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.

August 27, 1968 - Image 48

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1968-08-27

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

Page Two


Tuesddv. Auc' ust 7. 196R

Page w o T E M IC IG A N D AIL

TLJPS&V AiiNuii.t L271 7V


Research sit-in
LAST NOVEMBER, a reporter for thd Milwaukee Journal visited
Ann, Arbor on an assignment which would have puzzled the
know-nothings in the state legislature who regard any political
expression by students as inherently subversive: he was to find out
why student protests at the University of Michigan were so tamely
non-violent and non-disruptive compared to those at other univer-
At the time, it seemed like a good question for anyone-but
especialy a reporter from a newspaper in the state of Wisconsin-
to ask. During the previous'months there had been student demon-
strations at both the University of Michigan and the University of
Wisconsin, and by comparison Michigan seemed a hotbed of sweet
In Madison, a few hundred students sat-in on the hallway floor
of a classroom building to protest recruiting by Dow Chemical Com-
pai. The police arrived and demanded an end to the sit-ini When
some of the students blocked their entrance, the police reacted with
savage brutality. Sixty-five students were injured, many of them
onlookers or those passing between classes.
IN ANN ARBOR, over 250 students and 30 faculty members sat-in
in the lobby of the administration building to demand an end to
University acceptance of classified research contracts from the
Department of Defense and University assistance to counter-insur-
gency work in Thailand. At the offset they voted to eschew "disrup-
tive" tactics, but that only serves to illustrate how meaningless
the word has become: sitting-in in the lobby of the administration
building, the protesters here were far more disruptive of the normal
process of work and life than those who staged their demonstration
in a classroom building at Wisconsin.
Nevertheless, the day Vas uneventful. There was a lot of talk, a
number of paper motions wre passed, a few University vice presidents
got the afternoon: off. Six hours after it had begun, the protest
gagged in its own rhetoric and the 25 who had remained to the end
tramped wearily out of the building. Since then, the University is
still working hand/ In hand with the Royal That military, and the
faculty committee set-up the day before the sit-in to review classified
research policy has given Willow Run Labs a blank check.
NOW WI4Y, the journalist from the Journal wanted to know,
did the protests at the two schools have much different denouements?
The answer lies in the reactions of the administration. At the Univer-
sity the police not only weren't called in, according to one version of
the story Vice President Pierpont actually asked, them to stay away.
Vice President Norman volunteered to discuss the issues with the
sitters-in and for the next two hours an honest if sometimes un-
informed and frustrating evasive dialogue took place. Vice President
Cutler strolled through the crowd, joking with students. When the
scon shifted to the hallways on the first and second floors, Vice
President Smith sat-in with the protesters outside his own office,
President Hatcher, as was his wont, was out of town.
Although the University has never treated a student protest with
such civility, few protests have had more serious consequences. No
demonstration on the University campus in recent memory has ended
in violence, although the draft rankings crisis of November 1966,
in which over 5000 students mobilized, obviously had the potential.'
Only one building has been "liberated" a la Columbia, by black stu-
dents last April, and that was under clearly extraordinary circum-
stances and the administration handled it thusly. The whole thing
was over in five hours, and there were no reprisals.
YET, I DO NOT subscribe to the "it can't happen here" school of
thought. The sociogical profile of the student body, and especially
of the radical students, is strikingly similar to that of students at
Wisconsin and Berkeley, scenes of numerous violent incidents in the
past few years. The national issues are the same everywhere. And
although it appears that the administration here has finally learned
how to handle demonstrations when they happen, it is still incredibly
insensitive to student opinion on local issues.
In fact, I think the University right now is sitting on a bomb
which could explode at any time. Part of the explosive- potential
exists because the administration, as well as much of the faculty, is
afflicted with the same law-and-order complex which riddles the
larger society we live in. Administrators are so concerned with
averting manifestations of unhappiness that they never really listen
to what students are saying, never deal with their arguments on a
serious intellectual level.






The Hatcher Commnission, a,
cild of comroisre and student
Jpower, wa s borni in Decemnber,
1966 In the wake of almost al
month of student teach-ins, sit-
ins and ultimatums. At this print-
ing the Regents are considering
a series of proposed bylaw revi-
sions that would translate some
of the Commiission's uropsis
into the law of the University.
The 17 months between the
formation of the Commission and
the beginning of Regental imple-
mentation were relatively quiet
for the Commission and its mem-
bers: a quiet that was in sharp
contrast to both the circumstances
of the formation and the threat'
of student action following Re-
gental proposals for implementa-
In November, 1966, the campus
was readying for a Student Gov-'
ernment Council-sponsored ref-
erendum to determine whether the
University should compile class;
rankings for the Selective Serv-;
ice System. Before the voting,
SGC, Voice and The Daily de-1
manded that the University abide
by the students' decision, what-
ever it might be. Voice threat-
ened disruptive sit-ins and dem-;
onstrations if the demand was
Vice President for Student Af-!
fairs Richard L. Cutler responded'
to the threats by quickly and
quietly instituting a ban on dis-
ruptive sit-ins. SGC oromptly
withdrew from the Office of Stu-
dent Affairs to protest this move,
leaving itself in a state of insti-
tutional limbo that still confuses
members and administrators.
By this time, events had started
moving fast and it looked like,
the administration had c, full-
fledged student movement on its
hands. First, the students reject-
ed ranking by a two to one mar-
gin. Then, a teach-in sponsored by
a loose coalition of Voice and SGC
filled Hill Aud. to capacity and
came up with a collective ultima-
tumn:'either tihe University imnme-
diately rescind the sit-in ban and
comply with the results of the
draft referendum, or it would ber
faced with ' sit-in in the Admin-
istration Building..
The night before the sit-iu was
to take place, then-President Harr-
lan Hatcher issued a compromise
proposal to the University com-
munity. He set up three Presiden-
tial Coniiissions to deal with the
student demands and temporarily
rescinded the sit-in ban.

The proposals were met wlth
mixed reactions from *he memn-
bers of the loose student coali-
tion. Although some claimed the
fight had been won, others ie-
manded action rather than study.
And although 1500 students sat
in, the unity was lost, the mo-
mentum was gone and finals were,
coming up. The student movement
was effectively dead, leaving be-
hind a Student Government Coun-
cil of doubtful status, three Pret-
idential Commissions and a lot
of bad feelings and distrust.
Hatcher's Commission on the
Sit-in Ban never got oif the
groId: the issue was dead as the
ban was never reinstated.
The Commission on the, Draft
and Class Ranking issued its re-
port in April, 1967. Although it
supported the administration's
stance on ranking, student lead-
ers never saw fit to make an is-
sue of it again.
The President's Commission on
the Role of the Student in Deci-
sion-Making deliberated for over
a year. When its report was fi-
nally issue last March, it had
been all but forgotten by the
students whose protests forced its
formation. -
The Commission's report was
sweeping. Made up of four stu-
dents, four faculty members and
,four administrators, the group
called for the fornmation of a
campus - wide University Council
which would be composed of
equal numbers of faculty, stu-
dents and administrators and
which would make rules for all'
"members of the University com-
The Commission also stated
that the formation of a student
judiciary system was "the pri-
mary responsibility of the stu-
The student judicial system,
like student government, should
be a primary responsibility of
the students of the University.
The Commission recommends
that a central judicial system
be established incorporating the
following provisions: z
1. original jurisd jction by stu-
2. due process,'
. faculty review of those de
cisions involving suspension
or expulsion,.
TheCommission recognizes
that certain colleges and profes-
sional schools already have ,es-
tablished judicial systems that
incorporate these characteristics.
However, to provide the most
consistent campus-wide pattern,
we urge that these units and all

others move to the central sys
tem' upon its development,
The Colmission members neg-
lected to, clarify the question of
who had judicial jurisdiction ove
faculty and staff infractions o
University Council regulations.
According to most members of
the Commission, the intent was
that there should be separate sys-
tems set up for hearing com-
plaints against faculty and staff,
This summer's controversy over
implementation of the Commis-*
sioin report began at the Regents'
regular meeting in April. At the
neeting the Regents "approved in
principle" portions of the report,
including the formation of Uni-
versity Council and the principle
that regulation of students while
off-acmpus should be left en-T
tirely to civil authorities.
The Regents met with the mem-
bers of the Commission and de-
cided to have the report drawn
up in bylaw form. According to
Comiission members, they agreed
that the drafting would be done
by another commission, to bef
composed of one student, one
faculty member and one adminis-
However, the Regents later as-
signed the task of drafting the
bylaws to Cutler. Their charge to
him did not include any of the
provisions that Commission mem- *
bers say were agreed upon. He
was asked that the 'drafting not
be done by him alone, and in in-
terpreting this request he ,con-
sulted with two faculty members
and two students of his own se-
When SGC and the Commission
became aware that the final draft
of a bylaw establishing Univer-
sity Council had been prepared,
many expressed immediate con-
cern that they had not been
aware of the drafting and its
procedures. After they read the
draft, reactions ranged from being
"a little troubled" to shocked in-
dignation at the proposal.
The consensus of those disturb-
ed by the proposed bylaw was
that more' time was necessary.
Although the Regents charged
Cutler with preparing the bylaw
by their regular May meeting most'O
observers felt that the Regents
should delay action on the pro-
posal until all complaints had
been thoroughly considered and
Cutler agreed not to recommend
passage of the proposal to the
Regents. But the final decision 0
remained with them.
A Regental move unacceptable
to most students threatens at the
printing of this article. If the
Regents do decide to pass the by-
law as currently proposed, stu-
dent unrest - and perhaps an-,
other Presidential Commission-
can be expected.'

Fall 1966, 1500 students sitting in preface Commission
Ho'w much can the

U, know of you

White Tie and Tails... On Tour...Go Blue
Songs of American Universities.
Kick Off, U.S.A. ... Touchdown, U.S.A.
Hail Sousa... On Tour
P.S. We also have U of M Songbooks

By LESLIE WAYNE organizations to the House Un- During the past summer, both
One of the great mysteries of American Activities Committee, the Lawler committec .and the
the University remains: what kind The groups were Voice-SDS, Civil Liberties Board have been
of records are kept for each stu- the W.E.B. DuBois Club and the working on new reports. The re-
dent, and how many people have Committee to Aid the Vietnamese. ports will be issued this fail.
access to those records? Following a long, heated con- The original Lawler r-eport cas-
With the numerous tabs the troversy, a special subcommittee sified most information as atter
University keeps on students, frcm of the Committee on Student Re- for public record, with the e cep-
results of the cooked (or is it cords and Their Use was set un, tion of University activity. ae:er-
raw) carrots test to encounters sponsored by Vice President for al public information--suca as
with Health Service, the problem Student Affairs Richard L. Cut- address-could be released to any-
of privacy becomes a touchy - ler. Members were the then As- one. Limited public infornation'
and confusing-issue. sistant to the Director of Coun- could be released to the proper
For example, concerning the seling James Lawler, who is now source-for example, a prospec-
draft, the University follows a assistant director of student org- tive employer would be able to
policy of releasing only "nublic" anizations, and two students, one see employment records.
information-such as addresses graduate and one undergraduate. However, no information would
and dates of attendance at the By the following spring, the be released on University t i-
University. All other information Lawler committee compiled a re- ties without a statement from the
is released only upon written re- port which would have defined student.
quest from the student. the position of the University in Until a new report is issued, he
Yet ' many departments keep respect to such records. Office of Student Affairs, a ma-
records, and each department has However, both Student Govern- jor record-keeping office, is tol-1
its own rules. ment Council and Graduate As- lowing the guidelines already set
The problem swelled from a sembly refused to accept the Law- up by the Lawler committee.
naggilg concern to a crucial issue ler report, largely because it gave The report allows the OSA to
in August, 1966, when the Uni- wide disciplinary prerogatives to withhold any information when
versity, upon request, submitted the Vice President for Student Af- "the interests of the University
membership lists of three student fairs. or the student are safeguarded

against unwarranted inquiry.
However, the major objection
to the report came over a secrion
granting the Vice President for
Student Affairs the privilege to
disclose information about a stu-
dent "to preserve and protect the
reputation and integrity of the
Records are divided into two
categories, objective and .subjec-
tive, in the literary college, the
largest record - keeping depart-
ment. All records are kept for five
tp nine years after each student's
graduation or departure from the
University. The records are stored
in the depths of Angell Hall.
Objective records include trans-
cripts and any correspondence
with the University, whil com-
ments from counselors make up
the bulk of the subjective evi-,
Within the University, both
types of records are distributed
on a need-to-know basis among
faculty, counselors and adminis-

If a student transfers to ano-
ther University, his objective rec-
ord goes with him. The University
will also answer direct questions
about the student's behavior,
"Only about five per cent of
the running comments are judg-
ments," explains James W. Shaw
dean. of the literary college. "The
rest are just notes about the gen-
eral course interests of the stu-
Extracurricular records, how-
ever, are often of more personal
concern to the student than his
academic record.
If the FBI needs information
about a student or if he is being
cleared for security, the admin-
istrative board of the literary col-
lege will answer only factual ques-
tions on the "public information"
section but will not reveal the sub-
jective record.
Neither the reconvened Lawler
committee nor the committee
headed r by the Civil Liberties
Board is able to disclose any de-
tails of their upcoming reports.'

417 E. Liberty
Just past AA Bank'

NO 2-0675

President Hatcher

i .


. _








Make yourself at home
You'llf fined everything
you need in a
very friendly atmosphere.
All this. . . and more .
""0 K



Iwe say mc









336 So. State



Ia~ ACnc~

I la f



I! I

1 1!



Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan