PINION Page 4 Thursday, February 4, 1982 - The Michigan Daily 4 Edited and managed by students at The University of\Michigan University faces elitist fiuture as federal, state drops Vol. XCII, No. 103 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Not a penny for defense T HE PENTAGON won another battle yesterday in its ongoing struggle to increase itssever-expanding defense machine. Secretary of Defense Caspar Wein- berger told Congress yesterday that the Reagan administration will ask for another $10 billion in military outlays for the 1983 fiscal year budget. The administration's request comes at a time when next year's projected budget deficit should exceed $90 billion. The figures obviously conflict with Reagan's supposed commitment to a balanced budget. Reagan's earlier political promise of a sound budget seemingly has been surrendered to the immense growth of our dollar- grabbing Pentagon. The Pentagon's budget for 1983 is predicted to be $40 billion more than its fiscal 1982 budget. Reagan's desire to "act tough" in the face of Soviet aggression in Poland is a plausible ex- cuse for played-up military prepared- ness, but not on a $40 billion scale. The, glaring contradiction between Reagan's balanced budget pretense and the enormity of his military outlay shows a true lack of economic and political forethought. The massive cuts proposed and already enacted upon the nation's social programs could be avoided. Cut- ting away at the immense overgrowth- of the Pentagon's budget and tran- sferring those military funds-to our financially strapped social programs is an idea that seems to have com- pletely escaped the Reagan ad- ministration's potice. Federal payments are to be tran- sferred to' the states. The costs of Medicaid and food stamps are to be swapped. The people of this nation are supposedly to have control of their legislators once again. The new federalism is about to jump into action. Yet the federal defense machine ex- pands, bloating itself on dollars that could be spent on domestic programs. This is a gross irresponsibility in Reagan's overall plan for the coun- try-an irresponsibility that may jeopardize the social foundations of our nation, while feeding the voracious monster of the Pentagon. Rash commitment T HE UNITED States took a large step toward military involvement in El Salvador Tuesday with the promise of increased military com- mitment to that war;-torn Latin American country. Secretary of State Alexander Haig made what may be an irreversible commitment to El Salvador this week during testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Haig pledged that the United States would do "whatever is necessary" to prevent the takeover of President Jose Napoleon Duarte's government by lef-' tist guerrillas. When questioned on just what might prove necessary, Haig was vague, but he refused to rule out the use of:U.S. troops. This .pledge seems to be the next logical step in the administration's growing support for El. Salvador's military junta. Last week, President Reagan certified to Congress that Duarte's regime has made progress in halting its notorious human rights violations, in spite of the recent reports that some 900 Salvadoran civilians were killed in December by gover- nment troops. Now, officials are hin- ting that military aid to Duarte may increase to $55 million. Until Haig's statement, the ad- ministration had hesitated to go beyond subtle military support. Reagan had hinted that the United States would stand by the current El Salvador government, but had restric- ted military involvement to aid and training. With his testimony, Haig has sacrificed even this limited caution, at a time when caution is crucial. Events in El Salvador are becoming more critical; guerrillas have stepped up their attacks, recently destroying almost half of El Salvador's air force. The Duarte government may, as a result, soon be pressed into asking the United States for direct military inter- vention. Haig's testimony to the Congressional committee was rash and premature. By pledging military aid when so much controversy still surrounds El Salvador, Haig has thrust U.S. military commitment into an area from which it may prove difficult, if -not impossible, to escape. University President Harold Shapiro spoke to the Daily last week on the decline in federal and state support for higher education. The interview, held in his spacious Fleming Administration building office, was conducted by Opinion Page Editors Andrew Chapman and Julie Hin- ds. Shapiro speculated on the changing face of the University, and on how the University's role as a public institution will be affected by rising tuition and reduced budgets. Dialogue Daily: What is the future of federal support for the University? Shapiro: Well, the future of federal support for higher education in this country is curren- tly a matter of great controversy. The Con- stitution, as I understand it, reserves the public education function for the states. It is, therefore, legitimate to ask ourselves: What is the appropriate role of the federal gover- nment, if any, in contemporary higher education? I myself reject the notion that it is appropriatesocial policy to leave all public responsibility for higher education to the states. I think that student financial aid programs are an ideal vehicle for the federal gover- nment to play a role in education, in that they do not involve making grants to specific in- stitutions. The grants are simply made available to students to use at whatever in- stitution they choose, in order to further their educations. The student benefits, regardless of whether the student begins his or her studies in Michigan and remains in Michigan or begins in Michigan and graduates in Idaho. Daily: Would you consider it a respon- sible move by the President to cutback on federal student financial aid? Shapiro: There is no question that there have been some abuses of the federal and state student loan programs. To give you a personal example, I behaved in an economically irrational way by not isisting that my daughters take out loans to "finance their undergraduate educations. Existing policies would have allowed for a natural windfall. A family could borrow the money at a subsidized rate and invest it in a savings ac- count at market rates. It was almost like prin- ting money on a small scale. The loan programs were not initially con- ceived in that way and should not have been used in that way. Some reforms and cutbacks were necessary, but I think the kind of cut- backs currently being considered far exceed the real problems and, furthermore, if some of the proposed cutbacks go through, they will have enormous impact on higher education in general. Daily: What do you think that impact will be? Shapiro: I think that the impact will be primarily on access to higher education for middle income and lower-middle income families. For example, I think there are a lot of students at the University whom we want to keep here, but who would have a difficult time remaining, given, for example, a 50 percent cutback in federal student financial aid. I think that; if We are creative enough, we will be able to maintain our enrollment; though not necessarily with the same set of students. Daily: Now you said that the federal burden will be shifted to the states.. .. Shapiro: . . . or to individuals. Daily: State aid is now declining. What do you predict for its future? Will it continue to decline and how will that affect the Univer- sity? Shapiro: My expectation is that most states will not substitute aid that has been lost through federal cuts. J think the federal loss will, by and large, be a net loss. Daily: What will that specific burden on the individual be? Shapiro: It will be financial. Students and their families are going to have to decide whether to put $5,000 per year into an education, so it will put the burden on families. Daily': How will that change this Univer- sity? Will it change the type of person who comes here? Shapiro: Under the worst scenario,- with dramatic cuts in federal financial aid of, let us say, 50 percent, I think that you will find the average family income of the person coming to The University of Michigan moving upwards and that access to the University is affected for those families who do not have savings. You will find a narrower socio- economic cross-section at universities such as Michigan than we now have. I think that will be too bad. The students will be wealthier, but the University will be impoverished because the variety -of the student body will be diminished and the experiences that the student body brings to the University will be more limited. Daily: Will we become art elitist institution? Will we only have that certain class of studen- ts? Will that harm the University? Shapiro: Of course it will harm the Univer- sity if our students come from a narrower socio-economic spectrum. If "elitist" refers to socio-economic background, then we will be more elitist, by definition. Only people who can afford it will be able to some. I do not think that this effect will be dramatic but it will be unfortunate. people with less state suppbrt per full-time enrolled studentthan does Michigan. While I would not claim we do everything as efficien- tly as possible, I think that efficiency is not the major issue. The issue is that the state wants the systei to be smaller than it is. They are telling us to educate fewer students, to raise tuition and therefore, restrict access, They will not say so in as many words, but there is no other interpretation that I can think of. Daily: All this leads to our current policy of retrenchment. The very premise of raising tuition and cutting access has some moral implications, problems of race; problems of class, that are inherent in this kind of cut- back. Do you think the University will face any sort of moral dilemma? Shapiro: The state is faced with very tough budgetary decisions. I do not think that you can interpret these decisions at a state level as class or race issues because the state is debating whether to give an extra dollar to education to lower tuition, or to Medicaid, or AFDC, or mental health. Money not going to the University is going to other social programs that also have an impact on the race/class issue. Daily: Do you think the University is goin to be looking more toward corporations and alumni for future funds? Shapiro: We are working as hard as we can to raise funds from any appropriate source. But I think it totally unrealistic to think that we can easily replace the funds that come from federal sources. Corporate support will come in two forms: first, financial aid for students in areas of particular interest to a corporation, such as engineering or computer science; second, i research. In most cases, corporate support will be targeted, not general support. Daily: Then what happens to fields such as the humanities? Shapiro: Well, there is no question that it is harder to find private support in those areas. _But. without strong programs in the. humanities we cannot be a distinguished cen- ter of scholarship and teaching. We will hav to work very hard to locate the necessar support. Daily: Do you think the University 'will become more specialized in areas where itk can get support because of this? Shapiro: I think that in a literal sense that is true. In the year 1990, we will probably be doing fewer things than we do now, so, by definition, we will be more specialized. Bu the spectrum is still going to be so broad tha it will be hard to look at us and say we are a specialized university. I think you are going to look at the University in 1990 and be very impressed with the scope and the number and the quality of schools we do have, even though there may be somewhat fewer than we have now. 4 .q I Daily: But don't we have a responsibility as a public institution? Shapiro: We cannot fulfill those respon- sibilities out of thin air. We cannot do it if the federal government will not support us, if the states will not support us. If society requires us to do these things, but does not provide support, I believe that the requirement is mere political rhetoric. If our elected officials want us to have a distinguished institution which is open to people of all income levels, then they must offer us the appropriate level of supp6rt. Daily: Given, the recent state cutbacks, what message are our legislators sending us? Shapiro: They are telling us that they do ndt want us to have as large a system or as many students as we now have. They do not want us to do as many things as we now do, or 'to educate as many students as we do, or to educate them as well. What other inter- pretation can one draw? Daily: In Lansing they say the universities have overgrown their boundaries and that now is the time to retrench. Do you agree with that? Shapiro: There are two different questions. First, is the question of whether we are sim- ply too big. One can present a pretty good argument that some adjustment, some down- sizing is necessary. I think I would support that. The other is: are we spending too much money; are we spending it inefficiently? It is not a question of less, but merely of whether we are spending the money we have property. There is no state in the union that educates a " .i f . ii'. tf Jk'" "",,i . '7 ,,I I ,, , "-- -__ OR SOMETRIN6 ? i IM REALLY ANXIOUS Ta LEARN WRfAT GOING6 ON 'TOM6fW? ANY ANTI-NULKE No,BUT THOSE HUNKS Fcmi ZETA tJPSIL6)N MIGMr 9E BY )'0TRY TO STEAL CUR- (6MPoS (TEP" r So, FAWN, wHIL$ COUNTRY . CLUE POES WE PT BELON.G TO BVT IM AMEMBERof THE o0 COMMUNIST Y" BP SRI6ADF'e ( ® , THF- COMMUNIST- YOt7Tp BRIGADE. PO THEY HAVE A r THINK c coU2sE? STUDENT ACTIVISM 1S So TACKY. i Kea Q Q00@ Weasel By Robert Lence ,1 ° I I I. I 1 d I