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.

November 17, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1967-11-17

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

Yes,

Virginia, SGC Is Representative

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.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1967

NIGHT EDITOR: NEAL BRUSS

Renting the Events Building:
Will the Price Ever Be Right?

THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT has had
little experience in show business. The
101,000 seat football stadium is too big for
Greek Theatre, and too drafty for Arthur
Rubenstein. Yost Field House is so smelly
that about its only non-athletic use is
rained out commencement ceremonies.
The baseball stadium isn't much of a
drive-in movie theater.
But now the- athletic department has
a fine new 15,000 seat Events building
that will lend itself to far more than a
dozen basketball games a year. Student
sponsored concerts, shows and lectures
are a natural for the new building.
Since the new $6.7 million is being fi-
nanced out of student fees at the rate
of $10 a year (,which will repay a bond
issue floated for the construction) the
rental rates for student organizations
should be modest.
Unfortunately a Presidential commit-
tee has established a fee of $1,500-
against ten per cent of the gross income,
whichever is greater, for all profitmaking
events.
On a per seat basis this is at least 55
per cent higher than the $265 plus labor
charged for 4,100 seat Hill Auditorium.
THIS SPELLS TROUBLE for both stu-
dent groups and the Events buildings.

Organizations will be forced to charge
higher rates for concerts in the Events
building. Or, the groups will shy away
from financial risk and stay with Hill
Auditorium, depriving the new building
of needed revenue.
These facts have been pointed up by
leaders of student organizations. Don
Tucker, head of the University Activities
Center has asked athletic director Fritz
Crisler that the rates be reconsidered.
UAC officials and Maurice Rinkel,
auditor for student organizations, have
agreed to study the financial records
of student organizations to see if the new
fee schedule is equitable.
Unfortunately before this study could
be completed Athletic Director Fritz
Crisler transmitted the $1,500 or 10 per
cent fee schedule to the Regents for con-
sideration at their meeting today.
THE REGENTS WOULD do well to defer
final approval of the fee schedule until
Rinkel and the student officials can de-
termine if campus organizations can af-
ford the events building price.
For it appears the new rates should be
revised downward so students can enjoy
the new building they are paying for.
-ROGER RAPOPORT
Editor

By MICHAEL DAVIS
The author is a graduate stu-
dent in Philosophy at the Uni-
versity and serves as Adminstra-
tive Vice President of SGC.
STUDENT GOVERNMENT Coun-
cil has been accused of being
unrepresentative. That accusation
is justified. But the accusers
haven't said in what way SGC is
unrepresentative. And that's uri-
fortunate, for "representative,"
like most other political words, is
ambiguous - so ambigous that
nothing can at one time be rep-
resentative in every sense of the
word.
There are several senses in
which SGC clearly is representa-
tive and several in which SGC
clearly is not, and no one should,
I think, be much concerned one
way or the other:
1. There is what might be called
"imposed representation." Power
says, "We accept A as representa-
tive of B" and thereafter, so far as
power's concerned, A does repre-
sent B, no matterwhat B thinks.
SGC is, by act of the Regents, the
imposed representative of the stu-
dent body,
2. There is "authorized repre-
sentation." Those to be represent-
ed say, "A speaks for us," and
thereafter A does speak for them.
(This is one sense in which a law-
yer represents his client.) Since
few students have said "SGC
speaks for me," or signed a con-
tract authorizing SGC to speak
for them, SGC clearly isn't repre-
sentative in this sense. But then,
no government is.
3. There is a related sense, what
I shall call "tacitly authorized to
speak for B if B doesn't object
when A tries to speak for B. Since
few students have objected to SGC
speaking for them, it's clear that
SGC is representative in this sense.
But then, so are most governments,
including many dictatorships.
4. There is "template represent-
ation." The representative does ex-
actly what those he's supposed to
represent think he should do. (He
has, as it were, the benefit of their
ignorance and haste.) SGC isn't
template - representative. SGC
members have no way to know
accurately what their constituents
think. If their districts were one-
hundredth the present size, they
still wouldn't To be template-rep-
resentative, SGC would at least

4

I

4

"SGC has neither sufficiently educated its constituents nor always accepted their opinions."

need something like a Gallup Poll
for each question it deals with.
But, if SGC had a Gallup Poll and
only wanted to be template-rep-
resentative, there would be no need
for SGC at all. The poll would be
sufficient.
5. There is "type representa-
tion." A legislative body is type-
representative insofar as it con-
tains, in the same proportions, the
types found in the population it is
supposed to represent. SGC is, in
many ways, not type-representa-
tive. For example: There are no
engineers and only two graduate
students on Council; but engineers
and graduate student together
make up over half the student
body. Again, only half the student
body lives in apartments, while
nearly three-fourths of Council
does. On the other hand, SGC is,
for occupation, sex, and residency,
type-representative.
I'VE SPLIT ONE HAMR give
ways to give pause to those using
words loosely. I'll now split it a
sixth because I've left the most
important sense of "representa-
tive" unmentioned: A is "virtual-
ly representative" of B if, and only
if, A decides as B would decide

given the same information and
sufficient time to deliberate.
I think this is the sense those
accusing SGC should be most con-
cerned with.
Is SGC virtually representative
of the studenthbody? It's is diffl-
cult to say. The only way to tell
for sure is to see that every stu-
dent knows what every Council
member, knows and takes a long
time to think things out. If, that
were practically possible, there
would be no need for Council.
And with that we come to what
is perverse in the nature of 'rep-
resentation. If a (virtual) repre-
sentative does his job, he gathers
in formation and deliberates be-
fore acting. Because his job is to
represent his constituents, he can
give (or certainly should give)
certain of their affairs more time
than they can themselves. Because
information and thought help to
determine choice, the representa-
tive should at least sometimes de-
cide against his constituents' opin-
ion to decide for their interest.
But, to keep his office, he must
please those he represents, and
everyone wants his opinion re-
spected and thinks respect for an
opinion best shown by acting on it.

Without elections there would be
almost no guarantee that a rep-
resentative would serve his con-
stituents' interests. With elections
the guarantee is only somewhat
better. How well a representative
in fact serves becomes clear sooner
or later.
What worries a representative is
that elections will come even
sooner. So, the representative must
either 1) satisfactorily explain why,
he voted against his constituents'
opinions (that is, educate them),
or 2) vote as they say even when
it's against their interests (that
is, betray them), or 3) risk being
labeled "unrepresentative."
The first is exhausting; the sec-
ond is degrading; but the third,
for those who have the time, is
merely temporarily unpleasant.
I THINK IT'S pretty clear that
Council has, during the last two
years, generally chosen the third.
That's why some people have
labeled it "unrepresentative." That
Council has chosen the third does
not, by itself, prove that Council
has been representative.
It only shows that Council has
neither sufficiently educated its
constituents nor always accepted

their opinions. However, there are
I think, tworeasons for thinking
that Council has been representa-
tive:
1) The issues with which Council
has dealt have primarily been
those affecting students asstu-
dents or as persons living in Ann
Arbor - student-conduct regula-
tions, student-traffic regulations,
student housing.
SGC is type-representative for
those issues: All SGC members are
students and live in Ann Arbor.
Therefore, an SGC member need
only have consulted his own in-
terests to have determined those
of his constituents.
2) Every candidate during this
SGC election at least paid lip
service to student power. Since
candidates usually know where the
votes are, it must be that consti-
tuent opinion has already moved
a long way toward authorizing
SGC's recent actions.
I CONCLUDE from all this that
while SGC may not have been as
(virtually) representative as it
might have been, there's little
reason to think that it hasn't been
a good representative of the stu-
dent body.

g

A

Sickness of the Ill Society

JT SOUNDS SO GOOD ... when people
talk about getting rid of President
Johnson. And the "peace Democrats are
passing around petitions; trying to dig
up primary peace candidates; talking
about Sen. Eugene McCarthy and
grass-roots movement. Does it make you
feel hopeful? Don't let it!
Cutting off the infected right arm of
a diseased body won't make it healthy
again, and removing Johnson as head of
state isn't going to resurrect an ideal
America. Cures just aren't that simple.
What's wrongwith the U.S. goes a lot
deeper than Lyndon Johnson or the war
in Vietnam; and it's a shame to see
people who know better getting carried
away by the "dump LBJ" slogan. When
and if they succeed, they're going to be
disappointed to find that nothing has
changed.
Peace Democrats like McCarthy are,
in essence, Democrats who want to save
their party from the disaster of Waging
an expensive and unpopular war. They
believe this can be done through de-
escalation, leading to negotiations and
eventual compromise with the NLF. They
are willing to admit that the war is
"morally unjustified," but their moral
objections haven't come soon enough or
loud enough to be taken seriously. They
are, basically, trying to correct a political
blunder.
ON THE OTHER HAND, many of their
supporters are sincere humanists who
want to see the Vietnamese given a
chance to live. These people think that
they can achieve more for peace through
the Democratic "left" than through the
relatively powerless peace and new poli-
tics groups. Although their intentions are
the best, their conclusions are seriously
wrong, for the following reasons:
" Viet Nam is not an isolated event,
but a natural result of American foreign
policy. As long as the United States is
ready to support any government that it
can control, no matter how reactionary
(as it now does all over the world), there
will be no peace. Oppressed peoples will
continue to revolt, and the United States
will be forced again and again to "honor"
her commitments or withdraw.
A real peace platform, then, would
advocate a change in our basic policy, for
example: to withdraw the American mili-
tary from Southeast Asian and Latin
American countries in the near future,
to recognize China in the United Na-
tions, to stop the accelerating "missile
race," etc.
O Negotiations with the Viet Cpng
are not going to be as easy as peace
Democrats make them sound. The NLF
wants the U.S. military out of Vietnam
completely, and compromise may be im-

draw every single American from Viet
Nam, if, this is necessary to achieve
peace. So far, there is no evidence that
the Democratic party is willing to do
this, and if not, they will probably be
forced to continue the war. This would
be a tragic repeat of the Johnson cam-
paign promises of 196,
Without a promise of complete with-
drawal, if necessary, from Vietnam;
without any significant discussion of re-
vamping U.S. foreign policy entirely;
without any real differences from the
expressed aims of the present admin-
istration, the peace Democrats have
little to offer. Supporting them is an act
of faith, and unfortunately, there is
nothing to justify it.
FINALLY, ALL OF these considerations
are secondary to the fact that you
can't separate the "evil" war in Asia
from the society that created and sup-
ports it. If decision-making processes
are such that the people are deliber-
ately kept ignorant of facts and alter-
natives, if policies are controlled by pow-
erful pressure groups rather than by
the individuals they affect, how can we
end the war-or any other "bad" policy
the government might choose to adopt?
The Democratic party is as much a
part of that society as the Pentagon.
It has followed a course of combating
social ills with shallow, stop-gap mea-
sures. It has lost its voice agreeing with
those who .raise moral and social issues,
and has worn itself out passing the buck.
It has been intimidated and manipu-
lated by military and big-business pres-
sures, and it has done its share of in-
timidating and manipulating when it
could (witness the NSA-CIA affair).
The Democratic party is the party of
the Cold War, of the accelerating arms
race, of a national neurosis fearing any-
thing remotely connected with Commun-
ism; it is the party' of a budget where
50 per cent goes for "defense," of con-
tinuing toleration with racial oppression,
of meetingboth urban ghetto disturbances
and anti-war protests with tear gas and
riot squads; it is the party that sold out
its own poverty program in- favor of a
war; the party of HUAC investigations
and CIA "remote control" of organiza-
tions; the party of secret scientific re-
search at Universities. And, of course, it
is the party of VietNam.
TO GIVE ATTENTION to any single
one of these symptoms will lead to
errors in diagnosing the disease. Sup-
porting a "peace Democrat" could im-
probably end the war (by dumping LBJ).
But even this is a goal independent of
the desire to truly reform American so-
ciety itself. And thus, the "peace Demo-

Letters
To the Editor
YOUR NOVEMBER 5 editorial by
Ronald Klempner on my pro-
posal for a staged de-escalation of
the bombing of North Vietnam was
both disappointing and puzzling.
It was puzzling principally be-
cause of the following sentence:
"Cessation of bombing above the
21st parallel is not a de-escalation
of the conflict since most of Hanoi
and all of Haiphong lie above the
21st parallel." Perhaps, as the rest
of the editorial implies, you meant
to say that these two cities lie "be-
low" the 21st parallel. But either
case istwrong: Most of Hanoi lies
above the 21st parallel and Hai-
phong lies below the 21st parallel
-which is precisely why that
particular line was chosen.
Thus it is simply not true to say
that a halt to bombing above the
21st parallel is "not a de-escala-
tion of the conflict." The area in-
cludes most of Hanoi, most of the
supply depots around Hanoi, the
Phuc Yen air base, the supply de-
pot at Lang Son along the Chinese
border, and the highway and rail-
way between the Chinese border
and Hanoi.
These targets, together with sup-
ply depots at Haiphong, are pre-
cisely the targets which the Joint
Chiefs of Staff last summer plead-
ed to be allowed to hit. They are
precisely the targets the bombing
has been concentrated against in
recent months.
OUR PROPOSAL is that the
United States halt all bombing
north of the 21st parallel for sixty
days. If North Vietnam responded
with a similarly limited but sim-
ilarly verifiable de-escalation step
of its own, the U.S. could then
drop the bombing ban to the 20th
parallel. Through a continuing
iseries of small and reciprocal
steps the conflict could be de-es-
calated on both sides-and per-
haps some mutual confidence
could be generated which might
lead to negotiations.
In July we suggested that possi-
ble de-escalation steps by the
North Vietnamese might include:
". ..the cessation of shipments
to and from specific military sup-
ply depots in the southern portion
of North Vietnam; the erection
of barriers on and the non-use of
specific supply routes in North
Vietnam and Laos along the Ho
Chi Minh trail; the withdrawal of
all MIG fighters to distant bases
in Northern Vietnam; the cessa-
tion of all terrorist bombings in
specific areas of South Vietnam;
the release of U.S. prisoners of

:

For Gradual De-escalation in Vietnam

guerrilla incidents in South Viet-
nam,"
We' believe a step-by-step reci-
procated reduction of the bombing
is preferable to a total cessation
for both diplomatic and military
reasons. A total cessation might
invite Hanoi to move toward peace
but it also invites Hanoi to gain
military advantage by increasing
supplies to thesouth.
Our proposal involves minimum
military risk to American service-
men; it would not result in an end
to all U.S. bombing in the North
until Hanoi had shown some gen-
uine interest in de-escalating the
confict.
But, most important, it would
representna genuine U.S. conces-
sion toward peace which, while in-
volving minimum military risk,
would reverse the trend toward an
ever-widening and more dangerous
war.
IT SHOULD also be noted that
my colleagues and I who formu-
lated the staged de-escalation pro-
posal last July did so in the hopes
that a Congressional dialogue
would ensue and that other alter-
natives to our present disasterous
course would be offered.
I have found that some 26 pro-
posals have been brought to the
attention of Congress and I am
in the process of analyzingthese
and others. All comment and crit-
icism is welcome and earnestly
solicited.
-Marvin L. Esch
Member of Congress
Einstein Paradox
To the Editor:
PROFESSOR Forsyth's letter
supporting classified research
in the Nov. 16 Daily contains sev-
eral misleading implications and
misstatements of fact. Permit me
to set the historical record
straight.
(1) Einstein may have discuss-
ed the possibility of nuclear fis-
sion on some of his walks, but it
is unlikely that the subject domi-
nated his conversations to the de-
gree suggested by Professor For-
syth. He did discuss the uranium
problem with certain fellow refu-
gees, but it was they who took
the initiative in exploring the
problem, and most of their work
was done at universities other
than Princeton.
(2) Einstein did not meet with
President Roosevelt, or for that
matter with any other official of
the government, on the uranium
problem. He was invited to several
meetings, but declined each invi-
tation. He did sign a letter to
Roosevelt drafted by Leo Szilard,

in German laboratories. What in-
formation there was had trickled
through the scientific commun-
ity grapevine, and was distorted
and misleading.
Had U.S. authorities possessed
an accurate picture of what the
Germans were doing, the Man-
hattan Project would almost cer-
tainly have been conducted at a
slower and less expensive pace, so
that no atomic bomb would have
been available in the summer of
1945. It was fear that the Ger-
mans were accomplishing some-
thing in secret which injected a
sense of urgency into government
leaders and scientists. This fear
was not proven unfounded until
November of 1944.

Birmingham with theoretical cal-
culations on the critical mass of
uranium-235.
Their results, communicated to
American scientists by the Tzard-
Oliphant mission in the summer
of 1941, had a crucial impact on
the U.S. decision to move uranium
research out of its leisurely aca-
demic status and to put it on a
crash program basis.
THE PARADOX in this episode
hardly needs underlining to those
who w o u ld advance military
might through security clearances
and the classification of research.
-F. M. Scherer
Associate Professor
of Economics

"That Guy Nader Makes Ale, Sick"
Y
- STATS
a*.-
\
n1

istration Hawks and secure the
presidential nomination for a
peace candidate depends upon
dynamic, inspiring leadership.
An intellectual political giant is
needed. McCarthy does not fit the
bill and those opposed to the war
must look again to find someone
who can or the movement will
abort.
-Hilary Clay Hicks
Grad, Journalism
Michigan Alumnus
To the Editor:
LAST SPRING I wrote a letter
to both The Daily and the
Michigan Alumnusabout the
lack of concern the Alumnus
showed toward printing articles
on controversial issues of the
times. I cited the Johns Hopkins
University alumnus magazinevpf
October, 1965, "We Shall Over-
come," as an example of student-
faculty-alumni communication on
the problem of civil rights.
It is with great satisfaction
that I note the November, 1967
issue. of the Michigan; Alumnus :
it has devoted several pages to
the controversy involved over
Vietnam, and while not as exten-
sive in. coverage as John Hopkins'
issue was, it is nevertheless a
welcome and much needed addi-
tion to the magazine.
(In all fairness, it should be
noted that Executive Director
Robert Forman says in the cover
editorial for this issue, "It must
be admitted that many people
who were invited to submit ar-
ticles have declined to do so for
a variety of reasons. Thus, the
articles presented represent only
part of the coverage we originally
planned.")
IT WOULD BE unrealistic to
assume that one letter initiated
this change. Perhaps there Were
others who wrote to the Alumnus
following an editorial by Mr.
Forman a few months ago de-
fending the policy of the Alumnus
regarding its format. Or perhaps
there were unspoken but honest
feelings among the Alumnus staff
that controversial articles were a
good idea. Perhaps, too, some of
us have not given Mr. Forman
and others enough credit for be-
ing sensitive to the feelings of
Alumnus readers.
Representing as they do several
generations, students, faculty and
alumni need a forum where they
can communicate with one on-
other on the questions that affect
their world and even their very
lives. Again, I am very gratified
to seethe Alumnnus provide the
nnnnrfimil rn.-c a-*e~h tnnmrnrntnA

l

THIS POINT has an important
moral, relevant to the current
debate over classified research at
the University. Secrecy in military
research commonly has a stimu-
lating effect on the technological
arms race-an implication exactly
the opposite of what Professor
Forsyth, by failing to view mili-
tary research as an international
interaction phenomenon, sug-
gests
(4) Neither Einstein nor his

Prince Gene
ro the Editor:
THE FRIDAY EVENING Diag
speech of pretender-to-the-
throne Eugene McCarthy was un-
fortunate for the anti-Vietnam
War cause.
Expecting inspiration, the audi-
ence was instead subjected to a
'knot of Eisenhoweran syntax,
;onfusion, and diappointment. As
;he speaker inadvertentely stumb-

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan