C he At *an Bat yh
Seventy-Second Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
. UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Where Opinions Are FreeS TUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG. * ANN ARBOR, MICH. * Phone NO 2-3241
Truth Will Prevail"
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:
Prom ise
and
.77
Frustration
}
VEDNESDAY AUGUST 15. 1962
NIGHT EDITOR: PHILIP SUTIN
Regents Stall on Changes
In 'u' Speaker Policy
YOU GO to a public Regents' meeting and
at some point during the session someone
will propose an amendment to, or other change
In, one of the Regents' bylaws. The changes
are usually minor, made with no trouble on
the part of the Regents, who approve them
with an almost joyous ease, with clean con-
sciences and impeccable voting records.
But sometimes issues arise which cannot be
acted on with the usual smiling faces and
lack of earnest debate. These are saved for
the closed session and there discussed and
hashed over until it is felt that some reason-
able move can be approved. And when it
can, all the fighting, the arguing, the dissent
is chucked away and at their public meeting
the Regents look happy and innocent and pass
or reject the change.
T HERE IS A COMMITTEE which has existed
for nearly a year. Its purpose is, or was, to
do research into and recommend necessary
changes in a specific bylaw. The change was,
or is, the kind discussed at the closed sessions
for a very long while before it is, or will be,
even mentioned in the public meeting, and the
treatment it has received from the Regents
illustrates why the University cannot progress
as rapidly as it ought to.
The committee, known informally as the
Estep Committee after Samual Estep of the
law school who chaired the group, was es-
tablished by President Harlan Hatcher in
September, 1961. Its study was of Regents'
bylaw 8:11, the University's .speaker policy"
rule.
Bylaw 8:11 restricts the topics of lectures or
addresses given by non-University personalities
so that "no violation of the recognized rules
of hospitality, nor advococy of the subversion
of the government of the United States nor
of the state" is permitted.
Moreover, "no addresses shall be allowed
which urge the destruction or modification of
our form of government by violence or other
unlawful methods, or which advocate or justify
conduct which violates the fundamentals of
our accepted code of morals."
TOINSURE that this rule would be enforced,
a faculty body was given the right to pre-
censor suspect speeches.
The vague and conservative working of the
bylaw and the right of censorship has caused
numerous faculty members and students to
attempt to have it abolished or modified, and
when Hatcher formed the committee, it ap-
peared that their hopes would be met. But
very slowly the optimism has faded.
From september through December, the
Estep Committee studied the bylaw, its effect
on campus speakers and the feelings of Uni-
versity personnel toward it. They looked into
the moral and legal right or pre-censorship,
and into the philosophy under which the bylaw
was established. And they sought other means
of controlling addresses advocating violent
actions or illegal results.
In January, they submitted their recom-
mendations to President Hatcher who non-
chalantly laid them aside for half a year.
ONE COMMITTEE MEMBER explained
Hatcher's delay in action by saying that
"he was on a trip in South America during
that time and simply had too much work to
look into it."
But Hatcher didn't leave for Venezuela until
mid-March, a full two months after he re-
ceived the report. And no one is able to give
a tenable explanation as to why he lacked
the time it would have taken to inspect the
recommended changes and forward the pro-
posals to the Regents in February.
But at any rate, Hatcher came back from
his excursion into Latin America and managed
to find sufficient time to read through the
recommendations. He did not issue any sort
of public statement expressing his opinion
on the suggested changes.
THE REGENTS received the recommendation
in April. But, a second committee member
pointed out, they didn't put it on the agenda
"because it was too crowded with the budget,
the Office of Student Affairs changes and other
important matters."
The same crowded condition existed in May
and June.
Whether it was a matter of too many "other
important matters," or whether it was a fear of
the men in Lansing who in April, May and
June were smiling Regental smiles and figuring
out how much of an appropriation the Uni-
versity would receive, which kept the Estep
recommendations off the agenda is indeterm-
inate.
W ELL, the men in Lansing gave us our
millions, and the OSA got its changes and
tuition hikes were passed and President
Hatcher was in town for the July Regents'
meeting. Everything looked very pretty indeed
-a perfect time for an examination and de-
cision, on the bylaw revisions. But, the Friday
afternoon session came and went and the
Regents toddled off to their respective villas
and the Estep report was not touched.
Two other bylaws were changed, one which
effected the Institute of Science and Tech-
nology Executive Committee and the other
which liberalizes the University's policy on
duplicate diplomas. But in public nothing was
said of Estep.
However, it seems that in the closed session,
the recommendations were discussed at great
length, and that the Regents did act on the
proposal and that the recommendations will
become policy some time next fall, according
to a University vice-president.
NO ONE has yet been able to offer a feasible
explanation of the stalling or the con-
tinued secrecy.
But the reason is likely something incredible
like preservation of the University's image,
which the Regents do an awful lot of.
The lack of fast or public action on the
Estep recommendations is the fault of the
Regents. For it is likely they had a copy of
the proposals in January, when President
Hatcher did. It is pretty certain they could
have squeezed it into their meeting in April or
May or June if they had wanted to. It is
apparent that they could have acted upon
them publicly last month. They chose not to.
THE REGENTS are not a nebulous group,
they are not powerless. They are not, or
need not be, an innocuous collection of com-
munity pillars meeting monthly to give a
good and proper impression. They are not
Student Government Council, which must
aquiesce to higher powers, and which can act
only with the knowledge and fear that they
can be whacked to the ground by the ad-
ministration if they try to do too much.
They have in their hands the responsibility
fortthe future of the University, and to this
they should be morally committed. They an-
swer only to the voters of the state and to
their own consciences, and it is perhaps time
their actions showed a little cognizance of
ghat.
-DENISE WACKER
By GERALD STORCH
Daily Staff Writer
JUST as an assortment of groups
and interests pressured for
change (or no change) in the Of-
fice of Student Affairs, the new
structure for the office is design-
ed to placate all of them.
Vice-President for Student Af-
fairs James A. Lewis will have
four "line officers," which are as-
sistants for general areas of work
to be assigned by him, and will
oversee three directorships, for
housing, discipline, and financial
aids, whose functions replace the
dean of men and dean of women.
A student-faculty group will
serve as an advisory committee for
him, as well as a channel for com-
plaints and suggestions from the
campus. Lewis also plans to pro-
pose a new bylaw (certain to be
approved by the Regents) placing
definite responsibility for regula-
tions governing the non-academic
life of students upon the vice-pres-
ident for student affairs.
* * *
THE DIRECTORSHIPS should
satisfy long-standing student and
faculty complaints about the un-
fortunate and unnecessary es-
trangement between the dean of
men and dean of women's do-
mains.
Handling functions which cut
across sexual lines, the director-
ships should facilitate policy-mak-
ing within their areas, and elimi-
nate much of the overlapping and
confusion incurred by the bisexual
arrangement.
The new bylaw for the vice-pres-
idency should also soothe the stu-
dent liberals and the University
Senate Student Relations Commit-
tee, who had correctly chafed at
the difficulty in knowing which
OSA administrators were respon-
sible for what policies.
ON THE OTHER SIDE of the
coin, the administrators them-
selves and the Victorian-minded
alumni have some reason to be
happy with the new OSA. Al-
though Lewis hasn't said so pub-
licly or privately yet, it's a safe bet
that none of his subordinates is
going to lose his job or receive a
thinner pay envelope.
And as a sop to the alumni,
who harbor fears that the Univer-
sity is a place where licentiousness
and promiscuity are rampant
Lewis is keeping former Acting
Dean of Women Elizabeth Daven-
port as a high-level advisor for
women's affairs. "There will al-
ways be people here to take care
of the special needs of women,"
the vice-president explained.
* * *
AT THIS POINT, it should be
made clear that the new struc-
ture for the OSA is far superior
to the old one. Although ne was
pushed a little by the Regents, the
SRC and student activists, never-
theless most of the work in for-
mulating the structure was by
Lewis.
It took some courage on his
part to eliminate the deans, es-
pecially the dean of women. The
vice-president's decision to assume
the final authority (subject of
course to the President and the
Regents) for all OSA actions and
policies is another commendable
move.
Some of Lewis's other plans-to
coordinate and consolidate coun-
seling agencies, scholarships and
loan departments, and student ju-
dicial councils-are praiseworthy.
* * *
AS HAPPENS all too often at
this University, however, a falter-
ing, cautious half-way step was
taken, instead of the fully vigor-
ous, confident action needed. Lew-
is made at least three bad mistakes
in the structural arrangement, and
may have committed errors in the
retention of certain personnel.
There are also glaring inconsis-
tencies between the new-model
OSA and the Reed Report's phil-
osophy of administration (which
is now official University policy,
having been adopted by the Re-
gents) and the seven changes rec-
ommended by the Senate commit-
tee when the whole mess started a
little more than a year ago.
The worst slip-up is in the area
of counseling. One of Lewis's four
assistants - Mark Noffsinger - is
supposed to be "coordinator of
counseling."
* * *
BUT WHY isn't this a director-
ship, like the other three func-
tional jobs? There appears little
formal reason for having counsel-
ing under more close supervision
(the directorships will be more au-
tonomous than the assistants)
than the other duties, of a com-
parable nature.
It is also strange that two of
the assistants (Mrs. Davenport and
former Dean of Men Walter B.
Rea) will also be doing a lot of
counseling, primarily in touchy
cases.
There appears to be only one
logical answer for both these oddi-
ties in counseling: the vice-presi-
dent haslittle confidence in Mr.
Noffsinger.
ship, and another part in a differ-
ent area? If Bingley wouldn't have
enough to do without the added
housing tasks, then abolish the
discipline directorship, and fit it
in somewhere else.
The director of housing, espe-
cially at his salary (more than
that of most full professors here),
should be the director of all hous-
ing. There is no reason why living
unit policy should not emerge
from a single source. If needed,
an assistant for affiliate or pri-
vate housing units could be added,
but in any case the director should
supervise all housing if any sort
of coherent policy is to be expect-
ed.
* * * .
THE THIRD structural fault is
the retention of the Bureau of
School Services under the author-
ity of the vice-president of stu-
dent affairs. The bureau is main-
ly a service clearing house for
schools outside the University, in-
cluding secondary and elementary,
public and private schools.
Since it is hard to see what re-
lation the bureau has to the non-
academic lives of University stu-
dents, it would have been prudent
to transfer it to another area,
preferably the vice-president for
academic affairs.
These are the sub-structure
problems. There are some with per-
sonnel, too, namely, the continued
presence of the traditional targets
of the SRC and a lot of students:
Elizabeth Leslie, Karl Streiff and
John Hale.
MRS. LESLIE is the last remain-
ing woman administrator who was
part of the in-group of former
Dean of Women Deborah Bacon,
and in the minds of several people
close to the OSA has not been ab-
solved of practices carried
on during that regime.
Streiff's work in counseling stu-
dents seeking loans and scholar-
ships has drawn complaints from
several students of alleged harsh
and discriminatory treatment. The
SRC has received cases of this na-
ture, but took no action, referring
the matters to Lewis.
Under Hale's tenure as assistant
to the dean of men for residence
halls, the quadrangles stagnated.
Everyone will acknowledge that the
halls possess magnificent poten-
tial to become a meaningful and
pleasant segment of the educa-
tional process, yet Hale made no
attempt to develop this potential.
Failures would have been much
better than inaction.
In addition, Hale's keeping se-
cret for six months a resident di-
rector's report criticizing the ad-
ministration and living conditions
of East Quadrangle added little
luster to his record,
* * *
ADMITTEDLY, it is frightfully
easy and sometimes cruel to criti-
cize public personalities in print,
and it is also easier to describe mis-
takes than to outline good points.
Lewis hasn't even announced the
under-staff positions, yet.
But the Office of Student Af-
fairs exists as an aid to students,
to help in their outside-the-class-
room education. The personnel
within this office must enjoy the
confidence and respect of students.
If they do not, they should not be
retained.
The structural and personnel
problems are all the more disturb-
ing because they violate Univer-
sity policy: the philosophy of ad-
ministration expressed in the Reed
Report, approved by the Regents.
AT ONE POINT, the report
states: "... Workable adminis-
trative arrangements are of prime
importance. If badly designed, ad-
ministrative structure can frus-
trate and confuse.
"Not only must the structure be
designed to carry out the Univer-
sity's educational aims, but also it
must be constructed in the light of
a clear understanding of the func-
tions of its constituent parts."
And although it doesn't say so
specifically, the heavily education-
oriented philosophy leaves no
doubt that competence in admin-
istration is an indispensable com-
modity, if faculty, students and
administrators are going to work
together for a mutual goal.
So it is both surprising and up-
setting that Mr. Lewis is putting
together a structure that contra-
dicts, in part, University policy.
* * *
THE MOST CRIMINAL decision
of all, however, was to limit fac-
ulty and student participation in
OSA policy-making to an advisory
role.
Lewis's administrative structure,
despite its difficulties, will prob-
ably work. And he did a good job
in setting up the advisory com-
mittee.i
It will be composed of represen-
tatives from Student Government
Council and the SRC. It is power-3
less to make policy decisions, but
will receive suggestions and griev-z
ances about the OSA from inside
and outside the University, and
can consider any matter within
Lewis's jurisdiction. The possibil-l
ity of its being used by the vice-F
president is lessened by the com-+
mittee's authority to make publicJ
on its own free will any matter itc
is considering.
* * *
BUT, there's a big difference
between an advisory group and a
policy-making group. The argu-
ments have been gone over too+
many times to repeat at length
here, but there can be a good jus-
tification made on moral and prac-
tical grounds, for having a demo-
cratically chosen committee, nav-a
ing equal representation from stu-
dents and faculty, plus one less
administrator (i.e., a 4-4-3 basis)
to govern the OSA, being respon-
sible to the Regents.
The official University philoso-
phy of administration says that in
order to make maximum use of his
abilities and maximum contribu-
tion to society, the student "must
be considered a participating mem-
ber of a 'community of scholars,'
with responsibilities and opportu-
nities commensurate with his ca-
pacities.
"He should be expected to par-
ticipate fully in decisions affect-
ing his welfare. He should help
to formulate, uphold and enforce
the rules by which he is to live in
the University community."
And on a practical basis, some
students are just as qualified to
formulate policy as are adminis-
trators. Granted, they haven't had
the experience, but an industrious,
intelligent student, having an ade-
quate knowledge of the campus,
would be a marvelous asset to any
policy-making, as well as policy-
advising, apparatus. It is not un-
realistic to expect this sort of stu-
dent to run and be elected if a
democratic system of authority
were set up for the OSA.
* * *
BUT, INSTEAD, the leaders of
this University insist on paying
idealistic lip service while broach-
ing a concept which underlies
American life in every community
except the academic one.
In the final analysis, is there
really any reason to justify the
perpetuation of an autocratic, un-
democratic system of government
on a supposedly enlightened cam-
pus? Can we hold any moral or
intellectual respect for mediocre
men, afraid of change, afraid of
doing something different and
new?
The answer, clearly, is that we
cannot, no matter how respectable
an image our administrators can
muster of their leadership prowess.
DIMINISHING the worth of the
new OSA even further is a com-
parison of the changes that have
actually been made, and the seven
major changes asked by the SRC
last year:
1) "The general educational re-
sponsibility of the University rests
ultimately with the faculty ..:.
the committee said. Incorporation
of this responsibility into struc-
tural terms has hardly been done.
2) "The vice-president for stu-
dent affairs must exercise a singu-
lar responsibility in the enuncia-
tion of the educative purposes of
the Office of Student Affairs, and
must furnish leadership to the en-
tire structure of the office." Lewis
has promised to bear the full re-
sponsibility, all right, but one-won-
ders to what extent the "educa-
tive purposes," will be served, due
to the afore-mentioned conflicts
with the University's philosophy of
administration.
3) "A positive, explicit program
for the implementation of the Re-
gents Bylaw on discrimination"
should be established. Lewis scores
on this point, having made an
adequate if not zealous effort to
discourage racial bias in private
housing within Ann Arbor.
4) "Relationship of the Office
of Student Affairs to other Uni-
versity units or agencies" should
be clearly specified. With the new
bylaw, and the transferral of the
offices of admissions and regis-
tration and records to the vice-
president for academic affairs.
this recommendation has been fol-
lowed well.
5) "A thorough review of the
University's housing arrangements
for students, including attention
to the questions of size, the kind
and quality of supervision, and
other related items" must be made.
An exhaustive study of living units
has not been done yet, but is ex-
pected to be a major obligation
of the director of housing.
6) "Recommendations concern-
ing the re-assignment of present
personnel in the Office of Student
Affairs. Much of the re-assignment
suggested would be relevant to
any, reorganizaiton of the office,
but some, in the committee's view,
should be accomplished without
delay." Well, with the restructuring
personnel have been re-assigned,
1--<r-a. - "r+ h-g a -
THE SRC, in spite of the only
partial fulfillment of its recom-
mendations, is losing interest.
Even Associate Dean Charles F.;
Lehmann of the education school,
the man who has largely led the
reform movement, the man most
vitally interested in the OSA
among faculty members, the man
who kept up spirits when even the
most active of the students be-
came discouraged, is satisfied with
the revised structure.
And so it looks as if the impe-
tus to perfect the administration
of the non-academic affairs of
student's is halted, just when it had
gained the momentum to really
clean up the whole mess.
In a way, this is understandable.
The issues of revision of the OSA
have been well debated publicly,
but have been supported and in-
tensified by personality clashes
and grudges beneath the surface.
Now, with at least some improve-
ment made, and both "sides" hav-
ing had their say, the personal
wars are dying out, and the in-
dividuals involved are slowly
shifting their attention to other
areas in the University.
But the issues remain, and
their inherent urgency does not
diminish with the disappearance,
or retreat, of the grudges that un-
derpinned them.
At the very least, the Office of
Student Affairs deserves the con-
tinued evaluation from intelligent
and concerned minds. Perhaps,
when the students involved return
to the campus in fall, analysis
will re-focus on the OSA
Hopefully, the discussion will be
conducted with more honesty and
openness than was displayed dur-
ing the year, when both OSA of-
ficials and thestudent-faculty
combine, at times, indulged in pet-
ty and sneaky actions.
* * *
THE STUDENT activists were
hardly pure examples of the moral
values they were trying to insert
into the OSA. For instance, the
four student members of the Reed
Committee went ahead and signed
the flabby document. Afterwards,
they disclaimed any allegiance to
it, and recited their disagreements
with it. So, their basic decision
not to submit minority reports was
reprehensible.
In order to consolidate as much
power as they could, the students
and faculty formed what they
termed a "Bund." Ostensibly, the
group was considering methods of
opening up new channels to exert
their influence, but in reality much
of its efforts centered on plots to
rearrange the OSA.
Last year's Daily editor, John
Roberts, supposedly a libertarian,
"scrupulously" kept out any men-
tion of the secret or ambitious na-
ture of the "Bund" from this news-
paper.
And the faculty members (SRC)
many times were more concerned
with taking potshots at the vice-
president's personality than with
the overall good of the University.
* * *
THINGS WERE WORSE Inside
the Student Activities Bldg. OSA
officials have in too many in-
stances carried on their relations
with students desirous of infor-
mation or policy explanations in
a rancid, evasive manner.
Individuals dealing with the ad-
ministrators there often come
away with the feeling they cannot
be trusted, or, worse yet, believed.
And the few officials that are
frank and completely honest ex-
hibit these characteristics only in
off-the-record discussions. For ex-
ample, at least two (male) admin-
istrators of a fairly high level in
the OSA believe that women's
hours should be abolished. But they
still will admit this only privately
and after some pressing. How
many more of the OSA officials
deepydown inside disagree with its
policies cannot be determined, but
it is probable there are some.
* * *
THESE are the times when cour-
age and forthrightness are needed
mnctof n l
inated or alleviated by the admin-
istrators.
* * *
GIVEN ALL these shortcoIings,
you might think the student and
faculty groups who led the move-
ment for revisions in the OSA
would be disappointed. But such
is not the case.
The student-faculty activists
have been blinded by the appear-
ance of improvements (the new
OSA is better than anyone thought
it would be), and either do not see
or care to see the weaknesses that
remain.
One Regent, probably one of the
most sympathetic and understand-
ing of student problems, said he
didn't care what happened in the
OSA, as long as it didn't contra-
dict what the philosophy of ad-
ministration says.
With most of the student leaders
out of town during the Summer
Session, reaction either way of
course has not come. But when
they come back in the fall, it is
probable that many will be more
concerned with other issues: fra-
ternity and sorority membership
statements. National Student As-
sociation, trimester.
* * *
CYRANO DE BERGERAC - Christopher Plummer (as Cyrano)
comforts Toby Robins (Roxane) in a scene from the " Stratford
production.
Plummer Triumphs
As Cyrano de IBergerac
The Expedient Ingredient
In Women's Apartment Pers
LAST SPRING leaders of several women's
organizations on campus completed a se-
mester of surveys and strategy sessions and
recommended that senior women be given the
privilege of being able to decide whether they
wanted to continue living in University-
approved residences or in off-campus housing.
Later in the year the Office of Student Affairs
approved the proposed rules change.
The decision was based upon agreement with
the basic premise that women, like men, need
to contemplate their existence, and that such
contemplation cannot take place in the dorms.
But a woman, unlike a male student, becomes
contemplative enough to deserve an apart-
ment only when she has attained senior status.
And since the passage of the proposal, the
OSA and housing administrators have clamped
down on granting apartment permission to
women not yet' senoirs. It has become virtually
impossible for a sophomore or junior woman
(though she be 21 years of age) to get per-
mission to live-even for the summer-in off-
campus housing, despite financial or psycho-
logical need.
T"TnIrmrR vYETERDAV the administration
cause of her age, she may have trouble ad-
justing to the dormitory, and might be more
happy in an apartment. "We have to main-
tain a flexible system" Mrs. Davenport ex-
plained.
If this "flexibility" were real, and if this
were to become future policy, Mrs. Davenport's
action would be highly commendable, for it
would have 'marked the newest step in securing
women's rights.
BUT THERE was nothing standard about the
permission. The girl was let out because
there is a minor crisis in the dorms-there
isn't enough room to go around.
Last year, and in all likelihood in the coming
semesters, women who will be freshmen or
sophomores or juniors and who will not be
22 by the registration period, or who might
have difficulty in adjusting to the dorms and
who therefore might want to join the pack
of contemplating seniors will not be able to.
Next year this same 21-year-old freshman,j
whose 22nd birthday falls a month after the
legal limit for getting out of the dorms, would
find herself forced to be in at 11 p.m. five
nights a week, denied the rights available to
. w __ _ 1 1 . . . . . ..... - A - -F 9
Special To The Daily
STRATFORD, Ont. - A spirited
and moving production of Ed-
mond Rostand's romantic drama
"Cyrano de Bergerac" has taken
the stage at the Stratford Festival, "
much to the advantage of the
three Shakespeare plays already
in the season repertory.
The success of the Stratford
"Cyrano" is never in doubt; under
Michael Langham's direction, it
is in every respect the well-acted,
attractively staged and costumed
production that one knows to ex-
pect of the Canadian company
(very possibly the finest theatre
company in North America).
Ultimately, however, the theater-
goer who has seen performances
of Shakespeare on the Festival
Theatre stage will find in "Cy-
rano" a simplicity of plot and
action, a lack of complication and
of depth in characterization that
together remind one of the real
richness of the Shakespeare plays.
In this way, "Cyrano" has
strengthened rather than diluted
the Shakespeare repertory.
* * *
YET THE brilliance of "Cyrano
de Bergerac," the product of a
different country and a different
period, is in no way dimmed by
its proximity to Shakespeare. The
Rostand play is well suited to the
as the play and Cyrano's life draw
to a close, is very moving indeed.
* * *
BUT THE REAL triumph of the
Stratford "Cyrano de Bergerac"
is the sheer magnificence of Chris-
topher Plummer's acting in the
title role. Plummer is perhaps
Canada's'most outstanding young
actor; he has shown great ability
and versatility in this and pre-
vious seasons at Stratford, and
now, as Cyrano, he has what must
be his greatest role.
Plummer's most obvious attri-
bute is a beautifully clear, reso-
nant voice which he modulates
with precision to indicate very
delicate shadings of mood.
Plummer also takes advantage
of his being the only character
of real depth in the play: where
others appear to exist only in
relation to Cyrano, Plummer's
Cyrano is so dominant that the
one-sidedness of others goes al-
most without notice.
That Plummer's performance is
a marvel of acting and not just
careful casting will be obvious to!
anyone who also sees his "Mac-
beth" this season-the two roles
might almost seem to have two
different actors.
* * *
OTHERS in the cast lack roles
in which to display their real tal-
ents. Toby Robins is a glamorous
Roxane, but Rostand has neces-