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 .