0 4r midptgan aI
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
Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH. NEWS PHONE: 764-0552
Truth Will Prevail
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.


Platform Choices: Priority, Not Programs

SUNDAY, MARCH 10, 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: STEPHEN WILDSTROM

-.. - ¢

SGC Election
Endorsements

AFTER CONSCIENTIOUS considera-
tion of the three candidates for
Student Government Council presi-
dency, as well as close scrutiny of their
platforms, we have decided that none
of them is qualified to assume the post.
None of the presidential candidates
can provide SGC with the leadership
it will need in the coming year. In
general, they lack the comprehensive
knowledge of University affairs, dy-
namism and ability to work under
pressure an SGC president must
have.
SGC will have to look to current at-
large members and the three candi-
dates for at-large seats we consider
excellent-Michael Davis, Gayle Rubin,
Carol Hollenshead-for leadership in
the year to come.
In the early 1960s, when SGC's ma-
jor concerns were narrowly con-
ceived, a certain type of individual
was needed to lead the institution as
president. It was necessary that he'be
hard-working, conscientious and all-
things-to-all-men.
Since then, the concept and scope
of student government has changed
drastically. Following the eruption of
Berkeley Free Speech Movement-the
first assertion on an American cam-
pus of student rights in university
decision making - SGC has evolved
into a new institution.
With this new type of student gov-
ernment, there is a need for a new
type of student leader. Whereas the
three candidates for president in this
week's SGC elections may have been
well-qualified in 1964, none of them is
suited to fill the position today.
MIKE KOENEKE has served. on
SGC since November, 1966, and is a
hard-working individual who has re-
cently devoted much of his time to
the'eight-month lease" campaign. He
is an effective organizer with con-
siderable knowledge of the University.
However, since joining SGC 16
months ago, he has taken virtually no
initiative. He has devoted a great num-
ber of hours to worthwhile efforts, but
usually gets moving on these cam-
paigns far too slowly and only after
someone else has cleared the way for
action. There is a definite need for an
SGC president who can conceive and
initiate progressive programs. Koe-
neke has not shown this ability.
A further qualification that an SGC
president needs and that Koeneke
lacks is a workable program to imple-
ment his goal. Established channels
of action will only get students so far,
and after they have embarked on
disruptive tactics, there is no guar-
antee that they will work at all. There
is a definite need for better-developed
contingency plans than Koeneke has
conceived.
MARK SCHREIBER excels in the
areas in which Koeneke falls short.
Schreiber, who has been an SGC
member since the beginning of this
semester is much more the innovator
than Koeneke. Some of the maneu-
1 vers he has directed in the eight-
month lease campaign have begun to
pay off. He has many imaginative pro'-
posals in his platform, notably his
suggestions for more effective Uni-
versity recruitment of low-income stu-
dents.
But Schreiber hasn't nearly the un-
derstanding of the University deci-
sion-making process that is necessary.
And, like Koeneke, he lacks concrete.
ideas concerning implementation of
his proposals.,

D. PANTHER WHITE is difficult to
compare to either of the other two
candidates. T o t a 11y inexperienced
and incredibly naive concerning the
workings of the University power
structure, he nevertheless possesses,
some admirable qualities. Most' not-
able among these is his sincere desire
to change SGC. into a more assertive
body, backed up by a well thought out
program for the institution of a stu-
dent union.
White is running for an at-large
seat, as well as for president. He

Despite the shortcomings of the
presidential candidates, there are
three excellent candidates for at-
large seats who would provide SGC
with some sorely needed leadership in
the next year.
EXCELLENT
MICHAEL DAVIS is clearly the best-
qualified candidate. As SGC's admin-
istrative vice president, Davis has been
the prime mover and idea man be-
hind many of Council's concrete ac-
accomplishments this past year. In
addition, there are few people around
with as complete an understanding of
the University as Davis. He actually
has the qualities of an excellent SGC
president.
GAYLE RUBIN, recently appointed
to an SGC seat, presents some of the
most practical views recently voiced
concerning actual means of accom-
plishing needed academic reforms.
Not one to wait for the slow wheels
of institutions to adapt to change,
Miss Rubin has actively worked in
the past year toward the establish-
ment of freer academic processes andi
structures. Extremely articulate, she
is needed on SGC.
CAROL HOLLENSHEAD deserves
recognition and votes for her work
as chairman of the Student Con-
sumers Union. Although not widely
publicized, this body has taken the
initial steps toward the betterment of
economic conditions for University
students. A narrow loser last semes-
ter, she should definitely be elected
this time.
ACCEPTABLE
PAUL MILGROM is an experienced
SGC hand (he has served as both
elections director and co-ordinating
vice president) with a credible com-
prehension of University affairs. He
can add experience and dedication to
the new SGC.
D. PANTHER WHITE, while not ex-
perienced enough to assume the pres-
idency, would add some new insights
to SGC procedures and policies if
elected as member-at-large. With ad-
ditional seasoning, he would make a
fine candidate next semester. Now,
his strength lies in the possibility of
providing new perspectives.
MARK MADOFF is intelligent, but
slightly confused concerning such
pressing problems as University judi-
ciaries and rule-making. He, how-
ever, shows signs of promise and is
willing to learn.
UNACCEPTABLE
BOB NELSON is SGC's personnel
director, but hasn't had the exper-
ience to qualify for a seat. He has
little understanding of the pressing
problems facing student government.
DAVE PHILLIPS also suffers from
a lack of comprehension of SGC and
University affairs, and possesses an
out-dated view of student's role in
pushing for needed University re-
structuring.
SHELLY MITTLEMAN, who is also
a candidate for vice president (he is
White's running mate) doesn't seem
to be at all serious in his campaign.

For Board in Control of Intercol-
legiate Athletics, there are two can-
didates.
PHIL BROWN views his position as
potential student member of the
board as being a representative of an
external viewpoint. He understands
the complex structure of the athletic
department bureaucracy, and has
workable plans for the development
of a good intramural program.
His opponent, JOE JONES, is a sin-
cere candidate, but hopes to work en-
tirely within the Board's closed stru-

By ELEANOR BRAUN and
RON LANDSMAN
THE CHOICES for student
voters in the upcoming Stu-
dent Government Council election
are more between priorities and
personalities than issues or pro-
grams:
! Academic reform, student
housing and consumer power,
classified research and SGC
structure concernall the candi-
dates, but each assigns different
importance to each of these
issues. The greatest disparity in
priorities occurs in the presiden-
tial tickets. Voters must decide
which allocation of priorities they
prefer.
0 The candidates' abilities to
implement their programs and
their originality in conceiving new
answers are of crucial impor-
tance.
Academic reforms create little
argument among the various
slates; everyone agrees they are
necessary and everyone pledgesato
work for them. All the candidates
list reform first in their platforms
and consider it the most impor-
tant of the issues.
THE KOENEKE-NEFF ticket
sees academic reform in general
traditional terms: a greater stu-
dent voice in tenure and curri-
culum decisions, a "Free Univer-
sity" and easier grading stipula-
tions.
Schreiber and Quinn, while also
advocating a strong student voice
in the same areas, also make
some very specific proposals for
updating the curriculum of the
literary colleges They aim at the
problem of the ghetto and urban
areas-an Urban Studies Center
and expansion of the Inner Cities
Course.
Koeneke and Neff advocate
wider application of pass-fail
grading and making "D" a pass-
ing grade.
White and Mittleman base their
program on the impersonality of
the University. Unlike Schreiber
and Quinn, -they ask for changes
in the structure and functioning
of classes rather than in subject
matter. Thus, they ask more
tutorial - reading, experimental,
"field experience," and seminar
courses. They want more contact
between teacher and student.
This contact would be by written
evaluations rather than grades
and oral rather than written

exams. Like the others, they ask
student involvement in decision-
making at all levels of the Uni-
versity.
Each of the three programs
represents a differentconceptual-
ization of University life and each
is basically dependent on an un-
stated view of what the individ-
ual student's college life might be
life.
Koeneke and Neff are closest to
the current set-up with little per-
sonal involvement on the part of
students. They recommend struc-
tural changes to protect the stu-
dent from the University - easier
grading and a grade review board
-but do not advocate significant
student participation. The student
voice argument, used by all the
candidates, is really of the same
mold, and involves only those oc-
casional activist students who
choose to submerge themselves in
the ways of the University power
structure.
SCHREIBER and Quinn advo-
cate a program significantly more
activist in nature. Along with the
standard student voice, they pro-
pose a "Course Mart" and three
recommendations concerning ur-
ban studies. Inherent in those
three recommendations is more
personal involvement - all three
require student devotion to the
class or program, for they are
more than just academic pro-
grams.
White and Mittleman .demand
even more. Their unstated con-
ception is of a student truly con-
cerned with the world around
him and willing to devote himself
to its study. The proposals for
more faculty-student contact re-
quire far more preparation on the
part of the student than the cur-
rent "impersonal" form. A stu-
dent cannot take Sociology 101 in
the same mood that he must take
smaller personalized courses. It
takes a change both in attitude
and action.
How the candidates plan to
implement their programs is a
function of their personalities.
This is best reflected in consider-
ing the issue of student housing.
Recommendations point to the
possibility of an incorporated
SGC moving into the housing
market to force other landlords
to meet the competition.
Both Koeneke and Schreiber
advocate student organization to
protect students. Koeneke wants

the University to pressure land-
lords to reduce rents.
Schreiber's view is much more
encompassing. He asks that ten-
ant unions be formed to meet
with landlords on equal bargain-
ing terms. He suggests that the
University e n t e r the housing
market to handle the construction
and management of apartments.
WHITE'S PROPOSALS are very
similar to Schreiber's with the
addition that sophomore women
be given apartment privileges to
free residence halls for conversion
into apartments, although it
would tighten up an already tight
housing market by increasing de-
mand.
The N e 1 s o n - Hollenshead -
Davis platform stresses a "sec-
ond stage" in the drive for stu-
dent power, one which will take
"money and hard work" to
achieve. There are various tar-
gets in this stage of the fight but
the salient ones of this platform
are in economic and academic
areas. It pledges more competition
for Ann Arbor merchants and
realtors through expansion of the
Student Consumers' Union (SCU)
and through better opportunities
for low-cost housing, both in res-
idence halls and off-campus. SCU,
according to the platform, will
continue working to reduce Ann
Arbor prices of general goods and
will "investigate establishing a
major cooperative book and dry-
goods store."
THE HOUSING problem, ac-
cording to Nelson-Hollenshead-
Davis, will only be solved through
a higher apartment vacancy rate
which they plan to bring about
through additional units built
both by the University (on Cen-
tral Campus) and by SGC, when
and if it incorporates.
Concerned with classified re-
search and the moribund Office

of Student Affairs, the Nelson-
Hollenshead-Davis slate "opposes
and will continue to oppose the
presence of classified research at
this university," but will heed
the verdict of the referenda re-
sults. They "pledge to see the OSA
reorganized so that those making
decisions are responsible to boards
dominated by students."
THE USUAL solutions - good
ones, if they materialize-are of-
fered for the perennial problem of
course evaluation ("SGC has al-
ready promised to underwrite the
CE Booklet"); separate room and
board contracts in quads and
dorms ("we pledge to work for
separate contracts and for a va-
riety of board contracts to fit
students' varied needs"); and in-
tramurals ("what was once the
best intramural program in the
country is today a disgrace").
Preoccupation with academic
reform and Ann Arbor prices is
shared by the Madoff-Rubin-Mil-
grom slate. They "advocate the
creation of an independently
funded Board for Interdisciplinary
Studies," which, t h r o u g h a
"Course Mart" would be open to
student suggestions for desired
interdepartmental c o u r s e s and
would define credit requirements.
Also in the area of academics,
Madoff-Rubin-Milgrom ask that
students gain the right to sit on
boards which make tenure deci-
sions for faculty, since at the
present time "it is a fact that
only one professor in five is
brought to the University for his
outstanding teaching a b ili t y."
The trimester plan, already un-
dergoing criticism from students
and faculty alike, is also up for
change; the platform "recom-
mends the adoption of a work-
study plan on an optional basis."
HOUSING COSTS also should
be reduced and these candidates,

like the previous three, see an in-
corporated SGC as the means to
doing so. An incorporated SGC
"should seek federal grants to
build student housing to be op-
erated at cost and to drive down
housing costs in Ann Arbor."
Rent strikes and boycotts are ef-
fective economic tools which these
candidates propose to employ
should they become necessary.
Finally, Madoff-Rubin-Milgrom
find classified research "stifles
dialogue and the free flow of
ideas upon which the University
is based," but also reserve a final
opinion until after the referenda
results are known.
Dave Phillips, running singly.
advocates a greater "grass-roots"
effect for SGC. He is also con-
cerned with the issues of course
evaluation, although he offers
little concrete evidence for a defi-
nite plan for its execution. .'His
platform as stated does not deal
with b a s I c academic reform,
which is a strong point in the
other two platforms.
His primary concern is with
economic issues. Phillips suggests
expansion of the Student Consum-
ers Union, but without definite
suggestions for its implementa-
tion. He ,discusses housing prob-
lems, but makes no statement re-
garding feasible ways to solve
them, defining as "areas of stu-
dent concern" the eight-month
lease, damage fees and high rents.
He opposes classified research for
the same reasons given by other
candidates, but withithe addition
that he favors war research if
it is unclassified.
There is something fascinating
in how the same ingenious little
ideas tend to pop up on three dif-
ferent slates under five different
names all opposed to each other.
The intellectual and political in-
breeding of SGC candidates
really is something to be noted
and admired.

U

Research: Historical Fallacy.

j!
Letters to the Editor
Research Committee's Vote
To the Editor:
"SHALL THE UNIVERSITY cease all classified research?" This is
Referendum Question No. 1 on the ballot of the forthcoming stu-
dent election.
If this issue were only so clear cut, as black and white as SGC,
GA, the editors of The Daily and the candidates for student president
portray it to be, the Senate Assembly Committee on Research Policies
could have completed its review of the matter in short order.
Unfortunately. such is not the case. In its several months study, this
Committee discovered that there are many kinds of classified research
and many different bases for classification. Some classified research is
clearly not appropriate for any university; other classified research is
completely unobjectionable on the basis of any criterion which has been
mentioned by any of the opponents of classified research. For example,
the scholarly research of some of our historians and political scientists
on events of the last 50 years requires access to government archives
not yet open to the public .Many research projects in the physical
sciences and engineering are classified only because investigators need
access to classified information or facilities. The findings of many
of these research projects are completely unclassified and appear in
refereed scholarly journals.
BECAUSE WE FOUND the problem of classified research to be
so complex and multi-dimensional, all members of the Committee
came to the conclusion that neither categorical solution: "anything is
OK" or "none at all" constituted a defensible policy for the University.
We therefore proposed and the Assembly is soon to consider:
* a set of general policies which would automatically exclude
certain clearly inappropriate projects (e.g., the infamous Project
1111) and
" the creation of a committee of nine Senate members responsible
for reviewing all proposals for classified research (new ones, renewals
and extensions), judging the appropriateness of each proposed activity
under the sponsorship of the University, and reporting their judgments
both to the Assembly and the Vice President for Research.
WE BELIEVE that this review committee, representative of the
entire University, in judging each proposal on the basis of its ap-
propriateness for University sponsorship, will protect the widely shared
values of our community of scholars. If we thought (as has been re-
peatedly suggested) that this review committee would routinely approve
all proposals for classified research, we too would urge students to vote
"yes" on Referendum No. 1. However, based on the experience of a com-
parable committee at Stanford University, two consequences may be
anticipated: that proposals for some classified projects will not be
made or submitted for review and that some proposals will be reviewed
and rejected as not appropriate for University sponsorship
The Committee on Research Policies agrees that some classified
research projects are clearly not acceptable for university sponsorship
and believes that its proposed procedure will eliminate such projects
in the future. On the other hand, the Committee can find no reason
for rejecting (or even discouraging) other kinds of research in the
university community, simply because they are labelled "classified."
To do so would eliminate much research which is characterized by
scholarship of high quality and results in substantive and open con-
tributions to knowledge.
FOR THESE REASONS, the Committee regrets that the framers
of this referendum did not see fit to permit students to answer other
than "yes" or "no" to what is not a neat categorical issue. In these
days of "write in" candidates, we invite thoughtful students to consider
the possibility of responding to Question 1 by writing in a third alterna-
tive: Use Review Committee.
-Senate Assembly Committee on Research Policies
Gerald T. Charbeneau, Dentistry
Robert C. Elderfield, Chemistry, Chairman
Stanford C. Erickson, Center for Res. Learning & Teaching
John J. Gannon, Public Health
'Tha. rn.,' i C (aBuinessj gAdmiinistration

By BRUCE LEVINE
Daily Guest Writer
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the
first of a two-part series on classi-
fied research by the educational
chairman of Voice-SDS.
TPISDISCUSSION is based on
the assumption that imme-
diate struggle issues must be used
as springboards to wider and more
fundamental analyses of the in-
stitutions and objective relation-
ships involved in our struggles.
Towards the middle of last se-
mester, The Daily published a
series of articles exposing the Uni-
versity's engagement in and grow-
ing reliance upon military-and
more specifically-classified mili-
tary research contracts. SDS was
able to use this publicity to force
a public debate over the propriety
of such a relationship. Subsequ-
ently, Voice-SDS called a well-at
tended sit-in in the Administration
Building were issues and demands
were discussed and formulated.
In defense of University research
policy, Vice President for Re-
search, A. Geoffrey Norman, has
repeatedly tossed into our lap the
seeds of a radical analysis of the
situation-an analysis which we
have evaded thus far. Attempting
to clear himself (and his admin-
ist-ation colleagues) of blame for
the military's involvement in the
Unversity, Norman has periodical-
ly delved into an area proverbially
perilous for defenders of the status
quo-history.
SINCE WORLD WAR II, he ex-
plains, a growing and by now the
largest source of financial support
for research has been the Federal
Government, through mission-
orientated agencies-especially the
Defense Department (and, to a

lesser extent, the Atomic Energy
Commission and National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration.
It has reached the point where a
faculty member wishing to do it
under contract to one of these
agencies. If that means what
choice is there? As Norman so
succinctly put it, "Some fields are
totally classified, (and) if you
want to play the game, you have to
play by the rules."
Recognizing the defensive intent
of this soliloquy, Voice has usually
brushed it impatiently aside. This
is unfortunate: Norman's inter-
pretation of the facts is, in its es-
sentials, correct.
The dominating component-
three-fourths, in fact--of univer-
sity research is done under con-
tract to theFederal Government.
Of this, more than 60 per cent is
extended through the Department
of Defense (DOD). Mr. Norman's
problem is the problem which faces
every major university in the
country attempting to undertake
an extensive program of hard
science research.
Before the Second World War,
academic scientists were literally
starved for funds, barely subsisting
on meager salaries and niggardly
budgets. During the war, however,
the situation changed when a mar-
riage of convenience was arranged
between the War Department and
the sectors of the university's
scientific community. For the lat-
ter, famine became feast, and sci-
entists understandably jumped at
the chance to run their labs with
blankhchecks. "And if the research
being supported was not always to
the liking of the men involved,
that was one of the prices one had
to pay for support," said John S.
Tompkins, an editor of Business
Week.

IN HIS FAREWELL ADDRESS,
President Eisenhower drew the na-
tions's attention to the dangerous
growth of a military-industrial
complex in the United States.
Some of the broader outlines of
that complex will be explored
later. What is of interest now is
an aspect of Ike's speech which
received somewhatless noticethan
the rest: his concern with the
manner in which the nation's in-
tellectual resources were being
utilized:
"The prospect of the domination
of the nation's scholars by Federal
employment project allocations
and the power of money is ever
present and is gravely to .be re-
garded."
Since 1961 the role of the
DOD's support of the "national
research effort" has increased,
and Ike's worst fears continue to
be realized. What initially seem-
ed to scholars to be a marriage of
mutual convenience has evolved
into a sort of indentured servi-
tude. It is now true of many of
our "great universities that at
least half their research funds
comes through contracts with
military - oriented Federal agen-
cies. While we are. continually
assured that the university's via
bility is not a function of con-
tinued Federal support, the evi-
dence indicates otherwise.
In 1963, the American Council
on Education published the results
of its survey of 26 colleges and
universities undertaking Federal
research projects. Without Fed-
eral funds, it was discovered, "the
wholeucharacter of many universi
ties' research programs (and in
consequence, of their instructional
programs) would change. Many
research efforts would have to be
abandoned completely. O t h e r s
would be sharply curtailed."

*

41b

_ __ I

'WE'RE to blame for the riots?!...- Why,
in a ghetto in my life!'

I've never been


.I

I

. f .r 4 .
I. 1
""'
4 1;..yam
rGY t t ' c_: /

I



I '~F~j WJJ'~tt4' ~ ~'Y

kj

I