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.

February 17, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1967-02-17

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

Q41ic RuD Eailyg
Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

i

FEIFFER

4

Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Truth Will 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.

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 1967

NIGHT EDITOR: WALLACE IMMEN

i

'U' Football Prices:
The Sky's the Limit

11*

THE
3RUS
OF A
MW WHO
k6APT-

II

NARM
9t't'PA-
ThT(C.N
MAWM0
LOVE;'
Ow F&Z
THE oUyT-
LIk)X. TZY3
HUHOPIED.
THE~ FACE
OF A MAO)
TO Hr-
F67.LoL
COUNTY-

p

!

VQX, THE
FORTH -N
PYM1tAMIC.
THE M05U
OFAt
HAM W ~~Y
A COI3MEe.
THATS
TH1E
( 6Uir
'TALIW

4
Alp,

t1

N

HE UNIVERSITY athletic department
should take a lesson from the sad ex-
perience of former Detroit Lion football
Coach Harry Gilmer. When the much-
maligned Gilmer was booed, cursed,
taunted and pelted with snowballs by his
own fans, he shrugged it off, explaining
that spectators who paid their way into
the stadium had a right to behave any
way they wanted.-
It might not be long before Michigan
coaches are forced to use the same ra-
tionalization. The reason is the new two
dollar hike in football coupons.
Admittedly, the increase from $12 to
$14 is a financial drop-in-the-bucket to
students paying hundreds of dollars for
tuition, room and board. The thing that
grates on people is the principle involved.
H. 0 (Fritz) Crisler, the sponsor of
the two dollar addition, has been a ferv-
ent supporter of true amateurism in col-
lege sports throughout his career. Yet he
now asks the student body to pay for the
University's athletic program in the same
way fans must support a professional
team.
T E TREND toward professionalism in
college athletics is not new. But until
now it has been focused on the partici-
pants. Emphasis on winning at all costs,
high pressure recruiting, and the big give-

away have been around for several years
despite protests of people like Crisler.
Now, however, Crisler is initiating a
trend toward professional spectatorism.
Only five years ago, a University student
paid a one dollar service fee which en-
titled him to attend all home football
games. That has now ballooned to $14
for football alone; while the price for
home contests in sports is up to $42.
In essence the students are being asked
to foot their share of the bill-a situation
which has never been tolerated here be-
fore, and which exists at no other school
in the Big Ten. At Michigan State, for
example, the total cost for student spec-
tators is less than $7.
University students have always been
expected to support the athletic teams,
but they have never been used to insure
athletic department solvency.
THE FEE HIKE is also unfortunate be-
cause it may damage the basis of loyal
support for a football team having a bad
year. The higher price gives spectators
new rights to demand a winning team.
Indeed, the increase has disturbing im-
plications for the future. If the Wolverine
football team is not winning next year,
head Coach Bump Elliott might have to
start getting used to hisses and snowballs.
-CHUCK VETZNER
Sports Editor

A' m -

ii
-j

1nAUTN.
OFA MAID
WHfO TELL5
IT IK
0T IT'
i

i

4

elk

L~. ----r

A

4

Letters: Student Power and the Freshman

:j

Northwestern Probe

To the Editor:
AT FIRST, the student move-
ment last semester promised
hope for a new student role in
the University. Students rose up
and demonstrated their discon-
tent and frustration with the pres-
ent University system. I, too, rose
up. I went to the teach-ins. I sat- .
in. But the movement foundered,
and after the initial outburst, it
just petered out.
In the final analysis, it was
just so much noise. The students
did not achieve any student power,
if anything, in the break between
SGC and the administration, the
student lost power.
From the brief fiasco I came to
realize that until there arises some
effective, unified leadership, the
student power movement cannot
succeed. The student power move-
ment last semester seemed to be
divided between SGC. Voice, Mike
Zweig, and perhaps, other factions.
There was no sustained, unified
leadership. Without such leader-
ship, how can one expect success?
MR. IMMEN'S editorial (Feb.
14) places the blame for the fail-
ure of the student power move-
ment for freshman apathy. Real-
ly! The fault lies with the fresh-
men, new to the University, most
who don't fully understand the
issue of student power!? It seems
to me if freshmen support were
vital to the success 'of a student
power movement, then the student

power leaders would solicit the
freshmen. Yet during the entire
commotion last semester no one
came to my quad to explain what
was at stake in the drive for stu-
dent power or to recruit support.
A teach-in is fine, but it does
nothing to combat apathy, because
the apathetic don't come. To
arouse the apathetic one must go
to them.
-James Lucas, '70
D.O.B.
To the Editor:
ALL I KNOW is what I read in
the paper, but I fervently hope
that The Daily will be allowed to
serve as a newspaper and won't
be turned into an adjunct of the
D.O.B.
-John Neufeld
Good Flicks
To the Editor:
WE WISH to express our feelings
about the Cinema Guild. We
have always felt that it is perhaps
the best film society in the nation.
Unlike most groups it has had a
continuity of leadership which has
made possible a comprehensive
study of the film exceeded only-
by the showings conducted by the
Museums of Modern Art.
In Chicago we have, normally
been jealous of the wide variety
of films shown at Ann Arbor,
which have not been seen here.

It is possible to see films by Chap-
lin, Jean Cocteau, D.W. Griffith,
Satyajit Ray, and Buster Keaton,
which have not been shown com-
mercially in Chicago or Detroit.
Many University groups are only
now discovering the value of film
in the teaching of art and human
understanding. Michigan has been
doing this for fifteen years. While
most University programs differ
litle from the fare run in the reg-
ular theatres-to the extent that
the theatre often takes action
against unfair competition-the
Cinema Guild has constantly
brought films to the students that
would be otherwise unavailable-
unavailable, because of theatre
operators indifference, rather than
because of content.
THE CINEMA Guild shows more
films every year than are available
by the combined efforts of all
groups at most Universities. The
Guild has never advertised these
films as other than the true ar-
tistic values of the films indicate.
These films are a vital and neces-
sary part of the experience of the
University student.
-Charles Boos
Manager, Midwest Office
Contemporary Films, Inc.
Looking Backward
To the Editor:
I WAS HORRIFIED to read in
our Evening Tribune about ten

days ago an article titled "School's
-Age Questioned in Michigan." At
once I knew you were wrong, but
I could not believe that The Mich-
igan Daily would perpetrate such
stupid and ignorant piece of re-
porting.
Also your research, if there was
such a thing, was awfully weak.
Even when I was on the Daily over
60 years ago I was familiar with
the history of the University of
Michigan. We all had to know
that to get a position on the paper.
If you had read any of the many
histories beautifully written by,
eminent historians in the Univer-
sity, you would have known how
wrong you are. Not only wrong but
stupid, and I would add mean and
destructive. The Daily used to
stand for the truth and for things
that would add to the reputation
of the college. There are a lot of
words I could use to describe your
action in this respect, but the
paper would burn up.
LET ME inform you that the
State Supreme Court held in 1856
that the corporate existence of the
University began with the Act of
the 26th of August, 1817, and has
been continuous throughout all the
subsequent changes of the organic
law.
I will not say more, but feel that
the Michigan Daily of today has
besmirched its reputation. What
did you possibly think could be

gained by this despiceable act of
yours? Especially at this time of
our great celebration. Your action
was stupid, ignorant and under-
handed, to say the least.
-Thurlow E. Coon, AB '03
Weather
To the Editor:
CONGRATULATIONS to The
Daiily on Mr. Wasserman's
editorial on the weather (Feb. 9).
I did not think that there was a
member of the Daily staff left who
had enough sense of humor to
write such a telling satire upon
The Daily's substitute of crusaders
for reporters.
I hope that it indicates a trend
back to the time when the Daily
used to win honors as a student
"news" paper, and the advocacy
was limited to succinct (and
therefore readable) editorials,
columnists, and "letters."
-William P. Halstead
Department of Speech
LETTERS
All letters must be typed,
double-spaced and should be no
longer than 300 words. All let-
ters are subject to editing;
those over 300 words will gen-
erally be shortened.

I

A1

IN THE LATEST development of a dis-
turbing nationwide trend, professors
and administrators of Northwestern Uni-
versity have called for an investigation of
the school newspaper.
Associate Dean J. Lyndon Shanley of
the college of arts and sciences justified
the probe on the grounds that the Daily
Northwestern has failed to print many
important announcements from the fac-
ulty. Ostensibly, dissatisfaction was arous-
ed when an announcement concerning a
Far Eastern Language Institute failed to
reach print.
The paper, a tabloid, is published four
times a week and faces a chronic shortage
of space. It must necessarily choose news
stories carefully, with regard to im-
portance and appeal. This fact should
have been apparent to those raising ob-
jections, and some arrangement that
would have compensated for these limi-
tations could have been reached private-
ly between the parties. Numerous alter-

natives seem available. The university
could allot more funds to the paper, buy
space in the newspaper, or print its own
announcements for circulation.
But it appears that this is not the cen-
tral issue at all.
S IT ONLY a coincidence that the fac-
ulty resolution, the idea for the in-
vestigation, the chairman of the probe
and those who moved the resolution dur-
ing the meeting were all administrative
deans or assistants? The paper has re-
cently printed some poignant editorials
criticizing the administration. Perhaps
the editors of the Daily Northwestern are
justified in their fears that this may be a
move to indirectly censor the paper.
If this is the case, the Northwestern
administration has lowered itself below
the standards for debate and dissension
and should immediately withdraw its in-
vestigation.
-JIM HECK

I1

I4

. ...*. .................................................... . . . . *.....*...............:.,.:.:::''..l....*..l1:.'.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Y"."...,.!'!4.. . . ..,.. .r.."M
........ .... .. . r. . .. ................"............................................ .... .... . .. l: r:::N:~. r l.A ",.." ~... ..!:L ...
Drf efemn ytmAdequate

Escaping the Ghetto

PRESIDENT JOHNSON asked Congress
to enact the open housing measure
that was filibustered to death in the
Senate last year. The provisions were
modified slightly to overcome resistance
expected from Congress.
The Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
Collegiate Press Service.
Subscription rate: $4.50 semester by carrier ($5 by
mail; $8 yearly by carrier ($9 by mail).
Published at 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.,
48104.
Owner-Board in Control of Student Publications,
Bond or Stockholders-None.
Average press run-10,000.
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor. Michigan.
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104.
Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor
CLARENCE FANTO HARVEY WASSERMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
JOHN MEREDIITH ...... Associate Managing Editor
LEONARD PRATT ........Associate Managing Editor
CHARLOTTE WOLTER ... Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT CARNEY ...... Associate Editorial Director
BABETTE COHN ................Personnel Director
ROBERT MOORE .................... Magazine Editor
CHARLES VETZNER................Sports Editor
JAMES TINDALL ..........Associate Sports Editor
JAMES LaSOVAGE.......... Associate Sports Editor
GIL SAMBERO............. Associate Sports Editor
THOMAS R. COPTI............. Photography Editor
NIGHT EDITORS-Meredith Eiker, Michael Heifer,
Robert Kllvans. Laurence Medow Roger Rappoport,
Susan Schnepp, Neil Shister.
DAY EDITORS-Robert Bendelow, Neal Bruss, Wallace
Immen, David Knoke, Mark Levin, Patricia O'Dono-
hue, Stephen Wildstromn.
ASSISTANT NIGHT ,EDITORS-David Duboff, Ronald
Klempner, Dan Okrent, Deborah Reaven, Jennifer
Rhea, Betsy Turner.
ASSISTANT DAY EDITORS-Michael Dover, Steve

The major change would forbid discrim-
ination in the sale or rental of housing
in stages, over the next two years, in-
stead of immediately.
Despite the President's guarantee that
the measure would not be aimed at "the
privacy of the home"; despite the need
to give the Negro access to apartments
in clean, attractive neighborhoods; de-
spite flagrant "block-busting" carried on
by unscrupulous real estate brokers, Con-
gress is in no mood to treat this bill dif-
ferently than the previous one.
Senator Dirksen, a man who usually
gets-his way, vented his disapproval of
open housing last year, when he termed it,
"a bill whose time has not come." Also,
several weeks ago the Senate defeated
attempts to modify Rule 22 that requires
a two-thirds vote to cut off debate. Con-
gress has rarely been able to muster this
number and filibusters have continued
as a threat to legislation.
MANY CONGRESSMEN are convinced
that the open housing bill is political
dynamite, because public opposition is
widespread. They might, however, also
weigh the consequences of shutting Ne-
groes in the ghetto without giving them
any hopes for escape.
-STEPHEN FIRSHEIN
No Comnment

This is the last of a three-
part series by Prof. E. Lowell
Kelly, Department of Psychol-
ogy. After noting in Part II (in
yesterday's Daily) that any stu-
dent may provide his local draft
board with a copy of his full
academic transcript, Prof. Kelly
concludes with an analysis of
the pros and cons of alternative
forms for reporting scholastic
standing, and alternative chan-
nels for transmitting academic
records to local draft boards.
Part III
ALTHOUGH it is obvious that lo-
cal draft boards can obtain ex-
tensive information regarding stu-
dents requesting deferment with-
out any cooperation, collaboration
or complicity on the part of the
University, this situation leads to
another issue about which there
are wide differences of opinion
among both students and faculty.
While local boards can obtain (for
those students who provide them
with transcripts) extremely detail-
ed information about the student's
academic performance and prog-
ress toward a degree, the transcript
provides much more information
than is wanted. So much, in fact,
that many board members feel
they cannot interpret it fairly!
Each local board is likely to
have registrants attending many
different colleges, and hence if
forced to evaluate academicper-
formance from transcripts, it
would need to consider some in
which academic credit was record-
ed in semester hours, and others
in quarter hours. Grades are bas-
ed on very different marking sys-
tems: (a) A, B, C, D, and E,
(b) E(excellent), G(good). A
(average), P(pass), and F(fail),
(c) Honors, High Pass, Pass, Low
Pass, and Fail, and (d) "absolute"
percentage scales on which 100
is "perfect" but the failing grade
may be 75, 70, or 60.
Primarily for these reasons, lo-
cal boards nrefer much less in-

-In the upper two-thirds of
male sophomores in his class in
his college?
-In the upper three-fourths of
male juniors in his class in his
college?
-In the upper one-fourth of
male seniors in his class in his
college?
This brings us to the specific
question of "ranking." Because I
have taught statistics for many
years, I tend to think of ranking
as the process of ordering objects
or persons on some continuum
from high to low and assigning
each an ordinal position, e.g., 1st,
2nd, 3rd. .. nth. However, on look-
ing up the verb "to rank" in an
unabridged dictionary, I learned
that it has many other defini-
tions, including "to grade," "to
classify," and "to estimate."
Thus, in effect, it may be said
that local boards ask only that
reports on scholastic status be
provided in terms of a simple two
category grading system based on
the grade distribution of male
students in each class in each col-
lege.
Persons who object to ranking,
i.e., the grading of students on
such a simple two-point scale do
so for different reasons. Four of
these are:
® It is argued that the academ-
ic performance of each student
should be graded entirely on the
basis of his work: in other words,
grades should reflect an absolute
level of accomplishment rather
than performance relative to that
of other students in a course, a
class, or the college as a whole.
Although I am sure that most
teachers would gladly endorse this
proposition as an ideal, I doubt
that any of us has found it possi-
ble to achieve it in our own grad-
ing practices. Instead, all grades
tend to be based on the perform-
ance of each student relative to
that of the other students in the
course. In reality, we grade stu-
A-++ 1- - rbi - -+Ihrn n fi

the transcript), but I object to
the University doing anything dif-
ferent or additional just in order
to comply with the regulations of
the Selective Service System."
Since this objection raises ques-
tions regarding the past and pres-
ent practices of the University, Dr.
E. R. Zimmerman of the office of
the vice-president for University
affairs was asked several ques-
tions. In brief, he replied that
"ranking" in one form or anoth-
er has been going on in the Uni-
versity for a very long time-at
least 25 years. In most cases it is
done by the registrar's office, but
also by individual schools or col-
leges.
In general, it has been the prac-
tice of the registrar to sort and
order student record cards con-
taining GPA's in many different
ways, each ranking being done for
a particular purpose. Examples in-
clude separate GPA distributions
by college, by class, by sex, and
by living units (dormitories, fra-
ternities, sororities, etc.). Selection
for Honors Convocations and for
honor societies involve first sort-
ing the cards for gross eligibility
(college, major, sex, etc.), rank-
ing those eligible by GPA, and
providing the names of the top
"x" per cent.
" A third often heard argu-
ment against the practice of rank-
ing is that ranks are not mean-
ingful from one institution to an-
other because of marked differ-
ences in the average' level of stu-
dent ability and/or different grad-
ing standards. Admittedly, rank-
ing provides only an index of rel-
ative rather than absolute per-
formance. Furthermore, it is prob-
ably true that most of the Univer-
sity students whosehGPA places
them in the lower half of their
freshman class would rank in the
upper half of their class in cer-
tain other unnamed institutions.
(As we have seen, however, most
of this group would still score

differences in measured scholastic
aptitude.
It is thus clear that if University
students were to rely only on tran-
scripts, i.e., their grades, to sup-
port their requests for deferment,
some will be seriously handicapped
because they are registered in
College X, others will be signifi-
cantly advantaged because they
are in College Y, even though all
are from the same University.
Only if, in fact, our grades were
based on an absolute scale of per-
formance, would it be reasonable
to expect local boards to arrive at
an equitable evaluation of tran-
scripts. Since this assumption is
far from justified, permitting or
forcing local boards to evaluate
academic performance on the bas-
is of transcripts alone cannot but
lead to frequent and sometimes
gross inequities in decisions about
individual students.
* It is argued that the current
practice sometimes results in mak-
ing distinctions that are not real,
e.g., the lowest GPA in the upper
two-thirds of a distribution will
not be very much higher than
the highest GPA in the lowest
one-third. Admittedly, for those
few students whose GPA falls
very close to the cutting point in
their class GPA distribution, the
report of "above" or "below" in-
volves elements of chance.
I suggest that this is in no
sense a novel situation. The least
promising freshman admitted to
this University last year was cer-
tainly not very much above the
best applicant not admitted. Fur-
thermore, every time a teacher as-
signs course grades, some students
will fall close to the critical points
demarcating the letter grades. For-
tunately, GPA's, based on many
course grades, are more stable,
i.e., more consistent from semes-
ter to semester than are letter
grades from course to course.
Whether a student supports his-
request for deferment on the basis
of a certified transcript or a cer-
tifa -- +-afoc o iccrnair.a

Of the three above alternatives,
the second involves by far the
least clerical work for the Uni-
versity. The Office of Records need
only sort the cards by local boards
(using the code numbers provid-
ed by students on the form used
to request that the University re-
port their scholastic standing), and
ship the entire set of some 6000
cards to the state headquarters of
the Selective Service in Lansing.
That office then assumes respon-
sibility for forwarding each pack-
age of cards to local boards, not
only in Michigan but throughout
the United States. The chief ar-
gument against this, the present
procedure, is that, in the opinion
of some persons, it makes the Uni-
versity appear to be a willing and
even active collaborator in the
operation of the Selective Service
System.
The first alternative above, while
feasible, is obviously far less effi-
cient and seems to have no ar-
guments in its favor. It would re-
quire the University to sort the
cards as above but to mail or ship
the subsets of cards to hundreds
of different local boards through-
out the U.G.
The third alternative above
would eliminate any direct com-
munication or contact between the
University and either the State
Selective Service System or local
boards, but it would involve mail-
ing over 6000 individual documents
each year, hopefully to each stu-
dent's correct current mailing ad-
dress. It would then be the re-
sponsibility of each student to
forward the document to his local
board.
In my judgment, the practices
currently followed by the Univer-
sity are completely defensible both
rationally and ethically. They are
certainly more efficient than oth-
er available -alternatives. Finally,
any major changes in practice
such as advocated by certain crit-
ics of present practice would nec-
essitate extremely basic changes
in 1nnm.Pc+nhlich Tnrit.v+ nnl

4

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan