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