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.

January 14, 1968 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1968-01-14

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

lor"m ON" " - M"- -." "

Severnty-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

ROGER RAPOPORT:
The Fourth Annuual Edgar Awards
. r. ":.".:vr "men"":::::::."." :":.".":.".:.S-S . . .. . .

Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Truth Will Prevail 40MXAt3S. N Ri Vtx

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.

SUNDAY, JANUARY 14, 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: PAT O'DONOHUE

A 'U' Presidential Veto

TWO SERIOUS QUESTIONS of Regen-
tal consent and administrative legal-
ity have arisen from President Robben
Fleming's decision this week to prevent
the Residence Halls Board of Governors'
ruling on visitation policy from going
into effect. The ruling, which permits
students to decide whom they want in
their rooms when, had seemed to be
the legitimate conclusion of the progres-
sive University reform of archaic student
behavior rules. Now, as the ruling hangs
in limbo by unilateral edict, the faulty
logic in the administration's actions be-
comes apparent.
Fleming claims that when he and the
Regents held their little chat a week
ago Friday, they told him specifically
that they did not want the decision to
go into effect. Apparently when that
question came up he either didn't count
all the hands or didn't make it clear what
he intended to do. Regent Gertrude Hueb-
ner says she assumed the Board of
Governors decision would 'be in effect
until the open Regents hearing with
student, Jan. 18. Regent William Cudlip
says that it's academic-he didn't know
and apparently doesn't care. Regent
Robert Briggs says he's been away and
doesn't know what's in effect and what
isn't.
THEN THERE'S THAT little black book
labelled the Regents By-laws, which is
supposed to be the final word on any
question of priorities and decision-mak-
ing at the University.
Section 30.03 specifically states that
the Board of Governors shall be the law-
making body for all matters pertaining
to rules of conduct in the dormitory.
Although Student Government Council
and many students would question that
power, it did seem that the Administra-
tion was moving in the right direction
with the Board of Governors on visitation
and curfew.
Boarct of Governors spokesman Prof.
Frank Braun of the German department
says that he and all the other board
members (four faculty, two student rep-
The Daily is a member of the Associated 'ress and
Collegiate Prss Service.
Fall and winter subscription rate: $4.50 per term by
carrier ($5 by mail); $8.00 for regular academic school
year ($9 by mail).
Daily except Monday during regular academic School
year.
Daily except Sunday and Monday during regular
summer session.
Second class pnstage paid at Ann Arbor, Michigan,
420 Maynard St, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104.

resentatives have votes) intrepret the
by-laws to mean that they have the
power to make the decision, and that
there is no reason why that decision
would ndt be in effect until the Regents
would overturn it. And up until last
Tuesday, Housing Director John Feld-
kamp was singing the same tune. Then
came the announcement of the open
meeting. and immediately and myster-
iously Fleming-through Feldkamp-de-
cided the board's decision was negated.
Indeed, the answer Fleming gave to
support his move-"the Regents want to
review the case"-points out exactly why
he does not have the legal authority to
negate anything. For Fleming is just as
responsible to the Regents as the Board
of Governors-and only that august body
from whence all power is legally derived
can make decisions like the one Fleming
took upon himself to make. Indeed, the
very principal University officials so of-
ten site as, the justification for adminis-
trators---that there must be clear defin-
ing of authority-is violated by Fleming's
pre-emptory edict.
THERE IS A great deal of doubt, as Prof.
Braun, says, that the Regents can
make any kind of "meaningful contact
with the students to see how this thing
will work," which the Regents say they
want, in the two-hour Regent-student
discussion scheduled for next Thursday.
A two-week period in which students
would have operated normally and ma-
turely under the authority legally grant-
ed them would have been the definite
proving ground from which the Regents
could judge. But now Fleming's unilateral
action treats a duly-authorized faculty-
student board the same way the admin-
istration has so often treated student
organizations in the past. Students can
only hope that the Regents will display
better judgement. than the administra-
tion in assessing and then approving
the validity of the Board of Governors'
thoughtful decision.
-KEN KELLEY
Editorial Staff
ROGER RAPOPORT, Editor
MEREDITH EIKER, Managing Editor
MICHAEL HEFFER ROBERT KLIVANS
City Editor Editorial Director
SUSAN ELAN ............ Associate Managing Editor
STEPHEN FIRSHEIN .,.... Associate Managing Editor
LAURENCE MEDOW......,Associate Managing Editor
RONALD KLEMPNER .... Associate Editorial Director
JOHN LOTTIER....... Associate Editorial rLirector
SUSAN SCHNEPP..............Personnel Directoi
NEIL SHISTER .............Magazine Editor
CAROLE KAPLA .........Associate Magazine Editor

ONCE AGAIN popular demand has prompted The
Daily to issue the highly coveted Edgar awards.
Based on the middle name of the nation's director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Edgars are
given to those men and women who distinguish them-
selves in areas of interest to the academic world.
A top-flight panel of judges from around the country
waded through many worthy entries. Their selections
for the fourth annual edition of the Edgars are:
THOMAS J. WATSON BUSINESS LEADERSHIP
EDGAR-To Michigan State University's Vice-President
for Business and Finance Philip Jesse May, for his
pioneer work in cementing relations between the com-
puter industry and American higher education.
JAMES AGEE CINEMATOGRAPHY AWARD - To
Ann Arbor Police Lieutenant Eugene Staudenmaler for
his continuing promotional effort on behalf of avant-
garde campus cinema.
BURTON D. THUMA EDGAR - To Vice-President
and Chief Financial Officer Wilbur K. Pierpont for not
being satisfied with getting the Residential College a
second-rate new facility on the golf course, but plugging
away until he was able to obtain a first-rate old facility
for the college in remodeled East Quadrangle.
ELIJAH P. LOVEJOY EDGAR-To the San Fran-
cisco State College Negro militants who pummeled the
campus newspaper editor and ransacked his office after
the paper had dallied on publishing a picture of a Negro
homecoming queen. The paper was in the midst of a
favorable series on Negro militants at the time.
W.E.B. DUBOIS EDGAR-To Michigan State Uni-
versity President John Hannah, for selling his 200 acre
farm adjacent to the MSU campus to a real estate firm
that is currently being charged with discriminatory prac-
tices in a suit filed before the Michigan Civil Rights
Commission. Hannah is head of the U.S. civil rights
commission.
THE CRUCIBLE EDGAR - To 16-year-old Susan
Schaffner, a student at Baldwin High School in subur-
ban New York who framed her Negro biology instructor

on charges of molestation after getting only a C plus in
his course.
BULL CONNER EDGAR-To Wilbur Emery, chief of
police in Madison, Wisc., for having the good sense to
break up a sit-in over Dow Chemical recruiting in a
campus building after a classbreak. The club-wielding
police managed to beat over 60 students, many of them
innocent sorority girls simply changing class.
EUGENE STAUDENMAIER "200 PEOPLE IN ANN
ARBOR SMOKE MARIJUANA" EDGAR-To the Chi-

relations between new administrators and The Daily.
Fleming enjoyed a honeymoon of five issues before the
paper labeled him as "his own worst enemy . . . sadly
mistaken, and meaningless."
JOHN STEWART MILL EDGAR-To the University's
faculty civil liberties board for holding closed meetings.
NAT TURNER EDGAR-To Sgt. Arthur E. Howison,
the Detroit policeman who spearheaded the raid on a
blind pig last summer that touched off the Detroit race

4

k

Edgar Winners: MSU's Hannah, FBs Hoover, UM's Pierpont

cago Tribune for estimating that 10,000 people partici-
pated in the October anti-war march on the Pentagon
after the Washington police estimated 55,000.
JOHN PROFUMO EDGAR-To FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover for firing an employe because he hosted a girl
friend at his Washington apartment.
MICHAEL RADDOCK EDGAR-To President Rob-
ben W. Fleming for setting a modern day record in

riot. Modestly explaining his role, Howison said, "We
were just in the right place at the right time, I guess."
THANKS MOM! EDGAR-To Regent Trudy Hueb-
ner. After showing a model of the University's new
theatre project (which includes a sun and moon that
revolve over the entire display) President Hatcher sug-
gested that the theatre was particularly desirable be-
cause it was for "all" the students. "Sure," replied Mrs.
Huebner, "but how many classrooms does it have?"

4

The 'U', She Ain't What She Used To Be

By LEONARD PRATT
Associate Managing Editor, 1966-67
BACKWARD glances have been
unfashionable e v e r s ince
Thomas Wolfe and Snoopy dis-
covered that you can't go home
again.
Yet I can't help but note that,
if the test of an event's signifi-
cance is its impact on the future,
the University seems to have had
one dull fall.
It's easy to miss this point, be-
cause there has been a lot of
action here. Classified research
was exposed, with appropriate ex-
pressions of outrage from all con-
cerned. Women's hours are fol-
lowing Harlan Hatcher into limbo.
Yet it took the Department of
Defense to dispose of the classi-
fied research issue. The question
of the proper relationship of a
university to its society is still
begging. And women's hours were
on the way out before last se-
mester began.
Only the timely cooperation of
Mrs. Daenzer and Vice-President
Cutler, arguing the issue of the
proper source and function of

academic discipline, has so far
this fall saved this campus's repu-
tation as a place where important
things happen to a major univer-
sity.
THE DEEPER one looks, the
worse things seem.
Why is there a vacancy in both
the membership and the execu-
tive of Student Government Coun-
cil? Why is there likely to be a
second membership vacancy be-
fore too long?
Why aren't the student advisory
committees to the vice-presidents
doing more than mumbling to one
another?
Why was President Emeritus
Hatcher's comment that "the ad-
ministration didn't have anything
to do with it" allowed to be the
last word on the Knauss Report,
an excellent story of the proper
roles of students and faculty at
the University?
Why were the members of the
President's commission on Uni-
versity Decision-Making so hor-
ribly apathetic, not completing
their report until January?

Why, above all, are so few stu-
dents giving thought to the major
problems of the University?
Why?
Some say it's because the stu-
dents have got everything they
want. That's at least part of the
answer, because the students do
have a good deal.
Most persons' political wants
are few. A committee here, a
statement there, a threat tossed
in for good measure, and they're
happy.
THIS IS ESPECIALLY true at
the University, composed as it is
of vast numbers of persons who
don't want to rock any boat the
least bit. When sham solutions to
improperly defined problems ap-
pear, they turn back to the books,
leaving the crucial problems of
growth, goals and curriculum un-
touched by human minds.
Yet this situation was a con-
stant in University politics long
before Housing Director John
Feldkamp was president of SGC.
What seems to have changed is

that there is now a vacuum of
student leadership here.
LAST . Y E A R SGC orbited
around its president, Ed Robin-
son, and his staff. That team
would have been difficult to dup-
licate, and it hasn't been dupli-
cated. Prospects for the Council's
executive next year are bleak.
One of the greatest incubators
of change at the University used
to be students who hung around
with faculty members and talked
about this vast institution. Such a
group toyed with getting then-
President Hatcher to resign in
1961. Two years ago a similar
group played a role in Roger
Heyns' decision to leave the vice-
presidency for academic affairs
and become chancellor at Berke-
ley. Last year the Movement-
which directed the largest sit-in
in the history of an American uni-
versity - was helped along and
taken advantage of by such
groups.
Where are these students now?
Studying for medical school, I
suppose.

Or gone.
And a large number of therm
have gone. The Regents last year
graduated more competent and
knowledgeable a c t i v e students
from the University than they had
since 1962.
Activists used to know a good
deal about the internal workings
of the faculty and administration.
But the defense contract expose
has thankfully made all that work
by the activists unnecessary. Now
the administrators are all fascists,
just like Marshall Ky, and that's
that.
THE HIGHEST of the many
prices that must be paid for the
multiversity is that the institution
seems to rule out all provisions
for its own reform. Perhaps the
University is too large and too
busy to produce competent stu-
dent leaders anymore.
Or perhaps they're somewhere
in a new crop of upcoming fresh-
men.
If they're not, home soon Won't
be worth coming back to.

A

:,....-- - ..:.a ,.,.... ,., .: .. ... . . . . ...S... . . . . ....a. ..;....:.::n:.:o. . ' ..:
_ _ 7w . f:t .. .,........ ... .... c... ~ x ... ..x .o :. a:. ~r, :s, a:;...SS :...SS.s. . . . . . . . . . . ., ,SVS . F :: . R °:.
. a : _ _ _ _ .:o ..:* ~ ~

'+Yn'. t' . r t :": } :tii :w?:ve :Jt }'. +iriL4 r 'v; V'in.:5 :'i} .

The

Vietnam

Conflict

voo

What Will

China Do?

--

By RICHARD H. SOLOMON
MR. Chairman, Congressmen:
The sense of uncertainty and
foreboding of the American public
concerning the Vietnam war seems
related in no small measure to the
uncertainties of China's involve-
ment in this conflict.
For the most part our public
debate on the war has strangely
excludedthe issue of China, as if
her indirect relationship to the in-
surgency made her irrelevant to a
solution. Yet periodically our pub-
lic leaders inject China into the
debate with the most threatening
of images: the spectre of "a billion
Chinese . . . armed with nuclear
weapons" led by an expansionist
group of leaders directing a "mili-
tant, aggressive Asian Commu-
nism, with its headquarters in re-
king, China." Between these ex-
tremes of irrelevance and doom,
however, lies a more complex real-
ity.
How does China see the Vietnam
conflict, and the American in-
volvement there? And what might
Chinese reactions be to various
attempts to reach a settlement?
I THINK IT can be said that the
present extent of America's in-
volvement in the Vietnam war is
perceived by Mao Tse-tung as
quite advantageous for a China
with limited means to insure her
own security. And at a time when
China's leadership is seriously di-
vided over such issues as an effec-
tive national defense policy, the
most appropriate stand to take in
dealings with the Soviet Union,
and the best measures to adopt

plication of more radical policies
within China.
On the other, the limited nature
of American objectives and in-
volvement in Vietnam means that
China pays no direct cost herself,
while we bear the burden of fight-
ing a drawn out and costly insur-
gency that ties down our resources
and weaken our sense of national
unity and purpose.
ONE HAS THE feeling that Mao
sees himself in a, "we win if you
do withdraw; we win if you don't"
position regarding our present com-
mitment in Vietnam. If we should
seek to end this conflict in a way
that would affirm the effectiveness
of a "people's war" strategy of
political insurgency, this could on-
ly strengthen Mao's position in a
divided China, and within a now
fragmented w o r 1 d Communist
\movement,
Yet if we do remain in this .con-
flict our most important national
resources-a sense of unity and
purpose, our skilled manpower, and
economic wealth - are drained
away in a seemingly interminable
struggle.
The Chinese do have apprehen-
sions about the Vietnam situ-
ation, however; and these grow
from their perceptions of the ad-
vantages of the present condi-
tion of the war. To have the con-
flict increase in scope to the point
where direct Chinese military in-
tervention would be considered
necessary is something they fear,
not just because of China's mili-
tary weakness vis-a-vis the United
States, and the highly uncertain

On Nov. 28, 1967, five leading Asian scholars,
four from the University, were assembled in Wash-
ington to analyze and suggest alternatives to Amer-
ica's present Vietnam policy. Rep. Donald W.
Riegl e, Jr., a Republican from Flint, requested
the team of experts, led by Prof. Alexander Eck-
stein of the University's Center for Chinese Studies,
to appear before the bi-partisan group of 19 Con-
gressmen.
Today's article, the fifth in a six-part series, is
by Dr. Richard H. Solomon, an assistant professor
of political science at the University and a research
associate at the University's Center for Chinese
Studies. Prof. Solomon recenty spent two years in
Asia interviewing emigres from Communist China
and is presently at work on a book on Chinese
political behavior.

desire to exclude a direct and per-
manent American military pres-
ence on her borders, her desire to
limit Soviet influence in this area,
and America's concern to see the
present protracted conflict brought
to a stable conclusion.
We also should consider explor-
ing whatever room for diplomatic
movement may have come about
as a result of China's subversive
pressures on Burma, Thailand,
and Cambodia that have become
more aparent with the "Cultural
Revolution." Perhaps these states,
in the face of the larger threat
posed by China, now are more
willing to work out theiraregional
differences and to seek security in
the contextof international guar-
antees for their borders and inter-
nal security against subversion.
EFFORTS TO CREATE a just
and secure neutralization of Indo-
China would seem to require two
basic and interrelated guidelines:
first, that there be no armed take-
over of South Vietnam by the
North or by armed organizations
under its control-yet concurrent
acceptance by the United States of
the high probability that a polit-
ical solution would lead before
long to a reunification of the
country under North Vietnamese
organizational auspices. (Stated
somewhat differently, the United
States must re-examine and per-
haps give up the doubtful pros-
pects of attaining a "Korea" type
solution in Vietnam.)
Secondly, but closely related to
the first point, there must be a
general diplomatic resolution of
+te hnundarvdispuites of the entire

full relationship of the American
commitment in Vietnam to the
security of the entire region would
be made clear both to the world
and to our own people; and such
a positive move on our part would
help to shift some of the burdens
of resolving this conflict onto the
internation community.
Such an effort, even if only
partly successful, could workto
expose more fully Sino-Soviet dif-
ferences over the proper way to
conduct international relations,
and their profoundly differing in-
terests in this region. And by con-
fronting China with such a diplo-
matic alternative to' the present
conflict, the policy difference and
divisions among her leaders might
become all the more obvious.
CHINA'S CONSTRUCTIVE par-
ticipation in such an international
resolution of the problems of this
area would obviously be most use-
ful, and necessary to long term
stability in Indo-China. But even
if the Chinese Communists chose
to isolate themselves from one
form of diplomatic solution, they
might continue to face the coun-
terweight of an international com-
mitment sanctioning intervention
if they should continue their ef-
forts to arm and infiltrate insur-
gents into the area, or to play on
the political rivalries of the region.
The advantages of a neutraliza-
tion solution, if workable, only be-
gin with an end to the Vietnam
conflict and the desensitization of
a region where the United States
and China now risk being drawn
into a direct clash over local dis-
putes.

Richard H. Solomon

ularly if it would leave an effective
and long term United States or
Soviet presence in the area, and if
it would degrade the sense of legi-
timacy that the war has given to
both a strategy of political insur-
gecy and to Mao's policy of the
need to actively oppose what he
sees as an "expansionist" United
States and "revisionist" Soviet
Union.
Moreover, the experience of their
struggle for power during the war
against Japan has taught the Chi-

Vietnam if a "sell-out" peace is
reached, the provision of arms to
North Vietnam, and the attempts
to develop independent ties with
the National Liberation Front-
to prevent a resolution of the
conflict on any terms other than a
victory for the insurgents.
HOW CAN THE United States
extricate herself from the bind of
the Vietnam situation, yet in a
way that will not simply trade
present costs for future risks by

to the broader problems of the
Indo-China peninsula; and within
the context of an attempt to re-
solve the long-standing border
disputes and the political tensions
of the region, primarily those be-
tween the Vietnamese and Cam-
bodians, the Cambodians and the
Thais, the Vietnamese and the
Laos-and of China to the entire
area.
If there is any room for agree-
ment with the Chinese at all it
would appear to lie in the realm of
c~'na nrmv..of n rn.n~tinfn.ofsf+ho

hi

m

I

I

1

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan