40

OPINION

Page 4


Wednesday, March 10, 1982

The Michigan Daily

Campus militarism in the bad old days.

By Bret Eynon
Imagine this scene on campus: Two-
tlirds of the student body is enrolled in
ROTC; they march to classes and prac-
trce digging trenches on hills
overlooking the Huron River. Univer-
sity scientists do research on chemical
*jrfare and new systems of weapons
nmanufacture. Professors, who are un-
dek surveillance, are fired for showing
signs of "disloyalty."

including a future vice president for
research, worked on the atom bomb.
When peace came the military did not
fade away, however, as it had in the
1920s; instead, military research con-
tinued at high levels through the "Cold
War" era of the 1950s and into the 1960s.
The military presence on campus
peaked during the years preceding the
Vietnam war. In 1963 the University
received nearly $20 million in Pentagon
research grants-more than any other
educational institution in the nation.
One special Army program was even
titled "Project Michigan." The Air
Force alone sponsored 142 research
projects at the University in 1961.
During the Vietnam era most campus
military research was performed at the
University's Willow Run Labs, located
at the site of a famous World War II
bomber factory in Ypsilanti. There,
researchers developed infrared sen-
sors, radar devices, and guidance
systems for missiles. The Pentagon
considered this work to be invaluable,
and termed the University "the free
world leader in battlefield surveillance
technology."
THE ELECTRONIC devices and in-
frared sensors developed at Willow Run
Labs were designed for what the Pen-
tagon called "target identification and
acquisition." A former Air Force pilot
described what "target acquisition"
meant in practice in the following way:
"Charlie (the Viet Cong) used to feel
safe in his jungle redoubts. But now we
fly over him in RC-4C Phantoms with
infrared camers and take pictures, in
which his campfire shows up as a white

IN 1967, peace activists launched a
campaign to end campus military
research. This campaign, which lasted
for five long years, was successful in
many respects. The initial effort was
sparked by student groups, such as the
Daily and Students for a Democratic
Society (SDS). Faculty members
gradually joined the students in their
campaign, and eventually they carried
the day.
This student-faculty coalition staged
rallies, passedpetitions, and held a non-
violent sit-in at the administration
building. The SDS invaded a top-secret
meeting between University officials
and a Navy admiral. In February, 1971,
faculty activists demonstrated their
commitment to the anti-war cause by
holding a week-long hunger strike.
The long campaign climaxed in the
fall of 1971, at a Senate Assembly
meeting. There the peace activists
argued that an institution dedicated to
the advancement of knowledge and
civilization should not take part in war
research. After heated discussion, the
faculty body decided to ban most
classified research and prohibit
research which contributed to the
development of weapons systems.
A FEW MONTHS later, in March,
1972, the Regents passed a similar
resolution, which included a clause
reading: "The University shall
not. . . accept any grant the clearly
foreseeable and probable result of
which, the direct application of which,
or any specific purpose of which is to
destroy human life or incapacitate
human beings."

The Regents created a review com-
mittee to see that all classified military
research adhered to the guidelines.
They failed, however, to set upia
similar committee for nonclassified
military research, thus leaving a large
loophole in the system. This exclusion
drew little notice at the time, perhaps
because, unlike today, most military
research was classified during Viet-
nam.
The peace activists' victory, although
not total, did have significant effedt.
The University sold Willow Run Labs
(which became ERIM-the Environ-
mental Research Institute of
Michigan), and the volume of campus
military research droppd
dramatically. By 1974 there was less
than $4 million in military research
grants at the University.
THE 1970s were a time of general
retreat for the Pentagon, but the
military returned to universities in the
late 1970s, and the controversy over
military research has rekindled. The
man behind the Pentagon's renewed in-
terest in campus research was none
other than George Gamota, then direc-
tor of Department of Defense Research
and Development. It is ironic, yet fit-
ting, that Gamota has now come to
campus as director of the University's
Institute of Science and Technology.
Eynon is a comnlunity historian
and Michigan Student Assembly 4n-
vestigator. His articles will appear
periodically on the Daily's Opinion
Page.

Protesters gather in 1969 to oppose the war in Vietnam.

Is this some futuristic fantasy? No, it
really happened here. According to
Howard Peckham's The Making, of the
University of Michigan, our campus
was virtually taken over by the military
during World War I. And this was only
" the first of several successive waves of
campus militarism occurring prior to.
I or during American involvement in
I war. What are we seeing on our campus
. today may well be the beginnings of the
5 next wave.
i CAMPUS MILITARISM subsided af-
* ter World War I, but it revived during
$ World War II, when University scien-
tists designed several new weapons
systems for the Pentagon. Some faculty
4
U ~Itt4~41,

dot with a tail. overruled, but he explained his prin-
"We turn these pictures over to the ciples in a letter to a friend:
ARVN (South Vietnamese) gunners; "If the world would stop in its mad
the coordinates are established; and rush and listen to me for one minute, I
suddenly, out of a peaceful sky, a large would say just one thing: War under
explosive shell falls in the middle of any name is murder."
Charlie's meal. . . Charlie never knew Opposition to campus militarism
what hit him, or why." reached unprecedented heights in the
A PERSISTENT thread of op- late 1960s, when Vietnam confronted
position has existed throughout the Americans with the horrors of modern
history of campus militarism. During war. Ann Arbor was alive with peace
World War II, for .example, University activists during these years. They
President Alexander Ruthven argued challenged the draft, University ROTC
that the University's proper role was programs, and campus military
not contributing to war, but training research, each of which they saw as an
students for the coming peace and unwanted intrusion of the Pentagon into
popular support. Ruthven was their lives.


rv irttfin Otth1itn

Weasel

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Vol. XCII, No. 124.

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

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

AM I D REAMING?
H-AVE I GMNEINSANE.?
THESE PEOPL$. t-DONt
RiAVE ANY FACE;.'
jC
1f

F-xGUSE ME...
BUT... AM Z
MISTAKEN/ OR
DO YOU Nor
14AVB A FACE?

LAW SCHOOL.
HUN?
r-&j

By Robert Lence
LAW BUSINESS. GIMME.
SCi40L
MEp MONEY.
SCHOOL..
St1
~T n

Questionable protection


HE ENVIRONMENTAL Protection
Agency is having a little trouble
ately figuring out what it's supposed
lo be doing. The agency under the
Reagan administration seems to be of-
ering the environment anything but
protection.
y The actions of the agency's leader-
hip offer one example of the current
problem. When EPA director Anne
Gorsuch assumed office, she started
er term off by proposing a dramatic.
put of her own agency's funds. Ap-
iarently, less money was necessary
§ince less protection was in store.
Another example involves the Clean
Air Act. When congressional leaders
wanted to relax restrictions on how
nany pollutants the Clean Air Act
allows, the EPA approved - and then
uggested even further weakening the
ct.
Last week the agency topped off its
on list of perplexing policies with a
fecommendation on chemical dum-
>ing. The EPA now wants to reverse
ts ban on burying hazardous liquid
vastes. Claiming that the current ban
s too stringent and too costly for the
government to enforce, the agency
ow proposes letting U.S. landfills con-
ain up to 25 percent toxic liquids.
Strong opposition to the plan has

come from an unusual coalition of en-
vironmentalists and businessmen.
Environmentalists fear the plan would
provoke another Love Canal, where
the leaking of buried liquid waste
caused widespread health hazards and
forced a community to evacuate. And
businessmen, who have invested in
alternate disposal methods, complain
they will have wasted their investment
if the EPA changes its rules.
The agency has pushed ahead with
its unsafe and uneconomical plan. The
ban on liquid waste disposal has
already been temporarily lifted for a
90-day test period.
Proposals on liquid waste are just
another example of the abysmal job
the EPA has done in fulfilling its role
as environmental watchdog. With the
Reagan administration's guidance, the
EPA has become more devoted to
saving the government's money than
to health or safety concerns. The EPA
was never meant to strive for
economic efficiency as its primary
function, however; it was created to
help keep the nation's environment
safe and clean. Until its policy takes
the: environment more into con-
sideration, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency will hardly be deserving of
its name.


State budget plan may pawn
the University 's resources


By Sarah Goddard Power
Editor's note: Regent Power presented
this address at the Feb. 18 University
Regents meeting.
The current budget recommendations from
the Executive Office of Gov. Milliken propose
that the state not pay to the University of
Michigan its fourth quarter appropriation of
$38 million because of the state's cash flow
shortages. In effect, the University, on its
own, will have to borrow enough money to
operate through the end of the fiscal year.
The state has also pledged to make up that
sum (without interest cost on the borrowings)
sometime during the first quarter of next
fiscal year (starting October 1, 1982),
together with a proposed sweetener of a 14
percent appropriations increase for the rest
of the year. The director of the state Office
of Management and Budget, Dr. Gerald
Miller, claims that his economic forecast
shows that Michigan will have enough tax
revenues to pay the University back next
year.
WHAT'S REALLY going on is this: The
state proposes to pawn one of its most
valuable family jewels, the University of
Michigan. There are enough people out of
work in Michigan who have visited their local
pawn shop recently to know if they
don't get back to work they won't
ever get their valuables out of hock.
I'm very concerned that just the same thing
will happen to the University's pawned ap-
propriation.
The basic question is simple: Will the
economy of Michigan come back far enough
and fast enough to get the University out of
hock without the terrible damage of delayed
repayment or-ghastly thought-no
repayment at all?
THEsSTATE'S forecast, based on fall 1981
data, says. "Yes." And in fairness, the
University's own highly respected Research
Seminar in Quantitative Economics reached

THE PURPOSE of all this is not to get into a
complex discussion of whether the state's
forecast or RSQE's forecast is better. It is
merely to point out that the newest respon-
sible data are at significant variance with the
state's assumptions. Therefore, the state's
ability to generate enough money to pay the
University back on time and to provide a 14
percent increase in appropriations must be
regarded as doubtful.
This whole issue needs to be looked at in the
perspective of the two key problems facing
Michigan - jobs and economic development
and diversification.
Everybody accepts the idea that the surest
way for people to get jobs is to get an
education. And nearly everybody accepts the
idea that the core source of human and in-
tellectual resources to lead an economic
resurgence in our state is Michigan's great
universities, of which the University of
Michigan is one.
Against this is the pattern of support for the
University set by the state over the last ten
years:
" In 1970-71 Michigan allocated $11.91 per
$1,000 in citizen personal income to higher
education. At that time, the state ranker
twenty-first among the 50 in state support to
higher education. In 1981-82, Michigan
provides $9.19 per $1,000 personal income to.
higher education. That amount ranks thirty-
seventh among the states and is 15 percent
less than the $10.16 national average.
" Since 1974-75, state appropriations to the
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor have in-
creased from $95.7 million to $132.2 million.
This represents an annual growth rate of 4.7
percent per year, far less than the 8.7 percent
plus average rate of inflation, or a sharp cut
in real terms. In 1974-75 dollars, the current
appropriation is $40.3 million less than what it
would have been if inflationary adjustments
only had been provided by Michigan.

" Since 1974-75 tuition charges to an6-
tering resident freshperson have grown from
-$400 per term to $808 per term. This represen-
ts an annual growth rate of 10.6 percent pet
year. Had tuition increases been held to the
rate of inflation, 1981-82 rates would hake
been $722, or nearly 11 percent less than
current amounts.
* Since fiscal year 1974-75 the University's
general salary program has averaged in-
creases of only 6.4 percent .per year, or 2.4
percent per year less than the rate of in-
flation.
Over the past twenty months, four specific
actions by state government have resulted in
reduced appropriations to the University of
Michigan-Ann Arbor. Three executive orders
(1980-3, 1981-8, 1981-9) cut $10.2 million, and
the 1980-81 appropriation act provided $7.2
million less than the reduced 1979-80 amount.
Because of unfavorable timing in reference to
the University's fiscal year, the shortfall as a
result of these four actions actually totals
some $20.4 million. The 1982 appropriations
will total only $439,000 more than the amount
received in 1979-80, a mere 0.3 percent in-
crease in two years.
The conclusion is inescapable: The state
has failed to keep up even with inflation in its
support to the University of Michigan, let
alone increase support in real terms. In so
doing, it is seriously threatening the quality
base of the University, at precisely the time
that the University constitutes one of the few
state resources that can produce vitally-
needed jobs and diversification for our
economy.
Now, to top off a decade-long pattern of
weakening support for the University, the
state proposes the terribly risky expedient of
pawning the University's present ap-
propriation. What happens to the University if
the state can't raise enough money to get its
pawned $38 million out of hock?


Letters and columns renresent

-t- ,I l I.LWUUUill '*L ';li, I.A-jf'g'~7 I 111 IK Mi 1 1