100%

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

Share

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 08, 1968 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1968-02-08

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


Seventy-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDE6r OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

Secret Research or an Open

'

Where Opinions Are ree, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Truth Will Prevail

NEWS PHONE: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: PAT O'DONOHUE

i

Black Job Recruitment
Needed Closer to Home

IT IS EASY TO infer from superficial
evidence such as employment percent-
ages and number of new programs that
University recruitment of Negro non-
academic staff is proceeding much more
smoothly than recruitment in the aca-
demic area.
Manager of Training and Counseling
Clyde W. Briggs can point to the addition
of several Negroes in high administrative
training positions and research assist-
anceships as evidence of his success.
In the academic area there has been
considerably less visible effort. It is dis-
couraging to note that, Defense Depart-
ment recommendations to the contrary,
25 academic departments have admitted
making "no special effort" toward re-
cruiting Negro staff. Two departments
have declared that even proposing such
special consideration is "distasteful and
improper," and 18 in fact propose no such
effort.
The existence of these attitudes is de-
plorable and the blame for their con-
tinued practice can be placed on the in-
formal nature of faculty recruitment in
general and the lack of centralized sup-
ervision and control.
BUT NON - ACADEMIC recruitment is
also not free from blamle. Briggs has
been successful in getting Negroes into
policy-making positions at the University,
out he has found it necessary to travel
all over the South to recruit. Although he
has developed an impressive list of con-
tacts at Southern Negro colleges, he has
made little effort to recruit at Wayne
S t a t e University, Washtenaw County

This is not only a waste of money
which could be put to better use in public
Community College, or Ferris State Col-
lege.
relations or training programs, but it
seems to be the most unlikely way of
finding people to work who wil stay on
here after their training period.
In addition, importing people from
Georgia and South Carolina to work at
the University does nothing to improve
its image within the local Negro com-
munity.
If Briggs concentrated more on local
recruiting, he could make use of this
grapevne to better the University's
reputation in the community, and in-
crease his office's effectiveness.
A CENTRAL CIVIL rights office, such
as the Steering Committee on Aca-
demic Opportunity is discussing with
President Fleming this week, could cor-
rect the inadequacies in both academic
and non-academic recruiting if the office
were given full regulatory and review
powers.
The ddition of a complaint processing
procedure in the office is essential, since
the prevent channel for these complaints
is in the Personnel Office, compelling
employes to complain to the people they
are complaining about.
If the University is to erase its reputa-
tion as a closed institution with only
token integration, it is imperative that
Fleming adopt ra hard-line approach, in
spite of foreseeable objections from some
University departments that their au-
tonomy is being violated.
--JILL CRABTREE

THE ELDERFIELD Report on
Classified Research should
have been titled "How to Stop
Worrying and Learn to Love Clas-
sified Research," for that is pre-
cisely what it asks us to do.
While managing to avoid every
substantive moral issue about the
appropriateness of classified re-
search in general, and while
hedging the issue with regard to
the University, the Elderfield Re-
port makes a mockery of those
who wish to make this University
a place where humane values can
flourish. Futhermore, in pretend-
ing, at the outset to be acquiescing
to the demands of those who say
that classified research which is
specifically aimed at the destruc-
tion of human life must stop, the
Elderfield Report is an insult to
the intelligence of every person at
this University.
Policy I of the Report states
that the University "will not enter
into any contract supporting re-
earch the specific purpose of which
is to destroy human life or to
incapacitate human beings." How
noble! The problem is that the
type of research excluded by Policy
I does not exist. No research is
undertaken "The specific purpose
of which is to destroy human life
or incapacitate human beings."
However, there is such a thing as
research, the specific purpose of
which is to develop a set of m i-
tary techniques or an operational
or weapons system which can be
used to kill or injure human
beings. This is what the University
is doing, on a scale exceeded by
only three other universities in the
nation. And this is what must
stop!
While Policy I might prohibit
the University from making and
assembling its own bombs, it cer-
tainly does not prevent it from
finding targets for the weapons of
others. (See the report of the
Committee on the Thailand Pro-
jects, University Record, Dec. 4,
1967 or Daily, Dec. 5, and the series
of articles in the Daily, Oct. 17-
20, Dec. 7, 1967, et seq.). Further-
more, as pleasant as this arrange-
ment might be, you wouldn't be
able to find out about it from the
Committee's report. In thirteen
pages, there is not the slightest
mention of Willow Run Labs,
CooleyElectronics Laboratory, the
Department of Defense, or any of
its constituent parts. There is not
the slightest mention of "detec-
tion," "surveillance," or anything
else about those "classified projects
already being done," which ac-
cording to the Committee-and for
reasons it fails to give-require a
different research policy from that
"which would be chosen by an in-
stitution in which traditionally
there was no such research."
Once again it is manifestly clear
how the Committee has ignored
the fundamental moral question;
i.e. what are the consequences for
the society of allowing secret re-
search to be carried on within an
academic community?
THE ANSWER to this question
may take many forms.
First, classified research is in
conflict with basic principles of
education and scholarship:
1) Results of classified research
are not published. They are not
available to the academic com-
munity, or even to any member
of the immediate discipline who
does not have a security clearance.
The results cannnot be applied to
areas of academic concern outside
of the contractor's immediate in-
terest until the Federal Govern-
ment decides to declassify them.
The Committee says, "As the re-
sults of the research become de-
classified the material is imme-
diately avialable for incorporation
into regular instructional pro-
grams." The word "immediately"
here sounds like double-think.

2) University professors and re-
searchers who take classified pro-
jects are required by the govern-
ment to withhold significant scien-
tific information from their col-
leagues and students. The Com-

mittee states that foreign students
(and others who cannot get or
refuse to get a security clearance),
"may be excluded from the classi-
fied portions of ta research pro-
ject)."
3) Discrimination:
The security clearances and
F.B.I. investigations used in the
selection of faculty and students
to work on classified projects in-
volve political criteria. The Uni-
versity has no business in the area
of political discrimination.
Secrecy and Democracy
Classified research is indefensi-
ble in a university for other, equal-
ly important reasons. It means an
institutional dependence on, and
support of those segments of the
government and industry whose
activities are least subject to ob-
servation and control by ordinary
people-precisely because they are

classified research) would be in-
consistent with the principle of
freedom of inquiry" is to ignore the
real meaning of that principle;
namely, that freedom of inquiry
should extent far enough so that
all material published by someone
at the University is available for
perusal and criticism to any other
member of the community.
Those who say that one's col-
leagues should have no control
over one's own area of inquiry
are ignoring the fact that the
University, at present, has an un-
official but apparent policy of not
taking chemical or biological war-
fare projects in its chemical or
biological science departments. To
those who would say that this too
is inconsistent with freedom of in-
quiry, we would reply that they
may, if they desire, go to work for
the government and do whatever

chemical and biological warfare
<CBW ) research, the problem re-
mains. Take the following case :
Assume that University com-
munity decides, by democratic
means. that chemical and bio-
logical warfare research is inap-
propriate to a university. A review
committee, also chosen by demo-
cratic means. reviews all research
proposals, and one of its functions
is to refuse such contracts.
Willow Run Labs or Cooley
Laboratory is now asked to develop
countermeasures against the de-
tection of CBW agents or the de-
vices which carry or deliver them.
The techniques and equipment to
be developed are specifically in-
tended to destroy the means of
defense against chemical or bio-
logical attack. The project is an
integral part of CBW research and
should be rejected on that basis.

.aosa .............aseseeenimesesenesassss

This article is a

resolition written by

Randy Jacob, Jeff Schneider, and Bruce Kahn,
President of Student Government Council, in
response to a report by the Faculty Senate's
Committee on Research Policy headed by Prof.
Robert C. Elderfield of the chemistry dept. If
approved tonight by SGC, the resolution will be
presented before the Faculty Assembly's Feb.
1 9 meeting on classified research.

DR. ROBERT ELDERFIELD

.:"}i: * .* },.

The Rent Strikes Out

THE STUDENT-PLANNED rent strike in
Apartments Limited buildings on Hill
Street can be an effective strategy for
improving the landlord's service, if
handled effectively.
To ensure University mediation be-
tween the strikers and landlord, the
striking group must appoint official rep-
resentatives who have the authority to
speak for all the tenants. Otherwise,
Apartments Limited may be able to back
out of mediation by contending that no
individual can represent the needs and
demands of all the buildings' tenants.
Charter Realty used this same excuse
last semester in refusing to discuss prob-
lems common to all tenants with just a
few individuals at Albert Terrace.
Nevertheless, student rent strikes in
Ann Arbor have proved fairly successful
in weakening the landlord's power to
abuse and neglect student tenants. Last
semester. for example, married students
were able to pressure the University into
;earing their grievances by withholding
a portion of their monthly rent. And
construction of Albert Terrace was step-
ped up and finished within three weeks
after students there began to strike their
rents. Although financial settlements
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
Collegiate Press Service.
Fall and winter subscription rate: $4.50 per term by
carrier ($5 by mail): $8.00 for regular academic school
year ($9 by mail).

have not yet been completed, Charter has
agreed to mediate with the Off-Campus
Housing Bureau on grievances from a
small group of apartments at Albert
Terrace.
Apartments Limited has shown itself
to lip one of the most negligent landlords
in answering student complaints. Last
semester. the Student Rental Union re-
ceived more complaints about Apart-
ments Limited than any other landlord,
and the firm recently refused to accept
the new University lease.
THE ANNOUNCED rent strike is speci-
fically an effort to improve service on
repairs and maintenance, but more
strikes against other large landlords could
produce major changes in the housing
market.
To force an eight-month lease, im-
prove service, and reduce exorbitant
rental rates, student tenants with legi-
timate grievances in other buildings
should join the Hill Street group by going
through the proper legal channels --
forming a rent strike by placing their
rents in escroll with the University Off-
Campus Housing Bureau.
-DAVID SPURR
Daily except Monday during regular academic school
year.
Daily except Sunday and Monday during regular
summer session.
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Michigan,
420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104.

secret. This means that instead of
supporting the democratization of
American governmental and social
institutions, the University, in fact,
if not in intent, ends up opposing
democracy ahd democratic values.
To those who deny this. we can
only say that democracy means
government by the people. In
order to govern, the people must
have access to all information
which is relevant to their lives and
to the making of public society.
Secrecy denies people the ability
to receive and use information
which is necessary if they are
going to be able to control their
own environment. Secrecy is de-
leterious to the maintenance of a
free and open society.
Similarly and even more obvious
to any intelligent person, secrecy
(the manifestation of which is
classified research) has no place
in an academic community. With-
in the University, the acceptance
of classified research and the re-
quirement of security clearances
forces the Uniyersity to adopt un-
democratic procedcres which car-
ry over into, and characterize its
entire internal decision-making
process. Those segments of the
University whose activities are
least subject to observation and
control-because of secrecy-have
a disproportionate political and
economic influence within the Uni-
versity. (The reasons for this have
nothing to do with the educational
or academic purposes of a univer-
sity but have to do with the pres-
ent and increasing power of the
military and the defense industries
in scientific research). For a mem-
ber of the University community
not to oppose classified research
is tantamount to that person's
aligning himself against whatever
elements of democratic control re-.
main in the established political
process.
To state this is not to advocate
the restriction of an individual's
work by the group of which he is a
part. except under certain condi-
tions which are themselves to be
determined by democratic means.
To say, as the Elderfield Report
does, that "arbitrary cessation (of

research they want. Within a uni-
versity, however, the community
must have a right to democratic-
ally determine what is or is not
appropriate.
Unfortunately, the Elderfield
Report makes no mention of this
most basic tenet. Moreover, the
policies it suggests the University
implement are so unclear as to al-
low virtually any kind of classified
research to be carried out here,
even chemical and biological war-
fare research. Far from limiting
the type of research which could
be done at the University, the El-
derfield Report actually eases the
criteria by which classifed research
could be curtailed. Policy IV is a
virtual escape clause. By allowing
research which would either make
a "significant contribution to the
advancement of knowledge," or
"contribute significantly to en-
hancing the research capability of
the investigator or his research
unit," the Elderfield Report, in ef-
fect, allows for all classified re-
search, since it is a rare project
indeed which doesn't meet one or
both of the preceding criteria.
The "criteria" established in
Policies II and III of the report
are equally useless. In allowing a
condition of secrecy to be part of
the procedure by which the ac-
ceptability of a contract is to be
judged, the Elderfield recommen-
dations are denying one of the con-
ditions necessary for a democratic
judgment. If only a security-clear-
ed member of a review committee
or of the community at large can
see the classified portion of a pro-
posal, each member who does not
have a clearance must rely on the
interpretation of the member with
the clearance as to what the pro-
posal is; the classified part simply
cannot be divulged. Interpretation
of proposals can be a very difficult
matter. The more subtle the cri-
teria to be used in judging the
project, the more crucial the right
of access of all to the entire pro-
posal.
Even where the policy to be
implemental seems fairly straight
forward, as in a restriction on

Such a project is not a figment
of the imagination. There is a pro-
ject being done by the University
now, which expires in January
1969, entitled "The detection of
chemical warfare-agents using pas-
sive Lopair techniques." We don't
know whether the project fits the
preceding description or not; it is
one of those projects whose de-
scription, according to Willow
Run's Director Evaldson, would
mean going "into greater detail on
our affairs than I could properly
make public." (In fact, the project
was described in the public version
of Willow Run's listing in the
Quarterly Compilation of research
contracts simply as "Passive Lo-
pair Support Studies," although
het project was unclassified.)

Furthermore, if the Pentagon
wants it done badly enough (the
University of Michigan being one
of the leaders in countermeasures
researchi it will classify the real
title and the real content of the
project.
A member of the review commit-
tee who has a security clearance
may learn that the project has
something to do with CBW. Sup-
pose, however, that in his view the
project does not have enough to do
with it, as he interprets the clas-
sified portion of the proposal and
the University's restriction, for the
University to reject it. He will then
tell the other Committee members
that the project is not a proscribed
CBW project, as he interprets it.
A member of the committee who
does not have security clearance
may ask what the basis of inter-
pretation is, since he might have
a difference one. But discussing
the interpretation means divulging
the classified content of the pro-
ject. He must rely on the inter-
pretation of the member with
security clearance. On the basis of
the available evidence, he may vot
to approve the project. The project
may be accepted.
The University will then under-
take chemical and biological war-
fare work, because a few men with
privileged access to the relevant
information believed it was some-
thing else.
Furthermore. let us say that
these persons received a security
clearance on the grounds of polit-
ical "acceptability." It would ob-
viously be unfair to prejudge an
individual, but persons whose
political views allowed them clear-
ances could reasonable be assumed
to be, as a group, more likely than
persons who could not get clear-
ances to make interpretations
favorable to the Defense Depart-
ment, or to the continued if regret-
table dependency of the University
on military research.
What will happen when a review
committee seeks to make more
subtle evaluations of the appro-
priateness of a project than its
possible relation to chemical or
biological warfare? Clearly, its re-
liance on the interpretation of
classified portions by members
with security clearance becomes
even more crucial. Only when all
members of a committee, and all
members of the community, can
see and judge the entire proposal,
can there possibly be a fair evalu-
ation of its appropriateness.
If the Elderfield Committee's re-
port is accepted it will be a tragedy
for this institution. For it will
show more clearly than ever before
that the University is dedicated,
not to humane values consistent
with outstanding education, but to
secrecy and hypocrisy, precisely
those things which universities
must help to confront and abolish.
The. Elderfield Report, instead
of confronting the real issues,
seeks to hide from them and asks
that we do the same.
What does it mean, Mr. Elder-
field, to do reasearch "the specific
purpose of which is to destroy
human life?" We are at present
making the equivalent of gun-
sights, as in the Thailand project
where University trained men de-
tect the presence of insurgents
(insurgents being a euphemism for
people). The project is an integral
part of tactics of air and troop
attacks which include the use of
napalm and fragmentation bombs.
Mr. Elderfield is an adult, we must
take him at his word: Shall we
make guns and not bullets? Knife
handles and not blades?
We certainly hope not!
Therefore, we Urge:
I. The immediate cessation of
all classified research at University
facilities, including the Thailand
counter-insurgency project.

II. Complete disclosure of all
University research contracts,
their purposes and results.
III. Termination of University
membership in the Institute for
Defense Analysis.

4!

9

Suppose the hypothetical coun-
termeasures project is classified.
First. the Pentagon could have the
project sponsored by one of the
agencies which ordinarily handles
University of Michigan projects-
not by the Army Biological Labs
at Ft. Detrick or one of the agen-
cies which is well known for CBW
research. The Elderfield Report's
Policy II is no help here. It makes
no difference to the government if
the University discloses the name
of its more innocuous-sounding
sponsors.

'I

The Bureaucratic State

of Secretary

Rus

By DANIEL OKRENT
WASHINGTON - "Hi, I'm Dean
Rusk."
With that, the interview began.
His cordial greeting, like his en-
tire manner, was friendly and
disarming. It's not that he poured
on slick Southern charm (his
accent is only slightly discernible).
It was simply that cordiality and
public relations imagery-not sub-
stantive discussion--weretheor-
der of the day. Like most high
administrative bureaucrats locked
into governmental formality and
line-toeing, Rusk portrayed the
role of the clear victim of per-
sonal choice-choice to stay in a
voluntary position.
Essentially, Rusk's comments on
Vietnam (a polite and more ur-
bane reiteration of white man's
burden), Korea (assurance that
the United States cannot let "this

manifestation of a governmental
system that allows certain indi-
viduals to occupy unapproachable
positions of institutional and ma-
neuverable superiority. Rusk has

To be sure, the four college
journalists were at times able to
score points by virtue of persistent
and logical questioning. Rusk
circularly conceded that it was a
perversion of pure democracy for
Gen. Minh to have been excluded
from the South Vietnamese elec-
tions. He flatly stated that the
U.S: will negotiate without pre-
conditions, but then announced a
condition of sorts when he voiced
the U.S. insistance that the North
Vietnamese claim no conditions.
The problem with such victory
of debate as the interviewers may
have achieved is mitigated by the
fact that any points scored were
victories of upmanship. Rusk is
able to lose an argument and yet
disregard it; his utter insulation
within the Johnson Administration
enables him to turn around and
ignore the mere game-like nature

RUSK: "Well, we have con-
tacts of various sorts (with the
North Vietnamese) from time to
time, and on occasions they
have been direct and on occa-
sions there have been inter-
mediaries."
QUESTION: "What kind of
direct contacts are these?"
RUSK: "Well, it's not for me
to go into the details of it be-
cause as soon as I tell you
about it the contact is dead.",
It is this type of positional su-
periority that serves as an un-
dentable shield. Can the ques-
tioner still be sure that contacts
are, indeed, established and work-
ing? Rusk knows the real answer.
We can only hope that what he
says is true, but we may never
know for sure.
THE ADVANTAGE of position
is no +ha n, a_ oa ta th

question of security is probably
valid. But does one know in ad-
vance that security stumbles are
the only comments that will be
edited out? The interviewer can
only hope that the editor's pen
does not work too freely. But, to
get the interview at all one must
accept the terms. The State De-
partment will have no regrets if
there is no interview because of a
refusal to accept prior terms.
Two days later, when the man
from the State Department calls
to say that certain words have to
be changed or omitted, the inter-
viewer cannot say to him, "No,
sir, I'm going back on my agree-
ment. I have an obligation to
print just what Mr. Rusk said,
and I'm afraid I can't keep my
promise."
So, the interviewer can go home
and muse and think and prod his
rnncrian aati acthifooin

any action whatever in the mil-
itary field. Why should we? It's
wholly irrational."
QUESTION: "Well, on the
other hand . ."
RUSK: "There's nothing fair
or balanced about it."
QUESTION: "If we don't
stop the bombing"..
RUSK: "It's almost an ob-
scene proposal."
And when the censor asks that
the last line of Rusk's statement
be deleted, one must question
whether it has anything to do
with national security. I suppose,
however, it isn't stretching the
imagination too far to concede
that if the Secretary of State of
our country actually thinks a sug-
gestion to stop the bombing is
'obscene," then this in itself ex-
poses a dire threat to effective
C}anncumn+ n r~n aA

ment operates this way? More
than likely, given a certain set
of governmental patterns, it is un-
avoidable. By the very nature of
the American political system, men
in high office surround themselves
with men of similar view (Frank-
lin Roosevelt was a notable and
successful exception).
Just as a president appoints a
like-minded individual to a cabinet
post, so does that cabinet mem-
ber pick his staff from his ideo-
logical and methodological com-
patriots. The seven staff men in
Rusk's office during the interview
sat or stood in transfixed obedi-
ence and reverance. The closed
system offers no room for feed-
back, no place for conflicting view
or constructive criticism.
When Rusk bade the four in-
terviewers good-bye, he would
have been entirely honest if he
tmi.ahttohmealf ta o ar

4

I

i

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan