Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 26, 1968 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1968-03-26

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


O r1h Aic14lau Daily
Seventy-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom


Letter to a Southfield Businessman


- - -~

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.



Students for McCarthy and Kennedy:
The Campaign for The System'

THE APPARENT success of Eugene
McCarthy's play for student support
should prompt a more accurate analysis
of the political attitudes of students and
youth in America.
In the past few years, every news-
paper and magazine of note in the coun-
try has run at least one "youth have re-
jected the system" article. This inunda-
tion of journalistic verbiage has heralded
the hippies as only the most bizarre
faction of a, generation of young people
who have become completely alienated
from society. Activist students have given
up on the democratic electoral system, the
reports cry. Youth is leading a sexual
revolution against traditional morality;
students are protesting at Oakland,
Washington, and Howard University;
students are demanding "student power."
Whether in praise or in despair, every
organ of the national media has verified
this "new mood" of students.
And some of the genuine rebels them-
selves have begun to believe their own
press notices. They talk confidently of re-
structuring the universities and society,
of radicalizing their fellow students, of
pressuring the military-industrial com-
plex through draft resistance and com-
munity organization-all as if they had
widespread support.
THEN ALONG comes Senator McCarthy..
Now McCarthy is not a radical and
would never claim to be one. He is a fine
Stevensonian liberal in the best tradi-
tion. He opposes the war on both ra-
tional and conscientious grounds, yes.
But what about after (and if) the war
ends? Would President McCarthy then
sit down and "fundamentally restructure
society?" It is difficult to think so.
Yet McCarthy has wooed (and won)
this same generation of radical students
who have "given up on society." He en-
tered the Presidential race, he declares,
to convince students that the democratic
system still functions, that grievances
can still be redressed and policies still
changed through traditional political
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Michigan,
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 48104.
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press.
Collegiate Press Service and Liberation News Service.
Daily except Monday during regular academic school
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 mal).

In this work of persuasion he has been
remarkably successful. Students in large
numbers have shaved beards to work for
McCarthy in New Hampshire and now
in Massachusetts and Wisconsin. Stu-
dents are rallying around the McCarthy
banner, even around the Kennedy ban-
ner now. How have the liberal senators
been able to arouse all those radical
young people?
The answer isn't hard to discern. The
media men have been barking up the
wrong tree. Students, as Senator Mc-
Carthy knows (and the New York Times,
Newsweek, et. al. don't) aren't for the
most part very radical. Some of them are
liberals who oppose the war, like Mc-
Carthy and Kennedy themselves. Some
of them are conservative. Some are
apathetic. But very few are interested in
a "fundamental restructuring" of uni-
versities or societies.
PROTESTS THERE have been, but they
have been characterized by an un-
dogmatic, ad hoc indignation over par-
ticular issues rather than thoroughgoing
radicalism. Those journalists who would
exploit every isolated sit-in and demon-
stration because it's "good copy" should
understand the lesson of the McCarthy
campaign: many students still believe in
"the system." The radicalism of students
is largely a figment of the mass media
No Cmment
COL. PAUL AKST, Selective Service
director here, today was awaiting an
apology from Columbia University after
being hit in the face with a lemon
meringue pie at the close of his talk to
200 students on "The Student and the
New Draft."
Akst had just finished speaking to the
students in the auditorium of the uni-
versity's Earl Hall yesterday when a
youth got up from a front-row seat,
hurled the pie, and fled. This happened
amid the confusion caused by some stu-
dent trying to eject hecklers from the
rear of the auditorium.
Akst left the university immediately
for another speaking engagement.
"An apology will probably be for-
warded to Col. Akst," a university spokes-
man said.
--The New York Post, March 21, 1968

MY VISITS to The Daily these days
are quite infrequent. There is a tra-
dition of sorts that once one's tenure of
office is over one does not return to the
scene of his crimes, but rather leaves the
building, slinking out with the remnants
of three-and-a-half years work stuffed
into a folder, to come back only to col-
lect pay checks and look for mail.
Yesterday morning I was in the Sen-
ior Editors office, drinking a clandestine
cup of coffee and killing a few minutes
before an eleven o'clock, talking with a
few of the present Senior Editors. The
mail came in, and the mail comes in to
the Senior office with a flurry of cere-
mony. It comes in huge piles, one of
letters and one of magazines and one
of other newspapers. People attack the
mail pile, they do not merely thumb
through it for there is much excitement
in seeing such a mass of correspondence.
One of the letters was full of vengeance
The person who opened it shouted with
glee "We've got a hate letter." Those of
you who have never publicly written can-
not appreciate the delight in getting a
hate letter, for it meansrnot only that
you are being read but, more importantly,
playing on somebody's gut-strings with
sufficient intensity to -force a reply. It
sort of legitimizes your work and makes
you feel good to know that somewhere
in the world lurks a reader who despises
you and yet continues to read.
Yet this letter was so sick that it
prompted me to want to reply. Being
away from The Daily one forgets what it
was like to immediately jump back into
print in rebuttal, yet I do so now be-
cause of the quality of this letter and the

type of mind it betrays and what it
portends for the future.
THE LETTER was in the form of three
clippings from The Daily, over which
were written brief notes in a good hand,
using a blue-ink-filled fountain pen. All
of the clips appeared in last week's
Over a No Comment Editorial, which
reported that a Republican legislator had
blasted the University as "a citadel of
radicalism".and a place where Michigan
citizens "can no longer dare send their
sons for fear of the infectious philoso-
phies of de facto treason and their
daughters for fear of pregnancy" our
correspondent noted "You don't have the
guts to comment."
I shall reply, correspondent. Philoso-
phies of de facto treason probably re-
present this country's best chance at
any kind of salvaging of soul and for
every daughter who becomes pregnant
there must be a hundred others who have
become so frightened of any act of sex
by the conventions of a repressive cul-
ture that it will take their eventual hus-
bands years to get themto enjoy physical
love. So sir, I have "the guts to reply."
Less irreverently than you might think.
His second comment was over a story
that was headlined "Napalm Use in War
Increases, Reaches Unparalleled Volume."
Our erudite, learned adversary replies in
the language of the true rational man,
saying "You yellow bellied cowards-
why don't you also tell about the thou-
sands of South Vietnam innocent peas-
ants who were slaughtered by your
friends the Viet Cong. All this true

(sic). No, that you would not do. South-
field Michigan Business Man."
WELL, SIR. I can best answer you
by referring to a letter that appeared
Sunday in the New York Times signed
by 25 Vietnamese- students at various
universities in the U.S. and Canada. It
said "(If) there are limits to what Amer-
ican power can do to Vietnam. Unleash-
ing on a small country the most de-
structive firepower ever known to man-
kind.the United States has brought our
nation to the brink of annihilation. The
words of the American commander that
"to save Ben Tre it became necessary
to destroy it," plainly reflect the moral,
political and military bankruptcy of
American policy in Vietnam. Both self-
interest and moral responsibility, then,
make it imperative that the people and
Government of the United States take
the lead in ending this conflict."
Now sir, I do not know if you read
The Times. It is hardly an intellectual
journal, yet from the quality of your
comments I feel safe in thinking that
it is unlikely you read it. I suggest you
But you call us yellow bellied cowards,
and I must make issue with this state-
ment. On the contrary, those opposing
the war-especially those who are willing
to reinforce their moral opposition by
refusing to be accomplices in any fashion
to the heinousness of what this country
is doing in Vietnam, even if this means
leaving the country or going to prison
in refusing military service-are hardly
cowards. Just the opposite, sir. It is the

act of ultimate courage to say 'no' to a
system, to transcend the cultural and
social constraints which urge asquies-
cence and seek a higher rationale for
being, on which has no " place for the
jingoistic chants of particularism but
instead demands a genuine commitment
to humanity while there is still time.
I hope you can understand this.
His last comment is -one which I can-
not answer. Nor can anybody. It simply
reveals what is happening to the mind
of our Southfield Business Man. Last
Thursday The Daily ran on page one a
picture of the five students who won the
Quiz Bowl Competition sponsored by
UAC. One of the members of the team
was Don Silverman, a senior who wears
a beard. In the picture Silverman's eyes
are closed, he is blinking. The picture is
not especially flattering. Mr. Southfield
Businessman has circled Silverman's pic-
ture and written as a caption "My, My,
aren't I just too handsome."
GOOD LUCK, there, Mr.. Southfield
Businessman. I mean it sincerely, for you
are in a bad way. But the tragedy is that
you are not alone, that much of this
country not only is sick but is taking
pride in its sickness. Now this will be
hard for you to grasp, but I like you
more than I hate you. I hate your ig-
norance and prejudice, but I must like
you or I wouldn't spend this much time
trying to enlighten you.
For until you are free, Mr. Southfield
Businessman, nobody can be free, I can-
not be free, and thus I must like you,
perhaps even love you, mustn't I?



Letters to the Editor

Pool Room
To the Editor:
IN FOUR YEARS as a student
at our illustrious university I
have witnessed a variety of
changes, some good, some bad-
almost all of them labeled "pro-
gressive." The changes objection-
able to me I have accepted without
much comment, but the latest
"progressive" change is too much
for even my apathetic voice to re-
main silent any longer.
I refer to the recent decision to
allow women into the Michigan
Union pool hall. It was "progres-
sive" enough when, after World
War II, the old doorman had to
put down his shotgun and watch
the fair sex pass into the hallowed
halls. At that time, however.
Union officials at least realized
that the university men had to
have some sanctuary from the fe-
male entourage, and preserved a
small room on the second floor
where virility could prevail. Now
this room, too, has been integrated
-the place will never be quite the
same. In addition to torn felt,
high-heel marks on the floor, and
stench of perfumed air (which
will surely cover the sweet aroma
of the rum-soaked cigars), will be
a noticeable change in the per-
vading conversation. Instead of a
husky voice shouting, "Oh damn,
I scratched!" well be a sweet so-

prano issuing, "Herbert, where
does the ball go after it drops into
the hole?"
I do not quite understand why,
sporting a progressive attitude
such as this, we are the only Big
Ten school without female cheer-
leaders. Coach Elliot had better
order a set of numbered girdles and
bras along with the shoulder pads
for next fall - rumor hasrit thatE
a female wrestler is going to try
out for tight end.
BUT ALAS, it has been done.
The pool hall is lost. Next fall will
be the barbershop, and after that
the men's restroom. Doorman, load
your scattergun! We have not yet
begun to fight!
-Robert A. Miller,'69
To the Editor:
THERE ARE NOW two anti-
Johnson candidates for the
Democratic nomination for Pres-
ident, Senators Gene McCarthy
and Robert Kennedy, Many Ken-
nedy boosters say that McCarthy's
followers should switch allegiances
and support Kennedy. Some even
say that McCarthy should with-
draw after the Wisconsin primary
in order not to hurt Kennedy's
chances for the nomination. The
rationale behind this is that Mc-
Carthy "can't win" the nomina-

tion (He "couldn't win" in New
Hampshire either).
I believe that this rationale is
wrong. McCarthy is certainly less
of an underdog now than he was,
and if his campaign continues
successfuly, and, he attracts sup-
porters (instead of competitors);
he will go into the Chicago con-
vention with an impressive string
of primary victories. The conven-
tion would then be faced with a
choice between Johnson, who had
been the target of much public
dissatisfaction, and McCarthy, who
had demonstrated much public
support. As the Democrats want
a winner, they may very well go
for McCarthy in this situation.
Another factor to consider is
that although both McCarthy and
Kennedy disagree with President
Johnson strongly on issues, there
is in addition a deep personal hos-
tility between ithe Johnson forces
and the Kennedy forces. Because
of this, a convention battle be-
tween Johnson and Kennedy would
probably be much more bitter
than would one between John-
son and McCarthy. Even if this
battle resulted in Kennedy's being
nominated, it might cause enough
/disaffection among Johnson Dem-
ocrats to give the election to Rich-
ard Nixon.
In short, there is no reason for
McCarthy to withdraw in favor

~~ - )
K n e as u7AJtN I.r@#Pqfl
of Kennedy's chances All letters must be
for becoming President are little, dabllettpaesanusthould
if any, better than McCarthy's. double-spaced and should
In addition, McCarthy would very longer than 300 words. Al
likely be a better President, ters are subject to ed
those over 300 words will
--Donald W. Wyche erally be shortened. No un
Associate Research ed letters will be printed.

be no
.1l let-


__,.. ....:-.. ... .. :: .:.:.:.. «: . ::':4"i.y0'.>.: : v ,.x .
}. p u rX..-v - '.S IvY.vi.\.x.DRilJt' J.*.'v.AgC.w..'. ~f . :U~
. i/x)0 ,Cb:,b +r ., ve".. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..'. . . . . . . . . ....:...,.::.m,..,...c. . . . . . ....,... ..:.....:::.*..*.o.. .......*e...*.*..
..SSSv.w ,....>... . . . .



Frea -outs:



Story of SGC

"Student Government Coun-
cil sets as its goal the promotion
and preservation of the customs,
tradtions and educational stan-
dards of the University. By
representing student opinion,
the SGC hopes to assist in the
promotion and formulation of
University policy, recognizing
that students are but one ele-
ment of an academic commun-
ity which contains administra-
tors, faculty, alumni and civic
interest as well."
So spoke the first SGC presi-
dent in 1954, in one of the many
major episodes of the continuing
story of student reaction to Uni-
versity regulations.
Although p o1itic a1 activism
bloomed early in the 1930's, the
concept of student control of con-
duct regulations did not appear
until after World War II.
For example, male students in
the thirties never opposed manda-
tory tests at registration for ven-
ereal disease. And coeds never pro-
tested when women's closing was
actually set back during World
War II because too many women
were staying out too late and were
pronounced too weak to donate
blood to the war effort. And the
struggle to spirit women from
general living areas into dorm-
itory rooms has only recently
minated with the ultimate, 24-
caught student attention and ten-
hour, closed door open-open.
Both student government and
University regulations b e g a n
around the turn of the century
and have been undergoing a seem-

student government were relative-
ly passive and cooperated quite
well for a number of years. The
first student Good Government
Club was formed in 1898 to "study
a n d investigate administrative
problems." When the committee
ordered the GGC to cancel a lec-
ture series and return to its stated
purpose, the students submitted
meekly. One already-scheduled
speaker was allowed: William Jen-
nings Bryan.
In the liberal gesture of 1926,
Students were admitted to the com-
mittee with little fanfare. Six stu-
dents were officially appointed by
the President of the University
and included the presidents of stu-
dent government, the Union and
the League, and the managing
editor of The Daily. Dean of Stu-
dents Joseph Bursley was proud
to note in 1934 that "at no time
since voting power was given to
the students has the committee
vote ever been divided along facul-
ty-student lines."
Also in 1934 the committee re-
ferred a plan for increased stu-
dent participation in governing
the University to the Student
Council and suggested open meet-
ings be held to determine student
views. The Council held surveys,
polls and an open forum - and
all of them revealed unwavering
student apathy.
Bursley noted with wry amuse-
ment that a request for revising
student government could be ex-
pected regularly every two or three
years, but that student government
had yet to seem very effective or

sity and students appears to have
changed with the names. By 1939
the state Legislature had launched
waves of protest, provoked by stu-
dent behavior at the dissoluteUni-
IN 1939 THE CSA admitted that
it was quite "interested" in stu-
dent activists and decided to
recognize the Socialist Club, Na-
tional Student League and the
Vanguard because "there is safety
in numbers" and "a recognized
group is more easily controlled."
Only NSL remained vociferous, but
this "vocal minority" forced the
CSA to consider changing admis-
sions standards to require per-
sonal character descriptions for
outstaters because the NSL mem-
bers came largely from Brooklyn,
the Bronx and Bayonne, N.J.
Perhaps what can be called a
major climax in student activism
came in 1940, when President
Ruthven expelled 13 students,
claiming that "Michigan welcomes"
only those students who are con-
vinced that democracy is the ideal
form of government for a civilized
people." The students included the
vice president of the student Sen-
ate, a psychology teaching assist-
ant, a Hopwood Award winner, six
Jews, two Negroes and eight out
of state students.
Despite coverage by the Assoc-
iated Press and Detroit papers, the
Daily was prevented from pub-
lishing the action for days. Pro-
tests became nationwide, and The
Daily finally referred to the in-
cident in a letter to the editor
supporting the University's action.
The letter supposedly came from

on Liberal Action organized to
press for changes. Demands for
action mounted in December of
1945, and, although the drive was
(familiarly enough) cut off by im-
pending vacation, a six-man com-
mittee was set up to study and
re-evaluate student government.
Finally a large student legislature
was created.
Conduct regulations in 1947
specified absolutely no women in
men's residences except for an
occasional approved event and
from 3 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on Sun-
day if there was a housemother.
This meant only on the main
floor, of course.
SGC evolved through the usual
study committee set up in 1954
and was preceded by /Joint Judi-
ciary Council by three years. JJC
was established through the same
time-honored process.
Some of SGC's first actions are
incredibly familiar: a course
evaluation booklet was planned
and a study of driving regulations
was begun.
SGC endorsed its first prbtest in
1959 as the civil rights movement
began to explode and students

picketed a shop which refused
equal service to Negro patrons.
Director of University housing
John Feldkamp was SGC presi-
dent. The John Barton Wolgamut
Society to promote the arts was
established, too.
MAJOR CHANGES in conduct
rules have come very recently.
Student judiciaries did not replace
staff as disciplinary agents in the
dormitories until 1953. As late as
1954, private apartment parties
were technically taboo.
The advent of coed University
housing created more problems for
discipline. Women's hours and
other visitation rules have melted
away under increasing pressure, al-
though even as late as last year,
Markley Hall reinstituted a "purity
patrol" to keep order in the notori-
ous lounges. The shreik of an
irate housemother, "Every couple
must have three feet on the floor"
-still echoes in the corridor.
The history of student govern-
ment reads something like the
script of a soap opera: no matter
how long you observe it, it never

seems to change. Recent University
history continues all the patterns.
Proponents of the upcoming con-
stitutional convention promise
many things, including a new ad-
dition to the many names for stu-
dent government: this time, stu-
dent government Union.
Judging from past history, it
seems most predictable that with-
in a few years, a new crisis will
arise, soothed by yet a new com-
mittee and followed by yet an-
other kind of student government.
SGC HAS implemented some
changes, mostly in the area of con-
duct regulations, where student
interest is fairly high. But not
many rules remain to be overturn-
ed in a triumphant surge of stu-
dent power. And not many stu-
dents bother to vote in SOC elec-
tions or get involved in con-con.
Nevertheless the hard core of stu-
dent leaders is calling for "radical
restructuring of the educational
But, as in the past, one key
question remains: does anyone
really care?



Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan