br, AlditgatnBatty
Seventy-Second Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Where OpininsAre re STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG. * ANN ARBOl, MICH. * Phone NO 2-3241
Truth Will Prevaill
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

OSA IN TRANSITION:

'I

The

Genesis of Conflict

)AY, AUGUST 14, 1962

NIGHT EDITOR: CYNTHIA NEU



Smith Act Lessens
American Liberty

T HE UNITED STATES has been burdened
with the Smith Act for 22 years. This act
makes it unlawful for any person to advocate,
advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability,
or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any
' government in the United States by force or
violence, or to organize for this purpose.
In passing this act Congress made a law
abridging freedom of speech; in retaining the
law, Congress continues this abridgement. But
the First Amendment's mandate says "Con-
gress shall make no law . . . abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press ...
"The philosophy of the First Amendment,"
Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
writes in "The Right of the People," "is that
man must have full freedom to search the
world and the universe for the answers to
the puzzles of life."
This means that the channels of communi-
cation should be broad and unrestricted and
that freedom to express opinion should be as
nearly absolute as we can make it.
THIS Is WHAT democracy really means-not
only the enfranchisement of all the
citizenry; not only, the attempt to achieve
equality of oppportunity and the 'greatest hap-
piness for the greatest number"; and not only
the constant perfecting of the machinery of
representative government; but also and vi-
tally, liberty so pure that no blemish shall
exist.
With this as our working ideal of democracy,
we need be so tolerant that we permit the
expression of not merely the opinions with
which we agree, but, even more so, those
with which we disagree, and disagree most
strongly. Freedom shall then be complete,
because it will include, even the freedom to
try to destroy freedom.
When we ascend to this height of tolerance,
we will be. as Thomas Jefferson's "high minded
men who "know their rights; and knowing,
dare maintain." And it will be then that our
rights will be safe, because we will be safe-
guarding the rights of all our fellow men.
John Stuart Mill has shown that the neces-
sity of the fullest expression of opinion may
be based on these three grounds:
F T, the silenced opinion may be wholly
true, in which case its suppression is wholly
unjustified.
Second, the silenced opinion may be partly
true and partly false, as most opinions tend
to be, in which case "it is only by the col-
lision of adverse opinions that the remainder
of the truth has any chance of being supplied."
Third, even if the silenced opinion be wholly
erroneous, it should not be suppressed, because
its very challenge of truth prevents the latter
from degenerating into dogma and prejudice.
This "collision with error" provides "the clearer
Panic
AMERICA SHOULD NOT panic at the latest
Russian space success. In the past the
United States has gone into hysterics after
Soviet space feats and the results have not
always been beneficial.
Sputnik awakened the United States to the
strength of Soviet technology, but the resul-
tant demand for more science has put a crimp
in the humanities that is still unerased.
Rather the American people should realize
that the space triumphs are hollow, based on
the slavery and hardship of the Soviet people.
America can point to real successes-freedom,
prosperity and opportunity.
-P. SUTIN

preception and livelier impression of truth."
It would seem, then, that it does more harm
than good to suppress Communists who ad-
vocate the overthrow of the United States
government. Furthermore, we can be assured
of the validity of our opinion that the United
States government should be retained only if
we permit this opinion to be disputed-by
Communists or anyone else.
Not to permit our opinion to be disputed
is to make the assumption that we are infal-
lible.
PERMITTING COMMUNISTS to advocate
the overthrow of the government has an-
other benefit. Justice Douglas has adroitly
pointed it out:
"Tht airing of ideas releases pressures which
otherwise might become destructive . . . Free
and full discussion keeps a society from be-
coming stagnant and unprepared for the
stresses and strains that work to tear all
civilizations apart."
By imprisoning persons for the expression
of hated ideas, we make martyrs out of them.
As a result, for some people, the ideas become
less distasteful, because the plight of their
sponsors evokes sympathy. Christianity, a hated
idea nineteen centuries ago, survived and be-
came stronger as Imperial Rome put Chris-
tians to the lions. In America, states passed
laws making it a crime to teach Darwin's
theory of evolution, thereby focusing attention
on the theory.
Would Communism prosper in a completely
free America? It has not in Great Britain. In
the elections of 1945, the Communists won two
seats out of 640 in the House of Commons;
in the election of 1950, they were unable to
elect a single candidate, and they repeated this
failure in 1951, 1955 and 1959. During these
years, Communist voting strength has ranged
from 0.41 per cent in 1945 to 0.21 per cent in
1959.
Communist voting strength has also de-
creased since 1946 in Austria (from 5.4 per cent
to 3 per cent), Belgium (12.7 to 1.9), Denmark
(12.5 to 1.1), France (28.6 to 18.9), Westj
Germany (8.4 to 2.2), the Netherlands (10.6
to 2.4) and Norway (11.9 to 3.0).
THE COMMUNISTS idea of revolution has
not caught on in these countries. Why
would America, which is a vehement opponent
of Communism, embrace the idea of overthrow?
On the contrary, the Communist Party has
never been more than a small group in this
country. As Justice Hugo Black has said,
Communist Party membership had been dwin-
dling even before the Government began its
campaign to destroy the party by force of
law. "This was because a vast majority of
the American people were against the party's
policies and overwhemingly rejected its can-
didates year after year.
"That is the true American way of securing
this nation against dangerous ideas . .
AMERICANS should put forward more "dan-
gerous" ideas, with confidence in the com-
mon sense of the people to sift the good from
the bad. The resevoir of opinion should be
unlimited, with the judgement of an educated
populace as the guide. The Smith Act is an
insult to this judgement and is an affront to
the ability of the people to determine a pru-
dent and enlightened course.
Revoking the Smith Act will allow Jeffer-
son's "high-minded men" who "know their
rights" to "dare maintain" them all the more.
American democracy will become more dy-
namic. American freedom will become less
imperfect.
-ROBERT SELWA

By GERALD STORCH
Daily Staff Writer
THE OSA WAR is cooling off.
The two-year skirmish, some-
times fought openly and bloodily,
other times marked by sneaky,
dirty, petty politics, was halted
two weeks ago by a sort of truce:
the new structure for the Office
of Student Affairs.
Perhaps the feud between Vice-
President for Student Affairs
James A. Lewis, and the students
and faculty members out to "get"
his as well as clean up his office,
is over for good, as both parties
turn to other matters; more likely,
it will continue to smoulder and
occasionally erupt, due to in-
adequacies of the new structure
and the continued presence of
the mutually-unfriendly personal-
ity cults involved.
VIEWED FROM a purely ab-
stract level, or by individuals dis-
interested in the whole affair, the
OSA debacle was a farce, with
both sides acting in a ridiculous
and childish manner.
Many inhabitants of this cam-
pus had more than a little
troubleunderstanding why stu-
dents should be meddling with
administrators' business. Also the
factors which turn disagreements
into feuds-clashes of personality,
grudges, little things - usually
seem inexplicable to persons re-
moved from the scene, while they
are all the more serious to those
intensely involved.
The apparent absurdity of the
whole affair, plus the remoteness
and complexity of the relevant
issues and points of contention,
probably can account for the vast
majority of students shunning and
ignoring the struggle, as well as
the smirking by most of the fac-
ulty members towards the few
professors involved.
* * *
MANY OF the administrators,
too, were unconcerned, although
some might have had nagging wor-
ries that their departments could
be the next target for the student-
faculty madmen.
But despite the almost total
snubbing by the University com-
munity of direct involvement in
the OSA battles, it is well to un-
derstand the issues and personal-
ities of the war. It is importantif
only for the fact that several
highly intelligent students, highly-
respected faculty men and high-
level administrators thought that
proposed reforms for the OSA did
merit serious and intensive con-
sideration.
Since the debate was as much
a clash of peronalities as it was a
dialogue of issues, the in-groups
must first be understood.
* * *
THE ADMINISTRATION: James
A. Lewis, in his 50's, a man with
an extremely difficult job, but
who had hardly distinguished
himself in his vice-presidency
since being appointed in 1953;
Known for his "non-directional"
administrative approach, in which
there are no or few written limits
placed on subordinate or student
conduct, until University author-
ities would step in and lay down
the law, sometimes in an arbitrary
and ex-post-facto manner;
Also known, or so the word fil-
tering out of the SAB would say,
for his far too lenient rein over
OSA personnel, a weakness which
cost heavily when excesses were
committed, and which resulted in
a bewildering hodgepodge of cen-
ters of authority within the office;
Also rumored, but never sub-
stantiated, that Lewis was origin-
ally hried and kept on as the
"heavy" or "front man" for Uni-
versity President Harlan Hatcher,
who would thus be shielded from
parental or student-faculty wrath
towards the OSA policies the Pres-
ident wanted to carry out.
* * *
THE FACULTY members: The
University Senate Student Rela-
tions Committee (SRC), and es-

pecially Associate Dean Charles F.
Lehman of the education school;
a group of action-oriented, out-
spoken and deeply concerned fac-
ulty men, whose excellent aca-
demic reputation afford them con-
siderable influence when wading
into campus politics;
The committee, supposedly exist-
ing to "advise" Lewis on OSA
policy, but often chose to work
against as well as with him;
People fed up with the evils of
the OSA, and the harm thereby
generated upon the educational
goals of the University.
THE STUDENTS: Mostly Daily
editors and staff writers, who
with access to information avail-
able to few other students, were
appalled by some of the G OSA
policies, especially in the dean of
women's office, who also were
disturbed by excessive paternalism
and over-stringent regulations over
students, and by vague feelings
that Lewis was plotting to harm
The Daily; either by indirect cen-
sorship or by action from the
Board in Control of Student Pub-
lications, on which he sits;
Joined by other leaders of the
"student movement," namely stu-
dents from the Human Relations

began to emerge in the spring of
1961, when the 1960-61 Daily
senior editors and three members
of the HRB (which usually works
to combat racial discrimination in
private housing) compiled a dos-
sier of malpractices in the dean
of women's offices.
There were a dozen or so cases
of women being bullied (many
were actively discouraged from as-
sociating with men of a different
race or culture) or receiving harsh,
insensitive counseling (particularly
on sexual problems, where help is
usually needed the most). The
Daily editors had gathered these
cases through various contacts
and verified their accuracy, mak-
ing sure the names of individual
women would not be used if they
would be hurt as a result.
The dossier was sent to the SRC
-without anything being publish-
ed-so that the group, chaired by
Dean Lehman, could study the
evidence and bring pressures to
bear for the end of these mal-
practices.
THE COMMITTEE considered
the charges, which were indeed
both sensational and serious, and
consulted with OSA officials (in-
cluding Dean of Women Deborah
Bacon) and President Hatcher on
the matter.
On May 30, 1961, the SRC re-
leased its sharply critical recom-
mendations to the vice-president.
The Lehman report (also called
the Bacon report) asked a seven-
point student affairs shakeup:
1) That "the general educational
responsibility of the University
rest ultimately with the faculty ...
(it) must assume leadership in
the face of a world in flux, by
provision of the widest possible
opportunity for intercultural ex-
change;"
2) Sweeping structural changes
In the OSA, along with a less-
than-subtle hint that the vice-
president "must furnish leadership
to the entire office;"
3) A positive program for the
elimination of racial discrimina-
tion.
4) A clear deliniation of the
relationships of the OSA to other
University units;
5) A "thorough review" of stu-
dent housing arrangements;
6) Several "reassignments of
present personnel" within the
OSA; and
7) The establishment of an or-
derly grievance mechanism for
students.
THIS WAS indeed a very strong
statement. Unfortunately, t h e
committee released only a sum-
mary of its report, refusing for
tactical reasons to make public
the rest (which included all its
evidence and the most convincing
testimony). There was also some
question of whether Lewis or the
committee had the authority to
release the full document.
The Daily editors, angry that
the SRC went only half-way, were
sorely tempted to go ahead and
print the complete Bacon report.
But, dissuaded by fears of libel
suits and of offending the com-
mittee (which probably contains
most of the best faculty friends
of the newspaper), the editors
held off, and retreated to con-
sider the next action as they scat-
tered throughout the country for
the summer vacation.
With Ann Arbor mostly barren
of disgrunteled editors, Lewis then
took the next step: the appoint-
ment in July of a faculty com-
mittee to study the structure of
the OSA and make suggestions
for revisions.
* * *
HOWEVER, he carefully stack-
ed the committee-chaired by Prof.
John W. Reed of the Law School
-with faculty moderates, and was
planning to keep students com-
pletely off the committee until,
after being grilled by the Regents,
he promised to include one or two
students in the fall.
September rolled around, and

Student Government Council after
some effort managed to get four
of its representatives on the 11-
member Reed committee. The stu-
dents, of whom it can probably be
said were of ahmore "liberal" per-
suasion than the faculty members,
joined the committee as it began
six months of hard work in eval-
uating the OSA, as well as the
general philosophies that should
underpin University life.
Just as the group (Lewis also
sat in) was commencing its de-
liberations, however, the campus
was shocked by the resignation of
Dean Bacon at the September 30
Regents meeting.
STATEMENTS by Lewis and
President Hatcher said that Miss
Bacon had resigned due to the
increasing volume of her work and
her desire to return to English
teaching.
The rumors which always cir-
culate after a startling change has
been made indicated otherwise.
The best one said that the reluc-
tant President and vice-president,
with Regental prodding, finally
asked for her resignation when the
SRC started its work.
The speculation seems more

MANY of the campus elements
hailed the dean's resignation as
solid evidence of student power,
especially that of the press. Power
of a more impressive sort, how-
ever, came from an opposing view-
point, as the OSA in subsequent
weeks received more than 500 let-
ters from rich, influential alumni,
protesting Miss Bacon's "resigna-
tion" and the "radical" students
who brought it off.
It is impossible to measure the
countervailing effects these forces
had on the Reed Committee. But
it seems that, with help, the alum-
ni's moderating influence won out.
Between September and Feb-
ruary-when the Reed Report was
completed-the Detroit Free Press
printed a slanted news article,
making the student liberals look
like fools and the "normal" stu-
dents and Lewis like defenders
of morality and righteousness.
Also during this period came
the famed "women-in-the-quads"
motion by Inter-Quadrangle Coun-
cil. When this proposed liberaliza-
tion of women's visiting hours and
regulations in the quads was slap-
ped down by the Residence Halls
Board ofbGovernors, it became
confused by the general public
with the overall issue of student
freedom vs. student regulation.
BOTH ACTIONS intensified the
status-quo pressures upon the
committee. But the clincher came
the night before the Reed Report
was released. At that time, several
Regents and top administrators
met privately with the committee,
urging it to tone down its report.
They really needn't have bother-
ed; the document was a model of
innocuity and flaccidness. Admit-
tedly, the committee was faced
with a real snarl to untangle.
For during the years the OSA
had become succeedingly more
confusing in structure. Under the
Bacon regime, the dean of wo-
men's office was run like an army;
on the other side, with Dean of
Men Walter B. Rea, things were
a lot more informal and decen-
tralized.
Worse yet, communication be-
tween the two wings was con-
spicuous chiefly by its absence;
each deanship seemed to work in

complete independence of the
other, and couldn't care less about
it. As a result, overlapping and
muddling of authority became the
rule; it was nigh-impossible to
determine to what degree which
administrator was responsible for
what policy. And the Regents By-
laws made absolutely no provision
for the vice-president's powers and
responsibilities.
* * *
THE DIFFICULTY of its task,
however, did not excuse the gen-
eral inadequacy of the Reed Re-
port.
The first section of the docu-
ment dealt with philosophy of
administration, and was fine.
Every administrative action, the
committee said, must be directed
towards the education aim of this
University:
the maximum intellectual growth
of which he is capable and to en-
able him through resultant devel-
opment of character and abilities
to make maximum contribution to
his society."
S * * * .
IN ORDER to achieve this goal,
a "troika arrangement" of ad-
ministration, faculty and students
must be components pulling to-
wards the same objective. Stu-
dents, the Reed group continued,
'must be active participants in
the whole process, . . because
opportunities for participation are
indispensable for individual edu-
cational growth."
Unfortunately, the committee
chose to contradict much of its
philosophy in the second part of
the report: an administrative
structure for the Office of Student
Affairs.
The chief brainstorm was for
dean and associate dean of stu-
dents. But the deans were to be
of opposite sexes, and much of
the powers an administrative dean
normally enjoys were to be strip-
ped away by the establishment of
functional directorships for hous-
ing and discipline.
* * *
THIS SETUP was proposed to
accommodate "the particular in-
terests and needs of both men
and women," although the com-
mittee never got around to speci-

fying exactly what and how these
needs differ.
The Reed Report was thus sub-
mitted to Vice-President Lewis. He
also received proposals for OSA
revision from SGC, and recom-
mendations for other more de-
tailed areas from a myriad of
faculty, student and alumni
groups. Lewis was to synthesize all
these ideas into one giant, final
recommendation for a new struc-
ture.
* * *
NOW ENTERS that nebulous
group known as the Regents, the
final authority on any OSA
changes. At their May meeting,
the body considered-heatedly in
private, smilingly in public-the
final recommendations from Lewis.
But the Regents took formal ac-
tion only on the Reed Report's
philosophy of administration
(complete endorsement) transfer-
ring the admissions and registra-
tion and records offices to anoth-
er vice-presidency and setting up
the directorship of housing. They
then left the remaining revisions
of the OSA structure completely
up to the Hatcher-Lewis duo.
However, the Regents did make
sure in private session that they
knew what was going to happen
with the main parts of the OSA
structure, as they scotched any
thoughts of instituting thedean-
associate dean of students frame-
work. Apparently this arrange-
ment grated on the organized, sys-
tematic minds of the Regents, bus-
inessmen all, and was thought to
contradict the philosophy of ad-
ministration.
BUT BEFORE and during tht
times Regents and the general pub-
lic were asserting themselves, the
other relevant groups were not si-
lent. The SRC kept up its behind-
the-scenes pressures on Lewis,
while The Daily throughout the
year ran a 10-part editorial series
focusing on personnel and struc-
tural changes needed in the OSA.
The open and secret clashes of
all these interests finally culminat-
ed two weeks ago when the of-
fice's new structure was announc-
ed by its vice-president.
TOMORROW-The new OSA.


"I Love My Wife, But, Oh You Kid!"

-r r i iM 1 i

I

....r...


h;?
I/III z' r
Lk ,
r
a
" ' -
5
r ,,.,%
- "

. l' I ,

(IM


..,t


Kennedy's Domestic Problem

iy"" - - -- _ . sr .'ate. _._ .

THE RECENT DEFEAT of the administra-
tion's Medical Care for the Aged Bill marks
the most serious injury to the legislative pro-
gram of Kennedy's "New Frontier."
The question being pondered at the White
House is the reason why the administration
has only managed to persuade congress to pass
20 of the 285 bills the President has endorsed.
It has killed his precious Farm Bill; his plea
for a withholding tax on income from divi-
dends, as well as his hopes for a Department of
Urban Affairs.
If it is necessary for the President to bully
Editorial Staff
FRED RUSSELL KRAMER .................. Co-Editor
PETER STEINBERGER.....................Co-Editor
AL JONES ..............................Sports Editor
CYNTHIA NEU.........................Night Editor
GERALD STORCH ...................... Night Editor
PHIlIJP SUTIN.........................Night Editor

Congress with a two to one majority in the
Senate, and nearly a five to three majority in
the House, there is definitely something wrong.
It is general knowledge that the foreign affairs
policies of any president are dictated by the
arms race, Russian whim, nationalism in
Africa, and the crying needs of the underde-
veloped nations. But there is no record of any
President who in domestic affairs seems to
have lost control of his own majority party in
Congress over domestic affairs.
FR EXAMPLE, his favorite legislative de-
mand, Medicare, was voted down by one
third of his party. These anti-Administration
Democrats which he has termed a "handful"
are in fact 21 Democrats, all Southerners ex-
cept one.
When Kennedy asks for even more Demo-
crats in the next Congress, that he is really
asking is that the South send him men that
will support his policies. However, this is in
fact wishful thinking for all the South has
left these days is its veto power. So we can be
sure that they will send back same men time
and again in order to keep control of the
Cnnarinno1 ommittee by the fact that theyu

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Whom Does Soblen Embarrass?

To the Editor:
SAO THE SOBLEN AFFAIR is
'very embarrassing to the
United States," and this has a
heartbreaking effect on Mr. Man-
sour Hassan.
Indeed, one views with contemp-
tuous admiration the way Arabs
"feel sorry" for a great nation
especially when anything can be
done in the way of severing its
ties of friendship with Israel.'
"Down with American Imperial-
ism" cried the Egyptians when
Mr. Dulles refused to finance the
Aswan dam.
But today how could Israel, the
country that "owes so much" to
its American benefactor, dare di-
verge from the latter's opinoin?
Don't these Zionists have any
gratitude? Of course, the Arab
students on this campus disregard
the millions in foreign aid granted

the other hopes to make its re-
cipients see that democracy is
wealthier politically and econom-
ically than a forced dictatorship,
Israel is a democracy in the
very sense of the. word. It may
disagree with the U.S. on Soblen;
but when it comes to broader is-
sues the two governments are
united by the very democratic
principles which both have happily
chosen.
-Henry J. Shrem, '62
gist. .
To the Editor:
THE LETTER on the Soblen af-
fair published in The Daily on
Saturday characterizes an unfor-
tunate propensity on the part of
a number of contributors to this
column to use every possible in-
cident as grist for their anti-

SPECIFICALLY the "dual- al-
legiance" charge against American
Jewry the writer attempts to base
on the Soblen case lacks persua-
sion. As was revealed by Israel's
Minister of the Interior, Moshe
Shapiro, the great haste shown by
the° Ben Gurion government in
expelling Soblen was largely a
result of pressure from American
Jewish leaders. It was the un-
seemly haste of the expulsion (in
which for example Soblen's law-
yers were not fully informed of
what was happening), as well as
a natural resentment against the
too-ready capitulation to outside
pressures, which provoked the
sharp reaction by the left-wing
parties in the Knesset and in the
general public as well.
While the give-and-take of par-
liamentary government may be
sometimes difficult to understand
for man in the ear East. it may