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 31, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1967-01-31

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


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

.''ry. . ..":r S. W.{55''. A .5'0}'A. . . . ..{.. :":
.Sn.i4. '{:.,. . .. ." r:::AA: ..yn.t.v4.SSn.....,;:.,'S...'....: . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . ... .
PWRGod Forbid, Te ih Make Love!
POETRY by MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH

Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD $T., ANN ARBoR, MICH.
Truth will Prevail

NEws PHONE: 764-0552

The Michigan Daily is managed, written and edited by students at The University of
Michigan. Articles and editorial opinions appearing in The Daily are those of the indi-
vidual writers or the editors, and do not represent the views of the University or any of
its official representatives. This must be noted in all reprints.
UESDAY, JANUARY 31, 1967 NIGHT EDITOR: SUSAN ELAN

T

.a v++w~ruaa ,r vr+wr. va.f. .va va.' r..v w -.-. --, .- _.. -. .. . .v _ ...

Reclassifieation Case:
A Welcome Interference

YESTERDAY a U.S. Court of Appeals
made a decision that had been ob-
vious to many people for a long time:
that the reclassification of University
students for engagement in an anti-war
sit-in a year ago constituted suppression
of free speech.
The students' reclassification was the
aftermath of a sit-in staged at the Ann
Arbor draft board in which 39 students
and faculty were arrested. Some of these
39 later lost their student deferments,
allegedly because they had interferred
with the operations of the Selective
Service in violation of the Universal Mil-
itary Training and Selective Service Act.
IT WAS QUESTIONABLE from the start
whether the sit-in was, in fact, dis-
ruptive of the normal operations of the
draft board. According to many observ-
ers, these operations continued despite
the presence of the demonstrators. Im-
posing the penalties for delinquency on
the students seemed little more than a
mask for the stifling of criticism of our
country's foreign policy.
Remarks by Selective Service officials
helped to confirm these suspicions when
one official expressed satisfaction that
since the reclassification,, no anti-war
demonstrations of the same nature as the
sit-in had occurred.
Of course, these officials repeatedly
denied that free speech was an issue.
They held that student deferments were
a privilege, not a guaranteed right, and
that any student could have his defer-
ment taken away at any time for any
reason.
THE COURT OF APPEALS said that it
was reluctant to intervene in draft
matters, but felt that allegations that
draft boards had suppressed dissent must
take precedent over the autonomy of the

Selective Service. It is fortunate that a
federal court had the courage to disagree
with the Selective Service's continued as-
sertion that the provisions of the First
Amendment guaranteeing free speech
were irrelevant in the sit-in case.
It is unfortunate, however, that the
court felt reluctant to intervene in "draft
matters," for it seems that the case should
have gone through the courts in the
first place. A , court should have ruled
whether or not the protesters had inter-
ferred with the operation of the Selective
Service before any further action of re-
classification was taken.
HE ENTIRE Selective Service system is
subject to review and revision by Con-
gress this year. The major questions un-
der consideration have been: Who, if
anyone, should receive deferments, and
should those drafted have the option of
non-military service?
A structural question should be asked
also: To whom should the Selective Serv-
ice System be responsible? In the reclas-
sification case, the system itself was the
sole arbiter. Until appeals were made by
the individual students, the question of
violation of the Selective Service Act was
not considered by the courts.
Congress should re-evaluate the rela-
tionship of the judiciary to Selective Serv-
ice rulings and give the courts more au-
thority to rule in cases such as this one.
The Selective Service System should not
be able to punish those who challenge it
without due process of law.
WHEN THE SELECTICE Service Act is
revised, a provision should be includ-
ed which denies the system the, right to
repeat itsactions of last year. The right
to dissent is too precious to be arbitrarily
crushed by an autonomous draft board.
-SUE REDFERN

WISE. Intelligent. Sophisticated.
That's the word for the Resi-
dence Hall faculty advisory com-
mittee. They're recommending
something which should gladden
the hearts of all quaddies: rein-
statement of South Quadrangle's
"closed-door" policy.
The recommendation goes to
University Housing Director John
Feldkamp, who says he's "been
for this policy from the begin-
ning."
That's good to hear. There is
scarcely a University student who
aas lived in a residence hall who
doesn't remember with some de-
gree of irritation and resentment
the policy which the "closed-door"
policy will be replacing.
THE POLICY on its way out is,
of course, an "open-door" policy,
which may have been a nice
course for the United States to
follow vis-a-vis China but which
is insulting when followed by the
University vis-a-vis residence hall
residents.
Succinctly, the "open-door" pol-
icy stipulated that students had
to keep their doors "open" (30
degrees, the width of a book or
closed but unlocked, depending on
when and where you lived in the
residence ,hall system) when they
were hosting members of the op-
posite sex in their room.
This policy may have satisfied

a few Puritans (who, Mencken
said, haye "the haunting fear that
somewhere, somebody is happy").
But it was also a nuisance.
It was a nuisance to residence
hall staff who didn't like to feel
like Big Brother or to go snoop-
ing around the doors of their
charges. And it was certainly a
nuisance to the residents, who re-
sented the implication that Big
Brother was, indeed, watching,
THE "OPEN-DOOR" policy be-
trayed a fundamental lack of trust
in people and a distinctly, dourly
Federalist attitude towards hu-
man nature as essentially too
weak, nasty and brutish to be left
to do things on its own.
People had to be supervised -
closely. Otherwise, God forbid,
they'd make love to each other.
Thus the "open-door" rule.
But the rule didn't even do
what it was supposed to, which
(presumably) was to prevent sex
in the quads from getting out of
hand (to mix a metaphor).
Residence hall residents who
wanted sex got it, and with very
little difficulty at all. All the rule
really accomplished was to make
resentful the other residents who
felt obliged to take it seriously.
THE UNIVERSITY had an
"open-door" policy throughout the
residence hall system for many

years. Then, last summer, Vice-
President for Student Affairs
Richard L. Cutler approved a
change in a booklet of rules on
student conduct which would al-
low each residential unit to work
out its own door policy with the
approval of the housing director.
Feldkamp sent a copy of the
new booklet and a letter explain-
ing the change to a "local option"
system to the faculty committee,
but the letter was placed inside
the booklet and Orlin, who had
already seen the booklet, didn't
page through it and find the let-
ter. The other committee mem-
bers apparently missed it too.
In the meantime, staff members
and the South Quad Council work-
ed out a "closed-door" policy
which went into effect in October.
ALL WAS PLACID until the Ann
Arbor News in December came out
with a story asking parents wheth-
er they'd like to send their daugh-
ter to the University if they knew
they'd be seeing boys behind clos-
ed doors. (Yes, sometimes even
adult journalists are irresponsible.)
The faculty committee was just
as alarmed as the News. They
called Feldkamp, who suspended
the policy and set up a hearing
where the faculty committee mem-
bers could discuss the "closed-
door" policy with South Quad
Council members, Inter-House As-

sembly President Sherry Meyer
and South Quad staff personnel.
After the meeting, however, Or-
lin and the rest of the committee
decided to adopt the "closed-door"
policy on a trial basis even though
they actually didn't favor it in
principle. Orlin has said he hopes
the "built-in guarantees" (regis-
tration by the students) will work
and adds' that only student re-
sponsibility and discipline will
make the program work.
THE COMMITTEE also hopes
to be consulted more often (it
has played a minimal role in resi-
dence hall decision-making for the
past several years), having been
established by the Regents ex-
pressly to enable faculty to give
their views on residence hall pol-
icy.
Naturally, the committee's role
will be contingent in large measure
cn how active it cares to be. Orlin
said on Jan. 18 he's send Feld-
kamp a formal letter from the
,ommittee supporting the reinsti-
tution of South Quad's "closed-
door" policy, but he still hasn't
done it.
IN THE LONG RUN, the "clos-
ed-door" policy affair suggests sev-
eral things for the future:
" The Office of Student Affairs,
and particularly Feldkamp, should
make every effort to include the

faculty committee on all residence
hall policy questions.
The residence halls should not
simply serve as mere places to live;
they should further the education-
. and personal development of the
student as well. These are subjects
of great importance to the faculty,
who are entitled to a strong voice
in residence hall policy-making,
just iike students.
* The process of decision-mak-
ing-inclusion of the faculty and
students-is very important. So is
the substance of the decisions
themselves. Rules such as the
"closed-door" rules are a throw-
back to benevolent despotism
whose "benevolence" is ineffectual
and whose despotism is odious.
They are almost totally powerless
at preventing misconduct, and they
are remarkably good at creating
justifiable resentment.
* When informed opinion has
a chance to participate in decision-
making, the results-such as the
reinstatement of an "open-door"
policy-are excellent.
FELDKAMP, Orlin and the fac-
ulty committee members deserve
>raise for working together and
for reaching agreement on a wise
decision. They should-and prob-
ably will-continue to proceed this
way in tLe future. In so doing
they are an example for the en-
tire University commsipiy.

Letters:Professors Discuss Fiedler, Theatre

Ignoring the Knauss Report

To the Editor:
THE CONNECTION between Les-
lie Fiedler's farewell lecture and
the current Cinema Guild crisis
is so obvious that I am very much
afraid no one will bother to point
it out.
First, we should be very clear
about one fact. The students who
raised the issues of academic free-
dom and the right of scholars to
study experimental cinema art
techniques in connection with the
showing of "Flaming Creatures"
are either sentimental innocents
or the most hardened hypocrites.
Not only is a film devoted to
rape, masturbation and transvest-
ism much too bizarre and disturb-
ing to provide the atmosphere of
detached contemplation required
for the study of art techniques,
but the large mob of students who
gathered for the second Guild
presentation could scarcely have
been motivated by a lust for art.
They were there, it appears, for
two reasons: to see what they
profoundly hoped would be a por-
nographic film, and to take part
in what they profoundly hoped
might develop into a riot if the
police tried to interfere with the
showing.
THE ISSUE, in short, is not,
and has never been, one of aca-
demic freedom, but rather of the
right of the university student to
watch a dirty film if he wants to,
and to instigate a riot if someone
tries to stop him.
Mr. Fiedler, in his turn, elevat-
ed the issue to the level of divine
right by suggesting that sex, porn-
ography and drugs are among the
few meaningful alternatives open
to the student who finds himself
trapped in the "democratized bore-
dom" of mass higher education.
THERE IS a second fact about
which we need to be very clear.
The danger in pornography is not
that it will drive hordes of goat-
bearded youths howling and rap-
ing through the streets.
That may be the popular and
:fficial idea, and if you ask a
policeman why there are laws
against pornography, he will prob-
ably tell you, after perhaps some
preliminary licking of chops, that
this is the danger. But he will be
telling you in all honesty a lie.

The real danger in pornography
is that goat-bearded youths will
not be driven by it to howl and
rape. After they have read or seen
enough of it, they will have no
desire to do either, for pornogra-
phy ultimately deadens feelings
rather than inflames it.
It provides a kind of titillation
which, to be maintained, constant-
ly requires greater and greater
stimulus, until finally the moment
known to all aged voyeurs is reach-
ed, the moment when nothing tit-
illates any more, when everything
and everybody has been vicariously
and imaginatively had, and all re-
sponse dies.
THIS IS the reason why there
are laws against pornography.
Ideally, they exist not for the pro-
tection of female virtue but for
the protection of human emotion.
rhe great fear, which is barely
understood and almost never ac-
knowledged by society, is the fear
of not being able to feel.
The ability to feel presupposes
not only the ability to love but
the ability to be concerned about
the preservation of human and
humane values, The current ob-
session of students with getting
their kicks, with finding the most
intense of possible experiences, is
of course initially a symptom of
youth and health.
BUT IT IS ALSO the result of
the fact that the restraints placed
on the intense experiencing of ex-
perience have been weakend in
our tim to the point where we are
satiated with experiences that were
once alive to us just because they
were so difficult to have.
Young people. ironically enough,
are 'obsessive about their search
for intensity because they are
having a harder and harder time
feeling intense, and the hard-
er they search the more certain
it is that their search will end in
failure, since a surfeit of sensa-
tion can lead only to a deaden-
ing of the senses.
MR. FIEDLER'S remarks about
she uses of the university seem to
me irresponsible for this reason:
that they posit and endorse a
mode of behavior which can lead
only to the ennui he deplores and

to the ultimate boredom for which
violence is the sole refuge, and
they draw attention away from
the possibility of finding satisfac-
tions that are meaningful and val-
uable both within the university
and in the culture at large.
It is sheer hysteria for a man
as deeply committed to ideas and
to literature as Mr. Fiedler is to
advocate sex, pornography, drugs
and 4cademic drop-out as the only
means to a vital life, or to repeat
the sad activist cliche that uni-
versities brainwash students in or-
der to enslave them for service in
a manipulatory society. Mr. Fied-
Ir is himself a perfect refuta-
tion of his absurd argument.
He is a scholar and critic who
has spent the whole of his mature
life teaching in the universities,
and who has maintained through
that experience a militant inde-
pendence and vigor of mind. He
has been, I profoundly believe,
neither enslaved nor manipulated,
and obviously he has found vital-
ity and meaning not in drugs and
drop-out but in his passionate
commitment to the very values
from which he is doing his best to
protect the young.
YET, although he himself is
neither bored nor boring, he speaks
of boredom as the inevitable end-
product of university existence.'
And what he does not speak of is
everything a university stands for
and offers to the young as the
only antidote there is to boredom
the rich fertility of ideas and
humane culture, a commitment to
think more, not less, to feel more,
not less, to examine the meaning
of one's life so that one will know
in exactly what freedom consists
and which are the freedoms worth
fighting for.
CURIOUSLY ENOUGH, one of
the real perplexities of Mr. Fied-
ler's argument is that it urges
the young to embrace a conform-
ity far more stifling than that
allegedly imposed by society. It
urges them to embrace a conform-
ity of fashionable mass rebellious-
ness which is largely anti-intel-
lectual and philistine in spirit
and which draws what force it
has from a hostility not only to
ideas but to almost all forms of

esthetic and emotional discrimi-
nation.
Mr. Fiedler is haranguing the
adventurous youth to join that
vast anonymous army of new mu-
tant Babbitts who thrill to the
latest old-hat outrages, fight the
brave battle for everybody's lost
cause, dutifully repeat the jargon
and take on the ritual hates and
loves of the crowd of individuals
identical to themselves, and come
finally to be as enslaved and brain-
washed as any employe of our
manipulatory General Motors.
MR. FIEDLER is of course try-
ing to manipulate them in what
he things is the opposite direction,
but I doubt that this can be ac-
complished without doing violence
to the whole meaning of rebellion.
For if rebellion, at least in its
intellectual form, is not the fierce-
ly independent, unmanipulable ac-
tion of an individual mind and
;he complete antithesis of mass
action and mob togetherness, I
do not know what it is.
It cannot be legislated, pre-pack-
aged, or willed into being, and most
certainly it cannot be created in
obedience to the wishes of a visit-
ing literary intellectual, whose
stake in the game may, after all,
be nothing more exalted than a
sad nostalgic yearning for the
reckless days of his youth which
hie would like to persuade the youth
of today to repeat.
-John W. Aldridge
Department of English
The Theatre
To the Editor:
MR. KILLINGSWORTH has
written an essay (Jan. 24)
which he candidly calls "The Phil-
istinism of Budgetry." Really, he
is not interested in budgets. He
is interested in preventing a thea-
tre.
Last year The Daily wanted the
theatre money to go for an educa-
tional center, or for a Residential
College. This year it was faculty
salaries to begin with; now Mr.
Killingsworth comes up with three
more proposals: we can use it to
buy books, or for scholarships for
200 poor Negro students, or for
"equipment procurement and sup-
porting staff."

THERE IS only one consistency
among these six alternatives: the
money is allowed to go for any-
thing but a theatre. The more he
multiplies his suggestions, the more
Mr. Killingsworth reveals himself.
Last year The Daily chastized
Eugene Power for giving money
towards a theatre. The editors told
him that gifts which were assign-
ed to particular projects were
bad; but if he wanted to do such
i thing, he could build part of
the Residential College.
This year The Daily, in the
form of Mr. Killingsworth, reverses
its ethics and solicits specific con-
tributions to a theatre, in order
that no financing come from Gen-
eral Funds. The onlyeconsistency
in this contradiction is opposi-
tion to any currentp lans for a
theatre.
M R. KILLIGSWORTH'S rever-
sal of last year's doctrine is
traditionally American. Since a
theatre is art, it must be consid-
ered a luxury. It will never exist
at the center of our lives the way
a piece of lab equipment does.
Some richsperson may donate
a theatre,, as he might give an
equally useless Rembrandt (and
possibly this time we won't tell
him not to), but we couldn't be
expected to pay for art out of
tuition or public money. Mr. Kil-
lingsworth and the Lansing legis-
lators may disagree in most things,
but they will agree that a theatre
is frills.
THERE IS ONE point where
Wr. Killingsworth stops being Phil-
istine and turns nasty. That is
where he uses suffering for the
purposes of his rhetoric. "Does
Prof. Hall propose to spend $170,-
000 for a theatre? He certainly
does. Yet to do so might in ef-
fect deny over 200 poor Negro
students the chance to attend the
University."
The ''200 poor Negro students"
alternative occurs shortly after the
"new library books and periodi-
cals" alternative. It is contemp-
tible to play with the name of
misery in order to score a de-
bating point.
-Donald Hall
Department of English

I

IHE SENATE ASSEMBLY yesterday ree-
ommended a new faculty committee to
establish a teaching evaluation procedure,
and in the process may have unwittingly
trampled the Knauss Report ("The Role
of the Student in University Affairs")
into the dust.
Though the intent of the motion was
excellent, it failed to involve students ex-
plicitly in the procedure set forth and, in
effect, excluded them from still another
realm of vital decisions affecting the Uni-
versity community. The motion also sets a
snail's pace timetable for the plan, urg-
ing "experimental procedures" to be in-
stituted during the 1967-68 academic
year.
THOUGH A FACULTY leader noted after
the meeting that. the students would
be consulted on the problem, this seems
to be but another sorry gesture after a,
pattern that administrators and faculty
have often followed.
As last year's Knauss Report concluded:
"If students have neither responsibility
nor influence, their interest in serving in
an advisory capacity cannot be maintain-
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
Collegiate Press Service.
Subscription rate: $4.50 semester by carrier ($5 by
mail; $ yearly by carrier ($9 by mail).
Published at 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.,
48104.
Owner-Board in Control of Student Publications,
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104.
Bond or stockholders--None.
Average press run-8100.
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. Michigan.
Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILINGSWORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor
CLARENCE FANTO HARVEY WASSERMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
LEONARD PRATT......... Associate Managing Editor
JOHN MEREDIITH .......Associate Managing Editor
CHARLOTTE WOLTER ... Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT CARNEY ...... Associate Editorial Director

ed." But the faculty has already forgot-
ten this widely-hailed recommendation,
and has established an important com-
mittee without any student participation.
And, as still' a further blow to stu-
dent involvement, the Assembly action
came on the heels of renewed interest by
Student Government Council in resusci-
tating the Student's Course Evaluation
Booklet. The groundwork had been laid
through consultations with representa-
tives of the Institute for Social Research
and the Center for Research on Learn-
ing and Teaching. SACUA representatives
had been contacted and were fully aware
of student plans, yet, the motion went
through nonetheless, without mentioning
student involvement and interest.
THE HISTORY of the student's course-
evaluation efforts has, of course, been
rather bleak. The Knauss Report states
that "The students' own attempt at teach-
er evaluation for their own use have been
generally unsuccessful." It points to two
causes: "the programs were poorly con-
cevied and inadequately financed."
If SGC undertook the project, along
with the faculty's support and involve-
ment, and if consultation with the ISR
and CRLT were continued, an excellent
booklet of student opinion could be pro-
duced.
Also, if a joint request by faculty and
students were made (one source indicat-
ed a booklet would cost $1500), a prob-;
lem which has plagued past efforts would
be surmounted.
Course-evaluation booklets have proved
extremely successful at other schools,
around the country, some operated by the
students, others conducted by private or-
ganizations. Exactly what has prevented
the University from maintaining a high
quality evaluation booklet is a bit of a
mystery.
However, the faculty should not ignore
the desirability of student involvement
because of past difficulties. Student en-
thusiasm in producing a booklet could
perhaps aid in encouraging student re-
sponse to the questionnaires needed for
a thorough evaluation procedure.

I

.. ........ ........... ................ ......".......................................... y.....1""'Y ": YYr Mrr V:."1V 'it 1YJ: VJ Y:::rJ:ir.1:1 ViN:::i :SYJ: J."f{. I;Jt."T tJrr'Yr ry'r' {. 5""Vr ' .5
................................"..r.. .., r ......n..................... .... ....:.1........ 1t.........r ... h ....... ,J............................................... J.:Y.. "..1...1.r} ... .. . . { I Y " f { . J.
.... ..................... .............n. m rr ..............1. ....,..r..., .5......
.. .. ... ..... n4 ... .........................
q ....h.... .,h....... ....l ......................... SY:..r... J. "........... rrJ : hl....: r: J:J" 11 :1 V t Y
.................. ...... .................1 ............. .. . ...T4..................1.........h h.n...... r...... .................................. rrr :{{{'':V S.i}!'.:V.^r
.. .... .........: ... ..... .. ... .. .... .....rrr... .... .. ..............J...........r..... ..........v .r {...{.. "Nr,
......... ...........a... . .................. a...2...... ,n.. ... .........r
....h . ..."{ ......... ..........t. ........ "..... . .. "......." ......... .. yyt "A Y.Vrr. ": ".1'.'J'rrrA... .................................... r ." S.. M,,A1YrrhA.. ...r...1... r.... T. M:y... r.1 r..~r .$.Ir..1 N
..t..r ...,.. "....... f... r...A.... r ...............................A .. f.SJ . :.r.................. .. .............. . . ........1........." .......M1........y... h... .A.....1r A
rt..,...t.........t......rYA...:r:Y..'"J.Y..r ....................... .. ...".5... ..V'r YSr. h. ...."...: .1..5YM1V.5'Ayr :Yrrrr: rrJ.A1........, K {...M1...... . . ....yrfA511yV:4......"M1.SNr.Y.5yN:5YJ........r....A......J.....r.... ... .r.............. ......r......Yt... V..rr..... . r
ut,",.,a:::Y.yi.^:r :"r.1151'::rrJ. rr.1!.1."r .....:.....................Yn..::."wyyyirl.{WJ"ty t :.". r.1 r"r..1. Nr: rr::'r.':'.'.'rrA"Ay1.. h5 }}f, M1.. "... r. t.... ..........1.....

Garon's 'Macbird':

Shakespeare tin

'68

By RON KLEMPNER
ITHE PLAY'S the thing to cap-
ture the conscience of the
king," says Robert Ken-o-dunc,
etter known to us as Robert Ken-
nedy, in "Macbird" the new poli-
tical satire play scheduled to open
soon at the Village Gate in New
York's Greenwich Village.
"Macbird," an updated version
of "Macbeth" by Berkeley gradu-
ate student Barbara Garson, deals
with the interactions of the Ken-
o-duncS (John F. Kennedy and
brothers) and Macbird (Johnson)
from the 1960 convention to a pro-
jection of what might be in 1968.
NO TOPIC is too sacred to es-
cape Miss Garson's sharp wit. Her
boldness in dealing with such top-
ics as the assassination - "Cop
reading piece of paper. It says the
shots will from that way be sent"
-draw a nod of sympathy from
the audience. although one may

His callousness to the press, and
his intolerance of criticism, how-
wver, soon put him out of favor
with the nation's liberal forces,
represented by the Ken-o-duncs.
In the meantime Robert rounds
up leaders of the left. He forces
them into his camp, makes them
lependent on him and then, after
coming to power, betrays them.
WHILE Miss Garson depicts the
President, whose ambitions are
spurred by his wife, as a tyranni-
cal bore, she portrays Robent Ken-
o-dunc as a ruthless poitician, as
a man without "beating heart or
human blood." Ted Kennedy is a
puerile adolescent who holds power
through his blood ties, but who is
no more worthy of that power than
an infant king thrown into the
role of head of the court.
Political liberals in "Macbird"
become pawns used to enhance
Robert Ken-o-dunc's drive for
power. Adlai Stevenson (the Egg
rf a i i-- s mnr - -arnri mi

in particular, and the hypocrisy
of the Liberal Establishment in
general. As a political activist
(third withch) exclaims, "But we
don't wag tail behind the mass.
Our role is to expand their con-
sciousness. We must expose this
Bob-cat's claws; he even now col-
lects the straying sheep." She ac-
complishes this amazingly well.
Whether you favor Johnson or
Kennedy; whether you think the
Warren Commission was a serious
study or a political farce; whether
you favor burning draft cards or
villages this play will cause you to
nod with a grin of assention to its
jabs at established governmental
figures and re-examine your views
of the whole situation.
THE PLAY may be a bit too
arsh and vulgar for the general-
ly unsophisticated, "middle-class"
American audience of "Bonanza"
watchers. Nevertheless, "Macbird"

4

.:: . i:' :. '.i:...: .
._ is ?....}; $i:i.YY >':::

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan