aTr Mr4tgan &1au13
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

The relevancy of 37,500 megatons

420 Maynard St., Ann"Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed n The Mchigan Doily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in oil reprints.


THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1969

NIGHT EDITOR: PHILIP BLOCK


LSA student union:
A permanent comnitment

ACADEMIC REFORM is a new issue for
students. When the most odious of the
"in loco parentis" restrictions on student
personal conduct were eliminated, many
students realized the real source of their
discontent was the lack of meaning in
their academic programs.
The formation of a literary college stu-
dent union may give direction to the
confused and often superficial approach
students have so far taken to the issue of
academic reform, both substantively and
tactically.
.Remakihg the ' entire top-down deci-
sion-making structure of, this academic'
institution is a project which will only
be achieved after much. work and even
more thought. And once structural power
is redistributed, the exigencies of exer-
cising that power require more knowledge
and sophistication than students and
most faculty currently exhibit. But if
this institution is ever to function as a
community of equals, students and. fac-
ulty must be willing to make this com-
mitment to self-government.
DICTUMS TQ THE faculty" which call
for revolutionary changes in their
traditional educational philosophies will
be serenely ignored. The faculty can eas-
ily avoid the direct effects of disruptive
protests. Tactics were much easier to
formulate when the target of protest was
a single man,x the president or the dean,
who had the power to effect the desired
change. Since the ultimate source of
power in the college, the faculty, is so dif-
fuse and decentralized, confrontation
tactics are of minimal, effectiveness.
HOW CHANGE is most quickly achieved
is a difficult problem. The college
structure contributes to the inertia of de-

cision-making and stifles ideas for aca-
demic innovation. But the results that
have been achieved by students in non-
academic areas should not serve as in-
dices for progress which can be made in
academic areas. The search for a better
educational process will most certainly
be long and frustrating. And disruptive
sit-ins are merely substantive outlets for
those frustrations. In terms of achieving
academic change, such tactics are worth-
less.
DENYING THE legitimacy of the fac-
ulty's power to make requirements
will not succeed in transferring the power
students should have in making those
decisions. The only approach that will
succeed is for students to develop a uni-
fied and comprehensive approach to
college problems.
Student positions must be more than
polemic. They must be philosophical and
sophisticated. To develop this type of
master plan for reform and restructuring
requires a major commitment which stu-
dents must make if they presume to be
equal members of this community.
The formation of the union offers a
structure for the organization of students
on a college and departmental level. The
successful functioning of the union as an
organizational structure and a research
institute would present a formidible and
legitimate challenge to the faculty.
The potential for a union is unlimited
if literary college students sustain their
interest in academic affairs. If such in-
terest can only be mustered over par-
ticular issues, students cannot demand
equal power in governing their institu-
ion.
--MARK LEVIN
Editor

By STEVE ANZALONE
DEFENSE SECRETARY Melvin
Laird probably intreprets "suf-
ficiency" in weaponry the same
way that Howard Hughes c o n-
eives of a "sufficient" income.
After President Nixon changed
his defense doctrine from "su-
periority" to "sufficiency" at his
first press conference, everyone
-including the new Pentagon
chief-has come forth with his
own interpretation of Nixon's ver-
bal feint.
Laird, naturally was forced to
endorse the concept of sufficiency.
But he quickly added, "I am not
giving up the idea of maintaining
a superior force in the United
States."
With the possibility of upcom-
ing U.S.-Soviet talks on halting
the arms race, Laird makes it
clear that he does not want to go
to the talks "with one arm tied
behind our back."
'LAIRD'S STANCE, AS WELL as
his rhetoric, seems to bespeak a
man who has escaped the thaw
of the Cold war. Even less than his
mentor, Laird shows little incli-
nation his thinking has progres-
sed much from the time-worn
concepts forged in the Eisenhower
days.
The firm insistence on arms
superiority clung to by Laird and
many others does not afford much
hope for an eventual end to the
financially voracious arms race.
It should not be too surprising if
the Soviets refuse to put a freeze
on arms development , when they
are in a position of perceived in-
feriority.
For those who think the rela-
tive strength of two nations is
important, there is no evidence
of a security gap for the United1
States.
The United States can deliver
7500 hydrogen bombs. These in-
clude all the warheads that can
be delivered by Minutemen mis-
siles, Poseidon missiles, and those

hydrogen bombs carried by B-52
bombers.
THE SOVIET UNION c an no t
match this striking force. T h e
United States holds a clear lead
in both intercontinental ballistic
missiles and in intercontinental
bombers. A recent Washington
Post study showed that the U.S.
can claim four times as m a n y
warheads as theSoviet Union.
Nevertheless, many people in
Washington still maintain that
the United States suffers from a
serious "security gap." Much of
this fear is based on Soviet ef-
forts to close the ICBM gap.
At present, the United States'
nuclear arsenal includes 1054
'ICBM missiles. This figure w a s
reached in 1967 and has remained
at the level ever since. In 1967 the
Soviet Union possessed only 720
ICBM's. The Kremlin has been
steadily trying to narrow the gap
and is expected to reach U.S.
strength by 1970.
Clearly, this came as a cause
for concern among Pentagon of-
ficials. Why they should be des-
perately more afraid of 1000 mis-
siles than they were of 700 was
not made clear. But their concern
was demonstrated in the budget
request' for fiscal 1970. The de-

"...People in and out of Congress are
growing almost as afraid of the rapidly ex-
panding defense establishment as they are of
the.ghost of nuclear holocaust.
"The Senate is now evenly divided over
proceeding with the Sentinal antiballistic mis-
sile system. The hesitancy comes partly in re-
sponse to alarm voiced by citizens in the
Detroit, Boston-and Chicago areas over the in-
stallation of new ABM's in nearby suburbs."
. U.
fi:":":{tinne a ":"O'v7:"vi{"::."":::..e.....:.v. vs vv.1"m:se.:"." vvalM iig ssa

partment asked for a gigantic
$101 billion.
PERHAPS THE defense depart-
ment may have tougher going try-
ing to get money for new weapon-
ry. People in and out of Congress
are growing almost as afraid of
the rapidly expanding defense es-
tablishment as they are of the
ghost of nuclear holocaust.
The Senate is now evenly di-
vided over proceding swith the
Sentinal antiballistic missile sys-
tem. The hesitancy comes partly,
in response to alarm voiced by
citizens in the Detroit, Boston and
Chicago areas over the installa-
tion of the new ABM's in nearby
suburbs.
The Pentagon is unable to con-
vince these people that the "Chi-
nese spectre" looms more dan-
gerous to them than possible
malfeasance of missiles near their
homes.
This would be an excellent
cause for the Laird administra-
tion to reappraise our defense pos-
ture in light of growing discon-
tent over systems like the Sen-
tinal, as well as other expensive
defense projects that often be-
come obsolete even before they are
operational.
TO BEGIN WITH, Laird must

reevaluate the meaning of t he
very word "defense."
The whole rationale for our de-
fense operations is based upon
t h e principle of deterrence. In
short, the United States is vir-
tually powerless to prevent the
Soviet Union from inflicting nuc-
lear destruction on the nation.
Our only hope to prevent an at-
tack is built upon a psychological
deterrent that the Soviet Union
will not attack, because it is
aware of United States' capability
of launching a significant retalia-
tory attack.
The increasing impossibility of
"defense" was attested to further
by a recent disclosure by the Air
Force of plans for a new type of
bomber. This new aircraft is call-
ed the SCAD and is pilotless. One
large bomber can carry several
of the smaller SCAD aircrafts and
release them near enemy targets.
One of the SCAD designers is
quoted by the New York Times as
saying, 'SCAD does for bombers
what the multiple warhead does
for missiles - it makes the en-
emy's defense problem virtually
impossible."
BOTH THE SOVIET UNION
and the United States will be un-
able to defend themselves against
this new type of bomber and
a g a i n s t the multiple-headed
MIRV missile that is being tested,
which can deliver a cluster of
hydrogen bombs to different
cities.
With no real way to "defend"
ourselves, what then is "suffi-
ciency"?
The question Laird must ask
himself is whether 7500 hydrogen
bombs is enough to constitute a
significant retaliatory force. It is
probably too much.
It would seem that a sufficient
nuclear arsenal was one that could
deliver a deterring retaliatory
strike. Anything more than a rea-
sonable second-strike capability is
an unnecessary and grossly ex-
pensive overkill.

A

Letters:Hefner position reexamined

To the Editor:
SINCE Steve Nissen's article in
Wednesday's Daily repeats the
errors (regarding my proposal to
the LSA faculty meeting on
Monday) that were made in Tues-
day's Dailyreport of the meeting,
I decided that a correction was
called for.
My proposal differs in t h r e e
crucial respects from a "motion
to reduce the present language
requirement to 10 credit hours"
that you attribute to Me.
1. The language requirement is
replaced by a 10 credit hour re-
quirement f o r knowledge about
other countries, regions, or peo-
ple. Language proficiency could
meet the requirement, but so
could history and cultural cours-
es, or study abroad;
2. The requirement can be met
by work taken elsewhere;
3. Students may petition f o r

their own program to meet the
requirement.
--Professor Robert Hefner
Psychology department
Feb. 5

Open?

student membership on Uniyer-
sity faculty a n d administrative
committees, will it grant equal
membership in it s governing
board to .faculty, and administra-
tors?
IT IS IMPORTANT and/or vis-
icious - and certainly counter-
productive of the desired results-
to proclaim that faculty do not
listen to students and do not care
about their welfare, just because
they may not climb on the band-
wagon 'of student power all at
once.
-0. R. B. Jonsen, '69
Feb. 5

To the Editor:

Ban g, ba ng..

WHY DOES THE DAILY'S re
port of the Feb. 4 LSA fac-
ulty ;meeting nowhere state tha
the main reason for postponing
action on language requirement
was to hear at the next meetinge
report from the committee whicY
has been studying the problerr
for months?
Also, now that faculty meeting
are open to the press and public
will The Daily open t h e policy
meetings of the Board of Senioi
Editors to students, faculty, ad-
ministration and outside visitors?
As The Daily demands equa

t
g
s
h
's

AN ARTICLE elsewhere on this page
reveals that the United States cur-
rently has 7500 Hydrogen bombs In its
nuclear arsenal.
Few would deny that the Pentagon's
control of all these nuclear devices has
been the primary causer of the militariza-
tion of American life. And it is equally
clear that the only practical way to re-
duce the power of the defense department
would 1 e to redistribute these bombs
equitably among the citizens of this great
nation.
Using admittedly crude arithmetical
tools, one calculates that such a scheme
would give one Hydrogen bomb to ap-
proximately every 27,000 Americans.
Under this plan the more than 35,000
University students would be entitled to
at least one Hydrogen bomb.
THIS PROPOSAL has obvious merits for
those who attack disruptive sit-ins as
Editorial Staf t
MARK LEVIN. Editor
STEPHEN WILDSTROM URBAN LEHNER
Managing Editor Editorial Director
DAVID KNOKE. Executive Editor
WALLACE IMMEN ......._.... .... News Editor
CAROLYN MIEGEL ..... Associate Managing Editor
DANIEL OKRENT ...................Feature Editor
PAT O'DONOHUE.........,....... News Editor
WALTER SHAPIRO.......Associate Editorial Director

"old fashioned" and "over used." For once
armed with nuclear weapons, the Univer-
sity students could then employ much
more modern tactics in their conflicts
with the faculty.
And despite recent attacks on faculty
intransigience, one is still somewhat con-
fident that they would not risk nuclear
halocaust in defense of the language
requirement.
-WALTER SHAPIRO
'No COMMe nt
"A RECENT DIRECTIVE from Michigan
National Guard Headquarters in
Lansing set the standards of dress and
appearance for Guardsmen to follow.
"These standards of appearance were
not set only for appearance. A Guards-
man who lets his h a i r and sideburns
grow long and maintains a bushy mus-
tache would have difficulty fitting his
protective mask, thus causing the face-
piece to leak. This would be the last thing
a Guardsman would want to happen in
the event of a civil disturbance with
chemical mace in the air."
--THE MICHIGAN NATIONAL
GUARDSMAN
January, 1969

Omissions

'i l I'li I

, To the Editor:
r DOES THE DAILY feel under
no inhibitions of journalistic
? ethics when it comes to reporting
j or distorting news of questions on
which it has taken a strong edi-
torial position?
I raise this question after read-
ing David Spurr's report of Mon-,
day's faculty meeting discussing
language requirements. While his
report seemed quite accurate in
w h a t it included, it completely
misreported the tenor of the meet-
ing by what it omitted.
It is my impression that of those
speaking at the meeting, approx-
imately two-thirds or more sup-
ported the language requirement
in one form or another,
YET, IN HIS report, Mr. Spurr
nowhere makes this clear and in
fact cites only speaker defending
the requirement (Prof. Sheridan
Baker). At the same t i m e, he
quotes five members'who spoke
against it. Might he also not have
mentioned the highly relevant if
less acceptable (to you) remarks
of Profs. Eisenberg, Orlin, La-
Porte, Copi, Krimm, etc.?
Such a distorted balance in re-
porting can only be described as
misrepresentation by'omission.
-Prof. Jacob M. Price
History department
Feb. 4

Rent strike
To the Editor:
RANTED, there are many un-
scrupulous landlords in Ann
Arbor. However, thisdoes not
mean that all Ann Arbor land,-
lords are bad, not even all the
members of the Ann Arbor Prop-
erty Managers Association. There-
fore. what good would a non-se-
lective strike by members of the
Ann Arbor Tenants Union against
the members of the AAPMA do?
It is very doubtful that such a
general strike would decrease rents
and increase the service by the un-
scrupulous landlord for any ap-
preciable length of time. At the
most, it might improve their serv-
ice; but, good and fair service can
be had from at least one member
of the AAPMA, to my knowledge.
He has very few vacancies and
very little problem in filling those
which occur. This may be due'xto
the fact that his present tenants
know by experience of his inte-'
grity and service; and this knowl-
edge is passed by word of mouth
to others when these tenants are
ready to vacate an aparment and
leave Ann Arbor.
Why discriminate against a
good landlord for what is being
done by many of the others? I
think that this would only place
him in the same company with the,
bad landlords; with the possible
bad effects due to a stronger uni-
-fication of a good landlord with
the bad, due to an attitude of:
"Why be better than the others,
if I am still classed with them,?"
FOR MYSELF, I certainly would
not even consider jeopardizing a
good apartment situation with,
whom -I consider, a fair and rea-
sonable member of the AAPMA
by withholding my rent and/or
not renewing my lease. Such un-
cooperation has all the potential
of making a very cooperative land-
lord into one of the many un-
cooperative ones.
Perhaps a more reasonable ap-
proach to the entire situation

would be to have a widely publish-
ed rating sheet of the Ann Arbor
landlords, prepared by the AATU
based on an evaluation sheet sub-
mitted by all students in Ann Ar-
bor rental housing,
This could in effect be a recom-
mendation of good landlords and
a condemnation of the bad. Stu-
dent support of these ratings
through a selective and discrim-
inatory rental of housing would
do more towards the encourage-
ment of good landlords to be bet-
ter, than would any general strike
of all Ann Arbor landlords; be
they good or bad.
In this way, I feel that the pos-
sibility for general and lasting
improvement would stand much r
better odds for success. Division of
the good from the bad will make
conquering the bad' much easier
than will the prospect of causing
the entire landlord population of
Ann Arbor to form a stronger al-,.
liance against the students.
-J. Mark Rottschafer, Grad.
Feb. 4
Dionysus
To the Editor: '
WITH ALL THIS commotion
over the arrest of the Diony-
sus in 69 cast I am reminded of
the Professional Theatre Pro-
gram's sponsorship of.Marat/Sade
in Hill Auditorium two years ago.
In that production, one actor
was nude from the waist down,
and another actor w a s totally
nude. Our police were in attend-
ance but found nothing illegal.
Have our laws changed in the
last two years?
-Marsha Morningstar
Feb. 4
All letters must be typed,
triple-spaced and should be no
more than 300 words. All
letters are subject to editing
and generally those over 300
words will be shortened. As
a matter of policy, unsigned
letters will not be printed.

01

Clark Kerr: A mild-mannered super

-liberal

IT'S BEEN over two years now since that
magnate of the conglomerate university,
Clark Kerr, swallowed Reagan dust and lost his
job in a 14-8 vote of regental confidence. Yet
on that cool January afternoon in 1967 the ex-
president of the University of California both
secured permanent notation in the Myth of
Berkeley and forever endeared himself to the
liberal cocktail party circuit.
For despite the fact that no love was lost
between Berkeley's activist student-faculty core
and Kerr, there is an almost invincible attrac-
tion to being fired by Ronald Reagan. So in-
vincible in fact was the distinction that within a
month that pinacle of American Corporate
Liberalism, The Carnegie Corporation, snapped
him up for a definitive study of "The Future
o: Higher Education in America."a
So, in pursuit of the definitive study, Clark
Kerr came to town Monday. The fact that Kerr's
appearance is "news" says much about the
mechanics of Liberal reform in this country, a

dents, function, structure, finance, governance,
and innovations. The aim: What will higher
education look like in the year 2000?
Rule Number One for the soft-spoken ad-
ministiator is: "We've got a pluralistic society
with knowledge the most important thing in it."
Thus, the function of a major modern university
must be defined within the needs of that society.
When that fact is clearly born in mind, then
much of the fuzziness in daily rhetoric over
"academic reform" clears ' away.
"Reform"-and Kerr has probably written
and said more about university reform then the
frank
browning
Left could imagine-means providing the in-

AND "SATISFYING STUDENT NEEDS"
comes right at the top of his list of failures. That
is why he hired the best known student editor
in the country last = year, Roger Rapoport, to
trundle off about the country studying "student
power."
The choice of Rapoport is not inappropriate
or without meaning, for in him he found a
student who is not a radical, but who has a
good enough reputation among radicals to cir-
culate among them, and who is a more effective
information gatherer than anyone else available.
If he doesn't buy radical student politics,
Clark Kerr at least has an operational under-
standing of the psychology behind "student un-
rest." "Students wants more and better under-
standing of himself and his place in society."
Undoubtedly the analysis is correct, but un-
fortunately the Kerr solution is not to permit
the student to define that place, but rather to
plan a more effective university which won't
forget to tell him his place.

is of vital importance in this era, especially when
there exist no other institutions to provide it.
"Setting up our standards on the quality of
dissent," is the real problem he says. "A lot of
it is at the level of slogans rather than solid
analysis. There is not nearly the endurance and
depth that there ought to be. In my experience
it's been rather like 'Button, Button! 'Who's Got
the Button?'"
Turning more serious, he amplifies on the
quality of dissent and the use of force: "There
has to be a rejection-by the students and fac-
ulty, at those places where it has happened, of
the use of force. It is both wrong and counter-
productive."
THEN REFLECTING on Ronald Reagan,
"The reason I lost my job is because I opposed
the use of police on campus." Kerr doesn't talk
about Reagan publicly, except with his eyebrows,
and to agree that, yes, student radicalism at
Berkeley had quite a lot to do with Reagan's

4