94e Sirlgau ail
Seventy-eight years of editorial f reedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan

power and virtue
A critical view of democracy
by ron landsman

*

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in ol reprints.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1969

NIGHT EDITOR: NADINE COHODASI


Trampling civil liberties
at Berkeley

THE REGENTS' of the University of Cal-
ifornia have laid down a set of rules
and penalties which will seriously endan-
ger the civil liberties of every student at
that institution, and, by extension, every
student at every state university in the
nation.
In reaction to recent disruptions at
Berkeley, the regents last week voted ov-
erwhelmingly to require specific actions
of university administrators whenever the
governor declares a "state of emergency"
on one of the University of California's
nine campuses.
Oni such occasions, the administration
must:
- Place all students believed to have
been involved in disruptions on imme-
diate interim suspension, banning them
entirely from the campus a n d holding
disciplinary hearings on the accusations
within two weeks.
- Suspend for at least one quarter, dis-
miss, or expel any student found guilty of
involvement in the disturbances;
take away all student financial aid
from disrupters; and
-Ban the use of university facilities
for organizing or carrying out disruptions.
Curses!
WITH VIOLENCE in the s t r e e t s and
muggings in the alleys, it's nice to
know some things are still sacred. Fif-
teen-year-old Dorothy Young h a s been
held since Dec. 4 for cursing a w h i t e
classmate on a schoolbus in Sylvester,
Georgia. Although the state supreme
court released Miss Young yesterday, it is
hoped that her two month detention will
be enough to stop the spread of obscenity.
Edward Brill, editor of MSU's S t a t e
News, should be heartened. T h e State
News is under fire for the use of obscenity
in a page one story, but editor Brill might
anticipate similar corrective treatment
from the "open-minded" citizens of Mich-
igan.
-E. K.
Editorial Staff
HENRY GRIX, Editor
STEVE NISSEN RON LANDSMAN
City Editor Managing Editor
.STEVE ANZALONE ......... Editorial Page Editor
JIM HECK . ............... Editorial Page Editor
JENNY STILLER ............. Editorial Page Editor
PHILIP BLOCK .. .... .. ..Associate Managing Editor
MARCIA ABRAMSON ..... Associate Managing Editor
LESLIE WAYNE ......................... Arts Editor
JOHN GRAY ................ Literary Editor
PHOTO EDITOR ...... ..... Andy Sacks
NIGHT EDITORS: Nadine Cohodas, Stuart Gannes,
Martin Hirschman, Bill Lavely, tJim Neubacher,
David Spurr, Chris Steele, Daniel Zwerdling.
COPY EDITORS: Jim Beattie, Robert Kraftowitz,
Nancy Lisagor, Harold Rosenthal, Judy Sarasohn,
Charles Silkowitz, Sharon Weiner.
Business Staff -
GEORGE BRISTOL, Business Manager
STEVE ELMAN Administrative Advertising Manager
SUE LERNER.... ........ .... Senior Sales Manager
LUCY PAPP ................. Senior Sales Manager
NANCY ASIN . ......... Senior Circulation Manager
BRUCE HAYDON ......... ...... Finance Manager
DARJA KROGULSKI .... Associate Finance Manager
'BARBARA SCHULZ......... ,....Personnel manager'

THE CENTRAL question raised by the
regents' directives is whether the state
may legitimately deprive any student of
his education for the period of two weeks
which can elapse before disciplinary
hearings are held.
Indications are that the directives vio-
late both the basic proposition that a man
is innocent until proven guilty and state
and federal constitutional guarantees
against deprivation of 1 i f e, liberty; or
property without due process of law.
A suspected student found to be totally
innocent of participation in any disrup-
tive activities would in effect have been
barred from one-sixth of his classes (un-
der California's 12-week quarter calen-
dar) irrevocably on a mere suspicion of
guilt.
A further consideration is how the ad-
ministration .w o u 1 d decide who to bar
from campus under suspicion of radical
political activity. This conjures up the
nightmare vision that the regents' regu-
lations could be used to effectively bar
all minority students from campus during
times of alleged disturbance.
Furthermore, the regents' directive de-
fines no statute of limitations for such
interim suspensions. Are the students ar-
rested last fall for sitting in at Sproul and
Moses Halls to be barred from campus
now, even if they have no connection with
the current strike? And what about those
who were involved in the F r e e Speech
Movement five years ago? Are they sus-
pects too?
ANOTHER consideration is the practi-
cality of enforcing the n e w regula-
tions. It is all very well to say that hear-
ings shall be held within two weeks, but
it is inconceivable that t h e ponderous
university bureaucracy could act so effi-
ciently, particularly if large numbers of
supposed activists are placed on interim
suspension.
The other two restrictions are objec-
tionable, but unfortunately probably both
justifiable and legal. While it is strange
that freedom of speech and assembly
should not be allowed on state property,
there is already a bulk of precedent be-
hind such a ban. Similarly, the withdraw-
al of financial aid is the university's per-
rogative, although it smacks of racism in
that it hits poor minority students hard-
est, in effect telling them not to concern
themselves with injustices perpetrated
against them for fear of losing their rel-
atively 'privileged status as students.
THE CALIFORNIA regents' directives, if
fulfilled without protest at Berkeley,
will set a dangerous precedent for the de-
nial of fundamental civil liberties to stu-
dents in public-supported educational in-
stitutions all over the country. By their
actions, the regents of the Universityof
California are trampling upon the ele-
mentary guarantees of due process and
the right to be considered innocent until
proven guilty.
-JENNY STILLER
Editorial Page Editor

DEMOCRACY - APPLE PIE, mother-
hood, the flag - all that is good in the
American Way of Life - Jackson, Jeffer-
son, George Washington and God.
The myths of democracy are pervasive
in our society. We all think of democracy
uncritically, as an end in itself that should
go unquestioned. We unconsciously attrib-
ute to it virtues undreamed of in other po-
litical systems.
Born perhaps of m a n y years of pre-
pubertic propagandization, these ideas must
be challenged and must be analyzed. They
have their virtues, but they also have their
faults.
First let it be noted that democracy does
not generally exist in our society.
I DO NOT SIMPLY MEAN to criticize
the lack of responsiveness of our elected
governments. There is at least the structure
and the pretense of democracy there, and
to some degree its effective implementation.
But what of all the other social struc-
tures that play a part in men's lives? What
of where a man works, where he spends
the largest single block of his time? And
of those institutions he joins voluntarily,
how democratic are they?
Not only are the big industrial concerns
entirely undemocratic (and yet often the
most uncritically respected of American in-
stitutions) but they are almost entirely un-
receptive to demands from below save by
pressure (e. g. union strikes).
BUT SURPRISINGLY, the non-profit-

oriented institutions are also undemocratic,
most specifically academic institutions.
Organizational heads, including depart-
mental chairmen, can not be expected to
promote or defend policies which they do
not themselves believe.
But therein must lie the balance - be-
tween the wills of individuals within the
organizations and the wills of the or-gani-
zation's representatives and leaders.
The importance of the first part cannot
be underestimated. It is the supreme value
of our society that the individual be free
to make himself what he will. But the
urge for individualism at the University
has been more fancy than fact, until a re-
cent "participatory democracy" plea began
making some inroads.

However, in its wide sweep, "participa-
tory democracy" has not taken into account
certain requisites of organizations, such as
the need to rely on expertise and compe-
tence.
THERE IS A COMMON CRY from anti-
institutional types that "competence" is a
smokescreen for weeding out the institu-
tional and politically undesirable, and in-
deed, it may often be used that way. But
the misuses of such qualitative demands
hardly justify the elimination of them as
standards altogether.
But to the other question, it is the man
at the top who must answer for what is
done. It is the chairman who seeks money
for his department, and so must defend

Letters. Another view of Proj

what it does, its standards for personnel
selection and programs.
It is thus only fair to expect of the peo-
ple on the inside to tolerate what some-
times may appear as autocratic decisions
by those who, must be directly responsible
for what s done. But likewise, the indi-
viduals held responsible for decisions must
operate so as to maintain cohesion and to
a certain degree, representation, a m o n g
their personnel.
To a 1 a r g e degree, then, institutional
troubles seem to stem not from actual dire
splits, but from splits that are the result
of an unresponsive structure. Demands that
are not inherently divisive may become so
when the problem is cast in terms of in-
dividuals and their good names.
THUS, IT IS FAIR to ask whether the
five-year chairman method of running de-
partments is appropriate. A m o r e fluid
structure allowing for differences between
department leaderships and their faculty
members would not force conflicts that
now occur almost entirely as a result of
rigidity. What is involved, at least par-
tially, is a change in the common view of
chairmanships, that it should be ,a more
temporary, a more transient- role.
The importance in such a change is the
effect to the men at the bottom - the av-
erage, especially younger, faculty members.
Such a change could breed greater com-
mitment, greater allegiance toward the de-
partments.
Cohen
ds upon them but. for them." The reader
is to be will recall historical parallels in
le, and which the wielding of power is
that is justified because it's for their own
for. good.
does the
petences I HOPE THAT Professor Cohen
right to does not really feel as entrapped
set of by student insistence' on partici-
hat stu- pation as these and other over-
guided, statements suggest. I supposed that
nearly every proposal for reforms
toward greater sharing of power
analogy has been resisted on grounds that
cians or if you give 'em an inch they'll take
convinc- a mile - a threat to-which at one
ower to point he alludes,
ons" is Surely a "rational procedure" of
nts, who joint student - faculty decisions
profes- made in terms of present needs
rescrip- and wisdom is not to be ruled out
rmpetent because at some fu ure time still
further changes may be called for,
n o t we A very good case can be made
are not on sheerly pragmatic grounds that
ular de- joint student - faculty decision
aculty's making often leads to better re-
ght" of sults than do forcibly unilateral
ds a n d ones. Such will not always be the
tla can case, but neither can it be claim-
unds of ed 'that the traditional procedure
nalogies. has been without fault.
Above all, I beg my colleague to
excep- consider the possibilities that
Stshat shared participation provide f o r
poss ss students' learning. Change is the
ue tomi only certainty, and we can best
help students to prepare for it
through participating in proces-
at the ses of change in their here-and-
d it has now world of the university.

01

*

To the Editor:
PROF. CARL COHEN'S col-
umns in The Daily (Feb. 11
and 12) on student participation
in curricular decisions have a spec-
ial interest for me.
We are close colleagues in the
Residential College, in which the
issues that he raises are v e r y
close to all of us. I'd like to have
The Daily's readers know that we,
as friends and cheek-by-jowl co-
workers, have honest differences,
and that exchanges of views on
these and othe educational mat-
ters are characteristic of life in
the new college.
"The Faculty," my colleague
writes, "is the group most likely
to reach wisescurricular decisions"
(my emphasis). He believes that
this conclusion follows from his

assumptions that a university "is
not one conmunity-but many" (of
which the faculty is one); and
that m e r e desire to participate
in the making of a n y decision
(curricular, for example) does not
confer upon the members of every
community (upon students, in this
case) the right to do so. I do not
quarrel with these assumptions,
but they do not lead me to Prof.
1Cohen's conclusions.
NO ONE WOULD claim t h a t
members of communities (in this
sense) that are neither interested
nor affectedby curricular decis-
ions has the rightto make them.
But this fact hardly forces us to
assume t h a t a single community
has that right.

After all, there are intervening
steps between all communities and
just one community. Besides, dis-
tinguishable communities are not
friozen into fixed compartments;
rather, different individuals and
groups are constantly reshuffling
themselves to function as differ-
ent communities for various pur-
poses.
Given this all-or-none alterna-
tive - only faculty or only some
other community - Prof Cohen
justifies his preferencefor decis-
ion-making by faculty alone on
the twin grounds of faculty re-
sponsibility as teachers, guides,
and certifiers, and of faculty com-
petence.
'Let's look at each of these. If
"faculty members are appointed
to teach," so also are students as-
signed to their roles - that of
learning; how can the two be sep-
arated? Or does t h e statement
mean that, traditionally, the role
of teacher automatically carries
total power of decision, in which
case the appeal is simply to tra-
dition. And is it necessarily true
that "only if they control the cur-
riculum" can faculty fulfill their
responsibility of certifying stu-
dents?

"The only knife I remember seeing is the
one you used on this . ..

dolp-
f I" t
ff
Avg
" F r
Oil
"i 3 U
1-
t
j..
b

students from the deman(
them from the world that
theirs? To inform, guid
stimulate? Yes, of course;
what faculty members are
But by what reasoningt
possession of s u c h coma
carry with them the sole
declare that it is in one
areas but not in another tl
dents are to be informed,
stimulated?
I FIND Prof. Cohen's
between faculty and physi
attorneys particularly un
ing. Surely the latters' "p
make professional decisi
freely granted by their clie
come to technically trained
sionals for diagnoses and p
tions that they feel inco:
to provide for themselves.
Students, whether or r
regard the mass mistaken,
begging us to make currici
cisions for them. T'h e f
self-proclaiming s o 1 e "ri
diagnosing students' need
prescribing their curricu
better be justified on gro
tradition than on such ar
I suppose there are few
tions to the general rul
those who at any moment
power over others are quit
sist upon their own uniqi
petence to do so.
But self-justification
very least is graceless, an(
led my colleague to overs
case uncharacteristicall
He writes, "Careful re
will oblige one to! conclu
entrusting (curricular) d
to a body partly consisting
sons with a far smaller (*
ulty's) degree of experier
knowledge- on the matter
decided is simply foolish"
phasis)..
If one does not agree w
well, then one is simply i
because "careful reflecti
oblige one" to reach that
sion. But it turns out tha
all, "students do have a
making curricular decisio
evidenced by the fact th
curriculum is designed:

#i

, IF, AS I ASSUME, certification
means only assertion of compe-
tence (in general, or in particu-
lar areas, or both), it does not
necessarily follow that decisions
about areas in which students,
competence is asserted must be
made solely by faculty - but only
that faculty h a v e concurred in
those decisions.
Is it inconceivable that a fac-
ulty could learn something from
students, and about students,
through processes of joint decis-
ion? If so, and only if so. then re-
sponsibility for certification jus-
tifies faculty refusal to participate
in joint decision making with stu-
dents.
Prof. Cohen finds "the factor of
competence, alone, entirely per-
suasive." Competence for what?
To decide what is good for stu-
dents, even though faculty decis-
ions are made from a perspective
far more removed than t h a t of

tate his
ly.
eflection
de that
iecisions
of per-
lan fac-
nce and
s to be
my em-
ith this,
n error,
on will
conclu-
Lt, after
role in
ins," as
at "the
not by

-Prof. Theodore M. Newcomb
Psychology and Sociology
Department.
Feb. 20
Sunday's rape
To the Editor:
NY RESEMBLANCE, whether
Ielor imagined, between the
article published undermyename
(Daily, Feb. 9) and t h e manu-
script actually submitted to The
Daily is, I suspect, purely coinci-
dental. Happiness is a red, r e d
pencil, the imagination of a-hack
and five minutes with virgin prose.
-Tom Heisler, Grad
Feb. 11

Supporting the rent strike is not an endorsement of moth

)rhood

(EDITOR'S NOTE: In this article,
Thomas Talley presents another opin-
lon on the rent strie. He is a law
student and holds a master's degree
In business administration.)
By THOMAS N. TALLEY
-ENT STRIKE?
Of course," you say. It will bring
lower rents, shorter leases, and bet-
ter service. Who can argue?
Many people feel this way. It's like
supporting motherhood. But mother-
hood is productive; the rent strike is
not. The rent strike is emphatically
wrong and those supporting it are
being used in ways which will be
detrimental to themselves (e.g. loss
of good credit ratings).
For nearly two years I was rental
agent for one of Ann Arbor's largest
apartment agencies. I am no longer
so employed so I have no stake in
what I am about to say. But I can
contribute some facts and reality to
an issue that has been clouded by
emotions, guesstimates, and mislead-
ing statements (not to mention a

ing in high style at fair and com-
petitive rents under landlords sin-
cerely trying to please.
The rent strike is based on the as-
.sumption that apartments are bring-
ing high profit margins. FACT: A
significant' portion of the modern
apartment buildings in Ann Arbor
have consistently LOST money.
FACT: "Excluding" the loss build-
ings, the average return on invest-
ment in the profitable buildings is
in the range of 8-12 per cent. This'is
not excessive. In fact it is low.
Compare this return with the secure
71%2 per cent minimum return that
banks expect on the risk free FHA
real estate loans.
Now some people say that these
percentages are based on the fact
that apartment building mortgages
are paid off in five to ten years. This
couldn't be more wrong. Banks rarely
write anything for less than 20 years,
and many investors try to and suc-
ceed in getting longer terms of up
to 30 years in order to lower annual

months worth of your rent goes to-
ward property taxes.
Second, the total costs of land,
constr'uction and furnishings of a
m o d e r n two-bedroom apartment
average $17,000 to $25,000. Payments
of these costs account for more than
half of your rental payments.
Third, maintenance costs are fan-
tastically high due to the rapid turn-
over of tenants and the "over-use"
of apartments by single young people.
Insurance, utilities, and general
management expense account for the
remainder of the cost structure which
has, by now, accounted for nearly
all but one of the twelve rent pay-
ments.
EVEN THOUGH COSTS are high,
by comparison Ann Arbor rents are
not high.
Compare them to either the non-
profit dormitory system or to other
areas in the country. If done honest-
ly, you will feel fortunate living in
an Ann Arbor' apartment.

to check for all the above stated
requirements.
A few students think Ann Arbor
is comparable to Manhattan. Have
you ever heard of two-bedroom fur-
nished apartments in Manhattan
costing less than $300 per month or
anything less than a two year lease.
Furthermore Time reported in its
February 21 issue that Manhattan
rents "have been rising an average
of 31 per cent and . . . increases of
60 per cent are not unheard of."
PERHAPS, COMPARISON in our
immediate community would be more
illustrative of the fair rates of Ann
Arbor apartments.
Apartment buildings were built and
priced to compete with the Univer-
sity dormitory system. This was dif-
ficult considering the fact that the
University pays no property tax, no
income tax, and no- return to in-
vestors.
Yet, even today it costs only a few
dollars more per person for twelve

It is noteworthy that most frater-
nities and sororities are even more
expensive than the dormitories. Does
the Tenants' Union strike against
them?
It is also interesting to note that
if landlords offered 8 month leases
on the same monthly rates as the
twelve month leases, it would cost
students several hundred dollars less
for a private apartment plus groce-
ries than in the non-profit, non-tax
paying dormitories. This is why short
term leases are unrealistic without
rent increases.
NOW, TO THE MEAT of my
charge that the rent strike is "em-
phatically wrong" and "detrimental"
to those supporting it.
Being aware of. the low profit mar-
gins, I realized that the withholding
of rent could accomplish nothing ex-
cept havoc. I remembered two years
of inability of the student leaders
and landlords to effectively com-
municate mutual problems. (This was

I was told that the goal was de-.
struction of the landlords regardless
of whether the alleged set of goals
could be accomplished. I am sure few
strike supporters are aware of this.
FOR THIS REASON I, feel they
are being used to satisfy the emo-
tional outlets of a few student lead-
ers.
Furthermore, the Tenants' Union
has distributed literature with false
and misleading statements of both
fact and law. Strike sppporters have
relied on this information. As a re-
sult their credit ratings could soon
carry a black mark never to be
erased.
As a matter of fact, in the last
issue of Prospectus, a legal publica-
ion, the Tenants' Union attorney
frankly admits his doubts as to the
legality of many strategies involved
in strike tactics. Yet, he expects stu-
dents, and/or their parents, to lay
their future credit ratings on the
line.

to a story-especially when one side
appeals to the emotions. Before the
strike many tenants asked their land-
lords for their side of the story. I
have tried to present a bare outline
of this unpublicized side.
There is much more.
There is much to be said about The
Daily's extremely biased and, I would
think, unethical reporting; e.g., pub-
lishing out of context quotes; editor-
ializing in the front page "news," in
the sports' section, and even in the
classified section; and intentionally
writing uninformed, misleading, un-
researched and one-sided "news"
articles.
There is much to be said about the
attitudes of some of the "student
leaders" where a lack of honesty and
respect for others are among a few of
their missing virtues. There is much
to be said of their obsession to criti-
cize to destroy rather than to con-
struct (which is admittedly more

-

..i 1