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.

October 11, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1967-10-11

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


... . . . . . . ...:.... . .s.

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

ROGER RAPOPORT:
How I Learned To Stop Worrying

. . .

; __ =.

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.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 1967

NIGHT EDITOR: DAVID KNOKEj

Let the Students Decide

S T U D E N T GOVERNMENT Council's
procedure for filling vacancies is
blatently undemocratic and should be
revised if Council is seriously interested
in being representative of the student
body.
Last Thursday night SGC chose three
new members 'to fill vacancies resulting
from a graduation and two resignations.
After private interviews earlier in the
week, eight of the 17 students who had
petitioned for a seat were chosen to
speak before Council. After two and one-
half hours of interviewing and debate
the Council made its decision.
Council President Bruce Kahn, '68,
said that filling vacancies in this man-
ner was preferable to leaving each mem-
ber with proportionately more power by
not filling them at all. However, since
Council members choose those who will
fill the vacant seats, they can substitute
students who support their own posi-
tions. Rather than increasing the rap-
port between the student body and SGC
-and insuring a more equitable repre-
sentation of all student interests--the
current means of filling Council vacan-
cies merely perpetuates whatever mis-
representation might already exist.
The .purpose of the procedure, accord-
ing to Executive Vice-President Ruth
Baumann, '68, is to "get them on Council

and then encourage tharn to run" in
campus-wide elections. But doesn't this
means of selection also discourage those
who differ from the majority view of
SGC from running for election?
ONE POSSIBLE solution to the prob-
lem is a special campus-wide elec-
tion to fill vacancies as they arise. To
avoid the expense of extra elections,
which SGC could hardly afford, alter-
nate Council members could be chosen
at each election. These representatives
could function in much the same man-
ner as do alternate trial jurors, partici-
pating in SGC meetings without a vote..
A Council omniscient enough to select
three qualified representatives in only
150 minutes should certainly be able to
turn this concept into a workable pro-
gram in half the time.
Considering all the discussion at SGC
meeting about how poorly, Council rep-
resents the student body, and consider-
ing the important actions that Council
is taking in such areas as student regu-
lations, student housing, and its national
affiliations, SGC can not afford to con-
tinue using a system of filling vacancies
iwhich alienates the student body by
denying them their vote.
--MARTIN HIRSCHMAN

WHEN I WAS a freshman this was a campus filled
with issues. Some students talked of radical notions
like giving students control over their own academic
lives. Others dreamed of 8-month leases on their apart-
ments, or winning collective bargaining rights for Uni-
versity employes. And some dreamers even talked of
ending the cozy financial relationship between the ad-
ministration and outside business interests.
All this must seem horribly outdated to this year's
freshmen. No sooner do they walk in the door than the
Student Government Council seizes control over stu-
dent's non-academic lives. The next thing they know the
University is giving its employes collective bargaining
rights. Then the attorney general issues a stiff conflict
of interest ruling that sends college administrators and
Regents reeling and resigning across the state. And now
two major landlords have initiated an 8-month lease.
That any one of these developments should come to
pass is amazing enough. But that all four should occur
in less than two months is incredible.
To those who have picketed, editorialized, ranted,
and raved about such causes these are strange times.
Suddenly 'things all seem to be breaking for the good.
THE SURPRISING THING about all this change
in such a short period is that it has prompted such little
reaction. Three years ago such moves would have been
unthinkable. When SGC took disciplinary power the
only response was one mild letter from a vice-president.
And when Joint Judiciary Council took the unpre-

cedented step of acquitting two students on the grounds
that they would not enforce rules that weren't passed
by SGC no one said a word. The administration has not
made any formal sign of opposition.
Similarly there was no visible protest when At-
torney General Frank Kelley said that University offi-
cers or Regents couldn't serve on corporate or bank
boards that did business with their school. University
President Harlan Hatcher and Michigan State Univer-
sity President John Hannah resigned their bank board
posts as did six other officials at schools across the
state.
On the collective bargaining decision, Vice-President
and Chief Financial Officer Wilbur K. Pierpont and
other top university officials simply swallowed their old
stand (at least until the courts decide otherwise) to end
a strike and avert potential violence.
And Ann Arbor realtors have not begun picketing
University Towers or Huron Towers which have both
found it economically feasible to offer students an 8-
month lease. That two big landlords could break with
the Ann Arbor real estate establishment so simply is
astonishing.'
NEEDLESS TO SAY all these changes did not just
happen. Most of them were at least partially prompted
by the continued pressure of various student groups. For
example Voice-SDS can take some of the credit for
creating the climate that made SGC's move feasible and
stiff administration reprisal ill-advised. Immodestly one

can say The Daily's reporting on a Regental conflict of
interest helped prompt some legislators to push faster
for a stiffer conflict of interest law. Steady Union pres-
sure paid off on collective bargaining and the work of
Student Housing Association has helped push the 8-
month lease.
The situation has gone so far that one can scarcely
complain to an administrator about some blatant in-
adequacy before he will turn around and right the wrong.
For example a brief mention to Plant Extension Di-
rector James Brinkerhoff that students are being
drenched by automatic sprinklers on main campus
which start at 11 p.m. is enough to make him see that
the sprinklers are turned on at the saner time of 1 a.m.
And even some of the old crusades have been drop-
ped. A couple years ago everyone was wearing buttons
and signing petitions in behalf of a University-run dis-
count bookstore for students. The campaign lost and is
now dormant. But a new cathpus bookstore now, gives
students a 10 per cent discount.
Few are foolish enough to think that things are
going to.continue to improve here at the pace of the
past two months. But the overall picture looks bright.
ONE CAN ONLY pity those freshmen who have nev-
er known the joy of fighting for a lost cause, struggling
for some visionary ideal, beating the drums for some-
thing that most people don't care about. In their youth-
ful innocence they have sniffed only success; found only
victory.

'y

..!V": rl. Y: t......"..... A.r.. f.. rrlr ..................J.V :Y.'rr:.14.14. ".......,...............hJ M1 ...... .... ... n ... ..'.. ........ t..............Y.... L.....J............ ............ f .. n r......"...,h....r .... :5.. p."......,(. r .........r . .. ............... " 1.....1"... ."..1..A . 4 4 L .
....... ......... ...... ........... ,...,......,.... .. .. t t 1 . M .h L .:'h 8 k rl .+ .." ..... ::. ..::r,
.. ....t. r... .". r ...... ...... ... .. .... ....: ..... {. ...... ... ... .. .... ... .. f..r.n. ..511
... ..........1.....h......, . ... . ..r5 ....." f A. .{f. . . 1 t5} . t. , . . i............,. .. 5.. { 1. } h. ". . V .5.. .. .......: : "
......."......,r ............................t.S........... fAf "! . .. " rY . .... NJ. "5 . ... h. rr .. .rah. //n......, ."..>1... ,y 1.''.4"L ,,w. . \ y}n Y" t} t 1,k 1 yf J5v N1 y..,. ::::,.::... fN 1. .t .5 . ...... ........ .. ":"..';'
.l. ".. Jl.... t............".. .....................................1 .......,.... A..,.,h.......{..A1..".tA4..'ti:t N...LIi A... A1."aaM1 r fi.1P.1 h. .1.7.. .A..:4.........{'rh' Rt..}..1. tX.A l.4........ tiLM. M1 r. "4... N.n1'...n1.. Nr1.. .4 '4.. tt"h'4}f515RV.5": A511Y"N1V! li.Yr A1 K11YhL:Ci fn1.. ....... . .:fh n'NNX{f"e"}. fi..... N},5..... i".......:. :.::...., , ...1 .5... n .....:.":
t
Letters.* Goldwater alp ' a/, Honor

Ma king Martyrs of Marchers

THE JOHNSON Administration, in an-
other incredibly stupid blunder, has
strengthened the hand of its anti-war
opponents instead of emasculating them
as intended.
In the guise of the Washington, D.C.,
General Services Administration which
speaks for policemen, firemen and othei
civic agencies, the Administration has
refused to grant parade and rally per-
mits for the October 21 March on Wash-
ington. The GSA did not object to the
parade or rally-which are the only per-
mits being sought--but laid down an ul-
timatum that the National Mobilizing
Committee renounce any association
with individuals who intend subsequent-
ly to attempt ;a civil disobedient sit-in at
the Pentagon.. Furthermore, the GSA
said, permits would not be issued upon
renouncing the sit-in unless picketing
of the Pentagon is also abandoned.
Reaction from representatives of a
hundred peace, anti-war, political and
civil rights groups sponsoring the march
was predictably strong. They denounced
the ultimatum as "completely unaccept-
able" and engaged legal counsel to seek
a lift on the permit ban.
"We call on all Americans," the group
said, "regardless of their stand on the
war, to support the rights of assembly,
speech and redress of grievances guar-
anteed by the Constitution and the bill
of rights."

.Instead of limiting support for the
march to the few millions overtly op-
posed to the military war, the Johnson
Administration has forced an escalation
of dissent to the level of civil liberties.
More persons than ever before willrally
around this issue of freedoms funda-
mental to the American body politic.
INSTEAD OF discretely avoiding a "con-
frontation with the peacemakers"' at
the Pentagon , by issuing permits for
routes away from the building, the au-
thorities chose to blankly oppose the
protestors by issuing demands that are
morally unacceptable to persons who
consider their actions morally righteous.
Dr. Benjamin Spock has vowed, to
speak at the Lincoln Memorial rally
whatever the legal status of his speech,
even if it means jail., And there are
others more resolute than ever to go
through with the program. Instead of
bottling up dissent, the authorities have
shown the repressive side of domestic
politics that emerges from pursuit of
an unconscienable foreign policy.
Unless the Administration backs down
or reaches an acceptable compromise,
it risks making martyrs of the marchers
and risks a betrayal of the freedoms for
which it proclaims the necessity of de-
fending in Vietnam.
-DAVID KNOKE

To the Editor:
1UHE SHOCK that was in store
for me at the Goldwater seg-
ment of Controversy '67 was only
partially expected. I say partially
because I only expected it from
one source, the speaker. It came,
instead from two: Barry Gold-
water, himself, and the audience
attendant upon him.
I should like to say, as an aside,
that Mr. Goldwater conducted
himself well. This is especially
true if one noticed the highly ir-
responsible actions of the UAC
moderator. No, he didn't smoke
this time. But he did stand at the
podium during the entire post-
address discussion, segments of
which were quite long, clapping
in response to the highly partisan
statements of both sides.
This, I claim, is not the function
of a moderator. His is not to add
to the audience's emotionality. In-
deed, he is expected to temper the
situation, to epitomize the aspect
of' calm and reason. His sole func-
tion is to introduce the speakers,
and to provide a medium through
which those on the floor who wish
to speak may be recognized.
BUT, TO GET back to the sub-
ject at hand, I walked out of Hill
gat 5:00, two hours after the lec-
ture-panel discussion commenced,
a very shocked and sad person. I
was shocked, mainly, by one Gold-
water statement which seemed to
reflect his entire political and
moral position. In response to the
question "Do you value the honor
of your country over the respect
of human life?" he replied an
adamant "YES!" This response
was immediately followed by long,
sustained applause. One fellow in
front of me was clapping so vigor-
ously that, in the interests of fair-
play to which I unfortunately com-
mit myself at times, I felt con-
strained to tell him that his par-
tisanship was showing. He replied,
giving me a haughty look, "Yes,
I'm a partisan, and I'm proud of,
it!"
Upon what possible moral stance
does Barry Goldwater claim that
his country's honor is more im-
portant than human life? I remind
him, and all individuals, that gov-
ernments exist for the benefit of
the people, not the other way
around. I further remind him of
a famous philosopher, John Stuart
Mill, whose stand it was, if I may
sum up: the fact that a decision
is made by a majority of those
concerned does not make it moral-

main point was that once we win
(and he is assured that we will),
we should have a national debate
on the concept of war in general.
This is a noble view, but when
questioned as to the logic of the
idea, he replied with the value
statement I first cited: honor
above life!
MR. GOLDWATER emphasized
-that a military victory in Vietnam
is possible. He said that such a
victory would be obtained when
Ho Chi Minh calls for negotiation,
saying that North Vietnam can't
win the war. One wonders if it has
occurred to Mr. Goldwater that
there is a difference between ad-
mitting that one cannot win, and
admitting that one is losing. There
is no dichotomy of win or lose,
for there is also stalemate.
Ho Chi Minh has resources to
draw on and conviction of his own
values to rely on. He will not
necessarily claim defeat just be-
cause he cannot win. By the same
token, the U.S. cannot claim a
military victory just because North
Vietnam cannot win, for the U.S.
seems to be in the same position.
Even given the credibility gap,
there is no definite evidence to be
shown that the U.S. is winning the
war.
We do know that we are not
losing it militarily, but we are not
sure that we are winning it. Ac-
cording to the Goldwater defini-
tion and logic, then, we can allow
a claim, of "military victory" to
North Vietnam.
THEREFORE, I make ,this ap-
peal. If we want to be intelligent,
we must eliminate the double-talk,
the confusion of reasonable discus-
sion with emotional reaction based
on individual values. The world is
full of differing ideas, abased on,
different, but nonetheless vital,
cultures. Mr. Goldwater's "honor
of a country" might be foolish
to some, catastrophic for others.
They might be agreeable to still
more. But that does not mean he
is right, nor does it mean that such
value must be established as fact.
I lament the fact, and apologize
to myself, that I was shocked; but,
feeling so lost in audience obvi-
ously partisan and emotional, I
hope may be excused. This certain-
ly gives some convincing evidence
that the Ann Arbor campus is not
as liberal as many fear, or would
like to think. There were a great
many conservative students at that
lecture.

Maybe someone will tell me that
I am the partisan. Well, yes, I
am; I love my life, despite its
various setbacks, and I am proud
of it!
--Dane Harwood, '69
Gravy Train
To the Editor:
EFERENCE is made to the pro-
posal submitted to SOC by
Council member E. 0. Knowles,
'70 which would cease SGC spon-
sorship of pre-meeting dinners for
the Executive Board. With this
proposal, President Kahn's "mo-
ment of interest" seems to have
arrived. Unfortunatel'y the "in-
terest" is not focused on any
campus issue but on the growing
conflict within SGC itself. It is
pleasing to note that' Sam- Sher-
man, Mike Davis, and Lew Paper
have found in the proposal an ac-
curate measure of what SGC
means to them: all three threaten-.
ed to' resign if they don't get their
two free meals a week. Kahn, sup-
porting the trio, likewise displayed
unusual "responsibility" by threat-
ening not to appoint new members
to fill the vacancies, should they
arise.
The casual, arbitrary manner
with which some Council mem-
bers choose issues on which to
stake the future of that body is al-
arming and, indeed, a political
travesty. Sam Sherman termed the
motion which passed a vote of no
confidence against the board. This
is, of course, a highly inaccurate
description of a move designed to
cut expenditures in a year in
which Treasurer Sherman himself
has admitted revenues may easily
fall short of expenses.
The debated cash is $640 an-
nually designated for Executive
Board meals. That figure stands in
addition to $680 in officers' sala-
ries and is three times the amount
appropriated for Student Con-
sumers' Union. Surely if this out-
lay can be eliminated or at least
saved for use elsewhere, it would
be to everyone's benefit. Let the
strategy for meetings be worked
out by the board on Wednesday
night instead of Thursday over
$2.00 a plate dinners.
Finally, if members of the Ex-
ecutive Board are so tired or dis-
enchanted with their office as to
still seek excuse for leaving, a stu-
dent poll conducted on the Diag
tomorrow might well provide a
more substantial no confidence
vote to. justify an early retirement.
-Lonnie C. Von Renner,'68E

Up, Up and Away in My Beautiful Balloon

ly right, nor does an attitude ac-
quire truth even if it is a majority
opinion.
The question of war? Mr. Gold-
water tells us that he is, of course,
in favor of eliminating war. But I.
ask, how? By holding honor above
human life? That is exactly what
leads to war. What makes any in-
dividual think that his value sys-
tem is better than another's? Do
you kill a man because he believes
in communism? Is that sufficient
cause? Is there a sufficient cause?
Can you, with moral conviction,
put a woman to the stake because
she believes in spirits? What kind
of a society do we live in where a
man's even a group's, honor is
more valuable than a human life?
I can easily see why Mr. Goldwater
was not included in the "Voices of
Civilization."
BUT WHAT SCARED me most
was that, to judge from the audi-
ence's acceptance of this philoso-
phy, this is the value system that
our country holds. I do not claim
to be an expert on the use of in-
ternational power; but, I can un-
derstand now why Americans want
to be the world's police force. One

is led to believe, from his remarks,
that Mr. Goldwater would murder
Ho Chi Minh or Harold Wilson if
the President-no not the Presi-
dent-if Congress and public opin-
ion told him that it was vital to
.the "Honor of The Country" that
he do so. But I conjecture; possi-
bly Mr. Goldwater is more rational
than that, and would question
such an order. I would bet, how-
ever, that my partisan friend in
the audience would go right ahead.
And he would be proud of this
compliance.
I realize that this presentation
is not very scholarly. My use of
first person counters, to some ex-
tent, whatever logic and fact I
present. I submit, however, that
this is indeed a statement of opin-
ion, an emotional reaction to a
display of moral standards ex-
hibited under which I would be
afraid to live.
I do not claim Mr. Goldwater to
be a McCarthy; neither do I claim
him to be a Hubert Humphrey.
Maybe he did foresee a Vietnam
involvement when he ran for of-
fice in 1964. But of what relevance
is this? He did not present us with
a realistic solution to war. His

Getting To Know You'

THE ACCUSATIONS are flying fast and
furious over at the Student Activities
Building. SGC's executive board feels
they've been slighted and consequently
may have to resign, membeis of council
say they "don't like to play politics, but
." and, in the words of a newly ap-
pointed Council member, "the whole
thing looks pretty darn complicated."
The whole thing is pretty complicated,
but It doesn't really have anything to
do with dinners or money.
The problem is really a basic antagon-
ism that some members of council feel
for the executive board. They seem to
feel that the board is overbearing and
unpleasant at SGC meetings and unfair-
ly attempts to dominate the proceedings.
So a motion was made last Thursday
night to take the board's dinners away
from them. Although some of the mo-
tion's backers claim that the purpose
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
Collegiate Press 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 postage paid at Ann Arbor, Michigan,

was to conserve Council's admittedly,
limited funds, others say that they want-
ed the motion to "put the board in its
place."
Whatever the original intent of the
motion to stop financing the five-man
board's dinners twice a week, not many
people deny that it was mishandled on
its way to the Council floor! An attempt
was deliberately made to keep the con-
tent of the motion from the members
of the executive board for as long as
possible. Bad feelings were needlessly
built up.
THE EXECUTIVE board is not; of
course, without fault in this situation.
To an extent, they are guilty of express-
ing the overbearing attitude that an-
noys some of Council's members. But if
Council wants the board to stop acting
the way they do, they should just ask.
And if Council wanted to save money on
board dinners, they should have just
asked. But they were wrong in trying to
tie the two issues together.
In the end, though, it doesn't really
matter who's at fault here. What does
matter is that Council is falling apart-
not over the ridiculous issue of execu-
tive board dinners, but over the personal
tensions that exist between the board
nn.. +1..a m nnmlh rc'

_

FEIFFER

I.
GDATOM
INT
ADVIOCATE
B2U NMRG4
CTIES

AtOP
lt'J
/ I

YOO CALL A MCT
7'O viscuJ55 IT

OP -WT~
L4au,

nMGrO TO cos' it.r
/oo
jI \

Wt Ak)Tl-
T OMLY Ri
RUACK ~
AHEPICA

'EAR

t

A019 -OUCAL I A ES'T
10 Tf0pKcvs !T

I

AM12
RM

YTOU CLU5A IT-

, .

- I

I

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan