i
The Mirhigan Date
Servesty-n ine years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan
the jaundiced eye
Stalking new political strategy with Nixon
by ron IlandSmiani
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.
News Phone: 764-0552
Ediorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in alt reprints.
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1969
NIGHT EDITOR: JiM NEUBACHER
Goiii Spiro one I)etter
WASHINGTON
RICHARD NIXON'S speech to the na-
tion Nov. 3 on his resolution to end
the Vietnam War didn't say very much.
But it did a great deal.
Despite early rumors of troop cut an-
nouncements or a de facto cease-fire pol-
icy, the President gave the anti-war seg-
ment of the country nothing. Not even a
token nod. Rather than meet the op-
position, rather than even recognize its
legitimacy, the President moved to under-
cut and destroy it; and he did so with
consummate political skill.
Not only did it anger those Senate doves
who have opposed the war for many years,
but it demoralized them as well. Nixon
made it clear he was not on speaking
terms with them.
NIXON DID WhAT every President has
the option of doing, though few dare:
he appealed to, and won, an expression of
support from the public, leaving his op-
ponents in a tenuous position.
The expressions of support, like the
ones he got in his famous "Checkers
Speech" in the 1952 campaign and which
Ted Kennedy got last June, represent a
majority, though not necessarily a decisive
one. It seems to be an axiom of Amer-
ican politics that the President can always
win trust from a substantial part of the
population on any issue at any time.
How lasting that support is, is hard
to say, but Nixon was successful this time
and the waning of the effect is yet to be
seen.
NIXON WILL EVENTUALLY have to
pay a price for that support, however,
for it is logically inconsistent support.
When he spoke Nov. 3, the President ap-
pealed successfully in his peace-making
efforts, to the kind of support that goes
with waging war.
It was the support of the patriotic that
hu sought, and the patriotism involved
is of the America-first type, which does
not tolerate American embarrassment eas-
ily.
Yes, his plan, what he's told of it so far,
is a plan for withdrawal, not victory. It is
a plan the patriots will not like. If Nixon
was honest in saying he had a plan to get
the U.S. out of Vietnam, and not neces-
sarily with victory, then the patriots have
been duped.
YET THESE WERE the people support-
ing the President who announced just a
week before that he had a secret plan for
withdrawal. He may yet try to sell them
his peace plan, but there is little reason
to think they will buy it.
These reports come amid reports in
Thursday's "Washington Post" that Nix-
on has assured Republicans worried about
the 1970 elections that the war will be
an issue in their party's favor, which
means America will be on the way out of
Vietnam, not more deeply in.
An aide to Sen. George McGovern (D-
S.D.) supplied one explanation of how
Nixon might work his way out of that
box-blaming the American withdrawal on
the anti-war protesters "who made Amer-
ican victory impossible."
Nixon himself hinted at such an ap-
proach in his Nov. 3 speech when he said
the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong
could never win the war - "only Ameri-
cans can lose it."
The McGovern aide discounted such a
tactic as "transparent," but American poli-
tics is not known for its penetrating vis-
ion. The seeds for this tactic are readily
transparent as heard from the very vis-
ible and very audible mouth of V i c e
President Agnew.
AGNEW HAS CLEARLY functioned as
a stalking horse for Nixon, saying things
for the Administration that the President
cannot say. The administration could have
silenced him without ever really being
blamed for what he said.
But if what Agnew said is well-received,
Nixon will know that he can move in
right-wing directions himself and still gain
in the next round of elections. The suc-
cess of Agnew's speeches so far seem to
indicate Nixon's proposed political route.
PIRO AGNEW's speech last night hit in
three stages. His attack on the TV
news commentators made clear what role
Nixon has in mind for his Vice President.
Agnew will bc used to capture the senti-
ment which went to Wallace last year
and to hitch that sentiment to the Re-
publican Party. In the process, Agnew
will also be loosed as hatchet man upon
the liberal wing of the establishment
(Senators, eastern press) whenever it
gets too far out of line. In the process,
Agnew will use the grossest demagogy
and the crudest smear tactics available.
Predictably, then, one's first reaction
mingled revulsion with fear.
4S THE speech rolled on, however, other
thou vht' occurred. The Vice Presi-
dent's eritiqut of the TV networks as a
power elite which presides over one of
te treatest power monopolies in Ameri-
(ca istory was accurate. Also correct was
his assertion that this power is used for
explicit political goals in very political
ways. But as Agnew recalled Chicago,
others might have recalled Vietnam.
Particularly relevant are some remarks
made last year by a Mr. Nicholas John-
.son, FCC Commissioner. Radio Corpora-
tion of America, he mused, which owns
NBC, gets 18 to 20 per cent of its income
from defense contractors.
"Many of the top defense contractors
are multiple (TV) station owners," lie
xent on. "Here is a conflict of interest;
a corporation which is profiting from war
reporting the war to a nation which, in
turn, is going to d etermine the future
course of th'at var based upon ., what
they've seen on television." Agnew to the
contrary, the networks' real bias seems
less than loft-wing. How to insure "demo-
cratic" control of the media?
A ND HERE Agnew balked. Having fumed
against that "small group of men"
who run TV, insisting that "the airwaves
. . . belong to the people," Agnew could
only sputter that the small group should
watch its step. Public, democratic control
of the network - corporations was, of
course, out of bounds.
Which brings one to a third set of
thoughts. If we're to start questioning the
legitimacy of elitist power-conglomerates,
why consider only television? What about
that "small group of men" which controls
American industry, andkthelives of mil-
lions of American workers and consum-
ers? Why not democratize TV-and in-
dustry along with it?
Nor should yet another "small group of
men" effectively beyond popular control
be overlooked: the national government.
Using Agnew's own criteria, the two-party
monopoly and the seniority system-not
to mention the self-servicing government
bureaucracy-is an unacceptable cancer
on American democracy. How about turn-
ing all power over to the people?
SUCH PROPOSALS are clearly beyond
Agnew's ken, and it is probably even
unfair to include his name in the same
editorial which makes them. After all,
Agnew is only out to sling some mud. He
undoubtedly had no idea what kind of
puddle he was splashing around in.
-BRUCE LEVINE
Some
facuity views on campus ROTC...
.. s a symbol of the military
... as a means of civilian control
On curtbinig DDT
r HE :NIXON ADMINISTRATION'S plan-
ned curb on DDT is an important
step towards removing the threat to the
environment posed by pesticides.
The planed curb on the domestic user
of the insect killer represents another
step in the declining use of DDT brought
about by mounting public concern over
the detrimental effects of DDT residue
accumulation in the environment.
Because of the growing evidence
against DDT, it has already been banned
in California, Michigan and Arizona,
while Canada is reducing its use dras-
tical ly.
While the effect of DDT residue on
humnis is not known, recent studies show
that high levels of DDT in rats and mice
causes cancer, and may influence the .
birt h rates of birds and fish. Concern
over high concentrations of DDT has
already prompted the Food and D r u g
Administr'ation to prohibit th e sale of
certain foods for consumption because
of possible contamination by the chem-
ical.
,4LTHOUGi THE Government's two-
year phase out will help to halt the
damage to the environment by DDT, the
danger is by no means eliminated. The
use of DDT within the United States will
have ended in two years, but it may
be 10 years or longer before the effects
caused by it will no longer be felt.
The long term effects of DDT, how-
ever, is not the only concern in the minds
of scientists and conservationists w h o
have been disturbed by the widespread
us of the so-called "hard" or persistent
pesticides. DDT is only one member of
the persistent pesticide group.
The plhase out of the use of DDT could
cause increased use of other pesticides
which can build up in the environment
in the same manner as DDT did. These
pesticides include other chlorinated hy-
drocarbons such as dieldrin and aldrin,
along with other chemicals containing
arsenic, lead or mercury.
THE CURB ON DDT is rather pointless
if these other hard pesticides are not
banned. If they are widely used, t h e s e
chemicals would be.'in to accumulate in
the food chain resulting in contamination
of food be dieldrin or aldrin rather than
DDT..
Curbing the use of DDT in the United
States is only an important first step
to control hard pesticide residues.
THE CURB proposed should be expand-
ed to include not only the use of
DDT, but also the use and manufacture
of all hard pesticides in the United
States. With the replacement of hard
pesticides by effective, non-persistent
chemicals the threat of possible damage
to the environment by pesticides would
be eliminated.
-JOHN R. LUTON
(EDITOR'S NOTE: This Monday, tie
senate Assembly will be considering a r'-
port on ROTC >rograms at the University.
which recommends cutting all financial
and most academic ties with the pro-
grans. A minority of faculty support a
different report by P'rof. Eugene Litwak,
which argued that the Univeraity should
dissociate itself entirely from the mili-
tary training programs. T1he majority posi-
tion enunciated by Prof. Theodore Buttrey,
calls for modification of ROTC.
History Prof. Gerhard Weinberg has been
an outspoken supporter of the majority
report in Assembly and writes reasons why
hie thinks RtOTIC should be kept on campus
in some form.
Social Work Prof. ldger Lind, has slight-
ly different views on the question. With
Weinberg, he serves on the Assembly and
the top faclty committee (the Senate Ad-
visory'Committe on University Affairs) and
has been a critic of ROTC.)
By ROGER LIN)
THE DISCUSSION about whether to
eliminate ROTC or only to modify it
drastically assumes proportions which a
friend of mine used to refer to as "a lot of
shifting of the dishes for the fewness of
the 'vittles'." The universities will not
control the ROTC programs. They never
have, partly because of the basic incom-
patibility of the two institutions outlined
in Professor Litwak's minority report
calling for total abolition of ROTC.
The very principles so strongly held by
the academic community as necessary to
its survival as an institution of free and
open inquiry make it impossible for us
to force ROTC to such a pattern. The
majority report recommended that an
academic committee supervise ". . . the
curricula . . . including evaluation and
approval of the content of all military
courses and alterations proposed in
them ..."
This gesture toward control by the
university is about to be eliminated by
the Weinberg motion calling for a return
to "general supervision" because anything
more would infringe upon the freedom
to conduct instruction as each of us sees
fit. This is a freedom which is not avail-
able for ROTC training and which there-
fore we cannot preserve for it. In at-
tempting to preserve the idea, we lose
even the possibility of giving any sub-
stance to it in this program.
THOSE PEOPLE who want to alter
the status of ROTC (credit, titles, who
finances) but retain the program appear
either to (a) hope that this will be un-
acceptable to the Department of De-
fense - in which case they might better
say so rather than asking the Defense
Department to do all their work; or (b)
consider ROTC inappropriate as an aca-
demic pursuit but all right as an extra-
curricular activity.
The argument about ROTC, like the
role of ROTC itself, is far more symbolic
than real. If this is the case, we should
decide what symbolic act we wish to as-
sociate ourselves with and then make
clear its nature. Anyone who argues that
eliminating ROTC is a political act must
realize that retaining it is equally a polit-
ical act.
The question of what to do regarding
ROTC is not essentially one of participa-
tion in the Vietnam war, of loyalty to one's
country, although these issues may be
what have brought ROTC into the public
arena at this time. It is rather a question
of the character of the university, its
role in the society, and the effects of
that role upon the society. And this posi-
tion or role is not immutable and natural,
but chosen and upheld.
IN CONSIDERING this matter one
must distinguish individual preferences
and external pressures from the objectives
of the university community. If we are
to maintain the university as an open
community, characterized by free and
open discussion, debate, exchange of ideas
and freedom to explore any area and to
determine whether the discovery is worth
disseminating, we must be willing to ac-
cept some limitations on our behavior in
order to achieve this end.
We seem then really to be discussing
two competing philosophies: that of
science and the intellectual community
(which admits of no national boundaries
to the pursuit of knowledge) and that of
international competition, or national
security. The latter contributes to the
perpetuation of rivalries between nations
and helps to postpone the time when
international cooperation and exchange
in other areas of human life become more
widespread.
THIS POSITION favoring removal of
ROTC from the University should not be
mistaken for unilateral disarmament, be-
cause it allows continuation of other ef-
forts in the community but does not at-
tempt to mix incompatible structures. It
should be seen as attempting to continue
and strengthen the role of the Univer-
sity as an open community of open in-
tellectual, scientific inquiry, not as "all
things to all people."
As I have said before, the inconsisten-
cies and contradictions in arguments for
retaining ROTC are exemplified by the
suggestion that we approve the program
as long as killing is not taught. We know
that war is about killing. We argue that
ROTC should remain on the campus in
order that it be subjected to the human-
izing influences of academia, but we ex-
clude that feature of the program to
which all the others are directed. What
is more in need of humanizing influence?
We cannot humanize it, only depersonal-
ize it.
By GERHARD L. WEINBERG
IN VIEW OF THE current discussion of
ROTC in the Daily, may I take some
space to suggest one way of looking at
the issue?
A major concern of mine is effective
civilian control of the army. This re-
quires three things: First, there must be
a constitutional, legal, or customary as-
sertion of the civilian power's authority
to control the military. Second, the mili-
tary must perceive itself as subordinate
to the civilian authorities; that is, it must
accept orders from those whose power ov-
er it is, in the final analysis, purely ver-
bal. Third, the civilians must be willing
to make effective use of the authority
that they legally have and that the mili-
tary in fact, even if reluctantly, recog-
nizes.
Current problems in the U.S. are, in my
opinion, concentrated in the t h i r d of
these areas; and the ROTC issue is large-
ly irrelevant to them. (I am confining
myself here to the question of the pres-
ence of ROTC on campus, and am ex-
cluding the terms under which it is pres-
ent.)
THE WIDELY HELD assumption that
the first element - legal authority for
the civilians over the military - is all
tha t is needed, is a preposterous and
dangerous illusion, as ought to be evi-
dent to readers of the Daily whom you
keep informed of military coups in coun-
tries around the world in which legal au-
thority of the civilians over the military
theoretically exists.
On a day in March, 1920, the govern-
ment of the Weimar Republic was faced
with an uprising by a group of right-
wing armed bands. The President a n d
Minister of War turned to the army to
suppress the uprising - as the consti-
tution entitled them to do - only to be
informed by the officers that the German
army was taking that day off.
In the Little Rock incident, the Gov-
ernor of Arkansas tried to use the Na-
tional Guard to defy a school integration
order. The President federalized the Ar-
kansas Guard to get it out from under the
governor, and sent in a unit of the reg-
ular army. The Guardsmen obeyed and
the regulars obeyed. The former were all,
by definition, from Arkansas; the latter
were commanded by General Walker, not
otherwise known for his enthusiastic sup-
port of equal rights for all. Central High
was integrated.
IN ALL SUCH SITUATIONS, the key
issue is whether the division, regimental,
battalion, and company commanders see
themselves as the constitution says they
should. If they don't, the texts are not
particularly helpful. It is this aspect of
the background, recruitment, and educa-
tion, of the officer corps that concerns
me in the ROTC question. How does the
military see itself in relation to the so-
ciety they are supposed to serve? A r e
problems in this area -- and there sure-
ly are some - likely to be ameliorated by
shifting the recruitment away from the
campus and into increasingly segregated,
military-controlled, institutions?
It is entirely possible that the basic
inter-connection between civilian society
and the officer corps can be maintained
by other means; but since no other society
has yet found a better solution to the
question of handling this with a large
standing army, I would like to see any
other scheme tried out a bit first. There
is a special reason for this reluctance
to move without a very good idea of where
we are moving. For over a hundred years,
a stock argument against any civilian
rule of the military that extended deep
into the military establishment has al-
ways been that civilian "meddlers" did
not have the expertise of the regulars.
(This is precisely the argument we now
hear when we propose devices for effec-
tive civilian control of the police.)
What worries me is that if we eliminate
ROTC and subsequently find that the
substitute procedures are more objection-
able than the defects of ROTC, the argu-
ment about expertise-in an age of in-
creasing technical specialization-will be
too strong for the advocates of effective
civilian control to overcome. The chance
of a return to greater civilian involve-
ment, once we cut the ties, is not good.
What then?
LET ME ADD a brief word about out-
side committee control of the classroom.
Like all invasions of basic freedoms, this
will start at the fringes where public ap-
proval may well be forthcoming. Whether
it is teacher-banning in philosophy at
UCLA or class supervision of ROTC at
Michigan, the precedent is usually set at
a point where interest or enthusiasm
about a current policy may be presumed
strong enough to obscure or override is-
sues of a more fundamental sort. It is
only later, when teacher-banning and
classroom snooping are extended to oth-
ers, that we realize that it is very dif-
ficult to lock a door after giving away
the key.
I have no doubt that many improve-
ments could be made in ROTC classes-
and in other classes at the University,
including my own. But if the price paid
for those improvements is the establish-
ment of committees to see to it that no
un-Mehigan thoughts are voiced in ROTC
or other classrooms, that price is too high
for me.
...at war with the concept of
a university education
ly ('AIZ. ,(fO IN
I lie aunor is a p injt" or of j1i1
ospiy andi teauhs in the Residential
tollege. Athogh he is nt a wember
Ow RTC ( 1retJiir, rof. Cohern Nwro1tr
a lengtypilosophiCal ("say o" " 1
plrngrani. 'rhe folo1w1ing 1ar11dek is1
sho1rtrcid f1orm ofthle 1originl pic.()
SIIOULD A university be the home
01 reserve officI' training to]' our
miiitariy services? Of all questions
regarding relations between the uni-
versity and the military this is the
mtost dlelicate.
lReserve officer training (ROTC,
NROT'C, AI"IOTC) establishes the
physical presence of military exercises
and discipline on the university cam-
pIts, and incorporates military of-
MI', itu when the manner and sub-
Iate of miliary training take root
in t lie daily ilfe of a good university
serious conflicts between the two sys-
teni are forcibly exposed; tension is
inevitable.
Thje intelectual partnership of the
ttniversity and the military is, I sub-
mit, an unhealthy business. That is
what studems and faculty members
are coming to appreciate more fully.
soi of those who now object to
the presence of ROTC on campus do
so as one way, largely symbolic, of
protestinig the war in Vietnam. But
ti ia t war, however barbarous and
wrongful, is by itself no reason to op-
P')Sc reserve officer training. If such
t raining is inappropriate in a uni-
versity, 'a I believe, the argument
Military history, the role of the mili-
tary in human societies, the char-
acter of military organization and
action, the nature of war and its
causes-all these are rightly studied
in appropriate disciplines. But there
is a great difference between the
study of military phenomena on the
one hand, and training for service as
a military officer on the other. The
latter, not the former, is the explicit
function of ROTC, and it is, I argue,
not an appropriate function of a
university.
FIVE KINDS OF REASONS may
be adduced in support of this claim:
First: Narrow, technical prepara-
tion, training to perform specific
functions in specific organizations, is
But such technical training is not
properly the job of a university. Its
goal is to educate students and to
cause them to educate themselves.
Even when a university encompasses
some professional school or schools,
it does so not with the aim of serving
special institutions, but with the aim
of developing men and women who
understand the theoretical problems
of that profession generally, and who
can devise new solutions for new
problems arising in that field.
No one will deny, of course, that
instruction of very specialized con-
cern does go in every university. But
this activity is narrow or technical
in another sense. Some studies may
indeed be of interest to only a few,
or understandable only by a few.
ROTC. If so, let that be a warning to
those who teach such courses. Cer-
tainly their presence is no good de-
fense of ROTC.
Second: Between the university and
military organizations lies a funda-
mental inconsistency. The kind of
organization essential to military
units is in basic opposition to the
spirit of university study. Here lies
the root of the present controversy.
Of course we can teach about mili-
tary organization, and seek to under-
stand it. So also we can teach about
fascism, seeking to deepen the under-
standing of fascist philosophy. But
we do not think it appropriate in a
university to prepare students for
specific functions in a fascist struc-
ture. No more should we do so for
That purpose may be good or evil;
but the military, as its instrument,
is not self-determined or self-direct-
ed. The objectives of a military unit,
from the smallest to the largest, are
set from above. Every military unit is
and must be acutely conscious of its
mission, and operates with the ac-
complishment of that set mission as
its guiding star. The result is the
hierarchical structure familiar to us
all. Authority lies in the hands of
superior officers, who present the
tasks for their subordinates' direc-
tion.
All is ordered on the principle of
the chain of command. Instruction in
military classes is pursued with the
mission of the unit above all in mind.
Authoritarian princioles Drovide both
a good university is inevitable. Real
university teaching and learning can-
not go on that way. The headquarters
in which courses must be designed,
judgments made, and thinking done,
are the heads of faculty and stu-
dents. Everything is at risk when in-
quiry is genuidely free-including the
aims and standards of any and all
institutions or governments. That
university inquiry be guided by spe-
cific and externally set directives is
an intolerable contradiction.
The issue can be put in these terms.
The university is the intellectual
manifestation of broadening and
deepening civilization; ideally, it is
a very civilized place. The military is
not civil at all. It is explicitly not a
civilian institin--nl it franlyr ADnipq