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,,