Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
The l
Where Opinions Are Free. 420 MAYNARD ST.. ANN ARBOR, Mica.
Trtita WI? Pr 40MANR v. ANAdBR IC
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.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: CHARLOTTE A. WOLTER
Membership Committee:
Will Panhel Act ?
TONIGHT Panhellenic Association will
finally; after two delays and months"
of discussion, vote on the issue of a
Panhellenic Membership Committee.
This committee, if established, would in-
vestigate and combat discrimination in
sorority membership selection, benefit-
ting both Panhel and the University.
It would mark a definite commitment'
on the part of Panhel to combat discrim-
ination. Although, under the guidance of
its liberal and effective president, Laura
Fitch, Panhel has passed several resolu-
tions urging cooperation with the pres-
ent Student Government Council mem-
bership committee in its quest for soror-
ity membership documents, the ideal and
goal of nondiscrimination has never been
officially a part of the Panhel constitu-
tion.
If the proposal is passed tonight, how-
ever, a new bylaw establishing a Panhel
policy of nondiscrimination will be added
to the constitution.
EVEN IF THE PRESENT Panhel fails
to make the membership committee a
strong and effective body, the new bylaw
would provide a framework for future,
action. It would, hopefully, prevent a
complete retracing of the slow steps taken
by Panhel in the past year, the tenuous
discussions of autonomy and loyalty to
the national organization, the repetitious,
although admirable, exhortations on the
evils of discrimination.
In other words, by making a commit-
ment to nondiscrimination, the proposal
would demonstrate the good faith of the
sorority system (which is under question
in many places) and would provide a
legal basis for further action by (hope-
fully) more liberal Panhellenics in the
future.
IN ADDITION, a Panhellenic member-
ship committee would be of great bene-
fit to the University if it worked toward
the elimination of discriminatory prac-
tices. This is especially true in view of the
failure on the part of the University itself
to exert pressure on the sororities to end
discrimination.
The SGC membership committee has
performed little more than perfunctory
action in the past year. An incompetent
chairman and lack of pressure from the
Office of Student Affairs has resulted
in a committee that has collected docu-
ments, and nothing more. The commit-
tee seems more afraid to offend the sor-
orities. than to fail in its function of
fighting discrimination.
Pressure from the administration has
also been lacking. Whether this is due to
the current $55 million fund drive (soror-
ity alumnae are big contributors) to lack
of concern or to respect for student au-
tonomy is mere speculation. But what-
ever the cause, it is clear that if any ac-
tion is to be taken, it must; come from
within the sorority system itself.
THE VOTE TONIGHT will determine
whether the sorority system is will-
ing to take this action and to assume
the responsibility it implies. If the mem-
bership proposal fails, it will be because
sorority actives themselves refuse to sup-
port it, since the national alumnae orga-
nizations have been surprisingly tolerant
in their reactions to the issue.
x Only one who has attended a Panhel-
lenic presidents' council meeting could
realize how much conservatism on the
issue of membership selection as well as
all other issues, exists in the University
sorority-system today. Although the bene-
fits of a membership committee seem ob-
vious, Miss Fitch reports that the vote
will be very close and that the proposal
may fail.
IF IT DOES FAIL, itkwill mark a lack of
foresight on the part of sorority presi-
dents, a lack of commitment to non-
discrimination in the Greek system and
a serious setback to the improvement of
membership selection in Panhellenic and
to the struggle for nondiscrimination at
the University.
-CAROLE KAPLAN
IT IS, as its announcement
states, an attempt to "trans-
cend the limits of the 'knowledge
factory'," but it is less a universi-
ty than it is free, for it is de-
cidedly not an institution. The
university has traditionally had
among its goals a certain academ-
ic rigor which has to be institu-
tionalized.'
Of course it is emphatically
"out" to be institutionalized these
days, so that, even if you are,
you don't admit to it. The Stu-
dent Non - violent Coordinating
Committee, a product of spontan-
eous student revolt against the
Establishment in the South, has
experienced since its inception hot
internal debate over how not to
bureaucratize.
SNCC has managed to strike a
precarious compromise between
dissipation through anarchy and
ossification through institution-
alization. Their formula seems to
be a matter of organizing where
they have to, but never institu-
tionalizing.
It now looks as though SNCC
has had a fatal adversary in time.
Such organizational devices as
pickets sit-ins and voter regis-
tration have succumbed to insti-
tutionalization and fewer and few-
er new ideas are popping up. This
is nevertheless understandable. It
took creativity to crack the prob-,
lem of Southern intransigence; it
Just takes hard work to follow
through.
SO THE MANTLE has fallen
to Students for a Democratic So-
ciety, which doesn't even admit to
organizing (except in Newark and
Cleveland, which is something else
again), let alone bureaucratizing,
SDS knows it is against insti-
tutions and non-participation by
the poor, but it hasn't really de-
cided what it is for, except free-
dom and values (undefined) so
ree U'
that it doesnt really need any or-
ganization-yet.
Universities have a series of
goals and institutionalized means
of achieving them, but the Free
University's aims can best be de-
scribed under the heading of
creative intellectual discourse.
Such discourse is aimed at dis-
covering and defining some new
social values that today's intelli-
gent students can substitute for
the old ones they found so stultify-
ing.
Arising in the anarchic tradi-
tion of SDS and SNCC, and
strongly reinforced by the anti-
organization philosophy of Paul
Goodman, the Free University
can perhaps effect some valuable
explorations of alternative social
values and ideals.
GIVEN THIS raison d'etre for
the Free University, its organiza-
tion, or rather lack of it, makes
some sense. It is next to impos-
sible to institutionalize creativity.
The federal government, sensing
both the importance of basic 'sci-
entific advance and the random-
ness of the creative expression
that produces new breakthroughs
and establishes whole new branch-
es of endeavor, attempts to buy
creativity in its research spon-
sorship.
It succeeds much more than it
deserves largely because it is will-
ing (and has the resources) to
spend 99 per cent of its basic
research budget on worthless work
in order to get one per cent orig-
inality. This may be inefficient,
but if you're going to be as strict-
ly institutionalized and bureauc-
ratized as the federal government,
it's the only way to do it.
This university, and most oth-
ers, have institutionalized other
goals tied to a more rational eval-
uation and incentive structure.
Scholarship, and its more recent
offpsring knowledge, have be-
Michigan MAD
By ROBERT JOHNSTON,
come the goals and criteria for
success, and, as universities have
prospered (relatively), they have
come to do such a good job in
dealing with these commodities
that they have earned the label
"factory" for their efficiency.
AND, AS THIS development be-
comes more and more obvious,
we now have the Free Univer-
sity, which claims to go beyond
the "limits of the knowledge fac-
tory." (Scholarship is measured
by its thoroughness in dealing
with a small body of knowledge.
Knowledge, as used here, refers
to the tremendously larger bodies
of knowledge now being dealt with
in at least the research-oriented
disciplines.)
The standard university has, in
any case, hardly dealt with the
value-judgments which the de-
votees of the Free University are
interested in, and even less well-
equipped to formulate new values.
A great deal of freedom from any
sort of social control is needed
for such experimentation, for
values are basic to any social sys-
tem, and deviations are seen as
destructive and even treasonous,
so universities have tested their
freedom in more irrelevant ways.
In recent years two trends have
heightened the tensions which
have produced the Free Univer-
sity. First, a U.S. society 'has
tended to become more and more
structured through attempts to
impose certain minimum stand-
ards of health, decency, income
and housing (and in their wake
the prevailing social values as
through the draft) on society, the
creative fringe groups have more
and more sought refuge from the,
omnipotent social bulldozer in the
universities.
ON THE OTHER hand, the uni-
versities are themselves becom-
ing more and more structured in
attempting to cope with both the
knowledge explosion and the baby
boom and thus start setting up
their own series of standards
which aren't very acceptable to
these people either. This squeeze
play has produced the Free Uni-
versity.
Whether or not it succeeds is
not particularly important, since
many similar attempts will be
made here and elsewhere to find
a place in the system for the crea-
tive value experimentation it is'
an expression of.
What is vitally important is that
one of these attempts does succeed,
for if we do end up structuring
and rationalizing our society to
the point where there is no roon
left for seminal sourcesrof crea-
tive, and adaptive and productive
change, then' we will really be in
trouble. Ossification will quickly
take over.
There is no reason the Univer-
sity itself cannot provide much
more encouragement for such bas-
ic intellectual discussion than it
does. Rarely are the avant-garde,
found in any university, whether
in creative writing, political writ-
ing, art, design or music.
While this university's music
school has had the most fruitful
spin-off effects, that is a func-
tion of its size and technical ex-
cellence, which manages to bring
together a critical one per cent
mass (which isn't to deprecate
the non-avant garde 99 per cent,
only to say that they fulfill a
different role). And how many
times can one cite the ONCE
Festival as evidence of the avant-
garde explosion in Ann Arbor?
CHARACTERISTICALLY, avant-
garde "communities" in any giv-
en field form around one strong
personality who is in effect the
leader of a "movement" or school
in the art world of films, paint-
ing, dance or whatever. It is dif-
ficult to fit such people into a
university because they are such
prima donnas, but if an admin-
istrator can be attracted who is
able to deal with them, they can
be given some space and money
to set up their own little institute
and do what they want in their
own way.
In the intellectual world of the
avant-garde, it is the provision
of the intellectual environment
that is crucial. Here the attrac-
tion of one or two men, again
with plenty of autonomy, must
be buttressed by the provisions of
outlets for conversation and writ-
ing.
The University Press could sub-
sidize their work, and the Uni-
versity could indirectly subsidize
a radical journal. (Ive always
thought that someone at the Men-
tal Health Research Institute
should start a small radical news-
paper. The Daily is too big and
fat and has too many other things
to do to be really avant-garde
any more.)
There is no reason the Univer-
sity can't do much more to make
Ann Arbor a center for creativity
and social self-examination. That
there should be a strongly felt
need for a Free University is trag-
ic.
THE LEAST President Hatcher
could do is send President Berg-
man a large anonymous check.
He might have to take some time
figuring out to do with it, but
that wouldn't hurt; it might even
help.
as a Creative Outlet
AV
Vie a:China 's Historical Perspective
Goals Conference:
A Planned Start
By DAVID KNOKE
THE WAR in Viet Nam has
come to another cross-roads.
The peace drive has apparently
failed and Americans are ang-
ered because Hanoi has not re-
sponded to what they consider a
show of good will. North Viet
Nam has not been bombed for
over a month, but the clamor
among the war-hawks for an ever-
increasing widening of the war
grows daily more strident.
By bits and pieces a pattern of
activity is preparing the war the-
atre for another escalation. While
ministers and pacifists and the
native left continue to raise their
unheeded voices in a wilderness
of apathy or superpatriotic war
hysteria, China sends MIG fight-
ers into, North Viet Nam, Saigon
bombs the Ho Chi Minh Trail
across the Laotian border, Secre-
tary of State Dean Rusk calls
on European nations to actively
back the United States with
troops and Secretary of Defense
McNamara considers building up
U.S. forces in Thailand andtinsti-
tuting the first college-student
draft in 13 years.
What this all means, barring a
miraculous cease-fire or the in-
stant solution of mutual nuclear
suicide, is that the United States
has committed itself once again
to an Asian land war in a chapter
of what might well be titled "The
Ever-Continuing Story of the Con-
tainment of China."
AMERICAN citizens outside the
policy-making level of the gov-
ernment are pretty much in the
dark as to why American boys
are fighting and dying in the
Annamese jungles. American di-
plomatic and military strategists,
when they do throw a sop to the
public,husually explain that we
are fighting because we are there
to honor our commitments. What-
ever ostensible reasons are given
about establishing democratic
self-determination for the free-
dom-loving peoples of SouthViet
Nam, it is clear that the war in
Viet Nam is being fought neither
for nor about Viet Nam.
Viet Nam as a battlefield is an
accident of history. The first
head-on clash between the U.S.
and Red China came in Korea.
China was an embryo land pow-
er, swelled by the new regime's
successes against Chiang Kai-
shek, and she was beaten badly
by the U.S.-led United Nations
"police force." A second head-on
collision between' China and the
United States is impending in Viet
Nam. It could just as well have
been Thailand, India, Formosa or
Korea again.
Viet Nam has aroused Ameri-
cans' emotions-both pro and con
-to such an intensity that they
are caught up in the immediacy'
of the conflict and fail to see the
historical context out of which
Sino-American antagonism has
developed.
VIET NAM is just a staging-
ground, a passing land-mark in
a power-struggle that has been
brewing for the last century and
a half. Very few persons on eith-
er side apparently see that the
strategic issue is not South Viet
Nam's sovereignty; yet American
policy is being implemented with
the idea that if South Viet Nam
is preserved intact, the rest of the
Southeast Asian dominoes will
not fall. This viewpoint is equiv-
alent to not seeing the forest for,
the trees.
What is really at stake-and
Viet Nam is just the beginning,
and only a military beginning at
that-is the question of which
"Great Power" will be supreme-
militarily ,economically and cul-
turally-in Asia.
THE U.S., as the inheritor of
the "white man's burden" from
the French, English and Dutch,
and Red China, champion of the
newly-emerged "colored" peoples'
nationalism, are the contenders.
Soviet Russia, in her unique posi-
tion of being both a western and
an oriental nation, is taking a
non-active but quietly interested
position of saboteur and scaven-
ger.
American diplomatic p o li c y
makes the mistake of assuming
that this "Asian problem" has
just recently appeared and is pri-
marily the fault of the Commu-
nist leadership of China. This
was the attitude of the late Sec-
retary of State John Foster Dulles.
Containment of Communism be-
came the goal of the Marshall
Plan in Europe and various al-
liances in Asia. Very few admin-
istrators of this policy have ever
stopped to question if America
has the military manpower, eco-
nomic resources or diplomatic
backing to play policeman to the
world.
Embittered parents whose sons
have died in Viet Nam and wor-
ried students who fear the same
may happen to them often advo-
cate one of two simplistic solu-
tions to the dilemma: withdraw
the troops and leave Asia to the
Asians or all-out nuclear devasta-
tion of China before she develops
her own nuclear deterrents. Neith-
er solution, too often paroted aft-
er similar positions by prominent
national leaders, takes into ac-
count the origins of the confron-
tation nor the consequences of a
simplistic resolution.
Whatever the present form of
her hatred, China's antagonism
against Western imperialism is
deeply rooted in a past filled with
exploitation, shame and degrada-
\tion. All the former major pow-
ers, the U.S. especially, with the
"Open Door" license to abuse
trade and hospitality, had a
hand in the estrangement of Chi-
na's affections. Either through di-
rect occupation or through sup-
port of unpopular right-wing dic-
tatorships (Diem in Viet Nam,
Chiang in ^China), the West has
never -really attempted to un-
derstand and respect the self-de-
termination of Oriental nations.
ANYONE who saw the Felix
Greene movie, "China!" could not
help coming away impressed by
the diversity of influences that
have molded the Chinese charac-
ter over 3000 years of unbroken,
civilization. Torrents and trickles
of every religion, art form, mor-
ality and folk-custom pervade the
Chinese cultural heritage.
What is rooted in the Chinese
character, and backed up by an
unconceivably huge manpower, is
a belief in China's "manifest des-
tiny' 'to rule or hold influence
over Southeast Asia. Americans,
in their paranoic horror of any-
thing remotely tinted with "Com-
munist," decry this "aggression,"
too often forgetting our own re-
cent national belief in the "mani-
fest destiny" of the U.S. to reign
sovereign from ocean to ocean.
'Viet Nam is a point in case;
up until the 1880's when France
wrested Indo-China from a weak-
ened Chinese monarchy, South-
east Asia° was a Chinese trade
market. Amaury de Riencourtde-
scribes Viet Nam's culture as bas-
ically a "moonlight civilization"
patterned after the more mature
Chinese civilization. China today
feels Viet Nam historically be-
longs with China, notthe West.
Today the leadership of main-
land China is Communist-affiliat-
ed, but an international, mono-
lithic Communist ogre that de-
cours countries and innocent peo-
ples is a figment of American
fear. The methods of government
may be Communistic in form, but
hatred is too endemic to account
for her present actions except as
particularly Chinese in origin and
Chinese in aim.
Short of nuclear war, the
best thing, the U.S. can do is try
to contain the militant Chinese
Communist expansion and hope
that eventually the old revolu-
tionaries will be replaced by a
benign "managerial class" that
will be soft on capitalism, as Rus-
sia seems to be evolving now. The
U.S. is going to have to learn to
live with the Chinese, but any
solution that calls for dominance
through fear of one by the other
is essentially unstable.
What is needed is an entirely
new approach-one based on the
spirit of cooperation rather than
watchful co-existence.
China once trusted the Western
nations, and to her horror they all
turned ,.into "white devils" en-
trenched in her backyard. She
will not be that trusting again;
it is up to the U.S. to make the
first move in a reappraisal of
policy and to make that move in
a sincere effort to reconcile past
misunderstandings and to mutu-
ally create a more habitable
world.
0i
YESTERDAY'S ANN ARBOR Area Goals
Conference was a well-organized and
potentially instrumental mechanism for
viewing this rapidly changing communi-
ty.
The conference kept back-patting and
"let's preserve the fine character of our
town" speeches to a minimum, and in-,
cluded some thought-provoking discus-
sion between officials and citizens. The
combination of speakers' expertise and
audience questions worked well. The per-
spective provided by planners and edu-
cators from the !county and the Univer-
sity added to a more objective view of.
the town's planning operations. '
But the long-range effect of the con-
ference will depend on the willingness of,
both officials and citizens to continue
such self-examination until Ann Arbor
has a concrete set of goals with which
to chart its future.
FOR THAT REASON the most hopeful
aspect of the conference was the rec-
ognition on the part of many conferees
of the necessity and even more the dif-
ficulty of 1) setting forth the goals of
the community and 2) revitalizing the
planning attitudes of Ann Arbor gov-
ernment.
The two are closely related. One con-
ference which we attended began to hit
on the real problem of deciding what
we want to make of this community
rather than relinquishing the right to
decide through hesitation. The goals they
accepted would constitute a good take-
off point for the city's administrators
and planners:
-Emphasizing the cultural and edu-
cational aspects of the community in
planning its living space;
-Cooperating with surrounding com-
munities toj save the Huron River from
pollution and to utilize its banks for
needed recreational facilities;
-Selectively supporting industrial en-
essary before such home rule
about, and
comesI
-Supporting the establishment of a
boundary commission to mediate annexa-
tion problems.
Communications between groups ap-
peared to be unlikely unless a citizen's
council composed of representatives of
various groups represented could be es-
tablished. The council would be effective
in coordinating action involving the
groups in line with the goals established
at the conference.
THESE ARE SUGGESTIONS, and, if the
opinions of some experts present at
the conference are to be accepted, badly
needed ones.
While the high level of sophistication
in the Ann Arbor planning department
projects was unquestioned, the lack of
long range planning was criticized. Be-
cause goals such as these have not been
discussed at length by either the City
Council or the planning commission, or
the planning department, no long range
"Master Plan" has been developed.
And while some of Ann Arbor's plan-
ners have spoken critically of such plans
in the past, several communities have
undertaken such programs and found
them valuable. A master plan would not
have to be an inflexible dream scheme,
but rather a series of standards which
would reflect the policy of the city on
how it wants to effect the environment
through zoning and land use programs.
Finally, additional metropolitan plan-
ning was stressed, to be accomplished
through cooperation with ad hoc region-
al bodies which have already been set
up. Until state law endows these bodies
with additional power, their decisions
will still be subject to local political
hassles. But the success of the Huron
Valley Watershed Commission attests to
their possible effectiveness.
DY BRTNGING THESE issues to the
, Ii
Letters:Students and The Decision-Making Process
To the Editor:
FOR THE LAST nine months,
the Student Government Council
Bookstore Committee has been
attempting to achieve the impos-
sible. The members, all students,
have tried to influence the de-
cision making process of the Uni-
versity. The issue involved, how-
ever, is more significant and far-
reaching than whether or not to
have a University discount book-
store. The issue, involves whether
students, acting in a responsible,
adult manner can influence the
decision-making process. It is sad
to conclude, the answer appears
they cannot.
There is little doubt as to the
committee's responsibility. The
students compiled a 20 page re-
port documenting the history of
past attempts, the present situa-
tion in Ann Arbor and other uni-
versities, the need for a discount
bookstore and the rationale and
plans for its establishment. Sur-
veys were conducted of other uni-
versities, architects were consult-
ed and publishing houses were
contacted. Furthermore, the de-
mand for a bookstore received un-
precedented campus wide support:
ignored.. And far the wiser for
they now realize students have
little place in the decision mak-
ing process of the University.
STUDENTS trying to further
student ends are faced with two
alternatives-work within the sys-
tem or work outside. The former
involves "responsible student par-
ticipation," in other words, let-
ters, requests, conferences, peti-
tions, etc. The latter involves more
violent and visible methods-pick-
ets, sit-ins, strikes, anything to
embarrass the University. Ad-
ministrators tell us "work with
us, be responsible, be rational and
you will achieve your goals." They
lied.
In the first place, administra-
tors are unwilling to work with
students. Consider last semester's
efforts to communicate with Vice-
President for Business and Fi-
nance Wilbur K. Pierpont about
low-cost student housing. Only a
threatened march and sleep-in re-
sulted in communication. And
with the bookstore campaign,
eight out of eight Regents turn-
ed down invitations to discuss the
proposal.
students were. They had no means'
to communicate, other than by
written reports, with those who
made the decisions. The efforts
of the entire campaign have re-
sulted in absolutely nothing. Not
only was the bookstore proposal
rejected, but the archaic 1929 Re-
gents ruling forbidding the estab-
lishment of mercantile organiza-
tions still stands.
GETTING to the gut level of
University policies, the admin-
istration does only that which they
are forced to do. The concept of
"Is this right? Should it be done?"
is forgotten and instead is re-
placed with "Must I do it?" The,
guiding policy of this administra-
tion is: Do only that which you
are forced to do. The argument
that issues are too involved and
complex holds little sway with me.
I know this university could do
something to lower living costs.
But they don't. They aren't forc-
ed to so why upset the status
quo?
If one accepts this power poli-
tic portrayal of the University,
where then do students fit in? It
would be onnimisi n +vp ha
The Ark
To the Editor:
SINCE I OFTEN share the hon-
or of occupying the same edi-
torial page of The Daily as Miss
Joyce Winslow, it is with no little
embarrassment that I read her
article in Tuesday's paper. With
Miss Winslow's impressionistic
piece of reporting on The Ark
coffee house, The Daily sinks to a
new low.
To the, many volunteers who
helped create The Ark, who are
helping to operate it, Miss Wins-
low's comments are not only crude,
but cruel. And they are even more
than cruel because the alterna-
tives she appears to champion are
so tawdry.
Just for the record, The Ark
is an ecumenical attempt to get
people out of their splendid iso-
lation, to give them a place to
come and see, listen, tallk, togeth-
er. We are trying to provide
more than "camp" entertainment
and good food at low prices. If
Miss Winslow is offended by the
menu, she might try buying the
same quality elsewhere-finding it
ca-topped tables as wood, Joan
Baez's lovely voice as a "wail,"
and Jerry Badanes' reading of
poetry as "electrifying," is just
so much self-conscious cant. I'll
bet (and know) she didn't pass
Creative Writing 223 with that
boatload of undifferentiated ob-
servation, imprecise verbs, inac-
curate adjectives.
Finally, Miss Winslow isn't
quite sure what it is she actually
wants. As far as the not-so-
cute "divine inspiration" busi-
ness, neither I, nor I believe, Miss
Winslow, has the inside track in
that area to give a definite yes
or no. I'm made to believe at one
point that she'd like the glitter
of Webber's, but an another I'm
told that the menu needs "lust."
Then she adds, "and swinging
LIVE music," like a good hippie.
Why then did she fail to include
mention of the folk-rock group-
The Spikedrivers-who played one
set Saturday night? Very strange.
To taks Miss Winslow's slick
squib seriously, to take it as cri-
ticism, would be nothing less than
a blueprint for chaos--we couldn't
have begun to create The Ark
from her suggestions, we wouldn't
a
-1