OPINION Page 4 1!hen does top Friday, March 18, 1983 The Michigan Daily faculty cost too much? By Jonathan Ellis At a recent Campus Meet the Press ap- pearance, Regent Gerald Dunn referred to keeping quality faculty at the University at "the first consideration." This sentiment is echoed so often by President Shapiro, Provost Frye and other University leaders that it begins to seem unquestionable. Who are these "quality faculty" to be kept? Regent Dunn argued that they were good teachers as well as acclaimed researchers, but what measures are used when quality is judged? Research and' scholarship are measurable in publications and contributions to academic fields, and when departments and individuals are rated, no one doubts that these are the criteria for number one or number twenty. WHEN PROVOST FRYE laments that top faculty may be lured elsewhere by higher salaries, he is not referring to the standouts from student course evaluations. Certainly good teaching is valued, but it is research and scholarship that bring prestige to a university or a department, and which require dollars to maintain. Is prestige then the motivation for making quality faculty the first consideration? Is this why some schools in the University are being bled so that others may flourish? There are other plausible answers. Any university, including our own, might rightly -value genuine contributions to the social good which are made by top faculty. The work of / / 1 .. .-- requires. They will be able to do their research, society will benefit, and Michigan students can have these pioneers as teachers. This rosy picture was dimmed when Dunn described a "danger point. By constantly raising tuition we are almost guilty of creating an elitist institution," he said. There is some debate about the precise relationship between faculty salaries and sup- port costs on the one hand, and tuition rates on the other. Do the outside grants which these top people bring actually lower the share of University expenses which must be met by state appropriations and student tuition? Here the argument becomes circular. "Share" of what? The "what" is the high cost of quality faculty. No one has yet suggested that we must keep top faculty so that tuition can be brought within the range of all economic groups, or so that the legislature can divert funds from the University to other pressing social needs. IN THE END, the question becomes, should Michigan have a university which an in- creasingly smaller segment of its population can afford to attend and which requires large portions from a strained state budget? If the answer is yes, it cannot be because the contributions of these quality faculty members will otherwise be lost. The contributions would be made elsewhere. Michigan, its people and industries, have access to scholarship and research whether or not it bears the University seal. Ultimately the argument must be that the citizens of our state will be better educated by a "quality faculty." But which citizens? IF WE LET this quality faculty go to higher salaries and more facilities at other univeti sities, could we hold down tuition and lesson our demands from a shrinking state budget? Might another kind of quality faculty be main- tained and attracted, who did not need high salaries and costly support? Might not many df them be great teachers? These are weighty questions, because ani swered in the affirmative, they would represent a "redirection" far more profound4 than our review committees now contemplate We could have a very different kind of great university in Ann Arbor. Our view would be this:, Those states which can afford the cost of "tap faculty, and still not shortchange other socl needs, should support "first class" unive- sities. Those public universities with ample sta funding and private support which can ho down tuition costs and still give faculty perks should do so. Those states and those universities without such resources should look for a different kind of educational quality. Which is Michigan? ?. If we are not to continue as "first class" iz" the ratings, what would be the consequences Regent Dunn need no longer anguish ovej whether he was catering to an elite he hash spent his life avoiding to favor. Moreover, Michigan students and faculty might come together again to search for truth, with less resources, but with a good conscience; That might be quality worth keeping. Ellis is director of Canterbury Loft. vii. /n L4 professors at the cutting edge of their fields regularly brings tangible benefits to us all. WITH NOTABLE exceptions such as military research, there is little debate over whether the efforts of such faculty should be supported. One can still ask, however, should the University be a place for this particular kind of quality? Such quality faculty require money in two ways, and only the first can be attacked as mere greed. This top faculty demands not only high salaries but access to what are often the very costly implements of their trade. If another university can give such faculty members better assistance and facilities, why do we want to keep these top people here? If their potential contribution to society is so great, would it not be enhanced if some other university could better fund it? REGENT DUNN'S answer was that the University still has the resources to provide quality faculty with the support which it Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Wasserman 4 'NEW &-oTTfo keep -Nc E 5LhIS1D oR~tCN IMt'A OUT 0OF THE CoUNTY1 'I %6oGI1 (U.. JUSTT66Z RNc-,%MhoN 'BY O'1XRCOUNT~tes.. .m 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Vol. XCIII, No. 131 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Vote against PIRGIM --. .6 - ' 4 \ G xr nyf " 5 t ' _Y , ti ,**Nk T HE PUBLIC INTEREST Research Group in Michigan has brought its refusable/refundable case before the Regents for yet another hearing. As it did two years ago, PIRGIM wants the Regents to add a $2 charge on each student's tuition bill which the student can refuse to pay. Again the group is. claiming to represent all University students, again it is wrong, and again the Regents should reject their bid for a new funding system. PIRGIM claims that in order for it to continue to be a viable organization, a more "secure" funding system is necessary. Under the current system, "a conscientious minority is respon- sible for funding a resource serving the majority," runs the lament of a recent PIRGIM letter to the Daily. We recognize that PIRGIM is a fine organization. It has worked for such beneficial projects' as the Bottle Bill, the Freedom of Information Act, and better state funding for the University. But the arrogance of PIRGIM's claim to represent all students is galling. In spite of its claim to be non- partisan, PIRGIM invariably takes stances on political issues such as nuclear power and draft registration. Its educational programs, such as its recent sponsorship of a forum on the proposed state income tax hike, also often emphasize only one side of the issue. Obviously, - not all students oppose nuclear power and many expect more than just pro-tax hike education from a group that is supposed to support all students. And they expect, for an automatic assessment of $2 on their tuition bill, an umbrella organization that does more than just claim to represent them all. PIRGIM members have gathered more than 5,000, signatures in support of the refusable/refundable plan. But another group that wants PIRGIM off the Student Verification Form altogether has garnered nearly 7,000. What both of these self-styled "man- dates" demonstrate is that neither side has the support they claim - thus they cancel each other out. Because of the valuable con- tributions it has made to the student community, PIRGIM should not be struck from the SVF. What the Regen- ts are left with then, is a question of who should bear the burden of funding PIRGIM. Should PIRGIM have to solicit funds or should it be the studen- ts' obligation to refuse the fee if they so desire? Clearly, PIRGIM should shoulder the burden of its own funding system. If PIRGIM wants a more secure fun- ding system then it should look into improving its public relations among students, but it should not be using the University to compel students to sup- port it. MAD~ IAL \/OU'LL AND UP DIN@IS t'M( C NMOON U PLOWSMNT SO)T \t'UBE MADEIN k~~i l p \N 1 1 ',~ 6~Y~ / - _ a _ Oh. - - Q 5) ... Nb . '° 4 I 4 , LETTERS TO THE DAILY: Th 's of m ilitary research k 6 "THEYRE RUNNING SO SHORT OF BULLETS THEY'VE EVEN $AP TO CUT POWN ON SHOOTING THEIR CIVILIANS" To the Daily: The volume of military resear- ch at the University has repeatedly been declared ex- cessive. What are the facts? In 1981-82 the percentage of resear- ch supported by the Department of Defense amounted to 4 percent of the total research volume. Only a fraction of this is related to military research, and an even smaller fraction with classified military research. All of the lat- ter work is subject to the established policies on classified research. It is open to debate whether such a volume of military resear- ch should be considered ex- cessive. Other respected in- stitutions of higher learning ex- plicitly permit unclassified military research. These include some of the most prestigeous universities in the U.S. such as Stanford University, the Califor- nia Institute of Technology and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Stringent new guidelines to cover all research at the Univer- sity of Michigan with a cen- sity community. All these are legitimate questions and opinions. It is my hope that these problems can be discussed at the Senate Assembly in a rational, factual and intelligent way, without prejudice, and in an at- mosphere of calm; sine -ira et studio. Another historical comment seems appropriate. Only during three years in the history of the University of Michigan since World War II, from 1978 to 1981, has the percentage of DOD sup- port been lower, slightly lower, than today. Ten years ago DOD supported about 11 percent, twen- ty years ago it supported about 39 percent, and in 1960-61 (the earliest year for which I have statistics) it supported about 56 percent of the total research volume. I am quite certain that the percentage exceeded 50 per- cent for the entire decade from 1950 to 1960, even more so if sup- port from the Atomic Energy Commission (which grew out of the Manhattan project) is in- cluded. I am unaware of any lasting damage which the Universi may have sustained from this DOD support. On the contrary,4t is my impression that tlw University has greatly benefittgl from the influx of federal resear- ch dollars in building up basic research programs. No matttr what the percentage of DOD sup- port is, the University has never been and never will become @n adjunct of the Pentagon as hb, been claimed in all seriousness -Joachim Janecke Professor of Physics March,8 st option the University to precisely moniter the activities of com- panies. Using this inside infor- mation, the problem can be coim- batted more effectively. This is not an advocation for all investments that involve South Africa. Each investment must be considered individually, and evaluated as to whether it can be used as a weapon against apat- Divestment is not the be To The Daily: A major issue presently provoking heated debate on cam- pus concerns the ethics of the University's holdings in South Africa. This controversy has triggered a wave of emotionalism here in Ann Arbor. Students with little or no consideration of the issue have denounced this ignored. Unless I am ignorant of the existence of a para-military force presently being trained by the University, it appears that the pro-divestment constituents have chosen to ignore the problem. Divestment effectively amounts to the University tur- ning its back on the issue, following the precept, "out of sight, out of mind."