OPINION Page 4 Priorities: It's Wednesday, October 28, 1982- all business at t By Robert Honigman There is always a conflict between those who run institutions and those who are served by them. Those who run institutions seek the greatest return for their services with the least risk, while those who are served by them seek the greatest service at the least cost. Since the health, welfare, and security of one group are purchased at the cost of the other, each side has little sympathy for the problems or needs of the other. The conflict between labor and management, between producer and consumer, and between the rulers of the state and the governed are well known. The conflict, in fact, forms major sub- jects of study within the University-for we humans have learned our lessons through long and bitter experience. Yet the University itself remains a crude caricature of a corporation. IN THE University there is a pervasive fic- tion that although students are relatively powerless, they do not need power because all decisions are made with their best interests in mind. The University alone of all human in- stitutions supposedly has escaped the corrup- tion of power. Still, if we divide the University's goals into high priority and low priority categories, a curious dichotomy emerges. High priority categories-research, prestige, graduate education-match the personal goals and values of high echelon personnel, the top faculty, and administrators of the University. The benefits of these priorities flow directly to them and then "trickle down" to lower echelon personnel. On the other hand, secondary priorities- undergraduate education, academic coun- seling, student housing-match the personal needs and goals of lower echelon personnel, students, and flow directly to them and are left to percolate up. Although the fiction is main- tained that equal weight is given to all Univer- sity goals, in fact, undergraduate education is impoverished to provide funds for graduate- professional education. Teaching is neglected to reward research and publication. The mun- dane aspects of everyday life for students, such as campus planning, class size, housing, tran- sportation, are neglected so that resources can be devoted to highly visible and prestigious goals. The University caters to the nationally renowned scholars and scientists who are at- tracted by high salaries, research facilities and reduced teaching loads. It devotes resources to the big medical complex that accounts for nearly half of the University payroll. THERE IS no doubt that students benefit from research, nationally-known faculty and University prestige up to a point-but who selects the point? Do we leave it up to experts, the high echelon personnel, or do they have an interest that disqualifies them from making ob- jective recommendations? That is the problem of government in all in- stitutions, but especially in those where power resides only in the top of a hierarchical pyramid. Perhaps it's my imagination that the modern university has gone far beyond the point where the pursuit of prestige, of research, and of graduate education has been for the benefit of the lowly student. Those who exer- cise power in the University will be the first to tell you that students are only anonymous tran- sients passing through, unworthy of power or trust. BUT IF this were all that is wrong with the University, then the harm done, while substan- tial, would be far less than what I'm afraid really happens in the University. The basic problem, for higher echelon per- sonnel here, as elsewhere, is to persuade lower echelon personnel to cooperate wholehear- tedly-at worst, not to interfere-in the ex- clusive pursuit of upper echelon goals. As a result, passive acquiescence to authority7- even the adoption of its values-becomes the central educational mission of the institution. Robert Pirsig, speaking as Phaedrus in Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance noted that "institutions such as schools, churches, governments, and political organizations of every sort all tended to direct thought for ends other than truth, for the perpetuation of their own functions, and for the control of individuals in the service of these functions." THAT IS the real effect of the University's massive educational program. It seeks to teach students to accept their role as low echelon personnel in the hopes that someday they might become high echelon personnel. It's the carrot and the stick of university education. It's an education that began in grade school and will be continued by large scale bureaucracies and corporations long af- ie b tsahnrfig ant Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Sinclair Vol. XCIII, No. 43 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board 'No' on Proposal B WHAT'S WRONG with putting the state police into the con- stitution? Nothing, according to state troopers. Plenty, according to the facts. Proposal B, a plan initiated by the state troopers' union, would create-right in the state con- stitution-a Michigan Department of State Police and set minimum staff levels for it. Troopers say that con- stitutionally-guaranteed minimum staffing is necessary to maintain effec- tive law enforcement even in hard economic times. Unless Proposal B is passed, they argue, the police force will be cut to shreds with cutbacks. But Gov. Milliken, several citizens' groups, and even the current head of the state police himself disagree. The plan is a rash one, designed to guaran- tee trooper jobs first and deal with constitutional consequences second. The vagueness of the proposal is frightening. In effect, it would make the state police an autonomous branch of government and remove legislative and gubernatorial control. It would likely grant the state troopers an un- specified and undefined level of police powers. The practical terms of the proposal are just as muddled. If B is passed, the state will have to hire immediately 114 more troopers to meet constitutionally- required levels. Especially in .the toughest times, it would tie the ,hands of state officials from cuttingSback troopers, except when the state population shifts. If the state, in fact, wants to make almost any change in the state police system, it would have to make that change through the laborious and time-consuming con- stitutional route. This ill-conceived proposal deserves to be defeated. It's in danger of passing, however, compliments of our "trusted" troopers. They've been capitalizing with all their might on the fear factor-warning citizens to vote for B before crime runs rampant in the state. Advertisements for the proposal stress the good name and reliability of the state police-not the actual merits of the proposal. Proposal B should be recognized for what it is-a job safety plan created by troopers for troopers. t WHAT No LV ! Em? The Michigan Daily he 'U ter students leave the University. The institutional role stresses uniformity, machine-like stamina and reliability, faceless service, and dependence on institutionalf decision-making for large areas of one's life. The individual-with his or her fragile psyche, spontaneous needs, and desires, and the self- confidence of a hard-won maturity-is not wan- ted in the institution. It is the ghost in the machine. IF ENOUGH isolated ghosts get together and form a union, they will stop the machine and the flow of benefits to upper echelon personnel. This is what has happened time and time again in human history. But the ghost in the machine is you. You are receiving an education at the University out- side of your classroom. You should consider what kind of an education it is. Honigman is a University graduate and an attorney in Sterling Heights, Mich. He is the author of The Destruction of the Student Community in Ann Arbor. I! _a NCT - 4 (CONOMY the future office me that these students don't care cilitation, about the future of our society. It ital to all parents and students don't read offers op- their tuition bill, then maybe they Lnd learn better start. PIRGIM, unlike the cur whole University, gives us a choice ani tells us where our money is going GIM and -David Guttchew" GIMw October 20' al shows tion for disaster it disap- concedes-seriously underpaid. ion of the It offers significant concessions Jniversity (to the University) on language. I the con- It restricts the ability of the reventing membership to raise grievances, out their by keeping copies of the contract under the from them. Were this contract to r tuition be ratified, GEO would almost rc. In the certainly face a decertification ctIins he campaign at worst, and apathy gaveo and and lack of support from the gave a membership at best. Indeed, we would deserve no better were we uilding on to ratify the contract, because we d in the would have won nothing for the 4 at they membership but a rank sell-out. iich GEO us are not It is for these reasons that fully ng to a one-half of the GEO Steering Nere paid Committee has endorsed leaflets y wanted, urging GSAs to reject the con- y realized tract, and why members are hat it one currently in the process of soun- nated the dly rejecting it. Indeed, the for GSAs. danger of articles like those in the in com- Daily (and the anonymous leaflet LETTERS TO THE DAILY: PIRGIMfee: A stake in 1 _---__-_-_- -_- - - - _--i GOSH, THAT TYLENOL POISONING STORY HAS REALLY BEEN SCARY { s -.3 ~l - PS . . -y'.A reI 4 .r i4 r~ 'r aq r To the Daily: Attackers claim that PIRGIM's new proposed refusable/refundable plan is un- fair. Opponents say this plan takes advantage of the lazy and ignorant. I think before one can attack PIRGIM they must look first at our own University ad- ministration. Does our ad- ministration tell us exactly where our tuition money goes? Are students told that in 1966 the Regents voted that students would pay $10 a year for 30 years to pay for Crisler Arena? Crisler is primarily an Athletic Depar- tment building, not a student ser- vice-but we have payed for it and don't even know it. Why can't the Athletic Depar- tment with its spiralling budget pay for this building? They have enough money during our economic "crisis" to be planning to build a new $1.5 million pool for Athletic Department use only. Are students told they pay for the Michigan Union renovation? A renovation that is more incon- venient than helpful and that has caused our student bookstore to move out? Did students have any say in these projects even though they are and will be paying for them? These are only a few examples of what the University does now that opponents claim PIRGIM will do. but surely will reap the benefits when PIRGIM is helpful in win- ning new gains for society. PIRGIM offers an opportunity for students to broaden their ex- periences beyond classrooms and libraries. PIRGIM offers credit through Project Community to gain valuable skills such as GEO contract To the Daily: With the commentary in Satur- day's paper ("The new GEO con- tract: Reasons to vote 'yes.'" Oct. 23) and the editorial in Sun- day's ("Ratify the GEO con- tract," Oct. 24), the Daily has weighed in on the side of the University and those committed to the destruction of the Graduate Employees Organization. For, as a letter distributed within one department on campus by that department's steward noted, to ratify the proposed contract would be to sign GEO's death warrant. In its editorial, the Daily claims that the proposed contract offers "some significant gains for GEO", but fails to mention a single one. Moyer and Sullivan were bolder in their commen- tary, offering a list of so-called gains that, when compared to the existing contract actually research, organizing management, group fac and others that can be v lines of work. PIRGIM c portunities to work on a about issues that affect o society. The opposition to PIR its new funding propos : Prescrip job related conduct proves of; the eliminati clause obligating the U to distribute copies of tract to GSAs (thus p GSAs from learning ab rights and obligationst contract); a three-yea and stagnating pay; et give-and-take of neg GEO's bargaining team the University took. The Daily speaks of bt the concessions offere contract, stating th "provide a base on wh can build." But some oft interested in reverti situation in which we v whatever the University in which the University we had so little power tl year unilaterally termit tuition waiver program: We are not interested I