4 OPINION Page 4 Eed atigan mang Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan Wednesday, January 9, 1985 The Michigan Daily The failure of libi Vol. XCV, No. 81 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, M1 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Wasting time University Vice President for Research Alfred Sussman has been wasting the time of 15 members of University student and faculty committees. By approving Engineering Prof. Theodore Birdsall's classified research project, Sussman sent a message to the University community that research guidelines and the student and faculty commit- tees set up to enforce them have no authority. Birdsall's project, which is funded by the Office of Naval Researh, was up for renewal last month. The guidelines for classified research adopted in 1972 prohibit classified research "The clearly foreseeable and probable result of which... is to destroy human life or incapicitate human beings." Birdsall's work certainly qualifies. In accordance with those guidelines, the proposal was first taken to the three-member Classified Research Review Panel. Af ter reading the proposal, researching Birdsall's study, and interviewing the resear- cher, a CRRP student member, Nancy Aronoff has determined that the proposal is in direct violation of the classified guidelines. Specifically, she argues that the technology Birdsall hopes to develop has obvious ap- plications to submarine warfare. Bir- dsall maintains that he is doing basic research with many applications, but he will not rule out the possibility of the Department of Defense using his fin- dings for military purposes. As a result of Aronoff's concerns, the proposal went to the 15-member Research Policies Committee for review. After much discussion and review, the panel of 11 faculty mem- bers and four students rejected the research project and Birdsall's work was once again challenged. Late last month, the proposal was presented to vice president Sussman who rejected the RPC's recommen- dation and approved the research proposal. Sussman did not violate the letter of the guidelines, but the spirit in which they were written. He was within his rights to approve the resear- ch since his office is clearly authorized to accept or reject all research proposals. But the question is, if the RPC exists to establish moral guidelines, why are those guidelines so easily ignored by the University ad- ministration. The 1972 guidelines were written and adopted to keep classified military research, such as Birdsall's work, off campus. Sussman ignored the ethical considerations the guidelines address. Perhaps he had more concern for the nearly $2 million brought in by Bir- dsall's classified research for the defense department in the last ten years. But that is to be expected. In this case, Sussman did not give enough weight to the ethical concerns students and faculty members take very seriously. Unfortunately, the ad- ministration has made the decision with little regard for the ethical guidelines set up and enforced by the rest of the University community. By Brian Leiter Liberalism has doomed itself to failure from the start. It has done so as a result of its own inability (or refusal) to question the basic assumption of conservatism: that the essen- tial structure of the free market-namely private control of the main sources of capital investment - must remain intact. As a result, it was just a matter of time before the inadequacies of the free market made ap- parent the basic shortcomings of the liberal "solution." The result of this failure, as we are all aware, has been the phenomenal social and political backslide of the Reagan presidency. , Liberalism, in short, has never been anything more than a stylistic alternative to conservatism: superficially different, but substantively the same. The stylistic variation of liberalism is to concede the in- dividual might be victimized by the operation of the free market. Conservatism, on the other hand, has always maintained that there is no real "victimization" because everything boils down to questions of self-help individual initiative, and effort etc. Programs like food stamps, job training, and Aid to Families with Dependent Children are seen by conservatives as acts of good will and charity and not as responses to the fact that 1. capitalism has not and does not want to make productive use of all individuals; 2. the combination of demoralizing social environ- ments and inadequate educational oppor- tunities thwart many of the best individual ef- forts; and 3. capitalism's premium on in- dividuals for their real productive utility for profit leaves no room for those lacking the capabilites for such capitalistic production (this includes not only the handicapped, the unskilled, but also many poets, artists etc.). It is dubious whether liberalism even con- ceives of social programs in such a light; but at the very least, liberals show some awareness that the free market is inadequate to the needs of all members of society. In short: liberalism concedes that capitalism is unable to meet all the needs and demands of those who function within it; that is, the fault lies with the institution (the structure within which production and investment decisions are made) rather than the individual. Con- servatism, on the other hand, asserts that the individual is primarily at fault and that these problems can be overcome by the individual himself. Although liberalism is successful at recognizing this institutional victimization, it implicitly concedes the basic conservative point: that capitalism must remain intact, that any impact must be made by individuals over and against the basic structure of the, free-market economy. Liberalism, however, admits that individuals cannot be expected to make this "impact" on their own - the government must help them. Thus, liberals condemn themselves to eternally fulfilling the conservative cliche of "throwing money at the problems." It seems absurd that liberals should recognize that capitalism is a system that treats people as disposable commodities, and then proceed with policies that pacify the vic- tims instead of confronting the system itself. Certainly we aid the refugees of war, but we would sooner end the war than commit our- selves to an eternal program of relief. And while it is nonetheless true that even in a non- capitalist society it would probably still be necessary to commit funds to job training, education, and the like, in a more socially oriented economy these programs would be conducted in an atmosphere committed to similar goals (the meaningful employment and realization of human abilities and poten- tials) rather than the current atmosphere which is hostile to the utilization of human resources. Liberalism has failed, then, because it had highlighted a set of problems - poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, educational backwardness - and then proceeded to ad- dress them on the purely symptomatic level. As a result, the problems remain, and the liberals, who for twenty years have been saying "We must wipe out poverty, we must wipe out unemployment..." appear ridiculous in the face of persisting poverty, unem- ployment etc. eralism This, of course, is the very fact that Reagan monopolized on. He said the liberal,; program (especially since the Great Society) had failed, and he was basically right. He ; even went so far as to blame the economic crises on the liberal agenda. Liberals, of. course could not respond to such a charge because then they would have to give up the assumption they share with the conser; vatives: they would have to admit that it is,- far more disastrous for an economy when businesses invest for short-term profit, when corporations put their money into non",, productive investments (the trend throughout the '70's during which time the effective cor- porate tax rate was cut by 30 percent while productive investment actually declined), and when the privated sector wastes billions A on corporate mergers. They would have to admit that capitalism, even before the liberal agenda, always generated economic crises. Conservatives and liberals are both com- mitted to capitalism; the difference is that the liberals are slightly more honest and quite, a bit more guilt-ridden capitalists. Conser-' vatives, on the other hand, rely on the up- swings in the free-market business cycles to obscure the fact that a substantial minority of the population is consistently excluded fronm,, society's wealth and that the vast majority are subjected to the uncertainty which results, from the whim of the private sector in its quest for profit and "efficiency." Liberals, finally, have shown their true colors in the face of the Reagan onslaught and, most recently, the Mondale defeat. In-, stead of asserting the obvious - that trickle-, down theory didn't have long-term success under Kennedy or Nixon and that the free,, market has never cured society's ills ,. liberals, instead, have picked up on the Gary, ,A Hart position - which, despite the hype, is ; fundamentally a reactionary position - and asserted that liberals must adopt a stronger , pro-market line. Perhaps this is the truest measure of the impact of Ronald Reagan:, that his "opposition" hopes to build its future success on his assumptions. Leiter is a graduade student in law and ' philosophy. Wasserman SE \ NWY IS TKE NTAM 13GT ONWQINGw e5lLUON5 INTO 1"e STR WA ? P6D2M,.. WREN M06OSITIT S S~AY IT CAN'T NIJC..ER PONS40 \E NRSK7 921 IFWEDUSTEND O TK1TWNWE WOULDNT RAG 211lE BOMBA TODAY a ~-w l LETTERS TO THE DAILY Birdsall 'S project violates guidelines:, Remember the code In its current form as the Rules of the University Community, the Student Code of Non-academic Con- duct is awaiting recommendation from the University Council. Although its implementation has been delayed for some time already, the code and the administration's efforts to install it remains one of the most important issues facing students this term. Although the code was to have been implemented last fall, student protests have delayed it for at least one term, and likely another. The ad- ministration, however, seems as intent as ever to see some form of the code established. The administration's most recent tactic had involved making minor revisions in the code and renaming it the "Rules of the University Com- munity." The revisions themselves do little to alter the character of the code. Although in principle it now affects all members of the University com- munity, it seems unlikely that it will apply as equally to faculty and staff as it will to students. For example, the rules make an exception for "An act committed by a student repor- ter...within the scope of his or her journalistic responsibilities." That it refers only to student reporters and not reporters in general reflects that the ndministratinn is rdirecting the code acknowledgment of the proceedings set forth in bylaw 7.02, students' right to an active voice in the ammendment process cannot be guaranteed. The Rules of the University Com- munity are not substantially different from the Student Code of Non- academic Conduct, but the ad- ministration has pulled off a successful public relations stunt in proposing them. By satisfying the entire University community the administration has eliminated a successful rallying cry against the code. The Rules of the University Community still fail to deal equitably with all members of the University community, but now ad- ministrators can point to an insubstan- tial concession which diffuses that demand. The act of changing the name of the proposal from the code to the rules is nothing more than a simple deception. The administration hopes to remove the successful "No Code" slogan and to distract students from the fundamen- tally unchanged proposal. In order to continue successful op- position to the code sutdents should read the current draft of the Rules of the University Community and become familiar with those parts that veil further attempts by the ad- ministration to curtail student liberites. Student outrage against the code has To the Daily: Professor Theodore Birdsall does classified research on Ocean Acoustics at Cooley Electrical Labs on North Campus. Since 1972 all classified research projects have to be reviewed by the Classified Research projects Review Panel before they are ac- cepted. Last year the studentton the review panel rejected the project Professor Birdsall was submitting for review because of its application to antisubmarine warfare. This violates the clause in the classified guidelines which states, "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 in- capacitate human beings." This year two more projects of Prof. Birdsalls have come up for Bad dream To the Daily : Dreams can be frightening, of- ten terrifying, as we all know. I woke up the other night scared to death from a dream about Nuclear War. It was vivid, the details to the very last image and sound were very clear in my mind. In my dream, we knew there was going to be a bomb dropped. We were preparing for a stay in the basement, including water, canned food, blankets, books, and medical supplies. My dream went so far as to include a search for a can opener. When I woke up to a silent, dark night, I felt as if my dream had to have been a sort of premonition, and I lay still for review. They are both being rejected by the member of the review panel because of their ap- plication to antisubmarine war- fare. Because of this continuing issue of Prof. Birdsall's work we have examined his past projects to see how they relate to his current work and whether this has been.a continuous project to develop methods of tracking submarines for the Navy. Since at least 1974 Birdsall has been working for the Navy doing research on detection, location and classification of underwater objects. The Navy will use this work to improve their ability to track submarines. The Navy is not funding this classified research for its civilian ap- plications. Each project since 1974 is based on the results of the previous year. Also, there is a narrowing of focus as groun- dwork is accomplished. Prof. Birdsall has worked at Moffett NavalAir Station inhCalifornia. Moffett is where the Navy's Acoustic Research Center is located. He has been using the Naval facility's highly advanced computers and has participated in a Naval Exercise titled PANOIC-77 in the Pacific Ocean. Considering Prof. Birdsall's involvement with antisubmarine warfare technology these projec- ts clearly violate the Classified Research Guidelines and are inappropriate at the University of, Michigan. -Erica Freedmat Naomi Braine Nancy Aronoff"S December 11 Daily unfair to homosexuals To the Daily: I am writing you in response to a general approach that the newspaper takes concerning lesbians and homosexuals. I am not responding to one specific ar- ticle, but rather a continued misguided prose. In your newspaper as well as many others, the topic of lesbians and homosexuals is many times discussed as an abnormality or subversive element in the American society. I would like to set the record straight and say that this is completely false. Gays and lesbians are perfectly normal people who function like every other person, but would merely like to share his or her love with another person of the same sex. That's right, love. All too often gays and lesbians are thought to have sex, but without love. Our society is conditioned by many things, one of which is the media, and if it continues to per- BLOOM COUNTY petuate these false ideas we are only making society worse off than it already is. I would hope that your writers would under- stand that gays and lesbians are normal people and they are not sick, they merely want to be ui- derstood and accepted for what they are, perfectly normal human beings. -Kenneth Sherry December10 Dangerous ideas To the Daily: Eric Mattson's article "Free speech issue splits 'U' Com- munity" (Daily, Dec. 11) quotes Steve Austin as saying that members of the community have the right to bar speakers who might present dangerous ideas. The notion of "dangerous ideas" is a dangerous idea. -Peter Steiner December 12' Steiner is dean of LSA. } Unsigned editorials appearing on the left side of this page represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board. by Berke Breathed ~Gt/S0T. AInIfiIIII I . w w.-il . j YOU . , l n 11,* nine P IOAll ,I?" Mn r ulnt nAcvc, .A Le I