i. 1 rrMr i it i it nrrr w
Seventy-Sixth Year
EDrrED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD TN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
POWER ' i t r r e
and An Now.F
,.. POETRYby MARK R K ILLI NGSWORTH
.: , ,.. vr.m..v........^.rrv... .... .. . . . . . . .. . . ..:
.: ....,..." ..x. v... ^:{" rk..... . ,.r.; .,....:.. ... ....:.......e: :n ...................... ... ............,. . .
1
wwwmswlp- - ITIRM
v Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD $T., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
ruth Wiln Preval
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.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 10, 1967
NIGHT EDITOR: NEIL SHISTER
i
'Responsibility' Applies
To, the Faculty Also
THE LITERARY COLLEGE faculty has
taken yet another step toward the to-
tal abrogation of its responsibilities in the
running of the University. In its regular
meeting yesterday, the faculty once again
deferred taking a position on the Uni-
versity's policy of compiling class rank
for the Selective Service System.
Not only did the faculty not take any
action on this crucial issue but many of
its members seem to have lost interest in
it. At the last faculty meeting of the fall
semester there were 750 members present.
At yesterday's meeting, attendance drop-
ped to a sorry 225.
IN A TWO-HOUR MEETING, the only ac-
tion the faculty saw fit to take was to
congratulate the University's Rhodes
Scholar. Action on a resolution present-
ed by Prof. E. Lowell Kelly of the psy-
chology department, which criticized the
present selective service procedures and
the University's policy of compiling class
rank, was deferred until the February
meeting.
Instead, the faculty has decided to
canvass the opinions of its owr members
(those of whom could not make it to the
meeting) on the issue before acting. This
did not determine at yesterday's meeting
whether or not teaching fellows (who
teach 60 per cent of all lower level classes
at the University, and who thus certainly
have a vital concern in the issue) would
be consulted.
Dean William Haber ,of the literary
college said merely that the Regents have
not chosen to define teaching .fellows as
faculty. When it was suggested that stu-
dents' views be considered in the can-
vass, someone merely replied that the poll
should be an expression of faculty views.
SOME FACULTY MEMBERS have recent-
ly been dissatisfied about their pow-
erlessness in the University structure. Yet
the faculty is actively working on the ero-
sion of what little power it has left by
refusing to act on the vital issues of the
times.
Faculty members at one time possessed
the sole power to formulate policy, but by
refusing to exercise this function, they
have allowed this role to crumble. Vir-
tually all policy making has been assumed
by an administration more concerned
with efficiency and expediency than with
education.
RESPONSIBLIITY is a word that has
been much used at this University in
recent weeks. For the most part, the word
has been used to criticize students for
what some thought were rash actions. Yet
responsibility also implies the obligation
to live up to one's position in the Univer-
sity. By refusing to speak out on this cru-
cial issue, either against or in support of
the administration, the faculty has failed
its responsibilities miserably.
Before faculty members again decry
the "irresponsibility" of students, they
would do well to consider their neglect of
their own responsibilities.
-STEVE WILDSTROM
"jN POLITICS, the professor al-
ways plays the comic role,"
Nietzsche once wrote. But for once
he was wrong.
The literary college faculty hit
the nail on the head squarely -
albeit belatedly-when it declared
last December that the adminis-
tration has shown "less responsi-
bility and less fidelity to the dem-.
ocratic process than the Univer-
sity community has every right to
expect."
The literary college's statement
came in the context of the ad-
ministration's inepitude in student
affairs. But other examples come
to mind readily:
A The departure of Roger
Heyns. Most observers agree that
Heyns would have left his job here
as vice-president for academic af-
fairs to become chancellor at
Berkeley in any circumstance. But
President Hatcher's lukewarm in-
terest in keeping Heyns dismayed
two other vice-presidents - Nor-
man and Cutler-and appalled for-
mer Regent Eugene Power.
O The Highway Safety Re-
search Institute.-The administra-
tion joyfully accepted a $10 mil-
lion gift for traffic safety re-
search (what will it do when that
money runs out?) from an auto
industry eager to avoid more Ralph
Nader-style publicity without first
asking the views of the research
subcommittee of SACUA.
""Rich white students." Rath-
er than recognize the inadequacy
of its past efforts (there are
more Indians and Pakistanis on
campus than there are American
Negroes, the only thing the Uni-
versity could say in reply to the
disclosure of Defense Department
recommendations saying the Uni-
versity is "known as one basically
for rich white students" was that
the document "should not have
been released."
0 HUAC. The University cow-
ered before a House Un-American
Activities Committee subpoena and
complied - without consulting
those affected-lest it "challenge
the law." (Of course the Univer-
sity is currently fighting two state
laws in the courts, but on issues
involved financial interests. Pre-
sumably, economic autonomy is
worth fighting for, but academic
freedom isn't.)
0 Labor unions. Even though a
majority of the Regents accept the
idea that the University should,
bargain with labor unions. Vice-
President Wilbur K. Pierpont be-
lieves unions shouldn't have the
right to bargain - and President
Hatcher seems to wish that un-
ions didn't exist at all. Just be-
fore a state AFL-CIO meeting last
October, Hatcher said in a speech
that "the ancient and weary bit-
terness of labor-management strife
and warfare should not be car-
ried into . . . a modern university
environment."
* The Legislature. The Univer-
sity trundles off to Lansing this
year, as it has in the past, with a
miraculously inept and inadequate
lobbying effort and outstandingly
poor legislative relations, which
start with its image as a school
"for rich white students" (there it
is again!) and ends with the ar-
teriosclerotic outlook of various ad-
ministrators.
A The Sesquicentennial fraud.
While "world intellectual leaders"
are transplanted to the campus to
discuss "Knowledge, Wisdom and
the Courage to Serve"-presum-
ably for the benefit of our ignor-
ant, foolish and timid administra-
tors-the major benefits of the
$55-M (for minuscule) fund drive
have been the Highway Research
Institute and a partial donation
for an endowed professorship in
outdoor recreation.
" The theatre. Labor unions are
one fixation of President Hatcher
-quite apart from his adminis-
trative colleagues or the Regents-
and the university theatre is an-
other. As an article in today's edi-
tion illustrates, Hatcher is quite
willing to dip into the General
Fund for $4 million, of student
tuition fees to help pay for a new
theatre. But he is unwilling to do
that for a new architecture and
design school building, a new
chemistry building, a new educa-
tion school building - even
though the money can scarcely
come from the Legislature-.
In short, the administration has
been running out of gas, and the
University community has suffer-
ed-and knows it.
That is why there is so much
interest and concern about the se-
lection of the next University pres-
ident. The sentiment is virtually
universal-among student and fac-
ulty members of the selection ad-
visory committee and in the Uni-
versity community at large: "An-
other 15 years like these and we've
had it."
As is now common knowledge,
President Hatcher was selected
largely bythen-Regent Roscoe-
Bonisteel, who picked Hatcher as
his personal favorite and bullied,
and badgered the other Regents
into accepting him.
There are some signs that the
same thing may happen all over=
again. This time the potential dau-
phin is John Lederle, now the
president of the University of
Massachusetts. "He's a nice guy,"
says one faculty member who
knows him well. "But I just don't,
think he's the man to be president
of the University."'r
Yet he may become president.
Lederle's major patron is Prof.
James K. Pollock of the political
science department, who has been
pleading Lederle's cause to a num-
ber of Regents even though both
student and faculty committees
must certainly be totally, unen-
thusiastic. Pollock has been ex-
ceedingly adroit in the past and
his political connections (he was
a major force in the 1963 state
constitutional convention) are ex-
cellent.
Apparently Pollock's efforts have
met with some success. At least
two Regents have maintained an
active interest in Lederle, who
himself is understood to be so
certain' of getting the job that an
intimate told an Ann Arbor friend
recently she could banic on it.
But as yet there is no cause
for alarm. 'The final decision on
the presidency is still, at the very
least, several months away. Thus
far Regent Briggs, the chairman
of the Regents in the matterkof
presidential selection, has worked
slowly and carefully. He has right-
fully earned the complete confi-
dence and allegiance of the stu-
dent and faculty committee mem-
bers.
That may make for frustrat-
ing reporting, but it will keep the
decision a secret and it will make
it a fair one. Briggs has a great
responsibility. And, unless Pollock
or some other patron is able to
pull off a coup, there is every
sign that he will meet that re-
sponsibility.
The University deserves no less.
For at stake is 15 years-and more
-of its future.
4
4
Letters: Aspects of Student Power Struggle
The Landlord Problem
ANN ARBOR LANDLORDS and Univer-
sity administrators are once again the
targets of strong criticism for their ac-
tivities in housing (or not housing) Uni-
versity students.
Both the University and the city have
failed to provide adequate housing for
any but the affluent. As Councilman Rob-
ert P. Weeks charged, "the University and
the city practice a kind of covert discrim-
ination." The cost of living is simply too
high to attract any other economic and
social groups than "rich, white."
DESPITE LANDLORDS' claims to the
contrary, return on invested capital in
the Ann Arbor housing market is inordi-
nately high. Abuses by landlords-domi-
nating damage deposits (one landlord,
testifying before a legislative subcommit-
tee, had the nerve to attribute high costs
to damage done by students without men-
tioning damage deposits landlords often
kept unjustly, and which at any rate re-
main in their hands without interest,
charge for over a year), providing sub-
standard dwellings which somehow are
rarely inspected by Ann Arbor authori-
ties, and generally milking the student
for all he has--continue without censure
by the University.
Indeed, until last year the University
guaranteed landlord interests by with-
holding grades for rent violations of any
nature, despite the fact that bona fide
complaints were often behind the viola-
tions. Even now the Office of Off-Campus
Housing will generally advise the student
to give in to his landlord rather .than
contest his problem.
Because the University does not gen-
erally arbitrate in favor of the student,
this is good advice. A student suing a
landlord in an Ann Arbor court has little
chance of making his tedious, inconven-
ient task pay.
rIE UNIVERSITY did respond to stu-
dent needs by finally stopping its guar-
antee of landlord money. It now must go
farther. In order to reserve an apartment,
students must generally place a deposit of
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,
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104.
$120-$160 per man. This deposit stays in
the landlords' hands for at least a year,
often up to a year-and-a-half.
The student gets no interest on the
money; the apartment goes only to the
student who has the cash available the
previous year. And the landlord has this
deposit to hold over the student's head.
If the student fails to return, he is de-
pendent on the landlord's good will for
its return. If the landlord acts in bad
faith through the year, he always has the
deposit to guarantee against counterac-
tion. The student has no recourse.
THIS MUST END. The University must
now guarantee student rights in off-
campus living units. Facilities should be
established whereby the University han-
dles deposits for the student. A more rea-
sonable deposit should be required to re-
serve a student dwelling. The University
should arbitrate all damage-deposit deci-
sions and handle all complaints from
landlord and student alike.
In addition, the University should pro-
vide a working intermediary service where
landlords and sub-lettors can profitably
list their dwelling.s The present Univer-
sity sponsored setup is unattractive and
of little value. Indeed, this area is so
open that one Ann Arbor sublet firm
charges high fees of both the prospective
tenant and the owner or renter. The
University could save the student a good
deal of money by effectively providing
these services.
THE SITUATION in which students are
totally dependent on the good-will of
their landlords must end. The courts have
not been a viable guarantee; the Univer-
sity must offer the same guarantor serv-
ices to the student that it was once will-
ing to offer the landlord.
And that represents only one initial
step on the road to making decent hous-
ing in Ann Arbor open to more than a
few.
-SUSAN ELAN
-HARVEY WASSERMAN
Editorial Director
West Physics
Lives!!
"KIND OF HARD to breathe, isn't it,"
said my History of Art professor yes-
terday. "Why don't you all write letters to
the dean to see if we can't get some air
conditioning in here."
To the Editor:
IT IS WITH the realization that
much will be written on the
issue of student participation be-
fore a solution is reached that we
support the SGC proposal now.
We feel that the proper perspec-
tive has not yet been emphasized,
and that it should be made clear.
Time is running short. There is
a critical stage beyond which all
action will be pointless, because
we will have lost our support. We
do not feel that the movement for
a wider student role on campus
has yet reached that stage, but it
is fast approaching.
TO BEGIN, we address ourselves
to the' argument between those
who advocate representative stu-
dent government, and those who
advocate participatory student
government. Representative gov-
ernment has not failed in the past,
as some would like to argue. SGC
and GSC have been quite respon-
sive to student opinion.
But time after time, a stubborn
administration has scorned our
suggestions, and SGC resolutions
have been turned down.
Yet, participatory government
has not failed either. The student
bookstore referendum last year
and the class ranking referendum
this year accomplished what they
intended: they brought out the
vote of all those students interest-
ed in making a decision on those
issues. But once again,, a reaction-
ary administration refused to ac-
cept such a democratic procedure
as binding.
THIS IS A political reality that
few realize. We'are convinced that
very few in Voice realize it: the
power structure of this University
does not end with the Admin-
istration on top, but with the Re-
gents in that position. Disruptive
and violent sit-ins and other "di-
rect-action" moves will only ac-
complish the arrest of the parti-
cipants. -
Students cannot force the ad-
ministration into reconciliation,
because the administration takes
orders from the Regents on all
major policy decisions. It is un-
fortunate indeed that the Regents
do not truly understand the mean-
ing of change. But, their position
as wielders of power is unassail-
able.
What Voice and others do not
seem to realize is that, if the press-
ure on the Regents becomes too
great, if disruptive action becomes
too strong, then they have the
power to seek a state referendum
to reinforce their decision. And we
firmly believe that the voting pub-
lic of this state who, by a 2 to 1
margin, defeated the attempt to
obain the eighteen-year-old vote,
will defeat another attempt to
strengthen student power.
We feel that this will be the
long run result of unilateral dis-
ruptive action. On the other hand,
a decision agreed to by students,
faculty, and administrators puts
the spotlight on the Regents, and
a veto of such a decision would
reflect badly their ability to un-
derstand and govern a large uni-
versity.
ONE PROPOSAL that arose at
the teach-in on December 1 was
that of a Student Union. The
financial and maneuvering dif-
ficulties involved with such an or-
ganization were brought out then,
but it seems apparent, from the
conduct of the 900-odd people at
the teach-in, that a Student Union
of 4000 or more cannot possibly
meet to decide the simple issues,
let alone the more complex ones.
The question of "student power,"
we believe, has been distorted by
Voice. Essentially, what they want
is the destruction of the existing
University, because we, the stu-
dents, are not running it ourselves.
We feel that any greater degree
of such impractical and utopian
thinking would result in the loss of
respect held for us by those peo-
ple over 30 who do understand us.
It would be nice if the world.would
trust students, but it doesn't, so
we believe that Professor Kaplan
is correct when he says that "good
faith, in the long run, breeds good
faith."
FURTHER, we see in the stand
taken by SDS an inherent con-
tradiction of philosophy. While
they oppose the United States pol-
icy in Vietnam of "hit them until
they love us," they turn around to
use that very philosophy in deal-
ing with the administration in the
University. We have not yet heard
an explanation of this tactic be-
cause, we believe, Voice does not
have one.
They seem to believe that power,
violence, and polemics will strike
fear into the hearts of the !adult
world, causing it to capitulate to
their demands. Where now is
their philosophy of self-respect, of
love for others, and for democratic
society?
We believe that it is time to,
emphasize reason, not foolishness;
that it is time to channel anger
into construction, and disaffection
into reform, whether it takes two
weeks, two months, or two years.,
WE NOW ADDRESS ourselves
to those who fight against the
need for SGC-made decisions on
selection of Committee members,
simply because they do not trust
either SGC or GSC. We realize, as
we think those two organizations
do, that SGC and GSC are not the
ideal representative student bodies.
Yet, pragmatically, they have
whatever trust there is forthcom-
ing from the administration be-
stowed upon them, and we feel
that they deserve to have our
trust, also. They may or may not
be an elite group, but it is about
time that the proponents of mass
action realized that on this cam-
pus, we cannot avoid an elite.,
This campus, basically, is apa-
thetic. It cannot possibly become' a
Berkeley. As a point of example:
there were 4000 students at the
November 21 teach-in, 1500 at the
sit-in on the 29th, 1100 at the
teach-in on December 1, and
that dwindled to 600-700 by the
time we adjourned at Hill Audito-
rium.
After that fiasco, how many will
return for the next teach-in? The
answer: only those interested-an
elite in themseleves, an elite which
is still divided on the issues con-
fronting them. There may be mass
disappointment among the student
body with the administration, but
there is no true mass movement.
FINALLY, we wish to consider
a point under-emphasized, but one
which is of prime philosophical
importance.
It is the very nature of the
University that there can be no
action by one of the major groups
on campus that will not affect the
other two. Actions by the admin-
istration, the faculty, or the stu-
dent body will have, 'of necessity,
a strong impact on each of the
other two,.
It is in this light that we sup-
port the effective, concise, and
operational SGS proposal for en-
suring an effective student voice,
and an effective student govern-
ment for the implementing of its
goals, on the campus and in the
operations of the University of
Michigan.
-Steven S. Muchnick '67
-Dane L. Harwood '68
Persuasion
To the Editor:
I VE IAJORITY of Americans
are probably unaware of the
means being used to justify the
end of "fighting communism" in
Vietnam.
Those who have been able to
hold to their belief in the basic
sense of justice and compassion
in American policy have only been
able to do so in the belief that the
American people simply do not
know what is being done in their
name. It is a graver and more dis-
turbing though to see that many
do know, and yet condone these
means.
University anthropology profes-
sor Marshall Sahlins visited South
Vietnam as a representative of the
Inter-University Committee. His
report appeared in The Nation of
October 25, 1965.
PROF. SAHLINS tape-recorded
a conversation with two American
leaders of "motivation" team with
whom he lived "during a night and
a good part of a day." It is a dis-
cussion about torture and the
transformation of Vietcong pris-
oners to anti-communism. The two
were a field representative of a
civilian agency and a Special
Forces officer.
He describes them as "sincere,"
"dedicated," and quite average in
appearance and outlook. These
Sahlins: "Can your ends be so
God-given. I'm an agnostic athe-
among humanity to do this?"
Mr. X: "I don't know. I don't
really believe anybody's hands are
God-given. I'm as agnostic athe-
ist."
Sahlins: "No, your ends. I'm not
asking you for religious beliefs.
What I'm saying is, do you believe
you have the right to impose by
this method-"
Mr. X.: "I think I've got the
right to try. Nobody's got the right
to succeed, that's guaranteed. But
everbody's got the right to pro-
mote and proselytize what they
believe."
Sahlins: "The issue here is-
whether you will impose your will
by this technique, which is -"
Mr. X.: "We don't know what
our will is yet."
Sahlins: "You will impose your
ideas by this technique -"
Mr. X.: "What ideas?"
Sahlins: "...Now, I'm asking
you, do you believe you have the
right, to impose your will on some-
body, impose what you believe -"
Mr. X.: "We are not imposing
our will ... And not our alterna-
tive; there are a number of alter-
natives. Because in essence that's
what we're trying to show him.. .
We have brought him to a point
where he realizes that the faith
he placed in his previous system
was essentially .not powerful .
It's just like an alcoholic,"
CAN THE American philosophy
of freedom of the mind, of belief
and from oppression, justify itself
in suppressing these freedoms any-'
where? What is the relevance and
justification for our values if they
are perverting themselves in this
way?
The fallacy in the argument of
"Mr. X" is that he assumes com-
munism to be a question of one
well-defined and limited end,
while the American philosophy is
seen as accepting of a wide range
of ends . .. .
The Vietcong prisoner is not
likely to have studied Marxism,
nor be interested in conquering
the American Midwest nor any-
where else. He has heard that the
communist forces of Ho Chi Minh
drove the French imperialist and
colonialists (American-suported)
from his country.,
The corrupt Saigon government
is still not representing the peo-
ple, there is still war, and many
of the peope believe that Ho Chi
Minh can again aid them by driv-
ing out this government and the
new set of foreigners.
IF THE AMERICANS are in
Vietnam in any sincere effort. to
eliminate poverty, disease and the
misery of war, what can be ac-
complished by the above methods
and attitudes?
An act of cruelty is understood
'only as an act of cruelty. There is
no .such thing as exocism of de-
mons. A tortured man will not be
"cured." Bombed villagers cannot
understand that the Americans
"are doing this for their own
good."
We cannot believe our acts are
sanctioned because they are done
in that name of good. Our actions
are only what they are. The pois-
onous idea that the ends can justi-
fy the means will result only in a
sequence of inquisitions, revolts
and retaliations.
4-
A;
f4
21
+ ' + dl' "l p -;L 't X , i4 jr ia
rq
.;
+1'
16 -'
.:,.
//.
. -4 '
i