(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 hi§ 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