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.

October 07, 1965 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1965-10-07

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 POOLICATIONS

Parley on SEAsia-a Criticism

a

:_. - =°
Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
T"rutbWill 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.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: LEONARD PRATT

The University: Standing Between
Students and Outside Harassments

A

ONE OF THE MORE touchy areas of
University-Ann Arbor community re-
lations is the University's dealings with
the Ann Arbor police department. The
recent arrests of University students on
charges of selling, possessing and having
marijuana have brought this critical area
into focus. What should the University
do when its students are arrested?
In the past, John Bingley, former as-
sistant to the student affairs vice-presi-
dent and in charge of student organiza-
tions, handled the University's police
relations. Over the years, Bingley estab-
lished a kind of rapport with the po-
lice department and the courts which
permitted issues to be settled quietly
with minimum harm to students or the
University. ,
There are now a number of new faces
in the Office of Student Affairs, how-
ever, including Vice-President for Stu-
dent Affairs Richard Cutler and J. Dun-
can Sells, who has replaced Bingley. Pres-
ently, University policy in this area is
ill defined, and contact between Universi-
ty officials and the police department
is minimal.
WHEN FORMULATING any policy, how-
ever vague, concerning police rela-
tions, there are two factors the Univer-
sity must consider:
How will a specific action affect the
student involved concerning his educa-
tional and emotional development?
How will the University itself be af-
fected by a given police action-e.g., the
University's public "face" at, say, appro-
priations time.
IN ORDER for the University to provide
an optimal climate for the education-
al and personal development of students,
Birth Control:
Chaos AVerted."..
IN THE FACE of overwhelming pressure
from aroused students, the University
has finally consented to allow Health
Service to dispense birth control pills.
True, the new policy has some restric-
tions. In keeping with the University's
regulations on other aspects of interper-
sonal relationships, the Health. Service
pill-dispensing door must be open 45 de-
grees at all times, and at least two lights
must be on.
But regardless of these minor restric-
tions, the University's decision is a valu-
able advance.
After all, it averted a massive sleep-in
on President Hatcher's lawn.
-M. R. KILLINGSWORTH
. .."A Matter
Of, Taste
"BEING A STATE-SUPPORTED school,
we must be guided by the aesthetic
(sic) attitudes of the people, which are
reflected by the Legislature."
-Dr. James S. Feurig, M.D., director
of Michigan State University's health
center, in the Detroit Free Press of Sept.
30 on why MSU will probably never dis-
pense birth control pills.
Right you are, Dr. Feurig.
After all, what's so beautiful about a
birth control pill, anyway?
--M. R. KILLINGSWORTH

Editorial Staff
ROBERT JOHNSTON, Editor
LAUGRENCE KIRSHBAUM JEFFREY GOODMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
JUDITH FIELDS ............ . . ..Personnel Director
LAURENBAHR..........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

it is necessary not only for the civil liber-
ties of students be protected but also
for there to be a reasonable exercise of
the restrictive power which the Univer-
sity holds over students.
One of the purposes of the University
is to provide a broad and many-sided
educational experience for the student.
The student is encouraged to explore and
to discover knowledge, morality and wis-
dom for himself.
This is possible only if the student is
not controlled by University restrictions
or harassed by numerous outside com-
munity forces, extending from parents to
the Ann Arbor police force.
IDEED, THE GENERAL tendency
among universities today has been to-
ward fewer and fewer controls from out-
side the university community. Because
of this, American state universities have
flourished, and academic freedom has
surmounted many of the old ties of leg-
islatures, the popular press and public
opinion. If this trend is to continue, the
freedoms of the student, who is the basic
unit of any university, must be upheld.
This would resolve the apparent con-
tradiction in student attitudes in the
area of University intervention. The
contradiction lies in the fact that the
same students who would protest the
University's regulation of such things as
dormitory hours, distribution require-
ments and student life in general are the
first to request the aid and protection
of the University in the case of a student
confrontation with an outside agency.
But although it is not the province of
the University to openly flount or sub-
vert the law-even if the law itself is
absurd in the light of a pragmatic real-
ity-it is the duty of the University to
protect the freedoms of its students from
unnecessary or indiscreet harassment.
BECAUSE THE STUDENT, in many
cases, is not aware of his rights as a
citizen, he is a prime target for police
railroading. Events of the last few days
have hinted at this; any case, they pre-
sent an important challenge to the Uni-
versity's desire and ability to fulfill its
responsibilities to itself and its students.
In the case of the actual arrests, there
are questions as to the arrest procedure.
The possibility of definite transgression
of the civil liberties of students exists.
At least one apartment house, inhabited
almost entirely by students, was thor-
oughly searched by eight Ann Arbor po-
licemen without the sanction of a search
warrant. Students in no way involved in
the actual arrests have possibly had their
rights violated. These possibilities should
be investigated by the OSA.
The OSA is going to do something,
though Vice-President Cutler does not yet
know what. While there are indications
that he will take as constructive a path
as possible in preserving the rights of the
students involved, damage may already
have been done by Cutler's hesitancy.
This may well have prejudiced public
opinion about the students and has at
least confused state legislators about
where the University stands on this is-
sue.
THE RESOURCES of the University
should be used in this and any similar
cases to protect the rights of its stu-
dents and therefore to allow them the
freedoms they need for their develop-
ment. The University should support its
students in situations involving police,
landlords, merchants and, if the individ-
ual case warrants, parents.
There should be no indecision, no hes-
itancy among University officials when

there is a confrontation between stu-
dents and the extra-university world.
Matters should be handled with discre-
tion to avoid adverse and incorrect pub-
licity for the students involved and for
the University. And when possible, the
University alone should handle this type
of problem.
-MICHAEL BADAMO
rail Blazer T

EDITOR'S NOTE: Two weeks
ago The Daily sent Associate
Editorial Director Robert Hip-
pler to Racine, Wis., to cover
a three-day foreign policy con-
ference on Southeast Asia. The
conference was sponsored by the
Johnson Foundation and was
the major conference of the year
at the foundation's headquar-
ters in Racine. The purpose of
the conference was expressed in
the opening statement of its
chairman: The purpose of the
conference was "To clarify for
the American people some of the
complicated issues in Southeast
Asia which confront the makers
of foreign policy" and to "bring
together influential and articu-
late leaders in government, in-
ternational organizations, and
scholarly institutions." The fol-
lowing is the first of two ar-
ticles.
By ROBERT HIPPLER
Associate Editorial Director
Special To The Daily
RACINE-The most striking as-
pect of the conference on U.S.
Southeast Asian policy held here
two weeks ago was the distin-
guished list of its participants.
Present were representatives
from the White House, the State
Department and the Defense De-
partment. Others included schol-
ars from many universities and
representatives of U.S. business
interests in Southeast Asia.
Those at the conference were
not limited to U.S. citizens. At-
tending were prominent officials
from India, Thailand and South
Viet Nam.
Southeast Asia was the prin-
cipal field of interest-or one of
the principal fieldsof interest-
of almost all those attending and
virtually all had traveled to the
area for extended visits in re-
cent years.
Most supported to a great de-
gree U.S. policies in Southeast
Asia, but this did not prevent in-
teresting and vigorous discussion.
Yet the conference had faults,

some of them rather serious -
though curable-in nature.
0 Organization of the Discus-
sion: The 35 participants con-
ferred around a single large table
throughout the conference. The
three days were divided into sev-
eral topic-areas, and the chair-
man of the symposium, Kenneth
T. Young, former U.S. ambassador
to Thailand, tried to concentrate
conversation on the topic at hand.
During the conference, whose
turn it was to speak was up to
Young. Each participant present-
ed, over the three days, an ab-
stract of the short paper he had
prepared for the occasion.
During each day there were al-
so several periods of free discus-
sion. Sometimes the chairman al-
lowed participants to comment out
of turn, but not often and not if
too many wanted to do it.
THIS organizational scheme was
far from perfect. Sometimes, by
the time a participant had a
chance to speak, the conversa-
tion had moved along so far that
he had to backtrack an hour or
so.
The participant was often in
the position of having to pour
forth all of his comments on a
certain topic in a single spate and
then wait a very long time before
answering those disagreeing with
him-if he had a chance to an-
swer them at all. Points were
often lost and exchanges of views
prevented because too many peo-
ple wanted to say too many things.
Sometimes a participant became
impatient-albeit politely so-be-
cause his turn had not come to
speak.
Prof. Frank Trager of New York
University, whose statements were
often at variance with the general
feelings of the group, at one
point asserted that "there are no
significant differences" among
the many Communist governments
in the world. In another case, he
described what he called "an his-
toric Chinese drive to the South
Seas."
Both times he was verbally

pounced upon by several other
members of the symposium and
was not able to answer his cri-
ticisms because so many others
had to speak before he was in
turn again. He was not a very
happy man at these times.
THE AIM of the conference was
"a sharing of viewpoints and ex-
periences," according to the state-
ment of its chairman. It is un-
deniable that information was
gained by those at the conference
merely by hearing what was said.
But few participants had the
opportunity to expound their views
fully, to answer a significant
amount of criticism of their views,
to have their views fully tested
and examined by all present.
The conference to a great de-
gree became, rather than a dis-
cussion, a series of brief state-
ments followed by scattered and
incomplete rebuttals. This stilted
or destroyed much of the good
that might come out of it.
The best solution to this prob-
lem would have involved dividing
the 35 participants into two dis-
cussion groups. When someone
has six or seven per cent of the
time to speak instead of a min-
iscule three per cent, his frustra-
tion is bound to be eased and the
interchange of views increased
greatly.
More extended arguments be-
tween a few people can be con-
ducted, allowing more issues to
be probed in depth-through the
logical structure of argument in-
stead of through scattered state-
ments.
If the conference had been di-
vided into two groups, members of
each group could have been sup-
plied, after the conference, with
transcripts of both proceedings,
and thus have been exposed to all
the views presented.
AS A SECOND STEP, it would
have been advisable to reduce the
total times spent in conference
over the three-day schedule. There
were substantial complaints from
participants-almost all of whom
were very tired by the third day-

that too much was crammed in-
to the three day period. The sec-
ond day, which had a schedule
running from 9 in the morning
until well after 10 at night (with
breaks for meals), was particular-
ly fatiguing.
Reduced total conference time
would in addition have allowed a
conference split into two groups
more opportunity for contact be-
tween groups outside the formal
talks.
The argument could be made
that had the conference been split
into two groups, the breadth of
experience of each group would
have been reduced greatly. But
the advantage of separate groups
would have more than overcome
this.
" The Conference's Scope: The
second major fault of the confer-
ence was that it did not give many
areas of Southeast 'Asia adequate
treatment. Time simply required
that the participants move on to
other topics if they were tq cover
all of Southeast Asia in three
days.
The list of topics inadequately
treated was long. Onfy very short
historical summaries were given
for Burma, Thailand and Cam-
bodia, and very little time was
spent in discussion of their pres-
ent problems. Prof. John Cady of
Ohio University had written a
monumental history of Burma as
well as several other books on the
area. It was hard to understand
how he could tolerate the very
short and superficial treatment
that country was given.
The Philippines were hardly
mentioned. The problems of In-
donesia and Malaysia got a little
more time, but not enough.
The short shrift given to these
areas seemed Inadequate for this
reason: It was hard to imagine
how the participants - almost all
of them fairly familiar with the
history and current situation in
Southeast Asia-could gain any
new insights from the process.
Much of the discussion of these
areas went little deeper than brief
history books or good newspapers
do now.

THE ONLY two major areas
adequately treated in the confer-
ence were Viet Nam and the long
range, internationally financed de-
velopment program for the Me-
kong River basin.
Many of the participants had
been to Viet Nam recently, and
in attendance was Vu Van Thai,
a veteran South Vietnamese dip-
lomat. A great deal of time was
devoted to Viet Nam, at the ex-
pense of other areas.
Much time was also devoted to
detailed discussion of the Mekong
project. A film was shown, and
several men very familiar with
the project discussed it at length.
Again, however, this was at the
expense of other areas.
NARROWING the subject mat-
ter would have been the best so-
lution to these problems.
The conference should have
confined itself to, say, Viet Nam,
the Mekong Project and Laos; or
to Indonesia, Malaysia and the in-
fluence of China; or to Burma,
Cambodia and Thailand.
This would have reduced the
scope of the conference, but it
would have allowed participants
to go beyond historical sketches
and short discussions of the cur-
rent situation and, into detailed
analysis of the areas they cov-
ered.
Sketches are necessary but do
little good by themselves. They
must be followed by intensive dis-
cussion of some length if new in-
sights and better understanding
of situations are to emerge. Not
nearly enough of this type of
discussion took place at the con-
ference.
SUCH CHANGES would have
improved an already good confer-
ence and will improve the next
such conference if implemented.
TOMORROW: Deficiencies in
the conference which stemmed
essentially from who was in-
vited, and suggestions for solu-
tions.

or

.f

Generation, II:
Avant-Garde Music

;- '.; *{,r k}. ~j . >: -- h;7 -":-, - ...Ot. a ""d4

e ! 1
t
't
. }:r,.
. ''
nn h:
. ''
3 ~;f Ry

SM06OVILLE
U~r~tPING-
*0wTE NALTy
R 1 AW , --
.Am~V UI~

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the
second of three separate reviews
of the current issue of Genera-
tion.
By WILLIAM ALBRIGHT
School of Music
HOWEVER TENUOUS a justifi-
cation the type of new music
described in "Music beyond the
Boundaries" appearing in the new
"Generation" had when America
first became a center for its pro-
pagation, the avant-garde in this
country has entrenched itself so
firmly, and proven itself so
strongly as the most important
single influence on European art
today that there is no need for
an elaborate "credential" paper
with a detailed aesthetic analysis.
Indeed, a great many words
have been spilled in journals rang-
ing from Time and Saturday Re-
view to The Musical Quarterly on
the philosophical approach to new
music.
Previous writings have made
new art into something grim,
shrouding it in tangled academic
prose. Fortunately, Generation's
authors, Robert Sheff and Mark
Slobin, succeed in capturing the
wit, carefree spirit and non-
structural qualities inherent in
the best of today, new music.
THE FORM of the article is in
a slightly mannered style (quotes
and footnotes running side by
side with the text in the manner
of a visible vocabulary, a liberal
sampling of pictures and scores
scattered throughout the text),
but not oppressively so.
In trying to free their style,
however, the writers have ordered
their topics haphazardly in many
cases: start with an introduction;
move to communal activity as ba-
sis for art; describe the back-
ground of the New York composers
(Cage, Brown, Feldman) lndthe
problems of notation; jump back
to describe Partch as an inno-
vator; pick up the dangling
threads of notation; insert defi-
nitions of chance, indeterminacy
and aleatory; emphasize the role
of silence; introduce theater pres-
entations; digress to electronic,
and tape music; dissolve into
"scores to be realized"; continue
with detailed descriptions of com-
positions by. Mumma, Corner,
Cage, the Ashley's and, naturally,
Robert Sheff.
In any case, this melange of
topics is appropriate to the essence
of new music and reflects the
humorous pace set by the pieces
described.
THE COMPOSITIONS them-
selves are a constant pleasure,
from the simn1e on-sentence in-

BUT THERE is a basic fallacy
involved in -presenting Just de-
scriptions or merely the essence
of new pieces when the viewing
and auditing of such is a com-
pletely different experience. Read-
ing a capsule summary of a piece
builds up an expectation of en-
Joyment that is more often than
not belied by the actual perform-
ance.
Frequently my admiration for a
piece grows proportionally to the
amount of time since the perform-
ance. A piece detested in concert
today becomes luminous the less
I remember the actual program
and the more I distill the concepts
represented.
In other words, most of the
pieces of the genre described are
bores. The compositions have one
aspect in common: a lack of con-
sideration for the audience. I want
to have my attention span filled,
not stretched and enervated.
"The composer has no right to
bore his audience" Ralph Vaughan
Williams said. This is one tenet
that the avant-garde, including
Sheff and Slobin, might well con-
sider.
Schutze 's,
Corner.
Culture
MATHEMATICS has always had
an irresistible flavor of in-
trigue and mystery for me. Its
application to complicated dis-
ciplines like economics verges on
the wierdly fantastic: I can only
wonder in uncomprehending rev-
erence at the marvels of future-
streams-of-earning and invest-
ment-saving-equilibria.
Because I am myself intimidat-
ed by belligerently large numbers
and infernally complex invest-
ment alternatives, I deeply sym-
pathize with Prof. Donald Hall of
the English Department.
Prof. Hall's blissfully romantic
letter in last Saturady's Daily
dismissed the entire controversy
surrounding regent Power's wish
to build a new theatre for the
University. Hall explained with in-
genious simplicity that those
people who oppose the use of three
million dollars for the construc-
tion of a new theatre are a vicious
pack of casual, gray, bourgeois
burghers from Philistia, and that
people who favor the theatre's
construction are on the side of
Keats, God, Van Gogh, and Hall.
T7.c lvi< elin .. vnn~~n

Viet Nam--Days of Protest

To the Editor:
ON OCTOBER 15 and 16, over
100 communities and campuses
across the United States, Japan,
England, Norway, Italy, Sweden,
Denmark, Belgium, Mexico and
Canada will participate in the
"International Days of Protest"
(Viet Nam Days) against Ameri-
can involvement in the Viet Nam
war.
With each passing day, it be-
comes increasingly possible that
the Ann Arbor community and
the Michigan campus will not
have massive participation on Viet
Nam na

ringing demand that the govern-
ment seek sincerely for a peace-
ful solution to this unjust war.
Viet Nam Days have been call-
ed to serve this very purpose. In
order that all those in the Uni-
versity and the community who
wish to participate may have a
voice in determining the nature
of the local protest, we are hold-
ing a mass meeting tonight at 8
p.m. in the Multipurpose Room
of the UGLI.
We urge that you attend.
-Prof. Julien Gendell, Depart-
ment of Chemistry
-Prof. Joel Isaacson, Depart-

allowing contraceptive pills to un-
married women students.
Society, which in many situa-
tions acts like an independent be-
ing, reasons as follows:
People like sex. Sexual inter-
course produces babies. People
can't feedrbabies and go to school
too. Babies must be fed. People
must go to school. Hence people
who go to school must not have
babies.
Hence they must not have sexual
intercourse? That's silly. Sexual
intercourse does not have to pro-
duce babies.
IF WOMN -tudncents ee ato he

4

I

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan