4r m~idilgan Bally
Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD:IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

ere Opinions Ae Free. 420 MAYNARD ST.. ANN A? BOR, MICH.
Truth Will Prevail.

Nvws PioNE: 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.
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT CARNEY

The Loss of Freedom
At Michigan State

THE UNIVERSITY of Michigan's Board
in Control of Student Publications,
which is delegated "authority and con-
trol over the Daily by the Regents, has
repeatedly affirmed, often under trying
circumstances, the almost total freedom
and responsibility historically granted
The Daily's Senior Editors.
Freedom of expression apparently car-
ries little meaning at MSU's State News,
however, nor does an individual student's
freedom of speech seem to mean much
to President John Hannah, who Just last
week exhorted his national colleagues to
"lead the fight for civil rights.
What about Paul Schiff's civil rights,
President Hannah?
And, as the letter on this page asks,
what has the national civil rights com-
mission, which you have chaired for some
years, done for civil rights except what
free students working in the North and
South have pressured it into doing?
BLATANT interference of the MSU
administration, particularly President
Hannah, in the operations of the State
News was brought to a head last night as
several of the editors said that they plan
to resign today because of a dispute with
the editor and faculty advisors over run-
ning information on the Schiff case.
And several weeks ago the News edi-
torial director resigned in disgust at the
editor's willingness to let Hannah ap-
pointees and "faculty advisors," who act
as effective censors, to run the paper.
The general manager of the State News,
who controls most of what goes on there,
is appointed by and is a close personal
friend of President Hannah. If Hannah
wants to run a newspaper for his own
purposes, that's fine, but it should be lab-
eled as the propaganda that it is, not as
a free student newspaper.
President Hannah could learn some
lessons from University President Harlan
Hatcher. Whatever trials and tribulations
The Daily has caused Hatcher this se-
mester, and there have been plenty, he
cannot be accused of even the slightest
imposition on The Daily's editorial free-
dom.
And whatever trials and tribulations

student demonstrators and Viet Nam pro-
testors and sit-inners have caused him,
and those have also been considerable,
complete freedom of student and facul-
ty expression on important issues has
been upheld.
HANNAH OF COURSE claims that vari-
ous circumstances other than Schiff's
political activities affect his case. That
is so much obfuscation. Either there is
student freedom of expression or there is
control and/or suppression of ideas, some-
thing insidious in any university worthy
of the name.
0 The students and faculty of Michi-
gan State University are entitled to know
what is happening at their university,
everything happening all of the time.
0 They are entitled to a newspaper
which can tell them these things freely
and without restraint or indirect control
of any kind.
* MSU's students and faculty have a
right to know that rights of free speech
and expression have been blatantly and
hypocritically trampled there and that
freedom for the principal means of com-
munication within the university, the
student paper, is nonexistent.
The basic ideals of the university are
at stake. Are the ideals of unhindered
search for truth and understanding, by
both groups and individuals, and the free
and open and unfearful discussion that
must accompany such a search for un-
derstanding and comprehension, still ap-
plicable to MSU?
FREEDOM IS THE FIRST prerequisite
to education. Without it education is
hollow and meaningless for those under-
going it. Education becomes a tool to
manipulate others to prescribed social
ends, ends which the university itself
should be seeking to establish.
Apparently these ideals aren't applic-
able at MSU. If the faculty and students
still believe in them, they should de-
mand the full story on Schiff, and they
should get it from a free student press,
not Hannah's.
--ROBERT JOHNSTON
Editor

iet.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The autl
is a predoctoral instructor
the department of philosop]
By FREDERIC KORN
TWO DAYS after Thanksg:
thousands of Americans
march on Washington, D.C.
national call for this march, 
ten some weeks ago, asserted
the United States has not dor
it can to bring about peace r
tiations on Viet Nam. It dec
that the purpose of the march
be to exhort the Johnson ad:
istration to try harder to end
war.
The drafters of the call
knowledged that the United S
had strongly professed a d
for unconditional discussions
But they added that since
U.S. had insisted that the
tional Liberation Front not b
lowed at the conference tab:
a separate delegation, ands
the U.S. had refused to halt
bombing of North Viet Nam
meaningful period of time, t]
was some reason to doubt th
tent and sincerity of the ad:
istration's desire for such ta
TODAY THE QUESTION o:
ministration sincerity hasI
answered.
The shocking admissions
disclosures of the past fewr
make it clear beyond a doubt
our government's posture has
completely iigenuine. The S
Department has confirmed i
the Johnson administration
jected overtures from Hanoi
secret negotiations both b
and after the 1964 Preside
election.
Apologists for the adminis
tion have said that because a
time the Saigon government
extremely unstable and was or
verge of losing the war, the:
would have had to "bargain f
weakness." But why weren't A
icans told of the refused o:
Why were they instead told
the other side did not wis]
bargain because it was win
Most importantly, what a
ances do we have that the gox
ment was right in supposing
Hanoi would impose unfavo
conditions? Why wasn't the
portunity taken to find out ex
what conditions Hanoi wanted
What would have been los
doing so, since the request
for discussions to be conducte
secrecy?
NO SUGGESTED reason fo
U.S. refusal to negotiate does
thing to change the fact that
President told the American p
a deliberate falsehood on a m
affecting the lives of coun
Americans and Vietnamese
quite possibly the survival
everyone on this planet.
In a press conference on,
13th, the President said, "I n
say that candor compels me t
you that there has not been
slightest indication that the c
ride is interested in negotiatic
unconditional discussions, alth
the United States has made ,
dozen separate attempts to b.
that about."
Minds raised in a traditio
general respect for and tru
the leaders of the countryI
difficulty coming to terms witl
fact that our President lied.
have a strong urge to dismh
or simply to deny that it. is w
it appears to be.
Some are driven to assui
that there are unknown fac
which, coud the country r
them, would alter the meanir
what the President has done.
if there are such factors, the

ministration declines to tell
what they are; it strains credt
to suppose that the excuse is
tional security.

Nam

Protest:

PRESIDENT JOHNSON, JULY 13, 1965-"I must say that candor compels me to tell you that there
has not been the slightest indication that the other side is interested in negotiation or in unconditional
discussons, although the United States has made some dozen separate attempts to bring that about."

mperative

Others, while not denying that
the President has lied, claim the
unknown facts justify his actions.
Is it not significant that govern-
ment supporters have had to use
this excuse so often in defending
U.S. policy? And has there ever
been any later confirmation for
such a claim?
In this cast, saying that if we
knew all til facts we would find
Johnson's he to be justified is in-
credible. Can we imagine facts
that would justify lying to the
American people, leading them to
believe that it is necessary to
sacrifice the lives of their children
because the other side has com-
pletely refused to talk peace?
ONE CANNOT dismiss this case
as a slip from otherwise scrupulous
standards of honesty. The New
York Times, in a front page story
oi± November 14th, 1965, disclosed
information gathered by the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Committee
from high administration officials
in closed session, information
which establishes beyond doubt
that President Johnson and his
administration lied to or misled
the American people not once, but
repeatedly about the intervention
in Santo Domingo.
In addition, recently in an As-
sociated Press story, David Schoen-
brunn disclosed that he was told
by a French government official
"in the highest authority" that
the North Vietnamese also made a
peace overture during the five-day
suspension of the bombing north.
of the 17th parallel. According to
him, France forwarded the offer
to the U.S., but it was ignored.
Indeed, the administration re-
sumed the bombing, chastising
those, including Sen. William Ful-
bright, who had asserted that such
a pause in the bombings would en-
courage peace talks.
Dean Rusk said in July that the
U.S. efforts to get a positive reply
during the moratorium were met
with a reaction that was "harsh,
very harsh."
President Johnson, speaking be-
fore the United Nations late in
the summer, testified to "the un-
hesitating readiness of the U.S.
to find a peaceful solution."
HERE THE CASE against the
administration is even more clear

cut. The moratorium came after
Johnson had declared at Johns
Hopkins our desire for uncondi-
tional discussions. It came after
the start of the aerial bombings
of North Viet Nam, bombings
which would tend to dispell the
impression that we would be bar-
gaining from a position of weak-
ness.
Honest minds draw, are forced
to draw, inferences from facts.
These facts compel a bitter ver-
dict. They erode a presupposition.
at the foundation of what we
have taken the American demo-
cratic experience to be.
If one can no longer trust the
information given by leaders in
apparent good faith to the Ameri-
can people, then real democracy
is impossible, since it presupposes
that government decisions are to
be subject to periodic review by
an electorate which has been
properly informed.
WHEN THIS presupposition, is
not fulfilled, one is left with the
trapings of effective democratic
institutions, but not democracy
itself. The consequences of these
facts in the present situation
seem to be that President Johnson
and a few other high government
officials, in their conduct of the
war and their ability to silence
major opposition in Congress by
political pressure, have created
what in fact is a completely un-
democratic structure with respect
to foreign policy, especially on
Viet Nam.
This kind of structure ertails
that those making the decisions
govern not on the assumptions of
democracy, but on the assumption
that "informing" the public is a
way of controlling public opinion
by saying whatever is required for
this end. In this view, public opin-
ion is merely one of several im-
portant variables that must be
controlled and manipulated in the
pursuance of policy.
GIVEN THIS STRUCTURE, it
should thus come as no surprise
that the American people have
been lied to and misled about
foreign policy with unremitting
regularity. Other features of the
government's conduct become
equally clear. The leaders give lip

service to national ideals of de-
mocracy and freedom, even free-
dom of dissent, while completely
ignoring in practice what an
honest commitment to them would
entail.
For instance, while publicly af-
firming the right to dissent, the
leaders attempt to curtail criti-
cism, not by responding with jus-
tifications for their policies (for
this would be to engage in the
processes of democracy), but by
ignoring the substance of criticism
and saying that such remarks
encourage the enemy, are held by
only a tiny minority, or ought not
to be made when American boys
are dying for our freedom in Viet
Nam.
There is of course no difficulty
in exposing the nonrational char-
acter of these sorts of appeals-if
those protesting segregation in a
Southern community are a tiny
minority, this does nothing to
show the views they hold are
wrong and segregation right-but
such appeals are effective in shap-
ing public opinion when uttered by
those who lead the country and
have vast public relations leverage
at their disposal.
THUS FAR we have said noth-
ing about Viet Nam itself, about
the indiscriminate destruction and.
contempt for human life present
in our policy there. Jack Lang-
guth, writing in The New York
Times Sunday magazine on Octo-
ber 17, drawing on his year's ex-
perience reporting the war for the
Times, says that the war may be
won if the United States is pre-
pared to kill two or three civilians
for every enemy soldier.
The whole strategy of phos-
phorous bombing of villages, pois-
oning of rice crops and saturation
bombing of densely populated
areas of the Mekong Delta cannot
be discussed adequately in a few
sentences.
We can, however, ask this ques-
tion: suppose that what the John-
son administration has told us
about the war is true in every de-
tail, and suppose further that the
war can be fought effectively only
along the lines the government is
now pursuing; should we con-
tinue to fight if this entails the
kind of slaughter of the civilian
population that Langguth and

others say it does? Can we wage
such a war and live with our-
selves?
It is important to remember that
Langguth says that two or three
civilians must die for every sol-
dier, lest one should be tempted
to draw comfort the fact that in
every war some innocent people
are killed no matter how elaborate
the precautions. A ratio of two 'or
three to one-what could serve
to justify it? The assurances from
President Johnson that we are
fighting for freedom and democ-
racy in Viet Nam?
GIVEN our present policy in
Viet Nam, are American boys in
Viet Nam dying even for demo-
cracyin the United States?
How plausible is it that their
death serves South Vietnamese
democracy, when under the mili-
tary regime of Premier Ky, Viet-
namese have been shot before fir-
ing squads for even protesting
the presence of American troops?
Also it must be remembered
that we generously undertook, in
asking our question, the sweeping
assumption that what President
Johnson has told us about the war
is true in every detail.
In view of the last few days,
how rational is it to suppose that
what President Johnson tells us
about the war is true?
WHAT CONCLUSIONS are to
be drawn from these considera-
tions? Although present govern-
ment policies are inimical to po-
litical democracy in our country,
it would be hasty and overly pes-
simistic to suppose that they fore-
tell its doom.
Even McGeorge Bundy does not
yet have the 'temerity to claim
that Presidential elections every
four years are felt desirable by
only a tiny minority of professors.
Although President Johnson is
limited, if he wins the next elec-
tion to only four more years, we
have no less an authority than
President Eisenhower to testify
to the dangers present in the
power of "the military-industrial
complex," something on which the
constitution sets no such limita-
tions of time.
WHAT CAN be done right now
to meaningfully and effectively
oppose the war? The Johnson ad-
ministration seems to have suc-
ceeded until now in silencing any
meaningful opposition or discus-
sion in Congress, which according
to the Constitution has a signifi-
cant role in foreign policy.
Although we ought to work hard
to elect Congressmen who cannot
be coerced by pressure from the
White House, this is a project
which cannot yield results until
1966.
Though the momentary pros-
pects for pressure from within the
political system are bleak, the
March on Washington will give in-
dividuals distressed by the con-
duct of the war an opportunity to
demonstrated their disapproval in
a way that can bring pressure to
bear on the administration.
Even the present structure of
decision-making on foreign policy
is not invulnerable to widespread
opposition to its policies.
THE ORIGINAL CALL for the
march was, ironically, all too right
in claiming the government had
not done all it could to bring
peace.
The march now can be a means
of pressuring the government to-
wards negotiations, not by, as we
once may have naively thought,
reminding our leaders of their sin-
cere desire for peace, but by show-
ing them that the American peo-
ple will not stand for a barbaric
war veiled by lies and hypocrisy.

*

4

Students Neglected

4

ROBERT SCHNITZER is listed in the
Faculty Directory as the executive di-
rector of the University of Michigan Pro-
fessional Theatre Program. Events sur-
rounding the cancellation of the Ameri-
can Conservatory Theatre's Feb. 6 per-
formance, a cancellation confirmed yes-
terday, pose the question of whether
Schnitzer is letting this job interfere with
another of his responsibilities-that of
fairly administering Lydia Mendelssohn
Theatre.
Specifically, they raise the question of
just how fairly student productions are
being treated in their use of Mendels-
sohn.
About a week ago, MUSKET officials
accidentally learned that an ACT per-
formance had been scheduled for Feb.
6, the same Sunday on which MUSKET
had been promised it could move into the
theatre to set up for its first perform-
ance the following Wednesday, Schnitzer
had already begun ticket sales for the
ACT performance.
Moving quickly, the officials met with
Schnitzer and the University Calendar-
ing Committee, the body in charge of
allotting space in University buildings to
student groups, to clear the matter up.
As only a few tickets for the ACT per-
formance had been sold, the committee's
insistence was enough to force the can-
cel ation of the ACT performance so
MUSKET could go on as planned.
THIS EPISODE was reminiscent of the
problems that Soph Show '64 had with
Mendelssohn's administration, u n d e r
Schnitzer, last year. In that case, the As-
sociation of Producing Artists, under
Schnitzer's control through his authority
over the PTP, was booked into Mendels-
nhnithunt ver notifvine the Snnh

inconvenient and complicated perform-
,ance arrangement at the Ann Arbor High
School auditorium.
Schnitzer's handling of both cases at
the very least was inconsiderate of stu-
dent groups, and could conceivably have
hurt them seriously if other administra-
tors had not stepped in to help.
Of course, one must remember the
larger context in which Mendelssohn
operates. Especially in Soph Show's case,
Schnitzer had little choice but to allow
APA to perform in the theatre. Yet even
there, in not notifying Soph Show, his
administration showed a great lack of
concern for the students themselves and
the investment in time and money which
they represented.
Mitigating circumstances were less evi-
dent in MUSKET's case. The PTP did
not stop ticket sales until it was more
than obvious that MUSKET did not in-
tend to let the matter die and until it
was obvious that the students had the
backing of the calendaring committee.
If that performance of ACT had sold
out before MUSKET had a chance to ne-
gotiate with Schnitzer about the choice,
of date, MUSKET almost certainly would
have been forced to move.
Whether this incident was the intent
of Mendelssohn's administration or
whether it was simple administrative er-
ror is open to debate. But in any case, the
fact remains that MUSKET almost lost a
great deal through that administration's
lack of concern for its calendaring in re-
lation to the calendaring of professional
groups.
THIS IS SIMPLY NOT RIGHT. While
professional theatre is a great influ-
ence at the University, and Schnitzer has
played a sizable part in its success, Men-

Letters: MSU President Hannah Blasted

To the Editor:
IS THE QUALITY of a university
reflected in the conduct of its
president? I think so! As an
alumnus of both Michigan State
University and the University of
Michigan, I would like to com-
ment upon the relative degree of
democratic leadership apparent
at the two schools.
Your November 17th issue car-
ried two news items concerning
President Hatcher and President
Hannah. It is edifying to learn
that President Hatcher has for-
mally announced the University
of Michigan's official stand on the
matter of protecting the civil
rights of students. In his recent
speech delivered before business
leaders in Chicago, President
Hatcher cogently pointed out the
difference between "distasteful
action" and "illegal action" on the
part of students. The V-P for
Student Affairs substantiates the
fact that this working philosophy
has been operating at Michigan
"for a long time."
BUT WHILE Dr. Hatcher was

for Western Michigan where John.
Hannah (et al) was sued recently
by a student of MSU as the result
of an alleged civil rights violation
on the part of Hannah? The court
did find that violation had oc-
curred, and still maintains juris-
diction in the case.
What kind of sanctimonious
hypocrisy leads the president of a
university to run around the coun-
try talking about civil rights, when
his own conduct and his own
organization are flagrant examples
of institutionalized ignorance on
the subject?
It seems to me that double talk
is incompatible with the education
process, and that Michigan State
University should therefore be
concerned about this tendency in
President Hannah.
-George N. Vance, Grad
An Open Letter
To the Editor:
An Open Letter to Assembly
Association:
1 ART PTCrL vnt nus with-

Assembly claims to be a repre-
sentative body, serving as a liaison
between dormitory women and the
administration. It also claims
precedence over the individual
dormitories, having the authority
to approve or reject such intra-
dormitory measures as change in
dress regulations. In addition, it
supplies some funds to dormitory
libraries, and gives four $50
scholarships each year (a new
program this year).
BUT THE QUESTION arises:
what does Assembly use its money
for? It collects from the houses,
50c for each girl who lives in
each house. Except for the schol-
arships, why does it need this
money? The subsidies given to the
libraries could be given by the
dorms to their own libraries. An
individual dorm is better equipped
to judge the needs of its own
library than is a body like As-
sembly. And Assembly has spon-
sored no programs of any rele-
vance, except the Assembly-IQC
Sing, for which there was an entry
fee and an admission charge. So
what does Assembly do. sponsor

does it not, in effect, derive its
authority from those houses? Why,
then, must Assembly approve
house constitutions and dress reg-
ulations? Has it the authority to
do this?
And what is the usefulness of
Assembly to the women's dormi-
tories? It has provided no really
valuable programs, offers no in-
dispensable services. It is, in fact,
almost totally removed from direct
contact with the individual prob-
lems of any given house. Why,
then, does it exist? More impor-
tant, why does it have the author-
ity, even in name, that it claims
to have? And why does it need an
annual budget amounting to over
two thousand dollars?'
IT IS TIME some questions
were asked about both IQC and
Assembly, time both groups realis-
tically surveyed their contribution
to the campus.
-House Council
Angell House
Alice Lloyd Hal
1.7 A l _ 0 _.. .

ditional voters drawn into the
election solely because of the bal-
lot survey could conceivable alter
the outcome of the election.
Thus the two main arguments
against an opinion survey on the
SGC ballot can be simply stated:
1) Taking an insufficient and
unrepresentative sampling of the
student body on this issue and
2) Risking the election of can-
didates on the basis of a non-
campus issue.
But Student Government Coun-
cil owes the student body an
opinion survey on Viet Nam. How
then can SGC best fulfill its,
obligation? Certainly such a sur-
vey must be drawn up with pro-
fessional consultation. The Survey
Research Center could provide the
assistance. With the financial help
of one of several large national
foundations this survey could be
incorporated into an academic re-
search project.
As for collecting the data, with
permission from the administra-
tion this survey could be taken
in January during registration of
all students or through a repre-
sentative sample selected on a