University of Michigan - Michiganensian Yearbook (Ann Arbor, MI)

Page 26 text:

LIFE AND DEA TH OF PROTEST: STUDENTS TAKE-ON THE BIG U In what many people called a resurgence of the ' 60 ' s student activism and others called a pathetic farce, the 1973 tuition strike lived and died. Rallies, demonstrations, petitions, and leaflets abounded, as did administrator ambiguities and altered expla- nations. The results of the strike and the reasons for them may perhaps be determined through a careful look at the facts. Early in the summer of 73 the foundations of the strike were being laid. A six or seven percent ' cost of living ' tuition increase had been proposed and accepted in the Univer- sity Budget Priorities Committee. Then a bomb hit. The Supreme Court declared res- idency regulations of the U-M form illegal. New regulations had to be drawn up, and they were expected to create a flood of new ' residents ' . In the end, this would mean a significant loss in revenue, as fewer students would be paying the higher out-of-state fees. The Regents estimated that the tuition loss would reach 2.5 million dollars. New fee increases were proposed, discussed and passed in a telephone vote. These amounted to 18 percent for freshmen and up to 30 per- cent for graduate students. Students were not informed of the increas- es until the beginning of the fall term. The reaction to this ' back to school surprise ' was varied. Many students were indifferent far more were disgruntled but willing to live with the situation. Still others became very upset and began taking action. The Student Action Committee (SAC) was formed and later joined forces with Student Government Council (SGC) to protest the tuition hike. Meanwhile, the administration explained its position in the University Record and Michigan Daily, citing the anticipated 2.5 million dollar revenue loss and the need to recover it somehow. Student groups countered with some simple arithmetic. An average 24 percent increase with 38,000 students equaled 9.6 million dollars, not 2.5 million. SAC pub- lished this analysis in a leaflet which called for implementation in the 1970 Black Action Mo vement (BAM) promises as well as a roll- back in tuition. Several factions had emerged in SAC, however, and no concrete platform had as yet been adopted. A mass meeting was held at East Quad. At least twelve proposed demands were put forward in this meeting, and a final platform was settled upon. It consisted of tne following demands: 1) a rollback in tuition, 2) implementation of the BAM demands agreed to by the University in 1970,

Page 28 text:

3) adequate financial aid for needy students, 4) re-evaluation of residency regulations, 5) re-establishment of in-state status for all graduate teaching assistants, 6) an accurate and complete financial statement from the University. These were accepted by a majority of the students present. Other proposals were either ruled out by the chairpersons or voted down. This platform was adopted just prior to the September Regents ' meeting. SAC decid- ed to demonstrate at that meeting to show the Regents how they felt. About 65-75 people marched to the Administration Build- ing and jammed the lobby. About 15 more students, plus reporters, were allowed into the meeting. The protest seemed rather disorganized at first, with everyone standing around wonder- ing what to do. Then someone came in with a megaphone and the chanting started: 2-4-6- 8, lower the tuition rate; 8-6-4-2, no more racist U. This and other chants went up, but the frenzied dedication of some ' 60 s protests was not apparent. Some people laughed and joked, and a few just stood around watching. There was also no harrass- ment from building officials, who had perhaps learned something from past exper- ience. The Regents tried to carry on as they normally would. The meeting was disturbed at times by the loud chanting (particularly when the students got next to the chamber door and held the megaphone to the crack), but otherwise the meeting was only slightly disrupted. The Regents began by discussing various other matters, and then moved on to the tuition issue. A discussion of the residency regulations captured the attention of everyone. An appeal process was discussed, and the con- sensus was to leave it to the courts. One member suggested review by the Regents, but the idea was rejected on tne basis that it would take too much time. The next item brought up was the summer telephone vote on raising the fees. After practically no discussion, it was confirmed unanimously. Next the Regents considered a motion to make public all university salaries, by name, in order to ease the charges of rascism. This motion was defeated soundly with only two votes in support. At this point two members of SAC got the chance to present their demands and the reasons behind them. The Regents drank water, lit cigarettes, and generally appeared to pay little attention. Lee Gill, President of SGC, spoke next and apologized for the disturbance. He explained it as the students saying ouch to being burned. Gill asked for some student input into the Regents ' decisions. They replied that stu- dents rarely attend their meetings. And Gill returned with let us into your closed meet- ings where the real decisions are made and we ' ll get some real student input. On this sour note the meeting ended. In an interview with the Michiganensian, President Robben Fleming expressed his feelings on the student representation mat- ter. There are two students appointed to the Budget Priorities Committee, ' he said. The students don ' t show, and then secrecy is claimed. The minutes of those meetings