Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIvERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
March 2: Partying-Around at SGC
1
re Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST. ANN APBOR, Micu.
'ruth Will Prevail
NErWs PHONE: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: JOHN MEREDITH
Random Conscription
Defeats Own Purpose
By LEONARD PRATT
Acting Associate Managing Editor
THERE IS a certain patent ab-
surdity in trying to operate
Student Government Council as
if it were a model of a civil politi-
cal system. And sometimes-as in
the SGC election that is rapidly
approaching-the absurd becomes
harmful and ought to be stopped.
It becomes harmful when the
election processes spawn "parties"
that have no political justification
and which only serve to confuse
the election issues. The prime
mover behind these "parties'"
creation is the wide-spread fiction
that SGC is somehow the repre-
sentative government of the Uni-
versity's student body. In fact it is
not: less than one-seventh of that
student body usually votes in elec-
tions and SGC certainly does not
have any powers that could in any
sense be called governmental.
In fact SGC might presently be
more profitably be regarded as a
service organization for the stu-
dents, working to, further the
"student interest" as its members
see it. This is far from an ideal
situation; it is, however, the fac-
tual situation.
THIS DICOTOMY between fact
and desire can easily result in a
great deal of 'agitation with very
few results if, as is so often the
case, it is not faced squarely. In
an election this lack of a realistic
approach to SGC is manifested by
the formation of "parties" urging
the election of particular people
for a slate-full of reasons.
Voice was the earliest of these
groups, but abandoned campus is-
sues in the fall of 1963. Group
was next, surrounded at the time
by other "political parties" that
were almost ad hoc in nature;
Group has been a more pragmatic
party than Voice was, working
with more immediate issues with
fewer ultimate goals in mind. Last
fall's creation of Reach political
party was the culmination of this
trend.
TO SAY THE LEAST, the Reach
machine was effective. It succeed-
ed in taking the campaign by
storm, putting three candidates
solidly in office largely on the
basis of vague and insubstantial
assurances.
The machine's results, however,
were far from the morass which
some predicted at the time. Many
Reach members have shown them-
selves to be energetic, adaptable
and realistic representatives of
the "student interest" as they un-
derstand it.
It must be admitted that the
Reach victory also brought with
it some of the most insubstantial
people SGC and its committees
have seen for a long time. Yet
taken as a whole, Reach's effects
have been profitable for SGC; the
good done by those Reach mem-
bers who recognized it outweighs
the harm done by those who have
not cared to do anything.
THERE IS, however, a great
danger here. For the Reach ma-
chine did not operate in a
vacuum: in the process of electing
three out of its four candidates,
it all but swallowed up two ex-
tremely capable incumbents. The
danger therefore is not that a
machine's candidates may not be
generally beneficial to SGC. It is
that in the election of those can-
didates of varying quality, excel-
lent potential council. members
may be ignored. because they are
members of a weaker nachine or
of no machine at all.
"Parties" are not only poten-
tially harmful to SGC, in that
voters become more impressed by
their images than by the quality of
the individuals for whom they are
voting. They are simply irrelevant.
They represent nothing more
than the social inclinations of par-
ticular groups, "liberals"' tending
to approve of Group and "con-
servatives" of Reach. But while
such inclinations toward "parties' "1
images are relevant to civil poli-
tics, they have nothing to do with
SGC and serve no function other
than to obtain votes for the
"parties" from the particular cam-
pus factions.
ISSUES WITH WHICH SGC is
faced-housing, economic welfare.
selection of the next President-
do not resolve themselves along
ideological lines. Participants in
the Student Housing Association,
for example, are members not be-
cause of their association with
Reach or Group, for SHA includes
both, but because of their 'interest
in the University's future and their
personal judgement.
What is important on SGC is
the personal qualities of the mem-
bers. Whether they support the
Young Americans for Freedom is
largely of no consequence.
It is really quite a simple matter.
Capable people will do a good
job, incompetart people will not.
Individuals should thus be elected
on their personal merit and upon
no other criteria.
THE PROBLEM with pretend-
ing that SGC is a model of a civil
political system-and so encourag-
ing the formation of "parties"
during elections-is that it ob-
scures these crucial personal cri-
teria and substitutes for them
standards which are irrelevant.
Some of the individuals who came
in with the Reach sweep are more
than sufficient testimony to the
sad results of this system.
And so the system ought to
change. What is basically needed
is a complete reanalysis of SGC's
campus role, a reanalysis cur-
rently being undertaken by the
Office of Student Affairs. But it
will be some time before that
analysis reaches any conclusions
at all, much less before its con-
clusions can be implemented.
Until that time SGC would be
well advised to promote election
rules that would minimize parties'
roles in elections. Expense rules
already exist but as Reach. proved
last fal they are easy enough 'to
get around.
WHAT IS NEEDED are rules
restricting the number of people
a candidate may enlist in his
support and the number of can-
didates who will be allowed to
run for office on the same ticket.
Such a step would go a long
way toward recognizing the reali-
tiac of SGC's campus role and
would help to ensure that the most
capable candidates would be
elected to carry it out.
4
A MOTION to be presented to the Senate
Advisory Committee on University Af-
fairs would request the government to use
a random method of selecting students
from the male college student body for
the draft.
Noting that "those from educationally
disadvantaged backgrounds tend to fall in
the lower end of the distribution of col-
lege grades," the faculty members who
proposed the motion are arguing against
the reinstatement of Korean War-type
guidelines-where students from the low-
er half of their classes were reclassified
I-A, subject to regaining their II-S de-
ferments by passing a national test.
The motion notes that such tests "re-
sult in relatively lower average scores
for people from lower class and educa-
tionally disadvantaged backgrounds than
for those whose homes and schools have
supported academic learning."
THE RESOLUTION calling for random
selection processes presumes that such
methods would not discriminate against
the students from the lower socio-eco-
nomic strata as the process of selection
on grade point average, class standIings
and test scores presumably does. (Lower
strata refers to students from families in
the lower middle class income bracket,
since with few exceptions, very few chil-
dren from lower class families go to uni-
versities.)
Leaving aside for the moment the ques-
tion of whether or not there is a valid
correlation between pre-college educa-
tional and socio-economic background
and college academic attainment, one
can see that a system of random selec-
tion would not straighten out any biases
that presumably exist against such stu-
dents.
RATHER, random selection would tend
to draw from the lower strata a great-
er proporldon of students as a whole than
would a system of drafting from the bot-
tom half of each class at every univer-
sity, college, and junior college across
the country.
Again assuming that the proponents
of random selection are correct in corre-
lating background and academic attain-
ment, it can be seen that:
" Higher educational institutes - at
which the lower half of the class stand-
ings contain some lower strata students
and the remainder of the lower and up-
per half are higher strata students-are
far outnumbered by the lower status in-
stitutes, most of which have a large per-
centage of lower strata students in both
halves.
* Drafting off the bottom of each class
at every university would certainly take
most, if not all, of the lower strata stu-
dents from the upper status schools. In
the lower status schools, the draftees
would also be lower strata students, but
the persons in the upper half of the
classes at these schools (who would not
be required to take the national test)
would also be mainly lower strata stu-
dents.
A Under random selection, students
from any socio-economic background
would be subject to drafting. The advan-
tage of draft exemption which lower stra-
ta students in the upper ranks of lower
status schools had would disappear. A
much larger proportion of lower strata
students over the entire country (while
not at the University) would be tapped
under random selection than under Ko-
rean War-type selection.
Under non-random selection processes
where upper strata students are presum-
ed to be more likely to pass the national
test, this variable would be mitigated by
the large proportion of lower strata stu-
dents in the upper half of their class at
lower status institutions who are not re-
quired to take the test.
TWO FURTHER arguments against the
use of random sample are: the possi-
bility that under probability laws stu-
dents might be drafted disproportionate-
ly from one stratum than from another;
and there is no fully substantiated evi-
dence that low academic achievement
correlates to poor background.
Thus if the proponents of random se-
lection would consider carefully the con-
sequences of such a program, they might
see the possibility of entrenching the
very discrimination they seek to erase.
-DAVID KNOKE
0
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Regent Murphy Prpaises Hatcher Speech
4
To the Editor:
EDITOR Mark R. Killingsworth's
editorial of Sunday ("Hatcher
Merits Raise for Viet Nam Re-
marks") stated that President
Hatcher's remarks on Viet Nam
will confront him with "a torrent
of criticism and abuse."
As one Regent, let me hasten
to say that he will have my full
approval and support.
During the past seven years the
Regents have acted and spoken
at all times to protect and en-
courage the rights of free speech
and inquiry on our campus.
THE FACT THAT President
Hatcher holds as inviolable his
own right to speak his conscience
on the most critical issue of our
day is proof of the climate that
we have fostered.
As a woman I could not now
vote or hold public office if dis-
senters had not faced "torrents of
criticism and abuse" over a 55 year
period until the 19th Amendment
was ratified into our Constitution
in 1920.
Freedom of speech, conscience
and inquiry are the magic
strengths of our democracy.
I AM PROUD that President
Hatcher practices his rights as a
citizen in our democracy.
-Regent Irene E. Murphy
Jack Vaughn
To the Editor:
MR. JACK H. VAUGHN'S "pol-
icy" address at the Union
yesterday pointed, indirectly but
unmistakably, to the hazards
which lie in the path of the Peace
Corps. The Peace Corps, old as it
is, still needs definition. Mr.
Vaughn failed to help much. He
did seem to suggest that the word
"revolution" is now respectable
in Washington. At any rate he
used it a lot.
One expects, though, that Wash-
ington's real appetite for revolu-
tion was displayed in the Santo
Domingo crisis. He also used the
word "peace"-to which, somehow,
there was a hollow ring. He disap-
pointed many who expected a
thoughtful and positive formula-
tion of policy instead of a pasteup
of platitudes and Kennedy quotes.
Jack H. Vaughn himself exem-
plifies one problem which the
Peace Corps must surmount. He
rose through the information and
aid programs, went into Peace
Corps, then ascended to Ambas-
sadorial and Assistant Secretary
rank in the Department of State.
He is, as he himself confirmed, a
bureaucrat.
PERHAPS there is some value
in looking at thermeasure of suc-
cess enjoyed by the Alliance for
Progress, of which Vaughn was ad-
ministrator, which defined its mis-
sion in phrases that we heard
again yesterday-phrases liberally
seeded with that word, "revolu-
tion."
How far, we may ask, can an
arm of the U.S. government, an
instrument of foreign policy, carry
the work of change in other lands?
The Alliance for Progress is, like
the Peace Corps, such an instru-
ment of foreign policy.
Mr. Vaughn has served with
State. with the Alliance and with
the Peace Corps. His career In-
dicates how closely tied these are.
It remains only to inquire if the
Peace Corps might preserve its
independence from the policies
and ultimate control of State,
IT MIGHT if it were separately
organized-but it is not. It might
if it were staffed and directed by
men independent of the State
Department establishment. Mr.
Vaughn's appointment seems to
confirm the subjection of Peace
Corps to Foggy Bottom. It is not
difficult to posit situations which
will find Peace Corps and its
goals in conflict with the policies
of State.
Mr. Vaughn realizes that "revo-
lution" is the task for the Peace
Corps. But if he had been entirely
frank would he not have admitted
that so long as Peace Corps is an
arm of the State Department and
so long as it is directed by Wash-
ingtonsbureaucrats it cannot take
on this task wholeheartedly and
push to its conclusion?
The Peace Corps, both in its
original conception and in its
worked-out reality, requires a
scope for its aims and methods
which is not circumscribed by
official policies; a staff which does
not look for promotion into the
State or other departments and
a new, independent status in host
countries. It is not enough to be
informal-Peace Corps also be un-
official.
THERE ARE at least some who
think, as I do, that what Peace
Corps can be and ought to be has
not as yet been attained. Image-
manship and its suggestive vocab-
ulary ("revolution") still persist,
but they cannot obscure the fact
that if Peace Corps is to serve the
widest and most genuinely hu-
manitarian ends and attack the
truly fundamental problems of the
underdeveloped world it needs its
independence.
--Roger M. Leed, '6'7L
former PCV, Nigeria
British Education
To the Editor:
ALTHOUGH AGREEING with
with. much; of what Professor
Allen said when comparing British
and American higher education
in a recent letter to The Daily,
we feel that the following points
should be made somewhat clearer:
Firstly, there is none of this sad
and disturbing scrabble for "grade
points" in England, and the uni-
versities are less like "degree fac-
tories" than here. Since the Brit-
ish student generally studies his
own subject alone for three years,
it seems likely that he will have
a greater and deeper knowledge
than his American counterpart,
who has spent only two years in
specialization, and who, even at
the Master's level in the Human-
ities is required to take a cognate
subject of study.
Whether or not the system of
finals, covering nearly all of three
years' work, be satisfactory, it
does ensure that the subject is
seen as a whole; relations and
comparisons are more easily seen,
and the grade system, leading to
preoccupation with semester aver-
ages and piecemeal, often discon-
nected, knowledge is avoided.
SECONDLY, there is a differ-
ence in the standard of the first
degrees. Large "Masters" schools
do not exist in England because
much of the work has already
been covered in the Bachelor's de-
gree, and it would seem that most
of the work that is done during
the first year or so of university
in the U.S., is done in the 6th
form at'school in England. More-
over it should be emphasized that
masters and doctor's degrees-for-
getting the MA (Oxon. or Cantab.)
-consist almost entirely of re-
search, with little or no "course
work."
This means, for example, that a.
British experimental scientific
PhD, having been obtained be-
tween, 3 and 4 years after the
bachelor's degree, consists of far
more time actually spent in the
laboratory than the American
counterpart.
It would seem incidentally that
the preliminary exam for the PhD
here, aims at much the same kind
of comprehensive grasp of the sub-
ject as does the British bachelor's
examination. The American mas-
ter's degree in some cases may
have covered more work than the
British bachelor's, but has taken
that many more years to obtain.
The assignment of regular read-
ings in the humanities and the
closely-regulated system of work
given the American undergraduate
tends to discourage original
thought and planning. Decisions
and critical comparisons which
should be left to the student- as
part of his academic development
are provided too rigidly by the
lecturer, and there is far less
freedom of choice to study those
subjects which interest the in-
dividual most.
WE ARE NOT sure what Pro-
fessor Allen means when he talks
of the "homogeneity" of the Brit-
ish population. Isn't more "literary
style" the result of stricter school-
ing in writing at an early age,
rather than a social situation?
There are no "freshman English"
classes in British universities!
The occasion of the whole thing
was the book "Treason" and
whether it should have been burn-
ed. Each contributor on this issue
made a point of taking a few shots
at the John Birch Society. It was
obvious that they knew little about
the society.
I have been a member of the
societyfor the lastyear and a
half; I feel it is the finest non-
religious organization in the world
and I am proud to be a member.
To answer all of. the attacks on
the society would probably be a
waste of time,kmainly because few
of those making 'these attacks
seem to have any real concern for
the facts. However, I would like to
make a few comments on Mr.
Kane's letter of 2/27/66.
HE QUOTES the sentence from
"The Politician" in which Mr.
Welch calls Eisenhower a com-
munist. He ignores an earlier sen-
tence (in the Prologue, p. X)
where Mr.* Welch is discussing
attacks on the society based on
"The Politician": "Despite the fact
that the manuscript was no part
of the materials or beliefs of The
John Birch Society, and had been
specifically disavowed at the
founding meeting of the society,
the leaders of the left made it the
core of their first huge smear
campaign against the society as
well as myself."
Mr. Kane should have read the
entire book. Not only would there
have been the chance. that he
might have learned something, but
he would also have been saved the
embarrassment of making ground-
less charges. Logic lesson for to-
day: "The Politician" has no con-
nection with the John Birch Son
ciety; Mr. Van Egmond does not
either. Therefore, Mr. Van Eg-
mond is responsible for every
statement in "The Politician."
Is the society "democratic?" No.
Nor is either the Catholic Church
or the University. These are better
than democracies; they are volun-
tary organizations which a per-
son can leave at any time. Any
time one is unhappy with the so-
ciety, he can quit. Being able to
vote with one's feet has always
been more effective than the bal-
lot box.
MR. KANE also makes the state-
ment that communism "has goals
equal or superior to those of De-
mocracy." This is, of course, in
line with his earlier concern for
the facts.
-Walter W. Broad, '66E
Winter Weekend Good-
But Not Perfect
i
TuE ORGANIZATION of an all-campus
weekend is a mammoth task. The in-
dividuals working on the Central Com-
°mittee put in countless hours in an ef-
fort to provide Michigan with a weekend
that would be remembered.
After starting with an intriguing theme
there were a series of mistakes, mishaps,
misunderstandings,- and mis-statements
that marred what could have possibly
been one of the best "big" weekends the
campus has seen in years. Perhaps next
year's Central Committee will find it pos-
sible to avoid the following:
FIRST, THERE ALWAYS seemed to be
overtones of UAC fund-raising in the
prices charged for admission and in the
expenditures for prizes and entertain-
ment. The Saturday night prizes consist-
ed of horrendous coasters covered with
advertising, green plastic shalt shakers,
wooden whistles, and paper fans (that
really went fast, according to one central
committeeman). Unfortunately, none of
these "prizes" could ever become a treas-
ured momento of the occasion.
Part of the problem in the prize budget
occurred because of a change in the num-
ber of each type of booth to be construct-
ed in the IM Building. When petitions
for booths were being accepted the Cen-
tral Committee announced that there
would be five skill, four entertainment,
Acting Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINGswORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor
CLARENCE FANTO HARVEY WASSERMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
JOHN MEREDITH.......Associate Managing Editor
and one refreshment; however, when the
petitions were approved there turned out
to be eight skill, one entertainment, and
one refreshment booth.
THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE made a
pronouncement that there would be a
panel of judges for all events; however,
there was only one judge for the ice
carving contests, a contest which led to
some very bitter feelings by the partici-
pants. Here was one case where the Cen-
tral Committee, in retrospect, must have
wished that they had done what they
started out to do.
It also should be noted that there
were approximately 160 eggs left over
from the egg toss, but contrary to the
Econ. 101 theory that guns can be sub-
stitutes for butter, eggs are not substi-
tutes for ice picks.
Thus there was a judging problem when
it was found that the ice carving chair-
man turned up with insufficient ice picks
for the participating houses so that one
group was forced to start an hour late.
SPECTATORS and housing units found
that nothing seemed to get started on
time, and that once the contests did get
started, twice two events started simul-
taneously. The intriguing egg toss and the
"exotic animal race" (won by a pig), and
the dance contest and the "Treasure
Hunt" each overlapped.
The Central Committee announced that
there was a budget of $200 for the con-
struction of a booth; however, this was
never enforced at all, and the very pres-
ence of a limit simply forced students to
be devious in the ways that they obtained
materials for their booths. No itemized
statements of expenditures were required,
and alumni "donations" which ranged up
to Qonn ...n.nllrmy..rl
-A. G. Atkins
guest lecturer
engineering
S. Foster
in mechanical
1'.
i
i zc
, x
:.
,"
, ;, E
- ...;z 1
x '
.
.r.,,v'."'
'Treason'
To the Editor:
HERE IS nothing more amus-
ing than watching an earnest
debate in which it is obvious that
none of the participants know
what they are talking about. I
am referring to the recent dis-
cussion of the John Birch Society
in your columns.
of
Fuq.
Schutze:None Dare Call
Them Water Babies
SOMEONE CALLED Warren Van
Egmond submitted a letter to
the Daily recently in which he at-
tacked an attack on Stormer's
None Dare Call It Treason (an at-
tack on the leftist attack on Amer-
ican political morality).
Three attacks ago, an article ap-
peared in the Daily pointing out
that Stormer's book is based on a
pack of. . . ill-documented sources.
Warren Van Egmond, who distrib-
uted ten thousand copies of the.. .
ill-documented work. . . on this
campus, objected to the Daily's
perverse obsession with reality.
After steadfastly refusing to be
drawn into "an item by item de-
fense" of Stormer's 818 references,
Van Egmond assured all concern-
ei +ha+ "Mr Stomer ha h'en at-
in our increasingly empirical cul-
ture, good men fail to come to the
defense of artistic fantasy. Mr.
Stormer owes his best Sunday
gratitude to Van Egmond who was
the. first conservative thinker im-
aginitive enough' to defend None
Dare Call It Reason as a novel.
From now on, "None Dare" will
stand next to Winnie the Pooh,
Alice In Wonderland, Water Ba-
bies, and Wind In the Willows as
one of the most delightful adven-
tures in make-believe known to
the English language.
Perhaps Mr. Stormer will be in-
spired by Van Egmond's approach
to write a sequel to "Treason."
"Eisenhower of Toad Hall, a Con-
scious Tool of the Rat Conspiracy"
41
i
f! -b"R.WK 1 AK
I