A

year-end

perspective

on

the

'U




DPP: Unsatisfactory patchwork'

Program

closure on its way

By BRIAN BLANCHARD
THE CUT came from above
without warning on Feb-
ruary 2,. and the Department of
Population Planning (DPP)
wasted no time in mobilizing
itself to defend its right to re-
main part of the School of Pub-
lic Health (SPH). I
From tha~t moment forward,
the elimination was a foregone
cbnclusion. The patching job
was exhaustive but unsatisfac-
tory.
On that day Dean Richard'
Remington and his Executive
Committee asked the Regents to
drop the 11-year-old DPP. The
Dean reported that federal and
Ford Foundation grants would
run out by 1978 and that the
department would need 140,000
dollars to hire a new chairman
from outside the University and
two new associate professors.
THE DEPARTMENT was also'
accused of low teaching hours,
poor research productivity, in-
ternal power struggles and ar-
gument, and a diffusion of ef-
forts contributing to "a lack of
strong departmental develop-
ient." Teaching, he said, "has
not been of uniformly high qual-
ity."
Remington finished his re-
quest with a plea that an "ex-
periment" be ended. He refer-
red to the department in the
past tense.
Meanwhile, the students and
professors in the graduate de-
partment were making it known
that they had no intention of
slipping into the annals of Uni-
versity history.
\THEY MAINTAINED that
while the Population Planning
Review Committee report Rem-
ington used as damning evi-
dence was based on an open
evaluation process, the commit-

tee had never intended their
findings to be used in a de-
structive way. The faculty and
students had been open with the
review committee, hoping the
report would be used to
strengthen DPP.
The DPP defenders also
charged that "he (Remington)
has shifted the whole situation
into a budget matter." Once the
Dean began to use the monetary
edge of his cutting blade, the
process was taken beyond dis-
cussion.
Professors George Simmons
and Jason Finkle explained that
Remington was defending his
political position by putting it
into economic terms: Simmons
reported that Remington had
never come to the department
to discuss alternative budgets
or the economic situation in
general. Neither money nor
quality - the cornerstones of.
Remington's proposal - were
defined.
A MORATORIUM was placed
on student applications for the
fall term and the students com-
plaind that the process was "de-
facto annihilation." It looked
like the University's population
program was sinking.
From the first, members of
DPP as well as population ex-
perts from around the world
have stressed the service value
of DPP. It was one of the few
programs on campus which fo-
cused on women's and minority
problems. There are a large
number of Third World students
in DPP who say that the Uni-
versity has contributed to the.
solutions being sought for the
global population problems.
Concerned members of. DPP
crowded into the February Re-
gents meeting, where the im-
portance of the issue was mag-
nified by discussion of a proce-

dure to eliminate other depart-
ments in the future. Department
Chairman Leslie Corsa asked
the Regents to return the mat-
ter to SPH for "proper consid-
eration".
THE UNIVERSITY'S re-
sponse was to turn the matter
over the Frank Rhodes, vice
president for academic affairs.
Rhodes and other members of'
his office spent two months in
a separate review and postpon-
ed the Regents' decision from
March to April.
In an administrative juggling
act, the vice president formu-
lated his -procedures while ap-
plying them concurrently to
DPP. Attention centered on the
interschool meetings which dis-
cussed a merger with Maternal
and Child Health along with a
host 'of other proposals was
wasted - the decision rested
with Rhodes.
On April 15, the eight policy
makers met to hear Rhodes'
answer to the Remington propo-
sal. DPP would be scrapped, but
out of the flames would rise a
new interdepartmental pro-
gram and a strong Center for
Population Planning. Two direc-
tors would ,be appointed by
Remington, and Rhodes would
throw in $50,000 over two years
for the Center to grow from a(
"paper organization."
THE REGENTS dutifully rub-
ber - stamped the plan the next
day and DPP is now history.
In the new set-up there is no
longer any mention of "qual-
ity," only "isolation" which was
never explained. In the Rhodes
research/teaching plan, two di-
rectors and a committee for
each program will spend time.
taking care of the administra-
tion instead of one chairperson
with his staff help. Further,

Dean Remington will be all
alone next fall when Rhodes
goes to Cornell and the imple-
mentation of the plan will be on
his shoulders.
There is no mechanism for re-
placing the, professors who will
leave and there is no guarantee
that the directors and their
committees will be people with
population studies backgrounds.
The number of courses, the
kinds of courses, and the num-
bers of students have not yet
been decided upon and it will be
up to Remington to determine
the future of the University's
population studies efforts.
One wonders whether the
Rhodes plan, a great improve-
ment over Remington's original
plan, is not an elaborate effort
to save the Dean's face. The
Dean's future actions in the
population planning implemen-
tation will reveal just how sin-
cere the plan is, and whether or
not the whole procedure was a
force.

By PATTY MONTEMURRI
THE DEPARTMENT of Popu-
lation Planning (DPP) was r
the first victim, the Speech andc
Hearing Sciences program may
fall next, and others are sure tot
fence with the University's newl
sharp-edged tool for dismem-
bering departments..
The precedent-setting program
discontinuance policy, adoptedi
by the Regents Friday, outlines
procedures for axing degree 1
programs from the Universityt
curriculum. But for all the timei
and effort that went into de-t
vising the guidelines, the policy-l
makers overlooked input fromt
students - those who stand to.
lose plenty from a program's
closing.
THE GUIDELINES are cer-
tain to see a lot of use, accord-
ing to Vice-President for Aca-
demic Affairs Frank Rhodes,
whose o f f i c e coordinated thet
policy's, formation. .

Faced with a no-growth budget
and nowhere to turn for more
money, the University "shall be
cutting programs - and at alto-
gether depressingly frequent in-
tervals in the future," Rhodes '
prophetically told the Regents
Thursday.
"In times of economic hard-
ship, it is better to be willing to
make harsh decisions than face
a general decline" in overall
University quality, Rhodes told
the Regents at their February!
meeting. That meeting marked
the first public discussion of
DPP's precarious position andj
the tentative guidelines for fa-
cilitating its review and the re-
view of other departments. It
was an ominous portent of the
future.'
IT'S APPARENT the Univer-
sity can no longer maintain the
rate of expansion and growth
that characterized its past de-
velopment. The University is in
a "financially exigent" situation
because of inflationary costs
and an inadequate handout from
the state.
So, c u t t i n g "academically
weak" programs, along with
raising tuition and laying off
personnel, has become another
unpleasant alternative that ad-
ministrators a r e considering

when paring a shrinking budget.:
The initial recommendation to'
scrap a department must ema-
nate from a School or College's
Dean and Executive Committee,
the guidelines specify. The Dean:
and Executive Committee "from'
time to time . . . may consider
that a particular program may
no longer be viable . . . periodic
program reviews may also lead
to a similar conclusion."
SO NOW department chair-
persons all over campus are
worried. The routine, periodic
evalaution e v e r y department
undergoes could cost a program
its lease on life if the review
finds "academic weaknesses"
and comes at a time when
money is tight.
A program could become a
v i c t i m of circumstance. The
guidelines provide no way of
comparing departments within
a school. Consequently, a de-
partment could be' scratched
even if there were weaker units
within the school, simply be-
cause its periodic evaluation
c o i n ci d e d with a budgetary
crisis.
When a routine evaluation
turns up reasons for doubting a
program's viability, the Dean
and Executive Committee are
responsible for establishing a'

peer review group to study the
situation further. After consult-
ing with the school's faculty and
evaluating the findings of the
peer r e v i e w committee, the
Dean and Executive Committee
may recommend program liqui-
dation.
T H A T RECOMMENDATION
is then forwarded to the Office
of Academic Affairs, where an
ad hoc committee is set up to
conduct another independent re-
view of the imperiled program.
The ad hoc group is composed
of representatives from the Aca-
demic Affairs office, the Budget
Priorities Committee and the
Senate Faculty. No students are
included.
Once all the evidence is pre-
sented, Academic Affairs makes
its verdict, and the Regents de-
cide whether to- make the sen-
tence stick.
Under a section of the discon-
tinuance policy entitled "Safe-
guards for Students," the guide-
lines read, "Opportunity should .
be given to students for partici-
pation in the review of pro-
grams proposed for termina-
tion."
But, so far, no one in the ad-
ministration has moved to de-
termine that so-called "oppor-
tunity." No one asked students
See PROGRAM, Page 6

It was a terrible winter for the University, but spring
or any other season in the near future is not likely to bring
any relief.
Snowbound by shrinking revenues and eternally rising
costs, administrators will remember this winter as one in
which program elimination was accepted as standard oper-
ating procedure and a tuition hike went virtually unques-
tioned. Few asked, "why?".- most asked, "how much?"
This winter was characterized by faltering unions, floun-
dering in the face of the administration's tough bargaining.
front. And while the American Federation of State, County
and Municipal Employes (AFSCME, Local 1583) campus-
wide strike diverted attention, literary college (LSA) pro-
fessors more quietly rumbled about the alleged lack of
quality among University students.
The Daily's regular reporters, who have scrutinized the
winter's activities in their respective beats, now offer a
year-end perspective on the University with a hard look at
the implications of this bleak, extended winter

GEO members: Are they eU'
employes or just students


Campus unions must fight together

By BOB ROSENBAUM
S HAS been a lousy year
for campus unions.
The disintegration of the Cler-
ical Union (UAW 2001) last sum-
mer and debilitation of the
Graduate Employes Organiza-
tion (GEO) last fall are only
outdone bya dramatic month-
long' strike by campus service
and, maintenance workers
(AFSCME, Local 1583) this se-
mester.
That strike almost resulted in
the collapse of the AFSCME Lo-
cal as well, because of gaping
divisions in the union's upper
eschelon, and a heartless "we
shall not be moved" stand by
University . Regents and admin-
istration.
AFSCME WAS not weak. Its
members supported the strike
with enthusiasm, picketing daily
in spirited numbers, despite arc-
tic temperatures, sandwiching
themselves between trucks and
tired cops, and going home to
empty cupboards. For 26 days,
over 2,000 workers tried to show
they could hurt this campus if
they wanted to.
But it was in vain. The Uni-

versity was not hurt. In fact,
had the liyelihoods of thousands
of AFSCME workers not been
under siege, we would have
been damn proud of the way
supervisors and administrators
were able to organize their
areas and,keep the campus op-
erating, sometimes d i r t y i n g
their own hands to do it.
Why did the strike backfire?
And why did the Clericals and
GEO-formerly healthy unions-
fall apart? It's easy to blame
the University, but almost child-
ish to imagine that the admin-
istration's union - busting at-
tempts could be so successful.
The real answer lies in the
fragmented nature of the three
unions, and the fact that mem-
bers of non-striking unions do
the jobs of workers out on the
picket lines.
THE YEAR has shown that
campus unions can no longer
function on an individual basis.
An all-campus union, no matter
how unfeasible it appears on
first thought, is the only way
labor will ever make the Uni-
versity accountable to workers'
needs.
The employes do not need a
militant, strike-happy union, as

some people are advocating.
The super-union need only rep-
resent everyone who makes a
livelihood at the University. It
need only be strong enough to
let administrators know that
when and if a strike does come
-not just some-but all work-
ers will walk out. The University
must know there won't be any-
one but administrators to fill
the striking workers jobs.
The ideal all-campus union!
would guarantee three things:
0 that the impact ofa strike
or someo ther job action would
be felt immediately and
throughout the entire campus.
Such a result would prevent
long drawn-out battles such as
the one seen here last month.
Neither the campus nor the
workers would suffer needlessly.
" the use of temporary help
from inside or outside the Uni-
versity ;- affectionately termed
"scabbing"-would be next to
impossible. The sheer volume
and diversity of campus jobs
which would have to be filled
by scabs would make the task
of hiring-out unfeasible.
" unlike the demands made
by d single union with particu-1

l
,

lar interests, the demands of an'
entire campus work force can-
not be laughed away. (Remem-
ber, in a democracy, the ma-
jority not only "always rules,"
but it is also, by its nature, al-
ways right.)
Basic to the argument for an
all-campus union is the fact
that University workers are pub-
lic employes. The state-by its
laws-bears special discrimina-
tion against the public worker,
since many times a stfike or
other job action would threaten
the health and safety of inno-
cent citizens. In Michigan, any
strike by public "servants" is
illegal. This status cripples the
rights of public employes even
before they sit down at the bar-
gaining table. An all-campus
union would not only possess
greater leverage at initial con-
tract negotiations, it would also
find itself with tremendous lob-
bying strength to change dis-
criminatory p u b l i c employe
laws.
ALONG WITH these new pow-
ers, the union would find a vital
new sense of responsibility to-
war dthe labor cause. The very
presence of an all-campus union
at a University as large as this

I
i
i
E

'ic
I
E

one would
would be
employes

set a precedent which
beneficial to public
everywhere.

The movement toward a su-
per-union has been under foot
for a long time, but judging
from the rate at which workers
are being attracted to the idea,
it will be a long time in coming.
In the meantime, maybe the
University can think of some
unique way to use the millions
of dollars saved in undistributed
pay to striking AFSCME work-
ers during February and March.
A "U of M is Number 1" sweat-
shirt for each of its employes,
perhaps? Considering the money
they lost during the strike; they
could use the clothing.

By RICHARD BERKE
WHILE MOST campus unionI
workers are worried about
upgrading their contracts, Grad-
uate Employes Organization
(GEO) members have a much
greater concern. They want to
keep GEO from dissolving as a
union.
In the past year, circum-
stances have progressively wor-
sened for the union, bringing it
to its current grim status.
GEO's d e c l i n e began last
August when its existing con-
tract expired., By October, dis-
satisfaction over contract nego-
tiations with the University led
to passage ofa proposal to in-
itiate a strike referendum. Mem-
bers subsequently rejected the
referendum by an overwhelming
majority. This severly weakened
GEO's position at the bargaining
table and union leaders began
to realize that their vision of
outraged, militant members was
a total misconception.
WITH THE threat of a strike
eliminated, GEO's demands no
longer had any clout, and the
union was forced to capitulate
on most positions. Then, on No-
vember 18, with every item save
one agreed upon and a settle-
ment imminent, the University
refused to sign the contract un-

til the single remaining issue-
who would be covered by the
agreement - w a s decided. Or,
the administration said, GEO
could drop the two grievances
they had pending on clause, and
agree not to file them again,
then the University would sign.
The Union, on the.other hand,
contended that this particular
clause was a "non-mandatory
bargaining issue," and that the
University would be committing
an unfair labor practice (ULP)
by refusing to sign the contract.
GEO proceeded by filing charges
with the Michigan Employment
Relations Commission (MERC).
In February, when the MERC
hearing was to begin, the Uni-
versity rejected a last-ditch
GEO offer which virtually mir-
rored the final administration
offer when negotiating broke
down in November.
BY THAT time, the Univer-
sity had readied a legal defense
to the ULP charge by claiming
that graduate student assistants
(GSA's) are students, NOT em-
ployes. MERC is presently in
: the process of ruling on GSA's
status as employes, and with
that, GEO's status as a labor
u n i o n. But meanwhile, both
sides must wait several months
(MERC's d e c i s i o nwon't be

handed down until October), and
that wait can only hurt the
union.
In the interim, GEO's leader-
ship was uncertain of what stra-
tegy to employ, to keep mem-
bers "fired up" about the issue.
They staged a rally in the hopes
of gaining momentum for a
spring strike. The plan back-
fired. Turnout at a membership
meeting to vote on initiating a
strike referendum was so low
that the vote was shelved. The
few in attendance began to look
back and try to figure out where
they had gone wrong and why
membership support was so
lacking.
It should not have taken them
long to see that their problems
stem from GEO's misplaced
goals, whichGmust be recon-
sidered. If GEO's omnjectives
and internal structure remain
as they are nqw, the union will
surely continue 'its descent and
may never rise again.
GEO LEADERS must be real-
istic in evaluating how the union
can be made most effective.
They should realize that GEO is
really not a full-fledged labor
union. GEO members are not
as concerned about pay and
other contract benefits as are
See GEO, Page 6

I
i
i
E

Regents: Leade

MSA

earns new reputation

By PATTY MONTEMURRI is only waiting for the green ect, an
light from University President for hou
THOUGH a. lot of students Robben Fleming to place stu- MSA.
don't know about it, student dents on 58 other policy-'making serving
government at Michigan is start- committees previously closed to lack of
ing to do some important things. student input. MSA. N
The Regents know about it. MSA has also committed it- the do-
The Michigan Student Assembly self to establishing a tutoring struggli
(MSA) staged a valiant cam- service for students and an ex- predece
paign to turn Waterman/Bar- tensive course evaluation proj- Govern
bour into a student organization
center. Though the historic
gyms will soon be memories, I.p n e
MSA impressively illustrated top on d e
the Regents the need for more
student space. And manybe'we'll B
get it since the Union and the By ELIZABETH SLOWIK Most d
Student Activities Building, both IN DEFEATING THE contro- ry stiff
originally designed primarily for versial English Composi- nates,a
student use, are overflowing tion proposal, the Literary Col- to qua:
with non-student types. lege (LSA) Governing Faculty 'mandat
The administration is begin- showed admirable restraint and bined
ning to feel the impact of a concern for both faculty arid stu- orous d
new and active student govern- dent welfare. require
ment. Largely through the ef- If the proposal had passed, all have d
forts of re-elected MSA Presi- students would have been re- the n
dent Scott Kelman and outgo-i quired to take three writing Howe
ing vice-president Steve Camne- courses in order to graduate. note t
ing ve-president seure Crns- The present requirement is one quality
vale. MSA has secured for stu- _ newmF

d carrying the standard
using law reform.
has committed itself to
the students, despite the
student commitment to
MSA is still shadowed by
nothing, internal power-
ing image of its tainted
essor, the defunct Student'
ment Council. As a re-

suilt, voter turnout for MSA elec-
tions is pitifully low, averaging
about five per cent of the stu-
dent population.
Though they contrast in social
and political beliefs, MSA mem-
bers have demonstrated an abil-
ity to work together. If the past
term is any indication, MSA has
just begun to sow its oats.

By MICHAEL YELLIN
IN MARCH, the Regents re-
leased a statement which
said they are the only decision-
making board on this campus
and that all other governmental
bodies are merely advisory. But
are the Regents the actual de-
cision - makers or do they sim-
ply rubber-stamp the recom-
mendations of these other ad-
visory bodies with their official
vote?
The Regents meet two days
out of every 'month, and the crest
of the time they are scattered
throughout the state. The time
element, of course, would make
it difficult for them to deter-
mine alternatives to the recom-
mendations of advisory com-
mittees-committees that spend
months drawing up their recom"
nendations. Thus, by their very
position, they have a tendency
to accept the proposals of ad
visory committees; challenge,
to these proposals on the part o
the Regents are rare indeed.
Of course, the Regents are ul
timately responsible for nex
fall's tuition hike of an expect
ed eight or nine per cent, nex
fall's 8.6 per cent rise in dorn
rates and the advent of progran
closure as a new University too
likely to be used often in par
ing its slim budget. And the:
have shown no insight, hind
sight or foresight into the prob
lems of this institution. They'v
lacked imagination and hav'
shown little, initiative in settinj
policy.

sified information and withheld'
other information. The Regents
heard the opposition, and then
neglected to look further into it.
In the Department of Popula-
tion Planning (DPP) fiasco, Re-
gent Paul Brown (D-Petoskey)
expressed an attitude typical of
the Regents; saying, "It's hard
to vote against the recommen-
dation of both Vice President
(for Academic Affairs Frank
Rhodes and 'the Dean of the
School (of Public Health)."
ALMOST WITHOUT excep-.
tion, they vote to comply with
what the President or Vice
Presidents have requested and/
or already established.
i The last major fight the Re-
- gents had with their so-called'
advisory boards concerned who
was to be appointed dean of the

rs or puppets?
literary college (LSA). The Re- gents have the obligation
gents lost the fight and, over- open the meetings of Universi
turning their previous vote, they decision - making bodies to t
decided to approve Billy Frye general public. It ,is clear thi
upon the recommendation of the the Regents are the sole de
administration. sion - makers on campus onl
In regards to the upcoming in a technical sense.
tuition hike, when Rhodes first The decisions this past ye
told the Regents the budget speak ominously about the P
would be $10 million short, he ture. Keeping the public out4
Said this could only be made up the meetings of the University
through a tuition hike and/or other governing bodies,,as t
a cut in services. This is highly Regents intend to do, will on
questionable. be 'consistent with the Univ

to
ty
he
at
nly
ar
fu-
of
,y's
he
ly
ler-

THE REGENTS could decide
to sell off some of the Univer-
sity's vast land holdings in the
public interest. President Rob-
ben Fleming has said this could
be done but would only be pro-
ductive on a short-run basis.
With the implementation of
the Michigan Open Meetings Act
the first of this month, the Re-

sity's attitude toward decision-
making: little public discussion,
little knowledge, little regard
for the people these decisions af-
fect.
What are the Regents scared
of? By leaving the meetings
closed to the public, more sus-
picion will surround the deci-
sions of 'the University. Are the
Regents afraid of democracy?

rs student quality


L

Minority services disjoInted

epartmental majors car-
requirements as to cog-
number of hours needed
Lify for the major, and
tory prerequisites. Com-
with the LSA's fairly rig-
distribution and language
'ments, students would
ifficulty scheduling all of
necessary courses.
ver, it is disturbing to'
he steadily decreasing
of student writing. The
Englih 'nmn nrnnos1

ered- improving the quality of
LSA students by attracting new
students of merit with better fi-
nancial packages than offered
in the past, especially to out-of-
state students. These new pack-
ages would emphasize awards
on the basis of merit instead of
need. 'That way, an out-of-state
student with superior grades
would be more apt to attend
Michigan than one with average
grades and lots of cash.
rai wnnd p n .pffpan

By SHELLEY WOLSON

which discriminate and a re-
wording of the policy to say

IN EXAMINING the minority j that an affirmative action pro-
situation this year, one finds gram must be maintained only
only two issues that stand out: "if required to do so by goverh-
the heated opposal of the Civil mental policy," met with loud
Liberties Board (CLB) campus objections from the Commission
job recruitment policy revisions for Women, the Commission for
by several minority groups in- Minority Affairs, the Women
cluding the Commission for Law Students Association and
Women and the examination of the Black Lam student Alliance,
University minority services among others.
and the minority attrition rate.

stop the policy revisions from
being passed at the Senate
meeting. Their debate over this
issue did, however, bring much
needed attention to the issue.
While probing the minority
services maze, one finds that
University officials on campus
agree services are fragmented
and confusing for the minority
student. However, no action is
being taken to solve this prob-
lem. Meanwhile, the minority at-

I