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.

October 12, 1976 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1976-10-12

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


Sat tgan a ih1
Eighty-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Loo

lIi

ing at
day 's

70 i

Ford

Tuesday, October 12, 1976

News Phone: 764-0552

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
T neUniversity'hadfai th

YESTERDAY the University re-
jected the Graduate Employe Organ-
ization's (GEO) offer of binding arbi-
tration, and in so doing sealed all our
rates, as the impending strike looms
on the horizon.
When negotiations broke down
nearly two weeks ago the two sides
were still "miles apart." On economic
issues, GEO was still seeking a 6.5
per cent raise and a 50 per cent tui-
tion cut while the Administration
stuck to its driginal offer of a five per
cent raise and no tuition cut. And to
the union's demands for affirmative
action, TA training programs, Uni-
versity - funded child care and small-
er classes, the Administration re-
sponded curtly, it "does not belong
in a labor contract."
This was 'the situation when GEO
members met last Tuesday to decide
whether or not tq strike. Spurning a
Business Staff
Beth Friedman.Business Manager
Deborah Dreyfuss .!....... operations Manager
Kathleen Mulhern ... Assistant Adv. Coordinator
Don Simpson ........Display Manager
David Harlan .......Finance Manager
Dan Blugermnan................Sales Manager
Pete Peterson .......... Advertising Coordinator
Cassle St. Clair.Circulation Manager
Beth Stratford . .. ....Circulation Director
Photography Staff
Pauline LubensChief Photographer
Brad Benjamin............Staff Photographer
Alan Bilinsky ..............Staff Photographer
Scott Ecker. Staff Potographer
Andy Freeberg.......Staff Photgra-1r
Christina Schneider Staff Photographer
Editorial Staff
Rob Meachum. . 'Bill Turque
Co-Editors-in-Chief
Jeff Risine.................Managing Editor
Tim Schick... ...........Kecutive Editor
Stephen Hersh....Magazine Editor
Rob Meachum.. Editorial Director
Lois Josimovich............... Arts Editor
STAFF WRITERS: Susan Ades, Susan Barry,
Dana Baumann, Michael Beckman, Philip Bo-
kOvoy, Jodi Dimick, Chris Dyhdale, Elaine '
Fletcher, Larry Friske, Debra Gale, Tom Go-
del, Eric Gressman, Kurt Harju, Char Heeg,
James Hynes, Michael Jones, Lani Jordan,
Lois Josimovich, Joanne Kaufman, David
Keeps, Steve Kursman, Jay Levin Ann Marie
Lipinski, George Lobsenz, Pauline Lubens, Stu
CcConnell, Jennifer Miller, Michael Nrton,
Jon Pansius, Ken Parsigian, Karen Paul,
Stephen Pickover, Christopher Potter, Don
Rose, Lucy Saunders, Annemarie Schiavi, Kar-
en Schulkins, Jeffrey Selbst, Jim Shahin, Rick
Soble, Tom- Stevens, Jim Stimsn, David
Strauss, Mike Taylor, Jim Tobin, Loran Walker,
Laurie Young, Barbara Zahs.
Sports Staff
Bill Stieg.................. ...Sports Editor
Rich Lerner ....... .Executive Sports Editor
Andy Glazer........ .Managing Sports Editor
Rick Bonino......Associate Sports Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Tom Cameron, Enid Goldman,
Kathy Henneghan, Scott Lewis, Rick Maddock,
Bob Miller, John Niemeyer, Mark Whitney.
STAFF WRITERS: Leslie Brown, Paul Campbell,
Marybeth Dillon, Ernie Dunbar, Henry Engel-
hardt, Jeff Frank, Cindy Gatiolis, Don Mao-
Lachan. Rich Ovshinsky, Jim Powers, Pat Rode,
John Schwar7.

strike that would hurt them as much
as anyone, they voted to extend the
contract deadline two weeks, to Oc-
tober 19, and to make "one more at-
tempt at bargaining" with the Uni-
versity. The union also, in an attempt
to avert a strike, decided to offer
binding arbitration to the Univer-
sity, with the added stipulation that
the Administration reply by noon
Monday, October 11. That was yes-
terday.
The University has never agreed
to binding arbitration with any un-
ion, and was not expected to this
time. Our worst fears were realized
when the offer was rejected, all but
guaranteeing a strike by the begin-
ning of November.
H A D T H E ADMINISTRATION
agreed to the plan, the threat of a
strike would have been extinguished.
An impartial arbitrator acceptable to
both sides would have been hired,
and the University and GEO would
have had a chance to present their
arguments to him or her. The arbi-
trator would consider both sides and
then make an irreversible decision.
It is a long and tedious process, to
be sure, but would avert a strike.
This is not a matter of who is right
and who is wrong. This is a matter
of preventing a strike. Twenty
months ago this campus was thrown
into a state of chaos when over 1.000
Graduate Student Assistants walked
off their jobs. After a month-long
strike, the two sides settled, but the
people who suffered the most were
the undergraduates. Many discussion
and lab sections went untaught, and
students were forced to make up all
the work in the last five weeks of
the term. Professors and TA's who
did not support the strike still held
class, and many students were torn
between wanting to support GEO,
and wanting to get good grades.
This is the situation that we must
prevent. Whether you side with the
University or GEO, the main objec-
tive is to avoid another crippling
strike, and it would seem that the
Administration has jus thrown our
last hope for that out the window.
TODAY'S STAFF:
News: Phil Bokovoy, Ken Chotiner,
George Lobsenz, Ken Parsigion, Bill
Jeff Ristine .
Editorial Page: Michael Beckman, Rob
Meochum, Ken Parsigian, Tommy
Turque, Linda Wilco, Bill Yaroch,
Wicker
Arts Page: Lois Josimovich
Photo Technician: Alan Bilinsky

on to
Editor's note: The following article
is the first of a two part series on eco-
logical issues in the presidential cam-
paign. In no way does the series repre-
sent the opinion of The Daily Editorial
Staff. We would encourage representa-
tives of other presidential candidates
to submit similar articles.
By MARK GREENWOOD
LOOKING AT some of the rhetoric and
commentary which is being circu-
lated in this Presidential year, one
might conclude that peanuts, stumbling
and lust are the pivotal issues of our
times. While a certain number of these
digressions into the irrelevant are prob-
ably inevitable, it would certainly be
tragic if these trivialities were allowed
to cloud the fact that this election pre-
sents us with a rather clear choice. The
fact is that Gerald Ford and Jimmy Car-
ter embody very different conceptions
of the proper tone and direction of our
national leadership.
Nowhere is this choice clearer than it
is when one examines that cluster of
issues customarily classified under the
rubric of "Energy and the Environ-
ment." Jimmy Carter offers us a real
alternative to the policies of the Nixon-
Ford years regarding the protection and
responsible use of our natural resources.
It would be unfortunate if these con-
cerns remain, as William Shannon of
the New York Times has called them,
"the quiet issue in the Presidential cam-
paign." Decisions that affect things like
energy supplies, air pollution and water
quality, can change the life of every
American regardless of class, race, age,
sex or attitude toward the "spendthrift
Congress." Horeover, decisions made on
natural resources have a finality that is
not characteristic of other areas of
public policy. Once an energy source is
depleted or an endangered species dis-
appears, no amount of governmental ac-
tion can correct the mistake. In light of
the profound impact that decisions on
energy and environment have for us
all, it is vital that we know what pack-
ages of policies we will choose between
on November 2.
To the extent that the Ford Adminis-
tration pursues any general policy, it
may be considered a supply strategy,
one which assumes an annual growth in
energy consumption of five per cent
despite indications that rates of growth

e

are slowing. The focus seems to be on,
domestic oil, synthetic fuels and nuclear
power - sources that require the kind
of capital that only the large energy
conglomerates can afford. The Adminis-
tration's Project Independence is aimed
at funneling some Hundred Billion Dol-
lars toward such efforts.
More specifically, the Ford Adminis-
tration has pushed for the further de-.
velopment of Alaskan oil and offshore
drilling. It fought for a $6 billion dollar
subsidy for the development of syn-
thetic fuels from coal and oil shale, de-
spite evidence that these synfuels may
never be economically feasible and that
their potential contributions to overall
energy supplies is really quite low.
The Administration's general approach
includes a belief that environmental
quality concerns must in all cases give
way before the "needs of energy de-
velopment. The controversy over West-
ern coal and strip mining provides a
classic example of the bankruptcy of this
simplistic approach. In defending his
veto of the strip mining bill, Ford cited
loss of production and jobs as his justi-
fication. In later Congressional hearings,
those loss of productionrestimates prov-
ed indefensible. The argument looked
rather ridiculous when the professor,
whose estimates the Administration
used, testified that the bill's provisions
would have no effect on jobs and when
unions like the UMW, the AFL-CIO, the
Steelworkers and the UAW endorsed the
bill.
IRONICALLY, Ford's energy positions
have also conflicted with the alleged Re-
publican position that more power be
returned to the states. In dealing with
the issue of offshore oil, the Ford Ad-
ministration refused to allow state offic-
ials meaningful participation in these
derisions desnite the fact that some 80
ner cent of the American people live in
these affected states. Moreover, under
his Enerev Facility Siting bill, Ford
sought authority to dictate to state gov-
ernments the number and location of
energy facilities to be built.
Energy conservation is the forgotten
element in Ford's general strategy. Less
than two per cent of the Energy Re-
search and DevelonmentbAdministra-
tion's Five Billion Dollar budget is de-
voted to conservation technologies. Most
of the measures in the Energy Policy

Inerg i
and Conservation Act were opposed by
this Administration. Ford's policymakers
rely on higher prices to cut demand. .
Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, is
speaking strongly for energy conserva-
tion and has acted to cut energy waste
in the Georgia State government and in
public utilities. He has pushed for appli-
ance efficiency standards, peak-load
pricing for electricity and enforcement
of speed laws.
On energy supplies, Carter empha-
sizes better utilization of coal and new
initiatives in the use of renewable sour-
ces such as solar and geothermal power.
He favors development of Western coal,
but has expressed concern about the
loss of farm land that would result, and
the additional expenses on the economic
infasstructure that would be required to
support a massive effort in such a
sparsely populated area. He, therefore,
has argued that Eastern "coal supplies
be given further attention so that a more
balanced approach to coal development
can be achieved.
CARTER HAS ALSO expressed con-
cern about who is to control the en-
ergy industries. He supports legal re-
strictions against ownership by single
firms of competing energy sources -
such as coal and oil. Unlike others of
the Presidential aspirants, Carter has
opposed heavy governmental involve-
ment in energy production, citing prob-
lems that have arisen with TVA and
the Bonneville Power Administration. In-
stead, he favors a more decentralized,
diversified approach which would use the
Federal government primarily as a stim-
ulus to innovation through research
s'ending and pilot projects and as a reg-
ulator of private development efforts.
Ford is committed to nuclear power
as one of the prime sources of energy
for the future. He persists in his goal to
bring 200 nuclear plants on line by 1985.
The Administration's interest in promo-
ting -nuclear energy is evidenced by its
support for extensions to the Price-An-
derson Act, which limits liability for a
plant accident to $560 million, and
by its use of FEA funds to publish
pro -snuclear propaganda in Califor-
nia during the referendum fight over
state restrictions on plant construction.
The Administration has sought further
funding for construction of a liquid met-
al fast breeder reactor, despite the fact
that many technological problems re-
main, particularly those assiciated with

YY
ariter
ssules
safe recycling of the deadly substance
plutonium. On the international front,
the Administration supports the Inter-
national Atomic Energy Agency's pro-
gram to place nuclear plants in third
world nations.
Jimmy Carter's background in nuclear
engineering seems to have given him a
much more skeptical attitude toward
the advantages of nuclear power. He
has urged that dependence on nuclear
energy be kept to a minimum. While
governor, he formally intervened in AEC
hearings to advocate stronger safety
precautions for nuclear facilities at
neighboring Barnswell, South Carolina.
Throughout his campaign, he has called
for the building of nuclear plants below
ground to minimize the potential impact
of an accident and has advocated a pro-
gram that would put full-time Federal
inspectors in plants with power to close
down the plant when radiation levels be-
came unsafe.
AS TO DIRECTIONS for future re-
search, Carter would not abandon breed-
er technology, but would give it lower
priority since it is estimated that it will
take 20 years before such plants will be
really workable. Instead, he would shift
emphasis toward heavy water reactors
which, unlike the breeder and the light
water reactor, do. not involve a repro-
cessing step and thus are less suscep-
tible to theft or ,sabotage.
On the problem of international prolif-
eration, Carter has called for a halt to
U. S. commitments. of nuclear fuel and
technology to countries involved in nu-
clear arms processing.
The values of these two men are criti-
cal to the future of the Nation's energy
resources, Gerald Ford represents an
exoloitative and expensive energy policy
which gives no credence to concerns
over environmental quality. Jimmy Car-
ter offers an innovative and balanced en-
ergy policy which remains sensitive to
the American people's desire to feel se-
cu're about the safety and proud of the
be-ity of their natural environment.
For those who care, the choice seems
clear.
Mark Greenwood is a graduate stu-
denft in the; combined Law and Public
Policy ,programs at the University. Last
s.iummer he served as an intern at, the
Council on Pnvironinental Quality in
Washington, D.C.

i

r/ i I'

bursley election
To The Daily:
THE RECENT REPORT of
alleged ballot stuffing and
threats to a candidatereported
in The Daily are only the latest
manifestations of an attitude
among blacks which was and
still is prevalent in Bursley Hall
and the University community
in general, for the three years
that I lived in Bursley. This
,attitude is one of almost ag-
gressive defensiveness (or if
Mr. Patrosso's allegations are
true, no longer "almost") on
the part of black students to
any questioning of their goals
or motives. One of the more
visible results of this attitude
is the overuse of the word "ra-
cist" in reference to any white
person who does not act the
"good nigger" to whatever the
latest project or fad among the
black community has been. This
overindulgence in a quick and
easy way to silence critics has
found its ultimate expression in
Mr. Charles Holman, the former
chairman of thedBursley Board,
who you quoted as ''reaction
from the dorms black commu-
nity" in your article.
A more concrete example may
serve better. Last year a pro-
posal for a Minority Cultural
Lounge was published in the
Bursley newspaper. Although
the reaction of the non-black
residents, both minority and
white was overwhelmingly one
of dissapproval, the habit of
cowed submission runs deep and
not a word was spoken against
the proposal for two weeks. At
this point, I personally wrote
a letter, published in the Burs-
ley newspaper, outlining some
of the objections to the lounge.
This- letter seemed to rouse
some of the non-black residents
out of their somndence. At the
next meeting of the Board of
Governors, the issue was
brought up again, to the dis-
may of Mr. Holman, who was
presiding at the time and who
did all he could to prevent a
discussion.
At this time ,I was frankly
quite shocked at the attitudes
and behavior of some of the
black residents present, includ-
ing several members of the
committee which had originally
drafted the proposal. Speakers
against the lounge, when not

Letters
came in the following week. Mr.
Holman and the Board showed
their true colors when they con-
veniently forgot their constitu-
tional duties and responsibilities
in favor of what' they wanted.
A petition for a referendum on
whether to have the lounge or
not, a petition with enough sig-
natures to make it binding on
the Board to arrange said ref-
erendum, was completely ig-
nored.
Although I was not convinced
that a referendum was the prop-
er course of action, this demon-
strates my point. Not only was
the constitutional framework il-
legally circumvented in order
to counter opposition (I'll bet
you thought that only happened
in Washington), but the appre-
hensions and desires of the over-
whelmingmajority of students
at the dorm were treated- with
scorn, ridicule, and down right
hostility by certain influential
members of the black commu-
nity there. I am therefore not
in the least bit surprised to
see Mr. Patrosso's allegations,
nor do I really doubt their
truth, since the black commu-
nity, or at least certain of what
might be referred to as its
leaders, have already sufficient-
ly demonstrated their intoler-
ance of any kind of opposition
or questioning..
John P. McHugh
October 10
To The Daily:
WE HAVE NEVER seen more
obviously slanderous and de-
rogatory tones than those voiced
by Charles F. Holman III in the
front-page "Bursley Elections"
acticle in last' Friday's Daily.
Disregarding the fact that
Holman, as a University Hous-
ing employe, is supposed to be
excluded from domitory gov-
ernment, his comment that
Mark S. Patrosso is an "ob-
noxious and unpopular figure
on both sides" is wholly un-
founded; Patrosso, in fact, has
easily won in two previous Burs-
ley elections, and is solidly
backed by most of the residents
of his wing in the pending legal
action. Holman seems to have
used these terms in an effort
to indicate that Patrosso is a
lone wolf.
Charles Holman's accusations
that Patrosso has no legal basis
to run for the "minority inter-
ests" seat tend to tarnish un-

OTIS WASHINGTON'S asser-
tion that the election went "ac-
cording to the rules" seems to
be a complete reversal of his
previous stand before the Uni-
versity Housing Judiciary,
when he conceded the election's
results to be questionable and
agreed to be responsible for the
conduct of a new election. It is
conceivable that he acquiesced
to the compromise in order to
avoid the fines and government
suspensions initially demanded
by the complaintants. It is al-
leged that the Elections Com-
mittee, under Washington, has
destroyed all ballots from this
election; it seems quite self-
serving, to say the least, for
Washington to repudiate his pre-
vious statements with all evi-
dence safely out of the way.
The Bursley Six has already
dragged resident staff into this
mess in an attempt to stifle
all complaints; Holman's re-
marks indicate that he has no
qualms about misrepresenting
facts to toe media. Hopefully,
Central Student Judiciary will
have the opportunity to set the,
record straight on the legality
of this highly suspect election-
if Mark Patrosso isn't beaten
or stabbed beforehand.
G. J. DiGiuseppe,
Personnel Coordinator, MSA
Brian Laskey,
President, LSA Stud. Gvt.
Jeffrey Thompson,
Bursley Board of Governors,
Lewis-Van Duren
Representative
gay ghetto
To The Daily: ,
THIS SUMMER, I was for-
tunate to have received a copy
of the Michigan Daily Summer
Supplement. Both my parents

to

the

Daly
and I appreciated its content
in news, features m and Ann Ar-
bor happenings. However, the
article entitled "Coming out in
a gay ghetto," a crude and mis-
leading representation of an
average homosexual's life, de-
creased the-quality of the con-
tent significantly.
David Bell's depiction of his
gay life in Ann Arbor was "ali-
enating, depressing, and de-
grading." He painted a hope-
less picture of homosexual life
in the city. Evelyn, a "libera-'
ted woman" professor, conclud-
ed that his characters are "ster-
eotyped and unhappy" and ques-
tioned whether "there can't be
a gay story with a happy end-
ing."
WITH ARTICLES of this sort,
I wonder how some homosexual
can expect to have a happy
beginning, let alone a happy
ending. For those who read
David's stories while still "in
the closet," it can be speculated
that they now throw away the
key - only to be locked up
forever in a world of loneli-
ness and despair.
The author admits that he
"pretended it was all a bad
dream." Homosexuality is not
a bad dream. Neither is it a
bad omen nor a bad path to
pursue. Rather, a homosexual
relationship is a realistic and
natural sexual desire for a
member of the same sex; clear-
ly, it is one's understanding
that skin is skin and love is
love. William Shakespeare,
Gore Vidal, and Michelangelo
represent only a few of the
many eminent figures of the
past and present who have suc-
ceeded in spite of their society's
prevailing standards regarding
their love and passions.
BUT THE ARTICLE speaks

of love found in cruising the
gay bars, frequenting the johns
and visiting the adult bookstore.
When asked "... why do you
consistently put yourself in po-
sitions of danger?" the author
erroneously replied, "For love."
The author's conception of love
is merely sexual degradation-
not sxual and_ emotional satis-
faction. David Bell's adversities
in his experiences of "love" are
neither appealing nor beneficial
to the Daily's readership. Hope-
fully, The Michigan Daily will
take the initiative to expose a
better picture of homosexual
love - one with a happy be-
ginning and, happy ending.
Name withheld
upon request
October 11
'disgusted'
To The Daily:
WE WERE SHOCKED and
disgusted by The Daily's' pre-
sentation of the death of John
Oliver. The description and ac-
companying photograph were
more worthy of the National
Enquirer than of a college news-
paper with a reputation, how-
ever ragged, as one of the best
in the nation. The sensational-
ism exhibited in The Daily's
handling of this story was un-
necessary and inhumane. We
would hope that aspiring jour-
nalists could learn to treat tra-
gedies like this one with more
respect.
Holly Chambers
October 11
Letters should be typed
and limited to 400 words.
The Daily reserves the
right to edit letters for
length and grammar.

1111

CttK

9

0
10,000, QP

Y:=

a

t

It

-Th

5

Contact your reps
Sen. Phillip Hart (Dem.), 253 Russell Bldg., Capitol Hill,
Washington, D.C. 20515.
Sen. Robert Griffin (Rep.), 353 Russell Bldg., Capitol Hill,
Washington, D.C. 20515.
Rep. Marvin Esch (Rep.), 2353 Rayburn Bldg., Capitol Hill,
Washington. D.C. 20515.

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan