Str t Daitjy Vol. LXXXI, No. 1 Ann Arbor, Michigan-Wednesday, September 2, 1970 Ad ministration Section-Six Pages ADMINISTRATION 'U' priorities: Guns or butter? By MARTIN HIRSCHMAN Editor LAST SPRING, as thousands of University students and professors joined with the Black Action Movement to shut the University down in a strike for increased minority ad- missions, resolution of the conflict seemed to hinge on one factor-money. Until the day they announced that demands for 10 per cent black student enrollment by 1973 would be met, the Regents and administration remained on record with the position that adequate funds to finance such an admissions program simply were not available. Strike supporters had another idea. For the first time in University history, students and faculty members began tak- ing an interest in an area where only administrators had tred before-the annual University budget. And amid neatly printed columns of expenditures, they found millions of dollars that, for one reason or another, they felt should be sacrificed in favor of the increased finan- cial aids and supportiveservices necessary to make a massive minority admisions program successful. Armed with a list of about a dozen programs they felt should be eliminated im- mediately-including such diverse expenditures as a subsidy for the Reserve Officers Training Corps and maintenance costs of the University's golf course-strike supporters put forth a cry for a major re-ordering of University priorities. WHEN THE University capitulated to the black demands, however, there was no nention of cutting back these expenditures. Instead, the administration employed a new gimmick: The University's schools and colleges hastily com- mitted their resources to supporting 10 per cent black enroll- ment if funds could not be found outside the University. Thus, the move to overhaul University priorities-with the dramatic political implications involved-was sidetrack- ed. Even a future tightening of the budgets of the schools and colleges now seems unlikely: administrators have begun to hint that tuition increases might be used instead. Nonetheless, administrators have found that, once in- terest in University budgeting began to grow, it was difficult, if not impossible to divert. And this summer, bolstered by a growing interest in University governance and by the wide- spread suspicion that funds could be better spent, Student Government Council and Senate Assembly, the faculty rep- resentative body, began pressuring the administration for at least an advisory role in University budget-making. If President Robben Fleming does agree to create a proposed student - faculty - administration commission on budget priorities, a wide diversity of views is likely to be represented by members of the three constituencies. The radicals who would probably be named t'o represent left-wing SGC have called for sweeping changes in the very nature of the University, while administrators tend to simply reiterate reasons for present priorities. And, in general, faculty mem- bers fall somewhere in between. IN ITS PUBLICITY to those outside the campus commu- nity, the administration constantly emphasizes the "serv- ice" aspects of University operations-the body of educated people, research and technology it provides for industry and government. But this can be viewed two ways. Some radicals argue that many of the services the University provides simply aid the government or industry in perpetuating im- moral practices. As examples of such University activity, they point to research done for the Department of Defense and the use of University job recruiting facilities by corpora- tions which hold military contracts. At best, the University administration can argue either that it is only doing what most other schools are doing, or that it sees nothing wrong with supporting policies with which it is in fundamental agreement. President Fleming has publicly expressed opposition to the Vietnam war and the See 'U' BUDGET, Page 5 -Daily-Rchiard4 Lee Administration Bldg.: Where interests sometimes collide A restless University ton fron ts its presiden t President Robben Fleming: Maintaining stability? Studentpowsute focuses. on'Ubyaw By ROBERT KRAFTOWITZ Like many university presidents, Robben *right Fleming views himself as a caretaker. Entrusted by the Regents with maintaining the stability of the University, Fleming spends a large portion of his time trying to isolate the University from- the violent upheavels which have occurred on many of the major campuses around the couitry. And perhaps it is this goal which has, over the last 12 months, led him to take actions which have marred his widely-lauded Image as a tolerant and sensitive college administrator. For as the tenor of dissent at the University has become more militant and increasingly disrup- tive, Fleming's response has become more firm. For example, when a sit-in was held in the LSA Bldg. last September, the president called in local, county, and state police to end the protest-an action which was unprecedented in University history. Explaining that his purpose was to prevent "disruption. and violence" from replacing "ra- .'nal dialogue" as the prime mode of political action at the University, Fleming said, "It is my deep conviction that you can't run a campus society with people coercing each other." And since the LSA Bldg. sit-in, he has sum- moned police to the University on several other occasions, each time expressing regret, but re- 'erating his promise that interference with the functioning of the University nor acts of vio- lence will be tolerated. To many who have watched Robben Fleming since he became University president 31 months ago, his recent readiness to resort to police action represents a change from an earlier preference ' resolving confrontations by "talking things over." But observers close to the president feel that his attitude has not really changed-he is merely reacting to new and different situations at the University, situations in which he has not been tested prior to last fall. When Fleming succeeded President Harlan' Hatcher in January 1968, he had already spent four years as chancellor of the Madison campus of the University of Wisconsin. At 52, he had an And when confrontations did occur, Fleming was quick to bring the disputants together, dis- cuss at length the issues involved, and effect an agreement ending the dispute. But the apparent ease with which issues were resolved was due, in part, to the fact that the University had not yet begun to feel the frus- tration and dissension which were enveloping other institutions of higher education. For only in the last academic year has there emerged a readiness on the part of this student' body to militantly confront the faculty, the administration, and the Regents on its demands for equal voice in decision-making, an end to the University's ties with the military, and the power to govern itself. As president of the University, Robben Flem- ing eyed the approaching tempest last summer See AN UNSETTLED, Page 5 By ROBERT KRAFTOWITZ A small, green booklet, loosely bound so that it can be easily updated, contains the ultimate guidelines under which the University operates. And in its status as a pseudo-constitution for the University, the Regents bylaws have be- come a focal point of efforts by students and faculty members to reform and democratize the existing procedures for decision-making, rule- making, and discipline. But the goal in mind-convincing the Re'- gents to amend the bylaws to vastly increase the role of students in decision and rule-making -has been found to be as difficult to achieve as amendment of the federal Constitution. For as the dispute enters its fifth year this fall, students, faculty members, and the Regents still remain far apart in their conception of the degree and types of authority which should re-d side in the student body. Students, increasingly concerned about their lack of input into University decisions, base their efforts to amend the bylaws on the principle of "student control over student affairs." And this means granting- the student body the authority to make and enforce rules governing the conduct of students outside, the classroom, as well as to control University agencies which are concern- ed with the welfare of students, such as the Of- fice of Student Affairs. Faculty members vary widely on their views of the appropriate role of students in decision- making. While most agree that students should be consulted on virtually all decisions, a large number fear that delegation of actual rdecision- making power to students would limit the tra- ditional authority of the faculty in formulating rules and handling discipline within each school and college. And the Regents, meanwhile, stand firm in their view that to delegate to students the power to make and enforce rules, and to control the Office of Student Affairs, would be tantamount to "abdicating" their responsibility as governors of the University. But implicit in the Regents' position is a con- cern, shared by the University executive of- ficers, that students placed in powerful roles in the University's hierarchy would induce re- forms which the 'administrators adamantly op- pose. For these reasons, the Regents and the ex- ecutive officers-the seven vice presidents and President .Robben Fleming-have indicated they will approve proposed amendments to the Re- gents bylaws only if it is clear that the ultimate authority in rule-making, discipline, and deci- sions related to student services remains with the administration and faculty. As they stand now, the bylaws contain 15 chapters, most specifying delegations of author- ity by the Regents to the faculty and the ad- ministration. The delegation of authority to the student body, now virtually absent from the bylaws, would be contained in chapter seven, entitled "Student Services." But chapter seven is currently in flux, pending resolution of the __ _ _ _ ___ - - ; m:i;?::