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 27, 1968 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1968-02-27

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


(r 1Jit pu fat
Seventy-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

Congress: Faint Hope for the Draftable

~. - ~

Where Opinions Are Free, 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.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: WALLACE IMMEN

Day of Deliberation
Futile 'Privileged' Protest

THE DAY OF deliberation planned for
March 19 will be a total failure unless
students realize that they cannot discuss
the social implications of the draft while
protesting the loss of student deferments.
In- a discussion at Guild House Friday
University President Robben Fleming
denied administrative support for the ac-
tion planned by Student Government
Council and Graduate Assembly on the
grounds that "it will do more harm than
good. As a tactic, it will lose more sup-
port than it will gain." Fleming said he
thought the action would be interpreted
as a special interest group doing some-
thing to protect itself.
Fleming has a valid point.
THE ADVERSE national reaction that
the day of deliberation will cause is
not the important point. Any activity that
questions. legitimate authority-that vio-
4lates the expected routine-is bound to
be looked upon with disfavor by the
Establishment. What is important that
the day of deliberation really is a special
interest group doing something to protect
its own interests.
The day is planned to give students and
faculty an opportunity to give full atten-
tion- to U.S. military involvement in
Southeast Asia and the recent rulings on
higher education draft deferments. But
the war in Vietnam has been around for
over four years, and student deferments
even longer. If students are really con-
cerned about the war and the draft, why
have they waited until now to even think
about doing something about it?
The answer is obvious. Until now, the
war and the draft was never really rele-
vant to the typical student because of
his deferred status. That questioning of
the morality of the draft and U.S. foreign
policy did not arise until graduate defer-
ments were taken away is the clearest
possible indication that such questioning
arises not from any broad moral concern
or interest, but from self-interest and
frustration.
PROTEST ARISING from frustration
is not to be dismissed categorically.
The process of radicalization cannot be-
gin until the individual feels that he him-
self is victimized by the system. But out
of this self-interest-oriented protest must
come some understanding of the way in
which millions of others are being sim-
ilarly victimized, some conception of the
way in which the coercion that the indi-
vidual feels is related to American dom-
ination abroad.
Thirty thousand students sitting around
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Michigan,
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104.
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
Collegiate Press Service.
Daily except Monday during regular academic school
year.
Daily except Sunday and Monday, during regular
summer session.
Fall and winter subscription rate: $4.50 per term by
carrier ($5 by mail); $8.00 for regular academic school
year ($9 by mail).

and lamenting their inability to stay out
of the draft is deplorable. Thirty thou-
sand students using a boycott of classes
as a means of possibly getting their de-
ferments back is criminal.
The philosophy behind calling off class-
es for a day of deliberation about the war
and the draft is that students need to
demonstrate their conviction that dis-
cussion of these issues is more important
than what goes on in classes. If students
really feel this way, they might as well
drop out of school. Understanding of the
nature of U.S. military policy cannot be
developed from listening to speeches for
a day. If, on the other hand, the real rea-
son for having a student strike is because
students feel guilty about being in school
while less privileged people are fighting
a dirty war, they should make no pre-
tensions about being interested in getting
their deferments back.
BETTER USE could be made of a uni-
versity-based protest if it concerned
itself not only with the broad questions of
the draft and the war, but with the ways
in which the University is tied into the
military - industrial complex. Students
should make it clear that, as students,
they are concerned about the military re-
search and recruiting policies of the in-
stitution of which they are a part. This
is the only way in which a day of delib-
eration could possibly be seen as con-
cerned with any "broader interest" than
the desire of a privileged group to retain
its privileged status.
--DAVID DUBOFF
Silence
Is Golden
NELSON ROCKEFELLER got his pre-
planned headlines this weekend in his
political con game by moving a step closer
to his formal announcement of Presi-
dential candidacy in May.
But what's really worth marvelling at
is the sheer mastery of the Vietnam po-
sition of that bruised veteran of New
York's recent refuse ruckus.
During the press conference in which
the New York governor admitted that
the door of his candidacy was open far
enough to feel the draft, he also simply
declined to take a stand on the Vietnam
war, saying he viewed it "the better part
of wisdom not to add one more misin-
formed voice."
But the draftable non-candidate's cam-
paign script is clear. Where Ike ran suc-
cessfully in '52 on his "I will go to
Korea" line, Rocky intends to update
that into a "I will not talk about Viet-
nam" plank.
Only in America.
--W.S.

s
"This War Is Too Serious To Be Left To
Cvilan Leadership"

WASHINGTON (CPS) - The
chances that Congress will
fight the Johnson Administration's
recently announced policy on the
draft can be described in a word-
slim.
On Feb. 16 the Administration
let it be known that almost all
graduate deferments were being
eliminated, and that the long-
standing policy of drafting the
oldest draft-eligible males first
would be retained.
Since then there have been pub-
lic statements by individual mem-
bers of Congress opposing the pol-
icy. Sen. Edward Kennedy, for
example, told a Boston audience
Feb. 19 that he plans to submit a
bill that would bring about basic-
changes in draft procedures, and
two New York Congressmen said
in the House that day that the
new policy would severely retard
the nation's educational progress.
THESE MEN, however, are not
in positions to get Congress moving
on the draft. The real power in
questions connected with the mili-
tary rests with legislators like Rep.
Mendel Rivers (D-S.C.) and Sen.
Richard Russell (D.-Ga.) chair-
men of the armed services com-
mittees in their respective branches
of Congress
Neither has referred publicly to
the Administration's new policy.
An assistant to Rivers, however,
has pointed out that the policy
comes close to what his committee
recommended after its draft hear-
ing last year. One of Russell's
aides said that as far as he knew

the senator has no plans to re-
consider the draft question.
Another crucial figure in the
matter of possible Congressional
action on the draft is Rep. Edward
Hebert (D.-La.), who chairs a
House subcommitee that studied
the draft last year. Hebert, accord-
ing to one of his aides, has been
deluged with mail from critics of
the Administration's draft policy.
NEVERTHELESS, the Congress-
man has come out publicly in
favor of the new draft measures.
In s statement prepared last week
he said, "It would be absolutely
intolerable to continue to insulate
graduate students from the haz-
ards of combat which we require
other young men to face."
Hebert cited some Defense De-
Spartient statistics suggesting that
only one-quarter of the draft-age
men who have graduated from col-
lege would be taken. He concluded
from the statistics that graduate
schools would not be asbadly hurt
as they think, and that college
graduates would not be taken in
disproportionate numbers. The
statistics, however, are misleading
for several reasons.
The Administration has said
that it will need 240,000 draftees
during Fiscal Year 1969. But if the
Vietnam war continues to esca-
late, the number of needed draftees
is likely to grow substantially..
Further, if local draft boards de-
cide to continue most occupational
deferments (which are now a
local-board option, under the new
ruling), then the burden will fall
more heavily on college graduates
than present estimates suggest.

IN SPITE OF the fact that the
Defense Department's statistics
are misleading, however, members
of Congress can be expected to fall
back on the Defense Department's
figures to put off angry constitu-
ents. During a shooting war, with
elections only months away, most
of them will try to stay away from
controversial questions like the
draft.
There are a few ways this could
be changed. First, it's conceivable
that a mass letter-writing cam-
paign by students, educators, and
others concerned could stir Con-
gress to action. Whether it would
then move to take some of the
draft burden off college graduates,
though, is impossible to say. There
is still strong sentiment in Con-
gress against letting grad students
stay out of the Army.
CONCEIVABLY the Army could
bring pressure to bear on its
friends in Congress to change the
draft policy. Army officials have
told reporters that they don't want
a high proportion of college grad-
uates coming in as draftees, so
the Army might push for a policy
that would guarantee the drafting
of some younger men along with
the "oldest first."
These are two possibilities, then,
but at the moment they seem to
be distant ones. There is no evi-
dence of widespread dissatisfaction
in Congress over the Administra-
tion's draft policies. If that dis-
satisfaction is ever to be created,
it will, probably require strong
pressures from outside.

V

w

Letters: Negro History Reconsidered

To the Editor:
I DON'T know who in the hell
Jenny Stiller is, but it's very
clear she, for one, understands
nothing about "how we got into
the mess we're in today." The
most fundamental reason for of-
fering a course in Negro history
is to provide students with the
opportunity to become aware of
the racist character of all the
other history courses they have
taken. Historians are no more
racist than other white academics,
but they have played a key role
in setting up our present "mess."
It's extremely unlikely that any-
one currently teaching in our his-
tory department can handle the
touchy problem of exposing the
racism of those who write White
American History.
As the lady rightly points out,
"no department ever offers a
course a professor does." This is
precisely why the main issue
raised by Richard Ross is the
issue of personnel. The question of
what course is called, as any stu-
dent can tell you, is at best a
secondary matter. What Mr. Ross
knows- and Miss Stiller does not,
is "how the academic departments
function" in matter of personnel.
The academic departments of this
university have at their command
a heavy arsenal of techniques to
avoid hiring Negroes (see three
part series in The Daily, Feb. 4,
6, and 7). Nonetheless, it must
have required special attention to
avoid doing so in this case.
To suggest that the position of
Mr. Ross is an instance of '"mili-
tant ethno-centrism" is to place
The Daily far out of touch with
the realities of race relations. It is
equivalent to suggesting that H.
Rap Brown and the Defense De-
partment are allies.
-Prof. David L. Angus,
School of Education

Closed Meetings
To the Editor:
A YEAR AGO the student
"movement" had the sym-
pathy and encouragement of a
very large part of the faculty. A
number of events have occurred
since then, however, which have
eroded this sympathy, and I find
that faculty attitudes 'are hard-
ening now at a rapid rate. I hope
the general student body realizes
that incidents such as the Faculty
Assembly meeting allow the activ-
ities of a few people to consistent-
ly make the news and thus rep-
resent them. They may very well
be losing those hard-won gains
of a year ago.
Your editorial on closed meet-
ings (Feb. 21) discusses a perfect-
ly appropriate topic, but one can
hardly be so naive as to believe
that the students who insisted on
remaining at the Assembly meet-
ing were "just students reporting
on student opinion." To the ex-
tent that other students sit idly
by, so will their own influence in
the affairs of the university be
jeopardized.
One might ask how one can
deny such representation. If there
is sufficient sympathy for the
student cause among the faculty1
(and I believe there is) then open
discussions can be arranged where
the unrepresented can be heard.
There is a real danger, however,
that, in time, if this avenue is not
used even the sympathetic, liberal
faculty will reject such discussions
if they believe that they are to be
another instance of the irrational,
coercive approach to problem
solving.
-Bernard A. Galler,
Professor of Mathematics
and Communication Sciences
Feldkamp's Decision
To the Editor:
HOUSING Director John Feld-
kamp's decision to let the two
Negro sororities occupy two co-

operative houses in Oxford com-
plex as well as to convert an ad-
ditional house to a men's coope-
rative will deny at least 31 pre-
sent residents from using their
option to live there next year. In
The Daily article (Sunday, Feb.
25) Feldkamp himself stated he
had received a petition from 61
present residents pledging to sign
a housing contract for the coming
school year. And yet, Feldkamp's
recommendation will' allow a
maximum of 30 available places,
not only for returning residents
but for the rest of University stu-
dents who might want to live
there, including incoming fresh-
men and transfer students. In es-
sence, Feldkamp would be favor-
ing a certain group of students'
over others who are in as great
a need for the economical ad-
vantage Oxford offers. Further-
more the group that he favors is
a self-selecting social group which
by its very nature will limit who
may live in these University ac-
comodations. (University Housing
codes explicitly state that resident
placement is random and that
there is no discrimination in re-
gards to race or religion).
Feldkamp justifies his decision
by saying "they would be ad-
mitted not as sororities but as
groups of primarily Opportunity
Award Students." Does that mean
that any Negro woman on schol-
arship will be allowed to live in
Oxford and that sorority members
not on scholarship will not be
permitted? I venture to say that
OPINION
The Daily has begun accept-
ing articles from faculty, ad-
ministration, and students on
subjects of their choice. They
are to be 600-900 words in
length and should be submitted
to the Editorial Director.

individual contracts or not, a so-
cially selective organization has
been given University Housing as
a group.
In a meeting with the Housing
Director and a group of concern-
ed Oxford residents (a meeting
requested by the residents) Feld-
kamp explained that one reason
he would advocate the Negro sor-
orities living in University housing
would be because Negro women
do not have the same opportunity
to experience a sorority living ar-
rangement. Many Oxford residents
pointed out that they, too, are
denied this opportunity because
they are unable to afford it. Why
should Negro women who are
either denied membership in the
sororities by virtue of the selective
procedures, or who in fact do not
wish to join a sorority, also be de-
nied the financial savings and
similarly unique experience of
living in an Oxford cooperative?
All of the above considerations
were formally submitted to Feld-
kamp by a large representative
body from all of Oxford complex.
However, in making his recom-
mendations, Mr. Feldkamp stated
that his "Opportunity Award"
criteria was his sole reason for
the decision. It is certainly hoped
that Mr. Cutler will not base the
final decision only on Mr. Felo-
kamp's opinion.
-Maxine Spool, '68 and 16
other residents of Noble
House, Oxford Housing
Open Forums
To the Editor:
A RE-EXAMINATION is in order
for the recent resolutions of
Voice and SGC "demanding that
corporations using the University's
facilities to recruit be required to
engage in public discussion of
their policies" (Daily, Feb. 14).
The basic question involved is
whether the University has a right
to put such stipulations upon visit-

ors to the campus. Certainly we
have the power to do so, since it
is our campus, and in that sense
we have the "right" to require
whatever we wish. But what re-
quirements are we morally just-
ified in making?
To answer that question we must
first ask, "How shall we decide
who is allowed to visit the campus,
and under what conditions?"
Most students would agree that
the visitor's personal beliefs, mo-
tives, or off-campus behavior are
irrelevant in answering that ques-
tion. The only thing concerning us
about hiĀ§ visit is what he will ac-
tually do on campus.
The recruiting companies have
clearly announced the purpose of
their visit: to conduct standard,
individual job interviews for in-
terested students. The only rele-
vant questi n we can ask is, "Does
the service they provide for a
group of students pay for the
facilities they use? If the answer is
yes, what moral right have we to
force them to publicly discuss their
industrial policies?
I am personaly as adamantly
anti-war as anyone, and I dislike
what some of the recruiting indus-
tries have come to stand for. But
I am also interested in the rights
of visitors on the campus and the
rights of students to request serv-
ices.
Such organizations as SGC and
Voice should use methods of ex-
pressing their opinions other than
unjustifiable "demands" on our
visitors.
-Gary Green, '71
All letters must be typed,
double-spaced and should be no
longer than 300 words. All let-
ters are subject to editing;
those over 300 words will gen-
erally be shortened. No unsign-
ed letters will be printed.

*

Where Has Student Power Gone ... to Commissions One 1

5y One

4

By EDITORIAL DIRECTORS
Where has student power gone,
Long time passing,
Where has student power gone,
Long time ago?
Where has student power gone,
Gone to commissions one by one
When will we ever learn,
When will we ever learn.
Anon.
WHILE MANY will validly claim
that the fondly remembered.
Student Power Movement of No-
vember, 1966, talked itself to
death, an equally good case could
be made for it being ,commis-
sioned into oblivion.
All these memories of perhaps
the most explosive month in Uni-
versity history become again rele-
vant with the release today of the
report of President Hatcher's
commission on University deci-
sion making.
The commission was proposed
as the most important of a series
of concessions offered by former
U n i v e r s i t y President Harlan
Hatcher - concessions which
failed to head off a sit-in in the
Administration Bldg. at the height
of the furor but which were later
acented hv SC.

attempts to unilaterally run the
University for their own conven-
ience.
The origin of this resentment
can be traced most effectively to
1965 when a petition with 13,000
signatures to create a University
bookstore was thwarted by the
Regents and administration.
Yet the student indignation
over the University's cavalier
treatment of the bookstore issue
was nothing compared to the tin-
derbox that Joe Pool, vice-chair-
man of the House Un-American
Activities Committee, touched off
that summer.
On August 4, 1966, a subpoena
from HUAC arrived at the Office
of Student Affairs asking for the
membership lists of Voice-SDS,
the Committee to Aid the Viet-
namese, and the W.E.B. Duboi:,
Club.
After seven secret days of
bumbling, half-hearted shows at
consultation and a vaudeville exit
by then President Hatcher, the
administrative vice-presidents
sent in the names of the 65 mem-
bers of the organizations involved.
Only after their names were
turned in. were the 65 notified.

got its firing spark. And not sur-
prisingly, it came from a confron-
tation between a group composed
predominantly of Voice members
and the University administra-
tion.
After the Ann Arbor police were
observed and photographed pho-
tographing the participants at
campus rallies, students asked the
administration to keep the police
away from rallies. The students
were told they should talk to Cut-
ler, but that Vice President for
Business and Finance Wilbur K.
Pierpont had ultimate authority
in the matter.
UNWILLING to accept the ap-
parent contradiction, the protest-
ers decided to visit Pierpont in-
stead, who would not talk to
them. The visitors decided to wait
overnight in his office. The next
afternoon, Friday, a meeting was
arranged to be held after the
weekend.
At the meeting Cutler and PiEr-
pont were present. Cutler spoke
for Pierpont, who refused to speak
throughout the meeting. The
event created more bad feeling on
all sides, but it was hardly neces-

threatened to break its ties with
Cutler's office if the ban were not
lifted. That was at a special meet-
ing on Monday, November 14.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the
17th, SGC elections took place, in
which 10,000 students voted 2-1
against the continuation of the
University policy of ranking stu-
dents for the Selective Service. On
Thursday, the administration had
not yet retracted the ban and
SGC broke its ties.
THIS BREAK in relations be-
tween the SGC and the Office of
Student Affairs represents one of
the more subtle and vitally im-
portant aspects of the entire
Michigan Student Power Move-
ment.
Because, as the past year has
shown, the logical extension of
the break in relations was that
the rules made for University dor-
mitories by the OSA should not
be binding. And the logical out-
growth of this was last semester's
successful fight over women's
hours and visitation rules.
At the same time as. the OSA-
SGC break, the administration
reiterated its stand on ranking -

Over the weekend a "special
committee" chaired by SGC Pres-
ident Ed Robinson and attended
by leaders of various student or-
ganizations met to draw up an
agenda for the teach-in.
Monday their slate of possible
actions was presented to the over
4,000 students who filled Hill
Auditorium. A motion to run the
meeting more democratically and
open the agenda to alternatives
and proposals from the floor was
defeated.
THE TEACH-IN then voted by
a large margin to schedule a one-
hour lunchtime sit-in for the fol-
lowing Tuesday unless the admin-
istration acceded to their de-
mands. The demands were that
the administration discontinue
ranking and retract the sit-in ban.
Afterwards the teach-in voted to
schedule another teach-in a day
or two after the sit-in.
It was here that the time ele-
ment came into play. Thanksgiv-
ing vacation interceded between
the first teach-in and the pro-
posed sit-in and probably did its
share to cool the ardor of those

ing, and University decision mak-
ing. The last is the group which
is making its report today - 15
months after it was proposed.
The demands were rejected and
on a snowy Tuesday - November
29 - 1500 students marched from
the diag to the Administration
Building and held a one hour
non-disruptive sit-in.
At this point, however. moder-
ate elements which had been
drawn into the Movement began
to drop off. The very fact that
the administration wisely chose
to ignore the non-disruptive sit-
in led to a defusing of student
tensions, for previously the con-
troversy had been continually ag-
gravated by administrative ob-
stinance.
ALSO, many students began to
reconsider Hatcher's concessions
- especially the decision-making
committee. For example, SGC be-
gan to waver on its pledge to
make the ranking referendum
binding - a last minute walk-out
had prevented them from having
a quorum to do so - and on the
wisdom of participating in the
'Rr m -pm n ic

agenda and -format, rather than
following the more authoritarian
precedent of the first teach-in.
Despite a turnout which only
filled the ground floor of Hill
Aud., the hyper-democratic pro-
cedure produced no action on the
Hatcher proposals. In fact, the
teach-iii managed to decide only
one thirg that night - voting to
adjourn, the debacle in the wee
hours of the morning.
THAT WAS the effective end of
the Student Power Movement. In
the remaining days of the semes-
ter there were a series of tiny
teach-ins in the lobby of the Ad-
ministration Bldg. of never more
than a few hundred people. An
attempt by some faculty members
to withhold grades until ranking
was abolished was effectively
squelched by a vote of the liter-
ary college.
Early in March SGC appointed
members to sit on the Hatcher
commissions. However, the sit-in
group never met - theft func-
tions were absorbed by the deci-
sion-making committee.
In April of 1967 the Hatcher
onmmision on the draft recom-

*

I

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan