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