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


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.

November 01, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1967-11-01

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



Seveti y-Seven Years of Editorial Freedom

Looking Beyond the E


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.




The AAUP on Protests:
Are Disruptions Justifiable?

WHILE STUDENTS and faculty mem-
bers have been planning tactics for
today's sit-in against war research, the
governing council of the American Asso-
ciation of University Professors has re-
leased a statement voicing the council's
"conviction" that such demonstrations
are "destructive."
The statement is specifically aimed
at the type of demonstrations that have
flowered at Antioch and Wisconsin with-
in the past two weeks. (Students at both
schools protested the appearance on
campus of recruiters attached to agen-
cies-the U.S. Navy and Dow Chemical
Co.-directly associated with the war
effort). Still, there is one clause in the
AAUP resolution that specifically op-
poses any attempt "to disrupt the opera-
tions of the institutions in the course
of demonstrations . . . All components
of the academic community are under a
strong obligation to protect its processes
from these tactics."
ing to hear, especially from an organ-
ization as traditionally "liberal" as the
AAUP. It severely oversimplifies the
issue when it says that all such demon-
strations are inherently evil. True, some-
thing can be said in defense of the
right of Navy recruiters to appear on
campus. One man's academic freedom

and freedom of choice do not necessarily
end where the next man's begin, for
both freedoms are constant and im-
mutable rights.
But the demonstration and sit-in
scheduled for this afternoon is a
perfect example of something that has
fallen under the condemning umbrella
of the AAUP-and quite unjustly. By
the asociation's convictions, the demon-
stration will be a necessarily disruptive
-ergo intolerable-event deserving of
What the AAUP does not care to real-
ize is that in a university setting, where
administration overlords, who operate
at the behest of a hardly academic gov-
ernment, control the university's de-
cisions and operations, disruption is jus-
tifiable as a show of disapproval and
IT IS A GOOD OMEN that there are
faculty members on this campus--
as evidenced by those who have signed
a statement that they will participate
in the sit-in-who realize the hopeless-
ness of the student-administrator rela-
tion when conducted across a conference
table. These professors are all too aware
that the most effective ally of the stu-
dent is the committed faculty member.

PERHAPS THE MOST amusing thing about the current
controversy over classified military research here is
the pathetic way University officials are defending their
policy. In attempting to justify the University's $10.3
million worth of classified research, they have only made
their stand more dubious.
For example, Vice President for Research A. Geoffrey
Norman said last week that "At the time we became
involved in the Thailand project, no one knew that the
Vietnam situation would erupt into the situation now
A good excuse-except for the fact that the University
accepted its current $1 million classified counter-insurgen-
cy project in Thailand last year, after the Vietnam
situation had already erupted.
And Dr. Norman described the project this way:
"Laboratory staff members have been aiding in the ed-
ucation of Thai personnel in infrared technology and
physics and in the maintenance of electronic and mecha-
nical equipment as well as in the interpretation of remote
sensing imagery."
Compare with this the description of the project
given by Dr. George Zissis, head of the Willow Run
laboratory, which handles the $1 million project: By
using aerial surveillance techniques "the Thai govern-
ment can locate a group of Communists who have come
in with military equipment. Then the Thai military will
send in forces to capture the Communist ringleaders."
Letters: -

THE EUPHEMISMS AND rationalizations are too
late. President Hatcher may have written in his latest
annual report that the school's new $4.3 million Hawaiian
observatory "will track and study space vehicles in flight."
But in a more candid phrase in his 1963-64 report, the
same observatory was built to "study and track the mid-
course flights of ballistic missiles and orbiting satellites."
And when Willow Run Labs director Rune Evaldson
says the new laboratory "will provide advanced facilities
for research in infrared astronomy." there is laughter in
the backrgound. As one Willow Run staffer puts it "One
of our favorite jokes is to talk about the non-military
uses of the new observatory in Hawaii. Publicly the of-
ficials talk about peaceful uses of the observatory. But
everyone knows it's there for tracking ICBM's."
When Dr. Norman says "Anybody can always get any
information he wants," he is obviously shortchanging the
truth. He specifically refuses to give out the University's
own quarterly compilation of research reports on Willow
Run Laboratory.
The school only gives out an emasculated version of
the Willow Run project list which specifically eliminates
the names of all sub-projects being done. Thus, no one
can find out the nature of of sub-projects being done
under the $2.5 million Project Michigan effort on combat
across campus. The elaborate security system at Willow

Run is "to minimize fire hazards," claims Norman.
Security clearance is no problem because "we have no
politically objectionable faculty, members," says Engin-
eering School Dean Gordon VanWylen.
When Cooley Laboratories showed off its work last
month at a Technirama open house, the displays were
on "electronic fishing" not "electronic warfare."
The counter-insurgency project is only a "remote
sensing project," says Norman. Another project officially
named "Passive Lopair Support Studies" is actually "The
detection of chemical warfare agents using passive Lopair
Dr. Evaldson tells us that specific applications of
"reconnaissance and surveillance research" include track-
ing "deer herds in Michigan." while ignoring the fact
that it is also used for tracking Communists in Thai-
News releases point out that Willow Run conducts a
peaceful conference on "Remote sensing of environment,"
and ignores the fact that the center also conducts an
"Anti-Missile Research Advisory Council" twice a year.
UNDOUBTEDLY THE administration will continue
trying to camouflage the true nature of its military re-
search. But they will be unable to obfuscate the fact
that this school is doing about one-third of the $34 mil-
lion wort of secret defense department research handled
by all American universties. The old euphemistic eounter-
measures aren't working any more.



The War Research Issue

STABbing the Parking Problem

long held the same position as the
weather in Ann Arbor. Everybody com-
plains about it, yet nothing can be done
to ameliorate the situation because of
God and the administration. A new
climate, however, has moved into town.
In line with student autonomy over
non-academic matters, the Student
Traffic Advisory Board (STAB) has dra-
matically revamped the student vehicle
regulations, spurning a gradual ap-
proach put forth by STAB members
representing the administration.
UNFORTUNATELY, a judgment of
right or wrong concerning STAB's
proposed regulations cannot be made
as dramatically as the new rules them-
selves. The real effect of the new rules
will not be felt until next semester at
least, and perhaps not until next fall.
A preliminary evaluation of the pro-
posed changes coming before Student
Government Council tomorrow will de-
pend on the responsibility felt by STAB
In addition to greatly increasing the
equity of the regulations governing who
may or may not keep a car on campus,
STAB, in recognizing part of its respon-
sibility, passed additional regulations
governing student parking. STAB real-
i 1es, as any thinking group or individual

must, that allowing freshmen to have
a car at school is just and democratic,
but according to the law of polyexclu-
sion, only one vehicle will fit in a park-
ing space, and only so many parking
slots are presently available.
The problem now facing STAB is one
of developing a workable program that
will equitably distribute the available
parking spaces to the increased number
of students who, will acquire vehicle
privileges. More important is a final
practical solution to the parking short-
the University wil now face imme-
diate pressure to radically expand park-
ing facilities, but the board should real-
ize the reluctance of the University to
act on the matter in the past. Cogent
recommendations, then, need to be made
by STAB, voicing the students' opinion,
and helping University planners to solve
the problem-rather than sit back and
point the finger.
Credit should go to the members of
STAB for acting on a long neglected
problem, and for their foresight in the
recommendations concerning increased
parking. But the critical need now is to
follow through on their actions.

To the Editor:
AS INDIVIDUAL members of
the academic community who
are deeply concerned about the
issue of secret research and the
University's involvement in war
research, we support today's sit-
in planned for 1:00 p.m. in the
Administration Building. Those
members of the community who
share our concern and who are
willing to demonstrate their com-
mitment to a free and open Uni-
versity are encouraged to join us.
-Bruce Kahn,
President, SGC
-Ruth Bauman
Executive V-P., SGC
-Sam Sherman,
Treasurer, SGC
-Karen S. Daenzer,
Chairman, Voice-SDS
-Dennis Sinclair,
Program Coordinator,
Friends of Ann Arbor
Vietnam Fall
To the Editor:
RELUCTANTLY I decided not to
sign the declaration by certain
members of the faculty that they
will participate in today's sit-in
to protest classified war-research
being conducted at the University.
However, as an individual member
of the university community I will
participate in some aspect of the
sit-in to show my concern over the
situation and to urge the Univer-
sity to reevaluate its ole.
Despite this participation, I feel
I should not sign what can be con-
strued is part as an open-ended
faculty endorsement of an as yet
undefined student activity. The
sit-in should adhere to what seems
to be its proposed nature-an or-
derly, non-disruptive witness of
concern. If it does not, some of the
very ideals the sit-in professes to
defend will be undermined.
ONE OF THE basic objections
to classified war-research is that
such research violates the spirit
of free and open inquiry funda-
mental to the idea of a university.
Paradoxically, a sit-in with any
aspect disruptive to the functioning
of the University also violates this
spirit. Since a sit-in is primarily
a symbolic act, to block access to
even one secretary's desk is exis-
tentially to do as Mario Savio
urged, "put your bodies upon the
gears, and upon the wheels, upon
the levers, tie up all the apparatus
and make it stop."
Although I realize some feel
there are overriding moral issues
involved, as a faculty member I
just can't see my way clear to en-
dorse the possibility of any dis-
ruptive action at this sit-in. In-
stead, I shall try to pursue the
several means of discussion, de-
bate, and resolution open to us.
With our concern so fresh, we can
use these established procedures.
Furthermore, the administration
does deserve some time to react
to the questions now being raised.
There is no immediate urgency
here. After all, we have only our
apathy to blame for not question-
ing a situation that must have
existed for a number of years.
-J. C. Mathes
Asst. Professor of English
College of Engineering
Little Influence
To the Editor:
THE LETTER written to The
Daily by Mr. Jack Hamilton,
Asst. to the Vice President for
Public Relations, indicates that
the thrust of the objection to
classified research at the Univer-
sity has managed to escape the
powers that be. Perhaps a quick

contains "dangerous people" and
second-class members, concepts
distinctly repugnant to academic
(3) The covert nature of such
projects enables the University to
engage in projects-such as the
one in Thailand - which would
otherwise be impossible given the
current feelings here about "coun-
ter-insurgency." It leads to a
situation where one hand of the
University literally has no idea
what its other hand is doing.
For example, at the UAC-spon-
sored teach-in, Vice President
Norman was unable to provide
any details on an advisory mis-
sion undertaken not long ago by
University staff members to Viet-
nam. When someone with some
knowledge of the project showed
up-Willow Run's Mr. Evaldson-
the audience was told that fur-
ther information was, "of course,"
classified. And so it goes.
IN THE FACE of this, Mr,
Hamilton points out "the indirect
benefits to education and the
civil sector of such work." This
is, of course, an evasion. If the
subject under consideration is
basically destructive, no amount
of constructive "spin-off" can
justify it.tMr. Hamilton evidently
requires stark explanation, so let
me observe for his benefit that
Dachau and Buchenwald "spun-
off" some of the most interesting
lampshades in the world.
Mr. Hamilton further intimates
that while he is "opposed to the
Vietnam war" he has "been so
publicly and actively, not in an
exhibitionist fashion .....What
his letter seems to say, however,
is that he is opposed to the war
in ways which will not make his
own position uncomfortable, will
not dislocate anything personally
convenient, will not kick up too
much dust too close to home.
If he is really opposed to war
he ought to be trying to work
through that institution in which
he has the greatest influence-the
University-to restrict the flow of
expertise which makes the wars
possible; indeed, which makes
these wars likely.-
But no, Mr. Hamilton is no ex-
hibitionist and will presumably
not take part in the sit-in Wed-
nesday. (That's too bad, too, be-
cause the presence of a Vice Pres-
idential Assistant-for Public Re-
lations, no less, might really
create a stir. But that's right,
isn't it, Mr. Hamilton doesn't like
to create stirs.)
We have seen how little in-
fluence we can have on our "de-
cision-makers" in Washington. It
seems to me that if the Pentagon
tells us that the war is not our
business, we have equal right to
tell those gentlemen, that they
have no business here, that we

will not submit our professors to
security clearance, that we will
not have armed guards to defend
against "dangerous" faculty, that
we will, in short, be a university.
--Bruce Levine '71
'The University'
To the Editor:
IT SEEMED fairly clear from the
debate on Friday night that the
current attack upon the Univer-
sity's research policy springs more
from attitudes about the war, and
about American foreign policy
generally, than from a concern
with classification of research as
- Those who spoke appeared to be
motivated primarily by hostility
toward American asistance to es-
tablished governments involved in
operation against revolutionary
forces. Indeed the political basis
of the position was made explicit
by distinguishing the present situ-
ation from that which existed in
World War II, justifying the latter
while condemning the former.
This being the case it is not
clear that a discussion of the issue
which proceeds from academic
rather than political premises is
responsive to the situation. Never-
theless the questions raised are
sufficiently fundamental that such
discussion seems imperative.
The one approach during the
Friday night debate to the state-
ment of an issue of this kind oc-
curred when it was arguedon one
side that an institutional prohibi-
tion of classified restarch would be
inconsistent with the principle of
academic freedom; and in answer
to this proposition it was contend-
ed that to permit classified re-
search is to intrude upon the aca-
demic freedom of those members
of the community who do not have
access to the product of that re-
THE LATTER proposition, I be-
lieve, lacks validity. Part of the
confusion of current discourse
about social problems is that the
word "freedom" has been used so
indiscriminately as almost to have
lost its meaning. Surely, however,
the core meaning of the word is:
absence of external restraint upon
the actions of individuals.
But the conduct of classified re-
search by some members of the
community imposes no restraints
upon the activities of others. The
idea actually being asserted, I be-
lieve, is that every member of the
academic communIty has a right
to full disclosure of all information
developed by academic thought
and research; and that research,
the product of which cannot be
disclosed, is therefore to be pro-
Undoubtedly a university's func-
tion is most fully performed when
the product of academic investi-

gation is made public. It was on
Friday night made clear, however,
that in some areas of technical
knowledge it is not possible to
gain access to the current art, let
alone to participate in its exten-
sion, without submitting to that
restraint upon dissemination which
the Government finds essential in
the national interest.
Would the University advance
its own interests, or those of sci-
ence, by retiring from these fields,
isolating not only its faculty but
also its student body from all con-
tact with some of the more ad-
vanced areas of scientific thought?
Would the "freedom" of that per-
son who does not participate in
research in these areas be increas-
ed by denying others that oppor-
IN T HE LONG run perhaps the
most disturbing aspect of the posi-
tion taken by the critics is that it
represents an attempt by some

the issue of classified research.
And the two issues are separate,
though you insist on fusing them.
with the University administra-
tion, it has been an object lesson
to chart the course of your emo-
tive logic. You reached the far
point (thus far) in the editorial of
Oct. 25, with its charge of insti-
tutional prostitution.
If University researchers are as
self-seeking and immoral as you
suggest, they won't be brought to
salvation by that kind of journal-
ism. Nor will they be led to forget
that the self-righteous crusader,
regardless of age, is advance man
for the True Believer-at whose
hands universities have always
suffered the worst.
I myself cannot buy this kind
of moral rearmament any more
than I could buy its prototype.
-James Packard
College of Engineering



K' I J
'3 t "

F r
n ,
, tip
., , ;
-' 'v f
C ' 9
: ;y . i
n d'lribm<.iynC c ro
'y ..

; .

The Revolving (Fund) Door

SEN. J. W. FULBRIGHT (D-Ark.) ap-
pears to be willing to let legislative
authority lapse on the $2.7 billion for-
eign aid program rather than permit
a continuation of the Defense Depart-
ment's $400-million revolving fund
credit extension service, which under-
developed nations use for the purchase
of U.S. arms.
The Senate version of the bill calls for
an end to the program by Dec. 31, but
House conferees are not willing to com-
promise on a deadline sooner than
1969. Fulbright is adamant for any dead-
line beyond June 30, 1968. A series of
parliamentary moves by House propon-
ents of the credit service may send the
bill into appropriations committee to be
settled rather than by conferees on
foreign policy.
THESE OBSCURE legislative maneu-
vers represent the belated attempts
at maverick Senators on the Foreign
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
Collegiate Press Service.
Fall and winter subscription rate: $4.50 per term by

Relations Commitee to reestablish Sen-
ate direction of foreign policy that has
been allowed too long to drift into the
hands of agencies unresponsive to public
Although the Senate chiped close to
a half billion dollars from the Admin-
istration's original foreign aid bill re-
quest last spring, the existence of the
revolving fund credit service remains
a sore point with senators such as
Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn) and Wayne
Morse (D-Ore).'
McCarthy has been outspoken in his
criticism of arms deals which indis-
criminately strew U.S. weapons-osten-
sibly for the countering of communism.
But these same arms are often used by
the underdeveloped nations upon one
another. The tale is repetitious: Paki-
stan and India fighting each other in
1965; Jordan and Israel last summer;
Chile and Argentina armed for a border
showdown; West Germany forced to
buy more arms than it wants.
Fulbright has also been unsuccessful
in creating a responsible overseer com-
mittee of the Central Intelligence
Azoenev. which has increasingly acted

"We are losing
in Vietnam!?"
nembers of the academic com-
munity to impose upon others lim-
itations upon intellectual endeavor
which are derived from political
This, of course, is not new. Zea-
lots of diverse causes more or less
continuously seek to conscript
what they call "The University"
into their personal crusades. But
"The University" is only an idea:
the conscription, if achieved, would
have its real impact upon individ-
uals, student and faculty.
Surely nothing could be more
inimical to the basic assumptions
upon which the association of in-
dividuals which is called a univer-
sity is erected.
--Luke K. Cooperrider
Professor of Law
Emotive Logic
To the Editor:
IN ITS TREATMENT of classified
reseach within the University,
The Daily has glossed over three
very important points. The first is
the simple point of legality. Clas-
sified research has been in accord-
ance with established law. Then so
much the worse for the law? May-
be so, but the University has no
legislative function.
Second, if you ask the Univer-
sity to deny its researchers the
right to engage in activities which
do not conflict with established

"We are winning
in Vietnam!"
Limiting Beliefs
To the Editor:
SOME YEARS ago, in the dark
ages of American higher edu-
cation, college administrations
dictated to their academic bodies,
at large, what influences would
and would not be permitted to
exist on campus.
To combat this evil, groups of
students and faculty members
arose who believed that no group
should be excluded simply be-
cause its aims or beliefs did not
conform to the majority or the
group in power. They contended,
and rightly so, that the best situ-
ation would be one in which all
ranges of thought would exist,
and an individual could then make
a clear choice as to which mode
or modes of thought best suited
OF LATE, the pendulum has
begun to swing in the opposite
direction. That is, groups of pro-
testors have decided that certain
manufacturers or government in-
stitutions which are carrying out
activities which seem to be
against the beliefs of those pro-
testors, ought not to be permitted
on campus.
These protestors are creating
the same evil as they originally
arose to fight. They are trying to
.x.1ur3P f nwaever as on the

- Y


N ,..

Back to Top

© 2023 Regents of the University of Michigan