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.