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 30, 1965 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1965-09-30

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

Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, Micn. NEWS HONE: 764-0552
Truth Will Prevail 4
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: PETER SARASOHN

The Flint Controversy Develops

Simple Solutions Won't
End the War in Viet Nam

HEUNIVERSITY'S teach-in movement
(call them anti - administration)
amounts to no more than a high school
debating club and its opposition (call
them pro-administration) is no better.
The anti-administration group tries to
prove that we are not wanted in Viet
Na, that our foreign policy in Viet
Nam is bad and that we should get out
even at great cost. The pro-administra-
ion group argues we should stay in Viet
Nam and fight-even if the consequences
are very severe.
The arguments always seem vaguely
similar to the neutral bystander as both
groups feed their vocal barrels with tons
of historical data accompanied by a de-
*tailed account bf sources. Both opinions
seem sound as ,the groups argue on poll-
What Knd
Of Education?,
HICAGO-Too much emphasis on sex
education and insufficient training in
other modes of life are making American
girls unfit for marriage, says a court psy-
chologist whose job is saving marriages.
"They're brought up to think all they
need is their femaleness, which often
turns out to be helplessness, hesitancy
and indecisiveness," Dr. I. A. Burch, di-
rector of the divorce conciliation services
for Illinois Circuit Court, said in an in-
terview recently.
Dr. Burch has directed the service since
its founding about a year ago. He coun-
sels couples seeking divorces whose mar-
riages the court believes might be saved
with psychological help.
Many divorces, he said, can be blamed
on wives who have "been brought up to
feel they have the right to expect a man
to, guarantee them an easy life' simply
because they're female."
HOW DO THEY GET this notion?
"Too much stress on sex education and
not enough stress on personal education,"
said Dr. Burch.
"All the emphasis is on their being sex-
ual partners," he said.
The obsessive concern with sex edu-
cation, he said, gives girls a bizarre out-
look.
"They believe that sex is love. This is
absurd. An obvious condition of love is
that one be deserving of it. And this
comes from self-realization in other
areas than sex," he said.
"The crucial question for a girl, he
said, "is 'can I take care of myself and
perhaps even take care of someone else'?"
Many girls cannot answer the question
affirmatively, he said, because "they have
been prepared only to bargain with their
femininity for bed and board."
DR; BURCH'S REMEDY: "Stop stress-
ing sex education and start stressing
personal education, the development of
inner resources, the discovery of self from
which love for others is born."
-MARGARET SCHERF
Associated Press Writer
Published at 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Owner-Board in Control of Student Publications, 420
Mraynard St.. Ann Arbor.
Bod or stockholders-none.
Average press run-8,100.
Editorial Staff
ROBERT JOHNSTON, Editor
LAURENCE KIRSHBAUM JEFFREY GOODMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
JUDITH FIELDS................Personnel Director

LAUREN BAHR..........Associate Managing Editor
JUDITH WARREN........ Assistant Managing Editor
ROBERT HIPPLER.....Associate Editorial Director
GAIL BLUMBERG...........Magazine Editor
LLOYD GRAFF...............Acting Sports Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Susan Collins, John Meredith,
Leonard Pratt, Peter Sarasohn, Bruce Wasserstein.
DAY EDITORS: Robert Carney, Clarence Fanto, Mark
Killingsworth, Harvey Wasserman, Dick Wingfield.
ASSISTANT NIGHT EDITORS: Alice Bloch, Mere-
dith Eiker, Merle Jacob, Carole Kaplan, Robert
Klivans, Roger Rapoport, Neil Shister, Katherine
Teich, Joyce Winslow, Charlotte Wolter.
SPORTS NIGHT EDITORS: Rick--Feferman, Jim La-
Sovage, Bob McFarland, Gl Samberg, Dale Sielaff,
Rick Stern, Jim Tindall, Chuck vetzner.,
Business Staff
CY WELLMAN, Business Manager
ALAN GLUECKMAN . ... ...Advertising Manager
JOYCE FEINBERG...............Finance Manager
SUSAN CRAWFORD .....Associate Business Manager
MANAGERS: Harry Bloch, Bruce Hlman, Marline

tical, moral and ideal and to a small ex-
tent, practical grounds.
That's the problem-both debating
teams .have sound arguments. But they
ignore completely the importance of a
solution being practical on both politi-
cal and economic grounds.
Further, both groups ignore the real
cause of our problem in Viet Nam and
in other foreign countries-our economic
foreign aid is badly handled (this is ad-
mitted by many from both sides). In
addition, they ignore how their solutions
could remedy this situation satisfactor-
ily.
FIRST, the anti-group ignores the poli-
tical implications of its "get out" doc-
trine. The United States will certainly
lose face if it gives up and goes home
leaving Viet Nam to the "Vietnamese."
This is simple, but very important for
future U.S. relations with both demo-
cratic and non-democratic countries.
The U.S. would not have the bargain-
ing power in any future economic or poli-
tical crisis that it does now. Also, many
democratic governments gain much con-
fjdence and stability from the stature of
the U.S. in the world. They sometimes use
this, to suppress revolutions, but it is
naive to think that every revolution is
a just and national one.
The pro-group isn't any better, for it
refuses to consider any economic solu-
tion except the familiar but idiotic "Just
let the Viet Cong stop fighting and then
we'll negotiate." It forgets the implica-
tions of a U.S. law which protects unions
by guaranteeing bargaining in good faith.
This means that both sides must be on
an equal basis at the bargaining table,
and the principle should apply to all bar-
gaining situations.
By no measure are the Viet Cong now
on an equal basis with the Americans.
For all many of them know they are still
fighting the French. North and South
Viet Nam are bombed continually, new
airstrips are being built ad thousands
of American soldiers keep arriving. By
fighting and leaving the Viet Cong no
room to bargain, the U.S. may win the
war, but what will it have won in the
end? Arthur Miller gave an indication
recently: "a graveyard."
THE FOREIGN economic aid the U.S.
has extended Viet Nam has had bas-
ically good intentions but has generally
failed to reach the people. Both solu-
tions-get out and stay in-are mean-
ingless when one remembers that the
main objective of the pro- and anti-
groups is to help the Vietnamese people.
If it left completely, the U.S. couldn't
disperse foreign aid effectively. It must
be recognized that much of the recent
aid has been a personalized, to-the-peas-
ant, Peace Corps sort, as was indicated
in the movie "The Agony of Viet Nam,"
as opposed to straight support of indus-
try and governmental interests which
formerly dominated. Dispersal of such aid
cannot be achieved under a completely
hostile government. U.S. personnel ob-
viously need a degree of safety for their
work to be effective.
The U.S. can't fight with bombs a peo-
ple who value their cows more than their
own lives-a man is dispensable but a
cow feeds the entire family. This is an
economic as well as a political battlefield
and should be treated as such.
THE ONLY WAY to win this battle is
to stop the war to give American for-
eign aid a chance to do some peacetime
good. The fact that U.S. aid has failed
in many respects in the past is no reason
to curtail it now-it is in fact' a reason

to learn from the mistakes of the past
and administer an improved program.
The bombing must stop and if an act
of faith is necessary to spark, negotia-
tions, then some American military per-
sonnel must be withdrawn. The Vietna-
mese have a basic hatred for the for-
eigner, whether he be French, American
or Chinese. This must be alleviated at
first if later it is to be completely re-
moved.
The pseudo-American nationalists who
are screaming that this would amount
to losing the war must realize that it,
would really be just changing the battle-
field1 to nna morea dvantaveaus for the

EDITOR'S NOTE: Several
months ago, the University's
plans to expand its -two-year
Flint branch by adding fresh-
man and sophomore classes ran
head-on into adamant opposi-
tion. The question still has not
been settled and now is threat-
ening to again cause trouble
for the University.This article
is the second in a three-part
series outlining the issues in-
volved in the Flint controversy
and explaining their relevance
to the total picture of higher
education in Michigan. Yester-
day, the development of Flint
College was traced from its
opening in 1956 to the Univer-
sity's decision to expand it early
last year.
By JOHN MEREDITH
y1964the children of the
postwar ;baby boom were try-
ing to get into college, and higher
education in Michigan was reel-
ing.
After a decade of discussion
about the need to plan expansion,
the influx of students caught
Michigan unprepared. The talk'
had been interesting, but well
coordinated long-range planning
had 'not been done; Michigan's
ten state colleges and universities
were flooded with applications,
and each was going about ex-
pansion in its own way.
The transformation of Flint
College from a two-;year senior
division school to a four-year
branch institution was part of the
University's expansion plans. But,
for a number of reasons directly
related, to the broader picture of
higher education in Michigan,
these plans have not worked out
well.
SEVERAL FACTORS which had
been developing over a period of
time finally entered the picture.
For one thing the constitutional
convention of 1963 included a pro-
vision in the new state constitu-
tion for a State Board of Educa-
tion to coordinate and direct
Michigan's educational system.
The board was elected last Novem-
ber and took office in January.
Also in 1963, Gov. George Rom-
ney named a special "blue ribbon"
Citizens' Committee for Higher
Education; the committee made
its findings public last March in
a document which emphasized the
need for over-all planning and
condemned branch expansion. Fi-
nally, an ad hoc group appointed
by the Michigan Coordinating
Council for Public Higher Edu-

THE MOTT MEMORIAL Building is the major classroom facility for the University's Flint College branch. This peaceful scene has been
the center of controversy over educational policies.

;,
';

cation to study branch expansion
joined the chorus opposing
branches and explicitly criticized
Flint College.,
In combination with a number
of intangibles, these specifics add-
ed up to the emergence of a new
attitude toward higher education.
When, the student boom was
simply a threat on the horizon,
discussion had been enough for
the sages in Lansing; last spring
the crisis itself, had been with
them for more than a year, and
everyone, from the 'governor on
down, was in a mad rush to start
planning and coordinating.
Flint College expansion belong-
ed to the older era of unilateral
action. With the governor, the
Legislature, the new state board
and most educators taking coordi-
nation seriously and looking more
closely at, such things as inde-
pendent , study reports opposing
branches, the University's plans
for Flint no longer fit into the
picture.
THE IDEA of Flint expansion
was first brought up in December
1962. General discussions proceed-
ed for almost two years, and when
the 1965-66 appropriation request
was announced last fall, it in-
cluded money for a freshman
class :at Flint College. Plans called

for a second freshman class to
enter in 1966, and hence the
transition from a two- to a four-
year college would be accomplished
in two years.
These plans, however, exploded
in the University's face. In Feb-
ruary, Romney delivered his bud-
get message to the Legislature and
explicitly excluded money for
Flint expansion in his Irecommen-
dation for the University's appro-
priation. Pointing to the condem-
nation of branch expansion in the
Russell and Davis reports, the
governor argued that the Univer-
sity should await formulation of
a master plan before deciding on
whether to increase its commit-
ment in Flint.'
President Harlan Hatcher im-
mediately blasted Romney's posi-
tion, He said that the governor
had been fuly aware of the Uni-
versity's expansion plans for some
time and that his unexpected move
at that late date could only prove
harmful to the Flint community.
Flint citizens and Sen. Garland
Lane (D-Flint) joined Hatcher in,
opposing the Romney position.
Lane called on the State Board
of Education to issue a, recom-
mendation on the Flint question.
In April, the board came out
against Flint expansion, conced-
ing only that the University could

admit freshmen at the branch this
fall because it was then too late
to change plans for the 1965-66
academic year. The board further
recommended that a new,indepen-
dent tax-supported college super-
cede the branch as soon as pos-
sible.
THE UNIVERSITY'S budget ap-
propriation was approved at the
end of June, with funds for a
freshmgan class at Flint Included.
Aproval didn't come, however,
until the question of Flint ex-
pansion had contributed to an-
other minor crisis.. Before the
House passed the University bud-
get, a group of dissident Demo-
crats attempted to cut the ap-
propriation by $6.2 million. A 'var-
iety of factors were behind their
action, including a little anti-
University sentiment-and that
this predisposition against the
University was aggravated by the
Flint controversy was apparent
from statements by some of "the'
men involved.
Passage of the budget eased the
tension surrounding Flint College,
but it did not settle the issue.
Rather it simply put into effect
the one part of the state board's
ruling that corresponded to pre-
vious University plans.

TODAY 'the University is pub-
licly committed to a four-year
branch in Flint until such time as
a master plan for higher educa-
tion should dictate otherwise-
and a master plan will not be
forthcoming for some time. The
board appears equally committed
to keeping the branch as a two-
year institution, and this only
until the independent school can
be established.
Flint citizens-or, at least, the
groups involved in the education
system-want a University branch,
now and forever. Romney general-
ly supports the state board, and
the position of the Legislature de-
pends on which legislator is being
considered.
The Flint College issue has been
relatively quiet for the past sev-
eral months, but within the next
week the University wil be sending
its 1966-67 budget request to Lan-
sing.
It is almost inevitable that the
section of the request marked for
increased enrollment 'will include
sufficient funds to support an-
other freshman class at the Flint
branch.
TOMORROW: The future of
Flint College: what will prob-
ably happen, what should hap-
pen and why.

enU.S.andSovietInterst

By WALTER LIPPMANN
LAST WEEK the world had a
fleeting but tantalizing glimpse
of what might become possible if
the cold war subsided. The USSR
and the U.S.A., acting on their
parallel interests in averting a war
between Pakistan and India, made
it possible for the United Nations
to order a, cease-fire. This show
of unanimity discouraged the
Chinese from intervening in the
quarrel.
Parallelism is a long way short
of positive cooperation, and there
is no assurance that a settlement
of the quarrel is in sight or seven
that the underlying hostility will
not smoulder on for a very long
time.
Nevertheless, the events of last
week were a spectacular demon-
stration of how all hope and pros-
pect of a reasonably peaceable
world is tied up with an improve-
ment in Soviet-American rela-
tions.
IS AN IMPROVEMENT pos-
sible? What is there between us
that now sets us against each
other? It is, quite plainly, the
conflict of ideology and interest,
of emotion and of prejudice, over
the revolutionary condition of the
so-called third world-the world
of the underdeveloped and emerg-
ing nations of the Southern
Hemisphere-in Asia, Africa and
Latin America.
The revolutionary condition is
an objective historical fact of this
century, and it will continue to
exist no matter what the Russians
or we say or do about it.
The Soviet-American conflict is
about this revolutionary condition.
Thus, the conflict is no longer, as,
it was a generation = ago, about
what kind of social order is to
xist in the highly-developed coun-
tries of Europe and North Amer-
ica.

AS A MATTER of fact, in this
whole area, which includes Euro-
pean Russia itself, the old argu-
ment between the Marxists and
the laissez-faire capitalists has
been by-passed by events.,
For example, the economic phi-
Sen. Goldwater in America is as
losophy of Gen. Eisenhower and
dead as the economic philosophy
of Marx is among the European
socialists. In the whole developed,
progressive, industrial world, the
prevailing economic order is a
mixture in varying degrees of
planning and the incentive of
profit, of fiscal management and
social regulation.
It is in regard to the turbulence
of this third, world-which was
not foreseen a generation ago-
that the Soviet Union and the
United States find themselves
locked into what has the appear-
ance of an irreconcilable conflict.
IN ITS OFFICIAL ideology, the
Soviet Union is committed to the
support of the revolutionaries,
to the incitement and supplying
of "wars of national liberation."
In the American ideology, we
are not absolutely opposed to wars
of national liberation, provided
they are not inspired or supported
by Communists. We are very much;
disposed to feel, however, that all
revolutions will be captured by
the Communists who invariably
participate in them.
Thus, Russia and America find
themselves in a vicious circle. The
Russians are disposed to intervene
wherever there is a rebellion and
the United States is inclined to
intervene to oppose as aggression
the Communist intervention. In
the Soviet Union there exists a
prejudice in favor of rebellion as
such. The Soviet Union is the
product of a fairly recent revolu-
tion.
THE IMPROVEMENT of Soviet-
American relations, which is pre-

requisite to an accomodation be-
tween the West and China, re-
quires the breakup of this vicious
circle. How? Essentially, I believe,
by fostering the ascendancy of
national interests over global
ideology, by the reassertion in both
countries of prudence and calcula-
tion against semi-religious fana-
ticism and frenzy.
We had a glimpse last week of
how this can happen. The hostili-
ties in Kashmir began with an
infiltration of guerrilla troops, re-
cruited as a matter of fact from
the Pakistan army though they
wore different uniforms. The, pur-
pose of the guerrillas was to arouse
the population and to liberate
Moslem Kashmir from Hindu rule.
Here was a war of national lib-
eration which the Soviet Union,
according to its theoretical doc-
trine, was bound to support.
HOWEVER, the fact of the
matter is that it did not suit the
Soviet Union that Pakistan, in
cahoots with Red 'China, should
defeat India, which is a tacit ally
of the Soviet Union. So the Soviet
Union acted in favor of peace,
which is its real interest, rather
than on behalf of an ideological
prejudice.
At the same time, the United
States, having learned something
in recent months, resisted the
temptation to take a lofty position
against aggression, and instead,
reticently and prudently, chose to
work quietly and behind the
scenes.
This is the way that Soviet-
American relations can be im-
proved-by encouraging the pru-
dent and the practical to pre-
dominate over the ideological and
the hot. In this country, at least,
the process will require the re-
sumption of public debate-the
kind of debate which Sen. Ful-
bright has once again opened up.
FOR 'THE ISSUE which he has
posed in his remarkable speech
is the essential issue in our at-
titude and policy toward the rev-
olutionary condition of our time.
The question he posed is how to
tolerate rebellion, which is often
necessary and desirable, without
surrendering the control of the
rebellion to the Communists who
will always be part of it.
There is no rule of thumb for
answering this question. But there'
has to be some kind of accommo-
dation, such as the Soviet Union
made about the Kashmir freedom

"We Agree To Stop In The Interest
Of "International Peace"

I IA*4.

".,1
, ,"

I

I.

, , ,.,.
/Pl , ~ *

1*.

x

A4

LocalTick-ses:

Schutze's Corner:
Trials of Fame

By JOYCE WINSLOW
"HEY MAN, did you see the
Kingston Trio?"
"No.".
"What's the matter with you-
anti-folk or something?"
"No."
"Were you afraid of the heat, or
the crowds, or couldn't you get a
date?"
"No nothing like that. I just
couldn'tnget tickets, that's all."
:6WF.T.,HV ddn' vnngi~m -

people and only 3100 tickets were
held for block .sales even through
there were 4200 requests for block
tickets. You could have been one
of the lucky thousand who got in-
dividual tickets."
"DID YOU see the lines?"
"No, I was participating in Rush.
What lines?"
"The lines that stretched in
front of Hill at 8 a.m. Monday
morning for tickets. I went at 8:00
and skipped my 9 o'clock even

Y'NAME in print! I rushed
proudly over to the SNCC desk
in the Fishbowl, a copy of The
Daily clutched with boyish pride
in one hand.
"Jeez," I exclaimed breathless-

"Wanna sign the petition, Jack?"
"But ... here! Read this, damn
it!" I thrust my copy of The Daily
under her nose and pointed out
my column. She read it, and I
steeled myself for an explosion.

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan