.""" _.
A~.~V.,V.V.tV~%W,.................%. .....,......,..,..... :..tM.VASSWAsVt.*
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
ROGER RAPOPORT:
Regents Try a Hearing Aid
40
-~ :~~I
Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Truth Will Prevail
NEWS PHONE: 764-0552
"JhLL11:1"."J.V; J."JJJr."r ".'.ViJ.": Jr .': :"J.".'J .:'. ': r: JIJ.""J:Jx: W., rrr::; J.r.". : r.": r; :.:J .."r .r ....... ........ ... ....... ... ... . ......................... .. . e.......... ..........
.L .........1.......M1 .1 ...t,,.... J. ..L.. ,1 : ......... ...............ta, .:v.. ..,.a.. .". ..a.. .......,,.".Jr.J.... .M1" V, :, a,. .,. ... .:.::..... .....
..............a..... , 1 ,a.....r....a.....,.:.:r"rJ"..""t":;:JJ..................r::: 1rJ. ......t... ......... L J ALttvr::" S'.:L^:.^:4 L SLLM}.YJ.'1.: :"atikV.1.W.\tYS'i x '.'S'1"J.L" 1 " " " . "" " "1 r " ... .
.....................v:.J.....,......,.........M1'...S. a....J..,.....1,.:.... a....L.. ........n......L..:.w...".::1 :".11 "}i.L?". ^r."}r:.vn; :". a".e1rJ.tv.:: }."?.:akv.:: r."F .4:{ddti..... ..:.: .. : .: :.>:; ii.LL.'4a ... , .
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
z-
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1968
NIGHT EDITOR: DANIEL OKRE
,NT
LSA Faculty Silences
Its Enlightened
T E LITERARY COLLEGE faculty has disappear
shown typical unwillingness to in- the paver
fluence decision on controversial campus The de
issues. tion was
Monday the literary college faculty de- this fall
feated a resolution requesting suspen- on North
sion of military recruiting on campus of threat
72-36. The resolution was primarily a in there
criticism of Gen. Lewis Hershey's policy 108 of ab
of re-classifying draft violators 1-A. Mili- Unfortu
tary recruiting on campus was to be importan
suspended until Hershey changed this is no re
policy. resolution
Although mental commitment was ap- to the dr
parent, the faculty showed an unwilling- tary recru
ness to translate ther ideas into useful the two-t
action. No faculty member vocally sup- for a re
ported Hershey's policy at the meeting agenda fo
and many strongly criticized his actions.
Suspension of recruitment could have THE UN
been a means for faculty members to ideal
put their disagreement with Hershey's express o
policy into practice. draft, or
Many of the faculty who voted against ing thi'
the resolution argued that there is no nored its
relation between draft policy and recruit- enlighten
ment. Faculty members at George Wash- responsib
ington and Columbia Universities appar- Washingt
ently did see such a relationship, and There
fulfilled their responsibility by recently the facul
passing resolutions banning campus re- at the U
cruiters until Hershey reverses his policy. condemn:
The bad publicity Hershey has re- Universit
ceived from the Columbia resolution is Literary
proof enough of the connection between a report
suspension of military recruitment and search Po
draft policy. Presum
drawal of
FACULTY INACTION on this and other University
resolutions associated with the Viet- to take a
nam war indicates their hesitancy to all Univer
take a meaningful stand on controversial opportuni
issues. It is sad that many resolutions ~.,v fnr
Voice
r when students stop pounding
ment of discontent.
feated anti-recruitment resolu-
presented after a navy meeting
was broken up by demonstrators
Campus. With the abatement
tened protests, faculty interest
solution also disappeared. Only
out 1000 faculty members voted.
unately, faculty apathy on such
t campus and national issues
cent occurrence. Last year a
n on submitting class ranking
aft also petered out. Their mili-
Liting resolution barely received
thirds vote last month necessary
solution to be placed on the
or the January faculty meeting.
IVERSITY would seem to be an
place for academic groups to
pinions on the Vietnam war, the
military recruitment. In defeat-
resolution, the faculty has ig-
s responsibility to act as the
Zed voice of the community-a
ility that Columbia and George
ton faculty members have taken.
are still many opportunities for
ty to assume this responsibility
rniversity. Another resolution-
ing classified research at the
y-was withdrawn at Monday's
College Faculty meeting pending
from the Faculty Assembly's Re-
olicies Committee.
.ably, the literary college's with-
f its motion would allow an all-
y body such as Faculty Assembly
stand, and the Assembly as an
rsity group offers an even better
ity than the literary college fac-
influence on University and
thinking-
hope that even though student
has been taken off the question
led research, the faculty will not
o its traditional avoidance of
rsial issues.
-LUCY KENNEDY
BECAUSE OF A LARGE number of pressing issues
facing the University, President Fleming brought the
Regents to Ann Arbor last Friday for a meeting.
In going over current matters Fleming brought up
the Dec. 14 landmark decision of the Residence Hall
Board of Governors that dormitory residents set their own
regulations.
The Residence Hall Board's unanimous decision was
not made lightly. Each member of that board made his
own tour of the dorms. As one member, Prof. Frank X.
Braun, told Daily reporter Ken Kelley, "I looked like a
damn spy, but I came away convinced that our students
are realistic and mature enough to handle this."
And Prof. Marie Hartwig of the physical education
department added, "The students were truthful and sin-
cere in their request, and we were anxious to cooperate."
NORMALLY THE DECISION would have been final.
The Regents by-laws clearly give the residence hall board
full power over "general policies with respect to the
use of the residence halls."
Theoretically, of course, the Regents can review and
even veto every campus decision. But this practice is
rare, and well it should be. For the Regents themselves
recognize that it would be both impossible and impractical
to personally oversee and decide everything.
Nonetheless, the issue of discontinuing women hours
and permitting dorm residents to set their own rules over
such things as co-educational visitation promoted the
Regents' attention.
For all this has a direct effect on student sexual con-
duct, which is an undying concern of the adult public.
Indeed, the Regents say they receive more inquiries on
the matters of women's hours and coeducational visita-
tion than anything else.
SO WHEN THE REVIEW was asked for, President
Fleming decided the logical approach would be to have
hearings on the whole question from 4 to 6 p.m. Jan. 18.
Following this, the Regents will deliberate the matter
and come up with a deecision.
All these tactics are a page out of Fleming's labor
mediation book. The Regents are going to have a little
fact-finding session to find out if the boys and girls are
old enough to control themselves.
The only trouble is that the Board of Regents is not
the National Labor Relations Board. And there are no
conflicting factions who desire hearings. A duly con-
stituted faculty and student group has legally decided
after careful study that dormitory residents should be
able to make their own rules.
The Regents have no more practical reason to con-
duct a formal review of the decision than they would
to review whichrstocks Vice-President Pierpont invested
in last month or why the basketball team hasn't been
doing well.
CLEARLY THEY HAVE the right to conduct such a
hearing. But there doesn't seem to be any way that two
hours of hearings will familiarize the Regents with the
problem as well as the Residence Hall board after months
of study.
Indeed, the Regents final decision probably depends
more on the nature of the hearing than what is actually
said.
Assuming the event is peaceful, there is little reason
why the Regents should be disposed to vetoing the wise
decision of a responsible University group.
If the hearing is disruptive it is likely that the balance
will shift and the Regents may well be disposed to veto
the entire plan.
Obviously a veto would be a disaster. At the very least
it would be an uncalled for slap in the face to the board
of governors.
Secondly, a veto would be the immediate impetus for
student protests which the administration would have
difficulty controlling.
In addition to demonstrations, the students would
probably go ahead and make their own rules anyway.
The administration could never block such a protest be-
cause its only effective weapon would be academic dis-
cipline. And clearly the faculty will be on the side of the
residence hall board.
Moreover, the Regents should back the board decision
for their own good. It is impractical for the Regents to
think in terms of holding hearings on every important
decision. The part-time nature of their job requires that
authority to be delegated.
If the Regents try to move in and veto crucial deci-
sions, they will risk discrediting themselves among the
entire campus community. They will succeed only in
polarizing the campus.
No one is objecting to the Regents' legitimate concern
with University affairs. It is just that there doesn't seem
to be any reason for creating a confrontation where none
exists.
4
Letters: Attempting to Pack the Con Con
To the Editor:'
FOR FIVE WEEKS I have silent-
ly observed the spring of
duplicate planted letters, con-
trived unanimous motions, pre-ar-
ranged outpourings of sentiment,
and the other trappings that have
accompanied the engineered cam-
paign to simulate grass-roots sup-
port for a proposal which has no
visible merits, much less support.
The proposal involved is the pro-
posal to give voting delegate status
in the SGC Constitutional Conven-
tion to anyone who collects 150
signatures on a petition.
It is now time to consider this
proposal on its merits. Nowhere in
this petitioning process is a dele-
gate aspirant compelled to pub-
lically state his qualifications or
experience. Nowhere is he subject-
ed to an examination of his view-
points on the issues. Never will the
aspirant to office have to face the
process of selection (and rejection)
which is basic to democratic rep-
resentation. And, in no way will
the delegate aspirant ever see
again or be accountable to the
faceless street-corner constituency
which projected him into office.
WE ARE TOLD that the peti-
tioning proposal wil bring con-
cerned -impartial citizens into the
constitutional convention. It might
bring in a few. But the obvious
fact is that the great mass of dele-
gates will come in with the backing
of the organized power groups on
campus which are capable of cir-
culating large numbers of -peti-
tions. Despite their protestations
of high civic-mindedness, these
groups will have little or no in-
terest in quality, but only in the
number of pliant bodies they can
seat in the convention. Regardless
of which, groups gain control of
the convention, this is not good
government.
We are told also that petitioning
will bring in the unorganized ele-
ments of the student body (i.e.
apartment dwellers, married stu-
dents, nurses, and the like). The
obvious fact is that petitioning will
give the typical unorganized stu-
dent less opportunity than usual to
influence the convention. Indeed,
most unorganized students will
probably never have an oppor-
tunity to sign a petition.
THE HONEST FACTS about pe-
titioning, as opposed to the honey-
covered oratory, is that petitioning
is a way to pack the convention.
As a member of the Select Com-
mittee on the Constitutional Con-
vention, I do not care which power
group happens to succeed in pack-
ing. The whole idea of constituting
a representative body in this way
is repulsive.
Finally, since the convention will
meet in the week after the coming
election, it would be absolutely in-
defensible not to elect most or all
of the convention delegates. If the
slogan "Let the students decide"
means anything, it means that the
writing of a new constitution
should be done by students freely
and democratically elected by stu-
dents.
-John Koza
Member, SGC Select
Committee on the
Constitutional Convention
Defending arkey
To the Editor:
JILL CRABTREE, in her edi-
torial of Jan. 6, fails to under-
stand both the operations of the
legal system and the sacrifice
Mary Barkey has made. You cer-
tainly defame her where she
should be praised.
First you must understand that
a New York case involving the
movie "Flaming Creatures" was
a step ahead of the Cinema Guild
case in the legal hierarchy. This
New York case was denied review
by the United States Supreme
Court, and so the lower court
conviction stood. Thus the Cinema
Guild case had scant hope of
winning today in our legal system,
especially on the issue of free
speech.
Secondly, you must remember
that an attorney must aid his
client as a person, not a cause.
This means that it would be
totally irresponsible of him to ig-
nore any issue or route which
could aid his client. Thus your
criticism, which calls for a one
issue case (free speech), is really
a criticism of the system and
should in no way reflect on the
attorneys, who apparently did an
excellent job.
Thirdly, you must understand
a process called "plea bargain-
ing." This process is merely one
in which the prosecutor and the
defense counsel get together and,
on the basis of their chances of
winning and, it must be admitted,
their personal feelings about the
case, they arrive at a charge
which is satisfactory to the prose-
cutor and to which the defendant
will plead guilty.
PUTTING THE above three
points together, we see that when
the Supreme Court refused to re-
view the New York case, it be-
came apparent that the Cinema
Guild case could not be success-
fully appealed, and therefore only
conviction, not hope of precedent
setting, awaited the defendants.
The defense then sat down with
the prosecutor (word has it that
he wanted a quick and quiet end
to the case) and decided that if
Mary Barkey would plead, guilty
to a misdemeanor (which as a
minor and on condition of good
behavior, could eventually be
erased from her record) then
charges would be dropped against
the professor and the other stu-
dent.
-Allan C. Miller, '69 Law
V
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
'Illegiate Press Service.
Fall and winter subscription rate: $4.50 per term by
carer ($5 by mail); $8.00 for regular academic school
year ($9 by mail).
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, 48:04.
u y for
nationalt
Let usl
pressureY
of classifi
return to
controver
'
,a...,.. : : .:. :,:..i , . .. ... ...R.f... .ry.g:3^:q:ixa ._. ._ Y £ 2':P:x..t .: :tn~>:,.. :,>... :: .v:,% :i r v. : . n . :. :. . n... t> , . .n- :'tT 9 . >, ..t.:: .,
,..... V........,.....v ,....., .---. ....i. tn..,.. ..:. ::.: x.. y.. ::.: ": flfl.V' .t,. VON....:%.N..NV.Wfl. . . . . . . . . . - N
. " Nv ...:: .v .W. ,y4:".i:+r?. :v":"}CL':}4',NtNAANNLJ4hV.}J
; , '
,5
_.....
::"S
The
By ALEXANDER ECKSTEIN
MR. CHAIRMAN, Congressmen:
The five of us together with
several other colleagues at the
University of Michigan, all of them
academic specialists on the Far
East, have been meeting informal-
ly for several months to see wheth-
er through systematic study of the
Vietnamese problem we could
evolve some approaches to its solu-
tion.
Congressman Riegle became
aware of our study and was kind
enough to invite us to come here
and share some of our conclusions
with you. I want to express our
appreciation to all of you for this
kind invitation and for the op-
portunity thus provided to explore
with you one of the most difficult
and complex set of problems facing
our country since World War II.
In confronting the dilemmas in-
herent in the Vietnamese conflict,
we would like to analyze the is-
sues as we see them and examine
the alternative courses of action
open to the United States.
BY WAY OF introduction, I
would like to first very briefly re-
view our objectives in Vietnam as
officially stated by our govern-
iment, second, examine these ob-
jectives, third, appraise whether,
these objectives are attainable,
fourth, point to some of the alter-
native solutions open to us and
fifth explore some of the costs en-
tailed and/or benefits flowing from
the pursuit of these various alter-
natives. My colleagues will then
address themselves to more spe-
cific aspects of the overal problem.
Dr. Walter Goldstein will ex-
amine the military situation and
prospects in Vietnam. Dr. Gold-
stein is an Associate Professor of
International Relations in the
City University of New York and
is presently completing a book on
"Military Strategy and Interna-
tional Change."
He will be followed by Rhoads
Murphey, who is a Professor of
Geography at the University of
Vietnam
sistant Professor of Political Sci-
ence and a Research Associate of
the Center for South and South-
east Asian Studies at the Univer-
sity of Michigan. He recently pub-
lished a book on "Cambodia's For-
eign Policy."
Our formal presentations will be
concluded by Richard Solomon
who will examine China's position
in this conflict. Dr. Solomon is.
Assistant Professor of Political
Science and Research Associate at
the Center for Chinese Studies at
the University of Michigan. He is
now completing a book on Chinese
political behavior.
Finally, I will attempt a very
brief summing up and we will then
welcome questions and discussion.
PROCEEDING ON this basis, let
us first ask why are we in Viet-
nam? There are the following six
reasons given for the U.S. military
presence in Vietnam with relative
weight assigned to each of these
shifting from time to time:
(a) Containment of Communist
China. ,
(b) Containment of Communism
in Asia.
(c) To prove that national lib-
eration wars do not pay.
(d) Protection of non-Commu-
nist Asia.
(e) To buy time for nation-
building in South Vietnam.
(f) To guarantee and protect
the national interests and security
of the United States.
Let me examine very briefly,
each of these, starting in reverse
order.
WHAT IS THE U.S. national
and security interest in Vietnam
and in Southeast Asia? Is the
United States itself threatened
there directly? If so, what is the
nature of the threat and who is
threatening us?
There is a strong fear that the
advent of Communism in Vietnam
will lead to extension of Chinese
power and influence which will
then spill over into all of South-
Conflict
On Nov. 28, 1967, four professors from the
University and a fifth scholar from the City Univer-
sity of New York appeared before a bi-partisan
group of 19 Congressmen in Washington to discuss
the Vietnam situation. The five Asian authorities
were called by Rep. Donald W. Riegle, Jr., a Re-
publican from Flint who was called the G.O.P.
"Congressman-of-the-year" by The Nation maga-
zine th*is week.
The following article was delivered by Prof.
Alexander Eckstein, the leader of the group, and
professor of economics at the University. Dr. Eck-
stein is one of the leading American scholars in the
field of Communist China's economic development
and is director of the Center for Chinese Studies at
the University.
Prof. Eckstein's analysis is the first of a six-part
series that will be carried on The Daily Editorial
Page.
growth of indigenous nati
and by providing the vhe
all for political, social, an
omic stabilty rather than 1
itary means.
This then lead me to a co
ation of the other reason,
for our military presence,
to provide a curtain of s
behind which nation build
forts can proceed.
However, is this really fe
Is this not a contradict
terms? There has been not
historical record that we k
where national identity, n
integration, and stability
built on the backs of large
bers of foreign troops, wi
foreing troops not helping:
als to fight foreigners, but9
them to fight their own
brothers.
Moreover, the large injec
U.S. troops in Vietnam nec
and automatically means rE
inflation, loosening of n
morale, growing corruptio
all of which is bound to]
increasing instability, rathe
stability. This is bound
further aggravated by the v
ture of the struggle. Ho
bombing and destruction1
stability?
PERHAPS THE MOSTc
argument advanced for cor
presence in Vietnam is that
made this degree of comm
disengagement would be vex
ly in terms of U.S. presti
that it could lead to a
weakening of the U.S. s
system in the Western Paci
to an undermining of the
ments in Southeast Asia t
cannot afford it.
This really focuses on h
tral dilemma facing us tod
forces us to weigh the co
tailed either in escalation o
drawal and the variants 1
Before turning to this qt
may I call your attention
fact that up to two yearsf
were told by military exp
-- I: A Definition of
Issues
onalism would need a force of three mil-
rewith- lion on our side. On the other
d econ- hand, even if we succeeded some-
by mil- how to assemble three million
troops, they would only need 750,
nsider- 000 to maintain the present four
s given to one ratio.
namely It is estimated that the North
security Vietnamese standing army is 250,
ing ef- 000 with 500,000 in reserve. Pres-
ent V.C. strength is. estimated
easible? ° around 250,000. Quite apart from
ion in this, where could the three mil-
case on lion for our side come from?
now of Are we prepared to engage in
ational full-scale mobilization and every-
were thing that implieshfor our people
e num- in order to fight the war in Viet-
ith the nam? Even if we as a people were
nation- prepared to do that what would
helping this do to our commitments in
blood other parts of the world? More-
over, stepping up the scale of ef-
tion of fort to those levels or anywhere
essarily near them would almost certainly
ampant widen the conflict and threaten a
ational confrontation with the Soviet
n, etc., Union and/or China.
lead to
er than FACED WITH THESE grim
to be prospects, what other alternatives
ery na- are open to us? This really de-
)w can pends on what are our objectives.
lead to It would seem that official U.S.
policy is committed to imposing a
Korea-type settlement. But since
decisive such a settlement may be militarily
ntinued unattainable, don't we have an
having obligation to seek avenues of a
itment, compromise which might mean
ry cost- considerable influence for the NLF
ge and in a South Vietnamese govern-
serious ment, leading possibly to an even-
security tual unification of North and
fic, and South Vietnam?
govern- As I tried to suggest above, as
hat we desirable as a Korea-type settle-
ment may be, it seems to be mil-
ie cen- itarily and politically untainable
ay and short of total mobilization in the
sts en- U.S. and pulverization of the coun-
r with- tryside in Vietnam.
thereof. This then raises the question of
uestion, what type of compromise could we
to the live with. Would it be a coalition
ago, we government? Would it be a govern-
erts in ment dominated by the NLF?
+11-+i +~- W~hat would behthe role of the
U'.1
":1ti
1
}tit
%
Jgqti
fy
M±
:j'i
; :
{. {
l '
}M1 :
f
} ti
'
iyy1
,'ti
Y.
: yy
Vxs}
J
;SF
f.
1 '.+'l
?
e
i>M
h
>
}:.$
1, ;:'
J;}
t{}
"f
rl
j "'
J,
r
':'
t
8::
3
.: is
"ter
{xi,
;5
.
:
I
'.;
!.''
ti :
;::
sr::
f;:
Y.v
i }. };
4'
\1
i
ti
r
}; ;
Y
J
'jfi i
J
4
Alexander Eckstein
area. There is a fear of Communist
China and there is a fear of Asian
Communism. Are these two neces-
sarily the same? Regardless of
that, what is the nature of the
Chinese Communist threat?
It would be fair to say that there
is no such thing to-day as a mono-
lithic united world Communist
movement controlled from a single
power center. Not only are the
Communist parties of China and
the Soviet Union locked in bitter
dispute and enmity, but so are the
Chinese and Japanese Communist
parties as well as the Indian and
Chinese parties.
Moreover, even the Chinese
Communist party itself is in a
state of turmoil at present. The
experience of the last ten years has
taught us that both in Europe and
in Asia, nationalism may be at
least as strong a force as Commu-
situation in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh
is dependent for supplies both on
the Soviets and China. At the
same time, each of them is bidding
for influence in Hanoi. Thus Hanoi
gains a certain rooni for maneuver
since it is neither a Chinese satel-
lite nor a Soviet satellite, but is al-
lied with both as a matter of self-
interest.
On the other hand, all of the
available evidence suggests that
whoever controls the NFL it is not
the Chinese. Their attempts to
gain leverage on Ho Chi Minh by
bidding for influence over the
NLF have thus far been apparently
unsuccessful.
IF THIS REASONING is valid,
then we are not fighting China in
Vietnam, nor Asian Communism,
but Vietnamese nationalism which
combined with a Communist ide-
communism anywhere in the
world? Does national communism
in Vietnam present more of a
threat to the U.S. than it has pre-
sented in Yugoslavia or Rumania?
What about China? I would sug-
gest that the Chinese threat has
been highly exaggerated. China
may present a potential threat in
the future, perhaps fifty years
from now. As of now, China is
economically and military weak,
even if she is on the road to ac-
quiring modest nuclear capability.
She has for some years assumed a
posture of militancy to compensate
for the hard realities of her weak-
ness. She has used this posture to
create an illusion of power without
the hardware to back up this
power.
Therefore, repeated statements
by Mr. Rusk and others evoking
the image of a powerful and
4,
fm