she irrigun Bail
Seventy-mine years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan
An open letter to the
faculty...
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.
News Phone: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Doily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 1970
NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT KRAFTOWITZ
Stop the reprisals now.
FOR TWO weeks in March students and
faculty at the University shut the
place down to emphasize the seriousness
of their support for the BAM demands. At
one point in the strike it became clear
that many sympathetic students were
afraid to strike for fear of missing mater-
ial covered in continuing classes. It be-
came necessary, at that point, to "break
them out" of their dilemina by forcing
faculty to close down the classes com-
pletely. This was accomplished through
disruptions.
There is very little doubt in our minds
that whatever gains were made in the
final settlement were won only because of
the effectiveness of the strike. It follows
again that these gains were won largely
because of the disruptive actions taken
which maximized the strike's effective-
ness.
NOW THE administration and faculty
boards are moving against the dis-
rupters - against those who controbuted
materially to the strike's success. More,
they are doing so selectively, picking off
a handful of the many disrupters to
make the job of disciplining them "I e s s
messy."
This is all reminiscent of the Parsons
case. Once again University officials are
attempting to attack a movement by pick-
ing off isolated members of it. Once again
they are obscuring the process from the
campus - this time by holding hearings
during finals. And once again it is im-
perative that the campus deliver a re-
sounding "No!" to the whole operation.
T[HE TACTICS of divide and conquer
must not be permitted to succeed.
There are complicity statements going
around - on the diag, in classes, in the
fishbowl; sign them. And when public
hearings ate held, we must be prepared
to act against them en masse.
By MICHAEL DAVIS
Daily Guest Writer
1 WANT TO give you faculty some advice.
I'm a student, and these days a student
giving advice to the faculty is a little like
a Zulu giving advice to the Afrikaaners.
That is it's suspect. Nevertheless, I'd like
to speak across the forming battle lines, as
one human being to his fellows.
You want to bring students before your
administrative boards and punish them.
You've been outraged by disruption of your
classes during the BAM strike, and you
want revenge. You don't see that what you
want is both unjust and selfdefeating.
YOU AREN'T interested in justice. If
you were, you'd take your charges to the
city court. The state has laws to protect
order. The city court can impose harsh
penalties on those guilty of breaking the
law. And the court also has extensive
procedures to protect the rights of the
accused. You refuse to go before the city
court, and you refuse to explain why.
You have also refused to go before the
University's own student judiciary. The
student body provided rules for your pro-
tection. The student judiciary has heard
cases under those rules, convicted some of
those charged, and imposed penalties. You
refuse to go before the student judiciary
because you don't believe students will
treat you fairly. Your own procedures have
often ignored thedrights of students. I don't
believe the student judiciary has ever
ignored the rights of any faculty member.
Of course, you'll argue that you have a
vital interest in punishing those who dis-
rupted your classes. No one can deny that
you do. You'll argue that therefore you
have a right to sit in judgment in dis-
ruption cases. But no one should agree
with that.
YOU FORGET that a judge isn't sup-
posed to represent interests. He's supposed
to be disinterested in everything but jus-
tice. If you honestly believe that every
faculty member has a vital interest in
putting an end to disruption, and if you
want students to have a fair hearing. then
you ought to be against a faculty body
hearing disruption cases.
IF YOU BELIEVE students can't be less
interested than you, then you ought to
avoid the student judiciary as well and
take your case directly to the city court.
To say that you should sit in judgment
of students because you're interested, is
like saying that it was proper for Joan
of Arc to be tried by the English because
the English had an interest in getting rid
of her.
But, to be frank, I don't expect you to
charge your mind because of what I've
said so far. You, like other people. aren't
much worried by what harms others un
less it's likely to harm you, too. You know
that no matter how badly your proce-
dures are biased against the accused, you
stand to lose nothing by those procedures-
since you can never stand accused before
the same body. Indeed, you know deep
down that those procedures will always
work in your favor when they work against
the accused.
I'VE DISCUSSED justice only because
I wanted to cool your self-righteousness.
That done, I can address myself to your
common sense.
What you're doing is self-defeating.
You're trying to prevent future disrup-
tion of your classes by punishing today's
disrupters through a process which neither
they nor the rest of the student body con-
siders legitimate. You're sowing the drag-
on's teeth. The ground's already beginning
to swell and quake. And it's only the be-
ginning. Consider:
Suppose you suspend or expel this year's
disrupters. What will that teach next year's
disrupters?. One thing it will teach them
is not to be identified. So, next year's dis-
rupters will wear masks. And, masked and
therefore probably unidentifiable, they'll
feel freer to do what's necessary to disrupt
your classes. This year not one disrupter
used a firecracker, egg, or brick to disrupt
a class. Maybe next year's disrupters will.
"OKAY," YOU SAY, "then we'll call in
the police, the National Guard, and even
the U.S. Army if necessary." Fine. Now you
have police on campus, something you
hoped to avoid by using your own boards
instead of the city court. But, even so, do
you think you will have'settled anything
by bringing armed men into your class-
rooms to keep order?
These armed men will, as you know fr6m
experience, provoke and do more violence
than they were brought in to prevent. And
you'll be less safe besides. For those armed
men will make the would-be disrupter more
bitter and make more extreme tactics seem
justified (even to neutral students).
AFTER MANY days of violence. your
armed men will, I admit, bring quiet back
to campus (briefly, anyway). But, you may
regret your victory. Many of your students
may be in jail or hospitalized.
Students don't have the power to run
the University yet. You've fought well to
keep that from them (though it's the ad-
ministration's battle you've fought). Never-
theless, students-simply because they cut-
number you ten to one-have the power to
wreck the University. And if you make
them- hate it enough, you can bet they will.
You have no monopoly on vindictiveness.
I ASK YOU, therefore, to consider
whether, for your own sake, you might
want to give up trying to get revenge on
the disrupters. If you still believe that
punishing disrupters is a question of jus-
tice, then file charges before the city court
or before the student judiciary. That's your
right.
But, if you're concerned to do more than
obtain justice, if what you really want is
to preserve (and even cultivate) what little
community there is among students and
faculty here, then perhaps you might try
to reduce the ill-feeling between us by set-
ting an example of patient reason. You
might condemn by name those you believe
to have acted wrongly, make public the
evidence you have for accusing them of
the acts, explain your reasons for thinking
what they did wrong, and then forgive
them-saying you want the University to
remain a community and you know that
persuasion makes community and punish-
ment does not.
YOU SAY you're against disruption be-
cause you want to teach. I believe you. And,
because I believe you, I'm calling your at-
tention to this chance the disruptions have
given you to teach-by example-some-
thing both important and good.
-9'
at
-BRUCE LEVINE
Editorial Page Editor
Downtown Detroit: Contemplating the wreck
By HANNAH MORRISON
Hill-Onandaga: Call for good faith
MEMBERS OF THE Alpha Epsilon Pi
fraternity are keeping their curtains
drawn these days - and rightly so. It
seems that everybody that drives by their
two-acre House on Hill and Onandaga
slows down and scans the property. In-
deed, some people have been observed to
stop entirely and walk around the
grounds. The brothers inside know, how-
ever, that this attention is incidental to
themselves. The attention is being di-
rected solely to the land.
Late last month, about 16 neighborhood
residents bought the fraternity property
for $85,000 dollars. The purchase occurred
at a time when the land was being con-
sidered by the city for low-cost housing
units. In fact, three days prior to the pur-
chase the City Housing Commission made
an offer for the same property which was
tentatively unacceptable due to legal dif-
ficulties. An alternative settlement was
being considered by t h e City Attorney
when t h e consortium of neighborhood
residents closed their own deal. All this
sounds confusing and perhaps unimpor-
tant but the implications are overpower-
ing. A sentence or two of background on
low-cost housing will add perspective.
DECENT LOW-COST housing is hard to
come by in Ann Arbor; in an effort to
rectify this problem the Housing Com-
mission was created in 1965. Soon after-
wards, the commission set about the task
of locating sights. It was agreed to adopt
the concept of "scattered sights" where-
by no more than 30 low cost housing units
would be built on any one site. The ad-
vantage of the "scattered site" concept
should be obvious. If you mass 250 fam-
ilies into a single development and send
all the kids to the same school etc., you
are merely creating another ghetto.
Whereas genuine socio-economic com-
munity integration has a better chance of
success if low-cost housing is scattered
strategically throughout a city.
At present 151 low cost units are under
construction on nine separate sites
throughout Ann Arbor. This is an average
of 17 units per site. Low cost housing will
still be greatly needed, however, e v e n
when these units are completed; hence,
the Commission has launched a second
program which aims at 200 family units
and a 100 unit high-rise for elderly citi-
zens.,
IN CONJUNCTION with this second pro-
gram, the Hill-Onandaga site was be-
ing investigated as one of many scattered
sites. It should be evident that under the
arrangement of scattered sites, e v e r y
site is important in that it further reduc-
es the overall site density of low-cost
housing in the city. The Hill-Onandaga
site is particularly valuable because it is
located in the second ward where sites
are extremely scarce.
Of course, the s i t e is not without
shortcomings. $85,000 for a two-acre site
is exorbitant by any standards. It would
appear that a density of at least 20 units
would have been needed to stay below
federal cost ceilings if the land had been
bought by the Housing Commission for
that rnriip
vealed little potential for public housing
they did not have to purchase it. This is
the standard procedure that the Housing
Commission has successfully followed in
buying other sites. Also, it has been cus-
tomary for those opposing site purchases
to petition or picket or lobby or partici-
pate in public hearings to h a v e their
views heard.
However, the consortium which pur-
chased the Hill-Onandaga property pull-
ed a power move. In turning their backs
on local government processes and the
city administrators, they have in effect
said: "We don't trust you."
ALTHOUGH such a move may s e e m
fashionable in a time when politicians
are regarded as villians and the Federal
Government is dubbed a monster; it is
wholly unwarranted in view of Ann Ar-
bor's handling of low-cost housing. The
Housing Commission has gone to all ex-
tremes in spraying - instead of congest-
ing - the city with low cost housing.
Public hearings have been held on all dis-
puted sites. Compromises have been ef-
fected. Yet, the consortium does not seem
to realize that their problem and concern
over the housing issue is identical to the
rest of the community. Every citizen in
Ann Arbor is living with scattered sites
closeby. Where unhappiness over this ar-
rangement has arisen, the rest of Ann
Arbor has acted within a set order of
public process. The consortium has abort-
ed this set order.
At present the controversy is simmer-
ing behind closed doors, T h e Housing
Commission has opted to assume a "wait
and see" posture. The consortium is frag-
mented and has not as yet issued a decla-
ration of intent.
PRODUCTIVE action may be forthcom-
ing, however. Mr. Harvey Brazer, one
of the purchasers recently said: " I view
the Hill-Onandaga site as an opportunity
for demonstrating t h a t public housing
can be well planned, that it need not be
unattractive or ugly and that citizen par-
ticipation of a productive sort c a n be
conducive to the attainment of essential
public goals." If Mr. Brazer is sincere in
this interpretation of his act - that is,
if he joined the consortium to insure that
the very best was attained in public hous-
ing (an act of questionable merit to be-
gin with since the Housing Commission
had given him-no reason to doubt their
efficiency in dispatching their w o r k)
then constructive action in the public in-
terest should become apparent shortly.
However, there is fear that Mr. Brazer
represents one voice and not the consen-
sus of the consortium with which he has
become involved. If this is not true Mr.
Brazer and his cohorts should act as a
unit in manifesting their concern. In
clearer terms,, if the consortium views
their purchase as legitimate "citizen par-
ticipation of a productive sort" for the
good of the community, then - by golly
- let's have the fruits of this participa-
tion. Let's hear their plans for develop-
ing the site "in such a way as to provide
a model for what public housing can and
should be." If a feasible plan is not forth-
EVEN DOWNTOWN Detroit could be a welcome change from the
routine of classes, tests, papers-which characterize University life.
However, while the city limits effectively, protected me from classroom
drudgery, they offered little relief from manifestations of an issue
recently broadcast on campus-pollution.
Its presence was oppressive. The pale April sunshine made futile
attempts to penetrate the tall buildings and industrial fumes which
clog downtown. Blasts of wind coming from the direction of the filthy
Detroit River rushed between the skyscrapers blowing dust into my
eyes. It was hellish-especially for contact lens wearers.
A few secretaries, anticipating tans and hot days, discussed sunning
on the roof during coffee breaks and lunch hour. "No," said the realist
among them, "it's so sooty up there."
Innumerable buses, trucks and cars contributed much unpleasant.
exhaust to the already smoky atmosphere. These same vehicles also
created horrendous traffic snarls. A patrol car's siren added to the din
of irate horns. Oh, for the era of mounted police ..
MY GRANDFATHER, a native Detroiter, could recall those days.
The city of his yputh sounded small and intimate, characterized by a
few blocks of low-slung buildings, clustered along the river's edge.
This was in the pre-Ford epoch. Horse manure, cobbled streets
and spitoons were commonplace rather than smog and expressways.
The only motorized form of transportation was the train; so the rail-
road station and tracks were other prominent features of the business
section.
CONTEMPLATING THE WRECK of a city, I could not help but
feel pessimistic. Maybe the tall buildings are necessary to house thou-
sands of businesses. But there is no reason for the many vehicles
crowding the streets or the industrial wastes in the air and river.
It is necessary that city, state and national government move quickly
to preserve the few resources left. The river shouldn't have to be a
lost cause. But municipal transportation can be made modern and ef-
ficient so cars will no longer be essential for the businessman. Pollution
must be eliminated through strict regulation of industry. Unless this is
done-and quickly-there may soon be no Detroit or other cities left
to save.
*
4,,
4
Downtown Detroit as it never was
N
Letters:
Waiting for
Benm Dak
To the Editor:
AN ARTICLE, "Are Palestinian
c o m m a n d o s a revolutionary
fropt?" authored by Meir Ben-
Yitzhak and Joseph D. Ben-Dak,
appeared in the April 9 Daily. Mr.
Ben-Yitzhak is stated to be as-
sociated with the journal New
Outlook. The article indeed re-
flected the line of New Outlook.
I was unaware that Mr. Ben-Dak
had previously embraced that line.
New Outlook is the child of the
Mapam party and serves as a left-
wing facade. Mapam is a fully in-
tegrated part of the Zionist scene,
Serves in the Israeli government,.
and has long since lost any spe-
cial identity that would meaning-
fully set it apart from the main-
stream of Israeli politics. As a
"socialist-Zionist" party, it is no
more socialist than the right wing
of the British Labor Party, and no
less Zionist than David Ben Gur-
ion.
If the Daily would invite me, I
would be pleased to respond to
the points in the article seriatim.
For now, let me deal with one bit
of nonsense : "Israel came into
existence as the result of a pro-
.onged struggle against British
imperialism."
TO CHARACTERIZE an 0o'-
ganic process by the brief final
stage of that process is unworthy.
Zionist colonization of Palestine
was a decision of the British gov-
ernment, the mandatory power in
Palestine after World War I. The
indigenous population of Palestine
1 . 1 1 _. _1 _ _2 _ _. _ .._
habitants, it was forced
by an imperial power.
upon them
That is the essence of Zionist
growth. That essence is not
negated by the political struggle;
by the Zionists against the British
White Paper from 1939-1940, nor
by the political-terrorist- (ah!-
'good" terrorism, not the barbaric
Arab kind) struggle from 1946 to
1948 which culminated in the put-
ting of the frosting on an already
accomplished political reality.
SEVERAL WEEKS ago Mr. Ben-
Dak - the conflict-resolver - dis-
tributed a scurrilous and defama-
tory pamphlet ,against the speak-
ers at a Palestine symposium. I
invited him up to the microphone
and, in front of some 300 people,
he agreed to arrange a debate be-
tween the two of us. I told him I
would debate him before any
forum of his choosing, even before
the Israeli Student Organization.
He said an "agent" of his would
get in touch with me. I still await
word from his "agent."
-Larry Hochman
April 9
Juggling act
To the Editor:
RECENTLY, the office of Uni-
versity housing announced plans
to reimburse students for meals
missed on 27 March when BAM
strikers shut down food service at
several dormitories. The amount
to be reimbursed for three meals
a cost differential resulting from
a complete shut down of food
service as opposed to a selective
and voluntary forfeiture of meals,
but would this amount be so large
as $1.70?
It seems only fair chat the hous-
ing office be .made to itemize ex-
actly how they arrived at the two
figures. It also seems strange in-
ded that meals for those who fast
for peace could cost so much less
than the same meals when missed
by indignant quaddies.
-Rose Sue Bernstein
April 13
Army ROTC
To the Editor:
IN A RECENT article appearing
in the Daily several points were
mentioned about the Army ROTC
program. I am in no position
to dispute these claims, not being
an Army cadet myself. However
as an Air ForcemROTC cadet I
would like to mention a few
points about the Air Force pro-
gram, so that it will not be im-
plied that the points mentioned
in the Daily article apply to the
Air Force program as well.
When an Air Force cadet signs
his contract (which his parents
must sign as well) he is clearly in-
formed of his obligations and the
options open to him. At the same
time the cadet is placed in a gen-
eral category of officer utilization,
which cannot be changed without
a new contract. Before graduation
however I don't feel that it is fair
to apply this title to the A i r
Force courses nor to LS&A cours-
es in general, as I'm sure that
some of the most difficult and in-
volved courses that most engineers
"elect" are the science and math
courses taught by ,LS&A).
The Air Force courses have
been undergoining a continuous
modification and reanalysis. At
the present the courses are con-
ducted on a seminar basis by the
students. Discussions are conduct-
ed by the students on such topics
as the Viet Nam war and other
political questions, and I feel that
even the Daily would be surprised
by some of the opinions presented.
At present a large portion of the
material is not even taught by the
ROTC instructors. Cadets m a y
choose (most do) to substitute
other courses for parts of the Air
Force program (some of them even
from the "hard" Engineering Col-
lege).
FINALLY, discipline and s h o e-
shining are being reanalyzed (by
the cadets as are virtually all
areas of the program) and chang-
ed, as there are virtually no events
which cadets are required or in-
timidated into attending. I fe e l
that I can speak for most of the
Air Force cadets when I say that
our program is both valid and pro-
gressive. All we request is that the
Air Force program be treated as a
separate program, and that an y
blanket action (dropping LS&A
credit, etc.) be witheld, so that
our pogram can be judged on its
own merits ,and not the Army's.
-Simon P. Worden, LS&A '71
Cadet Captain,
Air Force ROTC
April 10
-U'
0*
- .
.4