Two suits are now pending which challenge the University of Michigan's new tuition residency rules. In a few years the suits should result in hefty refunds for many students now classified as "non-residents." One suit. filed by Arthur Carpenter of Virtue & Carpenter, says there is no reason why the University should be able to set up its own residency rules, and that it must follow state law. This would allow in-state status to students who, tbr example, have registered to vote in Michigan. Carpenter also claims that the present rules are administered in a racist and sexist manner, which in this case favors blacks and females seeking in-state residency status. Last May Carpenter was successful in getting the old rules-which prohibited astudent from changing residency status while a student-declared unconstitutional. The other suit. filed by David Goldstein of Hayes & Goldstein. attacks the means of administering the new rules. That suit says that students are given nc reason for denials of their petitions to be classified as in-state students, and that the appeal procedure is meaningless. The suit also says the rules are being adrninistered in a biased nnanner so as to classify as many students as possible as "non-residents" to raise money for the U. Resolution of both these suits will probably be delayed by'the University's customary losing arguments that it can oppress students with impunity because it's part of the government ("sovereign immunity") and that whatever court it's being sued in, it should have been sued in a different one!