Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROl OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

Faculty Review: Staebler versus?

01

WheN Opinions Are Free
rr-ih WillPreval.

420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.

NEWS PxoN-- 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.

SUNDAY, APRIL 10, 1966

NIGHT EDITOR: MICHAEL HEIFFER


University vs. Unions:
A Logical Alternative

THE UNIVERSITY has come under at-
tack recently for its refusal to cooper-
ate with the unions trying to organize the
University's nonacademic employes. It has
refused to deviate from its position of
freezing the unions on one hand, while
fighting the issue of autonomy in the
::ourts on the other. But, the unions have
now come up with a solution which will
allow the University to renig its anti-
union policies and still leave the question
of autonomy to the courts.
A. L. Zwerdling, attorney for the Unions,
recently told the administration that the
anions are not concerned with the ques-
Lion of University autonomy. All they
want is recognition of their collective bar-
gaining rights, whether this is given by
an autonomous Board of Regents or the
State Labor Mediation Board. They have,
therefore, offered the University a chance
to retreat.
FOUR UNIONS ARE trying to become the
recognized bargaining agents for non-
academic University employes. Their
right to collective bargaining was recently
granted under an amendment to the Hut-
,hinson Act. Because of the University's
refusal to bargain, the unions have been
forced to carry their battle to the State
Labor Mediation Board. It will decide
which union will represent the employes,
and the number and size f the bargaining
units.
The University has refused to recognize
union claims because it feels it is exempt
from the provisions of the Hutchinson
Act. It claims University autonomy and
says its emplayes are not state employes.
rhe University feels that by accepting the
Hutchinson Act it would be granting the
Legislature the right to dictate University
conduct.
UNFORTUNATELY, the University's ob-
jection to unionization may include
more than its vocal objections to a pos-
iibl loss of autonomy. The University is
worried about the number of bargaining

agents with which they will ultimately
have to deal. It is afraid that the union-
ization drive will spread to the faculty.
Ihis has already begun among the teach-
Ing fellows without any apparent harm to
the University.
Finally, it is, as always, concerned with
money: how much the unions demand in
proportion to how much the University
receives. These concerns, however, cannot
supercede the basically unfair stand
of the University.
IN BLOCKING UNIONIZATION the Uni-
versity administration has taken re-
gretable action. First, they have alienated
many of the legislators in Lansing. This is
concurrent with their drive for increased
funds from the Legislature. Many of the
Legislators have strong union backing and
prounion constituencies.
Secondly, though the University may be
autonomus, it still has the same obliga-
tions to the welfare of its employes that
the State Legislature was trying to insure
through the amended Hutchinson Act.
Also, student groups have now joined
forces with the unions in their organiza-
tional efforts. Participation of students
makes the University's economic obliga-
tions even more pertinent.
Thirdly, instead of examining the un-
ions' claims apart from the question of
autonomy, the University has fought un-
ion officials tooth and nail. In an effort
to stall unionization, the University has
granted its employes some fringe benefits.
This is considered an unfair labor prac-
tice. It has served only to alienate the
unions andrimportant prounion forces
even further.
THE UNIONS have given the University
a convenient out; they may still fight
the question of autonomy in the courts.
But by voluntary recognition of University
employes, through independent action,
the University can reverse its ludicrous
policy.
-MARTY WOLFGANG

HOW TO ARGUE WITH A CON-
SERVATIVE. By Neil Stabler
and Douglas Ross. Grossman
Publishers: New York, 1965. 203
pages, $4.95.
By LEONARD A. GREENBAUM
Assistant Professor of English
College of Engineering
"One man's liberal is another
man's conservative."
-Scrap of paper found on Ann
Street
NEIL STAEBLER is Ann Arbor's
most illustrious and perserver-
ing political personage. His roles
have been many: State Chairman
of the Democratic Party during
the governorships of G. Mennen
Williams;rDemocratic National
Committeeman; Representative-
at large from Michigan during the
reapportionment stalemate; un-
successful Democratic candidate
for Governor against George Rom-
ney; and an ever present factor
in the local Democratic Party
where he has a deserved reputa-
tion for thoughtful presentations
on both state and national party
problems.
Recently, Mr. Staebler, together
with Douglas Ross, published a
book entitled, "How to Argue with
a Conservative." It belong to that
classical genre, the dialogue. Only
now, instead of Adeimantes and
Socrates, we listen in on two
rather reserved and well-mannered
gentlemen named CONSERVA-
TIVE and LIBERAL.
BECAUSE OF Mr. Staebler's
professional career, it is impossible
to avoid the equations suggested
by his book's title : LIBERAL=
Democrat, CONSERVATIVE- Re-
publican.
This assumption is underscored
by the immediate use of Barry
Goldwater's "writings" to define
the conservative position, by the
author's acknowledgements to a
host of active Democrats and by
the consistent defense of the ad-
ministrations of President Roose-
velt, Truman, Kennedy and John-
son.

It is apparent that this is a
book not about Liberalism but
about Democratic Liberalism, and
Democratic Liberalism from a par-
ticular point of view that I would
categorize as the "Mainstream"
of the Democratic Party.
OBVIOUSLY, TOO, much hinges
on the word "argue." In the old
debate formula, the debaters pre-
pared to take either side of a
dispute at the flip of a coin. While
there is a certain uncomfortable
lack of commitment in such pro-
cedure, it does have the advantage
of forcing the participants to
prepare the best case for both
sides.
But in an argument, other rules
apply. What matters is the win.
And one way of winning is to take
on a weak contender. CONSER-
VATIVE is a pleasant fellow who
ignores opportunities to destroy
LIBERAL's arguments.
Moreover, CONSERVATIVE is
sort of stupid, and while there
may be empirical evidence for this,
it doesn't inspire much admiration
for his vanquisher.
Despite this inadequate com-
petition, maybe because of it,
LIBERAL voices some rather un-
comfortable attitudes that the
reader cannot necessarily assume
LIBERAL believes, that is, LIB-
ERAL may have adopted them
only for the sake of maintaining
the argument.
Does LIBERAL really believe
that CONSERVATIVE is "stating
the problem" when he says the
poor are lazy and lack the desire
to get out of their poverty? Does
LIBERAL really believe that the
proof of thesvalue of bureaucracy
lies in its use by large corpora-
tions? Does LIBERAL really be-
lieve that contemporary liberalism
owes nothing to European social-
ists, that it is "as American as
Coca-Cola?"
LIBERAL MUST BE out to win!
He employs pure cant: "Take the
tax cut. It produced economic ex-
pansion with no strings attached.
People bought what they wanted

with the extra income that re-
sulted from reduced taxes .. ."
LIBERAL plays with numbers.
When justifying economic policies
since the depression, he diminishes
the number of poor. When justify-
ing the need for the poverty pro-
gram, he enlarges the number and
suggests additional, reasonable
criteria for judging who is poor.
The really disturbing chapter is
on foreign policy.
"LIBERAL: ... The ultimate
goal of our foreign policy is to
create a world in which America
will be secure.
CONSERVATIVE: Conserva-
tives don't take issue with this.
All we are saying is that, as long
as Communism is allowed to
flourish anywhere in the world,
America will remain in constant
danger. Therefore, any foreign
policy seeking to insure our se-
curity must hold the elimina-
tion of Communism as its pri-
mary objective, and liberal
foreign policy does not.
LIBERAL: I stand corrected.
Our disagreement is primarily'
over the most effective means to
victory."
LATER, LIBERAL expands on
this: "In addition to our attempts
to take advantage of differences
within the Communist world and
Professor Greenbaum is As-
sistant Director of the Phoenix
Project, and has been active in
local politics as a member of
the Democratic Party.
the possible transforming effects
of containment, the United States
employs propaganda, espionage,
the training of anti-Communist
guerrillas, and a wholetarray of
conventional offensive tactics to
defeat the Communists.
"To claim that liberal foreign
policy is 'no win,' reflects a very
limited knowledge of America's
cold war strategy and actions over
the past twenty years."

And again, "As I understand it,
a policy of peaceful coexistence
doesn't necessitate or even imply
that we or the Communists aban-
don or compromise our respective
values and goals. Peaceful coexist-
ence is simply a mutual agreement
to establish certain ground rules
for fighting the cold war, aimed at
preserving the possibility of a
meaningful victory for either
side . .
"Peaceful coexistence is a tacit
understanding to fight the cold
war with nonmilitary means, such
as propaganda, foreign aid, and
even subversion-anything short of
actual armed conflict between the
two great nuclear powers."
THE PARAGRAPH that best
illustrates the elusive character
of LIBERAL's argument is this
one:
"LIBERAL: Who is winning
the cold war in Europe? We are.
The growing demand for inde-
pendent policies in Western
Europe testifies to our success
in revitalizing that area while
the spreading restiveness and'
autonomy to the east attests to
the Soviets' failure to achieve
their ends."
If you believe this] look what
happens by changing three words
and the nationality of the speaKer.
"Who is winning the cold war
in Europe? We are. The growing
demand for independent policies
in Eastern Europe testifies to
our success in revitalizingethat
area while the spreading restive-
ness and autonomy to the west
attests to the Americans' failure
to achieve their ends."
The consistency of this book is
the consistency of justifying every
historical act of the Democratic
Party-and very often with pure
liberal romanticism. Pluck a Pov-
erty Program, strum a Soil Bank,
chord a Civil Rights Act and you
wonder why anyone ever had to
write "WeShall Overcome" which,
when you get down to the nitty
gritty, is a very ironic song in
1966. I doubt if this book will en-
able one liberal to convert one

conservative, but I don't think
that matters.
MY OWN FEELING is that the
issues in 1966 are not the issues
discussed in "How to Argue with
a Conservative." More important
than what LIBERAL says to CON-
SERVATIVE is what LIBERAL
says to OTHER LIBERAL. The
Williams-Cavanagh race is an ex-
ample. Is either candidate worth
supporting? If so, it will be because
he takes stands considerably
beyond those of LIBERAL's discus-
sion with CONSERVATIVE.
Mr. Staebler, as I have said,
represents the "Mainstream" of
the Democratic Party. That
stream, challenged by the Con-
servatives in 1964, beat the Con-
servatives badly,, buit with the as-
sistance of many people who had
not actively participated in party
politics prior to the Goldwater
Alternative.
Today, these same people are
challenging the Democratic ad-
ministration they helped to elect,
particularly on Viet Nam, and soon
on China, and then on travel poli-
cies and soon after that, should
they become impatient with the
lack of results in civil rights and
the poverty programs (when they
stop hearing the music), then
there too.
IT IS THESE people who will
be unconvinced by a nostalgia
piece about the Goldwater-John-
son dilemma. Not for a moment
is this meant to suggest that the
answers are all with OTHER
LIBERAL. If liberalism has a
future, in or out of the Demo-
cratic Party, it lies in an amalgam
of the new questions and the
skills of party politics. The elec-
tion last Monday in Ann Arbor
showed that.
Success lies not in letting the
conservatives frame the questions
and determine the postures, but.
rather in coalescing on a liberal
policy that apologizes to no one
for the rightness of its position,
and then works to get the bodies
to the polls. And often, even that
can painfullyfail.

4'

*1

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Teach-In Lacked Communication

Teaching Fellows Take
Step in Right Direction

THE ORGANIZATION of teaching fel-
lows, which could become a very posi-
tive force in the University, was formed
just a few weeks ago by a handful of irate
teaching fellows, who were no longer con-
tent to simply complain among them-
selves of their condition.
Their demands for smaller classes and
better office facilities for counselling stu-
dents are issues that the University should
be made to deal with for the good of the
University as a whole. Their demands
Acting Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH. Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor

CLARENCE FANTO
Managing Editor

HARVEY WASSERMAN
Editorial Director

JOHN MEREDITH .. Associate Managing Editor
LEONARD PRA rT . .. Associate Managing Editor
BABETTE COHN , ., Personnel Director
CHARLOTTE WOLTER .. Associate Editoral Director
ROBERT CARNEY .,... Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT MOORES... Magazine Editor
CHARLES VETZNFR ..,., . Sports Editni
JAMES LaSOVAGE ..... .. . Associate Sports Editor
JAMES TINDALL ........ A sociate Sports Editot
OIL SAMBERG..............Assistant Sports Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Michael Heffer, Merle Jacob, Rob-
ert Klvant, Laurence Medow, Roger Rapoport, Shir-
ley Rosick, Neil Slister.
DAY EDITORS: Alice Bloch, Richard Charin, Pat
Chopp, Jane Dreyfus, Susan Elan, David Knoke,
Mark Levin, Steve Wildstrom, Joyce Winslow.
ASSISTANT NIGHT EDITORS: Robert Bendelow, Da-
vid Duboff, Wallace immen, Marshall Lassar, Dan
Okrent, Lynne Rothschild, David Smith.
ASSISTANT DAY EDITORS: Harriet Deutch, Kathy
Edelman, J. Russe'.1 Gaines, Aviva Kempner, Helen
Kronenberg, Pat O'Donahue, Susan Schnepp, Jo-
seph Tomlinson, Betsy Turner, Eric Wayne, Martha
Wolfgang,
SPORTS NIGHT EDITORS: Bob McFarland, Howard
Kohn, Dan Okrent, Dale Sielaff, Rick Stern John
Sutkus.
Acting B gsiness Stafff
SUSAN PERLSTADT, Business Manager
JEFFREY LEEDS ,...... Associate Business Manager
HARRY B3LOCH... ......... Advertising Manager
STEVEN LOEWENTHAL ...... Circulation Manager
ELIZABETH RHEU .,........... Personnel Director
VICTOR PTASZNIK .......,..E.... Finance Manage

for higher salaries, which initially would
be most beneficial to themselves, would in
the end help to raise the standards of
undergraduate education by attracting
the best people.
THE TEACHING FELLOWS are asking
for a raise in salary from the maximum
of $2475 to $3600 for half-time teaching.
The platitudes given by faculty and of-
ficials to demean this request are that
everyone would like a raise but we're not
all making trouble over it, or that the
University is doing the teaching fellows a
favor by allowing them to both work and
teach here.
But these arguments lose credibility
when it is realized that many, if not most,
of the teaching fellows are in debt. $2400
might stretch to pay for housing, food,
tuition, and books, and a bachelor might
be able to get along on this amount, but
a man with a family cannot. At the same
time, teaching fellows must do a vast
amount of work. The time a teaching
fellow spends on his teaching can vary
from 20 to 35 hours a week, including
teaching, counseling, correcting papers,
and preparing for class. Besides this he
must register for six hours of class a week.
What about the money they get for
working in the summer? Working during
the summer can prolong obtaining a
degree by a year and there are not enough
jobs in Ann Arbor, in the University or
outside of it, to finance their stay.
THERE ARE MANY universities that pay
their teaching fellows more than we
do. Duke pays up to $3600, Iowa State up
to $2880 plus fees, Pennsylvania up to
$2600 plus $1500 in tuition and Cornell
$2600 plus tuition. There are schools that
pay less than the University, but Ann
Arbor is one of the most expensive places
to live in the country.
How much is the University willing to
give to get and keep high-calibre teaching
fellows, who teach the vast majority of
freshman and sophomore courses? How

To the Editor:
SUNDAY'S CONFERENCE on
China provided us with a tra-
gic replica of the problem that
was to be discussed. The State
Department's representatives were
absent. The other participants -
with exceptions that are unimpor-
tant in forming the larger pic-
ture-devoted themselves to mak-
ing their opponents look as silly
as possible.
Each side basked in its self-
righteousness, comfortable (or
perhaps uncomfortable) in the
feeling of being quite open-mind-
ed and willing to talk if only the
other side exhibited a minimum
of reasonableness, which it was
not doing. The empty chair was
presented, along with quotations
showing how impososible it is to
negotiate with State Department
people. The very first question
asked during the evening "discus-
sion" in Hill was directed at em-
barrassing one's opponent.
You know and I know why the
State Department representativves
were not here. The State Depart-
ment considers the teach-ins a
paper tiger, a fact which makes
us teach-in people livid. We each
have our Taiwans-points which
we consider "non-negotiable". I
will not try to say what they are,
for they are largely fakes. If ei-
ther side suddenly decided to cede
Taiwan, there would be a quick
scurry on the other side to find
a new bottleneck.

GOD ONLY KNOWS how the
idea got started that when ten-
sion arises between people the
thing to do is to put opposing par-
ties on a stage and have them
fight. The fact is that human
beings do not take particularly
well to having the errors of their
ways pointed out to them. The
debate system works - though
sometimes only marginally - in
the judicial sphere, and it is the
job of a trial lawyer to make his
adversary look silly whenever pos-
sible. But the situation there is
radically different in that there
is a third party - say the judge
-- who is to reach the necessary
conclusions. One may note that
making the judge look silly is
strongly frowned upon.
On the other hand, the lawyers
are not supposed to become con-
vinced. An attorney who decides
in the midst of a trial that he is
on the wrong side withdraws and
invites someone else to argue a
case which he honestly believes to
be wrong.
IN POLITICS there is no Big
Daddy, no third party to take the
responsibility for straightening
out the mess that we make. I sub-
mit that the China Conference was
a failure - OUR FAILURE - be-
cause we could not get any
State Department representatives
to come. No amount of condes-
cending description of their un-
reasonableness will serve to shift

the responsibility f r o m our
shoulduers; and every excuse that
one hears is frightening in the
degree to which it echoes the
State Department's own excuses
for not communicating with Chi-
na.
I felt I was watching a micro-
cosm of international relations;
and not so micro at that, for it
was happening very close to me. I
witnessed a provocation by a mi-,
nor power bring a participant to
the edge of violence. In the ma-
crocosm, an equally idiotic episode
could trigger the final destruction.
HOW ABOUT another confer-
ence aimed at effecting some com-
munication between the people
who occupied opposite sides last
Sunday? Let the topic be China;
but let one of the rules be that
no one may say anything which
"the other side" might feel of-
fended by. And no nonsense like
"I am merely being reasonable,
but he has a chip on his shoul-
der'." PEOPLE ARE BLIND WHEN
THEY ARE OFFENDED, and we
can spend our future time in hell
arguing about whose fault that is.
If we can't effect such a conver-
sation, then God help us. But per-
haps we can. And if we can, then
we are ready for the next step:
a conference about China with
State Department representation.
Not "with or without", but "with
or nothing". We may have to pro-
mise to be "reasonable". We may

be asked to "give some evidence
of good faith."
All this will make us very mad,
but we will have to learn to deal
with it, and proceed with our aim
of establishing communication
channels while developing some
empathy with the other side's
problems.
THE TEACH-IN last year was
exciting, one may say inspiring,
because of the promise it held for
opening channels of communica-
tion which had not previously ex-
isted. Some will argue that it did
not fulfill that promise, but that
is in a way less important than
the precedent of trying for com-
munication. Can we continue?
-Gabriel Weinreich,
Professor of Physics
The End
To the Editor:
RECENT LETTERS to the Daily
by Ibrahim Kemal et. al.
(March 31, 1966), concerning the
Arab-Israeli conflict, while dem-
onstrating their writers polemical
skills, contributed little to an un-
derstanding of Arab-Israeli rela-
tions and offered no suggestions as
to possible roads to peace in the
Middle East.
Unfortunately contempary events
and statistics offer almost unlimit-
offer almost unlimited opportun-
ties for manipulation and inter-
pretation. In an emotion laden
situation,itisalmost inevitablethat
each side perceives and represents
the issues and their antecedents
in a distorted manner. Having
read some of these letters printed
during the last two weeks, the
temptation to try and "set the
record straight" is great, yet being
aware of the sterility of this kind
of a debate we would like to sug-
gest a different approach.
Whatever the allocation of blame
for the current problems of the
Middle East, their solution is the
joint responsibility of all the
people of the region, Arabs and
Israelis alike. Whenever two sides
are locked in conflict, there are,
theoretically, two roads to the
attainment of ultimate peace-
the annihilation of one side in
the conflict, or some kind of mu-
tual accommodation. Once the
first alternative has been ruled
out, by both sides, be it for moral
or for purely practical reasons, a
constructive approach to the out-
standing issues becomes possible.
FURTHERMORE, many of the
problems of the region can be
solved if and when their solution
is seen as an end in itself, and
not as a means in a political or
military struggle. Let us mention,
as an example, the refugee prob-
lems. The Arab states demand that

upon their resettlement and other
aspects of reconstruction. The
same is true for other issues, be it
the distribution of water rights,
the use of international seaways,
economic boycott, the prevention
of border incidents, etc.
Only when each country re-
spects the other's integrity and
legitimacy is there a basis for the
peaceful settlement of mutual
claims. Such recognition will not
require any side to abandon its
claims, nor will it automatically
solve any problems, but it will
serve as a base for the joint search
for a solution.
WE REGRET very much that
the authors of the above-men-
tioned letter have come to the
final conclusion that "one can-
not help hating Israel." Hatred is
a destructive emotion and it may
be as destructive to the haters
as to the hated. Too much is at
stake, particularly when the fate
of nations is involved, to allow
for such feeling to dominate be-
havior.
The problems of the Middle East
are numerous and complex, and
not all of, them stem, from the
Arab-Israeliconflict. The area is
going through a phase of rapid
urbanization and industrialization,
accompanied by population shifts
and political unrest. At the same
time the countries of the region,
jointly, have at their disposal the
resources, both natural and hu-
man, to tackle these problems ef-
fectively, and to regain for the
Middle East the status of an im-
portant cultural and political cen-
ter.
-Shimon Spiro, Grad
-Ephraim Yuchtman, Grad
* *
EDITOR'S NOTE: With this
letter we conclude the debate
between Arab -partisans and
Israeli partisans that has rag-
ed for the past two weeks on
the editorial page. At this
point we believe the best thing
that could happen would be
a conference of all the letter
writers. They are in a much
better position to come up
with a solution than are the
leaders of their countries.
.In Saigon
'THE WORSE things are mili-
tarily, the easier it is to hold
a government in office in Saigon.
The better things go, the harder it
becomes to prop up a Saigon gov-
ernment, and this in turn can
only undermine military gains.
The result is that the dreams of
the war's most vocal supporters
become more than ever wil-of-the-
wisps. The closer "victory" comes,
the harder it becomes to bring off.

i4

a~

"

1

" u ' n