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.

April 10, 1970 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1970-04-10

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

9w eMiri$gan Batty
Seventy-nine years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by s+udents of the University of Michigan

420 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.

FRIDAY, APRIL 10, 1970


Fast for peace:
An example

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Barry E. Austin tions :
Is a junior in electrical engineering.) 0 TI
ATTENTION Army ROTC ca- tremel
dets! Army Regulation 145-1 do nd
provides for disenrollment from the He mu
program withd.it penalty or future H
obligation. Paragraph 3-59 states (includi
that, "A 2-year scholarship may contra
be terminated at any time prior to when t
the completion of the first year as to c
. . . A 4-year scholarship may be contra
terminated at any time prior to 0 T]
completion of the basic course." that he
In addition, for those students who creditt
decide after these deadlines that ROTC(
they wish to get out, you may sub- contras
mit a letter of intent to resign tremely
from the Corps at any time, which since i
the PMS must forward to higher tional,
headquarters for action. So, des- the RC
pite the saying, "You're in the 0 Tr
Army now. You'll never get out ship a
. you, can get out if you so be req
choose. absenc
This is not an attack on ROTC. so) ift
the military-industrial complex, or 8 term
the University's affiliation with no-cred
the military. Rather, it is an at- gradua
tempt to give any interested cadet terms.
information on his status in dent, e
ROTC, information that was his tu
denied to me. I signed a 4-year shock.
contract with the Army when I
was 17, before I understood its full 0 T
ramifications. I believed it was the expens
best way I could serve my country. fically
Little did I realize what I had Until1
signed away, until just recently. year w

Ins and outs of

getting out

ME outline my observa-
y vague: the cadet signs a
st of things that he will
what happens if he doesn't.
st abide by all regulations
ding those governing his
ct) and has no recourse
these regulations change so
hange the conditions of that
'he cadet is not informed
e will receive no academic
towards graduation for his
courses (until he signs the
ct, that is). This is ex-
y shocking to an engineer,
t will take him an addi-
term to graduate due to
aTC courses.
Cose students on scholar-
re not told that they will
uired to take a "leave of
e" (no funds for a term or
their schooling takes o v e r
s. even if it is due to the
dit ROTC courses that
tion takes more than 8
For an out-of-state stu-
especially, planning to have
ition paid, this is quite a
HE AGREEMENT to pay all
es, as the contract speci-
states, is not carried out.
last year, only $100 p e r
vas granted for books, sup-

plies, etc.; in Ann Arbor these
costs amount to around $150.
* Upon signing the contract.
,one is assured that he may select
the branch assignment commen-
surate with his degree. Yet because
of the number of junior officers
being killed in Vietnam (a n d
other places?) this is not the case.
Thus, your college degree is use-
less as far as your career is con-
*The course content is rinky-
dink (LSA has voted to withdraw
credit; noted for their rinky-dink
courses, one can only imagine how
bad ROTC is if they think it is
awful), and huge quantities of
reading material are assigned,
along with demands for immacu-
lately shined shoes and brass, etc.,
to cover up for the lack of sub-
ject matter. To pass exams, one
simply memorizes lists of things
from Army manuals and spits
them back on to the paper. Per-
haps this is why returned exams
may not be copied or taken out
of the room.
* ONE IS TOLD which organ-
izations he may join, what activi-
ties he is "expected" not to at-
tend, where he "optionally" should
put in an appearance (Regent's
meetings on ROTC, Military Ball),
what his views on a particular sub-
ject "might be," etc. "Think as

we think and you'll get ahead
fast." the Sgt. promises.
* When anyone asks a contro-
versial question in class, it is
either ignored or responded to
with "I can't answer that because
as a member of the military. I
must not contradict superiors, es-
tablished policies, the. President.
. . . Occasionally, though, one
gets a snappy, "See me after class
and maybe we can arrange a time
to discuss this when it is con-
venient for us both."
* And, perhaps what is most
angering on a university campus.
is the idea of "Do what you're
told, NOW, kid." Each cadet gets
that firmly drummed into his
brain; with the qualification that
he is supposed to think on his own.
however, but only to "decide how
to do it best." (I would comment,
on the side, that Lt. Calley ap-
parently did a good job.)
THESE ARE but a few of the
difficulties and inconsistencies
that I found in my 2%12 years on
the ROTC program. When I could
put up with it no longer, I search-
ed for help in getting out. I found
no College or University commit-
tee available to assist me (even
the President's office said, "Sor-
ry"). My main problem, then. was
to find someone who knew what

the true story was --what my obli-
gations and rights were.
Access to the relevant regula-
tions had been denied to me at
North Hall. Committee assistance
w~as unavailable, and no one I
talked to knew anything that
,ould help me. Fortunately. I had
several contacts in the Army up-
per levels who steered me straight.
I submitted a letter of intent to
resign from the Corps (as per AR
145-1t. and about five weeks later
'after questioning about my 'sub-
versive" activities, "moral obliga-
tions" to my country, etc.) I was
discharged from the ROTC pro-
gram and the Army Reserve.
FORTUNATELY, the Regents
have now called for a committee
to handle student problems with
ROTC. At the same time, discon-
tent and rebellion exists in t h e
Army ROTC cadet corps and Is
mounting: many students want
to get out of the program but do
not have the neededdinformation
on what they may do to disen-
roll. Rumors of immediate induc-
tion as an enlisted man, talk o
being labelled forever afterwards
as "a subversive," and other dev-
ious lies are spread by someone.
To those who are happy with
the program and wish to continue,
I wish the best of luck. To those
who want to get out, be it known
that you can get out.


AFTER A LONG winter's hybernation,
the, Vietnam Moratorium Committee
has surfaced again with a new plan of
nonviolent protest for peace in Vietnam.
On April 13-15, there will be a nation-
wide Fast for Peace, with participants
skipping all meals or as many as they
can during that time. Money which would
norm ily be spent for food will be con-
tributed to 'aid Vietnamese and American
victims of the war.
Three organizations will each receive
one-third of the f u n d s collected. The
American Friends Service Committee's
Vietnam ,Relief Program] will distribute
'food and' medicine in Vietnam. American
poor people, who have be e n neglected
while the nation spends millions in
Southeast Asia, will receive fast funds
through the National Welfare Rights Or-

ganization and the United Farm Workers
union. Contributions should be sent to
"Peace Fast Fund"
Vietnam Moratorium Committee'
Suite 8061
1829 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005.
er-long food contracts in dorms or ICC
co-ops, we urge these residential units to
make arrangements for interested stu-
dents to participate in the Fast for Peace.
One co-op has already voted to let mem-
bers who wish to fast sign up in advance
so that the house steward can plan to
cook smaller meals .on the fast days. The
treasurer will send the money for the
food which the fasters would have con-
sumed to t h e Moratorium Committee.
Others would do well to follow suit.


Class disruptions:
Central Student Judiciary



Graduate School Executive Board

Strike at Wisconsin, but
where did the media go?

FOR THE PAST MONTH the University
of Wisconsin has b e e n nearly shut
down as a result of a contract dispute be-
tween the 970-member Teaching Assist-
ants Association and the university.
But you have to call a friend or a news-
paper in Madison to find that anything
out of the ordinary is going on there.
Most assuredly, you won't find any stories
carried by the national wire services.
Apparently, the strike, which has gain-
ed substantial support from the student
population, is not violent enough to earn
screaming headlines about rampaging
students, disruption, disorder, a n d de-
struction. And its peaceful existence just
doesn't rate coverage.
THERE HAS BEEN no damage to build-
ings, no class disruptions, only one in-
cident of "tight picketing" which resulted
in five arrests and involved a university
truck making an early morning delivery.
Similarly,, the strike has proceeded
through legal channels as we know them
in labor-management negotiations. In
May the University recognized the TAA
as the official representatives for t h e
TA's. Bargaining began a n d continued
until January when the TAA broke off
negotiations claiming no progress h a d
been made.
The strike finally started in March af-
ter the TA's rejected a new university
offer, claiming that most importantly, it

did not have adequate provisions for stu-
dent input into curriculum decisions.
According to Wisconsin state law the
strike is illegal because the TA's are con-
sidered public employes and are there-
fore prohibited from striking. An injunc-
tion was served on nine TAA leaders Sat-
urday and they and 19 other TA's are
scheduled to appear at a hearing today to
show cause why they should not be ar-
rested for being in contempt of court.
ALL OF THIS has been orderly, all with-
in the democratic system which ev-
eryone wants the younger generation to
follow. Yet why is it so woefully ignored
by the national news service. Can a suc-
cessful month-long strike t h a t nearly
closes one of the largest universities be
that unimportant?
Do students only rate news coverage
when they resort to violence, the details
of which deliciously reported, can incense
millions of the silent majority?
It is unfortunate that this seems to be
the case for it adds to the already signifi-
cant g a p between the generations by
making the students appear simply as a
disruptive, violent force, only worth men-
tioning when they do what their elders
IN THIS NATION, it seems you have .to
be silent or violent to be heard.
Feature Editor

Chairman Central Student
TWO STUDENTS came before
the Central Student Judiciary,
asking that we assume jurisdiction
in an action now pending before
the Executive Committee and 'its
Board of Inquiry of the Rackham
School for Graduate Studies and
the Executive Committee of the
College of Literature, Science, and
the Arts. The Plaintiff in the ac-
tion before the two committees is
a professor of this University and
charges these two students with
disruption of his class. It is al-
leged that the disruption took
place during the week of ,the
Black Action Movement Strike.
The request for assuming juris-
diction came to the court in the
form of a Petition for Removal.
Defendants (petitioners) asserted
their rights in accordance with
Article 1, section 3,of the Manual
of Procedure:
"The Central Student Judici-
ary . . . exists as:
(3) The Judicial body of orig-
inal jurisdiction over any case
in which either there is no other
judicial body with original juris-
diction, or the Judiciary, upon
request of the defendant, deter-
mines that it should exercise
original jurisdiction."
This proposition find its author-
ity in Article IX, section C of our
constitution, the last clauseaof
which is of substantially the same
language as the Manual. Thus, it
is clear that the Court has dis-
creditionary power to grant re-
moval petition upon sufficient
cause. It is also clear that the
court may, and in this case has,
granted this relief upon the sole
request of the defendant-peti-
Removal is a serious matter, and
the court does not act favorably
on such petitions except in the
most serious cases. Earlier in the
term a student made such a peti-
tion to the Court (case No. 70!
004), which the court summarily
refused, referring that student to
his Iouse Judiciary. This was in
spite of an allegation concerning
the House Judiciary's lack of ob-
>jectivity and allegations of such a
political nature as to raise ques-
tions of the House Judiciary's abil-
ity to try the case (The student
asserted lack of fairness in dues
assessment.) Nevertheless, we de-
cided that the matter could be
handled most appropriately by the
lower court.

They have brought before us evi-
dence which shows that such
rights (particularly the right "to
be originally judged only by a
judiciary drawn from and respon-
sible to a democratic constituency
to which they belong," Article
VIII (A) (17) are in eminent
danger, and that such rights may
already have been violated.
The Court has often reiterated
the severity with which it views
violations of their rights and the
alacrity with it will ,act to insure
that these rights will be protected.
The right of removal finds its
basis not only in the direct words
of our constitution and our cases.
but also in the common law. The
idea of forum now conviens found
its way into the law centuries ago.
It is perfectly clear that the bodies
before which the petitioners are
now required to appear cannot be
"convenient" forum. These bodies
are not properly constituted to
hear cases of the type which are
being brought. Their procedures
are set up to deal with only the
most simple kind of purely aca-
emic violations.
Furthermore, these bodies have
virtually no experience in dealing
with disruption actions. The most
cursory overview of campus his-
tory will show the alarming lack
of concern for due process which
these bodies have shown in when
matters vaguely similar to the one
presently before us were handled
by them or their agents (seebcase
No. 70/005). Finally, the basic,
rights of trial by peers granted
under the constitution (Article
VIII (a) (17) clearly prevents the
two, administrative boards from
It should be noted that the
procedure which we have adopted
in this action is one which neces-
sarily springs from the by-laws
which the joint student-faculty-
admiistrative committee approved
a year ago. The lack of communi-
cation and decision which has ex-
isted concerning these by-laws
since that tinie has given rise to
the confused state of affairs which
made our action imperative. Sim-
ilar actions and like confusion will
exist so long as those whose duty
it is to see that these by-laws are
passed refrain from doing so.
Thus, the petition for removal
is hereby granted, and the court
takes the following action:
(1) All parties are enjoining
from proceeding in these mat-
ters in the tribunals before these
matters are now pending.
(2) Central Student Judiciary
assumes jurisdiction in this case
and orders a pretrial to be held
to determine whether' a full
hearing is justified by the evi-

(EDITOR'S NOTu: The following
is the statement by the Executive
Board of the Rackham School of
Graduate Studies concerning stu-
dent conduct.)
The Executive Board of t h e
Horace H. Rackham School of
Graduate Studies reaffirms that it
has authority in matters related
to student conduct, and will con-
tinue to exercise that authority.
The following itemshrelate to that
Under Chapter VIII, Section 8.15
of the Bylaws of the Board of Re-
gents, the paragraph on Govern-
ing Faculties states:
"Except as hereinafter provid-
ed, the several governing facul-
ties shall have power of disci-
pline over cases of misconduct
committed by their own stu-
The subsequent provisions do not
limit the Graduate School in its
exercise or authority on i t h e s e
For many years the following
statement appeared in the An-
nouncement of the Graduate
"The principal other respon-
sibility of the Graduate School
with regard to students is the
disciplinary authority which,
except for automobile driving
regulations, has never been
delegatedsby the Graduate
School to any other officer or
agency of the University and
therefore resides in the office
of the Dean of the Graduate
On March 15. 1967 the Execu-
tive Board of the Graduate School
unanimously adopted the follow-
ing statement:
"Members of a community of
scholars have the responsibility
for respecting and protecting
the rights of others to express
their views. Interference wvIt h
orderly and peaceable discus-
sion is inexcusable and will not
be tolerated in a University
"A graduate student is in
training to become a member
of the community of scholars,
and one of the hallmarks of
that community is free and ob-
jective discussion. When a stu-
dent seeks to curtail in any
way the freedom of discussion
of others, he calls in question
his fitness fpr a scholarly ca-
reer. The Execueive Board has
authority with regard to stu-
dent discipline to the extent
necessary to maintain the free-
dom of expression of its facul-
ty, student body and guests."
The statement referred to in
Item C above was endorsed by the
Board of Regents at' its meeting
of March 17, 1967, in a motion
which included the following lang-

"Resolved that the Regents
support and commend the
statement issued by the Execu-
tive Board of the Graduate
School and endorsed by the
Graduate Student Council . . .
We particularly note and com-
mend the intention to apply
appropriate academic disci-
pline in the event of any such
conduct by any student, and'
we assume similar intention
with reference to like conduct
by undergraduate students."
The current rules of the Grad-
uate School and the procedures
for dealing with matters relating
to student conduct are included on
pages 17-19 of the 1969-70 An-
nouncement. These rules and pro-
cedures will be followed by the
Executive Board. Pertinent ex-
cerpts from those pages are given
"The Executive Board of t h e
Graduate School, through dele-
gation from the Regents, reserves
the right to discipline, exclude
from participation in relevant ac-
tivities. or dismiss any student
whose acadehic nerformance is
unsatisfactory or whose conduct is
in violation of regulations auth-
orized by the Board of Regents,
general standards established by
the School or specific stnndsrds
established by the department or
program. The student will always
have the right to a formal state-
ment of charges, to be presented
with the evidence against him,
to a formal or informal hearing
with an adviser present, to be
able to present evidence in his own
behalf, and to have the right of
appeal to the Executive Board."
(Page 17, paragraph 6).
On-Campus Behavior
"All elements of the University
community are affected by the be-'
havior of individuals, regardless of
status, when acting within that
community. The Graduate School
reserves the right. threfore, to dis-
cipline students enrolled in it for
violation of the following stand-
ards\ of conduct on University-
owned or controlled.property or at
University-sponsored or supervised
1. Dishonesty. such as cheating,
plagiarism, or knowingly furnish-
ing false information to the Uni-
versity such as forgery, alteration
or misuse of University documents
or academic credentials;
2. Failure to meet obligations in
teaching and research employ-
ment relevant to and education-
ally related to the student's aca-
demic program;
3. Disruption of teaching, r e-
search, administration, disciplin-
ary procedures, or other Univer-
sity activities, including its pub-
lic service functions, or of other
authorized activities on Univer-
sity premises:

4. Physical abuse of any person
on University-owned or controlled
property or at University-sponsor-
er or supervised functions or con-
duct which threatens or endangers
the health or safety of any such
Procedures for Enforcing
Rules of Conduct
The procedures described below
related to the enforcement of rules
of conduct established by the
Executive Board or to rules of
conduct establishedr by the Board
of Regents, the enforcement of
which are delegated by them to
the Executive Board.
1. Charges of violation are for-
warded to the Dean of the Grad-
uate School,
2. The Dean will conduct a pre-
liminary investigation to deter-
mine whether or not there is
sufficient basis of evidence to
justify formal consideration. He
may dismiss the charges or refer
them to the Graduate School,
Board of Inquiry, informing the
student of the charges and ac-
'quainting him with the proced-
ures of the Graduate School in in-
vestigating such charges.
3. The Board of Inquiry of the
Graduate School will be copos-
ed of three members of the Grad-
uate Faculty and two Rackham
students appointed by the Execu-
tive Board on an ad hoc basis
from panels appointed at the be-
ginning of each academic year.
The faculty panel will be compos-
ed of eight, two nominated by each
of the four divisional boards. The
student panel will be composed of
four Rackham students nominat-
ed by the Graduate Assembly. A
quorum of three is required for a
Board of Inquiry to function. Each
Board will choose its own chair-
man, has the right to seek advice
and counsel, and may have advis-
ers present at its sessions.
4. The Graduate School Board
of Inquiry will schedule a hearing
of the charges. The Dean will
provide staff support. The s t u-
dent may have an advisor present
such as a member of the faculty,
friend, relative, or an attorney.
The hearing will be confidential,
but it may be declared open by
the Council on the written request
of the student.
5. The Graduate School Board
of Inquiry will report its findings
and recommendations to the Exe-
cutive Board of the Graduate
School. with copies to the student
and his department.
6. Both the student arid his de-
partment will be given a period of
not more than 30 days to com-
ment on the findings and recom-
mendations of the Board of In-


Behind every great man1...
stands Martha Michl


BEHIND EVERY successful man is a wo-
man and thank the Lord for Martha
Mitchell. The wife of U.S. Attorney Gen-
eral John Mitchell came through again
yesterday as.she called up the Arkansas
Gazette, largest paper in her home state,
and told the Gazette, "I want you to cru-
cify Fulbright (Sen. J. William) and
that's it."
The senator had aroused the lady's ire
Monday when he voted against confirm-
ing Judge G. Harrold Carswell - whom
her hubby had recommended to Nixon -
for the Supreme Court.
"IT MAKES ME so damn mad I can't

stand it," Mrs. Mitchell reporte
ded. "He could have done a great c
the whole vote." And: "He is not
senting the people of Arkansas. I 1
kansas and ,I want everything1
for my state.'
Fulbright had better w a t c h
southern belle warned, because shE
"three or four people from Arkan,
are very influential and who sa
would disown Fulbright."
YESSIR, MARTHA, that's the u
system works. If you don't scra
back, I'll claw yours.


kA 1,"1t" The case before us at the pres-
ent time, is, however, of a com-
pletely different nature. The Peti-
vay the tioners have alleged the most
ttch my serious and flagrant violations of
rights granted thefn under the
constitution (specificallynArticle
-N. C. VIII, sections A 16, 17 and 19).

7. The Executive Board
then act on the matter."



Who says

You can't fight City

To the Editor:
I FEAR that the statement I
read to the City Council Tuesday
evening regarding the Hill and
Onondaga property purchase was
not reported clearly. I believe that
the subject may be of enough in-

erty was for sale; the Commission
made a purchase offer; the owner
was willing to sell at the stated
price; the owner presented a sales
contract; and the Housing Com-
mission presented the contract to
the City Attorney's office, which
Ar1',H that it iwoulda to +n -

of that party's candidates for of-
fice in 1968, and a University pro-
I HAVE HAD the sad experience
of interviewing the attorney and
the professor's wife, also a recent
nolitical candidate. during the last

standards, this would be a crime
against proper city planning, and
the group is engaged in a private
business transaction that is no-
body's business but their own-you
have heard it all before, and I see
that you have been mumbling the
trangiation to yourselves as I re-

ing public housing for poor people
on scattered sites, including this
site in the Second Ward. I hoped
that the request might be Iulfilled
by tonight; it seemed reasonable
that a group that had established
a track record for buying some-
thing for $85,000 in two days could

yam.. ,: . , . r
A -MAC, at


Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan