* w r mtrfgan Daxiy
Seventy-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom
EDITkD AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH. NEws PHONE: 764-0552
Truth Will Preval
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
Righting the Draft Picture
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1968
NIGHT EDITOR: PAT O'DONOHUE
Dorms-to-Offices:
An Inevitable Shift
THE ALL BUT CERTAIN conversion of
West Quad's Winchell and Lloyd
houses into faculty office space is only
part of a longer trend in University hous-
ing which will probably see more such
conversions in the future.
While it is a pity that the long and
glorious history of Winchell House's
touch football team must come to an
end, the conversion to office space is
necessary because the University 'has
oeen facing increasing difficulties in fill-
Anti-Riot
ider Blues,
!VERY COUNTRY's politics have their
distinguishing peculiarities. The French
are passionately theoretical, the Russians
noted for frenzied maximalism, the Brit-
ish are pragmatic and willing to com-
promise.'
The United States has stupid laws.
And there doesn't seem to be any trend
toward change.
Take the anti-riot rider which was be
fore the Senate. It has been attached to
the Civil Rights Bill with much stronger
support than the Civil Rights Bill itself
will eventually actually garner. It will not
accomplish what its sponsors want it to
accomplish. And many of its detractors
supported it for just that reason:
The Bill would make it a crime to cross
a state line with intent to incite to riot.
The "hard on crime" faction in Congress;
is pushing the bill in reaction to the tele-
vision industry's greatest exhibition of.
montage, the H.-Rap-Brown-spcech - -
Cambridge-Maryland-burning sequence
flashed across millions of television
screens last summer.
The liberals who don't want an anti-
riot law are supporting it too because.
as it is written, no one could be success-
fully prosecuted under the rider. Prose-
cuting attorneys must prove guilt beyond
shadow of doubt. The key word in the
rider is "intent" to incite to riot. How can
anyone prove beyond shadow of doubt
what an individual's intent was as he
crossed a state line?
O YESTERDAY, the Senate tacked the
anti-riot rider into the Civil Rights
Bill by a'vote of 82-13.
Only in America.
-U.L.
Second class postage paid at inn Arbor, Michigan,
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104.
The Daily is a member of thie Associated Press,
Collegiate Press Service and Liberation News 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
carrie. ($5 by mail); $8.00 for regular academic school
year ($9 by mail).
ing the dormitories - even with the cur-
rent policy of requiring freshmen men
and women and sophomore women to
live there.
The nuimbers game the Housing Of-
fice is playing is highly intricate, but it
is quite likely that the destruction of 232
male spaces in West Quad will still leave
the dormitory system several hundred
students short of capacity.
The problem of filling the dormitory
system is rooted in the preferences of
many students for private housing over
living in University residence halls.
THE LIBERALIZED conduct regulations
garnered by last semester's student
power furor, however, may help reduce
this exodus.
The dorms-to-office move was thus
forced on the University. West Quad-
rangle was chosen as the site because
East Quadrangle - the home of the ra-
pidly growing Residential College - is
the only other University residence hall
-near enough to campus whose bonds
have been paid off.
South Quad and the other relatively
new dorms are restricted by bonding re-
quirements to using its space solely for
student - housing. This factor has been
cited time after time as the reason why
the University must retain mandatory
dorm life for freshmen.
Conversion to offices is one of the
few things which can be done with a
dormitory, since there are few ventures
so well-suited to corridors upon corriders
of small rooms.
THE UNIVERSITY has been plagued by
the need for a sizeable expansion in
faculty office space. William Hays, the
new literary college dean, points out, "It
is hard to recruit a mathematician of
quality when he knows that at the Uni-
versity he will be forced to share an
office with another faculty member."
By cutting down the number of rooms
in the dormitory systems through such
experiments as conversion to offices, it
is hopeful that the size of the University
housing operation can be reduced to the
level student demand requires. For in-
voluntary living is antithetical to the
principles of a truly liberal education.
Feldkamp admits that this method
is a strong future possibility for the
dormitory system. "I think we'd give ser-
ious consideration to converting more
dorms into office space," he said. "I
think that going voluntary is the number
one objective."
THIS GOAL is an important one and
the dormitory experiment in West
Quadrangle can oly be commended as an
important step toward making the dor-
mitory system relevant to contemporary
student life.
-MICHAEL DOVER
By GARY BARBER
Daily Guest Writer
IN ALL the recent agitation con-
cerning the draft it has seem-
ingly been only the political ,Left
that has had its position publi-
cized. The reasons for this are
many and varied, however, the
major one is that the Left has
based its objections to the draft
on one issue - the war in Viet-
nam. Their opposition is not to
the element of compulsion inher-
ent in the draft, for they would
be willing to accept the idea of
conscription if the purpose was
"peaceful social development,"
especially at home.
The Right has just as strong
objections to the draft as has the
Left. However, its objections are
not based on the war in Viet-
nam, or any particular question
of the use to which the draftee
is put. Thus to avoid seeming to
aid the Left in its attacks on our
Vietnam policies the Right has
restrained its public criticism of
the Selective Service system. In-
ternally, however, this has been
an active subject of discussion in
the Conservative - Libertarian
community and it appears that
a consensus has now been
reached. ,
The American Political Right
rejects the. basic premises of the
draft and calls for its immediate
replacement with an all voluntary
military. This is the formal posi-
tion taken by every major Con-
servative-Libert*rian organization
and leader in the United States
today. Young Americans for Free-
dom, The American Conservative
Union, and all their subdivisions
including the University chapters
of each have called for abolishing
the draft.
In order to explain the basis
for the opposition to the iraft
expressed by the Right we must
go back to fundamental prin-
ciples. Why are governments in-
stituted among men? Primarily
they are to bring the collective
force of society against persons
who violate the rights of other
persons in society. In particular
they provide for the punishment
of persons who use force against
the life and property of other
persons. In short government has
a primary duty to protect its cit-
izens from violence. Yet when
the government drafts men to
fight and die it is initiating vio-
lence against those people it is
supposed to protect. It is expro-
priating the life of a citizen to
be used as it sees fit. What then,
in this case, is the point in hav-
ing a government that is at leas,
as bad as the conditions of anar -
chy that it replaces? It is on this
basis that the draft is felt by lib-
ertarians to be immoral.
BUT, STILL a case can be made
that a government has a duyy to
protect its citizens from extern-
al violence, hostile foreign pow-
ers. The Conservative position
grants this argument's validity.
Yet, if a society is in danger from
foreign domination its members,
if they value that society, should
be willing to voluntarily defend
it. If they do not do so what right
has the government to force them
to save themselves? In either case
a system of forced conscription
is immoral and contrary to the
premises of a free society.
Conservatives have a second
major point of 'attack on the
draft. The Constitution of the
United States prohibits "involun-
tary servitude" and no amount of
rationalization by the Supreme
Court, or anyone else will change
the fact that the draft constitutes
involuntary servitude and is thug
unconstitutional.
Rather than further develop
the moral and legal aspects of
the opposition to the draft let me
now turn to the third argument.
One that is likely to be most'ef-
fective in a materialistic society,
because it hits that society where
it hurts most-in the pocketbook.
The draft is grossly uneconom-
ical and inefficient. Professor
Milton Friedman of the Univer-
sity of Chicago and a number of
other outstanding Libertarian
economists have studied the econ-
omic effects of the draft and the
economic aspects of its replace-
ment by an all voluntary military.
THE AIR FORCE, because it
has relied so heavily on "real"
volunteers, perhaps comes clos-
est to demonstrating what could
be done. The question how much
more we would have to pay to
attract sufficient volunteers has
been studied intensively in the
Department of Defense study of
military recruitment. Based on a
variety of evidence collected in
that study, Walter Oi estimates
in his paper that a starting pay
(again including pay in kind as
well as in cash) of something like
$4,000 to $5,500 a year - about
$80 to $100 a week - would suf-
fice.
This is surely not an unrea-
sonable' sum. Oi estimates that
the total extra payroll costs (aft-
er allowing for the savings in
turnover and men employed in
training) would be around $3 bil-
lion to $4 billion a year for armed
forces equivalent to 2.7 million
men under present methods of
recruitment and not more than
$8 billion a year for armed forces
equivalent to the present higher
number of men (around 3.1 or 3 2
million men.) Based on the same
evidence, the Defense Department
has come up with estimates as
high as $17.5 billion. Even the
highest of these estimates is not
in any way'unfeasible in the con-
text of total federal government
expenditures of more than $175
billion a year.
Whatever may be the exact fig-
ure, it is a highly miseadin idi-
cation of the cost incurred in
shifting from compulsion to a vol-
untary army. There are net ad-
vantages, not disadvantages, in
offering volunteers conditions
sufficiently attractive to recruit
the number of young men re-
quired.
ON A MORE mundane budget-
ary level, the argunent that a
voluntary army would cost more
simply involves a confusion of
apparent with real cost. By this
argument, the construction of the
Great Pyramid with sla-- labor
was, a cheap project. The real cost
of conscripting a solider who
would not voluntarily serve (,n
present terms is not his py and
the cost of his keeo. It is the
amount for which he would be
willing to serve. He is paying the
difference. This is the extra cost
to him that must be added to the
cost borne by the rest of us. Com-
pare, for example, the cost to a
star professional footbil player
and to an unemployed worke.
Both might have the same atti-
tudes toward the army and like-
or dislike - a military career
equally. But because te one has
so much better alternatives than
the other, it would take a much
higher sum to attract him. When
he is forced to serve, we are in
effect imposing on him a tax in
kind equal in value to t11e differ-
ence between what it would take
to attract him and the military
pay he actually receives. This im-
plicit tax in kind should be add-
ed to the explicit taxes imposed
on the rest of us to get the real
cost of our armed forces.
If this isdone, it will be seen
at once that abolishing the draft
would almost surely reduce the
real cost - because the armed
forces would then be manned by
men for whom soldierhig was the
best available career, and hence
would require the lowest sums of
money to induce them to serve.
Out of simple justice, we should
in any event raise the pay and
improve the living conditions of
enlisted men. If it were proposed
explicitly that d special income
tax of 50 per cent be imposed on
enlisted men in the armed serv-
ices, there would be crnes of ,m-
rage. Yet that is what our present'
pay scales plus conscription
amount to. If, we start rectifying
this injustice, the number of
"real" volunteers would increase,
even while conscription continued.
Experience would show how re-
sponsive the number 'f volunteers
is to the terms offered and how
much these terms would have to
be improved to attract enough
men. As the number of volunteers
increased, the lash of compulsion
could fade away.
The case for abolishing con-
scription and recruiting our
armed forces by voluntary meth-
ods seems to me overwhelming.
One of the greatest advances in
human freedom was the commu--
tation of taxes in knd to taxes
in money. We have reverted to a
barbarous custom. It is past time
that we regain our heritage.
10
'S
Even Conservatives Oppose the Draft
Letters to the Editor
To the Editor:
TODAY ALL law students have
*an opportunity to vote for Mike
Koeneke, an exceptionally well
qualified and dedicated candidate
for President of Student Govern-
ment Council. All other students
will have the same opportunity on
March 12th and 13th.
During the past few years we
have worked with Mike, know of
his abilities, and consider him to
be unquestionably the best candi-
date for the office. We have been
especially impressed with the job
he has done as Chairman of SGC's
Student Housing Association. We
also believe that his running mate
for Vice-President, Bob Neff, has
demonstrated his effectiveness as
a student leader as SGC Treasurer
and Chairman of UAC's University
Services Committee.
We urge all students to support
and vote for Mike Koeneke and
Bob Neff for President and Vice-
President of SGC.
-Neill Hollenshead, '70
-Dave Copi, '68
-Mike Dean, '70
-Mike Bergin, '69
-Jason Horton, '70
-Kelley Rea, '69
-Jay Zulauf, '70
Class Boycott
To the Editor:
WILL TAKE unaccustomed
pleasure in attending my three
classes on Wednesday, March 20.
Not only do I hope to learn new
things and all that, I also hope
to enjoy noncooperation with the
Graduate Assembly's ridiculous
boycott of classes.
If the choice of Wednesday -
ordinarily a peak day for classes
-were the only one available to
the Graduate Assembly for the
proposed 24 hours of lectures,
workshops, etc., its choice might
not be so patently anti-intellec-
tual. Why do graduate students
attend class?. From a year's ex-
perience in Rackham and one and
a half year's experience in the
Law School, I have reached the
conclusion (tentative - out of
deference to the Graduate Assem-
bly) that graduate students at-
tend class to learn something. The
Graduate Assembly asks me and
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.
other graduate students to fore-
go that opportunity.
I DO NOT DENY the fact that
those who attend the lectures,
workshops, etc., will learn some-
thing too. Hopefully they also
learn something every time they
pick up a book or go to a movie.
Yet the majority, I hope, sched-
ule their time so that they need
not avoid classes in order to read
books or go to movies Why should
the activities planned for March
20 be at all different?
The world will not end March
20 when a number of graduate
students cut classes. But a num-
ber of graduate studentswill lose
an opportunity to learn some-
thing, will be less adequately
equipped to use their minds to
achieve the goals they seek (for
themselves or for the country),
will demonstrate that, having
partially blinded themselves, they
will seek to lead the blind.
---James A. Martin, '69L
No War At All
To the Editor:
IT IS TRUE, as Carol Andreas
notes disapprovingly in her let-
ter (Daily, Feb. 22), that our in-
volvement in Vietnam was not put
forward at the recent LSA faculty
meeting as an argument against
classified research at the Univer-
sity. I believe, however, that there
was a good reason for this and
that' classified research should be
argued against on other grounds.
It seems to me that what op-
ponents of classified research
should try to show, and were try-
ing to show at the meeting, is
that classified research is incom-
patible with the idea of a univer-
sity. This should be shown, not
to prevent the University's in-
volvement in Vietnam (or Thai-
land) so much as to prevent the
University's involvement in any
war and to make the University
less of a political tool and amore
of a critic of society and govern-
ment than it now is. Citifig a par-
ticular war (Vietnam) does little
to show this because At leaves
open the possibility of the Univer-
sity's allying itself with govern-
ment in the case of a "good" war
(for example, against the whites
of South Africa).
Our involvement in Vietnam
should be used as their principle
argument- only by those who
would continue to have the Uni-
versity be a political tool when
these people approve of the gov-
ernment's policies.
-Jack W. Meiland,
Professor of Philosophy
I.-.
4
4
*
lf4f lte Rr A:.r
r.D Tr ieua YM tw:a4r
"... .The people don't like him?
.. .That's no reason to quit!"
Classified Research: Pumping Gas for the.
DOD
By MARTIN HIRSCHMAN
First of a Two-Part Series
Shall the University . cease
all classified research?
-Student Government
Council, Referendum
No. 1
IS THE UNIVERSITY a place to
learn or a service station for
the defense department?
The debate over University par-
ticipation in classified research
has been characterized by an
amorphous, Tower of Babel-like
unreality.
During the sit-in in the Ad-
ministration Building and from
the. public statements of the vari-
ous polemicists since issued, it has
seemed as if the partisans were
speaking different languages.
Not only have they failed to
reach a consensus of opinion.
They have refused to talk on the
same terms, to argue about the
same' issues.
Compare these representative
remarks.
0 University Vice-President for
Research A. Geoffrey Norman
judges research-related issues on
Council and Voice members couch
their arguments in terminology
like "a free and open University."
THE DISPARATE concerns and
assumptions these statements re-
flect tend to baffle students who
must decide by referendum in next
Tuesday and Wednesday's Student
Government Council elections
whether the University should
"cease all classified research."
A resounding yes vote would
demonstrate to the administration
that students conceive of the Uni-
versity as an educational center
and not an industry-for-hire to
serve the needs of the various in-
terests 6f the corporate state. For
the issue behind the diverse public
pronouncement is what the Uni-
versity's role in society should be.
Currently the University has de-
fense department contracts for
classified military research worth
$9.7 million; only two other schools
-Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology and Johns Hopkins receive
more DOD money.
While the University does not
make weapons as such, its primary
fields are in the development of
weakest argument in support of
classified research. The freedom
faculty members are so concerned
about doesn't include in this case
the freedom of other scholars to
read the published findings of
classified research.
Although Norman stoutly main-
tains that all research contracts
appear in the University Reporter,
at least one University-DOD af-
fair is so secret (Project 1111) that
neither the name of the project
nor the identity of the scientists
involved can be released.
In one instance, a University
scientist hit on a windfall. His
findings turned out to be so im-
portant that his own security
clearance wasn't high enough for
him to read the final document's
findings.
Nor is "if universities want to
be in the vanguard of electrical
engineering they must do classified
research" much of an argument.
If the cost is prostituting the uni-
versity to the Federal government,
the burden of proof lies with those
who use this argument to demon-
strate why the University should
want or try to be in the vanguard
nf plectriea lengineering. Although
the class of 1971 former President
Hatcher noted that "the Univer-
sity has great public service re-
sponsibilities. That is a debatable
point. The line between pure edu-
cation and public service respon-
sibilities must be drawn 'when
such services subvert the Univer-
sity's primary reason for existence.
The University should be a cen-
ter of knowledge, learning and
wisdom. The essence of military
research is secrecy. How gan the
University be a center of learning,
of open inquiry, of free flow of
information when its research is
done in locked rooms, when its
findings cannot be disseminated,
when its curiosities are pre-defined
and subsidized, when its efforts are
aimed at producing hardware?
This does not mean the Univer-
sity must not accept any federal
funds. But where classified re-
search projects are concerned, the
corrupting effect of the strings at-
tached outweighs the importance
of any possible advance of knowl-
edge, knowledge which, in fact,
isn't open to all.
University officials are forever
worried rand rightly so) about the
school's autonomy. They don't
-4
L
'U - ~ - - -