the girls who tell you "Don't" were
disgusted "when you didn't.
Now, though-now one of our members calls up a wo-
man to ask her out, and she tells him she has to visit her
grandmother that Saturday night. She seems to snicker as
she hangs up. He goes to his T-group where everyone tells 9
him he should express his aggression more honestly, and
when he tries to express to a group member she puts him
down. He goes to the beach where a 250 pound motorcyclist
kicks sand in his face and calls him a fairy; and later
when he's approached by a homosexual and refuses he's
accused of being counter-revolutionary.
Finally on Friday night, when he is reading Playboy
alone in a drugstore so his roommate can use the room,
three Women's Libbers surround him, beat him up, and
tell him he's a male chauvinist pig. Now we know we're
oppressed, and we're furious about it.
THERE IS NO reason why we should be persecuted like
this. Nebishes are just as good as anyone else. In fact,
we're probably just a little but better than other people.
Think of the great artists and intellectuals who have been,
sexually. Nebishes-W.C. Fields, Henry James, Charles

- - --------- -- --

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan