Seventy-Sixth Year EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN r- UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS f and Education Tax-Credi~t Plan Misses the Boat yPOETRY by MARK R. KILLI NGSWORTH S AS .m.,":Y t ,. : .5.r.."S t :;: 5 :...,. ons Are Free. 420 MAYNARD ST.. ANN AR.BOR, MICH. ill Prevail NEws 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. ESDAY, MARCH 8, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: CLARENCE FANTO NIDEA Reversal: Better Late .. . THE JOHNSON administration's rever- sal of policy on student higher educa- tion loans is a welcome, if somewhat over- due, development. Until the President's message to Con- gress on March 1, it appeared that there would be no viable federal student loan prog 'am for the 1966-67 academic year. On Jan. 8, President Johnson proposed that the federally-financed NDEA student loan program be transferred to a new fed- erally-guaranteed program established under the Higher Education Act of 1965. The proposal caught University loan ad- ministrators by surprise, for they had been led to believe through November and December by Office of Education officials that the NDEA program would be contin- ued. Loan administrators here and through- out the country were then faced with the, impossible task of changing state laws to meet with federal requirements for the new program, submitting their programs to Washington, and hoping against all odds that banks would comply. The task was an impossible one, and without the reversal in plans announced by the President last week, many pro- grams (including the University's which had to be settled by April) would have been washed out. - THIS ENTIRE MESS could have been averted by planning and foresight on the part of the federal Office of Educa- tion and President Johnson's budget plan- ners. The Office of Education should have realized that a program which requires the cooperation of 50 state governments, hundreds of universities and colleges and countless financial institutions cannot be set up in a period of three or four months, even if the groundwork has been ade- quately prepared (which it wasn't). Acting Editorial Staff MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH, Editor BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor CLARENCE PANTO HARVEY WASSERMAN Managing Editor Editorial Director JOHN MEREDITH.......Associate Managing Editor LEONARD PRATT ........Associate Managing Editor BABETTE COHN............Personnel Director CHARLOTTE WOLJTER .... Associate,-Editoral Director ROBERT CARNEY.......Associate Editorial Director ROBERT MOORE..... ..... Magazine Editor Acting Business Staff SUSAN PERLSTADT, Business Manager JEFFREY LEEDS.......Associate Business Manager HARRY BLOCH...............Advertising Manager STEVEN LOEWENTHAL.........Circulation Manager ELIZABETH RHEIN.............Personnel Director VICTOR PTASZNIK ..............Finance Manager Subscription rate: $4.50 semester by carrier t$5 by mai; $8 yearly by carrier ($9 by maill Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. Mich Any success would have required an ex- tensive campaign to educate banks and assure their participation. It would also provide ample time for the individual states to set up their mechanisms for the administration of the program. THIS WAS NOT DONE. The banks, not educated or really encouraged to co- operate, failed to come through. The Michigan proposal for administration of the new loans remained stalled in the Washington Office of Education. The re- sult was chaos. The plan now proposed, although it calls for a cut of nearly $30 million in NDEA funds, is quite sensible and is clear- ly what should have been done in the first place. The NDEA will still be phased out, but will remain substantially intact through the 1966 fiscal year, with prep- aration for elimination by 1967. In the interim, both the NDEA and the federally-guaranteed loan programs will be in effect. Students who can secure loans under the new program are encour- aged to do so. JNCLUDED IN THE BILL appropriating NDEA funds is a provision to include the debt retirement clause of the NDEA in the new loans. Under the clause, NDEA debtors who went into secondary or ele- mentary teaching had the principal of their loans retired at a rate of 10 per cent per year, for up to five years. Thus, a borrower who taught for five years would only have to repay half of the amount he borrowed. This provision will continue to provide a valuable in- centive for entering the teaching profes- sion. This provision, too, should have been included in the original proposal. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) represents one of the most thoroughly professional divi- sions of the Johnson administration. John Gardner, HEW secretary, and Francis Keppel, former commissioner of educa- tion, now assistant secretary, are both professional educators. IT IS DIFFICULT to imagine how they could have allowed such a near-disaster to occur. One suggestion is that in the face of ever increasing expenditures for Viet Nam and the general tightening of money in Washington, the NDEA was hastily scrap- ped in favor of the much cheaper guar- anteed ,loan program, perhaps over the objections of the Office of Education. Only pressure from loan administrators, concerned congressmen and possibly President Johnson's oft-expressed desire to be remembered as the "education Pres- ident" prevented the sacrifice. -STEVE WILDSTROM THE SENATE will vote this week on a plan offered by Senator Ribicoff of Connecticut to provide income-tax credits for parents and others who pay college students' education. The, plan-cosponsored by such 'odd and disparate Senators as Hart and McNamara of Michigan, Thurmond of South Carolina and Scott of Pennsylvania, Case of New Jersey and Dodd of Con- necticut-is an outstanding illus- stration of all that is wrong with current thinking about how to get more children into school. The tax-credit gimmick, accord- ing to Ribicoff, is supposed to provide "tax relief to ea-, the heavy burden of college costs." A noble objective-but it ignores the central problem of this uni- versity and all others: it is middle class. This, not the idea of "tax relief," is the major socio- economic issue the American uni- ' versity must consider today. FOR MONEY, not talent, seems to be a major road to college. A 1960 national survey showed that nearly half the children of white- collar workers in the bottom half of their high-school class went to college; while only about 17' per cent of blue collar workers' chil- dren in the bottom half of their L n7dsajy THE COURSE which M a y o r John Lindsay is compelled to take in New York City is diffi- cult, but unavoidable and indis- pensable. He has to find more money and to impose new taxes. Had he been a slick politician he would have announced the in- come tax and other taxes very soon after he was inaugurated. For in principle it was just as clear then as it is now that this would be necessary, and he might have gained the political advant- age of making it plainer to every- one that he was using the bitter medicine to cure a disease he has inherited. Likewise, he could also have asked for an increase in the sub- way fare the day after the settle- ment of the subway strike under the onerous terms imposed by the Quill union. HE HAS CHOSEN instead to forego political cunning and to proceed deliberately and without melodrama. For the city's fi- nances, he is following in sub- stance, though not in detail, the recommendations of the tempor- ary Commission on City Finances, a non-partisan group of bankers, businessmen and experts in pub- lic administration, which was ap- pointed by MayorRobert Wagner in 1963. On Nov. 30, a month be- fore Mayor Lindsay was inaugu- rated, the commission issued its second interim report. high school class were able to. Nearly three quarters of white- collar workers' children in the upper half of their high-school class went to college; only 42 per cent of blue-collar workers' chil- dren could. INDEED, Victor Ashe, a writer for the Yale Daily News, who re- cently wrote a column favoring the tax credit plan, did a better job destroying one's faith in the plan as a way to end the middle-class university than most of its critics. Although some have charged that the tax-credit plan gives no relief for those with no taxable income, he said that "a recent survey at the University of California found that only five per cent of the parents reported an income of $4000 or less." In short, when-as a survey has shown-40 per cent of students at universities like Michigan State are driving automobiles to class, it seems slightly foolish to talk about "tax relief" to "ease the heavy burden of college costs." What is necessary, instead, is an attack on the middle-class uni- versity. Why? There is, to be sure, noth- ing "wrong" with being middle class; and to call the University a "middle-class university" suggests nothing evil about the bourgeoisie or the Puritan ethic. There are, however, two things wrong with the middle-class uni- versity. First, when the average income of a University student's parents is between $13,000 and $22,000 (the figures are hazy but at least indicative), it is obvious that higher education is no longer based on ability-but ability to pay. SECOND, when there are ap- parently more students from In- dia on this campus than there are American Negroes, one wonders how accurate an impression of America that Indian gets. "De- prived neighborhoods" and "de- prived children" exist not only in Harlem or the South Side; they exist in Grosse Pointe and Glencoe -and Ann Arbor-as well. The reasons for the middle- class university are not at all obvious-which is perhaps why misguided plans like the Ribicoff tax-credit proposal are continually offered. Environment is a key factor usually forgotten by such proposals: it is an environment which robs the student of motiva- tion and information essential for admission to college and deprives, him utterly of the resources- educational and financial-neces- sary for him to stay there. Thus proposals like the Ribicoff plan do little or nothing to expand educational democracy - to make ability, not ability to pay, the major reason why a student is in college. THIS PARTICULAR proposal provides for a maximum $325 credit against one's income tax; it seems fairly clear that an out- right grant of $325 to a student struggling through Harlem or cen- tral Detroit is going to be mean- ingless. The argument over high college fees is equally murky. It is true that the University's costs for tui- tion, room and board are now the highest of the state's colleges and universities.' But it is probably just as true that they could be doubled-or halved, for that matter-and still have little effect on educational democracy, on the income break- down of University students. THE BOOKSTORE ISSUE is a case in point. Ann Arbor mer- chants are doubtless bleeding stu- dents dry. But- one wonders, re-' gardless, what i saving of say $20 annually on books is going to mean to the average high-school senior in Chicago's South Side. Such a saving is. to say the least, marginal. Despite what seems an incred- ible lack of awareness of how to go about attacking the middle- class 'university problem. there are a few signs that the Univer- sity has at least a glimmer of the right idea. Its Opportunity Awards Pro- gram, for example, attacks not only the problem of good students with law family income, but also attacks their environmental prob- lems-by stressing active recruit- ment and counseling as well as the usual financial aid. Although the administration at first didn't want to spend the money, it now seems ready to expand the pro- gram. "The bookstore issue isn't dead," John Feldkamp, Vice-President Cutler's assistant, told SGC some time ago. "There will be a lot of things coming out of it." WHEN ONE CONTRASTS the $90.000 allotted for the Oppor- tunity Awards Program with the $7.9 billion in total University stu- dent aid and grants, he can only hope the changes Feldkamp hinted at will come soon. 0 I' A9 Tax Plan Po inis. Way for Cities The crux of the city's financial trouble is that during the past 10 years expenses have gone up 123 per cent while its income from taxes has gone up only 74 per cent. This gap, which is sure to grow wider, will not in the im- mediate and foreseeable future be closed by substantial increases of state and federal aid. Nor can it be closed by reducing expenses. For while there can and should be some reforms and eco- nomies, as the temporary com- mission points out, they cannot be great enough to close the gap. The big and essential expendi- tures for the police, education, housing and welfare cannot be cut substantially. Like every other big city in the country, New York must spend more and more be- cause of the growing needs of its growing population. These big cities are the focal points of great changes in the American way of life. They are compelling the governments of the cities to spend more and more, to tax more and more and to seek more and more federal and state aid. FIRST AND foremost among these great changes there is the migration of the rural poor to urban centers. In New York City this rural migration is preponder- antly Negro and Puerto Rican. Then there is, especially in the older cities like New York, the obsolescence of the principal fa- oday Tomorrow' By WALTER LIPPMANN cilities-the aging factories which. provide employment, the slums where there should be decent housing, the congested streets, the inadequate hospitals, the insuffi- cient transit, the overcrowded schools, the rundown and crowded school buildings. Then there is the growing ap- petite of Americans for more and better services - better education, medical care and the like. A greater and greater proportion of Americans are living in the cities, and so the fact of the matter is that a decent society-let alone a Great Society - will have to be constructed there. For ,the near future certain propositions are given and fixed. The great urban conglomerations, of which New York City is the biggest, will continue to grow, to become more congested, to require more public facilities and more public services and to cost more money. IN THE LONG run the nation will have to make greater contri- butions to the states and the cities. It will have to share its tax surpluses with the hard-pressed states and the cities. But this will not be soon, not only because there is a war but because the urban populations do not yet have the political power and influence in the federal government which their numbers would call for. So New York City must itself find more money. By what means? The gap between income and out- go is $600 million. Further bor- rowing for current expenses would be disastrous, if indeed it is pos- sible. Already 14 per cent of -the city's budget goes to interest on the debt of the expense budget. To find $600 million per year of new revenue-more than the biennial budget of many states- one has to look to broadly based taxes. Other taxes do not produce sufficient revenue. New York'City now has three broadly based taxes: real estate, business and a sales tax. The real estate tax may be raised next year, the legislature and the voters willing, but the proposed increase will bring in only $250-275 million. And the real estate tax already constitu- tes a 25 per cent tax on spending on housing. It is a regressive tax in that it taxes the poor, who must spend a larger proportion of their income on rent, more heav- ily than it taxes the rich. So the utility of the real estate tax as a source of new revenue is very limited. New York City already has a sales tax, which when combined with the New York State sales tax is 5 per cent. So high a tax is charged nowhere else in the country except in Pennsylvania and a few counties in Alabama. Business taxes, now relatively high and very uneven, need to be reformed to encourage a healthier city economy, but they cannot be made to bring in substantially more revenue'without destroying the city's ability to compete with other areas. Thus, Mayor Lindsay arrives in- escapably at the only broadly based tax which the city has not used: the personal income tax. The arguments for imposing this tax are well made by the tempor- ary commission: (1) A city income tax can contribute an element of "progressivity" to a city tax sys- tem; (2) A city income tax would be highly responsive to economic growth-more so than any exist- ing city tax; (3) The income tax is one of the few means available to the city with which to tab the total stream of income generated by the city's economy. IN THE NEAR future, therefore. cities like New York; will have to do what Mayor Lindsay is propos- ing to do. They will have to tax themselves more and more in new ways for the facilities and services which are indispensable to them. (c), 1966, The washington Post Co 4 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Pro and Con on Angell's Draft Proposal e__ . - - , 4.- --CL - To the Editor:- FEW, I THINK, would quarrel with the resolution, put for- ward by Prof. Angell and others, that the College of LS&A condemn the impressment of its weaker students and endorse the principle of random draft. The Angell Resolution appears to rest on two assumptions 1) that the University is an educational enterprise whose orderly processes and morale will be subverted by the latest Selective Service de- cree and 2) that the University is a long-recognized agent of social mobility (Northwest Ordinance etc.) whose function as such will be twisted into the opposite one of locking its students into their social origins. -1 '.5' 7 I To these cogent arguments I would add a third-public ethics. Whenever it is proposed that the University take a moral stand, many of us figet. We brood about separation of church, or con- science, and state; we wonder if the qualities of a person. if, in an institution can really assume short, a public university should or can be a moral agent. FORTUNATELY, in the case be- fore us, a decree without precedent should close our ranks, for the University, which has hitherto en- joyed a dubious ethical neutrality, is about to be enlisted in the serv- ice of public immorality: it is be- ing sucked into the stream of ethical action whether it likes it or not. Our response seems clear. Whether we view ours as a secular culture or as one formed by west- ern riligions, the answer is the same: men stand equal before the law and before God, or if you prefer, before death. Tough the democratic state superiniposed on this culture allows the blessings of aristocratic values in our pri- equally on every physically eligible national, in school or out, male or female. Any "improvement" of this harsh axiom must at least be the outcome of thoroughly de- bated congressional action. Bureaucratic fiat husbanding intellectually "pure" gene-pools or mounting an "efficient" war effort (in peacetime) is simply not the way for a civilized democracy, delicately balancing public and private engagement, to go about its business. THE UNIVERSITY cannot col- lude in this sorry mess. It must stand firm, take the matter to the courts, hope for a sane law ul- timately from Congress. -E. A. Wunsch lecturer in English Stickling To the Editor: LET'S SEE if the proponents of random drafting of college stulents aren't stickling on a point that wisdom suggests we pass by. So let's admit for now that the policy of drafting the lower half of a college classactually does discriminate against students from low-income ' families. Then we ask, is this discrimina- tion sufficient reason to scrap the policy, or is it possible that the policy so well serves nationally- defined goals that the unfairness is a trifling consideration? I think it is clear that to dis- credit Hershey's policy one must do more than simply show it is unfair. The unfairness may simply be one of the inconveniences we must put up with if we are to have an active foreign policy. TO DISCREDIT the practice of drafting the less successful stu- dents, one must establish either and 1970's. From the looks of them, both of these positions would be very difficult to argue. The question of discriminating on the basis of family income is a red herring. If discriminating ac- cording to probable competence serves nationally-defined goals, and if there is a correlation be- tween probable competence and family income, then very well, discrimination which parallels lines of family income serves na- tional goals. THE OBSERVATION that stu- dents from poor families can't help being poorly prepared to do college work is as relevant to the efficient use of manpower as is the complaint that all potential draftees can't help being male. Where does this leave us? We see the present draft policy as a reasonable and efficient auxiliary to a foreign policy which contemplates frequent and sub- stantial commitments of American troops abroad. But perhaps this kind of foreign policy is not the best. And perhaps emphasizing the discrimination will stir up some students against our foreign policy or against the draft itself. THAT'S ALL to the good. But perfect and unbending fairness is a clumsy goal to urge on any nation. Sometimes considerations of efficiency and economy earn priority. -Craig Colby, '66 No Thanks To the, Editor: T HE SELECTIVE SERVICE plan of Professor Angell and his col- leagues is unfortunately quite un- realistic. Admittedly the testing system somewhat favors the upper and middle class student. to allow the proven unproductive student a chance to remain. AS ONE of those lower class students trying to get ahead, I think could do very nicely with- out Professor Angell's assistance. -Robert A. Simpson, '67 -Erwin Johnson, '67E. --Thomas E. Lipps '67E Unjustified To the Editor: I HAVE a few comments and questions concerning the new resolution by Prof. Angell about a new Selective Service deferment policy. As I understand from The Daily article, the faculty sponsors claim that the new deferment pol- icy 'penalizes students from lower socio-economic strata and places a false emphasis on the mere at- tainment of grades.' Although I agree that the Se- lective Service is itself discrimin- atory against the lower socio- economic strata and that college deferment itself is an example of such discrimination, I do not see how the faculty-sponsored resolu- tion is any more justified than the other for selection of students from the University. If a system based on class stand- ing discriminates against the low- er. socio-economic strata, where is the evidence that these students get poorer grades than, others? Taking from my own limited ex- perience, I have found that the students who have gotten scholar- ships because of need and intelli- gence, and other students who have had to work to stay in school have done very well. OF COURSE I have known oth- ers who haven't done well, but it seems to me that the reason for doing poorly in these cases was due more to lack of interest in 4: War Morality u , ; - f : not believe that there is a com- plete inverse relationship between a desire for knowledge and a grade point average given the sensitivity of educators and stu- dent to this problem. If a system of selection based on class standing is not justified, how is one based on random se- lection justified? Is it more just to select out any student of this institution regardless of his aca- demic interest in it? Is it more justifiable to ran- domly select out a student who may have a greater interest in the academic opportunities of the University regardless of his socio- economic strata than a student who may have more interest in social life? I AGREE THAT discrimination of any sort is a touch subject and hard to justify, but that does not make random selection any more justifiable. --Ned Anschuetz,'67 ;,,1 1. To the Editor; IN HIS EDITORIAL "The Twist- ed War Morality Degrades Education" (Feb. 26) Joseph Lit- ven seeks to link the materialistic values of students to U.S. policy in Viet Nam. His attempt to do so is highly reminiscent of Barry Goldwater's ill-fated attempt to link the increase of crime and im- morality to the growth of federal power. American values have developed over a long period of time and are not the products of recent U.S. action in Viet Nam. The grade- consciousness condemned by Mr. Litven began long before the U.S. became involved in the war. It is true that basing draft deferments on grades, which Mr. Litven also y r i. . t LS ' S # E'ii a'i r ;s ยข 9l