a1i Eirian DaU4J Seventy-nine years of editorial freedom Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan D Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich. 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. EDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1970 NIGHT EDITOR: JUDY SARASOHN Ater the Board fiasco A better route to power THE LITERARY college faculty assembly almost never swallows a student con- ceived proposal, but after the fiasco that was last week's LSA Administrative Board meeting, the LSA S t u d e n t Assembly might just as well stop dealing with any group other than the faculty assembly. The issue at stake was a proposal from the assembly asking equal student-fac- ulty representation on the administrative board, parity on the hearing boards and the establishment of an LSA Student Judiciary. The proposal is a radical document be- cause it seeks to transfer residual deci- sion-making power to the students. In other words, It would grant the student government and judiciary authority to deal with all matters not specifically dele- gated to the governing faculty of the college by the Regents. BUT THE sweeping nature of the pro- posal wasnot even an issue at the board meeting, for the faculty was so opposed to the idea of recognizing any form of student power, that it never even considered the substance of the proosal. The faculty expressed a deep concern with the possibility that the student government might be unrepresentative Until it knew what the new government being formed by the students of the liter- ary college was going to look like, it was certainly not going to grant any power to it. If this argument ever held at all, how- ever, its credibility was reduced when it became apparent that the faculty mem- bers did not even believe it themselves. Rather, the real feeling of the faculty board members was probably well ex- pressed in a dialogue between H. D. Cameron and a student at the meeting. "You wouldn't ask me to make an agreement with an undefined govern- ment, would you?" said Cameron. "But if the government is democratic, what difference does it make?" asked the student. "Oh I don't believe that's sufficient," replied Cameron, "you're just using the word as if it had some magic spell." But Cameron's real revelation came in his next breath, when he said, "You're not going to force me to make an agreement with a government I don't like." Cameron's point was obviously not that the faculty was so profoundly concerned that the student government should be democratic and representative. Rather he implied that there is a decided conflict of Interests between students and faculty which he did not wish to let into the open by allowing students to express their viewpoint and exert power. And Cameron was not alone in this stance. When asked by another student if the faculty were a f r a i d students wouldn't know what they were doing and so must be kept from power, another fac- ulty member replied, "On the contrary, we're afraid the students will know ex- actly what they are doing, and that's why we don't want to give them authority." ;N OTHER words, some faculty members are simply opposed to the entire con- cept of student decision-making power. But if that is true, then what difference will it make when the faculty knows what form the student government has? If the faculty members of the board will be opposed to making any agreement with a government they don't like, then the only government they will agree to is obviously one with no power. The faculty members on the board are thus trying to force students to create a; faculty-oriented student government or else withdraw their attempts to establish the proposed judiciary and secure student representation on the administrative board. It seems all too clear that the deep- seated opposition to student power makes any negotiations with the group mean- ingless. On the question of the judiciary, for example, faculty members have expressed interest in having a student group estab- lished. But the credibility of the interest is obscured by the argument that the student government which would form and appoint the judiciary will not be representative. The kind of student government stu- dents want is clearly their business, es- pecially if the students concerned are provided with the mechanisms for chang- ing the government when they do not find it suitable. And the faculty has been assured by the students framing the constitution of the new government that any such docu- ment will include provisions for demo- cratic election of the governors and for initiative, referendum and recall. Thus, the expressed concern of the fac- ulty is essentially groundless and the lack of administrative board approval on this basis is illegitimate. FURTHERMORE, it is rather strange that the faculty should suddenly be- come so concerned with the nature of the student government when for years it never complained about the self-per- petuating LSA steering committee which appointed its own members from year to year. Historically, the only group on campus which has really been concerned about representative and democratic student government has been the students, not the faculty. But now that the faculty is in a position to use such a stance against the students, it has suddenly assumed the role of the democratic crusader. In view of the actual student position,' and the rather transparent motive behind the faculty concern, the administrative board's actual stance seems fairly clear. The board members hope to emasculate the proposed student government and judicial structure until they are either in total agreement with the faculty view or non-existent. AT LAST week's meeting, no vote was taken, and the students decided to meet again in two weeks to work out spe- cific provisions in the proposal. If the board is opposed to the entire spirit of the proposal, however, it seems ridiculous to work on technicalities. Given the faculty board members' uncompro- mising position, any agreement reached would necessarily represent a total sell- out of the students' interests. What should be done instead is to take the proposal directly to the governing faculty of the college. Hopefully, not all faculty members in the literary college will be quite so reactionary as the mem- bers of the administrative board. -JIM BEATTIE The chapt (EDITOR'S NOTE: The author is a philoso- phy graduate student who was involved in drafting the proposed bylaws. He here refers to chapter seven of the bylaws which would - essentially - open University judicial and legislative bodies to joint student-faculty control.) By MICHAEL DAVIS WE'VE BEEN confused about the bylaw conflict, Because we've been confused, we haven't known who to treat as friends, who to try to win over, and who to op- pose. Because we haven't known that, we haven't had much luck getting chapter seven passed unbutchered. What's at issue in the bylaw conflict isn't regental power? Regental power is safe within the Constitution of the State of Michigan. The power chapter seven deals with isn't power generally exercised by the Regents directly. Long ago they delegated it to certain administrators, be- cause its exercise wasn't of concern to them, the Regent's primary concern be- ing financial. What is at issue is the power of the administration President Robben Flem- ing (and the power of a few administra- tors responsible to him). Fleming believes chapter seven would considerably reduce his power over student life. He's right. He believes the Regent's would hold him responsible for what went wrong on this campus, whether he had the power to do something about it or not. He's pro- bably right about that too. Fleming believes students can't be trust- ed to keep things from going wrong. He's probably wrong about that, but there's no way to prove that to him except by en- acting chapter seven and letting him see what happens. Fleming believes himself to be fighting for his administrative life. WE MAY DRAW two conclusions from all this. The first is that dealing primarily with Fleming is the least effective way to get the bylaws passed. Fleming alone has something to lose and nothing to gain from capter seven. The second conclusion is that students ought to deal with the Regents directly, bypassing Fleming- as much as possible. We are, for once, in a good position to do that. The issue is clear: our right to manage our own affairs. The demands are" carefully and fully set out in a 12-page report and a nine-page commentary. Flem- ing has opposed to that report his own hastily prepared, carelessly worded, and incredibly impolitic J u m b l e of amend- ments. The University community has already voted its support. After extended and deep deliberation, both the Faculty Senate As- sembly and the Student Government Council approved the proposed chapter seven, with only minor amendments. A number of college student governments and deans have since added their approv- al. Fleming today stands against most of the University community. WHO THEN ARE our friends? The students and faculty. Because they've al- ready committed themselves. Who should we try to win over? The Regents. Because they have power over Fleming and be- cause they have nothing to lose by siding with the community. And who do we op- pose? For once, just Robben Fleming. What should we do to get chapter sev- en passed without substantial change? Our president, Marty McLaughlin, h a s proposed backing out of all negotiation, declaring chapter seven in force, waiting for the Regents to ignore the declaration, and then calling a confrontation. H i s proposal is stupid. The Regents would be forced to support Fleming, converting pos- sible friends into actual enemies. And we would alienate many students and faculty in the bargain. I PROPOSE THAT WE do something quite different, that we adopt astrategy of active persuasion and persuasive action. Active persuasion is simply going out of one's way to change somebody's mind by reasoning with him, giving him informa- tion, and calling his attention to certain facts he may have ignored. Because people find it hard to change their mind, active persuasion takes a lot of time, patience. and articulateness. Actively persuading the Regents will be especially hard, since up until now we have allowed Fleming a near monopoly on their attention. SGC, or some other group, should, I think, organize one or more teams of persuaders (three to five students a team) to make a series of visits to each of the five Regents who might reasonably be ex- pected to support chapter seven as pro- posed. These persuaders should carefully go through the bylaws, sentence by sentence if necessary, passing on to the Regents the rationale behind each provision about which they have doubts, the tender bal- ancing of interests concealed within the dry language, and a sense for what are and are not negotiable points. THE PERSUADERS SHOULD also take time to explain to each Regent how in fact the students run their own affairs now. The Regents generally operate with a concept of student affairs at least five years out of date. They have no idea how much of chapter seven is already fact. They don't want bylaws out of date the day they're passed. Fleming is trying to giP. them exactly that. The persuaders shouldn't beg. T h e y aren't suppliants. They go to the Regents 7 bylaw. is worth a kowtow to do the Regents a favor so that the Re- gents can do the students a favor in re- turn. They're trying to help the Regents avoid being Fleming's creatures, adopt by- laws that are likely to be a model for most large universities, and prevent 10 more years of turmoil the end of which would probably be substantially what's now proposed in chapter seven. The persuaders should point all that out. PERSUASIVE ACTION IS focusing at- tention 'on an issue in order to persuade. Persuasive action doesn't force people to do something, except insofar as changed belief forces people to change their be- havior. Persuasive action demonstrates what's at issue, drives the issue home by symbolizing it in a gesture or dramatic moment. It need involve no direct action. civil disobedience, passive resistence, or noncooperation, though it may. I'll pro- pose three sorts of persuasive action. Any- one with much imagination should be able to add to the list. First: Let every student address Flem- ing as "'your most excellent, lofty, majes- tic, virtuous, and infallible lord," especially at public meetings and in the presence of Regents. Any man wanting so much con- trol over the lives of others should de- serve that title. SECOND, LET SGC, or some other group, organize teams of five or six stu- dents to humble themselves before Flem- ing each day until chapter seven is pass- ed. These humblers shouldn't just go to Fleming, heads bowed, to plead for the bylaws. They should be humbler than that. They should address him by his new title, fall upon their knees when he looks their way, perhaps even kowtow or prostrate themselves on his deep-pile carpet, and plead sobbingly with him as if they were slaves and he a Turkish pasha. The might even kiss his hands and feet, so that there's no doubt they know their place. These first two sorts of persuasive ac- tion, though absolutely legal, have all the advantages of a sit-in with none of the disadvantages. They'll certainly get na- tional attention. (It would make an ex- cellent feature of Huntley-Brinkley.) PEOPLE ARE BORED with sit-ins, police charges, and arrests. Students fawning over the administration president is ano- ther matter altogether. People haven't seen that in years. It provokes interest with- out arousing any 'fear of prejudice; it makes people want to know what's at issue. And, of course, the Regents (whom we're most interested in persuading) will have a good laugh while having it made clear to them what students take their pre- sent position to be. No one would have any reason to sympathize with Fleming. After all, the only harm being done him is too much respect. Third: Let SOC, or some other group, simultaneously draw up and circulate three petitions ,worded similarly, urging pas- sage of chapter seven without substantial change. The purpose of this conventional tactic is to demonstrate once again (and reinforce) community solidarity on the issue. Fleming should have no chance to dismiss the general agitation as a work of a few wild men without widespread community support. THERE SHOULD BE three petitions, so that faculty may carry one to be signed by faculty, teaching fellows may carry one to be signed by teaching fellows, and ordinary students may carry one to be signed by ordinary students. Three peti- tions would permit an accurate count of signatures within each category, make it possible to use internal channels of com- munication and the herd instinct of fa- culty, and make it easy to use the great- er authority faculty and teaching-fellow signatures have with the Regents and the public. The petitions should be careful to stress that student control of their own affairs is good for the University. We've been slow to say that, just as we've been slow to point out that students are the overwhelming majority of the University community. (We've quietly accepted the administration's well-you're-just-one-among -many argument without question.) What's good for us is likely to be good for the University; what's good for the University, good for us. Fleming, in con- trast, is one fifty-thousandth of the Uni- versity community. It's not' nearly as like- ly that what's good'for him will be good for the University. Chapter seven is a good example of how great a difference there can be between what's good for Fleming and what's, good for the Univer- sity. We should make that point. I'M OFFERING A GENERAL strategy. The aim of that strategy is to show what's at issue, not to use brute force to make those deciding decide one way rather than another. Our power is, on this issue, in persuasion, not in force, because the In- terest of those deciding corresponds to our own. We may leave force to Fleming. It's hurt him enough already. Any tactics consistent with this strategy may be sub- stituted for those I've suggested. We should, however, act soon, because time is running out for us. If chapter seven hasn't been enacted by April, Flem- ing will have a free hand during the spring-summer term, and it's clear w h a t that would mean. 0( 60 ' LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Contemplating alienation and graduation To the Editor: AS I SAT in the UGLI t h is morning pondering issues of alie- nation and an individual's role in society it occurred to me that I had some appropriate things to say at an occassion 11i k e com- mencement. I'll be graduating at the end of this semester. Four years ago I gave a speech at high school com- mencement. I realize now my ideas were in need of updating. I wanted to compete for a chance to speak. Certainly it seems appropriate for a student voice to comment at an occasion like commencement on the education he has exper- ienced and to express a view of the future from a youthful pros- pective. WHEN I FINALLY tracked down the man who is responsible for commencement programs - Herbert W. Hildebrandt, secretary of the University and assistant to the president - he informed me that the policy of having students speak at commencement cere- monies had been discontinued. It seems students were giving bor- ing, 30-minute "oratories" and commencement exercises w e r e getting too long anyway. While I had to grant these were important reasons for cutting stu- dents from the program, Mr. Hil- debrandt confessed there were secondary reasons for the policy. "You can imagine," he said, "the problem we might h a v e if we sponsored a contest and only SDS members participated.' Mr. Hildebrandt did not leave me without consolation. He "guessed that maybe" this year I could think to myself while I sat in the audience listening to distinguished guest speakers from places like MIT commenting upon the education I had received and upon my future. PERHAPS I OUGHT to go back to the UGLI and ponder o n c e more issues of alienation and the role of an individual in society. -Gregory R. Karch, "70 Feb. 17 Democratic? To the Editor: SUNDAY'S COVERAGE of the SMC anti-war conference in Cleve- land was too mild and glossed over much of the politics involved. The conference which was supposed to democratically plan the tactics for a spring offensive, was clearly manipulated by a group of people who had control of the chair and were doing everything to push through their own ideology. But a biased interesthg rop constituted only half the prob- lem. The other half was the com- position of people attending. For the most part, the masses w e r e just that . . . masses. People were willingly putting the rubber stamp ,n anosal made hb the steer- i ON g~ As~tOF LYOU AUH9S I OklCp tOMKF t 5JA ABOUT c- rtIUJK AeOVT 11T IMt- So AStIAo- 11'iAT 'xr -L 6o iUTA&V LIUMK- r ,N t . Ia i C AM1' (J)AK6 UP tfl IJr MORVJ&GSo ASttM-IP - The Changing Character of the Mideast War Priorities To the Editor: THE STATEMENT of SACUA on the recent incidents at North Hall and at the recruitment offices expresses three concerns that must be answered. First, SACUA is con- cerned that the actions of SDS will undermine the principle of the University as a "free market place by confrontation. This is indeed part of the process by which social change occurs. Demands for change are a challenge to the es- tablished practices. FINALLY, SACUA is concerned that the costs of vandalism will reduce the funds available for scholarship support of the dis- advantaged. Where were these s a AU9 '5AY STUflP1Rl(W~s AOV 6r 100 FW5 r' &lMOST COM~iP PIC.