I
01rtgan
741al'tt4g,
Vol. LXXXI, No. 1
Ann Arbor, Michigan-Wednesday, September 2, 1970
Student Life Section-Eight Pages
STUDENT
LIFE
e making
By RICK PERLOFF
" Harvard erupted over ROTC. Berkeley exploded over a
park. And the University's first major confrontation of last
year was over a student-controlled discount bookstore.
The bookstore crisis marked the first time police were
called on campus by the University president to quell a cam-
pus disorder. Following a sit-in at the LSA Bldg. by some 700
students protesting a regental proposal for the bookstore
which called for administration control, 107 people were ar-
e rested.
And, eventually, the Regents gave the go-ahead for the
creation of a student-controlled University discount book-
store.
t k The issue germinated in the spring of 1969 when students
-; ? ~ approved, 3-1 a Student Government Council referendum
- which would have financed the bookstore through a one-time
-. $1.75 student fee assessment. Under the plan, additional funds
would come from the Student Vehicle Fund - money left
< over from a former student driving registration fee - and .
amounts raised by outside gifts. However, that July 18, this
plan was rejected 8-0 by the Regents.
Te Regents opposed the bookstore because they felt that
- the $1.75 fee assessment would be considered a tuition in-
.'r .. fcrease by the State Legislature. They reasoned that this
year's state appropriation would be cut on the assumption
Daiy-Eric Pergeaux that the University had raised more money in student fees.
The 'U's first major disruption of a Regents meeting There was also concern about the financial soundness of
having a student-dominated board of directors running the w
Sstore.
The Regents also deadlocked, 4-4, on an administration
{ f .proposal to finance the bookstore through outside gifts and
voluntary contributions. SGC leaders - who spearheaded the
drive for a bookstore - maintained that it was virtually im-
pos Able to raise the necessary funds for the store solely from
f outside contributions.
By September, SGC leaders, as well as members of an-
' other campus group, the Radical Caucus, had essentially
* f '0.Ar- ?:adopted the bookstore as the "issue" on which to concentrate
F s.2
on that term.
h The major point motivating the leaders in these groups
was the potential the "bookstore issue" had of mobilizing
students around the concept of student power. The bookstore,
under SGC's plan, would be controlled by a six-student, three-
faculty board.
SGC and Radical Caucus argued that a bookstore operat-
ing for students should be controlled by students. They also
believed that confronting the administration over the book-
store issue would increase student awareness of the concept
of student power - and perhaps the issue would act as a
springboard to give students control of other facets of their
. lives at the University, including curriculum policies, faculty d
tenure, and allocation of student funds.
Another aspect of the issue was a financial one, and al-
though it was of secondary concern to the radical leaders, it
ranked first among the more moderate students.
va.ru Many students wanted a student-bookstore because, they
-"~-~-~,. ~ _________ -argued; the private stores in- Ann Arbor charged excessively
high prices for books. A way to save themselves money would
4 V be to establish a University discount bookstore which would''
-Daily-Richard Lee qualify for a four per cent sales tax exemption to which all
Students picket Angell HaI1 over bookstore issue See STUDENT-RUN, Page 2
Discipline dispute approaches cimax LI
Of
a
books tore
LSA Bldg. sit-in over bookstore ends with 107 arrests
By ROBERT KRAFTOWITZ
Who should have the power to dis-
cipline students who violate University
,conduct regulations?.
J This question has, over the past several
years, been a focus of efforts by the stu-
dent body to increase its control over its
own affairs. And there are clear indica-
tions .that the discipline issue is rapidly
approaching 4 climax this fall, as the
University attempts to punish students
,ho disrupted classes during last spring's
class strike.
While the discipline dispute has tradi-
tionally been carried on by a small num-
ber of interested students, the fear of
"reprisals" against strike participants
has made it possible, for the first time, to
0bilize a large-and possibly militant
-group of students around the issue.
The controversy itself focuses on ef-
forts to end the faculty's power to make
and enforce regulations governipg a stu-
dent's conduct both inside and outside the
classroom. The ultimate goal is to secure
Or students the right to be tried by Uni-
versity courts composed solely of students,
under regulations approved by students.
But in the four years of meetings. argu-
ments and confrontations over the issue,
students have met with a strong unwil-
lingpess on the part of the administration
id faculty to transfer their rule-making
and disciplinary powers:
Although a University-wide court com-
posed of students exists-Central Student
meeting all summer in an effort to for-
mulate an adequate court system.
.But final authority in adopting a judi-
cial system rests with the Regents, who
remain opposed to delegating power to
enforce conduct regulations to all-stu-
dent courts.
Implicit in the Regents' position is a
concern, shared by the University ex-
ecutive officers, that all-student courts
will be too lenient on students charged
with disruption or acts of violence during
protests.I
They point, for example, to CSJ's han-
dling of a case stemming from the lock-in
of a recruiter for the Navy. The student
court acquitted three students, fined a
fourth $2 and fined Students for a Dem-
ocratic Society $25.
The resolution of the discipline issue-
if there is to be one-will come when the
Regents amend the Regents bylaws to
clearly define a University judicial sys-
tem.
There has been general agreement that
the ultimate court system will consist
of judiciaries in each of the schools and
colleges, as well as a University-wide
judiciary.
The latter body would handle violations
of University-wide rules-which apply to
all students, faculty members and admin-
istrators.
In a proposed draft of the Regents by-
laws defining the University's disciplinary
procedures, Student Government Council
and Senate Assembly (the faculty rep-
resentatiev body) have recommended that
CSJ be granted original jurisdiction over
violations of University-wide rules.
In addition, the bylaw draft proposed
that students accused of violating rules
in their school or college be given the
right to appeal their case to CSJ.
But the Regents have ignored both
proposals, choosing instead to form a
new committee to propose a judicial
system for the University.
In addition, for use until such a sys-
tem is approved, the Regents adopted
in April an interim disciplinary procedure
which has brought an angry reaction from
both, students and key faculty members,
who were not consulted before the action
was taken.
Under the interim procedure, a student
accused of violating a University-wide
rule would be tried by a "hearing officer"
appointed by President Fleming. The of-
ficer has the power to determine guilt,
and set penalties ranging from a warning
to expulsion.
In the past, protests related to the dis-
cipline issue had limited goals and were
rather shortlived.
When William Hays, former dean of
the literary college, suspended SDS mem-
ber Robert Parsons last March, about 300
people sat-in outside Hays' office. Hays
subsequently announced he would revoke
the suspensions and the temporary stu-
dent involvement in the discipline issue
ended.
But the start of the fall term brings
together several aspects of the discipline
issue which may serve to promote a more
long-term interest in the issue. The Com-
mittee on A Permanent University Judi-
ciary is expected to present its report to
the Regents, who presumably will decide
/
s