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- tection. Our SGC endorsements are based on this view of the role it should play over the coming year. Presidential eandidcites RECOMMENDED 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. QUALIFIED 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. UNACCEPTABLE 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." Members-at-large EXCELLENT 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. orsements LETTI'ERS ') THE ELWIOI ENACT leaders endorse BAM GOOD 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- ernment. 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. FAIR 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' works. 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. UNACCEPTABLE 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- dency. 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 $18,500 per yr. (and that sta- tistic is a few years old by now) These institutions discriminate against poor and underprivileged people of all, backgrounds in American society, systeiatically. BAM supports guaranteed finan- cial supports of black students in order to gain increased black ad- missions, because it recognizes that blacks are disadvantaged in white universities because of their socio-cultural background. B u t poor people of all ethnic and ra- cial backgrounds are disadvantag- ed in the rich, white universities because of theirhsocio-economio backgrounds. And, if, as BAM maintains, the present liberal system of scholarships and finan, cial assistance does not meet the needs of black people in the so- ciety at large, can anyone really seriously contend that it meets 000 .,r _,' - 'N_.ti- nr .: u u \.r 1 -1 -4 ~- w7 O A T , o$O S 4 T - A ". * f ,,..^ ,'"' t , t970, The RwRiater - *4-.. ' . 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 eral. -James L March2 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 Soviet To the Editor: FOR SOME WEEKS,o 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. OR IS THIS REALLY the prob- 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 prejudices. -Carl Goldberg Alice Lloyd Hall March 19 SYmptoms 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- tion. VIOLENCE, DESTRUCTION, 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 Security 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 ti 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 RECOMMENDED 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. UNACCEPTABLE 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 EXCELLENT 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. GOOD 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. UNACCEPTABLE 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- iously. 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 * I I