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 12, 1965 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1965-10-12

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

Student Innovators or Social Tools?

I

Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Truth Will Prevail 4

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.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: PETER SARASOHN
The Katz Case at Berkeley:
Imp ications for Academic Freedom

ONE ASPECT of the controversy that
has arisen all over the country in the
past year over the role that the univer-
sity should play in political affairs is
typified by the case of Eli Katz, former
teacher at the University of California at
Berkeley. The reasons for his ouster, the
decision of the faculty to rehire him and
the subsequent inaction of the adminis-
tration are all indicative of the extent
to which our universities control the ac-
tivities of students and professors.
Hired in the fall of 1963 as an acting
assistant professor of German, Katz was
promised a two-year contract as assistant
professor on completion of his doctorate.
He was not given the promised contract
when, the following January, he refused
to answer questions put to him by the
then-chancellor of Berkeley, Edward
Strong, concerning his 1957 attendance
at two Communist Party meetings. The
questions were similar to ones he had not
answered when appearing before the
House Un-American Activities Committee
(HUAC) in 1958.
Strong's decision to oust Katz was se-
verely criticized by the Committee on
Privilege and Tenure of Berkeley's facul-
ty Senate, which urged 'that Katz be re-
hired. No action was taken by the ad-
ministration following the report, how-
ever, and Strong refused to testify during
the review of the case.
HOPE WAS RAISED again last week
when the new chancellor, Roger W.
Heyns, indicated that a decision on the
rehiring, including a complete statement
giving reasons for the decision, would be
made public within a few days. Since
then, however, the administration has
appeared to be backing down, saying that
the case is being "actively worked on, no
one is stalling, but there are many con-
siderations."
The whole manner in which the case
has been handled raises several questions
about the role of the university in con-
trolling student and faculty actions.
PAD KATZ' political viewpoints influ-
enced his competency as a teacher
there might have been some justification
for his dismissal. But his competency was
at no time questioned, since the German
department backed his appointment by a
-vote of 12-3. Thus, what justification
could Strong have had for investigating
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 EditorialnDirector
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.
Business Staff
CY WELLMAN, Business Manager
ALAN GLUECKMAN............ Advertising Manager
JOYCE FEINBERG........ .. . Finance Manager
SUSAN CRAWFORD ..... Associate Business Manager
MA.NaGERS: Harry Bloch, Bruce Hiliman, Marline
BAuethau, Jeffrey Leeds, Gail Levin, Susan Per-
stadt, Vic Ptasznik, Elizabeth Rhein, Ruth Segall,
Jill Tozer, Elizabeth Wissman.
Subscription rate: $4.50 semester by carrier ($5 by
mail); $8 yearly by carrier ($9 by mail).
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Mich.

his activities, unless he was afraid of the
consequences of retaining an alleged
"Communist sympathizer" on the faculty.
Ever since the reactionary McCarthy
era of the early '50's, during which hun-
dreds of professors all over the country
were investigated and lost their jobs,
there has been a latent fear of having
"radical" teachers control the minds of
the youth of this country. Every once in a
while this fear explodes, as in the 1960
San Francisco HUAC hearings, when
thousands of students rioted to protest
the committee's subpoena of several pro-
fessors and other liberals.
The terror and intimidation of the com-
mittee go on,subdued. Extreme pressure
is placed on the administration of state-
supported institutions by the FBI, which
can influence state legislators into inves-
tigating universities or threatening to cut
appropriations. Having a "subversive" on
the faculty could therefore prove a real
threat to the university in the minds of
the administrators, and there is no rea-
son to assume that this fear did not play
a part in the investigation and ouster of
Katz.
ANOTHER IMPORTANT problem the
Katz case raises is the role played by
the faculty in the running of a large uni-
versity. The faculty Senate at Berkeley
has no real legislative power, as can be
seen by the fact that, while it voted over-
whelmingly to rehire Katz and re-exam-
ine the structure of review in cases sim-
ilar to Katz', the administration has taken
no definitive action on the matter for
over a year.
This lack of faculty voice on important
decisions seems to be true of most of the
large schools. For the most part, opera-
tional control of the schools is held by
the administrations and the regentts.
What this means is that decisions con-
cerning faculty conduct, hiring and ten-
ure are to be decided by administrators,
whose standards of judgment are ulti-
mately less related to the requirements
of good education than are the standards
of the faculty.
ELI KATZ is not alone in his opposi-
tion to control by the universities of
the political actions of students and pro-
fessors. An entire movement, sparked by
the free speech movement at Berkeley
last year, has begun to grow up all over
the country.
Closer to home, Paul Schiff, a graduate
student at Michigan State University, has
been denied readmission because of his
political affiliations and his refusal to
comply with university regulations lim-
iting his political activities. There is a
great deal of similarity between Schiff's
case and that of Katz. The American Civ-
il Liberties Union has taken Schiff's case
to court, and the same thing will be done
at Berkeley if Heyns' decision does not
come soon.
The United States has made great
strides in the field of education, both in
terms of its quality and in the instigation
of federal aid programs to enable more
people to benefit from the higher qual-
ity. But these achievements will be mean-
ingless as long as irrelevant political con-
siderations can be invoked against fear-
ful faculty.
-DAVID DUBOFF

TMERE WERE 18,000 under-
graduates at the University last
year. It's no secret that they rep-
resent a strongly upper middle
class orientation, with their fam-
ily incomes averaging up around
$15,000 per year and with all the
goal and achievement values of 18
years of living in a suburban, cor-
porate social-climbing milieu.
Since what you put into an in-
stitution is related fairly directly
to what you get out of it (even
though the relationships may not
be immediately evident), the com-
position of the student body is one
of the main determinants of the
University's role in its society.
The historical neglect of the
student has obscured the truism
that students are at least as im-
porant in determining what a uni-
versity is and does as the faculty
(perhaps more so). Students are,
by the time they get to a univer-
sity, something close to finished
products. Faculty do some final
assembling and finishing opera-
tions, and their effects are often
great, but if the potential isn't
there or has been destroyed years
earlier, there is nothing they can
do.
ONE OF the untenable myths
still hallowed to some degree in
some circles is the university as
teacher-scholar, i.e. the ivory tow-
er. There is a function to be per-
formed, the dissemination of
knowledge, and the university
should simply do it in the best
time - honored traditions, letting
the chips fall where they may.
This is nonsense in a world where
knowledge is the first requisite for
power. The university cannot ex-
tricate itself from considerations
of who shall participate in this
dissemination of knowledge, since
it must make some decisions and
be able to defend them or run the
risk of being torn apart by those

competing for the rewards.
So how can that upper middle
class bias be justified?
ONE FIRST has to look broadly
at the "uses" of the University
and make a basic decision as to
what the uses of this one are. In
the most general terms it comes
down to a choice between three
alternatives:
-To be self-serving and self-
perpetuating, as much of the aca-
demic establishment has been for
years;
-To be social-serving, produc-
ing and disseminating knowledge
with maximum efficiency for, put
in the grossest terms, maximum
contribution to the GNP; or
-To be a social innovator, in-
troducing i n t o society those
changes in perspectives and in
ways of doing things that require
major social --adjustments, even
revolution (peaceful or otherwise),
in order to be understood and im-
plemented.
IN A UNIVERSITY the size of
this one, it is not surprising that
all three possibilities are repre-
sented. What has happened is
that the self-serving, self-perpetu-
ating, ivory tower has become im-
possible to maintain-math, phy-
sics, sociology, political science are
all becoming vitally important,
and if you're important you can't
be detached.
At the same time, society-in
the form of legislators, alumni
parents, parents in general and an
increasingly human welfare - or-
iented federal government - has
sought to make the University so-
cial-serving, exerting pressures for
useful knowledge (again in terms
of that GNP) and lots of it.
Parts of the University have, of
course, rebelled at the idea of be-
ing social tools and have instead
sought to reinforce the role of

Michigan MAD
By ROBERT JOHNSTON
social innovator. And that would
indeed seem to be a role that the
University is particularly well-
qualified to adopt.
UNFORTUNATELY, such a phi-
losophy has not been officially ar-
ticulated, let alone adopted or en-
couraged, and, as the pressures
mount, it is in danger of being-
swamped by a hoard of in-state,
middle c 1 a s s WASPs seeking
$250,000 worth of education. (And
they're not even seeking it for the
$250,000; it's because "everybody
goes to college now.")
The University needn't fall into
the trap of thinking that being a
social tool is evil per se. One might
gladly be tooled a little to make
the poverty program work. But
this University has far more abil-
ities than that. It can be a leader
-so why not be one?
Which brings us back to the
problem of the composition of the
student body, for you are after
vastly different types of students
if you want to be innovative than
if you just want to educate. ,
HERE THERE are some hard
facts to be faced. The social in-
novators are to be found not
among the poor or among the
Negroes or even among the middle
class generally, but among the
elite of the middle class and even
the upper class. It is ridiculous for
Barry Bluestone to yell that Ne-
groes and sons of workers must
be brought into the University.
They -would come here precisely
for that $250,000. Whereas, if the
University is to supply innovators,

it must seek them among its up-
per middle class students.
Clearly what the University
doesn't want, if it is to carry out
the role of social revolutionary, is
what it's been getting more and
more of: the well high-schooled,
middle class, moderately goal-,
and achiever-oriented, nicely ad-
justed in-state freshman, neither
a dirty (figuratively) capitalist
nor an all-out SDSer.
When the in state-out of state
ratio is finally announced, the
in-state percentage will almost
surely have risen another point,
having gone from 66 per cent
in 1959 to 73 per cent last year.
There can be little doubt that the
richest component of the social
innovator group is from out-of-
state-New York and Chicago
Jews, specifically.
THE UNIVERSITY is clearly in
no position to abandon complete-
ly the social service education it
must provide for the state. But
there is a problem of emphasis:
we could take in double our en-
rollment and not get all those
the Legislature would have us
take.
It therefore becomes a matter
of shifting the emphasis, or even
the outlook, to a vision more im-
portant and more crucial for the
University, a social innovator. If
this function isn't recognized, and
emphasized, it will disappear, and
if the University doesn't produce
some sort of commitment to it, it
could easily be lost soon.
To strengthen this role, the
University, at least from the stu-
dents' point of view, could become
a laboratory in human relation-
ships, the dominant theme of stu-
dent unrest.
Room should in fact be made
for bringing in a much larger com-
ponent of children from lower
class and Negro homes, to see how

they might be brought into society
and be made capable of leading
and organizing their people at a
much faster pace than any of
their own leaders or the commun-
ity organization programs have yet
been able to do.
AN EXAMPLE of how this
might work: The University has a
large, active affiliate system. Why
not turn the whole concept of
affiliation on its head? Rather
than making the fraternity or
sorority an upper class status sym-
bol to provide for the status needs
and status cravings of its insecure
members, it could set itself up as
an internal Peace Corps, provid-
ing a living environment with the
fraternity and personal equality so
often espoused now and so needed
by any lower class person trying
to adapt to an upper class society.
The fraternities and sororities
could participate in state-wide re-
cruiting, lending personal encour-
agement and liaison for the pros-
pective lower class students, and
they could administer large scho-
larship programs in cooperation
with the University on a personal
rather than bureaucratic level.
THE UNIVERSITY. is in a
strong position to look down to
those classes whose positions in
society need to be remade, and it
should seek out, on the other
hand, students whose backgrounds
have in the past led them to in-
novative roles in society.
The University must not be-
come, and its leaders must not
allow it to become, an exercise in
social service. It should offer new
ideas, new ways of doing things,
new systems of human relation-
ships.
In the long run, of course, that
role is far more important than
any other to the humanly success-
ful functioning of a society.

)

J

'4

The Student Right: Insight and Paradoxes

By CHARLOTTE A. WOLTER
THE STUDENT RIGHT on this
and other campuses has long
been an invisible or unorganized
political force. With the relatively
recent upsurge in conservative
activity and the presidential cam-
paign of Barry Goldwater, how-
ever, student conservatives have
discovered issues and organiza-
tions around which they can co-
alesce.
By far the largest and most re-
sponsible conservative student or-
ganization is the Young Ameri-
cans for Freedom (YAF). The
group was formed in 1960 when
William Buckley, conservative
leader and editor of National Re-
view magazine, called approxi-
mately 200 young people active
in conservative organizations to
his home in Sharon, Connecticut.
At this meeting the Young
Americans for Freedom was of-
ficially constituted, and the Shar-
on Statement, and explanation of
its basic beliefs, was drafted.
THE SHARONSTATEMENT,
considered by YAF to be the
clearest explanation of its philos-
ophy, lists as "eternal truths"
such values as the overriding im-
portance of individual initiative,
economic laissez-faire, the perfec-
tion of the Constitution, states'
rights and the menace of com-
munism.
These are, however, only gen-
eralities, found in the expressed
doctrines of innumerable other
conservative organizations. In
practice, most YAFs exhibit a
relatively moderate form of con-
servatism, with some added ele-
ments of activism that seem to
spring more from youthful en-
thusiasm than from ideological
commitment.
THE MODERATION of YAF is
evidenced by its rejection, offi-
cially declared at its National Con-
ference this year, of the right-
wing "fundamentalism" of the
John Birch Society and other ex-
treme conservative groups. For
this reason also, YAF literature is

free of the paranoia and smear
tactics that have, wrongly, been
considered a general attribute of
all conservative organizations.
The YAF -philosophy exhibits a
slightly more liberal (and to some
extent more "realistic") tenor
than the Sharon Statement's con-
centration on laissez-faire eco-
nomics, strict individualism and
the struggle with communism
would suggest.
However, as there is little dis-
tinction between YAP doctrine and
the mainstream of responsible
conservative thought in this coun-
try, the majority of YAF views
can be discussed in the light of
the general conservative philoso-
phy.
. IN THIS MODE of thought the
individual is considered not only
the strongest, most legitimate unit
of society, but also the most moral.
Man is inherently good, and if
society isto reflect this good, the
individual must be given the
greatest freedom possible for its
manifestation.
Morality is, then, on an in-
dividual basis: men are respon-
sible to God or, to themselves.
There is complete rejection of
existence of a social good which
would define standards of moral-
ity; if each individual is moral,
society will necessarily be moral,
provided only that the individual
is free to express himself.
Somehow, YAFs do not see any
harshness in this philosophy. They
will stress over and over that this
"rugged individualism" is, of
course, difficult, but that man is
ennobled and fulfilled when he
must confront the world on his
own initiative.
THIS PERCEPTION of the in-
dividual in society is related to,
though not entirely, the fear of
overcentralization of government.
The conservative, looking at the
past 30 years of domestic legis-
lation concludes that social legis-
lation will bring government con-
trol and therefore a reduction of
freedom.
(Paradoxically, they do not at-

tack the same centralization and
bureaucratic organizations in big
business. They have no objection
to-and in fact admire-the
achievements of men like Andrew
Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller,
who amassed fortunes and built
complex industrial organizations.)
Significantly, conservative at-
tacks on social legislation such as
the War on Poverty, do not take
the form of opposition to charity
or community services for the
poor. They emphasize that charit-
able activities are completely legi-
timate-but only if they are done
on a local level and if the help
is given in the form of an in-
centive (although this is vaguely
defined).
THESE VALUES appear to be
little more than a restatement of
19th Century liberalism and lais-
sez-faire economics. The same
ideas were used to justify the un-
limited acquisition of money and
power by a few men in the latter
1800's.
It would be an injustice, how-
ever, to say that these considera-
tions alone characterizecconserva-
tive opposition to many govern-
ment programs. Perhaps ascertain
affinity for tradition is also rele-
vant-the fear of an accelerated
breakdown of norms and social
barriers which have characterized
a more desirable past and which
would not take place except for
current legislation.
ANOTHER AREA of frequent
conservative ridicule is the use
of nonviolence by organizations
like those in the civil rights move-
ment. Conservative groups state
that they are philosophically op-
posed to the implications of non-
violence and civil disobedience.
Yet groups likeYAF have dis-.
covered and used extensively tac-
tics such as the picket.
The most notable example was
the picket of a Firestone Rubber
Company plant in Ohio, protesting
Firestone's plans to build a rub-
ber processing facility in Ru-
mania because it would be "aid-
ing the enemy." One YAF member
justified the use of the picket by
saying that it was an extreme
case and the YAF has stringent
rules governing dress and conduct
to ensure maximum decorum even
on a picket line.
YAFs believe that the protests
of civil rights groups, however,
produce alienation and animosity
and that a sounder tactic would
be person-to-person discussion
and resolution of differences.
THUS YAFS on this campus
and others have refrained from
participation in local activist
groups, even when they claim gen-
eral agreement with their griev-
ances, (although conservative par-
ticipation in the Berkeley demon-
stration is an exception that may
indicate a change in this attitude).
YAFs feel that means used by ac-
tivist groups necessarily reflect
ends with which they will ulti-
mately disagree.
Regardless of the objections to
activism for tactical reasons, the

or organizations operating outside
the "system."
THAT SOME reconciliation of
the conservative point of view
with the use of activism may
eventually take-place is indicated
in the views of several YAF mem-
bers concerning their philosophi-
cal relationship to the student
left or "New Left."
At the most basic (and there-
fore most unspecific) level of so-
cial and political thought, some
of the objections and criticisms
of modern society made by YAP
are similar to those of its counter-
parts on the radical left.
There is the same dislike of
bureaucracy and centralization.
The conservative opposes them
because, in the realm of govern-
ment, they destroy human initia-
tive. The radical opposes them
because they are dehumanizing
and alienating.
The similarity of goals for both
groups is a longing for a return
or advance, depending on the out-
look, of each, to social arrange-
ments founded on and perpetuat-
ing a more basic and personal
concept of man andhhis relation-
ship to others. Although this does
not presuppose an impending un-
ion of the two ideologies, it does
show similarity in the experience
and reaction of each group to
modern society.
THE DIFFENENCE remaining
between the right and the left
lies not only in the means to
achieve the desired end but also
in the structure of the envisioned
society. While the radical does not
see a viable model in any past or
present system of society, the con-
servative believes in a return to
the original "pure" form of Amer-
ican Constitutional government
(whether this ever existed is de-
batable).
This love affair with the Con-
stitution, and particularly some
of its more awkward and inegali-
tarian constructions, demonstrates
the basic commitment of the con-
servative to what has been estab-
lished, what is traditional, what
is "duly constituted."
Hall Knoc
Use of
To the Editor:
THURSDAY morning's "Schut-
ze's Corner: Culture" did two
kind things for us.
First, it defined "Culture," a
term The Daily likes to throw
around and which puzzles some
of us. The Schutze Formula for
"Culture" is Keats, God and Van
Gogh (a fourth name is added
for the irony of it all) and this
series has the ring of truth: to
the semi-literate mind of 1965,
"Culture" consists of two famous
and popular 19th Century artists
plus one spiritual entity generally
associated with Church.

This should not be mistaken
for sterile authoritarianism or
"Establishment" politics. The "go
slow" urgings of conservative
groups are more a distrust of
rapid change and a respect for
and need to preserve existing
forms (though not necessarily
endlessly).
ALTOGETHER, considering the
Political tenor of the country to-
day, what does this movement
imply for the ideological direction
of both campus and national poli-
tics?
On this campus, the conserva-
tive movement has produced a
YAF, chapter whose, principal ac-
tivities have been sporadic ridicule
of the left, particularly of its
action programs, and reorganiza-
tion of the chapter. This lack of
meaningful action and intellectual
contribution seems to illustrate
the major fault of the student
right in general.
Despite its claim that it has i
mission and a valuable message
to communicate to the American
people, it fails, particularly in its
journals of opinion and conserva-
tive thought, to offer intelligent
ideological alternatives to and
criticism of left and, liberal
thought.
In addition, the student right's
failure to take initiative, either
through direct action or the
formulation of viable solutions to
the social, economic and political
problems of the present, reveals
a certain amount of indifference
to the possible effects of their
ideas on others. If the charge of
blind concern with ideological cant
can be leveled at conservatives, it
hits hardest at this lack of in-
sight.
WHAT CONSERVATIVES need,
beyond all their ideological pro-
testations, is to make an effort to
expose and seek solutions to mod-
ern problems with the same vigor
that characterizes left or liberal
groups. Whether campus conser-
vatives are capable of such;m action
remains, unfortunately, unanswer-
ed.
ks Daily's
Clulture'
Student Signs
To the Editor:
WHY DOESN'T the University
erect a number of kiosks at
various points on the campus to
serve as a place for student signs,
notices and political activities?
Some of the kiosks at high traf-
fic points and in the vicinity of
each of the schools and colleges
could be small, newsstand-like
structures of pleasing design and
permanent construction f r o m
which a few students could gather
petition signatures, collect ballots,
etc. Other kiosks need be little

'1
4

FEIFFER

c7

A

SE )TWMN,IT5 TIME
0O ATCON5OLVIATfEI
cA41,UTLOI4 eOTcF
THE cxFUlJSV A~Jf
CAVE '111 U pu.urc '7
THE PO9T'IVE
SIDE OF -'WE A?
IQW GRATR
pOu laTI'.) TORY'.

ISM f THAT 'R6
POLLUT~I tCQi 6VA p
MORE EINDUUZI °A.,-
R dTII!fIT5 AU-rNar
1 ?eIAA
WU AT CON PV1U-L

UcES5MT 5PO&) ITP5
PSW COS AE I L
HAVE -NOT NATION!
I)tWUP. TO POL0W
IGI~3Tf0RUN AWAY
F1ROt ET BUT TO
INVIF5T IN 1T! MAY -
x HAV V67 MOL2EI-
P056s-- 5 cr y

Ai

I

ap~3fW6Hj5,, ON
MY. NEW P fs/ /THU

._., .
. ti;:

rLPo

W)TJ

v v{ T (/JrP

I

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan