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.

July 23, 1964 - Image 2

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1964-07-23

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

UI1r £idriijan Daigy
&Sety-Third Year
.Em A wpMxxAAmEDBYSTUvmNTs of n THUNrvpasrrTT of' MxCHmm
xNDER AUTHORmTYof BoerD IN CoNTRnOL opSTUDE~NT PURLICflONS
r nWiPreae. STUDENT PUBiJCATiOqs BLDG., AmN ARBOR, MICH., PHowE No 2-3241

NEW YORK TIMES STATEMENT

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

._.,__

"I

IMRSDAY, JULY 23, 1964

NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT HIPPLER

Dormitory Rate Hike Reveals
Autocracy of 'U' Leaders

JHE IMPERIAL RULERS of the Uni-
versity have made a mockery of them-
selves and the enlightened institution
they purport to govern.
The methods to raise dormitory rates
34 used by Vice-Presidents Pierpont and
ews and encouraged by the Regents
have been a startling blend of illegal-
ty, hypocrisy and indifference.
Their methods of hiking the rates
ire a violation of procedures outlined in
Regental bylaws for setting these fees.
Their methods are a hypocritical
ontradiction of statements made last
all decrying the rising cost of education.
Their methods reveal an indifference
o students who were entirely bypassed in
he decision-making process.'
['HE $34 DORMITORY rate increase
was made at the June Regents meet-
ng. At that time, Pierpont submitted a
'esidence hall budget which surpassed
his year's in expenses by four per cent.
Ihe Regents approved it, aware that a
oncomitant dormitory hike would ac-
ompany it. This action violated Regents
3ylaw 30.02 which requires the Residence
all Board of Governors to approve all
ate changes prior to Regental considera-
ion.
The board of governors, due to its di
erse composition, Is a valuable channel
or student, faculty and administrator
pinion and decision on the running of
esidence units. But in this case, neither
he legal right to decide nor the moral
ight to opine was preserved.
[HE ILLEGALITY sprung from Pier..
pont's tactics.
Since he didn't have unique control
ver rate-setting, Pierpont took advan-
age of his unchecked power to decide
udgets. He sent a record residence hall
udget to the Regents which had a four
er cent deficit (or $34 per student) in
nticipated revenues. In the self-support-
spotLedership
W YORK REPUBLICAN Senators
Kenneth Keating and Jacob Javits
ave announced that they will not sup-
ort GOP presidential nominee Barry
roldwater unless he changes some of his
Lews. They also say they will not sup-
ort President Johnson..
If Goldwater's views don't change be-
ore the election, an interesting ques-
on will arise. For whom, if anyone, will
svits and Keating vote? They evidently
on'i vote for Goldwater or Johnson. It
esn't seem likely that they would vote
r the candidate of a minor party. More
Icely, they won't vote at all. Presum-
bly, they would like other Republicans
do the same.
It should be interesting to see if they
)th also condemn voter apathy after
ie returns are in.
-E. HERSTEIN
Editorial Staff
INNETH WINTER ..................... Co-Editor
)WARD HERSTEIN.................... C-Editor
ARY LOU BUToHER.....Associate Editor
CARLES TOWLE ................ sports Editor
Publised daily Tuesday through Sunday morning.
rning. Subscription rates $2 by carrier, $2.50 by mal
Pubilshed daily Tuesday through Saturday morning.
immer subscription rates $2 by carrier, $2.50 by mail.
second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Mich.

ing residence hall system, the only source
of revenue is students. The logical re-
sult: rates would have to be hiked.
Pierpont's financial gyrations thus re-
duced the residence board's approval
power to an echo. The question of wheth-
er the board would approve the hike now
became the meaningless prospect of ap-
proving a fact after the fact.
MEANWHILE, James Lewis, vice-presi-
dent for student affairs, had support-
ed Pierpont's illegality with some shrewd
underhandedness. Even though he had
suspected for months that the rates were
going to be hiked, Lewis also knew that
Pierpont would engineer the hikes
through the deficit spending method.
Thus, he reasoned, why inform the board
at all? He did convene it only once-in
April-to discuss North Campus dormi-
tories. He didn't breathe a word about the
possibility of dormitory hikes.
After illegality and deception came hy-
pocrisy. Last fall the Regents stoutly pro-
claimed their intention to fight the ris-
ing cost of learning. At that time they
were concerned lest the state Legislature
forced them into a position where they
might have to levy tuition hikes.
BUT THAT WAS last November when
lots of students were around and here
it was June and trimester had sent them
all home. Besides, Pierpont's budget didn't
say anything about residence hall fees.
It only asked for a budget increase. It
didn't discuss where the money was to
come from. They passed the budget, pri-
vately deciding to let the residence hall
business manager quietly announce the
hikes in July.
Thus had they hypocritically condemn-
ed others for trying to force the infla-
tion which they now created.
BUT ILLEGALITY and hypocrisy are
not the only issue here. The Regents
could, at any time, amend their bylaws
and empower Pierpont to dictate rates-
legally.,
What Is more disturbing is the indiffer-
ence with which the Regents slide over
their own bylaws and encourage auto-
cratic administrators to stay that way.
Pierpont understood what his powers
were and weren't, but was more interest-
ed in financial expediency. He didn't
want to tangle with the board of gov-
ernors over what he seemed to feel only
his Office of Business and Finance had
jurisdiction.
LEWIS SHRUGGED OFF the blame by
saying, "Maybe I should have con-
vened the board." He did make token ef-
forts to discuss the impending rate
changes with older members, but did not
take up the issue with either of the
board's student representatives.
As for the Regents, it is clear that they
mean neither what they say nor what
they write. If they feel restricted by their
bylaws, perhaps some new ones are in or-
der. However, breaking constitutions is a
role left for dictators, not educators.
THE MACHINATIONS involved in set-
ting dormitory rates are an indignity
not only to the students who must pay
them, but to the men who set them. The
Regents and two vice-presidents have ab-
dicated their responsibilities as leaders
of an intellectual community.
-LAURENCE KIRSHBAUM

Refuti
EDITO'S NOTE: This is the third
in a series of articles analyzing the
Republican convention.
By MICHAEL HARRAH
RECENTLY the New York Times
gave us the first assembled
statement of "The Case Against
Goldwater," which does the nation
a real service, for now it can be
refuted once and for all.
Says the Times:
Why should the Republican
National Convention nominate
someone other than Senator
Goldwater for President?
Good question; why should they?
* * *
The bill of particulars could
be lengthy, but it might be sum-
med up thus: Goldwater is so
reactionary a politicalan achron-
ism, out of step with his party
as well as with the times we live
In.
Now this assumes something in-
sidious: First it presumes that
Goldwater is reactionary by defini-
tion, which is far from an estab-
lished fact. Second, it presumes
that being reactionary is a bad
thing, and that is far from a
proven fact, too. Third, it asserts
that Goldwater is out of step with
his party, which, in light of his
overwhelming nomination, would
appear to be untrue. Fourth, it
asserts that he is out of step with
the times as though that were a
proven fact, which it isn't.
* * *
On domestic policy he is so
obsessed with a fealty to states'
rights that he would forbid the
federal government solutions of
problems that cannot be met
without Congressional action.
Not so. In his book, "Conscience
of a Conservative," Goldwater spe-
cifically says that Congress can
and should handle those problems
the constitution specifically allows
it to handle, but "the Constitution
does not empower the Congress
to act upon a number of vital
problems of government."
* * *
On foreign policy he is given
to impulsive, reckless state-
ments, a characteristic. that
would be frighteningly dan-
gerous in a President.
Many Presidents have been giv-
en to strong statements, many of
them impulsive. One fails to see
how that necessarily makes them
reckless. Daring, perhaps, but not
reckless. Theodore Roosevelt, one
of our most successful Presidents
in the area of foreign affairs, was
always popping up with a strong
statement of some sort. Eisen-
hower's Secretary of State; John
Foster Dulles,actively practiced
brinksmanship, which is another
name for strong statements and
positions.
Even more dangerous are his
apparently considered views on
military control of nuclear
weapons, on the means of
achieving "victory" over Com-
munism, on the relations of the
United States with its friends
abroad, not to mention its ene-
mies.
Well, that's one opinion. Many
Republicans did not agree during
the recent convention.
* * *
These views, if translated into
action, could be catastrophic for
the nation and the world.
Or they could be salvation, de-
pending upon how you look at it
and how things come out. One is
no more unlikely than the other.
* * *
Senator Goldwater's voting
record, and his remarks from
time to time, reveal repugnance
for use of governmental author-

ity for the good of the people,
especially the underprivileged,
that makes him, however hu-
mane personally, an obstacle to
social justice and equality of
rights.
Just who defines "the good of
the people?" Congress? The Presi-
dent? The Secretary of Health,
Education and Welfare? And who
is to say where the "good" stops
and the "bad" starts? And since
when is social justice achieved by
denying the civil rights of one
group to further those of another?
And who is to say who is under-

* * *,
He is so mercurically change-
able in his opinions, denying,
correcting, modifying or qualify-
ing today what he said yes-
terday, that any hope of con-
sistency of convictions or pro-
grams is discouraged.
Nonsense. What Senator Gold-
water is reported to have said
today is in great degree a func-
tion of what some reporter decid-
ed he said. Now certainly he has
changed and modified some posi-
tions. Don't we all? But basically
he still hews quite close to his
original theories as outlined in
"Conscience of a Conservative."
His acceptance speech could have
been lifted right from the book.
We choose for illustration
some of his votes and views, in
many of which he departed from
most of his Republican col-
leagues in Conress.
Or most of his Republican col-
leagues departed from him, de-
pending on howyou want to look
at it.
As Senator Javits recently
pointed out, of 25 major issues
specifically favored by the Re-
publican Platform of 1960, Sen-
ator Goldwater was in opposi-
tion on all 25.
And on 25 major issues specifi-
cally favored by the Republican
Platform of 1964, Senator Javits
was in opposition on all 25, and
I'd say that the latest platform is
a more-up-to-date version of GOP
principles.
* * *
He voted against cloture of
debate on the civil rights bill
and against the bill itself.
How true!
* * *
He has consistently been
against government-aided public
housing, against federal aid to
education.
He's also against involuntary
servitude, non-free education, and
concentration camps.
M * #
He voted "no" on the anti-
poverty program.
Just like the Democrats voted
on Republican attempts to cut the
budget.
- #
He opposed federal aid to
mass transportation and was
against the youth employment
bill.
He's also against nationalizing
railroads and airlines and restrict-
ing employment opportunities for
anyone, no matter what age.
* * *
He opposed the railroad arbri-
tration bill.
Goldwater opposed this bill as
unwarranted federal intervention
in the affairs of labor and man-
agement.
# * .
He voted against ratification
of the limited nuclear test-ban
treaty.
Concerned with America's mili-
tary preparedness, he's not like
the legendary little pigs who built
those houses of sticks and straw,
so easy for the wolf to blow down.
#
He has consistently stood
against foreign economic aid
and extension and liberalization
of reciprocal trade.
Not so. he has consistently held
that foreign aid and trade which
advance the national interests of
America are quite right and pro-
per. In "Conscience of a Con-
servative," he says "of course all
of us are interested in combating
poverty and disease wherever it
exists. But our Constitution does
not empower the government to
undertake that job in foreign
countries, no matter how worth-
while it might be. Therefore, ex-
cept as it can be shown to pro-
mote America's national interests,

the foreign aid program is un-
constitutional."

ng 'The Case Against Goldwater'
privileged? One could go on and
on; Senator Goldwater's point,
which the New York Times seems
unable to grasp, is that however
necessary these reforms may be,
the Constitution simply does not
empower the federal government
to undertake them.£ LVI ' w i

S,
4 .
i
kC
.)
A x~

,
'
;t:
F
5%
F
fit;
Ef:
, .dpi
. w
L

_.. ,

He voted against the Mc-
Carthy censure resolution and;
later said that "because Joe
McCarthy lived, we are a safer,
freer, more vigilant nation to-
day."
Yes, he voted against censure-
on principle. He, doesn't believe
in censuring people. But he has
since allowed that McCarthy's ac-
tions were not wholly in good
taste. As for his. above endorse-
ment, one would be hard put to
say that McCarthy was not suc-
cessful in making us aware of the
danger of Communism.
*1 * *
*ere are some instances of
talking off the top of the head
and then back-tracking: In 1960
he said, "I have always favored
withdrawing recognition from
Russia." Later he made it: "The
possibility of recognition'should
be maintained as a bargaining
device."
Those two seem to be consistent.
In the first he states his own
personal opinion that he would
favor withdrawing Russian rec-
ognition, and in the second he
gives his opinion that this non-
recognition ought to be used as
a club over the Russian's heads.
He doesn't say that, just because
he is in favor of withdrawing
recognition, it should necessarily
be done tomorrow. He doesn't say
that, just because we ought to use
non-recognition as a club over
the Russian's heads, it actually
would mean that he favors con-
tinuing recognition.
In 1961 he advocated imme-
diate United States withdrawal
from the United Nations, then
he was willing to stay in unless
Red China was admitted.
What he actually said was "I
fear that our involvement in the
United Nations may be leading
to an unconstitutional surrender
of American sovereignty. With-
drawal from the UN ... is prob-
ably not the answer. For a num-
ber of reasons that course is un-
feasible." He went on to say that
admission of Red China to the UN
would be to sanction their bel-
licose policies, a clear violation of
the letter and the spirit of the
UN charter, and America could
not afford to be a party to. it.
And there are 500 members of
Congress and government officials,
including liberal Democrats, who
publically subscribe to that posi-,
tion.
* * *
He was for selling off the
TVA, then he retreated some-
what.
What he actually said was that
the TVA should not be a per-
manent government operation and
eventually it should be sold off.
His "retreat" consisted of pro-
posing that some of its subsidiary

of one man's income than an-
other's violates our sense of jus-
tice and equality-it amounts to
discrimination on the basis of suc-
cess. Therefore, in the ideal, he
would be opposed to a graduated=,
income tax. However, to be com-
pletely practical, he has acknowl-
edged that the graduated in come
tax could not be repealed tomor-
row; rather it would be a slow
process, and he would favor that
method of repeal only. Any con-
fusion over his position. comes
from conflicting newspaper re-
ports, and not what Goldwater
has said.
Although he once said that
"Government has a right to
claim an equal percentage of
each man's wealth and no
more," he now no longer prom-
ises to support a flat rate tax,
regardless of size of income.
He never did promise to sup-
port it. He has said time and time
again that the graduated tax is
so entrenched that it will take a
long-reaching process of removal,
to repeal it without upsetting the
economy.
He has criticized the Social
Security system, sometimes vot-
ing against expanding it, some-
times voting to liberalize bene-
fits, often advocating making it
voluntary, then, on being criti-'
cized for that by Governor
Rockefeller, took it back.
Goldwater is not an inhumane
man. He knows full well that so-
cial security is the only means of
support for some eldery people
who had come to believe that their
social security would provide for
their old age and now find that
it is pitifully inadequate. So he
has voted to ease their lot, which
was imposed upon them against
their will and which. has misled
them. Still, he criticizes the system
for just this, misleading the people
on what it will provide, among
other things. However, being op-
posed to this form of hidden taxa-
tion, he has always voted to con-
tain it so that it doesn't get any
further out of hand than is ab-
solutely necessary in the name of
humanity and decency. As for re-
treating when Rockefeller chal-
lenged him on the voluntary as-
pect, that is now and was at the
time largely a case of confused
reporting by the New York Times'
imagination, and the senator's
subsequent statements confirm
this.
* ,
So it goes.
Yes it does.
The Republican convention is
apparently going to nominate
Senator Goldwater.
Yes it did.
* * *

unsuccessful. Dwight D. Eisen-
hower has since proven to be a
conservative in the Goldwater tra-
dition but without the passion
and fervor. And Richard Nixon
was a staunch and controversial
member of the House Committee
on Un-American Activities in his
early Congressional days, hardly a
liberaltorganization. It would
seem to me that Goldwater is
simply continuing the tradition.
. . .
. ..on the prevailing views of
the rank and file Republican
voter ...
Even the Gallup poll shows that
many Republicans hold views quite
similar to the conservative posi-
tion. Besides, unless one can say
definitely just what constitutes a
Republican voter, this becomes a
shaky argument.
. .. on a sensible foreign and
nuclear policy .. .
What the Times means is not
"sensible" but "conservative" (yes,
conservative - you know, staid,
timid, shy, retiring, facile, etc.).
* . . on sound relations with
America's friends and allies ...
Quite to the contrary, it would
seem that a strong stand against
Communism and for freedom
would win the allegiance of Amer-
ica's true friends and allies.
* * *
. .. and on common sense.
If common sense means nomi-
nating another pseudo-liberal can-
didate who will me-too the John-
son campaign statements, then
perhaps the GOP cannot make
good use of common sense any-
more, for why vote for, a sub-
stitute liberal (like Rockefeller)
when you could vote for the real
McCoy (like Johnson).
Need more be said? I think
there may be a very definite case
against Sen. Goldwater-but this
is certainly not it. This is nothing
but a collection of uncertain
opinions, distortions and mis-
quotes, which deserves attention
only because it seems to be typical
of Goldwater's opposition.
Because he offers, for the first
time in many years, a real ideo-
logical choice, those committed to
the views opposing his see a very
real threat to the sanctity of their
opinions. And thus they lash at
any attempt to disagree with them.
Irresponsibility depends on who's
defining it, and one can be sure
that if all the nation's press sided
with Goldwater, the New York
Times would be looked upon as a
left-wing radical, subversive sheet,
instead of the astute and mostly
competent journal that it is.
BECAUSE OF the extreme ideo-
logical difference that Goldwater

n wner iu ri erre w .r ie i i r r re r e :

FEIFFER

I'

OPINIONI QUOTE
NE6@X5YOU, MR,
ARE 60- . 6ACKLASH tI
IN (7TOO
FAR WITH
THEIR

THP5
1,5 OFF
THE "'.
RE(=R7

TWO, SIR, ON THE
W~ORD NYOU)ARE
FOR INTEGAIO'I

RCr'RECOR OW YOvt
rIM MNV A&AIN5T DE-
FOR DEM - M OCRACX 1MR.
CRAC SCK
0t4 { Y MAY T
BUT MESONNY & vT:
AIIV0/}

bFF THE RFCOR()
UIM ONLY FOR Mf,
5ONNY TOO MANY
Y A~ S PENT
WORRYI1NG
ABOUT

CAN YOU
SPEC(FYMR.
/AKAN

TrO MAWY VOL F
YEAIRa ee- wUNAPT

Mc

M EAU. RATE O
iU,OINY!_LA

SW140
yACU1Y,

SONY You MAY'
.cAV -'ATIN ~IMY

TRAWk
YOU Me
WH ~I TEY

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan