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.

March 30, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1967-03-30

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



I r Atrillgan ttilu

Thoughts on The Unthinkable

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

~

ere Opo Ae FrA420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.

NEws PHONE: 764-0552

Editorial hinted in The Michigan Daily exPress the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

f

THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 1987

NIGHT EDITOR: STEPHEN WILDSTROM

i

SGC and JJC:
The Path to Responsibility

.TUDENT. GOVERNMENT Counicil's an-
nual rubber-stamp approval of Joint
Judiciary Council's appointees has be-
come a challenge to SGC-whether or
not they are willing to extend their pow-
er to include individual conduct regula-
tions.
The majority of Joint Judiciary's ten-
tative appointees have said that they
would acquit all students charged with
violating rules established by adminis-
trators or established by students when
administrators have veto power. They be-
lieve that the rules should be establish-
ed by the student body, more specifical-
ly SGC, and that SGQ should assume full
responsibility for rules.
SGC is voting tonight on accepting
these nominees, and indications are that
the vote will be close. Essentially, the di-
vision will be between those who be-
lieve that SGC's authority over organiza-
tional regulations which it assumed in its
"break" with OSA is enough at this time,
and those who believe the Council should
try to extend its authority to include
making all rules concerning students.
EJECTING THESE NOMINEES, who
were chosen by an interviewing com-
mittee consisting of two outgoing Joint
Judic members, including the chairman,
and two SGC members, would be a step
backward. A chance is being offered for
SGC to legitimately make conduct rules.
An example would be in an instance
of a favorite undergraduate pastime, tun-

neling in the University steam tunnels.
Being in these tunnels and the illegal
entry into campus buildings which it
allows is against University regulations.
A student brought before the new Joint
Judie would be found innocent because
the rule he broke was not passed by
students.
If SGC passed a rule prohibiting tun-
neling, the student would be found guil-
ty. And SGC need not duplicate the en-
tire book of University regulations, for
the majority of cases that have come be-
fore Joint Judic in the past few'months
have concerned the Driving Court and
student organizations.
Vice-President for Student Affairs
Richard Cutler said earlier this week
that "Joint Judic has functioned here
extremely effectively and responsibly for
a long time," and he assured that OSA
has no present plans for action concern-
ing Joint Judic. In the event of mass
acquittals and the disruption of neces-
sary University processes, one possibility
open to OSA would be withdrawing sup-
port of Joint Judic, making its decisions
invalid.
I a
THE PATH is now open for SGC to ob-
tain authority in rules governing indi-
vidual conduct. It would certainly be con-
sistent with actions of the past year
for SGC to assume responsibility in this
area.
-MIKE THORYN

By RONALD BAN
First of a Two-Part Series
ONE OF THE MOST abused con-
cepts in the study of interna-
tional affairs is the "balance of
power." It can mean an even bal-
ance between two or more na-
tions or groups of nations, a pre-
ponderance of power between the
groups or even a description of
the whole system of international
relations. If balance of power is
the most misunderstood term,
second place belongs to the de-
scription of the primary defense
policy of the United States: de-
terrence. In the years since 1940
deterrence has had some radically
different meanings and what is
currently believed is too often
misunderstood by the critics and
apologists for the grand designer
of this policy, Secretary of De-
fense Robert McNamara.
In tracing the development of
our modern strategic concept of
deterrence, we must refer to three
crucially significant books appear-
ing in the late 1950's and 1960:
"On Thermonuclear War" by Her-
man Kahn, "Strategy in the Mis-
sile Age" by Bernard Brodie and
the most important Thomas C.
Schelling's "The Strategy of Con-
flict." All these books specifically
bear the stigma of the RAND Cor-
poration, the influential clique
of Defense Department theorists
whose ideas have so horrified cer-
tain members of the academic
community. On reading these
workshone is readily impressed
by the detached rationality of
these studies on the "unthink-
able." But they remain vitally im-
portant in understanding our cur-
rent attitudes no matter how
violently people disapprove of
them.
Deterrence is not a new idea.
Countries have continually used
the threat of war to deter, as his-
tory clearly demonstrates. Pre-
nuclear age deterrence was a dy-
namic system where failure pro-
vided a positive function: estab-
lishing the credibility of threats.
Deterrence of all-out war today is
markedly different. Our threat
must be absolutely effective; there
can no longer be any failures. De-

the potential enemy, who if he is
not to react like a trapped lion
must be left some tolerable re-
course. This is the great lesson
of Pearl Harbor where the Japa-
nese initiated their suicidal at-
tack. President Kennedy and Sec-
retary McNamara demonstrated
their understanding of this very
principle during the Cuban mis-
sile crisis in 1962.
Another great problem of pres-
ent day deterrence regarding to-
tal war is the substntial limits
of its applicability. As Schelling
says, "the deterrence concept re-
quires that there be both con-
flict and common interest be-
tween the parties involved. The
theory degenerates if there is no
common interest in avoiding mu-
tual disaster." The efficacy of de-
terrence and containment to-
wards China may be as worthless
today as it was towards Japan 30
years ago,
"DETERRENCE as a typical
strategic concept is concerned with
influencing the choice that anoth-
er party will make, and doing it
by influencing his expectations of
how he will behave. It involves
confronting him with evidence for
believing that our behavior will
be determined by his behavior."
Deterrence then is trying to to-
tally prevent all-out war by lim-
iting potential disagreements to
managable proportions by commu-
nicating a very realistic picture of
our probable responses to all con-
ceivable irritants. The other ma-
jor aspect of our deterrence is to
ensure the integrity of our re-
taliatory force.
The capacity to deter is usual-
ly confused with the capacity to
win a war. With the great de-
structive potential of nuclear
weapons, the potential deterrent
value of an admittedly Inferior
power becomes sharply greater
than it has been before. "Deter-
rence per se does not depend on
superiority. Since winning a war
presupposes certain limitations on
the quantity of destruction to
one's own country, a win-the-war
strategy may be impossible be-
cause of circumstances outside our
control."

I

t.

"The Retaliatory Instrument Upon Which Deterrence Reles"

':.L":::::: ::::::::.:::':::::: ::Y.
i"?:.}:.:..{":.}:"}:"::'::titi3:"?::::::..w :::...............................................o.............................................. '":":vii?::i;:;:};:::"i:";":: ":'::3ii:":":i?;4:"ii:":?":v;.:;.;:.}:7iy:;:;:j:;n};i{:_{:;:;:i;!i}.:}::;:,:":'}:ti':ti :;:i':?". i5": i :'::"}:":"J:'+:."":'i

terrence now means something as
a strategic policy only when we
are fairly confident that the re-
taliatory instrument upon which
it relies will not be called upon to
function at all. Deterrence took on
the above urgency with the ad-
vent of nuclear weapons in the
1950's and the mass destruction
they threaten. They also present
the problem of discouraging sur-
prise attack which they greatly
enhance.
THE DETERRENCE policies de-
veloped under John Foster Dulles
demonstrate the American wish
for total solutions, a wish we
should learn to do without. After
the rejection for moral and mili-
tary reasons of the doctrines of
preventive wars and pre-emptive
attack to eliminate the Soviet nu-

clear capacity, the strategy of mas-
sive retaliation evolved. Though
everybody agrees that in response
to genera: aggression the U.S.
would retaliate massively, what
the Dulles policy meant is that
primary reliance would be placed
on massive retaliation for coping
with local aggression.
There was an explicit rejec-
tion of our whole strategy in the
Korean conflict, which was lim-
ited with respect to weapons and
geography at a place determined
by the enemy and peripheral to
the sources of his and our power.
It is interesting that the doc-
trine of massive retaliation im-
plicitly contains the concept of
preventive war. If in 1955 the
American forces in Korea came
under attack by North Korea, our
response would likely be to at-

tack North Korea with nuclear
weapons. If this occurred, it seems
inconceivable that China would be
left unscathed to intervene as they
did in 1951, and if China were at-
tacked, the Soviets would also be
involved.
THEREFORE, the major prob-
lem with massive retaliation is
credibility, that in many instances
such as minor local outbreaks the
enemy may find it hard to be-
lieve that we mean it. If de-
terrence is going to prevent war
in the nuclear age, a system whose
credibility is so obviously in ques-
tion was inevitably going to be
discredited. What replaced it are
the current beliefs of Secretary
McNamara.
Credibility may also depend on
what alternatives are available to

Letters: Taking Tilaming Creatures' in Stride,

I

The Quaker Quest for Peace

HE "CREDIBILITY GAP" widens some-
what when Washington says it does
not want to hurt the North Vietnamese
civilians but threatens Quakers with
fine or imprisonment for giving Hanoi $1,-
500 worth of medical supplies and relief to
tend its wounded.
Five Ann Arbor Quakers were part of a
group that recently transferred money to
the Canadian Friends Service Commit-
tee. Relief for North Vietnamese or Na-
tional Liberation Front civilians must go
through Canadian banks since a Febru-
ary Treasury Department ruling makes
it illegal for U.S. banks to make checks
or money orders written for aid to these
groups.
This particular case places the U.S.
government in an unfavorable light for
no reason. The Ann Arbor Quakers have
the assurance of the Canadian Friends
Service Committee and the Internation-
al Red Cross that these funds will go
only to civilians.
Even if the U.S. government agrees
that this particular case will cause little
harm, they still have a Treasury De-
partment ruling regulating humanit'ar-
Ian relief. And the principle behind this
law is what really makes the U.S. gov-
ernment look like an ogre.

The ruling attempts to regulate the
consciences of individual Americans in
regard to the North Vietnamese civilians.
The Quakers say that they feel no gov-
ernment has the right to regulate hu-
manitarian relief. The other countries
(including Canada) who are still support-
ing the Red Cross in North Vietnam ob-
viously agree.
THE RULING bases itself on the Trad-
ing with the Enemy Act and the Ex-
port Control Act - one established for
World War I and the other for World
War II. The International Red Cross
says the money sent to Vietnam goes
only to civilians, but the Treasury De-
partment's ruling that no relief money
can go to the North Vietnamese Red
Cross indicates that the U.S. does not be-
lieve the Red Cross.
If the U.S. government cannot trust
groups like the Quakers or the Interna-
tional Red Cross, its cynicism and fright
have become too deep. The lack of trust
generated by a world war perhaps justi-
fied a slight regulation of aid, but if,
as we are told; this is a lesser war, we
should be "allowed" to trust the Interna-
tional Red Cross.
-LUCY KENNEDY

To the Editor:
AS DO MANY of my colleagues,
I usually start the day over
coffee and The Michigan Daily. In
addition to local and world news,
The Daily provides items which
either amuse or alarm. In read-
ing the letter by Prof. John Pow-
ers of the School of Engineering
concerning "The Flaming. Crea-
tures" film in your March 28 is-
sue,'f found cause for both amuse-
ment and alarm.
I was initially amused because
the letter seemed to be saying
something which reflected a view
that might well have come out of
the past, and history, after all,
is frequently amusing. That Prof.
Powers' view might be interpreted
as one generally held by the fac-
ulty of this University alarmed me.
I can hardly believe that such is
the case.
I would like, therefore, to com-
ment on several of the points rais-
ed by Prof. Powers. First, however,
it should be noted that the letter
was written by a person who re-
veals that he is overly concerned
with rank by correcting the record
which addressed Hubert Cohen
as professor instead of instructor.
Prof. Powers thus indicates his
traditional view of matters by
noting that Mr. Cohen, faculty ad-
visor to the Cinema Guild, "does
not hold any rank with the title
of professor." I am not aware that
a man's academic status is in any
way related to his degree of wis-
dom or maturity.
PROF. POWERS claims that he
has made an attempt to learn as
much about the case of the "Flam-
ing Creatures" as possible and has
made his judgment on this basis.
This is fair enough for an his-
torian, but one expects a scientist
to go a bit further. Prof. Powers,
as historian, has relied strictly
on heresay evidence regarding the
merits of the film, and on this
basis has made a judgment.
He has not viewed the film
and as a scientisthe might have
been expected to hold judgment
until he had an opportunity to do
so, and thus to form an objective
view of the matter. Prof. Powers
also is critical of the friend of the
court brief filed by Profs. Sanda-
low and Sax of the Law School.
The friend of the court brief
appears to me to be a shining

example of clarity and progressive
thought. It clearly states the le-
gal precedents in the case and pro-
vides a thoughtful and reasonable
path for the court and the com-
munity to follow. It was written by
two professionals who have made
it their business to be knowledge-
able about the obscenity laws and
their various interpretations. Their
action is. to be applauded in, that
they have. expressed an objective
legal view while, at the same
time, have indicated the progres-
sive approach to handling ob-
scene cases in the community.
Prof. Powers further indicates
that his view of the matter can
be the only correct one when he
states that The Daily has cov-
ered the "Flaming Creatures" mat-
ter in a juvenile manner, and that
the Civil Liberties Board of the
Faculty Senate (presumably via
their friend of the court brief)
"does not reflect the opinion of
the majority of the informed fac-
ulty."
IN THE CONTEXT of such in-
teraction between the University
and the surrounding community I
would suggest that some thought
be given to the role of the Uni-
versity in, and the contribution
that the University can make to,
society. Society is well able to
preserve the old customs when
they have utility and value. Un-
fortunately, society also seems
anxious to preserve old customs
which have lost their value to so-
ciety.
It has been the historic respon-
sibility of the University to ques-
tion the values of society and to
!uggest ways to a more meaning-
ful and happy life. As professors
we fail in our responsibility to
students and to society when we
do not continually urge students
to question the status quo, when
we do not insist that they ask
"why" and "how." Our scholarly
activities must reflect this atti-
tude or they become barren.
In the case of "Flaming Crea-
tures" our faculty and students
are merely doing what we teach;
they are examining the values and
morals of yesterday and today and
looking for answers to the ques-
tions of the values of tomorrow.
They are to be applauded. It
must be realized that the Uni-
versity occupies a unique role in

society in that it must, through
its scholarly activities, provide the
answers to the scientific and so-
cial problems which at present
preclude a rational and humane
society.
We must make every effort to
insure against the reactionary and
provincial pressures, within as
well as without our institution,
which might hinder advances in
these areas, and thus make our
voices unheard in the progression
toward -a more reasonable socie-
ty.
"FLAMING CREATURES" pro-
vides a test for this University
and the community. The com-
munity .must recognize that the
showing of such experimental ma-
terial is required in order to judge
it, so that we are not required
to prejudge it. We cannot take
from it that which is good, and
reject that which is evil, until we
can judge it ourselves.
Our society has surely matured
a bit since the days when James
Joyce's "Ulysses" was forbidden
in our homes. Surely our academ-
ic community has the guts to take
"The Flaming Creatures" in stride.
-Robert E. Beyer
Department of Zoology
U Thumt
To the Editor:
LAST FRIDAY evening I viewed
,Resnais's "Night and Fog," a
film depicting the brutality of the
Nazi concentration camps of not
so very long ago. Resnais queried,
"Who is responsible" for the atroc-
ities so vividly displayed.
Yesterday I sat at a Fishbowl
table selling literature about the
war in Vietnam while a young
Marine lambasted me for the bet-
ter part of an hour about my part
in killing American fighting men.
"I'm off to Vietnam in two weeks
and when I get back in two years.
I'm going to kill you if any of
my men get hit by the VC!"
"Who is responsible for Viet-
nam today?" "Who is making an
attempt to stop the killing in Viet-
nam?" These are the questions I
asked the Marine.
"Come on, kid, get realistic,"

he replied. "You gotta kill to be
free, you know."
TODAY U.S. bombers are over
Vietnam burning the faces off
their victims, destroying crbs, vil-
lages and anything else made of
wood, stone-or flesh. Tomorrow
the planes will come again rain-
ing down more terror as they
speed across the sky making "de-
mocracy" work in Southeast Asia.
This Friday, when Secretary-
General U Thant is here at 9:45
a.m. this "kid" is. going to greet
him outside of Hill Auditorium
with the tiny hope that maybe
the United Nations will take
stronger action to bring peace to
Vietnam. This "kid" does not real-
ly think he's going to change U

Thant's mind about the war and
he is sure that Mr. Johnson is
not going to be listening. $ut
he's going to bethere anyway,
maybe just to soothe his con-
science. Maybe just to say he isn't
as responsible as some for this
war.
-Barry Bluestone, Grad
OPINION
The Daily has begun accept-
ing articles from faculty, ad-
ministration, and students on
subjects of their choice. They
are to be 600-904 words in
length and should be submitted
to the Editorial Director.

ii
"It'sly Answer To One-Man, One-Vote"
f tr'.1-

Watch Out, Joe Pyne

THOUSANDS OF YOUNG children in
Los Angeles have resigned themselves
to the fact that never again will they
watch Walt Disney on TV. The teeny-
boppers are walking back to the strip
on Sunday nights because they won't
be able to see Bonanza anymore. Grand-
mothers are rocking away sadly because
they will miss out on the Ethel Mer-
man specials. What has caused this? A
strike of TV cameramen?
No, what has happened is the greatest
thing in TV since Andy Griffith went
color. Sam Yorty, the mayor of Los An-
geles, now has a new show on Sunday
nights, and according to the ratings, Walt
Disney, Bonanza and Ethel Merman are
out.
Sam's got the crowd. His new show dif-
fers in some respects from his old show.
For instance, Sam's new show is on dur-
ing prime time (7:30 Pacific Standard
Time) and thus attracts prime interest.
The picture of his new show is bright
and in focus, much different from the
smog which dulled the city image of his
old show.

Unfortunately, however,u Sam's new
show doesn't have the funds for such
sensational productions as last season's
"Riot in Watts." Sam just has not been
able to get up that kind of cast.
Sam is settling for less spectacular,
but more interesting runs like last Sun-
day's premiere with Art Linkletter, Tippi
Hedren, Del Moore and Pierre Salinger,
in a casual chit-chat interview.
AMIDST LAUGHTER and clapping
Pierre remarked, "I don't agree with
Senator Kennedy on this point to end the
bombings, but I think he has 'a right to
say it."
Ben Oakland, a star of "The Virginian,"
then came by for a conversationeor two
and he brought actress Ruts Lee with
him. Pierre stayed the whole time, though,
and quipped that, "Kennedy is trying to
get to the left-"of President Johnson for
political purposes." That just killed the
audience.
Senator Murphy was to stop by for a
soft shoe, but he was swinging in the cap-
itol.
Jack Rourke, Sam's producer, thinks
this is the hottest thing to hit TV since

0

:::;..:.:.::.:::....:"TODAY AND TOMORROW ..by WALTER LIPPMANN............... . ...... ...
Why Robert Kennedy Cries in the Wilderness

BY ALL REPORTS, none of
them denied at the White
House or by Sen. Robert Kennedy,
the President is particularly furi-
ous at finding that the Kennedy
family has joined the open op-
nnci innnn ifnm _The Pre-

Robert Kennedy is not one who
would choose to be a voice crying
in the wilderness. Temperament-
ally, he is not one who likes wil-
dernesses. He is not one of the
breed of the dissenters.
His instincts and his appetites

untarily, there is no conceivable
way that Kennedy can be nom-
inated and elected in. 1968.
It is, in fact, unthinkable that
he would make a fight for the
nomination in 1968. But 1972 is a
quite different matter. A new

when Mr. Johnson was elected,
and they are opposing the Presi-
dent's efforts to lead them into
camp with Barry Goldwater and
Everett Dirksen. It is Lyndon
Johnson who has broken with the
pledges of his party, and the dis-

The American people are un-
happy because they are confused
and bewildered by the persistent
and deliberate muddying of the
waters of opinion.
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE to the

*I

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan