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


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.

February 20, 1986 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1986-02-20

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



Page 4
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
Vol. XCVI, No. 100 420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Unsigned editorials represent a majority of the Daily's Editorial Board
COmmunity building

Thursday, February 20, 1986

The Michigan Daily

Enforce research

If salvagable parts of Old Main
Hospital are demolished, it would
be a tragic loss to the community.
The surgery wing is still usable,
and the adult psychiatric unit is in
good condition. It would be a
shame not to consider alternative
uses for the old hospital, especially
when land and housing are at such
a premium today.
Among the suggestions for Old
Main are that it be torn down for a
parking lot or turned into a hotel.
The idea to turn it into a hotel was
dismissed since the rooms are not
air-conditioned. There was a
recent suggestion that the building
could be used for medical students.
The hospital is obviously set up for
medical intervention. However, it
is inconceivable that medical
students alone could use the entire
building and keep it from being
The hospital would be ideal as a
community living and gathering
center for the elderly, mentally ill
and handicapped. The hospital
could serve as a hobby, supportive
service and day treatment center
for former hospital patients who
have nowhere to go. There are
several rooms and wings in the old
building which could serve as a
half-way program for clients and
patients to make an easier tran-
sition into the community. It may
be possible to set up Old Main with

a few clerical and janitorial offices
to employ and train people to work
outside the hospital. Landscaping
and food service employment are
also viable options. These ideas
could offset the cost of rennovating
the old hospital.
Since the "community center"
would be so close to the campus
and the hospital, various social
service, public health and medical
students could work directly within
the program to practice
therapeutic and clinical
techniques, learn skills in com-
munity organization, or conduct
research experiments. Some of the
rooms would be ideal for graduate
student offices.
Social support systems will
probably prove to be more effec-
tive than a medical approach for
improving life quality of the needy
and vulnerable. However, when
funding is cut, these services are
discontinued. With all the talent
and resources in Ann Arbor, it
should have a community program
that serves as a model for the rest
of the state, and the country.
Any commission used to study
the problem of what to do with the
Old Main should at least include
people from various disciplines -
such as sociology or social work
faculty and policy advisors - and
consider progressive alternatives
to the expensive demolition of the
University hospital building.

By Ingrid Kock
In 1972, the University enacted classified
research guidelines which state that
classified research can be done on campus
only if it does not contribute to the destruc-
tion of human life or have publication
restrictions beyond one year. Further, the
University cannot enter into any agreement
or contract in which the nature of the
project and the identity of the sponsor can-
not be revealed. The University's classified
research guidelines allow classified resear-
ch which is classified. solely because the
researcher has access to classified
documents but will not allow professors to
generate classified documents. Finally, all
information about all University classified
research must be readily available.
The Michigan Student Assembly has
recently uncovered evidence which
questions whether the University has com-
plied with the guidelines. Administrators'
conflicting remarks on the issue of com-
pliance with the guidelines. Ad-
ministrators' conflicting remarks on the
issue of compliance with the guidelines
mandate a University investigation and
response. Because the classified research
guidelines are currently being reviewed by
a presidential committee, it is important
that this investigation and response come as
soon as possible. Since the committee's
recommendations will be based on their
evaluation of the effectiveness of the
guidelines, the committee should be aware
of past and present University compliance
with the guidelines.
The main question the University ad-
ministration should answer is whether
University professors have generated
classified documents which have not been
openly disseminated. Preliminary evidence
indicates that University professors have
generated classified reports in violation of
the guidelines. In a February 14th memo,
the Office of the Vice President for Resear-
Kock is the Michigan Student Assem-
bly military researcher.

ch stated that since 1972 there have been 44
classified projects categorized "Secret"
and marked for "access and generation" of
classified documents. "Access and
generation" means that the research will
involve access to classified documents and
potentially result in the production of
classified documents.
Significantly, the University has recently
concluded that Secret research violates the
guidelines. Last summer, the Classified
Review Panel, the Research Policies Com-
mittee, and then Vice President for Resear-
ch rejected Professor Raymond Tanter's
"Secret" research proposal because it was
marked for "access and generation" of
classified documents. Prof. Tanter stated
that his publications would reflect the
classification of the documents used. Even
though Prof. Tanter claimed that he could
produce an unclassified research report, the
University found that since Prof. Tanter
could not guarantee that the government
would not restrict the publication of his
research, the proposal violated the
Prof. Tanter's project is the only project
the University ever rejected. However, the
majority of classified University research
projects have been classified Secret for both
access and generation. Why were these
projects, unlike Tanter's permitted? It is
clear that they are not exempted by the
guideline clause which allows classified
documents to be produced if their
publication restrictions do not extend
beyond one year: once a project generates
classified documents, the Federal gover-
nment makes no promises about the
duration of publication restrictions.
Perhaps Prof. Tanter's mistake was to ad-
mit the possibility that any document he
wrote would reflect the classification of the
materials used.
There is more conflicting evidence on
University compliance with the prohibition.
of the generation of classified documents. A
University administrator, James
Dautremont from the University Division of
Research and Development Administration,
said that classified documents and reports
were generated at the University: "That's

what our document control system is for.
Interestingly, one of Dautremont's assistan-
ts, Coordinator of Research Security
Michael Dutzer, denied that classified
documents of reports were generated in the
University. According to Dautremont, Dut-
zer's job is safe-guarding classified
Dautremont also raised two related
issues: consulting and University
knowledge of classified research projects.
According to Dautremont, Top-Secret
documents come into the University for use
by professors consulting for the Federtal
government. Some professors have Top
Secret security clearances. This consultijig
is an issue because the University
guidelines prohibit contracts or agreements
between professors and sponsors which
cannot be openly revealed. Mr. Dautremont
could not disclose the nature4 extent and
sponsors of this consulting to MSA. This
consulting may be so secret that the Univer-
sity is not even allowed to know about it.
Not only is the University uninformed
about Top Secret consulting but also about
the titles and nature of other classified
research. Dautreinont stated that not 11
titles of classified research projects are
made public and that a security clearance
on a "need to know".basis must be obtained
to see the titles. Importantly, some mem-
bers of the University community who are
responsible for enforcing the guidelines on
classified research do not have security
clearances and thus may not know about
some of the research they are supposed to
There are many unanswered questions
about University compliance and enfori
cement of the guidelines on classified
research. One of the main purposes of the
guidelines is to clarify what type of research
is conducted and allowed at the University.
Unfortunately, the intrinsic secrecy of
classified research is a major impediment
to regulating such research. Since MSA is
not privy to important information, it is the
University administration's responsibility
to investigate and report on classified
research, answering questions raised in this
article. With any luck, this report will not b4
stamped "Administrative Confidential".



AP credibility

i ..

r Gri
- -.- "
p , s

l ^
' h

r I


THE COLLEGE Curriculum
Committee's concern about
AP credit should be praised, as it
demonstrates a concern for the
quality and worth of a University
liberal arts degree. The
suggestions generated from this,
concern, however, will help no one
and may punish some students for
attaining an advanced level of
Advanced Placement
examinations are given in the
spring each year to thousands of
high school students around the
country. Students who take the test
are graded on a scale from 1 to 5.
Under current University policy,
each department decides what
score a student needs in order to
obtain credit; in most cases a "3"
exempts a student from an in-
troductory class.
University policy places no un-
necessary restrictions on the num-
ber of credits a student may apply
toward a degree. In 1984, 192
students enrolled as either second-
term freshmen or first-term
Dean Meiland, a proponent of
limiting AP credit seems genuinely
concerned with the quality of un-
dergraduate education, yet
proposals for changing the AP
credit system demonstrate a lack
of faith in student responsibility
and departmental decision
making. Many students use AP
credit to fulfill distribution
requirements, and take upper level
courses. While introductory

they may be unnecessary for cer-
tain individuals. Many students
without AP credit decide to skip in-
troductions and benefit from
smaller, more personal upper level
As for setting an across-the
board standard, each department
should not be limited to grant
credit for students who have ear-
ned 4s or 5s. Such requirements
ought to be determined by in-
dividual departments. If students
who have earned a "3" in a par-
ticular area can not do advanced
work, then the department-concer-
ned should be responsible for
raising its -standards. Individual
department chairpersons and
faculty are qualified to decide
which scores merit recognition and
which don't.
Another concern is how accep-
tance of AP credit compares with
"peer institutions." Depending on
the source, the University's peer
institutions range from the Ivies to
Berkely and Madison to all Big Ten
schools. Since policies vary from
school to school, it is difficult to
,establish a credible program based
on such comparisons. The Univer-
sity should not be swayed by peer
pressure to conform.
Until the University can find
some evidence that students with
extensive AP credit cannot
progress at an accelerated level,
the Curriculum Committee should
continue the status quo, to en-
courage high achievers with Ad-
vances Placement Credit to form




! . .\




To the Daily:
This letter is in response to
Steve Angelotti's letter of
February 13, which claims that
students who sign the PIRGIM
petition are being fooled if they
do not read the "fine print" on the
petition which calls for a
refusable fee.
We urge Mr. Angelotti, as we
urge all students, to stop and ac-
tually read the PIRGIM petition.
There is no fine print. Mr.
Angelotti could have avoided a
number of false statements -
some of which forced the Daily to

and domestic hunger - at the U
of M. Presently, PIRGIM
receives no funds from U of M
students or from the University,
and as a result these programs
and others are in jeopardy.
The PIRGIM students are
asking U of M students to show
their support by signing a petition
to establish a refusable or
waivable fee for PIRGIM at
registration. This fee would be
absolutely voluntary; any
student who did not want to pay it
could refuse it or waive it at

drive is democratic

then has the option of not paying
by refusing or waiving the fee."
We also ask Mr. Angelotti to
;note that students who waive the
fee can do so without ever paying
it. Students who wish to waive
the fee would not have to seek a
refund, as Mr. Angelotti claims;
they simply would check or sign a
stub on the SVF form, and then
would not pay the fee. If for any
reason a student wishing to waive
the fee forgets to sign the form,
they will still be able to get a
refund. Those who do not waive
the fee and then feel that they

petition in the last week, not one
has come back to us and said that
they wanted to withdraw their
signature because they did not
know what they signed. If
anyone feels that way, come see
us or tell a petitioner - we'll take
your name off the petition. It
hurts us too, if people don't know
what they are signing.
We know that most students
would like to have an
organization that addresses
issues on and beyond the campus.
We think that a majority of
students would like to sef

Back to Top

© 2022 Regents of the University of Michigan