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 29, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-03-29

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

Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIvERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Where Opinions Are Free. 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ABOR, MICH. NEws PHONE: 764-0552
Truth Will Prevail 42MANRSTANA.OMC. NwPH E:7-05
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: NEIL SHISTER
he Athletics Board:
A Reevaluation of Power

POWER U 7 oB r''n
and Inatvtiuaatsm. A ayToEndBoe m
kPOETRY by MARK R KILLINGSWORTH
" :YS:r:{*.'S}}} }Y.X", }.,trx*. v.X.avW " vs,.,,.. . J....

A,

ATHLETICS is a big business of vital
importance to American universities
-not only to the big state schools but
even those in the academically prestigious
Ivy League. Michigan is no exception to
this trend, but indeed is an athletic
leader. Last year the budget of the ath-
letic department at this University was
in excess of $1.8 million.
The athletic department earns most of
the money it spends, mainly by charging
for tickets, but it still gets a sizable grant
from the University in the form of a $5
per semester fee taken out of each stu-
dent's tuition. This fee ammounted to
over $244,000 last year. Thus the Univer-
sity is supporting a sizable part of the
athletic program.
Yetit has relatively little control over it.
The Board in Control of Intercollegiate
Athletics has complete control over the
functioning of the athletic department,
and this board reports only to the Re-
gents. Thus there is no participation by
the University administrators in decisions
of the Board except in the sense that an
assistant to Vice-President for Student
Affairs Richard Cutler sits on the Board
in an ex-officio capacity.
BIG TEN RULES state that athletics
must be under faculty control, and in
theory the organization of the Board at
the University complies with this regula-
tion. Ten of the 17 members of the Board
are faculty representatives.
Yet there has been strong question as
to whether these members adequately re-
flect the attitudes of the general faculty.
In a study conducted in 1962 by a sub-
committee of the University faculty Sen-
ate, it was learned that many faculty
members seemed to feel that the Board
was too strongly controlled by its chair-
man, athletic director H. O. (Fritz) Cris-
ler. There was also a feeling that those
faculty members chosen by University
President Harlan Hatcher are not truly
representative of the general faculty, but
Ln fact are those with a disproportionate
interest in athletics.
Subsidization and "professionaliza-
tion" of "student-athletes" is no longer
the exception but rather the rule in inter-
collegiate athletics. And the fact also re-
mains that intercollegiate athletics, al-
though they serve no more than a sub-
sidiary role in what should be the true
function of a university, are now con-
sidered by many to be too important to
abolish or even de-emphasize.
The theory goes that spending this
money brings home winning teams, and
that winners keep the alumni loyal. Per-
Subscription rate: $4.50 semester ny carrier t$5 by
maill); $8 yearly by carrier ($9 by mails
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. Mich.

haps so, perhaps not-Harvard has never
been much of an athletic power, and yet
it seems to have established a rather im-
pressive endowment.
THE UNIVERSITY, in fact, needs a new
perspective on its athletic policy. The
Board, unlike those of many other schools,
seems committed to having teams com-
parable to those at any other school in
almost every sport. The athletic director
at the University of North Carolina rec-
ognized this fact when he called the inter-
collegiate athletic program at the Univer-
sity "one of the finest in the country."
Yet if it is, indeed, a good program in
the field of inter-collegiate athletics, how
does it stack up for the average student
who pays $10 a year athletic fees from
his tuition, $12 for football tickets which
at many other schools are free to stu-
dents, and a dollar a game for basket-
ball, swimming and hockey?
Further, intramural facilities at the
University are grossly inadequate, as even
Crisler himself admits. The IM building
was designed for a student body about
half the size of the current one. It is
also worthwhile to note that there is no
place on campus, with the exception of a
small parking lot behind South Quad,
where students can play basketball out-
side.
Vice-President for Academic Affairs Al-
lan Smith seems strongly in favor of in-
creasing the intramural facilities, as are
other administrators. But at present there
are no such plans pending with the Board.
Instead, the Board is engaged in the proc-
ess of building a new "all events" building
in which basketball games will be played,
and does not envision being able to ex-
pand intramural facilities until the debt
is paid off, which will be a period of many
years.
THUS THE STUDENT is supporting the
brunt of the athletic program, and he
seems to be only benefiting slightly from
it except in the sense that there are often
good home teams for him to watch.
There are some schools-Minnesota is
an example-where the administrators
have a larger role in the athletic budgets.
The faculty, in conformity to the Big Ten
rules, is still responsible for deciding poli-
cy, but the athletic department there has
much less autonomy in running its opera-
tions than is presently the case at the
University.
This organizational structure is less de-
sirable from a competitive athletic view-
point, but it does bring the athletic pro-
gran into a role more consistent with the
university's role as an institution for the
education and general welfare of students.
-NEIL SHISTER

Special To The Daily
CHICAGO, ILL. - "But stories
about the administration or
the Regents or university rules
aren't the real scandals about
education. The real scandal stories
would count all the kids who sit
in class staring out the window."
This comment-from Kenneth
Winter, '65, a Daily alumnus-
summarizes a host of comments
which came tumbling out at a
U.S. Student Press Association
conference on higher education
here this weekend. Everybody
agreed that was the scandal, all
right. But nobody could agree on
what to do about it.
The reasons for student bore-
dom-and unrest, one might add
-are many, which is probably why
there are so many opinions on
what they are. But one girl's com-
ment-made in altogether another
context-is particularly illuminat-
ing:
"I think we can present the
issues on Viet Nam in our news-
papers," she said, "but I don't
think we have enough knowledge
of what's going on to comment
about them or enough wisdom and
maturity to judge what's wrong
and right."
TOO MUCH of this attitude, it
seems, is the root of the problem

of education (if, indeed, the non-
omniscient can still make judge-
ments). Students go into class
convinced that they don't really
matter, that they don't have much
business making comments or
judgements. They become mere in-
tellectual receptacles; intellectual
inquiry stagnates. And so they
stare out the window.
"More and more you find stu-
dents used to having somebody
pass stuff out to them," said an
educator at the conference. He has
a very valid point: as much as
some few students may protest
about being, or becoming, IBM
cards, it is perfectly clear most
students couldn't care less about
the prospect-or, if they do, sub-
mit unprotestingly anyway.
Yet where do students get this
attitude? The faculty aren't en-
tirely responsible: The lazy stu-
dent, and there are many of them,
soon discovers it's a lot easier to be
a passive spectator than an active
participant in education.
BUT THE FACULTY must share
a major part of the responsibility
for students staring out windows,
because while they have a lot to
do with the possible alternatives
students might look at, the faculty
by and large simply reinforces the
passivity and intellectual indolence
of their students.

"As you go up the educational
scale the teaching gets progres-
sively more authoritarian," a for-
mer Smith College professor told
the conference. "The faculty per-
pretrates on students the idea that
there is a Right Way-theirs-
and if you shut up and follow it
you'll find the way to paradise."
Thus students are bored because
many faculty don't expect them
to be anything else, and merely
"perform" for them rather than
involving them in intellectual ad-
venture. It takes two to !spoon-
feed, and that kind of education
prevails despite the fact that even
at a large university like this one,
something better is possible.
SOME UNIVERSITIES, it is true,
have made lame attempts to try
to involve students in intellectual
adventure, to reassert their worth
as individuals and make thein
participants rather than passive
spectators in the academic process,
The Muscatine report on curri-
cular reform at Berkeley, for ex-
ample, makes numerous sugges-
tions along these lines. Ironically-
because student unrest over the
atttiudes of the Berkeley admin-
istration set of a revolt there-the
report said very little about the
value of student contributions to
the process by which such sug-
gestions on academics are made.

This is simply paternalism and
anti-individualism once removed,
and that-faculty, Regents and
rules-is indeed a part of the
greater "scandal."
IN SUM, students have some-
thing to say, and one of the im-
portant tasks of education is to
realize the full potential of each
individual student. Students often
express themselves ineptly, illogi-
cally or foolishly. But students
will stop staring out windows only
when they can contribute in the
academic process, and they will
stop rioting only when they can
contribute to the decision-making
process.
If a university wants, among
other things, to develop individ-
ualism and wisdom, it would do
well to follow the moral of a story
Dean William Haber of the liter-
ary college likes to tell:
The son asked his father, 'How
do I become wise?" The father
said, "By getting experience."
"How do I get experience?" The
father replied, "By learning
things." "How do I learn things?"
the son asked. "By making mis-
tAkes," the father answered.
AS A START, as Sister Patricia-
Jean, a research associate at An-

tioch, suggested at one session.
perhaps next fall's orientation
week should have students tell
faculty and administrators what
they expect from them and their
years here-rather than vice-
versa.
If faculty, administrators and
Regents-and students themselves,
for that matter-realize students
should have a say in their own
lives and their own development;
if they realize that individualism,
individual expression and the im-
portance of the individual and his
views are vital in the classroom
and the Regents room, for both
the present and the future, and
are not only the means but the
ends of education; if they realize
that an educational environment
which recognizes and promotes in-
dividual development where stu-
dents make many mistakes is far
superior to the usually authori-
tarian situation where they don't;
then education will have renewed
and revitalized one of its magic
strengths, and given new purpose
to the work of its students.
IF THAT doesn't happen in the
classroom, students will keep on
staring out of windows from bore-
dom. If it doesn't happen in the
Administration Bldg., they might
riot from unrest.

0

4

News Control:

Two

Views and an Out

$I

By HARVEY WASSERMAN
Acting Editorial Director
ANY REPUBLIC which claims to
have a largely democratic base
must keep the democracy informed
of what the men at the top are
doing. The general public has no
access to governmental reality
other than what it reads in the
newspapers and magazines and
sees and hears on the radio and
television.
A government that can control
the news and suppress the items
unfavorable to its workings may
thus be in a position to perpetuate
itself beyond "democratic" recall.
That our government can and
does to a certain degree control
exactly what the people can and
cannot know thus represents a
potentially dangerous situation-
an on-going power which is sus-
ceptible to exploitation for par-
tisan reasons,
On the one hand any adminis-
tration does have some power to
suppress corruption and ineffi-
ciency within its own workings,
major domestic policy decisions, by
the very nature of the legislative
system, cannot be kept secret.
But on the other hand, the
power to suppress information
dealing with foreign affairs is
quite broad. It is the government,

which has the power of "agenda
making"-deciding what shall and
shall not be told to reporters.
Further, however, in many in-
stances it has the power merely
to lie-about the U2 incident, the
Bay of Pigs invasion, Hanoi peace
feelers (in an election year), bat-
tles (in the Korean war, military
officials leaked stories, complete
with casualty lists and burning
narratives about battles which
never took place), general military
disposition, and even enemy at-
tacks.
A RECENT opinion poll showed
that 67 per cent of those tested
felt Vietnamese casualty lists were
"sometimes" truthful, 15 per cent
felt them "always" truthful, and
13 per cent found them "almost
never" truthful.
When a major act (such as the
Tonkin incident) "occurs" and the
government finds itself in the po-
sition of either needing or wanting
to go to war, are only 15 per cent
of the people going to think they
are certain of what is going on?
"If a government repeatedly re-
sorts to lies in crises where lies
seem to serve its interests best, it
will one day be unable to employ
the truth effectively when truth
would serve its interests best."
The overall effect of such a

"credibility gap" is not good. On
the one hand you have a public
clamoring for information about
a war which is putting it through
internal fits, on the other hand
you have reporters being lied to by
generals and being kicked out of
Viet Nam for photographing
Marines in action. The natural re-
action is then a sense of cynicism
on the part of the voting public-
a cynicism which somehow just
doesn't quite fill the gnawing void
of uncertainty when it comes time
to vote.
YET MANY CLAIM the problem
as bad as all that. "Only two,
to three per cent of government
business involves any secrecy. And
only a tiny fraction of that re-
mains secret."
Further, however, is the classic
argument of the necessity of keep-
ing certain items of information
secret for military reasons. That
this is a "classic" argument might
well indicate that it is time for
a re-evaluation of that sacred
cow.
"THE AMERICAN PEOPLE have
a right to know but they also have
a right to have dangerous prob-
lems handled properly by respon-
sible officers, and not by the press.
Nobody elected the press."

But if the government keeps
getting caught with its lies, no-
body is going to believe it any-
more. Then our system will find
itself divided into a bureaucracy
on one hand, and a constituency
skeptical and mistrustful of that
bureaucracy-though with no con-
cret recourse to get rid of the
source of that skepticism-on the
other.
Though one might wish to look
on this skepticism as an inherent
check on the government's ability
to centralize power through in-
formation control, I would say
that the power is inherent in the
administrative system itself, and
not subject to any electoral check.
The one ill is in a somewhat dif-
ferent sphere than the other, and,
thus both the problem of con-
centrated power and of general
dissatisfaction remain.
WHAT IS NEEDED is some sort
of institutionalized compromise
check whereby no administration
will have such strong news con-
trol powers, the people will have
a professionalized nonpartisan
news agency, and yet the national
security will not be endangered on
military issues.
I therefore propose an official
governmental "News Board" to
consist of military experts and

reporters, appointed on a strictly
nonpartisan basis, by the Supreme
Court.
The board will have complete
access to all vital intelligence such
as true casualty counts, our mili-
tary disposition, and so on. This
agency will then judge what news
should and should not be given to
the general press, and will then
advise the appropriate executives
as to its judgement.
Recognizing the need for speed
in some instances, the board, when
unheeded, will choose a certain
time span depending on the in-
cidefit involved and will then break
the "real" news to the press-at
which time it will also disclose its
own record of advisory opinion.
Congress may then call for defense
from the President.
THIS IS, of course, not a perfect
solution-its chief weakness lies
in finding an effectively uncor-
ruptable, nonpartisan board. But
it would at least establish a long-
needed institutional check to
loosen from the executive branch
a power whose potential for use
on partisan issues in the name of
national security is dangerously
uncontrolled. And in so doing the
"credibility gap" will have a rea-
son to narrow by one step of ob-
jectivity and expertise.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
The Arab-Israeli Problem

4

i
i

To the Editor:
AN EDITORIAL appeared in The
Daily on March 25th by Mr.
Aaron Dworin dealing with the
Palestine problem. This editorial
is a shallow treatment to a com-
plex question, whose solution re-
quires a deep and thorough under-
standing of its nature, as well as
its historical background.
Mr. Dworin's editorial does not
contribute to this purpose. It is
a mere distortion of the very truth
and will not serve to give the read-
ers of this newspaper a better un-
derstanding of the Arab-Israeli
conflict. It is necessary that some
of the points, which have been
raised in the above mentioned edi-
torial, be discussed.
1) One of the myths which the
editor tried to sell to the readers
is that the refugees' problem is
thei. own fault because they left
their homes willfully against Is-
rael's bid for them to stay and
bind the country together! In his
opinion also, the Arab govern-
ments share the blame because
they refuse to settle the refugees
in Arab countries. The editor is
apparently unaware of the cam-
paign of terror and mass murder
that was directed against the Arab
majority by the Zionist military
organizations in Palestine that
time such as the Irgun, Stern
and Haganah, which later became
the regular Israeli army.
The massacre of Deir-Yassin
may not mean anything to Mr.
Dworin, but it details would stir
any alive conscience. Mr. John
Kimche the editor of the "Jewish
Observer" which is the official
organ of the British Zionist Or-
ganization gave the following ac-
cout of the Deir-Yassin tragedy:
"On Friday April 9, 1948 a com-
mando force composed of Irgun
and Stern soldiers raided the vil-
lage. There was no obvious oc-
casion for them to do so. Nothing
they have said has explained or
can explain away, the murder of

only the false claim that the refu-
gees left on their own free will is
accepted . . . aren't they entitled
to return back to their homes and
land? Israel's refusal to allow
them to go back is a violation of
the simplest human rights of
people to their property and their
free choice of their place of living.
3) The Arab governments do
not oppose the absorption of the
refugees into their countries. All
refugees who had skills quickly
found employment. These were
mostly town people, whereas the
people living now in camps were
the country people, who could not
be absorbed in countriesuwhich
already have a surplus of people
in their rural sectors. In 1948
Palestine was seventy per cent
rural. The same views were ex-
pressed recently in an article by
Mr. Thomas Brady of the New
York Times, March 21, 1966. He
also mentioned that the refugees
numbered over 800,000 when they
left and they are now over 1.3
million (and not 500,000 as Mr.
Dworin claimed). The only solu-
tion for their problem therefore,
is to return to their lost homes
and land.
4) The present armament race
in the Middle East is a direct
consequence of the repeated Is-
raeli aggressions, which, as would
be expected, led the Arabs to seek
arms anywhere in order to defend
themselves and to prevent another
Palestine from taking place. Fur-
thermore, the excessive flow of
arms to Israel is a major cause of
the present arms race. This is
always done under the so-called
maintaining the balance of power
in the Middle East.
The talk about the balance of
power between Israel and the
Arab countries is, like maintain-
ing such a balance between the
tiny island of Cuba and the Con-
tinental United States, an un-
realistic notion, whose sole effect
would be the augmentation of the
present tension there. It suffices

disqualifies' any such claims and
should clearly indicate who is the
aggressor.
JUST BEFORE the Suez War,
and while Israel was preparing for
it, Mr. Ben Gurion the then Prime
Minister of Israel announced that
he was ready to meet President
Nasser to negotiate peace. The
Suez events showed, however, that
this was a move to detract at-
tention from his country's military
activities, rather than a real ae-
sire for peace ... any genuine plea
for peace cannot go along with
secret preparations for war.
The Arabs are more sincere than
Israel in their desire for peace.
But, peace will come to the Middle
East through justice, which did
not find its way yet to the more
than a million Arab refugees. Is-
rael can show her peaceful inten-
tions by complying with the United
Nations resolutions, which ascer-
tained the rights of the refugees
to return to their homes and urged
Israel to allow them to go back.
UNFORTUNATELY, Israel did
'not contribute to lessening the
world tension and to the restora-
tion of peace to the Middle East
by her refusal to execute these
resolutions.
-Dr. Hussein Z. Barakat
Psychology
To the Editor:
"U.S. SHOULD Eliminate Chi-
nese Nuclear Threat"
"U.S. Must Remain in Viet Nam"
. . my country right or wrong-
my country . . . Better dead than
Red . . . the ends justify the
means , , , Manifest Destiny . . .
Bari Communist Speakers . . . The
house un-American activities com-
mittee . . . Senator Joseph Mc-
Carthy . . . huey long . .. Father
coughlin . . . Adolf Hitler--only
forc ul .. the nonense of

Responsible nations . . Strategic.
Hamlets ... Concentration Camps
... mass extermination .. . Jap-
anese-Americans . . . Adolf Eich-
man . . "I was only foliowing
orders .. ."; No meaningful peace
feelers . . . God . . . a wolf in a
chicken coop . . . Chinese hoards
... Godless atheists . . . Domino
theory ... Containment ... Bay
of Pigs ... Taiwan... The Green
Berets . . . General Westmore-
land-man of the year ... Gen-
eral MacArthur ... Nuclear Holo-
caust . . . 50 megatons . . . peace
.. .brotherhood . . . Selma .
police dogs . .. support your local
police . . State's Rights . . . The
State .. . The jewish problem .. .
sheepdog - beatnik - bearded-com-
mie . .. Virility . . , Master race
.. WASP ... Bolshevik ... flori-
dation .. . precious bodily fluids
... hate . . . KILL.. . Uncle Sam

Wants you .. . women and chil-
dren first . .. air raid shelter-.
victory in the cold war . . . get
tough policy... brinkmanship...
Total destruction . . no escala-
tion . . . consensus . . . lyndon
Johnson . . . apple pie . . . the
great Society . . cut domestic
spending . . . war economy
United fruit company . .: Cuba
. . . 90 miles . . . Viet Nam-x
miles . . . Lebenstraum . . con-
tested territory . . profit .
bomb villages .. . freedom for the
people . .. kill for peace . . 2000
dead .* . escalation ... 4000 dead
. dead ... .a4-7 year war ...
DEATH! . . . Destruction . ,. a
man is a man for 'a that.
"Fathers and teachers, I pon-
der 'What is hell?' I maintain that
it is the suffering of being unable
to love."-Doestoevski.

4

--Martin Kane, '68

I

c4

I 51
574i. u r + V J7
J l. ~

$

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan