== HOWARD KOHN--
M Erigat Daily
Seventy-nine years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan
420 Moynard 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.
THURSDAY, APRIL 16, 1970
NIGHT EDITOR: LYNN WEINER
SALT: An opportunity
that should not be missed
THE SECOND STAGE of the long-de-
layedc Strategic Arms Limitation Talks
(SALT) between the United States and
the Soviet Union opens today in Vienna.
And despite the extreme urgency in-
'volved in reaching an agreement on the
arms control question before vast new
weapons systems are constructed on a
massive scale, there are disturbing indi-
cations t h a t the Nixon Administration
plans a "go-slow" approach for the talks.
Last week the Senate, by a 72-6 vote,
urged the administration to propose to
the Soviets an immediate mutual mora-
torium on t h e deployment of strategic
offensive and defensive weapons. And,
reports indicate that the Soviet govern-
ment is favorable to such a proposal.
Yet it appears that the Nixon Adminis-
tration not only is not planning to ini-
tiate such a proposal, but has instructed
American negotiators to discourage So-
viet moves in that direction and rather
to merely continue cautious exploration
of overall Soviet attitudes.
Such an attitude taken by the admin-
istration is completely intolerable in
light of continuing moves, on both sides,
toward deployment of new weapons sys-
tems and in light of the seemingly in-
terminable delays in the SALT t a k s
since their proposed opening two years
ago.
THE ADMINISTRATION plans to start
installing t h e multiple warheads
(MIRVs) on American missiles this sum-
mer. Plans continue for anti-ballistic
missile, (ABM) development, and the So-
viets a r e continuing expanded deploy-
ment of their SS-9, missiles which are
caable of carrying vastly increased pay-
It's past
pll'out
VIETNAM IS NOT the big mistake you
thought it was. It's bigger.
Communist forces in Laos are on the
move, taking the strategic Plain of Jars
and threatening the CIA headquarters
south ofthere. Cambodia has a new gov-
ernment, both the stability and nature of
which are uncertain.
Qne of Vietnam's neighbors is in trou-
ble and another may be soon. In an ironic
twist on the old domino theory the Unit-
ed 'States is seeing its dirty little war,
whether by design or accident, spill over
into the countries next door.
OFTCOURSE, our involvement in Laos is
nothing new. We date back at least as
far as 1956 when be began our massive
support of Souvanna Phouma, thei new-
ly-elected -leader of Laos and the CIA's
annointed one.
By 1960, we decided Souvanna h a d
some decidedly Red blood in him, and we
financed ;a rebellion led by the son-in-
law of the Prime Minister of Thailand.
Thus ensued one of the typical insani-
ties of our foreign policy, a civil war with
Uncle Sam supplying both sides.
That uprising moved the 'American
Spit it out Spiro
VICE-PRESIDENT Spiro T. Agnew re-
surfaced briefly earlier this week at
a fund-raising dinner in Des Moines,
Iowa - also the site of his much herald-
ed remarks on the news media.
In keeping with the contemporary
Greek government's attitudes toward
democracy and openness, Spiro (Zorba
the Veep) Agnew assailed the Italian
universities for opening their doors to
any high school graduate.
But before discussing the horrors that
could result from such an open admis-
sions policy, Agnew frothed over the very
idea that a university would change its
.policies at the people's request.
First is was the "Fat Japs," the "Po-
lacks" and the "effete snobs," and now
spit it out Spiro, the "Dumb Wops." .
rI
loads as compared with earlier ICBMs.
Administration foreign policy adviser
Henry Kissinger has reportedly warned
that it would be difficult to terminate an
open-ended moratorium if no progress
were made in the SALT talks. Stabiliza-
tion of the nuclear arms race at its pres-
ent stage is apparently more disconcert-
ing to Kissinger than the prospect of its
indefinite continuation.
Now is clearly not the t i m e to "go
slow" on the arms limitation question. An
unusually good chance now exists - bas-
ed on the rough nuclear parity between
the two powers - for some agreement
which could at least limit the arms race
at its present stage, and hopefully even
reduce its level substantially. The con-
tinuing development and deployment of
new weapons systems, especially MRVs,
could sabotage this rare opportunity.
THE AMERICAN negotiators must be in-
structed to propose an iimediate
moratorium on strategic a r n s deploy-
ment, and to use such a moratorium as
a first step toward scaling down the two
colossal military establishments, based on
a rough nuclear parity between the two
powers.
Until such an approach becomes the
policy of the Nixon Administration, Con-
gress must oppose all appropriations for
the procurement and development of any
new weapons.
The clear desire of the American peo-
ple that the arms race not move into new,
increasingly dangerous and pathetically
wasteful stages, must be translated into
government policy.
-STEVE KOPPMAN
time to
of Laos
cause in Laos several light years back-
ward. Thirty thousand people were killed,
Souvanna Phouma was forced to turn to
Moscow for aid; the Pathet Lao (local
communist guerillas) gained popularity
with the peo'ple as foes of foreign agres-
sors.
Things have not changed much since
then. The CIA and US Army logistics ex-
perts now run the show on the ground,
training Meo tribesmen and supplying the
Laotian army. American air support is
euphemistically termed "armed recon-
naisance missions." That means pound-
ing the hell out of Pathet Lao positions
just like we do in South Vietnam.
The present threat to US security, how-
ever, comes from the North Vietnamese
troops in northern Laos. They could be
there to help keep the Ho Chi Minh Trail
open so that men and supplies for a new
offensive can move to South Vietnam
from the North.
Or, they could be trying to gain a re-
sponse to the question Richard Nixonre-
fuses to answer: Is t he United States
really leaving Vietnam?.
By MOUNTING a threat in neighboring
Laos, the Hanoi regime can f o r c e
Washington to prove its intentions. It
would be outright stupidity to turn
around and go back in with guns flaming.
Our past record all over Southeast Asia
indicates that such a move would only
kill more Americans, strengthen the lo-
cal opposition, and probably rip t h i s
country apart once and for all.
To pull out - now - would be to do
what we should have done a long time
aeo. Anything less than complete with-
drawal today, including the CIA, runs the
risk of being sucked back into the quag-
mire tomorrow. But what about the rest
of the tomorrows?
As long as this country continues to
pursue its imperialistic course under the
double banner of capitalist expansion
and "self-determination for the peoples
of the world," future Vietnams are inev-
itable.
QELF-DETERMINATION under the Ge-
neva accord was fine for Vietnam, un-
Thel
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The author
was associate editorial director
of The Daily in 1968-69. This is
his farewell article as an editorial
page columnist.)
A FRESHMAN and a senior are
walking to class. "I'm flunk-
ing out," wails the freshman. "Oh
shit, who cares?" retorts the sen-
ior.
F o r years graduating seniors
have been saying the University
doesn't make it, isn't giving us
what we want, hasn't become rel-
evant. Still the University goes on
measuring its success by the num-
ber of Woodrow Wilson Fellow-
ships its graduates win.
Rah - rah - rah - sis - boom -
bah - HUMBUG.
Let us all stop playing games.
Some people are upset because
black freshmen might disturb the
quality of the University. How is
it the University is so qualified to
banter about its quality?
Why should the University wor-
ry about a ghetto kid's apprehen-
sion of Machiavelli when it doesn't
worry about the application of
Machiavelli in its system?
The revolution started on cam-
pus because universities have be-
come more maladroit than other
institutions. P r e s i d e n t Spiro
Agnew speaks his piece and acts
on it. President Rbbben Fleming
speaks like he is supposed to and
then acts like he didn't. The fac-
ulty's actions speak for them-
selves.
Maybe we should just give up
on the university and let it be de-
stroyed. But even if the revolu-
tion succeeds, we will still need
education.
So in the interests of everyone
(what a grand thought) we might
well save the University from it-
self. Note: The University is de-
)ig
'U,0
CONTRARY TO WHAT Flem-
ing would have us believe, a uni-
versity can change faster than al-
most any other institution. The
only question is whether it should
move so far ahead it cuts itself off
from the rest of society. The an-
swer is that the society is in a
crisis which demands both mor-
ality and leadership, two things
the university just might provide.
Prof. Frithjof Bergmann of the
philosophy department outlines
the problem: Imagine a -rscholar
reading in a room. That is fine.
Now imagine a sick man in the
same room crying for help: What
should the scholar do?
Only a few professors debate
that question in class. Why? Be-
cause the answer attacks some of
academia's basic assumptions.
For instance, are scholars and
researchers really necessary to a
university, and are grades and de-
grees really necessary?
Who are our scholars and re-
searchers? One is Dr. Charles Ov-
erberger, chemistry chairman.
who twice did research for Edge-
wood Arsenal on enzyme config-
urations - something which
could have chemical and biolo-
gical warfare uses. Another is
Jerry Johnston in the Institute
for Social Research who's doing
a feasibility study on a volunteer
army. They are also Profs. Peter
Gosling, Kenneth Case, Marvin
Holter, Seth Bonder, W. J. Nun-
gester, Ray Tanner and several
others who overtly or covertly
serve the Pentagon. And there are
a host of engineering profs who
"consult" with industry three
school days a month for h u g e
fees. Et cetera .
Sis-
boom - bah -humbug
fined as all administrators,
teachers, all students.
all
E
These people clearly belong in
some other institution.
If they are, as some say they
are, good-thinking liberal men
then they can bring humanity to
a government bureaucracy some-
where. At the University, they are
deadwood.
Obviously the University h a s
other scholars and researchers --
bent on curing cancer -and pur-
ifying water or maybe just lap-
ping up a Saturnalian sonnet.
Ideally we would have the to-
bacco industry curing cancer and
the auto industry solving pollu-
tion and we would have those in-
dustries who are subsidized with
university graduates paying a
special assessment. The Univer-
sity, which can crack the whip
with industry, should be working
for those ideals.
THE UNIVERSITY should al-
ways have room for those scholars
who just want to teach apprecia-
tion. At the same time, it must
be wary of those who are here
at the behest of some publish-
ing company.
Already we havetoo many
PhD's especially dysfunctional
PhD's. Andthat brings up the
more crucial issue: grades and de-
grees.
Why abolish them? Why not?
Grades are unnatural harnesses
on learning. Degrees create a mas-
que of mass education.
Grades are inexorably on their
way out - despite the Univer-
sity's effort to pigeonhole the de-
cision. But degrees are a different
matter.
AN OLD READERS .DIGEST
joke says that a B.S. stands for
bullshit, an M.S. for More of the
Same, and a PhD for Piled High-
er and Deeper. Degrees have pro-
duced an "educated" class indict-
ed as effete snobs by the right
and as intellectual lamebrains by
the left.
Much of the criticism is true.
Degrees reinforce cultural, eco-
nomic and racial barriers. Stu-
dents get 2-S deferments. College
graduates get jobs and money and
status.
Why? Because that's the way
the out-of-proportion educational
system works. Those who need ed-
ucation the most - the poor, the
minorities, the low-IQ kids, the
generally-disadvantaged - don't
get any.
SO LET'S NOT quibble about
minority admissions. Let's talk
about open admissions.
People should learn what they
want, when they want, how they
want and for as long as t h e y
want. Only rich-white kids can do
that now.
Open admissions must be the
number one priority of the Uni-
versity, Pragmatically it's possi-
ble since the number of students
applying will decrease if the Uni-
versity abolishes degrees. But
emotionally it freezes academia's
bodily fluids. Academia coughs
and moans and claims symptoms
of coronary seizure.
But reason must win out over
prejudice. If we permit scholars
to remain committed to sophistry,
where will we find education to
give to students?
What all this means is that ad-
ministrators must finally open up
the 'decision-making, the faculty
must conceive new programs and
new approaches and the students
must help each other instead of
competing with one another.
I expect a lot of people are go-
ing to ridicule this column as the
folksy utopian dream.
But it could be more than that.
This society is in for a series of
hard lefts to the gut and right
uppercuts to the head. If the Uni-
versity quit worrying about main-
taining its tight structure it might
make the rest of society less up-
tight. At least we'd have students
in a democratic institution.
THE REST OF MY remarks are
randomly-culled notes. My con-
clusion after five years is that be-
ing "in" the University renders
you disillusioned but that being
"at" the University restores your
foolishness and hope - even if
some say it is just a foolish hope.
A parting glance, at the journ-
alism department: I have a lot of
mixed feelings about it (I say
that unequivocally). It is not an
outstanding department, or even
a good one, though a few pro-
fessors are sensitive to students.
Up until Marshall MLuhan de-
livered his sermon on the mount,
the department was defining me-
dia according to Hearst and Pul-
itzer. Now it has an identity cris-
is about the meaning of media.
The department's saving grace is
that it requires a minimum of
journalism courses and lets you
explore other disciplines to a max-
imum.
An indictment of T h e Daily:
Last year The Daily decided to
close off its library bysextending
the three-quarter walls all the
way to the ceiling, thus depriving
us of climbing over the walls and
using the library as a fort f o r
paperball fights.pWe brought in
barbed wire to protest the decis-
ion. But the walls went up. My
symbolism is blunt. T h e Daily
has closed itself off from students
and student news, except when
the news relates to the adminis-
tration. As often as The Daily has
been a watchdog/ of the adminis-
tration, it has been a lackey. The
Daily, for example, is at fault for
letting Fleming stall two years,
from the King assassination to
last month, on a verbal agree-
ment to the black demands.
I've spent more time in The
Daily than in the University. as
all my professors will attest. But
I did so because of the people, and
in spite of the word pollution that
came out in the paper almost ev-
ery morning. Internally The Daily
has been racist, hierarchial and
chauvenistic. In fact. it has been
a mini-university. Some signs in-
dicate that it might change. I
think it can.
But The Daily's overriding bur-
den is that it takes itself too ser-
iously - and consequently few
students take it seriously at all.
A PREDICTION for Robben
Fleming: He will be gone from
here in less than two years. He
has become the Lyndon Johnson
of university presidents, surround-
ing himself with toughminded and
closeminded assistants w h o tell
him what he wants to hear. Like
Johonson, Fleming reacts as if
guilt was the only motivation, in
student requests. If he can sweet-
talk us on one hand and intim-
idate us on the other, he appar-
ently figures he can absolve our
guilt without making a move. I
have the feeling Fleming is the
most guilty man on campus.
A warning for the revolution:
Even if outlaws and freaks have
to build their political base un-
derground, theit culture should
stay aboveground. A life culture
can stay alive only if it is free and
open and willing to experiment.
Revolutionaries must make their
institutions - their newspapers
and their schools - into workable
models. They in u s t make their
values mean what they say. They
must not lapse into tge violence
and repression of the death cul-
ture. A cultural revolution is more
enduring than a political revolu-
tion. If you want to help that
revolution, The Argus and The
Free School need new people and
more people.
A RETAKE on the political
science department: In 1965 Daily
Editorial Director Ed Herstein
wrote, "Political science is the
mostsunexciting of all depart-
ments, almost to a man holding
nothing but moderate and un-
original ideas. Worse it is an ir-
relevant discipline. It says almost
nothing about what a better world
might be and even less about how
this world might be changed." Ed
said it much better than I could.
A QUESTION on the national
political syndrome: W h a t hap-
pens when a narc busts down a
door under the no-knock law and
gets his head shot off by some en-
terprising junkie? It has to be
called self-defense against an
armed unknown intruder. Con-
gress doesn't think about things
like that. Congress doesn't think
much at all. Incidentally, while
liberals are congratulating them-
selves on Haynsworth and Cars-
well, they're letting legislation like
no-knock pass unanimously. Gen-
eral John Mitc7ell doesn't care
what the Supreme Court even-
tually says about the laws as long
as he gets to play with them for a
few years.
A plea to Mayor Robert Harris:
Now that you realize you haven't
a praying-mantis chance of get-
ting re-elected, why don't you say
publicly what you used to say in
those off-the-record sessions and
then act accordingly?
A VIGNETTE on my philosophy:
When I was growing up on a farm
near Bay City, Mich., my father
felt it was dishonest to take money
for not growing crops and con-
sequently - as he thought - con-
tributing to the starvation of peo-
ple. I have resolved therefore not
to accept my diploma from the
University until it moves to meet
the needs of the people it should
be serving.
Letters to the Editor-
Another response
To the Editor:
PROF. HARVEY Brazer's re-
sponse to my letter on his shen-
anigans with regard to the frater-
nity house property at Hill and
Onandaga deserves a brief re-
sponse. I stand on my report of my
conversations with Mrs. Brazer
and lawyer Sallade. They used, as
I reported, all the racist code
words to justify their group's grab
of the fraternity house to prevent
its purchase by the City Housing
Commission.
I did not make a "thinly-veiled
threat." I did in fact make a
promise--to join with others to
foil the plans of Brazer, Sallade
and their fellow Ubermenschen.
-Prof. Max Sham
school of public health
April 14
BAM amnesty
To the Editor:
WE BELIEVE that the BAM
strike was justified and that am-
nesty should be granted to those
who have been accused of disrup-
tive activities in connection with
it.
We stand ready to attend any
judiciary proceedings a g a i n s t
strikes in order to urge our posi-
tion.
-The Radical College
April 12
Explanation
To the Editor:
IN :A LETTER dated April 13,
1970 Miss Rose Sue Bernstein asks
(f "", Pt'
"I WARNED you about buying a
used Carswell from that man!"
4
,49
for an explanation of why only
$1.00 was returned to students who
sacrificed their meals last October
while we are discussing the return
of $2.70 for meals not served when
the BAM activity occurred on
March 27, 1970.
As Miss Bernstein acknowledges
in her letter there is a difference
between a complete shutdown and
selective non-participation. In a
complete shutdown the figure of
$2.70 per day is discussed-this
amount representing the cost of
labor and raw food. In the selec-
tive non-participation there is no
reduction in labor costs. Only the
raw food cost of about $1.00 per
day can be legitimately claimed.
I hope this answers Miss Bern-
stein's concern.
-John Feldkamp, director
University Housing
April 15
Guskin withdraws from VP consideration
Ii
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is the
text of a letter sent to President Robben
Fleming by Alan E. Guskin.)
S YOU MAY know, I would like to
withdraw my name from consideration
for the position of vice-president of the'
Office of Student Services. This decision
was made in my own mind a number of
weeks ago and I have withheld discussion
with you about it primarily as a result of
the strike and other campus activities.
Before going on, let me be clear that
little of what I say relates to you as a
person; I have had and continue to have
a great deal of respect for you-even
though we may disagree on a number of
issues related to management style and
the necessity for certain educational
changes. While one may criticize some of
your actions during the strike, your ability
to work through some form of resolution
without bringing in the police or the Na-
tional Guard is a great credit to you.
THERE ARE THREE major reasons for
my choosing not to be considered for the
Vice-Presidency .
1) Considerable disagreement with you
on a number of important administrative/
eration and implementation of policies.,
It is clear, in my judgment, that a policy
board enable a vice-president, who agrees
with it, to really implement new policies.
(If he does not agree with it on key issues
then he should reconsider his job or posi-
tion.) Besides increasing the likelihood of,
implementation, a policy board also offors
the possibility °of better decision making
as it potentially has greater access to in-
formation.
A second matter on which we disagree,
it seems, is your transfer of the Admissions
and Financial Aids office to Vice President
Spurr. The only reason for such a move
seems to be to make sure that the vice-
president of student services does not
supervise. these offices. What management
justification is there for a dean of the
graduate school and vice president' for
Dearborn/Flint to also supervise such stu-
dent-oriented operations?
A third issue of disagreement is the dis-
ciplining of students. I understand that
under certain circumstances students must
be disciplined for their actions. However,
this should follow the spirit of civil liberty
guidelines-namely dtie process and no
predicament you're in. In many ways it is
this understanding of your situation and
how it conflicts with my personal values
and political commitments which causes
me the most personal con{ ern. I .Io not
want to repress students, for whatever
reasons; I do not want to cool students
out. Although I might be able to do this,
I could not in good conscience do so. For
while I sometimes disagree with some of
the student activists' strategies and tactics,
I basically agree with much of what most
of them want. I cannot repress them when
I feel they may ultimately be correct and
I have no better alternatives. Let other
people try to repress them and let me be
free to help the students and other faculty
members.
Some of these reasons may lead you to
think that I do not want to take on ad-
ministrative responsibility in higher educa-
tion. Quite the contrary. I would love to
work in such a position if there was an
innovative atmosphere, and if there was
the possibility of bringing about meaning-
ful educational changes. In short, I want
to be among those fighting for organiza-
tional and educational change at the uni-
versity, whether it be as a faculty member
A-*
mitment to the work and the people in-
volved I do not want to leave this project.
IN CONCLUSION, I would like to add