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