100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 10, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-03-10

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.



Sevent y-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDFR AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

FEIFFER

0j

is Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Prevail

NEWs PHONE: 764-0552

A01,
au
}OHAT
I-r'u
I-E&
Grt3eC

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

i

HOW
~-J -1.

THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 1966

NIGHT EDITOR: JOHN MEREDITH

The De Gaulle Stand: U.S.
Must Share NATO Power

K --' AP
A HrM
TU'ACH ip
25_ .'WANT
AP
tAU6H ,. M
AT OY M~OO.

MAE 30, WAIC&
*To pcCK

CHARLES DE GAULLE, in the eyes of the
United States, is acting up again. Dip-
lomatic history is, full of evidence that
de Gaulle is a stubborn, sensitive man,
and that taking a deep breath and gath-
ering the rest of Europe under a protec-
tive wing against him will not help Presi-
dent Johnson deal with France.
Johnson is also a stubborn man and
experienced in getting his own way. A
,confrontation between the two would
quite likely ruin NATO. De Gaulle has set
his position. If any solution is to be found,
Johnson must take up the role of com-
promiser.
De Gaulle wants to assert French in-
dependence by controlling or removing all
foreign troops on her soil. He seeks to
withdraw France from any of the military
integration between NATO nations that
Johnson sees as being so necessary to the
organization.
AN IMPARTIAL OBSERVER might won-
der if both de Gaulle and Johnson
aren't wrong. That a 14 member organi-
zation has been conceived from the start
as something to be dominated by one or
another nation might be surprising to
some people. If one says that if France
has its way the other nations might try
for their own ends, one completely rules
out all hope for collective action. Perhaps
the difficulties the U.S. finds in estab-
lishing NATO with an integrated military
command and integrated facilities re-

sults from the fact that the power of the
organization is not integrated.
The U.S. has naturally assumed its
dominant role because of its obvious ma-
terial advantages over its NATO partners.
Along with its dominant commitment to
NATO the U.S. has assumed it should have
the dominant role in policy-making. This
makes it quite easy for de Gaulle to re-
volt against NATO and consider it simply
an action against the power of the 'U.S.
In challenging NATO, France is simply
seeking to assert itself in place of the U.S.
France doesn't want to withdraw from
NATO, she wants to control it.
If NATO control were better integrat-
ed, if the other nations were to assume
more individualized roles as participants,
de Gaulle could be faced with effective
opposition to plans that might destroy
NATO's effectiveness. If all NATO nations;
not simply acting under Johnson's or-
ders, opposed de Gaulle, he might be
forced to reconsider his position.
THE WAY to get to this situation is for
Johnson to hold out to France the
hope of getting genuine power conces-
sions from the U.S. The entire issue must
be brought before all the NATO members,
and must be solved collectively. France
cannot have her own way, but the U.S.
must no longer force her position as the
dominator of NATO.
--MICHAEL HEFFER

rAMCUI $WN~AMU
MOU 9AOtA3

"TOR
eau.

FGc
\L

t.

i lire

SOUND and FURY
by Clarence Fanto Have Students Earned Right To Choose.

IN RECENT MONTHS many
students have vigorously agitated
for increased student participation
in University affairs, specifically
in the selection of a President to
succeed Harlan Hatcher next year.
But they have yet to demonstrate
the responsibility and dedication
necessary for such participation..
A student advisory committee
has been authorized by the Reg-
ents to join with faculty and
alumni groups in presenting rec-
ommendations' to the Regents'
Presidential selection committee.
This is an encouraging sign from
the standpoint of future student
influence on major policy decisions
at the University, although the ex-
tent of student influence upon the
Regents in the matter of presiden-
tial selection remains to be seen.
However, a look at the other op-
portunities for active participa-
tion which have been available to
students is a chilling experience.
LAST SPRING, a group of un-
dergraduates formed an advisory
committee designed to facilitate
the communication of ideas and
feelings between students and fac-
ulty in the psychology department.
The committee was, and is, unique
because it is the only advisory
committee of its kind on this cam-
pus. The committee hoped to im-
prove the quality of many psychol-
ogy courses by offering construc-

tive criticisms and suggestions.
The advisory committee planned
to advise prospective psychology
majors during their sophomore
year, investigate the problems of
getting into graduate school and
what job opportunities or research
possibilities might be available
with an undergraduate degree,
start a fund to finance additional
programs to improve the depart-
ment, already one of the strongest
on the campus, and contact. Uni-
versity psychology g r a d u a t e s
around the country to determine
the strengths and weaknesses of
the undergraduate program as
preparation for graduate school.
ALL THESE PLANS were an-
nounced last April. But several
weeks ago, it was revealed that
the committee was suffering from
a lack of participation by its own
members in these projects. The
committee chairman, Richard Eh-
nis also said the lack of cooper-
ation among many psychology
majors is also adding to the com-
mittee's difficulties. Attendance
at meetings had fallen off to two
or three per week and the many
valuable projects being planned
by the group were being delayed
or were falling by the wayside.
The virtual collapse of the un-
dergraduate psychology advisory
committee indicates a shocking
apathy among students toward

materially improving the quality
of education they are receiving at
the University and to exert in-
fluence upon faculty members.
AN EVEN MORE amazing ex-
ample of student apathy can be
seen in the smashing response to
the Course Evaluation Booklet,
compiled entirely by students. A
brief preliminary booklet was of-
fered last spring; this year's book-
let was slated to be greatly ex-
panded (covering n e a r 1 y 500
courses) and thus of inestimable
value to a large number of stu-
dents, especially those in the liter-
ary college.
What happened to the Booklet?
Thousands of students filled out
the evaluation forms, thus provid-
ing a large pool of information
from which to determine student
response to courses and professors.
But, despite publicized pleas from
the Booklet's coordinator very few
students showed up to assist in the
compilation of data and the writ-
ing of evaluation essays. The few
students who did undertake some
of this work deserve strong praise
for their demonstration of interest
and responsibility. But there were
hardly enough students on hand
to insure completion of the book-
let by the beginning of registra-
tion last month, as had been
planned.
The booklet is still uncompleted,

and even if it appears in the near
future, it will have lost most of its
value because the vast majority of
students will already have pre-
registered. Although p r o g r a m
changes can certainly be made be-
fore next fall, the students were
without the invaluable assistance
a comprehensive evaluation book-
let could have rendered in plan-
ning programs and selecting pro-
fessors.
IT IS UTTERLY incomprehen-
sible how students, whose interests
would have been well served by
the early publication .of the book-
let, found themselves unable to
devote even a few hours on a
Sunday afternoon to help compile
the evaluations. In addition, the
sense of disillusionment which
must be felt by the few students
who did take the time to work on
the booklet must be tremendous.
WE SEE THAT the psychology
advisory committee lies dormant
and the course evaluation booklet
remains stillborn. At the same
time, hundreds of students appar-
ently have found it possible to
spend large amounts ,of time on'
relatively inconsequential, trivial
events like Winter Weekend. This
is not to say that light diversions
such as Winter Weekend should
be abandoned. But if students ex-
pect themselves to be taken seri-

ously by the faculty and the ad-
ministration in their bid for in-
fluence and a role in the selection
of the next president and in an
influential student government,
they have turned in a miserable
performance in at least the two
examples cited here.
Students must demonstrate in
actions, rather than words that
they possess sufficient interest,
maturity and responsibility to play
a serious role in the formulation
of policy in this community-pol-
icy which plays a decisive role in
their career at the University.
A tiny minoity of them have
demonstrated such ability. But the
number of students who have par-
ticipated in the policy-influencing
opportunities available to them in
the recent past has constituted
only an elite ban of philosopher-
s t u d e n t participation at this
level does not constitute demo-
cracy, but merely oligarchy.
THE STUDENTS on this cam-
pus have the right to play a role
in the selection of the next Pres-
ident and they should communi-
cate their views on academic is-
sues and problems to the faculty.
But they are entitled to this right
only if they make their interest
and dedication c r y s t a 1 clear
through meaningful action. So far,
the voice of the student body has
spoken only in a pathetic whimper.

4

An Evening
with DuBois

*

FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT Richard,
Nixon has cleared the air about a con-,
troversial topic that has apparently been
troubling a great many people: the Boys
Club of America definitely has no con-
nection with the W. E. B. DuBois Club, re-
cently labelled a Communist-front orga-
nization by Attorney General Nicholas
Katzenbach.
Nixon, who ought to know since he is
national board chairman of the Boys
Club, said that many people had been
confusing the names.
The W. E, B. DuBois Clubs were named
after a Negro historian and sociologist
who joined the Communist party two
years before his death. He pronounced his
name DooBOYS rather than the French
DooBWA. Radio announcers persisting in
employing the first pronounciation had
been apparently so garble-tongued that
many people--mistaking the Red-labelled
organization for "the Boys" rather than
DuBois-were writing poison pen letters
and phoning in bomb threats to local Boys
Clubs chapters.'
Nixon's statement emphatically denied
that the Boys Clubs, a recreational orga-
Subscription rate: $4.50 semester ny carrier ($5 by
mial; $8 yearly by carrier ($9 by matll
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. Mich.

nization serving almost a million youths,
had any subversive intents with their
handicraft activities. The DuBois Clubs,
said Nixon, "are not unaware of the con-
fusion they are causing among our sup-
porters and among many other good
citizens." In a speech quoted in The New
York Times, Nixon labelled the confu-
sion as "an almost classic example of
the Communist deception and duplicity."
THANKS TO SUCH timely warnings
from vigilant guardians of our youths'
morals and reputations, citizens who can
perceive the ┬░sinister plot behind inno-
cent-seeming names of clubs and orga-
nizations, will be able to ferret out the
sources of misdirected subversion and nip
it in the bud.
Nixon has done a public service by
warning agianst the dangers of duplicate
names and places. The only way to pre-
vent disastrous ramifications like those
projected above would be a federal law
requiring all subversive organizations to
translate their titles into Swahili.
THEN THE CONSPIRACY will be killed,
and never again will the Boys Club be
mistaken for the W. E. B. DuBois.
DAVE KNOKE

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Prof. Rapoport Writes on

Viet Nam

Editor's Note: This is a copy
of a letter sent recently by Pro-
fessor Anatol Rapoport to Con-
gressman Weston Vivian. Rapo-
port is a professor of mathe-
matical biology and is current-
ly working at Mental Health
Research Institute.
Dear Wes:'
ENCLOSED IS my copy of the
questionnaire which you have cir-
culated among your constituents.
You will note I have not filled
any of the multiple choice answers
related to Viet Nam, and am con-
fining myself to "Comments."
First, you know my views very
well. Second, this is the only way
I can think of to make the point
that while you are thoroughly ac-
quainted with my views, I am
quite ignorant of yours. You ask
me questions, but you have never
answered mine, although I have
asked many and believe them to
be of crucial importance to us,
your constituents, and indeed to

every one in the world. For in-
stance:
f Whereas the United Nations
Charter expressly prohibits mili-
tary action except in clear and
urgent - repeat clear and urgent
instances of self defense, and ex-
plicitly excludes from permissible
cases precisely those which we
have used as pretexts for attack-
ing Viet Nam, Laos, and China,
and our administration has de-
clared that "no power on earth"
can swerve us from our course.
My question: Do you think we
have violated the United Nations
Charter? If not, how do you
square your opinion with what the
United Nations Charter explicitly
says?
* Our Constitution says that
the treaties we enter into are the
law of the land. If the United
Nations Charter was violated, then
not only international law but al-
so American law was violated.
What redress have we (who are
a minority) against the violations
of our laws by our government?

* What limits would you put
to our involvement in Asia?, Spe-.
cifically, what measure proposed
by the administration would you
vote against or would protest
against, if presented with it as a
fait accompli?
YOU ARE NOT ALONE in evad-
ing these questions. Neither Sen-
ator Hart nor Senator McNamara
nor any one in the administration
has ever given me a straight an-
swer to any of these questions
and many others I have raised in
connection with the Viet Nam war.
I believe that this persistent
evasion constitutes an abrogation
of duty which an elected repre-
sentative owes his electors. It con-
stitutes a subversion of responsi-
ble government. The word "re-
sponsible" derives from "response."
The original meaning of "re-
sponse" was related to "answer,"
not merely a reaction to stimuli,
the way it is now.
I am sending this letter on the
eve of the vote for the appropri-

ation earmarked for expanding
the war in Asia. I am doing this
to express my conclusion, bitterly
arrived at, that it wouldn't have
made any difference in your vote
when these questionnaires were re-
turned, or what was in them. I
believe that, like almost every one
in Congress, you had decided long
ago that you would vote for what-
ever the administration asked.
I INTEND to send a hand-writ-
ten letter of thanks to every Con-
gressman and Senator who votes
No (which, unfortunately, will not
be a long task).
I did not think there was any
point in checking whether you
were among the 75 who asked that
their "ja" vote not be construed
as a vote for escalation. It was
a pitiable, futile gesture, probab-
ly calculated to minimize vote
losses among those are sick of the
slaughter and of our role as the
Number One International Bully.
The seventy-five know very well
that when the next round of es-

calation is ready, they won't be
asked whether the money can be
used for that purpose.
I SHALL CONTINUE to join
those who oppose the expansion
and the continuation of the im-
moral, illegal, and stupid war.
--Anatol Rapoport
Freedom
FREEDOM to publish means
freedom to publish all those
pictures in Santo Domingo of our
Marines leading old ladies across
the street, rescuing little children
from burning buildings, playing
volleyball with the natives in Viet
Nam-and freedom not to publish
pictures of their dropping na-
palm bombs. That's a very im-
portant part of freedom of the
press, the freedom not to publish
the wrong thing that might cause
trouble.
-John Crosby, quoted in
Columbia Journalism Review

'op 4

4

An Experience in African Apartheid

By ROGER EBERT
Collegiate Press Service
THE CITY of Cape Town runs
right around Table Mountain, with
the exclusive Sea Point area and
Clifton Beach on one side, and
the "southern suburbs" of Ob-
servatory, Rondebosch, Rosebank,
Mowbray and so on strung out
along Main Road on the other
side.
The buses on the southern su-
burb of Cape Town are almost
always integrated. When they pass
through the city and into Sea
Point, however, conductors usually
flip down little signs which desig-
nate points X and Y on the down-

ly ever happens that a rider must
stand because the only empty
seats are in the "wrong" section.
And in the southern suburbs, of
course, the apartheid signs are
almost never used.
ONE FRIDAY NIGHT I double-
dated with Stan Siebert, one of
the active liberal students at the
University. We got on board with
our dates in Rondebosch. At the
next stop, a very old African man
got on board. He wore a patch
over one eye, and, as is usual in
this country of gross economic in-
equality, was dressed shabbily. He
took an empty seat near us in
the front of the bus. It was evident

kaffir was doing sitting in the
white section, couldn't he read,
etc., etc. We noticed for the first
time that this conductor had ex-
ercised his option to flip down the
apartheid signs on the southern
side of Cape Town.
THE AFRICAN protested feebly,
obviously confused. Of course he
had not looked for the signs. Stan
and I stood up and told the con-
ductor to take his hands off the
old man. The conductor paid no
attention to us. We grasped the
conductor's arms. He still gave ab-
solutely no indication that he
knew we were in the bus.
The conductor Dulled the old

the bus and that we would protest
to the company if there was any
trouble. Still, without acknowl-
edging us, he left to speak to the
driver.
Then the old man got up and
said he was getting off the bus.
We told him not to. A white pas-
senger advisedus to let himoff
and save trouble. We were both
determined not to let the situation.
ride. But the passenger and the
old man understood the next step
better than we did: since the
African had "refused" to leave the
bus, he would be prevented from
getting off until we drew abreast
of the police station, where the
conductor would call police aboard

the bus driver refused to let us
out. A group of young colored men
came down from upstairs, under-
stood the situation, and helped
us in creating a jam around the
door.
When the bus driver stopped to
let some passengers aboard, Stan
squeezed underneath the arm of
the conductor and held the door
open. Then the whole mass of us
tumbled out onto the sidewalk.
The conductor, outnumbered, got
back on board.
The old man had disappeared
by the time we sorted ourselves
out. The ability to disappear
quickly is a survival technique.
The four of us waited for the next

0

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan