"How is it, Gentlemen, not having the old Nixon to
kick around anymore ?"
Seventy-eight years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan
under auth6rity of Board in Control of Student Publications
I 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.
News Phone: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily exp ress the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1968
NIGHT EDITOR: PHILIP BLOCK
'The truth
about Tear Gas'
_ _ _ .. ._
The
Czech crisis
trough R ussan eyes
LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies through-
out the U.S. are building up their
stocks of tear gas and training in its use.
Police officers are following advice 'like
that in the FBI's riot control manual,
which concludes that chemical agents
are the most effective, humane means of
temporarily neutralizing a m o b, while
minimizing personal injury.,
But many are wondering which kind
of agent to get. The older CN ("tear gas") ?
Or the m o r e powerful irritant agent
CS?
The National Advisory Commission on
Civil Disorders has indicated in its re-
port that CS has been found by the mili-
tary to be considerably more effective and
safer than CN. The Commission has ex-
pressed an opinion that the only current-
ly available alternative to using CS is ap-
plying potentially' lethal force, and has
strongly recommended the use of CS be-
fore rifles or bayonets.
ALTHOUGH Lake Erie makes both
agents, we recommend CS.
Simply stated ... CS is the most apt
to stop a riot so it can't restart! Though
all rioters will run out of a cloud of either
agent, the big difference is this . .
After 10 minutes or so of "recovery"
in fresh air, determined rioters may have
forgotten the effects of CN to the point
where they're ready to start trouble,
again, a block or two away. But if they've.
had a dose of CS, sthey're through for the
day. (And maybe for the year.) CS has
extremely sobering effects on a lawbreak-
er, including burning sensations and the
feeling he can't breathe. These, added to
the tears, are so psychologically demoral-
izing, even in memory, that wild horses
couldn't drag him back.
ANOTHER point: CS grenades, properly
used, are almost impossible to throw
back. It would be difficult to find even a
fanatic with the nerve to pick one up,
without a mask.
Yet, according to a large body of im-
pressive evidence, CS has proven extreme-
ly safe. More and more police depart-
ments are switching from CN to CS. And
in our experience, not one has wanted to
switch back.
Send for an authorative article on the
subject; which we' have reprinted with
the permission of Ordnance magazine.
LAKE ERIE Chemical has been the lead-
er in CS, the first to introduce it to
commercial markets in the U.S. in 1962.
We continue to of fer either CS or CN in
all Lake Erie grenades and projectiles.
Your Lake Erie distributor will take fast
action to supply your needs.
Lake Erie Chemical is a member of
Smith & Wesson's growing Law Enforce-
ment Group, manufacturers whose aims
and products all share one characteristic:
dedication to the professionalism of the
American police officer and to the pro-
tection of the public he serves.
The Group now includes, in addition
to Smith & We~son and Lake Erie: Gen-
eral Ordance Equipment Corp. (Chemical
Mace); Stephenson Co. ("Speedalyzer"
radar, Breathalyzer, Minuteman resusci-
tators); and Dominator Company (elec-
tronic sirens, radar).
-Advertisement of
LAKE ERIE CHEMICAL DIVISION
SMITH AND WESSON
By MARK E .SCHREIBER!
DESPITE WEEKS of Russian
pressure on dissident Czecho-
slovakia, few in the West expected
the Soviet invasion of that coun-
try on August 20-21. For a trav-
eler in Russia before that date
the attack was not surprising. In
ways it could have been anti-
cipated by Soviet popular opinion'
Mass attitudes on international re-
lations follow government dictum
in contemporary Russia. If many
people there have a strong, uni-
form ;response on a delivate issue.
then the population has been ade-
quately prepared for further offi--
cial action along that line.
From July 7 to August 8, I with
a small group of American college
students on an exchange program
touring major cities, rural areas.
and youth camps in the Soviet
Union. We had number of dis-
cussions with workers and stu-
dents. Some of these were spon-
taneous and individual, and others
formally arranged by Sputnik.
the youth branch of the Soviet
tourist agency Intourist. In many
instances the topic of our talks
focused on their feelings tward
the reforms in Czechoslovakia. The
discussions were not a eandom
sample of opinion. In some meet-
ings with Komsomol (a govern-
ment sponsored youth o ganiza-
tion) members we were cautioned
beforehand to expect a rigid )a ty
line. In more open situations we
were able to get some impnn!ession
of what a university student, fac-
tory manager or peasant in Rus-
sia might think about the issueus
and a fortiori what their govern-
ment might want to do about it.
THE RUSSIANS we met were
dead-set against the Czech liberal-
ization program. Their opposition
ranged from deep skepticism to
vilifying criticism. There were
some that had a real emotional
commitment against the reform
efforts. But I can only remember
one time where a Russian, an en-
gineering student from Moscow,
said, "Let's wait and see, and give
Czechoslovakia a chance." He was
then shouted down by his com-
rades.
This is not to say that the So-
viet people had a clear under-
standing or much information
about recent events.in Czechoslo-
vakia. The "Czech reforms" were
usually spoken of in general, con-
notative terms. The reforms were
seen to have several programmatic
elements: expanded trade and re-
lations with Western countries.
particularly West G e r m a n y;
growth of other political parties
which would dominate the Com-
munist Party; and elimination of
censorship restrictions which al-
lowed anti-Soviet literature. (Little
or no mention was made of in-
creased freedom to travel, mass
participation in the political pro-
cess, or domestic economic chan-
ges away from the Stalinist,
heavy-industry model). Besides
this, everyone seemed to knpw
what the Czech program meant
and they did not think it necessary
to elaborate.
Hostility by Russian people to
the reforms were based on two
arguments. First, and most im-
portantly, they charged that West
Germany was becoming increas-
-1-'-J .
lingers with the thoughts if lost
husbands, wives, children and
friends. More than 20 millions
Russians died in World War II,
and the memories live with many,
many people. Nor does the Soviet
state let them forget. In every
city, town, and village, monuments
abound. Massive placards Pnd
posters which link Russian growth
to German defeat, dot the major
urban areas. There is no area of
art, literature or social education
which does not have some pointed
reminders of the "Gilea Patriotic
War." Well-publicized zrticles
about the successes of the NDP
party, reinforce the spectre of a
resurgent, neo-fascist West Ger-
many.
If West Germany is encroacl)g
on a Communist bloc nation, this
is seen as a direct threat to Russia.
And the average Russian will sup-
port his government's intervention
to halt that threat.
The second principal argument
was that Czechoslovakia was being
led, or proceeding voluntarily
"down the road from socialism to
capitalism." This idea was less
often and less sincerely invoked.
Those who arguedalong this line
were mostly students, exercising
their intellect, or hardline Com-
munist group leaders. Bourgeois
counter-revolutionaries were said
to exist in Czechoslovakia since
that country did not undergo a
through, purging revolution. The
peaceful transfer of power in 1948
had allowed these subversive ele-
ments to persist. Political, rather
than economic evidence, initialy
was used: the provision for other,
non-Communist parties and anti-
Soviet articles appea'ri'ng. in the
Czech press. Some derogatory ref- \
erences were made to private en-
terprise and managerial autonomy
in Czech factories, well as expand-
ed foreign trade.
The consequence of this "deca-
dence" was projected into inter-
national terms: 'Czechoslovakia's
obligation to the Communist bloc..
While every country should have
its own road to socialism, '"each
bloc nation is dependent on each
other and what on does intimate-
ly affects the others." If the trend
in Czechoslovakia is toward capi-
talism, then she weakens the en-
tire bloc, through upsetting ti ade
balances, military alignments, etc.
This was a general, ideological
argument, but one about which
the people who voiced it had scant
information. Even the students
knew very little about the nature
and extent of Czech-Soviet trade
relations. In most cases, they
seemed to overestimate Czecho-
slovakia's economic significance to
Russia. But to these Soviets it was
implicit that somehow Czecno-
slovakia was very important to
the rest of the Communist world.
oddly enough, very few of them
expressed apprehension that the
capitalist reforms would spread to.
other bloc nations, which seemed
to be their government's prime
concern.
THESE CRITICISMS of the
Russian arguments are not intend-
ed to reduce their importan e. In-
adequate and false informaton,
incomplete reasoning, and emo-
tional response characterize the at-
titudes of most mass publics. Basic
measures are more indicative: the
Czech agricultural students, tnei
Russian hosts, and our America
group-a lazy summer evening i
late July on an excursion boa
along the Volga river. After th
usual condemnation of 9merca
policy in Vietnam, the (iscussio
settled on the Czech reforms. Tlh
heavy-set Russian leader, who ha
served in the battle of 3talingrai
began the-indictment. He imue
diately charged that Czechoslo
vakia was subverting the Cemmu
nist party and instituting capitali
modifications.
The Czech youths yere at fir
hesitant to respond. Finally, wit
broken Russian prose and nervou
hands, one student made a dg
fense, He said that he thoug
that there should be other poli
ical parties in Czechoslovakia. H
felt that some people should bi
allowed to privately operate ente
prists for the sake of efficienc
The Czech stated that Russia
trade agreements were forced o
Czechoslovakia, and done soa
her expense., Cited was the ex
ample. of low-grade iron ore shi
ped from the Soviet Union i
Czechoslovakia. This ore had b
undergo several costly stages4
refinement beforesit could even b
used. The student concluded b
suggesting that Czechoslovak:
might have been better off if Rus
sia had allowed them to accept th
Marshall Plan. The Soviets in th
room were noticably annoyed.
OUR YOUNG Sputnik gui
then took the floor.'He first ask
if Russia should have intervene
in Hungary in 1956, to which the
were indecisive responses. He the
inquired where the arms for th
Hungarian revolt came from. N
one seemed quite sure. He sa
there wasdirect evidence the arm
were supplied by West German
His comrades agreed, and th
Czechs were stood mute.
Should Soviet forces been use
to halt the German conspiracy
Hungary? "Da i nyet?" ("Yes
no"), the Russian repeated se'
eral times.
The Czechs were shaken an
confused. To answer "No", wou
brand them as fascist symp
thizers, the worst of crimes. T1
respond, "'Yes", gives assent b
analogy to the future take-over
their country.
SO THE CZECHS waiver
against the strength (illogicala
it might have been) of the cha
lenge. They were caught in t
dilemma of no choice, where a,
direction spelled defeat.The di
cussion broke off here withoi
resolution. The Russians left t
gether, angered at the Czechs' i
solence, resistance, and appare
unwillingness to refute fascis
It was clear to us by early A
gust that a number of segmen
in Soviet society were against t
reforms in Czechoslovakia. Wh
then did these people think wou
happen? Most of the Russia
were uncertain about what the
government was going to d
When asked whether the Sovi
Union would invade as in Hu
gary, they usually hedged and si
cerely remarked that they did n
want to see another war.
The invasion of Czechoslovak
has.come and past. For the ave
age Russian, the news (if he g
it) uulr nnt h hckina n
_mark levin
A liberal dilemma
WHAT HUBERT HUMPHREY has done to liberalism on the national
political scene, the University's so-called faculty liberals may suc-
ceed in doing on the academic scene.
Humphrey and his wide variety of friends have undermined liberal-
ism as a viable political approach to the problems of America. And
the narrowness and intransigence of those who pride themselves on
being faculty liberals may seriously undermine those liberal students
who are initially taking a non-confrontation approach to academic
reform.
Humphrey can no longer be considered a liberal except by those
cynics who begin their analysis with the assumption that liberalism
is a barren approach to change. Humphrey can only be considered
a conservative whose duplicity and opportunism is unforgivable.
AND SO FOR the faculty. They too can protect their vested
interests and resist efforts to open their tight-fisted control of the
University. And if this is the case they too must, be reclassified as
conservatives.
To allow these conservatives to cast themselves as liberals. in this
meaningful game of nomenclature is deceitful. Otherwise, the sin-
cerety and intensity of the efforts of real liberals are wrongly degraded.
How the faculty will react to proposed reform of the academic
decision-making process is very uncertain. They still may prove to be
more than, nominal liberals, An objective overview of the current
situation would convince any liberal that change is necessary even at
the expense of his own power. The disenfranchisement of the student
can not be defended on any but elitist grounds.
OUR POLITICALLY sophisticated faculty certainly must realize
liberalism means more than the encouragement of change only to the
point where one's self-interests are challenges,. as in the case of
Humphrey. They must realize that above all liberalism requires an
active commitment to changing those institutions within society which
are insensitive to the popular will or intolerant of cetain group
interests.
And so the faculty liberals, who have been so free in their cri-
ticism of the administration when ,it has refused to share its power,
must go through the agonizing reappraisal all liberals in ppitioWSa of
power face when their interests are challenged.
'The success of, efforts to give students power over acadernic
decisions which profoundly affect their lives depends on whether the
faculty intends to live up to its rhetoric. To defeat these efforts is to
insure the continuation of confrontation politics, an approach alien
and potentially dangerous to the university environment.
All this is relevant now because the history departnient has
offered students an invaluable opportunity to achieve meaningful
academic reform by calling a series of student-faculty forums. The
philosophy and ecohiomics 'departments are soon to follow suit. And
it is up to the men of these departments to' decide whether meningful
r change can be achieved from within the system.
n21
n WHAT PROPOSALS students will make is unclear. To beg n with,
t many students are not convinced that institutionalized student power
e is necessary to insure that professors will be concerned with taching
n in addition to other more personally rewarding academic chorus That
)n
n student opinion and concerns can not be filtered into the'acagiemc
d decision-making process without institutional power for many remains
d, to be seen,
e_ In addition, many students are unwilling to take the responsibility
- which such power brings.
- I strongly feel that institutionalized power is essential. It, can be
st argued that this particular history department is sensitive to student
needs. And this is true to a limited degree. This department has
st granted tenure to professors whose chief virtue is teaching. Under':
.h graduate education has not been severely neglected as in other depart-
s ments of the University.
But what has happened to proposals to increase the credit hours
t available for 400 4and 500 level courses? Why are concetration re-
[e quirements so arbitrarily set? Why can't students outside the honors
lecollege be exposed to seminar teaching? Why was they trimester 1.n-
e tituted with so little concern for the student?
y.
kn IT CAN BE ARGUED that some of these are college- or University-
n wide decisions. But almost no decisions affecting academics can le
at made in this institution without at least the acquiesence of the
- departments.
pr A permanent institutionalized student-faculty committee to con-
to sider academic planning on the departmental level would for instance
to bring forth new programs and new approaches to instruction. It might
of also insure that the University would not continue to drift, reacting to
y society's needs only after they are pressed upon the institution.
is A permanent student representative o4~ tenure committee would
s- guarantee that dry scholars whose interest in teaching is minimal
e would get minimal consideration when up for tenure. Tenure appoint-
e ments now are made many times as a result of a, particular depart-
rment's concern with the status of a certain scholar regardless of'his
approach to teaching.
de How can undergraduate students remain apathetic about academic
d decisions when those decisions allow the finest professors in many
d departments to avoid teaching on the undergraduate lev? Student
re silence allows these inequities to continue undisturbed. If that is the
n condition under which this particular high-status professor has been
e hired, his services can be reinquished.
o
OUR CONCERNS are not being looked after and only bur con-
y. tinued vigilance can assure they will ,be looked after. Mireover, the
he only persons who I want to look after my interests are my elected
representatives. Even benevolent paternalism insultingly implied that I
eq am not capable of looking after my own interests..
in In the short run the progress students can make in improving the
or multiversity may not be immediately apparent. But we have a rbspon-
v- sibility to the universities of this country since they shape the minds
and orientations of the future leaders of our society.
3d Universities must turn out sensitive, deep-thinking human beings
ld who feel a responsibilty toward their society. Quality education can
a- insure this.
by THE NOTORIOUSLY liberal history faculty can react to student
of
concerns in two ways. They can view student proposals as sincere
efforts to achieve necessary change through established channels, a
ed reaffirmation of their stated beliefs. Or they can provincially reject
as those demands as an unwarranted intrusion into their private sanctums.
Ll My faith in liberalism as a meaningful approach to chan'ge; not a
he hollow jargon, leads me to believe that the faculty will choose the first
iy alternative. But again 'my faith in liberalism led me falsely to believe
ut that Hubert Humphrey would not remain silent, while the Johnson
o- administration systematically destroyed Vietnam.
Student counselors:
THESupplement, in
T'HE HONORS COLLEGE program of
student counseling represents a com-
mendable effort to h e lp students cut
through bureaucratic red tape and plan
a program of interesting and relevant
courses. At the same time, student coun-
seling should not be seen as a substitute
for improved faculty counseling.
Under the program, 25 upperclass Hon-
ors students a d v i s e any student who
seeks their counsel and sign election
cards for 'ionors students with less than
junior standing. The idea is to enable
students to circumvent the time-consum-
ing and frustrating 'process of arranging
an appointment with faculty counselors
who are often unavailable, who in many
instances are not in a good position to
appraise the teaching abilities of their
colleagues, and who always have more
counseling appointments than they can
adequately handle.
But counseling serves (or ideally should
serve) a variety of needs. For the student
with1 a rough idea of where he is headed
academically, for the student who merely
seeks information about specific courses,
student counseling may m e a n an im-
provement over faculty counseling.
tot replacement
cannot find a path at all? Many under-
graduates in the literary college 1 a c k
either occupational or academic goals.
Many see no relevance in their academic
work in terms of how they hope to live
their lives. For them there -is no easy an-
swer: not the existing misconceived sys-
tem of in-again out-again, 13' people in
the waiting line, h a 1 f-an-hour behind
schedule faculty counseling. And prob-
ably not a system of student counseling,
despite its obvious merits for the more
goal-directed.'
These lost students will ultimately have
to solve their own problems. They will
have to do the thinking and solving. Yet
faculty members, w i t h their academic
and personal maturity, could (a n d to
some extent now do) attempt to help such
individuals find an approach to resolving
their philosophical and spiritual malaise.
CURRENTLY few professors h a v e the
time or inclination to do that kind of
counseling. And the one danger of an ex-
tensive student counseling system lies in
the enticement it will present students
to bypass faculty counseling altogether.
At least two things should be d o n e.
04,, -- - -A f nl -~%i t ni . - - -, m
n-
nt
M.
u-
ts
he
at
Id
ns
ir
0.
et
n-
n-
ot
ia
r-
ot
ad
Letters to. the,. Editor.
in our apartment, did it become
-Donuts reality.
T
To ie zaor:
"PRESIDENT and Mrs. Flem-
ing, I'm so glad that you could
come." I found myself saying last
Saturday as the distinguished cou-
ple came down the narrow corri-
dor to our apartment.
When President Fleming's sec-
retary called to say that he had
accepted the invitation to o U r
post-game open-house, my room-
mates and I =were surprised, and
GOOEY DONUT in one )aztd
and punch cup in other, President
and Mrs. Fleming displayed a keen
interest in each individual and an
o p e n - h e a'r t e d frie.ndliness
throughout. As they were leaving,
we felt that we had met thie true
president of our university -- a
president seldom seeui by Daily
reporters in their descriptions of
"a mixture of mediation and bur-