Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Katzenbach Is After the Communists
Where Opinions Are Free. 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN AEBOR, MICH.
Truth Will Prevail
NEWS PHONE: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: LEONARD PRATT
Vote Yes-Ann Arbor Needs
A Housing Commission
O THE VOTERS of Ann Arbor: Vote
"yes" today to establish an Ann Arbor
housing commission.
The commission will investigate and
carry out projects to provide needed
housing for low-income residents of Ann
Arbor. It will not create "high-rise ghet-
toes"' but will establish small two- or
three-unit complexes to house the under-
privileged, the elderly and the profes-
sional married student alike.
Vote yes because a sufficient need has
been indicated for a body with broad
powers to investigate and finance low-
cost housing projects in Ann Arbor.
UP TO THIS TIME, that task has been
put upon charitable and welfare orga-
nizations. These agencies have been un-
able to handle the problem. Their re-
sources are too few, their powers too lim-
ited.
There are many cases of families in
Ann Arbor who are unable to obtain ade-
quate housing, even when they are will-
ing to put 50 per cent of their income to-
ward housing. (The federal government
states that a wage-earner should not have
to pay more than 20.8 per cent.)
They have been ,sold housing which
does not meet with state health or build-
ing code requirements. There are families
in Ann Arbor today living on dirt floors,
sharing kitchen facilities by cooking in
shifts, sleeping in kitchens, using the cor-
ner gas station for lavatory needs.
Private enterprise has not taken care
of the need.
In a town with as much of a shortage
of student housing as Ann Arbor has,
one cannot expect builders to enter the
field of low-cost, low-profit housing. The
major focus of building in Ann Arbor is
the construction of high-rent apartments
aimed at the student demand-not at
the needs of low-income families. This
trend is growing, not subsiding.
VOTE YES because the ordinance pass-
ed by Ann Arbor City Council to es-
tablish a housing commission is a sound
one. It provides the commission with the
autonomy necessary to operate outside
of politics and to undertake more than
the present piecemeal attempts to solve
the problem.
At the same time, the commission is
not given a blank check. Every project
it undertakes, every loan, purchase and
contract it undertakes MUST be approv-
ed by the council.
VOTE YES because the cost to you is
minimal. The commission is indeed
self-supporting. Only administration costs
will affect the taxpayer, and these may
well be equalized by the savings to the
city in the area of such welfare services
as continual health inspection, condem-
nation and eviction notices.
For those houses lost-to the city's tax
roll, the commission will be required to
make payments to the city in lieu of tax-
es.
VOTE YES because the commission will
provide for the needs of Ann Arbor
residents, not the needs of outsiders, as
implied by those who oppose the com-
mission. Although the commission will
establish the residence requirement it-
self, the attitudes of the council mem-
bers make it clear that this requirement
will be at least one yar.
The opponents of the commission have
based their campaign against the com-
mission on an appeal to the fear of a,
"socialized," federally-controlled setup
which would be out of the control of city
officials.
They call for a door-to-door survey be-
fore the commission is set up to deter-
mine the extent of the low-cost housing
need exactly. It would be putting too
much faith in the commission, they say,
to let it take this survey once it was
established.
The cost of such a survey, however, has
been estimated at $50,000, and if the
survey were taken by the commission, all
of this cost would be defrayed by- federal
funds, as is required by law.
AT THE SAME TIME, the commission's
opponents have appealed to the voters'
fear of tax increase. Yet the city admin-
istrator has assured council that any
cost beyond that paid by the federal gov-
ernment will be minimal-that the com-
mission could even save the city money
in the long run.
Opponents have appealed to the fear
of the "blank check" commission, attack-
ing the language of the law. Again, both
the city administrator and the city attor-
ney have said that the control of the
commission by council is adequate and
considerable.
It is important to note that you, the
voter, will always be in control of the
commission because you are in control
of the council. No project will ever be im-
proved by council which you cannot over-
rule if necessary.
Many projects, in fact, might well be
eliminated earlier by the commission it-
self, since, according to Mayor Wendell
Hulcher, it will be made up of a cross
section of those in the community who
deal with varied aspects of housing con-
struction-not just members of interest
groups who have worked for low-cost
housing in the past.
VOTE YES, therefore, to support the
overwhelming majority of your elected
representatives (8 of 11) and to estab-
lish a self-supporting, controlable hous-
ing commission which will eliminate the
lack of low-cost housing in Ann Arbor to-
day.
-ROBERT CARNEY
ATTORNEY-GENERAL Nicholas
deB. Katzenbach may be good
at anti-trust enforcement, but un-
less he revises some of his atti-
tudes toward the student move-
ment, the Justice Department is
going to start looking a little
like the Birmingham Police De-
partment.
It is not clear yet whether the
newly-launched "investigation" of
Students for a Democratic Society
is for real or just a political move
designed to quell quarrelous con-
gressmen, but two things point
to the first interpretation.
First, Katzenbach took a decid-
edly antagonistic view of any sort
of student demonstration in a
speech before the American Coun-
cil on Education a week and a
half ago.
He spoke of "diffusion of goals,"
"pallid, vaguely-expressed griev-
ances," and a student attitude of
"coercion" rather than "persua-
sion." In defending this stance,
Katzenbach presented legalistic
rationalizations very similar to
those offered by the white segre-
gationist seven years ago and ac-
cepted then all over the country.
The second reason for thinking
the SDS "investigation" is no poli-
tical ruse is administration con-
cern over Viet Nam demonstra-
tions, particularly when questions
of draft-dodging are involved. SDS
is prominent in these activities.
President Johnson typically co-
opts any program of social dis-
content, but he is in no position,
or at least thinks he isn't, to do
so with the Viet Nam protest
movement. So instead he gets mad
and starts seeing red.
HE SHOULD KNOW better; all
that can come of a real investi-
gation is trouble.
Suppose the House Un-Ameri-
can Activities Committee should
come to Ann Arbor, where SDS
originated and many of its ac-
tivities are still centered? HUAC's
holier-than-thou attitude would
quickly inflame the campus.
Its long nose would unearth
socialism, Communism, marijua-
na, "anti-U.S. imperialism" slo-
ganeering and sex, all of which
its muddled thinking would equate
with Communism and hence with
evil, which, of course, must be
rooted out and destroyed.
More important are the effects
this sort of a campaign would
have on the SDS organization. It
would quickly become preoccu-
pied with its own anti-HUAC cam-
paign, and cries of "civil liberties!"
would rent the air.
And the more relevant aims of
SDS, its abiding concern for the
human, moral issues of Viet Nam
and of mental and financial pov-
erty in America would quickly take
second place to irrelevant antics
in the streets.
THIS IS ALL doubly unfortu-
nate in view of the productive if
always tenuous relationship that a
few parts of the Washington Es-
tablishment have worked out with
the student movement generally
and SDS in particular.
The Peace Corps actively en-
courages the sit-in, demonstrator
and activist types to join and ap-
ply some of their energies to so-
cial development overseas.
The Office of Economic Oppor-
What Did the
To the Editor:
TOM MAYER unwittingly ar-
ticulated the basic fallacy of
the anti-Viet Nam War movement
in a phrase which he attempted
to foist off upon listeners to his
little speech on the Diag Friday
afternoon when he said: "Do you
believe in the ideals upon which
our country was founded, or in
the present bureaucracy?"
This type phrase-commonly
known as a complex-question log-
ical fallacy - employed by all
rabble rousers who feel confident
that their audience is too ignorant
to ferret out faulty logic, assumes
that a definite answer has already
been given to a prior question
that has not even been asked. By
answering this question, one, in
effect, has acknowledged that our
government does not follow our
ideals and is acting solely for its
own welfare.
This is surely a cheap trick to
support a view point which is the
latest status symbol of the self-
appointed "intelligentsia," but
perhaps it does serve to clarify
the issue.
SINCE I AM in a fraternity,
shave and don't own any old
lumberjack boots, I must somehow
have missed the sweeping take-
over of our government by senile
but avaricious dirty old men who,
it seems, have callously tossed
away our ideals, made wartfor
fun, like (nay, go out of their
way) to have our boys killed and
have completely lost sight of the
simple solutions which are "in-
tuitively" obvious to "every" stu-
dent.
However, I am fortunate to have
access to several local foreign-
affairs experts who have a mono-
poly on the "true" facts; they are
cleve;ly disguished, of course, as
a chemistry instructor, a sociology
instructor and a "playwright."
These experts, who can define
patriotism at the drop of a hel-
met as "being fooled by the gov-
ernment," are the only sane ones,
the only ones who are able to
discern the obvious answers, the
only ones who can give me nice
simple answers concerning ideals
and my government.
THIS IS GOOD, for I am simple.
Generally speaking, I lack all in-
tellectual status because I 1) can-
not figure out what would work-
ably replace The Establishment,
be it University or federal; 2) tend
to believe that Chinese Commun-
ism is vicious and inhumane (not
good for anybody, you might say)
and must not exist unchecked;
3) have never tried "pot" (I'll
stick to alcohol, thank you) and
4) think, in light of all the evi-
dence, that our government is do-
ing precisely what it must do in
Viet Nam.
I long to enter the Magic Circle
of the Informed Intellects, but I
am too shallow to pass the en-
trance test: an original thesis of
250,000 words or more published
in Generation on why my govern-
ment is a clique of dolts.
So I must remain outside the
"in group" of the era and wear my
patriotism (oh, that nasty, nasty
word) as a badge of scorn to
those who see wanton desertion
of ideal and reason through eyes
too clouded with their own im-
portance as a "humanitarian
fre" +o one near the mark onf
ours is a living constitutional ideal
which must be- applied to the
times and the knowledge that, in
any field, it is only the fool who
gives simple answers.
-Laurence H. Kallen, '66
A Defense
To the Editor:
TO ALL YOU loyal, upstanding,
patriotic, American citizens
who took it upon yourselves to
uphold our infallible American
stand on Viet Nam, I heartily
commend you; Uncle Sam would
also, no doubt, be extremely proud
of your subtle manner of trying to
solve his problems.
After all, throwing eggs, ripping
down protest signs, roughing up
demonstrators, etc., are all very
rational and sound solutions to all
of our nation's problems.
No, I don't commend you-I
damn you in all your self-pro-
claimed self righteousness! Your
actions with regard to the- anti-
Viet Nam war float in the home-
coming parade were despicable.
YOU MAY ALL go home slap-
ping yourselves on the back and
saying, "We sure showed those
damn Communists," but you have
taken only one more step in
staining our American image. I
am an American, and I am proud-
of it; yet I must say that you were,
wrong in your actions.
I know it is terribly naive to
speak of such things as "freedom"
and "democracy"-these terms are
much too idealistic to be true-
but nevertheless we all must admit
that the United States does keep
up a rather reputable facade of
"democracy" (no sarcasm intend-
ed).
Now, going on the premise that
the United States is a nation of
some political and ethical repute,
I thus find it difficult to see how
this type of "patriotism" fits into
our scheme of things. The right
to be heard, the right of protest,
is an inherent part of our na-
tional heritage. But throwing eggs
and trying to silence others, which
Michigan MAD
By ROBERT JOHNSTON
tunity has recognized the SDS for-
mula for really getting at poverty,
a transfer of power to the poor
through a decentralized organiza-
tion process that avoids the pres-
ent centers of welfare control, as
a valid one worth trying.
THERE IS THEN, as might be
expected, a great deal of man-
power and idea exchange be-
tween these two organizations.
OEO has been known to quietly
sanction such activities for Job
Corps workers as the organiza-
tion of rent strikes, to give an-
other example.
Should the investigation show
any signs at all of getting up a
head of steam, it would clearly
be in order for University admin-
istrators to take action, public or
private, to head off any effects
it might have here.
Nothing could be more debilli-
tating to a spirit of free and
healthy inquiry and discussion
than a pall of secret snooping.
What students do here - their
University records, their thoughts,
their activities, are their concern
and theirs alone, and the Univer-
sity should make this abundantly
clear.
Unless there are clear and pres-
ent dangers of armed revolt (there
aren't, needless to say), the FBI
and the Secret Service have no
jet Nam
is what our homecoming "patriots"
were trying to do-this is ridicu-
lous!
ARE YOU PEOPLE not denying
the protestors those very rights
which you claim to uphold (i.e.
freedom, democracy)? Thus, are
you not blatant hyocrites? By
denying them their rights you are
making a sham of the ethical and
philosophical basis of the United
States-and herein you must be
condemned, for how can you claim
to theoretically uphold that which,
in fact, you do not?
The Viet Nan protestors have
the right to be heard, and they
have the right to say what they
damn well please! Now whether
or not you accept this is another
thing. Similarly, the anti-protest-
ers (i.e. "patriots") also have the
right to proclaim the virtues of
their cause. Again, you may accept
it or you may not.
Our nation is one of the few
nations in the world where this
sort of thing can be done. You who
are quick to cry out "Communist,"
remember one thing-by denying
them their rights to demonstrate
peacefully, you are no better than
those real Communists whom you
so ardently decry.
ONE MORE THING for all you
"patriots"-why must you assume
that "we" (i.e., the United States)
are always right?yWhy do "we" as
a nation always act first and
apologize later? Any of you who
think the United States is 100
per cent right-well, I oity you
and your dogmatic naivete.
Similarly, to you who protest
-can you keep on generalizing to
such a point that the U.S. must
naturally be equated with the term
"war crimes," "brutality" and
"great power chauvinism?" I think
not.
There is definitely room for
argument on both sides, but why
not keep it clean? It isn't very
pleasant to see someone smattered
with eggs and roughed up merely
because he is standing up for
something that he believes in.
-Michael Gow, '66
business near a university campus.
ONE CAN'T HELP but notice
the similarity of this pattern to
others in the civil rights move-
ment. Students started it with
the invention of the sit-in in the,
late '50's. As the NAACP picked
it up and students spread it across
the. South there were charges of
anti-Americanism, Communism,
immorality and all the rest.
Now the NAACP is considered
practically right-wing.
A few years later, in the very
early '60's, the Student Non-Viol-
ent Coordinating Committee, com-
posed almost exclusively of stu-
dents, began to make itself felt in
the area of voter registration in
the South and used the demon-
stration tactics more liberally
than the NAACP had.
The charges and counter-charg-
es were all the same.
Now SNCC is becoming respect-
able. It received a birthday cita-
tion from Vice-President for Stu-
dent Affairs Richard Cutler last
summer, and is very cautious
about getting itself associated with
the Viet Nam protestors.
Now we have the SDS'ers, who
want to attack both poverty and
the war in Viet Nam. And here
are Katzenbach and Mayor Daley
with the standard list of "con-
cerns" and charges.
THERE IS QUITE an article in
the current Business Week en-
titled "From Now to 1980: Amaz-
ing Growth." McGraw-Hill fore-
casters predict, probably accur-
ately, a leap in the gross na-
tional product to $1.2 trillion by
1980.
There will be less work, more
productivity, higher earnings, and
a drastic slimming of the ranks
of the poor (who, with their new-
ly-acquired wealth, will provide a
principal impetus for industrial
growth).
This is a quantity of affluence
that must surely presage the mi-
lenium, but, of course, it doesn't.
For it is the quality of life that
counts, both national and inter-
national.
It is a question of values, and
of ideals. SDS, for all of its Port
Huron Statement eloquence, stops
short of any answers, but at least
addresses itself to the question.
"In suggesting social goals and
values, therefore, we are aware of
entering a sphere of some disre-
pute. Perhaps matured by thedpast,
we have no sure formulas, no
closed theories-but that does not
mean values are beyond discus-
sion and tentative determination."
Kingman Brewster, president of
Yale University, echoed these sen-
timents in a speech at the same
conference at which Katzenbach
spoke. "We have a responsibility
not to let the sword of our own
conviction fall to the ground. The
quest of the young for a more
satisfactory purpose is our quest
too.
"Our world and our country as
well as all of us individually are
in quest of ourselves."
KATZENBACH is only about
five years behind.
Weekend' Mean?
The Deep End
To the Editor:
F THE Viet Nam Day Commit-
tee prides itself in its claims to
have such wide support within
the academic community here at
the University, then it's about
time it begins to act with a little
more responsibility and ration-
ality.
When the teach-in movement
began back in March, it was laud-
ed by proponents as well as critics
of American policy for at least
providing an open forum for an
intellectual interchange of ideas
and viewpoints on the situation in
Viet Nam. A good deal of light
was thrown on the subject by
looking at it from the different
viewpoints of the various social
disciplines.
Those in the faculty who or-
ganized the teach in and partici-
pated in it added much to the
credibility of the event. It success-
fully brought many to do some
thinking that they otherwise
would not have done,
THIS WAS the espoused goal
of the teach in-to get people to
do some thinking about American
policy instead of blindly and un-
- Letters -
LET US REITERATE what
should be evident; we are
always interestedein your com-
ments, as letters to the editor,
on current news items, Daily
articles and editorials and
topics of general interest. If in
recent weeks we have not print-
ed as many letters as we have.
received, this is only because
the availability of space on the.
page and the length of letters
must, unfortunately, be con-
sidired. We also take our Judg-
ment of the general quality of
the letter into account. For
this reason, your chances of
being printed are considerably
improved if your letter is limit-
ed to 300 words. And please
type if you can. But do write.
4
4
critically following it. But perhaps
the ultimate purpose was to get
people to actually change their
opinions on Viet Nam. This was
not a success, and having thus
failed to change opinions in a
rational manner, the teach ins
became more emotional and mili-
tant.
When astronauts McDivitt and
White came to the University last
summer to be honored for their
accomplishments, they found their
passage into the Union blocked by
a "teach in" on the front steps of
the Union, a "teach in" not to
stimulate intelligent thinking and
debate but one whose main pur-
pose was to deride the United
States government.
The Viet Nam Day Committee
has carried this trend even fur-
ther. Their recent activities have
centered around not rational dis-
cussion but -emotionalism- and
smear tactics. They have gone so
far off the deep end as to claim
that American actions are actually
approaching "genocide in "Viet
Nam!
NOW, IT HAPPENS to be my
sincere belief that the organizers
of the Viet Nam Day Committee's
activities are basically intelligent
people who do read the news-
papers (at least they quote them
a good deal). This being the case,
I find it difficult to comprehend
how they can be so one sided in
their approach to the question.
Hoven't they read the New York
Times and seen the answers to
their charges? How can they pos-
sibly not be aware of the fact
that the United States is giving
large scale aid to refugees, that
the United States uses harmless
tear gas instead of bullets to find
the guerrillas that are hiding be-
hind the skirts of the women and
children in the villages, that the
United States is seeking to min-
imize civilian casualties in its air
strikes by warning the villagers
beforehand, that the United States
has not dropped a single bomb on
the population centers of Hanoi
and Haiphong.
THIS BRINGS OUT the simple,
sad fact of the movement: the
protestors see only what they want
to see and read only what they
want to read. No longer are they
taking a rational look at both
sides; they are Irresponsibly try-
ing to draw attention to their side
with unfounded charges and mas-
sive publicity stunts.
The Ann Arbor movement is no
longer interested in throwing light
on the subject as much as it is
interested in generating heat. In-
stead of talking about foreign
policy, it seems the movement is
beginning to feed on itself, each
demonstration having to be bigger
and louder than the previous.
IT IS SAD indeed that the
movement has degenerated from
its original worthy aims, heartily
endorsed by the academic com-
munity, into what is now little
.more than a massive public circus.
-Michael D. Jakesy, '67
Saluting the Flag
To the Editor:
HAS IT NOW become un-
American or Communistic to
salute the flag of the United
4
*
i
A Civil Liberties Crackdown?
THE''RE EVERYWHERE.
Under manhole covers, behind cur-
tains, between the cracks on the floor,
behind every door. Those dirty Commies
have infested our society. They seem to
swarm on the scene like locusts.
McCarthy saw them when he could
not get Schine a commission in the
Army. They were at Berkeley. And now
they're subverting our national policy in
Viet Nam.
WHO ARE THE LATEST Commies ac-
cording to the Justice Department?
They are the members of the Students
for a Democratic Society and other orga-
nizations which dare protest the war in
Viet Nam.
As the attorney general of the United
States, Nicholas Katzenbach, said last
weekend to the New York Times, the
danger of these groups is "that the dem-
onstrations might be misunderstood
abroad, particularly in Peking and Ha-
noi." This, of course, would be terrible,
according to Katzenbach, because an
"overwhelming majority of the American
people .stand with President Johnson's
policy in Viet Nam."
their influence on other students. It is a
tactic that has worked in the past, and
the administration hopes it will work
again.
It is absurd to charge that SDS -- a
group whose prime goal, a decentralized
democracy, is the very antithesis of the
totalitarianism inherent in the Commu-
nist state - is severely infiltrated with
Communists. One may disagree with
SDS's policies, but one should also under-
stand the po'ssible ramifications of muf-
fling these voices of" dissent to achieve
a stronger national consensus.
LOOKING AT another situation in our
history during which civil liberties
were violated, one realizes how danger-
ous the current situation is.
For example, although we still remem-
ber the atrocities which were committed
by the Nazis during World War II and
think it could never happen in America,
several hundred thousand American citi-
zens of Japanese descent were put into
concentration camps during the war.
Realizing the possible repercussions of
the current situation, members of the
academic community should unite into
'Must Turn About .
1
EDITOR'S NOTE: In my ca- WE GATHER to memorialize
pacity as editorial director, I the dead, Vietnamese and Ameri-
take the liberty here to reprint can, of that stupid, senseless, im-
the remarks of Rev. Robert moral conflict in which we are
Hauert at Saturday'svmemorial now engaged. And I speak to mem-
service to honor all those who oralize the passing of someone's
have died in Viet Nam. I God and human values once hon-
thought the remarks were espe- oured.
cially moving and want to Whose values are honoured by
share them with those who did an economy that grows fat and
not attend the service. fights wars with money stamped
-J.G. "In God We Trust" while waving
a flag and reciting a creed "One
By REV. ROBERT HAUERT Nation under God?"
We seem no more to honour the
ADDRESS myself to an au- God of Abraham, Isaac and Ja-
dience much wider than those cob.
gathered at this memorial service, We seem no more to honour the
so I hope the word gets around. g r e a t Protestant Confessions
I address myself to all who which at one time were formative
somehow find themselves at home for this country.
in this land; to the many thou- We seem no more to honour the
sands who return to this place ancient Catholic Creed of a Pope
for a Homecoming Weekend; to who came before the community
the parents who, with hope and of nations and asked for peace in
perhaps some frustration, send this world.
their sons and daughters off to
school; to all students and par- WE SEEM more and more to
+1) ,. .A, - .. -AIIo move towards the god and values
ciety can say:
"It is not wrong to kill a Com-
munist."
"Itnis not wrong to kill or at-
tack anyone seeking human rights
and freedom for others."
"Justice is served by continuing
the senseless destruction of a
country and the needless killing of
a people."
WE MUST turn about. We must
turn this land about.
Despite the article of the na-.
tional faith acted out in corpora-
tion executive offices during the
week or on the gridiron on Satur-
day or in Viet Nam-thah you
must win, and win big, no matter
what the cost in human values-
we must see that it does still
matter how you play the game. In
these times of nuclear weapons
and a mentality of unconditional
surrender, we must see that the
idea of a just war is no longer
tenable.
We must turn about and see
I I