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 06, 1963 - Image 2

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1963-08-06

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

~Uir t. Vaun&tit
Seventy-Third Year
Truth Will Prevail'
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

Draw Birth Control Distinctions

Civil Rights Solutions
Require Perseverance.

T HE MOST immediate effect of the present
civil rights surge is an epidemic on an in-
tensified variety of psycosomatic inflamation
of the epidermis, or in layman's terms: skin
consciousness. Of course the disease has been
with us for a long time, but recently the symp-
tomshave stepped up their frequency of oc-
currence. Every time a man looks in a mirror
today his reflection generates powerful emo-
The black man feels, as he has for years,
betrayed by his creator; he is dejected; he has
no self-respect. But out of this dejection and
shame have arisen amontg many Negroes, new
feelings of angry pride and hate.
The whites too are as conscious as always
of the gleaming image of their creamy com-
plexions. But lately there has been a twist:
whites are being singled out by their pigment
by blacks as objects of hate. This is the first
exposure white people have had to the business
end of a hate look, or to any form of racial
discrimination for that matter. Proposed quota
systems in education and employment clearly
discriminate against whites. And, they don't
like it.
THE DISEASE color consciousness is two-
faced. It forces injustices into public view
where they may be corrected; but it also tends
to draw lines o fdistinction which are neat,
clear-cut, but very harmful. Steps like Rep.
Adam Clayton Powell's recent ultimatum to
white liberals to take a back seat to Negro
leaders can only serve to hinder the Negro
cause. When color lines are drawn and a war-
like atmosphere is established whites and Ne-
groes become more concerned with demands
and less concerned with solutions. It is ir-
rational, even foolish to make the color line
a battle line.
But that's the way it is. The situation is
just too far gone to expect rationality. It is as
fruitless to try to reason. with a Negro who
can't get a decent job or a decent education
as with a white mother who has been ordered
to send her children, to a slum school to
correct. imbalance.
Negroes are fed up. They have a right to be.
We have no moral grounds to ask an end to
demonstrations. A colored man living today is
not responsible for his subservient position. He
is rightfully striking out against a white so-
ciety, fighting for the freedom it has denied
him. As a living huqian being he must do this,
no 'matter who it hurts. He has n choice; he
shouldn't be asked to make one.

BUT MOST WHITES today do not deserve
the abuse they are getting either. Prejudice
was here long before Gov. Ross Barnett. The
white population of this country that are alive
today didn't put the Negro where he is. They
are just people following their noses. The color-
ed man's vengeful hate clearly does not stand
up to reason.
Both whites and Negroes have legitimate,
rational grievances. All of us were born into
this mess; and falling behind color lines and
blaming each other is not a rational answer.
But the intense, emotional nature of the prob-
lem puts it beyond reason. Many people con-
tend that because there is no longer room for
reason this color war is the only way to pro-
gress. And it must be admitted that in most
cases the contention holds true. This summer's
events will surely generate enough pressure to
make some real gains for the Negro. But
if thisJis the way it has to be, then every single
drop of progress that can be squeezed out of
societ will have a price. That price will be paid
in a painful currency: friction and discomfort
will be the small change, with the substantial
sums made up of violence and suffering. It isj
a frightening proposition.
BUT THE black explosion cannot be judged
or evaluated. It can be neither heralded as
the long-awaited arm of social justice, nor
condemned as the dreaded upheaval that will
destroy every tenet of law, order, and demo-
cracy. Simply, it is here; we must try to face
it and live through it as best we can. Andit.
will be a great deal easier to live through if
we remember a few things. We must remember
that we did not make this world, but were
rather haphazardly dropped into it. We can-
not be expected to re-make it in a month or a
year or a generation. We must do everything
we possibly, can, but we must keep in mind
that neither President John F. Kennedy, nor
Roy Wilkins, nor even James. Farmer is a
personal representative of the Almighty, sent
to earth to solve the entire problem in one fell
Unless some of us keep our heads the color
line will become more distinct each time a
transaction is made, until we will have ar-
rived at a stalemated society, composed of two
very powerful separate-but-equal forces, con-
then every demonstration, every bit of suf-
stantly at odds. If we allow this to happen,
fering will have been in vain.

To the Editor:
THE EDITORIAL entitled "Cath-
olic Equivocation Leads to
Birth Control Hypocrisy" in the
August 2 issue of The Michigan
Daily has stirred me to make
some comments that, I feel, must
be made by someone. I had a
moment's hesitation before put-
ting these remarks to paper due
to the fact that I was not present
at the Newman Club lecture about
which Miss Hetmanski has com-
mented. My pause was a brief one
since my quarrel is really with
Miss Hetmanski's manner of rea-
soning as displayed in her edi-
torial, not with her reporting of
the lecture.
Rather than launch into an
essay of my own on this very
complex question of birth control,
I will confine myself to making
some comments on some points in
the editorial that need a mentai
overhaul in my estimation.
Miss Hetmanski reports that
the the Church teaches that per-
sons who use the rhythm method
in order never to have children
behaveillicitly while those who
use rhythm without being op-
posed to having more children are
morally justified. This leads either
to hypocrisy or nonsense, she says,
since it comes down to this:
"rhythm and total abstinence are
the only Church-approved meth-
ods of birth control. You may use
rhythm if you want children;
you man not use it if you don't
want them." This diagnosis seems
unwarranted, to my mind. obvi-
ously, the use of rhythm is in-
tended to regulate or limit or
space the number of children in
a family. Whenever it is used, it
is to limit; therefore, it is mis-
leading to say "You may use
rythm if you want children." The
second part of the statement-
"you may not use it if you don't
want them"-is equally mislead-
ing. It simply states that rhythm
may not be used to limit child-
births. In fact, however, the
Church merely says that it is
illegitimate for a couple to totally
exclude all children from their
marriage by the use of rhythm for
the length of their married life,
THE CHURCH says nothing
about having to have as many
children as possible or so many
children in so many . years. It
merely says that rhythm should
not be used as a marriage-long
means to exclude all progeny.
With respect to the use of con-
traceptive pills, Miss Hetmanski
says: "It is very difficult for a
reasonable person to see the dif-
ference between using the pills to
regulate ovulation and then using
the rhythm method; and using
them to prevent ovulation alto-
gether. Both are equally 'artifi-
cial'." I think that this statement
misses the vital point that the
temporary use of oral contracep-
tives to rectify what is considered
a physical irregularity or patho-
logical state is not the same as to
use them for contrace.tive pur-
poses alone. In the first case. a
physical disoror is being cor-
rected. in the second. people are
simply preventing conception for
its own sake.
It is important. too, to under-
score the difference between using
a positive means, such as the pill,
to prevent the natural outcome
of a natural act and simply re-
fraining from the use of the act
at certain times The first case
may be called birth "prevention";
the second may be called "ab.ten-
tion," or non-use. The purpose of
the two is the same but in the one

case the natural outcome of a
natural act is positively prevented
while in the other, no act is per-
formed. Although it takes control
over the natural sexual appetite
to practive rhythm. I disagree
with the statement that to use a
contraceptive and to refrain from
intercourse are "equally artifi-
"The Catholic argument is based
on emotion only," says Miss Het-
manski. I must dissent here too.
Neither side's position rests "on
emotion only" in my opinion.
There is a genuine problem at
stake here, not just an pmotional
overflow. If anything, however, I
believe that whatever emotional
content might enter into the dis-
cussion is on the side of those
who advocate artificial contracep-
tion. In every case in which an
increase in family size would be
a hardship, the "heart," I think,
goes most easily with those who
counsel contraception.
"If Church leaders believe that
prevention of conception were sin-
ful, consistency demands that they
forbid all methods of contracep-
tion. They should not recommend
rhythm, or using pills to regulate
ovulation, or even total absti-
nence." Here again, I submit, Miss
Hetmanski fails to distingish. It
is one thing to engage in contra-
ceptive intercourse -the Church
opposes this. It is another thing
to not use one's marriage rights
at certain times-the Church says
this is all right. There remains a
basic difference between the posi-
tive prevention of, and the non-
performance of, a given function.
"If it is a sin to prevent con-
ception because one is killing a
potential human being, then the
Catholic Church should stick to
its guns and demand that no
contraceptive methods whatever
be used." Is Miss Hetmanski per-
haps thinking of abortion here,
rather than contraception? There
can be no killing of "a potential
human being," only of an actual
one. But apart from that, it is
clear that in the sentence quoted,
the word "contraceptive" is being
used equivocally by Miss Hetman-
ski: she uses it to designate not
only contraceptive intercourse
properly so called but also absten-
tion from intercourse. I do not see
why one must say, as she seems to,
that merely not to do an. action
is the same as doing it wrongly.
Finally, I fail to see that the
title of her article is justified by
the facts. I do not see that it is
equivocation to say that one must
not perform a natural act in an
unnatural way although one may
refrain from the action altogether.
I do not see that it is hypocrisy
to 'have relations naturally when
one has them while restraining
oneself at other times in order to
limit one's family size.
Ir. practice, the whole problem
of birth prevention ("control"),
rhythm, etc. is an immensely diffi-
cult one. Its implications extend
broadly into questions of natural
law. the nature of marriage, the
place of sexuality in human life
and many other areas. The prob-
lem is not solved by the "pat"
solutions of extremists on the one
har~d who say that there is no
problem simply because the use
of sex is unrelated to morality (or
perhaps that there is no morality
but "situation ethics") nor by ex-
tremists on the other hand who
Poo-Poo the problem as one that
is easy if one only has a bit of
self-control. It is the kind of soul-


_ V







1 W ~INIx-jI

I/ !'"


testing problem that requires fre-
quent examination before the bar
of one's own conscience.
-Rev. Ramon Betanzos
St. Mary's Church
Theology ...
To the Editor:
AM GLAD to see The Daily en-
ter into a debate on theology
(for that's what it is) with its
editorial on "Catholic Equivoca-
tion Leads to Birth Control Hypro-
crisy." We live in an age which
opened by eliminating religion:
and politics from the topics for
debate at the Oxford Union. Such
an unholy conspiracy of silence!
What other subjects merit debate?
Art perhaps.
Permit another outsider to join
your editor in -the arena. I am
not a Christian. Nevertheless, it
seems to me that the Catholic dis-
tinction between birth control and
birth prevention is not only ten-
able but sound. Man, begins the
syllogism, is a spiritual being; this
curious oxymoron, the rational
animal, is endowed with freedom,
therefore with choice, therefore
with responsibility. If a man ad-
vances what the Church considers
legitimate reasons for controlling
births, namely reasons of extreme
financial or physical debilities, he
may control births-by rational
willed abstention. This does not
mean that tampering witlh the,
normal feminine cycle will be con-

McGovern Kicks the Defense Cow

AT LAST one of the nation's most sacred
cows-the defense budget-has been kicked,
but unfortunately, not hard enough. Sen.
George McGovern (D-SC) questioned on the
Senate floor the need for a $53.6 billion de-
fense budget when the armed forces have the
capacity for wiping out the Communist bloc
many times over.
"Present levels of military spending and
military foreign aid are distorting our economy,
wasting our human resources and restricting
our leadership in the world," he warned. Di-
verting some of the $53.6 billion to "construc-
tive investments both at home and abroad"
would produce a "stronger and more effective
America" without hindering the national de-
fense, the senator claimed.
Several of the younger senators applauded
McGovern's speech, the Washington Post re-
ported, and have in the past asked defense
secretary Robert McNamara some pointed
questions about overkill, this capacity for mul-
tiple world destruction, but the astute Penta-
gon leader deflected these questions to his
"wihz kids" and many hours of talk on the
subject have not gotten the senators anywhere.
UNFORTUNATELY, such questioning is of
little influence in Congress. The mammouth
defense budget is somewhat beyond the average
Congressman's comprehension. Besides defense
spending is popular and serves as a useful
porkbarrel for the folks back home.
Further, the military have key Congressmen
on their side. McGovern and company have
challenged the older, powerful senators to de-
bate the spending issue on the floor, but the
request has been ignored. Within the next
week or so, the mammouth allocation should
Editorial Staff
RONALD WILTON........................Co-Editor
PHILIP SUTIN........... ............ .Co-Editor
DAVE GOOD*.. ...............Co-Sports Editor
CHARLES TOWLE..................Co-Sports Editor
RUTH HETMANSKI..................... Night Editor
ANDREW ORLIN ......................Night Editor
.EAN TENANDER . -. . Night Edtor

pass with quibbling on minor, attackable items,
such as defense department research policy.
HOPEFULLY, McGovern and his followers
will step, up attacks on the defense budget
in years to come. Sen. Hubert Humphrey's (D-
Minn) disarmament subcommittee has already
laid much ground work in this area and the
scope of its work should be broadened to in-
clude a full-scale investigation of defense
spending, military empire-building and over-
McGovern's speech only marks a minor ad-
vance against creeping American militarism.
Hopefully, it is a first step toward curbing this
dangerous growth.
Lowell Skinner has announced his intention
of returning to the United States after electing
to stay in Communist China -instead of being
repatriated as a Korean war prisoner.
He stayed with the Communists because he
hoped he would find travel, education and
better living conditions in their world. Instead
tor in a paper factory behind him, an ulcer
he has five years' experience as a lathe opera-
condition from nervous exhaustion and poor
nutrition, and a weight loss of 15 pounds.
It seems logical to assume that Skinner
returns sadder and more appreciative of the
good o1' U. S. A., with all her admitted faults.
THE ARMY is going to pay him $1,705 in
back pay and the state department said he
retains his citizenship.
There are some who will say that "turncoats"
like Skinner don't deserve to come back; that
they are traitors and giving them their back
pay and admitting them is too good for them;
that they should stay where they are. Still
others, suspicious, may say the Communists
sent him as an agent.
But Skinner and the other non-renatriates

IZ r.. 'it z r;+
1~. ..v ' -.4,*-9
o':±eq, "" fj ; t.Utz

doned. Some Catholic theologians
believe that this cycle may be
normalized: hence the use of pills.
But no Catholic is free to approve
the pills for prevention of birth.
The use of pills and the practice
of "rhythm" are related but dis-
tinct questions. What Miss Het-
manski calls a "reasonable" or "a
"clear-thinking" person is a per-
son who preserves rather than
blurs distinctions.
The Catholic believes that mar-
riage is sacramental. But every
Christian worthy of the name be-
lieves that marriage turns a man
and a woman into the one flesh.
The bond-maker is Christ, and the
bond is supernatural. Anything
which compromises this union is
unholy. The contraceptive is un-
holy, chiefly because it is ration-
alistic prevention, not rational con-
trol. Man is not normally an
animal of rationalism but of rea-
son. Birth control, popularly so
called, is a piece of cynical senti-
mentality, an advertiser's euphem-
ism. It is a lack of control, a re-
fusal to control. Control is control
if achieved through the use of
reason and will, not through the
use of a gimmick - a gimmick
which prevents rather than con-
trols birth.
Miss Hetmanski uses the word
"artificial." Here also we have a
theological argument - or anti-
theos. Man is an artificer. He is
not natural as a tree or a dog is
natural. The nature of man is to
create. The human will. is not an
osmotic but a making power. If a
man makes a pill to increase fer-
tility, or to normallizs ovulation,
he is natural and creative in the
literal sense of the words, for his
making tends towards life. If he
uses his invention to hinder con-
ception, he wills (with equal liter-
alness) nihilism, for his making
now tends towards death. Is that
distinction Jesuitical? (My vanity
will not permit me to think that
we can only credit the Jesuits
with the power of distinction.)
The consel of the Catholic
Church is never whimsical. If a
Catholic couple desires to prevent
birth for selfish or imaginary rea-
sons, the couple displays a lack
of 'faith,i.s., a sin. A reasonable
man neither pushes nor denies
Providence: he will not spawn a
dozen children on $60 a week if
he can help it, nor will he doubt
God's ability to clothe a reason-
able number of lilies of the field.
The distinction made by the
Church is not "spurious," for it is
nota distinction between wanting
and not wanting children.
People who cannot think or who
distrust reason tend to find all
distinctions sophistic. Emerson had
no power of distinguishing, nor
did Tolstoy, nor D. H. Lawrence.
According to the de fide dogmas
of anti-intellectualism, all is one,
or, all is absurd; or, all is illusive,
incomprehensible. The Catholics
are decidedly less "mystical." They
believe in Being, in reality, in rea-
son-in distinctions. Many a non-
Christian (and I hope even more
non-Catholics) will join me in
thanking Rome for its continuing
Defense of Man. That defense

that I am a Michigan leader in
the Draft Goldwater movement.
While I share some of Senator
Goldwater's beliefs, I am not pres-
ently committed to his candidacy.
As a Michigan Republican, my
first loyalty is to Governor Rom-
ney. I think we should look to him
for leadership in making our selec-
tion for the presidential nomina-
tion. There will be plenty of time
for choosing up sides after he has
declared himself. .
-Ink White
(EDITOR'S NOTE: This Is the
first in series of reviews of plays
and concerts at the Stratford sum-
mer festival, Stratford, Ont.
T HE STRATFORD Festival, at
Stratford, Ontario, has been
moving steadily forward since the -
first performance on July 13, 1953.
This was "Richard III," with Alec
Guinness imported to provide a
focus of attraction. At that time,
a large tent was used, replaced by
the present theatre in 1956.
At various times, non-Shake-
spearian additions have been add-
ed to the agenda: music perform-
ances, opera, Gilbert & Sullivan,
a collection of new motels, res-
taurants, coffee houses, camping
grounds, liquor smugglers, and who
knows what else.
A FEW pleasant surprises await
the new arrival at Stratford. The
city seems to be only incidentally
interested in looting tourists. Near-
by motels offer the last word in
low-priced service. Bowls of fresh
fruit, free breakfasts, advice, help
in obtaining tickets, maps, hints
of all sorts seem to envelop visi-
tors. Prices in the region are
quite moderate, and seem almost
enjoyable since one can pay with
the brightly - colored s Canadian
currency. There's even a free out-
door camping area.
Even jaded world travelers are
amazed by the theatre, with its
curiously shaped exterior, platform
stage, and fascinating customs. A '
troop of musicians: trumpets,
trombones and drummers, wan-
ders around playing fanfares
shortly before the play is to be-
gin. And a cannon is fired just
before. The traditional playing of
".God Save the Queen" is modified
to suit the play, so that an 18th
Century French version is used
before Cyrano, but with "Comedy
of Errors" an off key arrangement
and a lengthy pause to confuse
the audience.
During intermissions, a collec-
tion of people sell orange crush
and cigarettes, but not the sneaky
types associated with the New
York Theatre; instead Pan-Mell
types dish out the mineral water.
*' * *


mk.4 : -4rt:
v' i %'t '
i* a' ,r


.0 1



! .

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan