100%

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

Share

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.

September 16, 1969 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1969-09-16

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


---everybody knows this

is nowhere

T4P MEidligan Daily
Seventy-eight years of editorial freedoin
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan

What about these goddamn kids?

by john

gray '

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

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

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 1969

NIGHT EDITOR: JIM NEUBACHERI

The self-destructive progress
of the anti-ROTC disruptions

THE ROTC class disruptions at North
Hall yesterday were not only futile but
actually destructive to the building of a
mass base for student activism on cam-
pus. Not only have the disruptive tactics
alienated the campus in general but they
have splintered the ranks of the left it-
self. The "creative disruptions" are no
longer creative but self-destructive.
The elimination of on-campus ROTC,
even if accomplished nationwide, will not
destroy the American military or in any
way herald the coming of the Messiah.
The importance of the action is in the
base it builds for future actions and its
significance for a campus-wide student
power movement. Any actions without
these ends in mind are senseless sacri-
fices taken for ego gratification, or to be
more charitable mere conscious-easing.
Disruptive tactics in themselves can be
legitimate and effective. Radicals have
every right to use non-violent means of
civil disobedience against institutions
which have no moral justification for
their presence on campus. In seeking to
disrupt such institutions, radicals should
not feel automatically bound by the con-
sent of the majority of students.
Nevertheless, maximum student s u p-
port should be solicited before disruptive
tactics are used. To deliberately scorn the
opinions of the majority and utilize tac-
tics which do not encourage mass support
is useless.
Only if ROTC were literally a life or
death issues - which it is not - could
radicals justifiably disrupt it without any
concurrent attempt to build student sup-
port.
MANY RADICALS had been reluctant to
initiate disruptive tactics without an
intensive effort to explain to students the
purpose of miliant action. They had sup-
ported the actions Thursday only to pre-
vent a badly splintered left from further
fragmenting itself.
The movement's own steering commit-

tee Sunday night voted to discontinue dis-
ruptive tactics unless a significant num-
ber of students - the number 200 was
arbitrarily chosen - participated.
The disruptions yesterday were carried
out by the same hard core of 50-60
people who have proved incapable of
gaining a mass following in the past. They
are repeating past mistakes. From the
movement's inception, the anti-ROTC
campaign has deliberately alienated stu-
dents who, while opposing the military
and the war, have not made a mental
commitment to the practicality or legiti-
macy of disruptive tactics. No effort has
been made to attract these people; they
have simply been ignored.
INSTEAD THE movement is dominated
by those who proclaim the dangerous
illogic that individuals acting militantly
for their convictions would inevitably
strengthen the movement, and by their
sacrifice and devotion would push t h e
revolution inexorably onward. If the dis-
rupters were totally honest in adhering to
this philosophy, which they are not, they
would blow the building sky high, assassi-
nate the entire ROTC staff and complete
their exemplary action by immolating
themselves on Fleming's doorstep.
To legitimize this illogic by calling on
the world's oppressed peoples for sancti-
fication while ignoring the student com-
munity is further evidence of the moral
pretensiousness which is destroying the
movement.
EVENTUALLY rational people must
forego a commitment which evokes a
repressive response while accomplishing
no earthly good. The failure of SDS' tac-
tics is evident. These methods must be
temporarily abandoned until a serious
effort is made to enlarge the mass base,
hopefully assuming that the University
community has not already been com-
pletely alienated by yesterday's blunders.
-TOBE LEV

THIS SUMMER, university and college
presidents from all over the country
got together at meetings and conventions
and over the phone and through the mails
and asked each other one simple question:
"What are we gonna do about these
goddamn kids?"
According to the straight press, they de-
cided that the thing to do was to get a
little tougher, to be out front with their
threats and to stop treating students and
faculty as if they were somebody special.
And apparently our own Robben Fleming
was paying attention.
LAST WEEK our president: 1P implied
that the faculty, perhaps, have the same
status in the eyes of the administration as
their stenographers. "Traditionally in this
country, people are not paid while on
strike," he said in a conversation about a
proposed one-day class boycott protesting
the War.
2) abandoned, perhaps, the idea that in-
ternal student demonstrations can be han-
dled internally. "Our attorney advises us
that there may be violations of the statu-
tory law involved, but that the law would
have to be applied equally against students
and non-students," he said in a statement
about last week's extraordinarily tame
demonstrations in North Hall.

3 indicated, perhaps, that he wasn't go-
ing to put up with this kind of crap from
students any more. Not only did he threat-
en ROTC disruptors with University disci-
pline, but with criminal prosecution and
civil suits for damages. Not only did he
warn SGC not to lead a march on the Re-
gents over a student bookstore, but in a
thinly veiled threat implied that the Re-
gents might take unfavorable action on un-
related issues as a result of such a march.
Anyone who has been here for the past
two years knows that this is not Flem-
ing's style. When black students locked
themselves in the old adminisrtation build-
ing. our President strolled on over and met
their demands without so much as a word
about discipline.
When a couple of hundred students were
arrested last fall for taking part in a sit-in
in the county building, Fleming's good
right arm Barbara Newell was right there
with bail money.
SOMETHING MUST have happened to
make our President change his mind on
the way he's running this University. And
the only thing I know of that could have
done that is fear.
Fleming is afraid of something or some-
body. It could be as simple as the fear that
the old, easy-going methods of handling

radical students are not going to be ade-
quate to keep the campus quiet this year.
It could be as reasonable as the fear that
the state legislature will screw the Uni-
versity on funds even more than usual if
they think the administration is catering
to long-haired socialist weirdoes. Or it
could be as deep as the fear that Sheriff
Harvey will bring his friendly deputies on
campus and really start some fires on the
plain.
In any case, he has changed his style.
and he has changed it to conform to the
kind of tight-lipped, hard-fisted adminis-
trative style that's sweeping the nation.
AND THIS might just be the campus
that proves that this new style leads
straight down the road to San Francisco
State.
Say twenty-five students are arrested
and sent to jail over the ROTC demonstra-
tions. Say another twenty-five get bagged
for disrupting a Regents' meeting if he
gets the ROTC demonstrators, his recent
rhetoric will impel him to get the others.
Siy only fifty students sit in in support
of the welfare mothers this year and get
busted. In a month or so there will be a
hundred students in jail or on county work
crews or on probation.
These students are going to learn fast

that the mild form of disruption that's be-
come traditional at Michigan since the stu-
dent power movement of 1966 is no longer
going to work. They will learn fast that the
token violence involved in lunch-hour sit-
ins and "creative disruption" of classes is
only going to net them ninety days in jail.
These students are not going to be hap-
py.
AND WHEN token violence doesn't work,
there are only two ways to turn: to the
"established procedures" so dear to the
hearts of the bureaucrats of the adminis-
tration and the academicians of the fa-
culty, or to the actual violence that is be-
ing urged on the campus by Detroit SDS
and constantly threatened by our own
Sheriff Doug.
Whether Fleming realizes it or not, by
taking this new attitude he is laying his
idea of the University, and perhaps his
job. right down on the table. He's building
himself a castle of commitments and dis-
trust that will ultimately make him either
a strong leader of a touchy campus or the
target of violent confrontation after vio-
lent confrontation. He is gambling that the
students will move to the "established pro-
cedures" and let him live.
And that's not impossible. President
Fleming, it's not impossible.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Pursuing the orderly process on

To the Editor:
IN RESPONSE to the editorial
which appeared in The Daily on
rhursday, September 11, the Aca-
demic Affairs Advisory Committee
of t h e University Assembly be-
lieves that the University com-
munity should be apprised of
these facts, not all of which were
recognized by the editorial:
1. Our Committee has had un-
der review since last spring the
question of the relationship be-
tween the University and the
ROTC programs. Extensive fact-
ual investigation has been made.
open meetings have been h e l d
plus one public hearing, and a
preliminary report issued indicat-
ing that modification of the re-
lationship will be recommended.
That report is on the Assembly
agenda for September 15.
2. The final report will be sub-
mitted to the Senate Assembly by
October 1, and will be debated by
that group.
3. Our committee membership
includes student representatives.
one of whom has attended regu-
larly. We continue to welcome
student participation in our de-
liberations, although SGC has un-
ilaterally declined to send a rep-
resentative.
4. Although the Senate Assem-
bly is a faculty g r o u p, student
groups are encouraged to submit
to it any recommendations which
they desire when the subject is of
mutual interest. Such a submis-
sion in this case would be wel-
come.
5. The Assembly will make its
recommendations to the Regents
who have responsibility for the
final decision. If those recommen-
dations are not satisfactory to any
student. group, such groupgcould
and should submit through the
President an alternative s e t of
recommendations to the Regents
when the matter is considered by
them. We have every confidence
that a request for a hearing before
the Regents would be granted.
6. While we recognize the desir-
ability of bringing the matter to
a conclusion at the earliest possible
time, there is no reason why a
timely decision cannot be reached
following orderly processes, with

opportunity for all interested par-
ties to be heard. It would be tun-
reasonable to terminatedabruptly
or modify drastically any program
upon which students have em-
barked in good faith, so that any
proposed changes cannot be ex-
pected to take effect immediately.
OUR conclusion is that appro-
priate orderly processes for get-
ting a decision are underway. that
there are avenues available to any
person or group which wishes to
present its viewpoint: and that
these orderly processes should be
pursued without tactics of disrup-
tion.
-HoraceW Davenports
-'heodore V. Buttrey
Co-Chairmen Academic
Affairs Committee
Sept. 11
Fighting r(IngOns
'Co the Editor:
I AM DISMAYED by Mr. Lands-
man's arguments concerning the
Daily's publishing of the political
cartoon which appeared in t h e
Argus. If it was suggested that
The Daily reprint the picture in
question and the accompanying
text, the entire page from the Ar-
gus, the reasons given for not do-
ing so are spurious.
Mr. Landsman argues; The
Daily would be prosecuted, The
Daily would be closed, and there-
fore The Daily could not contin-
ue waging battles with dragons.
The Daily might as well be pros-
ecuted, but then so was the Vil-
lage Boutique of Hammond, In-
diana.
AN EMPLOYEE of the Village
Boutique was prosecuted and the
owner was threatened with pros-
ecution for selling the "under-
ground" newspaper. Kaleidoscope.
Rather than submit to persecu-
tion the owner sued the chief of
the Hammond police department,
the prosecutor for Lake County.
Indiana and others in the United
States District Court. A t h r e e
judge panel stated:
"Political speech . may not
be suppressed unless it falls
within the "clear and pres-

ent danger" a n d immediate
incitement tests.
In Roth v. United States ...
the Supreme Court held that
printed matter may not be
found obscene unless it is ut-
terly without redeeming so-
cial importance. Political
speech which is not deprived
of its protection by virtue of
its inciting nature is per se
speech with redeeming social
value."
A result of the Village Bouti-
que's assault upon repressive
county officials is a bit more free-
dom of press in Hammond, In-
diana. The prosecutor does not
determine what is fit to print.
MR. LANDSMAN says: "The
principle risk involved in such ac-
tion (publishing the excerpt from
Argus) would be prosecution for
obscenity-an action all but prom-
ised by Washtenaw County Prose-
cutor William Delhey." I recall no
suggestion by Mr. Landsman nor
by any other letter of The Daily
that the Argus excerpt is indeed
obscene, non-political or apoli-
tical. Yet, the editors and Mr.
Landsman in particular by allow-
ing the local prosecutor to deter-
mine by default the content of
The Daily urge us to accept Mr.
Delhey's opinion as opposed to
their opinion.
PERHAPS Mr. Landsman is
correct, by failing to publish the
Argus excerpt The Daily will be
able to continue to wage battles
with dragons. Battles with drag-
ons are important. However, only
a press which is free can be a
major weapon in such battles.
Perhaps by publishing the ex-
cerpt from Argus. The Daily might
slay a dragon.
Unfortunately, the content of
Mr. Landsman's argument, the
reasons The Daily has not pub-
lished the Argus excerpt, suggest
that the battle for freedom of the
press might better be waged by
boutiques in Hammond, Indiana,
than by the easily intimidated
local "free" press.
-Don Koster, LSA '60
Attorney at law
Sept. 9

Jiartial offensive
To the Editor:
DURING THE SUMMER, con-
siderable controversy arose con-
cerning the sound level of t h e
high energy music being played in
West Park rock concerts; as I re-
member, the residents of the area
were in part responsible, being as
they were quite adamant in their
charges that the music was,
among other things, too loud and
too offensive.
As a resident of the area imme-
diately adjacent to the I-M fields
on S. Division. I would lik e to
raise a similar complaint, t h i s
time directed against the Univer-
sity's marching band and its use
of the grounds. T h e y practice
there, and their music is quite
loud, as is the guttural chanting
of the marchers. "One-Two!" the

ROTC
bellow goes echoing, and I look
out the window, wondering what
country I'm in.
To put my feelings more strin-
gently: Take your goddamn mar-
tial music elsewhere. It's too loud
and too offensive.
-R. Marokus, LSA '70
Sept. 12
Letters to the Editor should
be mailed to the Editorial Di-
rector or delivered to Mary
Rafferty in the Student Pub-
itions business office in the
Mi .hizan Daily building. Let-
ters should be typed, double-
,:naced and normally should not
exceed 250 words. The Editorial
D P-tors reserve the right to
er'!t all letters submitted.

"Just as I1thought... . PRINKER'S INK! . .
The whole Santa Barbara channel oil
spill was exaggerated by the press!"
~-, ~

Movement 101: A quiz

SAY you're j u s t a normal student
and you want to start a mass student
movement with the final objective being
making some changes in this rotten
place.
Would you:
Call a rally on the Diag at noon and
then move it to North Hall at ten past,
leaving large groups of people wondering
where the hell you are?
Stand around for half an hour yelling
at people in your crowd of supporters, ac-
cusing them of being too liberal or too
radical or just plain dumb?
Decide that "We don't need martyrs at
this point" even though the only mass
student action in the past year was caus-
ed by a small group of martyrs who got
thousands of students out to march for
the welfare mothers the next day?
Stand by watching while a small group

of people take over your issue and begin
to disrupt the activity you have chosen
for a target?
Undermine your own position by mak-
ing it clear that you, a leader of t h e
movement, are only going to support
these people half-heartedly?
Get so hung up on your idea of demo-
cratic procedure that you become blind
to the reality that's going on around you,
leaving your issue to the people you don't
want to lead?
Ego-trip about whether Melvin Laird
will be quaking in his boots, or whether
you were on the steering committee that
made a decision that wasn't really bind-
ing, but holy cow, we worked all night
and you better do what we say?
A: NO.

-JOHN GRAY

Vixon'

marijuana

rreform'

- a

very

bad

trip

By LEE MITGANG
THE WORD "marijuana" does not
conjure a pretty picture in our
President's mind.
As a part of his program to put
the youth of America back on the
paths of righteousness, Nixon has
made a series of proposals to Con-
gress which will make smoking mari-
juana, or selling it, harder and more
dangerous than ever. His bill, pre-
sented to the nation in mid-July of
this year, asks Congress to p a s s
heavier penalties for drugs like mar-
ijuana and LSD.
Its provisions include:
0 A law allowing an enforcement
officer. after getting a warrant from
a judge, to break into the house of
a suspect, w h o m he is reasonably
sure has drugs. using any means of
entry necessavry
Furthermore, to prevent the sus-
pect from disposing of his d r u g s
once aware of the officer's entry, he

* A "fast-moving Federal investi-
gation unit" would be established to
stop "illicit traffic."
* To plug the hole in the federal
laws as they stand, specifically to
prevent a recurrence of the Supreme
Court reversal of Dr. Timothy Leary's
case, Nixon would make the posses-
sion or transferal of marijuana with-
out the proper state research license
and federal registration a federal of-
fense.
* The penalties for sale of mari-
juana would be raised to ten-to-forty
years, with a $20-25,000 fine for first
offense, and up to $50,000 for econd
offense.
* The states will be presented with
a recommended "model state bill"
which would parallel the proposed
federal law.
* Marijuana should be classified
and penalized as a dangerous, addic-
tive, criminogetic drug

if prices go up due to scarcity, the
high cost will be prohibitive to high
school and college students. While
this may be true, it has also opened
the way for increasingly poor-qual-
ity grass, and in many cases, dan-
gerous substitutes - which in turn
can lead and hai led to tragedy.
There are several legal and con-
stitutional questions that should be
raised. In particular, the "no-knock
law" might well be viewed as a vio-
lation of t h e Fourth Amendment.
which provides that the home should
be secure a g a i n s t unreasonable
search. Can an officer then consti-
tutionally search a man's home with-
out first explaining the cause and
the authority of his search?
FURTHERMORE, might not the
penalties for sale or possession of
marijuana be considered cruel, un-
usual and excessive under the Eighth
Amendment? Two leading figures in

based as it is on either unscientific
data or no data at all.
Representative Claude P e p p e r,
Democratic chairman of the House
Select Committee on Crime asked the
Public Health Service to supply it
with information on the nature of
marijuana Is it a dangerous drug?
Is the progression from marijuana to
"hard drugs" inevitable or very us-
ual? Are there organic or toxic side-
effects. or are there side-effects on
intellectual ability? Does marijuana
hamper driving ability? Are there
criminogenic effects?
THE ANSWERS to many of these
questions were indeed available to
President Nixon before he proposed
his anti-marijuana bill, but he eith-
er chose to ignore the answers or he
didn't know of them, making him
either irresponsible or ignorant, or a
th i r d possibility: he is pressured.
Nixon knows, and everyone knows,

whatsoever on the level of blood su-
gar.
THE RESEARCHERS, Drs. Zin-
berg and Weil, working under the
auspices of the Federal and the Mass-
achusetts State Drug authorities, an-
swered far more serious charges
against marijuana use, and proved
conclusively that legislation concern-
ing this drug has no basis in scientif-
ic fact, and must therefore have been
turned into a political, moral and
economic issue by Nixon, the lobbies,
and other interested groups.
The research by Drs. Zinberg and
Weil was conducted using the same
scientific methods of drug testing
that are applied to all drugs, making
this the first time marijuana re-
search had been conducted in an ac-
ceptable scientific manner.
Without going into the methodol-
ogy of the experiments, except to say
that eighteen neople were involved.

other major effects (physiological)
will be found," and "in terms of med-
ical dangers only, marijuana is a rel-
atively harmless intoxicant."
The psychological tests yielded
equally interesting results. The sub-
ject's sense of time was impaired t so
one bit of pot folklore stands un-
challenged, at least), but it seemed
clear to the researchers that mari-
juana has elusive, if not negligible,
psychological effects. Indeed, t h e y
said that "it is hard to tell psycho-
logically when a person is high un-
less he tells you that he is."
A person's mental powers and his
ability to function are not affected
adversely, the tests showed. More-
over, regular smokers actually im-
proved in the areas of cognitive func-
tions. attention span and muscular
coordination.
All this was demonstrated by two
of the test subjects before a panel of

intoxication depends greatly on the
smoker's expectations and his imme-
diate environment. There is no gen-
eral stimulant or depressant effect
on the nervous system.
Thus it seems possible to ignome,
adapt to,tor control any effects mar-
ijuana has. A stoned p e r s o n can
compensate one hundred per cent
and behave as if "straight."
According to a report conducted
by the Department of Motor Vehicles
of the State of Washington, e v e n
driving ability is not impaired. In
fact, there is still no clear way to tell
t h e difference between a straight
person and a stoned person, although
there may o f t e n be a change in
speech patterns.
Drs. Zinberg and Weil h o p e to
study such changes, and also want
to observe any long-range effects of
marijuana, a field which has never
been studied.

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan