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


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.

July 15, 1976 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1976-07-15

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

The Michigan Daily
Edited and managed by Students of the
University of Michigan
Thursday, July 15, 1976
News Phone: 764-0552
Politics in the Olympics
CANADA'S DECISION to ban the Taiwanese Olympic
delegation from Montreal unless it agrees not to use
the designation "Republic of China" is deplorable.
True, the Taiwan government does not represent the
800 million people of mainland China. However, the ques-
tion is not one of China, nor the merits or demerits of
The Canadian government is interfering in a mat-
ter which should be decided by the International Olym-
pic Committee (IOC). In 1968, the IOC voted to recog-
nize Taiwan as the sole Olympic representative for China,
and designated the Taiwan delegation the "Republic of
China, Olympic Committee."
Whether the IOC's decision was a wise one is a moot
point. When Montreal made its bid for the Games, it
agreed to abide by the rules and regulations of the IOC.
Under pressure from mainland China, Canada has
accepted Olympic identity cards in lieu of entry visas
for all peoples except the Taiwanese.
Canada is the first host nation to interfere with the
Games since Hitler tried in 1936.
By announcing the decision to bar Taiwan in the
eleventh hour, Canada prevented the IOC from moving
the Games to another site. Taiwan's refusal to compro-
mise leaves the situation at an impasse. Unable to move
the Games at such a late date, the IOC voted to stage
the Olymnies despite the crisis. To cancel the Games be-
cause of Canada's nolitical ploy would be cutting off
one's nose to spite one's face.
The United states has threatened to pull out of the
Olympics in sunnort of the Taiwanese_- a move as fool-
hardv as cancellation.
Perhans a compromise can still be worked out, but
it is becomins inerensinvtv apnprent that this will not be
the case. The Taiwanese athletes will probably not com-
pete in the XXI Olympiad. and the Montreal Games will
be permanently blemished as a result.
/i/inst'/rif /staff--Stminer Termt
(10-Ediors- in- Chief

Letters to The Daily

To The Daily:
This is in response to The Daily's July 13
editorial, "Stalling toward a strike," which ex-
hibits a mass of inaccuracies, contradictions and
misconceptions about the state of bargaining be-
tween GEO and the University administration.
The editorial's characterization of bargaining
sessions as fruitless and dominated by quibbling
is precisely that which the administration would
like to promote - to make it appear that GEO
is unwilling to compromise, thus making a fall
strike inevitable. In fact, a great deal of progress
has taken place at the bargaining table. Several
contract articles have been initialed, and agree-
ment is close on many more. What may appear
to an inexperienced observer to be quibbling
tsuch as discussion over the inclusion or exclu-
sion of a particular wordo phrase in the con-
tract) can have far-reaching implications for
many members of the bargaining unit.
The writer of this editorial is obviously un-
familiar with the bargaining process. GEO has
no interest whatsoever in stalling until fall term,
and the writer's statement that "GEO must think
of its members" is just plain ludicrous. GEO is
its members. Our demands are reasonable, form-
ulated by and strongly supported by the mem-
bership. And it is certainly impossible for GEO
to have a strike unless the membership decides
that is the only way to win a fair and equitable
contract. How can The Daily admit that GSAs
are paid too little in "inflationary Ann Arbor,"
and then urge GSAs to give in on reasonable
The fact that The Daily assumes that a de-
mand for a commission aimed at improving the
status of lesbian and gay GSA's is nothing more
than a "bargaining chip" is a clear indication
of exactly how much such a commission is need-
ed. CEO's March membership meeting unani-
mously voted to include such a demand in the
non-discrimination package. On what basis-other
than the writer's own prejudice-has The Daily
taken it upon itself to tell the community what
CEO's position is? This is a serious demand.
The writer of the editorial is justly concerned
over the educational implications of a strike, but
completely ignores the more serious implications
of the administration's rejection of the necessity
for TA training and reasonable class size limits
--both parts of GEO's demand package. In fact,
CEO's demands affect not only GSAs, but the
whole conduct and quality of education at the
U of M.
We urge that The Daily adopt a more re-
sponsible and well-informed position in the fu-
The GEO Executive Committee
July 13

To The Daily:
Having been a clerical during those initial
organizing days at the University I am dis-
appointed and alarmed at the current trend
toward decertification. There are a number of
issues I would like to toss out for considera-
First and foremost appears to be the mone-
tary question. Prior to the contract the Uni-
versity had a merit increase available to
clericals which was arbitrarily decided upon
by the supervisor and approved by the Uni-
versity. This was a chancy system in that it
was dependent upon personal likes and dis-
likes and contingent upon the University's fi
nancial whim. With the union came uniformity
and equality for clericals. On the chance that
the UAW clericals do decertify, there is no
guarantee that the University will be gracions
enough to reinstate the former system. Fur-
thermore, being a P/A employee now with
no type of evaluation and a totally arbitrary
merit increase system, I'm not all that sure
you'd be winning.
Sure, there would be that flat two bout'
pay (dues, service fee) more per month back
in your check but in the long run, is it worth
it to dispense with the protection and power
afforded by the union to have that additional
$7? Without a union the clericals would be
totally impotent in making future demands
for increased pay or benefits.
Having freed yourselves from the "prots
tive" paternal wing of the University, you're
discovering the cold hard realities of being
self-actualized workers in a union. It mv
be difficult and somewhat ugly at times bat
I believe as Thomas Wolfe said, "You can
go home again." It is an unrealistic expec.t
tion to believe that the University will sic-
come you back to the fold and shower .
preciation on you.
If it is true that 946 clericals have jilnit
forces to decertify, why not go to the units
meetings, vote in a block and affect the chat
es that you desire? Certainly the various ts.
tions currently contending number no more
than yourselves. Take a constructive sta.i
and make yourselves heard. Forget this kid
of passive aggression; it's self-defeating.
Kimberly Allen
May 18



ii it Zi Airectors
sp ive+nt Editors
Jv'Pti Cs Ps -1Arts
iEOi(R E LOBSENZ---.. Night
emtItLPt BOKOVOY . Aisi ns Night
JENNY MILLER Assist nt Night
sTUS McCONNELL .Assis-ant Night
iA- H ZA iS ... . . Assistant Night


ri r" .mirr rmMrme r ..m ,. r mrrr Mrrmi r

t7O '


t I


T MEAN )1J)&. 09(4,


1 -K) T OA O


A[ 1W10,&X' - W L9H&A1/00 W10. . )UAT 103 FEAR? "NAME (W EHOMTf0P ?
W F ~ ~ eOFFO&00 b tP-6 PO ) kU6f(Kox&x t
W i(TH Iv ACA{L0&) f<' YO FAR~ r ~kUO
. KpsOW A O'W -p-AMST? {OF FEA ?

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan