41 OPINION 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 demolished. 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 guidelines. 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 policies 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 documents. 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 review. 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". Wasserman .o- A N EW RoUND O PEACE TAtLV WILL 6E I)\ECULT.,. IF 70U ZhKV UCG k\WAM LINE ON Tk AP credibility ., i .. ,,S. ,,,. r Gri - -.- " ". .." .. p , s l ^ .. . ., ' h 1 1 1 1. r I bo 4 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 achievement. 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 sophomores. 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 classes. 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 N'; z ONDQTtNDl)IT, Y0O WANT To EXCLUDE A-L ?AI. TiNIM4 S Io 1\P. Y~L TI N IANS - O e,-f /--- ! . .\ .,. Li aNu o1 1 t s PIR GIM 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 petition 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 C.RISP. 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