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 >':::