1 r-- .WALTER SHAPIRO E1pe 3iriigan Dat Seventy-eight years of editorial freedom Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan under authority of Board in Control of Student Publications 20 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. /EDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1969 NIGHT EDITOR: RON LANDSMAN Academic reform: Apathy mars a dream 4 OLD DREAMS die hard. The phrase "mass meeting" reminds me 1500 students who packed the Union Ballroom 4000 who flooded Hill Auditorium at the peak abortive Student Power Movement of late 1966. of or of the the the The tenants'. rights booklet: Governmental partiality REALTOR INFLUENCE on the scuttling of a tenants' rights booklet prepared by the city raises a crucial question: just whom does Ann Arbor city government represent? Does t h e, government serve the whole social, political and economic spectrum of Ann Arbor, catering equally to the needs of each interest group and individual? Or does it govern to. please a handful of rich businessmen, like the Ann Arbor Board of Realtors? Unfortunately, City Hall m u s t plead guilty to the second question. For the big business interests - the realtors, t h e bankers and the big store owners - con- trol the money, the property, a n d the power. And City Hall obeys them. When the city first decided to publish a public information . booklet on the state's new Tenants' Rights Laws, they planned to aim the pamphlet deliberately at tenants who, need to know their rights against landlords who break housing laws. These are the $150 a month tenants in rotting wood houses on North Fourth: All-America C 1i t y hovels which swarm with cockroaches, leak through the roof, and whose electrical outlets shock; gross- ly substandard houses which individual realtors and big corporations from the Other Side of town suck fot maximum profit until the Building and Safety de- partment finally; if ever, condemns them and orders minimal repairs. These are the tenants who need pro- tection from the John Stegeman's of Ann Arbor, ibig realtors who accrue 32 major housing violations at one time, and then repent in court and are delivered a $25 fine. And the booklet w a s simply for the average tenant, whose rents rival those in u p p e r Manhattan but cannot get the landlord to fix a broken stairway or leaky furnace. BUT THE ANN ARBOR Board of Real- tors didn't like the booklet, because "it was an unfair picture of Ann Arbor" and because it catered to a "small minority of tenants who have problems." So the city stopped publication, and is rewriting a "more accurate" version which the real- tors can approve - one which emphasizes "tenant responsibilities." Those who say (as one city hall spokes- man did) that "the city can't be respon- sible for every minority group" are dead wrong. The city must be responsible for every minority group - for every indi- yidual, every citizen with a gripe. For the businessmen - the landlords- have money and friends in City Hall, the courts and the council. But the small peo- ple - the tenants - have only the law. If the city government is not willing to maximize the power of an individual's le- gal rights, in the f a c e of entrenched monied interests, then all the rehetoric about equal protection under the law and free enterprise is a lie and a sham. One wonders: If the dissatisfied group had been composed of tenants instead of realtors would the city's response have been so immediate and "satisfactory?" -DANIEL ZWERDLING The current controversy over language requ also brings to mind that while the focal point bygone 1966 Movement was a draft-ranking refe the real issue was University decision-making. Then it seemed possible that large scale stuf fluehce over tJniversity decisions could create an tion dedicated to education rather than Gov research. This year things were going to be even beti dents were going to challenge the slow and in academic decision-making process, where things about as often as the rules of chess. THE CULMINATION of this new and deeply crusade was to be the "mass meetings held in Monday night. Instead of an outpouring of concerned studer cated to protesting language and distribution ments, 250 familiar faces showed up. Few of thi without organizational or personal ties to eft Radical Caucus or the Student Government Cou The culmination of the meeting was proba vote of 100 to 77 to call a non-disruptive sit-i office of Dean Hays of the literary college to with Thursday's faculty meeting. I voted against the sit-in because I am cc that the threat of a sit-in is always more pote its actuality, especially when called by a badly group of less than 200. But the outcome of the vote is not really the for my current state of disgust. My own sadne. the future of meaningful student activism on this is much more a function of the nature of Monda: meeting than its results. WHILE THE ISSUE of language and disi requirements is relevant to the bulk of the stu the literary college, few of those directly affectec requirement were there Monday night. This R phasized when the meeting rejected a proposal voting to students currently enrolled in the colle As soon as Bob Neff, SGC Vice President an( man of the mass meeting, got up to read the hi the controversy, one knew it was going to be meeting. What passed for debate was turgid and almos, devoid of content. Cries that "We've waited long e seemed echoes of earlier controversies rather 1 emotional response to the current issue. There usual series of parliamentary snafus which merel to the meeting's tedium. A short debate on the representativeness of th ing was ended with the comment, "anyone wl about this issue could, have come tonight." The was they didn't. AT ANOTHER junctive the representatives 3500 students who signed petitions calling for th( language requirements was challenged. The answ back more students signed the petitions than most SGC members. One indice of apathy another. Letes People started leaving Monday night's meeting only about an hour after the whole farce began. Eric Chester of the Radical Caucus argued at one point, "We've al- ready lost half of the people who were here, so it's absurd for us to sit around arguing details." The meeting adjourned in such haste, that no one set a time for the next meeting which either should have been called for after Thursday's or Monday's faculty meeting. In a way this failure is for the best, because what emerges in the future will have little organic unity with Monday night's farce. ONE OF THE most disturbing aspects of the meeting was the almost unilateral focus on language and dis- tribution requirements. Few seemed to see the whole issue in terms of increased student power in academic decision-making. One of the key reasons why an important student role in all curriculum decisions is necessary was indi- cated at the Monday afternoon meeting of the literary college curriculum committee. Prof. Clarence Pott, head of the German department, opposed abolition of the language requirement on the grounds that the "University would be saying, in effect, that languages are not important." It is strange that the language departments are one of the few units of the college which must use coercion to illustrate the importance of their discipline. Pott's remarks and those of Prof. Theodore Bittrey, chairman of the classics department, before the same committee illustrate the degree to which organizational, maintenance is an integralapart of the whole language furor. IT IS NOT SURPRISING that the language depart- ments are trying to maintain their perogatives against external pressure. What is depressing is the amount of support they can find from the rest of the faculty. Precisely for this reason, a major student role is needed in all curriculum matters. Ideally students will not operate as hostile adversaries to the faculty, but instead will work in tandem with more progressive professors in challenging the current bureaucratic inertia of academic thinking. Prof. Carl Cohen of the philosophy department warned at the curriculum committee meeting that "students may eventually run the curriculum committee." What Cohen seems to fear is that an increased student role in curriculum matters will reduce the academic rigor of the University. And while Cohen could point to such recent curriculum innovations as a two hour self-graded course in Student Leadership (College Honors 199) to buttress his argument, I still feel that his fears are ill-founded. Only an increased student role in curriculum matters will permit a total re-evaluation of education from the point of view of the student as well as the professor. For the primary problem is not what is being taught, but how it is being taught. As a result of the built-in conservatism of the fac- ulty, I have little faith that they will abolish the lan- guage requirement by their meeting .next Monday. In a way I'm glad because abolition of the language requirement at this point would only be a gift from the faculty to the students, rather than an issue which would meaningfully change academic decision-making. BUT ANY CHANGES depend on a greatly increased student response. Several neighbors of mine who care deeply about stu- dent participation in academic matters, told me after- wards that they almost went to the mpass meeting. Optimistically there are hundreds more like them, who almost went Monday night. Otherwise the whole fight over language requirements will merely indicate the degree of student apathy on this campus and illustrate the impotence of the Radical Caucus to organize anyone beyond their own limited membership. Based primarily on Monday night, I have little faith in the ability of the students to take advantage of any structural reforms in academic decision-making in their current state of apathy. In a way it's a vicious cycle, curriculum changes are necessary to shake students out of their educational doldrums. But until these changes are made, students will be too apathetic to make the necessary curriculum alterations. PERHAPS MY castigation of student apathy is pre- mature. It's even possible that Thursday's non-disruptive. ,sit-in will inspire a vast student response, despite the traditional rule of thumb that half as many sit-in as vote for it. President Fleming, Dean Hays, and others in key University positions have absorbed the lessons of Colum- bia, and have vowed not to repeat the mistakes of the Hatcher years. But one still suspects that when meeting as a body the faculty are a more intransigent lot. It's kind of strange to pin all your hopes on faculty conservatism, but at this point that seems the only way of inspiring a widespread student response. In short, it looks like the old dreams are finally dead. * *1 4 Nixon' s military. Sufficient unto the day PERHAPS THE MOST important aspect of President Nixon's. first press con- ference Monday was his statement on national defense. Nixon emphasized to the press that terms like "parity, and su- periority" are no longer in. "Sufficiency" is now the goal of our defense policy. In making this statement, Nixon has repudiated his Secretary of Defense, Mel- vin Laird, invented an umbrella-like cri- teria for defense policy, and maintained his former position on the arms r a c e while seemingly taking a less hawkish stance. It would be naive to imagine that Nix- on has given up the concept of military' superiority, and all it implies. "Sufficien- cy," according to Nixon, means our milir tary strength must be as strong as nec- essary to protect us from any threat - to allow us tostake any action we desire, THE OPEN-ENDED qualities of this term are obvious. It implies all that "super- iority" implied. It is the same credo es- poused by Nixon all throughout the cam- paign. "We must always negotiate from a po- sition of strength," he told a crowd in Detroit last fall. Certainly. Equality and parity are not enough. Nixon's statements on arms control, on the possible missile talks and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty further confirm the lack of real interest of the Nixon ad- ministration in working toward a safe and sane world. By tying arms control discussions to progress on political issues, Nixon has put the Soviet Union in the unpleasant posi- tion of having to seemingly conceed to the U.S. on matters like Vietnam and the Middle East in order to obtain the "priv- elege" of talking with the U.S. about cur- tailing the military race. Whethei or not such concessions would actually be required of the Soviets is ir- relevant. They would lose f a c e in the Communist world were they to start talks with the U.S. under Nixon's announced position. Rather than having an affect on shap- ing Soviet foreign policy then, Nixon's position will most likely prevent any sub- stantive progress on arms control until that position is changed. NIXON'S ANNOUNCEMENT on "suffic- iency" yesterday had one other inter- esting implication. It was the second an- nouncement he has been forced to make since the election in correction of state- ments made by his cabinet members. Laird, the Wisconsin superhawk said only last week that "Parity isn't enough, we must have superiority." Nixon's statement yesterday was an ob- vious attempt to smooth the rough image projected by Laird's policy statement without changing the U.S. stance at all. -JIM NEUBACHER Sage advice for the police- To the Editor: IT HAS BEEN SAID that t h e questions of history repeat themselves. Between C.221-C.300 there was a little k n oaw n,Lbut worldly Chinese Sage Liu Ling, who was charged by other Sages with indiscretion, the reason being that it was his wont to pursue the realms of philosophic introspec- tion and inquiry while wandering about his 'room clad only in his birthday suit. To this criticism the Sage re- plied: "I take the whole universe as my house and my own room as my clothing. Why, then, do you enter here into my trousers?" Perhaps, certain members of the police force could profit by the advice of the S a g e of the Bamboo Grove, and confine them- selves to their own trousers. -BARB RIMER '70 Jan. 28 Premature release To the Editor: LORNA CHEROT'S article con- cerning educational reform in the School of Natural Resources is marred by several distortions and inaccuracies. Much as some of us might wish for an inter-depattmental group of militant "guerrilla conserva- tionists," there exists at present only an unnamed committee, com- posed of graduate students, all in the Wildlife Division of the De- partment of Wildlife and Fisher- ies, seeking reform within that de- partment. The actions of "guer- rilla" conservation - activists (a rare breed) may be commendable, but they should not be confounded with those of our committee. ., The ascription to me of a call for a "plan of retaliation if (our) demands are not met" is mis- taken. I indicated to Miss Cherot my belief that students' efforts to effect legitimate reform can and should proceed even if the faculty is indifferent or hostile, but such contingency planning c a n hardly be termed "retalia- tion." THE PUBLICATION of the story was most ill-timed. Y ou r reporter was informed last week that the final proposals of the committee were yet to be drawn up, but that such formulation was imminent. Had the Daily waited but a few days, it could have run an article describing the concrete recommendations of0 a student group and the faculty response to those recommendations. Instead it chose to print a questionably newsworthy story presenting a tentative (and subsequently much- revised) list of "demands" and offering the speculative and prob- ably unrepresentative musings of a couple of graduate students. The probability of'the faculty's re- action to our. proposals being col- ored by the Daily story, which anticipated by several hours the actual distribution of the recom- mendations, must also be consid- ered lamentable. I am confident that the demand by Daily readers for news of cur- riculum reform in the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries is not so great as to dictate the prema- ture publication of rather inac- curate stories treating half-com- pleted events. Nor are the causes of educational reform and student power, to which the Daily pre- sumably subscribes, advanced by such irresponsible journalism. -Jeff Rothenberg, Grad Jan. 22 Aretha To the Editor: A MORE STIFF, reticent and passive audience I had never encountered. Art is, at the very least, a communication which im- plied the participation of an ob- served and an observer. When one contemplates El Greco, chuckles at the humor of Shaw, agonizes with Medea or swoons to the melodies of Liszt, he is actively participating in the art in the form of that art. Aretha Franklin is a true artist and a genius who requires/ the participation of those with whom she is trying to communicate. Rubinstein can be content with a shout of "Bravo" after two hours; of concerted artistryeand Olivier can wait until the end of scene one for the audience's applause. Aretha comes from and sings about an active culture, marked by repeated, intense and constant action and response. WHEN communication breaks down, the art itself ceases to be, the artist gets worn, tattered by the unhearing, unfeeling partici- pants; he withers with the ef- fort of expression and finally crawls away to question his art Volunteer army To the Editor; S SOMEWHAT of an anarchist A can readily sympathize with your desire to limit government coercion of individuals by insti- tuting a "volunteer" army. But be- ing somewhat of a Marxist, I must point out that the impersonality of the market mechanism only ap- pears to alleviate coercion. In fact the coercion still exists; the men must be there (so says the government). 'The- intelligent, the sensitive, and the ypper class- es will not be coerced, and they will- be removed f r o m society's horrors. But the poor, the less in- telligent and the less sensitive will be caught up in Madison Avenue psychological warfare impressing on their minds the virtue, the ex- citement, the manliness of "ser- vice." And we will pay them. Is that not coercion. Shall we allow this society to further abstract through speciali- zation its perversity. A profession- al army, like a professional police force,amay be more efficient, but is that what we want? I would rather see the draft system ex- tended to th e supply of police, Ethan see the police system extend- ed to the army. -ALLAN C. MILLER '69 L Jan. 28 For pacifism To the Editor: IN THE RECENT past, and then, again a few weekends ago in Washington, D.C., I have been called by persons supposedly with- in our own "movement," such epithets as "revisionist," "fascist," "coward," and "woman." Thei reason for this, I gather, is that I still happen to remain a pacifist, and moreover, sadly' enough, one of the few left in the more vocal circles. It seems that today, analagous to Arthur Miller's works in the theatre, non-violence is termed passe. However, despite his traditional use of language and the standard non-audience \participation, his themes of responsibility still re- main fundamental to human na- ture. Just so, non-violence, despite situation erupted. We marshalls formed a chain to protect our people from the clubs, and the result was that we were called "patsies" and "pig-lovers." In fact, on that chain, while I was pushed by a pig's club in the back, I was kicked and shoved numerous' times by those of our own people on front, trying to break the chain. PERHAPS it is best to think about the beginning of today's orientations. In a discussion in D.C., some of us kicked around several possibilities. One point that was raised stays in my mind. Persons have become so wrapped up in words (I guess that I, too prefer "pig" to "police officer?") that we have lost touch with any articulation of the problems con- fronting us. I suppose that we sounded like old men ("revisionists") looking back on this and thinking how to- day, the only articulation comes during "meetings" with the law agents in the form of "F-ek pigs." We need not be animalistic. A relatively silent presence, showing a counter-life style would have been more effective. Perhaps, this use of words gives one an attitude leading to violent desires. BUT MORE significant than discussing the manifestations, or even the causes, of the violent trends, is the outlook for the fu- ture. I am not here urging a sb- missive stance. Personally (for what it's worth), I happen to favor non-provocative confrontations, such as the suggestion above. for that reception; a better example would be our remaining in Chi- cago's Lincoln Park after 11 P.M. last August to demonstrate the repression used against us in the military seige that existed. As the ter gas began to fly, the cameras began to 'roll, most of us left peacefully, and the purpose was served. THE TIME HAS passed when the quiet masses can create the temper of a demonstration. There are today, too often, too many versons bent on causing violence in any way that they can. I would submit then, that although still the vast majority favor non-vio- lence, that we can no longer just 'Dionysus in 69': A parting statement To the Editor: BRIEFLY THEN. We didn't come here looking for a confrontation. With that peculiar recklessness that afflicts politicians, the police- acting on advice and probably -under pressure - moved in, saw, and arrested. If they had left us alone we would have performed, met some stu- dents, read what the critics said, collected our check, and been on our way back to New York, That's what happened in Colorado, Minneapolis, and Detroit. In each city there was .a stir, and a basically good stir. And in Colorado Springs and Minneapolis we performed with ,our naked scenes naked. But only in Ann Arbor were we arrested. Arrested, stopped, forced to confront those who confronted us. And confront them we will. The cast of comnmunity characters is interesting enough. Reasonable Chief Krasny. But watch him, he can get slippery. A county prosecutor who is very receptive to the pres- ethical law-enforcement and law-making system is being challenged. The work of the artist is once again important to the health of the community. It is good that a play of Euripides and its performance is in question. For no one knew better than Euripides the complicated relation- ships between community, art, personal commitment, and tyrants who used "democratic processes" to oppress those who might choose to dissent. I DO NOT know the outcome of what we are now undertaking. I can pledge our determination to see it through. Not only in the courts, but in our art, in our heads and hearts, on the campuses, and in the streets.4 What are we up against? Beyond and before the system are the people of the system. This dialogue took place Monday night in the Union Ballroom.