Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR MICH. NEWS PHONE: 764-0552
Truth Will Prevail 4,
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
EDNESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1967 NIGHT EDITOR: DAVID KNOKE

Letters: On the Rewriting of History

De Facto Segregation in D.C.
And Judge Wright's Decision --

I

First of Three Parts
FRANKLIN SCHOOL, a rambling, red
brick structure that is a monument
to the post-Civil War architecture of
the 1870's, stands squarely in the heart
of Washington, D.C. The building now
houses the District of Columbia Board
of Education, and the office of the
superintendent, Carl F. Hansen.
Three weeks ago, this man became
the central figure after the most dra-
matic legal decision on public edu-
cation since the Supreme Court hand-
ed down "Brown vs. Board of Educa-
tion" in 1954. Declaring that he had
no other' alternative, Hansen handed
in his resignation after U.S. District
Court Judge J. Skelly Wright ruled
that "The Superintendent of Schools
and the members of the Board of Edu-
cation, in the operation of the public
school system here, unconstitutionally
deprive the District of Columbia's Ne-
gro and poor public school children of
their right to equal educational oppor-
tunity with the District's white and
more affluent public school children."
Hansen told The Daily that he re-
signed not because of the decision it-
self, but because the School Board,
which recently obtained a 5-4 Negro
majority, had indicated it would re-
fuse to allow him to appeal the deci-
sion as superintendent.
"My conscience forces me to appeal
the decision," said Hansen, "for I
firmly believe that it is a fundamental
constitutional right which the school
board is denying me. I would not be
doing justice to what I believe is right
if I refused to appeal the decision."
Hansen's handling of D.C. education
was unsatisfactory to Julius Hobson, a
Negro economist who has been at the
forefront of the civil rights movement
in Washington, D.C., for several years.
Twice in the past he has called for
boycotts of the Washington, D.C.,
schools without success. Hobson, how-
ever, met more luck when he brought
suit against Hansen on behalf of his
two children who attend public schools
in the District.
WITH THE DECISION, W r igh t
mounted the first judicial attack
on the seemingly intractable problem
of de facto segregation of Northern
schools. Behind the landmark Julius
Hobson vs. -Carl F. Hansen case lay
years of politicking and preparation,
and some 8 months of litigation by the
parties involved; in the wake of the
ruling, there has been a renewal of
hostility among those in favor of and
those opposed to the method employed
by Wright to straighiten out the Wash-
ington public school system-now with
.93 per cent Negro enrollment.
The full story is highly complex,
revolving around potentially explosive
issues. It transcends judicial and legis-
lative lines end focuses on the great-
est problem facing American educa-
tors today: the equal education of
whites and Negroes in a society orient-
ed towards economic disparities and
buttressed by racial prejudice.
HANSEN'S CAREER has been a dis-
tinguished but stormy one. The
balding, 61-year-old educator came to
the D.C. school system in 1947 with a
distinctly Western background - a
bachelor's and master's degree from the
University of Nebraska and a Ph.D.
from the University of Southern Cali-
fornia.
He immediately came under attack
by Southern congressmen over one of
his publications, "A Handbook on In-

tergroup Relations," which was criti--
cized as being "pro-integration" in out-
look.
Hansen attempted to deal with the
problem of education Washington's
youngsters in his own way. In 1956,
he testified before a congressional in-
vestigating committee that school in-
tegration in Washington had been a
"miracle of social adjustment unprece-
dented." Schools and faculty in the

District had been integrated without
riots and without the need of federal
troops.
But in the 13 years since the Brown
decision the District school system has
become a classic example of de facto
segregation-integration by law but
segregation by fact.
Of the eight public high schools in
Washington only Woodrow Wilson has
more white students than Negroes and
the percentage difference is acute-at
Wilson last year there were approxi-
mately 1350 white students as against
100 Negro.
Wilson lies in the city's affluent
Cleveland Park area in the Northwest
section of the city, about a five min-
ute drive from the Maryland border.
In 1948 Wilson High was rated among
the top 10 public high schools in the
nation by the Saturday Evening Post.
But from Wilson it is only a 10
minute drive eastward through Rock
Creek Park to Theodore Roosevelt
High, a school that has a vastly dif-
ferent student composition; with over
1300 Negro students and only five
whites.
In other Washington high schools,
such as Cardoza and Eastern, the per-
centage is the same or even higher. De
facto segregation from both directions
is, by any standard, the most obvious
characteristic of District schools.
What happened in Washington is not
difficult to figure out. White families
moved in droves to the outlying Mary-
land and Virginia suburbs, stocking
schools there with a hard-core white
population while surrendering most of
the District school facilities to the less
affluent Negro. In addition to Mary-
land public schools, prestige private
schools such as Landon in Bethesda,
Md., and St. Albans in the District,
doubled, tripled and quadrupled in
applications.
ONE OF THE BIGGEST bugbears to
complicate this educational picture
has been the "track system," institut-
ed by Hansen himself after the Brown
decision. The system revolves around a
senior high school curriculum which
provides four sequences for students, of
different levels of achievement: hon-
ors, regular, general and basic. At first
it was a widely accepted program for it
provided for a sensible integration of
schools by making allowance for Ne-
gro students who had formerly attend-
ed segregated and obviously inferior
schools.
Wright's decision, however, specific-
ally hits Hansen's brainchild. It 1)
abolished the track system of ability
grouping, 2) orders the busing of stu-
dents from "over populated" to "un-
der populated" schools, and 3) orders
the complete integration of school fac-
ulties.
Critics of Hansen in Washington
have pointed to the fact that he is be-
hind the times in a city, and a nation,
for that matter, in which liberalism
and civil rights provide the strongest
current. One Washington community
leader was recently quoted as saying,
"There isn't much mystery about what
has happened with Carl Hansen. Poli-
cies that seemed liberal during the
1950's in a city that basically had been
a southern town seem very conserva-
tive today."
But this view certainly was not shar-
ed by all. Representative John Dowdy
of Texas, a former member of the
House District Committee, said when
interviewed, "Hansen did a tremendous
job as school superintendent. He lean-
ed over backwards to help out all the

school children of Washington, D.C., to
the best of his ability." Dowdy added
that Hansen's job was made unpleas-
ant by the various factional groups ex-
isting in Washington.
"He just couldn't please everyone,"
Dowdy continued. "No one could pos-
sibly do this, his job was impossible
from the beginning."
-ROB SALTZSTEIN

Roger Hilsman, in his recent
book, "To Move a Nation," makes
it rather obvious that the villian
of U.S. Vietnam policy from an
early date has been Walt W. Ros-
tow. He is an ideologue so rigid
that he can best be compared
with a Marxist theoretician of the
the 1940's. A recent speech given
by Mr. Rostow in Leeds, England,
and a much more recent letter he
sent to a prominent Ann Arbor
Democrat, Dr. Allan Jones, reveal
that for all his erudition, Mr.
Rostow is now more than ever a
prisoner of his own mispercep-
tions. To the less charitable it
would appear as prevarication in
high places.
Rostow's twisting of history
reaches back to the beginning of
the Indo-China war. In his Leeds
speech he said, "Stalin, working
through the Cominform, launched
an offensive in the East, which
can roughly be dated from Zha-
danov's speech of September,
1947. It involved guerrilla warfare
in Indo-China . . . and in the
Philippines and elsewhere in SE
Asia." Aside from the validity of
this explanation for other SE
Asian countries, 'which is very
doubtful, the absurdity of his
contention regarding the Philip-
pines and Vietnam is apparent in
the fact that guerrilla warfare in
both was well under way by late
1946. Nor has any reputable scho-
lar ever maintained that out-
breaks in these two countries had
any connection whatsoever with
the Cominform. A recent book by.
Charles McLane of Dartmouth,
based on exhaustive research in
Communist documents, makes it
clear that the Cominform was
totally in the dark about what
was going on in the Philippines
in the 1940's, nor were the Fili-
pino comrades any more alert to
the policies of the Cominform.
NO HISTORIAN has ever sug-
gested that the hostilities in Viet-
nam in 1946 were the result of
anything more than the dynamics
of France-Vietnamese conflict. In
fact, he was then attempting to
make friends with Asian govern-
ments that the Cominform was
heaping with abuse. Milton Sacks
of Brandeis, now a firm Adminis-
tration supporter, said in 1959
in a, RAND publication that Ho
Chi Mnh's leadership was a "de-
viation from general SE Asian
Communist policy" until 1949.
Rostow's line is probably de-
signed to discredit Ho's national-
ism, which is an embarrassment
to his ideological construct.
In Leeds Mr. Rostow further
maintained that "what is old-
fashioned about Vietnam is the
All letters must be typed,
double-spaced and should be no
longer than 300 words. All let-
ters are subject to editing;
those over 300 words will gen-
erally be shortened. No unsign-
ed letters will be printed.

effort by the leaders in Hanoi to
make their lifelong dream of
achieving control over SE Asia
come to reality by the use of
force." If there is such a "lifelong
dream," it has been kept a well-
guarded secret from all those who
study Vietnamese politics. Unless
Mr. Rostow confuses Southeast
Asia with Indo-China-the differ-
ence between about 240 million
and only 40 million-he is the
dreamer. It is true that Hanoi
does seem to have matured long-
term ambitions of dominance in
Laos and Cambodia, but U.S.
policy has been singularly irrele-
vant to the protection of those
two countries.
Mr. Rostow's recent letter, re-
sponding to criticism, contends,
"Our involvement in Vietnam
does not stem from an interven-
tion in a civil war from the viola-
tion of the 1954 and 1962 Geneva
Accords"--presumably he means
"by the Communists." He does
not explain how U.S. military ac-
tion in Vietnam helps in the en-
forcement of the 1962 agreement
on Laos, but the 1954 agreement
is hardly more relevant. That the
Communists were responsible for
some violations cannot be denied.
However, the Sixth Interim Re-
port of the International Control
Commission, which was given the
responsibility of supervising en-
forcement of the Geneva Accords,
states that from the beginning,
violations in the South were more
numerous than violations in the
North. The 1962 Special Report
of the same Commission, which
the State Department sometimes
quotes to its own advantage, says
in paragraph 20: "The Commis-
sion concludes that the Republic
of Vietnam has violated Articles
16 and 17 of the Geneva Agree-
ment in receiving the increased
military aid from the U.S.A.
The Commission is also to the
view that . . . the establishment
of a U.S. Military Assistance
Command in South Vietnam as
well as the introduction of a large
Advisory Group amounts to a
factual military alliance, which is
prohibited under Article 19. ..
It is difficult to understand how
the other side's violation can pro-
vide a legal or moral justifica-
tion for our action when a pro-
perly constituted international
commission condemns our side's
actions as violations too.
THE CLAIM that we were not
intervening in a civil war ignores
the fact that U.S. advisors were
assisting the South Vietnamese
Army in repressing guerrillas in
the South even before it had oc-
curred to U.S. officials to charge
that there was infiltration from
the North. Nor does such infiltra-
tion, coming after the beginning
of hostilities in the South, con-
stitute "agression." General West-
moreland himself has admitted
that regular North Vietnamese
forces did not cross the 17th
parallel until after the U.S., first
bombed the North, August 1964.
Finally Rostow raises the cry

that we are "honoring a most spe-
cific commitment under the Ma-
nila Treaty of 1954 that we would
act to meet the common danger
in the face of armed attack on
South Vietnam." The "SEATO
commitment" is, of course, a new
theme in U.S. government state-
ments. It was not mentioned in
the March 1965 document put out
by the State Department, "The
Legal Basis for the U.S. Actions
Against North Vietnam." It is a
recent argument, dragged out in
desperation to justify the un-
justifiable.
The language of Article IV.
paragraph 1 of the Treaty uses
the phrase "Aggression by means
of armed attack," in response to
which the U.S. agreed to "act to
meet the common danger." This

is a phrase borrowed from the UN
Charter which refers only to open
attacks by regular armed forces.
Communist military action in
Laos in 1960 was not considered
to be included in this category,
so the U.S. 'asked for unanimous
agreement in the SEATO Council,
which is required for action under
Article IV, paragraph 2, referring
to "any way other than armed
attack." It was not forthcoming.
Agreement in the SEATO Council
on any action in Vietnam has
been impossible up to this day,
thus the search for justification
in Washington ignores paragraph
2. But the attempt to invoke para-
graph 1 is not consistent either
with the meaning of the language
when the treaty was draftedor
with' SEATO's own precedents.

Thus not only does the Southeast
Asia Treaty not constitute a
"most specific commitment," but
provides no legal basis for U.S.
action.
IF THE LEADING intellectual
architect of our Vietnam policy
is so caught in a web of untruths.
half-truths and mis-perceptions
it is little wonder that Washing-
ton sees no way out of the quag-
mire. In any case, the well-in-
formed citizen should protest the
persistent effort in the White
House to rewrite history, a nefari-
ous practice which we used to be
told was indulged in only by
Stalin.
--David Wurfel,
Visiting Associate Professor
of Political Science

I

44

U 7

0

I1

7,

91

'U

4 ''
~k4"-
.', 4

'U)

I'

AI

__
IN §ANV %~~

A

"I NEVER

TRIED~ tI661N6-s OXHOLES

W&OI Wo'- .

. ..." r.. ..." . ". .N. \Y"'I. .."'f". tJ....1.:t:J./ .A:1.4 . .'
I Dreamed I Was Driving in .y...

.r

By JENNY STILLER
Last Friday afternoon I wan-
dered into the City Room and was
greeted by one of the Co-Editors.
"Do you drive?" he asked in the
weary tone of one who is used to
getting negative answers. I said I
did. "Do you like to write fea-
tures?" he asked. For some reason
not connecting the two questions,
and strangely unaware that the
gleam in his eye was closely akin
to his "did-I-hear-you-volunteer-
to-write-an-editorial" look, I re-
plied that I did.
That was how I found myself
heading for the parking lot of
AnntArbor High at 9 o'clock yes-
terday morning, about to take the
skill test the National Auto Safety
Road-E-O was giving the 102
state winners, all of whom were
trying for the national honor.
I'd always though I was a pretty
good river. The facts--that I got
a C in Driver Ed in high school,
that I flunked the drivers' test the

first time around because I had
trouble parallel-parking a Re-
nault, and that I once smashed in
the side of a Mustang because I
forgot to look behind before back-
ing out of the driveway-didn't
faze me. We all have our little
vanities.
On the way out to Ann Arbor
High, I tried to strike up a con-
versation with last year's Road-E-
0 champion on the scene,. to give
encouragement to the contestants.
Feeling more than a little nervous,
I confessed to him that I was
in the running for Typical Woman
Driver of 1967. "Oh?" he replied,
in the pained tone of a British
nobleman whom a coal miner has
approached as an equal. That
ended that.
AFTER STANDING around the
parking lot awhile, I heard the
Road-E-O Master, Frank Grin-
nell, ask the public relations di-
rector where the Daily reporter

was. I identified myself. You're
going to drive the course?" Grin-
nell demanded. I nodded. He burst
out laughing, and I lost my cool
completely.
We started walking to the row
of parked cars - wine-colored
Caliente convertables - when
someone called out, "Hey, what's
her number?"
Grinnell looked at me again, ob-
viously deciding I didn't seem very
formidable. "Thirteen,"' he yelled
back, convulsing everyone within
earshot.
I climbed into the driver's seat,
and felt for the lever to move the
seat forward. It was stuck. After
a great deal of experimenting I
finally discovered that I'd been
trying to move it in the wrong
direction. I tried again. The seat,
it turned out, was already as far
forward as it would go. Great.
When you're driving it helps if
your feet can reach the pedals.

The course consisted of a num-
ber of barricades set up for ma-
neuvers. I had watched a couple
of the real contestants drive it,
and they'd done pretty well. I
was reminded of the time someone
convinced me to race against some
kids who needed practice before
trying out for the Olympic swim-
ming team. That time, I had fin-
ished in about thrice the time of
everyone else, and had refused to
go near the water for weeks after-
ward. At least this couldn't be
that bad I thought.
There were four problems on
the course, at 50 points each. The
first, called the offset, consisted
of six barricades through which
one was expected to slalom. "This
is a test of maneuverability," said
Mr. Grinnell from the seat beside
me. I resisted an impulse to ask
him what that was. The last car
I had driven had been our huge,
black Buick station wagon, affec-
tionately nicknamed "the hearse,"
which will occasionally turn the
way the driver wants to go, on
good days when the wind is blow-
ing right. "Couldn't.I do this on
a bicycle?" I asked. But they
wouldn't let me.
Amazingly enough, I passed
that test with only two demerits,
earned because I had to back and
fill at one point. "Hey, she's
not bad," the judge exclaimed.
He spoke too soon.
THE OBJECTIVE of the fol-
lowing problem was to drive
around a curve made out by five
pairs of silver balls, with the car's
right wheels between the two
rows of balls. Theoretically, it was
possible to negotiate the curve
without knocking over any of the
ten balls. I got nine.
The next test was parallel park-
ing Nnw warallyor ri..

of the front barrier; and started
to back up. The only problem
was, I forgot to put the car in
r e v e r s e first, and strangely
enough, it insisted on going for-
ward. I stopped, repositioned my-
self, and tried again. I backed
slowly into the space. Mr. Grin-
nell kept shouting instructions at
me, most of which I am proud to
say I didn't need. One in par-
ticular I did need, though.
"Stop!" he yelled. "You're going
to hit that barricade!" I heard
him, all right, but the meaning
of his words didn't register, at
first. Then I heard a loud crunch
and understood what he was say-
ing. Obligingly, I stopped.
I pulled forward, i repositioned
the car, and tried again. I stop-
ped the car, put on the emergency
brake, and blew the horn twice to
signal to the judges that I- was
finished. They came over to meas-
ure my distance from the curb.
Less than six inches. I had passed,
with a rousing forty points.
The final test consisted of a
right - angle, right - hand turn
marked off by fences. Presumab-
ly, one was supposed to navigate
this without stopping or backing
up. As only one of the contestants
had been able to accomplish this,
I wasn't too worried. I should
have been.
THE PART of the test they
hadn't warned me about was not
those devilish fences, which only
spade me back up once, but a stop
sign at the end of the alleyway
determined by them., The idea, I
found out from Grinnell as I
approached the sign, was to stop
with the front bumper within six
inches of the "intersection." I
guided the car to a gentle halt
near (astfar as I could tell) the
limit set by'the rules. "Have you
stopped?" the judge asked. When

MdUSIC
Rapport at 'U' Series Finale

By CHARLES TIMBRELL
The final recital of the Uni-
versity's Summer Concert Series
was presented Monday evening in
Rackham Auditorium by cellist
Zara Nelsova and her husband,
pianist Grant Johannesen. The
program, consisting of sonatas by
Beethoven, Poulenc and Rach-
maninoff, was marked throughout
by exceptional rapport between
the two, and fine and polished
-playing individually. However,
throughout the evening it was ob-
vious a man was playing with a

series in past years, need little
introduction.
In the first and last movements
of the opening Beethoven D major
Sonata (Op. 102, No. 2), Miss Nel-
sova's playing seemed somewhat
lacking in drive and projection,
and her spiccato lacked sufficient
bite to compete with the piano
tone in the closing fugato. When
she did match the piano in the
more dramatic moments, her tone
tended to become scratchy. In the
central Adagio both performers
produced a kind of dark-colored
inwciya sained wrmh

formers. The Ballabile, which is
pure "corn," and the effective last
movement were exceptionally well
played. The slow movement, Ca-
vatine, is the most substantial and
achieves a melancholic kind of ef-
fect through added notes which is
derivative of the Impressionists,
Ravel in particular. MT. Johan-
nesen's playing was once again
not quite matched in warmth and
richness by Miss Nelsova, although
her muted section was quite beau-
tifully played. The work was most
enthusiastically received.
Tt wra in the p1osinachmani-