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


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.

March 12, 1974 - Image 10

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1974-03-12

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


Tuesday, March 12, 1974








gi -_
3 <

"... a hard working, loyal, capable Democrat ..."
Coleman Young, Mayor of Detroit

". . capable and energetic . . . his ability to be effective is known."
Annetta Miller, Member, State Board of Education

".. .an active Democrat since 1962 ..."
Charles Deamud, Redford Township


If the University of Michigan is to retain the freedom and independence essential to quality education and academic
freedom, the Board of Regents must change.
In 1850 centralized political control of the University of Michigan was ended and replaced by an independent 8-member
governing board. Since then, the University of Michigan has grown substantially and times have changed. The University's
annual budget now exceeds that of 13 entire state governments; the population under its jurisdiction now exceeds that of all
but the largest cities in Michigan. Paradoxically, as the University has grown, the Board of Regents has progressively reduced
its degree of control to the point where the Board now-with a budget of over a quarter billion dollars and over 50,000 constituents
-meets no more frequently than such bodies as the Michigan State Cemetery Commission-a body that has only 5 employees, an
annual budget of only $74,000, and no living constituents.
1974 presents state universities with an unprecedented challenge to their continued independence. Well-meaning state offi-
cials in Lansing-rightfully appalled by the lack of rationality and professionalism in decision-making in higher education-have
concluded that continued independence of universities must go. Based on the record; they may be right. Those favoring independ,
ence for universities-as I do-can find little in the record of infrequently-meeting, passive, often uninformed, and always secre-
tive boards to justify this continued independence.
Fundamentally, the problem is that the Regents view themselves as members of a corporate board of directors rather than
as elected members of a policy-making unit of government.. This self-perception lies at the root of the Board's problems. Corpo-

rate boards-unlike most governing bodies-maintain only superficial contact with their companies; meet infrequently; defer
almost entirely to the executive management; severely restrict access to themselves; and operate with an ethic of secrecy which
few governmental operations can justify.
If the Board is to be revitalized and save its powers from extinction, the Board must abandon this corporate self-perception
and begin to view itself as a modern and open legislative body. The Board should model itself after the best of modern city councils,
county boards, and state legislative bodies, and begin to again its ample constitutional powers to perform its proper constitutional
functions. Only if the Board exercises its powers and exercises them in a wise manner will it preserve these powers for itself and
the University.
On the political side, the Board should no longer be viewed as a reward for party contributors. Candidates should be judged
on their qualifications, knowledgability, and their position on the issues. They should be held to the same positions on the issues
in every district and county-just as is required of other statewide candidates.
In offering this platform, the emphasis is properly on where U-M should be going-not on where we are-not on where we
have been. Needless to say, the overall rating of the University of Michigan is excellent. In focusing on where we should be going,
one seeks improvements. These areas of improvement seem inevitably to come back to the same fundamental defects in university
governing structure mentioned above: Too much secrecy; Too narrow a perspective on the board; Too much of the corporate board
viewpoint; and not enough good old-fashioned democracy.

The constitutional independence of the University-essential to maintaining academic freedom and educational quality-is not best preserved by
asserting it at the expense of human values, and dissipating it in losing attempts to install Nineteenth Century business theories.
In its relations with its faculty and staff employees, a public university should make itself the model of enlightened policies with respect to good
faith acceptance of unionization and collective bargaining, and concern for pay, fringe benefits, advancement, pension rights, safety, and welfare of
its employees. The University of Michigan-with% a majority of its employees not being paid enough to afford to live in Ann Arbor, and its basic
secretaries (C3 and C4) and other employees being paid below state civil service, Washtenaw County or EMU standards-has not attained this
A good example of the University's labor policies is its response to the information of the Michigan Interns-Residents Association in 1966. After
asserting its right to unilaterally determine pay and to refuse to bargain (saying its constitutional independence permitted it to ignore sate labor
law), the University embarked on a 7-year legal fight through the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (1970-71), the lower courts, and
eventually the state supreme court ( 1972-73). By an estimate of an attorney present, the University spent over $40,000 on just its last appeal (the
exact expenditure of public funds for this purpose is, of course, secret). In its unanimous decision, Justice John Swainson of the Supre Court said,
"The desires of the framers of the 1850 and subsequent constitutions to provide autonomy to the Board of Regents in the educational sphere
have been protected by our Court for over a century. This concern for the educational process to be controlled by the Regents does not and
cannot mean that they are exempt from all the laws of the state.
Citing a previous (1966) court of appeals decision, Swainson continued,
"The University of Michigan is an independent branch of government of the State of Michigan, but it is not an island.
"Within the confines of the operations and allocation of funds of he University, it is supreme. Without these confines, there is no reason to
allow the regents to use their independence to thwart the clearly established public policy of the people of Michigan." (Emphasis added).
The University's refusal to bargain this year with the newly-formed Graduate Employee Organization and Organization of Teaching Fellows is back-
ed up by a similar threat of another prolonged, expensive, publicly-financed, losing court fight trying to preserve the University's right to be
The source of these policies is not hard to find when one sees the Board itself dominated by lawyers and prestigous businessmen, University execu-
tives chosen by the Board sitting on the corporate boards of outside corporations, and the critical role of large financial contributions in selecting
Board members in the first place.
MONEY imposes a quota system that discriminates in favor of the children of the affluent in attending the University of Michigan. Any discussion
of minorities or a remedial quota systems must begin with a recognition of the crushing reality- of the present quota system.
A report released this year by the American Council on Education showed that, in the face of rising tuition and other economic factors, the per-
centage of blacks in the Fall 1973 student body dropped from 8.7% nationally to 7.8%-a decrease of 11%! This is the first time since the early
1960's that progress was not made towards the still-visionary goal of equal access to higher education for all.
The 1967 H.E.W. report on the University of Michigan found a preponderance of white male students coming from families with median income
approaching $30,000. Research reports this year indicate that, with the recent tuition increases, the University has become even more exclusive and
more out of touch with the broad base of citizens in Michigan.
I favor full implementation of the University's unfilled promises to offer its opportunities to a student body that includes minorities in a rea-
sonable relation to their presence in the state's population. In this connection, I reject Spiro Agnew's ridiculous warning that University of Mich-
igan degrees will become worthless if blacks are admitted to the University as being based on the invalid notion that blacks are unqualified.
Many of the comments in the next section apply to minorities as well as majorities that have traditionally been discriminated against . . .
The University's record in the area of discrimination against women is not good. The University's present response to the now-acknowledged prob-
lem is still worse. Instead of asking "How can we make the University a model for fair treatment of groups now discriminated against?", the ques-
tion always seems to be "How little can we do to make this public relations problem go away?" or "How can we make a little progress look like a
Two years ago I made the observation that "unfortunately, the University's idea of 'affirmative action' . . . is to create another commission to
further study this already over-studied issue and to appoint a 'compliance officer' (to) juggle statistics to produce paper compliance." The state-
ment is just as true today.
Since then, the University has submitted its much-touted plan for ending discrimination to the Nixon Administration in Washington, and last
year, HEW rejected the University's plan as "inadequate." When the Nixon Administration-hardly noted as the torchbearer of civil liberties-re-
jects a plan as being too conservative, what more need be said? Unlike President Nixon, I have no secret plan for ending discrimination; however,
I purpose the following specific suggestions:
(1) HIRING: The job categories now open to women are largely those sexist-defined roles which are regarded as women's "place"-secretaries,
clerk, typists. I favor ending active discrimination (e.g. asking women if their spouses are likely to change jobs and move away, asking women if
they are going to have babies, etc.). I also favor affirmative action to bring the University-into compliance with non-discrimination requirements.
(2) PAY: Equal pay for Equal Work must become the rule. At present, in one group of newly-hired academic employees, the average gap in pay
based on sex was $3,800 per year. This gap is actually widening. 0 U-M should emulate MSU and establish a back-pay fund. * The University must
raise its pay to secretaries to at least the standards of state civil service, Washtenaw County civil service, and Eastern Michigan University.
(3) ADVANCEMENT: The original "entry level" should not become a limiting factor in advancement. 0 Positions that have become psychological
limiting positions for women, such as AA (the University's equivalent of Master Sargeant) must be regarded merely as ordinary positions. * In-
ternal training programs must be made available at all levels-not merely for male middle executives seeking to rise further. 0 The University's
"time-off" policy for education is not uniform and actually works against making education available to persons in many positions.
(4) FRINGE BENEFITS: Retirement benefits are now such that women employees receive smaller benefits than men working the same number of
years and making the same contributions. Women should not be broken out as a separate group for these purposes, especially when, on the other
side of the coin, the women pay the same rate as men for university life insurance. 0 Many fringe benefits-such as periodic physicals, and un-
til recently, even major medical insurance-are tied to salary level, so that fringe benefit discrimination becomes piled upon salary discrimination.
(5) FACULTY EMPLOYEES: In addition to the above, women faculty employees are seen as unsuitable because they may have babies, and there-
fore might stop teaching, and therefore would lose touch with "the literature" in their field. In eradicating this absurd rationalization for past
discrimination, women can help eradicate the mindless "publish or perish" syndrome which stifles the faculty of both sexes. Teaching positions
should be available on a more flexible basis-part time, after interruptions, and without enforcing meaningless and outdated nepotism rules. 0 Al-
though some progress has been made in hiring, women faculty members, the trend towards hiring women only in the "non-tenured ladderr" must
be reversed. * I support Attorney General Frank Kelley's ruling last year that the salaries of employees of public institutions of higher education
are public records and must be disclosed.
(6) STUDENTS: I oppose admission quotas against women. 9 Schools which women have "traditionally" not entered require special efforts-Iuch
as was required in implementing the Black Action Program. 9 Counseling which "channels" women into sexist-defined roles must be modernized.
It is fashionable among administrators to refer to the University as having many constituencies which must be carefully balanced and harmonized
by University administrators. Up to a point, this is true. However, the University exists primarily to serve its students as the principle consumers in
the educational process, and ultimately by the people of the state. These are the primary constituencies of the University.
But far from even-handedly balancing interests, the University's priorities usually come down on the side of virtually every other interest group
except students and the people-the dominance of research over teaching; the University's solicitous concern for the economic well-being of local
merchants and landlords; the fitting of the curriculum to the available faculty, instead of the oher way around; the University's seeming role of
bailing out failing local businesses; and inlexible practices which, for the most trivial bureaucratic reasons, fail to accommodate fairly substantial
sudent needs. Jewish students who miss dormitory meals for religious reasons are required to pay for them because of "bookkeeping" difficulties
(even though in fact the University has elaborate controls to vary the number of meals each day). Students who want to use their own money to
set up a grocery co-operative are told the University cannot countenance c ompetition with free enterprise (while in fact the University engages in
millions of dollars per year of such competition in other areas). Similarly, the Student Book Store pays the campus area's prevailing rent for its
space so as not to subsidize student purchases, while the faculty-administrator restaurant upstairs pays a thirdthe prevailing area rent for better
The problem is one of a lack of representation. Whenever the Regents or other University bodies are about to take some action, virtually every
interest group involved, except students, is allowed to be present to express their viewpoint and advance their interests. The process of decision-
making must, therefore, be reoriented to include direct representation of the interests of he University's primary constituency.
I favor the position taken by the U.S. Senate in February 1972 by a bipartisan 66-28 vote to the effect that here should be least one voting student
representative on the governing board of every institution of higher education in America. Especially in view of the recent C.E.D. recommendations
that tuition at public colleges should be dractically increased, I also favor the proposal of the Michigan Higher Education Student Association that
the number of student representatives should parallel the student contribution to the university's finances.

What is the legal or moral authority by which the Regents have rendered inoperative the Michigan constitution's mandate for open meetings?
The 1963 constitution attempted to end secrecy on university governing boards. The language,.although quite clear, did not anticipate the need for
enforcement. For reasons of comfort, conveniece, and adherence to a bad tradition, virtually all the boards have ignored the constitution. The
methods used are many: Holding real decision-making meetings in secret; Holding window-dressing public hearings which ratify motions "by num-
ber only" from the "shadow meeting"; Holding telephone votes; Passing hotly debated motions in public without debate or by unanimous votes
which cover up the board's own divisions; Restricting access to necessary advance documents and agendas; and Bringing up subjects by surprise
so that no one, except the academic executives, can get to the board members before the actual decisions are made.
Secrecy in government is not only undemocratic, but it leads to poor policy decisions. Nowhere is this fact clearer than in infrequently-meeting
university governing boards. Secrecy does not augment the Regent's power by letting them, and them alone, make decisions. Rather, it is precisely
why the Board is so weak. By not opening themselves to diverse viewpoint s before decisions are made and by allowing the full-time academic execu-
tives to be their only source of information and to shape the issues, the Board has allowed actual decision-making authority to pass on to s
sprawling bureaucracy that is accountable to no one. If the universities lose their autonomy in this state, it will largely be the fault of the govern
ing boards, and the single most important cause will be board secrecy and the ineffectual governance that stems from secrecy.
The proposed creation of a separate university police force is, based on the information at the time of this writing, a bad idea whose time has
Since the specific details of this proposal are constantly being revised, let me make a few comments on 7 virtually uncorrectable flaws in this
(1) DEMOCRATIC CONTROL: Virtually everyone, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, agrees that the police should be under
local community control. The legal auhority to govern the University (and hence any university police force) rests with the Board of Regents-a
body whose 8 members are removed from the University community by geography, station in life, wealth, age, and overall viewpoint. Not one of
the Regents lives within the jurisdiction of the proposed university police or even comes in contact regularly with the people who live within that
jurisdiction. While students and staff of the university have an important influence in the political process that selects the Washtenaw County
Sheriff and he Ann Arbor City Council, they have very little direct input into the statewide process that selects Regents. And, of course, the police
themselves will not be residents of the community they will police. In short, this is the classic case of a police force operating entirely outside nor-
mal democratic controls.
(2) COST: The proposed new police force will soon find need for its own headquarters complex, its own radio transmitter a fleet of gas-guzzling
squad cars, data banks, helicopters(?), and other expensive hardware that will duplicate the capital investments already made by the city and
county. The initial cost estimates for this project-not low to begin with-do not include the logical investments that will be required once the
police force is established.
(3) CHAIN OF COMMAND: I do not think it wise to force academic executives into the role of making police decisions. Similarly, I do not think
it wise to force a professional policeperson (and keep in mind that is exactly what the University will want to call them!) into the role of re-
porting to academic executives. The entire chain of command has an air of unprofessionalism and unreality about it.
(4) THE ADVISORY BOARD: In recognition to the lack of proper democratic control and to mollify initial critics, an advisory board of students,
faculty, and staff has been proposed to convey community standards to the police chief. Like many similar University advisoryboards in the past,
this advisory board will function until the first time it disagrees with those retaining actual authority. Even if the board had any real authority,
it would be a rare professional police chief who would ever agree to rep ort to such a 3-headed troika.
(5) DOUBLE STANDARDS: It is important to insulate the University from the outside world to protect academic freedom and for certain other
reasons directly related to the purposes of the academic community. However, in most areas, I believe it best to keep the University within society.
A crime is a crime whether it is committed on campus or on Main Street, and there should be no double standards-in either direction.
(6) CRIMINAL ORDINANCES: The Regents are an independent branch of state government and theoretically have the power to enact criminal
ordinances above and beyond state law. This power has remained dormant in the past mainly because the Regents have had no police force to
enforce university-created ordinances. However, with a University police force, this power may come into use-with only bad results for the campus.
(7) THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM: This proposal, like so many schemes that sprout each year from the academic community, is a solution in
search of a problem. All the attention has focused on the mechanics of setting up the police force, and very little on the allege problem motivat-
ing the mechanical arrangements in the first place. No one has claimed that the local police are incapable of the expansion necessary to keep apace
with crime. No one claims that the Ann Arbor police has a record of wanton abuse of the campus (and if they did, would it be right to abandon
Ann Arbor's ghetto to them?). Most important, no one has explained why the 4 existing overlapping police jurisdictions (federal, state, county,
and city) need to be augmented by a 5th layer of police-or why this 5th layer is miraculously going to do any better than the first 4.
Last year the influential business-oriented Committee on Economic Development (C.E.D.) and the $6,000,000 Carnegie Commission study on Higher
Education both made a startling recommendation. They recommended that tuition at public institutions of higher education be drastically in-
creased-doubled or even tripled. This increase, it was argued, would make public colleges so expensive that private colleges would then be able
to better compete with public colleges in getting students-thus aiding the private colleges.
Aptly dubbed, "the $6,000,000 misunderstanding," the recommendation generated much debate (which, almost universally, reached the right con-
clusion) and some action-notably at U of M-(which, unfortunately, reached the wrong conclusion).
Whatever can be said for secrecy in government-and that is very little-there is nothing that can be said to-defend secrecy in setting tuition and
budgets at a public institution of higher education. There is no conceivable legitimate state Interest-not even "national securlty"-to justify his
secrecy. The handling and outcome of the July 1973 24% tuition increase is a case study showing everything that is wrong with the way the Board
of Regents secretly makes policy for the University of Michigan-the Board made the wrong decision, for the wrong reasons, in the wrong way. A
decision as ill-founded as the 24% tuition increase could only have been made by a secretly-meeting board lacking diverse viewpoints and con-
stituent input.
Based on the University President's and Regent's statements approvingly citing the recommendations for drastic tuition increases from groups
such as the C.E.D. (as well as warnings from the University President that tuition will soon go up even more), many people have concluded that
the Regents-acting in a vacuum of information-made a virtual stampede decision to follow the C.E.D. approach. If so, this would be a major shift
in policy and direction for a state university. This major shift will have been accomplished by surprise, without any public hearings, and without
any viewpoints or studies independent from those of University's own academic executives on the Board of Regents. Indeed, this decision will have
been based only on internally-generated "expert" projections which are already acknowledged to be basically inaccurate. This change will have been
accomplished in virtual total secrecy, with only the authority of a telephone vote which took place during the summer-with only a few weeks
notice to the students and families who had to pay the increase.
By the middle of October, the University acknowledged that the tuition increase was not necessary to balance the budget as claimed originally. It
was not "the only thing we could do," as was claimed in July. In fact, the 24% tuition increase generated a huge surplus. Although 6% of the 24%
increase was temporarily waived for the winter 1974 term, the new tuition policy still stands. And, since part of the increase was spent on one-
time items, the true magnitude of the increase is larger than realized. In effect, the University of Michigan has adopted an incorrect policy, in a
most undemocratic manner, and gotten away with it. The long-term effect of this new policy will be to make the University even more exclusive
than ever. And, anyone in.Lansing surveying this scenario will certainly conclude that there must De a fairer and more rational way to make state
policy in higher education.
Whatever happens to tuition, there is no excuse for the virtual unavailability of student loan money, loan guarantees, and deferred tuition plans,
nor is there any justification for the unrealistic, arbitrary $12.000 family income cut-off on such financial aid. Loaning money for education is one
of society's best investments, and borrowing money for education is one of the student's best investments. Certainly excessive proportions of stu-
dents' time spent in earning college money at sub-standard wages in labor-and-talent-glutted college towns is uneconomic to all except college-
town profiteers.
Loan guarantees and interest subsidies cost next to nothing in relation to the benefits obtained. Additional outright University loans would merely
require diverting a portion of the University's immense $200,000,000 investment portfolio (much of which is invested in distinctly anti-public-in-
terest operations anyway) and investing it in its own stwIents.
The University should aggressively explore deferred tuition plans that could build on one-time initial cash-flow aid from the State. Over the long
term, the University should explore income-connected repayment of de ferred tuition in an attempt to restore the assured growth features of the
Mill Tax Act of 1867-the source of the University's original "Golden Age."
Public confidence in government cannot, will not, and should not be restored until the reasons for the public's present well-placed distrust of
government are eliminated: Excessive and Self-Serving Secrecy-Intellectually Dishonest elected and appointed officials-Use of Government for
private gain-Conflicts of Interest-and Purchase of public office by grou ps seeking particular policy decisions from government.
All candidates for public office should give a full and timely disclosure of their campaign finances (source and use of funds) and their personal
finances (income-listed in detail by specific source or client; assets; investments-particularly property), and any involvement with groups seek-
ing special policy decisions from the governmental unit involved. The public should require this above and beyond the loop-hole-ridden require-
ments of present law. All candidates should release their tax returns.
I will issue such statements as the year progresses, but suffice to say now that I have no income from any source even remotely associated with
the University of Michigan; no financial involvement of any kind with the University; no investments or property close to the University or its
operations in any way; and no involvement with schemes whose furtherance requires University financial decisions.




* BA, University of Michigan, Communications Science (Minor: American History)
* MA, University of Michigan, Mathematics
* MS, University of Michigan, Computer Science
* PhD, 1972, University of Michigan, Computer Science. Thesis Subject: "On Induc-
ing a Non-Trivial, Hierarchial, Parsimonious Grammar for a Given Sample of
* Recipient of Horace H. Rackham Undergraduate Scholarship, Detroit News- Metro-
politan Detroit Science Fair Scholarship, NASA Traineeship, GE Foundation
Fellowship, Regents-Alumni Scholarship, Branstrom Prize.

i 555 East William, Apt. 261
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108
Q I am interested in helping in the campaign. ;
[~Q Here's my contribution of $ (A copy of CONSENSUS, John
Koza's game of electroral strategy, will be sent with contributions of
$lOor more).
Q I am interested in becoming a voting delegate at the Democratic State i
Convention, August 25-26, in Grand Rapids. I am registered to vote in '
Q You may include my name on a published list of supporters.
r ,
N CITY ZIP_ _ _ _ _ I
*PHONE mmm mmmm mm mmmi mm mmmmmmwwwwwrwrrwwwwwwwawwrr
Pm H m N Fm m m mm - m mm- m.- m mm mm mimmmm mm

* State Central Alternate, 1967-1968, Old 19th District
* 1964 Campaign Manager for State Representative John Bennett (D-Medford
Township) for August primary.
* Campaign Manager for Redford Township Democratic State in November, 1966
and 1968
* Elected Redford Township-wide Democratic Party Committeeman in August
primaries in 1964 and 1966.
* Elected Precinct delegate 1966, 1968, Precinct 20, Redford Township
* Attended all but one state convention since February 1963
* Co-Chairperson, Michigan Citizens for Presidential Primary 1969
* Executive Boards of old 19th District, Wayne-19th District, Democratic Boosters
Club of Redford Township
* Member, Local, District (old 19th, pre-1964 17th, and 2nd) Democratic clubs
since 1962


* Currently as President of Scientific Games Development Corporation, a
computer consulting company
* Computer Consultant, 1968-present, to companies in Chicago, Toronto, London,
Brussels, and Holly, Michigan
* Teaching Fellow in Mathematics and Computer Programming, University of
Michigan, 3 years
* Research Assistant, Computing Center, University of Michigan, 4 years
* Computer Programmer, Operations Research Department, Ford Motor Company,
Summers of 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, and 1964.

0 Alumni Association of University of Michigan
0 Association for Computing Machinery, 1959 to present
" ACLU, 1961 to present
* Common Cause
* National Committee lr an Effective Congress


Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan