100%

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

Share

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.

March 22, 1969 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1969-03-22

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


~Iw£A414a at
Seventy-eight years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan

JAMES WECHSLER
Ultmat maness is not an aGlternautive

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

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

SATURDAY, MARCH 22, 1969

NIGHT EDITOR: CHRIS STEELE

Biding arbitration:
EXCedin for SGC headache

STUDENT GOVERNMENT Council got
the trouble it was asking for when it
decided to hold this week's presidential
election by an abridged form of the ob-
scure Hare system. Although the anti-
quated British electoral process.has served
adequately during the two- and three-
candidate races of past years, it has
crumbled, confusing even Council of fi-
cials during the most hotly contested
election in memory.
The problem is basic: Who-if anyone
-won this presidential race?
The complications are manifold: Three
tickets are ready and willing to lay claim
to a victory which no one is ready to
confirm.,
The solutions /are disputed: A three
way run-off, decreed by SGC's Creden-
tials and Rules Committee, has been
blasted and boycotted by the leaders, in
the race.
Like blind mep with an electoral white
elephant, all paities are in the right and
all are in the wrong.
EMBARRASSINGLY enough for Council
officials, the only pre-election state-
ments on procedure were made in The
Daily. Apparently, the election was to be
held under the "multiple transferable]
ballot system," which is every bit as com-
plicated"as it sounds.
Students wereasked to vote for five
presidential preferences. After all, votes
had been tallied, the first place votes of
the bottom candidate would be elimi-
nated and his second place votes would
be distributed upwards among the re-
maining candidates.
Then the candidates were re-ranked
and the lowest candidates votes were re-
distributed upwards. This process was to
continue until a majority was attained
by one ticket.
If no majority were reached, a run-off
election was to be held between the top
two candidates. The Daily story stating
this Council policy ran uncontested'' on
Sunday,, Tuesday and Wednesday of
election week.
TO FURTHER disrupt the system, elec-
tion officials drastically miscounted
the ballots on their first try. Incorrect
processing caused the confused computer
to end up counting some ballots three and
four times.
Editorial Staf
HENRY GRIX, Edit6r
STEVE NISSEN RON LANSMAN
city Editor Managing Editor

A recount was taken by computer, but
it didn't solve the problem. According to
the credentials committee-Bob Neff and
Gayle Rubin-no candidate could attain
a majority. In fact, they claimed, the
proposed run-off should be between three
and not two candidates.
Neff and Rubin argue that the Miller-
Rosenbaum, Nelson-Livingston, and Mc-
Laughlin-Van er Hout ticets all display
the potential to be winning candidates.
Although Miller is clearly in the lead,
Nelson and McLaughlin are practically in
a dead heat and within striking distance
of Miller. They are within seven votes of
each other, which is well within the mar-
gin of computer error. Furthermore, Mc-
Laughlin had more first place votes than
Nelson and was within 250 votes of
Miller.
RIGHTLY OR wrongly, tle policy
makers decided to interpret the nebu-
lous rules loosely rather than legalistical-
ly. They feel justified in securing a "fair"
election which meets the intent if not the
letter of the laws.,
However, Miller and Rosenbaum, who
stand to lose most in a run-off, have
lashed out at the policy, declaring the
Neff-Rubin ruling "inequitable, arbitrary
and without any basis in SGC rules."
Unless a procedure amenable to candi-
dates Miller and Rosenbaum can be
found, they will boycott the run-off and
drop out of the race.
Although they have abandoned it,
Miller and Rosenbaum have a legitimate
gripe: a two-man run-off was promised.
But their challenge of Neff and Rubin is
totally unreasonable and is only clouding
the results.
Miller and Rosenbaum have refused to
submit to any binding arbitration which
might lead to any type -even the pre-
scribed two man-run-off. And it seems
all too apparent that they fear a run-off
simply because they might lose.
IT IS ALTOGETHER unclear that Miller
and Rosenbaum are the legitimate
winners and their demand and threat
will certainly not resolve the dispute.
Rather, Neff and Rubin should be
forced to carry out a manual recount-a
step they already should have taken.
Stray marks which might have evaded
the computer should be recorded by the
human eye-even if it takes 100 man
hours.
And if the recount reveals nothing new
-which it probably won't -a board of
impartial, outside arbitrators should be
called in to determine the most equitable
way to solve the elections. This is what
Neff has recommended all along.
While Miller's and Rosenbaum's con-
cern for a valid election might otherwise
be commendable, they themselves are
only blocking the equitable solution to
the conflict.
Indeed, only Miller's and Rosenbaum's
intransigence stands in the way of a
reasonable resolution of the election
issue.y
ND AS Miller and Rosenbaum un-
necessarily and unreasonably prolong
the dispute, Council can only be losing
what little confidence'and legitimacy it
possesses in the minds of its constituents.
-HENRY GRIX
Editor

MANY AMERICANS unversed in modern military
gobbledygook reacted with instinctive relief to the
widely-advertised descriptions of President Nixon's ABM
decision as a "modification" of "compromise" of the
original Pentagon proposals. Mr. Nixon himself presented
his decision in quiet, conciliatory tones, and the Soviet
press responded without agitation to the news.
It is morely characteristic of our age that each new
triumph of the military mind is sold to us as a form of
reasonableness when contrasted with more awesome pos-
sibilities.
.For several years, for example, President Johnson's
escalation in Vietnam was defended as a middle course
between the counsel of those like Gen. LeMay who raised
the possibility of "bombing North Vietnam back into the
Stone Age" and those who counseled unilateral with-
drawal.
In private conversation Mr. Johnson frequently de-
picted himself as the man who would be remembered in
history for his valiant resistance to the atomic warriors
rather than for his capitulations to Pentagon pressure for
the commitment of more manpower and treasure to the
Vietnam wasteland.
TIME AND AGAIN, amid the mounting deadend arms
race, statesmen have rationalized their surrender by
pointing out that they could have succumbed to the
ultimate madness.
It is by these standards that the Nixon ABM formula
is now heralded in many places as a victory for rationality
tour cities will be pared the uncomfortable proximity
of our own explosive devices) rather than recognized for
what it is-the first failure of nerve in what will surely
be many confrontations between Mr. Nixon and the
military-industrial alliance.
The truth is that most Senate opponents of the ABM
did not call for a final abandonment of the project,
despite much scientific evidence of its futility and the
contradictory doctrines of its advocates. They urged that
the issue be put aside pending a new attempt to reach
agreement with the Soviets on arms control.
This minimal program of sanity was rejected by the
President; that is the crucial fact. Though he may have
convinced himself that he has retained the option to halt
the exercises at a later, happier date, the archives of
the Johnson era are crowded with evidence of comparable
good intentions.

bility. He has so far refused to resume the bombing of
the North or unleash other forms of massive retaliation
against the adversary's latest attacks.
Once again what is in effect an acceptance of basic
military premises is being camouflaged as a "compromise"
between the extremes of provocative fury and craven
flight.
AGAIN IT IS THE military and their mouthpieces
who define the terms of the debate and then, by accept-
ing a course somewhat short of insanity, enable the Presi-
dent to emerge as the man of middle-road moderation.
The evidence is overwhelming, as reported here before,
that the enemy offensives were in large measure a
response to the "all-out" pressures proclaimed by Gen.
Abrams after the bombings were halted. As Sen. Mc-
Govern pointed out in a notable Senate speech Monday,
this renewed ,drive-accompanied by boasts of our im-
pending victory-was an invitation to the current as-
saults.
The simultaneous tolerance we are 'showing toward the
repressive acts of the Thie -Ky cabal, manifested most
recently in the 10-year sentence imposed on' the Bud-
dhist monk, Thich Thien Minh, suggests that we are still
unprepared to face the requirements of a genuine political
solution.
But public debate, except for a few voices like those
of McGovern and Fulbright, centers almost wholly on the
issue of how much muscle we should be applying. That
is not what the meaningful argument--in terms of a
peace settlement-is about.
WHAT MANY THOUGHTFUL but restive young
Americans are trying to ask is how long we will
be confronted with such synthetic choices-different
varieties of ABM, quantitative neasures of reescalation
in Vietnam--rather than the underlying issues of break-
ing the cycle of madness and sadness.
It will not forever be enough for our leaders to defend
our positions by saying: "After all, we haven't dropped
a nuclear bomb in 24 years." For the Soviet chieftains
as well as our own-and perhaps ultimately for the
Chinese-the audacious youthful question is becoming,:
."How long must we live under the burdehs of arms and
in the shadow of nuclear terror?
How long will mere survival be equated with successful
statesmanship? When, if ever, do we really embark on a
new beginning on earth?"
(C) New York Post

r

i

But the momentum is now once again on the side of
the military, and only an historic Congressional upheaval
can curb the drift toward new, uncharted danger.
IT REMAINS MY BELIEF that a resolution of the
Vietnam war remains the most urgent problem facing
the new Administration. But the bold steps required to
liquidate that war-most of all the creation of a broad.
new, yes-" coalition"-regime in Saigon to replace an
unrepresentative government that dare not face the risks
of peace-are not unrelated to, the outcome of the first
Nixon Presidential crisis.
It is hard to believe that the man who could not even
order delay of the ABM folly will effectively challenge
the powerful forces opposing a major shift in our Viet-
nam policy.
In this realm, too, we are being told that Mr. Nixon is
exhibiting distinguished traits of restraint and responsi-

idomly culled notes s 'randomly culled notes a randomly, culled notes *"inan4
wiled notes s randomly culled notes a randomly culled notes w randomly cui
rtes " randomly culled notes o, randomly culled notes a randomly, culled 'not

By HOWARD KOHN
and WALTER SHAPIRO
A TTORNEY GENERAL John
Mitchell is upset because the
Supreme Court upheld the right of
defense lawyers to' see Justice De-
partment transcripts of conversa-
tions illegally overheard by elec-
tronic surveillance.
Only perverse logic could ex-
plain why illegally-obtained evi-
dence should remain only in the
hands of the Justice Department.
fut sources within the department
proffered this explanation:
The department does not want
to publicly acknowledge eave-
dropping operations at foreign em-
bassies but doesn't want to pass
up the chance to prosecute those
"spies" it overhears.
** *
MRS. FULTON OURSLERJR.
of New York may have squelched
a minor social controversy in
Washington. Mrs. Joan Kennedy
violated some tradition or other by
appearing at a long-dress party in
a mini-skirt.
"I can't imagine what the fuss
is about," said Mrs. Oursler. "In
New York you don't care what
everybody else is wearing. I sup-

pose that sort, of thing is more
important, in a small town."
* * *
THERE ARE A FEW sidelights
on Nixon's ABM decision which if
not important in themselves, at
least tend to illustrate the kind
of considerations high-powered
White House policy-makers ignore.
Since the first two "Safeguard"
(it sounds like a new deoderant
soap) sites are to be constructed
in Montana and North Dakota,
one ,*ould think that someone
would have recognized that Rus-
sian missiles would have to be in-
tercepted over Canada.
While territoriol sovereignty
will admittedly be a minor prob-
lem during a nuclear exchange,
common courtesy would seem to
have indicated that before Nixon
announced his ABMr decision we
should have consulted Canada,
which has the unfortunate prob-
lem of being our Northern neigh-,
bor.'
But, not surprisingly, Prime
Minister Trudeau told Parliament
on Wednesday that he still had
not been consulted by Washington.
* *
JESUS CHRIST MAY have been

married and the father of children,
according to a Presbyterian min-
ister.
Dr. William Phipps says that
there's no difference between the
Greek word for "wife" and
"woman" and that the Bible often
mentions Jesus being with a
woman.
"Under Talmudic law, a man
couldn't be considered righteous-
in fact, couldn't even be considered
a complete man-if he didn't
marry and have children," Dr.
Phipps writes.
INCREASING ATTENTION is
being paid to the almost un-
fathomable resources in the hands
of. the gianttax-exempt founda-
tions.
An article in Ramparts, pre-
maturely consigned to oblivion,
points out the shocking high de-
gree of top governmental personel
being recruited from the ranks of
the major foundations.
While this is a serious problem,
even more dangerous is the major
role these foundations have staked
out in fostering and subsidizing
social criticism. For it seems

slightly incongruous and contra-
productive for tax hedges of the
Rockefeller, Ford, and Carnegie
fortunes to be encouraging a mas-
sive lestructuring of the system
which made these massive for-
tunes possible.
That's why, it was disturbing to
find Herbert Marcuse, acclaimed
as the "guru" of the worldwide
student movement, noting in his
preface to One Dimensional Man
that his book would have been im-
possible without the support he
received from the Rockefeller
foundation.
* * *
CAUGHT BETWEEN a decli-
ning economy and the end of its
great power status, England has
recently been the object of wide-
spread pity. That's why it must be
so gratifying for British national
pride that the United Kingdom
has finally found an adversary it
can subdue-Anguilla.
* * *
GEN. LEWIS B.. HERSHEY be-
lieves in preparedness. This week
he issued instructions to employes
on what to do in the event of an
enemy attack.
"If prevented from reporting

to work because of the enemy at-
tack, all Selective Service em-
ployes are to go the nearest Post
Office, get a federal employe reg-
istration card, fill it out and give
it to the postmaster. He will send
it to the Civil Service, which will
inform national or state head-
quarters, and the employe will be
told where to report for work."
* * *
THERE'S SOMETHING enjoy-
ably comic and'invigoratipg about
the almost total confusion that
has obscured the results of the
week's SGC elections.
For the petty wrangling over
the mechanics of vote counting
and the intricacies of the almost
mystical Hare system have had
the therapeutic function of de-
flating the pomposity which sur-
rounds this campus' almost totally
ineffectualstudent government.
Before we have a runoff elec-
tion, the voters ought to demand
that someone first explain exactly
what important function SOC is
or can perform on this campus.
Council members have been trying
to find something other that busy-
work -to fill their time since the
abolition of womens hours.

Ai

STEVE ANZALONE . . Editorial Page
JIM HECK ............. Editorial Page
JENNY STILLER...............Editorial Page
PHILIP BLOCK .......Associate Managing
MARCIA ABRAMSON .....Associate Managing
LESLIE WAYNE... ..............-Arts
JOHN GRAY .... ... . .. Literary
ANDY SACKS . ...... .. Photo

Editor
Editor
Editor
Editor
Editor
Editor
Editor
Editor

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Poli sci, reformers answer charges

Sports Staff
JOEL BLOCR, Sports Editor
ANDY BARBAS, Executive Sports Editor
BILL CUSUMANO.;.... ..,..Associate Sports Editor
JIM FORRESTER ............Associate Sports Editor
ROBIN WRIGHT .......... Associate Sports Editor
JOE MARKER.................. Contributing Editor
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 .. ..........FPinance Manager
DARIA KROGULSKI.....Associate Finance Manager
BARBARA SCHULZ........ .... Personnel Manager

To the Editor:
H AVING PRODUCED for Wed-
nesday's Daily a news account
of the draft report on graduate
studies in political science y o u r
writer moved over to the editorial
columns on Thursday to express
his sadness that any department
could issue such a statement. I
should in turn express my sadness
that Mr. Steele could so misread
the content of the report and the
probable consequences of its adop-
tion.
The report sets out the thinking
of ten graduate students and five

faculty members who have given
much of their time in recent weeks
to reassessing the intellectual ex-
perience of graduate studies in po-
litical.science here.
We were pleased by how far we
got in breaking away from some
of the forms of the past. Twenty
of the report's twenty-five pages
dealt with these questions. I was
saddened t h a t Mr. Steele could
find all of this so unnewsworthy
as to deserve scarcely a nod.
WE FELT FROM the beginning
that involvement of graduate stu-

I IA)T Ik)TO
AW0~
L6 2M~
WA"P1

's.f

I1TO TH

t ty lr t yj/ r
r

:r iMtT-
ht1.T!CS
HOPS is
DEAD.

i j
i
1ITj I'
I ,

tiro ipus
AND? L6AR&WE
IM PEA2.
&A6
116IF,

dents in the government of the de-
partment is a legitimate aspect of
their lives here, and we set out
some proposals toward this end as
well. We felt it right that under-
graduates be equally involved.
Indeed, we are convinced that
the department is now depriving
itself of information and evalua-
tive perspectives that undergrad-
uates and graduate students would
bring to the reshaping of our
teaching programs.
Therefore we proposed that each
year the department meet f o u r
times as a whole - undergradu-
ates, graduate students, and fac-
ulty; that these meetings receive
the reports of a proposed Under-
graduate Affairs Committee, com-
posed equally of undergraduates
and faculty, and of a Graduate
Affairs Committee, composed equ-
ally of graduate students and fac-
ulty; and that undergraduates and
graduate students be represented
in the department's monthly work-
ing meetings and in the Executive
Committee,
I THINK THAT BOTH the stu-
dents and faculty in o u r group
were agreeably surprised by how
far our discussions of decision
making carried beyond the fixed
positions of a confrontation poli-
tics.
We tried to see in de'tail what
sort of process is now involved in
our decision making and how stu-
dent involvement might improve
it. Mr. Steele h a s' reminded us

struction a n d organization by
which each can learn from t h e
other.
-Prof. Donald E. Stokes
Political Science Dept.
March 21
* and another
Tb the Editor:
MUST TAKE issue with your
editorial condemning the re-
port that came out of the faculty-
graduate student committee of the'
political science department.
After excluding four-fifth's of
the report, the editorial then fix-
ates on one point - the absence
of voting power. Votes are not par-
ticularly important because aca-
demic departments are not legis-
lative organs. Exceedingly few
matters ever require a vote in, the
first place.
AS WAS INDICATED, most im-
portant decisions are reached by,
building a consensus. But it is im-
portant to note that the nature of
this consensus is not pre-deter-
mined. It is heavily shaped by the
quantity and kinds of information
available with respect to any given
matter under consideration.
Therefore, it becomes critical to
supply additional perspectives and
weights in the determinotion of
departmental policy and to make
sure that they receive a hearing.'
It may seem difficult to under-
stand t h a t influence is exerted

Republicans

To the Editor.

/

of the graduate students original-
ly.
Fixating on votes is, consequent-
ly, both unreal from the stand-
point of actual decision processes
and unfruitful from t h e stand-
point of producing substantial
change in the values orienting the
discipline.
-Bert A. Rockman, Grad
Faculty-Graduate Student
Political Scienice Committee
March 21

MR. MIKE RENNER'S letter of
March 12 seems precisely to
have the mayoral-race tiger by the
tail - except for the minor detail
that Mr. Renner fails to see ex-
actly what he has hold of.
I refer specifically to his state-
ments: "Republicans this year,
more than at any other time in
the past, have made a sincere ef-
fort to help solve student prob-
lems . . . Yet r Republicans have
always been able to win Ann Ar-
bor city elections without student
support."
The reasons for the Republicans
generous efforts in solving student
problems this year is painfully
clear: in order to keep winning the
city elections, they gre going to
have to appeal to the ever increas-
ing number of students who are
registered to vote in Ann Arbor.
(Is Mr: Renner unaware of t h e

0

5 ' r

A11Ck
c 5s
A1,tir) LNF

d

'W

i_
I

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan