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.

January 13, 1967 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1967-01-13

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


+ rrYA Y r Mir rl u li 1! 1 r. r i

I.

Seventy-Sixth Year
EDrrED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSrY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD N'CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

PERSPECTIVES 124. Lights, Curtains, etion
By HARVEY WASSERMAN
~

4

.

Where Opinion Are*Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.

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.

FRIDAY, JANUARY 13, 1967

NIGHT EDITOR: ROGER RAPOPORT

Ann Arbor Income Tax:
The Time Has Come

THE INTENSITY of personal and party
attacks at Monday night's City Council
meeting is indicative of Ann Arbor's sen-
sivity towards a city income tax.
Unfortunately, a city income tax is
the only feasible means of meeting the
community's growing needs at this time.
The needs for additional income are
clear. After a long-overdue pay raise to
the police department, other city em-
ployes are clamoring for raises. In most
cases their present salaries fall far below
the national average.
SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIVE depa'rt-
ments are badly understaffed. There is
also a growing need for recreational facil-
ities in the Ann Arbor area.
Add to these the outlay necessary for
solving many of the civic problems in Ann
Arbor-civil rights for one-and the need
for more city funds is clear. The question
is how to get them.
ALTERNATIVES to an income tax were
outlined at Monday's meeting. They in-
cluded a request to the state Legislature
for additional sales tax rebate to the city;
a special census to update Ann Arbor's
population, making the city eligible for
more tax money; waiting for Congress to
act on the "Heller Plan," which calls for
the retention of federal income tax by
state governments, and'a re-evaluation of
tax-exempt property with requests to
university, state and federal agencies to
allow a portion of their property placed
on the tax rolls:
It is estimated that the acceptance of
all these reforms would bring $200,000

additional revenue. Unfortunately, the
odds are against the acceptance of any of
these reforms.
First, the Heller Plan was brought to
Congress two years ago, when that body
was more receptive to such a plan. With
this year's tight budget, its future is
doubtful. Waiting for Congress' decision
puts off the solution to pressing needs,
and may be hoping against hope.
NOR IS IT LIKELY that the state will
increase rebates to municipalities un-
der present economic conditions. The cost
of a special census could well be greater
than the additional revenue an updated
census would bring.'
A city sales-tax would be regressive and
unfair, especially in light of the state's
present sales tax.
Finally it is extremely doubtful that the
University, in its present state of finance,
is willing to give up any portion of its tax-
exempt status.
THE ONLY EQUITABLE solution is the
income tax.
There is not doubt that Ann Arbor can
afford it. As Mayor Hulcher put it Mon-
day night, "We can afford anything we
want to, but we must first decide what we
want."
An income tax may not be what we
"want," but it is what the city needs. If
the Republican majority on the council
continues its fight against "creeping so-
cialism," it will be interesting to see
how they make ends meet.
--RON KLEMPNER

(A SHORT HISTORY): In Au-
gust, 1965, the University ad-
ministration publicly announced
that then-Regent Eugene B. Pow-
er had donated $1.3 million to
build a theatre. The cost of the
theatre was estimated at $2.5 mil-
lion; the administration said the
remainder of the money would
come from gifts.
At that time, The Daily senior
editors asked Regent Power to
reconsider tying his gift to a
theatre, asking whether the mon-
ey might not be better spent on
other projects.
By March, 1966, the cost-esti-
mate was $1 million higher, at
$3.5 million. Unfortunately, ac-
cording to one official involved
In the planning, the figures that
were made public did not include
seats, curtains, lighting, backstage
facilities, or carpeting. Presumably
patrons would bring their own
folding chairs and flashlights.
NOW: The $4.5-$5 million esti-
mate disclosed this week is near-
ly complete. The financing plan,

however, was changed to include
a $2 million bond issue to be cov-
ered by $175,000 per year from
General Funds. Over a 25-year
period this amounts to around $4
million.
General Funds come from tui-
tion payments and from the state
Legislature. That is, they used to
come from the state Legislature.
Currently the University is fight-
ing Public Act 124, a state law
which places authority over Uni-
versity building plans in the state
Legislature. The Legislature does
not like the stand. Quoth one
powerful legislator, "The Univer-
sity of Michigan is getting no
money from the Legislature as
long as it fights P.A. 124."
There are pros and cons on the
long-run virtues of fighting the
act. The relevant fact is, it will
cost us General Funds money this
year.
FROM GENERAL Funds come
operating costs of the University:
upkeep, equipment, administrator
salaries, and, most crucially, fac-
ulty salaries. The past 10 years

have seen a marked decline in the
University's relative position in
faculty salaries (from the top five
to 17th in AAUP ratings).
In a period when competition
for top faculty is stiffer than ever,
a large university can ill-afford
such a serious loss of relative
standing.
Indeed, drains on the entire
General Fund have been so seri-
ous that over the past 10 years
GF money has lagged behind en-
rollment growth at a rate ap-
proaching 10 per cent. The thea-
tre will prove a serious drain on
an already strained pool of funds,
-now strained, in fact, to the
point where a tuition increase
within the year does not seem
unlikely.
Further, the $1.2-$1.7 million
in unallocated gift funds budgeted
for the theatre is also of consider-
able importance. Thus far the Uni-
versity has received less than $2
million in such gifts, far below
both expectations and needs.
THERE CAN BE no doubt the
University community needs a the-

atre. Ann Arbor hosts some of the
best theatre productions in the
country, and present facilities are
obviously inadequate.
The question of using student
monies to finance the theatre can
be argued on all sides. In the past,
most buildings financed through
the General Fund have been for
facilities of clear-cut student serv-
ice.
CURRENTLY, legitimate thea-
tre productions are generally pa-
tronized more by faculty and area
residents, some coming from as
far as Detroit, than by students.
Presumably, however, the new Uni-
versity Theatre has been designed
with a large balcony so that stu-
dents can be better accommodat-
ed. Hopefully, the extra capacity
will allow for student low-cost
seating, as befits a University at-
tempting to lower the socially se-
lective cot of attending.
If the above correctly states the
intent of the planners, then that
partially answers one question of
precedent.

But if that is so. why the big
secret? Not even the academic
deans were consulted on the orig-
inal decision to build the theatre:'
none of them were informed that
the cost estimates had risen so
sharply or that General Fund
monies, from which they must pay
their colleges' salaries, were to be
used.
The decision to build a Univer-
sity Theatre clearly belongs to
those who will pay for it. As
one vice-president put it yesterday
in refusing to comment to The
Daily, "no financing plan has been
finalized by the Regents."
IT IS INTERESTING to note
that Ann Arbor fire marshals will
not inspect a University building
(even in answer to a specific com-
plaint) unless officially requested
to do so by the administration. It
seems the University does its own
fire inspecting.
When a police crew is needed to
keep order at such things as cam-
pus rallies, the city force, it seems,
serves well enough.

:*

Letters: The University Is Really 150

To the Editor:
MR. PRATT'S article in this
morning's Daily on the prop-
er birthdate of the University
needs some correcting and extend-
ing. He infers that the only ac-
ceptable date of founding is the
date that classes began at colleg-
iate level, which would be 1841.
He can prefer this date if he
wishes, but if he does so he must
apply the same yardstick to all
other colleges and universities and
change their dates of founding.
Almost every college or univer-
sity of any age started teaching
some time after it was chartered,
organized, or founded, and for sev-
eral years operated at what we
today would call a high school
level.
The realities of educational life
in every colony or state preclud-
ed any other approach. I cannot
see that the argument for using
the date of the first college-level
classes is any stronger than one
for using the charter or legal
date, and every college I know
uses the latter date.
So there is nothing unusual in
the fact, which Mr. Pratt fails
to mention, that the University
Board of Trustees ran a Classi-
cal Academy in Detroit from 1818
to 1827. This was normal proced-
ure. Incidentally, Detroit was not

'the only town
1817.

in Michigan" in

LEGALLY the 1817 date is un-
assailable, because there has been
no interruption in the corporate
organization since that time.
Clearly a college or university is
not a building, which can be de-
molished or destroyed by fire, or a
location, which can be changed,
but a legal entity.
Therefore it is absurd to quote
the opinion of -a Detroit librarian
in opposition to the judgment of
the Michigan Supreme Court. It
is the legal institution of the U-M
that is 150 years old, not any par-
ticular curriculum or faculty or
building or site, all of which came
later.
The sign in front of the General
Library says nothing watever
about the founding of the Univer-
sity and has no bearing for or
against any date of origin.
-Howard H. Peckham
Director,
William L: Clements Library
Principles?
To the Editor:
IN THIS MORNING'S editorial
we have once more an exam-
ple of your lack of balance and
perspective which does not bode
well for all these coming occa-

Retaining Dorm Privacy

HE FACULTY MEMBERS of the Board
of Governors of Residence Halls have
suspended for review South Quad's lib-
* eral new visiting hour policy.
The unique feature of the policy under
reconsideration is that a student may
close his door while entertaining a guest
during appointed visiting hours. A resi-
dent advisor will be on duty in the corri-
dor but will not be checking or moni-
toring the participating rooms.
This feature must be maintained. Resi-
dence. halls are notorious for their lack
of privacy. Thomas Fox, South Quad di-
rector, summed up this problem in to-
day's news story: "There is no place for a
student to be alone to cry, or to privately'
share joys, sorrows, or successes."
IT MAY BE that this ,lack of privacy is
an Important cause for the upperclass-
men exodus from dorms to apartments
every year, a point Director of Residence
Halls John Feldkamp should keep in mind
when designing upperclass dorms.
Where can a quaddie go to be alone? Not
his room. He has at least one roommate.
Not the dining room. Ever see the lunch
lines? Not the snack bar. That's designed
to be a social meeting place. Not his house
lounge. There's either a discussion or a

bridge game on. Not his quad lounge.
There are always couples there, even
though there are rules against public
demonstrations of affection.
He isn't even alone when he kisses his
date goodnight at closing. The foyer is
replete with others doing the same. And
before the new visiting hour policy, the
quad resident could not even entertain a
guest privately in his own room. The door
had to be open and an R.A. was supposed
to come bouncing around with potato
chips or some other convenient excuse.
Most R.A.'s rebelled against this. The old
visiting policy was a mockery.
THE ISSUE HERE is deeper than the
question of what goes on behind clos-
ed doors. The review of the new visiting
policy will ultimately reflect the board's
sensitivity to the individual student's need
for privacy. How are mature private re-
lationships to develop in pulbic, crassly
insensitive surroundings? When we deny
privacy, what happens to the dignity of
the individual?
The visiting hour policy was not mis-
used. In fact, only about 10 per cent of
each corridor participated. "It was nice,"
said a student, "just to get away from a
lot of people and noise for a change."
-JOYCE WINSLOW

I
Y -
r yr..
ThA A CE C-D OA1 6 Ak COUT AT Ate {Y MOMENT'

sions when the student participa-
tion in the "decision-making"
processes becomes large.
To keep my remarks brief -
what happened to your protests
when the Residential College "ap-
propriated" money from general
funds when it had been stated
quite specifically that financing
would be found from sources pre-
viously untapped by the Universi-
ty and the literary college?
Could it- be that you are pre-
pared to voice opposition when the
plan does not happen to agree with
your mood rather than with your
principles?
-Thomas M. Dunn
Professor of Chemistry
Fiedler
To the Editor:
I FOUND Andrew Lugg's article
(Daily, Jan. 8)hon Prof. Leslie
Fiedler to be both muddled and
destructive.
It was muddled because it be-
trayed an almost total lack of
comprehension of Prof. Fiedler's
meaning and intentions; it was
destructive because it foolishly
endangers, by its hostile, carping
attitute, the budding writer-in-
residence program, which deserves
encouragement, not disparage-
ment.
Prof. Fiedler's lecture was one
of the most absorbing and exciting
that I've attended in some two
and a half years here at the Uni-
versity.
IF IT IS true that Fiedler
makes some pretense to an om-
nicence he does not posses, it is
also true that he is perhaps the
most acute and aware observer of
doings in the American intellec-
tual community around.
Fiedler's ability to take a seein-
ingly trivial manifestation of con-
temporary culture (a film, a style
in dress) and extrapolate from it
a meaningful statement about our
culture is a piece of literary
sleigt-of-hand that I have long
enjoyed in his essays and enjoyed
even more last Friday evening.
I cannot imagine anyone better
-qualified thanFiedler to take
up a topic like the relation of the
new youth "sub-culture" and the
slow death-agonies of Western
civilization.
True, for a critic, Fiedler is at
times uncritical and over-adula-
tory of this new sub-culture, but
his estimate of its meaning and its
real place in the development of
Western culture is almost exactly
right, and when Fiedler comes up
with his observation that Freud
and Marx were really "super-Prot-
estants" in their thinking or some-
thing similar, one is being treated

to a rare show of originality and
brilliance.
AS FOR MR. LUGG, I can
hardly believe that he was present
at the lecture that he undertakes
to criticize.
He accuses Fiedler of "applying
a methodology (Marxism-Freud-
ianism) which is no longer very
relevant," apparently failing to
realize that Fiedler most specific-
ally and emphatically rejected
Marxism and Freudianism as a
means of understanding this new
sub-culture; as obsolete and ir-
relevant, the tools of a former
generation. Really.
I would suggest that Mr. Lugg
learn how to spell the names of
Marshall McLuhan (not McLuan)
and Buckminster Fuller (not Fil-
ler) before he trots them out to
support his arguments.
It is of course painful and dif-
ficult for most, of us to accept the
burde'n of Prof. Fiedler's lecture,
namely that we are in a past-
Humanist era, and that the new
youth, of the long hair and ex-
panded consciousness, represent
the most typical citizens of this
republic.
IT SEEMS to me that this is
what Mr. Lugg is resisting and in
this he has my sympathy. But I
fear that Prof. Fiedler may be
more of a prophet than he realizes,
and that history is on the side of

the people he described so well.
At the least, Prof. Fiedler's talk
and the excellent attendance were
both encouraging signs that there
really is some interest in the life
of the mind among students here,
annd this seems to me a develop-
ment that should be aided, rather
than attacked by The Daily.
-Ronald Rosenblatt, '68
Hardly a Credit
To the Editor:
Dear Mr. Hatcher,
AS AN ALUMNUS of the Univer-
sity of Michigan I feel I must
regist- my strong disapproval of
recent events on campus. The
chronic refusal of administration
leaders even to discuss differences
with students is reprehensible.
This long term lack of com-
munication must be a source of
frustration, anger and rebellion
among the student community.
IN THE FINAL analysis it is for
the good of the society that stu-
dents protest the horror of absurd
wars. It is for the good of the uni-
versities that students protest the
progressive loss of interest in un-
dergi'aduate education.
I feel that many other alumni
may agree with me in deploring
the current situation. This is hard-
ly a credit to the University and
to its sesquicentennial celebration.
Sincerely yours,
-RobertElvove, M.D. '62LSA

4

4

f X110' ,
44
s
, yw ~wl

A

v'

A S su-each-in

ALREADY THE UNIVERSITY'S sesqui-
centennial is under way, but perhaps
there is yet time to make worthwhile
additions. One element the sesqui-calen-
dar lacks is an opportunity for serious
discussion of academic affairs.
Such an addition might well come as
a teach-in. The discussion, involving stu-
dents, faculty members and administra-
tors, could deal effectively with counsel-
ling, grading policies, registration pro-
cedures, and even the meaning of liberal
education.
The format of the teach-in could be
utilized to question formal education It-
self; ask how it should proceed in the
University, how it should relate to society

and politics-what its goals and values
should be.
NEW UNDERSTANDING thus gained
could be valuable. Practically, it could
present us with solutions to campus and
off-campus problems. It could serve as a
tool to clear away doubts surrounding the
student-faculty-administration relation-
ship.
An academic affairs teach-in in con-
junction with the sesquicentennial, then,
could prove well worthwhile and be in
keeping with the spirit of celebration.
-NEAL BRUSS
No Comment
Department
THE FLYING SAUCERS have returned.
Two brothers sighted an Unidentified
Flying Object over Lake St. Clair near Sel-
fridge Air Force Base on Monday. On

"All those voting to unseat
Mr. Adam Clayton Powell . ..

The ins of Harrison Sali~sbury

*1

THE REPORTS of Harrison Sal-
isbury in the New York Times
are news only because they have
been published in an important
American newspaper.
,Outside the United States the
substances of what Salisbury has
been reporting is not news at all.
For the Europeans who read their
own independent newspapers it is
not news to be told that the bomb-
ing of military targets has killed
and wounded many civilians and
wrecked many civilian houses.
Nor is it news outside the United
States that the bombing has not
interdicted the passage of men
and supplies. Nor is there anything
new in what Premier Pham Van
Dong told Salisbury about the
North Vietnamese case and the
Nnt hmVi am vrsirdatrinne

height of our power to stoop to
such self-deceiving nonsense? Of
course, a reporter in Hanoi will
be told what authorities in Hanoi
wish him to believe. But what is
a reporter in Washington told
when he talks to the State De-
partment, the Defense Department
and the White House?
Be he an American, an English-
man ,a Frenchman or a Japanese,
he is told what the authorities
in Washington wish him to believe.
That should not stop him from
reporting it and interpreting it
as best he can. Nor should it have
stopped Salisbury from reporting
what Hanoi had to say as well as
what he could observe directly.
It goes without saying that
Hanoi would not have given Salis-
bury a visa if Hanoi did not think

Today
and
Tomorrow
By WALTER LIPPMANN
to Salisbury. Reputable and re-
sponsible European correspond-
ents, for example of Le Monde, had
already confirmed the fact of the
civilian damage.
Most probably, the real reason
for the visa is that Hanoi now
wishes to open up direct communi-
cation with the United States. It
cannot have been a mere coinci-
dence that Salisbury was admitted
+-anni a +a c a +ma

if one believes with Ambassador
Henry Cabot Lodge that we shall
"achieve very sensational results"
in 1967. But if one chooses to be-
lieve Gen. William Westmoreland
and close observers like* Sen. John
Stennis that no end of the war
is in sight, it is not improbable}
indeed it is very probable, that
Hanoi regards the war as stale'-
mated.
If there is the view in Hanoi,
then Hanoi is thinking that
neither victory nor defeat can
come to either 'side and that a
start must be made on the diffi-
cult path of negotiation.
Here we are confronted with
a semantic issue-between the de-
mand of Hanoi for "uncondi-
tional" cessation of bombing and
Mi. inion.P nnn"roin. i.v ,,

war, the whole war would be re-
sumed with increasing fury. Hanoi
must know this. What it is really
seeking, I suppose, is some reward,
some evidence for its people that
they have gained by their en-
durance.
And, on the other hand, our in-
sistence upon reciprocity is a mat-
ter of fact, public relations, not of
substance. T h e administration
wants to be able to say that Hanoi
gave in to us before having to
fend off Barry Goldwater and
Richard Nixon and the rest.
The real obstacle to a negotiated
'peace is a very substantial one. It
is whether or not, on any terms
that are practicable in the actual
world, the United States would
evacuate its military position on
the mainland of Southeast Asia.

4
*

jy £dia+&.6
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).

I

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan