Gr Al~ilgan Daily
Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
"r n- UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

WW~.A~ AW;.. . .
. '..... ... .. . .* .. ..: . . . ..m t
POWER 'tbMlr
and a i u Fe L4iI1I II5IL.~hfG i aacLt.nU+ aractpaaion
POETRY by MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH
-C .': A..W i';.}r v ' +}h. : ft .. .. . .. :i{;.:..Sa .r.aA .A. u V. .. t a .a..'.. .. ... .... . . . . S'A . . .. ...'..S.W..*.. ..r

0i

Iton P ree, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN AI.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.
TUESDAY, APRIL 5. 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: NEIL SHISTER
U Relations w the State:
What About the uture?

HE DISASTROUS STATE of Univer-
sity public relations and the total lack
of real and effective communication
with the state Legislature has resulted
in a serious threat to the future expan-
sion and continued high quality of edu-
cation of this institution.
University administrators are presently
feverishly wringing their hands over the
state of the University's appropriations
request in the state Legislature. In their
appearance last week before the Senate
Appropriations Committee, University of-
ficials were grilled on such policies as its
tuition increase and the percentage of
out-of-state enrollment. In addition, the
committee chairman, Sen. Garland Lane
(D-Flint), and state budget experts ac-
cused the University of presenting mis-
leading facts and figures.
The University administration seems
bewildered as to just why they have such
a tough time eking funds out of the state
Legislature, when every other state sup-
portedbinstitution has a comparatively
easy job of it.
THE UNIVERSITY has not as yet gone
to the generally hostile House Ways
and Means Committee, where it will once
again have to present its case for a $10
million increase over the budget recom-
mendations of Gov. George Romney. The
governor, fortunately, appears to have no
deep-seated hostility toward the Univer-
sity-he merely holds the 'naive belief
that a balanced budget comes well be-
fore providing services to the state, even
when there's a substantial budget surplus.
The administration wonders why it has
not one representative on the House Ways
and Means Committee to act as its spokes-
man, and only Gilbert Bursley-a Repub-
lican who is outside the inner circles of
the legislative power elite-to plead its
case on the Senate Appropriations Com-
mittee. Both Wayne State and Michigan
State have a large number of powerful
and effective friends on both committees.
ONE WONDERS WHY this University,
has been picked out and anointed for
the position of general whipping post for
both the Ways and Means and Senate
Appropriations Committees, the control-
lers of the state purse strings. The Uni-
versity is at the mercy of these commit-
tees, which control close to half of the
money for the University operating budg-
et, The administration can do nothing
this session, but must make a number
of definite changes before it has to face
what will in all probability be a similarly
oriented Legislature next year.
At the root of this problem is the Uni-
versity's attitude toward the individual
legislator-stereotyping them as a group
of intellectual pygmies, who are "hardly
capable" of grasping the complex prob-
lems of the University.
Theretwas considerable basis for this
impression. Until recently, a farmer-ori-
ented Legislature confined itself simply
to destroying the city of Detroit, baiting
then-Governor Williams and cutting
budgets at random and without reason.
subscription rate: 4.50 semester by carrier ($5 by
mail); $8 yearly by carrer ($9 by ma i
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. Mich.

OWEVER, with the new batch of fresh-
man legislators elected in the 1964
Johnson landslide, the ways of the state
legislators have changed to a large ex-
tent. The new legislators are largely com-
posed of attorneys and teachers from
Michigan's urban areas who are sincere-
ly concerned with the University and who
wish to be taken in and informed of the
problems and future plans of the Univer-
sity.
It is quite true that many of the leg-
islators are a bit power-hungry and do
not know or care when they are cross-
ing the fine line between obtaining in-
formation and invading University auton-
omy. However, even with the University
attempting to protect its valuable autono-
my, the manner in which University ad-
ministrators treat and communicate with
state legislators is a ridiculous sham.
The University is never going to stop
parents of rejected students from writing
letters to legislators-a chief cause of
legislative antagonism. But, the Univer-
sity lobbyist could at least introduce him-
self to new members of the House Ways
and Means Committee, and attempt to
establishbfriendly relationships, which
might be valuable in future budget
hearings.
IT IS APPALLING to meet and talk to
state legislators on the Ways and
Means Committee and learn that this is
their first contact with a Lansing repre-
sentative of the University. It is ludi-
crous when legislators complain of writ-
ing letters to University lobbyists asking
for specific facts and figures on budget
requests, and then receiving Xerox cop-
ies of the University's budget book which
the University had sent to all legislators
months earlier.
Or, a slide shown in the University
presentation to the Senate Appropriations
Committee which reads across the top
"the Center for Research on Learning
and Teaching," and below, in large black
print, the figure 1,000,000-and that's it.
The budget request for the CRLT consists
of four lines of meaningless figures which
total in large black print the total 1,000,-
000. The Legislature was unaware until
last month of the existence ofthe CRLT
and the plans for a Residential College.
The University even refused to discuss
intelligently just what the results of
budget slashing are, leaving the Legis-
lature in the cold as to just what the re-
sults of their dirty work would be.
The consensus of opinion in Lansing
is that the University is condescending,
aloof, and-in the name of autonomy-
over-protective of their facts, figures and
plans for the future.
THIS UNIVERSITY has been left behind
in the last decade and Michigan State
and Wayne State Universities have taken
over our old first-place position. Unless
the University can change its image, at-
tempt to communicate effectively with
the leaders of the state Legislature and
let them in on the deep dark secrets that
administrators may hide in their vaults,
this University will certainly lose the
bright future in store for itself.
-MARK LEVIN

"WDON'T BELIEVE we re-
ceive our money's worth in
these elections," Sargent Shriver
told the House Education and
Labor Committee recently of the
election of representatives of the
poor to community action boards.
He, along with most other lib-
erals, has been disappointed by the
turnout in such elections: 3 per
cent in Philadelphia and less than
4 per cent in Cleveland, for ex-
ample. The reason is a long, ap-
palling and intriguing story.
The philosophy behind the pov-
erty program-end poverty by do-
ing things with the poor, not for
the poor-was based on one fairly
simple, sociologically-proven fact:
many poor people have been
stripped of the human dignity
and the moral energy necessary
to succeed. Crushed by an eco-
nomic system far beyond their
control or ken, they conclude they
are powerless to change it, and
stop struggling against it.
Traditional welfare agencies, it
can be said with only a slight
degree of exaggeration, only ac-
centuate this psychology of pov-
erty-powerlessness-by a "hand-
out," semipaternalistic approach
which, in effect, says, "Let us
take care of you. Just leave every-
thing to Big Brother."
How this attitude could en-
courage or enable the poor to deal
with their world is, of course, at
best questionable. The Health and
Welfare Council of the National
Capitol (District of Columbia)
Area released a report in February
condemning the "condescension
and contempt" of many social
workers toward the poor.
Shriver, the head of the Office

of Economic Opportunity, charged
in a speech last May that for many
social workers, "The poor are not
invited, not wanted, not needed."
"I wonder how many people in
our city slums protected welfare
workers and building inspectors
during last year's riots," Shriver
added.
Thus the philosophy of the War
on Poverty evolved: Only when
the poor themselves get involved
in their own destiny-a process in
which the government should play
a catalyzing, not throttling, role-
will they be able to change it; only
when the acquire power can they
change ther lot. It's an idea that's
as old as the "rugged individual-
ism" of the nineteenth century
and as new as the "participatory
democracy" of the twentieth.
But the philosophy of "maxi-
mum feasible participation" of the
poor in the poverty program as
written into the Economic Oppor-
tunity Act isn't quite so pleasant
in practice as it seems on paper.
In Syracuse, the poor organized,
all right, and headed straight for
the city's Housing Authority with
a list of demands (to which it fin-
ally capitulated) and the polling
booth with 4,000 new voters, 80 per
cent of them Democrats (which
infuriated the city's Republican
mayor, William F. Walsh).
In Kansas City, the poor also
got a say in that city's antipoverty
program, and a council in the
heart of the Negro slum section
rejected all 13 of the city's com-
munity action programs as-again
-paternalistic and ineffectual. In
Chicago, poor people have or-
ganized rent strikes, put dishonest
merchants out of business and

shaken up the city's cozy entente
with slumlords.
Little wonder, then, that the
nation's mayors began to see the
program as a threat to their en-
trenched interests (which, of
course, it is). By June, in ironic
contrast to complaints from the
poor that they were not being
given enough of a voice in the
poverty war, an angry group of
big-city mayors including Walsh,
Chicago's Daley and Los Angeles'
Yorty stormed to the U.S. Confer-
ence of Mayors saying the poor
had far too much say already.
Mayor John F. Shelley of San
Francisco and Yorty, of Watts
fame, drafted a strong resolution
condemning the OEO's programs
for "creating tensions" (assuming
they hadn't existed previously)
and "fostering class struggle" be-
tween the poor and City Hall.
Amid further uproar, the con-
ference sent a delegation to see
Vice President Humphrey after
first bottling the resolution up in
committee.
Humphrey, who was once mayor
of Minneapolis and is presently the
President's liason with the coun-
try's mayors, agreed with the
group that "it is absolutely essen-
tial that the mayors take the
leadership" in the war on poverty
and that "the local government is
to be the principal organizer at
the local level," according to John
Gunther, executive director of the
conference.
That was just about that. The
administration dearly needs sup-
port from Democratic Congress-
men from big cities with mayors
like Daley, and so, as The New
York Times reported after the

Mayors Conference in August,
"The general principle has been
established that the poor, while
entitled to a voice in policy plan-
ning, are not going to control
that policy."
Shriver's attitude during the in-
fighting over "maximum feasible
participation" of the poor last
summer. On the one hand, he is
said to have raised objections
about the degree of the adminis-
tration's surrender to the big
cities. On the other hand, he is
still said to think about becoming
Governor of Illinois, and, as one
source close to the warfare about
poverty says, "A politician is a
ian who finds out what the pow-
erful are thinking and agrees with
them."
In November, to the dismay of
many but the surprise of almost
none, The Times disclosed that
the Bureau of the Budget, the fis-
cal arm of the White House, had
told the OEO that in its view,
"'Maximum feasible participation'
by the poor . . . means primarily
using the poor to carry out the
program, not to design it."'
A day later Shriver denied that
"the Bureau of the Budget's al-
leged position is official govern-
ment policy," which, of course,
neatly avoided saying whether or
not the "alleged position" was or
was not budget's view-although
it indeed was.
Two days later, on Nov. 8, Vice
President Humphrey said that
"talk about involvement of the
poor" is "just a lot of academic
talk of people who have nothing
else to do." Headlines on the sub-
ject, like the budget disclosure, he
said, were "for eighth grade civics

writers," adding that "you couldn't
possibly design by law what feas-
ible means. Each community has
to find its own answer."
In December, Mayor Daley, con-
vening a conference on the poverty
program, cried out, "What is in-
herently wrong with the word 'pol-
itician' if the fellow has devoted
his life to holding public office
and trying to do something for
his people?" (In one Chicago area,
an advisory board-they are all
appointed, not elected-has 3 al-
dermen and 49 other Daley ap-
pointees out ,of a total of 75; the
rest of the boards are about the
same.)
And, arriving in Chicago for
Daley'sconference, Shrivertold a
conference of social workers that
he was "humbly" asking them,
"We want your help." (So much
for his May speech to another
social work group.)
Four days later, speaking at
Daley's conference, he added, "The
establishment is not a bunch of
guys in black hats against good
guys in white bats." He said the
establishment was "listening and
responding" to the drive to end
poverty.
All that, of course, brings us to
the poverty-war elections in Phila-
delphia and Cleveland, but by now
the low turnout, far from being
surprising or disappointing, is
pretty obvious. Poor people have
concluded that there's not much
point in getting involved in an-
other program which is just
another hoax. Far from showing
that the OEO has failed, the low
turnouts in such elections suggest
it never got off the ground.

if
U

Teach-In: Left of Political Science

By PETER McDONOUGH
ONE UNEXPECTED by-product
of the China teach-in was to
dramatize the disrepute in which
political science is held among the
radical left. Tom Hayden con-
tended that working for General
Motors and studying in the politi-
cal science department were equal-
ly contemptible escapes, by way of
the System, from the more urgent
realities of the revolutionary poor.
Anatol Rapoport, a mathemati-
cal biologist whose knowledge of
general scientific method is suf-
ficiently expert to have warranted
publication in the American Poli-
tical Science Review, was accused
of know-nothing demagogy for
expressing his dissatisfaction with
a kind of probabilistic mannerism
that sometimes passes as political
analysis.
W. B. Yeats-a dead, and there-
fore objective commentator-has
the last word: "An intellectual
hatred is the worst."
BOTH SIDES were puzzled by
each other's naievete and rational-
izations. Many political scientists
-when they do not dismiss them
altogether as irresponsible ob-
scurantists-tend to be simul-
taneously frightened by and em-
barrassed for radicals: there is
supposed to be something un-
healthy about incorrigible ideal-
ism; and after a certain age in-
nocence as such appeals-presum-

ably only to the perverse.
Radicals, on the other hand, are
fed up with what they consider
the mandarin scientism, likewise
irresponsible, of political scholars,
and often assume that the politics
of most political scientists are-
or might as well be, for all the
effect they have-somewhere to
the right of Marie Antoinette's.
Two connected issues were im-
plicitly raised. First, whether poli-
tical science has anything signifi-
cant to do with either politics
or science-whether it is accurate,
and humanly relevant. And sec-
ond, whether political scientists
should "actively" or 'directly" in-
volve themselves in bettering the
world. Theoretical discussions of
these questions are voluminous
and brilliant; even the nonsense is
usually nonsense of a very high
order. What is perhaps just as in-
teresting is the tragic-comic so-
ciology of condescension and sus-
pician which afflicts the dialogue
between political scientists and
radical activists.
THE RADICAL literature which
deals with these issues has become,
after a dazzling beginning, rather
threadbare: it exhorts to action,
for in action there is change and
community. The radicals' most
telling contribution has come
through a visionary indignation,
particularly in muckracking. But
you get the impression that much

of it is written mainly to make
the writer feel better-a reason-
able motivation if it inspires some-
thing more than lines whose sole
claim to coherence is that they
are arranged vertically on a page.
The most challenging of this
literature-by Marcuse and Sartre,
as well as some fugitive pieces by
the young radicals-combines the
call to participation with an at-
tack against behavioral methodol-
ogy and the schizophrenic com-
bination of determinist and ma-
nipulative wisdom which it sup-
posedly inculcates.
And there is the poetry-the
best of it almost intolerably im-
mediate, singing what cannot be
said.
It is a measure of the seriousness
of the issue that political scien-
tists in addressing themselves to
the radical indictment now and
then fly into defensive paroxysms
rivaled only by admen and Ger-
mans over forty. There is a ver-
sion of pragratism which strikes
radicals as the substitution of
opportunistic disenchantment for
a more honorable realism, and it
runs like this: you have to work
on the inside, with the System, to
lend verisimilitude to your re-
search, to get at the facts, as well
as to change things or influence
the changers. Radicalism-i.e.,
working outside the System-may
be considered within the pale of,

say, pluralism," but it is doing
things the hard way.
SO, THE RADICALS SAY, the
liberal's reality and his need to
act on reality are exorcised by
more or less scandalous, more or
less innocuous asides at faculty
socials; a colleague might be of-
fended, or a career jeopardized,
but this has nothing to do really
with politics or scholarship. Rad-
icals are both bored and sustained
in paranoia by the professional
drolleries, stately meliorism, pre-
ternatural amiability and com-
petitive grab-ass of academia.
The genteel pessimism of poli-
tical scientists as perceived by
radicals seems to be an exquisite
hypocrisy for men "hung up on
power." What began as a libera-
tion of intellect requiring among
other, things the suspension of
value judgements appears to have
petrified into an inanimate fan-
tasy, without conscience or pur-
pose.
THE POLITICAL scientist's am-
bivalent fascination with radical-
ism stems partly from its protest
against ' this "alienation" in the
form of an ideology of direct ac-
tion. When the liberal points out
that, after all, we enjoy an un-
exampled freedom of speech, the
radical is apt to reply that such
claims are mystifications of the
fact that talk is cheap, and he

takes to the streets to bring down,
indiscriminately, the Clark Kerrs
and Bronco Nagurskis of this
world. The liberal w o n d e r s
whether the radical worries too
much, takes things too seriously,
is a fanatic, a boor; the radical
wonders who, baby, is really wor
ried.
There are more terrible exper-
iences, but hardly any more bitter
than the one brought on by the
liberal's classic impasse with the
radical-that of being humiliated
in his ministrations.
These are cartoons of the poli-
tical scientists and the radical
activist: mutually confirming dis-
tortions presented in the fashion
of Sunday supplement psychology.
It is too bad that they are accept-
ed as working definitions: radical-
ism can be a noble cause, but
radicals are a nuisance-it's a
nice place to visit, but . . .; politi-
cal science may be true, but it is
not beautiful, and so on.
Unfortunately, the conflicts be-
tween the two approaches, or vo-
cations, do not disappear with
the exposure of their superficial
differences.
THERE IS a kind of resolution,
if not salvation, in a sense of
humor which at least helps pre-
serve one's sanity, and in the sug-
gestion that though good manners
may be bourgeois, bad manners are
not the nobler part of revolution.

.9

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
A Marine

rites from

Viet Nam


To the Editor:
T AM ENCLOSING a letter
from a young Marine in Viet
Nam. Perhaps the American
public would like to know the
true nature of the military
"heroes" it idolizes from the
viewpoint of one thrown into
disillusionment by what he has
witnessed.
I have copied the letter :n full,
making only grammatical and
spelling corrections and chang-
ing the young man's name, as
there have been previous cases
of retribution in such cases.
The views of the Marine are not
intended in any way to reflect
my down.
--Georgia Leiviska
Dear Georgia,
I'M GOING TO DO the best I
can in answering your questions
truthfully, however you should
keep in mind that I'm not aware
of everything that happens over
here. I'm going to neglect a few
in favor of the ones I can answer
best.
Let's talk about the moral ques-
tions. I don't believe that 59 per
cent of the population are interned
in barbed wire enclosed camps.
The villagers erect barbed wire
fences around their hamlets to
keep the VC out but they are free
to come and go during daylight
hours. What might be referred to
are the refugee camps which house
less than 10 per cent of the popu-
lation or possibly camps where the
"Pnl e-an a pr osmnahizing

ful of VC. This is true. The unit
I am in burned a village last
month. I'll explain how this came
about.
We had been patrolling this area
for a month and had taken sev-
eral casualties in a village we call
No. 10. They shot the man behind
me and after we had him evacuat-
ed the VC had run away. Having
no combatants to take it out on,
the men put the torch to every
house in the village.
They laughed and joked about
it as they were accomplishing
their arson. It looked, or rather
reminded one of bunch of de-
linquent kids smashing stuff up
and seeing who could be the most
destructive of the lot. One woman
ran to a tall corporal who was
lighting a torch and tried to pull
it from his hand. She was crying
and screaming, No VC! No VC!"
but he laughed and the louder
she cried the more he seemed to
enjoy planting the fire on her
house.
He was holding her at arm's
length and laughing in her face
when the scene switched and the
main delight was in knocking the
water cans from the villagers'
hands as they ran to their burning
houses. Finally, they kept them
from the well at gunpoint until the
flames were well beyond control,
then we formed up and continued
the patrol.
GREAT SOCIETY "uber alles."
I know little about the use of
tear gas or blister agents. How-

As for the defoliating chemicals,
as best I can gather they have
only been used along highways to
clear them of ambush sites.
The thing that sickens me is
the willingness of the Americans
to swap atrocities with VC. The
VC do have the edge on us, but
they are supposed to be operating
on a different value scale than
we. They don't have ideas of
absolute good or evil to get in
their way, but you should really
see what Johnny can do Monday
after church on Sunday.
I THINK the Vietnamese de-
serve better than to be dominated
by the neurotic Americans. The
things I've seen the American
servicemen pull sicken me.
Some of the stories that you
receive, however, are grossly exag-
gerated. For instance: "Marines
rape womn 86 times." The most
I have heard of is 9 times (one
patrol).
There is one thing wrong with
the Christianity these people pro-
fess. They take it off too often.
One man in my company raped
3 women on consecutive nights
and although a number of people
knew about it, none of themdid
anything to stop him or even
thought it was so wrong. If I ever
should write of my experiences in
the service I would have to call it
"Life Among the Swine."
DO I THINK the Americans
should get out of Viet Nam? If
the actions of some of the Marines
I work with reflect the thinking

Unfortunately for the Viet-
namese there is no one else who
is equipped to help them. Maybe
the tragic truth is that all the
other countries are just as lacking
in character. In that case man-
kind is to be pitied; it just doesn't
have much of a future.
I can't blame the demonstrators
for not buying the concept of
America the Wonderful, but it
beats me as to why they have to
go off the deep end and champion
the reds. (I should not have used
that word.)
I have withdrawn my unques-
tioning trust from my country, but
I'm certainly not going to give it
to another dogma which shows
even less posibility of deserving it.
DO THE VIETNAMESE people
care about the outcome of the
war? Yes, the majority of the
people do not (in my opinion)
want to be run by the Communists.
The Communist system is con-
trary to the teachings of Buddhism
and would deprive the people of
their cultural heritage (as it has
in the north). These people are
trying to resist sinoization. When
I say this I am not referring to
the French interbred aristocracy in
Saigon. I'm referring to the people
in general.
I don't think" the Vietnamese
would worry about the VC if they
were not supplied with men and
materials from outside. This is no
more a revolution than the "Bay
of Pigs." The VC have succeeded
here where the U.S. failed in Cuba.'
The people are not crazy about

patriotism and heroism and they
can have America too. I'll find
another country.
AND SO CONCLUDES my note
to the Cruel Society.
Sincerely,
Mike
Teach-In
To the Editor:
WHAT HAPPENED at Sunday
night's teach-in was not only
disgraceful but also depressing. I
am referring to events in the dis-
cussion led by Drs. Rapoport and
Organski. Because I sympathize
with Dr. Rapoport's position on
world affairs for reasons of moral-
ity, ethics, and justice, I find it
more than sad that his "opponent"
was so ill received.
I respect Dr. Rapoport's quiet
rationality. Most of his supporters
exhibited anything but that. If
we, that is we who advocate
"peace," are not to be frustrated
in our attempts to convince people
that our arguments are right, then
perhaps an elementary lesson in
the psychological theory of posi-
tive reinforcement is. in order.
What I saw tonight was an ele-
mentary practice of the theory of
an eye for ant eye, an injustice
for an injustice, and intolerance
for intolerance.
IT IS THE HEIGHT of hypo
crisy to oppose United States for-
eign policy on humanistic grounds
and then to treat a man in such

*

a

.pw

it
4