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.

January 06, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-01-06

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

Seventy-sixth Year
EDITft AND MANAGPD ZY STUDENTS OF THE U'NIVERSJTY OF MICH-IGAN
atNDERt ALiTHI-OttTY OF OA P.O IN C0tPI l0&L OF STUDENT PUBLIJCATIONS

Clearing Up the Power Controversy

- A 4
toPre re,420 MAYNARD 'T.. AN,,Aisox l cii.

NEws Pi-roNF: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
ISDAY, JANUARY 6,1966 NIGHT EDITOR: HARVEY WASSERMAN
HighkwayReSeb' Institute:
C OuPor Boondoggle?

By ROGER RAPOPORT
WHEN I WROTE an article
last October 23 about the re-
lationship between Regent Eugene
Power's University Microfilms and
the University it was clear that
a considerable amount of contro-
versy would result.
So I was not really bothered
when I heard some time later
that several members of the fac-
ulty were spreading a rumor that
Eugene Power was my uncle.
Nor was I really dismayed to
read in Publisher's Weekly, the
book industry's trade magazine,
that a University Microfilms exe-
cutive had branded my story as
"irresponsible journalism . . . a
collection of half truths."
BUT THE SURPRISE came in
a letter charging me with with-
holding information from a De-
cember 8 story ("Disclose UMI
Contracts"), because I allegedly
wanted Power "to hang."
Regent Power is not my uncle.
My stories have not been irrespon-
sible half truths. I do not want
Regent Power to hang--or leave-
or anything else

The charges of "irresponsible
reporting" by the company execu-
tive are particularly interesting.
Two days before the first story
was published it was read ver-
batim to Regent Power. At that
time he was given-and exercised
-the perrogative of changing any
and all statements attributed to
him. In addition, several other
parts of the story were clarified
or deleted, at his request.
THE LATEST CHARGE is that
The Daily article on December 8
used the phrase, "minor business
relationships," and then failed to
report that only $9.35 could be
considered conflict of interest.
In reality the criticism over
the $9.35 is based on the un-
informed statement of an assis-
tant in the auditor general's of-
fice to the effect that the entire
conflict of interest was over $9.35.
This was published in a wire-
service story.
In reality Albert Lea, the per-
son who conducted the investiga-
tion, was never consulted by the
press.
,HIS REPORT states that the

minor conflict of interest was
over the fact that the University
had two contracts with Univer-
sity Microfilms for microfilming
business school publications. A
state law forbids a Regent to have
contracts with the University.
The $9.35 was merely the
amount of royalty payments made
by University Microfilms to the
University on the two contracts.
But the conflict was not over
the money, be it $9 or $9,090, but
merely over the existence of il-
legal contracts.
As the auditor's report indicat-
ed, and The Daily reported, the
two contracts constituted minor
business relationships.
NONETHELESS THE ethical
questions raised here were ap-
parently significant to the audi-
tor and certainly they should be
of concern to the University.
In addition, the auditor's re-
port raised questions about a
versity Microflims from the Uni-
special discount received by Uni-
versity's photoduplication service.
A letter in the Dec. 13 Ann
Arbor News said, "If University
Microfilms has anything other

than an arm's length relationship
with the University. that relation-
ship should be corrected."
This is all anyone at The Daily
has ever sought. In an October 23
editorial accompanying the orig-
inal artidle it was suggested that
Power "has an obligation to seek
the opinion of the Michigan at-
torney general on business prac-
tices his firm has instituted since
he became a Regent in 1956."
Advice has been sought and the
relationships are being corrected.
SINCE HE BEGAN his pros-
perous company, Power has con-
tinually used resources at the Uni-
versity. The privileges extended
to University Microfilms are clear-
ly unrelated to any kind of graft.
Rather they have been extended
out of a benevolent negligence.
because of his substantial con-
tributions material to both the
University and the academic
world.
Those business privileges he en-
joyed went unquestioned for too
long a time. When the questions
were asked, Power responded by
seeking an investigation which has

now been completed and analyzed
by independent legal counsel. It
is now known that certain recom-
mendations have been made for
changes in Power's business re-
lationships with the University.
Several of the changes deal with
questions originally raised by The
Daily-the microfilming of doc-
toral theses, for example.
In about two weeks the Michi-
gan Attorney General will release
his opinion and then the Regents
will consider the problems that
should have been solved long ago.
Furthermore the state Legisla-
ture's subcommittee on higher
education plans to propose new
legislation on conflict of interest
as an outgrowth of this investiga-
tion.
True, it is unfortunate that the
situation had to be resolved after
it was brought to the attention of
the public. But it is only the neg-
ligence of those involved which is
to blame for that.
HOPEFULLY the situation will
be cleared up quickly, and that
will be the end of it.

'0

Pro..
Whk PRESIDENT Harlan Hatcher and
Vice-Presidents A. Geoffrey Norman,
Wilbur Pierpont and Michael Radock
Coaxed the auto companies Into under-
writing a $10 million highway safety re-
search institute for the University, they
succeeded in pulling off quite a coup. '
The automobile has to a large extent
both 'eated our modern world and been
its 0 rg. On the one hand trucks and
autgs move the goods and people neces-
sary to sustain our great urban busi-
ness centers which the first Model T
trucks helped to complete.
On the other hand, roads and parking
facilities have strangled many otherwise
lovely cities and suburbs, traffic deaths
have taken a shameful toll of life and
autos have been a major contributor to
smog and other forms of air pollution.
While there has been widespread rec-
ognition of these problems, and even some
excellent though restricted research deal-
ing with some of them, there has never
been a concerted study of their common
cause-the unbridled expansion of auto
travel and of the auto market. It has
been the sort of problem that everyone
knows about and, therefore, no one does
anything about.
THE AUTOMOBILE has become such
an entrenched segment of American.
life that it has remained barely unexam-
ined. Many significant facts have been
unearthed about the auto in this larger;
context-it has been in many cases con-
structed almost purposely inadequately
(to keep sales up and costs down); its
continued existence depends upon the
rapid turnover in the new car market;
most people feel a strong psychological
identification with their car; driving has
a strong psychological appeal through its
speed and ease-but they have never been
analyzed in relation to one another or
in relation to their meaning for society
generally.
If administered properly, the auto grant
can help to ease this ignorance. Secre-
tary of State James M. Hare is wrong if
he contends that it cannot.
It is true that if the auto companies
had given $10 million to the safety insti-
tute at Michigan State University, some
answers to research would have been
produced soonerBut they would not have
been th sort of long-range, integrated
analyses that the basic problems require
and that the University's institute will
hopefully produce.
Naturally, the source of the grant has
also aroused concern. If the auto com-
panies have provided the money, how
likely is it that the institute will do any
research on subjects which may be em-
barrassing to those companies, i.e., the
kind of research that is often needed?
And even if this is done, is there any
guarantee that the companies will imple-
ment the institute's findings?
WITH RESPECT to the first question it
is important to emphasize that the
$10 million is essentially free money. The
auto companies have neither defined the
kind nor the extent of research that may
be done by the institute; it is operating
with absolutely no strings attached. Those
who fear the institute will become the
kept woman 'of the auto industry are
fighting a straw man.
It may be true that the auto companies
will be under no direct compulsion to
abide by the institute's findings. Yet gov-
ernment pressure, in the face of growing
automobile problems, is rising-witness

the recent hearings of the Ribicoff com-
mittee on industry practices. Moreover,
it has to be realized that while it is possi-
ble to argue that the auto companies are
not operating in the public interest, but it
has never been, possible to define broad
questions affecting the automobile care-
fully enough to legislate upon them. With
the institute's work, such enforcement
will be possible for the first time.
T TNIVERSITY administrators deserve
thanks for a job well done. The new
research institute, if kept independent,
well-financed and creatively administer-
ed, should be an excellent example of

Con1

! "

THE $10 MILLION GIFT from the Auto-
mobile Manufacturers Association,
Ford and General Motors for a highway
safety research institute at the Univer-
sity is, to say the least, strange.
One would suppose the University might
have consulted the State Board of Edu-
cation before accepting "the largest cor-
porate gift ever received by a university
for any purpose" (the words of the Uni-
versity announcement). Apparently, how-I
ever, the University does not find it con-
tradictory to accept the gift for a new
highway research institute-despite the
existence of a functioning highway re-
search center at Michigan State Univer-
sity--while continuingto claim that MSU
should not develop a medical school be-
cause of the existence of its own medical
school.
Moreover, the University's imposing
designation of its center as "systems-
oriented" can scarcely obscure the fact,
as Secretary of State James Hare points
out, that "in by-passing the MSU traffic
safety center," the auto industry "effec-
tively precludes the answers to questions
now needed by the Legislature for at
least a three-year period" required to
construct a building, recruit staff and put
the institute into operation.
FINALLY, President Hatcher's state-
ments in announcing the grant were
so effusive one wonders if they weren't
written for him in Detroit. His glowing
references to the virtually non-existent
"support the (auto) industry long has
given to organizations working in the
safety field . . . (and) the important
work which the industry (itself) has done
" are startling in their apparent ig-
norance of the event which obviously
prompted the auto industry grant: Sena-
tors Robert Kennedy (D-NY) and Abra-
ham Ribicoff (D-Conn), member and
chairman, respectively, of a subcommittee
investigating highway safety, made se-
vere and telling criticism of the auto in-
dustry's lack of concern and action on
the whole highway safety question.
If the University's activities are inex-
plicable, the auto industry's decision is
thus less so, but scarcely less question-
able. Secretary Hare asked industry rep-
resentatives in August to meet with him
to work out a program of financial sup-
port for research on topics of immediate
legislative concern. Although in a Sept.
14 meeting they apparently led him to be-
lieve they were interested, the only an-
swer Hare got after the meeting, despite
an October appeal for an answer, came
with the Dec. 17 announcement of the $10
million gift.
THE NEW YORK TIMES reported Sun-
day that the automobile industry had
approached the University with a pro-
posal for a center-not the other way
around, as the University's announce-
ment said. Since then it has been learn-
ed that, initially, the automobile indus-
try opposed including automotive design
as a topic of inquiry for the center. It
also appears that the auto manufactur-
ers approached only the University about
a safety research institute.
But although it is silly to attack such
a generous gift, one may well wonder
about the enthusiasm of the auto com-
panies for it and its immediate-and ul-
timate-contribution to highway safety.
THE AUTO INDUSTRY'S sudden devel-
opment of interest in traffic safety
after the hearings of the Ribicoff com-
mittee; its refusal to even answer Secre-
tary Hare's request; its quiet approach to

the University; its by-passing existing
traffic safety centers, including one at
MSU; its evident acceptance of a three-
year delay on research results; its ini-
tial opposition to automobile design as
a research topic-such evidence, of course,
seems to suggest that the automobile
companies are attempting to exalt them-
selves for a new-found, half-hearted en-
thusiasm for traffic safety which ap-
pears in reality to be little more than a
public relations gambit.
Such evidence is, to be sure, only cir-
cumstantial. But, Thoreau observed,

*1

Johnson-.Vic.tim of Disastrous Counsel

0

Bv WALTER LIPPMANN
THERE IS no reason to doubt
that the President is sincere
in proclaiming to the whole world
his desire to negotiate a peace in
Viet Nam. But sincerity is not
the crux of the matter. The ques-
tion is whether he recognizes the
strategic realities of the military
situation and isprepared to nego-
tiate a truce which conforms with
them. It cannot be a glorious
truce.
If the President is not prepared
to make his terms of peace con-
sistent withethe reality in South-
east Asia, he is likely to find that
our friends and our adversaries
alike regard the whole spectacular
business not as the action of a
statesman but as the device of a
showman.
Nevertheless, for the President
the peace offensive is a critical
turning point. It is not true, as
so many suppose, that, if Peking
and Hanoi reject the offer to
negotiate, the way will therefore
be cleared and open for a general
escalation of the war.
The President ' will find that,
while the planes will fly and the
troops will march and Congress
will vote the money, confidence in
his leadership, both at home and
abroad, will be deeply weakened
unless he has defined his terms of
peace.
AS SEEN through the murk of
Secretary of State Dean Rusk's
on and off the record press con-
ferences, the Johnson adminis-
tration has no firm and clear
position on the central issues of
the war. I realize that industrious
newspapermen have been able to
glean a collection of remarks which
relate to the central issues-such
as, whether we are prepared to
leave South Viet Nam under any
conditions which are in fact rea-

lizable in the foreseeable future
and whether we are in fact will-
ing to negotiate a truce with the
main adversary in the field, the
Viet Cong.
If these central points have
been clarified by Averell Harri-
man and the other emissaries, a
great deal will have been accom-
plished. If they have not been
clarified, the effort is not suf-
ficiently serious to comport with
the dignity of a great power. For
a power like the United States
cannot lose face by liquidating a
miserable war. But it can lose
face by fooling around with it.
Mr. Johnson knows that he is
in a very grave crisis, For as he
admitted in his year-end remarks,
his great domestic accomplish-
ments are jeopardized by his "fail-
ure" to achieve peace in Viet
Nam. It is worse than that.
He is on the verge of making
the kind of ruinous historical
mistake which the.Athenians made
when they attacked Syracuse,
which Napoleon and Hitler made
when they attacked Russia. He is
on the verge of engaging this
country in a war which can grow
into a great war lasting. for many
years and promising no rational
solution.
THE PRESIDENT is in this
predicament mainly because he
has t1t himself be persuaded by
very bad,advice. The bad advice
has been 'the argument that the
expansion of Chinese communism
will be halted or quickened by the
outcome of the fighting in South
Viet Nam.
The notion that revolutionary
wars can be stopped by fighting
it out in South Viet Nam has been
the cherished illusion of the
President's two principal advisers.
Both Rusk and Robert McNamara
have committed themselves to the
fallacy that South Viet Nam is

Today
Tomo rrow
By WALTER LIPPMANN
the Armageddon of the conflict
with communism.
This misconceived yar has in
fact boomeranged. Its effect has
been quite the opposite from what
it was supposed to be. The coun-
try has been told that,by proving
our determination and our will-
ingness to fight, we are arousing
resistance to the expansion of
Chinese communism.
But are we? If China is to be
contained it will have to be done
not only by the United States, but
by the containing powers of Asia:
namely, Pakistan, India, Japan
and the Soviet Union.
Yet not one of these great
powers of Asia is aligned with us.
Quite the contrary. Our Vien-
namese actions have driven the
most powerful of all the contain-
ing states, the Soviet Union, into
open opposition to us and, if we
escalate enough, will drive it into
some kind of military opposition.
CERTAINLY it is essential that
Communist China be contained
until its revolutionary ardors have
cooled and she has settled down
to peaceable coexistence. But a
serious policy of containing China
would begin with a realization
that China is a continental land
power in Asia, and if she is to
be contained it will have to be
done primarily by the great pow-
ers of Asia, not be the United
States alone.
What is more, a serious policy
for containing China would re-

spect the basic geographical facts
-that China is a land power and
we are a sea power, that China is
an elephant and we are a whale.
During the past year or so China
has had many failures and one
conspicuous success. Geography
was the determining factor in all
of them.
The Chinese failed in Africa,
which is across the ocean and too
far away. She outbluffed herself
against India, which is also in
fact too far away. She had a hu-
miliating setback in Indonesia.

which is separated from China by
blue water and is not within her
reach.
China's one success has been
that the greatest sea power has
become bogged down in the morass
of Indochina and would now be
tut to it to mount a counter-
revolutionary effort anywhere else
tn this turbulent world. It is no
wonder then that Chita will do
all that' she can to prevent us
from extricating ourselves from
the morass.
(c),1965, The Washington Post Co.

*1

"Remember What We're Fighting For, Boy -
Freedom For Fverybody To Conform"

New York Shows Urban Money Drought

By BRUCE WASSERSTEIN
MUST THE American city wal-
low in crime, dirt, slums and
poverty? Is it ungovernable?
Although money is not a pan-
acea forproblems of urban areas,
it helps. And most American
cities cannot provide adequate
services to their population be-
cause of insufficient funds.
It is apparent that in the long
run there will be a need for ad-
justment of the tax system of
the nation so that enough of the
revenue which flows into national
and state coffers from the urban
areas will be fed back to the
cities. In the meantime however,
the city must be able to improvise
viable forms of raising additional
revenue on its own in addition to
the insufficient state and federal
appropriations it currently gets.
CURRENTLY New York City is
in the midst of a drastic fiscal
crisis which may very well thwart
Mayor John V. Lindsay's attempt
to get "the city moving again."
Former Mayor Robert Wagner
tried to get off-track betting pass-
ed but failed. It is unlikely that
the measure can be implemented
in the near future.
If the Empire City with all its
resources cannot get moving, be-
cause of a lack of a sound revenue
base, the future looks rather dis-
mal for urban areas as a whole.
Republican comet Lindsay faces
the alternatives of either reduc-
ing city servicesto the population
drastically after he claimed in
his campaign that present services
are inadequate or raising money
from sources within the city.
Despite his attempt to reorgan-
ize the city's vast bureacracy,
Lindsay will not be able to cut
enough corners to stave off fiscal

have their points but it is clear
that on balance some would be
much better than others:
0 A major bond issue would be
rather unlikely and could prove
disastrous. One of the basic causes
of the fiscal crisis In New York
has been the traditional policy of
spend now, pay later. A bond issue
would just aggravate the situation
in the long run, and besides would
prove to be uneconomical since
the interest rate on New York
City bonds has risen with the
growth of pessimism for the city's
fiscal outlook. It is apparent that
a more fundamental remedy to
the situation is needed.
f Nobody wants higher taxes,
but they will most likely be the
solution Lindsay will use to get
more revenue. The problems here
is that each type of tax usedby
Lindsay will undoubtedly have
reprecussions that will influence
the future growth of the city.
LINDSAY MAY either use high-
er real estate taxes or install a
city income tax. Each of. these
devices has its unique pitfalls.
An increase in real 'estate taxes.
for example, could upset the eco-
nomic stability of New York. As
was pointed out in the Herald
Tribune series "New York: A City
in Crisis" the high cost of rent
in the city forces many industries
to locate in the suburbs. New
York cannot affordato continue
to lose jobs this way and un-
doubtedly higher real estate taxes
will be passed on to lessees by pro-
perty owners.
Another effect will be that the
middle class which ownes private
homes in the Bronx, Brooklyn,
Queens and Staten Island, will
also be nudged to move to the

But if the taxes result inemigira-
tion from New York by corpora-
tions and the middle class the
result will be more unemployment,
less municipal stability and even-
tually a heavier tax burden on the
working man.
AN INCOME TAX also has its
drawbacks. The main question
with it is, of course, how progres-
sive should it be? Ideally it ought
to tax the rich and extend the
funds in welfare to the needy.
Unfortunately it is impractical
for New York. If the income tax
is too steep the rich will simply
move from Fifth Avenue to Scars-
dale. The trick is to devise a tax
rate which will be progressive
enough to fill the city's coffers,
yet not so steep as to force the
wealthy to flee.
On the other hand, there have
been proposals that the city's in-
come tax be not only applicable to
residents of New York City but
also to everyone who works there,
regardless of where they live. This
proposal is sound since it would
tap millions of dollars of tax rev-

enue from commuters who work in
the city. However there is still
the possibility that companies and
families would decide to locate in
other parts of the country becaust
of the tax imposed on workers in
New York. Yet the deleterious
effects of such a tax would be
lower than other forms of taxa-
tion since the probability of mass
emigration from the metropolitan
area is low.
* Devices such as city con-
trolled gambling and lotteries
might be one of the best ways to
raise additional revenue, but op-
position to such methods by people
who have attacked their "im-
moral" nature has been strong.
Such morality arguments are spe-
cious since the city already spon-
sors betting on horses within the
racetracks. It seems hard to be-
liege that the morality of the
issue changes when betting is
held outside the track's walls.
Such methods of finance have
been very successful in other
places such as New Hampshire
and England. Furthermore city

supported gambling and lotteries
wouldrdo a great deal to destroy
number and bookie rackets- which
provide a power base for crime
syndicates.
REPUBLICAN LINDSAY is hop-
ing that a reapportioned. legisla-
ture will be more benevol nt in
its appropriations to the city than
the old legislature which was. dom-
inated by representatives ofup-
state New York. He is also hoping
that the establishment of the de-
partment of urban affairs at the
national level will result in higher
federal appropriations to solve ur-
ban problems. However because of
the war in Viet Nam on the na-
tional level and a tight fiscal pic-
ture on the state level it is clear
that these sources will not pro-
vide enough 'revenue to bail New
York out from its present crisis.
His best solution to the problem
would be to legalize city con-
trolled offtrack betting and lot-
teries. Since -the probability of
using this solution is low, a pro-
gressive income tax on all people
who work in the city seems to be
the most viable alternative.

a

Schutze's Corner: Auto Safety

The automobile industry decided
recently to get to the bottom of
the traffic safety issue by giving
ten million dollars to the Univer-
sity of Michigan for research into
such intriguing questions as "the
driving behavior of alcoholics
while sober." The director of the
new safety research project may
find himself engaged in many
conversations similar to the one
below.
"What's the matter now. Phil-

lawn. There must be something we
can do."
"Well, we tried depriving them
of booze as you suggested, sir, and
they drank up our entire supply
of antifreeze."
"DON'T PUT THAT in your re-
port. Philby. The automakers
wouldn't like it if the consumers
started demanding vodka in their
radiators. You'll remember the
motto of our project: don't dis-

and tell all of their friends that
the university of Michigan is the
best thing since Alcoholics Anony-
mous. In fact, drunks have started
pouring in from all over the coun-
try to take the U of M cure. They
even call this place Hatcher's
Haven."
"Well, I'mi afraid we'll just have
to learn to live with it. I realize
how difficult it must be for you
to live in a sea of inebriety. I
only hope it isn't' affecting you

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan