OPINION Page 4 Saturday, February 13, 1982 Weasel di e dstuidegtatTheUnive ar ili Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Vol. XCII, No. 111 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 RELAX, WEASEL. I THINK YOURS OVERR EACTlNG To THESE. SOAP OPeRA6. G fPR N J ruNr F ITS TUST A c.fTTLE I{ARMLESS, M(NPLES5 Pow. I PONT TAINK TNE.Yk- NARMLF-SS,. KAPLA. PEOPLE ward 7HESF- St0ws REI-1 (oustYt (TS CBOT To INFLUENCE THEIR T'141NKING( By Rob WELL, J_ TO $TEN rt SAY:% You HAVE NC W IT4 ME - Y A TmFO NOT The Michigan Daily ert Lence NOT 6Ot4~, Z A WORP YookE'w WEASEL. 3 EDII1TY YbOuE NOT , AND Y oOIE ZK - Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Halting financial aid cuts I e I-n~ -I Ar - F THERE EVER was a time for student protest and activism, this is the moment. The Reagan administration's sweeping cutbacks in federally-funded student financial aid should provoke more campus unrest and student discontent than almost any other event of the past decade. Reagan has cut back ruthlessly on federal student grant programs for higher education. Pell Grants, Sup- plemental Education Opportunity Grants, and State Student Incentive Grants all have had their funds slashed by the current administration. Some federal proposals already call for the elimination of the Supplemental Education and State Student programs by 1914. Funds for the Pell Grant program are to be cut, under current proposals, almost in half. Federal loan programs are also facing sudden elimination. Graduate and professional students soon no longer will be eligible for Guaranteed Student Loans, and further restrictions are in store for undergraduates. The National Direct Student Loan program also is scheduled to be eliminated from the federal budget by 1984. Defiling c MEMBERS OF Congress, through a subcommittee, proposal, are currently waging a :dirty. campaign to substantially weaken federal clean air regulations. The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee is considering a proposal, sponsored by Rep. Thomas Luken (D-Ohio), that offers several revisions to the Clean Air Act of 1970. Luken claims his revisions are merely simplifications, designed to improve the anti-pollution act by finetuning existing regulations. He also concedes, as a subtle aside, the revisions may contain some economic ramifications. Improving the environment, however, is a poor cloak for the bill's true objective. The stress, instead, should be placed solely on the proposed benefits for industry. Luken's amen- dment would serve industry .by relaxing costly emissions standards for motor vehicles, delaying industrial cleanup programs, and permitting the introduction of pollutants into several areas designated "clean" by the government. Support for the bill comes from two major sources. Manufacturers, seeking relief from clean air standar- These examples only demonstrate the administration's callous neglect for higher education. Reagan has decided that higher education is not a priority for this nation, and now he in- tends to act on that decision. Cuts to student financial aid will represent a serious danger to the ac- cessibility of higher education for the nation's youth. The potential academic growth that has been offered for so long to the country may now be threatened with extinction. The reduc- tion of funds to higher education could lead to a disastrous gap in the nation' s ability to teach and train its population. Students at the University, and around the country, should voice their' protest over the injustice of the Reagan administration's aid cuts. Student concern is an important con- cern, and should be made known. Apathy, at a time such as this, will only lead to an increased governmental readiness to sacrifice higher education to political goals such as a balanced budget and increased military spen- ding. The students of this country must now take the future into their own hands. clean air ds, are wholeheartedly lobbying for the proposal. The Environmental Protec- tion Agency, with the .Reagan ad- ministration's backing, is betraying its. responsibility by not only backing the bill, but by calling for further measures to lessen clean air standar- ds. These supporters, however, in their rush to garner financial breaks, are ignoring the fact that clean air stan- dards remain as vital today as in 1970, when the act was created. The Clean Air Act, a health-based standard, should not be scrapped to boost an ailing economy. The temporary relief such a move offers industry would not balance out the long-term damage wreaked upon the environment. Too many social and environmental programs are being shoved to the wayside as lawmakers scramble to cure economic ills. Fortunately, the House subcommittee's chairman has already denounced the proposal, saying it would put "a virtual halt to the air pollution program." The entire subcommittee can now act positively by halting the progress of the bill to protect our clean air from shortsighted legislators. 1 Iv° g Sl_ -.L r LETTERS TO THE DAILY: * GEO offers hope for dece To the Daily: Since the University lost its ap- peal to have graduate student assistants ruled ineligible to bargain for a contract on the grounds that as students they were not really employees, it has tried to confuse and confound the implications this ruling has for GSAs. Its most recent and blatant act has been the unilateral action in increasing withholding taxes for GSAs. On Jan. 18, the University Record printed a misleading ar- ticle implying that this increase was a result of the MERC ruling; thus it appears we are being punished for gaining recognition of our employee status. One week later, the Record printed a followup which clarifies the position simply stated as: If you qualified before, you still qualify now for your tax advantage. The increase in our withholding is just a University harassment tactic. GEO, with a membership of over 400 at last count (and cards are still coming in daily) is struggling to provide, among other things, a decent wage for GSAs. In 1978, the average GSA who earned $3287 for a term was required to enroll for and pay tuition for a minimum 6 credits at $783 for the term. Therefore a GSA took home-pre-tax-$2504 for the semester. In contrast, in 1981. the same GSA was paid $3970, had to return at least $1133 in tuition, and so took home again pre-tax .$2837. This seems to be a 13.39% increase over the four years. But when you take into ac- count that inflation over the same period averaged 10.23% per year, then this same GSA, in constant dollars, earned only $2067 for that semester or 17.45% less in terms of purchasing power. It is ap- parent that we are not even keeping up, let alone receiving any cost-of-living adjustment. The situation is even more bleak when one considers that many GSAs come from out of state. All GSAs receive a tuition rebate which appears to be taxable since it takes the form of payment of obligations (i.e. tuition) to the University, and out-of-state rebates are about $1220. This GSA receives a total of almost $6200 in taxable income while only actually receiving in pay $2837 for the semester! Clearly we are paying much more tax than we ought to pay. If the University was willing to remove the enrollment requirement when it was not necessary to the GSA's education, and was willing to call the tuition rebate a tuition waiver, then there would be some financial return to all GSAs in the form of reduced taxation that we, as employees, do not even nt wage receive. Contrary to the "callous disregard" the union is accused of maintaining, GEO is interested in providing GSAs- with a reasonable wage which reflects their degree of teaching respon- sibilities. Only through combined and unified action through GEO will GSAs ever hope to receive such a wage. Clearly, over the past four years when GSAs were not protected by a contract, the University has not shown this same regard for its, graduate student employees' financial well-being. -David Fasenfest GEO Steering Comniittee February 10 It 's all Greek to Witt Order wins over freedom Tothe Daily: Mark Gindin's article "Of students and liberalism" (Daily, Feb. 5) made some very unfoun- ded statements. First of all, freedom to do as one wishes is not the basis ofrhappiness for most people. Order and security, whether they come from in- dividual effort or from a collec- tive group, are the sources of happiness. When faced with a choice, any rational person will choose order over freedom. Centralized government power did not arise from intellectual theories that favored the reduc- tion of freedom, but as a pragmatic necessity to prevent the loss of freedoms. As in- dustrial enterprises grew in this country, theybegan to gain more and more power. One reason for the growth of government was that a force was needed to balan- ce the increasingly centralized power of private industrialists. One of the effects of "New Federalism" has been to en- courage the _centralization of power in business, as evidenced by the large number of corporate mergers in the last year. Gindin's statement that freedom has disappeared because of the egalitarian action of the government is absurd. Government action has probably given blacks and other minorities more freedom than they have ever had in this country. The Keynesian policies of the gover- nment have also increased freedom by increasing the wealth of the people. Gindin should also remember. that a more equal society tends to have more inter- nal stability. Finally, Gindin's repeated assertion that today's college students wish to have Washington, D.C. run their lives has no basis. And even if they did, they wouldn't be as much of an "insidious danger" to society as Gindin is. -Tom Richardson February 11 To the Daily: As a member of a fraternity, I feel qualified to respond to Howard Witt's column "Thoughts of a former sorority member" (Daily, Feb. 9). First I must ask you, Mr. Witt, what purposes the column served. Your hostilities towards the Greek=system are obvious to any reader; but you are perhaps the least qualified-as you admit-to speak on the issue. Individuals both in and out of the Greek system are aware that Greek life is good for some while; not for others. As you admit, you are an outsider, though you give, some indications ofuregretting this decision. Are you trying to justify to yourself that you were right in not joining a fraternity? True, there are certain weak points associated with the Greek system. Mr. Witt has not failed in his endeavor to express each and every one of these. Do you beat dead horses into the ground often, Mr. Witt? Mr. Witttis guilty of bad jour- nalism in that he doesn't try to take on or even understand the other side. There are two sides, not one, to every argument. I'm not alone when I say that Greek life aids in the development of thousands of young adults throughout America. I have wit- nessed over 30 pledges initiate and I can assure you that there is a visible difference between the individual who first rushes and the same individual after he has initiated. There's no doubt that the degree of levelopment varies from one individual to the next. But-"the minimum that any in- dividual gets out of experiencing Greek life is a boost of self- confidence and a sense of belonging. Since your writing seems just a different means of bolstering your self-esteem, Mr. Witt, it would be absurd to argue that such an influence is not beneficial or worthwhile. The Greek system is used as a vehicle to better one's social life. One cannot knock the desire to meet people, especially on a large campus such as the Univer- sity of Michigan. This is not your first article which has been highly critical of certain programs, groups, and in-. stitutions in thisacountry. What. disturbs me is that such writing,'.' had no apparent message or pur-, pose. For this I applaud your con- sistency. -Tim Gerardot..,, member, sigma Chi February 10 Wasserman Pk" S6K