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 06, 1985 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1985-03-06

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

OPINION

I

Page 4 Wednesday, March 6, 1985

l a A - I - - - I

The Michigan Daily I

I II

4

&lie rtidt ga i ail i
Edited and nianaged by students at The University of Michigan

A letter to the

By Lee Winkelman

Vol. XCV, No. 121

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

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

A good bargain

O NE OF President Reagan's cam-
paign promises was to push other
countries to reduce their trade barriers,
paving the way to reduce the United
States trade deficit. To his credit,
Reagan followed through on that
pledge yesterday by submitting a plan
to Congress that would eliminate all
tariffs between the U.S. and Israel by
1995. .
The agreement, the first such pact
involving the U.S., will benefit both
countries economically and politically.
For Israel, if its exports grow more
quickly than its debt payments, it
means a chance to cut its $22.5 billion
foreign debt. For the U.S., it offers a
way to cut a staggering trade deficit
since the U.S. exports more goods to
Israel than it imports.
But in light of the relatively modest
amount of trade between the two coun-
tries and Israel's already practically
free entry into the U.S., perhaps the
greater significance of the pact is the
strengthening of ties between two
crucial allies.
In the unstable region of the Middle
East, Israel has long provided the U.S.

with a reliable friend. The new pact,
which is expected to be approved by
Congress before this summer, can only
bring the two countries closer
together.
Fortunately, the agreement does not
go overboard by immediately dumping
all trade barriers. Instead, it gradually
phases out tariffs on sensitive produc-
ts, while very sensitive products - like
gold jewelry and leather goods from
the American viewpoint and
refrigerators and aluminum bars from
the Israeli perspective - will face no
duty reductions for five years.
So far, the only opposition to the plan
has come from European producers,
who fear that American companies
may take up too much of the Israeli
import market. But the Europeans
currently have a free-trade agreement
with Israel, so the new proposal only
puts U.S. and European competitors in
the same situation.
The banner cry of "more free trade"
can easily be carried too far if the
"free trade" takes place on only one
side, but Reagan's proposal takes that
factor into consideration. At this price,
the plan is a bargain.

Dear President Shapiro
I am writing to you because two of my
fellow students-two of my friends-were
just released from jail. As you know, these
two students, Nancy Aronoff and Ingrid Kock,
were arrested for protesting military resear-
ch at the University - in particular, the
research being conducted by professor
George Haddad. He is working to design and
develop high-powered IMPATT diodes - a
necessary component of the Phoenix missile.
The crime of these two students and the
nine others who acted with them was to sit,
singing, in the doorway to Haddad's lab. Your
response was to call the police, to prosecute,
and almost a year later, to use the legal
system to send these two students to jail. But
sending two students to jail is not enough. The
trial of the remaining students begins on
March 7 at 9 a.m. on the sixth floor of City
Hall. You continue to press charges.
The night after these two students were
taken away to jail, a group of 75 or so of us
knocked at your door. We were angry at the
University and at you, but we were restrained
and polite. We expressed our frustrations
about military, research at the University,
about the threat of nuclear holocaust, and
about your policy toward dissenting students.
You responded: "These are questions worthy
of discussion."
To be frank, President Shapiro, you have
shown a greater willingness to discuss the
need for more discussion than you have to
discuss the issues themselves. While the ap-
propriateness of the University's involvement
in the arms race goes unaddressed, your ad-
ministration continues to promote and defend
research with military applications. You send
students to jail who challenge that research
and the policies behind it. These decisive ac-
tions lead some of us to be skeptical about the
continued discussion you suggest.
To begin meaningful discussion of military
research at the University, we need to ad-
dress the questions that usually go unan-
swered. These questions can be found in your
own words, if we examine them. Your logic
demands that you answer them. the
discussion that you have advocated shoulj
begin with answers to these questions.
Many proponents of current research
policies argue that to outlaw military resear-
ch at the University would be wrong, because
the University is never justified in taking a
stand on public issues. You clearly disagree.
During your inaugural address as President
Winkelman, an LSA senior, is acting
chairperson of University Council.

of the University in 1980,
"America's universities (have)
their responsibilities to the world
ship with important responsibili
'communities that support them."3
to describe two different ways to
responsibility: At times the univ
be "society's servant," engagi
"training and research functions
society's current economic and cul
at other times it must be "societ
working to challenge "society
arranagements,...to construct, ent
test alternative visions of organizii
institutions,... and to rethink
values."
Your statement about the dual n
University brings me to the first
our renewed debate: Should
policies serve the status quo or ch
Though you do not say it exp
University's current policy on the
is to serve the status quo. Most r
claim to be politically neutral,
pressed they fall back on the arg
the country needs a strong defer
University should contributeto
move this issue out of hiding: I
policy to develop a first strike
should the University be a servant
Should we support the status quo o
it?
Though you have said that the
must be both servant and critic,
.University is rarely a critic. Yo
exception is when national or local
ts the University's ability to fulfill
In this case, you have said that the
is not only justified in challenging
has an obligation to do so. For exa
the Reagan Administration r
proposed budget in 1981 whic
massive cuts in education and 1
vices programs, you said: "I
passively by as federal policy is d
restructured, we will not hav(
responsibilities to ourselves, to o
and to America's4uture." In a se
ce, you used University resource
official position to circulate a war
the Nuclear Free Zone proposal,
felt was a threatto academic freed
But the current relationship b
U.S. military and sponsored rese
University is also a threat to
freedom." Academic freedom is t
you espoused in your 1980 State of
sity Address: "Each scholar i
munity selects his or her own1
work." A year later you said tha
let funding sources "have ultim
sibility for making the judgemen
the activities, and arriving at the
necessary within our Universit:
because "our future depends ev(

president
you said: freedom retained than on full funding
to balance retained.
of scholar- The Department of Defense is required by
ties to the law to fund only research that has military
you went on applications. Money from the DoD and
fulfill this related institutions has a determined end that
ersity must is not always in accord with the program of
ing in the individual researchers. Here the second
that serve question arises: To what degree does the
[tural life;" political purpose of government-sponsored
y's critic," research limit the ability of individuals within
's current the University to "select his or her own cour-
tertain, and se of work?" Some researchers have claimed
ng society's that they can manipulate the Department of
society's Defense by writing "military buzzwords" into
their research proposals. Other researchers
ature of the in certain fields have found it impossible to do
question in the kind of work they want to do because the
University Department of Defense (and related in-
allenge it? stitutions) control over 50 percent of research
licitly, the dollars.
arms race According to your own statements,
esearchers President Shapiro, it would be logical for the
but when University to refuse money to do research
;ument that motivated by political ends rather than the
se and thet will of individual researchers in order to
Ise a i the preserve "academic freedom" and "the
it. Let .s ability of the University to carry out its
capability, mission." But that refusal would not be4
capbiit iy, enough. The University should be actively
or a critic? engaged in lobbying efforts and direct action
r challenge to change the control that the military has
over the research dollar.
Universit President Shapiro, you have called for
iur favorite more "discussion" of the issues surrounding
Ipolicy hur- military research andthe University. This
it psoli .ur letter is an invitation to you to demonstrate
itsmission. the sincerity of that.call. We await your
sniveri bt public response.
smple, when The logic of your own statements demands4
eleased a that you answer certain essential questions
r included about military research and the University. I
human ser- have presented you with two of these
fum tander questions. Let me repeat them: 1) When
f we stand U.S. military policy includes intervention in
ramatically the third world and preparation for a first
ur students strike, do we best fulfill our responsibilities to
cond instan- society by being the governments servant or
critic? 2) Does the political and military
s and your thrust of government spending programs
ing against limit the ability of a researcher in the Univer-
which you sity to select his or her own program of work,
oin. and, if so, why do we continue to accept the4
arch at the ' money and the policy without protest?
"achateFinally, we must introduce one more fun-
academic damental question into the debate: "What is
he principle the 'mission' of the University, and how can it
the Univer- best be carried out?" Can we view ourselves
program of as merely a knowlege factory, successful if
r rcannot we produce a high volume 'of new product?
te cannot- Should we hold to this view of our mission
ate refn even if it facilitates our society's rush toward
its, defining- nuclear suicide?
e decisions When you begin to answer these questions,
hsi some kind of meaningful discussion will be
'en more on possible.

A quiet move

KENT STATE University's ROTC
program moved across campus
for the first time in almost 15 years
without attracting a single protest. At
one time, anything bringing the
notorious Kent State ROTC program
into the news would have been met by a
barrage of protests and publicity, but
the Feb. 21 move went unnoticed by the
vast majority of the country.
On May "3, 1970, the Kent State ROTC
building was burned down by angry
protesters. The following day, during a
peaceful demonstration, four students
were killed when Ohio National Guar-
dsmen opened fire.
In 1979, when Kent State's ad-
ministration announced plans to build
its Gym Annex on the hill where the
students were killed, fewer than 100
protesters built a tent city in a vain at-
tempt to preserve the location as a
memorial of the killings.
Earlier this year, at Kent State's
homecoming parade, a handful of
students began a scuffle with ROTC
members who had been invited to
march in the parade for the first time
since the shootings.
The current move, ironically, was
made possible through the building of
the Gym Annex which freed up the old
gymnasium for the ROTC program. In
anticipation of protests, television
stations from as far away as Columbus
sent crews to cover the dedication, but
none materialized.
Major Felix of the Kent State ROTC
program explained the situation by
saying, "The media always looks at it
from that angle...Kent State is kind of
a symbol, for what happened back
then."
Kent State is a symbol, though. Men-

tion of its ROTC program should con-
jure up memories of the 1970 killings
because they set off a reaction that
eventually resulted in the closing of 136
universities across the country and
marked the height of student activism.
The program, so long as the University
tolerates it, should be permitted to
carry on its programs unhindered, but
as a major actor in one of the most
memorable events of the last two
decades, it must not be dissociated
from that event.
The lack of any protest whatsoever
further indicates the national trend
against the use of public protest, but
more disturbingly it hints that the
nation has forgotten the Kent State
killings.
Those killings are a horrible part of
our national heritage, but they are an
integral part. The deaths of the four
students were pointless if the nation
refuses to learn from them. The first
step in that learning process must be
recalling it, and if the quiet surroun-
ding the recent move of the ROTC
program is any indication, the killings
are forgotten.
Fortunately, there are signs to the
contrary as well, Kent State ad-
ministrators have selected a site fora
memorial to the killings and intend to
hold a national contest to design the
monument. Provided they receive
matching funds from the National En-
dowment for the Arts, they should
begin construction within a year.
People across the country should ex-
press renewed concern over the
killings by urging that the University
receive the funds. The deaths of. the
four students must not be forgotten.

Letters

The

'Wonder Bread'

of

To the Daily:
When one thinks of commen-
cement speakers, he conjures
memories of a gutsy automotive
executive that has just saved his
corporation and the thousands of
jobs that go with it, or an influen-
tial mediaman whose broadcasts
have shaped opinions that have
had an impact on American and
foreign history... but the present
governor of the State of
Michigan?
The announcement of Governor
James Blanchard as speaker of
the May commencement exer-
cises was about as exciting as
Wonder Bread. Please do not get
me wrong, I have met the man
and consider him a respectable
gentleman, but he has as much a
place speaking at the University .
of Michigan as Bernard Goetz
does addressing the NRA-it just
doesn't fit.
First off, the man is a Spartan.
He won't be able to understand
the pride one gets from final
realization that he has graduated
from the 'University of
Michigan-one of the finest, well-
rounded universities in the world.
But most importantly, hundreds
of articles have been written
about the Class of 1985 and the
opportunities that await it. The
economic outlook is the best it
has been in years. The em-
ployment market is now craving
for college graduates to fill
positions with advanced salaries.
Law, Medical and Graduate
schools are eager to accept bright
optimistic applicants in order to
take advantage of this economic
trend sometime down the road.
And we are just as excited to
prove that our generation,
specifically our class, is coming
to make a difference that will ef-

relatives that Jim Blanchard is
speaking at our commencements
("you know, the one that
everybody 'boos' when he shows
up at Tiger Stadium?"). I
believe that there are obtainable
people out there with better track
records, and brighter per-

sonalities to kick us off int
new beginnings.
But, I hope I am wrong.
going to listen to what Mr.
chard has to "say this May,
am going to keep my optin
regardless. Because I bf
that even if Monte Clark w

speakers
o our be thg speaker, people are still
going to say, sometime in the not
I'm too distant future, that that clas4
Blan- of 1985 is something else.

n ism,
elieve
vas to

-Scott Stewart
February 19

Jailedstudent 'sfather*writes

To the Daily:
Two and one half years ago our
daughter Ingrid enrolled at the
University of Michigan. She
chose Michigan because of its
reputation for intellectual open-
ness and academic excellence.
Yesterday her mother and I
visited Ingrid at the Washtenaw
County jail, where she and a
fellow student are serving a 12 day
sentence. Their crime? A brief,
peaceful sit-in last March at an
engineering laboratory to protest
on-campus military research.
Ingrid and ten other students
wanted to call attention to their
conviction that the kind of
research which is ultimately con-
cerned with more effective ways
of killing people was not com-
patible with the legitimate pur-
poses of a university.
I am writing to you to express
my disappointment with the way
University officials dealt with my
daughter's and her friends' sin-
cere concerns. To treat their sit-
in as an act of trespass was an
arbitrary decision made by the
administration.
For almost a year now my
BLOOM COUNTY

daughter has been diverted from
her studies by the need to defend
herself. This last semester the
demands on her time became so
excessive that she had to with-
draw from all her classes. At the
sentencing the judge showed his
vindictiveness by having my
daughter and her friendtdragged
off to jail directly from the cour-
troom without even giving them a
chance to pack a toothbrush..
I am confident that my
daughter and her friend will
emerge from their jail term with
their spirits unimpaired.
However, I hope that Ingrid will

take my advice and complete h4
education at a university that is
more sensitive to the concerns of
its students and that does not con
taminate the process of higher
learning with military research.
While it is too late for my
daughter and her friends, the Ann
Arbor establishment can still
show itself capable of com-
passion and sensitivity in the
case of the remaining eight
protesters, whose trial will take
place on March 7.
-Erhard Koc
February 24

i

College Press Service

Colg PesSevc
t±~

I,

_ e t
r r \
F j (.t
J
.1
i
..,,,
,.
f
r
'. '9i/
j
}
. , 1 llAMoeN 1 t P^ .

Letters to the Daily should be typed, triple-
spaced, and signed by the individual authors.
Names will be withheld only in unusual circum-
stances. Letters may be edited for clarity, gram-
mar, and spelling.

by Berke Breathed

1wHqr $t#5 J 55rtf L I
GN ?!,//f4NPdI 1166! b AN

I7J fCC

.

H~1ffr

I

Il

I IIIffma F/f _ i. 111/11

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan