.1 '- Of4A14 ~idin 3a &iI Letters: A bardoning Reason.? Seventy-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNVERSITY OF MICHIGAN UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS ,y ~ 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. THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1968 NIGHT EDITOR: JIM HECK The Negotiation Feelers: In the Beginning Was the Word YESTERDAY'S announcement t h a t, Hanoi is willing to go to the negotiat- ing table came as a surprise no less to Washington than . it did to the Com- munist world. That Hanoi chose to nego- tiate so early hopefully means that the first steps have been taken toward end- ing the conflict in Vietnam. Many observers felt that perhaps Ha- noi would wait months before deciding to come to the conference table. Some now think that the Hanoi regime has finally settled on a "negotiate while fighting" modus operandi. But even if this is the case, the very fact that negotiations are beginning does give reason for optimism. So now the question becomes whether the conferences will lead to a workable and lasting peace amid so many unre- solved difficulties that have thus far prevented negotiation. A BIG QUESTION is what recognition the United States will give the Na- tional Liberation Front (NLF). Until now the American government has not been willing to admit that the NLF is a gen- uine expression of the Vietnamese na- tionalistic sentiment. The NLF has not been defeated. The United States will not be able to deal with the front as the Allies did with the Germans at Versailles. Clearly, an ac- quiescence on the part of the Adminis- tration that the NLF is not just a front for the international Communist con- spiracy will be necessary if negotiations are to be successful. Another ,vital problem that will con- front the American diplomats at the conference table will be the role to be given the charismatic Ho Chi Minh. If Ho is really the people's choice, will the United States recognize him as the legi- timate leader of Vietnam? Washington has said repeatedly that America is involved in Vietnam for the sole purpose of aiding the South Viet- namese to determine their own form of government. Will the American negotiators deal with the assumption that the Thieu regime is indeed the popular expression of the Vietnamese people? The Admin- istration may be required to re-explore its support for the, Thieu regime in the face of a refusal on the part of Hanoi to accept the legitimacy of that regime. If it does not, there is little hope for the negotiations. JN SPITE OF the negotiations, the k fighting in Vietnam shows little signs of abating. The military fortunes of- the two sides could change each side's per- ception of the efficacy of the negotia- tions. If Hanoi finds that its forces mili- tarily can rid the country of "the American menace," perhaps the North Vietnamese will no longer find a com- promise necessary. Likewise, the political climate in the United States may shift with changes in the field in Vietnam. If Hanoi shows signs that it can no longer sustain American military pressure, a negotiated peace may no longer look as appealing. But despite the many difficulties that surround the purported peace negotia- tions, there is a reasonable chance that peace'may be in the making. This is the first time that both sides have been will- ing to sit down together to discuss the possibility of ending the war. Hanoi's agreement to accept the United States' offer to discuss peace will hope- fully be the first step in a series to achieve a permanent peace in Vietnam. -STEVE ANZALONE To the Editor: EVEN THEIR euphoria cannot justify the sophomoric aban- donment of reason in which the "senior" editor's indulged them- selves in Monday's editorial on President Johnson's decision not o seek re-election. While not wishing to argue the matter I am prepared as are most Amer- icans of goodwill to accept the President's reasons for his decision which to me represents a personal as well as a public tragedy for this nation and the world. I do not think, however, that the facile as- sumptions and distortions of the truth which litter the editorial ;utter of the Daily should be al- lowed to pass without some com- ment. It is as misleading to say that "Johnson took the nation's helm in a time of relative world tran- quility; he gives it up in the midst of a . . . war" as it would be to remark on the tranquility of the sea before the depth charges ex- plode. It is surely true that Johnson entered office at a time of peril in Vietnam, disaffection in Latin America, and restlessness in Eur- ope. The "relative tranquility" of the period prior to his succession no doubt must include the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin crisis, the Cuban missile crisis, the Polaris fiasco at Nassau, the MLF failure, the In- donesian-Malaysian confrontation, the Indian-Chinese border clashes, the Kashmir dispute, the war in the Yemen, our worsening rela- tions with Cambodia, and the con- tinuing unrest in Brazil, Columbia, and Argentina not to mention the bitter Cyprus dispute. Did the senior editors, one won- ders, read, newspapers while in high school or have they justdis- covered a turbulent, unhappy world at their doorstep? And make no mistake, that world has been and shall remain at their doorstep whether they like it or not. We cannot ignore the world, partly because it will not ignore us. The mere presence of America in her economic and military power con- stitutes a continuous intervention in the life of this planet. We live in a world where our inaction looms as significant as our action. To fail in our efforts to feed India or Egypt, to withhold economic aid from Yugoslavia or Jordan or Israel-this would be intervention as well. Of course, we must balance our interests and evaluate the ends we seek in giv- ing such aid. Thus, to many who condemn our Vietnamese policy we would be justified in inter- vening in South Africa-even if this involves an intervention in the internal affairs of a nation whose government is indisputably in control of its territory and is recognized by the nations of the world as legitimate government. And if it be argued that this is an oppressive minority govern- ment then we have opened a Pan- dora's box that would justify in- terventions against a host of left and right wing dictatorships. This is not a hopeful path to interna- tional law and order; and one may argue that it is not a path upon which the nations of the world can allow too much traffic-not even Chinese or North Vietnamese traffic. THIS BRINGS us, happily, to the "intervention" in Vietnam, Thailand, and the Dominican Re- public. Have these acts "discredit- ed as untenable and immoral the premise that America can assume the role of the world policeman"? Ignoring the question as to wheth- er this as well as anti-Communism (mentioned earlier in the editor- ial) has in fact been the premise or criterion of American foreign policy under President Johnson, we might well disagree over the "untenable" portion of the charge. Certainly not even the senior editors of the Daily can charge us with an unwanted presence in Thailand. The legitimate and in- dependent government of that country has requested our presence in aid of their independence which they feel to be (as do many of the nations of Southeast Asia) bound up with the struggle in South Vietnam. The "untenable" inter- vention in South Vietnam has as the President belatedly pointed out to the American people on Sunday night effected and affected great changes in the political complexion of Southeast Asia since the Pres- ident's succession. It would be well to notice that some of the blemishes on the era of "relative tranquility" in South- east Asia prior to the President's administration have subsided. Indonesia is once again at peace with her neighbors and ready to progress to economic and political stability with their new help. Relations with Cambodia are perhaps better now than at any time since the very beginning {of the Kennedy administration. Burma has moved further from Chinese influence and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore has affirmed the need for American help in securing the independence and freedom for the nations of that part of the. world. Indeed, all around the perimeter of the Vietnamese conflict we have seen the growth of confidence, strength, and cooperation among the states of Southeast Asia. The intervention in the Domin- ican Republic may now be -seen as an effective and efficient aid to order which has been confirmed in the subsequent elections and; peacefulness of that troubled na- tion. And again if we be greeted by an objection to the form or integrity of those elections then an argument for unlimited inter- ventions against unrepresentative governments may be directed against almost every communist state in the world today not in- cluding North Vietnam which doesn't bother with elections. The bitter claims that the Dom- inican or South Vietnamese elec- tions are a sham by our standards are usually made by the same publicists who tell us that every nation must be free to adopt its own political system even if not a democratic one. Thus we witness a defense of Ho's or Mao's contempt for elec- toral process (they are, we are assured, instinctively expressing the will of the people) compared witn a castigation of South Vietnam's attempts at electoral expression as not being democratic enough. Agreed that such inconsistencies are harmless when mouthed by college editors and activists but they carry a more ominous threat to rational diagnosis of interna- tional affairs when espoused in the Senate or on the campaign trail. THE EDITORIAL emphasizes with deadening repetition the im- morality of the American position. It is impossible to open the door to discussion on this matter when the senior editors evidently re- gard themselves as the keepers of the keys; but the arrogance of their accusations is sufficient to reassure all who may have doubted that the "moral" among us are as intolerant and parochial as ever they were in the time of the In- quisition and Salem trials. "The more things change . .." Finally, the President's domestic record has been attacked as shat- tering "the hopes to resolve Amer- ica's domestic injustices"--hopes no doubt inspired by the failure of the Kennedy legislative program. If President Johnson has "de- stroyed the Civil Rights movement and ushered in an era of urban and social disorder" then he has done it with the most extraor- dinary collection of model cities, civil rights, education, rent sub- sidies, medicare, and other social AA g' v--C4 ;1 Art ' rr~ 5Q r ki 1:4:. ' p. y/ legislation in the history o. this nation. The charge that the President has "stifled dissent with reckless abandon"' and the no doubt well considered legal-historical judg- ment that the Spock-Coffin in- dictments are "the greatest single threat to civil liberties since the Palmer raids of 1919" belong so clearly to the world of the asylum at Charenton that I must assume a typographic error has interposed an extract from the Marat-de Sade. If I am wrong in this and the opinions are in fact those of the senior editors then I am forced to consign them to the rhetorical dust-bin to join Governor Rom- ney's washed brain and back is- sues of The Daily. The paranoia, the irrational vitriol, the hysterical dema- goguery which have characterized so much of the opposition to the President-sadly, especially on the campuses-have been abundantly demonstrated by the senior editors' editorial. It is a pity that they should persist at a time when the President has made so unparal- leled a gesture to restore goodwill to the necessary and portentious debate on the great issues that confront us. -Stephen E. Miron,'68L Bitterness To the Editor: W E, THE undersigned, would like to comment on the edi- torial which appeared on the front page of Monday's extra issue of The Daily. While we cannot con- done the innuendo and exaggera- tion that permeated that; editorial.- we accept it as normal for The Daily. What we cannot accept and what we herein protest is the re- fusal of The Daily editors to rec- ognize and commend an act of political courage and the attempt of the editors to obscure with mali- cious innuendo and exaggeration the significance of the President's act on Sunday evening. Each of us doubted or disagreed with some aspect or aspects of the President's various policies, but we realize that to recognize the act for what it is, is not to now agree with the poli- cies with which we previously dis- agreed. The bitterness of your editorial was uncalled for. -Dennis C. Kolenda, '69 -Andrew A. Meade, '70 And 13 other students. QUiz To the Editor: QUIZ ON President Johnson's speech: True or False We are halting 90 per cent of the, bombing in North Vietnam. We are halting bombing over 90 per cent of Vietnam. We are halting bombing over all of North Vietnam except the de- militarized zone and a little extra here and there. We aren't halting the bombing, but bombing more in fewer places. We are halting 90 per cent of our F-111's over North Vietnam. We are de-escalating the war by sending in 13,500 more men and saving planes by curtailing some flights over North Vietnam. My son-in-law, Robb, is going to Vietnam, so I am calling for a peace conference. I hope Hanoi acts with the same restraint, and finally.: I won't accept the nomination of my party in August. -David M. Shapiro, '70 0 U 4 1~ T e rimester: Study Needed FOR BETTER or worse, the trimester will be with us until at least 1971. That is, it will be with the University, for by the time the Senate Advisory Com- mittee on University Affairs and the Faculty Assembly get around to "review- ing" the trimester system, all current undergraduate classes will have gradu- ated. SACUA Monday passed up an oppor- tunity to study the trimester system by approving a report to the Faculty Assem- bly favoring the continuation of the tri- mester until 1971. This was an unfortu- nate choice, for there are many contro- versial aspects of the trimester that will now be ignored until then. They deserve to be given more careful consideration before the University binds itself to this system for three more years. The academic calendar through 1970 shows that there have been some modi- fications in the time periods of the tri- mesters from previous and current schedules. For example, next year the break between fall and winter semesters has been extended, but this has neces- sitated some peculiar inconsistencies in the other breaks. Next fall, the period of classes between Thanksgiving recess and the beginning of study days is four days. THE MAJOR burden of the trimester lies with the faculty. While the actual number of weeks in class is approxi- mately the same for trimester and regu- lar semester, the time span of the term is considerably less. This means that there is less time for students to do outside-of-class work, such as extended research and papers. Instructors, realizing this, either find al-, ternative ways to exact performance from students, or lower their standards. Some instructors have revised the work- loads in accordance with the shorter time, but many have not. Faced with an overbearing workload, some students now take incompletes for one or more classes each term. This only further burdens the instructor with the necessity of dragging out work from one class often into as much as two complete terms. To meet this eventuality, the teacher may choose not to allow the stu- dent to take an incomplete, thereby in- creasing the pressure on the student. able, many students complain about the difficulty of compressing a semester's work into the, shorter trimester term. It has also been the practice to have only one vacation period during each term. In the Fall term, this has generally corresponded with the Thanksgiving holiday, but the "Spring" recess has no apparent relation to anything besides the needs of the calendar. Aside from the inconvenient timing of the breaks, the fact that there is only one per term means that during at least one two month stretch there is no break in the monotony of classes. Further, these breaks being near the end of the term or near mid- terms usually means that they become four-day weekends devoted to catching up on reading and papers instead of vacations. On the other hand, what is only a half term under the semester system becomes a full Summer term with the trimester. This full-time school allows an under- graduate to receive a bachelors degree in two and two-thirds years of year- round study. The University's division of the Sum- =mer term into two halves allows the stu- dent to attend half of the Summer term taking regular courses, leaving the other half of his summer free. It also provides a student with a convenient excuse for not going home for at least half of the summer. The lengthened summer is a mixed blessing to students not in school. Early commencement often means that stu- dents seeking jobs get the jump on those in other schools which remain in session until June. But many summer jobs are tailored to "normal" summer vacations, and employers do not begin hiring until June. It it not uncommon to find a stu- dent unable to' find employment for the whole first part of the vacation. THE RELATIVE advantages and disad- vantages of the trimester system have not yet been resolved. In the students' eyes, the glamour of the longer vacation tends to overshadow the increase in work and the decrease the amount of material presented. The administrators see the advantages of year-round school and its implicit lowered expenses. The faculty sees increased work, and a shorter timef Is A Reply: On Fundamental Misconceptions By URBAN LEHNER Editorial Director 1jHE DAILY generally does not publicly answer letters to the editors. Sometimes we genuinely feel that a reader has caught us with our pants down. Sometimes the issue isn't significant enough to deserve a rebuttal. Usually, we figure we have had our say and the reader should be able to have his without us sneaking in the last word. But the letters provoked by the Senior Editorial in The Daily's extra edition Monday deserve re- sponse. They levy serious criti- cisms; they are cogently argued, Mr. Miron's especially; finally, they indicate, I think, that the editorial has been to some extent at least, misread. It did not, for example, as some of the letters implied, constitute an 'attack on President Johnson the man. It attempted to analyze "the historical significance of his disastrous administration." The key to this is the second para- graph: For the five years of John- son's Presidency have high- lighted the fundamental mis- conceptions underlying Amer- icancforeign and domestic policies. Thus, the editorial concerned itself with the policies which Johnson, because he has been a strong President, has been able to bring to fruition. The John- ~nn ndincain has indeed and rigid approaches which are part of Johnson's historical tra- dition are. And if Johnson's successor does not change these approaches, is not willing to experiment, then the only difference will be one of personnel. In other words, the "euphoria will have been wasted on a cruel and tragic deception." MR. MIRON'S attack on the assumptions of the editorial de- fines the issue at a level where debate can take place. He does not agree that the policies under fire have failed. For example, Mr. Miron writes: If President Johnson has "destroyed the Civil Rights movement and ushered in an era of urban and social dis- order" then he has done it with the most extraordinary collection of model cities, civil rights, education, rent subsi- dies, medicare and other so- cial legislation in the history of this nation. But doesn't this beg the ques- tion? How successful have these programs been? The Civil Rights Bill, although a major step forward, has changed conditions very little. The South has found ways of getting around the Civil Rights Bill just as it found loopholes in the 14th Amendment in the years after the Civil War. This is not to con- demn the law as, a total failure -i rathr+ . nnint nii hat it tacking the problems of Northern Negroes. The war, of course, has pre- vented major expenditures for welfare programs, although it is admittedly dubious whether Con- gress would have approved such expenditures anyway. But money is far from the only problem. SOCIAL WELFARE programs as they have been established seem to have been enacted with little insight into the needs of the people they were designed to help. Sociologists, historians and citi- zens - both black and white - have told us again and again that Negroes in the Northern ghettos need a culture, a consciousness, an identity, a sense of manhood. Social welfare programs, which in- herently smack of paternalism, provide little for and often work against this need. No one has developed a "right" program to solve the problems of the ghetto. Some have argued that riots at least have the virtue of building a Black Consciousness and a Black Brotherhood. Others contend that decentralization, lo- cal control of the school system and of the ghetto economy through black cooperatives are the answer. Any approach, how- ever, must take this psychology into account if it is to be suc- cessful. The point of all this is that it has taken a President who has been able to enact these stale so- in Mr. Miron's discussion of for- eign policy. THE LETTER opens this ar- gument by attacking the state- ment in the Senior Editorial that "Johnson took the nation's helm in a time of relative world tran- quility; he gives it up in the midst of a tragically unnecessary and immoral war." It is certainly true, as Mr. Miron points out, that in the years preceding the Johnson administration there had been the Bay of Pigs incident, the Ber- lin crisis, the Cuban missile cri- sis, etc. But the words of the editorial were "relative tranquility;" and these incidents do pale in com- parison to a war which has re- sulted in the fourth longest cas- ualty list in American history, to a war in ' which over 500,000 Americans are now engaged. The rest of Mr. Miron argu- ment is built on the premise that "we live in a world where our in- action looms as significantly as our action." And although he does admit that "we must balance our interests and evaluate the ends we seek in giving such aid," he at no time undertakes such an evalu- ation. Out of his letter comes no consistent notion of what the goals of American foreign policy should be. Thus, Mr. Miron contends that "to many who condemn our Viet- namese policy, we would be justi- fied in intervening in South Africa" on the principles that quested it. Now the government of South Africa is legitimate and in- dependent in the same sense as the government of Thailand. If South Africa-beset by internal strife or attacked by an amed foe-called for American assistance would Mr. Miron have the United States give it? If the United States intends to devote $30 billion a year and hun- dreds of thousands of men to sup- port every legitimate and inde- pendent government which needs help in putting down revolutions in. the coming years, it is going to be spending a lot of money and losing a lot of men. Either the United States must decide not to inter- vene anywhere, or not to commit itself so totally as in Vietnam, or to draw a line on whom it will and will not support. Mr. Miron has done the latter, apparently. He has, we must pre- sume, decided the United States should support legitimate and in- dependent governments which re- quest U.S. aid. The, use of the words "legitimate" and "indepen- dent" is key here. It implies that the United States will support the status quo in every instance, whatever the status quo is. In the context of a world where revolutions against -un- democratic and elitist govern- ments, rooted in the principles of social justice, happen every day, for the United States always to support the "legitimate" and "in- dependent" government seems re- *