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.

January 15, 1981 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1981-01-15

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

. !

0

OPINION
Thursday, January 15, 1981

Page 4

The Michigan Daily

A'

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Vol. XCI, No. 90

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board

MSA misstep on Iranians

rE MICHIGAN Student Assembly
Tuesday night moved to postpone
consideration of an application for of-
ficial recognition submitted by a cam-
pus Iranian student organization. The
Assembly, led by member Bruce
Brumberg, voiced concern that the
group might be tied to the Iranian
government.
Brumberg, although he later
changed his mind, promised to look in-
to the activities and affiliations of the
student group, arguing that if the
group planned to promote the
philosophy of the Khomeini regime, he
would attempt to block the group's
recognition. "It would be a disgrace,"
Brumberg has said, "for (MSA) to,
recognize any organization that has
any association with Iran."
This sort of blind, knee-jerk reaction
to any person, group, or thing labeled
"Iranian" is unfortunately represen-
tative of the misunderstanding and
mutual distrust that has plagued the
Iranian-U.S. deadlock for the past 14A
months. We must not allow the
frustrations of more than a year to
drive us to rationalize discrimination.
against Iranians here in the U.S.
Brumberg has wisely decided not to
follow through on his original plan to
investigate the organization. He said

after talking with members of the
Iranian student group he learned that
the organization was indeed merely
committed to cultural and educational
exchange and was not planning on
making the campus unsafe for
democracy.
Thus, our student government
narrowly avoided following the exam-
ple of those at some other colleges and
universities, where Iranian students
have been discriminated against in a
number of ways, ranging from attem-
pts to oust them from school to outright
physical harassment.
Patience and understanding are
essential to an unravelling of the
twisted cultural and philosophical
barriers which block the way to a
peaceful resolution to the hostage
standoff. Frustration and anger must
not oversome restraint. Antagonism
against Iranian students here can only
lead to further conflict.
Fortunately, Brumberg has
repudiated his blind lashing-out at the
Iranian student organization. At next
week's meeting, other Assembly
members should also put their
prejudices behind them and recognize
the Iranian student group as the
legitimate student organization that it
1i.

ARor 4 N"v'1N F~oR
15N G00p FOR AN I1NG
au
1%1
'n9
LETTERS TO THE DAILY:

I

I0

Profs* on Universityretrenchment.

""g

Import quotas no answer

S TRANGELY, OUTGOING Tran-
sportation Secretary .Neil Gold-
schmidt sounded quite different when
he spoke in Ann Arbor yesterday than
he did just the day before ,in
Washington. In the study he presented
in the capital, Goldschmidt focused on
the ills of the American auto industry,
emphasizing the solution dear to the
hearts of auto executives-severely
limiting Japanese car imports.
In Ann Arbor, Goldschmidt gave
more time to discussing internal chan-
ges the Big Three will have to make
to revitalize the industry, including
some ideas borrowed from the
Japanese.,
We prefer the latter approach.
The temptation to aid the ailing
domestic auto industry through import
restrictions is understandable; quotas,
do, to a limited extent, give our com-
panies a chance to rehabilitate them-
selves and adjust to the worsening fuel
and economic situations unpestered by
healthier competition from abroad.
The merits of import restrictions have
therefore attracted the support of such
usually sound legislators as Michigan

Senator Carl Levin.
But supporters of this approach
overlook the basic problems $its
heart. First, there is the question of
whether American car companies
really deserve to be freed of com-
petitive pressure. They have been
rather reluctant thus far to enact a
forward-looking emphasis on small car
prod ction, indicating that pressure
from more efficient imports may be
the only spur that can have the needed
effect.
Furthermore, American car buyers
(a considerably larger class than those
more directly involved with the in-
dustry) suffer for each superior
Japanese automobile that is ar-
tificially made more expensive or
altogether unavailable. It simply isn't
fair for already economically pressed
Americans to have to bear the cost of
Ford's, Chrysler's and GM's bungling.
As Goldschmidt suggested in Ann
Arbor, the Big Three ought to be
imitating successful Japanese
methods, not attempting to keep the
results of those methods out of
American consumer's hands.

To the Daily:
All members of the University
share the serious problems posed
by the expected decrease in
revenues in the years ahead. We
feel that several issues call for
more 'detailed examination and
more extensive consultation than
they have received so far, and we
propose that a series of forums be
held for this purpose. Among the
issues that should be addressed
are the following:
The implications of the
'"sraller but better" policy.
goal proposed by the ad-
ministration
This concept was aired widely
in the fall but its potential impact
needs to be thoroughly explored.
How will this concept affect the
University's affirmative action
goals? How will it affect the
University's commitment to
provide _ an education from
multiple perspectives and ex-
periences for its diverse student
body? Can alternatives to the
"smaller but better"' policy
preserve the present faculty size
and diversity?
Alternative courses of action
for raising funds or reducing
expenses
We would like to see a com-
prehensive investigation of a
broad and innovative range of
proposals for increasing
revenues and reducing costs. For
example, we might consider
whether non-traditional student
enrollment could be increased;
whether salary increases could
be deferred in the short term as a
form of loan to the University;
whether the University should
_borrow against its endowment or
use other forms of deficit finan-
cing during the present economic
slowdown.
The role of research at the
University, and the relation-
ship between research and
teaching
Current proposals to em-
phasize research over teaching
and to develop closer ties with
private corporations deserve
close scrutiny. If, during a period
of scarcity, priority is given to
research, will instruction suffer?
How do we ensure that teaching
and research are mutually
enhancing? To what extent will
the University's ideal of freedom
of research be compromised in
joint enterprises with cor-
porations? Will tenure decisions
be influenced by a faculty mem-
ber's ability to command large
corporate support for research?
Justification of policy
choices to the State of Michi-
gan
We have experienced a
decrease in state support. Could

legitimate' expectation that the
University should meet students'
educational needs?
Mechanisms for decision
making
Any failure to respond
democratically to the crisis we
face could undermine the sense of
community and mutual respect
essential to our well being. If
policy decisions adversely affect
primarily the weaker and less
established members of the
University, might not more ex-
tensive damage be done than by
the budgt crunch itself? How
should we decide? Who should
decide? What criteria of
"quality" are to be used? If such
issues are not addressed prom-
ptly, we may find that important
decisions affecting all of us have
already been made.
The questions we have raised
are complex, but they are critical
for our definition of the Univer-
sity and for our understanding of
our responsibilities. The issues
require full examination and ex-
tensive consultation with all sec-
tors of the University. We
therefore propose that a series of
forums be held this wintergterm
to examine in detail a full range
of possible policies and their
potential impacts. We urge all
members of the University to
participate.
-Buzz Alexander, English;
Bazel Allen,- Center for
Afroamerican and African
Studies; Walter Allen, Sociology,
Center for Afroamerican and
African Studies; W. H. Locke An-
derson, Economics; Loren S.
Barritt, School of Education;
Alton Becker, Linguistics;L. S.
Berlin, School of Education;
David Bien, History; Robert
Blackburn, Center for the Study
of Higher Education; Robbins
Burling, Anthropology; vern
Carroll, -Anthropology; Mark A.
Chester, Sociology; Francelia
Clark, English; Michael Clark,
English; Sarah Conly,
Philosophy; Paul N. Courant,
Economics; James E. Crowfoot,
School of Natural Resources;
Norma Diamond, Anthropooogy;
Elizabeth Douvan, Psychology;
Penelope Eckert, Anthropology;
Claude A. Eggertsen, School of
Education; Jeffrey Evans,
Residential College; Daniel R.
Fusfeld, Economics; Bill Gam-
son, Sociology; Zelda F. Gamson,
Center for the Study of Higher
Education; Stephen Gill, School
of Education; Hugh A. Gilmore,
Anthropology; Susan Harding,
Anthropology, Residential
College; Robert H. Hauert,
Ethics and Religion; Max
Hierich, Sociology; Kenneth C.
Hill, Linguistics; Bert Hornback,
English; William Hunt, History;
Murray Jackson, Center for the

Education; R. T. Lenaghan,
English; Frank B. Livingstone,
Anthropology; Ralph Loomis,
Engineering; Glenn C. Loury,
Economics; Ali Mazrui, Political
Science; T. McCarthy,
Philosophy; Edwin J. McClen-
don, School of Education; Leo
McNamara, English; Allen
Menlo, School of Education;
Alfred Meyer, Political Science;
Michael Mills, Center for the
Study of Higher Education;
Eliana Moya-Raggio, Residential
College; Norman G. Owen,
History; Warren G. Palmer,
School of Education; Lyall
Powers, English; Sherry B. Or-
tner, Anthropology; Adrian M. S.
Piper, Philosophy; Peter
Railton, Philosophy, Society of
Fellows; Rajam Ramamurti,
Linguistics; Roy Rappaport, An-
thropology; John Reiff, Residen-
tial College; Christopher D.
Roberts, Anthropology; Matthew
Rohn, Residential College;
William Rosenberg, History;
Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Economics;
David Schoem, Pilot Program;

William D. Schorger, An-
thropology; Art Schwartz,
Mathematics; Rebecca Scott,
Society of Fellows; William G.
Shepherd, Economics; Elizabeth
B. Spencer, Institute of Geron-
tology; Leonard Suransky, Cen-
ter for Afroamerican and
African Studies; valerie Surap4
sky, School of Education, Society
of Fellows; Michael Taussig, An-
thropology; Robert Thomas,
Sociology; Charles Tilly,
Sociology; Louise Tilly, Historf;
Matthew Trippe, School of
Education; Philip Uninsky,
History; John Vandermeer,
Biology; Joel Veroff,
Psychology; Alan Wald, English;
Martin Walsh, Residential
College; Sarah Warren, Residen-
tial College; Steven B. Webb,@
Economics; Thomas t.
Weisskopf, Economics; Stephen
L. White, Philosophy; Gavin
Wright, Economics; John
Wright, English; Aram A.
Yengoyan, Anthropology.
January 13

... and on the Teach-in .

a

*V

i
a
e 40

To the Daily:
On Tuesday, January 20, 1981,
Ronald 'Reagan will be
inaugurated as President. During
his campaign for the Presidency,
Reagan advocated policies that
could reshape priorities within
the University in both the short
and the long run. His appoin-
tments since being elected in-
dicate that he plans to carry
through on those policies.
What are the prospects for af-
firmative action, and for
minorities in general, in the
University under Reagan? What
effect will high-level discussions
about constraining liberal and
left groups have on academic
freedom and freedom of speech
on campus? How will Reagan's
defense and foreign policy affect
University research grants? In
most general terms, how will the
Reagan Presidency affect in-
tellectual inquiry, instruction,
staffing, admissions, and
decision-making at The Univer-
sity of Michigan?
Questions such as these lead us
to endorse the Inauguration Day
Teach-in that is being organized
by a coalition of student groups,
People United for a Human
Future. We plan to discuss the
teach-in panels, speeches, and
workshops with our students
beforehand and to encourage
them to attend.
We urge our colleagues to join
us in focusing attention on the st-
ate of the nation, the world, and
the University on Inauguration
Day.
-Loren S. Barritt,

Ann Coleman,
Guild House
Donald Coleman,
Guild House
James E. Crowfoot
School of Natural
Resources
Penelope Eckert
Anthropology
William A. Gamson,
Sociology
Zelda F. Gamson,
School of Education &
Residential College
Susan Harding,
Anthropoligy and Resi-
dential College
Bob Hauert,
Office of Ethics and
Religion
Linda Kaboolian,
Sociology
Joyce Kornbluh
Residential College
Ann E. Larimore,
Geography and the
Residential College
Peter Railton,
Philosophy
John Reiff,
Residential College
Matthew Rohn,
Residential College
David Schoem,
Pilot Program
Robert J. Thomas
Sociology
Alan Wald,
English
Thomas E. Weisskopf,
Economics and Residential
College
Susan Wright,
Residential College
January 12

A&

a

w

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan