i
I
Eighty-one years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
i
t
e
i
faculty eommClfenI~ 1
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.
'I
News Phone: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1972
Faculty, Regents clash
THE ANNUAL University budgetary
tug-of-war is underway once again,
but this time there is a preliminary bout.
Traditionally the battle is cast as the
"financially crippled" ; University versus
the miserly State Legislature. This year,
however ,the faculty has beaten the Leg-
islature to the punch.
Last Friday, the Regents, in a depar-
ture from the rubber stamp often ,given
administration recommendations, voted
to limit the request to the Legislature
for increased faculty salaries to 5.5 per
cent -down from a recommendation of
7.5 per cent.
Faculty reaction was swift and strong.
The Senate Assembly Committee on Uni-
versity Affairs (SACUA), the faculty's
generally c a u t io u s executive body,
Wednesday called the decision "unfor-
tunate and short - sighted" and said it
would lead to a decline in the quality of
the University's faculty. SACUA, which
had, in fact, hoped for an increase in
salaries of 10 per cent, was obviously dis-
pleased with the drastic cut.
T HOUGH THE Regents should be com-
mended for trying to "toe the line"
on the. budget, for attempting to present
the Legislature with a "realistic" request,
and for questioning the recommendation
of the executive officers, one must con-
clude that their decision in this case
was hasty. The board was attempting to
stay within the Phase II wage-guidelines.
Nevertheless, one must question whether
It was prudent to chop a few percentage
points off faculty salaries, when a com-
plete re-evaluation of the University
budget and its priorities is suggested in-
stead. Perhaps the board should look to
that inevitable process which faces the
University in a period of relative non-
growth - redistributing funds internally
and cutting programs no longer needed
to create new funds.
What the Regents may have inadvert-
ently done is open a new can of worms
for themselves in the form of faculty
unionization. The failure of the Univer-
sity to keep apace with faculty salary
increments across the country is very
likely to further stir faculty interest in
collective bargaining. And If the Regents
continue to lop off faculty raises as they
did last Friday, who can blame the aca-
demic staff?
WHAT IS needed immediately is for the
Regents to sit down with adminis-
trators and faculty leaders and, as SAC-
UA has suggested, chart 'a long-term
policy on salary increases. In this way,
the Regents could still make accommo-
dations to the Legislature, without ex-
cluding faculty members from decisions
affecting their lives.
-SARA FITZGERALD
Editor
"Never count your chickens before they're hatched!"
-f
Letters to The Daily
Ackley join's McGovern
THE APPOINTMENT of Prof. Gardner
Ackley as economic advisor to Sen.
George McGovern should be cause for
hope among liberal Democrats, embar-
rassed by their candidate's seeming in-
consistencies on welfare and related eco-
nomic issues.
His experience and competence as an
economist is unquestioned - during his
tenure on the Council of Economic Ad-
visors under Presidents Kennedy and
Johnson the country did prosper, and un-
employment was relatively low.
Apparently he then felt that the re-
sponsibilities of an economic advisor ex-
tend beyond merely informing the Presi-
dent of the economic consequences of a.
course of action. In a 1970 speech, "The
Rolesof the Economist as Policy Advisor",
Ackley stated zthat he had "no duty to
serve an administration whose policy pre-
dilections are sharply different from his
own and with whose line of policy he is
not in general agreement."
Unless we assume that the largest sin-
gle expenditure of the Johnson budget,
the Vietnam war. was never discussed, it
follows that Ackley was in 'general
agreement" with the expensive, ineffec-
To day's staff:
News: Chris Andrews, Pat Bauer, Marilyn
Riley, Charles Stein, Ted Stein
Editorial Page: Arthur Lerner
Photo technician: Tom Gottlieb
tive, and inhuman policy Johnson pur-
sued.
Three months after giving that speech,
Ackley addressed the LSA faculty on the
Black Action Movement (BAM) strike, a
non-violent boycott of classes over the
level of black enrollment at the Univer-
sity. His 'comments, though not con-
cerned with economics, are interesting.
"Our faculty seems to 'have taught one
lesson well this year - that violence and
disruption cannot or will not be punished
by the University, and that however ri-
diculous or miniscule an issue, it will win
in proportion to its supporters who dis-
rupt the life of the University."
THERE IS little doubt that Ackley's sta-
ture as an economist will benefit Mc-
Govern. His approval and possibly his de-
fense of McGovern's economic policies
would certainly make them more "re-
spectable."
But can the expert be separated from
the man? Ackley has stated, in the speech
previously mentioned, that an economic
advisor "has not only a right, but a duty
to express his preferences as well as his
predictions" on solutions to economic
problems.
To suggest that Ackley's personal feel-
ings will not influence the advice he gives
to McGovern evokes an expression popu-
lar during the Johnson administration:
the credibility gap.
-JIM O'BRIEN
Blatant misogynist
To The Daily:
WITH LORIN Labardee's editor-
ial on the Abortion Celebration, the
quality of journalism in The Daily
has reached its lowest ebb. Editor-
ials are not objective; no one ex-
pects them to be. But to assign the
task of covering a feminist event
to a blatant misogynist is a bit
too much for anyone to stomach.
Not only did Labardee completely
overlook the excellent presentations
by the Street Corner Society, My-
rna Lamb Players, and Jennifer,
he spent an entire paragraph dis-
cussing a person (Halpern) who
was never even scheduled to ap-
pear on the program. As always,
men view women solely as physical
objects, and Labardee did a fine
job of describing Steinem's ap-
pearance rather than the content
of her lecture. Labardee's editorial
was merely a "satiating climax"
to his own vindictiveness, and as
such exemplifies the worst in pro-
fessional journalism.
--Belita H. Cowan
Editor,
Her-self newspaper
Sept. 20
Soviet policy
To The Daily:
THE SOVIET UNION is increas-
ingly endangering the free flow of
scholarly information and com-
munication in its policies relating
to its scholars who have indicated
a desire to emigrate. Colleagues
have been dismissed from t h e i r
posts, their families have b ee n
harassed, and they have been de-
clared to be virtual hostages by
the demand that fees based on ed-
ucational attainment must be paid
if emigration is to be permitted.
Furthermore, the threat of abro-
gation of - degrees has been a n -
nounced, and in some documented
instances, authors of scientific
papers have had their names re-
moved from works which t h e y
have written. Attendance at in-
ternational scientific meetings held
in the Soviet Union has been pro-
hibited for these Soviet colleagues;
and exit permits have been denied
to researchers of international re-
putation to lecture or attend meet-
ings outside the Soviet Union.
We, the undersigned, feel it is
entirely appropriate for us to re-
gister our protest at this suppres-
sion of free scientific inquiry and
we call on fellow scholars every-
whereato join us in condemning
these actions by the Soviet govern-
ment. We call on scientific institu-
tions, government agencies, and in-
dividual scholars to announce their
opposition to these grave infrac-
tions of human rights.
Wefurther urge that in the cur-
rent negotiations of trade and sci-
entific exchange with the Soviet
Union, it should be made clear that
we are opposed to such agreements
unless the Soviet regime abrogates
its restrictive policies with re-
spect to its scholars.
-Philip Elving
Professor of Chemistry
-Zvi Gitelman
Professor of Political Science
-Otto Graf
Professor of Comparative
Literature
-Alexander Guiora
Professor of Psychology
-Samual Krimm
Professor of Physics
-Herbert Paper
Professor of Linguistics
-Alfred Sussman
Professor of Botany
Sept. 19
SGC politics
To The Daily:
ONE OF the most political, quar-
relsome issues before SGC at its
meeting last Tuesday was the ap-
pointment of three students to the
Health Service Long Range Plan-
ning Board. The conservative,
RAP members of Council spent a
great deal of time quarreling over
the political views of students nom-
inated for one of the least politi-
cal jobs on this campus.
They seized on the only "politi-
cal" question that they could -
voluntary versus compulsory par-
ticipation infuture campus health
services. They distorted the issue
of quality health care until it
screamed. They pounced on each
appointee in turn who showed the
least deviation from the desired
Pavlovian response that medical
services should only be voluntary.
The committee's job is primar-
ily investigative. No plan should be
ruled out until careful, extensive,
consideration has been given to
the complexity of the problem
and the myriad possible solutions.
Members should be thoughtful and
open.
If RAP thinks committee mem-
bers ought to have conservative
fiscal views, then the burden rests
with them to find such members.
They have been totally worthless
in representingstheir constituents
along these lines. They ought to do
more than lie back during each
week, and then, at 7:30 on Tues-
dav evening, rise up like ghouls
and go off to molest innocent souls.
Even on an issue on which they
campaigned, deferred tuition, they
have proven incapable' of finding
one person to present that view as
a member of the University Bud-
get and Planning Committees. Con-
servative and moderate students
on campus deserve far better rep-
resentation than they have re-
ceived, and I hone they get it by
replacing do-nothings and know-
nothings with competent repre-
sentation.
-David W. Smith
Student Government Council
Member-at-Large
September 20
Ani-abortion
To The Daily:
AN EMOTIONAL CAMPAIGN is
sweening this campus, proposing
that the abortion laws be reformed
and permit abortion up to the twen-
tieth week of pregnancy. This bill,
if passed would undermine man-
kind and place a value limit on
huzman life. It is proposed ob-
viously without consideration for
that human life existing within the
mother - not tissue or an organ
hut a unique life - a developing
human being.
The horrors Kathy Ricke re-
ferred to (Daily, Sept. 1) regard-
ing the mother and unwanted chil-
dren are indeed in need of help.
A solution is necessary but adding
another horror - killing an un-
born child is certainly not the ans-
wer.
A basic question that fails to be
resolved and is often avoided is:
At what time does life begin? The
pro-abortionists have set a twenty
week period but fail to define
what happens after twenty weeks
that makes the unborn child at this
stage more of a child tha one at
twelve weeks. Many doctors have
gone on record as stating that.
life- human development - be-
gins at conception, and that it is
only time and the various stages
of development that separates it
from other life.
It is for this life-the unborn-that
the Students in Defense of Life
stand for. It is the concept that all
human life is of intrinsic value.
Rather than permitting further de-
struction of life efforts should and
must be centered on positive solu-
tions and the preservation of all
forms of human life
-John Steele
Students in Defense of Life
Sept. 20
rU
Faculty collective
bargaining: No for now
By TERRENCE TICE
SHOULD THE University faculty enter collective bargaining? My an-
swer is a definite "no" for now - "maybe" for later depending on
whether the faculty and administration can sufficiently build on
strengths that already exist here. We could live with collective bar-
gaining but we should not have to.
Although collective bargaining is rapidly spreading in higher educa-
tion, its adoption among the majority of the larger universities is not
inevitable, not by far. Nor does the fact that it is doing some good
elsewhere imply that it would be desirable here. Universities are looking
for viable alternatives. I believe that the University of Michigan is in
an excellent position to provide one. We should proceed with our own
plan °whether or not the Michigan State Univ'ersity faculty votes in
collective bargaining in October.
I am writing this a week before Senate Assembly's vote scheduled
for Sept. 25 on new procedures for its Committee on the Economic
Status of the Faculty. Approval is expected. '(Only a few negative
votes were cast at the June meeting but the total number voting was
just short of a quorum. Although the proposal is somewhat different
from that included in the 162-page Faculty Rights and Responsibilities
report of Nov. 1971, it was almost unanimously approved by that com-
mittee, by the Academic Affairs Committee and by SACUA, having
been worked out jointly between these three groups.)
Resources for weighing the pros and cons of collective bargaining
are readily available. Copies of the two reports just mentioned can be
obtained from the SACUA office. The larger report is also on file,
with other related materials, in several campus libraries. In the
Spring, the UM-Wayne Institute for Continuing Legal Education also
published a relevant volume entitled Faculty Power: Collective Bar-
gaing on Campus. With this background in mind, I should like simply
to indicate a few considerations especially pertinent just now.
0 First, I conceive the University as a community, one composed
of greatly varied interests and memberships but holding the responsibil-
ity to set a commonly accepted range of goals. Any arrangement that is
made for deciding basic financial policy (budgeting and resource allo-
cation, long-range planning, and program review) should include means
for effective faculty participation, for a composing of unit needs, and
at some point for meaningful input from students and other members
of the community.
Institutions for solving problems, handling grievances, and utilizing
conflict should be made adequate to the changing needs. The capacity
to change curriculum - basically' a faculty responsibility - should be
prompted, not preempted by administrative provisions on these matters.
- The enormous investment of time and money required by collective
bargaining would necesarily be diverted from these other imperative
responsibilities. In the present budgetary situation, gains that would
justify such investment are hard to imagine unless faculty morale falls
extremely low.
0 Second, sufficient gains in average faculty compensation and in
achieving more equitable minimums or levels of faculty salary can be
made through a consultative process. This will strengthen the tradi-
tional bonds of collegiality, will diminish the counterproductive aspects
of adversary proceedings, and will cost less. It will improve capabilities
for institutional research related to faculty compensation' and will en-
hance efforts to broaden community participation in the decision-making
process. In time, the procedures used may provide a flexible model for
other institutions.
In brief, consultative procedures (as recommended in the proposal
now before Senate Assembly) would operate as follows. A faculty
committee would begin working with- the administration some fourteen
months or more before the start of each academic year and would
continue the consultations at each stage of the budgetary process.
Specific committee proposals to the administration would be met by
specific replies, with the ultimate aim of presenting joint recommenda-
tions to the Board of Regents.
The committee would obtain accurate data on long-range planning,
program needs, available funds, budgeting, and resource allocation. It
would also do its own continuing comparative studies on faculty salaries
and fringe benefits. It would further watch for inequities and propose
ways of assuring against these. The administration , would provide
separate and independent facilities for the committee; including a
director and staff. Senate Assembly would be kept informed and would
therefore be in a position to respond approximately to the administra-
tion, to redirect the committee, to bring the matter before the University
Senate, or to take any other relevant action. If necessary, the commit-
tee would be free to consult directly with the Regents. The committee
would be charged to exert both vigorous and well-formed efforts on
behalf of the faculty in the context of overall University needs.
0 Third, the relative economic status of University faculty has ser-
iously dropped over the past five years. It looks as though the trend will
continue in 1972-73. This damaging erosion must be remedied. Our ca-
pacity to compete on the market must also be maintained. I believe
these two aims can be reached over the long run only through collective
bargaining or a firmly organized consultive process. Otherwise, the
faculty voice is going to be too weak, both at home and in Lansing.
PUSHES TOWARD collective bargaining can be avoided, however,
only if faculty not favored by specialamarket circumstances are better
protected than at present, if faculty participation in decision-making is
advanced beyond the customarily weak advisory role, and if methods of
setting budgetary priorities are improved. Present trends seem to in-
dicate that the extraordinarily decentralized decision-making process
here will have to bend a little more toward cooperative efforts now or
it will be forced to buckle a lot under collective bargaining or legislative
and administrative fiat later on.
Prof. Tice teaches philosophy in the School of Education. He is vice
chairman of Senate Assembly's Faculty Rights and Responsibilities Con-
inittee. He has recently edited "Faculty Power: Collective Bargaining on
Campus."
Tax exempt privacy
and
discrimination
By CARL COHEN
MAY PRIVATE, non-profit organiza-
tions which discriminate on bases
of race, religion, sex, etc., be permit-
ted the use of public parks, streets, and
meeting halls? Ought they be allowed
to claim tax-exemption for their dues in-
come? Should gifts to such discrimina-
tory groups be tax-deductible for the
giver? I answer these questions par-
tially in what follows.
Yesterday, I dealt with the supervisory
rights of government over the member-
ship policies of private groups, flowing
from other varieties of support: (1) out-
right subsidies; (2) the provision of es-
sential services; (3) the granting of cor-
porate charters; and (4) the award of
liquor licenses. Today's batch present
thornier problems; more blurring at the
margins must be anticipated.
5. The use of the streets, public parks,
meeting halls, etc., must not be selec-
tively awarded to any persons or groups.
Conditions for their use may be formulat-
ed, of course, but they must be condi-
tions which bear only upon the forms of
use intended (noise level permitted,
whether the activity be suitable for the
facility, etc.) and upon the fair distribu-
apart.
SINCE THE use of public facilities,
on the same basis for all, is the essential
practical foundation of the right of free
association, it must not be withdrawn,
however much we may despise the views
of those assembled. Government ap-
proval of our objectives must not be
a condition of their effective joint pur-
suit, for the principles on which t h a t
approval is based, though honorable to-
day, may be despicable tomorrow. Real
freedom does not wax and wane with the
(alleged) morality of those exercising
that freedom, singly or collectively. I
conclude that the use of the parks, or
the rental of public halls, etc., ought
not be refused to organizations whose
membership policies are discriminatory,
even invidiously so. Such organizations
should be given no special support; but
men lose no rights to assemble because
we think them evil.
At any meeting to which the general
public is invited, however, (e.g., can-
didates' night at a public school, or a
lecture in a public park) admission may
not be exclusionary, whoever may be the
sponsor, or whatever the views espoused.
Public places and public facilities must
benefit of tax exemption of income are
importantly different in theory and re-
sult. Permitting any donor to deduct
from his income, for purposes of tax
computation, gifts made to a private
organization, is a deliberate instrument
of public policy. Certain kinds of gifts are
strongly encouraged thereby - either be-
cause the recipients are considered in-
trinsically worthy of support (e.g., the
Boy Scouts, the YMCA), or because those
organizations meet public needs that
would have to be shouldered by the com-
munity anyway, to the degree they are
not met privately (e.g., private schools,
religious charities, etc.).
Governments do not authorize the tax-
deductibility of contributions to any
cause an individual taxpayer happens to
think worthy; quite otherwise, contri-
butions are deductible only when made
to organizations of clearly identified
kinds, meeting carefully laid down re-
quirements, and only after being speci-
fically cleared for such deductibility. Tax
deductibility for gifts unavoidably in-
volves a government stamp of approval.
The dues income of non-profit associa-
tions - chess clubs, for example, or
country clubs - is exempt from taxation
collective pocket - but the same people
are wearing the pants.
TAX EXEMPTION ought not be with-
drawn, therefore, from private organiza-
tions that discriminate. That exemption
is granted to all private, non-profit
groups, without distinction, in recognition
of their right to band together without
penalty. If the government's approval
of membership policies were to be re-
quired as a further condition of such tax-
exemption, the universal right of free as-
sociation would be undermined.
Perhaps an even more serious con-
sequence, however, would be the constant
supervision of private activities, by gov-
ernment agents, that the need for official
approval will inevitably ordain. In a
time of growing government interfer-
ence, and surveillance, it is better by far
that some private organizations whose
practices we detest benefit from tax
exemption granted in blanket form to
all non-profit groups, than that bureau-
cratic snooping and collective supervision
be so encouraged.
The set of foregoing arguments is far
from complete, but they go to the sup-
port of a general principle too little ap-
preciated. Private organizations, if they
p1
Ugandan president:
Hitler's biggest fan
By LINDA ROSENTHAL
1 ' ENERAL IDI AMIN, president-
dictator of Uganda, seems ada-
mant in embroiling himself in
controversy after controversy. He
has been inoffice for little more
than a year and a half since
seizing control of the East Cen-
tral African country in a mili-
tary coup. Since that time, the
Ugandan populace has wallowed
in fear and apprehension of his
unpredictable and capricious na-
ture. Countless citizens are miss-
ing and believed dead.
have included:
-praising Hitler's genocide of
the Jewish people;
-requesting that Britons in U-
ganda be "marked and watched";
--lauding the Palestinian guer-
rillas' attack on the Israeli Olym-
pic team in Munich which led to
the deaths of eleven Israelis and
five guerrillas;
-requesting removal of the
Israelis from the United Nations;
and
-launching political and eco-
nomic threats against Asians
P nrtinn- to ctovi . .the n nnntr,,