a6 OPINION Page 4 Freedom and Tuesday, April 5, 1983 The Michigan Daily responsibility at the 'u,. By Roger Kerson The Women's Information Network (WIN) Bulletin is under fire from the University ad- -minstration. The Bulletin, a relatively obscure campus newsletter, is published by the Univer- sity Affirmative Action Office, as part of an effort to increase opportunities for female em- ployees, The Affirmative Action Office pays printing costs, but Deeda Stanczak, a secretary in the School of Music, serves as editor of the Bulletin on her own time, without pay. One of the benefits of editing a newsletter, of course, is that you get a chance to publish your own opinions. It happens to be Stanczak's opinion that the best way for working womem on cam- pus to improve their situation is to join a union-in particular, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), which is currently conducting an organizing drive aimed at University clericals. STANCZAK published her opinions in a lengthy article in the November issue of the WIN Bulletin, and that's why the newsletter is under fire. New rules have been drawn up which provide for pre-publication review of the "general content" of Bulletin articles, and the University administration may soon cut off funding for the newsletter. The University is a notorious anti-union em- ployer. It has fought long and hard against AF- SCME, the Graduate Employees Organization, and the Professional Nurses Council, among others. Imagine the surprise of the executive offices then, when a publication funded out of their very own pockets comes out with a strong pro-union stance. University officials are within their rights in this particular attempt to restrict freedom of expression among their employees. They put up money for the women's bulletin, and they have a right to control its content. Freedom of the press, as the saying goes, is much more ef- fective if you happen to own the press. University officials are now revealing what they really mean by academic freedom: They mean freedom to express opinions which do not threaten the financial or political interests of the University administration. II The Michigan Daily is under fire from the Michigan Student Assembly. MSA has endor- sed a petition which accuses the Daily of "irresponsible journalism." MSA members, along with others, are concerned with the Daily's alleged tendence to sensationalize or exploit certain issues. Many were upset when the Daily printed a magazine feature on the "Jap" stereotype. Fraternity and sorority members are not pleased with the Daily's coverage of a "jungle party" at a campus fraternity, which may have had racial overtones. "IRRESPONSIBLE" is actually a fairly kind way to describe some of the alleged writing which appears in the Daily. News articles are frequently inaccurate in significant detail. They are often slanted according to the writer's bias, and they almost always contain a good dose of bad English. We should be generous, however, when criticizing the Daily. The paper is not run by professionals, but by students who are engaged in a learning process. But whether we are generous or vicious in our criticism of the Daily -or even if we praise it-we should all be outraged when we find out that the student government has passed a resolution which cen- sures the student newspaper. Daily Editor-in-Chief Barry Witt does not outrage easily, and he has reacted calmly to the MSA vote. "I personally take the petition as being no more than a letter to the editor, which we publish every day," he told his crosstown competitors, the Ann Arbor News. Someone should tell Witt about the First Amendment. THE First Amendment prohibits government interference with the freedom of the press. What would Barry Witt say, for example, if the Ann Arbor City Council passed a resolution censuring the Ann Arbor News? Suppose Congress condemned the Washington Post? The situation is no less serious just because it involves a campus newspaper and a campus government. The principle involved is still im- portant and should be defended just as strongly. Politicians-in-training at MSA have no business telling the journalists-in-training at the Daily what to print. The University of Michigan is not a place for emerging leaders to learn how to violate the U.S. Constitution. Remeber that Nixon's dirty tricksters, who corrupted the 1972 presidential campaign, began their "ratfucking" careers by stuffing campus ballot boxes. III Certain campus researchers at the Univer- sity are under fire from student and faculty groups because they work on projects for the Pentagon which have direct military ap- plications. The University has prohibited classified weapons research for over 14 years, and the faculty senate recently voted to extend this ban to non-classified research as well. But some professors argue that restrictions on research violate the "academic freedom" of the faculty to pursue investigations of their own choosing. WHILE I come down strongly on the side of freedom for the Daily and for campus clericals, I favor firm and effective restrictions on research. Some people will see a contradiction: After all, why doesn't academic protect researchers, in the same way that freedom of expression should protect campus clericals and the Daily? There are three important distin- ctions: e Who pays: The University administration pays for the WIN Bulletin, so it gets to call the shots. The Daily pays for itself, so no one can tell the editors what to do. Taxpayers pay for University research, through federal grants for specific projects, and state appropriations for University facilities. Therefore, the public has a right to exercise control over research ac- tivities. * Who sets the restrictions: If the University administration tells WIN Bulletin editors what to write, or if the student government does the same to the Daily, this represents outside inter- ference. Those of us who have argued for restrictions on research have said all along that such guidelines should be enforced by a faculty committee. To have faculty research reviewed by colleagues is an internal matter, a self-imposed restriction by a community on its own members. * Advocacy and action: When enforcing the First Amendment and other protections regar- ding freedom of expression, courts have drawn a clear distinction between advocacy and ac- tion. You may be allowed to say things which it would be illegal to actually do. The articles which appear in the WIN Bulletin and the Daily are advocacy. The University administration can-and will-use its own resources to tell its side of the story about unions. If MSA members don't like what they see in the Daily, they can write letters or articles in response. What remedy do we have against military researchers? If a University professor designs a weapon which the Pentagon uses, or which is sold to another country and then used, people will die as a result. They will no longer be able. to write letters or articles. We can march in protest, but the march will be too late to help those who have been killed. No one has questioned the right of University professors to support the U.S. military in lec, tures, speeches, or articles. We question their right to support the military by designing new instruments of death. This is an activity that 4 has been deemed anti-social by this University and several others, including Princeton and the University of Iowa. We want to restrict actions, not ideas. Every form of freedom carries with it a corresponding responsiblity. If academic freedom means anything, it means that faculty should be responsible for what they write, what they teach, and what they do in' their laboratories. Actions which may cause irreperable harm-such as the loss of life-should be proscribed in advance. This 6 must not be confused with the free and open exchange of ideas which needs to be main- tained in all parts of the University com- munity. Kerson is a research coordinator for the Michigan Student Assembly. Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan LETTERS TO THE DAILY: 6 MSA president endorses IOU Vol. XCIII, No. 146 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board No' toMSA onB, C T HOSE STUDENTS who bother to vote in the Michigan Student Assembly elections today and tomorrow have an opportunity to show just how upset they are with MSA's performance over the past- several years. By voting no on the first two ballot proposals, students also can register a protest with and give a war- ning to MSA. It is time to tell student government that it just isn't perfor- ming in the interest of students and students' patience is wearing thin. Proposal A is the MSA mandatory fee assessment renewal plan. If passed the fee would be set at $4.25 per student; but the rate would be tied to inflation: This $4.25 would be split up among Student Legal Services ($2.90), Course Evaluations (15 cents), the Tenants' Union (10 cents), and MSA ($1.10). While Student Legal Services, Cour- se Encounters, and the Tenants' Union provide very valuable services for students, a vote no would tell MSA to start providing the same solid results as these other fine programs. It is un- fortunate that funds for these other programs are tied to this ill-conceived and poorly written plan. A vote no would tell MSA it isn't wor- th an automatic cost-of-living increase. If services improve, MSA can come back to the students in the future and ask for a legitimate increase in funds. MSA is an important voice for students if it is responsive to those students. By voting no on Proposal A, students would not be suggesting MSA or the other groups tied to the proposal aren't worth supporting. Thus, when the question of funding comes before the Regents after the election, a "no" vote would not tell the Regents to cut off MSA's funding. Instead, it would say students don't like this particular proposal. We believe it would tell the Regents to take out the inflation clause and maintain MSA's funding at current levels. A similar vote on Proposal B would reenforce students' discontent with ISO A .....n o. n .l, 12 a rn office, though connected with the ad- ministration, already is taking care of some of the tasks planned for the cen- ter. The Institute for Social Research could do others. And according to Michigan Union Director Frank Cian- ciola, if SOAP had a full staff, it could take on even more of those tasks. Registering a "no" vote against would signal student government leaders that the time has come for MSA to earn student support. Likewise, Proposal C deserves a "no" vote. This plan would raise in- dividual college student government fees from 50 cents per term to 75 cents per term. Most of the individual colleges' student governments do next to nothing as it is.' There are a few college governments that do provide worthy services, par- ticularly LSA Student Government. But most of the college governments are like Rackham, which has trouble, getting enough people to run for the available positions. Proposal D is the only proposition worthy of a "yes" vote. It would give the Coordinator of Minority Affairs one vote in the MSA steering committee. If passed, Proposal D would be a step toward rebuilding MSA's reputation among minority students. The proposal would give the minority af- fairs coordinator a voice in setting the agenda for MSA, which means the con- cerns of minorities will come before all of the elected representatives on a more regular basis. The utter ridiculousness of Proposal E highlights some of MSA's fundamen- tal problems. The proposal, as phrased, says: "Do you feel the process outlined in the five-year 'Redirection' Plan has been an adequate response to the current financial crisis of the (University)?" How can MSA expect students to give an informed answer to that question with a "yes" or "no"? If MSA expects to be the student voice, it needs to ask questions students can give informed answers to. We urgP e idents not to answer this To the Daily: After intensive sessions with each of the Michigan Student Assembly presidential and vice presidential candidates, I strongly recommend that the student body support Mary Rowland and Jono Soglin of It's Our University (IOU). It is my feeling the IOU exists as the only party capable of active student representation due to their knowledge of the issues, a strong background of organizing, and a dedicated, creative approach to participation. As president, Mary Rowland would be able to succeed where others would fail. Her platform indicates an understanding of the issues rather than memorized rhetoric. Most importantly her experience indicates that she will affect change once in office. In a time of contracting University resources, Rowland has the ideas and the experience to work on financial aid, the waning state allocation, and redirection. Her committment to affirmative action tion and minority affairs illustrates her sense of dedication to all students. Of all the can- didates, Rowland is the most sin- cere about running as a student advocate. As a recipient of the MSA "president's award," Jono Soglin has distinguished himself on the assembly. His experience as vice president of legislative relations gives him the edge over all other vice presidential candidates this year. As an advocate for student financial aid, Soglin personally lobbied members of Congress from Michigan, served on the University's Financial Aid Review of Services Committee, wrote, printed, and distributed the Voter Information pamphlets last fall, and registered students to vote. As a team, IOU's Rowland andsSoglin will better the quality of student life. Other presidential and vice presidential candidates are not as promising. They lack the knowledge and experience to be effective. In many cases, I ques- tiontheir sincerity and desire for involvement. Although seemingly knowledgeable of University issues, ACT's presidential slate appears more interested in cam- paigning than in affecting change. Between the two can- didates for president and vice president, they have run the colorful gamut of avante-garde issues. Upon investigation, however, one will discover that this slate's "record" for com- .. * .. - _a- rrh.. l... M e ACT has promising to "act." IM- PACT's main goal is to bring MSA back to the students by capitalizing upon simple gim- micks - such as slide shows and free popcorn - rather than by grappling with financial aid and security. After a year on the assembly, IMPACT's presiden- tial candidate realizes that there are issues, however, his under- standing and capacity to deal with these issues has not im- proved. Unfortunately, his vice presidential candidate does not compensate for his lack of in- sight. Finally, The British Humour Party (BHP) claims to -be the most pragmatic student party. But this seems to be a thin disguise for its lack of knowledge. A few of its isolated ideas are realistic, though without the working knowledge of MSA or the University little would be accom- plished for the student body. This lack of knowledge would prove destructive to the credibility of -student advocacy. Mary Rowland and Jono Soglin of IOU have the best record of ac- complishment as well as a strong, practical platform focused on student needs. Such a combination will prove a strong voice in issues which affect all of us. -Amy J. Moore President, Michigan Student Assembly April 3 Student Legal Services deserves aid 6 To the Daily: Returning from Spring Break last year, my husband and I found that our ceiling had collap- sed in our apartment. We had only lived there a short time, and being a "new" modern unit, it was a shock. A housing inspector frm the city of Ann Arbor condemned the apartment, forcing us to move immediately. Then the trouble started. Our landlord said he wouldn't return our security deposit, pay for moving expenses, or any related expenses from our awkward position. Within a weeks time we had lost $800, not to mention our sanity. Candidates react .. . To the Daily: After reading the editorial on the MSA "elections ("Pay IOU with MSA votes," Daily, April 3) in Sunday's paper, I feel com- pelled to reply and set the record straight on some points. As the MSA vice president for communications this past year, I have, along with my committee. accomplished several items. These have included creating a slide show about MSA and showing it to all dorms and in the fishbowl; organizing a petition drive to save the vending machines in the graduate and undergraduate libraries; and assisting in petition drives for the weatherization proposal and against the Solomon Amen- dment. Additionally, Lynn Desenber, my vice presidential running nate has been involved in MSA's Women's Task Force and security committees, which the Daily neglected to mention in its editorial. Our plans for fighting redirec- ition entail more than involving more students on the review committees, contrary to what the Daily stated. We plan to involve MSA as the unifying body for all of the different colleges un- dergoing redirection. Also, we will set up teach-ins and workshops on the consequences of budget reallocation. Contrary to the editorial, our plan for the ticket surcharge was approved by the student body last year. Thus, we feel that it is worth looking into. Furthermore, our proposal to increase financial aid was "to allocate a small percentage of general research funds to aid," not to take money from the "general research fund." MSA deserves effective, con- scientious leadership. I believe that IMPACT can offer that. -Steve Schaumberger IMPACT presidential candidate April 4 Not knowing where to turn with limited funds, we contacted Student Legal Service. Im- mediately, they told us the precautions we should take to protect ourselves. We received excellent legal advice. Paul Teich, an attorney at Student Legal Services, handled our case and quickly retrieved our money as well as damages. And the onl cost was a small amount of our time. We urge you to vote on April 5 and 6 for the Michigan Student Assembly which funds the Student Legal Services. It's a small fee for when you might need it most. -Mary Kathryn Smolinski Alan Smolinski March 30 A CT misses on MSA News To the Daily: Throughout his campaign, MSA presidential candidate Marc Dann (ACT) has publicized his desire for a "recognizatioq' of the MSA News. Unfortunately, Dann has never approached anyone onsour staff to discuss the issue or he might come to at least some understanding of our organization. His pretend knowledge, high- handed resolve, and obvious lack of respect for an organization of which he has no knowledge reveal an improper attitude for a can- didate just now appearing on the MSA scene. A dedicated grouppf people has worked a multitude of hours to establish a newspaper they hope will be seriously published for many years to come. Is Dann looking to start from square one on every MSA project? If he isn't, he should be more careful in his campaign assertions. If he is he will be as ineffective as his pronosals for. . .. to endorsement editorial To the Daily: As the vice presidential can-- diate with ACT, I am writing in response to the Daily endor- sement editorial of April 3. While the Daily is certainly entitled to its opinion, several aspects of our positions were misrepresented. In rejecting Marc Dann and ACT, the Daily cites an alleged shortcoming in our proposals. It claims that "Dann onoses the vocates some changes in the redirection process. While some students and faculty have said that the University should begin reviewing all existing facets of the University simultaneously for possible budget. cuts, Dann calls this method impractical. "Instead, he says the Univer- sity should set a schedule to review all schools, colleges, and ,rn-,.- nnn rpO.. lar ,hack to