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 28, 1969 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1969-03-28

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

.. . .

I

T4r 1Mir ial Dail
Seventy-eight years of editor il freedom
Edited and ;managed by students of the University of Michigan

Closing coffers to college protesters

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 of! reprints.

FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1969

NIGHT EDITOR: DANIEL ZWERDLING

Flemings meddling:
Student power i n court

PRESIDENT FLEMING'S letter censur-
ing students who participated in
Tuesday's five-hour detention of a navy
recruiter may have dire consequences for
the future of campus protest.
The President's decision to pre-empt
hnraged engineering students and press
charges against "a number" of protesters
comes as a challenge-to Student Govern-
ment Council's legislative legitimacy and
Central Student Judiciary's jurisdiction.
It is irrelevant to argue that'Fleming
(as an administrator) had no business
pressing charges against the students.
As Fleming pointed out, the pro-
test clearly defied civil, University, and
even SGC law. Although he was inten-
tionally meddling in student affairs, the
President was only doing what some en-
gineering student would have done sooner
or later.
However, at first glance, it appears that
the President may be running scared,
trying to appease the hostile legislature
which is denying fiscal favors to univer-
sities harboring truantf students.
But the University has not been
plagued with disruption under Fleming's
administration, and the President is not
given to bending under legislative pres-
sure anyway. It appears his move is
aimed mbre at i fluencing intra-mural
affairs--specifically, the recent consider-
ation by the student-faculty bylaw com-
mittee of the validity of students judging
their peers.f
At this crucial juncture in the consider-
ation of how power should be distributed
in the University, Fleming's move comes
as a challenge to the legitimacy of stu-
dent power.
IN A DEFT and timely political move, the
President has made an issue where
Central Student Judiciary would probably
rather not see one. He has lodged a legiti-
mate complaint against what he con-
siders to be a disruptive protest, but has
accepted the student judiciary's rightful
jurisdiction in the case.
Had the President allowed police to
intervene and arrest the protesters-as
some engin students wished -he would
have drawn the official wrath of several
student and faculty groups. But by grant-
ing jurisdiction to the body where most
students seem to agree it belongs, Flem-

ing has created an embarrassing and
perplexing dilemma for the judiciary.
If the judiciary fails to censure the pro-
testers, it will be ignoring duly considered
student rules and will discredit itself im
the eyes of m'any administrators and
faculty at precisely the mroment when an
ad hoc bylaw committee is considering
the validity of investing judicial power in
an all student group.
However, if the judiciary censures the,
students to the limit of the law, it will be
endorsing penalty for conscientious acts
of protest-even those which involve no
personal injury or destruction of property.
This would be illiberal and intolerable.
THE JUDICIARY must meet the chal-
lenge head-on. As a sort of campus
Supreme Court, CSJ must of course recog-
nize the letter of the valid student-pre-
scribed law and convict the students of
breaking it. But at the same time, the
judiciary should exercise its prerogative
to interpret and appraise the sit-in ban.
The judiciary body should discredit the
legitimacy of a , student rule banning
conscientious, non-violent protest by giv-
ing protesters light sentences.
SGC would then be forced to reconsider
the controversial sit-in ban it recently
upheld. Those protests which only force
secretaries to walk over protesters or
which hold up recruiting for a few hours
cannot be classed as violently disruptive
or harmful.
While it may be argued that the recent
protest infringed on the rights of stu-
dents seeking. consultation with recruit-
ers, it cannot be said that the protesters
were excessively belligerent in attitude or
behavior. Indeed, counter-demonstrators
apparently caused most trouble Tuesday.
If demonstrators are to be condemned
for acting before exhausting existing
channels, engineering students' vigilant-
ism is to be equally deplored.
THE STUDENT judiciary can render
little service by yielding to those who
wish to completely pardon or harshly
punish demonstrators. Rather, CSJ must
use its power to encourage reconsidera-
tion of the University's recruitment and
disciplinary policies.
- HENRY GRIX
Editor

By JOHN ZEII
College Press service
STUDENTS RECEIVING or hop-
ing to receive financial assis-
tance from t he federal govern-
ment to help pay college expenses
and are worried about losing it
by participating in a campus dem-
onstration should heed recent ac-
tion by the federal government.
Participation in a sit-in could
be grounds for denying aid to stu-
dents getting money from the fol-
lowing programs: National De-
fense Education Act (NDEA) loans,
Educational Opportunity Grants,
Federally-guaranteed loans, Col-
lege Work-Study, government fel-
lowships, National Science Foun-
dation (NSF) and National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration
(NASA) grants.
The Nixon Administration has
formally brought to the attention
of college administrators provis-
ions of two acts passed by the last
Congress. While the President feels
the academic community, not the
government, should perserve cam-
pus peace, he clearly intends to
have the laws enforced. The John-
son Administration chose to look
the other way because of the con-
fusion in this sensitive area.
THE FIRST Congressional act
pertinent to campus unrest is the
1969 appropriations bill for t h e
department of Health, Education,
and Welfare (HEW), which pro-
vides the money for the programs
mentioned above.
The lawmakers attached a pro-
vision that says "no part of the
funds .. shall be used" for aid
to any student or faculty member
"convicted by any court of general
jurisdiction of the use of or as-
sistance in the use of force, tres-
pass, seizure Qf property under
control" of the college "to pre-
vent officials or students from en-
gaging in their duties or pursuing
studies."
So the school's financial aid of-
fice has anobligation to deny aid
during fiscal 1969 if you disrupt
campus life and are convicted of
a crime during the disruption. If it
wants to withhold aid or an appli-
cation while a case is pending, it
can.
Aid cut-off is mandatory and
automatic only upon conviction of
a crime.

NIXON'S STAND has for the mo-
ment laid to rest the question of
direct federal intervention on
troubled campuses. But the pro-
visions his statement says will be
enforced are under discussion in
the House higher education sub-
committee chaired by Rep. Edith
Green 'tD-Ore.).
The Green committee has heard
testimony for and against aid cut-
off. Noted psychologist Bruno Bet-
tleheim argued that measures tak-
en to ease campus unrest should
not be punitive. He warned that
undesirable repressive measures
might be imposed to prevent chaos
and severe counterreaction to
campus protests and said the
greatest danger of student protest
is a possible "fascist-type back-
lash," not protest itself.
Representatives of the National
Education Association and its
student affiliate SNEA called for
repeal of the provisions because
they are "vague, unenforceable,
unduly repressive, and unjust."
"Rather than trying to put down
student unrest," said NEA staff
assistant Mel Myler, "we should
be searching for student participa-
tion in- decision-making of the
university a reality everywhere."
The committee is continuing its
hearings so it can decide what to
do with the aid cut-off provisions
on the books,

4

4

IF SOMEONE participates in a
protest but is not arrested, a pro-
vision of amendments to the High-
er Education Act of 1968 applies,
He can be denied only if his school
determines that he "willfully re-
fused to obey (its) lawful regula-
tion or order and that the refusal
"was of a serious nature and con-
tributed to a substantial disrup-
tion of the administration" of the
institution. The school can decide
whether it wants to investigate,
and could determine innocence by
liberallydefining the terms "ser-
ious" refusal and "substantial dis-
ruption." If it determines guilt,
aid must be denied for two years.
The amendments also carry a
provision requiring aid cut-offif
the school determines that a stu-
dent has been convicted of a
crime such as that under the ap-
propriations act. But this section
is apparently superceded by the
mandatory cut-off in the appro-
priations act.
When the two acts were passed
last fall, educators issued 1 o u d
cries of interference with academic
freedom and integrity Recogniz-
ing their insistence in indepen-
dence President Nixon tempered
his expected "law 'n order on the
campus" statement delivered more
than a week after he had promised
it. He issued a dire warning with
a mild prescription that the uni-
versitiesrshould keep their own
houses in order.

He began by calling the so-call-
ed anti-riot provisions of the two
acts "moderate . . . and justified"
by underscoring the need to pro-
tect society from assaults on the
processes of free inquiry. But he
said there is a second issue "of far
greater concern: the preservation
of the integrity, the independence,
and the creativity of our institu-
tions of higher learning."
He went on to warn that cam-
pus violence is threatening aca-
demic freedom in America, saying
"the federal government cannot
should not, must not," become the
nation's campus peace - keeper.
"That," he said, "is fundamentally
the task and responsibility of the
university community."
NIXON MADE NO mention of
intended federal prosecution of
radicals who cross state lines to
foment disorders, a possibility that
has been ,discussed in the Attorney
General's office.
He said he has directed H.E.W.
to "launch newainitiatives toward
easing tensions in our educational
community. And the President
took note of "depersonalization of
the educational experience." "Oth-
er institutions," he said, "must re-
shape themselves lest this turns
to total alienation. There must be.
university reform including new
experimentation in curricula such
as ethnic studies, student involve-
ment in the decision-making pro-'

cess and a new emphasis on fac-
ulty teaching."
The President noted that "stu-
dent unrest does n o t exist in a
vacuum but reflects a growing so-
cial unrest affecting much of our
world today. Self-righteous indig-
nation by society will solve none
of this. We must resolve the inter-
nal contradictions of our commun-
ities."
The delay in issuing the state-
ment presumably was caused by
disagreement over how h a r d a
stand to take and deciding just
what the federal government can
do.

Fleig ssesses SC

To the Editor:\
WOULD not normally enter
into a discussion of the proces-
ses of student government, but at
a time when students are seeking
to impress the faculty, adminis-
tration and Regents with the de-
sirability of greater student parti-
cipation in the governing process,
someone needs to point out some
of, the glaring weaknesses in the
present form of student govern-
ment. If 'I take the lead perhaps
others, whether they agree or dis-
agree, will join the dialogue.
In the original election for the
current group of student govern-
ment officers, less than one-quar-
ter of the eligible students voted.
In the run-off election, The Daily
reports that 1336 students, out of
some 28,000 eligible voters, cast
their ballot for the winning can-
didate. Only 2852 students voted
for both of the run-off candidates.
All of the talk about "over-
whelming candidates," h i g h 1 y
satisfactory turnout under the cir-
cumstances," etc., does not fool
anyone. A much more impressive
case can be made for the view
that students are largely uninter-
ested in their present government-.
al structure than that it is repre-
sentative of them.
A YEAR AGO it appeared that
a sufficient number of students
were conscious of the deficiencies
in the present form of student
government to undertake some re-
forms. In a referendum vote, it
was decided to have a constitu-
tional convention to consider re-
structuring student government.

Such a convention was called, but
no progress was made and the ef-
fort was abandoned. So far as I
know, there is now no conce."red
effort to revamp the structure to
make it more representative.
The students might do well to
look at the resolution which the
faculty found for a very similar
problem. Experience showed that
the Senate meetings were poorly
attended, that anything like full
participation in meeting a'as not
possible, and that the "town meet-
ing" style of government owlside
the college was not viable.
Accordingly, a study was un-
dertaken which resulted in the
present Senate Assembly type of
organization. The Senate, which
meets only once or twice a year,
still consists of all eligible fabulty
members. The meaningful faculty
action is taken in the Assembly,
with some powers of control re-
maining in the Senate.
THERE ARE, on the Ann AA bor
campus 15 schools and colleges.
Most of them have student govern-
ment organizations in the college.
As things stand, those organiza-
tions are naturally closer to prob-
lems which interest students tho n
in SGC. It is hard to see how a
centraltstudent government is
going to be meaningful, in the
sense that it can claim to repre-
sent large segments of the student
body, until it finds some mechan-
ism which draws direct represen-
tation from the colleges.
There are those who will say
that voting patterns in general
student elections are no worse

than in the larger society, This is
not an answer, it is only a com-
mentary on the sad state of par-
ticipation in other kinds of elec-
tions.
THE POINT IS THAT students
are now trying to convince the
faculty and the rest of us that
thy deserve a more meaningful
role in the governance of the uni-
versity. Many of us are trying to
view that question with open
minds and to find ways in which
students can have a meaningful
involvement. It does not help to
pretend that all the problems are
with the faculty and the admin-
istration. Students complain that
the faculty and the administra-
tion react defensively when the
status quo is attacked, and that
they3 ought to be innovative and
imaginative enough to see a nlew
era and respond to it. Is it too
much to suggest that a real part
of the difficulty is that students
too frequently react defensively
when it is pointed out that their
governmental structure is obso-
lete?
IN THE HOPE that this com-
munication will cause others to
comment, I am sending copies of
it to the presidents of the various
college government organizations,
SGC, SACUA, and others. I hope
they will state their views, what-
ever they may be. I do not see a
representative student component
of an academic community devel-
oping out of the present student
government structure.
-President Robben W. Fleming
March 27

Retaining the! war tax

Steve anzalone
SDS and Che"
in quiet desperation
YES, VIRGINIA, THERE still is an SDS chapter at the University,
and it's gasping for life.
Many people had forgotten about SDS until the other day when it
was reported that the organization had summoned the vitality to
detain a Navy recruiter at the Engit school for five hours. SDS had
been practically unheard from since election day, when their aborted
student strike enticed almost nobody to boycott classes to protest the
election and the war.
SDS has gone a long way toward building the kind of broad-based
revolutionary movement that its members feel can rebuild American
society. A total of 25 peole showed up to harass the Navy recruiter,
doubling the turnout at a confrontation with a recruiter from Litton
Industries in January.
The local chapter has become nothing more than a clandestine
bandit clique. Its leadership po-
tential on clampus is now virtually
nil. Last semester, although the
election day strike did not get stu-
dents to stay out of classes, SDS
did manage to muster large num-
bers at the marches, and even at-
tracted 2,000 people to President
Fleming's lawn to "discuss" mili-
tary research. Today, SDS would
have trouble getting a large turn-
out at an orgy.
THE SIGNS OF SDS's demise
from a corps of radical leaders to
a guerrilla band were seen last
fall during the internal fight that
split Voice into the Radical Caucus
and Ann Arbor SDS.
The Jesse James Gang faction
that eventually took control of
the local SDS chapter demon-
strated itself to be really uninter-
ested in campus issues, except for
the possible exception of disrupt-
ing classrooms.
The radical leadership function on campus was taken over by the
Radical Caucus, which built itself up on the language requirement issue.
At present, SDS is trying to recruit support on the issues of militarism,
one at which students thumbed their noses by defeating the classified
research last year.
SDS's lack of sensitivity to campus politics was well illustrated
during one of their marathon rap sessions before the election strike.
When discussing ways to attract students to the rally at Fleming's
house, several members suggested a torchlight march to protest the
University's complicity in the death of Che Guevara.
There were enough realists to convince their naive brethren that
apathetic University students could hardly be rallied to mourn the
death of Che Guevara.
THE LACK OF INSIGHT INTO campus politics is part of a larger
myopic vision of the political realities of the nation.
At a debate between local Congressional candidates last fall, Bert
Garskof, the New Politics candidate, chided the Socialist Labor Party's
candidate because his "following" would vote for George Wallace for
President.
But it is just this segment of society that SDS expects to attract
to its radical movement. Time and again, discussions at SDS gatherings
naively and foolishly turn to tactics for radicalizing and organizing the
working class.
It is really pathetic that SDS, which cannot even radicalize stu-
dents, could delude itself into believing that it will never make any
inroads into the conservative ranks of labor.
* * * *
BUT THE LOCAL SDS chapter has other troubles besides its lack
of political insight: It is now totally lacking in effective leadership.
It is ironic that lack of leadership is paralyzing the old James
Gang, which originally clashed with people like Eric Chester and Bruce
Levine over the contention that the leadership structure of Voice
prevented political action.
The Gang only paid lip service to the non-leadership idea of par-
ticipatory democracy. People like Bill Ayers and Jim Mellen know well
that revolutions are not waged without strong leaders, and they im-
mediately took the reins of the Jesse James Gang.
But Ayers and Mellen now spend little time in Ann Arbor. They
are regional SDS workers and travel to where the action is. Mellen, who
has a Ph.D in political science, is rapidly shaking off his local ano-
nymity and is acquiring the status of a featured speaker both here
and elsewhere.
Without the leadership of Ayers and Mellen, the local SDS chapter
has been able to handle litle more than an occasional guerrilla theater
skit. But even without strong leaders, we can probably expect SDS to
produce more small insurrections like Monday's confrntation with
the naval recruiter.
IT PROBABLY doesn't make any difference whether SDS tries to

pv

4'

PRESIDENT NIXON'S proposals for an
all-out campaign againstI' inflation
make surprisingly good economic sense,
but they are doomed to failure if the
President remains as unwilling as he now
seems to pursue singlemindedly the goal
of economic stability.
It is gratifying to see modern economic
theory so enthusiastically espoused by a
President whose roots lie in the halcyon
era of the good solid Republican balanced
budget. Considering that it took the na-
tion's top economists almost two years to
convince the much more liberal and in-
tellectualized President Kennedy to un-
derstand Keynsian theory and to accept
responsibility for an erlightened fiscal
policy, it is cheering to find the Republi-
can grocer's son accepting and defending"
that same theory six years later without
batting an eyelash.
Nixon and his advisers hope that if
taxes are kept high, consumers will have
less money to spend on goods and serv-
ices. This will lower demand and take
some of the pressure off prices. At the
same time, reduced government spending
will, it is hoped, also reduce prices by
cutting demand.
WHETHER OR NOT these policies work
depends largely on how able the
Administration is to stick to them in the
face of political and other pressures.
Should Nixon's measures prove effec-
tive in combatting inflation, unemploy-
Orthodoxy
YESTERDAY THE New York Times
showed its modernity by calling the
success or failure of the President's anti-
inflitinn nrno'ram " tst of nrthndn

ment is almost sure to increase. And since
most of , the marginal workers who will
lose their jobs are black, or young, or
both, pressures in the already seething
ghettos of the nation's cities may make.
the next summer even more of a night-
mare than the last. Furthermore, as the
rate of unemployment climbs, the Admin-
istration will be under increasing pressure
from the unions to attack the unemploy-
ment problem - through relaxing the
anti-inflation measures.
But even if the President is able to
remain firm in the face of such pressures,
it is unlikely that the anti-inflation
campaign can be truly successful while
the major cause of that inflation con-
tinues unchecked.
THAT CAUSE is, of course, the war in
Vietnam.
As the Paris peace talks drag on, the
Administration gives increasing indica-
tions that the war will continue at least
the present level for some time to come.
Further expenditures in Vietnam, as well
as the Vietnam-linked expenditures at
home, will continue to aggravate domes-
tic inflation and endanger the stability
of the dollar in the international mone-
tary markets.
Even if military expenditures-soon to
include upwards of $7 billion to be spent
on the misbegotten ABM project-do not
increase faster than Nixon is able to
direct funds away from vitally needed
domestic programs, Nixon's anti-inflation
scheme must still be condemned on the
grounds that a total reduction of govern-
ment spending, occurring at the same
time that military expenditures are on
the rise, can only mean that a greater
proportion of the federal budget is being
allocated to the military.

14

;: !

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan