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 10, 1965 - Image 4

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

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

t

Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

Military-Industrial Collusion: How Much?

I

Where Opinions Are Free. 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Truth Will Prevail

NEws PHONE: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily ex press the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
SUNDAY. OCTOBER 10, 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: LAURENCE KIRSHBAUM

Free Speech: Could It Be
Endangered in the Future?

IT APPEARS, if vague threats from of-
ficial sources are to be taken seriously,
that the honeymoon of free speech in
this country and the upsurge of political
activity that has accompanied it for the
last year may be somewhat endangered
in the near future.
Serious objections have been raised to
many protest activities recently, particu-
larly in the area of Viet Nam demon-
strations and the work of campus ac-
tivists.
Attorney General Nicholas DeB. Kat-
zenbach in a speech delivered Friday said
that, although he had no objections to
"student demonstrations" which were,
in his opinion, constructive, he was op-
posed to "coercive" protests which were
"not in the American tradition."
Such remarks. are significant in the
light of the planned International Days
of Protest, Oct. 15-16 against the war in
Viet Nam; Katzenbach added at the
end of his speech that such groups are
no longer tolerable and "would be dealt
with accordingly."
[N THE CONTROVERSY last month over
the Fishbowl sign which accused U.S.
soldiers of war crimes, University officials
debated at considerable length before
reaching a decision to allow the sign to
remain. While their decision was in favor
of free speech (within certain limits), a
significant part of the discussion
was concerned with the possible damage
that might have been done to the image
of the University if the sign remained.
The practicalities of University public
relations were hardly the basis on which
to consider a moral and ethical matter
such as free speech.
In addition, at a recent meeting of the
literary college faculty, objections to po-
litical activity in the Fishbowl were rais-
ed, some admittedly on the basis of the
content of the political views expressed
there.
Add to this the frequent objections to
criticism of our involvement in Viet Nam
made by U.S. government officials, not-
ably President Johnson, and the pressure
that can be brought to bear on this and
other state-supported universities by
state legislators.
The events at Berkeley last fall and
winter undoubtedly have influenced the
upsurge in campus political activism all
over the country. This activism has been
allowed by university administrators in
part because they fear the same sort of
explosion on their own campuses.
In addition, the upswing in activity
and political consciousness has been al-
lowed freer expression simply because it
has produced, to an ever increasing de-
gree, the constructive criticism that At-
torney General Katzenbach claims to
favor.

WHY, THEN, this cryptic reference to
"coercive" demonstrations to be "dealt
with accordingly?"
One by-product of the Viet Nam pro-
tests has been a reorientation of the nor-
mal lines of communication and criticism,
not only on this issue but in all areas
of foreign policy. Admittedly the change
is slight, but the publicity accorded the
National Teach-in in Washington on May
15 indicates that it had a significant
effect on the news media's sources of in-
formation.
Officials in the government, realizing
that they have lost complete control over
the sources and dissemination of infor-
mation know that, consequently, they
have lost some part of their political
power as far as the general public is con-
cerned. The creation of new sources of
information such as the Viet Nam pro-
tests have shown that traditional struc-
tures can be circumvented or ignored.
Therefore, a part of their function and
reason for existence is destroyed.
THESE DEVELOPMENTS alone are
enough to strike a spark of fear in the
hearts of government officials, fear for
their power and the institutions whose
existence is largely responsible for that
power. As may be expected in a bureauc-
racy, any disturbance of the normal
rhythm of its operation is viewed as a
serious threat.
Campus protests have done more than
create a dialogue between the points of
view on U.S. policy in Viet Nam, how-
ever; they have also established that
there is, indeed, an alternative to the
present policy, that our course of action
is dangerous in a world of nuclear pow-
ers and that an immediate search for an
endto the conflict must be instigated.
For men in prominent positions who
are convinced that their chosen course
of action is correct, this dissent must
produce both shock and anger. And, as
these men may hold considerable power,
it also produces the wish and eventually
the actual decision to minimize the dis-
sent as much as possible.
This wish and decision may be found,
at least in some degree, in Katzenbach's
speech. But would they do it? It should
be obvious that it is not their wish to
suppress, in a totalitarian way, the right
of free speech. It may also be said, how-
ever, that they would not consider some
limitation of political activity, at least
on the campus, a violation of the prin-
ciple of free speech.
ONE IS, THEREFORE, left with the am-
biguity of the Attorney General, and
one can only imagine what is meant
when a government official says that
certain campus demonstrations will be
"dealt with accordingly."
-CHARLOTTE WOLTER

By BRUCE WASSERSTEIN
W HEN President Lyndon B.
Johnson announced this sum-
mer that he planned to double
the draft call and send 50,000
mnore troops to Viet Nam, stock
prices took a dive.
Explaining the drop in prices,
the Associated Press reported that
"Some brokers said the pullback
was caused by a speech not as
warlike as had been expected."
Other brokers, according to the
AP, "said that the decline came
in part from profit taking on de-
fense stocks. These stocks have
risen recently in anticipation of
further military escalation in Viet
Nam."
REPORTING ON the buildup,
Business Week said in its Au-
gust 7 issue: "Stock market psy-
chology has taken a new turn
with the administration'smoveto
step up spending in Viet Nam."
This move puts a new prop
under economic expansion at a
time when some analysts figured
the business outlook was clouding.
The stocks moving up are a se-
lect group. Defense issues natur-
ally are winning more favor as
"war babies.'
IT IS STARTLINGLY obvious
from these quotes that the giant
corporations which comprise the
nation's defense industry have a
vested interest in war or warlike
tensions. The major question for
American society is to what extent
those companies which depend on
war for their survival have a de-
leterious effect on mankind's
search for peace.
To what extent do those cor-
porations which thrive by creat-
ing weapons of destruction deter-
mine American foreign policy?
The indications are strong that
there is collusion between the
mammoths of the arms industry
and the military establishment.
America is paying more than $50
billion a year for defense - more
than half of every tax dollar goes
to support the military. Are these
expenditures necessary?
Perhaps. But the determination
of how much money should be
spent on what should not be left
up to the profit motives of cor-
porations and the self-aggrandiz-
ing desires of the military.
THIS COALITION of defense
corporations and the military is

so close that many military of-
ficials join defense company staffs
after their retirement from the
services. The possibilities of con-
flicts of interest in such situa-
tions are staggering. One can eas-
ily imagine a military man favor-
ing the bid of his prospective em-
ployer for a given contract or
favoring the company which his
old boss, now retired from the mil-
itary, represents.
One of the best examples of
this coalition is mentioned in Fred
Cook's eye-opening article "Jug-
gernaut: The Warfare State," in
the October 28, 1961, Nation.
According to Cook, General Dy-
namics, one of the leading mili-
tary contractors, had, in 1961,
187 retired military officers in its
employment, including 27 gener-
als and admirals and a president,
Frank Pace, who was a former sec-
retary of the Army.
Even Dwight D. Eisenhower, a
man who was all too often obvi-
ous to his political milieu, recog-
nized the danger of this coalition
between business and the military.
In his farewell address Eisen-
hower said, "In the councils of
government we must guard against
the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or un-
sought, by the military-industrial
complex. The potential for the dis-
astrous rise of misplaced power
exists and will persist."
A GOOD CASE study by Cook
pointing out the deleterious ef-
fects of the coalition between the
military and the defense contrac-
tors is the controversy in the late
'50's over whether the Defense
Department should purchase Nike
Hercules missiles produced by
Western Electric and operated by
the Army, Bomarc missiles pro-
duced by Boeing and operated by
the Air Force, or neither.
According to Cook, Army
spokesmen acknowledged to a
House committee that they en-
couraged Western Electric to
mount a nationwide advertising
campaign "extolling the virtues of
Nike Hercules."
On th' other hand, according to
Cook, Boeing, spent considerable
money publicizing the Bomarc.
"THE PICTURE that emerges
from this sequence," Cook says, "is
clear. The President and Congress
were both being pressured through
the wave of advertising, paid for
largely with funds derived from

war contracts, to throw literally
billions of dollars into missile sys-
tems of dubious value."
In fighting for contracts the
branches of the armed services be-
came enemies whose only allies
are those defense companies
which are producing materials for
their branch.
To build up its power and stat-
us, to get more personnel and
higher appropriations, each of the
branches becomes a strong parti-
san involved in pressuring the gov-
ernment to support its favorite
project. One can easily imagine
Army men pushing Army projects
even if the Air Force projects are
better.
LEAFING THROUGH any mag-
azine of national readership, one
notices colorful advertisements
with rockets blasting off and cap-
tions such as, "Keeping Our Na-
tion Safe."
What the reader does not gen-
erally realize is that these adver-
tisements are paid for out of his
tax dollars through "overhead
costs" included in defense con-
tracts.
For example, Victor Perlo, in
his book, "Militarism and Indus-
try," cites the case of a North
American Aviation contract for
380 FJ-3 airplanes in which over
half the costs were "overhead and
administrative," for which no ac-
counting was given.
Where does this money go?
ASIDE FROM legitimate over-
head and advertising, one of the
prime places these funds go to is
to support lobbyists. For exam-
ple, the Hebert congressional
probe of the defense industry in
1959 showed that 79 defense con-
tracts supported a lobbying orga-
nization called the Aerospace In-
dustries Association. The yearly
assessments from the defense com-
panies supporting the organization
range up to $75,000 by Boeing,
Douglas, Curtiss Wright, North
American Aviation, United and
Lockheed.
And the Aerospace Industries
Association is just one organiza-
tion prsenting an industry-wide
front.
Imagine, in addition to the oth-
er lobbying bodies for industry-
wide interests, all the separate
lobbyists for specific companies.
The problem of the military
wishing to aggrandize itself is ac-
centuated by the fact that mod-

ern weapons systems are practic-
ally incomprehensible to the ama-
teur. The average congressmen or
senator must rely on the judgment
of the military experts, thus leav-
ing little check on the belligerent
propensities of the armed forces.
ONE SHOULD keep in mind,
however, that the American mili-
tary and defense contractors can-
not be blamed for all the bellig-
erence in the world. Unless a real-
istic path to disarmament can be
thought out, there is a definite
need for defense weapons and mil-
itary might.
- It is also hard to imagine mili-
tary men and corporation officials
with wives and children conscien-
tiously advocating destruction and
death.
Yet these people are fomenting
the tensions which one day may
blow up the world.
Domestically, the garrison state
also embodies the negation of the
principles for which we are al-
legedly fighting. For example,
news censorship is already quite
blatant regarding the Vietnamese
war, and the informaton which is
released in such documents as the
white paper is distorted, according
even to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
Clemenceau's comment that
"war is too important to be left
to the generals" is more relevant
today than ever.
ONE POSSIBLE solution would
be the nationalization of the de-
fense industries. Although this
would eliminate the profit motive
of the large corporations - thus'
perhaps eliminating their vested
interest in increased armaments
-it would tend to accentuate the
problems of collusion between gov-
ernment and a large military es-
tablishment by formalizing the
connection between these two and
by increasing the power of the
military.
One could argue, on the other
hand, that this accentuation would
not significantly offset the bene-
fits accruing to elimination of the
profit motive and closer public
control over defense production.
Already therdefense industry doles
not operate under the traditional
capitalistic concept of separation
of state and private enterprise.
Rather, most defense companies
are nearly completely dependent
on government contracts and act
in collusion with the military.

IN ANY CASE, the American
people will not presently accept
the idea of nationalization. Rath-
er, they prefer the concept of
prop capitalism in the arms in-
dustries in which companies are
privately owned but depend for
most of their business on pub-
lic contracts.
Perhaps this attitude is unfor-
tunate, for although there are
positive aspects to capitalism -
such as its potential for offset-
ting the latent tyranny of big gov-
ernment-prop capitalism accen-
tuates the capitalism's negative
side. The search for profit is not
worthwhile when it may result in
needless destruction.
Nevertheless, the likelihood of
nationalism as a solution which
can be put into practice is remote.
BUT THERE ARE other meas-
ures which are more realistic
which could help offset the prob-
lem.
For example:
* The branches of the armed
forces should be unified to elim-
inate the interservice rivalry
which results in waste, needless
expenditure and attempts to pro-
mote anachronistic weapons sys-
tems. Civilian who are knowledge-
able about weaponry systems
should play a greater hole in the
selection of defense weapons and
congressmen should set up a civil-
ian review board to point out any
malpractics on the part of the mil-
itary.
t All government contracts
should be let in closed-bid com-
petition.
* Gifts from defense compan-
ies to military officials should be
made illegal and conflicts of in-
terests regulated by law.
These proposals are only sug-
gestions of the type of regula-
tions which might be enacted.
They are by no means inclusive.
THE MAIN POINT is that the
defense industry coalition with the
military is getting out of hand.
As the former senator from Ver-
mont, Ralph Flanders, pointed out,
the effect of our current defense
system is that "We are being forc-
ed to shift the American way of
life into the pattern of the garri-
son state."
Action is needed now before it
is too late.

I

A

4

I

Two Views on the Pope's Visit to the United Nations

.,..P ro

TODAY
anI
TOMORROW
By WALTER LIPPMAN

The Advantages of Golf Courses

ANOTHER REGENT wants to make a
gift. Regent Frederick Matthaei feels
the University needs another golf course,
so he is contributing the land for it.
Recently, a leading national magazine
reported the average cost of upkeep of
one hole of a golf course was $3500 each
year. With a 19-hole course, this would
cost the University $66,500 each year for
upkeep alone for the 19 holes of Regent
Matthaei's gift. The building of one green
itself is reported to cost from $18-20,000.
This might seem exhorbitant, but the
advantages of an additional golf course
are limitless. It would first of all curtail
the amount of time the golfer must wait
to play at the other golf course. The time
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 IPPLER ... Associate EditorialnDirector
SAIL BLUMBERG ............... Magazine Editor
LLOYD GRAFF .................. Acting Sports Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Susan Collins, John Meredith,

saved could be used studying, marking
three week old tests or writing letters
home.
SECONDLY, the course would encourage
the much-sought-after high school
varsity golfer to come to the University
instead of going to Michigan State Uni-
versity, which only has one golf course
(and this one course would be ancient
compared to the University's new one).
The nation's potential golf pros would
certainly soon be banging on the gates
of the most famous golf club in the Unit-
ed States-the University. The banner
headlines in the New York Times would
make us all very proud-"Michigan Cops
NCAA Golfing Crown."
Third, by building a golf course we
would be negating the Regents' ruling
which is causing so many problems for
the construction of a University book-
store. The club would definitely be ille-
gal under the ruling which states the
University can't be in business and com-
pete with the friendly Ann Arbor mer-
chants (or country clubs). In addition,
the building of the club would be post-
poned for two years, and the money

ON MONDAY when the Pope
came to the United Nations
we witnesses an event of which
we shall be able to appreciate the
significance only as time goes on.
His journey and his address were
a blinding illumination in, which
the immediate consequences will
only gradually become visible.
"We are the bearer," said the
Pope, "of a message for all man-
kind," and, he went on to say,
"like a messenger who, after a
long journey, finally succeeds in
delivering the letter which has
been entrusted to him, so we ap-
preciate the good fortune of this
moment, however brief, which ful-
fills a desire nourished in the
heart for nearly 20 centuries."
The letter which the Pope was
at last able to deliver said that the
church, now at peace with all
mankind, was able to ratify the
purposes of the United Nations,
which is a human institution as-
piring to be universal. That has
never been possible before.
NEVER BEFORE has there
existed an institution in which
there is a place for all the na-
tions of the world. The moral ra-
tification of the United Nations,
which the Pope declared on Mon-
day, could be given by him only
Free,
Democratic
Elections?
"DIEM (according to Life Mag-
azine in 1957) had 'miracul-
ously' overcome one apparently in-
surmountable obstacle after an-
other. His most significant 'hur-
dle'," according to Life 'was the
famous Geneva election':

after the Roman church had
reached a religious peace-only
after the religious wars and per-
secutions of the past had been
brought to an end.
This historic act of ratification
marks the progress made under
the inspiration of Pope John
XXIII in the rejuvenation of the
church. The modernizing church
has brought itself into the main-
=stream of human affairs.
It has done this by committing
itself to the religious reconcilia-
tion of mankind and also by mak-
ing itself no longer the support
of reaction and privilege but "the
voice of the poor, the disinherited,
the suffering, of those who hun-
ger and thirst for justice, for the
dignity of life, for freedom, for
well being and progress."
This is the Johannine church,
of which Pope Paul is a faithful
and convincing apostle, and there
is now new hope in the world be-
cause this enormous transforma-
tion has gone so far.
WE MUST REALIZE that the
moral ratification of the United
Nations by the Catholic Church
does not mean and cannot mean
the moral ratification of the poli-
cies and the behavior of all the
member states, even of our own.
The Pope spoke with great
gentleness. But what he said so
gently cut to the quick. No one
who heard him attentively, or will
read him now, can fail to realize
that he was speaking a different
language from that which is cur-
rent and conventional.
In fact, the Pope, who is with-
out pride and has nothing to fear,
was thinking what is unthinkable
for so many, and he was saying it
out loud.
HIS CONCEPTION of the sec-
ular world is quite different from
the conception which underlies
public discussion-be it in Peking
or in Washington. The crucial dif-
ference is that in the Pope's ad-
dress the paramount issue is not
the cold war of hostile ideologies.
Although religion in general and
the Roman church in particular
have been treated as the chief
enemies of the Communists, the
Pope said that the pursuit of
peace transcends all other duties
and that the paramount crusade
of mankind is the crusade against
war and for peace.
This is a different set of values
than are accepted as righteous in
the public life of the warring na-
tions. The Pope was, of course,
in~tendijngyto makethis lknown.

."..Con
To the Editor:
O THROW cold water on any-
one's efforts for peace is not
a pleasant task. We applaud the
efforts of Pope Paul VI to seek
an end to the threat of war. But
if the Pope's efforts were really
as sincere as he would have us
believe, and if he was truely more
concerned about peace than in the
Catholic church's antiquated po-
sitions, he would have taken a
positive rather than a negative
stand on birth control.
In most other areas in the quest
for peace, all the Pope can do is
to hope to influence others to
action-by saying a good word for
peace-which is nothing really
new. Other people have been say-
ing the same things, the same way
for a long time. And by refusing
to act in the one area he had
some real influence, he has help-
ed to keep the Catholic Church's
16th Century position on birth
control alive.
We are not impressed with his
call of others to action when he
has failed so miserably himself.
THERE IS no more pressing
problem in the world today than
overpopulation. Nations, unable to
feed their people, feel themselves
forced to expand beyond their
borders by intimidation and by
force.
Nations, unable to provide for
their people, become callous to
human life and are willing to sac-
rifice large numbers of people,
knowing that at least they will
have fewer mouths to feed.
Poverty, disease and ignorance
thrive in overpopulated nations.

Fishbowl Congestion
And Political Activity

The Pope speaks in moral terms-
yet we cannot think of anything
less moral than perpetuating the
obstructions to effective birth con-
trol which keeps millions in the
chains of hopeless suffering.
FOR EXAMPLE, due to the
Catholic church's backward stand
on birth control, Brazil's popula-
tion is growing at an alarming
rate. In this predominately Cath-
olic country, industry must grow
at a rate of six to seven per cent.
This will just maintain Brazil
at the low standard of living it
now has. Statistics show industry
has not kept pace, and even with
the aid of the Alliance for Prog-
ress it has grown only four to
five per cent per year. The result
is that this South American giant
is slipping further and further
into the pit of poverty.
Consider this in light of the
pope's United States speech where

To the Editor:
MAY I AMPLIFY the somewhat
ambiguous statement attribut-
ed to me in your story of Oct. 7
on "Fishbowl Politics?"
I do not at all believe that there
Is "a definite problem of con-
gestion in the Fishbowl because of
political activity." Of course prob-
lems of noise and congestion arise
there, but they have no unique
relationship to "political" activi-
ties. What I tried to emphasize
was that the issues of freedom of

If,

he came out squarely against "ar-
tificial birth control" devices. The
Pope on one hand preaches moral-
ity and on the other advocates
a policy which will keep people
in poverty and encourage nations
to go to war in this dangerous
atomic age. There is no single
position which has more lethal
implications than opposition to ar-
tificial birth control devices.
FOR YEARS we have been ex-
cusing the Catholic Church and
its officials on the grounds of
religious freedom. We can do this
no longer. For to do so jeopar-
dizes the survival of mankind. If
the Catholic Church and its Pope
wish to remain one of the impor-
tant voices in the world, they
must become aware of the prac-
tical implications of their stands,.
-Thomas Bissell, '66L
David Croysdale, '66L
Stan Lubin, '66L

i

speech should be totally divorced
from those of traffic and noise-
the former to be defended and
the latter to be attacked.
-Prof. Theodore M. Newcomb
Sociology and Psychology
Dope?
To the Editor:
ALTHOUGH I haven't been a
student on this campus for
long, it doesn't take long to find
out about The Daily. It's bad
enough that the whole paper is
written by left-leaning sopho-
mores, but now you came out in
favor of narcotic addiction.
The police have long known of
the dangerous effects of mari-
juana on people's moral sense.
John B. William (Assistant Pro-
fessor Police Science and Admin-
istration, Los Angeles State Col-
lege), wrote in "Narcotics," a
book on drug addiction, that "it
disrupts and destroys the brain
and distorts the mind, resulting
in crime and degeneracy. It at-
tacks the central nervous system
and violently affects the mentality
and five physical senses . .
Marijuana, like cocaine, is the
immediate and direct cause of the
crime committed."

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan