OPINION
Page 4
Wednesday, March 11, 1981
The Michigan Daily
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Vol. XCI, No. 129 420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
Dubious Reagan semantics
p-RESIDENT REAGAN has pointed.
out some interesting - though
questionable - semantic distinctions:
The rebels fighting in El Salvador to
shirk the rule of a repressive junta;
which was virtually hand-picked by the
United States, are criminal insurgen-
ts; The rebels seeking to overthrow the
Afghanistan government, which has
been virtually hand-picked by the
Soviet Union, however, are "freedom
fighters."
Accordingly, Reagan says, it is the
responsibility of the United States to
support the Afghan "freedom-
fighters" in every way, possibly even
supplying them with arms. But, the
Reagan administration warns, it is in-
tolerable for Communist nations like
Cuba and Vietnam to supply weapons
Sto the Salvadoran rebels. That is
r deplorable Communist interference
and the United States will not stand for
it, he says. Officials in Washington
have said they are considering a num-
ber of options to prevent further Com-
munist arms-running and refuse to
rule out a naval blockade in the Gulf of
Mexico to block the flow of arms to
Central America.
The situations in Afghanistan, with
its "freedom-fighters" and proposed
U.S. aid, and El Salvador, with its
criminal insurgents and Communist
interference, are remarkably similar.
Reagan should cease masking the
issues with labels and dubious seman-
tics and recognize his double standard.
The United States should not fuel
rebellion in Afghanistan with arms and
aid, unless it is prepared to
acknowledge as proper Cuban and
Vietnamese interference in the
Salvadoran revolution.
Michigan fans wildly cheer after a Rose Bowl victory.
Hail to the victors valiant!
Champions of the Universit-
SALVADORAN GOVERNMENT troops guard captured "leftist criminal insurgents" (left); A
government troop in Afghanistan holds a rifle on Afghan "freedom-fighters."
Keep clean air standards
The sun casts the stadium's long and heavy
shadow over the campus. Cold and wind-
blown, we sit huddled by the thousands, wat-
ching the force of unification taking place
below.
We watch it work, perhaps not understan-
ding what it means. Yet a bond is undeniably
there.
IT IS THE only thing everybody has in
common here. Those half-dozen occasions
each fall we get together, each of us adorned
with maize and blue, in our hearts or on our
bodies. It is we on that field, not just the
eleven particulars brought in from around the
country to wear jerseys in our honor.
Primary nature has us saying after a
victory, "We won." Not they. Not the football
players. Not Michigan. Not BoSchembechler.
"We won." We are, likely or not, a very real
part of the football team and it is even more
a part of us.
Life at the University and the complete
Michigan experience would be hard to
imagine without football. Nothing else can
reach through the variety of courses taken in
this great labyrinth. All of us are nearly iden-
tical at the beginning, with that letter of ad-
mission in hand, but each of us chooses a dif-
ferent path.'
FOOTBALL CROSSES the barriers of nails
and wooden railings the game presents. It
brings together Markley and West Quad,
engineers and philosophers, holdover
political radicals and the Greeks.
Alumni attention, time and money do not
come back for an exciting Econ 201 lecture or
the homecoming Chem lab. They return out
By Stan Bradbury
of habit, instinctively as it were, for football.
Alumni flock to Michigan Stadium, littering
Ann Arbor with money, support, and a
tradition which helps to keep our university
the most highly regarded public schoolin the
nation.
But in these times of budgetary crises,
where cries of mistreatment are heard in a
haunting echo at the corner of State and
Hoover, questions arise about the necessity of
the football program to continue spending
enormous amounts of money in comparison to
other sports.
ONE THING for certain is that, we must
continue to win. We win for a national
reputation of excellence, which carries over
from athletics into academics, producing
bachelor's degree that carries more weight in
the job market. We win because studies have
shown a direct correlation between winning
football and the academic quality in the ad-
missions process. More wins equals more
national interest equals more applicants
equals more selectivity.
We win to keep alumni interest and
donations high. We win to keep attendance
more than 100,000 per game, so we can fuel
financially all the minor sports at the Univer-
sity.
How much then, does it take to run a top-
notch program? Certainly, we don't want to
find out how little it takes to run a losing
program.
WE SHOULD continue to invest financial
returns in the business from which they are
generated. It's a sound policy. And as long as
minor sports continue to sponge off the foot-
ball profits, they had better be happy with
what they get. Nowhere does it specifically
state that football has to support, for example
ple, the gymnastics, golf or tennis teams.
The additional money for which minor spor-
ts cry (to be taken from the football program)
could be more than outweighed by the finan-
cial disaster that would arise if Schembechler
& Co. ever had back-to-back bad seasons.
Women's sports are especially lucky that
the ideals of free market capitalism have
escaped the athletic department. There is
simply no demand for women's sports from
spectators. The programs are artifically sup-
ported and will probably never by self-
sufficient. But we continue to operate these
programs because the meddling arm of exO
cessive government requires so-called
equality in spending-ignoring all
inequalities in earnings-even though the
money may be better spent in recreational
sports that thousands of students could enjoy,
not just a hundred female athletes..
I used to joke about football-players, com-
plain (very quietly) about the team's 'greater
than' attitude, and believe Schembechler
went out of his way to be difficult with the
media. Now I respect them all.
Stan Bradbury is a former Daily
O NCE AGAIN, the Reagan admin-
istrastion has decided to promote
haphazard development at the expense
of environmental protection. This
time, the administration has taken on
the nation's clean air standards.
In the past, manufacturers retooling
their factories were required by law to
use the best technology to ensure that
their new facilities emitted no more
pollutants than necessary. This
significantly reduced pollution in in-
hdustrial areas.
AUnder the administration's proposed
changes in the clean air laws, a
manufacturer may build whatever he
Lor she chooses, as long as it doesn't in-
crease pollution in an area.
The administration has failed to
realize that the level of pollution is still
far too high. Efforts should be directed
toward decreasing it, not at keeping it
constant.
This would do nothing to relieve ur-
ban areas that continue to suffer from
dangerously filthy air. Currently,
smog lingers in Los Angeles; the nor-
theast is still victim to acid rain.
The administration maintains this
change would cut government red
tape. Polluted air is far too expensive a
price to pay for slight cuts in
bureaucracy. The Reagan ad-
ministration should rethink this
reckless proposal.
executive sports editor.
i
LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
PIR GIM: No negative
To the Daily:
A letter to the editor, "PIRGIM
needs financial support" (Daily,
March 7) suggested the need for a
change in the funding mechanism
for the Public Interest Research
Group in Michigan.
This suggestion was based on
*' .
SYL analysis absurd
..
.
_.. t . -.. .
To the Daily:
Once again the Spartacus!
Youth! League! has thrown its
sloganeering talents into the bat-
tle against U.S. Imperialism,
protesting Reagan's step up of
aid to the present Salvadoran
government (Daily, March 3).
Let it be known that we, too,
oppose U.S. aid in any form to the
Salvadoran government. But the
Spartacans' analysis of the issue
is absurd. In stating that the
United States "is challenging the
Soviet Union and Cuba to a
showdown in Central America,"
Lubke has implicitly accepted
the major point of the "White
Paper," which says that the
U.S.S.R. and Cuba also are inter-
vening in El Salvador.
What could make it proper for
the U.S.S.R. and Cuba to inter-
vene and yet improper for the
U~nited States to do so? The
somehow the leftists in El
Salvador will establish peace and
justice. In reality, should they
win, a reign of terror no less
severe than that existing now will
certainly be the result.
Lubke says that "up to 200,000
workers and peasants" are
scheduled for slaughter, and
suggests that support for the lef-
tists will prevent this. Absurd.
Since when have Communist
governments hesitated to kill
whoever got in the way - in-
tellectuals, students, far-
mers, workers, anyone who
either refused to be collectivized
or just was too much to feed?
The victory of the leftists in El
Salvador will not be "liberation".
It will resaddle the workers and
peasants with a leftist dictator-
ship, that is in no way preferable
to a rightist dictatorship.
the lack of money ob
University students
current system whe
sign a form allowingt
added to their tuitio
modification of th
check-off system
automatic assessmen
would be inappropriat
The suggested"
refundable" system
similar to a negativ
Thbse students who do
support PIRGIMl
would have to active
their decision by chec
signing a form or re
refund. This puts the
effort on the non-
rather than on those w
organization.
The letter also s
"refusable-refundabl
is a "fair and workab
as evidenced by the
colleges and universi
the nation" that use t
However, an equal nu
stitutions of higher
recognize the injus
-nan ..' n ni -n .,, 44
check-off
tained from Furthermore, most of the
under the 16,000" students who signed the
re students original petition for -a negative
the fee to be check-off system have graduated
n bill. Any and moved elsewhere. The -ld
is positive petition does not necessarily
to permit represent the current attitude of
it of the fee the student body. To adopt a
te. "refusable-refundable" system
based on these figures would be
refusable- to make a decision based on out-
would be dated information.
e check-off.
on't want to PIRGIM wants money "to give
financially the students the type of support
sly indicate and representation they deser-
king a box, ve." But, does this organization
equesting a really know what the, students
burden of want?
supporters
ho back the The letter gave a colorful
description of PIRGIM's exeris4
in futility to organize the 1980
stated the Regional Housing Conference.. A
e" system campus-wide effort to obtain ad-
le system" ditional money failed. The result
"scores of was a disappointing event suf-
ties across fering from lack of funds.
he system.
mber of in- This account suggests that
learning viable support for PIRGIM's ac-
tieryof ^a tivities on this campus does nota
\
E
C-~ ~ A