OPINION *,Page 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Friday, November 21, 1980 The Michigan Daily Mubtgan 43 ail Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan 420 Maynard St. Vol. XC1, No. 68 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board It's divestment time again Weasel by Robert Lence I'M GLAD $p AM I. WE PROVE THERE'S DOWN 14F-RE LIKE Ii N6 TO GOWM". AT THE CAWPAE. WEAU W PERSON. /^U ry, , Jq, G s y JUST SMEl1 -MAT CRISP AM" SCENT IN IWE AIR,.. Ll STEN To THE Buzz OF ANTiam om A T#E- cRoNtA. Lom! TNI=RE'S THE MtcNtcAN SAND! W TI- C+wr=R"ER5! s 1 . 0149 PAO AN LO THR'/H VERY- FUNNY.G r. a. a. h4 4. T HE ISSUE is back. Divestment-a question that has brought more University students together for a single olitical purpose than any other ;since the heyday of the New Left-is again before the Regents. Over the last few years, pro- divestment activities have ranged from the formation of the Washtenaw County Coalition Against Apartheid, to 4 repeated large rallies on the Diag, to the disruption of one Regents' meeting in such demonstrative fashion that the Board had to adjourn and convene elsewhere. This is one issue that Michigan students-lots of them-have shown concern about. What the WCCAA and its faithful followers want is for the University to divest itself of all its stock and bond Woldings in corporations that do business, in South Africa. They reason that, were it not for the heavy invest- ments American and other western companies have in South Africa, the racist government there could be brought down in favor of leadership that represents the interests of the nation's vast black majority. The Regents have heard the pro- divestment arguments before, and they have firmly decided that the niversity's interests are not served by what they clearly regard as an ex- treme action. There is little reason to expect that their position will change in the near future. One concession the Regents have ade to those who are concerned about the apartheid (institutionalized racism) situation is their support for 4he Sullivan Principles-guidelines that proscribe discriminatory treat- ent of black workers in South Africa. The Regents have already divested from two corporations that failed to meet the Sullivan standards, and today discussion of another-Owens-Corning Fiberglas-is on the agenda. There may be a hitch there - outgoing Regent David Laro has reversed his pro-Sullivan stance since the last time the issue came up, and he may attempt to persuade his colleagues that any divestment - even from stocks in companies that violate the Sullivan principles - is so contrary to the University's financial interests that it ought not to be undertaken. But the rest of the board, so far, has in- dicated a continuing commitment to the guidelines. As for the bigger issue, there has been much argument both ways on whether divestment is indeed a good method of contributing to the anti- apartheid cause. There are some per- fectly well-intentioned spokespersons for South Africa's progressive faction who argue that divestment is the first step to the collapse of the South African economy, which in turn would cause even more suffering for the country's downtrodden majority. Regent Laro, who has long opposed total divestment, can quote reams of material arguing against divestment from blacks both here and in Johan- nesburg. The pro-divestment response is that the current South African regime has *Managing scarcity : 5ideas for sharing 'U' hardships The University administration has outlined plans for coping with the budget dilemma in. this period of unprecedented hardship when worsening economic conditions have established a climate of crisis. Surely, however, the inevitable sacrifices that must be made can be apportioned more equitably than in the administration's program. Budget cuts affect different groups in the University differentially. As in the larger society, it is the poorest who are asked to pay the heaviest price. IT IS OUR contention that shouldering the burden "equally" will mean a dispropor- tionate sacrifice for most of the staff mem- bers and stu.dents at the University. What follows is a proposal for an alternative ap- proach. The specifics are meant to be purely illustrative (they would change in any case with access to financial data). What matters is the application of the equity principle to the University's financial crisis. 1) The prevailing fear on campus-which apparently inhibits imaginative and equitable planning-is that our higher paid faculty (those most likely to attract research gran- ts) will leave the University en masse in hard times. Why has there been no questioning of this assumption? Michigan is hardly the only university now in financial difficulty. Most of our scholars would not easily find tenured positions at comparable salary levels at other institutions. Many would prefer to remain in Ann Arbor anyway, for personal reasons. How many would willingly accept some personal sacrifice in a period of great har- dship, considering it a fair exchange for the excellent support they have received through the years. SOME, DOUBTLESS. would leave, but the consequences would not be drastic or in- tolerable. There are all too many bright Ph.D.'s out there, yearning for a decent ap- pointment. Finally, there is a moral issue that politeness should not prevent us from discussing openly. It is shameful-and sym- ptomatic of internal crisis-that the faculty bodies voted for themselves a 9 percent salary raise, without the slightest regard for ByR. S. Ganapathy and David Robbins the rest of the University community. Their action implies contempt for those under- privileged groups-like the students and clericals-which are already paying a heavy price, for the most part without complaining and with good will. Since so many others besides faculty mem- bers are affected by the financial crisis, we suggest that more democratic procedures of decision-making are in order. 2) The faculty salary hike of 9 percent should be cancelled. All University personnel currently receiving more than $50,000 per year should have their salaries cut to $50,000. All personnel earning between $25,000 and $50,000 should receive no salary increase. Those with salaries between $15,000 and $25,000 should receive 6 percent increases. Those with salaries below $15,000 should be entitled to a 9 percent increase. BECAUSE INFLATION strikes the lowest wage-earners hardest-in terms of life- essentials-and because ' the percentage in- crease amounts to so much money in the higher brackets, these steps, or something like them, are an obvious prerequisite for a just solution. Surely the higher income per- sonnel-those who have benefitted most from the University's prosperity-can now be asked to share in its sacrifices. 3) The current hiring freeze should be selec- tive. While new positions may not be created# replacements for existing .vacan- cies-especially at the clerical and technical levels-should be allowed. Understaffing, like inflation, takes its greatest emotional and physical toll at the base of the work force. Already we are witnessing a deterioration in services of every kind. Postponing main- tenance and renovation necessities and cur- tailing essential services will have serious long-range consequences beyond the im- mediate lowering of staff morale. Some of this is inevitable, but without an equitable distribution of hardships, it will be perceived as intolerable. 4) THE UNIVERSITY should make a clear commitment to the primacy of teaching and learning. The issues here are classic, and no one is naive about them. Nevertheless, it is sad to observe the University assuming a consistently defensive posture toward its educational responsibilities. Continuing research is essential, for economic as well as scholarly reasons. But .research priorities must never be allowed to overshadow educational goals, or the University will have betrayed its public responsibility. The University of Michigan was never in- tended to be a money-making enterprise. However, in the accelerated rush for research grants, it appears that deterioration in the quality of teaching (both undergraduate and graduate) is considered an acceptable price. It is odd that no one has posed the obvious question: If there must be a leaner academic future, why should there not also be a leaner research future? 5) STUDENTS, IN addition to clericals, are the persons most directly affected by the budget cuts. The tuition levels at the Univer- sity are unacceptably high for a state- supported institution, as any comparative study will show. What is desperately needed is a tuition freeze for a sufficient period-say. three years-to allow students (especially self-supporting studentsi to rationally plan the completion of their degree programs. * * * The University is a public service ip- stitution. As such, it should set an example in its sharing of austerity. Its quality has always depended upon the effectiveness and good will of its total community, and that strength has never been needed more than it is now. We suggest that the University commit itself unequivocally to its educational priorities, as well as to equitable principles in managing the economics of scarcity. R. S. Ganapathy is a graduate student in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning. David Robbins is a clerical in the Art and Architecture Library. PRO-DIvESTMENT demonstrators rally on the Diag in the Spring of 1979 prior to their march on meetings of the Board of Regents. so steadfastly, viciously, and suc- cessfully clung to its racist policies that only the most drastic measures could possibly effect any significant change. 1Many supporters argue that the demise of the current government is the only way blacks in the beleaguered nation can ever hope to see a better life. One thing is clear, however. The Regents' oft-heard claim - that divestiture would be an inap- propriately political action for a fun- damentally non-political body - is ab- surd. To elect to leave our stock holdings in South African operators is every bit as political an action as divestiture. The former could be seen as perpetuating the South African status quo; the latter could possibly lead the way for other stockholders to follow suit, and perhaps, could even- tually cost the currently powerful in South Africa their livelihood. Whether or not the Regents decide to divest at some future meeting, they should not fool themselves into believing that they have either adopted or abandoned neutrality. LETTERS TO THE DAILY: ICampus Carter people played dirty ---i To the Daily: As a Daily subscriber and an active supporter of Rep. John Anderson in the recent presiden- tial election, I would like to ex- press my disgust with the cam- paign tactics used by certain in- dividuals supporting Jimmy Car- ter. The campus Carter cam- paign consisted of anti-Anderson material such as a flyer entitled "The Real John Anderson." This flyer, like the article by Congressman Drinan which ap- peared in the Daily on October 16, contained misleading statements and misinformation about An- derson's voting record. Our cam- paign chose to emphasize the issues, and the program proposed by John Anderson and Pat Lucey, rather than attack Carter's own racist, anti-labor, anti-free speech, pro-Vietnam war stances of the past. Not satisfied with misleading voters, the Carter. campaign began running anti-Anderson radio adsucontaining blatant lies. Fed up, Students for Anderson scraped together enough money to xerox flyers countering the Carter smear sheet. On Election Day morning, while Anderson workers distributed these flyers on desk tops in lecture halls, a confron- tation developed. The Carter students began following the An- derson volunteers, picking up our literature, trashing it, and replacing it with their smear sheets. When the Anderson volun- teers asked them what they were doing, the Carter people replied with threats. The Carter students were stopped by campus security, but only after the fact. As it was Election Day there was nothing further we could do. I realize the Daily eventually chose to endorse Jimmy Carter (with totally justified reluctan- ce), but the Daily certainly can- not endorse the underhanded campaign behavior of the Carter students (led by one of their coordinators). I do not wish to seem petty or naive, but even the desperation of the Carter suppor- ters is no excuse for their shoddy, dirty campaign. Obviously, the national election is over and scolding the Carter forces may seem like beating a dead horse, but student elections will be coming up very soon (November 24 and 25) and hopefully, discussion of past elec- tions will help keep campaign tactics "clean." -Will Hathaway Co-coordinator. Michigan Students for Anderson November 14 Anti-touch laws next? To the Daily: The not-long-ago passage of the anti-harrassment law in Michigan was no unmixed good. Far from it! While the law rights certain wrongs for women, particularly women on the job, it likewise separates the sexes! As though we don't have enough separation! Sex, tender- ness, affection, even shoi of af- fection is in this civilization of ours still looked upon with a jaundiced eye. Notwithstanding a "sexual revolution," Vic- torianism still lurks. And indeed, along with the whole shift to the right, is making a comeback. Women's lib, ironically, is sup- clusive of it. Today, the women's movement is practically in- distinguishable . from papal proclamations. At least when it comes to sex. Back to the anti-harrassment law: We now should have a better view of it-just one more neo- Victorian measure masked by giving Women a break. I- can visualize a law the next time around that would make taboo (outside of marriage) any kind of touching the opposite sex-and anti-touch law. Next, an anti-talking-with-a-woman law. Next, an anti-looking law. And so on. Just short of the female having to wear a veil. And maybe that too! Ad building set straight To the Daily: Your article on the Ad- ministration Building (Daily, November 18) contained two building the same level of light and to make each space unique, despite the fact that the building is a high-rise. ,.... ...__to i w . I