Seventyeight years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan
under authority of Board in Control of Student Publications
The deficient state of the
University
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.
News Phone: 764-05521
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily exp ress the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1968
NIGHT EDITOR: PHILIP BLOCK
To
preserve
editorial freedom
SINCE ITS INCEPTION, the special
student-faculty Committee on Com-
munications Media has operated under
unusual circumstances - considering
philosophical qtiestions against a back-
ground of intense political pressures.
Their report, released last month, re-
flects these strained circumstances by
attempting to satisfy the whole gamut
of critics and supporters of The Daily
and at the same time resolve the prob-
lems of.communication at a large uni-
versity.
This proved to be an impossible task.
The Regents and the faculty Assem-
bly are about to begin consideration of
the report a n d eventually decide
whether or not to accept the commit-
tee's recommendations.
We hope they will not accept the re-
port's recommendation to maintain the
power of a publications board to make
Daily senior appointments.
IMHILEWE AGREE w i t h the com-
mittee's basic premise that greater
dissemination of differing opinions and
perspective increases the likelihood of
realizing the truth, we find that this
report on the whole would do more to
damage than to improve campus com-
munication.
The circumstances under which the
committee w a s formed clearly illus-
trate why we are so apprehensive about
the continued presence of a publica-
tidns board with the power of senior
appointments.
In February, 1967, the.Board in Con-
trol of Student Publications, unhappy
with The Daily's general editorial prac-
tices, asked the Senate Advisory Com-
mittee on University Affairs (SACUA)
to investigate T h e Daily. As SACUA
was considering the request, the Board
rejected the appointment of T h e
Daily's new .editor because of his
harsh criticism of the policies of the
Hatcher administration.
Although the Board tree days later
reversed its earlier decision, this blat-
ant attempt to censor The Daily per-
manently ruptured any relationship
based on mutual trust between t h e
Board and The Daily staff. As a result
of this confrontation, we no longer ac-
cept as legitimate the p o w e r of the
Board to approve Daily senior appoint-
ments.
Their concerns too often have been
surpressing the truth rather than dis-
covering the truth through free opin-
ions. The only legitimate function of
the Board is to pass on financial mat-
ters, when their advice and counsel is
solicited.
HOPING TO STUDY the broader and
more legitimate problems of cam-
pus communication, the Committee on
Communications Media took up their
assignment in April following t h e
Board-staff confrontation. The facul-
ty Assembly appointed a comittee of
sincere men who we must admit are
generally friendly to The Daily. Their
integrity cannot be doubted.
Under the strained circumstances,
committee chairman L. Hart Wright of
the Law School and his associates made
a conscientious effort to deal with the
problems of communications media.
But they also had to deal with political
realities. And these realities are that
many influential men, both on cam-
pus and off campus, fear an indepen-
dent student newspaper such as The
Daily.
The committee report implicitly ar-
gues that the University must retain
some control over the campus student
newspaper in order to keep it within
the proper bounds, as a publications
board would define them. Supposedly
the danger of The Daily stepping be-
yond the bounds of propriety is greater
than the danger of a board censoring
independent political views. We think
the record is clear as to which is the
real danger. In the last eight years, the
Board has twice tried to block senior
appointments in retaliation for Daily
editorial positions.
MANY OF THE REPORT'S sugges-
tions for, improving the news cov-
erage and internal operation of The
Daily are constructive and will be
adopted by us immediately. But t h e
continued presence of a board with the
power of appointment is unacceptable.
The report does suggest more equi-
table composition for its proposed
"Board for Publications." The new
board would be composed of t h r e e
elected students, three faculty mem-
bers appointed by the faculty Assem-
bly and three professional journalists
selected by the University president
f r o m a list submitted by The Daily
staff.
But even a board with a more equi-
table composition should not make and
is not capable of making senior ap-
pointments. The committee apparently
worked on the erroneous assumption
that what was wrong with the Board
was the men on the Board.
What we are unhappy with is the il-
legitimate p6o 1 i t I c a 1 considerations
which often enter Board deliberations.
The political pressures which arise
from a newspaper which advocates un-
popular or unconventional political
ideas in the past have been sufficiently
intense to corrupt even well-meaning
men.
No matter. how conscientiously the
committee denies that this is a device
to censor The Daily, they cannot give
us any insurance that the circumstanc-
es of just two years ago will not occur.
THIS UNIVERSITY is subject to such
political pressures that even against
its will it might be forced to move to
suppress editorial freedom. If The
Daily's editorial policies were beyond
the control of the University, pressure
could not be directed against the Uni-
versity.
T h e legitimate recourse against
newspaper infractions is to sue for li-
bel, not to censor. If .it is not libel the
censors are worried about, then their
purpose should be exposed as the sup-
pression of differing political views.
Moreover, the determination of sen-
ior appointments is not a p r o c e s s in
which any board would have the time
or expertise to participate. The senior
editors set policy for The Daily a n d
these responsibilities are n o t turned
over lightly.
The selection process t a k e s a full
year of almost continual re-evaluation
and reassessment of those personalities
seeking senior positions. Any board
would be unable to determine the par-
ticular merits of a staffer since the
extent of its knowledge concerning
The Daily is limited to the final pro-
duct. There is.no way to institutionalize
a board which would be aware of all
the intricacies of a daily newspaper
operation.
ADMITTEDLY we don't have the
. best process and we are trying to
improve it. But the process the com-
mittee suggests leaves The Daily at
the mercy of a board which would be
subject to the identical pressures which
affected past boards.
No one but The Daily staff has either
the right or the capabilities to make
senior appointments. The Daily is an
open organization where promotions
always have been based on journalis-
tic and organizational ability rather
than political attitudes.
We thank the committee for their
efforts. But in the long run, we can-
not entrust our editorial freedom to a
board subject to illegitimate political
pressures even if its membership is
determined in a m o r e equitable
manner.
--THE MICHIGAN DAILY
(Editor's note: The following is a policy
statement from the Michigan chapter of the
New University Conference (NUC). The NUC is
a national organization of radical scholars, stu-
dents and intellectuals whose stated purpose is
to transform American universities into demo-
cratic institutions. The NUC was founded in
March, 1968. It presently has chapters on twen-
ty campuses across the nation.
N SEPTEMBER 30 the president of the University,
in a speech more enlightening than any of us
had anticipated, made clear what the University
was all about. The speech appraised the climate
of the University in terms of cost differentials, in-
flationary trends, productivity factors and cost-
benefit planning. For those of us involved in the
educational process, it was indeed news that the
climate of the University could be described solely
in these terms.
Although we recognize that economic planning and
analysis are components of the University-as they
are of any large industry-we also recognize that if
the University is to be; anything more than another
large industry, it must identify and face the prob-
lems that are unique to it.
An analysis of the climate of the University must
be made. In response to the inadequacy of Presi-
dent Fleming's analysis, we have prepared our own
statement. As members of the Michigan chapter of
the New University Conference, we hope that those
members of the faculty and graduate school who
agree with our analysis will join us in our effort to
change the present climate.
LET US BEGIN by stating our conclusion that the
state of the University is rotten. It is so not because
of a shortage of funds but because the University
is living a lie that is becoming apparent to an in-
creasing number of faculty and students.
The lie is told at the very beginning of the literary
college catalog where it is stated that the primary
goal of the University is ".. expanding the intel-
lectual frontiers of each student by stimulating him
to explore the unknown and by providing him with
knowledge, not in the narrow sense of facts alone,
but in the broadest sense of new awareness about
man and his surroundings." We feel that the Uni-
versity has betrayed this goal for the goal of power.
The actual goal of the University is the mass-
production of the technicians and the techniques
that keep society functioning smoothly. In exchange
for these commodities, the University receives money
and recognition.
If the University is to succeed, it must insure
that its products will be useful to society. Thus, the
University must encourage the competitive sprit which
society finds useful. It must also encourage the ac-
ceptance of society's narrowly defined concept of
success. Most important of all, the student must not
be allowed to question the fundamental assumptions
upon which society is based or the existing system
of priorities. As a result, the needs and desires of the
students are subjugated to the needs and desires
of society.
THE UNIVERSITY requests and receives support
from the wider system on the basis of the services
it provides. Therefore, the kinds of activity the Uni-
versity undertakes are determined by the demands
of the buyer.
The independence of the University has already
been severely damaged by its absolute dependence
on government contracts to maintain its research
machine. This dependence prevents the University
from assuming the important role which it is uni-
quely qualified to play, that of Independent and ob-
jective critic of the values, structure and policies
of the society. Until it takes this role, the University
will never lead in changing society but will merely
adopt changes which come from other institutions.
The consequences of the University's dependent
-position are evident when we consider the ambivalent
attitude of the faculty toward teaching. Success
within the University is attained in exactly the same
way that it is attained in the outside community--
from individual output.
A faculty member's worth is measured quantita-
tively, by counting the number of papers he has
published, or the number of times his name is men-
tioned by colleagues at professional meetings, or the
amount of money he has received from research
grants. The faculty member as a teacher or simply
as a creative individual who can function outside
of his field is given little or no consideraton.
THIS EMPHASIS on a conventonal form of success
is passed directly on to the students, who succeed
or fail on the basis of their willingness to "play the
game." Although the student is expected to increase
his ". . . awareness of man and his surroundings,"
he is certainly not expected to act on the basis of
his new knowledge. Indeed, if the student is not ex-
pected to act on this knowledge, the faculty member
is punished for any such action.
Any analysis of the state of the University must
also consider the elitist composition of the University
community. The University's narrow definition of
"excellence" has traditionally excluded whole social
and economic groups from participation. In addition,
the Regents who are supposed to represent society's
interests in their control of the University consists
entirely of members of the privileged groups. The
expansion of the University community to include
all groups is vital. Efforts to correct this situation
have been token at best.
The climate of the University today is one of mis-
trust and iritation. President Fleming has taken the
stand that violence, threat and intimidation cannot
be tolerated on campus. This view' appears to mis-
understand the true condition of the campus.
THE UNIVERSITY thrives on its own varieties
of violence, threat and intimidation. Without them
it could not perform the role it has chosen for itself.
Students are threatened with failure if they do not
accept the orthodox analysis. The faculty is coerced,
usually by other members of the faculty, into follow-
ing the accepted path to academic success. Indeed,
no other path is available. And destruction of the
curiosity and hope of entering students is surely a
form of violence.
It is this climate that the University has attempted
to avoid dealing with. These are the problems which
the University has not confronted. The aim of the
New University Conference is to bring together
people who are not satisfied with the University's
performance in these areas and who are ready to'
take a variety of actions to build a University which
is truly free.
*
Fleming on cost differentials
Letters to the Editor
Penalty forprots
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Howard Miller is a member *of Student Government
Council. A resolution condemning- the House bill referred to in this editorial
was passed by SGC last week.)
By HOWARD MILLER
THE UNITED States House of Representatives recently passed a bill
called the Higher Education Amendments of 1968. In Title 5, Section
504 of this bill colleges are empowered to deny loans or fellowships to
individuals found guilty of breaking any law, whose actions contributed
to a "substantial disruption of the administration of the institution."
This is apparently an attempt by the House to levy. a double penalty
against campus protesters.
Any citizen found guilty of a legal infraction will be penalized by
the courts as prescribed by law. A college student, however is subject
to the further penalty of losing his loan. This is patently unfair and
denies the individual his right to equal protection -of the laws.
Thedsituation bears similarities to the regulations providing
for the drafting of people who disrupt draft board operations. They
may be convicted of trespassing, spend time in Jail, and then further
face immediate induction. Thus an individual having paid the pre-
scribed penalty for his crime is subject to further punishment by virtue
of being a draft-age male.
In both of these situations it is apparent that the intent is to make
it as difficult as possible for concerned Americans to protest publicly.
The government is committeed to suppressing dissent with every means
available.
BY SELECTIVELY dispensing federal funds to those who are not
deemed disruptive and withholding them from those who are, the
government is trying to bribe American academia to refrain from pro-
testing. It seems that even the Congress feels that its policies cannot
stand up to public criticism.
Another clause in the bill states that once an institution decides
to withdraw federal funds for illegal disruptions, the student may not
obtain any federal loans for two years regardless of where that. individ-
ual attends school.
This means that a student who has his loan revoked by one school,
cannot received federal funds when he transfers to another school, even
if the other school wishes to give him money.
The clauses may be illegal in terms of arbitrary discrimination
and the lack of equal protection under the law, but at least they
acknowledge that an individual must be guilty of some crime before
the penalty fo loan withdrawal can be imposed.
However the bill does not stop there. It goes on toi say that uni-
versities shall deprive individuals of federal funds if they refuse to obey
the school regulations'and in so refusing are substantially disruptive.
Here is license by which an individual may be deprived of his fed-
eral loan or fellowship without having broken any law at all.
THIS PROVIDES a mechanism by which penalties are applied with
federal authorization for infractions of rules set up by completely
private organizations.
If Harvard College can deprive a student of his federal loan because
he participated in a rally on campus banned by the administration,
then so could the Congress authorize General Motors to suspend social
security benefits to an employee participating in a work slow-down
prohibited by the company. This process could be extended to control
everyone who receives some type of federal benefits.
And that is just the point. By expanding federal assistance
into more and more areas of private life, the government is obtaining
a powerful tool for manipulating the population. Those who dissent will
be in danger of losing their government assistance.
Hopefully in this case the guideline establised for revoking federal
loans and fellowships will be found to be arbitrarily discriminatory by
the courts if and when the bill becomes law. The provision for loan
revocation for breaking school regulations rather than criminal law
would likely to be found to be an infringement of due process as well.
This present attempt and all other attempts by the Congress
to suppress criticism by the people should be vehemently opposed. A
society that must suppress criticism from its citizens cannot call itself
a democracy.
Goals for the b lack student
i
To the Editor:
BEFORE ONE CAN justify the
existence of a politically active
organization of black people on
this campus, one must consider
the reasons for black men and
women being here.
Education is certainly not the
least of the reasons for the enroll-
ment of blacks in this white Uni-
versity. The University offers as
much, if not more, academic
training as any other college in
the United States. But an exclus-
ively academic education, it is gen-
erally accepted, is an incomplete
one.
Total education should expose
the individual not just to academ-
ics but to many varying ways of
life. It is obvious, by virtue of our
small number, that we black stu-
dents are constantly exposed to
a different way of life, a white
one. This exposure, although vital
and valid for individual and group
growth, may and often does dis-
associate the black man from his
community.
THIS BRINGS US to the sec-
ond primary reason for the pres-
ence of black students on t h i s
campus; to gather skills and
knowledge to take home. As many
noted authors and thinking men
have concluded, a black skilled
man or intellectual is of no use
to his community or self separated
from it, a member of the native
white elite.
If as Charlie C o b b of SNCC
stated he "teaches us (black men)
that what we should get is theirs
and not for everyone to get . .",
if the educated black man loses
his identity to where he sees white
halluncinations in the mirror, he
is lost.
This loss of self is not as unlike-
ly a possibility as it may imme-
diately seem. Consider t h a t on
this campus only one person in 50
has even a black face. Consider,
further, that eight months out of
twelve are spent in t h is white
bright atmosphere of unreality.
Think also of the fact that it is
here at the University where the
chance is greatest for every Negro
to achieve his potential, of be-
coming a black man.
AFTER THE BLACK STUDENT
leaves this place, unless he has
thought out his course 'of action.
he may well become a token, in-
'effective, lost.
But there is another way; that
of a man who is an integral part
of his community working in it.
There is the way of the individual
who affects his world through a
well oiled political and therefore
social organ accessible to him and
his.
To- point out this way, to work
toward these directions, there ex-
ists on this campus the Pro-Black
Organization. This organization of
unified black men a n d women
seeks to answer the challenge of
Frantz Fannon, who, in his man-
ual for revolution Wretched of the
Earth, charges;
Comrades, I e t us flee from
this motionless movement where
gradually dialectic is changing
to the logic of equilibrium. Let
us reconsider therquestion? of
mankind. Let us reconsider the
question of cerebral reality and
of the cerebral mass of all hu-
manity, whose connections must
be increased, whose channels
must be diversified and whose
messages must be re-human-
ized."
-Steering Committee,
Pro-Black Organization
Oct. 16
I,,
i
Iu man ity:
The
h igh price' of progress
By JIM HECK
SIX DAYS AGO this great land
of ours shot a million and a
half-pound arrow up into the sky.
Six days ago a kid died in Me-
rango, Nev., because he didn't
have enough food.
Our great land threw a triangu-
lar parapipeloid around the world
three times. But our great land
didn't have the strength to throw
220 million pounds of surplus
wheat to the 10 per cent of our
population dying of hunger.
Grasses of Wrath is nice, I
like it, but sometimes I think a
more realistic approach to o u r
civilization can be found in Alice
in Wonderland.
Don't get me wrong. I like space.
As a matter of fact I would be the
first to support student half-fare
to the moon-- that is, providing
student half-fare to the m o o n
didn't jeopardize a kid's life in
Mernago. Nev.
which have come from space re-
search!" you boast. "The advance-
ment in science, medicine, weath-
er control, cyrogenetics! !"
Fine, but the scientific advance-
ments meant nothing to. the kid
who died in Merango, Nev. - he
couldn't read. Apparently, the ad-
vancements in medicine couldn't
save his life. His parents' farm-
lands are so poor it doesn't mat-
ter what the weather is like; when'
it rains it ruins the land, when it
doesn't rain it ruins the crop. I'
don't even know what cyrogenetics
is.
"Space research means national
security!" you yell.
For what?, I ask.
"To protect our great opportun-
ities!"
Uh-huh.
"There will always be the poor !"
Fine.
"What if Queen Isabella spent
her money giving Portugese kids
clothes instead of Columbus
guard the world's seas! We made
a bomb - a bomb that could de-
stroy everything we had built!!"
Yeah, I know. I was just sorta
bringing up the fact that this kid
-- he was 13 - died when he
could have been saved with a few
cents and instead we spend tons
of money on .
"Satellites, missiles, weapons!"
Space, huh?
"The last Frontier! The hoife
of the gods!"
I see.
"We must conquer it, because
it's there!"
Hunger is there, hate is there,
evil is there .
"I envision the day when huge
ships the size of cities take hun-
dreds of persons into that void to
colonize other planets, other sys-
tems!"
You wanta go?
"Who wouldn't! Imagine seeing
that great beyond!"
Your children? Your friends?
I,
1
(AM
P Mi 6 r4tgatt FitllJ
Editorial Staff
MARK LEVIN, Editor
STEPHEN WILDSTROM URBAN LEHNER