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 21, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1967-01-21

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


f

sSicafli}an maiyg
Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSiTY or MICHtGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD mN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

Book Review: Recipes for the University

Where Opinions Are Free. 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MIC-.
Truth Wil Prevail

NEWS PHONE: 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.

SATURDAY, JANUARY 21, 1967

NIGHT EDITOR: ROGER RAPOPORT

M1

The Dismissal of Clark Kerr

THE REGENTS of the University of
California have fired Dr. Clark Kerr,
chancellor of the university. Kerr had
been chancellor since 1964, had been
with the University of California since
1945. He was a scholar and educator of
some note.
Kerr took over the university in a
year of turmoil; his appointment came
on the heels of a massive anti-admin-
istration demonstration that saw the
previous chance 1or, Edward Strong,
dismissed. Strong had taken an inflex-
ible stand against demonstrator de-
mands, and his position was no longer
workable.
NOW THE SITUATION has turned
around. Though Kerr was unpopu-
lar with the Berkeley students in much
the same way Strong was, Kerr's im-
age in the state was one of leniency.
Governor Ronald Reagan charged
him with politicking for Pat Brown
during the campaign; with Reagan's
plans to cut the university budget came
increased friction between the two
men. It is not certain yet that this
was the entire reason for Kerr's dis-
iissal, but certainly he did not ap-
peal to the conservative Reagan con-
stituency in the state or on the Board
of Regents.
Kerr's firing, therefore, takes a dis-
tinctly political tone.
AND THUS THAT FIRING is unfortu-
nately the most significant event of

the new year. It has become increas-
ingly evident through this decade, and
especially with the advent of the Viet
Nam war, that the state universities
have become the target for serious po-
litical pressures. In many cases the
pressures have been almea specifically
at the type of activity a university is
designed to foster.
Popular displeasure with anti-war
activities has brought the House Un-
American Activities Committee to cam-
pus and has made state legislatures
tighter than ever with university funds.
Demands of the war have brought the
demand for class rank as a "price" for
student sanctuary. A basic antagonism.
pervades the attitudes of students and
older society towards each other, creat-
ing a very tangible tension on cam-
puses throughout the country.
THE ON-GOING BATTLE between the
universities and their supporting so-
ciety has thus significantly altered the
role of the university president. At
Michigan, Wisconsin and Berkeley, it
is especially evident that a university
president hardly has the leeway need-
ed to keep up his institution-he has
now become the protector and has little
time for anything else.
That makes him a politician, not
an educator-but those are the times.
The firing of Clark Kerr throws into
terrible relief just how serious the
threat of the times has become.
-HARVEY WASSERMAN
Editorial Director

"farper's University: The Be-
ginning," by Richard J. Storr.
University of Chicago Press.
"The Emergence of the Ameri-
can University," by Laurence R.
Veysey. The University of Chi-
cago Press.
By DAVID L. AIKEN
Collegiate Press service
THE PERIOD between 1890 and
1910 saw American society grow
and develop in many ways. The
age of large-scale capitalist in-
dustry's rapid expansion was head-
ing for a climax.
Immigrants were swelling the
ranks of workers and city-dwellers.
A new class of business-minded
nouveau riche was growing. Amer-
ica's attention began to turn out-
ward as the internal wounds of the
Civil War became less painful.
Like the chameleon it has al-
ways been, the American system
of education, too, changed its, ap-
pearance. No longer could colleges
turn out more-or-less polished
"gentlemen" and ministers.
New ingredients-a touch of en-
ergetic, practical American busi-
ness spirit, a pinch of traditional
British snuff, and a dose of the
new scholarship from Germany -
all found their way into the bub-
bling pot of American higher edu-
cation.
Different men combined them
in different proportions during the
early stages of experimentation be-
fore the cookbooks were standard-
ized.
BY THE TURN of the century,
recipes called for all three ingred-
ients, and the cooks were bor-
rowing from each other to make
sure they did not fall behind in
the competition for customers.
But even with the basic similar-
ities among the new breed of uni-
versities, there were several notable
differences of emphasis, .style,
speed of development and degree
of success.
The two quite complementary
books under discussion, taken to-
gether, give a good picture of the
development of the university in
America. One paints a broad can-
vas with scrupulous attention to
form and detail; the other adds
depth and even more detail to
one of the scene's more interesting
highlights.
LAURENCE VEYSEY, an alum-
nus of the University of Chicago
and currently assistant professor
of history at the University of
Wisconsin, has painted the "big
picture" with skill and feeling. To
him,
",. .the most striking thing
about the American university in
its formative period is the diver-
sity of mind shown by the same
men who spurred its develop-

What s
ment. Although by the end of
the century one can properly
speak of 'the' university, char-
acterized by a particular struc-
ture, not even a powerful trend
toward uniformity of proced-
ure could obliterate the profound
differences of opinion which
subdivided the academic popu-
lation."
Veysey looks at two types of
conflict that were waged in the
groves of American academe-'-(1)
the philosophies of learning which
warred for primacy in shaping cur-
ricula after the Civil War, and (2)
the emergence of a new bureau-
cratic, departmentalized structure
in the university after 1890, which
was not met with unbounded en-
thusiasm by all observers.
What kind of education did rnen
of that period think American stu-
dents should acquire? Veysey sees
one pattern slowly fading out: the
traditional orthodox viewpoint of
"discipline and piety" which had
held away in the denominational
cloisters until the aftermath of
the Civil War and other social
changes made it outdated.
THREE NEW concepts on ::the
proper role of institutions of high-
er education arose to take the}
place of this old pattern. These
were:
-Utility, which stressed profes-
sional training. Varying expres-
sions of this general outlook came
from Andrew D. White's Corriell,
which put all courses of study on

hould a University degree mean?

an equal footing, and Harvard'
under Charles W. Eliot, which
abandoned the strict requirements
for a certain set of courses in fa-
vor of the elective system.
-The pattern of a research in-
stitution was planted in America
by those who brought the seed
from Germany. It took root first
in Baltimore, where Johns Hop-
kins University provided a model
for other institutions, under the
green thumb of Daniel Coit Gil-
man.
-Finally, a sizable group of ed-
ucators set "liberal culture" as
their goal. Humanism, idealism,
education for the "well-rounded
man," and even a smattering of
old-fashioned religion found homes
in Princeton under Woodrow Wil-
son and his Calvinist predeces-
sors, and in corners of such places
as Yale, Harvard and even the
University of Wisconsin.
According to Veysey, the pro-
ponents of these different philoso-
phies of education never quite be-
came reconciled. But the clamor
of battle muted as a new frame-
work for education arose; the uni-
versity eventually proved capable
of bringing differing factions un-
der the same roofs.
PERHAPS the epitome of the
new university was aptly named
"Harper's Bazaar." William Rain-
ey Harper, in energetically de-
signing the new University of Chi-
cago, included plans for a far-

reaching extension division and a
full-fledged university press.
To this democratic, effort to
spread learning, Harper combined
a search for the most outstanding
scholars and researchers in every
field. Harper swooped down on
other institutions, luring away
their top talent with the promise
of comfortable salaries.
The success of Harper's univer-
hity lies mostly in Harper's own
talents as a salesman-his ability
to make people believe in him and
his undertaking. His grand
schemes would have been severely
limited, however, if there had not'
been a buyer with plenty of
wherewithal--John D. Rockefeller.
Rockefeller's :willingness to let
Harper form his own plans and
run his own show prevented Chi-
cago from the disaster that befell
Stanford University, where Jane
Lanthrop Stanford looked upon the
school as "her" university, and
forced President David Starr Jor-
dan to fire faculty members too
publicly liberal for her tastes.
STORR'S BOOK, "Harper's Uni-
versity;" presents a detailed ac-
count of only one side of the story.
Storr, an associate professor of
history at Chicago, has dug into
the University archives for every
detail of the dealings, between
Harper and the trustees, and Rock-
efeller and his advisors.
The resulting study is much like
a drama, with the Dionysiac en-

thusiast Harper pitted against the
Apollonian Rockefeller and his
bookkeepers who periodically re-
volted against the deficits in the
university's budget.
It's pretty dry drama, though.
Both antagonists have high mo-
tives-Harper, to build the great-
est center of learning in the U.S..
nay, the world: Rockefeller. to
make sure the infant institution
is established on a sound financial
foundation.
THE ENDLESS cycle of appeals
to Rockefeller for money to bail
out the university one more time
mak2 for some confusion. How
long ago was that last grant giv-
en? What terms does so-and-so
want for such-and-such a grant.
and how much is X willing to give
if Y will match it? It's frenzied fi-
nance indeed.
The curriculum, of course, is as
important as the cash, and Storr
devotes great attention. to the
courses offered at each level and
the requirements for each type of
degree. Much space is devoted to
blow-by-blow accounts of faculty
debates over whether to require
Latin for entrance to the junior
college or graduation therefrom.
FOR ALL ITS detailed accounts
of negotiations for money and dis-
cussions of curriculum, however,
Storr's book fails to bring the uni-
versity or any of the. people con-
nected with it to life. We are told
only the bare essentials of Har-
per's background-mostly through
relating his official actions, less
through first-hand accounts.
One of the more critical aspects
which Storr chooses not to treat
is Chicago's place among oth-
er universities of the time. Harper
felt confident his enterprise was
in some ways unique in the nation,
┬░even the world.
WHETHER or not this was true,
it is certain that Chicago made
a forceful impact on other insti-
tutions. Other than one brief al-
lusion to some other budding uni-
versities, however, Storr gives little
attention to the place of Chicago
in the world of academe.
For a. good idea of the context
of American ,higher education
around 'thee turn of the century,
Veysey's book is most useful.
It is hoped that in the forth-
coming volumes Storr plans on the
history of Chicago, he will give
some attention to flesh-and-blood
people and to broader social pat-
terns, both of which have had an
important impact. on thxe univer-
sity's story.
{Aiken is a staff member of
the Chicago Maroon.)

''Aid to Cin em a Guild?'
0O * I o...

4f

Yes

0NLY FIVE MONTHS after the sub-
mission of student organization mem-
bership lists to the House Un-American
Activities Committee, University "non-
action" threatens to undermine the aca-
demic freedom and guaranteed rights of
the First Amendment.
By refusing to condemn the seizure by
the Ann Arbor police of "Flaming Crea-
tures," and by declining to offer legal aid
to the defendants in this case, the Uni-
versity has condoned and invited censor-
ship of its internal affairs by self-ap-
pointed preservers of "morals."
SUCH LAXITY on the part of the ad-
ministration in the face of threats to
its autonomy opens the door to censor-
ship of text books, curriculum, and stu-
dent organizations.
The obscenity law is one manifestation
of an over-paternalistic attitude among
some public officials who would stop the
presentation of all material they consid-
ered objectionable.
The film, which was judged obscene,
and confisco.ted after less than 20 min-
utes, was shown on University property
under the auspices of a University stu-
dent group. The merit of this film should
not have been decided by one man whose
knowledge of art is more than question-
able.
BUT MORE IMPORTANT is the legal
question of whether city police have
the right to patrol University property
unless there is an emergency situation.
If the University desires to maintain
relative autonomy and academic freedom,
it must begin to take action to preserve
these rights.
First it must insist that police not
interfere in University affairs unless spe-
cifically invited to do so.
Secondly, it must condemn censorship
by self-appointed guardians of public
"morals."
AND FINALLY, the University must of-
fer legal support to those students
accused of violating the Michigan obscen-
itylaw, emphasizing administration refus-
al to accept interference in its internal
affairs..
-SUSAN ELAN

THE SEIZURE of the Cinema Guild film
"Flaming Creatures" by the Ann Ar-
bor police Wednesday night raises a ques-
tion that must be answered immediately:
should the University provide Legal coun-
sel to those students who face arrest?
The answer must be no.
FIRST, the University is not legally re-
/ponsible for either the activities of
Cinema Guild as an organization or the
actions of the individual students in-
volved.
It is the students themselves, through
Student Government Council, who have
set up the regulations regarding student
organizations.
Last semester, after the House Un-
American Activities Committee incident,
SGC revised the rules so that neither
membership lists nor faculty sponsors are
required before a group can be recog-
nized as a legitimate campus organiza-
tion.
Thus it is the students who legitimize
and disband campus organizations and
wvho maintain responsibility for them. In
effect, the University has no formal con-
nection with Cinema Guild as an orga-
nization.
NOR SHOULD the University be held re-
sponsible for the actions of individual
Cinema Guild members.
True, the University has occasionally
argued that it retains a responsibility for
students' personal actions. The OSA, for
example, still holds veto power over the
actions of SGC, even in matters like
hours, rush, etc.
But this situation is unfortunate, and
should be discontinued.
To argue for legal aid, is to urge upon
the administration responsibility they
should not have. It also presents them
with rationale for future action in areas
of student concerns.
What the University must do, then, is
establish a consistent policy of non-inter-
ference in student affairs.
SECONDLY, who should or can make the
decision to provide legal aid?
The decision should not be made by a
small group of administrators. For the
decision involves students, and should be
completely under their jurisdiction. Thus,
SGC rightly provided aid.
THE QUESTION of academic freedom
has also been raised in connection
with this issue. If the film had been con-

Letters: Are Women's Hours Farcical?'

To the Editor:
I WOULD LIKE to express my
amusement and disgust with
certain University regulations-
those concerning women's hours
and "chasers"~..
If a girl finds herself more than
10 minutes late she usually calls
a friend who will open a door for
her, or she may avoid.the chance
of being caught: and the sub-
sequent ordeal of being "judiced,"
by staying out all night.
IF A RESIDENT 'of Markley,
for example, has a friend open a
door, she sneaks around to the
back of the dorm, looks for the
night watchman, slips off her
shoes, and runs like hell to a pre-
viously decided destination.
The instant the door opens, a
buzzer sounds at the main desk
indicating which door has been
violated and a man called a
"chaser," is supposed to run and
try to catch the girl.
If a girl is caught-quite a rare
occurance-she is marched up to
the main desk and must give her
name. She is made to feel quite
sinful by the night watchman or
"chaser." The girl is sentenced by
her judiciary board in this case
also.
IN MY OPINION, all this is
farcical. I feel that hours and
"chasers" should be eliminated.
One of the University's argu-
ments for having hours and
"chasers" is that it is for the girls'
own protection, meaning I sup-
pose, that they are less likely to
get "in trouble," i.e. pregnant, if
they must be in at certain hours.
The "chasers" is also supposed
to keep questionable people out of
the building.
I question vehemently the valid-
ity of this argument.
AS FAR AS decreasing the like-
lihood of young, curious students
from investigating the "mysterious
realm of sex," I am sure that
hours fail completely.
They may indeed teach the stu-
dents to plan their time better, but
that is about the extent of their
influence. (Where did the Uni-
versity get the notion that con-
ception can occur only after the
hour of midnight!).
It is also a standing joke that
more girls get pregnant because
of the rules than ever would

BUT THE MAIN JOB of the
"chasers" and the night watch-
man is to keep late girls from
getting in and that only second-
arily do they look out for the res-
idents' safety.
'Parental pressure is ennumer-
ated as further reason for en-
forcing hours. It would seem,
though, that there should. ge an
alternative for thosesstudents for-
tunate enough to have trusting
parents. A note from such parents
stating their willingness to leave
the question of hours to their
daughters judgements would eas-
ily solve this
FOR THE "HOURS" case stands
the fact that each girl who signed
a contract to live in a residence
hall automatically agreed to ac-
cept its rules, no matter how
much she disagreed with any of
them.
That argument loses its strength
when one considers that it is com-
pulsory to live in approved Uni-
versity housing for the fresh-
man and sophomore years.
I see no reason for having hours
with the possible exception of ap-
peasing parental feelings of in-
adequacy-manifest in the dogma-
tic exertion of undue discipline.
If this be the case, there should
be an allowance made for those
who have parental consent to keep
their own hours.
-Laura Hulett '70
To the Editor:
IN RESPONSE to the article by
Roger Rapoport (Daily, Jan.
20), concerning the meeting be-
tween Vice-President. Cutler and
about 45 students, which took place
Thursday, Jan. 19: This article, I
think, contained several errors of
fact and misinterpretation of
events.
First, the "abusive rejoinder"
mentioned by Rapoport was not in
response to an honest answer of "I
don't know" from Cutler.
WHAT REALLY occurred was
the following: Cutler first said
that he didn't know who had the
right and power to approve the
use of University lawyers and/or
money for the legal defense of
Cinema Guild.
Then, he said that the Univer-
sity administrative board had
made the decision not to allow

ant refusal of Cutler to answer
any question of substance, a par-
ticipant yelled the question to Cut-
ler.
At this point, Cutler, forced to
actually answer a question honest-
ly, pulled a maneuver which has
made him famous; he attempted
to divert attention by acting hurt
and insulted and then impugned
the motives of the various ques-
tioners, thus ignoring the actual
question.
SECOND, the use of "Voice
member" to identify certain par-
ticipants is unfair and improper
journalism. The implication from
the story is that Voice members
participated in order to disrupt an
otherwise orderly meeting.
The real disruption was caused
by Cutler's insistent refusal to an-
swer any real question, and by the
tactics he used to avoid them.
Rapoport knows the name of the
Voice member. Identification by
name instead of by anonymous
group affiliation would seem to be
the most impartial means of re-
porting.
OTHER participants were there
as individuals, probably outraged
by the seizure of the film and the
University's refusal to defend Cin-
ema Guild, freedom of speech and
the University community from the
abuses of the Ann Arbor police.
And these participants should be
identified as individuals.
Third, what actually triggered
Cutler's walkout was not abuse,
but rather a demand that he re-
frain from abusing others. When
asked (by me) if he would request
that the Regents allow a student
o present students' views on the
matter to them he refused.
When asked why he refused this
request he only commented that

this wasn't the way the Regents
operate.
WHEN ASKED again why he
wouldn't make the request in his
position as the vice-president for
student affairs, he commented on
what he considered to be 'my "real"
motives in asking the question and
then ignored the question.
When I replied that he shouldn't
impugn the motives behind ques-
tions but rather should answer the
questions, he assumed his most
hurt expression and said "I have
nothing more to add." Then he
walked out.
--Gary Rothberger, '67
Soldiers
To the Editor:
I WOULD like to contribute some
ideas from the notes of a for-
mer University student, taken
from his journal dated March 31,E
1911
"Jack London on soldiers:
'Young men: The lowest aiis in
your life is to be a soldier. The
good soldier never tries to distin-
guish right from wrong. He never
thinks; never reasons; he only
obeys.
If he is ordered to fire on his
fellow citizens, on his relatives, he
obeys without hesitation. If he is
ordered to fire down a crowded
street where the poor are and see
the gray hairs of age stained with
red-and the lifetide gushing from
the breasts of woman, feeling nei-
ther remorse nor sympathy.
'IF HE IS ordered off as one of
a firing squad to execute a hero
or benefactor, he fires without hes-
itation, though he knows the bul-
let will pierce the noblest heart
that ever beat in human.
'A good soldier is a blind, heart-

less, soulless, murderous machine.
He is not a man. He is not even a
brute, for brutes only kill in self
defense. All that is human in
him, all that is divine in him, all,
that constitutes the man, has
been sworn away when he took the
enlistment roll.
No man can fall lower than a
soldier, it is a depth beneath which
we cannot go.'"
THE ABOVE is taken from the
journals of George Mamagona,
one of, if not the .first, American.
Indian to attend the U. of M. be-
tween the years 1908 and 1911.
-Bob Church, Ph., '68
Apartheid
To the Editor:
APARTHEID is a confused and
confusing problem.
Its solution, however, is not ee-
essarily susceptible to the ordi-
nary concepts of pressure, partic-
ularly economic pressure.
Apartheid is a reaction, albeit
authoritarian, to a situation that
is. by its very nature, "segregated";
Xhosa versus Zulu, Colored versus
Bantu, whites versus non-whites,
and English-speakers versus Afri-
kaaners.
MR. KLEMPNER may not be
aware of the official government
finding that, by 1984(!), the flow
of non-Europeans into the cities
will cease. This is regarded by
many urban South Africans as
blatantly untrue.
The opinion of many in indus-
try (as well as Bishop Crowther
of Kimberley, who voiced this
opinion last semester when he
spoke at the University) is that the
economic involvement of the Ban-
tu as a source of cheap labor is
increasing and, therefore, their
numbers in the cities..
This means an economy increas-
inely dependent on these Jaborers.
This may well be the most concrete
lever for change.
IT IS CERTATINLY true black
Africa sees our actions as a policy
falure.
k But it is also true that black
Africa would like to run the white
South African (not to mention
Rhodesian) into the sea and may
do just that if given the chance.
None of these feelinas, however.
prevent a fairly sizable amount of
trade from going on between black
and white Africa.

4.

,j

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan