100%

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

Share

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.

February 04, 1977 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1977-02-04

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


Eighty-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Ml 48109

Cater.ons FDR man tie

By STU McCONNELL

Friday, February 4, 1977

News Phone: 764-0552

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

d

Sfinaglers win With balk,
employes lose persistently

APPARENTLY it is necessary to point
out a few realities of calendar
life to all the participants in the
interminable GEO-University-Michi-
gari Employment relations Commis-
sions (MERC) negotiations.
The erstwhile, hard-won GEO con-
tract lapsed last September. The con-
tract which is currently being nego-
tiated runs out at some indetermin-
ate point next October. This is the
end, of the first week in February.
The next negotiating session may be
postponed until March. This all adds
up to a whole lot of talk and very
little action.
The University's team of finag-
ling lawyers is probably delighted.
The taxpayers of the state of Michi-
gan (and everyone else who coughs
up money for the General Fund -
notably students) are paying the Fi-
naglers very handsome salaries while
the Finaglers stall around. In effect,
they earn their paychecks by prevent-
ing negotiated solutions, especially
solutions which add members to the
bargaining unit. The Finaglers aren't
unhappy.
AS LONG AS EXPENSE accounts
exist, state bureaucrats are hap-
py with processes which grind slow,
fine or coarse being no object. In
the timeless euphoria of waiting out
civil service pensions, postponements
and further consideration are mere-
ly diversions to while away the time.
This is not to say that the MERC
representative will not hand down a
fair ruling, if the negotiations ever

get that far: MERC is noted for fair-
ness, but not for speed.
The people who feel the passing
days breathing down their necks are
the people who have to work, with
or without a contract. The GEO ne-
gotiators should, understand that, and
plan their administrative tasks ac-
cordingly - for instance, they need
-to deliver new proposals substantial-
ly in advance of negotiating sessions,
rather than immediately before them.
We concur with the proposal to
include all graduate employes in the
bargaining unit. We suggest that the
entire unit press for one of the fol-
lowing options, or for some other
proposal which would accomplish the
same ends.
* The basic contract period should
be extended to at least two years.
Graduate assistants have more im-
portant things to do than spend
weeks bargaining, or, worse, pan-
handling on the Diag.
*.A renewable contract should bel
established, with negotiating sessions
established to cope with recurrng is-
sues, like raises, cost-of-living indices,
and fringes. The MERC could reason-
ably play a role in setting up this
kind of contract.
, 0 Grad assistants who are not pre-
sently covered should persistently
stand up and demand a MERC .elec-
tion which adds them to the bar-
gaining group. The people who are
presently donating their labor to the
cause could use several helping hands
for the people GEO is trying to pro-
tect.

r
r
wurr.
N
1
L4 7
R
Apr-
1. r
a
11A

TAMES EARL CARTER is not
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
He has held "fireside 'chats'
with the people, played FD.R's
old campaign song, "Happy
Days are Here Again," at his
inauguration, and compared the
country's present task to that
facing it in "that time of na-
tional crisis" - the Second
World War.
But wishing will not always
make a thing so. The smiling,
maverick governor from out of
the New South has so far fail-
ed to capture the public imag-
ination the way the laughing
Hyde Park gentleman did forty-
five years ago.
OBVIOUSLY, the political sit-
uation has changed a great deal
since 1932. The country has
,weathered a depression and a
major was and has become
much more of a national unit
than the collection of isolated
communities that existed when
FDR first sought office.
In 1932 the radio was the sin-
gle, weak link to the nation for
many families; in 1977 we are
bound to the national govern-
ment not only through mass me-
dia, but through revenue-shar-
ing, welfare programs, social
security checks, trade restric-
tions, and a host of acronymed
federal agencies. We expect the
government to solve our prob-
lems now, perhaps because we
are more cynical about the abil-
ities of businessmen or private
citizens to do so. In short, the
climate is simply not right for
A~ charismatic leader like FDR
to sweep into office on the hopes
and dreams of the people.
Why, then, does Carter insist
on comparing himself with his
illustrious predecessor? Part of
it is party identification, the
same impulse which leads Dem-
ocrats to put FDR's picture on
their masthead on the Novem-
ber ballot. And there are some
real similarities in programs-
Carter's campaign promise of
a national health insurance pro-
gram is essentially New Deal-
style legislation.
CARTER IS ALSO not the first
to try using a famous predeces-
sor as a touchstone. Richard
Nixon was fond of comparing
himself to Abraham Lincoln,
and almost every President
since Roosevelt has tried to
pass off the first three months
of hisadministration as "an-
other Hundred Days." -

'4
a

R%
,R

Fire station plan: Right!

ing to capture is that of tIe
Roosevelt public image. Roose-
velt's four decisive election vic-
tories - one of them, in 1936,
an unprecedented landslide -
were the result not so much of
program but of sheer force of
personality.
People loved Roosevelt. He
was an experimenter for the
peoplehespokeint plainan-
guage, he went to extraordinary
lengths to acknowledge small
favors. Roosevelt liked to think
of himself as a populist - when
Congressmen turned against
him he was fond of saying "Yes,
but the people are with us."
ROOSEVELT could get away
with such grandoise pronounce-
ments because the people really
were with him. Carter, on the
oter hand, squeaked to a four-
percentage-point victory over
an opponent with all the char-
isma of Piltdown Man, in an
election marked by general list-
lessness and an absence of a
najor dividing issue.
Possibly because of the ab-
sence of any burning national
question, much was made in the
1976 campaign of Carter's al-
leged "charisma." Political pun-
dits were stumped about why
anyone would vote for Carter,
and were content to pass it off
as "appeal to the voters" - his
picturesque family, his touseled
hair, and always his teeth.
Unfortunately the fact, as
demonstrated by Carter's "fire-
side chat "Wednesday night, is
that the President 4 really has
very little personal charm."I
understand that unemployment
and inflation are of concern to
every American family," Carter
said, emphazing the word "un-
derstand" and making a force-
ful gesture with his hand.
BUT AS HE DID so, there was
a conscious awareness - both
on his part and that of his audi-
ence - that the emphasis and
the gesture were both planned
parts of a planned speech. And
always there was that smile.
"Hey," a friend who watched
the speech with me said over
and over,, "he looks ike he's
going to break out laughing."
"Competent and compassion-
ate"; "putting the regulations
in plain English"; "live thriftily
and remember our neighbors."
Thewords were all there, but
as Carter recited them there
was the self-consciousness, the
awareness of his "image," the
constant presence of the prob-
ing television eye. Roosevelt got
an image because of the way
he spoke; Carter speaks because
he wishes to foster an image.
Roosevelt, of course, was fam-
ous for grandstand publicity
plays and dramatic announce-
ments, but some of the man
usually managed to show
through the teeth. Roosevelt
genuinely sympathized with
common people; Carter has de-
cided that it is best for his
image to sympathize with "ev-
ery American family." Perhaps
both Presidents simply wsh to
cadge votes, but in 1932 voters
did not take the idea into con-
sideration - they either believ-
ed, or they didn't.
BESIDES THE MODERN con-
sciousness of a President's "im-
age," Carter races several other
handicaps in h4s "fireside chats"
-- a term, incidentally, which
FDR disliked and Carter's ad-
visors are searching for an al-
ternative to - which Roosevelt
never encountered.
FDR was an urbane New
Yorker; Carter is a deep south-

erner. 'There is a prejudice in
Northern press against southern-
ers, unless they present them-
selves as "down-home ,flks."
This Carter as generally re-
fused to do, but it has not stop-
ped the national press from sat-
urating the voters with endless
anecdotes about Miss Lillian,
Brother Billy, and Plains, Geor-
gia.
FDR spoke ovei- radio; Carter
speaks over television. The very
fact that people could not see
Rosevelt made his bold words
sound bolder, and avoided some
of the stiff gestures -and ludi-
crous camera angles/ of Car-
ter's Wednesday "chat."
FINALLY, FDR spoke at a
time of national crisis. Bold
steps were necessary, and peo-
ple sometimes needed the per-
sonal reassurance of the Presi-
dent amid the radical changes
brought on by depression and
war.
It is unfair to expect Jimmy
Carter to match the achieve-
nments of Franklin Roosevelt -
not every age demands a dy-
namic leader. But one is left
to wonder what has. led Carter
.to seize on Roosevelt's image
as a vehicle for his own pro-
grams.
Is there no Jimmy Carter'be-

T IS RARE indeed when a govern-
mental agency can do one good
deed for a city like ours. But when
it does four, in one day no less, well
that simply boggles the mind.
But that's just what the Federal
Economic Developmient M Administra-
tion did Wednesday. In giving Ann.
Arbor the money - $2 million - to
construct a new firehouse the ag-
ency is helping the city replace its
nearly obsolete equipment and clear-
ly inadequate facilities at the main
station. Second, the historic 100-year-
old firehouse will be preserved, city
officials have vowed. The construction
will create some 230 jobs, a blessing
to the thousands. in the area who
are presently out of work. And last,
but possibly best, the $2 million from
the federal government covers all the
construction costs. In other words, it
Won't cost Ann Arbor residents one
pen1ny.
It is refreshing, for once, to see
TODAY'S STAFF
News: Phil Bokovoy, Joan Chortler,
Ken Chotner, Eilene Daley, Loni
Jordon, Greg Krupa, Jay Levin, Ann
Marie Lipinski, Jim Tobin.
Editorial: Marnie Heyn, Ken Parscig-
ian
Arts: Susan Barry, Mike Jones, L o i s
Josimovich
Photo: Andy Freeberg
l

our federal tax dollars come back to
the community in the form of jobs,
and better fire protection. Perhaps if
more federal funds were spent in this
manner in more communities across
the country our 7 per cent national
unemployment rate would come down
to a manageable number. And per-
haps fewer people would die because
of inadequate fire protection, and
maybe we would have more- antique
buildings around instead of high-rise
parking structures.
Last, we hope the University ad-
ministration will note the city's con-
cern over historical edifices and ap-
ply the same concern in deciding the
Waterman/Barbour demolition ques-
tion.
Sports Staff
Bill St leg................. Sports Editor
Rich Lerner ...........Executive Sports Editor
Andy Glazer...........Managing Sports Editor
Rick Bonino........... Associate Sports Editor
NIGHT EtIITORS: Tom Cameron, Enid Goldman,
Kathy Henneghan, Scott Lewis, Rick Maddock,
Bob Miller. John Niemeyer, Mark Whitney.
sTAFP' WRITERS: Leslie Brown, Tom Cameron,
Ernie Dunbar, Henry Engelhardt, Rob Evan,
Jeff Frank, Cindy Gatziolis, Enid Goldman,
Mike Halpin, Kathy Hlenneghan, Geoff Larcom,
Sentt Lewis, Don MacLachlan, Rick Maddock,,
Brian Martin, Bob Miller, Brian Miller, Billy
Neff, John Niemeyer, Eric Olson, Dane Perrin,
Dave Renbarger, Pat Rode, Cub Schwartz,
Errol Shifman, Tom Shine, Jamie Turner, Mark
Whitney, Greg Zott.

But the magic Carter is seek-

r~w
*V.

sense of being the best
been, "Who beat ie?"

possible you. The yardstick has always

THE MALE ROLE
AND IMAGE
by NIC and KAREN
TAMBORRIELLO

PINK OR BLUE BLANKET? What did you think of-girl or
boy baby? What makes pink a "feminine" color or blue a
"masculine" color? Because pink is lighter and cheerful and
blue is darker and sober? The English language, supposedly,
is not gender-identified and yet, is there any doubt in your
mind the gender of "doll" or "truck"?
In a revealing study, university students were shown pic-
tures of Andy and Angela, three day old infants. The students
were asked to evaluate the babies' personalities. The overwhelm-
ing majority of students indicated that Andy appeared "aggres-
sive," "intelligent," and "curious," while Angela seemed "pas-
sive," "gentle," and "pleasant." In actuality the students looked
at pictures of the same baby.
At birth, or even earlier when some parents express they
want a boy for the first child, the seeds of differing expectations
are planted. Even with baby clothes, pajamas are a good exam-
ple, there are designs of race cars, baseball players, and cow-
boys for the boys. The girls get butterflies, Holly Hobbie, and
Raggedy Anne. How many parents, do you suppose, buy some
of both styles for the same child?
FROM CLOTHES TO toys. Girls get tea sets and boys get
basketballs. Why seem surprised if most boys appear to be
"naturally" athletic and competitive?
A lot of little girls play hopscotch, house, dress-up, or jump
rope, activities which require a congenial group effort and are
played for the fun of it rather than to see "who beat." Little
boys, however, often play army or some ki'id of ballgame,
activities which usually have winners and losers, where scores
are kept, and later where records are set. It's a matter of
competing, often at the cost of popularity. A loser is someone
who is picked last, if at all, when sides are chosen for teams.
Of course, a major part of entertainment while growing up
is television. Cartoons on Saturday morning, depicting every
imaginable and typically unimaginable violent creature, express
a predominant theme of "right through might." Six Million
Dollar Man merely perpetuates the message and Evel Knievel,
as a hero, has what redeeming value? Danger and speed are
fun? Shame on the elementary school boy who falls down while
imitating Knievel, for the credo of masculine behavior is that
"big boys don't cry." Incidentally, where are women in the
cartoons-dependent upon men for their happiness and safety, an
illusion which gives small boys an impression of responsibility
for someone else's welfare, a task that is not easy to accomplish
and becomes an unbearable burden to husbands.
By the time Junior reaches junior high school, he has
learned that anything of importance has been accomplished by
men. Men were the explorers and adventurers, the inventors
.an Arnvra.o ... . n. ,nn natil d slh ,nrc- nrt -m~n n nfl-a

IN HIGH SCHOOL, the only shred of respect left for boys
was-gained through success at competing for grades. But Honor
Roll is a meager reward in comparison to the trophies, rib-
bons, medals, and "letters" that could be-displayed as a reward
for athletic accomplishments.1
A true challenge to blossoming manhood is the advent of
dating and mating. Since males are socialized to be assertive,
the responsibility for initiating relationships with the opposite
sex has traditionally been a male domain. There are signs
that these mores may be changing, but it still deserves examin-
ing. It was usually an agonizing process for both sexes. Girls
were prohibited from asking boys out (or even to dance) be-
cause, ultimately, they had their reputations to protect. Boys,
on the other hand, had their reputations to build.
The pressure to always be having sex or looking for it
rarely took a vacation. The problem became, "If all my friends
say they are having sex, why ain't I?"
Upon obsetvation the males boasting the most were the
ones who have a) a rich father, b) s'tatus through sports, c) an
out-of-sight car, d) or some combination of these. Since superior
athletic prowess is usually out of the question for all but a few,
and well-to-do parents are hard to manufacture, most males
paid considerable attention to option "c." A car afforded an
opportunity to literally make something out of nothipig, a
chance to blow your own horn as it were. Asif it were some
mystical Western rtual, young men began worshipping at the
alter of the auto. Why? To exhibit power, control, daring, inde-
pendence, and competence. If you weren't'strong, your car
could be strong for you, "Wanna run it?" In short it was tradi-
tional masculinity incarnate.
POST-HIGH SCHOOL guidelines for the ideal man can be
found in an issue of Playboy magazine whose ideal is a con-
noisseur of liquor, stereo and photographic gadgetry; shows
impeccable taste in his ever expanding wardrobe; wouldn't
be caught dead in a mid-size car; easily maintains several
heterosexual relationships simultaneously with stunningly beau-
tiful women; and has an executive level or exotic job, if not
independent wealth. These goals are devastating when attempt-
ing to collectively achieve them. They encourage values that
are unrealistic anS1 usually impossible to attain. Too often men
question their adequacy as providers, when their earning power
may be quite satisfactory, if Porsches didn't appear as the
norm.
Is it any wonder that men and women grow up to be such
different beings? All their lives they have been programmed
for proscribed roles which leave a wasteland between them of
confusion and inadequacy. How "natural" a mother are you
when you have been taught from your own infancy to hold a
baby (doll), to feed it and change its diapers? And how un-
natural is it for a father to not hold a baby (doll) or feed it or
change its diapers when all his life, he has been called a sissyj
if he did.
IN RELATING TO a companion or to growing children, how
easily can a man make the transition, if he even considers it,
from the tough, competitive exterior he has learned, to one of.
tenderness and confiding. Will his affection for his children be
measured through their achievements (Did Junior make' All
State?), the same demanding standards he was measured by.

* I
£

"A MR, E. HOWARD Huir I5 CAE LLII* 00l4cr PGA
"I ,k 0..WL.'3U~C~ RECA(e?

, , F

I

I

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan