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.

April 08, 1973 - Image 8

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1973-04-08

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


Page Eight.


Sunday, April 8, 1973

The Deadline for.
Submitting New Work
SUNDAY, APRIL 15 by 5 P.M.
GALLERY HOURS: Wed.-Sun., 12-5 p m.
Friday Eve., 7-10 p.m.
SThe Union Gallery.
The April B.F.A. Show
A display and sale of work done by gradu-
ating seniors from the School of Architec-
ture & Design.
Friday evening, April 6, 7-10 pnm.
Wednesday through Sunday 12-5 p.m.
Friday evening 7-10 p.m.
. cI

Editor's note: Since Margaret Bell
Pool was built over 20 years ago, no
new covered IM facilities have been
built" at the University. This article
examines recent attempts to create
new facilities needed by students,
women's teams and sports clubs, Mr.
Kirk is a former Daily Associate
Sports Editor, and is currently an
education student and Janitor.
The infamous legacy of the Ad-
visory Committee on Recreation,
Intramurals and Club Sports
soon may end if the Regents ap-
prove the Executive Officers'
plan for improvement and ex-
pansion of intramural facilities.
The plan calls for the con-
struction of two new IM build-
ings - a large facility on Cen-
tral Campus adjacent to Mar-
garet Bell Pool and a smaller
facility on North Campus, pro-
bably on Murfin Field. They
will be financed by a seven to
ten dollar tuition increase.
This goes beyond the Regents-
earlier proposal, which called
only for a building on North
Campus. The Regents also have
approved in principle an Athletic
Department proposal to renovate
the Coliseum for intramural use,
move the ice rink from the Coli-
seum to Yost Fieldhouse, and
construct a track-tennis facility
to replace the Yost track.
ACRICS has been huffing and
puffing with various ideas for
funding and building intramural
facilities for over four years, yet
none of their proposals has come
close to Regental approval.
The Executive Officers' deci-
sion to bypass ACRICS and
submit a proposal directly to the
Regents is indicative of ACRICS'
inability to attain any sense of
unity or purpose.
ACRICS' original proposal -
North and Central Campus
buildings to be funded by a tui-
tion hike of $10-15 per term -
was made public in the winter
of 1969. ACRICS naively sup-
posed that students would gladly
pay for the buildings, and the
committee was totally unprepar-
ed for the overwhelming opposi-
tion that arose from student
groups on campus.
Students rejected not so much
the proposal as the fact that
there was no provision made for
a binding student referendum.
ACRICS chairperson and Ath-
letic Director Don Canham,
while never actually opposing
the idea of a referendum, strong-
ly urged the committee not to
deal with the issue of funding
in the formulation of a proposal
for presentationl to the Regents.

u ture

cloud filled

Sports of The. Daily

Canham's stance was a sharp
reversal from earlier ACRICS'
statements regarding funding.
When the proposal was first
made public, ACRICS had stat-
ed that student fees were the
only way of financing the build-
ing. University vice-President
Allan Smith flatly told the com-
mittee that without a funding
recommendation, they would re-
ceive a "thank you" from the
Regents and "nothing would be
When released, the commit-
tee's final proposal turned out to
be no proposal at all. In what
one disgruntled committee mem-
ber called "passing the buck to
the Regents," ACRICS said in
effect that new IM facilities
were needed but made no men-
tion of funding.
The Regents rejected the pro-
posal, claiming that without
clear methods of funding they
could take no action. This Catch-
22, not totally unanticipated by
dissident ACRICS members, al-
lowedthe original proposal a
swift and painless death.
The sometimes bumbling in-
eptitude of ACRICS in its han-
dling of the original IM pro-
posal can be in part attributed
to the committee's unrepresen-
tative membership. Only two of
the 13 members with votes were
elected by students, while four
of the committee's members
worked in the Athletic, Intra-
mural or Phys Ed Departments.
The fact remains, however,
that there will be no construc-
tion of IM facilities in the near
future without student fees. The
problem will be further com-
pounded when the dilapidated
Waterman and Barbour gym-
nasia are razed.
ACRICS has had all this in-
formation for four years, and
its failure to come up with a
proposal that includes provi-
sions for funding doubtless in-
fluenced the Executive Offic-
ers to take the initiative.
Regrettably, their intervention
is no improvement. The propos-
ed seven to ten dollar tuition
hike is too high to be justified
until all possibilities are consid-
ered by ACRICS.

Athletic Department propa-
ganda stresses the concept of
"Athletics for All." The most
obvious method of financing stu-
dent recreation needs is with
Athletic Department monies.
Regents Bylaw 12.210 states
that "any surplus funds from in-
tercollegiate operations should
be devoted . . . to permanent
university improvements, partic-
ularly to the upbuilding of fa-
cilities for participation in all
forms of physical exercise."
The Special Faculty Com-
mittee on the Sports Service
Building addressed itself to the
question of expanding IM facili-
ties. The committee's May, 1971
report notes that ". . . there
must be a substantial injection
of funds generated by the in-
tercollegiate athletic program,
particularly football."
Such contributions from the
Athletic Department would be
a radical and welcome change.
The Sports Service Building
Committee found that ". . . the
Board's (Board in Control of In-
tercollegiate Athletics) net con-
tribution to the support of intra-
mural and physical education
programs in the Fiscal Year
1970 was on the order of $30,-
000." less than a dollar per stu-
This contrasts sharply with the
amount snent for varsity ath-
letics. 1970-71 university audits
reveal that varsity sports (ex-
centinq football) lost over $360,-
000. When the cost of grants-in-
aid (scholarships) is added in,
sports other than football cost
at lest $700,000 per year.
Athletic Department revenues
come nrimarily from ticket
sales, gifts ($254,127 in 1971-72),
and General Fund monies (over
$525,000 per year).
The benefits derived by stu-
dents from General Fund con-
tributions are few. Students pay
five dollars towards the debt
incurred in the construction of
Crisler Arena. An additional
$150,000 is earmarked for "Stu-
dent Intramural Facilities" but
is listed in the Intercollegiate

Athletic Budget as "University
Maintenance Funds." $75,000 of
this sum is allocated by the Ath-
letic Department to help cover
maintenance costs at Crisler
Student members of ACRICS
will propose the committee en-
dorse all the facilities, including
a new intramural building on the
North Campus site originally
endorsed by the Regents.
They will further propose that
this facility be financed by a
modest student fee not to ex-
ceed four dollars per term per
student, that the facility enclose
at least 65,000 square feet, and
that ACRICS determine its con-
To meet future recreation
needs, the student members of
ACRICS will also propose that
the university allocate $170,000
per year, that faculty and staff
pay a 30 dollar per year user
charge, apd that a 25-cent tax
be imposed on each paid admis-
sion to intercollegiate athletic
events. Part of the money thus
generated can be expected to be
used in a fund for a new build-
ing on Central Campus.
This plan is highly commend-
able in that it minimizes the
burden placed on students and
spreads the funding out. More-
over, it may be the only alter-
native to Regental approval of a
proposal such as the one drafted
by the Executive Officers.



Dilapidated Waterman


April 10
Counseling Offices
Students Lounge
(Outside Counseling Offices
Angell Hall)

Ruggers ravish Detroit
By CHUCK DRUKIS played with the finesse not seen ling, poor passing, and numerous
It wais a long time coming, but at Michigan since last year's Terry mental errors.
the Michigan Rugby Football Club Larrimer squad. The performances The Blue gained the advantage
finally played the type of rugby of Mike Markman and Rob Hui- when scrum half Child fielded a
they are capable of as they destroy- zenga within the context of a team long throw-in during a Michigan
ed the Detroit Cobras 15-9 and 22- effort were most pleasing. Mark- lineout and dodged through the sur-
0 on Palmer Field yesterday after- man, playing his first "A" side *ined Co ta b rorahyThe
noon. game, scored two trys while Hui- prise backs for a try.
The Blue had played without in- zenga finally blossomed into arug- conversionotaoled e
spiration in close losses to Pitts- ger.Detroit, not to be denied, recap-
burgh and Chicago during the be- Commented co-captain C 1 e- tured the advantage when Michigan
ginning of the season, and contin- land Child," Huizenga played the failed to cover the field on a pen-
ued through the first half of the best game I've ever seen him alty and penetrated the Blue goal
Motor City match, but the second play. He passed well, tackled via an unmarked man. The success-
half was a sight to behold. The hard, and held the ball 10 n g ful conversion resulted in a two
forwards began to assert themselv- enough after a tackle to allow point deficit for the Blue.
es in the scrums and the rucks, the forwards to get to the ruck." Working their way back d o w n
and the backs handled the ball like The uneventful first half consist- field on a series of kicks for touch,
they knew what they were doing. ed of a penalty try by each team Michigan regained the lead. The
The entire Michigan backfield sandwiched in with sloppy tack- fine passing of Child, Hank Luka-
- --ski, Walt Holloway to Markman re-
sulted in a try just inside the out-
of-bounds marker.
"4 A'.:. ~Peter Hooper set up the fi na l
Blue score as he placed a kick
in the corner of the Cobra goal
:>:,...Play ball !
The Michigan baseball team will.
entertain Eastern Michigan Univer-
sity today in a doubleheader' at
Fisher Stadium beginning at 1 p.m.
'Thewolverines will likely throw
Craig Forhan and Tom Joyce at the
Hurons, whose season record is 9-3.
Michigan is currently 3-7.




8-10 p.m.
West Conference
Room, 4th Floor

'_ - - ,

10 am--4 p
6:30 pm--8:30
. 44..

_ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . n _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _4_. _ _ _ . _ .

and Markman outraced the full-
back to the ball.
The Gold, looking more im-
pressive than the Blue, mortar-
ed the Motor City "B" squad
with three trys, two conversions,
and two penalty goals while de-
fensing the opposition inside their
own side most of the game.
Dave Cyrus, playing his first
game for Michigan after two years
of action with a United States naval
squadron stationed in London, Eng-
land, opened the scoring with a try
during a back movement. Bill Os-
born converted.
Osborn added two penalty goals to
thrust the Blue to a 12-0 halftime
Tom Giordano and Osborn added
second half trys with one 'con-
version to complete the Michigan


RUGGERS MIKE MARKMAN and Rob Huizenga make the tackle on Detroit's outside center Bob Jor-
dan in rugby action on Palmer Field yesterday afternoon. Michigan went on to win the match 15-9 in
preparation for the Big Ten Tourniment in East Lansing next week.


20 Maynard
)m Monday night







i .'

The College, like all communities, functions best when its members
treat one another with honesty, fairness, respect and trust. There-
fore, an individual should realize that deception for the purpose
of individual gain is an offense against the members of the com-
munity. Such dishonesty includes:
Submitting a; piece of work (for example an essay,
research paper, assignment, laboratory report) which
in part or in whole is not entirely the student's work
without attributing those same portions to their cor-
rect source.
Using unauthorized notes, or study aids, or informa-
tion from another student or student's paper on an
examination; altering a graded work after it has been
returned, then submitting the work for re-grading;
and allowing another person to do one's work and to
submit the work under one's own name.

Providing material or information to another person
with knowledge that these materials or information
will be used improperly.
Altering documents affecting academic records; forg-
ing signature of authorization or falsifying information
on an official academic document, election form, grade
report, letter of permission, petition, or any document
designed to meet or exempt a student from an estab-
lished College or University academic regulation.
Whena complainant believes that academic dishonesty may have
taken place, he or she may present the evidence to the Academic
Judiciary, The Judiciary must determine:
(1) Whether the evidence is admissable; in the event it is not
the case shall be dismissed; if the evidence is admissable, the
Judiciary must determine:




Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan