,Q, rmlor s fa fa
Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

University Handling Outside Pressure

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

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1967

NIGHT EDITOR: STEPHEN WILDSTROMI


Softening the Effect of
Rising Dorm Costs

HE UNIVERSITY is contemplating an
increase in its already relatively high
residence hall fees while other schools,
with similar skyrocketing cost problems,
are maintaining present rates.
Why is such action going to be taken
only at the University?
The University answers that they pro-
vide services not rendered by other uni-
versities' residence hall systems. This just
isn't true. A survey of nine other state-
supported schools operating under finan-
cing terms similar to those of the Uni-
versity showed that on the average serv-
ices provided by other schools are at
least comparable to the University's. None
of these schools have fees as high as
the University's, and the majority are
not raising 1967-68 rates.
NOR DOES ANN ARBOR'S high cost of
living index provide the entire answer.
The University of Illinois, for example,
charges students $840 for a double room
for nine months and provides weekly maid
service. It seems incredible that geo-
graphical cost of living differentials could
be large enough to account for a fee-
service variation that great.
University officials are genuinely con-
cerned with the housing budget situation.
They have been and are studying ways
to cut costs. But they must not content
themselves with the old platitudes about
marginal services and consumer price
index discrepancies.
Until someone finds the answer to the
chronic problem of increasing high costs

a second question is of greater direct
concern to the University community.
What can be done to soften the effects
of increasing costs for those living in
the dormitory system?
FORTUNATELY, the University is in a
position to do something here. First, it
must find some way to coordinate its
policies on tuition increases and on resi-
dence hall fees, even if this entails play-
ing havoc with the bureaucratic organiza-
tion chart. An increase in both tuition
and dormitory rates in a single year would
place an intolerable financial hardship
on a significant number of students.
Second, the University must plan its
budget for the coming academic year suf-
ficiently early to allow it to inform stu-
dents about residence hall rate increases
in time for students to adjust scholarship
and loan applications and work-study
schedules.
'Third, the University must cushion out
the effects of rate increase over a num-
ber of years rather than impose a large
hike in any one year. It can accomplish
this either by having the foresight to
predict cost increases in advance or by
making use of the escalator clause in its
debt servicing arrangements.
EVEN IF a residence hall fee increase is
inevitable, there is much the Univer-
sity can do to soften its impact on stu-
dents. It is to be hoped that the Univer-
sity will exhaust all its possibilities to
this end.
--URBAN LEHNER

" SPEND 75 per cent of my time
explaining to alumni about
these type of activities. This type
of stuff is going to have to stop."
Regent Paul Goebel is concern-
ed. And although the quote is his
alone, and was made last week in a
discussion on the Cinema Guild
crisis, it expresses the sentiments
of a great many people-on more
than the Cinema Guild case.
Things have been happening
around here that just don't make
the University look very good. The
student power conflict last semes-
ter is at the core of aulmni, Re-
gental and administration dissat-
isfaction.
The national conspiracy plot of
SDS is more than a myth to our
elders outside of Ann Arbor. Add
to the "Berkeley-type uprising" one
story on the rich, white Universi-
ty; one regental resignation on
conflict of interest grounds; one
HUAC subpoena; a couple of "dir-
ty" films; one editorial; pro-le-
galization of marijuana; a ,report
of "widespread use of drugs" here;
one drinking marathon; one four-
letter word on the edit page of the
student newspaper-add them up
and you have one heck of a lot
of alumni pressure for "stopping
this type of stuff."
And you can hardly expect Re-
gent Goebel and his colleagues on
the board and in the administra-
tion to react otherwise. They have
been getting more nasty letters
from alumni groups and fewer po-
tential checks than ever (and it
is the 150th anniversary for Pete's
sake).

THE IMAGE of this University,
is "the ugliest thing they have
ever seen."
The result, of course, is the
transfer of the pressure the Re-
gents have felt to the administra-
tion. The administrators, as "me-
diators among various groups with-
in and outside the University" must
then weigh the pressures they feel
from above and below and pro-
tect their view of the best inter-
ests of this University.
But hoy they see and how they
protect those best interests is the
question- that students.§and fac-
ulty must examine. If the events
of the past few weeks are any in-
dication, the various interests
within the University are losing.
And what's worse, nobody seems
too concerned about it.
Cinema Guild is the first case
in point. The younger generation
here at the University can't im-
agine the response President
Hatcher and the Regents receiv-
ed from the outside after that film
was seized. I trust the President
when he says he got plenty of let-
ters.'
It wasn't just that the film was
allegedly indecent; it was that its
showing was identified with the
whole student power syndrome
(believe it or not) and the Uni-
versity's image took another kick
in the face.
IN LIGHT of this reaction, the
University stand on aid to Cinema
Guild was understandable. "The
question here is one of citizen's
rights and citizen's responsibili-
ties." There was no University

The A ssoci(
by Carney a wdw
aid, but no threat of ce
None, that is until this we
the non-involvement pos
gan to look very good.
It looked good, because
sition seemed to be cha
one of negative (ant
Guild) involvement. One
istrator asked SGC to ask
Guild to refrain from shoe
controversial Warhol m
the time being. It seems t
ple on the outside were
that Cinema Guild was
films like "Flaming Creat
defy authority," not to edu
Fortunately, SGC did
operate, but the pressure
stop there.hFaculty mem
proached the film societ
askedfor and told them
they didn't suspend shows
sign of good faith," t
doubts about the futuree
of Cinema Guild.
The administration had
clear that if SGC or Cinen
did not restrain it thems
University might have to.
In sum, the "interest
University" lay not with t
of the students, but with
those on the outside th
"dirty" films were not pa
that student power stuff.
The second case in poin

Daily. Pressure from the Regents
and people outside the University
ties have been very heavy on the Board
in Control since the Power resig-
ollter nation. And it's been getting worse.
When an interim report to the
Regents on The Daily's perform-
ance wasn't satisfactory, an inves-
nsorship. tigation seemed to be the answer.
ek. Then. To some members of the board
ition be-'the investigation would vindicate
The Daily and the board, and cdol
the pa- the pressure they had been feel-
theg po ing. To others, it was a means of
-ngingmo putting some control on the pa-
i-Cinema per.
admin-
Cinema
wing the THE PRESTIGIOUS faculty
ovies for committee was the perfect body
avie for to undertake the investigation: re-
that peo- spected, detached and not part of
s feeling the administration. The fact that
ures" "to the faculty has no business mak-
urae,"t ing an investigation of a newspa-
not co- per seems to be beside the point.
did not One would think the faculty, in
ide nothis case, not overly fond of the
bt er fp present administration, would
t if have no part of these goings on.
i that if As it stands now, theyaren't sure
ing "as a if they will or not. Their reluct-
hxiytencd ance is understandable, but disap-
existence pointing.
Then, this week, the board re-
made it jected Roger Rapoport, the senior
elves, the editors' nominee for editor. (The
board, remember, is made up not
only of administrators but also
of the faculty and students.), They re-
he rights jected Rapoport for individual rea-
assuring sons perhaps, but the major ra-
at these tionale 'was that they did not
art of all want Rapoport as representative
and spokesman for the paper.
nt is The Rapoport, the best reporter this

paper has seen in a long time,
represents everything controversial
about The Daily. And the fact
that he wrote the Regent Power
story doesn't help him much.
Thus, like Andy Warhol and
Cinema Guild, Rapoport is also as-
sociated with defiance of author-
ity, and "student power." He can
me anything but editor, says the
Board.
Again it is clear which of the
various interests wins out. Like
Cinema Guild, the Daily investi-
gation and the rejection of Rapo-
port stem from Regental and in
turn alumni concern for the Uni-
versity's image (currently termed
the 'interest of the University').
But we expect that. As students
we know we have to fight for
things around here. The admin-
istration, whether they like it or
not, is going to be returning let-
ters and spending 75 per cent of
their time explaining things.
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY
of students and faculty to defend
each others' interests, and protect
threats to autonomy which origin-
ate from within.
But over the past few weeks,
the response of students has been
one of apathy; the position of
faculty, with a few exceptions,
ranges from apathy, to cooperation
with the administration, to seek-
ing concessions from students for
the sake of peace and quiet. In
a word, disappointing.
As one of the concessionaires
said, "I don't want to play chicken
with our civil liberties.'

4

4

Letters: Visiting Professor Defends Daily

Writing to Johnson

1HE FACULTY LETTER to President
Johnson which calls for an "uncondi-
tional halt" to the United States bombing
of North Vietnam is an excellent idea. Be-
lieve it or not, the governmental policy
can be influenced by public opinion, even
by dove public opinion.
The only problem with the letter is that
the signers were limited to professors, sen-
ior level staff and researchers holding
PhD's. Why don't the grad students,
teaching fellows and great mass of un-
dergraduates put out their own petition?
A document calling for an end to the
bombing in North Vietnam supported by
all elements of the University community)
would have great effect on the war policy
of the United States.
TIOSE WHO POINT to the previous let-
ters submitted to the President, and
complain of the lack of influence they
have, should not underestimate the ac-
cumulative effect of these voices of pro-
test. Even more important, is that these
voices come from the intellectual com-

munity - the community that Johnson
must not completely forsake if he wants
to be re-elected in 1968.
The student power movement called for
participatory democracy. If those 1500
who sat in at the administration building
really believe in contributing in decision-
making, it would seem that this offers
an excellent opportunity to do so. The
administration and faculty are attempt-
ing to participate in democratic policy-
making. Why should the lower levels of
the university community be left out?
Getting together another petition
shouldn't be difficult. The Yale, Michigan
State University and the University's pre-
viously drafted documents can be used
as models for a student document.
IF THE MAJOR schools of this country
all send the President such letters,
signed by a significant portion of the aca-
demic community, the pressure may be
great enough to stop the bombing.
-LYNNE KILLIN

To the Editor:
AsA VISITING professor at the
University of Michigan, I have
constantly grown in respect of
The Daily, which seems to me to
be clearly one of the two or three
leading student papers in the
country. Especially during the past
two months, I have found its ma-
turity, its good sense, its fearless-
ness, and, not least, its willing-
ness to represent a variety of un-
usual points of view, not just
among student papers, but among
newspapers of all types.
IF I LIMIT myself to local
Michiganpapers. I frequently have
to go to The Daily in order to find
out what is going on, not only at
the university or the state level,
but also at the level of national
and international politics.
Its opinions about matters of
public concern seem to me at once
reasonable, well written and often
sound.
e
SOMETIMES I disagree with the
views expressed by editors and
staff writers on The Daily, just
as I also, though more frequently,
disagree with those expressed by
writers on the Detroit News or
the Boston Globe. Occasionally I
find its news stories a bit slant-
ed-but far less so than those of
Time, the weekly news magazine,
or, to move up a half-peg, the
Chicago Tribune. It is therefore
with a sense of sorrow-and dis-
may-that I learn that The Daily's
own proposal for its next editor has
been rejected by the Board in
Control of Student Publications.
The right to choose its own staff
and editorial policy is one essen-
tial condition of a free, responsi-
ble press. How shall students at
any university gain a sense of the
meaning of the idea of a free and
responsible press if their daily pa-
per is subject to continual review
by a board of control and to the
psychological pressures that con-
stantly attend such review?
-Prof. Henry D. Aiken
Philosophy Department
Disturbing
To the Editor:
WE ARE DISTURBED by the
procedures which appear to
Tran V
by URBAN LEHNER
IRAN VAN DINH is no longer a
Marxist.
Tran, the former South Vietnam-
ese ambassador to the United
States who spent two days on cam-
pus last week and left the Uni-
versity community with more or-
iginal proposals than it normally
hears in two months didn't choose
to label his present ideology.
It is little wonder that he didn't.
For Tran is a sensitive, open-
minded and highly prolific intel-
lectual to whose range of ideas
justice could be served only by the
hackneyed tag "eclecticism."
Nevertheless, it is possible to sys-
tematize Tran's thinking, if care
is taken to avoid exageration, as
paralleling 19th century liberal-
ism.
FOR AT THE heart of Tran's
philosophy is a belief in the effi-
cacy of human knowledge and the
necessity for communication be-

have been adopted by the Board
in Control of Student Publica-
tions in the selection of a new
editor for The Daily. Although a
final resolution of the issue has
not formally been made, it seems
that the board may ultimately
choose- to exercise a veto power
without issuing any report explain-
ing its reasons for adducing any
evidence in support of a decision
that Roger Rapoport is unaccept-
able. This would be a grave error.
Whatever the legal authority of
the board to select an editor, and
whatever the explanation for their
conclusion, a refusal to articulate
or document the reasons for its
decision is open to the Implica-
tion that Rapoport is to be re-
jected because his views are un-
congenial to the University admin-
istration.
IF IT WERE TRUE that a stu-
dent were prevented from becom-
ing editor of a college newspaper
because he was ideologically or
personally objectionable to the ad-
ministration, serious issues of aca-
demic freedom would be presented.
The board could only do itself and
the community a service by remov-
ing any doubts about its actual
motives.
It is the board which bears the
burden of explanation, because it
has taken the initiative in depart-
ing from what seemed to be well
established customary procedures.
In this sense the case is distin-
guishable from one in which a
board of control follows the prac-
tice of selecting one candidate from
among many; in such a case its
selection would imply only that
the person selected was more at-
tractive than the others.
BUT WHEN. TRADITION is re-
jected and the board takes the
position that the incumbents'
choice is so unacceptable that the
University cannot permit him to
hold office, the implication is clear
that the rejected person has some
exceedingly serious fault of char-
acter or capacity. Such implica-
tions should not go unverified and
unsubstantiated.
Only if a failure to issue a re-
port were. based on a desire to
spare Rapoport's feelingsorrepu-
tation would it be understandable.

But that is a choice that only
Rapoport himself can make; since
he has informed us that he has
no objections to a public disclos-
ure of all the facts relating to his
rejection, it hardly behooves the
board to save his reputation despite
him.
Finally, it must be pointed out
that this is not simply a case of a
private publisher making a person-
al decision about who he wants his
editor to be. A college newspaper is
a hybrid publication, where the
University administration (pub-
lisher) is also thehembodiment of
the community whose activities it
is the newspaper's central duty to
discuss. Thus the principles which
lie behind free speech and free
press are certainly relevant here.
That is why the board's reasons
should be exposed to the light of
day.
-Joseph L. Sax
--Stanley Siegel
-Theodore J. St. Antoine
-Paul R. Carrington
-Arthur R. Miller
-Yale Kamisar
-John H. Jackson
-Robert J. Harris
-Terrance Sandalow
Members of Law Faculty
Criticism
To the Editor:
IRRESPONSIBLE newspapers are
not unusual. However, the de-
gree to which The Daily combines
irresponsibility and self-adulation
makes it unique. One of the more
humorous indications of the staff's
high esteem for itself was the
statement in the February 21 Daily
in which The Daily was called
"The New York Times of college
newspapers." Perhaps if more time
were spent on accurate reporting
and responsible editorial comment,
The Daily would not find itself
defending against justifiable criti-
cism.
-Ed Bittle, '67L
-Vince Buzard, '67L
-John Hartranft, '67L
-Jim Klanenik, '67L
Shameful
To the Editor:
ALTHOUGH OPINIONS and po-
litical pressure seems to weigh

more in the balance these days
than corny references to the Bill
of Rights, this latest action by the
Board in Control of Student Publi-
cations does seem to some of us
hidebound liberals to be an inva-
sion of free speech.
It is shameful that Prof. Coop-
errider and his board have not
taken a stance in favor of more,
not less, editorial freedom for The
Daily. It seems strange that stu-
dents have the courage to defend
the principles that their elders say
they should live by, while their
elders attack those very principles
in the name of decency, hurt poli-
tical aspirations and holy fund
drives.
In addition, the rejection of the
new Daily editors puts the board's
earlier statement about the pur-
pose of the proposed probe into
The Daily's relations with the Uni-
versity in a rather poor light: the
rejection of the editors indicates
that the previous request for the
probe was not made in the inno-
cent or impartial manner that
Prof. Cooperrider implied.
As for the ostensible reasons for
University discontent with The
Daily, who's kidding whom? This
talk about Heyns has been .rife
among faculty and. administration
(and some students) ever since he
left for California; The Daily cer-
tainly didn't break that story. Not
enough Sesquicentennial or intra-
University news?
EVEN-IF THIS were true, which
it is not, what about the coverage
in the local, state and national
press, the weekly faculty newslet-
ters and other publications?
Marijuana? Come on now, even
the mass circulation magazines
have said it's a topic worth hear-
ing different points of view about.
What an irony that the Detroit
Free Press assumes a position in
defense of editorial freedom just
as the Board in Control of Stu-
dent Publications at one of the
world's great universities abandons
it.
What else riles the board? Daily
agitation for lower athletic ticket
prices? Healthy skepticism about
generous gifts to the University
which might alter the direction of

its policy in unforeseen ways?
HUAC? Voice? CIA?
I have two motivations in writ-
ing this letter: (1) The Daily is
informative, readable and fills a
need. I hope the board's actions
won't cramp ints wonderful style.
(2) I know a principle when I
see one and all the bland admon-
ishments about hurt feelings, fund
drives, and the need for cheap
photographic duplication facilities
fail to camouflage the recent at-
tacks on that principle.
-i-David A. Burack, Grad
-Former editor-in-chief,
Swarthmore College Phoenix
Engineering
To the Editor
I DOUBT that I am alone in
thinking that the action of the
engineering faculty, condemning
the Experimental Film Program
of Cinema Guild, was precipitous
and premature. How many of the
engineering faculty had viewed the
film "Flaming Creatures" or con-
sidered the broad program, obvi-
ous in four Wednesdays, of pre-
senting films which have been
widely shown on college cam-
puses? The whole question has
not been adjudicated, yet in ad-
vance Cinema Guild has been
judged guilty by the professors
of the engineering department. Let
them stick to their slide rules and
not make the esthetic and moral
judgments, for which they are
quite unequipped.
-Robert Robinson, '69
Lip pmann
To the Editor:
TELL ME, DADDY...
WHY do politicians listen to
the public before elections, but not
after?
WHY do persons become leaders,
but then not lead?
WHY is it that wise men are
heard by all, but not listened to
by all?
WHY is it that rational men
worship the wisdom of their or-
acles, but not of their leaders.
WHY isn't Walter Lippmann
President?
-Kenneth Fisher, Grad

4

ANOTHER OPINION
Who s Being Sophomoric?

I1

ACTIONS of the Board of Control which
supervises The Michigan Daily, the
student newspaper at the University of
Michigan, comes amid growing contro-
versy sparked by student unrest and cam-
pus disturbances across the country. The
actions raise an unusual question.
First the board sought an investigation

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 GARNEY......Associate Editorial Director
BABETTE COHN ................. Personnel Director

of The Daily by the Faculty Senate As-
sembly and implied the need for new re-
strictions on what has been an outstand-
ing student newspaper, respected by stu-
dents and honored by professional jour-
nalists. Wisely, the assembly tabled the
motion for such an investigation.
NOW THE BOARD has rejected The
Daily's selection of Roger Rapoport, a
rising senior, to be its new editor. To the
board, Roger Rapoport is unacceptable.
To the senior editors who unanimously
picked him, he is "the best candidate and
he alone deserves that post."
We know Roger Rapoport. He has been
this newspaper's correspondent at the
University and he has written many stor-
ies for us and called in many valuable
tips on other stories. He has also written
for several national magazines, among
them McCall's, the New Republic and the
Nation. Last summer he worked as a staff
writer for the Wall Street Journal, con-
tributing articles to its news columns and
to its editorial page as well.
Roger Rapoport is one of the nation's
most promising student journalists and
opposition to his appointment as editor
of The Daily stems, apparently, from the
fear that he would continue to put out a

an Dinh: Thinking of Pipedreams

can be no solution without com-
munication. Certainly there can
be no permanent peace without
the mutual understanding commu-
nication affords. The crucial issue
is not whether communication is
necessary but whether it is enough.
Those who propose communica-
tion as a panacea must either ex-
plicitly or implicitly build their
case on a single proposition:
human understanding (gained
through communication) and good
will (roughly defined) comprise an
invincible combination for the so-
lution of the world's problems. For
to propose that knowledge and un-
derstanding are sufficient without
good will is to ignore the lessons
of Hiroshima and Auschwitz.
KNOWLEDGE, like science, is
neither good nor bad by itself; it
is a morally neutral force that
men can be harnessed for moral
or immoral ends. Once man knows
the truth we cannot assume that

ed it will have to be on the grounds
that communication causes good
will. Despite Tran's certain rebut-
tal (with apologies to George Ber-
nard Shaw) that the only trouble
with communication is that it has
never really been tried, it must be
pointed out that those countries
which have high literacy rates,
educated populations, and high
mass media participation-do not
evince much in the way of good
will for them.
ANOTHER SUGGESTION Tran
makes deals with a formula for
the modernization of South Viet-
nam which includes selective in-
dustrialization, the Asian Common
Market - federated corporation
scheme and the maintenance of
the peasant communal society
structure through an imitation of
the kibbutz plan in Israel or co-
operative ventures in"Norway and
Sweden.
The formula is internally logi-

communications context" appro-
priate to the '60's-is the socio-
logical prop underpinning the oth-
er two proposals. Besides enhanc-
ing the general goals of bypassing
the nation-state (by providing an
alternate social organization) and
reducing the alienation inherent
in industrialization it is a substi-
tute for the eradication of peas-
ant society which Stalin claimed
(and contemporary American ex-
perts on underdevelopment con-
cur) is essential to industrializa-
tion.
Tran's method accomplishes
both land reform and urbaniza-
tion-both essential to moderni-
zation. Where it falls short is at
the very root of the problem of
traditional society--peasant atti-
tudes toward the environment.
change, surplus and personal ini-
tiative, Only a population denuded
of traditional attitudes is capable
of creating the kind of surplus ne-
cessary for capital growth and

'4

4

4

TRAN VAN DINH

oped countries" which is merely a
restatement of Ricardo's theory of