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.

April 08, 1971 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1971-04-08

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


fle3ir t gan 4Ba y
Eighty years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

deep greens and blues

EWA

r

Waiting for spring-A walk in the suburbs

by larry lempert

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.

THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 1971

NIGHT EDITOR: ROSE SUE BERSTEIN

The real budget crisis

WAITING FOR SPRING DEPT.
WE WERE WALKING down a side street
in a residential section of Ann Ar-
bor. Many students come to the University
as an escape from suburbia, but when
school gets too chaotic, they retreat away
from campus and lose themselves in rows
of upper middle class houses, where some-
how, it's peaceful, less oppressive.
It was the day before spring (as every
day that week was the day before spring)
and our conversation sat lightly on the
late afternoon c a1 m. I walked proudly,
feeling noble in my favorite disguise -
long hair, saddle shoes and a bright red
high school letter jacket minus the letter.
And Janet was half skipping, positive in
spite of the cold air that the next day
would bring 70 degrees in the shade.
We saw a group of three boys ahead of
us circling on their bikes. They were laugh-
ing and pointing at us.
"There's a malicious ring to that laugh-
ter," I said.
"You're just paranoid," said Janet eas-

N TIMES of financial crisis, it is custom-
ary for government-supported insti-
tutions to bemoan their plight and plead
for additional money from their leal
or state legislature, all the while bandy-
ing about dramatic figures attesting to
the depth of their dilemma. In t u r n,
local, state and federal governments re-
spond with equal fervor that they simply
do not have the money for what they
concede are worthwhile activities.
The result of this self-righteous breast-
beating on everyone's part is locally evi-
dent in the annual row between the Uni-
versity and th State Legislature. In what
each year seems to be a longer battle as
budgets progressively tighten, the Uni-
versity and the state tangle over how
much money will be allocated to this cam-
pus. And this year, because of the drastic
effect new austerity measures are likely
to have on the people in this commun-
ity, it is more important than ever to
understand how this system of financing
has corrupted itself.
The "budget crisis", which administra-
tors refer to is indeed real. But there are
more crucial illnesses in the current sys-
tem of allocating money and determining
budgetary priorities that extend beyond
the ups and downs of state appropria-
tions figures.
The fight for state funds retains a
ritual all its own, as general figures even-
tually drift down through a myriad of
bureaucracies with little apparent direc-
tion. Administrators ask for far more
than they need or expect, hoping to
guarantee enough funds to get by; the
state in turn invents austerity measures
at random in an attempt to justify giv-
ing what it knows is not enough.
University administrators are indeed
correct when they call the state appro-
priation the "keystone" of their budget-
61 per cent of the University's operat-
ing, or "general", fund comes from the
state. And they also correctly point out
that nearly all University departments
will face cutbacks if they get only the
$2.7 million increase recommended by
Governor Milliken.
HOWEVER, WHAT administrators don't
say is more revealing.
Amidst all the self-conscious expres-
sions of concern about how an increase
of only $2.7 million will jeopardize t h e
University's status as a: "top quality in-
stitution", administrators neglect to ex-
plain how the priorities which they deter-
mine themselves will govern department-
al cutbacks and how their own petty ar-
guments with the legislature have hind-
ered co-ordination of state-supported ed-
ucation.
It is no secret that among the demands
on the University budget in the coming
year, faculty salary increases will carry
the most weight and student pleas for
no tuition increase will have the least
effect.
Before Governor Milliken made his low
recommendation, administrators had all
but promised the faculty that this year
would be "their year" for salary increas-
es.
Students will bear the cost through
higher tuition and larger class sizes. And
because a seven per cent tuition increase
was part of the state's plan whereby
the University could get by with only a
$2.7 increase, the blame for increased
financial demands on students and work-
ers can be placed on the Legislature and
"economics," thus mitigating the blame
for the clearly discernable financial ef-
fects of the University's policies.
OTHERS BEAR a less visible cost. Al-
though it is true that faculty salaries

here have not risen as rapidly as at many
other campuses, to give the higher-paid
members of the faculty first priority this
year would only increase the disparity
between the higher and lower income em-
ployes at this University. Faculty salaries
comprise the largest chunk of University
expenses; an approach that would distri-
bute increases primarily to lower income
levels of the faculty, secretaries and
maintenance personnel would be the best
distribution of limited funds to t h o s e
whom inflation has hit hardest.
Notwithstanding the current "employ-
ers" market, giving its lower echelon em-
ployes adequate wages has always been
far less a concern for the University (wit-

as a committment they should h e 1 p
with.
Besides dramatizing the absence of
the state-wide cooperation and coordi-
nation necessary if the spirit of the BAM
demands are ever to be met across this
state, this statement accurately sums up
the fact that despite the Universiy's rhe-
oric, minority admissions will be a goal
the University must be forced to pursue.
Like lower income workers, this prob-
lem may be neglected in administrative
hands.
IN A SERIES of decisions over a period
of time, administrators have chosen
to ignore implied state requests t h a t
growth of the campus and other large
state universities be reduced to a man-
ageable rate. Though such a viewpoint
must eventually be adopted if universi-
ties are not to drop from the weight of
their own bureaucracies, University ad-
ministrators have self-righteously refus-
ed to consider seriously current state
plans for controlling the University's
growth. Instead, most still subscribe to
a philosophy of "growth for growth's
sake", responsible for so much waste and
destructiveness in the larger society.
Since the current processes by which
University priorities get decided are in-
adequate, how then should they be de-
cided?
In open, not closed meetings of the
University Committee on Resource Allo-
cation, for one thing. Students, workers
and interested faculty could augment this
administration-faculty committee where
some of the basic decisions on priorities
are finalized. The excuse that the eco-
nomic questions considered are too com-
plicated should not be used to prevent
the input of those affected by these de-
cisions.
It is apparent that any error in plan-
ning can have disastrous effects for the
schools, faculty and students. It would
seem only fair that there be a mechanism
whereby all those affected by t h e s e de-
cisions should have an input leading to
an impartial and reasoned distribution
of funds.
WHILE THE University administration
must be faulted for its current mis-
placed budgetary priorities, there is the
further question of the overall priorities
in state higher edudation. All state-sup-
ported colleges and universities m u s t
share the blame with the state for in-
effective planning and coordination of
state higher education of which the cur-
rent budget crisis is only the most ob-
vious example.
With a score of institutions fighting
among themselves as well as with the
state, "fairness" becomes each group's
view of what would benefit them most.
And, a Legislature prone to consider-
ing its own narrow advantage first re-
ceives the pleas.
Neither the Legislature, or the Uni-
versity has chosen to cede any power
to the State Board of Education, which
under provisions of the State Constitu-
tion the Board could assume. Thus, while
conservative legislators have, with vary-
ing degrees of success, exercised a heavy
influence over higher education through
appropriations bills, state universities
have been satisfied to compete among
themselves for whatever lump sum was
set aside for them in a given year. Though
the degree to which the Board could
act as a focus for state-wide planning is
still undetermined, and its impartiality
questionable, a move in this direction
could hardly be less efficient than the
current process.
The fear on the part of the administra-
tors that the University might lose some

autonomy in the process is a phony is-
sue. Through their jealous guarding of
control over planning and the budget-
preventing any meaningful student or
faculty input - University administrat-
ors have demonstrated they are inter-
ested primarily in protection of their
own power rather than ithe University's
autonomy.
T'HUS, ALTHOUGH the University does
face a shortage of funds for the next
academic year, this appears not to be the
most real financial crisis the University
faces. The priorities to which the Uni-
versity's monies are put and the means

then turned around to yell, "Hi, Tiny Tim."
One of the others corrected him. "No,
he's George Harrison," he giggled know-
ingly.
I sighed in relief. "It's the hair," I said,
"That's OK. I was afraid they were laugh-
ing at my saddle shoes."
Janet pointed back at them and waved.
The ringleader called for his friends to
follow him and they came behind us on
their bikes. Laughing, we turned to con-
front them.
They pointed at me again. "Hey, what's
your name?"
I wanted to sing Tiptoe Through the Tu-
lips, but I simply answered solemnly
"Tiny Tim."
"I told you so," said the first boy proud-
ly.
"'Are you really?" the other one asked.
"No, not really. I'm really George Har-
r'ison.
The boy circled triumphantly on h is
bike and said, "George Harrison, you old
Beatle! He w a s obviously pleased with
himself.
But the third one didn't swallow George
Harrison or Tiny Tim. "What's your real
name," he said accusingly.
I wanted to quote Shskespeare-What's
in a name," etc. - but I realized he would-
n't appreciate it. "Justin," I answered him,
"Justin Thyme."
"Justin Thyme?" he repeated puzzled.
"That's right, Justin Thyme to leave."
And laughing still, we began to go on down
the street. But the first boy called out,
"Hey, why'ya wearin' baby shoes?"
THAT HURT. I shuffled a little a n d
said, "These aren't baby shoes. These are
what you wear when you're grown up."
"They are not," he protested.
I tried to appear wise. "Just wait till
you're grown up and see," I said. We turn-
ed to go again, and they yelled after us,
in a friendly way, "Bye George Justin
whateveryournameis, Tiny Tim."
It was the same kind of good fortune
that struck earlier in that week before
spring, when I put a nickel in the machine
and got two candy bars instead of one.
Both the candy bars and the boys drew the
same appreciate response from me: "Now
that doesn't happen every day."
HAIKU DEPT.
MOST OF THE MAIL that comes into
The Daily is advertising, so personal
letters are always an unexpected bonus.
Well, I got a bonus a few weeks ago.

Fortunately, most people didn't even no-
tice that I wrote a column about a big
black dog named Active in which I men-
tioned, in passing, how an Ann Arbor po-
liceman awarded me a violation for trav-
eling down a one-way street the wrong way
on my bicycle.t
But someone did notice and even took
the time to send a letter:
To The Daily:
I AM WRITING to thank you for Larry

At any rate, a constructive letter de-
serves a reply. In a poetry class of mine
recently, we were discussing Japanese
Haiku and someone said. "They're not
trying to say anything. they're trying to
communicate an experience."
This is my reply to Mr. Winkes, if he
was serious: I'm too western to be wise, too
American to be simple, but let me still of-
fer haiku in my own inadequate way.
If I observe, like Dostoevsky s Alyosha
I observe without condemnation. I'd also

*I

-Daily-Jim Wallace

-Daily-Jim Wallace

Lempert's enlightened, intelligent; and just
swell editorial on the nature of the law
and law enforcement; "Justice in Ann Ar-
bor - A dog's life," published March 18,
1971.
I quite agree with his implied conclu-
sion that a legal system that spends so
much time following up, much less issuing
a ticket for a noisy ddg must be inherent-
ly inefficient, corrupt, and petty.
If the officer who issued Mr. Lempert
his first ticket for riding a bicycle the
wrong :way down the middle of a one-way
street had been truly efficient and effec-
tive he would've determined, right on the
spot, that Lempert was quite mad - and
shot him down like a dog.
-William M. Winkes, "71
March 22
I MUST ADMIT I was a little discon-
certed. "He wants to shoot me," I pointed
out to some friends.
"You're just paranoid," they told me, but
I still had my doubts.

like to make someone smile. And I'm real-
ly not trying to say anything, I'm just try-
ing to communicate an experience. That's
all.
MODERN MAN DEPT.
RALPH WAS BUSY fixing dinner when
his friend Justin Thyme came into the
kitchen with a book in his hand.
"Listen to this quote," he said, and read
to him from Camus, The Fall. "I some-
times think of what future historians will
say of us. A 'single sentence will suffice for
modern man: ie fornicated and read the
papers. After that vigorous definition, the
subject will be, if I may say so, exhausted."
"So what?" said Ralph as he peeled an
onion.
"So that's disgraceful," said Justin. "We
do nothing but fornicate and read the pa-
pers."
AND THEN and there, Justin made a
solemn vow to stop reading the papers.

K .
fr'

I-

ily. She was right of course, I was never
paranoid before Easy Rider, but ever since
those gunshots at the end, I've been jumpy.
Then again, these kids were only 10 years
old.
"Not paranoid," I said, "just self-con-
scious."
WE WERE CLOSE enough to hear them.
One boy was almost hysterical - He bent
over in conference with the other two,

'U,
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The following
is a statement of Brain Mistrust,
a radical research group.)
[T'S SPRING and time for one
of the rites of the religion of
corporate America, the stockhold-
ers' meeting. Management reports
to us on the business and affairs
of the corporation; we elect the
directors they have nominated and
take action on proposals. We, the
students, faculty, and employes'
as well as the Regents. of the Uni-
versity of Michigan, own $51,947,-
682 worth of stock in American
corporations (market value, June
30, 1970). How are we going to
vote?
It's important to take our own-
ership in these institutions ser-
iously because they make decisions
that govern the lives of many of
this planet's citizens. Giant cor-
porations and financial institu-
tions dominate the American eco-
nomy as well as the economy of
the entire Western world. Not only
do 500 corporations control two-
thirds of the non-agricultur-
al economy, but within each of
those 500 a still smaller group has
the ultimate decision-making pow-
er - this is clearly the highest
concentration of economic power
in history.
The basic fulcrum of this cor-
porate power is the investment
decision. which is effectively made
by a minute group of men (not
women) relative to the economy as
a whole. This decision includes
how much the corporations spend.
that they produce, where the pro-
ducts are to be manufactured, and
who is to participate in the pro-
cesses of production. In the na-
tional economy, the small oligar-
chy of corporate and financial rul-
ers, who are responsible to a small
minority, determine through their
investment outlays the level of

investments.

How do we vote?

output and employment for the
economy as a whole.
Short of revolution, no party
or government can step outside
the framework of the corporate
system and its politics and embark
on a course which consistently
threatens the power and privileges
of the giant corporations. Mean-
ingful anti-trust action will not
be taken to break up major cor-

principles that should guide us in
voting. At their March 1971 meet-
ing, the Regents recognized the
reality of South Africa and de-
plored "discriminatory racial prac-
tices wherever they exist." (We
at the University own stocks and
bonds in 56 companies who profit
off South Africa's racism. In
1969 the total market value of
these holdings was approximately
$41,600,000.) A second principle
is articulated in policy statement
No. 1 of the Elderfield Report:
"The University will not enter
into any contract supporting re-
search, the specific purpose of
which is to destroy human life or
to incapacitate human beings." If
this principle is of any philosophi-
cal substance, it applies to our
stock holdings as well as to our
research. (We own $28,857,958
worth of stocks and bonds in 32
corporations who were among the
top 100 prime contractors and
among the top 500 research and
development companies for the
Pentagon in fiscal year 1970.)
Previously we have always vot-
ed with management. Never once
have we deviated from this path.
Are the Regents, who have s o 1 e
control over our financial affairs,
unbiased in this disposition? Re-t
gents William Cudlip (D-Detroit)
and Lawrence Lindemer (R-Stock-
bridge), belong to law firms who
have as their major clients Amer-
ican business organizations w i t h
subsidiaries in South Africa -
such companies as Standard Oil,
Gulf Oil, Texaco, International
Harvester, Chrysler, Borden, a n d
Armour & Co. Regent Huebner is
married tow avice-president of
Chrysler, which owns Chrysler
South Africa (Pty.) Ltd. Voting
with management at r e c e n t
shareholders' meeting has meant
that we opposed Ralph Nader and
Campaign GM's reform proposals,
THE REGENTS argue that we
should invest only on the basis of
what brings in the most profit.
In other words, no matter the ef-
fect on the lives and livelihoods of
peoples thrbuhgout the world, U.
of M. should invest only with an
eye to what profits U. of M. the
most.
However, if the Regental princi-
ples regarding racism and war re-
search are to be observed, unre-
strained profit maximization can-
not be the sole criterion for in-
vestment. Other factors must be

for immediate action: 1.) vote.,
in support of the Presbyterian
Church's resolution at the April
27 annual meeting of Gulf Oil, and
2. vote in support of Campaign
GM's and the Episcopal Church's
proposals at the General Motors
annual meeting on May 21.
AFRICAN LIBERATION forces
have been fighting an estimated
150,000 Portuguese troops in the
Portuguese colonies of Angola,
Guinea, and Mozambique f o r
nearly ten years. Gulf Oil direct-
ly supports Portuguese colonial-
ism in African (and so do we by
owning 31,528 shares in Gulf).
Gulf holds a major oil concession
in Angola (Cabinda); it was se-
cured in 1965. Gulf's Cabinda con-
cession is known as one of Afri-
ca's richest oil-producing areas,
and Gulf's continued presence
there would insure continued fin-
ancial support to Portugal. Port-
ugal secured $11 million in taxes
and royalty payments (as well as
valuable fuel for her war machin-
ery) from Gulf's Cabinda conces-
sion in 1969. (The Diardo de Gov-
erno put Portugal's total military

itself to the shareholders; (3)
amend the bylaws to provide for
disclosure to the shareholders of
any corporate charitable contri-
butions; and (4) amend the cor-
porate purposes in the Articles of
Incorporation to provide against
any Gulf investment in areas un-
der colonial rule.
THE EPISCOPAL Church h a s
also raised the question of Amer-
ican corporate investment in Af-
rica. After extensive study, the
Church and GM's new black di-
rector, the Reverend Leon Sul-
livan, have both called on GM
to cease operations in S o u t h
Africa. (We own 28,813 shares of
GM stock - up 1,275 from last
year.) GM (South African) em-
ploys 5,500 workers; 3,500 of them
are Non-whites. The starting rate
for black Africans (and for "Col-
oureds") at the GM engine plant
is 52 cents an hour, or $83 a
month - $1 below the South Af-
rican Government's poverty datum
line for an African family of five.
A skilled artisan, always a White,
receives a minimum $2.10 an hour.
(Though certain jobs are reserv-
ed for Whites by law, GM is
free to pay equal wages for equal
work' - which it doesn't do.)
It; is in the interests of GM pro-
fits to maintain Apartheid and
consequently get cheap Non-white
labor. GM considers it appropriate
to be a subscribing member of the
South Africa Foundation which
propagandizes for the Apartheid
system on an international scale.
Perhaps the clearest expression of
GM's attitude toward non-whites
is R. J. Ironsides' (plant Man-
ager, General Motors Aloes En-
gine Plant outside Port Elizabeth
in an interview July 31, 1970) re-
mark: "I wouldn't say these
[black Africans] don't have a n y
reasoning I power. but what they
do have is very limited."
We, as part-owners of this rac-
ist operation, must clearly v o t e
our GM stock in accord with the
Episcopal Church and Rev. Sul-
livan. Failure to do so would be
nothing short of blanket endorse-
ment of continued exploitation of
"non-whites."
THE UNIVERSITY must t a k e
sides: there is no neutral posi-
tion. We either vote for manage-
ment or for the Episcopal a n.d
Presbyterian Churches. Unless we
at the University are goingto
struggle against Gulf (and o ur

4!
1*

VP Pierpont

corpations. The fact of power is
that this has not, cannot, and will
not be done because government
is weaker than the corporate in-
stitutions purportedly subordinate
to it. This is the politics of capi-
talism. How are we going to vote?
THERE IS precedent for those

Letters to The Daily

She is not
To The Daily:
AN ARTICLE (Daily, March 31)
headlined "Garris Supported by
Opposition Group" has caused real
confusion for those acquainted
with me. The spokeswomen for the
pro-Garris group is cited as one

so that my friends and students will
realize this case of mistaken iden-
tities.
-Mary Frank Fox, Grad.
ARM
To The Daily:
IT IS INTERESTING to see
(Daily, March 16) the American

Ralph Nader

budget for her war against the
Angolan people at $44 million in
1969; Gulf estimates $24 million.)
In an effort to protest Gulf Oil
Corporation's support of Portu-

I

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan