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

Daily

election

letters:

Tuesday, November 2, 1976

News Phone: 764-0552

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
Te Big Selout: GEO
members reject walkout

Y OVERWHELMINGLY rejecting
a, strike yesterday, graduate stu-
dent assistants (GSA's) sold their
souls to the repressive bureaucrats
who have sought from the start to
smother any progressive labor move-
ment - and who appear to have
finally won the struggle.
The GEO rank and file, in failing
to stand firmly behind their leaders
and the positions they represent,
have relegated themselves to accept-
ing a glaringly unjust contract that
will illustrate the University's lack
of respect for their educational work-
horses, GSA's.
Six months ago GEO, full of
hopes, stepped up to the bargaining
table with a platform that reflected
their conviction to fight for their
ideals and force the University to
change its patronizing attitude to-
toward its employes. The coward-
ly profile cast on GEO by the faith-
less members who submitted the dis-
senting votes will force bargainers to
grit their teeth and bow to the Uni-
versity.
GEO's demands have been just.
ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GEO
was merely asking the University
to include in the contract what they
had agreed to in spirit just 18 months
ago. The union, sought, this time
around, to commit administrators to
establishing and meeting certain
goals and timetables for increasing
minority and women hiring in each
department. The University wouldn't
even consider it. By refusing to be
bound by contract to, implementing
the affirmative action plan outlined,
the University made it clear that it
never intended to abide by is pro-
mise - echoing its failure to meet
the Black Action Movement (BAM)
demands of 1972.
Although the University has agreed
not to discriminate against GSA's,
that is not enough. GEO has asked
the same, fair treatment be afforded
applicants for GSA positions. The
University wouldn't even consider it.
Class sizes have reached astro-
nomical levels recently and GEO
wanted to check any further expan-
sion almost certain to afflict educa-
tional quality in the future. But ad-
ministrators don't seem to care

much about educational quality. The
union initially demanded that high
warning and maximum class size
figures be set and adhered to by
1977-78 and that there be a standard
ratio of GSA's to undergraduate
students. The University's hard line
stance effectively eroded their pro-
posal to a mere plea to maintain
class sizes at their present abysmal
level. Still, the University wouldn't
even consider it.
Asking just to be compensated for
the cost of living increases, GGEO
sought a 6.5 per cent pay raise coup-
led with a 50 per cent tuition cut in
1976-77 and a full tuition waver in
the second year. While we don't back
that call for tuition waver, with a
9.7 per cent leap in tuition for all
University students this year, a 6.5
per cent wage hike is hardly ade-
quate. Yet, the University wouldn't
even consider it.
The only arrangement the Uni-
versity ever considered was a 5 per
cent raise or a 3.2 per cent increase
with a 9.7 per cent tuition decrease
which amounts to a freeze at last
year's tuition level. Their offer is a
mere pittance to their already un-
derpaid teaching assistants.
A ND NOT ONLY is the staff under-
paid, but they are overworked.
Present University policy calls for a
full time GSA to work as much as 55
hours a week for 17 weeks. After
months of futile "bargaining" the
University conceded so much as to
write this travesty into the contract.
What GEO wanted, however, was just
a sensible 45-hour-a-week, arrange-
ment for 15 weeks. But the University
wouldn't even consider it.
All along the University defended
its intransigence saying the afore-
mentioned issues simply "do not be-
long in a labor contract." Adminis-
trators say this stance is based on a
long - standing principle that cannot
be compromised, not even under
threat of a strike. The University has
never before acted on principle. So
,why are they starting now?
Editorial positions represent a
consensus of the Daily staff.

Carer-Frd
To The Daily:
PERHAPS NOTHING better
illustrates the contrast between
Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford
than their selection of running
mates. Under pressure from
the Reaganites, Ford made a
last minute choice of Robert
Dole, a man who combines the
vision of William Miller (re-
member him?) with the charity
of Spiro Agnew. In the tele-
vised debate, Dole floundered
and flailed in search of insults,
and offered no other evidence
of public service than his World
War II record.
No one though Jimmy Carter
would pick Walter Mondale.
Carter was so vengeful, they
said, he'd never choose Hubert
Humphrey's friend. Carter was
so ambitious, they said, he'd
never pick someone who'd de-
clined to spend two years in
Toliday Inns. Carter was so ar-
rogant, he'd never risk a man
who might outshine him. And
Carter was so conservative and
so Southern, he'd never pick a
Northern liberal. But Carter
did choose Mondale, a man
well - oalified to be President,
which Robert Dole most assur-
edly is not.
Jan Grimmelmann
To The Daily:
THERE IS A clear choice for
humanists and orogressives in
this presidential election and
that choice is Jimmy Carter.
As I've campaigned around
Ann Aror in the past couple
of months, I've heard a few
concerned progressive citizens
express snoort for the candi-
dacv of Eugene McCarthy. It
wo1Id be sad indeed if enouh
nrogressive citizens voted for
the quixotic McCarthy to cause
folir more years of backward
movement under Ford. In 1968
.when Eugene McCarthy spoke
for the peace movement against
the unust war in Vietnam, I
worked for him in several stat-
es and ended the campaign as
a McCarthy floor coordinator
at the ill-fated Chicago conven-
tion.
Today McCarthy is a spoiler,
leading people nowhere, prom-
ising onlyto contribute to the
re-election of Do-Nothing Ford.
On the critical issue of tax
reform, by plugging the loop-
holes for the rich, Jimmy Car-
ter's position is clearly pref-
erable to that of either Ford
or McCarthy.
On environmental issues, Jim-
my Carter has been a commit-
ted fighter for stronger anti-
pollution standards and an ef-
fective energy policy. In the,
spring he received the highest
rating of the League of Con-
servation Voters, which has ra-
ted Ford's record hopeless.
MOST IMPORTANT, Carter
will use the resources of the
federal government to get peo-
ple to work and end this crip-
pling recession. The number of
people living below the poverty
level has increased in the past
couple of years. Ford has ve-
toed virtually every jobs bill
and social services improve-
ment bill produced by the Con-
gress. The families of the un
employed and families of peo-
ple in poverty are crying ouie
for help. Only a Carter presi-
dency can give that help.
Carter favors a significant cut
in military spending; Ford has
called for a ten million dollar
increase. :Carter opposed the
Nixon-Ford adventures in An-
gola and Chile. Carter is op-
posing the wasteful B- bom-
ber proposal which Ford sup-
ports. In addition, the prospect
of Mondale a heart beat from

the presidency makes far more
sense thanDolea heart beat
from the presidency.
There is a clear choice for
progressive voters in this elec-
tion. That choice is Jimmy Car-
ter.
Perry Bullard,
State Representative
October 26
proposal A
To The Daily:
I VIGOROUSLY oppose the
arguments being stated against
Proposal A, the Bottle Bill.
They resemble the arguments
of a desperate lawyer who's
searching for a defense. These
arguments, given mainly by the
beverage industry, cloud the
very issue at hand. The main
purpose of the Bottle Bill is to
reduce litter and unnecessary
wasting of resources by mak-
ing most beverage containers
returnable. Opponents, howev-
er, harp continually on false
unproven issues involving job
losses, higher beverage prices,
and the punishment that "we",
who are non-litterers will re-
ceive if the law is passed.
All known studies of the Bot-
tle Bill's effects completely dis-

containers will be fully return-
ed when the containers are
brought back to the store; con-
sumers will pal ythe same price
overall as they do now.
Michigan is one of the most
beautiful states in the Union;
our lakes and forests provide
us with a major portion of our
state income through tourism.
But with the population expand-
ing as it is, litter is destroying
the veryresources that Michi-
ganders both cherish and need.
As a growing state our land is
a necessity to us, and the Bottle
Bill will help cusion the im-
pact of people on the land and
strengthen the pride we
have in our land.
Non-litterers are the strong-
est supporters of the Bottle
Bill. We want to discourage
careless littering of cans and
bottles. Proposal A is not an
insult to is. it is a necessity.
tidaSollenberger
October 23
To The Div:
ON NOVEMBER 2, the peo-
ple of Michigan will have an
onortnity to improve the qual-
itv of their environment. A vote
for Proposal A, the "bottle bill,"
is a vote for energy and re-
soirce conservation, reduced
solid waste and litter, lower
costs, and a net increase in
emnloyment.
These 'conclusions -aren't
drawn from air. They are sup-
ported by heavily documented
studies of the operation of "bot-
tle bills" in Oregon and Vern
niont. One year ago, the state
Public Service Commission
(PSC) reached almost identical
conclusions - which haven't
been seriously challenged - as
to the effect Pf a "bottle bill"
in Michigan.'
As important as the studies
are, Proposal A simply makes
commonsense. If you attach a
value to beverage containers.
they probably won't be littered.
If they are, someone else. will
pick them up to collect the de-
posit. MostbDeople will by in
returnable bottles, and resourc-
es will be saved. Becanse the,
retrnables system is labor in-
tensive, according to PSC, more
than 4.000 jobs will be created
in Michigan. Since throwaways
cost the consumer one-half cent
to one cen more than return-
ables, beverage buyers will save
money.
Those who oppose Proposal A
are attempting to obscure their
real motives behind a slick
media campaign filled with half-
truths and emotional appeals.
These people - mostly large
corporations -profit by the
production of throwaway bev-
erage containers. They seem ob-
livious to the social costs in-
volved - litter clean-up costs
borne by thertaxpayer, the price
of public or recreation areas
made ugly, or the pain of a
small child who has stepped
on a pull-tab or broken throw-
away bottle.
The returnable bottle is an
idea whose time has come -
again. Vote YES on Proposal
A.
John Dernbach
October 26
Esch-R egle
To The Daily:
THIS PAST Friday night, Oc-
tober 22, a conglomerate known
as the Women's Studies Con-
sortium-American Association of
University Professors-Committee
W on the Status of Women held
a talk at the Ann Arbor Library
on "Women's Issues." Invited
only were Marvin Esch and
Donald Riegle to face a panel
made up of Nadean Bishop
(EMU Women's Studies Coor-
dinator), Virginia Nordby (UM

Policy Coordinator), Kathleen
Fojtik (CountynCommissioner),
Norma Kraker (Candidate for
Commissioner) and Martha
Fisher (member of the League
?f Women Voters).
When asked why only Esch
and Riegle were invited and
not all the senate candidates,
Ms. Bishop claimed that this
was "not a debate" and any-
way, Riegle was having a stand-
in. When reminded that at least
two of the senate candidates
were women, Ms. Bishop dis-
missed this as unimportant.
UNI MPORTANT? !
Asking Esch and Rieele to dis-
cuss women's issues is like ask-
ing an Upper Michigan resi-
dent with no direct experience
what it's like to be a black
teenager in Detroit's inner city.
If Ms. Bishop is not interested
in what women running for sen-
ate have to say on women's is-
sues, one wonders what she is
doing as a coordinator of a
women's studies program. If Ms.
Fojtik, who seemed to be amus-
ed that anyone would dare ask
where the womentcandidates
were, is not interested in wom-
en candidates'' opinions, per-
haps she should stop putting
out bumper stickers and propa-
ganda with the "0" in her name

lists is a sham, and the people
involved are nothing more that
apologists for the Democratic
and Republican parties. Groups
like the LWV are quite willing
to "inform" the public, about
the issues, but only from the
point of view of the "Republi-
crats." That this is true can
be iroven by the fact that the
prsidential debates contained
only two parties. And these
groupstknow full well that in
order to stay n the ballot for
future elections the top-of-the-
line candidates must obtain a
certain number of votes. In ef-
fect, Ms. Bishop, Ms. Fojtik,
the LWV, et al., are telling the
voters "We will tell you who to
vote for. You have a big choice
between these two parties. No
other parties exist."
Fortunately, you the voters
still have the final word, if you
can find the information these
groups are unwilling to give you.
James R. Greenshields
County Secretary R
Libertarian Party
October 25
Deli pv
To The Daily:
IN MONDAY, October 2th's
Ann Arbor News, I saw an ar-
ficle which gave Mr. William
Delhey- considerable credit for
the anti-wife abuse program of
the local NOW Chapter, and as
a hardworking VOLUNTEER, I
would jst like to set the re-
cord straight, because I ob-
ject to my work contributing to
the re-election of a candidate
I do not support.
Mr Dehey did not initiate,
nor has he i, any way organiz-
ed the anti-wife abuse program.
As a matter of fact, the pro-
gram is called the NOW Do-
mestice ViolencehProject, and
it it an anti-wife assault pro-
wpthm. Mr. Delhey coonerated
Nihourr efforts, and has in-
structed his assistantdprosect-
ing attorney's to make referrals
to our nroiect, bt to my know-
1lie. he has nwt no time into
atending meetings, or in any
other wny smnorting our paro-
eram of emergencv housing,
co"-seene;leenl ndvie, 24 hour
crisis intervention, etc.
T would like to noint out, that
infact, in at least one case.
o" rprogramnwas Used by an
assistant prosecuting attornev
to dlav nroseention through
the withholding of criminal art-
t1'orization until the victim-
complainant had been referred
to the wife assault Project. This
is not, nor never has been the
intent of our proiect, to delay
nrosecution: on the contrar,
we hone to facilitate prosecu-
tion and provide victim assist-
ance, as well as nrovide assist-
ance to local criminal ustice
and social service agencies.
I think it is unfortunate that
a hard-working, volunteer, wo-
man r initiated program like
ours,'gets used as a plns for a
county agency which could
have been doing more in the
area of family violence, vears
aao but had to be nrodded by
vs to do the very little bit of
referral to o"r nroject, which
they are finally doing today.
Amy Starr. Volunteer
October 26
drain commissioner
To The Daily:
IN REFERENCE to all the
campaign propaganda about
"restoring a professional coun-
ty administrator" to county
government, may I remind you
that Spiro T. Agnew was a pro-
fessional county administrator
before he became the Nixon
Vice - President, which was
before he was indicted for all
kind of corruption and forced
out of office. (He pled "Polo
contendre", he never even tried
to defend himself.) Is that a

samnle of the kind of efficiency
the Republicans in this county
want to restore?
'r would like to remind the
voters that we currently have
seven Republicans and seven
Democrats on the Conty Board
of Commissioners. We have a
Renbhicican Prosecutin A ttor-
nev, Clerk. and manny "non-rhr-
tisan" rpnuhlican in other at~ct-
ed and annointed positions
thronnghout the county. Before
1q7 all of county gmernment
in Washtennw 'County had been
controlled by the Republicans
for as long as history is re-
corded, and most of them are
still around, thriving in the
Courthouse. TF County govern-
ment is inefficient, it is NOT
because of the Democrats.
Republican campaign litera-
ture also speaks of "efficient
law enforcement". Too often in
the four years I have served
on the Board, I have been ap-
palled at the expense of the
court system, and the inefficien-
cy of certain branches of the
criminal juustice, system. The
Sheriff is not the only law en-
forcement officer within Wash-
tenaw County. What about the
Prosecuting Attorney? And
what about the Judges? Many
thoughtful critics, between elec-

portant county race. Though its
impact is not readily visible, the.
office of Drain Commissioner is
vital to the future land use
policies of the county. Every
year the Drain Commissioner
makes decisions on millions of
dollars worth of building con-
tracts, and determines what de-
velopment can or cannot take
place in flood plains.
Tom Blessing, the Democra-
tic candidate, is without a doubt
the one best qualified for the
position. As assistant director
of Ann Arbor's Ecology Center
and present member of, the
Michiean Resource 'Recovery
Commission Blessing has de-
monstrated his experience in
dealing with environmental
problems. He has stressed fu-
ture planning with community
input, and wise land use to
avoid costly drainage mistakes.
The Ann Arbor News, contrary
to its Republican inclinatio"'s,
recognized Blessing's capabili-
ties in endorsing him for this
post, noting that he has "better
credentials for the job than his
Republican opponent". (The
News. October 26, 1976)
Don't forget to vote today for
Tom Blessing for County Drain
Commissioner. He deserves our
support.
Susan Morrison
October 31
Cn1ldorsemen ts
To The Daily:
IN READING The Daily's po-
litical endorsements I noticed a
very interesting peculiarity:
not one Republican was endors-
ed in any of the local, state, or
national races. As a matter of
fact, The Daily endorsements
followed a straight Democratic
Party ticket. I have to wonder
if there is any validity to the
inference that this obviously
suggests? Doe the Daily unbias-
ly, fairly and critically analyze
al the candidates in a race,
as isthe duty of any civicly
minded newspaper, or is it a
rubber stamp for the Democra-
tic party?
Surely, among the myriad of
candidates running for, public
office, therermust be one, sup-
erior to his opponent; who hap-
pens not to be a Democrat. Of
course, there Ore many! To
date, according to every major
newspaper endorsing a candi-
date in the 2nd U. S. Congres-
sional District, Carl Pursell is
such a candidate: the tradi-

tionally Democratic Detroit
Free Press, as well as the Ann
Arbor News, and the Toledo
Blade endorse Pursell.
Limiting its endorsements to
one political party, The Daily
has done a disservice to the
University community. When a
newspaper sacrifices its good
iudement, in order to maintain
a "liberal"reputation, it is ne-
glectine its responsibility to
the puiblic and is making a moc-
kery out of the political pro-
cess.
Over the past decade, Ameri-
ca has seen an increased trend
toward "issue , voting," i.e.,
making election decisions- on
the basis of issue stands and
candid ate attributes rather, than
straight party identification.
Professor Warren Miller of the
U-" political science depart-
",,nt explains that "issue vot-
i-e" is nrim'arilv due toinereas-
ine mean educational levels
aprn-sg the American electorate.
I hwve to wonder, in light of
tha strai-'it ticket endorsefnent
n."tiv. if the editorial staff of
The Dulv is reversing this
trene ton "trs increasing educa-
t'intl l° 'els?
Tt is important that each in-
telligent voter who. reads The
Daily's endorsements ask him-
self, "Ahe there no qualified,
resnonsible Republican candi-
dates or are there no qualified,
responsible Michigan Daily edi-
tors?"
Martin D. Mann
October 30
To The Daily:
TALK ABOUT being biased!
Why did you even bother to go
through the motions of evaluat-
ing the candidates running in
the November 2 election? It is
quite evident that your choices
differ not in the least with those
seen on any Democratic hand-
out The Michigan Daily may
be edited and managed by stu-
dents at the University of
Michigan, but it is in no way
representative of the opinions
of the Student body. Your paper
is objective only when it suits
your purpose. For the most
part, you totally alienate a sub-
stantial number of students.
Believe it or not, some of us
are actually Republicans or in-
dependents!
Lawrence Alan
Llchtman

.i

The Daily end",orses:

4

President:
Jimmy Carter
Senate.
Donald Riegle
U.S. House:
Dr. Edward Pierce.
Regents:
Gerald Dunn
Robert Nederlander
State Rep.:
Perry Bullard
Sheriff:
Fred Postill
Prosecutor:
George Steeh

Supreme Court:
Zolton Ferency
Thomas Kavanaugh
Circuit Court:
Henry Conlin
Commissioners:
Catherine McClary
Kathleen Fojtik
Ballot Proposals:
A-Yes
B-Yes
C-No
D--Yes
Local Proposals:
1-Yes
2-Yes
3-Yes

Perspective
by W. L. SCHELLER
LONG MONTHS of travelling, making speeches and pro-
mises - some idle and some not - conventions and
debates, polls, everything is over today. Today Americans
choose the course our government will take for the next
four years.
Somegroups have alleged that there is no decision to
be made, but this is far off base. Gerald R. Ford and Jim-
my Carter though coming close to agreement on a few
points are of differing philosophy in the most important is-
sues in this campaign.
In The New York Times on October 29, both Ford and
Carter wrote articles for the Editorial Page. In these two
articles the candidates summarized their campaign stances.
Mr. Carter as usual is talking about his ideal Presidency,
accusingFord of a lack of leadership and expounds his "fair
in America." What is lacking in almost all of what Carter
has said throughout the campaign is something concrete in
his plans. He has said that he wants to get the American
people involved in such areas as foreign policy, but'he him-
self has shown little leadership or drive to give direction.
So far he has not given sufficient reason to warrant the
"trust" that he asks for.
PRESIDENT FORD also summarizes the general lines
of his campaign. He points out the achievements that have
come about under his administration. These include cut-
ting inflation, cuttingr government spending and his suc-
cessful foreign policy. If nothing else, the record proves
that over the past two years President Ford has tried to
provide as open an administration as possible. Though he
may never be considered one of our great presidents,his
actions have brought the country forward since he took
office.
If Mr. Carter were to be declared the winner tonight,
many of his idealistic and rather simplistic views would dis-
appear soon after he took office. He would realize that many
of his ideas were completely unworkable. This would make it
difficult if not impossible for him to keep some of his cam-
paign promises.
President Ford has shown us how he can deal with the
matters that effect this country. He has 4een in govern-
ment many years and knows the ins and outs. Carter would
have to gain his national political experience in the- very
office that demands the most of a politicians experience.
President Ford is committed to cuts in government spend-
ing and development of the private sector of the economy,
while Carter's plahs would only keep the snowball of gov-
ernment expenditure growing. Carter's economic plans are
along the same lines as those that got us into our economic
woes in the first place, and have driven Britain to the brink
of ruin. Ford's policies, while not giving instantaneous stim-
ulus to the economy, are providing a well governed economic
recovery.
President Ford is clearly the best choice on the ballot
today. His experience and actions in office have proven his
ability to run the executive branch of our government and
manage our foreign policy. Carter simnlv doesn't provide
enoicrh to satisfv the demands of the presidencv.
No matter who volt sport, Ford. Carter. McCarthy or
any of the other candirintes of the minor parties, take, the
opnort'unity to exercise vour right to vote. Some people have
.,« ........... .s .1 . L . :.. « .«i «.t .E, .. . , LvwZ. T{


Maw

a
i