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.

November 01, 1980 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1980-11-01

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

PI I
{ . ..OPIN ION
4Page Saturday, November 1, 1980 The Michigan Doily
Has the University overreacted to Tisch?

Robert Tisch has a good idea; he just went
too far with it.
The University has responded to Tisch's tax
cut plan in a similarly extreme manner. Since
when does a transparent propaganda cam-
paign qualify as "voter education"?
CONCERNS OF University officials that
the popular tax cut plan would hurt the Univer-
sity are valid. Worries about voters not getting
enough information to make an educated
decision are understandable. It's easy for most
of us to see that the Shiawassee County drain
commissioner's drastic plan for a tax cut would
hurt everyone in the state in one way, or
another.
But it would also help others. Many people
want-and need-a property tax cut.
I WORRY that Tisch jill pass next week; so
do most other denizens of the University.
That's why we're being inundated with anti-
Tisch literature. Yet the passage of Proposal D
wouldn't be the end of the world-or, as some
have suggested, the end of public higher
education in Michigan.

The Tisch Tax Cut Amendment would reduce
'property taxes by about 50 percent and cut
state revenues by about $2 billion. That much
everybody agrees on. But no one-not Tisch or
the brightest University economist or State
Budget Director Gerald Miller-can predict
exactly what will happen if the ballot plan
passes next week.
It might-but probably not to the extent
Tisch hopes-give a one-sided boost to the
economy. It could force the University to shift
from public to private funding. A few geology
professors might have to be let go; Italian may
have to be dropped from the Romance
Language department's curriculum.
BUT THE devastation many prominent.
California economists predicted would occur
under Proposition 13 never materialized. The
fear campaigns, in California then and in
Michigan now, are amazingly similar, says one
University staff member familiar with the
California situation.
The University has made extensive use of an-
ti-Tisch mailings and anti-Tisch commentary

By Julie Engebrecht
at events such as football games and plays and
through University publications. It has begged
for contributions to the anti-Tisch campaigns
and pleaded for student assistance. A slide
show, which presents higher education's op-
position to the Tisch tax cut plan, has been
lugged across the state to both willing and un-
willing audiences.
The University's anti-Tisch campaign is
well-orchestrated propaganda; it's not voter
education.
MANY OF US-students, faculty, and
staff-will have to leave if Tisch passes, the
University tells us. Those students who stay
will have to pay double or triple the tuition and
accept program cuts. The list goes on.
University President Harold Shapiro is one of
Tisch's most visible critics. While he is usually
thoughtful and rational, the furor over Tisch
has changed all that. Shapiro comes off as a
desperate man who would do almost anything
to see the Tisch plan defeated. The Univer-

sity appears as an arrogant institution that
would do almost anything to save itself from
financial harm.
The University's anti-Tisch propaganda
seems to ignore that some people don't really
care if the University exists.
IN PRESENTATIONS to many groups
across the state, University officials preaching
the value of higher education in the context of
Tisch are greeted with hostility.
Those Michigan citizens who have observed
the recent controversies involving the state's
major universities are given more ammunition
to justify complaints of waste in the state
government and in state-funded institutions.
Recent furor over questionable expenditures
by Michigan State University's trustees and
sizable expenditures on renovations for
university presidents' homes, put public higher
education in a negative light among much of
the electorate. The controversy MSU President
Cecil Mackey has generated at that school and
the hazing incidents here add more fuel to the
fire.

THE UNIVERSITIES do nothing to help
themselves by using platitudes to explain the
role of higher education within the state. Many
people just don't understand-even students
and Ann Arbor residents.
The basic slide presentation used to promote
an anti-Tisch vote both on and off campus is
full of these platitudes; it's no secret the
University is speaking from self-interest. It
creates suspiscions. and the University has
done nothing to dispel the distrust.
Would it be that bad if some of us had to con-
tinue our educations elsewhere? $lenty of
.colleges and universities are crying for studen-
ts.
The University does have some respon-
sibility to educate voters about what would
happen to higher education if the Tisch plan
passed. But it's a shame that an educational in-
stitution refuses to lay out the facts and simply
let state residents decide by themselves. The
endless propaganda is getting to be too much.
Julie Engebrecht has been reporting on the
tax proposals for the Daily.

0

A.

4F & 4,
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
1 ^-
r
IAA "1 ___ . J C

Higgins

a

Cl

Vol. XCI, No. 51

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

0

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

From shah to Khomeini
to yet another shah

PO LLYOU) I GE 7NO RESPE~CT..
WNeN t WAS SWORN IN S PROMISED r D BRING
THIS COUNTRY T6EflER _I DID. ThYA LLR
WANT T~O OT FOR RONALD? REAGA 4! MY AV$R
INFOR~MED ME. VI$ MORNING THATI I~L~
POINTh IN 1E. POLLS--FOR WAKING U.t UST
GOT MY FIRST UNEMPLO'(1AeNT C1 ECY( 1'W Y--
)14 fl L~CtIN S NOT TILL NOVWMBR 4T'#w2Y
\CO A P EAD--L.AU6I1 YOU DON T I<NOW M I$~''
SMISERY S GETTING I\NINDOW S EAT N AIR
,.. FORCE ONE ---wiTN HE INDOW OPENE
A MAN F ROM THE MINI CFALLFD TODAY~
ABOUT POT'TN MY FACVE ON A COINL
LIET S SEE ..THlEE'STIDE.kENNVY HALF,
TH-E WASH4IGTON QUA~RER, THE FD. DIME,
AND TI4E LINCVOLN PENNY- -THAT LEAV56 SLUS.),,,

9

It was kind of like Nixon announcing
from his New York condominium
that he was reclaiming the presidency.
Yesterday, Reza Pahlavi, son of the
late shah of Iran, proclaimed himself
the new shah and rightful king of that
jumbled countr
In an 1-mingtespeech on his 20th
birthday in Cairo, Egypt, Pahlavi told
an empty room (and a television
camera) "I can understand and sym-
pathize with your sufferings and your
inner torment. I share your misery and
frustration. I shed the tears which you
must hide."
It's hard to believe the son of a
ruthless dictator can truly share the
misery and frustration of the Iranian
people-unless, of course, Daddy shah
tortured son Reza when he
misbehaved.
It's even harder to believe this Reza
Pahlavi would risk his life merely for
the pleasure (it certainly can't be called
honor) of the title of "shah." If he
hadn't been on Ayatollah Khomeini's
most wanted list before, he must cer-
tainly be now.
The new shah's broadcast was not
carried on Egyptian television-which
is not too surprising, considering the

dubious news value of such an event.
Instead, the proclamation was inten-
ded for an Iranian audience.
Surely the young Pahlavi cannot
believe he will ever gain control of Iran.
and resume the Peacock Throne. He
must instead be just ruffling his
feathers.
Nor is leadership of Iran a par-
ticularly appealing prize right now. It
is a country in greater chaos now than
it was a year ago when the American
hostages were taken. Wracked from
within by contending religious factions
and assailed from without by its neigh-
bor Iraq, Iran isn't even a nice place to
visit, let alone a place for Pahlavi to
make his home.
Reza Pahlavi, we wish you luck. You
deserve Iran, and Iran deserves you.
Unsigned editorials ap-
pearing on the left side
of this page represent a
majority opinion of the
Daily's Editorial Board.

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:

Vote '}es
To the Daily:
Being a college student at the
University of Michigan, I feel
that I have some insight as to the,
effectiveness of the legal
drinking age of 21. I am not 21,
nor are the majority of my frien-
ds, yet we never have any trouble
at all buying alcohol at bars,
liquor stores, or supermarkets.
The drinking age at 21 is a far-
ce-somewhat like Prohibition
before that amendment was
repealed. Abuse of the law is
evident everywhere-fraternities
have large parties with beer,
though most of their niembers
are underage; progressive
drunks (a different drink in each
room of a hall) are weekly oc-
currences in the dormitories,
where no one is 21; at the bars,
minors are allowed in-
side-though legally they cannot
drink, abuse of the law is evident;
in fact, they are often indirectly
supported by the authorities.
One example of this tacit sup-
port occurred at a public
relations event our fraternity
held in early October. We held a
running marathon for a charity,
which was sponsored by Stroh's
and aided by the Ann Arbor

Police Department, which
stationed men at the intersec-
tions for the safety of the runners.
After the 'run, a party was held
for the participants, with the
police (now off-duty) and minors
standing side by side with Stroh's
beer in their hands.
The purpose of this letter is not
to advocate stricter measures of
control of underage drinking; on
the contrary, it is to urge all
voters to lower the legal drinking
age from 21 to 1,9 on election day.
In this way, the legal system
would acknowledge underage
drinking that is widely practiced
anyway.
The most basic reason for
raising the drinking age from 18
in the first place was to remove
the spectre of alcohol from the
high schools, where peer
pressure plays such a large role
in the formation of a person's
identity. With a drinking age of
19, this would still be accom-
plished, with the additional
benefit of relieving unnecessary
anxieties from those of us who
are in effect on our own and have
shown that we are mature enough
to be able to make our own
decisions.

To me, the controversy over
the drinking age seems a but
ridiculous. One can drive at 16, be
tried as an adult in court at 17,
vote at 18, register for the draft at
19 and 20, and finally drink at 21.
To me, the priorities seem back-
ward. If I can voice my opinion on
how this country is to be run in
the form of my vote, why can't I
also use my own judgement in
matters that are of my concern,
like drinking if I so desire.
' Most of us have probably come
into repeated contact with
alcohol since we were 16. By 19,
most people have had enough
contact with alcohol to formulate

on B to lower drin

king age
their own views on the issue; if
they drink, most realize the cor
sequences and side effects of
drinking to excess.
Proposal B on our ballots deals
with the lower drinking age.
Before voting no, think
realistically on 'our position as
college students on the issue. The
lower age won't increase our
abuse of alcohol, but it would cer-
tainly remove the threat of legal
actions from those of us who do
drink and are mature enough to
realize what effects doing
anything to excess will have.
-Bert Sugayan
October 28

S
0

Commoner vote absurd

Cost of Tisch too high

To the Daily:
This letter is in response to
Joshua Peck's column entitled
"The Liberal Alternatives: A
Whore or a Hope" (Daily, Oc-
tober 26).
Peck attacked both Reagan
and Carter on a number of issues.
Frankly, I agree that neither
candidate is qualified to be
president of the United States.
But Peck's endorsement of Barry
Commoner is absurd.
By readihg the article, it was
obvious that Peck assumed his
audience is a group of Carter
supporters who are voting on the
basis of an anti-Reagan
argument. He is no doubt correct
in this assumption and wisely
chose to focus on the shor-
tcomings of the Carter ad-
ministration while playing up his
candidate, Barry Commoner.
Well, this is good editorial
writing. But no matter how good
the writing, any effort to support

Does Peck really think that
calling Carter a "mendacious
political whore" is going to make
me vote for a man without a
chance of winning? A man who, if
elected, could not get a single
piece of legislation through a
Congress completely controlled
by major party representatives.
Come on, Josh. Politics is (and
always has been) a choice bet-
ween the lesser of the two evils. A
vote for the "best man" may give
one moral satisfaction, but I
prefer to vote for the candidate
who can best protect my in-
terests. And a candidate cannot
protect my interests without get-
ting elected.
I encourage everyone to vote on
Election Day. Vote in your own
interest. You have a choice bet-
ween keeping Reagan out of of-
fice or keeping Carter out of of-
fice. That is the sad political
reality.
--Joe Becker

S
6

To the Daily:
The existence of the Univer-
sity, as well as the future of
higher education in Michigan
(particularly the 2nd
Congressional District with the
larest campus population in the
nation), is threatened by the
Tisch tax proposal. Lower
property taxes sound attractive,
but Tisch would cost far more in

would remain open, but massive
lay-offs of faculty and staff,
severe cutbacks in programs;
and a doubling or tripling of
tuition would negatively affect
the quality of education. The
local business community would
suffer reduced sales and
revenues.
Damage done to the University
and business community, along

M A t; i~ -L=,IA

-I

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan