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.

September 17, 1965 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1965-09-17

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

Seventy-Sixth Year

. _

here Opinions Are Free. 420 MAYNARD ST.. ANN ARBoR, Mica.
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.

The Lesson of Ohio State:
Reformers Must Be Realistic

THE NEWS from Columbus that Ohio
State University's speaker rule has
been significantly relaxed is of a good
deal of importance for students all over
the country, and for those of us at the
University especially.
In years past, the free speech move-
ment at OSU followed the path of the all-
too-evident majority of student move-
ments. It came and it went in bursts.
Leaders jumped to the fore with their
ever - present "more-liberal-than-thou"
attitudes and led ill-organized, ill-in-
formed, and ill-conceived demonstra-
tions with all the sporadic emotional en-
thusiasm of youth. Of course they failed,
as such movements have failed on cam-
pus since time immemorial.
But when Jeffrey Schwartz and a small
group of intelligent workers took over the
leadership of the movement in Septem-
ber of 1964, it became a concerted, well-
led, well-directed and persevering at-
tempt to win a battle rather than glory.
BEFORE RESORTING to demonstra-
tions, the leadership put in a good four
months of hard work and solid, rational
meetings with University officials. The
officials, President Novice G. Fawcette
at their head, had statewide popular and
journalistic support, as well as the con-.
sensus of opinion in the state legisla-
ture and the popular vote of the state of
Ohio and the city of Columbus to back
them up. In addition, they were conserva-
tives themselves-so they refused.
It was then and only then that demon-
strations were called, into effect. The stu-
dent leaders built carefully on founda-
tions of 1) past peaceful efforts, 2) care-
fully solicited faculty support, and 3) gen-
.une student support. At every turn, no
demonstration went without intricate and
well-calculated planning, and without an
assurance of genuine conviction, support
and understanding on the part of the
Demonstration was not for its own
sake, but for the sake of a means toward
a specifically identifiable end. There were
no demagogues, but there were sincere,
calculating leaders. Factions only began
to play a part near the end of the year,
when graduating honor student Schwartz
began to pack his bags for Columbia.
The result was that every rally, the
hellish 24-hour sleep-in at the adminis-
tration building, and the 5-mile march
to the statehouse all were made by 2-300
students who knew what they were doing
and why, who weren't following leaders
who would yell "are we going to march?"
by whim, who weren't in it for the power
and glory of the front of a line, or for
the headline. The activities were demon-

strations, not immature and senseless
antagonism-and they finally succeeded.
COMPARE THIS to what happens here.
We don't have a town of 50,000 peo-
ple who sincerely believe demonstrators
are Communists. Nor do we have an ex-
tremely influential local newspaper which
does not hesitate to label demonstrators
as such, and press for their expulsion
and their being fired from summer jobs,
as Schwartz was this summer. Nor do we
have a right-wing state legislature and
governor, each located right in town,
breathing down a right-wing trustee
council's back to maintain the status
What we do have is a liberal newspaper,
a liberal community, far more intellect-
ually oriented student body than Ohio
State's and far more concrete and de-
fensible issues to fight for than
Schwartz's Free Speech Front had.
Yet they won their protests on campus
issues this year, and we have kept on los-
ing-at least until now. Only with the
coming of something concrete-the re-
cent Voice building proposal, the prod-
uct at last of some obviously genuine
work-do we seem.to be within reaching
distance of a breakthrough on the eco-
nomic welfare issue at the University.
The Voice plans were presented to and
respected by the administration - what
besides these have campus activists pre-
sented the administration in the past
that could be respected? The Hatcher
tea last fall? The protest of increased mo-
vie prices?
YET AT THE VOICE housing rally last
week, there were those Voice members
who were ready to antagonize-to throw
eight months' work back in the admin-
istrators' faces. The University student
is not going to succeed in his objectives
until he stops sitting in without some-
thing to sit on.
Yelling for some cause is fun, and
jumping to lead an emotionally motivated
rally is glorifying, and getting one's pic-
ture in the paper for some intellectually
identified cause is neater still. But noth-
ing happens without hard work and or-
ganizing, as Ohio State and Jeff Schwartz
The final Voice housing plans have yet
to be completed, but when they are, let's
hope they are well-founded-as I think
they probably will be-and that they are
presented in good faith, and, if neces-
sary, demonstrated for with intelligent,
moderate leadership and sincere motiva-
tion. The eye should be on the achieve-
ment of an-end, not on the camera and
the others around us.

THE TRAGEDY of American
foreign policy at this particular
point in history is two-fold and
is only too clearly illustrated by
our actions in VietsNam:
1) We fail to understand the
nature and requirements of the
revolutionary and revolutionizing
drive which is gripping the under-
developed nations of the world;
2) We have yet to develop an
ethic to govern the use of our
power and influence which would
be consistent both with that drive
and with our own professed ideals.
1-a) THOSE WHO are politi-
cally aware in the new nations
and the great majority of those
they claim to represent perceive
that the benefits of social con-
trol over the development and dis-
tribution of wealth and the ques-
tion of whether there will be de-
velopment at all depend on a re-
structuring of the political and
economic relationships by which
their nations are governed.
It is primarily this perception
-one which is nottnecessarily de-
rived either from the ideology of
other nations or from control by
foreign elements of local progres-
sive forces - which informs the
struggle to free one's nation from
the domination of foreign capital
interests and/or indigenous aris-
tieratic elites.
The thrust of this struggle,
therefore, is necessarily nation-
alisticsand self-deterministic. In
all cases the feeling is that the
revolutionary changes (political as
well as economic) which must be
made can be accomplished only
if thepopulation of the country
runs its own affairs and asserts
its political and cultural integrity.
THIS DOES not mean that aid
from foreign governments is not
wanted, either before or after "the
revolution." It does mean, how-
ever, that nationals desire and
must have as nearly complete con-
trol as is possible over foreign
and domestic policies, in order to
ensure that their resources, their
labor, their progress, their revo-
lutionizing changes are not ma-
nipulated for the interests of oth-
Indeed, this nationalism is nec-
essary to ensure that there will be
basic structural changes in the
first place-as opposed to mere
ameliorations, which can only be
tokenistic, which do not change
the relationships of power and
which therefore make a people de-
pendent on the whims of foreign
governments or ruling classes.
This is basically the process
which is still occurring in Viet
Nam and in most of Latin Amer-
ica. To widely varying extents, the
stages of initial revolution have
already been completed in most
of Africa, in the Middle East, in
Indonesia, in the Indian subcon-
tinent and in the now-Communist
nations. What remains for this
latter category of nations is to
consolidate-and often complete-
their revolutions and begin the
task of modernization.
1-b) THAT IN MANY nations
this process (either as revolution
or as established government) is
aided and sometimes directed by
men from Communist nations
should not lead to the simplistic
conclusions of the American gov-
ernment and people that Commu-
nism is overrunning the world.
We are witnessing today the
slow but steady disintegration of
what the West used to perceive as
a Monolithic Communist Bloc.
The split between Russia and
China, Russia's own coming-of-
age in the community of indus-

trialized nations, the gradual fall-
ing-away of the Soviet Union's
Eastern Europe satellites, Cuba's
growing independence of foreign
direction andthe well-known ha-
tred and fear of Chinese hege-
mony on the part of both North
and South Vietnamese - these
forces indicate both the nation-
alistic orientation of Communist
governments and the increasing
impossibility of a unified, confi-
dent, powerful Communist force
directed against the collective
1-c) THERE ARE numerous
factors which recommend, as a
model for the underdeveloped'na-
tions, governments which are egal-
Another f
On Discri
To the Editor:
1) BYLAW 2.14 states in effect
that there will be no dis-
crimination in the University.
2) In the IFC rushing booklet
most fraternities make no state-
ment emphasizing that they
choose members without rgard to
race and religion.
From these "premises" Peter R.
Sarasohn of The Daily concludes
(September 15) that "(fraternity
life) at the University (must) suc-
ceed better than it has so far or

itarian in terms of economic poli-
cies (such as the distribution of
wealth and social control over the
means of production) while at the
same time being non-civil liber-
tarian (i.e., not allowing full free-
dom of the press, not encouraging
or allowing the growth of opposi-
tion parties, etc.).
The factors which recommend
this model in the poor countries
relate to the economic conditions
which must exist before there can
be meaningful democratic proced-
ures: the existence of viable, self-
conscious economic classes; the
possession by those classes of the
economic means to form and run
political parties and to utilize both
mass media and educational fa-
cilities; a generally high level of
education for the nation as a
whole and sufficient national
wealth to support the conceptual
and intellectual processes (full
time for some people, at least
part time forall people) which
are necessary for political (and
other non-productive) activities.
In the United States, for in-
stance, these conditions adhere
only in the middle and upper
classes. Therefore our political
parties and procedures reflect the
values and needs of these classes
almost exclusively; not so strictly
speaking, there is no party for the
poor, no party for the Negro, no
party for the intelligentsia.
nations, the absence of the con-
ditions upon which democracy de-
pends is maximized. The existence
of economic classes depends not
so much upon the identification
of various social groups with cer-
tain sectors of the economy as it
does upon the ability of those
groups to control and utilize the
resources and output of a sector
and upon the potential wealth of
the sector in the first place.
In the poor nations, which are
either still colonies or just recent-
ly free, only one group has, by
these criteria, constituted a viable
class, and whatever merchant-en-
trepreneur-bureaucrat class is just
now emerging in these nations is
still too diffuse, too small. More-
over, its skills are so crucial to
the nation's development that it
need not be too politically con-
cerned for its own welfare.
By and large, the mass of peo-
ple do not possess sufficient wealth
or power to form parties. They
have always been servants of oth-
er groups (i.e., not really control-
ling even their own labor) and
are thus without the means to
afford political activity.
MOREOVER, they have always
been without the stimulus of po-
tential political power which would
have lead them to identify as a
political-economic class or to seek
the necessary economic means for
activity as a class. Characteris-
tically, then, the one party which
does emerge in the new states
draws support from all economic
levels and focuses on the basical-
ly external issue of nationalism.
Only the gradual economic de-
velopment of the nation within an
ideology of egalitarian distribu-
tion of wealth and at least some
social control over economic sec-
tors can reverse this situation. In
this regard, it matters less that
there are initially civil liberties
than it does that control over the
economy is exercised in the inter-
ests of the whole population.
It is this condition which so-
cialistic governments in the new
nations fulfill far better than those
arrangements which grant mean-
ingless liberties (if they do even
that) while exploiting the nation
for the sake of foreign capital
interests and indigenous elites.
THE OTHER general issue -
that of level of education and
control of both education and
mass media-also relates to the
economic condition of the nation.

Education, using scarce energy
supplies but not producing goods,
is essentially a luxury (despite its
longer range significance for de-
velopment). Moreover, decentral-
ized control of education and of
the mass media depend on the
possession of sufficient wealth by
many different groups in the so-
And if people are to have the
enriched and stimulating environ-
ments which psychology tells us
are necessary to conceptualization
line of distortions (one cited
above) which it prints.
-Charles M. Wynn
Department of Chemistry
To the Editor:
I AM WRITING in protest (isn't
everyone lately?) to SNCC's
Viet Nam poster displayed in the
Fishbowl. Without actually tak-
ing sides on the issue, let me just
sav this Freedom of sniech and

and the ability to think and un-
derstand abstractly, there must
be more to their lives than ex-
haustingly and boringly eking out
a mere subsistence.
None of this should be taken
as an absolute justification for
authoritarianism. Certainly it is
more desirable to achieve economic
development and also to have civ-
il liberties-and in many of the
new nations this is perhaps pos-
THE POINT is that the previ-
ous conditions of servitude of most
of these new nations have so im-
poverished their people, so polar-
ized the potential bases for eco-
nomic classes and so little en-
couraged the growth of autono-
mous, democratic middle class ele-
ments that there is often very
little choice as to which social
grouping might serve as a base
for government.
One must often take either the
established elites, supported by
foreign capital, or the national-
istic and socialistic revolutionar-
To the extent that the choice
is this clear, it seems obvious, at
least to me, that the revolutionary
forces are preferable (not to men-
tion the fact that, for better or
worse, they are usually the most
accurate reflection of actual pop-
ular will).
FOR IF THESE revolutionary
forces can accomplish the eco-
nomic development of their na-
tion, they are inevitably planting
the seeds of their own destruction.
Development will finally allow
the formation of viable classes and
parties, and those groups, all of
them wishing the means of ex-
pression and influence in govern-
ment, will eventually loosen or
destroy the single-party system
which has ruled the nation.
Already we are seeing signifi-
cant manifestations of this ten-
dency in the Soviet Union. The
question-which our government
seems always to answer wrongly
-is which initial form of govern-
ment will do the job best.
2) IF THE ABOVE is, indeed,
the nature of the revolutionary
force which issweeping the un-
derdeveloped world, what ought to
be the American response?
It seems fairly clear at this
point that if the United States
sincerely desires to foster freedom
and equality across the globe, then
we ought to support instead of
opposing nationalistic and socialis-
tic revolutionary forces. At the
least, we should allow them to fol-
low their natural course without
any interference. Better yet, we
should lend verbal support, advice
and advisers and even arms
(though not troops) to their fight.
Once they are established, we
should do everything in our power
to aid them economically. We
shou-ld foster the feeling that
these new nations can depend on
us for help, without having to be
dependent upon pleasing us (as by
adopting our form of govern-
ment and economy, by not criti-

cizing our domestic and foreign
policies, by allowing our capital
interests to continue exploiting
their people) for the receipt of
much-needed aid.
Only with this use of our pow-
er and wealth can there be sub-
stantial, creative, real progress in
the world. And only with this use
of our power, by the way, can we
establish better relations with the
other great powers, both Commu-
nist and capitalist.
IT IS NOT too hard, however, to
imagine that we are either not
at all sincerein thisdesire or that
freedom and equality mean some-
thing very strange to our policy-
makers. Probably, as in most
cases, the "objective" truth of the
matter lies somewhere between
these two extremes.
What we are doing in Viet Nam,
for instance, is to absolutely en-
sure that we shall never be sought
by or identified with the progres-
sive movements and sentiments of
the world's poor. Our war in that
country is against a popular, na-
tionalistic and economically egali-
tarian movement and for a series
of non-representative puppet re-
gimes which have almost no in-
clination toward egalitarian mod-
ernization and which, considerably
at our initiation, have more in-
clination than the National Lib-
eration Front toward anti-civil li-
bertarian suppression.
EVEN IF THE nature of the
opposing sides in Viet Nam were
different, we are still using our
tremendous militarypower reck-
lessly and inhumanely. All at the
same time we flaunt a war with
China (French author Jules Roy
contends that almost all concern-
ed Europeans believe our war is
merely a pretext to become involv-
ed with and destroy China), strain
relations with Russia and insist
on fighting a war which can only
be won with the genocidal destruc-
tion of all Viet Nam.
Our "peace" terms-as well as
those of the North Viet Nam gov-
ernment, which is not even a
principal in the struggle and
which is naturally forced to de-
mand much in order to save face
with its people-our terms amount
to a demand for unconditional sur-
render, and we are unwilling to
show our good faith by halting our
bombings in the North.
Even were the nature of the op-
posing sides not so clearly dis-
tinct, our war in Viet Nam can
only appear to the world's people
as a war of white against yel-
low, rich against poor. We are
proving to those people that our
power is something to be feared
and hated instead of something to
be enlisted on their side. We are
proving that we are ruthless, that
we are governed not by patience,
reason and love but by our sadis-
tic passions and our tendency to
destroy that which does not bend
to our will.
ALL OF THIS can only increase
the anti-Yanquism of the world's
people and their resistance to any-
thing we might later want to do
to help them. So we are doing

wisdom and Foreign Policy

exactly the opposite of what we
should be doing if we really want-
ed to foster freedom and equality
instead of hatred, militarism and
the internal repressions which
these breed.
Nor would we consider with-
drawing, even if we could admit
our folly to ourselves, for we must
always preserve our prestige. Yet
again our ethic is lacking, for
there is no ability to understand
that prestige is much more than
the "determined" (read stubborn)
exercise of power, no ability to
understand that a great power can
err and that we have far more to
gain by admitting and correcting
our error than by pursuing it, per-
haps to the ultimate destruction
of everyone.
LET ME briefly outline an al-
ternative solution to the Viet Nam
war which I think would be con-
sistent with the principles I have
Very soon, the U.S. should cease
bombing both North and South
Viet Nam and announce that it
seeks a truce to freeze the exist-
ing military situation and nego-
tiations consisting of representa-
tives from Saigon, Washington,
Hanoi, China and the National
Liberation Front.
These talks would work out the
particulars by which a United Na-
tions force would gradually take
over positions held by U.S., North
Vietnamese, Viet Cong and South
Vietnamese troops, with the sub-
sequent withdrawal of troops from
the two "foreign"powers and the
disarming of troops of the two
indigenous forces.
At the same time a UN provi-
sional government would establish
headquarters in some city located
centrally between the 17th parallel
and the southwestern tip of South
Viet Nam. It would begin both the
functions of government and prep-
arations for UN-supervised general
elections (in which, I contend,
North Viet Nam could also be con-
vinced to participate) which would
establish a unified government for
all Viet Nam.
It would, of course, be just as
difficult to convince the NLF and
Hanoi to accept this kind of set-
tlement as it would be to con-
vince the U.S. and Saigon. This
is why the main roles must be
assumed by the UN and why the
U.S. must make strong and clear
statements concerning its good
faith; its admission of misjudg-
ment; its willingness to cooperate
with and aid-no strings attached
-whatever government emerges
from the elections; its general
willingness to at least refrein
from opposing progressive, natioi-
alistic, socialistic revolu-
tions throughout the world and
its willingness to abide by tem-
porary UN rule in Viet Nam.
SUCH MUST BE the nature of
our ethic if there is ever to be a
humane and promising end to the
Viet Nam war and if the cu"ggnt
world revolution is not ultimate-
ly to burn the whole globe in nu-
clear flames. Of course it asks a
great deal, but I do not think
less will do.




Censorship-No Solution

SOME OF THE RECENT debate within
and without the Fishbowl about the
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Com-
mittee's "war crimes" sign has taken a
decidedly unfortunate turn. Specifically,
some have proposed that future Fishbowl
displays should be subject to some form
of content control in addition to present
regulations which require only advance
notice for posting signs.
The problem with criticizing such pro-
posals is that at first sight they seem
Very defensible. Preventing the Fishbowl
from becoming a center for the dissem-
ination of libel and character assassina-
tion seems a noble cause indeed.
And in fact, it is a noble cause, The
real question is who should pursue it,
the individual student groups or some
higher censorship body?
Would it in fact be justified for a cen-
sorship group to be established for Fish-
bowl posters? The answer must be strong-
ly negative.
THE FIRST REASON for this answer
touches on the real crux of the .issue
of poster censorship: that no matter
whose interests might be profited by cen-
soring the SNCC poster, everyone's in-
terests would suffer.
A basic key to the maintenance of
the viable political dialogue students de-
serve is the imnle right for them to at-

THERE IS A SECOND major danger in-
herent in a censorship mechanism.
Once it has been established, it must in-
variably surround itself with an aura of
righteousness, egging itself on to further
and further control of the public media.
Even worse, because censorship would
not allow the proper expression of a
group's beliefs, it would divert them from
their normal interests into a fight against
an administrative ruling. Attacks on is-
sues would thus become attacks on the
establishment, with a resulting decline
in meaningful campus debate.
This implies that poster censorship,
for whatever reasons, is antithetical to
student political freedoms; indeed, it is
inconceivable that the two could coexist
successfully for any length of time.
IN FACT, if anyone ever begins to draw
the line on what may or may not be
posted in the Fishbowl, on whatever bas-
is, however "moral" or "practical," the
action will be an intolerable blot on the
University's record of student freedom of
speech and action.
The counter-argument is, of course,
that freedom of speech and action must
be tempered by reason and responsibil-
ity. This is no light invective, and activ-
ists of whatever shade, who are fond of
ignoring it because it is unusually a delay-
4- . ninnn -Ff. nn nnan -s-c. cl nIA r -



.M'a "Of N-

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan