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.

April 01, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-04-01

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

Ir
A 46
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 AP.BOR, MICH. 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.
FRIDAY, APRIL 1,1966 'NIGHT EDITOR: ROGER RAPOPORT
City Council and Housing:
A Question of Maneuvering

Publickaonan
currce Bbethable, Flago the Wa
Occurrences
.(. :.v.a:v.}t.};r.^:,rs .;rct~ypr, :h}",:1'4rv'{ by Bruce W assB eei

THE NAME of the game is pa-
ternalism.
The Office of Student Affairs
believes in student self determina-
tion and is against the concept of
in loco parentis-as long as the
OSA agrees with what the students
decide.
But when the OSA disagrees
with what the students decide, the
philosophical utterances on stu-
dent participation end and "re-
view" procedures start.
ON THE ONE HAND, Vice Pres-
ident for Student Affairs Richard
Cutler delivers eloquent speeches
on the need to treat students like
adults, and on the other he de-
cides that the approval by Stu-
dent Government Council of fall
rush procedure for Panhel should
be reviewed.
The decision will be reviewed
through the Committee on Re-
ferral. This device was set up in
1959 after a similar vehicle called
the Board in Review created a
storm by overturning Student

Government Council'sdecision to
revoke recognition of Sigma Kap-
pa sorority.
The difference between the
Board in Review and the Com-
mittee on Referral is that the
former had the power to directly
overturn SGC's decisions, while
the latter has only the power to
advise the Vice President for Stu-
dent Affairs.
Since 1959 when the Committee
on Referral was set up it has only
reviewed one SGC decision, and
recommended that the decision be
sustained. Now for the second time
since 1959 the committee composed
of three faculty members, two
students, two administrators and
one nonvoting alumni member will
consider recommending that the
Vice President for Student Affairs
exercise his veto over Student
Council action.
CUTLER REQUESTED that the
Committee on Referral meet as
he was considering vetoing the fall
rush plans of Panhel because of

the damaging effect they might
have on the students.
But as Panhel's President
Martha Cook points out, this issue
was thoroughly researched by
Panhel with the aid of such people
as Mrs. Mary Lamtour of the psy-
chological counseling department
of mental health, academic coun-
selor Jack Manning and Duncan
Sells of the OSA. Although cer-
tainly the issue of fall rushing is
controversial, the argument that
the ramifications were superfi-
cially investigated is not true.
If Cutler had reservations about
fall rushi he should have presented
them to SGC or had a member of
his staff argue against it. But
his decision to have the decision
"reviewed" without his having
made any argument against the
proposal to SGC amounts to pure
paternalism.

tempt to review SGC's decision is
illegitimate.
The people who advocate i win-
ter rush or who are indifferent as
to when rush is should realize that
Cutler's decision has ramifications
which extend far beyond Panhel's
rush.
The precedent being set by the
review may lead to more admin-
istration involvement in student
activities and eventually the em-
pirical negation of Cutler's philo-
sophical idea of meaningful stu-
dent participation.
The wave of the future is more
student participation, not less. It
is evident from the fact that the
Committee on Referral has only
been summoned twice since its
inception that SGC has acted re-
sponsibly even in the administra-
tion's eyes.
ESSENTIALLY the Committee
on Referral has become an anach-
ronism which should be abolished
before it does some harm. Al-
though one can argue that SGC is

not infallible, the review commit-
tees records are not so resplendent
themselves considering that the
only time they overruled SGC the
University community condemned
the specific action.
And as for the OSA there is an
old adage about practicing what
you preach.
* * *
LAST WEEK the New York
Times reported, "About three-
quarters of the undergraduates at
Princeton University have elected
to use the school's new pass-fail
option-a system under which
they take one course in which
they are not graded but receive
simply a 'pass' or 'fail.' The pass-
fail options are concentrated in
the arts and literature."
Stanford and Berkeley are also
hopping on the pass-fail option
bandwagon. Although the concept
has been tossed around at the
University, nothing concrete has
come out of the network of faculty
committees.
Why?

THE ANN ARBOR NEWS called it a
'"donnybrook"; the Democrats charged
"political maneuvering"; the Republicans
pleaded "caution." The "it" was the de-
feat Monday night of a proposal to estab-
lish a federally-funded study and even-
tually to .construct low income housing
in Ann Arbor.
In a straight party split, the City Coun-
cil's Republican members, defeated the
Housing Commission's plan to obtain $35,-
000 from the Public Housing Authority to
examine the need for low income housing
here, and commit the city to the construc-
tion of 200 units of federally-financed
housing, if the study supported such con-
struction.
Instead, the Council postponed the con-
struction motion and settled for a leasing
plan, this time with the Republicans in
the affirmative, 6-5.
TO DESCRIBE Monday night's action as
either as a donnybrook, or a cautious
responsible move is erroneous. To call it'
political maneuvering is an understate-
ment.
Sell-out is a little more to the point.
The Republicans who defeated the pro-
posal were not the Council's standby con-
servatives. You can depend on council-
men Paul Johnson and William Habel to
hold the conservative line. They make no
bones about it. That's why they were
elected; that's why they've been re-elect-
ed.
But for the remainder of the Republi-
can bloc, it is a different story. They
voted for the Ann Arbor Housing Commis-
Acting Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor

sion last fall. They supported its estab-
lishment when the commission was put
before the people in a referendum. Their
mayor had a free hand in appointing
the members of the commission-with
the knowledge all the time that he had
the six votes necessary to approve those
appointments.
And despite opposition from many of
the citizens who had worked with him to
gain an affirmative vote on the referen-
dum, he appointed what he thought was
best for the commission: a "mainstream,
middle-of-the-road" group, excluding
"activists from either of the extremes of
political action."
IT WAS THE MAYOR'S commission.
The only reservation any of these Re-
publicans made at the time was that the
problem of low-income housing need, in
the words of one councilman, "must be
examined objectively"-not at a cost to
the taxpayers, of course.
Now that same commission has pro-
posed that the city use federal funds to
conduct such a survey, and agree to build
200 units if supported by the study. No
cost to Ann Arbor. No buildings unless
needed. And 200 units--already a compro-
mise compared with the 460 ,figure that
the Public Housing Authority came up
with after a review of the 1960, census,
which listed 2000 substandard dwellings
in the city.
BUT THE VOTE was NO.
For one or two of these men, the vote
might have represented philosophical mis-
givings-disguised of course as a need for
more facts. But for the other two or
three members of the bloc-more than
enough to pass the proposal-it represent-
ed a compromise bf their personal com-
mitment in the cause of "party unity."
The word was: Avoid the party split;
wait until after the election and the ques-
tion will probably disappear. The Re-
publican candidates running against the
incumbent Democrats are faring well, and
most of them are opposed to federally-
financed housing. If they're elected, the
issue will be dead.
So "party unity" won out. The four Re-
publicans joined the old reliables and vot-
ed No. The plan is now postponed.
Meanwhile those families who would
have benefited by ,the proposal lose out.
They continue to occupy substandard
housing, and are forced to contribute up
to 50 per cent of their income for housing
-when the federal government states
that no one should be forced to pay over
21 per cent. They are treated to a half-
solution.
MANEUVERING? That's too good a word
for it.
--ROBERT CARNEY
Acting Associate Editorial Director

PERSONALLY
strong argument
against fall rush,

I feel that a
can be made
but Cutler's at-

Censorship: Confusion and Danger

By DAVID KNOKE
Last of a two-part series
THE SUPREME COURT, in its
perennial search for a defini-
tion of obscenity other than a
book-by-book judgment, has re-
cently come up with an extension
of its former "prurient interest to
the contemporary community" by
stating that the nature of a book's
advertisements would be sufficient
grounds for determining the ob-
scenity of the work advertised.
The court's decision is an un-
satisfactory answer to the question
of the censorship of written and
pictorial publications. Dissenting
Justice Potter Stewart said that
the new definition ig an abroga-
tion of the First Amendment's
guarantee of freedom of speech
and that "censorship . . . is the
hallmark of an authoritarian re-
gime."
On one hand, the court's defi-
nition of obscenity is unfortunate
for it ignores basic realities of the
publications by looking at the
peripheral contexts of the work.
Secondly, the attempt to impose
uniform standards of taste and
sexually-oriented behavior is a
denial of the polymorphous char-

acter of the American populace.
Further, it plays into the hands
of self-appointed guardians of
public morals who might conceiv-
ably go so far as to censor pub-
lications of a nonpornographic
nature (i.e. political or religious),
because of the subjective nature of
the court's guidelines.
JUSTICE JOHN HARLAN, rul-
ing that a book "Fanny Hill" could
be legally sold, noted that "no
stable approach to the obscenity
problem has yet been devised by
this court." Part of the problem
arises from an unscientific, prej-
udice-ridden approach to the sub-
ject under question. -
Persons who take upon them-
selves the crusade against porno-
graphic material often maintain
that their only reason for doing so
is not because the material offends
them-they would read the junk
themselves-but because it would
be psychologically harmful if the
material fell into the hands of
children.
However, a Brown University
study indicates that "there is no
reliable evidence that reading or
other fantasy activities lead to
antisocial behavior."
Drs. Eberhard and Phyllis

Kronhausen, in "Pornography and
the Law," make a distinction be-
tween types of pornography.
("Pornography" originally meant
"the writings of harlots"; "ob-
scenity" on the other hand, means
"repulsive").
THE KRONHAUSENS define
"erotic realism" as distinct from
"hard-core obscenity" in that the
former may "momentarily have an
erotically stimulating effect. How-
ever, this effect is not long sus-
tained, nor adequately reinforced
by a progression of more and more
sexually provoking scenes, as in
the case with genuinely 'obscene'
books." The authors also qualify
their definitions by looking at the
content of the book, rather than
its effect on the reader.
Justice Stewart held that the di-
vision between types of porno-
graphic material is a valid one
and the government could legally
suppress "hard-core pornography."
Unfortunately, the criteria sepa-
rating the hard-core from the
erotic realism is so nebulous, that
in the past many now-legal works
have been banned, among them
books by Henry Miller, Frank Har-
ris, D. H. Lawrence, and James
Joyce.

In order for Judge Woolsey
(1933) to give James Joyce's
"Ulysses," an acknowledged Eng-
lish classic, legal entry into this
country, he declared its effects to
be more "emetic" (producing
vomitting) than titilating-a pa-
tent absurdity for anyone with anr
understanding of Joyce's inten-
tions.
Henry Miller's works ("Tropic
of Cancer," "Sexus") are avowedly
obscene in parts, but have the
redeeming literary grace of hon-
esty; yet they had to be smuggled
into the country, for thirty years
before over-the-counter sale was
permitted.
If the Kinsey reports on sexual
behavior showed anything, it was
that the country as a whole has
no uniform "community stan-
dards" in sexual matters which
can be applied to literature cen-
sorship.
However, in view of the lack
of evidence that any writing has
ever caused harm in any signi-
ficant way, and the dangers im-
plicit in censorship based upon
the arbitrary feelings of a board
of censors, one must protest that
the question of societal approval

of any printed material is ab-
surd. To allow any control of
printed material is to endanger
the Constitutional guarantee of
freedom of speech and press.
Playboy magazine ran nude
photographs of Jane Mansfield in
the June, 1963, issue. The editor,
Hugh Hefner, was subsequently
arrested in Chicago on obscenity
charges, although the magazine
had been publishing similar
"cheesecake" pictures for ten years
and previous attempts at proving
Playboy obscene had failed.
Hefner later theorized, and of-
fered substantial supportive evi-
dence, that the prosecution under
obscenity charges had been a
cover-up for an attack on an
editorial appearing in the same
issue on church and state separa-
tion.
If one is to allow arbitrary cen-
sorship of any material, society's
power factions will attempt to in-
stitute censorship of other ma-
terials as the Nazis did.
The "obscenity problem" would
not exist if a rational approach
were taken by persons from the
Supreme Court on down. As D. H.
Lawrence said, "What is porno-
graphy to one man is the laughter
of genius to another."

10

CLARENCE FANTO
Managing Editor

HARVEY WASSERMAN
Editorial Director

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Send Petition on DuBoisClub

JOHN MEREDITH:........ Associate Managing Editor
LEONARD PRATT........Associate Managing Editor
BABETTE COHN . ........Personnel Director
CHARLOTTE WOLTER .... Associate Editoral Director
ROBERT CARNEY......... Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT MOORE ...........Magazine Editor
CHARLES V NER...................Sports Editor
JAMES LaSOVAGE ..........Associate Sports Editor
JAMES TINDALL ....,......Associate Sports Editot
GIL SAMBERG............. Assistant Sports Editor
Acting Business Staf}
SUSAN PERLSTADT, Business Manager
JEFFREY LEEDS ........ Associate Business Manager
HARRY BLOCH............. Advertising Manager
STEVEN LOEWENTHAL....... Circulation Manager
ELIZABETH RHEIN ............. Personnel Director
VICTOR PTASZNIK..............Finance -Manage
ASSISTANT MANAGERS: Anne Bachiman, Ken Kraus
Mike Steckelis, Amy Glasser, Gene Farber, Jeff
Maryann Vanderwerp, Bill Hunt, Steve Simmons,
Brown, Carol Niemira, Beth Linscheid, Judy Blau:
Sue Benschop, Cathie Mackin, Rita Jo Rankin, Joan
Vanderwerp, Randy Rissman.
Subscription rate: $4.50 semester ny carrier ($5 by
mail); $8 yearly by carrier ($9 by mail).
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Mich.

To the Editor:
A NUMBER of faculty members,
who are concerned that stu-
dents notrbe constrained from
exercising their rights to a free
intellectual life, have agreed to
act as cosponsors for a University
of Michigan chapter of the W.E.B.
DuBois Club.
We have acted in response to a
local and immediate concern, but
we also recognize that there may
be more effective ways of re-
sponding to the national and long-
range issues raised by the At-
torney General's powers under the
Subversive Activities Control Act
of 1950, and we would welcome
the initiative and energies of other
faculty members in meeting this
larger problem.
Our statement of sponsorship
appears below. Since our oppor-
tunities to contact faculty have
been limited, other faculty mem-
bers who wish to add their names
may do so by notifying Prof.
Robert Sklar, Department of His-
tory, 3613 Haven Hall. The state-
ment:
"WE THE UNDERSIGNED, be-
lieving that it is our responsibility
as educators to encourage and
assist students freely to associate
for the free investigation of politi-
cal and social ideas, whether or
not we agree with their opinions,
agree to serve as co-advisors for
the University of Michigan W.E.B.
DuBois Club."
EDITOR'S NOTE: For reasons
of space the names of the pres-
ent signees could not be printed,
They include thirteen faculty
members from six departments,
Mental Health Research Insti-
tute, and the Office of Religious
Affairs.
China Teach-In
To the Editor:
IN RESPONSE to Mr. H. Bryant
Avery's letter to the Daily
(March 25) inwhich he accused
the organizers of Sunday's Emer-
gency Conference on China of tim-
ing the event so that it would
conflict with the annual meeting
of the Association of Asian Studies
and therefore leave the student
hn1Vfnhp ,r-C-nar wtha "dia-

relations who will come together,
much as in the Viet Nam teach-
ins of last year, and attempt to
increase the general level of
knowledge and interest in our re-
lations with the Peoples Republic
of China. We hope also to provide
an informed milieu so that those
with serious questions about the
current direction of our foreign
policy will have the opportunity
to ask those questions and stimu-
late informed discussion about
them.
* We regret the unfortunate
timing conflict. Our original date
for the Conference was March 20.
However, most of the participants
from off campus whom we invited
were unable to attend on that day.
The earliest many of the partici-
pants could come to campus was
April 3. To hold the conference
later would seriously conflict with
final exams, and thus we were
forced, in the light of the pressing
urgency of a reexamination of our
China policy as exemplified by
the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee hearings on China, to
hold the event on the third.
0 That there is a timing con-
flict does not mean that there
will not be an appreciable number
of experts on China and foreign
relations. Prof. Alexander Eck-
stein of the economics department,
a leading national expert on the
Chinese economy and recent wit-
ness before the Senate Foreign Re-
lations Committee; Prof. Owen
Lattimore, a noted China scholar,
and the country's foremost China
expert and China policy adviser
before the McCarthy period; Felix
Greene, one of the few people
available who has traveled ex-
tensively through China, and a
noted author and producer of the
film "China"; Prof. Morton Fried,
Columbia anthropologist and ex-
pert on the Chinese peasantry;
Prof. Rhoads Murphey of the
geography deptment, a specialist
on East Asian geography; Prof.
Norma Diamond of the anthro-
pology department, a specialist on
Chinese village life; Prof. Anatol
Rapoport, a leading expert on in-
ternational conflict resolution;
Prof. AFK Organski of the politi-
cal science department, a specialist
in international relations; Prof.
Richard Solomon of the political
science department, a specialist

to participate in the program. As
yet we have encountered only flat
rejections.
* Finally, while we have made
what we feel to be a successful
attempt to present the campus
with a learned and noted assembly
of experts, we cannot agree with
Mr. Avery in his scorn for "pro-
fessors of chemistry, philosophy,
sociology, et al."
To the contrary, we feel that
"professors of chemistry, philos-
ophy, sociology, et al"have as
great a stake in an informed
China policy'as any of us; we also
feel very strongly that students of
chemistry, philosophy, sociology,
et al have a very basic and legiti-
mate desire for increased knowl-
edge and analysis of China and
China policy-some of these do
not have the scheduling opportun-
ity to take advantage of the ex-
cellent facilities offered here at
the Center for Chinese studies.
IT IS FOR THESE, and for con-
cerned faculty, and community
residents that we have organized
this event.
-Peter A. DiLorenzi, Jr. '64
-Rev. J. Edgar Edwards
Campus Minister and Direc-
tor of Guild House, United
Campus Ministry
-Rev. Robert H. Hauert
Office of Religious Affairs
Architecture and Design
To the Editor:
[ AM GRATIFIED that the Mich-
igan Daily has shown an in-
terest in communicating the re-
cent affairs within the Depart-
ment of Architecture to the cam-
pus at large. However, the presen-
tation of such vital issues demands
accuracy, despite the complexity
of these issues.
Several aspects of the article
(March 25, page one) describing
the events of the Student-Faculty
Meeting were misleading.
Your subheadline stated that
"Only Slight Chance for Change
(of the scope of the present cur-
riculum) Seen." This is not true.
Faculty, students and administra-
tion alike agree that reform of
the present curriculum is neces-

student charges." The statement
was made to indicate faculty
agreement with the student com-
plaints. It stands as an example
of their willingness to act in the
behalf of the students, and to
rectify problems illuminated by
constructive criticism by the stu-
dent body.
Your headline emphasizes what
was only a peripheral concern of
most people attending the meeting.
It implies that the primary issue
was existing conditions within the
department. However, I feel that
the future course of the depart-
ment was the central concern.
Student attitudes concerning the
future goals of the department
were clear. There was overwhelm-
ing support for the greatest pos-
sible diversity of approachtowards
architecture and the greatest pos-
sible freedom in structuring the
educational process to adapt to
the interests and abilities of each
individual student.
It should be understood that the
fundamental issue is not the
validity of any specific philosophy
of architecture, but the depart-
ment's commitment to the policy

of the broadest possible inquiry-a
policy which has characterized the
growth of this great University.
I WISH to make it clear that I
am speaking here only for myself,
and snot in my official capacity
as Secretary of the Student-
Faculty Committee. However, I
feel my views are representative of
those of many of my fellow stu-
dents.
-Roger Lang, '66A&D
Vietniks,
To the Editor:
'THE BELIEF that security can
be obtained by throwing a
small state to the wolves is a fatal
delusion."
The words are W ins t on
Churchill's. The occasion: the
abandonment of Czechoslovakia in
1938.
The Vietniks, who seem appal-
lingly stupid at times, might do
well to ponder those words and
their consequences.
-W. Bender

41

"It's Not Quite The Slogan I'm Looking For"

*
-.
,. n. 2 y~l.T' {yy " t t; ..fX1.
* o
"

~~'cm~ ~oo!NOUS
.- .,~ ~*f

I

r i ; .
:

!
- I

"**+MM

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan