~Iw idit~jan Daih Seventy-nine years of editorial freedom Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich. News Phone: Editorials printed in The Michigan Doily express the individual opinions of staff wr or the editors. This must be noted in otl'reprints. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1970 NIGHT EDITOR: SHARO] Birth of the Ann Arbor housing gyp 1I 764-0552 iters N WEINER Summary suspension:. For an ecumenical revolt LITERARY COLLEGE Dean William Hays, in close cooperation with.Presi- dent Robben Fleming, has taken a major step in the attack on the radical move- ment and the student body at large. Dean Hays has summarily suspended Robert Parsons, a political science stu- dent, on the basis of charges arising from the GE recruiter protest. Haystook his action on the basis of "sworn affi- davits," without allowing Parsons even the courtesy of a hearing before he ordered suspension. There are a host of issues involved. FOR ONE THING, Hays acted first - presuming guilt - and now offers Parsons a hearing if the latter wishes to try to prove his innocence. The distortion of due process involved here (". . . guilty until proven innocent"?) is excrutiatingly clear. NTot, it seems, to Dean Hays. Second, even had Hays employed the most scrupulous due process here, he had no jurisdiction in the case in the first place. By no stretch' of the imagination can the charges -leveled against Parsons be construed as "academic offenses." By what right ,then, does the faculty (either the dean of the faculty-dominated ad- ministrative board) presume to mete out justice here? AND .FURTHER STILL: Parsons is al- ready scheduled to face criminal charges of the same nature and based on the same incident as the charges enumerated by Hays. Parson's suspension, therefore, is a flagrant case of double jeopardy (if not in strict legal terms, then in fact), and it goes a long way toward prejudicing the result of his civil trial. No University court - not admin- istrative, not faculty, not student - has any business claimingjurisdiction when civil officials are already involved. As Marty McLaughlin points out else- Where on this page, the thrust of this particular act of repression is not directed solely - or even primarily - against Robert Parsons. The suspension is really aimed at two, often-overlapping move- ments which have now evidently pressed the administration to the breaking point. First, this is a specific attack on a specific front. We know that when stu- dents campaign for changes whose im- pact is primarily internal, they can un- doubtedly bring on repression. But when student attacks go beyond the' Univer- sity - when they strike directly at the in- terests which the University serves -the pressure upon administrators to react strongly increases tenfold. They mnust show their overseers - the military or MARTIN A. HIRSCHMAN, Editor STUARTCANNES JUDY SARASOHN Editorial Director Managing Editor JIM NEUBACHER ......................News Editor NADINE COHODAS ...... ........Feature Editor ALEXA CANADY ................Editorial Page Editor BRUCE LEVINE ................Editorial Page Editor B. A. PERRY.......................Arts Director LAURIE HARRIS.................Arts PageD dtor JUDYr KAHN ...............Personnel Director DAN ZWERDLING................Magazine Editor ERIC SIEGEL, Sports Editor PAT ATKINS, Executive Sports Editor PHIL HERTZ..............Associate Sports Editor LEE KIRK .................Associate Sports Editor BILL DINNER...........Contributing Sports Editor CHRIS TERAS ..t........contributing Sports Editor corporations, in the forefront - that their campus is still safe for recruiting, for war research, for the training of Babbitts. WE RECALL, for example, that the last time administrators at Michigan ser- iously discussed political suspension was two years ago. The object of those discus- sions were a handful of radicals who had refused to leave a secret conference be- tween University officials and a Penta- gon research attache. The parallel to the Parsons case is ob- vious. The reaction of University admin- istrators becomes more hysterical t h e closer those activists strike at the powers which those administrators serve. Secondly, the Parsons suspension is aimed at the student movement in gen- eral, especially at its hard-won gains' in power terms. For years students on this campus have been fighting step by step to wrest power over their lives away from administrators and faculty deans. Few struggles in re- cent memory have not had to deal with this question of power, either directly or in the cou'rse of fighting for some other goal. Thus far, the fight against general ad- ministrative authoritarianism has been going well for us. Thus far we have been on the offensive. IF SUMMARY suspension can be handed down now - and if it is accepted without a struggle - the setback for the student body would be tremendous. It is an old tactic to introduce an unpopular innovation when reaction seems unlikely: in that way it can be used again and again in the future, each time in the face of less and less indignation. Just so in today's case. If the campus does not resist summary suspension now - no matter how cloudy or confused the specific details of the case - it is that much less likely to fight the next time, even when the details are clearer. It has become a truism on the left that the only way to fight repression is to ig- nore it, swear that it "won't stop us," and to continue doing what you were doing in the first place., The truism is useful in part. Certainly we cannot allow ourselves to be totally thrown onto the defensive. But to refuse to recognize repression as a danger and to fight it as such is the same as declaring in war that one will fight only offensive campaigns - and to refuse to counter the enemy's own of- fensive thrusts.. In short, the administration's goals are both immediate and long-term, b o t h specific and all-inclusive. Our reaction must be equally ecumenical. A COALITION of groups is calling a diag rally for Thursday at noon. T h a t group intends to march on to the LS&A building, there to occupy Dean Hays's office. This seems to us a proper action. It is specific as to its immediate target. It is determined in its nature. All who are concerned' with maintaining the strength of students' rights and the radi- cal movement must work to build t h a t Thursday action. By DANIEL BOOTHBY (EDITOR'S NOTE: Daniel Boothby is a member of Ann Arbor International Social- ists. This is the second of three parts.) DURING THE fifties the rapid expan- sion of the. University's Ann Arbor campus combined with slow growth of private apartment facilities to produce law vacancy rates and high rents for Ann Arbor students. But students were not the only ones affected by Ann Arbor's high rents. According to the Ann Arbor City Planning Department, "The Univer- sity student population places high de- mand on rental housing and results in atypical housing characteristics." Just how atypical these housings char- acteristics are is easily shown. First, it must be realized that in 1960, 46.4 per cent of Ann Arbor's housing units were rented, as opposed to 26.9 per cent in urban Michigan. Thus Ann Arbor's rental market has a disproportionate influence on the total Ann Arbor housing market. Ann Arbor median rent per month in 1960 was $99, as compared to $77 for urban Michigan. Median rent per person for Ann Arbor was around $49.50, as com- pared to $32.92 for urban Michigan. Median 1960 rents in Ann Arbor were obviously high. Was this due to a pattern of a normal number of inexpensive apart- ments? A quick glance at rental distribu- tion data furnishes the answer. IN 1960 APPROXIMATELY 15 per cent of all apartments in urban Michigan rented for between $40 and $59. In Ann Arbor around 6 per cent fell within this range. In urban Michigan around 33 per cent of all apartments rented for $60 to $79; 12 per cent of Ann Arbor apartments fell within this range. At the other end of the scale, 23 per cent of Ann Arbor rents were over $120 compared with eight per cent for urban Michigan. From such data as this, Professor Thomas Moore, formerly of the Univer- sity of Michigan estimated a need of 1,401 units of low-income family housing for Ann Arbor in 1960. However, P r o f. Moore made no attempt to estimate the additional need for single student orient- ed and moderate income oriented apart- ments. OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES in Ann Arbor are also priced much higher than in urban Michigan as a whole: $18,100 median for Ann Arbor in 1960, $12,500 for urban Michigan. Not only is Ann Arbor's owner-occupid sector less important than urban Michigan's, prices of owner-occu- pied homes are concentrated in the upper half of the urban Michigan market. The effects of Ann Arbor's high-priced housing market on its population's char- acteristics are perhaps best summarized in another statement made by the City Planning Department. "Because of Ann Arbor's desirable image as a living en- vironment, it has become the home of many affluent residents who commute to employment in the Detroit area. Con- versely, the relatively high cost of living prompts many low and middle .income wage earners to work inAi Arbor but live elsewhere." A quick glance at figures drawn from the 1960 population census and the 1958 busines census reveal just how true this statement is. For instance, from 1950 to 1960 employment of residents in retail trade grew more slowly for Anti Arbor than for Washtenaw County. During the same period employment of sales people grew more rapidly for Ann Arbor firms than for Washtenaw County firms. In 1958, 56.4 per cent of Washtenaw County's salespeople were employed in Ann Ar- bor; by 1963 the figure had reached 59.1 per cent. However, in 1960 only 39.3 per cent of Washtenaw County's salespeople lived in Ann Arbor. Because retail trade employs a h i g h percentage of female and part-time em- ployees, many of whom work to supple-Y ment family income, it is among the low paying jobs least likely to force em- ployees to commute. Yet to quote the Planning Commission once again: ". . . a substantial number of non-residents are employed as salespeople in Ann Arbor." NOT THAT COMMUTING by moderate- to-low-income groups is a new phenomenon in Ann Arbor. In 1938 Prof. Richard Rat- cliffe of the School of Business Admin- istration studied housing conditions of non-academic University employees and Ann Arbor industrial employees. He found that 101/ per cent of the University em- ployees and 401/ per cent of the indus- trial employees were forced to commute due to lack of low-cost housing. This report furnishes us with a starting point for a brief history of the Ann Ar- bor housing market. In 1938 Ann Arbor was basically a small town with a big university - ,its population was around 40,000, including students. The housing supply was pro-y bably typical of Michigan towns of 25,000 to 35,000 at the time. However, the pre- sence of the University created an un- usually large demand for low-cost rental, housing. Married students and non-aca- demic employees probably occupied most of the low-cost housing, forcing the lower paid industrial employees to commute. Due to rent control during and after the war, this situation for non-student renters probably lasted until around 1950. During the fifties University expansion led to increasing student encroachment on the low-cost rental market. This led (as previously mentioned) to falling vacancy rates and rapidly rising rents for what had previously been low and moderate rent units. It was no longer simple "ex- cess" low-income families who could not find housing in Ann Arbor. During the fifties almost all low- and moderate-in- come families were forced out of Ann Ar- bor. JUST HOW SWIFT and how complete this banishment was is revealed by com- parison of 1950 and 1960 income distribu- tion figures. In 1950. Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti and urban Michigan's family income dis- tributions were remarkable simfilar. Ann Arbor was slightly underrepresented in low and moderate incomes and slightly over-represented in high incomes. A n n Arbor median income was $3,881, Ypsilanti median income was $3,401, and urban Michigan median income was $3,839. By 1960 the situation had changed dra- matically. 55 per cent, of Ann Arbor families made over $7,000, as compared to 41.8 per cent for Ypsilanti and 36.6 per cent for urban Michigan. 31.3 per cent of Ann Arbor families made over $8.000, as compared to 18.8 per cent for Ypsilanti and 15.8 per cent for urban Michigan. Ann Arbor median family income for 1960 was $7.550; Ypsilanti's was $6.304 and urban Michigan's $6.590. Low income families (aside from students) had almost disappeared from Ann Arbor by 1960; the percentage of medium income families had dropped precipitously. *. BAM gets the run-around By DARRYL GORMAN (Editor's Note: The following ar- ticle was written by a member of the Black Action Movement (BAM). ON FEB. 5, 1970 BAM presented specific and carefully re- searched demands on the Univer- sity. While the University admin- istration graciously decided not to ignore our demands, we were given familiar and largely ritualistic re- sponses. -Prediction of dire conse- quences: If the University increas- ed black admissions and financial aid to the levels which BAM de- manded, this would lead to lower- ed standards and would place an impossible burden on the Generall Fund Budget. -Now is not the time: Natural- -We must not yield to press- ure: If BAM takes extralegal steps, we will not get what we want; if BAM takes legal steps, we will not get what we request. Quite simply, every administrator takes the position: "I'll do it, but I don't want it to look like I was forced." Read the words of objective am- bivalence: "You are alienating your support" (Who? the silent majority?) ... "If you don't like it here, leave!" (Back to Africa?) .. "You want preferential treat- ment." (Eighty-two per cent of the college age population of the state is white, over ninety-five per cent of the. University is white) ..n" Standards will fall." (What about teaching standards?) .. . . "You want quotas or open admis- '. .we have raised questions and made de- mands which have a basis in justice and moral. ity. Being a place of dull and tawdry intrigue, and being an institution that fosters the pettiest ambition and deprives men of their humanistic instincts, the University is at a loss to deal with moral questions." S .}:'s. :"a.? :" "{.?"r:': s}:"}:?S} .... "" . .. } ards. and services are political considerations long before they become matters of conscience at the University. Though our de- mands have always brought forth highly creditable displays of feel- ing, state politics dictates that our program remain substantially un- met. Because black people do not have their fair share of political power in the state, we "can not expect to" get what we need at the University. Our role must be as supplicants to the throne clutching at the hem of power. WITH RESPECT to our de- mands, top University administra- tors have concluded that it would be feasible to try to double the number of "disadvantaged" stu- dents by the fall of 1973. It was agreed by all that. it was great pity that the University could not do more, but then it would be hard enough to do even this. Of course, after 1973, the administra- tion cannot forsee where the money will come from to continue the program. A cursory look at the University will show that not only the ad- ministration is to be faulted for its negligence. We can agree that the power to change the Univer- sity for our betterment is not found only in the Administrative Palace. BAM members are aware that deans, department heads, Senate Assembly, and other fac- ulty groups have benignly neglect- ed our demands. Silent majorities have a way of expressing their feelings, irrespective of commit- ments handed down from the throne room. Moreover, we need not look any further than top administrative, and faculty positions to see that black people were not miraculously made as free as white people with the passage of a few civil rights laws. The extraordinary solutions which black people seek cannot be built on assumptions of black in- feriority and fear of white re- prisal. BAM has made its minimum demands; the University has made an. unacceptable response to us. It is time to stop playing games with the BAM demands. ly, the University is not opposed for all time to increasing black admissions to ten per cent and providing sufficient financial aid, but the pressure now is too great in other areas. This argument, which tends to be repeated and put to permanent use suggests that BAM can always expect to compete in the scramble for crumbs leftover from the general fund. -The costs are clear, but the gains are uncertain: The commit- ment being proposed is that the University's direct investment in its opportunity program be raised from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000 with- in four years . . . . (However) at some point it is clear that the student is far better off to enter a college where the .competition is less severe and where the course options are less academically oriented. -How would we do it? We wouldn't want to get rid of the intercollegiate athletics program or the History department, now would we? sions." (Don't put words in our mouths.) . . . . Be realistic. (We are.) . . . . "Be rational." (By whose definition?) ....."You can't win!" (When we lose, you lose too.) THESE, NOTIONS are so fam- iliar that we see them not as sug- gesting a well-defined political tendency, but as a miscellany of slogans and sentiments to be trotted out on ceremonial occa- sions like the Regent's meetings. Unfortunately, we have raised questions and 'made demands which have a basis in justice and morality. Being a place of dull and tawdry intrigue, and being an in- stitution that fosters the pettiest ambition and deprives men of their humanistic instincts, the University is at a loss to deal with moral questions. Rather, the University perfers to deal with "political realities." Politics result from a conflict of interests, not of consciences. Pure self-interest leads to more intense opinions. Status, salaries, stand- Repression at the 'U' By MARTY McLAUGHLIN (EDITOR'S NOTE: Mart :McLaughlin is President of SOC and a member of Ann Arbor International Socialists.) THE SUSPENSION of Bob Parsons last weekend could be a cross- roads for the radical left on this campus. The University adminis- tration has removed the gloves and revaled the P"-ntial pithoritar- ianism of the University and the naked force which is necessary to keep any totally undemocratic institution functioning in times of stress. Parsons has been accused of assault by the director of the Engin- eering Placement Services, John Young, in connection with t h e demonstration against the recruiter for General Electric. A criminal case is now pending in the Ann Arbor civil courts; but there 'has been no conviction by a jury; so, under the law,Parsons is innocent. HOWEVER, THE UNIVERSITY HAS NEVER had qualms about the law or the truth, as President Fleming's testimony in the LS & A sit-in trials demonstrates. In complete disregard of due process, the dean of the LS & A school, William Hays, summarily suspended Par- sons without giving him any chance to defend himself before a jury of his peers, i.e. students, and with no notice or warning of any kind. Instead, there will be, some time in the future a hearing of the LS&A Administrative Board to determine whether the suspension should be lifted. Parsons is thus presumed guilty and punished; then, if he can positively 'prove his innocence, the punishment may cease. This procedure is so clearly a violation of basic civil liberties that it is hard to see why the administration even attempts to get away with it. Even during McCarthy's time, civil libertarian sentiment'on this campus was strong enough to prevent such arbitrary, star cham- ber proceedings. Those faculty members in Senate Assembly who were so incensed when people from SDS infringed on the inalienable right of students tot be recruited into the Army, go to Vietnam, and commit genocide: will they be equally disturbed about this question of liberty? One of the niost interesting developments of the next few days and weeks will be the reaction of liberal faculty members. It should be a fascinating scene. THERE ARE SEVERAL FACTS about this case that illuminate the strategy of the University administration. Parsons has already satisfied, all the requirements for graduation. The administration knew this .when they decided to suspend him, and apparenty they knew the suspension would only serve to put 'SUSPENDED' on his record. Now certainly the effect of this should not be played down. Un- like students who voluntarily withdraw from school, Parsons cannot now re-enter Michigan at will. And when he leaves here to apply either for a job or to another University, his transcript ("SUSPEND- ED" verdict and all) will follow ham. Nevertheless, for the amount of risk they are running here, Hays and Fleming are certainly not getting their money's worth. Suspen- sion is neither the most retributive nor the most deterring response which these two could have cooked up. Why, then, have they done it? THE ONLY EXPLANATION that comes to mind is that they de- liberately chose Parsons because his case appears confused, in the hope that the libertarian sections of the campus community will be dis- tracted by the plethora of Irrelevant details and will ignore the real issue. Thus, this is a test case: the administration's purpose is to set a precedent so that any time they feel that a given student is a dan- ger, that student can be pitched out on his ear. Clearly, then, the people who are threatened by this type of arbitrary repression are not just Bob Parsons and SDS, but all radicals and dissidents gen- erally. It strikes me as very unusual for the sophisticated corporate lib- erals who form the core of the administration at this University to resort to the mailed fist as a response to student agitation. Has the master of comprom and cooptation, Robben Fleming, finally run out of room to maneuver? We can hope so; for if so, his days are numbered. More likely though, the administration has been taken off bal- ance by the force and vigour of the campaign against military and corporate 'recruiting. APPARENTLY, THE TOP ADMINISTRATORS feel so threaten- ed by all this that they cannot adopt the, traditional stall-until-finals tactic. Since SDS is an easier (because more isolated) target than BAM, SDS is being readied for the chopping block. Perhaps 8DS is not without responsibility for its own isolation. Nevertheless, the left had btter not stand idly by while individuals and groups are picked off one by one. The administration's action against Bob Parsons should be fought directly and physically. Many students will become involved in this issue because of the civil liberties aspect - that is all to the good. Civil liberties is a real political issue that deserves attention. 4 V Si gg -BRUCE Ediorial LEVINE Page Editor LAM6k FA'C6I Co~gAR6 YOU (30t TO STAY I' I.V 4~. F IRST-rTV WOu MEAN 50 ITWIOK IT NIMdT E 6NLOR OSEFUL- To FI&7"T TFROH w~ffllw 1-e5y$- T6/ i~ £.Th~CASE IT Cu O~'C~i WHY ALLOW '(a) 'T HEIM P2 OCRATS. I #.fBRALG. ago Imp'*e- .-r-P 4 A -RfATS PMHXOCe 1