Seventy-SixthYear
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
- UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Where Oo s Are Free 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.. 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.
WRAND Offers Lesson for Future
.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1966
NIGHT EDITOR: HARVEY WASSERMAN
McDonald: A Disaster
For Council and Students
DR LAWRENCE McDONALD, Universi-
ty Hospital surgeon, teacher, John
Birch Society section leader, and Demo-
cratic candidate for the Fifth Ward City
Council seat is running a strong and
intelligent campaign which may be of
interest to political scientists, but unfor-
tunately has no positive meaning for
University students.
Out of a philosophy advocating free
enterprise comes a single element of pol-
icy rendering all else irrelevant. McDon-
ald states a belief that student welfare
should not be the concern of the City
Council. This means no legislation safe-
guarding building quality, no examina-
tion of student grievances against land-
lords or merchants, no recognition of stu-
dents as a citizen group.
McDonald advocates improving gar-
bage collection, improving traffic pat-
terns, and implementing police resources.
Students would clearly benefit from such
ction. But this is not enough.
Although McDonald would place total
responsibility for safeguarding student in-
terests in the hands of the University, it
is an undeniable fact of life in Ann Ar-
bor that students are a special group in
the community, a group participating in
Ann Arbor as. well as University affairs,
and a group that, because of its size, lack
of voting power, and economic character,
has special needs that can only be sat-
isfied by the community.
IMPOSITION of standards on builders is
equated by McDonald with socialized
housing, undesirable in Ann Arbor. Yet,,
substandard housing in Ann Arbor is also
:undesirable, and under usual conditions,.
can only be stopped by legislation. It is
no oddity that substandard housing is
usually either low-rent old housing or
low-rent cash-register apartments, and
that these are mainly occupied by stu-
dents.
Off-campus housing is Ann Arbor hous-
ing, not University housing. Regulation
of this area of student concern cannot
be handled by the University, for the
University is not a legislator. Further-
more, although McDonald bases his con-
cept of non-participation on the laws of
free enterprise, the University participa-
tion he advocates can only be judged col-
lusion.
Even the city has difficulty in regulat-
ing building. Laws of free enterprise are
far less dependable than laws of Coun-
cil. When a powerful developer glues to-
gether 30 stories of shabby housing in a
community faced with a housing short-
age, the laws of competition do not oper-
ate. Rather, students are forced to live
in new slums. McDonald would withdraw
city power. And then what?
Perhaps even more frustrating than
McDonald's philosophy of non-participa-
tion is his philosophy of non-recognition.
He attacks current councilmen for taking
alvantage of students as a group, per-
haps unethically. Again, he would take
the temptation away from Council by giv-
ing the responsibility to the University.
Student traffic congestion would be a
University problem rather than a muni-
cipal problem, because it is the Univer-
sity that issues driving permits. Stu-
dents cannot have influence on civic af-
fairs as they are not homeowners and
have little voting power.
McDONALD IS, THEN, proposing an un-
real Ann Arbor, one where at best,
the University and the community inter-
sect only at Division Street. While his
type of Council would remove the threat
of unsympathetic councilmen passing
cruel legislation infringing on student
rights, it would be a Council oblivious to
30,000 persons living in Ann Arbor.
The irony of the campaign is that the
Fifth Ward is a middle class neighbor-
hood comprised partially of the homes of
University faculty members. Further-
more, it is unlikely that any of the few
students in the ward have voting power.
Thus, student opinion has little effect on
McDonald's candidacy.
No matter what else he stands for-
and such issues as Council reform and
improvement of public services are to be
recognized as the fundamentals of an
appealing campaign-his position on stu-
dents marks him as a threat to both the
Council and the community. This should
be remembered in the February primary
and the final April ballot. Regardless of
political philosophy, students should rec-
ognize this. If they could vote.
-NEAL BRUSS
By DICK WINGFIELD
WHAT IS poverty?
It is not a lack of money.
Many "unimpoverished" people
will readily attest to their short-
age of money. Likewise, the popu-
lar myth of Cadillacs and color
ttubes" in seats of poverty shows
that money alone (in marginal
amounts) will not cure the disease.
It is not a lack of formal edu-
cation. Ask President Johnson
himself on this question.
It is not an inverse function of
one's optimism and admiration of
the grandeur of the world. Regard
T. S. Elliot.
BUT PULL these "not's" together
with a myriad of others, add the
social perspective of a plague of
dysentery or a black out on the
East Coast and an approximation
of poverty is legitimately ven-
tured.
In essence, poverty is wrought
with miraculously broad dimen-
sions-dimensions which escape
enumeration and explicit defini-
tion. This backhanded approach is
not the fault of anyone. It is the
character of poverty itself which
dictates the method of analysis.
If it is understood completely,
this approach to poverty can be
used to effectively analyze and
wage a war on this national'prob-
lem.
Willow Village, close (at least in
prorimity) to the University, was,
is, and will continue to be poverty
stricken. The basic reason is that
people in the community, upon
receiving news of a federal poverty
grant from the federal Office of
Economic Opportunity in January,
1965, split into two fiercely warring
camps. Certain persons in the
area and supporters from the Uni-
versity defended the proposition
that Willow Village was indeed
impoverished and could benefit
greatly from the grant via the
expansion and continuation of
Willow Run Association for Neigh-
borhood Development (WRAND).
Others abhorred the idea of being
classified "poverty stricken"-an
implication the grant carried.
This second troup formed such
organizations as REPLY (Return
Every Penny and Leave Ypsilanti)
and relished the confusion and
publicity.- that the controversy
drew. (The Willow Village con-
troversy has reached such publi-
cations as Pravda in Russia, the
New York Times, and nearly all
the local and state papers.)
THE PROJECT did move for-
ward, however, and with the fol-
lowing accomplishments:
-Partial refinishing of the
WRAND community center,' a
World War II schoolhouse built
for the children of bomber plant
workers and purchased by WRAND
in 1964 for $15,000 (without gov-
ernment funds).
-Recreational programs were
continued. Babe Ruth baseball
leagues were started before the
grant was received; however an
expansion into the areas of mod-
ern dancing, and other cultural
activities has been evident since
the administration of the grant.
-A Job Opportunities Center
program was effective last summer
in teaching skills to 15 youngsters.
-The people working toward
combating the social-cultural re-
tardation of the area have formed
a closely-knit and hard working
core who are delegated the re-
sponsibility of bestowing Willow
Village with a future for its less
priviledged citizens-a task al-
most unsurmountable in view of
recent developments.
AN UNFORTUNATE beginning
for this expansion process was the
original. petition for the poverty
grant. The report of the Univer-
sity's Institute of Labor-Industrial
Relations (ILIR) contained false
information. This fact was used
as amunition against the project
itself.
Mixed sentiment on the Univer-
sity's side marred the effectiveness
of ILIR support from the begin-
ning. (Was the project of this size
worth the bad reputation the Uni-
versity's ILIR was gaining, pri-
marily in light of its original ILIR
report?)
But the project moved forward,
slowly and pragmatically. (The
community survey to find out
"what the people wanted" was not
completed until this year because
of the intensity of the controversy
and the distortion of the issues.
Certain programs were obviously
needed, and these were started
last year, however.)
And the inevitable deadline
moved nearer. Would the Univer-
sity commit its resources for an-
other year after the contract ex-
pired in January of 1966? If the
University pulled out, would the
Office of Economic Opportunity
follow suit? A beginning had been
made. Could it be sustained?
These were the questions the
WRAND leaders had to deal with
as they went about the normal
functions of running a poverty
program and at the same time
stopping to answer busy reporters.
wanting to "get the other side of
the question."
THEN THE ANSWERS began to
fall last week.
January 25. 1966, the Univer-
sity released an official statement
that its ILIR ivould withdraw from
the Willow Village poverty pro-
gram in April of this year. A
spokesman from the University
said that the University's two
functions will be completed by
that time:
-To help the Willow Village
area get a start so it could even-
tually administer its own self-
help program, and
-To complete research on the
value of a self-help poverty pro-
gram.
The fact that the University
has achieved its goals is little con-
solation to the WRAND workers.
however, who look forward to the
withdrawal of the OEO in April
also.
If the OEO choses to continue
the grant for another year, it will
be through one or a combination
of three channels:
-Through the ILIR of Wayne
State University which was at least
nominally associated with the Uni-
versity's ILIR in this project,
-Through WRAND itself with-
out a sponsor, or
-Through a new "middle man"
not yet named.
BUT THE PROSPECTS are
dim. After all, Washington must
contend with other poverty areas
which ostensibly, perhaps, need
the money more. (James Reston
recently noted that the War on
Poverty is now taking a second
chair to the war in Viet Nam.
The programs in poverty have
been kept well below what Con-
gress authorized last year: Ap-
palachia down from $305 million
to $201 million and the new public
works , proposals for depressed
areas down from Congress' author-
ization of $760 million to the
President's proposal of $317 mil-
lion.
In addition to the limitations
on the national budget, Washing-
ton, also has taken the brunt of
much criticism for investing in a
program drawing this much con-
troversy.
The University has played a key
role in significantly diminishing,
if not eliminating, the possibility
of continuing the poverty pro-
gram in Willow Village,
The program has marked a be-
ginning, admittedly; and this with
the aid of the University.
But as long as the achievement
of "two goals" with a specific time
limit provides the guiding factor
for poverty programs such as this,
the result will be discouraging. An
understanding of what poverty is
and is not may be a lesson poverty
workers of the future may gain
from Willow Village.
WHEN A PROJECT of this
caliber and complexity is so rigidly
defined and limited both to time
and to specific goals, then better
it be left alone. Poverty untouched
is better than poverty stirred with
frustration.
i
Letters: Legal Aid Society and OEO
0
Dirksen Filibuster:
A Dangerous weapon
SENATE REPUBLICAN leader Everett
Dirksen's current filibuster against re-
peal of Section 14-B of the Taft-Hartley
Act is totally unjustified and quite dan-
gerous.
The repeal of 14-B, a move which would
prohibit state right to work laws, passed
the House but was voted down by the
Senate in the first session of this Con-
gress. It has passed the House again this
session and is now before the Senate
where the Dirksen-led filibuster of a
coalition of Republicans and conservative
Democrats is blocking action.
Senator Dirksen's tactics may be de-
signed either to keep administration sup-
port of the repeal bill in the public eye
or to buy time for behind-the-scenes
political maneuvering.
Editorial Staff
ROBERT JOHNSTON, Editor
LAURENCE KIRSHBAUM, Managing Editor
JUDITH FIELDS ................. Personnel Director
LAUREN BAHR ..,........ Associate Managing Editor
JUDITH WARREN ......,. Assistant Managing Editor
G AITBLUMBE G ... ......... Magasine Editor
TIOM WIEINBERG.................... Sports Editor
LLOYD GRAFF...... . ....Associate Sports Editor
PETER SARASOHN ..... Contributing Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Robert Carney, Clarence Fanto,
Mark Kiningsworth, John Meredith, Lenmard Pratt,
Harvey Wasserman, Bruce Wasserstein, Charlotte
Wolter,
DAY EDITORS: Babette Cohn, Michael Heffer, Merle
Jacob, Robert Moore, Roger Rapoport, Dick Wing-
field.
ASSISTANT NIGHT EDITORS: Alice Bloch, Deborah
Blum, Neal Bruss, Gail Jorgenson, Robert Kilvans,
Laurence Medow, Neil Shister, Joyce Winslow.
ASSISTANT DAY EDITORS: Richard Charin, Jane
Dreyfuss, Susan Elan, Shirley Rosick, Robert Shiller,
Alan Valusek.
SPORTS NIGHT EDITORS: Rick Feferman, Jim La-
A promise to bring about a repeal of
the right-to-work option was a plank of
the Democratic platform, and has stem-
med at least in part from widespread
union support for obvious reasons. But
the tag "compulsory unionism" has put
administration support of this bill in a
bad public light, and it would seem that
Dirksen is enjoying prolonging the agony.
THOUGH ADMINISTRATION leaders on
the floor of the Senate are at least 10
votes shy of the two-thirds majority need-
ed for cloture, they claim they have
enough votes to pass the repeal. Admin-
istration leaders made the same claim
last session, when the repeal failed to
pass the Senate.
The Dirksen filibuster is concurrently
seriously hampering the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee's investigation of
United States conduct in the Viet Nam
war, and thus is also slowing the move-
ment of that investigation to the floor
of the Senate itself. Herein lies the chief
publicity value of the Dirksen filibuster.
Thus Dirksen's motives for filibuster-
ing may be to gain time in a behind-the-
scenes political battle, or it may be that
he hopes to prolong an issue bound to
make its supporters progressively unpop-
ular with voters not already committed
to their side. Or it also may be that Dirk-
sen hopes to make the administration
withdraw the bill in the face of the
threat of a prolonged tie-up in Congress.
BUT WHATEVER Dirksen's motives, we
must take issue with his tactics, for a
filibuster in the face of a war issue is
quite a serious form of blackmail. In chal-
lenging majority leader Mansfield to
To the Editor:
I WAS VERY PLEASED to read
the editorial by Mark Killings-
worth in the January 20 edition
of The Daily. Mr. Killingsworth
has shown an appreciation for a
few of the problems which are
involved in conducting a compre-
hensive legal aid program and his
attempt to deal with these prob-
lems in an objective manner is
commendable. Because of the
shortness of time which is avail-
able to the student editor who is
seeking to obtain background ma-
terial for an editorial, it is clear
that some important facts were
not available to Mr. Killings-
worth at the time he wrote the
editorial. I feel that readers will
have an erroneous impression of
the situation if they judge it sole-
ly on the basis of such as incom-
plete and inaccurate exposition.
The Washtenaw County Legal
Aid Society is not a creature of
the "War Against Poverty." The
"War Against Poverty" is a re-
cent federal program which has
had no effect in Washtenaw Coun-
ty so far, and the first and only
program which has been imple-
mented solely as a result of its
sponsorship is a program for in-
creased action concerning planned
parenthood. The planned parent-
hood accelerated program did not
involve any requirement for con-
trol of the planned parenthood
board by the "poor." It only pro-
vided for "maximum feasible par-
ticipation by representatives of
the community or group to be
served" in extremely vague and
non-specific terms. Several other
limited programs are either with-
drawn or dormant.
Both Sargent Shriver and E.
Clintpn Bamberger haveddiscussed
the application of the federal stat-
utory language to legal aid pro-
grams on a number of occasions.
Both Shriver and Bamberger have
said on numerous occasions that
the legal aspect of the Office of
Economic Opportunity will be run
by the attorneys. The applicable
language in the Federal Econom-
ic Opportunity Act requires that
any program to be funded must
be ". . . developed, conducted and
administered with the maximum
feasible participation of residents
of the areas and members of the
groups served."
This is an important part of
the federal program, and there
are obvious reasons why many of
the various poverty activities
should make appropriate provi-
sions for such participation.
BAMBERGER, who is the na-
tional director of the Legal Serv-
ices Program, has suggested four
specific and individually accept-
able means by which this require-
ment can be met. Provision for
any one of the following is ade-
quate to meet the statutory re-
quirement. These include:
1) Representation of "areas"
and "groups" to be served on the
policy making and/or advisory
boards,
2) Generation of neighborhood
organizations which will "advise"
the policy making body of the
component agency,
3) Provision for regular public
meetings at which people or groups
from the areas or communities to
be served may appear to object
to hats o f l rn-'rn r,, p
ly stated purpose of the Board of
Trustees to generate and respond
to such neighborhood organiza-
tions. The Board of Trustees has
also provided that the advisory
committee is to consist entirely of
representatives of the poor from
three key areas of Washtenaw
County ,and this advisory com-
mittee will be selected by the
County OEO committee, will be
autonomous and self-perpetuating
and will have a right to partici-
pate and deliberate with the Board
of Trustees at all times. In addi-
tion, the bylaws of the Washtenaw
County Legal Aid Society provide
that at least one trustee must be
a representative of the need com-
munity (presently H. C. Curry)
and that the other community-at-
large trustee may also be such a
"representative" in the future. At
the present time one of the lawyer
members of the Board of Trustees
is a vice-president of the Ypsi-
lanti chapter of the NAACP, but
he is not considered by the Coun-
ty OEO to be a representative of
an area or group to be served.
AT THE TIME of the January
5 meeting of the County Com-
mittee of the OEO, it is noted by
the members of the County Com-
mittee that only three of their 26
members even came close to being
"representatives of the areas and
groups to be served," and in some
cases this was merely because of
membership in the local NAACP.
The County OEO has functioned
for a year with less representation
of the poor on its policy making
body than the legal aid society
had at the time it was being cri-
ticized by the same group.
Aside from the general lack of
specifics about the representation
question, however, there were some
other important facts which Mr.
Killingsworth omitted. The Wash-
tenaw County Bar Association has
furnished legal aid to the indi-
gent and the impoverished people
of this county for over a hun-
dred years. Because of the recent
involvement of increased numbers
of our less affluent citizens in
complex legal problems, the mem-
bers of the bar organized a spe-
cial study committee approxi-
mately five years ago to develop
a program of comprehensive legal
aid. This study program involv-
ed many concerned practicing at-
torneys and representatives of the
Law School, including former Dean
Allen Smith and acting Dean
Charles Joiner. The result of this
extensive study was a new ap-
proach to the legal aid function in
the state of Michigan. This' ap-
proach involved experienced prac-
ticing attorneys working with the
assistance and support of advanc-
ed law students with the work
load being assumed by the student
according to his ability and exper-
ience.
The initial report of the com-
prehensive legal aid proposal stim-
ulated active interest from the
practicing bar, the Law School
faculty and many concerned mem-
bers of the community at large.
In February, 1965, the prelimin-
a'y plan and suggested proced-
ures for the "full coverage" pro-
gram were presented to the law-
yers of the Washtenaw County
Bar Association at a full member-
ship meeting. After a vigorous and
extensive discussion, the members
clinic facility. Working in close
cooperation with faculty and stu-
dents of the Law School, the bar
membership obtained a new, court
rule from the Michigan Supreme
Court which provided for active
clinical participation by Law
School students in a legal aid pro-
gram. All preparations had been
completed for initiating the legal
aid clinic program by the summer
of 1965. Then it was discovered
that the new clinic would be ideal-
ly suited to the Community Ac-
tion Program which was being
studied by the newly organized
Washtenaw County Economic Op-
portunity {Committee. At the sug-
gestion of several members of
the bar and with the encourage-
ment of the members of the Coun-
ty Economic Opportunity Commit-
tee, the Board of Trustees of the
corporation authorized the presi-
dent to submit an application for
an Economic Opportunity grant
in the early summer of 1965. All
the initial paperwork which was
requested by the local OEO ad-
ministrators was given to them in
August 1965 and the enlarged full
coverage program of legal aid was
inaugurated with the assumption
that funds would soon be made
available to continue the work.
To this date the comprehensive
legal aid service has been main-
tained only by the means of ex-
tensive use of credit, voluntary
contributions of money and serv-
ice by bar members, active par-
ticipation by law students and
contributions f r o m concerned
members of the community at
large.
IT SHOULD BE noted that one
of the primary responsibilities of
the bar association is to make cer-
tain that "equal justice under the
law" is the same for all people
regardless of their affluence or
social position. No one was inter-
ested in helping the county bar
association meet this responsibil-
ity over the many many years of
voluntary legal aid in the past
until it suddenly appeared that a
more effective method was being
created for carrying out this func-
tion and that large amounts of
federal money could be made
available to provide that portion
of legal aid which can only be pro-
vided by the liberal use of cash.
It should further be made clear
that legal aid is a function and
a responsibility of the bar asso-
ciation as a professional group.
The fact that the OEO money
might help to make the full cov-
erage legal aid available to every-
one at an earlier date was not a
consideration when the lawyers
organized and instituted the new
clinic. If OEO funds are withheld
because the local conimittee does
not agree with the means which
have been provided for participa-
tion of the non-lawyers and the
representatives of the "poor," then
the bar association will go ahead
with its program on a curtailed
basis and try to usel other means
to raise the funds which are need-
ed. It is the declared intention
of the members of the bar asso,
ciation to provide for maximum
feasible participation by "repre-
sentatives of the area and groups"
to be served regardless of the
source of funds and regardless of
the size of the program. If OEO
support is withheld from this pro-
gressive and comprehensive legal
aid plan, the losers will be the poor
themselves, and a heavy burden of
responsibility will rest on their
"representatives" in the county
OEO.
THERE ARE obviously many
programs where policy decisions
can be made by the poor because
of the peculiar knowledge that the
poor have of the dynamics of
their problem and their ability
to identify their own "needs and
problems." But in the attorney-
client relationship, as far as the
attorney is concerned, the only
difference between a poor man and
a rich man at the bar of justice
is whether or not he can pay for
the legal advice and representa-
tion he needs. Other than that
one key factor, the goddess of jus-
tice is provided with the rest of
the equipment necessary to make
certain that justice is equal for
all. In this case, an attempt to
remove the lawyers from the po-
sition of prime responsibility for
this legal aid activity can only
result in the partial removal of
that blindfold from the eyes of
justice. If, on the other hand, we
are seeking something other than
a legal aid program for the poor,
then that would be a program
outside the knowledge or the func-
tion of the lawyers as a profes-
sional group. It twould not be
the program which is now under
consideration, which has been de-
veloped by the county bar over a
period of many years of furnish-
ing legal aid.
-John R. Hathaway, President
Washtenaw County Bar
Association
4
A
1964 War Resolution Outdated
IN SAYING that under the joint
resolution of Aug. 7, 1964, he has
full authority from Congress "to
take all necessary steps" in Viet
Nam, the President left himself in
the position of a man relying on
the letter of the bond, regardless
of what it meant at the time it
was written.
. There is no doubt that the lan-
guage of the resolution gives him
a blank check. But there is no
doubt, also, that when the blank
check was voted in August, 1964,
it was voted to a man engaged in
a campaign for the Presidency
against Sen. Barry Goldwater, who
was advocating substantially the
same military policy that Presi-
dent Johnson is now following.
Therefore, if laws are to be
interpreted in the light of their
legislative history, the President
is without legal and moral author-
ity *to fill in the blank check of
August, 1964, with whatever he
thinks he ought to do in 1966.
It is, of course, impossible to
rescind the resolution of August,
1964. But as a matter of fact the
actions of the administration go
far beyond the original meaning
of the resolution of 1964.
This is the positive reason why
the objectives and the conduct of
the greatly enlarged war should
be examined and debated before
we are led into a still greater war.
IT OUGHT NOT to be necessary
to press this point in a country
A ,-,ata.- t- nov,-,m n + y elut -
Tomorrow
By WAFTER LIPPMANN
blank check while many of those
who voted for it in 1964 now say
-and historically they are indub-
itably right-that the resolution
does not mean what the President
is making it mean in 1966.
It is also unwise to stretch the
letter of the law this way. For
the country is deeply and danger-
ously divided about the war in
Viet Nam, and in the trying days
to come this division will grow
deeper if the President rejects the
only method by which a free na-
tion can heal such a division-
responsible and informed debate.
There are two principal difficul-
ties in holding such a debate.
About one of these we hear a
great deal, namely that our ad-
versary will take heart from the
speeches and newspaper articles
and be confirmed in his view that
the United States will not stay
the course, but will pack up and
go home. Undoubtedly the dissent
here at home does give comfort
to the enemy abroad.
BUT THE REMEDY for this
disadvantage cannot be to silence
dienf_ Ft ore iss nent cannot hbe
stake. Although the Korean war
began under much better legal and
moral auspices than did our en-
tanglement in Viet Nam, the
American people came to hate the
Korean war.
The reason for that was that
they did not believe that the in-
terests of America in Korea on
the Asian mainland were great
enough to justify the casualties
that were being suffered.
THE OTHER principal difficulty
in uniting the country behind a
national purpose in Indochina is
that the President's diplomatic
advisers have never defined our
national purpose except in the
vaguest, most ambiguous general-
ities about aggression and freedom.
The country could be united--in
the preponderant mass - on a
policy which rested on a limited
strategy and on limited political
objectives. It cannot be united on
a policy of trading American lives
for Asian lives on the mainland
of Asia in order to make Gen. Ky
or his successor the ruler of all of
South Viet Nam.
The division of the country will
simply grow worse as the casual-
ties and the costs increase and the
attainment of our aims and the
end of the fighting continue to
guide us.
The revision of our policy in
Viet Nam - the revision of our
strategy and our political purposes
and plans - is the indispensable
condition of a really.united coun-
+ -a- -- 1 +fn trnu , tue
rI