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