OPINION

Page 4

Thursday, December 10, 1981.

The Michigan Daily


Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Vol. XCII, No. 75

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, M1 48109

A

Weasel
.SO, WIATS
H4AS H [TEEN GOiM&ON?
REALLY(BFW4 WF{AT'P T
ASLaZ? sIWE Miss ?
SE PTEMBER?1
q/

Edito iols represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board

5T A LOT OF BUP66 r -
J15 -tiAT ALL?


By Robert Lence

Putting military research

} J .
. , ~
..__,
I yjl
f Si( }
t 1 ! j i
yy r r !tf
_C.- yy
+ _A..
_. o:. . . /
,

OH YEAH,
WE LAOSTT TON
ow TAE

..

a

r

in proper perspective


O REALLY appreciate the extent
to which the University supports
the military establishment, one does
not have to bother examining the work
University researchers do for the
defense department--one needs only to
look at the back page of the current
College of Literature, Science, and the
Arts Course Guide.
On that page is listed a number of the
University's Military Science courses,
principally offered for ROTC students.
One course description states, "The
student learns the fundamentals of of-
fensive and defensive operation. Small
unit tactical operations and movement
techniques, use of artillery support,
patrolling and combined infantry-ar-
mor operations are studied."
The point is clear: the Pentagon has
long found its place on college cam-
puses in one form or another.
During the Vietnam era, the Univer-
sity decided to rid itself of its largest
military obligations when it adopted its
classified research policies, restricting
researchers from doing work the result
or direct application of which would be
to destroy human life.

The issue, however, is not mat sim-

i L

Now, a slowly growing campus
movement is asking the University to
study the issue of defense research on
campus. The critics of defense resear-
ch maintain that although University
researchers are no longer directly in-
volved in the development of weapons,
the applications of the researchers'
work someday may be used to kill
people. Those who do }research spon-
sored by the defense department coun-
ter that their work involves only fun-
damentals, applicable to any number
of technological innovations.
But in looking at only the wondrous
advances to which their work someday
may lead while subordinating the
military applications-or choosing to
ignore the military possibilities
altogether-these researchers are
fooling no one but themselves.
E VEN THOUGH these professors
and graduate students are working
on fundamentals or "basic research,"
they must face up to the fact that their
work has a military intent; otherwise
the Department of Defense would not
be sponsoring it.
By hiding under the argument that
any research in the technological fields
could someday have a military ap-
plication, they ignore the undeniable
motivations of their sponsor.
In light of the recent direction the
Pentagon has taken-which may take
the country into a war of previously
unknown proportions-it would be easy
to support an effort to eliminate defen-
se research on campus.

ple.
The University should not put such a
restriction on its researchers for one
basic reason: the protection of
academic freedoms.
As unfortunate as it may be, many
people-perhaps even a majority of
Americans-fully support the defense
department and just about everything
it does. Although the University should
not determine its policies simply on the
basis of society's attitudes, it must
realize that there are many who endor-
se the actions of the Reagan ad-
ministration and its Department of
Defense.
Therefore, the University cannot lay
down rules prohibiting the resear-
chers' rights to pursue whatever ac-
tivities they desire, regardless of
political ideologies.
That does not mean that the Univer-
sity cannot place certain restrictions
on the researchers it supports. The
University wisely adopted its Policy
on Classified Research to ensure that
researchers would be able to publish
freely any results they obtain.
In addition, resolving that the
University should not place
unreasonable restrictions on its
researchers does not mean the
questions surrounding defense resear-
ch should remain closed.
After the first set of classified
research guidelines were established
in 1968, many University researchers
were still doing defense work inap-
propriate for a college 'campus. Only
after a lengthy investigation and cam-
pus-wide discussion in theearly 70s did
the University revise these guidelines.
With many peopleon campus again
concerned with the issue, and even
more who probably would be concer-
ned if they fully understood the con-
sequences of supporting the defense
department, it is again time for the
University to evaluate its relationship
with the Pentagon.
A T LEAST TWO organizations on
campus already are investigating
the issue: the Michigan Student
Assembly has hired a part-time em-
ployee to research thequestion, and a
newly-formed campus organization
has as its specific purpose to research
the defense department's involvement
here.
But a faculty, student, and ad-
ministration group should pick up the
ideas of these organizations to deter-
mine if some revisions of current
policies are in order. At least a reaf-
firmation of the University's commit-
ment- toward the progress of
civilization, not the destruction of it, is
in order.
The issue of the defense depar-
tment's influence on campus is ignored
by too many people. The faculty's
governing groups have allowed the
issue to run its own course.
But as the debate over the defense
department and the arms race it sup-
ports becomes a matter of un-
paralleled importance, the issue of the
Pentagon on campus should not be
ignored.

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
PubliCsChool
To the Daily: present one ve
This letter is in response to Creation prop
your editorial (Dec. 8) against that there a
the "balanced treatment" law. besides Dar
Even though I myself believe in "other" theor
the theory of creation, I do not more effectiv
think that public school classroom. If1
classrooms are the place for it. want the theo
In your editorial you failed to taught, they
Follow Sowell's ex
To the Daily: nment progr
Thank you Douglas Newman for and unwanted
an excellent article (Daily, Dec. book A New
4) on one of the most important Libertarian
economists of our time, Thomas didate Ed Cla
Sowell. all of the $21,
The importance of Sowell is not transfer payr
that he is a black conservative, 1978 had act
but rather that he is a conser- poor, each fa
vative in general. Blacks around the poverty
the country brand him as a racist received o
because he does not think that the. anyone can se
government should be helping out did not get the
the blacks. It is the opposite that Clark also t4
is true. Thomas Matt
If anyone is guilty of racism, it City doctor
is the liberated blacks (as well as private bus l
their white counterparts) like hospital in
Jesse Jackson and Carl Rowen, 1960's. Both
not Thomas Sowell. By asking low cost ser
government to step in and help native to
out, the liberals suggest that inadequate pu
blacks are incapable of com- The people
peting with the rest of society on very pleased
equal grounds. Sowell is a case to and theyy gre
prove my point. As Time says : But the city gc
"(he) is an advertisement for the under pressu
American Dream." If he can do thew's faciliti
it, why can't any other black? If they were u
blacks are the equals of the rest domain. The c
of society, (which they are), they down because
should not need government city regulati
assistance to find a job. Like still stuck pa
everyone else, their skills and in- and inadequa
telligence, not the government, because gov
are their strongest weapons in a handle a littl
free market, not thesgovernment, later asked
Mr. Sowell made something of could do, to h
himself without a GSL or any York City, D
other government loans, (his GI "Get out of ou
Bill is not a loan); he did it on his something."
own hard work and desire. If he The rest of
had been receiving a government be as wise a:
check, would he have the incen- Thomas Sowe
tive to go out and learn and work? -Steve H
I think not. Ann Ar
Aside from being detrimental Leagi
to the poor and/or blacks, gover- Deceml
Wasserman

ery important point.
onents have argued
are other theories
rwin's, but these
ries can be learned
vely outside of the
teachers and clergy
ry of creation to be
should realize that
ample
ams are wasteful
. In his outstanding
Beginning, 1980
presidential can-
rk points out that if
5.2 billion spent on
nment programs in
ually gone to the
mily of four under
line would have
ver $25,000! As
ee, all of that money
ere.
ells the story of Dr.
thew, a New Yorkr
who established
ines and a private
Harlem during the
provided effective,
vices as an alter-
the expensive,
ublic facilities.
of Harlem were
with the services,
w larger and better.
vernment had been
ure, because Mat-
ies were so efficient
usurping the city's
ity finally shut them
they failed to meet
ins. So Harlem is
Lying for expensive
te city-run services,
vernment couldn't
e competition. When
what government
help blacks in New
r. Matthew replies,
ar way, and let us try
the country should
s Dr. Matthew and
ell.
4orwitz
bor Libertarian
rue
Aber 4

there are plenty of opportunities
outside the classroom. For
example, catechism class
teaches t is theory to a great
majority o children. And why
shouldn't creation theories
remain in private schools or
special religious education
classes?
In fact, the manner in which
the theory of creation would
probably be taught in a public
school would detract tremen-
dously from its personal
meanings and implications. I
would undoubtedly be infuriated
and aggravated to discover that
my teacher was presenting the
theory of creation "wrong." The
theory of creation usually has a

very significant meaning to those
who believe in it. And I, for one,
am willing to give it special at-
tention and not just the typically
moderate attention I devote to
other school courses.
Clearly, these creation theories
should remain outside the public
classrooms, and in specially
devised programs that have
qualified individuals to effec-
tively, and more importantly,
correctly teach the theory of
creation to those who-want to
know it. The "balanced treat-
ment" law seems to be an in-
vasion on the privacy of non-
believers as well as believers.
-Jodi Kornak
December 8

A ccess barriers at play

To the Daily:
I have always been aware that
the University of Michigan has
been less than enthusiastic about
obeying federal laws regarding
architectural accessibility to
physically disabled persons; the
flagrant disregard of them at the
Soph Show How to Succeed ii
Business Without Really Trying
at the Lydia Mendelssohn
Theatre Friday evening was par-
ticularly disheartening, however.
When , I arrived in my
wheelchair on the second floor by
the elevator, the hallway to the
theatre was roped off and the
doors beyond were closed and, as
I was to discover, locked. After
much searching through deserted
hallways, I finally found someone
to unhook the rope and bang on
the door for me. After some time,,
I was let in and given the excuse
that there were not enough
ushers to guard all entrances.
When I arrived at the space
reserved for patrons using

wheelchairs, it was completely
filled with a video camera on
tripod. Said camera was only
removed when I informed the
photographer that I am a member
of the Disabled Services Advisory
Board and would make the
violations known.
Furthermore, when I left the
theatre the ropes were again in
place and-the hallway to the
elevator was totally dark. Surely,
it should have been known that
this was the only route for the two
persons attending who used
wheelchairs to get to the ground
level.
I paid the same amount for my
ticket as did-everyone else at the
performance that night, and I
deeply resent not only that my
enjoyment of the show was
irretrievably marredbut, more
importantly, that my legal civil
rights were so 'crassly and
thoughtlessly disregarded.
-Yvonne Duffy
December 7

no place for creationism

Letters to the Daily should be typed, triple-spaced,
with inch margins. All submissions must be signed
by the individual author(s).


WEF ACNOT' 601N
T O P R V D P i ? T H S IR t B Y 7? 4
FAxtT Tvo

.AL
Ir

-TiOE of YOU W ITHoUT
J06 CAN1 LOOK FO
W'ORK( IN OTHER -
PAR TSo TOE T
CouNT~y

J7 '
i
i
r
Y
r
r
e.
A
'

.(r

1



-

I-

/
0

i

r KNOW 'ThAT
COUN T ON YOU
TO HELP ME..

'I CAN

'-IU

&GET AM~RIC-A
M1OVNG
AAtN/

x
d
Z
tTn
1-7

i

I