4 OPINION Page 4 Tuesday, November 12, 1985 The Michigan Daily Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan On the guidelines Vol. XCVI, No.49 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board Underenrollment shame) "We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make the real promises of Democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice... -Martin Luther King Jr. March on Washington, 1963 A T THIS UNIVERSITY, gradualism is the drug the ad- ministration offers to cure all ills. Gradualism has proven effective in tranquilizing, pacifying, and paralyzing the strongest of movements. It has tamed the rage of the mighty Black Action Movement into the tiny trickle of Affirmative Action standards and scattered minority services that exist today. 22 years since King's call to ac- tion, the proportion of black students to white students at the University reflects only half of their presence in the nation's population. Of those few students, only one quarter of them will graduate in four years and one half in five years. The four-year graduation for whites is twice as high. In 1970, the administration in- troduced gradualism to pacify the organizers of a campus-wide strike demanding representative minority enrollment. It promised the BAM strikers 10 percent black enrollment by 1973, and, in good faith, the protestors accepted the pledge. 15 times since then, the ad- ministration has issued its yearly tally of minority enrollment figures. 15 times it has reported failure. 15 times the administration has offered excuses. The ad- ministrators throw up their hands and wish themselves better luck next year, satisfied with the slowest of change. On paper, the University is doing what it must do to increase minority enrollment. Last year was the first full year Associate Vice-President for Academic Affairs Niara Sudarkasa was able to work specifically toward increasing minority enrollment. The ad- ministration approved an ad- ditional $1.4 million scholarship fund for qualified minority studen- ts, and Sudarkasa issued a report on minority recruitment as the fir- st of three scheduled reports on minority life at the University. Sudarkasa's report was not ap- proved by the administration until three months after it was finished. As a result, the additional scholar- ship fund was unavailable for use as a recruiting tool until most high school students had already picked colleges. The percentage of blacks enrolled at the University rose to 5.2, an increase of one tenth of one percent from last year. In num- bers, 24 more black students than last year are here now. At an in- stitution of over 30,000 students, a mere 24 cannot be reason for self- congratulation. Their admission is a step in the right direction, but a tiny one. If the University ever intends to meet its own goal of 10 percent black enrollment it must be ready to try new approaches to an ugly, old problem. Roderick Linzie, minority enrollment researcher for the Michigan Student Assembly, has proposed various measures aimed at increasing black, Hispanic, and Native American enrollment at the University. He asks that equal at- tention be given to retention of students as is given to their recruitment. The attrition rate for blacks is staggering; only 29.4 per- cent of them will earn their degrees in four years. For whites and Asian-Americans, that figure jumps to over 50 percent. Clearly black students have unique dif- ficulties which must be addressed in a more effective and innovative manner. The services the University provides are helpful, but must be radically altered to maximize ef- ficiency. According to Linzie, these resources must be centralized to invite increased student use and to improve communication between offices. Linzie further advocates im- plementation of Project FAR, a program in use at other univer- sities which identifies those students most likely to drop-out and gives them special attention. This program would demand, however, that the University make an attempt to create a more per- sonal environment. Linzie conten- ds that the cold, impersonal at- mosphere of the campus keeps minority students from graduation and keeps potential students away. One viable alternative for the administration is the creation of a University-wide commission of students, faculty, and ad- ministrators to deal with minority issues. The commission was promised by University Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost Billy E. Frye in Oc- tober of 1983, but never materialized. Last year's initiatives indicate the University may finally be ad- dressing the problem of black enrollment. Nevertheless, the nearly insignificant increases in this year's enrollment shows it has a long way to go. Until the Univer- sity acts to fully utilize the resour- ces it has allocated for minority recruitment, including pressing Sudarkasa to stick to her schedule and addressing the problem of retention, the numbers next year will be no better than this year's. For now, the University has been patting itself on the back for the meager increase it was able to achieve, but the gradual success such "increases" prophesy is too distant to be acceptable. By Paul Josephson, Eric Schnaufer, and Ingrid Kock President Shapiro has announced the composition of the Ad Hoc Committee on Classified research. Drafted in 1972, these guidelines ensure that University research can be openly published and are intended to bar research that could lead to the destruc- tion of human life. If this committee weakens the present guidelines or calls for no guidelines, the University of Michigan will do much more highly-classified weapons research. The present guideline review occurs when federal research initiatives such as Star Wars indicate that the Reagan ad- ministration desires increased University weapons research and after the Regents have endorsed the Star Wars initiative. Due to the circumstances surrounding the formation of the guideline review, it may be impossible thatthe guideline review com- mittee can satisfy all segments of the University community. Last July, then Vice President for Research Alfred Sussman rejected Professor Raymond Tanter's research project because of its secret classification and because there were no assurances that research results could be openly published. Professor Tanter's project was the first project ever rejected under the University's classified research guidelines. The project would have been rejected according to guidelinesat almost all major research universities. The Regents are using this solitary rejec- tion as an excuse to question, i.e. dilute, the entire research review process. Specifically, the Regents asked whether the guideline clause calling for open publication of researchresults could be weakened and called for a re-examination of the guideline clause which bars research intended to destroy human life. In calling for the review, the Regents are flagrantly ignoring the consensus of student and faculty opinion. The Faculty Senate and the Michigan Student Assembly, the representative bodies of the students and faculty, have indicated that the present guidelines are still desireable for the University community and, in fact, have voted that the guidelines should be extended to cover unclassified research. However, since the guidelines are going to be reviewed, President Shapiro, charged by the Regents with organizing the review committee, should have selected committee members representative of the University community. Only a committee with un- biased and representative members can legitimately review University research Josephson is MSA president, Schnaufer chair of MSA 's Personnel In- terviewing Committee, and Kock is MSA 's military research advisor. policies. Unfortunately, the irregularities in both the selection process for and com- position of the committee clearly signal that the committee is charged with gutting the guidelines. The foremost irregularity in the commit- tee's selection process is President Shapiro's refusal to appoint MSA's and the Faculty Senate's nominees. MSA nominated two students, Sean Laane and Marisella Velez. President Shapiro appoin- ted only Sean Laane. Instead of Ms. Velez, President Shapiro appointed Thomas Bat- tle, an engineering student. This violates the All-Campus Constitution of the Student Body which gives MSA the sole authority to nominate students to Presidential and other University-wide committees. The only reason given to MSA for Ms. Velez's rejection by the administration was that Ms. Velez was ineligible to serve on the committee because she was a member of the Research Policies Committee. However, this factor should not have ex- cluded Ms. Velez from serving on the guideline review committee because a member of the RPC, Rebecca Eisenberg was selected to serve on guideline review. The failure to select Ms. Velez is ad- ditionally suspect considering that there is only one woman on the twelve member guideline review committee. President Shapiro also overlooked the majority of nominations of the represen- tative body of the faculty. According to SACUA only three of SACUA's over 10 nominees were chosen. By overlooking MSA's and SACUA's nominees, President Shapiro was able to hand pick 8 of 12 com- mittee members. The minutes of the October 21, 1985 RPC meeting reveal that the administration was not truly interested in appointing SACUA or MSA nominees. Rather, it was interested in selecting committee members who will recommend the changes requested by the Regents. According to RPC meeting minutes, Vice-President Linda Wilson- stated that "members of the committee would be from areas where classified research might arise." Thus, the ad- ministration seeks not to consult the University as a whole but those who would most profit from weakening or eliminating the guidelines. Furthermore, three of Shapiro's appoin- tees have made public statements against research guidelines. James Lesch ad- ministers Department of Defense reasearch on campus. In an August interview, Mr. Lesch stated he would prefer that there were no research guidelines because they made his job difficult. Mr. Lesch thus has a direct conflict of interest in serving on the committee. Two of President Shapiro's ap- pointees were spokespersons for "Citizens Against Research Bans", a University-in- dustry lobbying group organized to defeat the Nuclear Free Zone. These three men are not impartial committee members. The irregularities in the committee go beyond the selection process and committee composition. President Shapiro is trying to pre-determine the committee's agenda. Not review only has he selected the chair, but he has also specified that the committee reevaluate the guideline clauses calling for open publication of research results and barring University research that could lead to the destruction of human life. A Univer- sity committee designed to review research guidelines which have existed for thirteen years should determine its own agenda af- ter hearing testimony on all pertinent issues. President Shapiro has also imposed a strict deadline for thecommittee's recom- mendation. He has asked that the commit- tee render its report and recommendations by the end of this semester or the beginning of the next. Since the committee meets for the first time this week for Shapiro to suggest, much less set a deadline for December demonstrates that the ad- ministration wants the committee to rub- berstamp its position. It is impossible for a committee to thoroughly review the classified research policy in less than a month. We may legitimately speculate if the committee's recommendations are already being drafted in the basement of the Administration Building. The University community needs to be aware that once the final recommendations of the committee are made, there will not be time for general University input on the issues. When asked at the RPC meeting of October 21, whether the Regents would have an open discussion of the findings, Dr. Wilson replied that "the best way for student and faculty to participate would be to meet with the committee." The commit- tee has so little time to work that it' does not have adequate time to meet with students and faculty. Moreover, it is difficult to meet with the committee when the committee's meeting are closed. The first meeting of the Ad-Hoc committee is November 12, 1985 at 4 p.m. in President Shapiro's office. According to Judy Nowak, Administrative Assistant to the Ad Hoc Committee on Classified Research, this first meeting is closed. Since the committee's recommendations will af- fect the very nature of the University, students and facultyhave a right to attend this and all other committee meetings. The Michigan Student Assembly has requested that President Shapiro take into consideration a number of changes before the committee first meets. These requests include: (1) that James Lesch resign from the committee because of his conflict of in- terest; (2) that all meetings of the commit- tee be open to the public and minutes of the meetings widely disseminated; (3) that President Shapiro explain the committee selection process; (4) that President* Shapiro not interfere with the committee by setting deadlines; and (5) that the MSA nominee Marisella Velez be appointed to the committee. It is imperative that the University and Ann Arbor community support MSA's effor- ts to ensure that the committee conduct an impartial and fair review and make recommendations that will best suit the University of Michigan. Chassy i ' f#OR6fTV h DIi Y IN T " Imi I IiU VANO Nstimbs I WHORE SUMMIT uumsOUSf y, /1 O i ii'~\111 0 /1 I tn1(ci6AN " D~AIY S V// -"*- .- V ,{ ~ "f'. .