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.

May 12, 1971 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1971-05-12

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

420 Maynard Street, Ann Arbor, Mich.
Edited and managed by students at the
University of Michigan
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual
opinions of the author. This must be noted in all reprints.
Wednesday, May 12, 1971 News Phone: 764-0552
NIGHT EDITOR: MARK DILLEN
Air quality standards
THE ANNOUNCEMENT of national air quality standards
last week by Environmental Protection administrator
William D. Ruckelhaus is only one step in a long battle to
reduce air pollution.
On the surface, the standards and the timetable for
meeting them appear unusually stringent. Requirements
for particulates (smoke and soot) and sulphur oxides, will
compel electric power plants burning coal and oil to switch
to more expensive low-sulphur fuels which produce less
pollution.
Coke ovens in steel mills, smelters of nonferrous ores
and municipal incinerators will need to make similar im-
provements. Standards for carbon monoxide may compel
some cities to build rapid transit lines between suburbs
and downtown areas to reduce automobile traffic. -
The Clean Air Act of 1970 requires states to submit by
January 1 plans for achieving the goals set by the EPA
administrator. The environmental agency must approve
or reject the plans by May 1, 1972. If a state plan is re-
jected, the agency must impose its own plan on that state.
The states then have until January 1, 1975, to carry out
the plans.
However, without new federal aid, it is unlikely that
cities and states, already in financial trouble, will be able
to meet the air quality standards. Ruckelhaus admitted
that seven cities - Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Hartford,
New York, Philadelphia and St. Louis - will have trouble
complying with the guidelines on time. It is h a r d to
imagine a mayor ordering additional layoffs of employes
to provide additional funds to fight air pollution.
SOME OF THE CHANGES Ruckelhaus recommended may
be impossible by 1975, no matter how much money is
spent. Building rapid transit lines is a lengthy process re-
quiring time to arrange financing, make engineering stud-
ies, develop equipment and work out relations among lo-
cal governments. Within six months, S a n Francisco's
BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit), the first new transpor-
tation system built in the U.S. since 1905, is expected to
begin operating. Construction started in 1964. Cities like
Detroit that have spent millions on studies of mass tran-
sit without acting will probably be unable to meet the
1975 deadline.
Federal efforts to enforce the new standards are also
likely to be hampered by a lack of funds. Significant in-
creases in appropriations for EPA will be needed to pro-
vide personnel to review the state plans if the agency ex-
pects to meet the timetable in the law. Only four months
are allowed to review 50 state plans. Those that are re-
jected must be revised by the agency in two months.
Traditionally, appropriations for fighting pollution
have been far below the amounts authorized by Congress.
Serious financial problems have already plagued federal
efforts to clean up the air. Last year a member of New
York University's chemistry department was unable to
get funding for his research on air pollution although the
National Air Pollution Control Administration (NAPCA),
a part of EPA, had approved grants for him' exceeding
$150,000. NAPCA's Office of Research Grants told Rep.
Jonathan V. Bingham (D-N.Y.) that out of the 60 to 80
grants recommended for funding only half were actually
receiving money. The backlog in recommended grants
that could not be funded amounted to $1 million.
WHILE IT IS commendable for Ruckelshaus to propose
stringent air quality standards, he should have point-
ed out how unlikely it is that they will be met on time.
The best way EPA can get the staff and funds it needs is
by using every opportunity to arouse public support for
larger appropriations. Simply setting strict standards does
not guarantee that the air will be any cleaner in 1975 than
it is today.

LSA governance proposal:
Forward step or dead end?
By BOB BLACK Worse yet, Dean Shaw and other Committee fac-
The author is a member-at-large of LsA student ulty were timid and apologetic in defense of Proposal
Government's Executive Council, two-they damned it with faint praise, to the deep
THE LSA FACULTY'S establishment of a student- disappointment of their student colleagues. The fac-
faculty advisory committee has been well received ulty finally passed the proposal of professors Fine,
so far. There is disappointment, of course, at the Feuerwerker, Eckstein and Smith for a pitiably small
rejection of the proposals of the student-faculty and merely advisory committee of ten students and
Committee on Governance, but the approved plan ten faculty. So far as I know, they asked no student
is said to be a step in the right direction. Sara Fitz- his opinion in devising their plan-they saw it as
gerald of The Daily suggests it gives students "sub- exclusively the concern of the faculty oligarchy.
stantial input into the overall governance of the
literary college," and implies that it might lead to I BELIEVE the Fine Plan has none of the advan-
stronger student involvement in the future. tages that made Proposal two tolerable. It sets up a
This common view, I think, is largely wishful small group, of only 20 people, and no matter how
thinking, bred by the repeated defeat of student efficient it is, cannot "prove" the viability of repre-
efforts to gain decision-making power. The faculty sentative student-faculty cooperation. Only a handful
plan-because of what it is and because of the way of students and faculty, at best, will be "socialized"
it was passed-is a step in the wrong direction, and develop governing skills that might later be em-
worthless in itself and a dead end as far as develop- ployed on a real college government. Small commit-
ment into better government is concerned. Rather tees, as the Committee on Governance was disap-
than accept this demeaning consolation prize, stu- pointed to learn, are easily ignored by the govermng
dents should see it for what it is and use the only faculty; and a handful of faculty, even if they cared
power they have-the right to withhold legitimation to, are not enough to sway faculty meetings.
-to wipe the slate clean and demonstrate that the Finally, the fact that every proposal to which stu-
struggle for student decision-making has hardly dents were a party was repudiated, while the scheme
begun. of a faculty liberal clique was accepted, shows the
Governance should be considered in its historical faculty's contempt for the governance committee and
context. Nearly a year ago, an ad hoc student- for student opinion in general. A few department
faculty Committee on Governance was set up to ex- heads, their friends and conservative faculty-barely
plore ways of increasing student input in the college. 100 men-imposed their constitutional views on over
After months of hard work, they devised a plan 3.000 faculty and over 12,000 students. Not only was
(Proposal one) for a new student-faculty legislature their decision bad-their structure is eccentric.
to assume primary college governing responsibility. After the defeat of Proposal one, the LSA Student
Its 40 faculty and 40 student members would assume Government observed that "judging from their own
all the powers of the governing faculty, except that disorderly meeting, it is the faculty, not the students,
the latter (with a higher quorum than now) might who proved themselves incapable of self-government.
overrule its decisions. It was a notable achievement They systematically moved away from the proposals
to obtain even qualified faculty support for this 'of the student-faculty Governance Committee, suggest-
proposal. ing that student input, when channeled into commit-
tees, is not going to be seriously considered by the
IT BECAME CLEAR, though, that it couldn't faculty." (Emphasis added.)
pass, and so the committee prepared a vastly in- We were criticized for these remarks, but it seems
ferior second plan (Proposal two) calling for a 40- clear that they were appropriate. The Fine Plan offers
member body with only advisory.powers. It was the us no decision-making power; it fails to involve signifi-
students' turn now to display reluctance, but for cant numbers of students and faculty in cooperative
several reasons it was thought that this might be a planning for the college; consequently, it is struc-
beginning: tually incapable of evolving toward real student-facul-
1) If it worked, it would prove that students and ty governance; and it testifies to faculty contempt
faculty could work together on a large scale. Large for the opinions of the student majority.
numbers of student and faculty would grow accus-
tomed to cooperating on common problems and THIS IS ONE DECISION that can't be made uni-
benefiting from each other's special perspectives on laterally. LSA students, through their student govern-
college problems. ment, can torpedo the Fine Plan by denying it the
2) Because 20 faculty-a large number-were in- students it needs to fulfill its primary function-as
volved, the advisory committee would carry some liberal window dressing for the literary college. Since
weight with the governing faculty. The 20 faculty they have done nothing for us, we should deny them t
themselves would be a powerful voting faction, since the privilege of a progressive image. By destroying
the governing faculty rarely exceeds its 100-man this scheme, we serve notice that in the future we will
quorum by much, not be fobbed off-that the issue of student power
3) Because Proposal two was the product of a must be squarely faced.
student-faculty committee, its passage would im- It is in our interest to sweep away the rubbish that
prove student-faculty relations. It would also sug- obscures the perception, by students and faculty alike,
gest that the faculty pays attention to its own ad- that a small group of faculty politicos is running an
visory committees, with which students have had important aspect of our lives, and doing so rather
reason to be disillusioned. badly at that. Students ought to concentrate their ef-
But Proposal two lost and Proposal one was vir- forts on Proposal one-placing it on the faculty's
tually ignored. At their April 22 meeting-like most agenda next fall and over and over again, never let-
important decisions, it was made during finals-no ting it die.
opportunity was provided for the Committee on
Governance to set out systematically the reasons WE HAVE TO INSIST that progressive faculty
it favored the plan. Members of the Committee and attend faculty meetings and uphold their professed
of the LSA Student Government only occasionally principles. We need to bring pressure on all faculty
managed to intrude a few remarks, while the fac- members, and, before anything else, we must per-
ulty, as always, indulged its fondness for rhetoric suade ourselves that the dull issue of LSA governance
and for procedural piffle. is of overriding importance to our lives.

i

.

Letters to The Daily

s

Author explains

ing more than confuse anyone,
whether or not he knows how to

3) That's the way I talk, big
words, capitalized phrases and all.

To The Daily: put sentences on paper. It is also the way I write, since I
I WAS RECENTLY surprised to discovered that nobody else talks
find that a piece of my writing FOR THAT REASON, and tolieIdadsIwspoesd
has b ice In a book e save students at UM a royal pain like I do, and so I was possessed
tas bee nclud in a book e i in the rump, I am happy to supply of instant originality of style.
is published by Random fhouse honest, true-life answers to the Die running-dog lackey of the
-PAT MAHONEYiandwhicheisdIbelieeanommHoen qti s tta, i va teutt age ao i go00iperalst.eis.sin

ROBE
JIM J
NIGH
Sc
ASSIS
- Ala

--PAT MAHONEY and which is, I believe, in common qusinwinaeo aeIu BugosIpraitSxs wn
of Student Voices/One. Any and and all that.
Assistant Editorial Page Editor usage as a text UforFreshman all may use them with my hearty
___Composition at the University of priso n prvl n -David Holwerk#
Michigan. permission and approval. Any .-ai owr
Sumtmer Editorial Staff M . complaints on the part of Fresh- Lexington, Kentucky
STEVE KOPPMAN LARRY LEMPERT Although I was frankly disap- man Comp Teachers and o t h e r
Co-Editor Co-Editgr pointed to learn that there is no such-like Beautiful People may be
RT CONROw ...................... ........Books Editor real way I can bring suit to get addressed to me.
OUDKIS .. . ...... . ... ... . Photography Editor a bundle of money from Random Letters to The Daily should
T EDITORS: Rose Sue Berstein, Mark Dillen, Jonathan Miller, Robert House, I was even Tore distressed he opening sentence h a s be mailed to the Editorial Di-
hrelner, Geri Sprung to learn that Christopher Rt enothing to do with the bulk of the rector or delivered to M a r y
TANT NIGHT EDITORS: Juanita Anderson, Anita Crone. Jim Irwin, Reaske and Robert F. Willion Jr' story or with my thesis. It is pure- Rafferty in the Student Pub-
i Lenlisft, Chris ParksReseadRbrF.WlsnJrlineddtpovtomefad
who allegedly edited the book, had ly intended to prove to myself and lications business office in the
Sunner Sports Staf appended three questions to my anyone else that reads the thing Michigan Daily building. Let-
ORNFELD . . Sports Editoor essay that I'm more or less culturally ters should be typed, double-
I GENIE5......... ......... . .... .... . . Associate Sports Editor 'spaed and normally should
Stimoner Business Staf~ wI'm not sure that my writing literate. e and nor should
will help anyone learn to write 2) I offer no proof of that claim, no eced10wrs Th

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan