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 07, 1970 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1970-05-07

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


Iti AtircI$an Dalu0
Seventy-nine years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

New discipline rules are no surprise

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1970

NIGHT EDITOR: ROB BIER

The Regents' interim rules
should not go unchallenged

ANOTHER GROUP has been formed to
examine the University's disciplinary
system and recommend a new one. Re-
membering the past committees and in
view of the long stalemate existing on
the issue, it is important to ask whether
this new group can succeed in coming up
with a fair system which the Regents will
approve.
Looking at the Regents' past actions,
such an outcome seems highly unlikely.
The present battle over a student ju-
diciary spans over four years, dating back
to the student power movement in 1966.
Out of that movement came a two-year
study of the students' role in University
decision-making - the so-called Hatcher
Commission.
That report, submitted in March 1968,
recommended a central judiciary w i t h
original jurisdiction by students, due pro-
cess and faculty review only in cases in-
volving explusion or suspension.
After that report an ad hoc group of
students and faculty convened to draft
new bylaws in light of the commission's
recommendations. Their proposals which
included an all-student judiciary to hear
cases involving any accusation of alleged
misconduct brought against a student,
came out in June of last year. Subse-
quently, both Senate Assembly and Stu-
dent Government Council approved the
draft and sent it to the Regents.
HERE, EVERYTHING STOPPED. The
Regents, in public and private state-
ments, have indicated that they have no
intention of entrusting the responsibil-
ity of justice to the students. Even more
strongly than their words, however, the
Regents' action in adopting interim con-
duct rules bespeaks their thinking and
attitude.
Those rules, passed at their April 17
meeting, set up outside hearing officers
chosen by President Fleming to h e a r
cases arising from disruptions and impose
sanctions ranging from a warning to ex-
pulsion. In taking that action, the Re-
gents cited what they called the slowness
of Central Student Judiciary (CSJ) in
bringing students to trial. But implicit in
their statements was the belief that CSJ
was too soft in the punishments it impos-
es.
The Regents have made it clear what
they want - s w i f t punishment. And
through their action of April 17, t h e y
have shown how they expect to get their
way.
When the Regents passed their ruies
taking control of the judiciary out of the
hands of the University community, they
did so without consulting either students
or faculty members. They have already
shown their capacity to ignore student-
faculty proposals they dislike. Now they
have moved one step farther and acted
Having tasted blood once, they will do it
independently of students and faculty.
again.
BEFORE PROCEEDING further, though,
one thing should be made clear. It has
been said that Regents' meetings a r e
where decisions are announced, n o t
made. President Robben Fleming is the
Summer Editorial Staff

one who runs the show, and the case of
the judiciary is no exception.
The hearing officer procedure passed
by the Regents is almost identical to the
one formulated by Fleming to deal with
cases arising f r o m the BAM strike. A
week before the Regents' meeting, Flem-
ing talked at length with Daily reporters
on the problems with the present disci-
plinary system and the need for a new
one. Before t h e University Senate the
next Monday he repeated his theme that
traditional campus, judiciaries cannot
deal with present problems and that the
faculty has an interest too. Thus, t h e
stage was set for the Regents' action, and
no Fleming-watcher should h a v e been
surprised.
Now, the question of whether the new
committee can succeed in bringing a fair
judiciary to this campus comes up. Bar-
ring a miracle or similar earth-shaking
occurance, the answer is, "No." The Re-
gents and Fleming have shown that they
can and will ignore what is unacceptable
to them i.e. a student judiciary, and now
that they have interim rules to their lik-
ing, there is no reason for them to do
otherwise.
CSJ has been operating under "inter-
im" rules for two years now, pending res-
olution of the whole problem. At the Re-
gents' April meeting, Senate Assembly
Chairman Joseph P a y n e questioned
whether the rules were really interim,
saying that was not the impression he
had gotten when they were passed.
The Regents replied that the rules were
interim, but just as it is their perogative
to extend them, it is also within their
power to retain them indefinitely. And
uriless the committee reaffirms the hear-
ing officer procedure, or something
equally repressive and unfair, there is no
indication that the Regents will do oth-
erwise.
THE COMMITTEE COURSE h a s been
tried before and failed through the
Regents ability to ignore it and their
power to act without it. With the possi-
bility of campus disorders looming very
real in the summer ahead, the hearing
officer set up will be put to the test. It
cannot be allowed to function. If it does,
the Regents will have established a ser-
ious precedent for future insults to stu-
dents and faculty alike.
The precedent for dealing with t h e
hearing officer procedure has already
been established by the Regents them-
selves. Ignore it. However, the rules pro-
vide that a student may be "tried" even
if he is not present. While this may be
difficult if no one or only a few appear
to testify on either side, the University
has the capacity to proceed anyway. Such
a trial would be a sham, just as the Re-
gents believe CSJ trials to be, and once
again the Regents' action can be used in
reverse - but at a different level. Since
the Regents used their power to cut the
ground out from under the existing sys-
tem, we must use our power to hamstring
the Regents' system. No hearings must
be allowed to be held anywhere.
If they are, we will be opening a new
Pandora's box of repression on campus
and contempt by the Regents for t h e
rights and opinions of students and fac-
ulty members.
-ROB BIER

By MICHAEL DAVIS
Daily Guest Writer
W E'VE COME A long way. A
W monthCagostudents and fac-
ulty were debating whether an
all-student judiciary or a student-
faculty judiciary was the proper
means of hearing disruption cas-
es. A month ago Fleming was still
saying the primary responsibility
f o r disruption cases should be
with the faculty. Today all fu-
ture disruption cases are to be
handled by Fleming's hand-pick-
ed hearing officers, hired for that
purpose from outside the Univer-
sity. Neither faculty nor students
are to have any part in the opera-
tion of that judicial system (ex-
cept the deans, who are to be fil-
ing clerks). That is the meaning
of the Regents' new Interim
Rules and Procedures.
What happened? The Regents
responded to outside pressure.
People who can not keep order in
their own home towns complained
to their friends (who happened
to be Regents) that the U~niver-
sity of Michigan was not doing
its police work right. The Regents
- who have to answer to their
friends but not to the University
community - responded. They'd
learned that neither students nor
faculty were willing to be brutal
enough or hasty enough to satisfy
their friends. So, to satisfy their
friends, they created a judicial
system guaranteed to be both fast
and brutal.
I must admit that the regental
action confused me at first. I had
listened to the public statements
of faculty and deans, expressing
the belief that it was the business
of the faculty to see that disrup-
ting students are punished quick-
ly and harshly. I believed they
meant what they said. And so, I
saw no reason for the adminis-
tration n o t to leave disruption
cases to them.
I WAS WRONG. They did not
mean w h a t they said. Though
they're liars, they're good men.
They are like the Czech hero, good
soldier Schfeiker, w h o never
stood up to an oppressor, always
bowing before oppressors so that
he could be in position to pull the
rug from under their feet.
The faculty (deans included)
are not willing to discipline stu-
dents by a judicial process stu-
dents do not consider legitimate.
They did not say that in public.
But, once students refused to join
the various hearing boards, the
deans and faculty quietly sabo-
taged t h e process, dismissing
some cases on technicalities and
putting the rest off until fall -
Vice President Allan Smith had
said. "All cases should be disposed

of by the end of the t e r m."
Though either the faculty nor the
deans will admit it even now, both
do, in fact believe in having the
consent of the governed and are
not willing to dirty their hands
with oppression.
. THE CENTRAL administration
understood the faculty better
than I did (better even than the
faculty understood itself). T h e
administration's defense of t h e
faculty's right to discipline was
an attempt to get the deans and
faculty to come around to doing
the administration's dirty work.
The attempt failed. The Regents.
with Fleming's advice, then draft-
ed the Interim Rules and Proce-
dures - without consulting stu-
dents, faculty, or deans (knowing
they would not have approved)-
and published them, thinking the
regental action could scare the
whole University community into
submission.
I am sure Fleming k n e w it
would not work. But the man who
poisons his own well one day is
likely to be poisoned by it the
next. The Regents, accepting the
false picture of t h e University
Fleming had given them (out of
his own igorance), could see no
other means to give the Univer-
sity peace. Fleming may have ar-
gued against the regental action
himself. Some of his subordinates
certainly did. But, he did not dare
argue strongly.
THE REGENTAL action could
be a disaster for the University.
Using police last fall to end a
peaceful sit-in at the LSA Build -
ing started the engine of polari-
zation. The new Rules and Pro-
cedures. if permitted to operate,
would put that engine into high
gear. The operation of those Rules
and Procedures could teach a
whole generation of University
students that there is no justice
here, leaving them to destroy
what they know they can not own.
But the regental action could
also be good for us, if we don't
permit the procedures to operate.
The confusion of the past month
is gone. We can see clearly our
friends and enemies. Despite the
angry talk of last month, we to-
day find ourselves (to our own
surprise) a united community
with a clearly defined enemy -
the Regents and their few dozen
hired men in the central adminis-
tration.
We must not overlook our dif-
ferences. Students want to trans-
form the University into a demo-
cratic community (on the model
of an American city). The faculty
want to maintain their place as
privileged aristocracy. Still, f o r

4
yI

*r

the time being, the issue is wheth-
er we or outsiders will settle such
differences, 4nd on that we are
agreed.
THERE IS A WAY to guaran-
tee that we will be able to settle
our differences ourselves. We can
stop the Interim Rules and Pro-
cedures from operating. Let's
jointly withdraw our recognition
of the regental action. Let's show
the Regents that, though t h e y
have the legal authority to com-
mand, they h a v e no power to
make us obey. Here's how:
-Let any student or faculty
member with a complaint take it
before a student judiciary or the
city court. If he's asked why he
did so, let him say something like
"We think we can take care of
our own affairs, thank you. We
don't like outsiders meddling;
-Let any dean who receives a
complaint urge the =person com-
plaining to use a student judiciary

or the city court, arguing "Should
the University spend $30 to $60
an hour for an outside hearing
officer when either the student
judiciary or city court will hear
the case free? We just raised tu-
ition. We can't afford to waste
money like that;"
-If the person still wants to
file the complaint, let the dean
accept it, sabotaging the discipi-
nary process by promptly losing
the complaint or by making it
slowly work its way through
channels leading no where. (Deans
are good at that.), and
-Let no student, faculty mem-
ber, or dean in any way aid the
central administration in ids in-
vestigation of an 4ncident. Let the
whole campus develop amnesia
when the central administration
sends out its noopers. If any one
is asked why he has amnesia, let
him say something like "My am-
nesia was caused by shock, the
shock of finding out that the Uni-

versity is spending thousands of
dollars to hire detectives, police
photographers, and spies. Think of
the scholarships that money could
buy! How can we waste money
that way in a tight year?"
THERE WAS, WHEN the Re-
gents announced the In t e r im
Rules and Procedures, a moment
of panic. There should not have
been. They can not rule us unless
we're willing. We live here every
day and the Regents are usually
far away. There are 35,000 of us
and only eight of them. The Rules
govern relations between us and
have only an abstract connection
with them. The power is ours,
though the legal authority is
theirs. There is no reason why the
University community can not
teach a -generation of students
how people willing to work to-
gether can ensure justice for
themselves against external op-
pressors. Let's at least try.

44

4

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Responses to

Vice, PresidentAgnew

4

To the Editor:
IN RESPONSE TO MR. AGNEW
"The Age demanded an image of
itself"
but
Protection, that is; in essence,
what is called for.
the early morning epileptic furies
of the mad woman of the
Potomac;
protection, that is,
from the awesome clarities
of the first gentleman of the
Potomac;
the late evening seductions
of rampaging tongue and leaking
brain; the diarrhetic impulses that
leak
from sessions of closed-door games
played by mid-western, Potomac
economists
and the guttural indignations of
heavy-
accented mid-western
scholarship-
deep-rooted in the excellencies of
neo-platonicrcatalogues-"Amer-
ican Culture :
non-black non-indian" deep-
rooted
in uncatalogued poems for monked
community
of research-center-of-the-mid-
west scholars

riding the sacred backs of sacred
monkeys.
"I grow old.. . I grow old"
but I shall not wear my brains,
black, rolled up;
I shall not wear my tongue, black,
folded up
in perfumed curls yellowing their
way
into lyrical mausoleums opening
under tense-tendoned images.
-Lemuel Johnson
Asst. Professor
Dept. of English
April 13
Criticism
To the Editor:
The following is a copy of a let-
ter sent to Vice President Agnew:
YOUR CRITICISMS of the
University of Michigan regarding
its stand for increased black en-
rollment are completely unjusti-
fied and misleading. The equality
of opportunity for an education
for disadvantaged groups should
be of the highest priority to uni-
versity and political administra-
tors of social equality is to be
achieved. Standards are never
lowered by the participation of all
citizens in the educational process.
You have indicated your support
of extended governmental aid for

deprived Negro students. W e
quote :
"The difference is that I
favor better preparing them-
with additional governmental
assistance-in some form of
prep school rather than toss-
ing them into a four-year col-
lege or university curriculum
that they are not equipped to
handle.
We, as University students, have
taken a step toward providing
educational opportunities for all
students. You, as Vice-President
of the United States, should com-
mit yourself to initiating programs
on the national level which will
realize the goal of social equality.
-Maralynn N. Kordich, '70
--Robert C. Kniffen '70
Student living quarters
To the Editor:
ABOUT SIX WEEKS ago three
friends and I were getting hung up
for a place to live in the fall. We
found one place but we thought we
could do better.
Student Living Quarters gave us
several listings, and we walked all
over campus checking them out.
Their abundance of offerings
made sense after we saw the con-
dition of apartments they w e r e
offering. Feeling let down we look-
ed on our own and found a nice
apartment, reasonable rates out
by the Stadium. Student Living
Quarters didn't even have it list-
ed.
Since our "contract" said that if
we found an apartment on our
own we would receive half our
fee ($30) back, we trotted down to
pick up our fifteen dollars. Stu-
dent Living Quarters said that
they needed ten days to verify our
choice and so we agreed to come
back ten days later, on a Friday
when all refunds are supposedly
transacted, to pick up our check.
When we entered, a man said that
all the girls who had worked there
before had screwed the place up
and that he couldn't tell if our
apartment had been verified or
not. Once again we said we would
wait - on the promise that our
check would be in the mail on
Monday and to us by Thursday or

A

f

"We've taken over your office and here s a.
list of our demands!"

ALEXA CANADY .
MARTIN HIRSCHMAN
SHARON WEINER ..

. . ....... Co-Editor
.. . Co-Editor
Summer Supplement Editor

i

I 5AV OWV 61G EEM-Y6AS 0095 THEVOTW.

C -fTf CI PRTF'Tor~s oFFTm c 5R5-

I

r1

X . .. .
A~2I1\)T Th6VOW766 cmI;.

W)HY SfloUWMTRTEY 8F AS (M6WfCZW& As nE ktTO5?

live up to their promises, they
place misleading ads, and they're
arrogant in their dealings. Such
idiocy does not have to be toler-
ated, and I urge all Students to
beware . . . Student Living Quart-
ers is not the friend it claims to be.
-James M. Sellgren '73
April 10
Broken promises
To the Editor:
The following is a copy of a let-
ter sent to President Nixon:
IN YOUR campaign for the
Presidency, you promised:
1. To End The Vietnam War,
2. To Bring Our Troops Home,
and
3. To Bring About A Just Peace.
By your invasion of Cambodia,
you have reneged on all three
promises and once again raise the
horrible threat of a war with
China and World War IIL which

In addition, by your invasion of
Cambodia, you have involved this
country in another war without
first securing a "Congressional
Declaration of War." By so doing,
you have violated the Constitution,
which I personally witnessed your
taking the solemn oath to uphold.
And this you have done on May 1,
Law Day, the day we are to renew
our pledge to uphold the law and
above all the Constitution.
I believ# it is imperative for the
peace of this country and the
world that American troops be
immediately withdrawn f r o m
Cambodia. I believe it is your re-
sponsibility to do so. If you do not,
I believe it is Congress's respon-
sibility to "Impeach You" in order
to insure Peace at home and
abroad and to protect our country
and the world from any more
"Presidential Wars."
-James F. O'Neil, Treas.
State Board of Education

t

I

a.

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan