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 27, 1969 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1969-03-27

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

I -1

4el Sfriigan DaiIy
Seventy-eight years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan'

ceteris

paribus::-:::-,-

..,'},v.;, . {%.'' :}v :".""...:;: .. . , "t'.. .: .. . . ."f'"ti:.'." {1{,"L1i''4..1''31
"..{{{:{v ;.a :t" :;: :x{ :z; ^',>"x+:: _ ~vi t"{v ,:k... " 'w11-. .

Vive la difference-BUT

0 .

jenny stiller

a

............: .... .... v::.v::;; ................... .::.-r.::v:w::.1:::1v: f:rev: ".": vv.: "................ ....,.,..,.... ...........,.....,... .............. .
r....:::::.{..1h Y11"."f.v:::::.1 :::.:::"."".h":"::;::.:Y.'f::f..".'::f:.:.}::":{:". :...... ...,::."::: f::. r:."."::.": ::.:::..... .... ,,,.h... e..,......
.. ...................................... ....................:::.:, ... .,.......... .. .. ,............... F .:.rh ......h... ,..... }
.^...,.......,. ............. .. ....::.hh".::av;:;: r:.v."rhv."n'.Y r::: r. ,raa":: .1vf:.v:"rr:.":n:::::v::7:":.v:'}::"}:"d4'.h:....nn^.:.::::::w::.. .v: :.":.".fiauvf:f:.f.:vr:.t:v.ah:rof.".1":.{:"7r.vx: h'{".v:."X.:{"?8?}:{i"}:"7b

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 ll reprints.

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1969

NIGHT EDITOR: STUART GANNES

A solution the faculty must accept

LAST NOVEMBER a large group of
students petitioned for an end to the
literary college language and distribution
requirements..
For the next eight months faculty
members traded information, debated
and drew up proposals. But mostly, they
postponed.
Students demonstrated their concern
many times, even once spending a night
outside a dean's office. Still nothing hap-
pened.
In the impasse the curriculum commit-
A hungry House
THE HOUSE of Representatives praised
itself recently for "strengthening of
children's food service programs"-or so
the title appeared in the March 20 Con-
'gressional Record.
However, the passage of House Bill 515
was not quite as fortunate as the con-
gressional record made it sound.
Under the bill, as Michigan representa-
tive Mrs. Martha W. Griffiths (D-17th
district) pointed out, 51 per cent of the
children in the city of Minneapolis, 78 of
the 79 ghetto schools in Detroit, one-third
of all elementary schools in large Eastern
cities and many other similar areas will
not receive the benefits.
It appears the House wrote into its
philanthropy the provision that subsidi-
zation will only.be given to schools that
have cooking facilities.
Naturally, ghetto schools, which barely
have classrooms, don't have ovens.
"SO IN REALITY," Mrs. Griffiths ex-
plains, "when this program is passed,
Bloomfield Hills, which has a very high
income, and also Grosse Pointe will be
getting subsidized school lunch programs
but in the ghettos of Detroit nobody will
be fed."
Next week Congress considers more
crime legislation, with particular em-
phasis on ghetto crime where stealing
seems to be on the rise.
-JIM HECK
Editorial Page Editor
Sports Staff

tee sent to the faculty somewhat reason-
able proposals which culminated months
of study. But the faculty ignored them.
Again, action was postponed.
Instead, a committee was created to
structure a "general studies degree." Its
report has now been completed and in
view of the student referendum last week
the faculty has little choice but to take
some kind of decisive action.
THE REPORT recommends .a restruc-
tured Bachelor of Science degree with
two possible options:
-Departmental concentration in which
the department would set its own require-
ments for the degree;
-A degree in general studies requiring
60 hours course work in 300 level and
above courses with no concentration and
no more than 20 hours in any one de-
partment.
Each will be considered separately by
the faculty at a meeting expected next
week. Only one deserves endorsement-
the general.studies program.
This option places the burden of getting
an education precisely where it belongs-
on the students' shoulders.
Students who choose the general
studies option would need only a coun-
selor's permission in their freshman year.
This gives students an extremely flexible
and broadly-based program which would
permit them to decide their own type of
education.
THE BEAUTY of the general studies
degree program is that since there is
no coercion the student is able to deter-
mine his own education. This is an ulti-
mate in student power, and this student
power is without doubt educationally
sound for it affirms the belief in the
necessary sancity of the individual learn-
ing process.
The departmental option is not as
sound. It is highly unlikely that all the
departments would structure their pro-
grams to comply with the overwhelming
student mandate to eliminate the lan-
guage requirement. Indeed, as it exists
as an alternative to a proposal in which
there is no language requirement it seems
implicit it is intended to provide the
faculty with the option to ignore student
demands nd relegislate the status quo.
-RICK PERLOFF

BOUT 150 people, mostly women, got together in St. Andrews'
Church Mondat night under the auspices of Women's Liberation.
We listened to an introductory panel explain what the movement was
and is striving to become, saw a film of the demonstration at the
Miss America pageant last summer, and broke up into groups to rap
about women and men and society.
Women's Liberation is a loose conglomeration of local groups,
with no national headquarters and no central statement of goals.
Rather, each group takes the shape which best suits itself, some
being essentially discussion circles, some concentrating on reaching
ghetto or suburban women, others planning militant disruptions of
beauty pageants and bridal fairs.
Many of the groups. outgrowths of the New Left, sprang up
within the last year or so in response to male chauvinism within
the Movement. Most of these maintain close ties with the parent
organization. Often, as with the Women's Caucus of People Against
Racism (PAR), they exist as a subsidiary body of some sort.
But many of the women present at the church Monday night
were neither the militants of the New Left nor the socially concerned
of Guild House or the Social Work School. There were a lot of
students there, of course, but also quite a few housewives and former
housewives (now students or working women), most of them in
their thirties.
WHAT MADE them different from most of their neighbors was
not an unusually strong social conscience, but rather an awareness
of their own inferior position in, society. They had realized that there
must be something more to life than being a wife and mother, and
they came to the Liberation meeting to see if they could find out
how to get what they were missing.
The discussion groups were of prime importance. They ranged
in topics from the political ("Women in the New Left") to the
social ("The Black Women"), to the psychological ("Psychology of
Women"), to the sexual ("The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm"). There
was even a discussion section to which the few men present were par-
ticularly invited-the one dealing with male chauvinism.
These discussions all seemed to point up the two essential prob-
lems which the Liberation is trying to deal with.
The first and most pervasive and long-range is essentially psy-
chological in orientation. It involves trying to define a new concept
of femininity-one not dependent on male domination and female
subservience.
The second problem is much more concrete and as such easier
to deal with in the short run. This is the economic issue-the battle
for equal job opportunities, equal wages, and equal educational op-
portunities.
MOST OF THE women seemed chiefly concerned with the social/
sexual aspect of equality, rather than the economic issues, but perhaps
this is due "only to our own choice of discussion groups.
The issue was further muddied by the Leftists' view of the
struggle. Some of them were reluctant to discuss the concrete issue
of "jobs now" because they felt that under the present arrangement of
ty society men are not free, and therefore women should not aim for
ey job equality in a corrupt society, but work toward a Revolution which
it would liberate everybody
h- , .But while there was some disagreement over economic issues,
everyone agreed that socio-sexual exploitation would have to go.
te And since no one is really sure just what personality characteris-
n- tics are biologically feminine, most discussion of what the feminine
t. personality should be were exploratory in nature.
ss But the whole problem in both its aspects was played out in
ic miniature in a discussion which occurred late that evening. The
l topic was male chauvinism, and over half the people present were
is men.
n IT SOON became obvious to every woman in the room that the
as worst thing about male chauyinism is that so few men are willing
he or able to recognize it in themselves.
n-- Very few educated men today are hardliners who would insist that
d. the woman's place is in the home.
Instead, while giving lip service to the idea of sexual equality,
they refuse to take any feminist movement seriously and persist in
maintaining the barriers which exist between the ambitious woman
and the professional world, using the old circular argument that
"you'll just get married (or have a baby, or move away when
your husband does) and quit anyway."
When the smoke cleared around midnight, and we all began to
leave the room, the reporter 'talked to a couple of the more vocal men
on the way out. And because she had been somewhat assertive earlier,
l they paid her their ultimate compliment: they treated her like an
equal; that is, like a man.
Thrillsville, as they say in the business.
Sisters, we have a long, long way to go.

01

-Daily-Jay Cassidy

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Brains in that beauteous body*

A

To the Editor:
IN RESPONSE to your front
page editorial entitled, "Free-
dom from 36-22-36" run Sunday,
March 23, in The Daily:
Certain matters of fact, espe-
cially as regards their error, omis-
sion or interpretation concern me.
I attended the pageant, remained
for its duration and found no oc-
casion for sleep or boredom.
No where in the editorial was I
able to find the name of the suc-
cessful contestant, Diane Michele
Borgus. What puzzles me even
more is that such an omission
could occur when she is a student
(sophomore) at The University.
JC's are, as almost anyone
knows, a group of young men be-
tween the ages of 21 and 35. A
check of the JC membership rec-
ords would indicate a median age
of about 27. Further, of the "15
male Ushers (all of them well over
30") only two actually are over
30, and just barely at that.
THE SINGULAR preoccupation
of the author of the editorial with

women's rights and recognition
of all people as beautiful clouds
another very important fact: that
a black woman won, even when
adjudicated against white stand-
ards.
She was chosen as Miss Ann
Arbor not only because she was
beautiful, but remarkably talented.
Talent accounts for 50 per cent
of the points when judges evalu-
atetthe contestants. Yet the editor-
ial would lead you to conclude that
beauty and body were the key to
success.
Personally, I feel much more
threatened by the attitude of an
editor who finds it necessary and
is able to perjuretherself, her story
and the facts to accomplish a
subjective end than by a "maiden-
form mentality."'
I would like to make one last
point that to me is significant.
This is only the second time the
project (The Pageant) was under-,
taken. It is large, very complex,
and demanding, planned and ad-
ministered by JC's who donate
their time as did many of those
who participated in the produc-

tion. It also offers an opportunit
for up to six girls to obtain tnon
for their education whereby
might not otherwise be fortl
coming.
I recognize the right of anyor
to disagree with some of the fur
damental precepts of the Pagean
It further is their right to addre
their grievances to the publ
(even though their picketing a
most blocked the entrance). It
not their right and is in fact v
infringement upon my rightsE
well as. those of the rest of ti
audience and participants to di
rupt the performance. Such car
not and should not be condone
-Richard L. De Lisle
Member, Ann Arbor Jaycees
March 24
Letters to the editor should
be typed triple spaced and no
longer than 300 words. All let-
ters are subject to editing, and
those over 300 words will gen-
erally be shortened. Unsigned
letters will not be printed.

9i

JOEL BLOCK, Sports Editor
ANDY BARBAS, Executive Sports Editor
BILL CUSIJMANO...... ... Associate Sports1
M FORRESTER ..... ...Associate SportsI
ROBIN WRIGHT.. . ,.Associate Sports
JOE MARKER........ ....... Contributing7

Editor
Editor
Editor
Editor

Enter due process and equal enforcement through the bay

ok door

u .L '

EDITOR'S- NOTE: In his earlier arti-
cles, Mr. Neubacher has traced the
university's so-far unsuccessful at-
tempts to establish a campus-wide
governing body, University Council,
and the conflict between students'and
faculty on the nature of that proposed
body. Today, in the final article in
his series, he discusses the formation
of a student judiciary, Central Student
Judiciary.
By JIML NEUBACHER
(Last of eThree Parts)
IN THE FALL TERM, 1967, students,
and administrators were at odds
over the judicial processes of t h e
University.
The Joint Judiciary Council, the
all-student body entrusted with final
judicial decision-making power in
cases involving non-academic behav-
ior of students, had refused to con-
vict students of violating rules not
made by students. Only SGC rules, or
rules made under authority granted
by SGC (dorm-living rules for ex-
ample) were enforced.
Administrators began to take things
into their own hands to insure their
continued control of students' lives
and politics.
In December, it was revealed that
then Vice President for Student Af-
fairs Richard Cutler had written a
letter to the administrative board of
the literary college asking that the
board discipline Voice-SDS political
party leader Karen Daenzer for her
involvement in a student protest
against military research. Cutler nev-
er told Mrs. Daenzer about the letter.
The administrative board, which in
the past had operated solely to review
academic matters such as cheating
and plagarism, refused to handle the
request by Cutler,
That did not deter administrators,
however. Director of University Hous-

Cutler-Daenzer incident. The Presi-
dential Commission on the Role of
Students in Decision-Making, which
spent more than a year devising new
University legislative and judicial
processes, saw clearly that power was
either hazily defined, or blatantly
unrestricted in the hands of adminis-
trators.
That commission, created in the
aftermath of the aborted student
power movement of Fall '66, released
its report just one year ago in March
'68.
The report recommended a cen-
tralized judicial system, with control
held by students. It further recom-
mended that students have original
jurisdiction over cases. Schools and
colleges with their own judiciaries,
especially those professional schools,
were asked to join the centralized
system.
WITH THIS REPORT in mind, the
the student-faculty ad hoc committee
on Regents' Bylaws went to work to
define a judicial system, and to set up
areas of jurisdiction and standards.
of due process and judicialfairness.
Whether the version they h a v e
created combines all of these things
is a disputable question. A violent
split exists between student and fac-
ulty members on the committee over
questions of jurisdiction, student
membership on tribunal bodies, and
the process of appeal.
There has been more of a struggle
over the judicial structure than over
any other part of the bylaws. It is a
delicate and sensitive issue. The ju-
diciary is where the ultimate power
of rule-making really exists.

ating a legislative body for the Uni-
versity as a whole, the committee had
recognized the principle that there
are specialized interest groups with-
in the framework of the University.
There must, in addition to the Uni-
versity-wide rule-making body, be a
student government, with sole re-
sponsibility for and authority over
those activities and concerns of
strictly a student nature, the com-
mission felt.
The commission also recognized
that the faculties of the individual
schools and colleges must be given
the sole power to manage those af-
fairs pertinent only to faculty mem-
bers.
But the concept of school and col-
lege autonomy is not, and was never
intended to be, equal to the antiquat-
ed but practiced concept of faculty
dictatorship over events and proce-
dures in a given school. The decis-
ion-making commission had insisted
that students be given a say in all
matters of a departmental nature af-
fecting them.
At the school and college level, the
commission report specifically stated
that students should have participa-
tion in judicial procedures.
DESPITE THE WORK of, a year,
the ad hoc committee has left unde-
fined the legislative and judicial
rights of students on the school and
college level. Instead, it has devised
a plan which outlines a University-
wide judiciary, but makes no guaran-
tee that students will have a say in
the judicial system at the school and
college level.
This plan for a University-wide ju-

Student Judiciary should be an all
student group. This body would have
original jurisdiction over cases aris-
ing under rules proposed by the Uni-
versity Council, a University-w i d e
rule-making body of students, fac-
ulty, and administrators.
The CSJ would be established
through SGC, or by referendum of
the student body.
Under the plan written from the
faculty viewpoint by P r o f. Robert
Knauss of the Law School, the CSJ
would hear appeals from lower tri-
bunals, like dormitory and student
organization judiciaries, with one
limitation; although the CSJ has the
power to make the final decision in
these cases, it cannot do so w h e n
hearing a case appealed from the ju-
dicial body of a school or college.
In such a case, "if the Central Stu-
dent Judiciary finds a lack of judicial
fairness or due process, it shall re,
mand the case to the school or col-
lege for a new hearing," the Knauss
draft states.
Under the plan wi'itten by students,
the CSJ would be able to make a fi-
nal decision in all cases. It would be
the supreme judicial body on campus.
Students on the ad hoc committee
feel the Knauss plan is simply an ex-
cuse to propagate faculty control of
students, especially in the light of
the guarantees for student voice in
school and college rule-making.
NEITHER VERSION is acceptable,
at this point in the negotiations, to
the other side. Students have verb-
ally degraded the faculty version of
the judicial system in the most ex-
plicit terms, while the faculty gen-

tion that is astounding, looked at
Westerdale with resignation, and
told him quietly that the student ver-
sion was just as unacceptable.
"To submit decisions of a mixed
student-faculty board for appeal to
an all student judiciary is unaccep-
table to the faculty," he said.
THUS, negotiations h a v e reached
an impasse. Students are insisting
on a final appeal to the all-student
CSJ, because they are fearful schools
and colleges will not allow students
enough voice in judicial matters on
that level.
Faculty members, assuming t h a t
school and college judiciaries will be
"mixed," refuse to allow their voice
in matters to go down the drain. Both
sides have taken a position based on
mutual distrust and basic fear.
The solution to the-problem is not
an easy one. Each way one turns,
there is a problem. Any proposal that
solves one segment of the problem
violates another equally important
concept.'
The idea of an all-student CSJ is
basic to the plan. Student representa-
tives would m o s t likely refuse to
agree to any plan not including this
provision.
EQUALLY IMPORTANT, however,
is the concept of school and college
autonomy. Faculty members feel that
decisions by a University-wide body
of students will certainly not be made
on the same basis as those made by
a mixed board of students and fac-
ulty, all from the same college. This,
they feel, amounts to having some-
one on the outside telling them how

aries will always be of a mixed na-
ture, students are justifiably suspect.
Unfortunately, this problem has
been handled with a "back door" ap-
proach in both the student and fac-
ulty drafts. The provisions under the
section of due process and judicial
fairness declare that no students
shall 'be tried before any judiciary
except those created by duly con-
stituted governments.
The definition of a duly constituted
government is a government whose
legislative body includes all of those
governed, or allows all segments of
the governed community to have a
voice in affairs.
THE SOLUTION to the current
impasse over the judicial system
would seem to be this: students must
be very explicitly guaranteed sub-
stantial voting representation on
school and college rule-making and
judicial bodies.

With this explicitly stated, those
rules made by a school or college
could be enforced by the school or
college.
As it stands now in the student
draft, the decisions of any body can
only be appealed to CSJ when viola-
tions of due process or judicial fair-
ness occur.
Thus, the CSJ, under the faculty
plan would still be able to rule on
whether judicial fairness h a s been
ignored. However, it would have to
allow the student faculty board that
made the decision to reconsider the
case according to standards set forth
by CSJ.
THIS SOLUTION really helps pre-
serve the integrity, of the school and
college judiciaries.
And although students would not
have final say over the decision, they
would have substantial influence,
both on the actual tribunal of deci-
sian, and in the process of insuring
student rights.
Both students and faculty will be
forced to compromise a bit in order
to accept this solution. Both should
realize, however, that it preserves
both of their goals.
Further, this would not limit the
power of the all-student CSJ to hear
cases from lower student judiciaries.
It would also not impair the right
of the CSJ to hear originally those
cases arising under University Coun-
cil rules. This is the most important
function of the CSJ, since the Uni-
versity Council is responsible for
those rules of conduct pertaining to
campus demonstrations, and student
conduct at University events.
IT ISCRUICIAL thait sonmecorn-

ti

SI

J

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan