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 12, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-04-12

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


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

and Th PstYear- and the C mig rtses
POETRY by MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH
r,~3:~

ers] Opinions Are Free
Tr';tb WI Prevail

420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.

NEws PHONE: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This mist be noted in all reprints.

TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 1966

NIGHT EDITOR: NEIL SHISTER

Auto Industry:
Unsafe at all Costs

FOR ANYONE who has ever read Upton
Sinclair's "The Jungle," atrocities in
business and industry may be an old old
story. But the auto industry has succeed-
ed in making that story live again.
Recent congressional investigations
have brought to light facts that the pub-
lic should have known, or at least was sus-
pected and should have done something
about, for quite some time. To repeat
old facts, the automobile has killed more,
Americans than all its wars combined.
While we go on paying higher and higher
prices for automobiles which are styled to
become obsolete within a few short years,
we get relatively less and less in the way
of safety features. In fact, at least one
recent addition to automobile styling,
the tail fin, has been singled out as a
cause for added traffic injuries.
THE AUTO INDUSTRY, of course, has
been more than conscientious about
the whole thing. Millions of dollars have
flowed into Ford Foundation humanities
research. Ten million dollars recently
came to the University to set up a safety
research center. And Detroit yearly pub-
licizes millions (General Motors spends
one-tenth of one per cent of its profits, for
instance) spent for safety research.
Unfortunately, while Ford Foundation
money is certainly a worthwhile offer-
ing, and also certainly helps sell Fords, it
does little to save drivers skewered on
sloppily designed steering wheels.
The ten million dollars which came to
Ann Arbor from General Motors, Ford,
and the Automobile Manufacturers Asso-
ciation were nice, but should have gone
to East Lansing or Cornell or one of the
other locations where traffic safety In-
stitutes are already functioning. We only
have to wait three years, while the build-
ings here are under construction, for that
ten million to provide more than a much-
needed boost to the Ann Arbor construc-
tion business.
But at least the results will deal with
car design itself--something which the
donors had originally opposed being re-
searched under this grant. We still have
a three-year reprieve to cut our throats
on mal-designed windshields.
Acting Editorial Staff/
MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor.

AND THOSE OTHER millions yearly
spent on safety research? Well in the
past most of it has gone to study, and
perhaps to publicly over-emphasize driver
behavior and highway design-certainly
valid topics, but, as is now becoming quite
obvious, far from the whole story.
And somehow the industry-tied grants
just don't seem to ring true when one re-
members that those millions go to re-
searchers who must somehow, on some
quiet evening, wonder that those whose
product he is researching are also those
who 1) may do or not do whatever they
like with the findings, and 2) may do or
not do whatever they like with his own
salary and/or grant when he finds out
whatever they do or do not want to be
told.
It has been known for quite some time,
for instance, that seatbelts would save
many lives if installed and used in auto-
mobiles. Yet not only did the automobile
industry not install the belts on their own,
but they lobbied hard and long against
state laws making them mandatory stand-
ard equipment.
AND THE INDUSTRY is still fighting.
Experts testifying in state legislatures
all over the country on necessary rede-
signing measures are being met with stiff
lobbying and other types of resistance
from Detroit representatives. Ralph Na-
der, author of "Unsafe at any Speed," re-
cently testified before a Senate subcom-
mittee. It was learned then that he had
been trailed for three weeks by General
Motors private detectives in the hope that
they could scrape up some private scan-
dal to discredit, on a personal basis, Na-
der's findings about car safety design.
10 PLACE all the blame on the auto in-
dustry would indeed be unfair. They
never forced anybody to buy their death-
traps, and if the American public had
wanted safety instead of style, they could
have asked for it. No one has stopped buy-
ing one car in favor of another merely
because of safety design. The sharp killer
sells better than the ugly safety model.
But in the long run, the real blame can
lie with no one else but the auto indus-
try. Its attitude toward suppressing safe-
ty research is inexcusable. Had the big
auto manufacturers gotten together (and
there certainly are few enough of them to
do this), they could have combined on a
joint advertising campaign to promote,
even for a small portion of their selling
time, some minimum degree of safety to
the American buying public. Americans
are status and style conscious. But just as
the type of advertising is shaped by the
American attitude, that attitude has been
reinforced to the ultimate by American
advertising. Could safety devices cost so
much more than styling devices?
AT ANY RATE, they didn't do it. In fact,
they have done the very opposite for
as many years as they could get away with
it-guaranteeing that the aura of scandal
presently surrounding auto safety design
isn't going to change a thing unless the
government steps in.

ONE OF THE most incredible
years in the University's his-
tory is--happily in some respects,
unfortunately in others-drawing
to a swift conclusion.
The sequence of events is long
and unsettling, and it is at least
mildly surprising for the observer
to realize the University has sur-
vived them as it has.
The resignation of Roger Heyns
last July, this fall's residence hall
over-crowding the near-riot over
the anti-Viet Nam war float at
Homecoming; the International
Days of Protest; Stanley Nadel
and the Committee of Aid the
Vietnamese; the "war criminals"
sign; the Power theatre contro-
versy; the simmering Flint dis-
pute; the struggle over state con-
trol of University buildings; the
court fight over University collect-
ive bargaining; the legislative re-
lations-appropriations crisis; the
highway safety grant; the $55-M
program hoax; the National 'De-
fense Education Act mess; the
Power resignation; the venereal
disease controversy; the housing
issue; the bookstore protest; the
draft protest; the presidential se-
lection problem; the residential
college problem. So went the year.
IT CAN THUS be said, in all
seriousness, that the University is

in crisis. The past year affords
ample evidence for that conclu-
sion. Its difficulties point to a
road ahead which is, if anything,
even more alarming.
The University is, first, clearly
going to have to find a way to
manage its growth. The Office of
Academic Affairs' infamous growth
report, which f o r e c a s t s a
University enrollment of 50,196 by
1975, is probably much too low-
and the 50,000 figure is much too
high in relation to what the Uni-
versity's facilties are going to be
in that year.
Happily, the report is being re-
evaluated. But unhappily, no one
as yet has come up with much of
a solution to the problem it poses,
a problem which will simply be
greater when its figures are re-
vised.
The 1200-student residential col-
lege is an exciting and dramatic
educational idea. So is the con-
cept of making part of the Uni-
versity into an Oxford or Cam-
bridge--a large university com-
posed of numerous small colleges.
But will we have to spend $20
million each time we want to add
1200 more students?
THE SO-CALLED "decision-
making process" must also be re-
fined and expanded. There is a.

very grave danger in the "closed
politics" of which C. P. Snow
spoke: this danger alone warrants
participation by all the University
community in significant decisions
affecting its destiny, something
which is both a means to an end
and an end in itself.
Students in particular must be-
come participating members, not
mute beneficiaries or victims, in
the process of making policy, or
else the meaning of a University
education-the development of the
whole man-will be hollow.
Certainly, as experience with the
psychology department student ad-
visory committee and the faculty
committee on the residential col-
lege shows, such a change does
not always produce quick results.
But from the selection of the next
president to the esoteric workings
of the Budget and Plant Exten-
sion Committees, the basis on
which decisions are made and the
people making them should-and
in some cases is being--substan-
tially broadened.
RELATIONS between the Uni-
versity and outside forces-speci-
fically, with the state legislature-
merit serious and increasing con-
cern. The animosity some legisla-
tors feel towards the University

is extreme-yet the University's
lobbying efforts are intent and in-
efficient.
So, sometimes, are its policies.
No one doubts, for example, that
Public Acts 124 (providing for
state control over University con-
struction) and 379 (putting col-
lective bargaining here under the
state labor mediation board) are
quite possibly unconstitutional in-
fringements on University auton-
omy.
Yet where the University could
reach a voluntary private agree-
ment with unions, it has not. Here,
as in too many other areas, the
University has not followed a poli-
cy of tough flexibility, and the
failure to do so will in the end
spell disaster,
Finally, the University must do
some serious re-thinking about
its student body. We are fast be-
coming-if we are not already-a
middle class or even upper-middle
class university. This has severe
and unhealthy implications both
for the state of, educational de-
mocracy-is ability to pay, not
ability, now our standard?-and
educational validity-is a campus
which apparently has more In-
dian students than Negro students
a realistic picture of our country?

And yet, in rather droll appro-
priateness, as the student body
gets more and more affluent, its
economic freedom becomes in-
creasingly dubious, as high rents
and the general high cost of liv-
ing-about which the University
does almost nothing-testify.
The coming crises are not now
obvious, though they will be next
fall. They are not numerous,
though their ramifications are
many. But while there is cause for
pessimism, there is also, perhaps,
some cause for hope.
For however stupid or short-
sighted or sinister some of its
members are, the University com-
munity has always had a degree
of flexibility, competence and
courage to meet its challenges,
which is surprising in view of its
bulk and diversity.
Those qualities will be needed
sorely and soon.
But if it survived this year it
may even emerge triumphant next
year.
FOR ALL ITS failings, the Uni-
versity is perhaps best character-
ized by the motto of the City of
Paris: "Fluctuat nec mergitur"-
fluounders, but never sinks. We
hope.

#1

"'

The

Student and

the

C.

1

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the
first in a two-part series on
conscientious objection and non-
cooperation as alternatives to
bearing arms. This article deals
with conscientious objection.
By ROGER FRIEDLAND
Collegiate Press Service
"War will exist until that dis-
tant day when the conscientious
objector enjoys the same repu-
tation and prestige that the
warrior does today."
-John Fitzgerald Kennedy
THE CURRENT STATE of world
affairs has greatly increased
the popularity of conscientious
objection as a moral alternative to
bearing arms.
On the nation's campuses, hun-
dreds of male students are flood-
ing the counseling centers for
conscientious objectors. From
Washington D.C., threats of fed-
eral investigation and accusations
of treason filter through the wire)
services.
According to the American
Friends Service Committee in San
Francisco, there ,uare currently
300,000 conscientious objectors in
this country. The figure is con-
stantly climbing as young men
increasingly refuse to bear arms
in Viet Nam.
ROBERT CATLETT, a counselor
for prospective conscientious ob-
jectors at Turn Toward Peace,
said recently that its counseling
rate had tripled since ,February,
1965.
The Central Committee for Con-
scientious Objectors in Philadel-
phia, which started to atrophy a
few years ago for lack of business,
was swamped by a deluge of mail
requesting advice and information.
As an answer to military con-
scription, conscientious objection
owes its beginning to the Militia
Act of 1792, which compelled every
white male over the age of 18 to
enlist in his state militia.
Conscientious objectors during
the Civil War, mostly Quakers
and Mennonites, were exempted
from military service either by

procuring a substitute or by pay-
ing the government $300.
During World War I, when non-
involvement seemed impossible,
President Woodrow Wilson pushed
legislation through Congress that'
obligated all men between the ages
of 21 and 30 to register for the
draft and serve for -the duration
of the war if called.-
In addition, Wilson's legislation
allowed for members of "well-
recognized" religious sects to
serve in noncombat units in the
army.
CALEB FOOTE, professor of law
at the University of California at
Berkeley, and an authority on the
legal aspects of conscientious ob-
jection, estimates that about 5,000
conscientious objectors were con-
victed in civilian courts during
World War I and given either pri-
son terms or fines. An additional
500 persons were court-martialed
and sent to prison for their con-
scientious objection.
Peace-time conscription was first
legalized in 1940 as it became in-
evitable that United States neu-
trality was a mere chimera as
Hitler's army ripped through Po-
land.
The legislation, which passed the
House of Representatives with a
paper-thin margin of, one vote,
provided noncombatant service for
those whose religious beliefs, bas-
ed on a Supreme Being, would not
permit them to bear arms.
The present Universal Military
Training and Service Act grants
conscientious objector status to
those who have a "belief in a rela-
tion to a.Supreme Being involving
duties superior to those arising
from any human relation, but does
not include essentially political,
sociological, or philosophical views
or a merely personal moral code."
IN 1965, the U.S. Court of Ap-
peals upheld the case of an agnos-
tic, Daniel Seeger, to obtain C.O.
status. The court said, "... Com-
mitment to a moral ideal is for
many the equivalent of what was

historically considered the re-
sponse to divine commands."
Although the court expanded
the grounds for exemption as a
conscientious objector if one had
a consistent belief "parallel to
that filled by the orthodox belief
in God," there remain great dif-
ficulties facing a prospective C.O.
who bases his appeal merely on
moral or political grounds.
The vast majority of those who
refused a pair of GI boots and
an M-1 rifle were formulating a
new definition of patriotism.
Service to one's country was
taking new forms, such as VISTA,
the Peace Corps, and countless
variationsof social work.
BUT THE NEW patriotism is
faced with a seemingly anachron-
istic draft policy that grants de-
merments only to those who have
the time, energy, persistence and
education to grapple with the rig-
orous and exhausting road of ap-
peal boards, cross examinations by
hearing officers and the scrutiny
of federal officials.
Congress, already charging the
antidraftsmovementcwith trea-
sonous, activities, was further in-
censed with the appearance at
Berkeley of a mimeographed pam-
phlet "Way and Means to 'Beat-
ing' and Defeating the Draft,"
distributed by the Viet Nam Day
Committee.
The pamphlet, a satire on draft-
dodging, first appeared about six
months ago. The followng are
examples of the advice presented
in the pamphlet:
-"Be undesirable. Go for a
couple of weeks without a shower.
Really look dirty. Stink. Long hair
helps. Go in barefoot with your
sandals tied around your neck.
-"Be gay. Play the homosexual
bit. Mark 'yes' or don't mark the
'Homosexual Tendencies' line on
the form. Psychiatrists may give
you the run around but stick with
it. Besides flicking your wrist,
move your body a little like the
chicks do-hold cigarettes deli-
cately, talk melodically, act em-
barrassed in front of the other

guys when you undress. Ask your
girl friend to give you lessons.
-"Arrive high. They'll smell it,
and you won't have to admit it.
If you want to go about the ad-
diction scene In a really big way,
use a common pin on your arm
for a few weeks in advance."
SEN. THOMAS KUCHEL (R-
Calif) labelled the authors of the
pamphlet "the vicious, venomous,
and vile leaders of this infamous
movement to attempt to influence
young people of this country to
evade the draft by fraud and
chicanery.
"What has gone on sows the
seeds of treason," he continued.
Kuchel also called for an investi-
gation by the Justice Department
.o fthe Berkeley draft-dodging
leaflet.
Representative Hugh Carey (D-
NY) said, "I believe the time has
come not only to wave the flag,
but to wash from the toes of
America this un-American case of
athlete's foot which pretends to be
part of the contagion of freedom."
AMONG GROUPS which give.
advice and counseling to potential
conscientious objectors is the Cen-
tral Committee for Conscientious
Objectors (CCCO), which has dis-
tributed 10,000 copies of its
"Handbook for Conscientious Ob-
jectors" since November, 1965. The
handbook makes it apparent that
the course a prospective C.O. must
follow is exhausting and rigorous,
and only the most dedicated paci-
fists' will eventually gain C.O.
status.
Of these applicants who per-
severe through the courts, about
95 per cent eventually obtain a
C.O. status, according to Arlo
Tatum, executive secretary of
CCCO. A student will not lose his
II-S status if he applies for
exemption as a C.O. Although
willingness to commit an act of
self defense or lack of affiliation
with a church does not constitute
grounds for a local board to deny
C.O. status, one must have a
belief that is opposed to all wars.

Scrutiny of one's beliefs is ex-
haustively comprehensive. Ques-
tions range from "Would you be
willing to use coercion to defend
this country if it were attacked?"
to "Under what circumstances, if
any, do you believe in the use of
force?"
Even members of religious
groups committed to pacifism, in-
cluding the Quakers and Jehovah's
Witnesses, sometimes fail in the
struggle through FBI investiga-
tions and cross-examination by the
local and appeal boards.
THERE ARE two legal classes
of conscientious objection. The 1-
A-O is for individuals who object
to cimbatant service but are will-
ing to serve in Army units such
as the medical corps. The 1-0
classification is for those who are
opposed to all military service and
are thus assigned to civilian work
"contributing to the maintenance
of the national health, safety, or
interest."
If a person who is classified 1-0
refuses to comply with his manda-
tory work order, he is subject to
prosecution by a U.S. District
Court.
Catlett listed several common
objections to conscientious ob-
jection:
-"The C.O., as he' is equated
with the pacifist, is politically
naive and almost immoral. With
organized political power that is
willing to use violence to attain
its end today, he uses his love for
man and neglects the concept of
political justice.
-"The C.O. would want every
American to hold his position. If
so, what alternatives would he use
to resist aggression? Is he just
hiding behind American nuclear
might to justify his position?
-"One has to believe and par-
ticipate in the military institutions
in the hope of future world peace.
There is no other alternative."
Catlett made no attempt to dis-
credit these statements.
Tomorrow: One student C.O.'s
experience.

4*

A

CLARENCE FANTO
Managing Editor

HARVEY WASSERMAN
Editorial Director

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 VETZNER ..... .... ..........Sports Editor
JAMES LaSOVAGE.... ..Associate Sports Editor
JAME~IS T~iNbALL:.........Associate Sports Editot
GIL SAMBERG.A.... ..Assistant Sports Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Michael Heffer, Merle Jacb, Rob-
ert Klivans, LaurencerMedow, Roger Rapoport, Shir-
ley Rosick, Neil Shister.
DAY EDITORS: Alice Bloch, Richard Charin, Pat
Chopp, Jane Dreyfus, Susan Elan, David Knoke,
Mark Levin, Steve Wildstrom, Joyce winslow.

LETTERS TO TJIE EDITOR:

*I

Subscription rate: $4.50 semester oy carrier ($5 by
mail); $8 yearly by carrier ($9 by mail -HARVEY WASSERMAN
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Micb. Acting EditorialDirector

Dneed US. Position in

Viet Nam

To the Editor:
INSPIRED by the "enlightening"
argument between Profs. A. F.
K. Organski and Anatol Rapoport
during the "Emergency Conference
on China," I have come to a great-
er understanding of the problems
concerned in our Southeast Asian
involvement.
The crisis involved in that area
is posed by the potential of China
and the Chinese political system.
As Prof. Organski and other ex-
perts agree, China will be a power
surpassing the military and eco-
nomic might of the U.S. in the
next forty-odd years.
When China develops to the
point where she conceivably can
challenge the existing political or-
der and possibly displace it with
a system of Chinese hegemony, she
may exhibit the same contempt
for the U.S. which we have shown
to her in the past. It is not that
China will impose any demands
on the U.S., but that she might.
The problem is that China will
not have to tolerate any dishar-
mony from the U.S. and could
forcibly subjugate us to her sys-
4.,

come a Chinese economic depen-
dency, we might have to face up
to similar national liberation
movements in other S.E. Asian
countries.
As China industrializes and Viet
Nam develops economically, a land
war in Thailand, for example,
would be nearly impossible to win.
Hence, the fear that potentially
powerful S.E. Asia may come un-
der Chinese influence is a very
real threat.
For America to maintain the
Western order, she must halt
China from continually expanding
her spheres of influence.
WE BELIEVE that the small
percentage of human lives and
human sufferers who must pay for
the prevention of the development
of further Chinese controlled
countries is not too much to sac-
rifice in order to secure our na-
tional independence, our system of
government, and keeping Ameri-
cans from ever having to bear the
possible demands put upon them
by a Chinese or any other foreign
government.
n--avid uM Saniro.'69

students. As it turns out, the clever
Ann Arbor police have turned this
action into a form of economic
aid for themselves.
I have personally witnessed two
ticketings and, get this, one out-
right arrest. As it turns out, it
is even illegal to feed your own
meter a second time (and there,
kiddies, is the reason for one and
two hour meters).
It would seem that they have us
both coming, and going. The cam-
pus area, as you know, is heavily
patrolled by special police who
have no function , other than to
issue tickets, and yet one rarely
sees a patrol car (except at large
gatherings of students). Appar-
ently, the ticketing part of the
police force is assigned to the
campus, while the aid and protec-
tion part handles the rest of
town.
If you think that the University
administration will help you, you
probably also believe in Santa
Claus. First look at the new meters
"temporarily" placed in the spot
where cycles used to park along
the University owned portion of
'A-,f TT then ,r1 r fln. +p cdtAc

ing, and also to Vice-President
Cutler and anyone else who will
listen. Report any misconduct .on,
the part of the police to the
Police Chief. (One might note,
for instance, that one of the
ticket ladies spends about 45 min-
utes a day gossiping with the
Church Street parking structure
attendants). No rudeness whatso-
ever should go unchallenged. And
most important of all, do, not let
your meters expire.
IF THEY ARE not profitable,
they might not be so closely
watched.
-John Israel, '68Ed
Alarming
To the Editor:
RECENTLY WE HAD a fire in
Markely. No one, thank God,
was hurt. It is, however, the sec-
ond such fire that we have had in
about a month.
Markely is probably the safest
dorm on campus. We have plenty
of wide halls and stairways, and
several exits. What I am wonder-

Physics? The Nat. Sci. building is
a rabbit warren any way You slice
is.
Just exactly how good is the
building inspection in this man's
town?
How many of the buildings on
this campus ought to be condemn-
ed? How many have adequate fire
escapes? I would not like to be
faced with the problem of getting
out of the General Library in case
of fire. The same goes for Haven
Hall.
Perhaps I'm an alarmist. Per-
haps I ought to sit down and shut
up and leave this to the experts.
But I can't help wondering. Not
everyone lives in Marlkely.
-Mary Frohman, '69

Vivian

To the Editor:
ON APRIL 6, the Ann Arbor
branch of the Council for
Democratic Directions unanimous-
ly voted commendation of Con-
gressman Vivian for his coura-
geous speech to theHouse of Rep-
resentatives on China. Bytiming

USIL VN W %lEAJ .

I

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan