100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 10, 1983 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1983-03-10

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

0

OPINION

Page 4 Thursday, March 10, 1983

The Michigan Daily

S

SEdie maan
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Military research:Apathy or
action will determine policy

Vol. XCIII, No. 124

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
x Administration arrogance.
In time of sacrifice, another executive

A T A TIME when the rest of the
rest of the University is
scrambling under budget cuts and
reviews, one would think the Shapiro
administration would lead by example.
Yet in this time of sacrifice, it has
added another administrative post,
another layer of University
bureaucracy, and more than a hundred
thousand dollars to the University's
operating expenses. The irony is
telling.
: The new executive would receive the
title vice provost and ostensibly would
coordinate the activities of the medical
school and the University hospitals.
Shapiro reassuringly told
Regents that the administration would
surely find enough savings in the $300
million medical campus budget to pay
the administrator's salary.
Five of the Regents, not being ones to
bicker too much with the Hal and Billy
show, bought the argument and the
University yet another administrator.
Three Regents didn't and neither do we.
The medical school already has its

own dean and the hospital has a
director. Both of these men have a
plethora of assistants and associates,
all with their own offices and staff -
and salaries.
If Shapiro and Frye mean, by
introducing the new post, that Jeptha
Dalston at the hospital and Peter Ward
at the medical school aren't doing their
jobs properly in looking for budgetary
savings then they shouldn't be so
bashful about letting them know it.
But if the administration really
thinks that more coordination is
needed between the two groups, then
we have a better alternative that might
save the University a few hundred
thousand bucks.
Wouldn't it be cheaper to require
Dalston and Ward to sit down together
for lunch, or tea perhaps (at
University expense, of course) and
talk over how they can better
coordinate their bureaucracies?
University administrators may be
masters at cutting the budget and staff
of academic programs, but in the halls
of the Fleming Building, a sacred cow
grazes lazily.

By K. Timothy Man tyla
Two factions on campus are now locked in a
struggle over Department of Defense-
sponsored research at the University. It is
called "military research" by those who
support the extension of classified research
guidelines-which prohibit the University
from engaging in research that leads to the
destruction of human life-to cover non-
classified research. Researchers who work on
defense-sponsored projects call it basic
scientific research.
It is my perception that most persons on
campus either do not know about the issue
and why it is important, or do not care enough
to say or do anything about it.
In 1972 the University Regents adopted
guidelines on classified defense research,
which at that time comprised the bulk of
defense research conducted on campus. The
guidelines, a response to over five years of
student and faculty protest during the
Vietnam War years, read:
"The University will not enter into or renew
any agreement or contract, or accept any
grant, the clearly forseeable and probable
result of which, the direct application of
which, or any specific purpose of which is to
destroy human life or to incapacitate human
beings."
THE GUIDELINES do not affect the bulk
of defense research now done on campus,
which is non-classified. In fact there are no
guidelines or review systems for non-
classified research here. It appears that most
defense research, by virtue of the label "non-
classified," escapes scrutiny and may violate
the spirit of the 1972 guidelines.
Many persons, including local ministers,
doctors, students, faculty, and community
members believe that conducting research

that even indirectly leads to the destruction of
human life is contrary to the purpose of a
university.
But what do others believe? Their silence is
disturbing.
MORE EDUCATION on the issue is in
order. And activists have called for public
forums to promote public awareness . of
defense research.
But two top University research
administrators - Dr. George Gamota,
former defense department director of
research, and now director of the Institute of
Science and Technology, and Charles
Overberger, the University vice president of
research - have ducked opportunities to
address the public on defense research.
Engineering Prof. Thomas Senior did take
on that responsibility, and spoke at Campus
Chapel on January 25 in a public forum on
defense research.
SENIOR, ONE of the most outspoken of
scientists working on defense projects,
defended the research as essential if the
University is to keep its position near the
forefront of technology. But even Senior
recognized the "umbilical tie" with the
department.
"Any time you accept sponsorship for
research, you do lose a 'degree of freedom,"
he said. "After all, he who pays the piper can
to some degree call the tune."
In this case the University is the "piper"
paid by the defense department to play what
some might call a military march.
Department of Defense officials who elicit
research are practical men who will use the
new technology to create new weapons and to
improve the efficiency of existing war
machines. Let the civilian applications trickle
down; they always do, in time. But let Us not
be fooled into believing that, as some have
suggested, the purpose of the technology is to
feed the gadget-hungry American consumer.
ONLY 4% of all research money at the

University comes from the defense
department. But this 4% equalled $5.2 million
in fiscal 1982-a princely sum by any
standards. And some would use the small
percentage figure to divert attention fronm
rational comparisons of the respective
purposes of the University and the
Department of Defense-purposes which are
incompatible. The University has a duty to
seek out funding for research that will not be
used in the destruction of human life.
The integrity of our university is at stake.
Should the University extend current
classified research guidelines to all research'
done here? Or .should we implement a new;
policy that may allow scientists to sidestep'
responsibility for the applications of their
research?
A DECISION on the matter probably will:
be made March 21, when the Senate Faculty'
Assembly will consider suggestions presented;
by the Research Policies Committee.
The persons who will influence or even
decide University policy on research need as
much information and as many diverse
opinions as possible if they are to decide
responsibility. We need a public airing of fact
and opinion on the matter.
Dashing off a short note (or placing a phone
call) explaining your opinion to 'an
administrator, a faculty member, a
researcher, or a newspaper takes only a few
minutes. But the information conveyed in that
short time can influence University for
decades to come.
The benefits of action are now balanced
against the costs of apathy. We will
choose-by our actions, or by our apathy-the
future of our University.
Mantyla is a senior majoring in
communications.

|

r

Frye shows insensitivity

Sinclair

,WHILE FRYE needed Shapiro's
-V help to build more bureaucracy,
he didn't need any help displaying the
height of arrogance defending the
salaries of University administrators.
Frye's comments in response to the
suggestion that administrators take a
pay cut as part of the budget-cutting
process suggest he is insensitive to the
concerns of those whose programs are
being reviewed and cut.
The vice president for academic af--
fairs and provost said he was "per-
sonally offended" by the suggestion
that administrators accept a pay cut,
adding that such a gesture would be
"empty and foolish." Frye, who earns
more than $78,000 a year, said "A
much simpler, gesture wopld be if
.everyone recognized (the ad-
ministration's) effort here."
How incredulous and unbelievably cold.

Frye is in charge of a redirection and
reallocation project that is instiltuting
massive cuts in whole school budgets
and eliminating full departments and
institutes. Yet when someone suggests
he (or maybe that should be He) make
a sacrifice, Frye says in effect, he's
too valuable.
If Frye reexamined his statement,
he might better see his insensitivity.
He might also realize how sensitive
other people are to the various budget
reviews and be able to better handle
the review process. May be can
recognize everyone else's efforts in the
'University before wielding his budget-
cutting ax.
But now that isn't the case. If studen-
ts and faculty defended a program by
saying "we work too hard to be cut, so
recognize our effort and forget it,"
Frye would just laugh in their faces.

I

I

I

IIN
IT
,3 t it' y 8
1 S s 'F {1
I"^L'a

~~4J...
~~ 'a~
Myr;AlC t

I
I

IT SAYS HERE ThAT TIAGS RAVE
TURREP THE CORNER"
* ~
- NEMPLOYM EA "r+Y 'rN' >mfeacn.r
F i
tt .
ry ,/ ff. wn°K. '7' . ,4J ~r
f-~,r
rc 1"tNI IfJ ' 7i <' rih v rIrn . Y./7iMLJ/

.i
.J
r
\.
U,
.,
- '
'^ J.
i
i

- :
... ''';
;7
s
, .
.:
.. _ -
' ,, " ..
.
_. _
a, '.._ ', ,
:_ -7C_. y ,.:w
' :
" -
_
,F+r
;
,
:aF
,i: -
M ' .
r
b

I
I

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:
Group vows to 'stop' Nazis

:1

To the Daily:
As most students now know, the
S.S. Action Group, a neo-Nazi
organization from Westland,
Michigan, has announced its in-
tention to rally for "White
Power" in Ann Arbor on March
20. The Nazis of southeast
Michigan are using this occasion
as an opportunity to promote and
provoke racist and genocidal sen-
timents in the people. They see an
opportune moment in the conser-
vative, anti-gay and lesbian,
racist, and militarist atmosphere
in the U.S. today, as exemplified
by the Reagan administration

Resolution on Genocide.
Last year a strong and militant
demonstration showed this same
Nazi group that the people of Ann
Arbor were opposed to their
presence in the city and that
racist, fascist, and genocidal
theory and practice would not be
allowed to be rallied around in
the city of Ann Arbor.
This year the All-Peoples
Congress is calling for a counter-
demonstration to stop the Nazis.
We demand that the local, state,
and federal governments, put
priority on jobs and human needs
and services, not on racism, anti-

creases. And in Austin, Texas, on
February 19, five thousand anti-
racist demonstrators drove robed
Klansmen out of the capital.
Thousands of these demon-
strators were white students
from Austin universities.
We invite all University of

Michigan students to join with the
All-Peoples Congress and the Ann
Arbor community in building for
this important demonstration
against the Nazis and for jobs and
human needs.
- Kris Hamel
All-Peoples Congress
March 2

University hypocritical

To the Daily:
The picture of Stokely Car-
michael on vour front page of

University's distinction in
allowing Carmichael to speak

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan