Under the Influence
4r At. nalt Batty
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
And So It Passed...
of Meredith Eiker
4
f .: - - -
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.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1967
NIGHT EDITOR: WALLACE IMMEN
Reagan v. Pearson: The
Lesser of Two Evils
ONE P.M.-ALLAN F. SMITH, vice president for
academic affairs, voted along with nearly 300 dem-
onstrators yesterday for a "non-disruptive sit-in."
3 P.M.-A young mother diapered her toddler son as
A. Geoffrey Norman, vice president for research, debated
the merits of the University's classified research projects.
7:30 P.M.-30 bemused hangers-on voted not to re-
main in the Administration Building all night and ended
another phase of protest over University involvement in
Thailand and classified research in general.
The issues which culminated in yesterday's sit-in have
been hashed and elaborated on for two weeks now. There
have been no conclusions and as yet no major changes
in University policy governing the acceptance of clas-
Isified research contracts. The usual investigatory corm-
mittee appointed in times of crisis has been appointed.
And for the moment much more can be said.
Except to comment on the sit-in-or rather to let the
sit-in comment on itself.
UNLIKE PROTESTS at other universities across the
country in recent weeks, the University's sit-in was com-
pletely non-violent-no one was arrested and no blood
was shed. Lt. Eugene Staudemeier of the Ann Arbor
police put in a brief appearance. But he came out of
"curiosity. No one called me."
Administrators of vice president rank mingled with
the throng of protesters, conversing with students on a
one-to-one basis that threatened the image of admin-
istrative aloofnes. As a matter of fact, the vice presidents
seemed actually to be enjoying the sit-in.
As the potential center of attention, Norman was
among the first to sit down in the Ad. Building lobby,
patiently awaiting his turn on the megaphone and willing
to speak to any question.
A 6 P.M. rolled around, two men walked through the
lobby carrying two black footlockers. Quipped Richard
Cutler, vice president for student affairs, "There go a
couple more Vietnam napalm victims."
THE FACULTY members too were in rare and lively
form. Among the more animated. Prof. Nicholas D. Kaza-
rinoff of the mathematics department contributed to dis-
cussions on the side of the protesters. Another faculty
member commented to a student that "there isn't an ad-
ministrator in the room who doesn't wish we'd never
taken on the Thailand project."
And the students sat through the sit-in too. One vice-
president who'd declared himself a holiday for the after-
noon because he couldn't quite get through to his office
asked a student why "normal channels" couldn't be used
to make a decision on the issues. Said the student, "You
mean the normal channels used to decide whether or
not to send student names to HUAC a year ago?"
*1
ALL POLITICIANS who stand to the left
of Richard M. Nixon cannot help but
sit back and smugly observe the reactions
of the victim of columnists Drew Pearson
and Jack Anderson's latest attack. As
self-assigned protectors of American
morality, the team that inspired the Sen-
atorial censorship of Sen. Thomas Dodd
(D-Conn) has seen fit to show the "true"
nature of Ronald Reagan, who himself
has made quitena bit of political mileage.
out of the issue of the deteriorating
morality of American society.
The columnists claimed that two homo-
sexuals were discovered in Governor Rea-
gan's administration. They further
claimed that the behaviour of these two
individuals was tolerated for approxi-
mately six months until pressure was put
on Reagan to release them.
Perhaps poetic justice can be found
here. If the report proves to be true, the
efect on Reagan's career will certainly
be highly damaging. Reagan's campaign
for governor tried to focus attention on
the laxity of moral firmness on the part
of former Governor Pat Brown when
dealing with the "perverted" Berkeley,
demonstrators. Furthermore, Reagan
would probably have no qualms about
exposing so called immoral behaviour of
Individuals in someone else's administra-
tion. He therefore becomes even more
susceptible to these "immorality" charges
when levelled against his own staff.
For instance, in California's Republican
gubenatorial primary, Reagan had no ob-
jections when the same Pearson-Ander-
son team discussed a violation of an old
milk law charge against George Christo-
pher, the former mayor of San Francisco,
who was Reagan's major opponent. Chris-
topher's defeat can be attributed in large
measure to the loss of reputation he
suffered from these articles.
GOVERNOR REAGAN'S reply to the
Pearson-Anderson article was both
hysterical and ignoble; almost as ignoble
as the article itself. But neither Reagan's
own intolerance regarding "moral" issues,
nor the noxiousness of his political beliefs
can justify the damage done to the repu-
tations of the two staff members charged
with homosexuality. Although Pearson
said that he was only interested in ex-
posing the hypocrisy of Ronald Reagan
and, therefore, withheld the names of the
two dismissed staff members, if the story
is true it will only be a mater of time
before their identities become known.
Over a decade ago Republicans and
Democrats looked on with dismay as the
late Sen. Joseph McCarthy (R-Wise)
showed a similar disregard for the repu-
tations of innocent individuals when he
stood to gain politically from their dis-
repute. Unless it becomes a matter of
national security, the non-political be-
haviour of a man or his staff should not
become a matter of public knowledge.
Regretfully, this is a lesson that neither
Pearson, Anderson, or Reagan will learn.
-RONALD KLEMPNER
Associate Editorial Director
Kazaranoff
...* .. .... .... .. .. ................................................. ."::....:...h... . . . . . . . .
.. ................................f.......,............. . . . .. . .
.. .. .i.......... .... ....... ....... .. ....f........r.. ...,.......n ....n.. M1 .. ..2 1 i .. t... t a ...
Letters: A L iberal Views the New Left
To the Editor:
rMere seems to be a mental block
within the minds of some of
Michigan's more militant radicals.
When the present director of the
Peace Corps was last in Ann Arbor.
his speech was constantly being
drowned out by catcalls and heck-
ling by one member of the VOICE
establishment.
Likewise this past week, the ra-
dicals have congratulated each
other, in the words of Daily pundit
John Lottier, for having gone past
the "democratic ideal of dissent"
and moving forward to violence.
Yet while patting each others
backs for spitting on troopers,
heaping newspapers on them, and
charging their lines. they piously
protested against police brutality.
This is not an argument for ex-
onerating the police, but I wonder
what the charge would be if the
police spit on the protestors rather
than vice versa. After a while, one
gets the impression that the mili-
tants are cyclops who seriously be-
lieve that they have god on their,
side and can do no wrong.
A prime example of this is John
Lottier's clever observation that
national guardsmen used to guard
the Pentagon during the protest
were all white. Assuming for the
minute that this was true, Mr. Lot-
tier failed to observe however that
the rest of the troops were inte-
grated (as documented in the
front page photo of the Michigan
Daily itself the same day of Mr.
Lottier's slashing punditry) and,
more important, that one would be
very hard pressed to find a black
face among those of the war pro-
testors themselves. Again, this is
not to excuse the policies of the
National Guard, but rather to
question why Mr. Lottier finds it
more relevant to talk about the
racial composition of the troops
rather than that of the demon-
strators.
THE POINT OF this letter is
simply this: That the radicals of
the campus seem to lack a sense
that the violence they advocate
can be used against the peace
movement just as well, if not bet-
ter, than in furthering its cause.
Ron Landsman, in an article
the same day as Mr. Lottier's ex-
ercise in cyclopmania, aptly point-
ed out that part of the reasons for
reverting to violence is the frus-
tration the radicals feel in dealing
with the democratic process. Part
of the reasons for this is the in-
ability of the radicalsto develop
a program which appeals to a
broad spectrum of the American
people. The inability of the radi-
cals to sustain a major effort over
a period of time is also a major
factor in their political impotence.
It is easy to spit on a soldier for
one day and go home to cram for
your astro 111 course. It's much
harder to pound the pavement and
ring doorbells in the attempt to re-
formulate the democratic consen-
sus.
The key to de-escalation of the
war is not in blowing up factories
and spitting on cops, but rather in
the primaries, the conventions,
and the election. If everyone of
the 100,000 people (Daily estimate)
attending the rally in Washington
raised $100, an anti-war candidate
would have a nice starting cam-
paign fund of 10 million dollars.
But the radicals of this country
have not yet reached the stage of
maturity where they can work
through the political process. The
abortive Chicago conference on
New Politics demonstrates their
inability to deal with each other
as intelligent human beings, nev-
er mind the rest of the American
public. The white radicals, most
of whom have never worked in a
ghetto over a period of time, are
all set to save the disenfranchised
of this country. But the disen-
franchised want to help themsel-
ves. Thus the middle class radical,
with no program and no constitu-
ency. screams about the injustice
of it'all. Seeing as he is unable to
to anything else, he is now on the
verge of cataclystic freak-out of
violence to assert his identity.
-Bruce Wasserstein, '67
Harvard Law '70
Executive Editor ('66-'67)
Research
To' the Editor:
READ with great interest in
Detroit's local newspaper about
your editorial stand regarding the
University of Michigan's contrac-
tual agreements with the Penta-
gon. I also noted with no small
amount of surprise the character-
ization by the University's spokes-
man that your opposition was
"Political" in nature. The thrust
of the spokesman statement was
that this is not an academic
matter.
Your readers may be interested
to learn of the following resolu-
tion passed at the last national
convention of the American As-
sociation of the University Pro-
fessors regarding such contrac-
tual agreements between the uni-
versities and governmental or-
ganizations:
THE FIFTY - THIRD Annual
Meeting of the American Associa-
tion of the University Professors
believes that all secret arrange-
ments entered into by academic
institutions or individuals in an
academic capacity threaten the
integrity of the academic com-
munity. The agreements between
academic individuals and organi-
zations and the Central Intelli-
gence Agency constituted such a
threat. Accordingly, the annual
meeting calls upon all elements
of the academic community to
scrutinize any and all arrange-
ments with public and private or-
ganizations and individuals to
make certain that such arrange-
ments are # consistent with the
basic principles upon which high,
er education in this country rests.
When the above resolution
came to a vote, some members
wished to change the words "all"
agreements to "most" agreements.
Other delegates, including myself,
quickly noted that the, proposed
amendment would strongly com-
promise the thrust of the resolu-
tion. After a very short subse-
quent debate, the above resolu-
tion was overwhelmingly passed
by the delegates.
It is usually a difficult problem
to determine where "political"
activity ends and "academic" ac-
tivity begins. Perhaps the answer
in the University of Michigan
situation lies in the implied rec-
ognition of the above resolution
that any activity undertaken by
any academic institution carries
with it the possibility of jeopar-
dizing the academic activities of
that institution. It is an academic
matter in the broadest sense,
whatever its "political" conse-
quences may be.
-Allen Sultan
Assistant Professor
University of Detroit
A
Another Opinion:
Military Research Is Vital
ALL THE DUST kicked up over the Uni-
versity's Thailand project tends to
obscure one overriding issue: Stated
negatively, the University is not involved
in the political end of things in Thailand,
and the University, in accepting a military
research role, is not feeding a gigantic
war machine.
The University has been working with
scanning devices for surveillance pur-
poses. These devices can be used by the
Thai government to gauge infiltration of
Communists from the north.
A dominant sub-issue is the role of the
University vis-a-vis classified military re-
search. Here too, emotionalism and a
number of weakly based arguments have
undeservedly branded the University a
villain for accepting defense contracts.
What the most vocal critics of the Uni-
versity are ignoring is that you can sup-
port the kind of research the University
is conducting and yet vigorously oppose
the war in Vietnam.
By some kind of hop, skip and jump
reasoning, the University is involved in
a project in Thailand, ergo, the University
is contributing to a situation which could
blow up into another Vietnam.
MILLIONS of dollars of military research
are necessary each year. Should it be
any other way in this country? Since
when did we become such moral purists,
such simon-pure possessors of power that
we disavow all forms of research whereby
we attempt to stay ahead of the enemy?
This type of research is in the same
category as spying. This is no field for the
squeamish and the faint of heart. We may
dislike the methods, we may deplore the
double dealing and the lying and we may
criticize the big dollar outlays for espion-
age and military research, but in the
world we live in this type of activity is
necessary.
That our foes and competitors do it is
ample justification in itself. If America
is militarily strong, it must be kept that
way. This does not mean we are obligated
to fight at every oportunity in every
corner of the globe at every hint of a
threat to world peace.
AS CENTERS of human and material
resources, the universities are uniquely
equiped to handle vital research roles.
This the U-M is doing, without entangl-
ing itself in Thailand's political affairs.
When the U-M or any other university
does that, it is guilty of a serious indiscre-
tion.
How does this research benefit the Uni-
versity community? At the U-M's Willow
Run Laboratories and the North Campus-
based Institute of Science and Technol-
ogy, there are 270 academic employes
(professors and research asociates) and
330 non-academic employes (clerical per-
sonnel, technicians, custodial help).
In addition, according to Willow Run
director Rune W. Evaldson, about 120
graduate students and about 70 under-
graduate students work part time at the
laboratories during the course of an aver-
age academic year.
Thus it is no small role the University
plays in a vital area of research. Clasified
military research ig, ispo facto, a land-
scape dotted with question marks. But un-
til more convincing arguments are made
and there is clear proof that the Univer-
sity is in where it does not belong, the
U-M should "carry on."
--ANN ARBOR NEWS
Tuesday, October 31, 1967
The Time Is Ripe to Dump Johnson
By ARNOLD S. KAUFMAN
and
ALLARD LOWENSTEIN
EDITOR'S NOTE: Professor Kauf-
man is a member of the Philosophy
Department at the University. Allard
Lowenstein is a member of the
faculty at the City University of
New York, Vice Chairman of Amer-
icans for Democratic Action and
a participant in the National Con-
ference for Concerned Democrats,
This is a forthcoming article in
the November issue of War-Peace
Report, reprinted by special per-
mission.
IT SEEMS SELF-EVIDENT that
Democrats who believe that cur-
rent American policy in Vietnam
is leading the nation to disaster
should oppose the renomination
of President Johnson who is, after
all, the author of the policy. The
moral issue could hardly be
clearer, and the stakes are too
high for self-paralysis, however ra-
tionalized.
For Democrats who are opposed
to the President's war policy and
distressed by the consequences of
that policy at home, there are
most compelling reasons to work
politically for new leadership. In-
deed, not to oppose the President
under these circumstances is to
abandon a basic principle of elec-
toral democracy.
Democrats who feel this way but
justify a failure to act politically
as an act of political realism are
making common cause with other
Americans who justify their fail-
ure to act politically as an act of
conscience. Unopposed, these ab-
stainers could fulfill the prophecy
they share: the prophecy that the
American political system has be-
come too defective to warrant the
effort to nominate and elect an
acceptable alternative to a Presi-
dent, however misguided, (and un-
popular) he may be.
WE DO NOT ACCEPT this view
of the electoral process and our
opposition to the President's re-
nomination is in that sense and
expression of faith in American
democracy. But faith in dem-
ocracy is not enough to persuade
tough-minded men to follow a
particular course.
We are convinced that the effort
to stop Johnson's renomination is
also the most practical option
oppose him is moral abdication
and political stupidity.
WE ARE FURTHER convinced
that the most effective way to
oppose Johnson is to do so in
primaries and at state conven-
tions. Some of our reasons follow:
1) There is no longer serious
dispute about the fact that dis-
satisfaction with Johnson is ex-
tensive and is growing rapidly
throughout the country. Political
sentiment so deeply and widely
felt will find some form of ex-
velopment of a new coalition em-
bracing much of the disenchant-
ed left and of the anxious, mud-
dled middle. This coalition would
be based on present realities and
needs rather than on fading
memories of past political vic-
tories.
2. The most foolish course for
liberal Democrats is to sit out the
Johnson issue, as if by ignoring
it, it will go away.
The fact is that Johnson will be,
opposed, whatever liberal Demo-
crats may "decide" to do. In Wis-
of the Republicans that their
prospects for winning the presi-
dency may depend on offering
dissident Democrats a tolerable
alternative.
3. Those who worry about try-
ing to "beat somebody with no-
body" need not. There will be an
acceptable "somebody" as soon as
the depth and extent of Demo-
cratic disaffection is clear.
There are admirable alterna-
tives to Johnson among men not
committed to supporting him:
Senators McCarthy, McGovern
We are further convinced that the most effective way to oppose Johnson is
do so in the primaries and at state conventions.
.". .. ....":...1J.: 11JJ:::J:; .4.: h .1....: ......J.........:.. ".a. .1:.. :::. ... 1JaJJi :. Jl:...... v........ a" ....J........a4l~i::ii":i:::":: .r ...li~:.... ............ # :4......"}lm
pression. If liberals fail to offer
constructive alternatives and at-
tractive leadership, it is hard to
see how the nation can avoid in-
creasingly frustrated outbursts on
the left and a Reagan-style rea-
ction among the general public.
But this need not occur if the
experiences of the past two months
are any guide to the mood of the
country, for enthusiasm among
grass-roots Democrats for an anti-
Dressing Down Dress Rules
consin, does one vote 'Yes' or 'No'
when those words appear beside
Johnson's name on the ballot? In
California, can one avoid the pri-
mary contest between the Cali-
fornia Democratic Council
"peace" slate and a coalition of
party regulars that may include,
and may even be led by, Mayor
Sam Yorty? And if one does avoid
these issues, is the anti-war cause
strengthened by the stronger pro-
Johnson vote that would presum-
ably result?
SURELY IT IS clear that the
one way in which dove sentiment
can be made to seem minimal is
to leave the organizing of the an-
ti-Johnson effort to groups with
little standing as Democrats, or
to candidates with small appeal
to the wide range of Democrats
who are upset about the Presi-
dent's policies. In short, unless
responsible, broadly - based cam-
paigns are waged in Democratic
primaries, the campaigns that will
be waged will make peace senti-
ment seem far weaker than it is.
Weak campaigns, in addition to
their impact on the Democratic
convention, would almost certain-
ly have bad effects on the situa-
tion in the Republican Party. Polls
would continue to show that the
President is unpopular, and if
and Church, for example. But
these men cannot be expected to
undertake so gruelling a contest
unless they can be shown that it
will not be an act of political
hari-kari.
THE NATURE of the situation
therefore dictates that the first
step toward selecting alternative
candidates is to make apparent
the extent of anti-Johnson feel-
ing. Reiterated predictions that
no acceptable candidate will be
available are not merely mislead-
ing; they could become danger-
ously self-fulfilling if they were
to confuse people about the im-
portance of organizing opposition
to Johnson's renomination.
4. The effort to get a "peace
plank" in the Democratic plat-
form is a splendid supplement to
the basic Stop-Johnson strategy.
There are some states (and some
congressional districts) in which
it may wellumake better sense to
work for such a plank than to
mount an effort to win delegates
directly opposed to Johnson's re-
nomination. Furthermore, there
are some people deeply opposed
to the President's Vietnam policy
who for one reason or another are
unwilling to oppose the President
personally at this time. Such peo-
ple should be valued allies; for
one thing they are a constant
may end up supporting the Presi-
dent-would rather attend a con-
vention than a coronation. The
Michigan State chairman, Zoltan
Ferency, had such people in mind
when he blasted Bailey's odd an-
nouncement - made before any
delegates have been elected-that
the decisions of the Democratic
Convention have already been
made.
Much must be done immed-
iately if Bailey is not to be a more
accurate prophet than he is re-
porter, and there should be no
cause for quarrel between those
who wish to oppose only the war
and those who wish to oppose
Johnson as well as the war.
5. Those who hesitate to oppose
Johnson lest he change his Viet-
nam policy should rather be
among the first to join in a
Stop-Johnson campaign. Nothing
could be less calculated to per-
suade Johnson to change his
policies than actions that imply
he will have, in any case, the
support of those who are opposed
to those policies.
If effective political opposition
induces the President to reverse
himself, surely the anti-Johnson
effort will not have been wasted.
In that event, no doubt some
would continue to oppose John-
son; others would revert to a
position of support. But such de-
cisions are not only unnecessary,
they , are impossible until events
raise the questions. To speculate
over potential decisions about
hypothetical problems not even
remotely at hand can be more
divisive than enlightening.
THE AMERICAN people are
generally appalled by the prospect
of a Johnson - Nixon - Wallace
choice in 1968. One may hope Re-
publicans will do all they can in
their party to avert such a choice.
But it is inconceivable that
those of us who are Democrats
will surrender the party of Frank-
lin and Eleannor Roosevelt and
of John F. Kennedy to those
whose policies are shattering our
hopes for a just society and a
peaceful world. To accept the
Johnson record as the basis for
a national campaign is such a
THE ABROGATION of dress regulations
in several University dormitories is a
long-awaited step toward making the
residence halls a more desirable place to
live.,
Besides marking an end to the undue
burden that outdated dress regulations
place on dorm residents, the abolition of
dress regulations marks several other
changes taking place in the attitudes of
residence halls.
The recent dress changes reflect a wel-
comed "democratic orientation'' which
is increasing among the staff and house
decision-making. While petitions for rule-
changes had been signed in former years,
they had usually been killed by conserva-
tive house councils or under the veto of
housemothers. This year, house councils,
themselves, are taking the initiative of
circulating questionnaires asking student
opinion on different issues.
Finally, dissolution of dress regulations
signifies a move away from the stagnant,
unchanging atmosphere w h i c h has
threatened University dormitories. The
resident hal staffs are beginning to real-
ize that upholding tradition for tradition's
An Alternative