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 18, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1967-10-18

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


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

r -

Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICIT.
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 18, 1967

NIGHT EDITOR: MARK LEVIN

Rules and Regulations:
It's Do-It-Yourself Time

THE HOUSE councils in the individual
residence halls now have all the neces-
sary power to write their own code for
personal behavior. They should recognize
this and immediately begin instituting
those house regulations which they deem
appropriate.
Student Government Council has al-
ready given freshman women in the in-
dividual residence halls the right to de-
termine their own hours. Inter-House As-
sembly has now given the house councils
the power to write all other personal
conduct regulations. Freshman women in
two houses, Blagdon and Hunt, have al-
ready abolished their hours. All fresh-
man women are now in the position to
make a similar move.
In addition, house councils can now
set their own visitation policies and, in
general, alter their rules in any way
they desire.
TRUE, the administration does not rec-
gnize the right of students to make
their own rules. Directory of University
Housing John Feldkamp has said that
University rules will be enforced. At the
same time, however, he said that the
residence hall staff "will not fine or res-
trict the behavior of students."
Instead, the student who continually
breaks administration rules will be "coun-

selled" by the staff. If counselling does
not produce the desired effect, said Feld-
kamp, the student may be turned over
to his school or college, presumably to
be suspended or expelled.
Feldkamp admits, however, that no
student has ever been suspended for
breaking the University's regulations on
personal behavior.
Assistant Dean James Shaw of the
literary college has noted it is unlikely
a ruling will be made in this area until
the President's Commission on Decision-
Making files its report.
In the interim the University will,
hopefully, recognize the folly in main-
taining a code of regulations which is
undemocratic, out-moded and ineffective.
THE LONG awaited opportunity has ar-
rived. The house councils must awaken
and establish those rules which work to
benefit the residence hall occupants. The
effete conduc rules of the administra-
tion must be eliminated and a set of
rules determined by students must be
established.
The cry has long been "let the stu-
dents decide." It is time for the rhetoric
to be converted to action. House Councils
should act now to set their own policy.
-MARTIN HIRSCHMAN

Isth
By HOWARD SCHUMAN
and
EDWARD O. LAUMANN
This is an adaptation of the first
part of an article to appear in TRANS-
ACTION, November, 1967. Other parts
deal with variations in opinion by
college, rank, and field of intellectual
interest, and with procedural versus
substantive objections to the letter
described here.
Mr. Schuman is an Associate Pro-
fessor and Mr. Laumann an Assis-
tant Professor of Sociology at the
University.
IN FEBRUARY of this year, 21
University faculty members-
most of them well-known profes-
sors-wrote to all their colleagues
asking them to support a public
protest letter to President John-
son. The letter called for an un-
conditional halt in the bombing
raidson North Vietnam. Thein-
vitation to sign was sent to every
major faculty group except grad-
uate teaching fellows.
About one-fifth, of the faculty,
608 people, signed the letter.
A month after the letter had
been setn to the President, we
mailed a brief questionnaire to
I300 faculty members-a random
sample from the same faculty list
the sponsors of the stop-the-
bombing letter had used. (The
idea for such a study was first
suggested by one of the sponsors,
Professor Leslie Kish.)
What we hoped to determine
was: How representative of the
entire faculty were the signers?
And why had 80 per cent of the
faculty not signed?
We enclosed a note explaining
our study, asured our respondents
we would keep their answers con-
fidential, and promised objectivi-
ty in our analysis and reporting.
We mentioned that one of us had
signed the letter to the President
and one had not.
THE QUESTIONNAIRE asked
respondents to list their general
location in the University (Med-
ical School, Engineering, etc.)
and their faculty rank. We also
inquired whether they worked pri-
marily in the humanities, the na-
tural sciences, or the social sci-
ences.'
Finally, they were asked wheth-
er they had signed the stop-the-
bombing letter or not. If not, they
were asked to indicate their rea-
sons by checking one or more of
six choices, which were:
-I would have signed the let-
ter, but did not receive it.
-I would have signed the let-
ter, but mislaid or forgot it.
-I did not sign the letter be-
cause I did not believe in the use
of the name of the University of
Michigan in this way.
-I did not sign the letter be-
cause I disagree with its substance:
I support present U.S. policy on
the issue of bombing.
-I did not sign the letter be-
cause I disagreed with its sub-

"The faculty of this University. . . is seriously split on the war. And the
largest single block in February ... w as not the doves but the supporters
of the Administration policy."
1::s ~ si e i ". "'!:":Yt:V:":::r:::::":Y::::"',":;"V.VJ ":.tt: ". V111" L1V.Y."r'JJ.".".": h:'rr".". "~"Jr ".::Y.""",

'U' Faculty Hawk or Dove?

stance: I favor more, rather than
less, bombing of North Vietnam.
-I did not sign the letter be-
cause I have not arrived at a de-
finite personal position on the
isue of bombing North Vietnam.
Space was provided for any ex-
planations not covered by the six
choices.
OF THE 300 questionnaires we
sent out, 242 (81 per cent) were
returned. We used the classifica-
tions these respondents gave, plus
our own classification of the 19

letter to the President, including
three signers drawn in the sample
who did not return our question-
naire, totaled 29 per cent. Those
supporting either the then-cur-
rent bombing policy, or even more
vigorous bombing, totaled 28 per
cent, almost the same total as the
opposition!
In sum, nearly three-fifths of
th faculty took an explicit sub-
stantive position, either clear sup-
port for, or strong opposition to,
an unconditional halt to bombing

WHAT ABOUT the 30 per cent
of our sample who simply rejected
the opportunity to take a stand on
bombing North Vietnam? They are
a puzzle.
This group includes eight per
cent who offered only procedural
objections to the stop-the-bomb-
ing letter; four per cent with mis-
cellaneous reasons for giving no
opinion; and 18 per cent who
neither signed the letter nor re-
turned our questionnaire.
It seems unrealistic to assign all

per cent who did not respond, to
discover whether a broad area of
intellectual interest was asso-
ciated with willingness to respond
to our questionnaire.
The answer was yes: 94 per
cent of the social scientists re-
sponded, but only 81 per cent of
the natural scientists and 72 per
cent of the humanists did so. Na-
tural scientists certainly believe
in measurement, and humanists
are often deeply interested in un-
derstanding human behavior. But
there are undoubtedly members
of both groups who are repelled
by the social scientist's attempt
to apply thesrigor of measure-
ment to the study of human at-
titudes.
The major statistical findings
of the survey are given in the
adjoining table.
Most of the responses fell un-
der the six choices printed in the
questionnaire. The only signifi-
cant new category to appearwas
one in line with Senator Robert
Kennedy's call for a reduction or
temporary halt in the bombing
(but not an unconditional cessa-
tion)
If this had been listed as a
choice, it probably would have
pulled additional responses.
Another important distinction
suggested by some responses was
between support of the bombing
as such and support of the Ad-
ministration because it represents
elected officials or expert judge-
ment.
Many of those taking the latter
position criticized signers of the
stop-the-bombing letteras pseu-
do-experts. But we had not built
this distinction systematically in-
to our questionnaire, and so de-
cided to include both types of re-
ponse under "support (for) pres-
ent U.S. policy on the issue of
bombing."
THOSE WHO. supported the

North Vietnam. Further, one per
cent developed a meaningful sub-
stantive stand favoring less bomb-
ing but not an unconditional halt.
In the logic of the situation,
these faculty members should
probably be classed with the doves
who took the position of the letter.
Finally, 12 per cent frankly re-
ported themselves undecided on
the bombing issue and thus occupy
a neutral or passive position be-
tween the pro-halt and pro-bomb-
ing groups.

of this 30 per cent to the "unde-
cided" category. Since we were
seeking to estimate the maximum
possible support for and opposition
to the anti-bombing letter, we de-
cided to distribute this remainder-
all of whom were non-signers--
in the same proportions as the
nonsigners who returned the ques-
tionnaire with a clear substantive
position.
This calculation gave us an ad-
ditional eight per cent who prob-
ably oppose the bombing and 22

Summary of Survey Results
% of 300 Number
SUBSTANTIVE AGREEMENT WITH LETTER
Signed letter to President 17 ( 50)
Would have signed but did not receive 5 15)
Would have signed but mislaid or forgot 3 ( 9)
Did not sign because of procedural reservations,
but agreed with contents of letter 3 ( 8)
NO SUBSTANTIVE POSITION STATED.
PROCEDURAL OBJECTION TO LETTER
Object to use of Univ. of Michigan name 7 ( 21)
Other procedural objections 1 ( 3)
SUBSTANTIVE DISAGREEMENT WITH LETTER
Favors less bombing, but not
unconditional cessation 1 ( 4)
Personally undecided on issue of bombing 6 ( 19)
Supports present U.S. policy on bombing 16 ( 48)
Favors more bombing than at present 3 ( 9)
SUBSTANTIVE DISAGREEMENT WITH AND
PROCEDURAL OBJECTION TO LETTER
Personally undecided PLUS Object
to use of University name 6 ( 18)
Supports present U.S. policy PLUS
Object to use of University name 6 ( 17)
Favors more bombing PLUS
Object to use of University name 3 ( 10)
NOT CLASSIFIABLE
Prefers not to state position
(e.g., not U.S. citizen) 4 ( 11)
Did not return questionnaire 19 ( 58)
100 (300)

per cent who probably support it.
THUS, BY the most generous
estimate, 38 per cent of the fac-
ulty opposed the bombing and 50
per cent, including the hawks, sup-
ported the bombing.
This 50 per cent may be even a
slight underestimate, since people
who went to the effort of return-
ing our questionnaire were prob-
ably a little more dovish than those
who didn't.
As for the undecided 12 per cent,
we have left them where they
were, in the middle, since we can
assume that they would give their
passive support to almost any gov-
ernment policy on bombing North
Vietnam.
Thus, there is no faculty con-
sensus on the bombing. And; since
bombing North Vietnam has emer-
ged as the central strategic, moral,
and political issue of the war,
there is probably no consensus on
the war itself.
Rather, there are two groups
with strong opposing views, along
with a large intermediate group
that reflects the faculty conflict
by refusing to take a stand.
The faculty of this University,
at least, is seriously split on the
war. And the largest single block
in Februarybof this year was not
the doves, but supporters of the
Administration policy.
WOULD THE SAME results be
obtained today, seven months
later? National polls indicate a
drop in public support for the war,
and it is simplest to assume a
similar decline on the part of the
University's faculty.
One might indeed expect a
larger change at this educational
level, since the faculty is more
aware than the average citizen of
recent problems connected with
pursuit of the war.
On the other hand, faculty
members in Ann Arbor who sup-
ported the bombing in February
had been exposed for nearly two
years to counter-arguments from
many colleagues; their resistance
to these arguments for so long may
well indicate a more stable pro-
bombing position than that held
by the general population.
ONLY ANOTHER study at this
point can tell whether faculty
opinions on the bombing have
changed faster or slower than in
the general population .
All we can report is that in
February, 1967, the Administration
in Washington could count on
considerable support within the
University of Michigan facutly-
and presumably in other compara-
ble faculties as well-for what is
undoubtedly the most widely ques-
tioned action of the United States
today: the bombing of North Viet-
nam.

4

I

Who Speaks for Vietnam

A RECENT RAND CORPORATION study
by economist Edward J. Mitchell on
the effects of land reform in South Viet-
nam affirms the 'futility of the United
States' efforts to support the Saigon
government.
The report finds that where land re-
form is successful, Viet Con. activity
reaches a zenith; inversly, where the
feudal estates persist, government au-
thority is strongest.
He goes on to state that when the feu-
dal estate is removed there is an absence
of governmental services previously pro-
vided by the feudal landlord, such as:
"providing leadership, credit, the big dis-
cussion-like organizations like organiza-
tion of local militia - a situation where
power is concentrated and the political
structure simple."
The Saigon government is so out of
touch with the peasant population that
they are unable to fullfill the peasants'
.governmental needs, which in turn be-
come filled by the Viet Cong.
ALL POLITICIANS, whether doves or
hawks, agree that victory in Vietnam
must ultimately be a political one. And
from the Kennedy administration to the
present all experts have continuously
agreed that a basic element to this po-
licital victory must be land reform.
These experts have based their as-
sumption on the premise that a Saigon
regime will be capable of satisfying the
peoples' governmental needs, and there-
fore, win their allegience.

The report, however, confirms two
facts that run contrary to this theory.
First, the Saigon regime is far less cap-
able of governing and representing the
people than many observers previously
believed. The other is that the Viet Cong
are not merely a guerilla terrorization
movement, limited only to political fun-
ctions, but have become a real govern-
mental force in the provinces of South
Vietnam.
If one considers a government legit-
mization to be based on its ability to serve
the people, then one must consider the
Vietcon as the true government of the
South Vietnamese peasant.
rTHE REPORT ALSO discovered that "it
has been the better-to-do peasant who
has revolted, while his poorer brothers
actively supported or passively accepted
the existing order."
According to these findings, efforts to
bring about land reform and economi-
cally improve the South Vietnamese
people - which President Johnson out-
lined as one of our goals in South Viet-
nam - run contrary to support the Sai-
gon regime.
Perhaps in fullfilling our committment
to the- South Vietnamese government,
Secretary Rusk should look for the real,
and not the statuatory government of
South Vietnam. Only then will we be
aiding the Vietnamese people..
-RON KLEMPNER
Associate Editorial Director

0

.I

Letters:Clarifying the Board of Governors' Stand

To the Editor:
I AM writing this letter to point
out three errors in statements
attributed to me in Kathy Mor-
gan's articles concerning action
taken by the Board of Governors
of the Residence Halls on October
12, 1967, published in last Friday's
Daily.
What are attributed to me as
direct quotes are in fact Miss Mor-
gan's notes taken down as I spoke:
in the transposition there are sev-
eral serious distortions of fact.
Despite The Daily's claim of sev-
eral weeks ago, the quotations
ascribed to me were not checked
before publication, even though I
was within a twenty-foot range of
the telephone at my home all
Thursday evening.
Let me make it perfectly clear
at the outset that I am in no way
claiming that I did not oppose the
motion to grant IHA full power to
set rules governing student con-
duct within the residence hall sys-
tem; I am instead merely correct-
ing statements attributed to me
by The Daily articles, statements
which seriously distort the reasons
or my action.

THE FIRST "quotation" I ob-
ject to is that "the Board doesn't
have the authority to give IHA,
a student organization, the re-
sponsibility for rules." My state-
ment, instead, was that the "Board
could not delegate its responsibili-
ty," not for the rules but for stu-
dent conduct.
The second error is involved with
the "quotation" that "The faculty
needs more than the capacity to
advise; we need power to make
rules.", The gist of what was said
was that the faculty needs to be
involved in rule-making in more
than an advisory capacity, it needs
to be involved in the decision-
making.
I should add that I went on to
propose that the make-up of the
OPINION
The Daily has begun accept-
ing articles from faculty, ad-
ministration, and students on
subjects of their choice. They
are to be 600-900 words in
length and should be submitted
to the Editorial Director.

Board of Governors, which now
has the responsibility for deter-
mining the rules for student con-
duct within the residence halls as
a result of a Regental bylaw, be
changed, not only so students have
a representation equal to that of
'the faculty but even that the stu-
dent representation should possi-
bly exceed that of the non-student
representation (both faculty and
administration).
THE THIRD error is in the last
sentence of the "quotations" at-
tributed to me by Miss Morgan,
reading "Students themselves are
not capable of deciding the things
necessary for academic growth." If
the wording had been "students
by themselves," at least the gist of
the point I made would be more
apparent. The point made was that
students are not capable of deci-
ding the things which determine
the climate necessary for academic
growth without interaction with
the rest of the academic com-
munity, faculty and administra-
tion.
If one reads Miss Morgan's art-
icle, substituting the corrections
above for the three "quotations"

attributed to me, the reasons for
the Board's decision of October 12
become apparent.
Only then does it become ob-
vious that the faculty members on
the Board feel they cannot abro-
gate their responsibility to the
University.
-Donald F. Eschman,
Professor of Geology
Whose Union?
To the Editor:
A STUDENT union is for stu-
- dents-or so the name implies.
Certainly not the Michigan Union.
As a resident of South Quad, I
find it much more convenient to
cash my checks from home at'the
Union than to walk two or three
blocks to a bank. The Union, how-
ever, has consistently refused to
accommodate me. If I appear at
the main desk after noon, they tell
All letters must be typed,
double-spaced and should be no
longer than 300 words. All let-
ters are subject to editing;
those over 300 words will gen-
erally be shortened. No unsign-
ed letters will be printed.

me that they are out of check-
cashing money for the day. So to-
day I stopped at the Union on the
way to my eight o'clock class. Af-
ter a five minute wait, the clerk
told me to include my phone num-
ber on the check and turned to
wait on several gentlemen in line
for their morning papers. I added
my phone number and again pre-
sented the check. "No checks cash-
ed for students until after nine
o'clock. I haven't time now."
So I returned after my nine
o'clock class. This time only a few
of the gentlemen staying at the
Union were at the desk. I tried
again. Again there was no time 'to
cash checks for students. I replied
that I had been, there earlier and
had been told to return after nine
o'clock. "Sorry, try again later,"
the clerk answered, ringing up a
'New York Times" for a middle-
aged gentleman.
PERHAPS THE UNION should
go into the hotel business. At
least, let them add a footnote to
their check-cashing policy-"No
checks cashed for students unless
we have time."
-Mary Mangold '70

I

LBJ Should Act Like HST

4

HARD AS IT IS to find plausible reasons
for supporting anything President
Johnson does these days, one may have
reared its ugly head Monday.
In the latest of a series of military
outbursts demanding more escalation of
our weird escapade in Vietnam, Vice
Admiral John J. Hyland, Jr., commander
of the Seventh Fleet, called for the re-
moval of all North Vietnamese targets
from the Pentagon's restricted list.
Arguing that our bomber squadrons
need the flexibility more numerous tar-
gets could provide "so that regardless
of the weather there is always something
pretty good that you could go for," Hy-
land at the same time lamented the fact
that because of political considerations
"the military man doesn't have his way
entirely."
FROM THE DRIFT of Hyland's remarks
and those made recently by General
William Westmoreland, it is becoming
apparent that the President will soon
find it necessary to follow in the foot-

steps of Abraham Lincoln and Harry
Truman and lay down the law to the
military.
The United States should not be
fighting a war in Vietnam. But as long
as it does continue, the role of advice
from the military on how to fight it
should be substantially limited and
clearly defined.
The political considerations Admiral
Hyland and his cronies resent compose
the very essence of modern war. The
military's ignorance of even the rele-
vance of these factors, is likely the most
important reason for disregarding its
suggestions.
JN THE VIETNAMESE WAR, with its
hazy, still undefined goals, the need for
firm civilian control is even more pres-
sing. While Lincoln's disagreement with
McClellan & Pope was over war strategy,
Johnson's hassle with some of the more
extreme commanders n o w revolves
around the far more fundamental ques-
tion of what the military policy of this

,

FEIFFER

F

THIS 06FU
iL-f I mc
W~%AY TK
ACR3'E'S
SOUTH
VIT A -

AT IM}
A

IT 15~ AUSOUNMIIJG
/D RVI4e;LP~I MED
AU HOS

AMU
PRY

I l H

W AIM OF ThSE
D'ARRICPs1WILL. BE
TD CUT R~W .)116
o.(IC)ITRAT10k) OF
W)A';HIJGTOO,

NWU WI,9S, tfECAJS iiie
R;'SITA&3of OF T AI-f
SCW PXPETVITlA M
FulIWBT~~CY PROW-
A OMRCf !PW55t(O
CF OUR MOOL2 To T.

TNT CJTAl)M JT f
FREeE ffCAL-$WHO
IAI/r rU~l St)AOSVl

-me6WETS 061OOM ~s
OT6A I ACRb55

x

18 15 CWif&)T STC-P (T
# AI 1T lOS, IS -51HOt Y TI:
COVRK okT Ok) OF PR ()()S
COMMtTWOTS Oil PAME
wrwa as .a eaa r.. w wn+rntr*Y

PA 19 .

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan