Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

May 17, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1967-05-17

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

i i io rw rrrr+ ri rr

Seventy-Sixth Year


Where Opinions Are Free,
Truth Will Prevail


NEws PHONE: 764-0552

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



Grad Language Requirements:
An Improved Approach

will be able to give more attention to
the demands of their individual programs
as a result of last week's reform of the
doctoral foreign language requirement
by the Executive Board of the graduate
The board decided that foreign lan-
guage requirements could best be devel-
oped by the program committees of the
departments. Thus, a doctoral student's
language requirement will be set by the
faculty of the department in which he
The board's action ameliorates the tra-
ditional uniform language requirement.
(Presently reading proficiency in two lan-
guages.) It should also eliminate abuses
of reading examinations, and course sub-
stitutions which hurt students in the
studies of both their languages and their
The new requirements will set a mini-
mum and students will not be forced to
sidestep these requirements in order to
spend more time on their majors. Most
important, the change allows depart-
ments to take greater authority in shap-
ing their doctoral programs.
tions should be submitted t ohExec-
utive Board of the graduate school' by
January 1, 1968, and should be processed
by the board by September 1, 1968. Until
all the departmental recommendations
have been reViewed and approved, the
present foreign language requirement will
remain in effect.
The new requirements will apply to all
new and continuing doctoral students.
However, continuing students can elect
before. September 1, 1969, to meet the
present requirement.
The board's was a high-quality deci-

sion, a creative academic reform, al-
though perhaps it will be no better in
the end than the consideration the pro-
gram committees exert in formulating
new requirements.
But the inputs which led to the Execu-
tive Board's decision were very good in
themselves. Departments, individual fac-
ulty members, and student groups con-
tributed. A thorough and thoughtful sur-
vey of graduate students' feelings on for-
eign language studies was prepared, con-
ducted, and reported by members of the
former Graduate Student Council, now
the Graduate Assembly.
The survey indicated that the many
doctoral programs of the University are
increasingly specialized and that uniform
language requirements could be effec-
tively replaced by language requirements
designed for specific study programs.
THE CONCLUSION of the student sur-
veyors are clearly embodied in the
board's move. But this, in turn, is part of
a larger philosophy for graduate studies.
"A continuing review of the doctoral pro-
grams under the supervision of the Exec-
utive Board is essential if the graduate
school is to be effective both in the en-
hancement of its programs and in the
distribution of financial support," gradu-
ate school Dean Stephen Spurr said in a
message on the change.
While students may contribute to and
anticipate the decisions on the foreign
language requirement coming from their
department, the work of the Executive
Board, faculty and graduate students cer-
tainly deserves credit now. It is only
through communication and academic ef-
fort such as theirs that high-quality de-
cisions can be made in the University.

Letters to the Editor
Greene Responds to 'Michigan Alumnus' Reprint

Juvenile Courts 'Gone Bad'

granting juveniles identical rights as
adults in courts of law is the result of a
well-intentioned idea "gone bad."
Conceived around the turn of the cen-
tury by such notable humanitarians as
Jane Addams and Julia Lathrop of Chi-
c'ago's Hull House, and Denver's crusad-
ing Judge Benjamin Lindsay, the juven-
ile court was originally intended as a de-
vice to separate youthful offenders from
hardened adult criminals in penitentiar-
ies. As it evolved the juvenile court was
supposed to serve as a place where a
benevolent judge could take a juvenile
delinquent under his paternalistic wing
and perform some magic rehabilitation.
With a high degree of informality and
flexibility, the court supposedly could pre-
vent the juvenile from performing fur-
ther criminal activities. The substitution
of the social worker and psychologist for
the police officer signaled this new, more
humane approach to justice and the pen-
al system.
Unfortunately, too much depended on
the capabilities and sympathies of the in-
dividual judge in such a system. The fan-
cy of each magistrate was often the only
factor in determining the future of the
juvenile offender. Thus, if the judge saw
fit to sentence a juvenile delinquent to
10 years in the local reformatory because
he felt he was a "nasty brat," the juven-
ile had no recourse. This subjective ap-
proach, although originally benevolent in
intent, has been totally alien to the com-
mon law development of American juris-
ile had no right to habeus corpus, no
guarantee of counsel, could not face or
cross examine his accusers, had no right
of appeal to a higher tribunal, and lacked
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
Collegiate Press Service
Summer subscription rate: $2.00 per term by car-
rier; ($2.50 by mail) $4.00 for entire summer ($4.50
by mail).
Daily except Monday during regular academic school

essential protection against self-incrimi-
The case before the Supreme Court was
brought by the} parents of Gerald Gault
with the assistance of attorneys furnish-
ed by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Gault was adjudged to be a delinquent in
June, 1964, when he was 15 years old,
after a juvenile court judge found he
had made lewd telephone calls to a fe-
male neighbor. He served six months in
the state industrial school.
Gault's parents challenged the decision
of the juvenile court on the grounds that
Gault had been given inadequate notice
of the charge, that the women had not
testified in the case, that he had not
been offered the assistance of counsel
and that Arizona law does not permit an
appeal of juvenile court decisions.
SUPREME COURT found these vio-
lations of civil liberties inexcusable.
"Neither the. 14th Amendment nor the
Bill of Rights is for adults only," Judge
Abe Fortas explained in the majority
opinion. "Under our Constitution the con-
dition of being a boy does not justify a
kangaroo court."
Fortas went on to cite studies which
show that about half of the nation's
juvenile court judges have no undergrad-
uate education, a fifth have no college
education, and a fifth are not members
of the bar.
As Justice Black predicted, the decision
will probably strike a death blow to the
juvenile court concept. But the initial
concept of a benevolent court had been
transformed into a kangaroo court where
the juvenile stood dangerously unprotect-
The juvenile court concept when put
into practice just had "gone bad."
peace, student power and all sorts of
other liberal leanings. Many of the pick-
eters at the U Thant honors address
wore the flower, as did the protesters at
the London School of Economics a short
time earlie rBt daffodils have limitles

The following letter by Wal-
ter Greene was sent to Robert
G. Forman, editor-in-chief of
the University's alumni publi-
cation, "The Michigan Alum-
nus." Mr. Greene, former direc-
tor of the Defense Department's
Office of Contract Compliance,
was instrumental in the prepar-
ation of two reports-one in No-
vember, 1966, the other in March
this year-criticizing the Univer-
sity for enrollment and employ-
ment practices. The first re-
port said that the University is
known as a school "basically for
rich white students" and made
25 recommendations for "broad-
ening equal opportunities" here.
The second report made 16 rec-
ommendations on University
hiring policies. It recommended
that "a crash program" be es-
tablished to improve the "ex-
ceptionally bad employment
practices which currently exist
in the School of Engineering."
Mr. Greene is now deputy di-
rector of the Michigan Civil
Rights Commission.-Ed.
Dear Mr. Forman:
Aftertthe March 9, 1967, confer-
ence between Dr. Harlan Hatcher,
his staff and three specialists
from the regional Contracts Com-
pliance Office, assistant secretary
of defense, there were several
newspaper articles, in various pub-
lications, responding negatively to
the recommendations for affirma-
tive action discussed in the con-
ference. The articles named me
specifically in most cases and
cast me in the role of a govern-
ment "persecutor" by implication.
Foremost among those making
attacks was the "Chicago Tribune"
editorial which is reprinted in
your May 1967 issue of "The
Michigan Alumnus."
The reputation of the "Chicago
Tribune" is well-known for its
opposition to federal activity in
local enterprises and it has a pub-
lic image for resisting causes to
improve opportunities for minority
group people. Accordingly, any re-
sponse from me to that publication
would have been without value.
Your reprint of the editorial, I
believe, carries some different sig-
nificance because the alumni of
the University have a special, close
relationship. The article, reprint-
ed alone and without basic facts
from the parties involved in the
conference, certainly leads to er-
roneous impressions and ultimate-
ly false conclusions. It is my hope
that you will provide your con-
stituency with the information cit-
ed in this letter so that the alum-
ni have fairer opportunities to
make intelligent judgments about
the survey.
THE FEDERAL government re-
quirement for those in contractual
relations to engage in practices to
provide employment opportunities
without racial, religious or na-
tionality discrimination has been
a continuous condition in govern-
ment contracts for more than 20
years. Organizations in offering to
do business with the government,

employment practices of contrac-
tors to determine whether or not
they were fulfilling their agree-
ments pertaining to equal oppor-
tunities. Since that date, many
thousands of employers have
been the subject of compliance
reviews and the University of
Michigan agreed to cooperate in
such a review in October, 1966. A
basis of understanding was made
with the top administration of
the University'to conduct the re-
view with full cooperative partici-
pation of university personnel con-
cerned. All data and documenta-
tion were evaluated carefully and
in great detail by personnel of
the Government Contracts Com-
pliance Office at Detroit.
This normal review process is
identical to long standing gov-
ernment procedures in reviewing
all performances of each contrac-
tor to assure compliance with each
specification of the contract. Re-
views are conducted regularly to
assure compliance with various
laws on labor, wages, hours of
employment as well as quality con-
trol, production schedules, packag-
ing requirements, transportation
provisions and many other provi-
sions of the contract. We are
not aware of either editorials or
indignation pertaining to controls
in those areas.
THE MARCH 9, 1967 conference
was convened with Dr. Hatcher
and his staff to present findings,
analysis of the data compiled by
the University and top resent rec-
ommendations for improving the
continuing program of equal em-
ployment opportunity. Not only
was that conference conducted on
the very righest plane of respect
and mutual exchange, but a
top member of the University staff
characterized the report and rec-
ommendations as "very good."
No orders, directives, or threats
were made by any parties pres-
ent. No ratios or numbers of mi-
nority group employes were cited
as an objective or goal. The Uni-
versity was commended for the
accomplishments made in "dem-
onstrating" equal opportunities in
some of the schools, colleges and
service agencies. In those parts of
the University where only mini-
mal or no accomplishments in
equal opportunities existed, com-
ments were made accordingly.
The conference closed with a
friendly and mutual understand-
ing that appropriately cited units
of the University would review the
recommendations made and a sub-
sequent response would be made
to the Federal Contracts Compli-
ance Office as to the feasibility of
implementing the recommenda-
was not selected for review as any
special subject of consideration,
but it was under review in the
normal course of business in the
Contracts Compliance Program.
What was done at the University
of Michigan has been done at
two other major state-owned uni-
versities and one other in Wiscon-

prerogative and right. Federal con-
tracts compliance procedures re-
quire all information developed in
a review to be held by the govern-
ment as restricted to the parties
involved. Such restrictions are not
imposed on thep rivate contractor.
Consequently, the subject edi-
torial and other published articles
are not based on facts known to
the publishers but result in "pre-
conceived" and perhaps emotion-
ally charged innuendoes. An ex-
ample of the gross misunderstand-
ing in the editorial is the large
error pertaining to Negroes in the
University of Michigan student
body. The citation is 1800 in a to-
tal of 36,000. University officials
estimated the fall 1966 enrollment
to include a range of, 450 to 500
Negro students. Anyone familiar
with the University is likely to
know there is no history of Negro
enrollment having approached as
many as 1000 at any one time.
IT IS MY HOPE that the large
body of alumni of the University
of Michigan will understand that
a responsible federal agency work-
ed with the University administra-
tion in a cooperative spirit to seek
improved employment practices
where needed. It is hoped that
they will repudiate -the irrespon-
sible speculations that "high hand-
ed commands" were given to the
University or that the University
in anyway was threatened with
the loss of future government con-
-Walter R. Greene
Deputy Director, Michigan
Civil Rights Commission
Who really believes that in the
end the people of Vietnam will be
better off because we fought and
lost lives there? If you believe it,
why do you believe it? Can you
convince me that the Vietnamese
will suddenly acquire truly dem-
ocratic ideals and institutions if
we destroy the communists? Can
you convince yourself? I am not
If we are not fighting for them,
we must be fighting for us. How
can we gain? But . . . what would
we lose? If Vietnam were a com-
munist state would it effect us in
any way? How important is it to
us that Cuba is a communist
state? What is Cuba?-a dead fish
floating in salt water.
Do we protect India and the
Philippines by fighting in the
jungles of Vietnam? If I were a
general I would chose to fight on
the high seas or on the plains of
Northern India, where my enemy
was forced to cross the ocean or
the Himalayas to reach the battle
field-and not among jungle
creepers and fungus only 500 miles
from China. Vietnam is not the
place for us to fight.
SOUTH VIETNAM is completely
infiltrated by the enemy. The
physician amputates the limb
which festers and is rotten with

U.S. Misreads o
When General William C. Westmoreland came home to report to
the nation on the state of the war i Vietnam, he said the following in
his speech at the annual meeting of the Associated Press in New York
on April 24:
"The enemy does not understand that American democracy is
founded on debate and he sees every protest as evidence of
crumbling morale and diminishing resolve. Thus discouraged by
repeated military defeats but encouraged by what he believes to
be popular opposition to our effort in Vietnam, he is determined
to continue his aggression from the North."
General Westmoreland's statement, I am afraid, did not reflect
the realities of the history of Vietnam and of the thinking of the
leaders in Hanoi.
1) Hanoi does understand on what principles American democracy
is founded. In fact, President Ho Chi Minh, the founder of the Dem-
ocratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) admired these prin-
ciples so much that he embodied these same ideas in his own solemn
Declaration of Independence on September 2, 1945. The Declaration
started with this sentence: "All men are created equal. They are en-
dowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The U.S. Constitution as well as the constitution of the USSR were
subjects of study by the political cadres during the early days of the
Vietminh 1945 Revolution. Ho Chi Minh himself constantly read U.S.
newpapers and magazines. Recent visitors to Hanoi saw on his desk
copies of "The New Republic" and "The Nation," which are not
published by the United States Information Agency but by private
individuals whose opinions do not follow the administration lines. No
doubt, at this moment, with bombs falling all over country, President
Ho is very disappointed with the U.S. he had admired.
In January this year, Mr. Harry S. Ashmore, Chairman of the
Executive Committee of the Center for the Study of Democratic In-
stitutions, together with two other members of the Center, went to
Hanoi to invite a mission from North Vietnam to attend the Pacem in
Terri II to be held in Geneva on May 28-31, 1967. In the course of the
visit, they were received by President Ho Chi Minh who asked them:
"I know your country. I haven't been there in a long time, but I was
there years ago and I've always admired the U.S. and I thought I knew
it very well. But I just don't understand what's going on there now.
Tell, me gentlemen, is The Statue of Liberty standing on its head?"
2) THE NORTH VIETNAMESE Ministry of Foreign Affairs'
"American Division" in Hanoi is staffed by experts on U.S. history and
politics. One of them is a Ph.D. from an Ivy League college in this
country. Of course these experts read Gallup polls, the Congressional
Record, and all U.S. publications from left to right. By now they surely
must have come to the conclusion that the U.S. is divided over the Ad-
ministration's Vietnam policy because that is the case.
3) President Ho and his colleagues, from past experiences have
learned that political dissent in the enemy camp and military victory
on his side are not the same thing. During the Indochinese War (1945-
1954), the French people consistently and openly expressed their dis-
approval of the "dirty colonial war." Not only intellectuals and stu-
dents marched in the Champa Elysee, but workers organized strikes
which paralyzed the French economy for days. No people were more
sympathetic to the Vietnam cause than the French. Ho started his
political career in Paris, joined the French Socialist Party in the 1920s
and helped found the French Communist Party in 1923. In 1945 when
Ho was President of Vietnam, his friend and comrade, Maurice Thorez,
leader of the French Communist Party was Deputy Premier of France.
Yet during a session from March 14 to March 18, 1947, the French
conservative politicians rose in the French National Assembly during
a crucial debate to thank their "Communist colleagues and the
USSR for leaving France alone to fights its war in Indochina."
Faced with these brutal facts of life and politics, the Viet-
namese people had to fight alone and it took them nearly 10 years be-
fore they defated the French militarily at Dien Bien Phu in May, 1954.
The French colonial-military machine was defeated by the soldiers
of Vietnam in the jungle battlefields of Vietnam-not by the existen
sialists in Paris.
4) In their long history, the Vietnamese people had to fight long
wars of national liberation to defeat foreigners, especially the Im-
perial Chinese. The Chinese conquering armies led by prestigious
generals such as Koubla Khan were annihilated by the Vietnamese
soldier-peasants without the help of the Chinese students demon-
strating in the streets of Peking or Chinese poets writing verses of
5) THE FAMOUS ARTICLF or "wars of national liberation" by
Marshal Lin Piao, Mao Tse Tung's heir apparent, published in Septem-
ber 1965, advised self reliance to the revolutionaries in the under-
developed countries.
6) Hanoi and the NationalrLiberationFront often expressed
gratitude to the peoples of the world (including the American people)
for their moral support. But neither Hanoi nor the NLF has asked for
volunteers although these were offered by communist countries. Even
without a war with the USSR. I am sure theVoice of America and
the U.S. press would express joy and gratitude if 200,000 Russians
marched in the streets of Moscow to protest against the Russian sup-
plies of MIG's to North Vietnam.
7) Early this month, Hanoi made its position clear regarding dis-
sent in this country. In the May issue of the "Quan Doi Nhan Dan"

(People's Army) one can read- "We deeply appreciate the courageous
fight of the progressive Americans against the leaders of the U.S. It is
a strong support for us but we always believe that the decisive part is
being played on the battlefields," The same paper added. "We know
very well that we shall have to struggle hard and for a long time and
that the nation will have to undergo greater tests before victory, is at-
tained. The people of Hanoi and Haiphong are determined to sacrifice
all for the defense of North Vietnam and the liberation of the South."
TO ME, the dissent in the U.S. is not going to prolong or shorten
a war which will ultimately be decided by quiet diplomacy in the chan-
celleries of the world and by the thunder of the guns in the jungles of
Vietnam. This is a sad, brutal reality but it is a reality the Vietnamese
have learned to live with for many centuries. And if there is anything
the dissent will prolong, it is the life of the democratic institutions
on which the U.S. is founded.
The Widening War





Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan