now

r

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

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

NEws PHONE: 764-0552

" . Communication is str
gy itself . . . I said that
structureo f communicatio
decidedly vague. But I did
say that communication is3
existent..."

Under the Influence
Alumni Happening: Openly Tongue-Tied
of Meredith Eiker

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

rate-
the
n is
i not
non-

TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 1967

NIGHT EDITOR: PAT O'DONOHUE

Jack Vaughn,
Peace Corps Dircetor
March 1, 1967



E 55-M Drive: The
Emperor Has No Clothes

IT AIN'T NECESSARILY SO.
President Hatcher's announcement at
a de Gaulle-style press conference (no
questions, fellas) in Detroit last Wednes-
day of the "early success" of the $55-Mil-
lion program must be taken with a grain
of salt.
When the University began the pro-
gram on Nov. 24, 1964, President Hatcher
announced that the University was look-
ing for gift money to "ensure the vital
margin of excellence"-particularly, new
campus buildings, new academic pro-
grams, endowed professorships, and addi-
tional scholarship and fellowship funds.
"Success" to President Hatcher means
that the University has amassed over $55
million eight months ahead of schedule
-$58 million, to be exact. Obviously
Hatcher doesn't consider "success" to
mean that the University's "vital margin
of excellence is much more ensured than
it was when the $55-M program started
over two years ago.
THE LITERARY SCHOOL'S difficulties
in recruiting new faculty is indicative
of the failure of the program's true spir-
it. If the University does not pay its
professors competitive salaries, it stands
to lose both present and prospective fac-
ulty members to higher-paying Institu-
tions. Money for higher faculty salaries,
then, should be a prime objective of any
drive to preserve the "vital margin of ex-
cellence" of a university.
Ten million dollars of the $58 million
collected is going for a highway safety
institute-compliments of the automobile
industry. It will do a great deal to cleanse
the industry's muddy safety image, but
will it do anything to preserve the "vital
margin of excellence?"
Another $1.3 million gift is going for a
new theatre. But to complement this gift,
the University will have to divert over $4.7
million from the General Fund-which
would normally go for academic pro-
grams, teachers' salaries, and the like. Or
are these latter spendings less important
to ensuring the vital margin of excellence
than is a new theatre?

It is apparent that the figures pre-
sented do not even give a clear picture
of the sheer financial "success" of the
drive. For example, the University is in-
cluding the theatre gift as part of the $58
million total, even though it received the
gift in 1962--two years before the cam-
paign started.
IF THE UNIVERSITY fools itself into
believing that the fund drive, which
was undertaken to "ensure the vital mar-
gin of excellence" can really be called an
"early success" it will be a triumph of
hope over experience.
If officials actually do believe that the
program has met with "success," then
their ideal of what constitutes a success-
ful "vital margin of excellence" is out of
line with the realities of a University
community.
Even the University's own news re-
lease quotes President Hatcher as saying
last Wednesday that "some campaign ob-
ectives still need funding." The cam-
paign objectives he is talking about are
money for faculty salaries, the residen-
tial college, more endowed professorships,
the graduate library and scholarships.
These are precisely the objectives which
have gotten almost no financial support
thus far in the $55-M drive.
THE-DRIVE'S FAILURE is not the fault
of its chairman, Regent Paul Goebel,
nor the hundreds of solicitors who have
worked long and hard to raise money to
ensure the vital margin. Their enthusiasm
and dedication to the University is un-
questionable.
What is their fault is that they present
figures which allow them to pretend that
they have met with "success" when in
fact they have not.
THE $55-M CAMPAIGN hasn't yet en-
sured excellence-and it should be
continued until it does.
--RONALD KLEMPNER
Associate Editorial Director
-SUE REDFERN

W HILE MOST of the Universi-
ty's students were enjoying a
brief "spring break" from Ann Ar-
bor and academia in general this
past weekend, alumni were on
campus for the first formal cele-
bration festivities of the Univer-
sity's Sesquicentennial celebration.
No one can be sure whether the
scheduling of the alumni week-
end was intentionally plnaned to
coincide with the absence of stu-
dents or whether the events were
coincidental. Either way, it is sad,
if not tragic, that the campus
community-students, faculty and
administrators-was not formally
included in the alumni's celebrat-
ing.
I do not mean to imply that
students and Ann Arbor residents
were barred from attending pan-
els and speeches planned for the
alumni. Rather, and quite iron-
ically, they were invited as an
afterthought and ended up steal-

ing the show. What Sesquicenten-
nial visionaries had hoped would
be a relaxing and joyous visit for
alumni to their alma mater, was
ultimately tinged with resentment,
bitterness and misunderstanding.
. The not so pleasant details of
Sen. Philip Hart and House minor-
ity leader Rep. Gerald Ford, both
alumni, confrontation with mem-
bers of the University community
appear on page one of today's
Daily.
THE WHOLE THING makes me
wonder whether anyone really list-
ened to the weekend's opening
address made Wednesday evening
by Peace Corps Director Jack
Vaughn. The title of his speech:
"On Being Tongue-Tied."
Although Vaughn could not pos-
sibly have known what would en-
sue during the course of the cele-
bration, his comments, centered
around the problem of communi-
cation between generations, seem-
ed in retrospect to be almost a
warning.
He observed early in his talk
that "some communication bar-
riers may prove passable only
through benign inertia, or even,
deft retreat." Later he noted that
"the structure of communication
with young people in the United

States is decidedly vague-to say
the best of it." Further on in his
talk he observed in discussing com-
munication between nations: "I
believe people overseas don't real-
ly listen to us: They overhear us."
AND WHAT followed bears re-
peating in its entirety:
"They (other nations) observe
nothing quite so attentively as the
way we behave toward each oth-
er. When we speak to ourselves
with confidence and in affirma-
tion; when we move in the di-
rection of the free will; we are
overheard, and regarded accord-
ingly.
"When we speak and behave to-
ward each other with fear, how-
ever, we are betrayed. I think the
fears we display have the effect,
not of broadening further commu-
nication, but of precisely the op-
posite-barring it altogether. There
is, instinctively, a 'turning away'
from the sight. Unseen hands
close over the inner ear. Rejec-
tion; close the whole thing down."
And so it happened this week-
end.
Gary Rothberger, '67, chairman
of Voice, said that written ques-
tions by students at a Thursday
morning panel discussion on free
expression were "fcensored" or at

least ignored. Said Vaughn a day
earlier, "The silence itself may be
a message worth the hearing. For
I have the impression that young
people do not trust silence; they
find it unbecoming in others.
"I am sure this is not the first
time you have heard that young
people wish their elders would
speak up when the time is right
-would stand and be counted even
when to do so is risky."
AT THE AFTERNOON panel in
which Sen: Hart and Rep, Ford
participated, Rothberger and com-
pany were determined that the
same thing would not happen
again, that this time they would
indeed be heard. All they wanted
to do was ask a few questions of
people who should have the an-
swers, and if possible, participate
in discussion.
Unfortunately the only way they
could be heard was to interrupt the
question period, to be sure that
questions they had that were rel-
evant would be answered at all.
Alumni were rightfully aghast at
the near free-for-all which fol-
lowed. The behavior of the stu-
dents was neither becoming nor,
wholly justified. the calm Sesqui-

centennial dream turned into a
nightmare.
Said Vaughn: "It is so distinct-
ly a vanity in frightened patri-
archs, I think, to insist that any-
one spend time measuring, how
much prestige is owed them. It is
not the confidence of others to-
ward us which ought to matter,
but simple, affirmative confidence
in ourselves."
The frightened patriarchs re-
sorted to calling the students
"creatures," while the students,
afraid what they would not be
heard, brought discredit to the stu-
dent community. Neither group
accomplished anything, neither
communicated with the other.
Both left Rackham Lecture Hall
exactly as they had come-tongue-
tied.
No one had listened to Vaughn
when he suggested that more than
knowledge is needed in the Uni-
versity community: "The ability
to communicate; the sensitivity to
lead by following; the skill of
balancing persistence and self-re-
straint, and of timing, and of
knowing when and how to get out
of the way" are needed too.
Maybe those things will come
before the University's Tercenten-
nial arrives.

Letters:*GSC Language Requirements

To the Editor:
AS THE PERSON responsible for
the GSC poll on Ph.D. lan-
guage requirements, I feel I should
comment on certain misconcep-
tions and accusations in the letter
by George N. Vance, Jr. (Feb. 25).
The poll was an attempt, albeit
modest to be conscientious about
our representative function. It was
intended primarily for distribution
by GSC representatives to a cer-
tain percentage of Ph.D. students
in their departments (10-25 per
cent depending on department
size).
Because certain departments are
unrepresented on Council (of their
own accord), we made additional
questionnaires available at Rack-
ham. A front-page Daily article
and announcements posted on
campustbulletin boards invited
those with an opinion to express
to do so. Anything more ambitious
was beyond our very limited finan-
cial means, but we felt that the
number and diversity of students
consulted' in this way would be
sufficient to be useful.
ALTHOUGH MR. VANCE seems.
rather inexplicably to have over-
looked it, there is a question as
to what, if anything, blanket
R a c k h a m Ph.D. requirements
should be. Other questions refer
only without a Rackham require-
mnent, departmental requirements
would continue, and (2) a student
who opposes a requirement is still
entitled to an opinion on fulfilling
whatever requirement exists.
Any "clear presumption" that
some Rackham language require-
ment should exist has been read
into the poll by Mr. Vance.
The distributional results of the
sampling procedure are not yet
available, and no claims whatever
have yet been made for the re-
sults. Although he has almost no
knowledge of the project, Mr.
Vance condescendingly suggests
that GSC members don't know
how to do research. In find this

not only arrogant but academically
irresponsible.
A "thorough report on this bit
of inquiry" is forthcoming. I cer-
tainly hope Mr. Vance troubles to
read it before he evaluates it.
-Mary Mansnerus, Grad
No Students
THE UNIVERSITY'S Sesquicen-
tennial planners had no right
to schedule the most worthwhile
events of the celebration at a time
when students would most likely
not be on campus. In order to
decrease the probability of a con-
frontation between students and
alumni, the planners apparently
felt justified in excluding what
should be viewed as the most im-
portant segment of the University
community-the students.
Games and parties satisfy the
extracurricular interests of many
students, perhaps more than we
would like to admit; but discus-
sions of controversial issues which
affect us all attract large numbers
of students as well. Particularly
the topics of free speech, the
responsibilities of the educated
citizen, and the U.S. political pic-
ture comple student participation.
In fact they are among the sub-
jects which students should be
encouraged to care about, if they
do not already have vigorous in-
terest in them.
ONCE MORE THE University
his tried to inhibit student parti-
cipation in matters which affect
students. Once more "what the
alumni might think" has received
priority over the intellectual aims
of thissUniversity andhover the
rights students should have.
Thursday afternoon's disruptions
in the Rackham Lecture Hall
showed how a few students could
bring about the dread encounter
despite efforts to the contrary.
What happened that afternoon
distressed many. The embarrass-
ment of the alumni in the pres-

ence of our distinguished guests
was not small. The anger provoked
may have repercussions. I won-
der how many contributions we'll
lose.
-Kathy McGlaughlin, '68
-John Herman, '68
Engineers
To the Editor:
SEVERAL LETTERS, and at least
one editorial, have appeared

in The Daily recently regarding the
Engineering Faculty's action on
Cinema Guild. The most recent,
signed by a Mr. Kahnweiler (Feb.
26) "Engineering Council con-
demnation of Cinema Guild . .."
The letter exposes the author
not only as a severely bigoted in-
dividual, but incredibly ignorant
as well.
First of all, the Engineering
Council is the student government


,.-

body of the College and thus is
quite distinct from the Faculty of
the College who passed the con-
troversial resolution. The Engin-
eering Council is on record in The
Daily (Jan. 27), as opposing the
actions of the police in handling
the situation.
Our resolution was not intended
to endorse the film, but to express
our concern over the way the in-
cident was handled.
Secondly, I would be glad to
discuss the seating of Red China
in the U.N. with Mr. Kahnweiler
at any time.
THIRDLY, THAT ALL engin-
eers are "politically apathetic and
just plain narrow minded" is quite
false. I submit as evidence: the
involvement of many engineers in
the activities of the Engineering
Council, which you probably have
not heard of since The Daily con-
sistently is opposed to giving the
Council any news space; the past
President and Administrative Vice
President of IFC, the past Co-
ordinating Vice-President of UAC,
and the present General Chairman
of UAC's "Labor Day Weekend"
are engineers as are last year's un-
successful candidate for President
of SGC and several members of
Michigan's athletic teams; the
students of the College print their
own monthly magazine which
ranks among the best in the coun-
try; and there are probably other
examples.
,Fourthly, in all the criticism I
have seen of the faculty's resolu-
tion the point was made that the
members based their decision on
second hand information and not
on facts. The facts are that every-
one who has made this point is
as. ignorant as they accuse the
faculty of being; for the faculty
had, in its meeting, a signed af-
fidavit from the city attorney de-
scribing the content of the film.
-David Osmer
Pres. Engineering Council

4

I

USAFA Honor Code Fails

TWO YEARS AGO the United States Air
Force Academy expelled some 109 ca-
dets for violating a cadet honor code that
forbids a cadet to lie, steal, cheat or tol-
erate any classmate who does.
After the scandal, the secretary of the
Air Force set up a commission to study
the incident and offer recommendations
that would prevent a repetition of the
incident. The commission in its complet-
ed report, offered 26 proposals which
were initiated at the Academy over a
year ago.
But another scandal has rocked the
campus. Thirty-nine cadets have resign-
ed, and - are presently under interroga-
tion. Though officers of the Academy
praise the '64 commission and its report,
it obviously failed in its major task - the
code is still ignored by some.
IF WE ACCEPT the idea of a military,
we must also accept such unjustified
things as honor codes and blind obedience.
If a cadet steals or cheats, he is of no
use to a soldier society which demands an
unrelenting trust and respect for obed-
ience.
On the other hand, those at the USAFA
who are forced to resign because they
withhold information, because they hold
the loyalty to a friend greater than the
loyalty to a system, are not deserving of
the absolute punishment dished out by
the code's ethics.
Like so many ither things in the mili-
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.

tary, obedience to this code goes too far.
Words such as compromise and mercy do
not exist. And sometimes, as in the case
of the honor code, the loyalty to a "sys-
tem" breeches the more sacred loyalty to
a fellow man.
There is no reason to lay down ulti-
matums for all cases. Sen. Edward Ken-
nedy once let a friend take a Spanish
exam for him at Harvard, but he was not
expelled, his life was not effected, and
he became a good military officer.
D0 THE OFFICERS at the USAFA feel
their cadets are beyond exception? Do
they feel that inherent human precepts
like friendship built from loyalty are in-
significant when compared with an hon-
or code?
This is likely, and frightening. For if
the military tries to purify itself so that
human emotion is wiped out and replac-
ed with blind loyalty to higher command,
there will exist among us those who aren't
human, but rather soldieristic. They will
be the ones who don't understand that
honor codes and war diagrams are second
in importance to morals and ethics.
MEN SHOULDN'T EXPOSE their friends
because they are ordered to, but be-
cause they feel it necessary to safeguard
the immediate situation.
One cadet, an 18-year-old boy who un-
derstands football and friendship better
than life and war, is not inferior to com-
mand, nor is he jeopardizing a situation
by shying from telling his senior officer
that his roommate knows a question on
next week's exam. It is a trivial concern,
and void of the circumstances of war
and death.
Cadets have subscribed to obedience,
but they should live by conscience. Their
value judgments should come from them-
selves, and not from orders.

r d
. .% Fm. ..
P~m~g ~ jtJ iTT 4fIMINI"

i

{

.Y." nn .t :A . ..
'P..e..4.. . ..n.... er..,....rv ...Cm ~SA~ A . S r.tC...~k~~. ' ~ ~
Scial Progress South of'the Boarder

By JOHN LOTTIER
"THE ALLIANCE for Progress
has degenerated into a pro-.
gram of using aspirins to cure
cancer," states Uruguay's Eduardo
Victor Haedo, former president of
the National Council of Govern-
ment.
His appraisal illustrates the dis-
enchantment of many Latin Amer-
ican leaders with a program that
has failed to attain its idealistic
objectives.
Organized on the rolling re-
sort beaches of Punta del Este,
Uruguay in August, 1961, the Al-
liance dedicated itself to eliminat-
ing poverty from the Western
Hemisphere. Emphasis was placed
on social reform and economic de-
velopment. All twenty-one Latin
American nations-including Cuba
- attended the United States-
sponsored conference, and all but
Cuba formally joined the Alliance.
President Kennedy, initiator of
this "new" Pan-American union,
attempted to revive the "Good
Neighbor Policy" of Franklin D.
Roosevelt by stressing the human-
istic aspects - welfare projects,
agrarian reform, aid to education,
etc. - rather than economic
growth.. This idealism was enthu-
siiaticaly accptedi hvthe peasanit

profitable capitalist economic base,
and to prevent the spread of Cas-
troism on the continent.
This opinion is best reflected
in a 1962 statement of the Sub-
committee on Inter - American
Economic Relationships of the
Joint Economic Congressional
Committee:
"A major effort of U.S. policy
toward Latin America should be
to point up the merits of and as-
sist these countries to develop a
reliance on private enterprise and
the processes of private invest-
ment decision-making. Everytime
we encourage reliance on central-
ized planning we risk playing into
Soviet hands, by showing a dis-
trust of our own characteristic
national method and encouraging
the technique of our ideological
competitors."
By mid-1962 the Alliance had
moved away from its humanistic
and idealistic goals into the realm
of political expediency. Latin
American masses began to view
the program solely as an American
invention to quarantine Castroism.
Grant and loan resources, suppos-
edly totalling almost two billion.
dollars per annum, were not
reaching the people.
"There is nothing so depressing

America had once again been rele-
gated to its accustomed position
in the State Department closet.
Johnson now recognizes the
growing necessity for a revival of
the Alliance for Progress. -He has
named Sol Myron Linowitz, 53, as
his new ambassador to the Organ-
ization of American States (OAS).
Linowitz, former Chairman of the
Board of Xerox Corp., is cast in
the humanist-idealist mold of
President Kennedy. After only a
month in office, he has called foru
a complete administration reap-
praisal of the Cuban situation-in
spite of opposition by his immedi-
ate superior, Lincoln Gordon, As-
sistant Secretary of State.
The President's strategy clearly
illustrates his desire to regain lost
"benevolent influence" in Latin
American affairs. Johnson is push-.
ing hard for the establishment of
a Latin American Common Mar-
ket based upon the European ex-
ample; it, is his desire to set up
supra-national regionalism under
the guidance, and with the active
participation of the United States.
After former Argentine President
Arturo Illia in 1966 called for a
pan-American summit conference,

improvements in education, sci-
ence, technology, and health.
IN SHORT, United States goals
are clear: to boost the image of
President Johnson and the United
States in Latin America, and to
provide a Latin American Com-
mon Market that can become
fully operational by 1980.
The problems, though, in imple-
menting a common market are
considerable. Many of the nations
inv)lved-notably Argentina, Bra-
zil, Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and
Mexico-do not want to become
subject to a vague supra-national
planning board. For example,
there is a widely held fear that
should a common market econom-
ic system be installed, Chile and
Columbia would be able to exer-
cise a decisive control in the for-
mulation of policy.
It will also be difficult to pro-
mote an atmosphere of regional
cooperation when there are so
many diverse and intense rivalries.
Already Bolivia has stated out-
right that she will not attend the
April conferences; Peru and Ecua-
dor have hinted that they will not,
basing their decisions largely on

tions is only four per cent of total
trade, a much smaller fraction
than the exchange within the Eu-
ropean Common Market. Also,
while prices of agricultural exports
vary greatly from year to year,
and tend to fall in the long run,
prices of industrial imports (dur-
able goods) are constantly on the
rise. These unfavorable terms of
trade severly inhibit business in-
vestment and economic growth.
The past record of the United
States is anything but enviable.
In the period 1945-1960, the U.S.
gave only $625 million in outright
grants to Latin American nations,
while allotting over $31 billion to
the rest of the world. More aid was
poured into the Philippine Islands
alone than into Latin America; al-
most three times as much was
given to Yugoslavia.
Over 90 per cent of U.S. aid has
consisted of interest-bearing loans,
which turn these nations into
perpetual debtors. Foreign busi-
ness interests-basically U.S. com-
panies-control 90 per cent of all 4
utilities. It is easy to understand
why many Latinos see the Alliance
for Progress as a new-style "dollar
diplomacy."
The U.S. must begin to treat
Latin Americans as "good neigh-