Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 22, 1970 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1970-03-22

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

An editorial . .
SGC end(
THE EXPERIENCE of the past year has shown that a
well-worked patch-quilt of conciliation and confrontation
provide the best method available to Student Government Coun-
cii for effecting change in the University.
Confrontation politics were successful both in obtaining a
student-run discount bookstore, and in forcing the literary
college to back down on its summary suspension of an SDS
member who had "allegedly" struck a faculty member. SGC
has been the prime protector of student interests and rights
in these two areas.
1 At the same time, Council has acted peacefully to come
to agreement with the faculty's Senate Assembly on Regents
Bylaws providing students with new powers and insuring their
rights - although these proposals have been largely rejected or
postponed by the Regents.
Faced with continued intransigence of this kind on the
part of the administration - and faced with repressive disci-
plinary actions on ,the part of the faculty of the schools and
colleges -- SC, at a minimum, must continue to zealously
guard the rights and interests of students.
FACED WITH continuing threats to the rights and interests
of students, confrontation politics as it has been played on
this campus since the Student Power Movement of 1966 must
continue to be the main theme for Council action.
At the same time, SGC should continue to support the just
demands of the Black Action Movement for increased minority
admissions. In addition it should press for an end to University
complicity in the U.S. military industrial establishment and
continue its work in the areas of housing, academics and pro-
Our SGC endorsements are based on this view of the
role it should play over the coming year.
Presidential eandidcites
Marty Scott and Jerry DeGriek: Scott and DeGriek
are incumbents who will act firmly to protect the rights and
interests of students. At the same time, they have and will
continue to do the kind of grass roots organizing and research
thgt allows Council to act intelligently and with student support.
They are extremely knowledgeable on all the issues that will face
Council in the coming year.
Joe Goldenson and Steve Nissen: While agreeing with the
bulk of their stands on the major topics facing the campus-
black admissions, recruiting, women's rights and academics -
we do not feel Nissen and Goldenson will make full use of
Council's potential for effecting radical change in the Univer-
sity. They do not realize that grass roots organizing and main-
taining at least a civil relationship with administrators and fa-
culty members can, at times, be more effective, even in radicaliz-
ing students, than the action and rhetoric of revolution.
Bruce Wilson and Larry Solomon: While he generally con-
curs with the firm stand SOC has takenson the disciplinary is-
Pue, Wilson is running a campaign based almost solely on in-
stituting piecemeal reforms and somewhat increased SGC-run
student services. He has argued, counter to present council pol-
icy, that SGC should participate on committees that are solely
advisory - even though this simply lends legitimacy to a system
controlled by the faculty and administration. In addition, when
Women's Liberation members asked SGC support for their pro-
posals, he suggested they go home and come back when they
knew what a child care center was. These views render him
unacceptable. Solomon has no experience on Council and does
not understand that, SGC cannot represent the views of all
students at the same time. He rejects the concept of SGC as a
guardian of student rights, in favor of the nebulous idea that
council simply be "representative."
Darryl Gorman: Gorman, an incumbent member of SGC
and a member of the Black Action Movement, has been very
active in organizing the present drive for increased black ad-
missions. Over the1 past year on Council he has consistently
stood behind SGC's firm positions on such issues as on campus
corporate and military recruiting.
Joan Martin: Miss Martin is presently the most active and
involved SGC member-at-large. She is now Council's representa-
tive to the Black Action Movement Support Coalition Steering
Committee and has been active in initiating resolutions and
performing some of the more mundane organizational work
that is key to making SGC work. She has a realistic assessment
of the limits of Council's powers - when it should work with
the administration, and when it must organize outside of the
present power structure to protect student interests.


ENACT leaders endorse BAM

Henry Clay: A member of BAM, Clay is immediately con-
cerned with minority admissions. His concern for restructuring
the academic aspects of the University - coupled with his
realistic conception of the capabilities of SGC seem to indicate
that Clay will be in a position to make valuable contributions
to Council despite his current lack of experience in student gov-
William Thee: Although he is only a freshman, Thee seems
to have a good grasp of and philosophy on the major issues fac-
ing Council. He understands the need for organizing students
around these issues and is willing to call for firm action when,
as is all too often the case, it is clear the action by the faculty
or administration poses a direct threat to the rights and in-
terests of the students.
Bruce Wilson: While his heavy emphasis on seeking simple
reforms makes Wilson unacceptable for a leadership role on
SGC, he can be expected to work on projects which deserve
some of Council's attention, including housing and student con-
sumer protection.
Cynthia Stevens: Another member of BAM, Miss Stevens
claims the most important task facing Council is reorienting the
University's priorities to allow for greater minority admissions,
and hopes to make the University experience "more relevant."
However, Miss Stevens' position on recruiting allows all re-
recruiters to recruit on campus without qualification. Moreover,
while Miss Stevens wishes that police be kept off campus, her,
position on University discipline and her definition of academic
and non-academic offenses are unclear.
Dale Oesterle: Oesterle is a sophomore with some good
ideas about student housing, minority admissions, academic and
other issues. But he has unwarranted reservations about the ef-
ficacity of confrontation politics - even on the most critical
issues. And he is unduly critical of the representativeness of
SOC, without much understanding of how the present system'
Jay Hack: Hack is a dedicated radical who says he will
actively ofganize stduents into massive campaigns for major
changes in the relationship between the University and the
military-industrial complex. However, we do not know enough
about Hack to be sure he wuld be effective on Council.
Fred Wogel: Wogel opposes on-campus recruiting, ROTC
and University complicity in the military-industrial establish-
ment. For the moment, he has dropped campaign activities to
assist the Black Action Movement in pressing its demands. How-
ever, we do not know enough about Wogel to know if he would
be effective on Council.
Jim Zimmerman: Zimmerman says he feels the University
is bad because it turns out people who simply fit into societal
molds. However, he provides no specific ideas for changing
the University.
Al Warrington: Warrington is the most irresponsible mem-
ber of Council: His attendance record at SGC meetings has been
so poor that, about two months ago, Council passed a resolu-
tion requesting him to attend. In addition, he says the most
important thing about his presence on Council is the personal
power he has in obtaining financial assistance for certain in-
terest groups which he felt needed the money.
Rich Glenn and Tom Tichy: These two, running under
the banner of the "Midnight Shift Party Platform" place all
their emphasis on inequities in the economic structure of the
city. If elected, they said, their first move would be to initiate
investigations of property ownership in Ann Arbor. However,
they did not know what studies have been done in this area in
the past.
Kevin Lynn: Lynn is a moderate, "law and order" candidate
who believes the primary thrust of University action of black
admissions should be to "make arrangements for these less
qualified students to attend other less demanding institutions."
Ignoring the valuable role SGC has played in protecting student
rights, Lynn argues that it does not represent the majority of
students and "imposes the views of a small left wing minority
upon the campus as a whole.
Larry Solomon: Solomon is also running for executive vice
president with Bruce Wilson. We have the same objections to
his candidacy for member-at-large as we do for the vice presi-
Gary Dorman and )rom Moher: Running on the "Blue Pan-
ther Party," Dorman and Moher complain that SGC is unrepre-
sentative and suggest having monthly referenda - not caring
that the cost would be prohibitive. While their positions on
ROTC on campus and job recruiting are good, they say tgey
would ignore their own feelings if a campus-wide referendum
showed majority support for these institutions. In addition,
they lack broad knowledge of campus issues. For example, they
oppose academic credit for ROTC, even though the literary
college has already eliminated accreditation.

To the Editor:
ENACT, by action of its Steer-
ing Committee, endorses without
qualificationthe requests submit-
ted by BAM that a priority mi-
nority admissions program be un-
dertaken by t h e University of
Michigan. We call upon the Re-
gents and officers of the Univer-
sity to decide in favor of and to
implement this entire program
immediately without further hes-
itation or delay.
-ENACT Steering Committee
March 17
To the Editor:
UNIVERSITIES a n d institu-
tionsaof higher learning in gen-
eral are the domain of the rich
and the privileged middle classes
in America. It is well-known that
the median income of the fam-
ilies of students at the University
is $18,500 per yr. (and that sta-
tistic is a few years old by now)
These institutions discriminate
against poor and underprivileged
people of all, backgrounds in
American society, systeiatically.
BAM supports guaranteed finan-
cial supports of black students in
order to gain increased black ad-
missions, because it recognizes
that blacks are disadvantaged in
white universities because of their
socio-cultural background. B u t
poor people of all ethnic and ra-
cial backgrounds are disadvantag-
ed in the rich, white universities
because of theirhsocio-economio
backgrounds. And, if, as BAM
maintains, the present liberal
system of scholarships and finan,
cial assistance does not meet the
needs of black people in the so-
ciety at large, can anyone really
seriously contend that it meets


.,r _,'
- 'N_.ti-

nr .: u u


1 -1
w7 O A T
, o$O
4 T - A
* f ,,..^ ,'"' t ,

t970, The RwRiater -

. SLAb .FI

eneeds o poor peo
whole, either?
Increased black admis
logical first step to op
discriminatory institutio
disadvantaged people.
hbpe that the objectives
were not restricted to b
ple alone. I would like to
publicly support a propo
timately increase admi
all people, whose family
is, say, $5500 per year or
that the Universityg
complete financial assis
those admissions. In oth
the demands of BAM s
extended to poor people
-James L
To the Editor:
The following letter wa
President Fleming.
Dear President Fleming:
I think that with resp
nancial aid to minority
the buck has to stop so
and we members of th
can 'accept at least som
responsibility ourselvesr
now. I hereby authorize y
duct one hundred dollars
salary for this semester
purpose of financing sch
for minority students. II
to ask the rest of the fac
are so inclined to do lik
-John Corc
Visiting Pr
Feb. 23
To the Editor:
pus has been subjected to
fully planned campaign

ple as a to stir up passions both noble and
b a s e which will culminate this
sions is a coming Monday evening in a pse-
ening up udo-religious candlelight ritua'
ns to ail followed by a revival hour in the
I would Union Ballroom. We have been
of BAM showered w i t h bellicose sldgans
lack peo- painted large on campus fences,
see BAM published in The Daily as ads and
sal to ul- distributed on mimeographed
ssions of sheets by the thousands through-
y income out the dormitories and else-
less, and where. The Crusade "informs" us
guarantee that three million Soviet Jews are
tance to being actively persecuted. The
er words, Crusade demands that we "libe-
hould be rate the Soviet Jews," that we
in gen- "fight repression of Soviet Jews."
Such cold war rhetoric is delib-
Lucas, '70 erately meant to evoke images of
21 slavery, pogroms, concentration
camps and other genuine persecu-
Salary tions that the Jews have suffered
in history and which bear no re-
lation to the situation of the Jews
as sent to in the Soviet Union today. Talk
about semantic pollution!
ect to fi- IT IS TRUE that because of
students strong social pressures towards
mewhere assimilation, Soviet Jews have a
e faculty difficult time leading a rich Jew-
ze of the ish-cultural life. This, despite
here and what the campus fanatics will say,
ou to de- is not an understatement. There
from my are in the USSR many Jewish
for the cultural and .religious activities,
olarships though not, perhaps, as many asa
urge you some people would like. This is
ureyo unfortunate. There should be
,Iuly who more if the Soviet Jews wv a n t
ewise. more. But, surely, this cannot be
oran called "persecution" - especially
rofessor when Jews play a disproportion-
ately leading role in almost all
areas of Soviet life.
Jewry It is the total lack of perspec-
tive on the part of our campus
crusaders which is so annoying,
our cam- In comparison to the serious prob-
o a care- lems of the world today and to
designed the sufferings of hundreds of

millions of human beings on this
planet, the problems faced by the
Soviet Jews are not very pressing.
In an age when we are all ques-
tioning our priorities, it :hardly
behooves otherwise intelligent and
concerned persons to s p e n d so
much time and to work up such
violent emotions over a relatively
minor problem.
lem? After having talked w i t h
several supporters of the current
crusade, I sense that there is an
ulterior motive behind all t h i s
business, namely, emigration to
Israel. Ever since June, 1967, there
has been a great movement to en-
courage emigration to Israel in
order to strengthen that country
against hostile Arab forces. The
Soviet Jewish community pre-
sumably contains people who
would emigrate to Israel if they
were given the chance. The cur-
rent crusade, then, has as its 'real
aim to put pressure on the Soviet
Union to allow Jews to emigrate
to Israel for the purpose of
strengthing the Israeli state. If
this is their aim, the crusaders
ought to be honest and say so
openly, instead of misrepresent-
ing their cause by appealing to
people's noble charitable feelings
as well as pandering to their baser
anti-communist and anti-Soviet
-Carl Goldberg
Alice Lloyd Hall
March 19
To the Editor:
AN OPEN LETTER, signed by a
large number of faculty members,
has been sent for publication in
The Daily, calling for renunciation
and condemnation of acts of vio-
lence or forcible disruption of
classes. The aims are good, and I
support them, but I would like to
explain here why I nevertheless
chose not to sign the letter.,
I believe the condemned behav-
ior is often a symptom of an un-
derlying ill. Treating the symptom
by itself is not enough, although it
may well be a necessary part of
treating the illness. I can urge
firm action against these symp-
toms only while at the same time
resolving that their cause be
sought out, and treated effective-
ly, with sensitivity and compas-
sion. To act against the symptoms
alone has aspects of simple sup-
pression, and is open to misinter-
pretation as action motivated by
anger and vindictiveness. My col-
leagues who signed the open let-
ter are not so motivated, I feel
sure, and they would be distress-
ed to have their letter taken in
such a way. I hope these lines will
help prevent such a misinterpreta-
and forcible disruption have been
defended by a few as being justi-
fied by the great good of the ends
they seek. That philosophy, that
the ends justify the means, is very
dangerous, for it easily leads to a
habit of justifying any act, how-
ever heinous, if it can be said to
be done in a good cause. T h e
world has seen too many instances
of that game, from the Spanish
Inquisition right down to massa-
cres in Viet Nam and the clubbing
of innocent persons in Ann Ar-
bor, It is no more excusable when
it is played by the left, the riht.
or the smug niiddle. The recent
acts aimed at bringing down the
TTn verity remind me ,sio1pirniv

To the Editor:
ON JAN. 29, the House of Rep-
resentatives passed H.R. 14864 by
a vote of 274 to 65. This bill at-
tempts to protect defense facili-
ties from acts of subversion and in
doing tries to balance 'national
security against the rights of an
individual. Yet, does the bill attain
a proper balance?
First, H.R. 14864 broadly de-
fines defense facilities and sub-
versive acts. Also, the President
has open authorization to pstab-
lish specific criteria for the des-
ignation of defense facilities and
for instituting investigation of any
person or organization. Persons
seeking or holding a job (and
their acquaintances) are all sub-
ject to thorough "investigation,
whether or not access to classified
material is involved. Such investi-
gations may probe into any aspect
of an individual's life, limited on-
ly by the ingenuity of the depart-
ment head involved.
Second, the bill very loosely de-
fines the term "subversive affili-
ation." Rep. Mikva's (D. Ill.) pro-
posed amendment to limit this
term's scope was defeated. Third,
by making assertion of Fifth
Amendment rights an "Obstruc-
tion of Inquiry" (Sec. 406), the
bill presents the individual with
a clearly unconstitutional choice
between self-incrimination and
losing his job. Fourth, it severely
restricts the individual's rights to
cross-examine adverse witnesses
or evidence. The "appropriate de-
partment head," not the courts,
determines which witnesses or
evidence may not be cross-exam-
ined for national security reasons.
The House rejected and amend-
ment by Rep. Eckhardt (D-Texas)
to permit the courts to decide this.
THE BILL attempts to fill
"security loopholes" created by the
Supreme Court's rulings in U.S.
vs. Robel in 1967 and Schneider
vs. Smith in 1968. In the Robel
case the Court held unconstitu-
tional the section of the Subver-
siee Activities Control Act of 1950
which attempted to bar all mem-
bers of so-called Communist action
groups from employment in all
facilities having a defense con-
tract, even if the individual would
not have access to classified ma-
terial. In Schneider vs. Smith the
screening of merchant marine per-
sonnel and dock workers was in-
validated on the grounds that the
Magnuson Act of 1950 had not
authorized any such programs.
Congressional fears regarding
"security loopholes" are appar-
ently not shared by the Depart-
ments of Defense and Justice.
Congressman Frazer (D-Minn)
noted in the 29 Jan. 1970 Congres-
sional Record that neither depart-
ment in its statement on the bill
submitted to the Committee' on
Internal Security found any com-
pelling need for H.R. 14864. Exe-
cutive Order 10865 provides for a
screening program in sensitive de-
fense facilities.
THE DEFENSE Facilities and
Industrial Security Act of 1970 ob-
viously puts enormous limitations
on the rights of the individual.Do
any possible benefits to national
security justify Senate passage?
We strongly believe they do not!
-John S. McConnell, Grad
-Elizabeth Podolske, Grad


LSA Student Government endorsements

PERHAPS THE MOST important item on the ballot this
Tuesday and Wednesday is the constitution for the new
LSA Student Government. Hopefully, the government will pro-
vide an'effective mechanism for representing and pressing for
recognition of the rights and interests of students. The con-
stitution should be endorsed.
The first responsibility of the new government should be
to insure the right of students to be meaningfully presented at
all levels of literary college decision-making.
As a minimum, however, LSA Student Government must
take a firm position to defend the academic and civil freedoms
of the students from repressive measures recently used by the
faculty-like the recent summary suspension of an SDS member
by Dean William Hays.
OTHER PRIORITIES are increased minority admissions, the
elimination of language and distribution requirements and
a complete overhaul of the grading system. The present system
of letter grades serves simply as a mechanism for molding stu-
dents into intellectually repressed grade grubbers, without
serving the primary function of the University-education.
Presidential candidates
David Brand and Brian Ford: Brand and Ford base their.
candidacy on their contention that "the literary college struc-
ture encourages, suppression of one's creativity." To remedy
these problems they propose a program which amounts to an al-
ternative approach to education. Included in this program
are proposals which redefine education so that it is not limited
to classroom activity. They seek a "free university" structure
which would allow students to individualize their education,
and rightly assert that the priorities of education must demand
a commitment.to teaching - and not research - by all faculty
In addition Brand and Ford's program includes proposals for a
student-faculty council, student parity on bodies which make
tenure decisions, increased minority admissions and a disciplin-
ary code which stipulates that students be judged by their

is their lack of firmness on protecting the rights of students
in the disciplinary area.
Bob Nelson and Ray Littleton: Although they take a very
strong and positive stand on student parity on committees,
their stands on discipline and academic reform have very serious
shortcomings. Littleton made it clear that he sees nothing in-
correct about University judiciaries trying students who are at
the same time being tried in civil or criminal cases. In addition,
in the area of minority admissions, they both suggest that spe-
cial courses be established for the admitted students, rather
than insisting that the University courses be structured to
reflect ability. And, finally, Littleton was completely unaware
that Dean Hays had summarily suspended Robert Parsons.
Executive board members
Gene Kallenburg: Kallenburg's platform is based on the
concept of students rights. His program includes support for
minority admission, ending distribution requirements, imple-
menting a pass-fail option and ending all closed tenure proceed-
ings. Kallenburg is one of a small number of candidates whose
program is soundly grounded in an overall educational philo-
sophy which presents a creative alternative to the present
literary college structure.
Rebecca Schenk: Miss Schenk bases her candidacy on the
right of all students to participate in all decision-making aspects
of the literary college. Aside from this overall philosophy, she
specifically mentions the need for open admissions and accept-
ance of the Women's Liberation demands. Miss Schenk's
philosophy of particaptory democracy is admirable.
Ray Karpinski and Shelly Reisman (Free You 2): Kar-
pinski and Miss Reisman were two of a small number of can-
didates whose program was based on a philosophy of education
which presents fundamental alternatives to the existing literary
college structure. Their program emphasizes student-faculty
parity on decision-making matters, the subjection of the faculty

Ron Schurin (Boston Tea Party): Schurin says the new
board must first "establish its legitimacy." He makes clear dis-
tinctions between academic and non-academic discipline but
fails to understand the philosophy behind pass-fail proposals.
Tom Moher and Gary Dorman (Blue Panther Party): Moher
and Dorman's ticket is based on ending language and distribu-
tion requirements, insuring due process and preventing "double
jeopardy" in disciplinary affairs and support of increased minor-
ity admissions. Both Moher and Dorman state fine programs for
the new LSA government to act on, but are uncertain as to
what tactics should be used to implement their proposals.
Ann Grover and Andy Weissman: Weissman and Miss
Grover base their platform on the need for student control of
the decision-making process and the need to reform the current
college curriculum. While their program is admirable, neither
candidate understands the disciplinary problem
Finally, to implement their programs both espouse what
seems to be the old lobbying tactics which failed in the past.
Ray Littleton: (see presidential recommendations).
Ken Lasser: Lasser hopes to extend the pass-fail option,
demands parity representation for students on college commit-
tees and to implement a college judicial system. However,
Lasser's record of compromising on basic student power issues in
the past and his half-hearted proposals: "Keep Arthur Godfrey
off the campus" - make it difficult to accept his proposals ser-
Gary Kravitz: Kravitz bases his campaign on the need to
extend the pass-fail option to all distribution requirements.
However, many of his platform's proposals are petty in com-
parison with the overriding issues the new government must
deal with. Furthermore; Kravitz believes that assaulting a
professor is an academic offense.
Larry Markowitz, Bob Black and Richard Boss (Education
Action Committee): Markowitz, Ross and Black maintain a
"students' rights" philosophy similar to many other candidates.
Their program includes abolition of distribution requirements,
the use of innovative education techniques, increased minority




Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan