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 10, 1968 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1968-02-10

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

I

The Crew of the USS Pueblo

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

Letters to the Editor

1

: w :

Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
th 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.

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: NEAL BRUSS

Tune To Investigate

ANSWERING one form of hypocrisy
with another will not solve the
problems posed by yesterday's disclo-
sure that University athletes and
coaches are apparently violating Big
Ten rules. Incrimination is not the
answer. Instead, the conference must
take a mature look at the role of colle-
giate athletics.
Five local businessmen have admit-
ted giving discounts and free merchan-
dise to varsity athletes upon presenta-'
tion of their 'M' Club cards with the
prior knowledge of University coaches.
An investigation, yet to be completed,
reveals that several universities have
fostered atheltic double standards:
letting the rules say one thing while
they do something quite different.
AT ISSUE is whether the Big Ten will
follow the lead of the National Col-
legiate Athletic Associationa(NCAA)
and allow an increase in financial aid
to athletes or whether it will return to
its policy of the early 50's. Before 1957,
the Big Ten offered athletic scholar-
ships only on the basis of need, not on
athletic ability.
The infamous University of Illinois
slush fund case of 1966 sets an omi-
nous precedent. The firing of the Illini
coaches appears to have been a purge
to clear the conscience of the confer-
ence.
After the Illinois blood-letting, four
Big Ten committees were established
to examine conference regulations.
Recommendations have lagged, how-
ever, and no effective change has yet
taken place.
Big Ten investigators said yesterday
they will move in and take appropriate
action against any violators at the
University.
Conference rules now permit athletic
tenders but prohibit any aid over and
beyond the tender-an intermediate
position 'between present NCAA and
old Big Ten rules.
But conference athletes and coaches
who feel they are disadvantaged be-
cause of the present rules still make
exceptions when they feel the case
warrants it.
Investigators, unfortunately, focus

r~nly on the coaches and players who
have been uncovered in a double
standard.
TO. DEMAND a full investigation of
tho entire conference before judg-
ing University athletes and coaches
is not to acquiesce with the cynics who
said of the Illinois coaches, "All they
did wrong was get caught." Rules are
rules, and violators should be judged.
But this by itself is to facile, too su-
perficial a solution. Pointing to iso-
lated individuals as scapegoats is dis-
honest and unrealistic.
There is an unspoken code in the
athletic world, as in every closely-
affiliated organization, which decrees
that those who are caught should suf-
fer in silence, holding secret the confi-
dence of those who may also be guilty.
This may be honorable.
But it is not honorable for those
whose secretsare kept sacred to let
their associates suffer for a confer-
ence-wide double standard.
The merit of any rule is its relative
justice. Any dictum that is enforced in
an archaic, lord-over-peon fashion, is
an ugly distortion of justice.
The Big Ten must first decide if the
discount practice at this University is
an exception.
It must also conduct an extensive
and realistic investigation into ath-
letics at each university and bring
that information before the confer-
ence.
J)OUBLE STANDARDS do a good job
of hiding all our everyday sins
P nd vices. People say one thing and
Oo another. Nothing could be more nor-
mal.
But when the two-sided character
of someone else is exposed, people
quickly arm themselves with the vir-
tue of vigilantes and hiss violently
that the violators must pay.
When the Big Ten has re-evaluated
the role of collegiate athletics and its
rules, it can judge the University.
--CLARK NORTON
Sports Editor
-HOWARD KOHN

Reflections on a 'Cause Celebre'
Should a Censorship Trial Be about People or Principles?
The Four Defendants in the Cinema Guild Trial Disagreed

To the Editor:
WANT to take strong exception
to the highly sensational, mis-
leading, and grossly distorted
story in The Daily of Thursday,
Feb. 8, concerning the CIA on our
Campus. I can of course address
myself only to that part of your
fable that purports to deal with
the area centers.
Through a series of innuendos
you convey the impression that
by definition Anybody who works
for the CIA is an agent, i.e. by im-
plication a spy. Therefore anybody
who has any contacts-however
innocuous, legitimate,- or above
board-with anyone in the CIA is
asocating with agents. This is
nothing but character assassina-
tion through guilt by association.
In fact, CIA has a research di-
vision which is engaged in pain-
staking scholarly research on the
economic, social, and political
problems of many areas. Much of
this research is published under
the official imprint of the CIA
and is openly available in our li-
brary and is listed in the card
catalogue.
These publications are produced
by professionally trained people,
some of them former academics,
who in their individual capacities
as economists, sociologists, political
scientists, etc. participate in the
scholarly activities of their profes-
sional associations, and present
papers at research conferences,
and at scholarly meetings.
On these occasions, academics
have personal contacts with people
in their disciplines who have
earned their professional respect,
and some of these individuals
may be working for CIA. These
individuals have absolutely no con-
nection with the covert or foreign
intelligence activities of the CIA.
NOW as to the luncheon held
in the spring of 1966 purportedly
attended by the "leaders of the area
study programs," the actual facts
are as follows. Four China special-
ists from the research office of
CIA visited the major centers of
Chinese Studies in the country to
inform themselves of the range
and quality of university research
on China.
There was nothing secret or
mysterious about this. One of our
faculty colleagues set up the lunch
and sent around a mimeographed
note to faculty connected with the
China program. To the best of my
knowledge nobody declined the in-
vitation, but several people could
not come because of conflicting
commitments. We talked about our
research activities, the problems of
obtaining published materials on
China, microfilming of bodies of
materal and similar technical
questions.
No "broad hints" were thrown
out. No mention was made of any
"special graduate programs with
each of the professors" and noth-
ing was said about "money being
provided to help these professors
in their work." All these allega-
tions are the figments of some-
body's lively and very rich ima-
gination. Unfortunately there are
some people in our midst who are
prone to detect a spy around every
corner. Thus at least unwittingly
they engage in McCarthyism.
The final point I would like to
make is that while The Daily can-
not be blamed for the falsehoods

conveyed by its informants, one
would have the right to expect that
information would be checked and
double checked before it is pub-
lished.
-Alexander Eckstein
Professor of Economics
The CIA Lunch
To the Editor:
SINCE I AM one, of the people
who spoke to The Daily re-
porter about CIA contacts with the
Center for Chinese Studies, I
would like to set the record
straight on what I said and did
not say.
Around the time that the MSU-
CIA story broke in the press, some
members of the Center received
a memo from one of the Center
staff inviting them to a luncheon
with visiting and resident CIA
personnel to discuss China re-
search and "matters of mutual in-
terest." Only four members of the
Center accepted the invitation.
During the luncheon the seating
arrangement was such that each
of us was engaged in one-to-one
dialogue with a CIA representative
most of the time. It was not a
roundtable discussion. I therefore
do not know what was discussed'
with Profs. Hucker and Eckstein,
and I heard only parts of what
was discussed with the third mem-
ber of the group. I can best relate
what was discussed with me by
my vis-a-vis.
Our chat was mainly concerned
with the problem of providing an
adequate training in Chinese and
other area studies for people the
CIA had already recruited to their
ranks. I was left with the distinct
impressions that they were eager to
have these people enter graduate
programs of a scope such as we
are able to provide, and that they
would provide complete financing
for these students during their
graduate careers.
THE DAILY to the contrary, I
was not told that they wanted a
"special graduate program" or that
they would provide funds to co-
operating professors. I am sorry
that my remarks to the student
reporter were misunderstood in
this fashion, since it only confuses
the issue.
I would like to make it clear
that this ,meeting was concerned
with the research aspects of the
CIA organization and not with
cloak-and-dagger activities. How-
ever, I am not convinced that it
falls within the responsibility or
the interest of the academic estab-
lishment to cooperate with and
advise the CIA on these matters.
-Norma Diamond
Prof. of Anthropology
Dirty Play?
To the Editor:
,D LIKE to welcome Clark Nor-
ton and Howard Kohn to Ann
Arbor. They've exposed the type
of practice which, if not common
knowledge, at least surprises no
one.
There's a measure of irony in
the fact that a newspaper which
prides itself in social awareness
should so badly misjudge the bal-
ance between the need to eliminate
these practices and the damage
done by this type of expose.
-Darryl Anderson
Law '70

M
e

The Central Intelligence Agency
And the University Community-

CENTRAL Intelligence Agency activity
on campus represents an obvious dan-
ger to the University community. Already,
it appears, serious damage has been done
to the University and its social research
institutes.
When a fellow researcher or 'foreign
social scientist discusses his work with a
University faculty member, he can never
be sure that information will not be
parsed to the CIA.
A visitor from a country which may be
"politically hostile" to the United States
cannot be assured University personnel
are not spying on his activities and re-
pcrting them to the CIA.
THE IIOST disturbing aspect of the
matter is that no one outside the CIA
knows whether anyone at the University
is integrally working for the agency and
what information they might be provid-
ing.
Even President Robben W. Fleming was
unaware of the degree of CIA involve-
ment in the University.
Farvard and other reputable universi-
ties have recognized the danger of CIA
contacts to a free and open academic
community, and these schools have
banned any institutional involvement
with that agency.
Michigan State University obviously
was not aware of the danger, for it was
rocked by a. scandal that seriously dam-
aged that university's reputation when
Ramparts magazine disclosed that from
1955-59 MSU staffers were used by the
CIA as a front to train secret police for
former South Vietnamese dictator Ngo
Dinh Diem.
FURTHERMORE, CIA activity cannot be

personnel to determine the consequences
of their aid to the CIA, this will still not
justify the submission of information to
the agency. Such a decision is clearly a
political matter. As an institution the
University has no right to approve or con-
done CIA activity.
And when the University permits its
employes to provide research information
to the CIA, it is giving tacit approval to
the purposes for which the information
is being used.
The next question which arises is
whether we can trust the CIA to be
prudent in their use of University person-
nel and facilities. The MSU affair, Na-
tional Student Association scandal and
other recent disclosures are compelling
evidence to the contrary.
The inherent secrecy of any CIA activ-
lty on campus is reason enough to ban
such activity. And as for CIA infiltration
of student government and radical stu-
dent groups-as was attempted here-it
is not only inexcusable but really some-
what puzzling. The CIA was set up by
Cc'ngress in 1947 because of the failure
of our government to anticipate the
bombing of Pearl Harbor. It was never in-
tended to have an internal security func-
tion.
HERE are other more serious dangers
inherent in allowing CIA activity on
campus. As explained by an official of
the Institute for Social Research, Univer-
sity personnel may be placing themselves
and their colleagues in considerable dan-
ger if they attend conferences in coun-
tries whose security police have reason
to believe they or their associates are
collaborating with the CIA.
The demand of the Student Govern-

By RON LANDSMAN
Last of a Two Part Series
COURT CASES are riot all
briefs and motions and legal
documents. All the legalistic trap-
pings are just a cover for the
people involved. Legal precedents
in court cases are made by people
who choose to spend a few years
and thousands of dollars to press
their point. Others don't, and the
choice they make depends on a
piethora of personal and psycho-
logical factors.
One feeling which affected all
of the defendants in the Cinema
Guild case was the absurdity of
the situation they were in. Couits
being what they are, it wasn't un-
common for the defendants to
have to wait for other cases be-
fore and after theirs - and it
wasn't uncommon for them to
see a rape case heard before theirs
and an armed robbery right after.
And what were they doing there?
Over a year ago their organiza-
tion chose to show a movie some
thought objectionable - and now
they were going through dull and
irrelevant court proceedings which
could land them in jail. It just
didn't make much sense.
Two of them at least-Ellen
Frank, '68, and Hugh Cohen of
the engineering English depart-
ment-were seriously opposed in
principle to censorship. To them
it was worth the fight.
MARY BARKEY'S decision to
plead guilty to a reduced charge
was and is looked upon favor-
ably by all the defendants. rhey
often go to great pains to exla4n
to "idealistic civil libertarians'
that to oppose censorship and to
be the object of an actual trial
are two very, different things.
Defendant Elliot Barden sad
later, "When I heard what ,he
did, I thought, 'Man, that was a
great thing. Why didn't I?'"
Cohen and Miss Frank, ihough
still willing to carry the case
further in court, looked on the
final settlement as quite accept-
able.
There is, however, an intellec-
tual gap between Barden and
Miss Barkey on one hand and
Miss Frank and Cohen on the
other. Barden and Miss Barkey
don't live in the same world that
the others-including the lawyers
-do. To them the court was un-
real. They were friends and
Cohen and Miss Frank were
friends-and there were lines be-
tween them.
Miss Barkey and Barden were
sitting on the floor outside the
courtroom Wednesday. They had
planted themselves there a half-
hour earlier expecting the usual
45-minute wait before going into
court. 'Miss Frank had dozed off
while reading a book, seated
across the hall from the pair.
Cohen chatted with a Daily re-
porter.
ANOTHER DAILY reporter
sat down next to Miss Barkey and
asked her how she felt about it
all. A conversation between her
and Barden ensued:
Miss Barkey: Well, I Ion't
know...
Barden: Hey, why don't you
say "I'have no comment."
Miss Barkey: That doesn't
sound bad. How about "Miss
Barkey was unavailable for

The Sermon From the Mount

actual physical fatigue it entailed
just weren't worth it.
There was also a problem of
communication. Barden and Miss
Barkey are cool kids-they don't
live in the straight world-and
they love it. But Miss Frank and
Cohen do-or at least they are
aware of it.
Barden and Miss Barkey felt
left out of the case-they had no
control over what was happen-
ing and they felt, though urob-
ably incorrectly, that the lawyers
didn't care enough about them,
but more about the "principles"
of the case.
Elliot explained, "They're brob-
ably the kind of guys who worn
for jail reform." Whereas, he im-
plies, what they really should be
doing is eliminating jails.
MISS FRANK and Cohen, on
the other hand were much closer
to the lawyers in mood and atti-
tude. Cohen-a full grown adult
and a faculty member - clearly
thought in tei'ms that the lawyers
understood and he could und'er-
stand them. Miss Frank had
known both lawyers all her life
and was much more committed
to the principles because of her
upbringing and inclination.
Further, Miss Frank and Cohen
had helped prepare the case and
had worked closely with the law-
yers-they were a part of their
defense, arranging for witnesses
and similar tasks. The other two,
though, were more or less left
out-and had little control over
what was going to happen to
them - which could have been
quite severe.
What must be considered here
-especially by those who see Miss
Barkey as a sell-out-is that a
test case involves people. It is
most unpleasant to be the center
of a court case, especially one
with poor prospects. It takes
time-time few people are willing
to commit - and energy - that
draws away from other things
they might want to do.
FINALLY, THE film itself de-
serves some mention. Opinion is
truly divided. Barden didn't like
the movie himself, though Cohen
and Miss Frank still stoutly de-
fend it. Other forces backing Jack
Smith's "Flaming Creatures" are
not insignificant - besides Uni-
versity Professors Robert Sklar of

Even with that in mind, the
question of intent remains uper-
most. Cinema Guild advertised
the movie the same way it ad-
vertises every other movie it
shows. There was no indication
that the audience was in for a
good stag film. And yet these
four were arrested-not the own-
ers of theatres which advertise
their films "As Playboy says, 'The
most erotic movie of the year.' "
Clearly a distinction should be
made-and it has been made the
wrong way.

This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is
mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it
as I master my life.
My rifle, without me is useless. Without my rifle, I am
$ useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than
my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before
he shoots me. I will...
My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is
not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke
we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will
My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I
will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weakness, its strength,
its parts, is accessories, is sights, and its barrel. I will keep my
rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will

1*
U
*

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan