100%

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

Share

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 29, 1968 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1968-03-29

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

r1 irrwirn rii i n srr i ri rr rr

4t Aunan &Dil
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.
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.

FRIDAY, MARCH 29, 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: MARCIA ABRAMSON

City Courncil
Elec11tion Endorsements

TE UNIVERSITY community has
an opportunity in Monday's city
council elections to affect major
changes in the Ann Arbor city govern-
ment. By supporting those candidates
whose ideas and actions effectively
deal with the crucial social problems
confronting the city, both eligible stu-
dent and faculty voters can revitalize
a stale, unresponsive city administra-
tion.
The University community must cast
off its indifference and concern itself
with the pressing issues currently fac-
ing the city - civil rights, housing,
mass transportation, and a more equit-
able tax system. The University com-
munity must demonstrate a social
conscience which has been noticeably
lacking when issues are raised at the
local level.
Students constitute an increasingly
large portion of the city's electorate,
and nearly all the issues being debated
in this year's campaign have direct
bearing on the student population.
Tenants' rights, student driving, and
student voter registration may hinge
on the election outcome.
The present city council has been
largely insensitive to the problems of
students and the poor. Irresponsible
council members have allowed a com-
placent city bureaucracy to operate in-
dependently, outside its own purview.
The following candidates are best
qualified to handle Ann Arbor's com-
plex problems:
FIRST WARD: RICHARD REMING-
TON (Democrat). Remington, a Uni-
versity professor of biostatistics, ad-
vocates liberalization of the state sta-
tute restricting student voter registra-
tion, and believes in unlimited driving
privileges for University students.
Remington also favors strict housing
code enforcement, planning to restruc-
ture the city's inept Building and
Safety Department, and would urge
the University to build more low-cost
housing for its students. He is a fine
candidate.
His opponent, Mrs. Norma Kraker
(Republican) is a long-time first ward
resident and former member of the
Human Relations Commission. As sup-
ervisor of the University's Off-Campus
Housing Bureau, Mrs. Kraker worked
with students in last winter's "eight-
month lease" campaign.
Although sh is an able administra-
tor, Mrs. Kraker has failed to propose
significant improvements in city gov-
ernment. Her opposition to a city in-
come tax, which could result in reduc-
tion of property taxes and consequent-
ly, housing rents, is short-sighted.
Mrs. Kraker's opposition to salaries for
city councilmen is a count against de-
served renumeration for time-consum-
ing public service.
SECOND WARD: ERNEST L. QUEN-
ON (Democrat). Quenon, a marketing
analyst, puts forth an imaginative
platform of building code enforcement,
mass transportation, street improve-
ment, and more equitable representa-
tion on the Human Relations Commis-
sion.

Deploring the current state of po-
lice - community relations, he favors
the establishment of a citizens com-
plaint, bureau as an arm of city
council.
Quenon's opponent, James Riecker
(Republican), is a conservative incum-
bent who has continually opposed re-
form measures. He does not favor
treating all students as equal Ann
Arbor citizens, and naively contends
the city has done an effective job in
enforcing its building codes.
Riecker's lack of concern regarding
police-community relations is astound-
ing. His worn-out rhetoric can con-
tribute nothing to city government.
THIRD WARD: MAX SHAIN (Dem-
ocrat). Shain, a professor in the School
of Public Health, has been' a hard-hit-
ting critic of what he calls a "fat, lazy
and complacent city administration."
He supports an income tax, tenants'
rights and rent control. Shain would
serve as a good counter - balance
against the conservative councilmen
now in office.
Shain's opponent, Joseph Ediards
(Republican), is a printing executive
who has served as chairman of the City
Planning Commission., However, his
campaign pronouncements would in-
dicate he is far-removed from the
problems of the poor and the students.
If elected, he would simply be an-
other addition to the group of tired
council members now in control.
FOURTH WARD: RUSSELL W. WEST
(Democrat). West, chairman of the
local NAACP education committee, fa-
vors strict enforcement of the city's
fair housing codes. He advocates a city
ordinance defining tenant's rights,
and proposes effective ideas to prevent
building code violations.
His opponent, attorney James Ste-
phenson (Republican), has served the
city as a scoutmaster and a volunteer
in fund-raising drives, but seems to
have little to offer in the way of solu-
tions to Ann Arbor's problems except
that "these problems must be solved
without departure from sound prin-
ciples of fiscal responsibility. .."
FIFTH WARD: LEROY CAPPAERT
(Democrat). Cappaert has proved him-
self an excellent councilman who
continually offers original ideas and
an independent viewpoint. He advo-
cates changing the city charter to
allow for federally subsidized public
transportation, better minority group
representation on the Human Rela-
tions Commission, and tenants' rights
proposals.
Cappaert is being challenged by
architect Linden Pettys (Republican).
Pettys is running on a city planning
platform which reflects his total lack
of understanding of city government.
-MARK LEVIN
Editor
-MARTIN HIRSCHMAN
-DAVID SPURR
-DANIEL ZWERDLING

Theo
By RON LANDSMAN
MEETING failure on every side,
the anti-war movement con-
tinues to search for some accept-
able alternative "within the sys-
tem." Respectable liberals and
non-violent radicals continue to
try to end what has become, some-
what poetically, their agony. And
they want to do so without chal-
lenging the institutions that
compromise their society.
The possible alternatives are
frighteningly limited. They can,
in fact, be counted on one hand.
Dissenters may pressure Congress
and Congress may pressure the
executive; they can use electoral
means by repudiating the present
involvement in Vietnam in the
next election; or protesters can
try judicial means by seeking a
favorable ruling on war dissent
from the Supreme Court.
The judicial route, however, is
probably doomed to failure. The
Supreme Court has restrictions on
the cases that it hears-restric-
tions of both tradition and Con-
stitutional dictate.
The Court largely deals in areas
which it has "expertise" or which
have a "Constitutional handle."
The Supreme Court, in the past,
has assiduously avoided the mo-
ral questions and issues that ne-
cessitate a "policy decision."
The most common "Constitu-
tional handles" are free speech
and o t h e r First Amendment
rights, and racial discrimination
and other minority rights and
protections. But even where "Con-
stitutional handles" are available
they may be ignored during
times of national emergency.
"EXPERTISE" centers on what
the justices themselves are most
practiced in - courtroom proced-
ures and techniques. The tradi-
tional court function, that of pro-
tecting citizens from violations of
Constitutional guarantees such as
self - incrimination and d o u b I e
jeopardy, makes up the extent of
"expertise" cases.
But the overlying factor af-
fecting all court action is tradi-
tion. Once the Court establishes
a history of decisions in a parti-
cular area, later Courts do not
hesitate to consider 'that area
within their domain.
The draft and the war unfor-
tunately fall outside the tradi-
tional domain of the Court, some-
times in a very adverse manner.

urt: o
The Court has hardly dealt with
cases of dissent against the Viet-
nam involvement.
A decision on Vietnam dissent
would enter the vague category of
"policy." The Court does not now,
nor has it ever intended to act as
arbiter of policies that other
wings of government have formu-
lated and executed according to
their Constitutional prerogatives.
Rather, the Court's concern is
protecting society from uncon-
stitutional excursions of the gov-
ernment. There are two common
cases where the Court avoids
"policy" - in the economic and
military spheres. Only with some
"Constitutional handle" will the
court venture opinion.
IN ECONOMIC policy, the
Court is docile so long as admin-
istrative agencies act "reasonably."
rIf their policies or actions ever
threaten, discrimination or inva-
sion of personal or property
rights, for example, the Court
would be tempted to intervene if
a case were brought before it. But
the Court would not decide on the
correctness of the policy itself.
The Court also avoids delving
into military policy- especially

citizens - within specified areas
and limit their movement by cur-
few, The Court - including its
most "liberal" members - upheld
the military's actions on the
grounds that national security was
at stake.
Even after the emergency had
passed, the Court failed to offer
remedy. In the Yale Law Journal
in 1954, then Yale law professor
Eugene V. Rostow lambasted the
treatment of the Nisei as "hasty,
unnecessary, and mistaken.
"If the Court has stepped for-
ward in bold heart to vindicate
the law and declare the entire
program illegal, the episode would
have passed over as a national
scandal," Rostow said, "but a
temporary one altogether capable
of reparation. But the Court, after
timid and evasive delays, has now
upheld the main features of the
program.
"That step converts a piece of
war-time folly into a political
doctrine and a permanent part of
the law," he added.
Rostow also noted that the
Court, while avoiding overruling
the government on a war policy
issue, "weakened society's control
over military authority."
Nonetheless, the rules stand.
The Court also is bound by cer-
tain "institutional rules" as to
what cases it will take. One such
rule relevant for the Vietnam dis-
senters maintains that the Court
prefer hearing the case in which
the party is "the most adverse
case, with the most direct con-
flict."
Thus, the justices would con-
sider the case of the soldier or-
dered to serve before it would take
the more abstract arguments of a
protester unaffected personally by
the war-like those who refuse to
pay taxes because the money sup-
ports the war effort.
UP TO NOW, nonetheless. at-
tempts to get any anti-war deci-
sions have failed. The most fam-
ouse' case, involving one of the
"Fort Hood Three," Mora vs. Mc-
Namara, denied the petition for
a writ of certiorari by the Court.
One similar case-Capt. Howard
Levy-was also denied certiorari.
The Supreme Court is not re- .
quired to hear every case appeal-
ed to it, but hears them at its
own discretion. The writ of cert-
iorari is the request for a granting
of an appeal proceedings, and a

denial ends the judicial life of
the case.
The decision to "deny cert." in
the Mora case was not unanimous.
In what may eventually become
important statements Justices Pot-
ter Stewart and William 0. Doug-
las dissented, issuing separate
opinions.
Stewart writes, "There exist in
this case questions of great magn-
itude." He raises four major is-
sues:
-Is U.S. military activity in
Vietnam Constitutionally a war?

Audience

for

Dissent
Referring to the SEATO Treaty,
the Kellogg-Briand Pact, and Ar-
ticle 39, Chapter VII of the UN
charter, he asks. "Do any of them
embrace hostilities in Vietnam.
or give rights to individuals af-
fccted to complain, or in other
respects give rise to justiciable
controversies?"
Douglas cites, however, a pre-
vious federal court decision which
said, "Certainly it is not the fun-
ction of the Judiciary to enter-
tain private litigation-even by a
citizen-which challenges the le-
gality, the wisdom, or the
propriety of the Commander-in-
Chief in sending our forces abroad
or to any particular region."
But there are other decisions
which invite the Supreme Court
to take these cases. In an 1863
decision overturning a military
tribunal's levying of a death pen-
alty, the court noteddthat the
founding fathers knew this coun-
try would be involved in war. "For
this, and other equally weighty
reasons, they secured . . safe-
guards which time had proved
were essential to its preservation."
The court is such a safeguard.
Douglas also notes that the
charge that the subject matter is
"political" is a play on words
and little more.
The question must eventually
evolve into considerations of the
politics of the individual justices.
With Stewart and Douglas already
favoring the hearing of cases such
as Mora vs. McNamara, and with
only four votes necessary to grant
certiorari, it is not inconceivable
that the Court's stand may change
in the near future.
While the "liberal" Fortas, a
Johnson appointee, is definitely
not a dove, and would not vote
for cert, the newest justice, Thur-
good Marshall, may join Stewart
and Douglas. Marshall refrains
from voting in cases begun while
he was solicitor general. With his
vote possible, and only one more
necessary, a change in court policy
wouldn't be incredible.
A WARNING remains, however.
Justices, independent of their
politics, always have the proper
role of the Court in the American
political system in mind. And al-
though a justice may be an ar-
dent dove, he might still vote
against cert because he feels it is
not the function of the Court
to rule on war dissent.

Potter Stewart

-If so, can the President Con-
stitutionally order someone to
serve, even though Congress has
not declared war?
-How is this relevant to cur-
rent U.S. treaty obligations?
-What is the significance of
the Tonkin Bay resolution? Is the
President acting within his dele-
gation? Is the resolution con-
stitutional?
Noting that "I intimate not
even tentative views upon any
of these matters," Stewart writes,
"We cannot make these problems
go away simply by refusing to
hear the case of three obscure
Army privates." He concludes, "I
think the Court should squarely
face (these issues)."
DOUGLAS, noting Stewart's dis-
sent, discusses the significance of
numerous U.S. treaty obligations
and the role of the court in de-
termining the formation of policy.

William 0. Douglas
during times of "national emer-
gengy." The most famous instance
was in the Nisei decisions, when
in 1942, the military chiefs on
the West Coast decided to intern
all persons of Japanese descent-
including native-born American

T

Letters:Ushering at 'Greasepaint'

To the Editor:
TUESDAY night I entered Hill
Auditorium expecting to usher
for the performance of "Roar of
the Greasepaint." I was accom-
panied by a friend who was sub-
stituting for another usher.
Neither of us thought anything
of the fact that she walked with
the aid of hand crutches as she
has done for the past fourteen
years.
We were proceeding toward our
station on the balcony when we
were accosted by an official who
failed to introduce himself. He
abruptly stopped my friend, asking
who she was" as though she had
no business being there. He asked
if she was a substitute, implying
that he would have remembered
had he seen her before. After ex-
amining her ticket, he resentfully
remarked that she might as well
sit down as long as she was al-
ready there.
My friend and I were shocked,
and she remarked that she was
perfectly able to usher. She ex-
plained that she had viewed many
concerts from the second balcony
and was quite capable of climbing
the stairs. He then commented,
"You know your capabilities bet-
ter than I do, but we have to think
of the public": His objection being
solely on the grounds that the
public would think she was some
sort of misfit and thus a reflection
on the PTP management.
WITHOUT any sense of comn-
mon decency or tact, he cruelly
emphasized my friend's slight dis-
ability claiming that "people will
talk." He then demanded to see
my ticket and asked my friend
whom she was replacing. He asked
me, "Who would send a person
like her?" He confiscated both
our tickets so that we would be
unable to usher again. I told him
that we would be willing to leave
if we were going to cause such
embarrasment to the establish-
ment. He told us never to plan
on ushering again. We both left
on the verge of tears.
Needless to say, I am very much
distressed by the outrageous treat-
ment we received. One would as-
sume that my friend would be ap-
plauded for disregarding her dis-
ability and leading a normal life.
Nobody has ever before objected
to her willingness to help. This
humiliation is not something we
will soon forget. I think an apol-
ogy is in order. Apparently racial
and religious discrimination is not
all we have to contend with here
at the University of Michigan.
-Carol R. Gordon, '70
Errata?

pus, this office has no authority
to authorize either the sale of
land or to establish agreements
between the University and in-
dividual fraternities. Thus the
headline for the story and the
first paragraph are misleading
statements.
The discussion of the Nu Sigma
Nu plan contains several inaccu-
racies. There are no provisions
in that plan for fifty-year loans
or for "repayments of loans
through gifts channeled through
the University to fraternities."
Our office is anxious to discuss
with fraternities and other groups
their housing needs. These dis-
cussions will not be aided by er-
roneous information. I would ap-
preciate y o u r publishing this
letter.
-John Feldkamp, Director
University Housing
IM Sports
To the Editor:
WE ARE told that the purpose
of the intramurals program is
to give all interested students an
opportunity to engage in organized
athletic competition. Apparently,
some bureaucrat's rulebook says
something quite different. If the
progi'am is limited by monetary
shortages, that is one matter; it
is quite another when arbitrary
rules impede participation.
My concern is with the IM in-
door track meet. First of all, I
find the six-men per team re-
quirement rather silly. Track is a
sport of individual effort, the more
so in an IM meet, especially one
with no really races. If less than
six men from one housing unit
wish to compete, they should be
allowed to do so. It is highly un-
likely that such a small group
could win the meet as a team-
and if they could, then they cer-
tainly deserve it.
I propose that the unit repre-
sented by such a team be credited
with whatever success the team
manages; and if the undersized
team is shut out on the track, no
participation points would be
given to this team's unit. Thus the
unit rep'resented by a five-man
team which scored enough points
to place fifth, would be given the
fifth-place points in the IM over-
all standings; the unit represented
by a five-man team which failed
to place a man in the first five
finishers in any event, would re-
ceive nothing in the overall stand-
ings, as if the team had not com-
peted. Meanwhile, all interested
individuals could take part. I see
no reason why such a policy would
make the meet significantly more
difficult or more expensive to run.
Secondly: this Tuesday the
trackmen of my house made a

-lei
, I
(w
¢and Tribune Synd~ct
S 6S ba fc ,w,

#W

Not the Clothes, But the Man

'The Viet Kennedys and the McCarthy

Cong are

WASHINGTON ( - A Republican con-
gressman has complained that the
Air Force flew a jet plane from Scranton,
Pa. to Washington and back to pick up
a tuxedo and other belongings of Vice
Pr sident Hubert H. Humphrey.
Rep. H. R. Gross (R-Iowa) made the
complaint in a House speech Wednesday.
Afterwards, he said the Air Force in-
formed him a $704 bill covering the cost
of the extra flight was paid by the Scran-
ton group before which Humphrey ap-
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. Michigan,
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor. Michigan. 48184.
The Daily is a member of the Associated, Press,
Collegiate Press Service and Liberation News Service.
Daly except Monday during regular academic school
year.-,_

peared Sunday-the Friendly Sons of St.
Patrick.
The Air Force said 'the Jet Star plane
used on the mission operates at a cost
of $325 per flyinghour.
Gross told the House the aides in"
Humphrey's office who take care of hisj
flight plans blamed the Air Force for
the whole thing.
He quoted the Air Force as saying the
original departure from Washington
"took place in a rain storm and in our
haste to avoid bad weather and guarantee
a safe flight, the vice president's brief-
case, including speech materials and
other important documents needed for
work over the weekend, were left at the
airport along with part of his luggage."
The Air Force said it flew the plane

final decision. Until we heard from
Riskey, we could enter the early
events.
In the first two events we took
two third places. Six points in two
events-experience shows that a
total of ten usually ranks a team
among the top finishers. Then
came the word from Riskey : we
were out. We could not even com-
pete unofficially, as individuals.
The rules were clear.
Since a mere eleven teams en-
tered from the entire residence
hall system, it is questionable why
an early registration is needed. If
the directors of the IM program
wish success for that program, I
would think they would want
maximum participation.
WHY WAS our team invited to
compete at Yost, then disqualified
on our arrival? When participation
is already low, why must arbitrary
rules he maintained to further

continue to flay Student Govern-
ment Council, The Daily and
Voice-SDS for 'their continued
hostility toward classified research
on campus.
I thought Michael Davis an-
swered them quite adequately in
these columns (Daily, March20)
but the appearance, since then,
of a fistful of letters like Sulli-
van's indicates that some patient
repetition is in order.
What is being charged, of course,
is that the sinister SGC-Daily-
Voice cabal - establishment - con-
spiracy is ignoring the student
mandate by trying to eliminate
classified research despite an un-
sympathetic referendum vote.
Nothing of the kind is going
on-which is evidently of no in-
terest to people like Sullivan. Per-
haps, this is less a letter to him
and his friends than to the rest
of the campus.
Early this year those of us who

tunneling closer...19
It is quite true that SGC mem-
bers, Voice people and The Daily
continue to speak and write
against classified research. But I
was not previously aware that a
defeat of the referendum meant
that ongoing discussion of the
issue was somehow treasonous or
.hypocritical.
It is true that some of us look
forward to putting the question
to the vote again some time in the
future. But I didn't realize that a
single referendum vote is immed-
iately chiseled immortally in
granite, never again to be re-
viewed or reconsidered.
Yes, we will continue to speak
to students, we will continue to
try to persuade this campus to
reverse its decision. And it is
precisely t h i s ("educational")
,campaign which proves our loyal-
ty to the concept i of student
power.

iii

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan