E4e S~ttlia Daily
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
ynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich, News Phone: 764-0552
Editorials printed n The Mchigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
ESDAY, FEBRUARY 12, 1969 NIGHT EDITOR: STUART GANNES

HOWARD KOHN-
Dr. Reynolds and the light of 'Phoenix

Ma

)NE

-,; ,_,

/ Dangers of over-enrollment
Tinde for faculty action

E LITERARY COLLEGE executive
ommittee acted silently and swiftly
day against the best interests of the
-ge. In deciding to increase freshman
Ilment by nearly 200 students next
and by transferring 50 out-of-state
issions to in-state use, the executive
mittee succumbed to the pressures of
led administrators who in. turn are
g pressured by ignorant legislators.
the short run, the faculty made a
factory compromise. In agreeing to
pt more freshmen, the University is
asing the Legislature, which insists
this institution accept all qualified
icants. This necessitated lowering the
ber and proportion of out-of-state
ents by a relatively slight number.
rthermore, the new plan only raises
total enrollment of the college by a
I amount, keeping below the maxi-
s 11,800 level approved by the faculty
965. And the literary college faculty
been assured by administrators and
college's own, admissions committee
the enrollment increase holds only
his year.
alistically, however, this promise
ot be kept. In the long run, the
promise may prove devastating to
ty undergraduate education. It is
asonable to expect that it will be-
possible to cut back enrollment
year. A decision made this year to
mmodate some of the 400 "qualified"
ate students for whom the Uhiver-
Editorial Staff
MARK LEVIN, Editor
PHEN WILDSTROM URBAN LEHNER
Managing Editor Editorial Director
DAVID KNOKE, Executive Editor
ACE IMMEN .... ... . News Editor
LYN MIEGEL ..... Associate Managing Editor.
L OKRENT................. Feature Editor
)'DONOHUE ..................... News Editor
ER SHAPIRO ...... Associate Editorial Director
RP KOHN ......Associate Editorial Director
B USS .... <....... ..... Magazine Editor
N SYMROSKI ...... Associate Magazine Editor
L KEMPNER ...........Personnel Director
LUNSTER .......contributing Editor
DUBOFF.C........ .ntributing Editor
SACKS..................Photo' Editor

sity has no places will be repeated next
year in the decision to take the 600
"qualified" resident students unable to
gain admission next yeai. What admin-
istrators this year call a stop-gap meas-
ure is really a permanent increase which
will eventually push total enrollment'
dramatically upward.
And as undergraduate enrollment rises,
the' number of graduate teaching,fellows
is likely to decline due to new draft rul-
ings. Administrators calculate that Rack-
ham enrollment may be down 250 stu-
dents, by next fall. The effect the draft
may have on the number of available
teaching fellows is incalculable.
THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE, considering
the scarcity of state funds, is to re-
define the "qualified" admissions stand-
ards. Admissions are now considered
"selective" but the University should
develop a more realistic and "competi-
tive" policy for acceptance of only the
"most qualified" students. With more
students applying to the University and
budgetary difficulties likely at least
through 1970, the University should not
be reluctant to hike standards.
Director of Admissions Clyde Vroman
argues, "Our 'business is education, not
the storage of people. We don't have the
inalienable, right to educate people cif the
state doesn't' give us the money."
Ultimately the decision to raise stand-
ards and freeze enrollment lies with the
faculty. In 1965, enrollment presgure,
coupled with inadequate funding, forced
the faculty to approve a plan of controlled
growth. The 1965 LeVeque plan which set
enrollment at 11,800 has restrained the
administration to some degree in increas-
ing enrollment.
If the faculty seriously desires to de-
velop quality education, it nust make it
clear to the Legislature and the adminis-
tration that it will not accept more stu-
dents without additional staff and facili-
ties.
THE FACULTY should call a special
LSA meeting immediately to discuss
the dangerous admissions policy.
-MARK LEVIN
Editor
-HENRY GRIX

F YOU BELIEVE the sea can inspire new visions and
brethe vitality into tired lifestyles, you might want
to sail with Dr. Earle Reynolds on the "Phoenix."
Reynolds, a PhD in anthropology, built the "Phoenix"
by himself and has sailed it around the world.
Maybe a dogen men living today have done that.
"To sail around the world is every man's dream, no
matter what his culture,' says Reynolds.i
"But men put it off, waiting for God knows what,"
his voice breaks with some untold urgency. "It's a life's
work, I guess."
Reynolds( spent two years resurrecting a 50-foot
ketch out of the lumberyards of Japan, rigging the masts
and spinners as intricately as the carved models inside
glass bottles.
Then he spent; six more years, from 1954 to 1960,
captaining a six-man crew on an island-charted course
through typhoons and windless lulls from Japan around
the Americas across the oceans and back again.
A man must be a little less responsible and a little
more insane than the rest of us to live out his boyhood
fantasies.
Yet man's zeal for conquering the forces of nature
ranks high in the legends of history. Only man's passion
for destroying himself ranks higher.'
That is why Dr. Earle Reynolds is not so much an
adventurer for what he has done as much as for what he
believes."
"I believe in action. Non-violent action."
In the spring of 1967 Reynolds followed that course
to North Vietnam, taking with him five Quakers, a jour-
nalist-photographer and 82 cases of medical supplies..
THE JOURNEY WAS borne out of frustration as
well as symbolism. The Quakers had formed an action
group in July, 1966, to send medicine to civilians in
North Vietnam. But the federal government blocked all
channels of transportation, labelling the medicine con-
traband and confiscating it.
So Reynolds, who was converted to the Quaker faith
in 1958, and the others delivered the supplies themselves.
"We felt more should be done than simply saying

'Sorry, we didn't mean to kill civilians with our bombs.' "
The "Phoenix" sailed without the necessary per-
mits, which U.S. government officials withheld under the
Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917-even though the
Quakers weren't trading and didn't recognize the enemy.
BEFORE LEAVING, spokesmen for the U.S. Navy
approached Reynolds, telling him they couldn't be ac-
countable for the boat's safety. That meant the Navy_
might accidentally fire on the "Phoenix" because it
carried the eight-point star of the Quaker flag instead of
stars and stripes.
Reynolds waited for the full brisk winds of spring
and set sail. "Sure I was afraid," he says frankly, 'but
I had to be doing something."
One day out from Haiphong, a Navy jet fighter
broke out of a cloud clearing and came screaming down
on the "Phoenix." But it turned away after buzzing the
boat. A helicopter arrived later, hovering above while a
photographer "snapped pictures of Reynolds and the
crew.
The "Phoenix" reached Haiphong safely, surviving
even an air raid just as it reached the harbor.
"I was impressed with the North Vietnamese people.
They are very gracious," Reynolds speaks carefully. "But
I told them we were not taking their side, that we were
just as much against violence by them."
When Reynolds returned to Japan he created con-
siderable controversy by telling newsmen the United
States was beaten in Vietnam because Vietnamese had
already accepted the agricultural and social reforms of
communism.
"NOW OUR GOVERNMENT is finally coming to that
same conclusion," he says, exasperated by the long wait.
"I think we'll get out now . . gradually, 50,000 men
at a time . . and when we do, Vietnam will go com-
munist. There's no way to prevent it unless we're willing
to keep a half million or a million men there indefi-
nitely.'
The visas of each crew member were revoked and
Reynolds was threatened with legal prosecution on
return from Haiphong: But after 11 months of burea-

cratic harrassment, the visas were reinstated and the
legal processing stopped.
REYNOLDS TAUGHT at Antioch College during
the 1940's but has lived in Japan since 1951, when he
went there on a grant to study the effects of atomic
radiation.
He found that the Encyclopaedia Britannica's de-
scription of atomic warfare is a living history for Hiro-
shima's children, a biophysical neurosis which sets them
apart as the first victims of World War III.
"Their world is contaminated, just like our rivers
are polluted."
Reynolds has been a loudly-vocal critic of the Cold
War's nuclear arsenals. In 1958 while on his wideworld
trip, he sailed into the Entiwotek Pacific area to protest
U.S. testing of the hydrogen bomb. He was severely cen-
sured.
In 1962 and 1968 he went to the ports of Vladisvo-
stok and Leningrad to demonstrate against Russian test-
ing.
"Einstein helped build the atom bomb and then cried
because they used it. What did he expect? Poor deluded
old fool. They make weapons to be used. They'll use
anything."
Reynolds gestures. He is a little mad.'He preaches,
distracted like a discredited prophet, and warns us of
the hell we can create.
"As long as war remains a matter of national policy,
the Third World War is inevitable," he repeats. "We're
sitting on a push-button war. Men gave up their side-
arms but now they've got missiles."
CERTAINLY OTHER men who have committed
lesser "crimes" than taunting world powers at play have
been stowed away for safekeeping.
He sits there, nursing his obsession for peace like an
alkie nursing a bottle of redeye.
"You have a' department of military science at this
University, don't you," he bieaks into the conversatiofi.
"But do you have a department for peace?
"Peace is an applied science. It's no different than
poultry husbandry ...
His intensity is so great you can only react on a
gut-level.
"C'mon you've got enough there to print . . . if
you'll print it," he chides.
He is often brusque and ,vey fierce, a man seemingly
so unfitted for the mission of peacemaking that his
fervor appears contrived.
He is 58. And if you are 21 and get knots of nervous
fear at the thought of refusing induction and going into
exile, you naturally doubt that any man could carry out
a lifelong crusade without becoming his own gospel.
HIS JAPANESE BRIDE of four years smiles softly
at Reynolds. She is going with him in June when he sails
to Shanghai as a gesture of reconciliation between the
U.S. and Communist China.
They were stopped by Japanese officials on the high
seas when they tried last year but expect to reach port
this time.
"Peace has always been a nice commodity in a wishy-
washy sort of way," even his appeals are flecked with
derision. "But now it's a necessity. We either have peace'
or else."
Reynolds will spend the next two months lecturing
In the United States under the auspices of several anti-
war groups. The "Phoenix" will stay moored in Nagasaki
until he returns in April.
"I've sailed 60,000 miles on the 'Phoenix.' But I want
to go back . . , to sail again, to go where I have to."
He smiles suddenly. "Can you understand that?"
You can't, of course, until you've heard the cry of
gulls welcoming you into shore or watched a surface-to-
air missile explode a Navy jet in mid-air jplst as you
thought the jet might bomb you in the port of Haiphong.
But you can trust in his faith and salute his mission,

4

*

U

Sports Staff
... ... Sports
.Associate Sports
Associate Sports
S. Associate Sports'

0

Eci or
Edtor
Editor
Editor

On derocracy and curriculum: A bid for faculty p

ower

A

By CARL COHEN
Second of Two Parts
EDITOR'S NOTE; Yesterday, Prof.
Cohen of the philosophy department,
argued that questions regarding the'
curriculum of the college community
are the proper business of the faculty
community partly becausecof greater
faculty competence and chiefly be-
cause of the social and institutional
responsibilities which' lie upon the
faculty,
N A UNIVERSITY there is no body
more to be relied upon for the
raking of curricular decisions than
he faculty itself. Again, I reempha-
ize that this is not to express distrust
r contempt for students, who are,
1 my personal view, for the most
art very serious, 'highly intelligent,
rnd devoted to their University.
The greater competence of the
wulty in this sphere is largely a
tatter of education and experience.
is painfully difficult to decide
'hat the essential elements iof a
beral education are. But as we must.
ome to some decisions on that mat-
r, it is the faculty, with many years
f study and reflection behind them,
uch experience in teaching and
>uselling students of varied back-
ounds, and a relatively long-term
ommitment to the institution, who
hould make them..
That does not mean the faculty
exempt from error. In the topics
ow hotly contested in the Univer-
ty they may well be in error-but
ur larger concern is how, over the
ng run, these decisions are likely
be best made. Careful reflection
ll oblige one to conclude that en-
usting those decisions to a body
irtly. consisting of persons with a
,r smaller degree of experience and
nowledge on the matters to be de-
ded is simply foolish.
It is not democracy, but an un-

than the students, many of whom
come to the University with less than
ideal secondary school backgrouinds,
and some of whom do not do well
here.
TO THIS IT is sometimes replied
that students are lower in com-
petence in this sphere simply be-
cause they are effectively kept from
engaging in the very activities which
develop this competence--so that the
argument against student voting
power is here viciously circular. I
would respond first that a denial of
the right to vote on these matters is
not a denial of the right to partici-
pate vigorously in the deliberations
,upon them.
But second, and more importantly,
the criticism misses the force of my
argument. The competence of which
I have spoken is not simply a skill, to
be developed with a few weeks or
months of practice or experience. It
is a competence flowing from long
study, and long association with
liberally educated men, and long re-
flection upon the goals, and methods,
and substance of university educa-
tion. It is a competence that is an
essential element of the distinction
of our faculty in which the entire
University takes pride. Is this char-
acter of the faculty something seri-
ous students would really want to
deny?
I FIND THE FACTOR of compe-
tence alone entirely persuasive in
this argument. Unlike the factor of
institutional responsibility it does not
speak to the question of the rights
of respective bodies, but to the wis-
dom of entrusting certain tasks to
certain bodies. The two factors of
competence and institutional respon-

;a community consisting of both
faculty and students, having the
,pursuit of learning as its central
purpose; my students and I - are
bound together in an enterprise that
marks us off from much of the rest
of the world, and often brings us
very close together. The university
as a community of scholars is an
honorable and appropriate ideal. But
it is slipshod thinking to infer from
the existence of this community that
every decision having wide effect
within it must be shared equally and
universally by its 'members.
BOTH STUDENTS AND FACULTY
are members of the .,university com-
munity, to be-sure, but, they are not
members of the same kind, or status.
In the nature of the case they can-
not be members equal in every way.
This is not paternalism; it is a fact,
and one in which the serious student
will take pride. His faculty has been
carefully selected, winnowed, screen-
period of many years. The qualifi-
ed, tested, in a host of ways, over a
cations for membership in the Uni-
versity required of the faculty mem-
ber, his authorization to participate,
come from a wholly different source
in a whollly different way from those
of the student. To suppose that en-
rollment as a student, after com-
pleting high school, entitles one to a
role on professional issues similar to
that 'of the faculty is downright silly.
On the other side, there are two
respects in which the student q'uest
for a voice in University affairs is
entirely just. First. Where the ques-
tions to be decided are not profes-
sional, but concern every member of
the community in the same way, or
where they concern the rights of in-
dividuals to pursue their private busi-

t ntertains in his room, or how, any
I igh school how a student wears his
Lair. Students and faculty both are
right in demanding control over what
tare chiefly their own affairs.
The second point is that students
do have a major role in making cur-
ricular decisions. Their role is ,a key
one because t h e curriculum is de-
signed, not by them, but for their use
and benefit. Their voices must be
heard, and their views should (and
do, now) have a real effect upon the
decisions made. The information stu-
dents can provide, their judgments
on how curricular matters have been
and are being handled, can c o m e
from no other source. Their partici-
pation is vitally important.
Still there is an important differ-
ence between having a role in the on-
going debate, and having part of the
decision-making power. The students
are the ones to whom the require-
ments and examinations and other
such matters must apply. It is inevi-
table that in some cases these appli-
cations will result in disappointment
or unhappiness. It is inappropriate
and unwise to put any student rep-
resentative in the position of having
to help determine these standards.
He cannot avoid, being utterly com-
promised when put in such a posi-
tion.
I HAVE BEEN CITED as one who
suggests, that when student power in
this sphere grows excessive, the aca-
demic rigor of the institution is
threatened. That is precisely what I
suggest. Indeed, a great deal of ex-
perience on these matters, in this
and other countries, attests to the
reasonableness of this fear. I have
taught in several Latin-American
universities; I do not wish to deni-

used to think that the analogy be-
tween these universities and ours was
unreasonable; after reflecting upon
recent events on this and o t h e r
American campuses I am 'convinced
that we are subject to what is essen-
tially the same deterioration. T h e
only way to avoid such deterioration
is to develop rational principles for
decision-making in curricular (a n d
si'milar) affairs, and stick to them.
WHAT THEN IS the proper course?,
Specifically I urge that students be
given a full and genuine opportunity
to present their views on curricular
matters as forcefully and as ration-
ally as possible. Along with this there
is a need for a rapid increase in the
sensitivity and responsiveness of the
entire University community to the
needs and interests of students. How
develop t h al t responsiveness? We
must work on two fronts.
On the formal side we must open'
up new channels for representative
student participation in curriculum
committees, both on college and de-
partmental levels. Here it is impor-
tant not only that faculty have an
opportunity to hear student opinions
and judgments, but that such student
spokesmen be genuinely representa-
tive, and responsive to their own
student constituencies. In this area
it seems certain that good progress
is being made. Perhaps even more
important than these formal chan-
nels, however, are the informal pat-
terns of student influence on acade-
mic matters.
Here the problem is more severe,
because the great size of our college
makes very difficult communication
between students and faculty that is
comfortable, easy, and effective. We
must do some hard thinking about

to vest such power in student mem-
bers of committees with'the thought,
that the faculty retains the right of
review, because the faculty as a whole
is not in a position to redo the work
of its committees, and is obliged
to rely upon them heavily. A com-
mittee of the faculty is its instru-
ment, and should represent it. Other
interested 'parties must be heard, but
neither justice nor wisdom requires
their enfranchisement. In the sec-
ond place, those who seek student
control in this sphere will not be ap-
peased. If they are right in principle,
two or three votes, are not enough;
they ought then to have at least half
the votes, probably two-thirds or
three-fourths of them. After all, they
are likely to be more directly affected
by particular decisions than the fac-
ulty members who make those deci-
sions.
WE MUST REJECT on rational
grounds the principle that simply
being affected by a decision neces-
sarily entitles one to a voice in mak-'
ing it. We must look to the proper
business of our several overlapping
communities.'In the third place, even
if some students are appeased, what
rational procedure can one invoke to
determine how many votes students
are entitled to? If two, why not
three? or six? I can see only four
possible solutions.
1. Put the entire matter in students
hands, on the ground that this is
essentially a student affair; let the
faculty withdraw. Absurd? Agreed.,
2. Divide the votes equally among
students and faculty, on the ground
that there are two major parties,
with equal interests and equal rights.
Probably the faculty will find this
solution intolerable, for reasons given

propriate and most competent spokes-
men for the University in matters
pertaining to curriculum.
I BELIEVE THE LAST is the right:
course. If I am accused of under
conservatism on this score I woule
note that the 150 yeafs of acadenik
tradition in our University, its respect
for books and ideas, deserve very
much to be conserved. Many thingE
need to be changed in our Univer-
sity, and many more in tour society.
But it doesn't follow that everything
needs to be thrown out.
Three final comments. First, note
that I have said nothing about the
wisdom of specific requirements now
in force, or of the changes in them
that have been proposed. I am chief-
ly concerned here with how we ought
to make the decisions on these mat-
ters. I hope that those who disagree
with me will share my concern that
we. distinguish. these -questions, for
the sake of intellectual clarity.
SECOND. MY OWN VIEW is that
important decisions in a University,
including those regarding curriculum,
should be made, to the greatest ex-
tent feasible, democratically. Perhaps
I am wrong in my understanding of
democracy; I am prepared to be cor-
rected. But I earnestly hope that all
those, students and faculty, who
share the democratic ideal will do it
the honor of reflecting carefully upon
its proper application. Let us not be
guilty of cheapening our own ideals
with careless rhetoric, as so many of
our political leaders have so frequent-
ly done to our distress and shame.
Third. Even if agreement on these
matters is not reached, now or soon,
I am thoroughly convinced that the

4

I&

0