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.

September 07, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-09-07

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


Seventy-Sixth Year
EDJTED AND MANAGED $Y STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICAT1ON

ona Are Free 420 MAYNARD ST.. ANN ARBo, MiCvi.

Nrw-;Pfthoxr : 764-0552

Editorirss printed in The Michigan flail ex/ ess the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the edst ots. This mut he noted in all re prnts.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT KLIVANS

The $55M Drive --
flow Much Real Benefit?

Sept. 7,
By LEONARD PRATT
Associate Managing Editor
W HO SAYS you can't teach an
old dog new tricks?
You can, of course, Just so you're
careful to do it gradually and not
brag about it. Try it like that and
you can even teach a university's
a'dministration new tricks.
There are evidently some pretty
sharp teachers around this Uni-
versity's administration, because
they've come up with a new ap-
proach to handling tuition money
that could open many previously
closed doors for the University's
growth and development.
TUITION .- administratively
known as "student fees" - weigh-
ed in at $15 million last year, the
second largest portion of the Uni-
versity's "general fund", the oper-
ations budget. That's a crucial
amount of money, for the rules
which govern its distribution have
a limiting effect on the Univer-
sity's goals - they define what it
can financially do in many im-
portant areas.
Traditionally those rules were
fairly conservative. Student fees

were generally regarded with a
semi-mystic financial awe, as
though they were too good to be
used for anything less worthy than
paying professors.
Other uses were, of course, made
of them from time to time: the
Student Activities Bldg., and parts
of the Music School and the North
Campus Commons were paid for
with tuition money. But even then
the use was either partial or the
building financed-the SAB-was
an entirely student building any-
way. These cases bent the tuition
use rule, but didn't really break
it.
BUT NOW IT'S evidently bro-
ken to the point where it doesn't
exist anymore. New projects use
tuition for purposes far different
from what would have been con-
sidered in the past.
Chronologically, the financing
of the University Events Bldg.,
now under construction, was the
first project to involve tuition in
"unorthodox" uses. About $5.8 mil-
lion of the building's total cost
was raised by selling bonds, bonds
which are to be paid off primarily

SOld Dogs and Pandora's Box

with tuition money. The Regents
have promised the bondholders
that the University will keep en-
rolling a minimum number of
freshmen yearly and that their
tuition will be available for paying
off the bonds.
Second in line to get the use of
tuition money was the new Ad-
ministration Bldg., now under con-
struction right behind the old one.
The bonds which are financing
that building will be paid off en-
tirely with tuition money. In the
past, such a building would have
been financed by the state Legis-
lature.
NOT ONLY BUILDINGS are
profiting from the new largesse.
A plan is now in the works which
will use student tuition to help bol-
ster the University's sagging intra-
mural sports program.
The IM program, long complete-
ly financed by profits from inter-
collegiate athletics, is finding that
cupboard bare just when it needs
money most. The cost of maintain-
ing Big Ten athletic teams is ris-
ing, and the resources of the Board
in Control of Intercollegiate Ath-

letics-which is now responsible
for financing both IM and inter-
collegiate sports-are also being
drained by the Events Bldg. Yet
the IM program sorely needs mon-
ey if it is to provide facilities for
the burgeoning student population
on both the central and North
campuses.
In order to get the money for
them, IM sports will-in a plan
whose details are not yet clear-
be moved from the jurisdiction of
the Board in Control of Intercol-
legiate Athletics and placed under
that of the Vice-President for
Student Affairs. The board will fi-
nancially forget about it and the
vice-president will support it out
of student fees allotted to his of-
fice for that purpose.
THE UPSHOT of all this is
clear. Tuition money is now con-
sidered fair game for diverse pur-
poses by an administration harder
pressed for resources than it would
like to be in this growth period.
It's difficult to say precisely
what this change of heart means.
Immediately it means more help-
ful financial flexibility for the ad-

ministration. But where does the
flexibility lead? Just about any-
where the decision-makers-who-
ever they are at the time--want it
to. It's very much a Pandora's Box.
There are some specific implica-
tions here, however. If student
money is going to be used to sup-
port more and different projects,
that suggests pressure on both en-
rollment and tuition-total stu-
dent fee income being proportional
to both-to gradually rise. And
this is one element of the Michi-
gan State University syndrome-
more students paying more to ob-
tain more money to build more
buildings to take in more students.
ADMINISTRATORS SAY their
change of heart won't affect their
plans for either enrollment or tui-
tion. Still, the pressures are cer-
tainly there and can clearly mani-
fest themselves at some future
date.
Other, unforeseeable, pressures
may also be created by the new
approach to tuition funds. The
University community should be-
gin to look out for the surprises
that crop up when an old dog
starts playing new tricks.

4

THE UNIVERSITY'S $55 million fund
drive is rough to figure out.
How can anything bringing that much
money to the University, and right now it
looks as if the drive is going to go way
over Its quota, be bad? And yet, in the
same breath, one is hard-put to say just
where all the money is going.
The drive, instituted to insure the Uni-
versity's Vital Margin, its qualitative ad-
vantage over most other universities in
the country, is going along well. Indeed,
at present, it is close to $50 million and
heading on schedule towards its target
date of spring commencement this year.
Boat -beneath the aggregate figure, be-
low the periodic statements coming . out
of University News Service with the lat-
est total or heralding a recent million
dollar gift, something is missing.
What should be the high priority proj4
ects, the things that really give the Uni-
versity its vital margin that the PR men
are touting, don't seem to be benefiting
greatly.
ONE CANNOT DENY that many sub-
stantive gifts have been received from
the campaign, almost all of which add
to the University's stature and national
prestige.
Some of the major gifts the University
has received via the fund drive are: $6.5
million from C. S. Mott for a Children's
Hospital, another $2.4 million from the
Mott Foundation for an addition to Flint
College, $10 million for the Highway Safe-
ty Research Institute, $1.25 million from
Chrysler for a Center for Continuing
Engineering Education, $1.75 million for a
Center for Continuing Medical Education,
$1 million for a theatre, $1 million for a
Clinical Pharnacology, $1.5 million from
the Ford Foundation for international
programs in law, business administration
and-education .. and so on.
But one must ask how vital, if it is
indeed a Vital Margin we are preserving,
are these things? They are appreciable
assets to any campus, but are they what
the University really needs?
THE REAL PROBLEM so far with the
campaign is that almost no money has
been donated without being earmarked
for specific projects. One administrator,
reports that of the present total, only
about $2 million has been given to a gen-
eral, uncommitted fund. Thus donators
are giving the University money, but only
to be spent in a certain way, conducive
to their wishes.
The University has been saddled with
only one: real white elephant so far in the
campaign, the $10 million Highway Re-
search Institute which has been describ-

ed by one official as the automobile
manufacturers attempt to get Congress
off its back.
Still this lack of uncommitted funds
is reducing the possible benefit of the
campaign. The fund drive has become
a kind of panacea in the minds of many,
here. The feeling is that when National
Director Paul Goebel presents the mas-
sive check to President Hatcher (if that's
the way it is going to work) there will
suddenly be an upsurge of building, re-
laxation of demands on faculty, no over-
crowding of the library, and a general
blooming of flowers. The attitude is that
the, drive will get the University out of
whatever hole it now is in and allow it to
become what everybody things it should
be.
BUT IT ISN'T GOING to work this way.
The benefit the fund drive will have
to the undergraduate student body ap-
pears to be negligible. There will be more
available student aid, but other than this
it is unlikely, if the undergraduate will
sense much of a change in the Univer-
sity after the drive is over.
One of the big reasons is the lack, at
present, of enough uncommitted funds
to give the University some kind of flex-
ibility with the mony it is getting.
Even though President Hatcher has re-
portedly made the Residential College
his number one priority for gifts, he has
been generally unsuccessful in getting
funds for it.
The same can be said about endowed
professorships, which cost $500,000. The
fund drive is yet to produce its first en-
dowed chair, although Goebel reports'that
two are in "the later process of solicita-
tion."
THE MONEY received thus far from the
fund has been allocated pretty much
where the University wants it, according
to its list of objectives published at the
beginning of the campaign and recently
revised. But it still seems as if many offi-
cials here, expected more uncommitted
funds to be coming in, money which
might make the Vital Margin more visible.
The brunt of uncommitted funds must
come from the general donors, those who
giv less than $50,000. The endowed
chairs, residential college buildings, a
University concert hall, additions and air
conditioning of Hill Aud. all look like they
are going to come from general funds if at
all.
THUS THE $55 M DRIVE is a long way
from home.
-NEIL SHISTER

Lyndon Johnson 's Day-and Rome'

By STEVE WILDSTROM
DETROIT - It was President
Johnson's day. Along the road he
took in from the airport, someone
had set up a huge billboard say-
ing, "Happiness is LBJ."
Good weather, clear and just
warm enough for shirtsleeve com-
fort. and there was a parade-
middle-a-red veterans of labor's
nearly forgotten great battles.
True, the militant unions like the
Federation of Teachers and city
employes put on a goodbshow, they
are still on the make, but most of
the marchers looked sad and tired.
The paraders marched a mile
and then piled into Cobo Hall
where the rally was held. About
four thousand people gathered to
hear the President. Just the setup
for Lyndon Johnson, just his style,
consistent with his taste, every-
thing perfect . . . until George
Romney stole the show.
This year's Labor Day rally vas
officially a memorial to the late
Sen. Pat McNamara. His widow
was introduced, she looked like
she would have much rather been
spending the day at home in peace.
The late Senator was duly eulo-
gized by a succession of politicians
and the audience yawned in bore-
dom.
The preliminary speakers tried
hard, but it was obvious they were
only curtain raisers for the main
feature.
Before The Man announced he
was making an appearance at the
rally, Roy Wilkins, executive di-
rector of the NAACP, was to be
the main speaker. With LBJ on
the program, Wilkins became dust
another appetizer.

back of the platform. They re-
mained pretty much unnoticed un-
til Johnson introduced the gov-
ernor.
Reuther finished talking. The
rally chairman had took taken
the podium and had absolutely
nothing to say. It was obviously
time for Lyndon Johnson to =ake
the stand.
For a short time that seemed to
last forever, nothing happened.:
Then someone came dashing over
to the Secret Service agent at the
door, whispering loudly, "Bring
him in!" A few seconds later,
Lyndon and Lady Bird, looking
vastly better than they ever do
on television or in the papers.
The band-soundimg like they
belonged to. some union other
than the Federation of Musicians
-struck up "The President's
Honors" and the crowd rose to
their feet cheering. There he was,
their President . .. In the flesh!
LBJ's speech was really dull
routine. He said nothing new. He
added to the discomfort of local
Democrats by introducing Rom-
ney, the unwanted guest, and
hopelessly mangling the last name
of Zoltan Ferency, the Democratic
candidate for governor.
Once the crowd saw their man
they were happy. They listened
politely through the speech. There
was some excitement when an
anti-Viet Nam heckler was given
the bum's rrush by the Secret Ser-
vice.
Johnson finished his speech un-
perturbed and was given a stand-
ing ovation.
The rally was over.

t

I,

He, too, gave it a good try, but
his speech was exceedingly tame
and besides, no one was listening.
Wilkins was followed by Welter
Reuther, president of the United
Auto Workers. Even under the
most trying circumstances Reu-
ther, a labor leader with the fire of
a Southern evangelist, can still
command the attention of an au-
dience. And they listened, even
though they have heard the speech
many times before.
While Reuther spoke, the Presi-
dent's press entourage arrived, an
impressive group of pros. The
magazine and wire service photo-
graphers looking like they would
sink under the weight of their
equipment. All to get a couple of
pictures of Lyndon Johnson.

The arrival of the Washington
press corps signified that the ar-
rival of the President was at
hand. The audience in the vicinity
of the press section forgot Reu-
ther's speech and strained to see
the door through which The Man
would enter.
Willard Wirtz, Secretary of La-
bor, made a surprise appearance'
and was properly introduced and
applauded. Until then, it had been
a dull day for labor and the Dem-
ocrats but everything had gene
smoothly. Then things started to
happen..
Reuther was wrapping up his
speech and everyone knew Lyn-
don Johnson would soon arrive.
The audience began to stand up,

trying to see over the flock of re-
porters and photographers cluster-
ing.
And then the uninvited guests
stole the show. George Romne
accompanied by Republican Sen.
Robert Griffin, who had his re-
quest to speak at the rally de-
clined, entered the hall just as
everyone was expecting the Presi-
dent. Actually, only the reporters
and the people sitting very close
to the door saw Romney enter,
but the reporters are the people
who count. They were impressed
by the governor's entrance and
their reports showed it.
After some prodding by White
House staff men and Secret Ser-
vice agents, Romney and Grif-
fin managed to find seats at the

Wayne 's Answer to the Selective Service

Moralty Play:
of Cyeles and Freshmen

IT WAS GREAT, Black jacket, black
boots, black bike, long, unruly hair.
Ripping and roaring down Washington
Heights, screeching to a screaming halt.
Waking up the whole dorm.
It was great. Sitting in front on a warm
September afternoon, kicking sand in
the face of the Hondas, polishing the gas
tank, getting hardly lovable glares from
visiting parents.

But it is no more. Not for
men, anyway.

the fresh-

Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERS'IEIN, Executive Editor
CLARENCE PANTO HARVEY WASSERMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
JOHN MEREDITH........Associate Managing Editor
LEONARD PRATT.......Associate Managing Editor
BABETTE CORN . ........ . . Personnel Director
CHARLOTTE WOLTER .. Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT CARNEY . ... Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT MOORE........... ..... Magazine Editor
CHARLES VETZNER . ...Sports Editor
JAU4E8 LaSOVAGE.........Associate Sports Editor
JAME TINDALL ..........'Associate Sports Editor
GIL SAMSIUG o... Assistant Sports Editor
NIGHT EDIORS: Michael Heffer, Merle Jacob, Rob-
ert Klivans, Laurence Medow, Roger Rapoport, Shir-
ley Rosick, Neil Shister.
SPORTS NIGHT EDITORS: Bob McFarland, Howard
Kohn, Dan Okrent, Dale Sielaff, Rick Stern, John
Sutkus.
Business Staff

It can make a grown man cry.
I remember arriving here last August,
king of the hill on the big, black Tri-
umph, free for the first time in my life
to live on my own, to run my own affairs.
It was tremendous, the feeling, cruising
out on Huron River Drive, scrambling out
on North Campus' few undeveloped acres,
doing wheelies on the driveway at Ann Ar-
bor High. I haven't lost it, but there are
plenty who haven't found it.
They've castrated the freshman. He's
never been able to impress the girls with
his elan, his class, his cool, Nor has he
been able to get an easy escape from
stifling dorm life. He's gotta use his bike,
if anything.
But they've taken it away.
HOW MANY MIXERS where they oohed
and aahed!! How many times the "Oh,
so you're the kid with the big, black Tri-
umph!"
And the rides out of town or to the Arb.
Away at last from the little dorm room,
the stifling central campus.
But this year you can't do it, frosh.
You've gotta spend your time walking,
booking, or playing football. You can't
roll without wheels.
They can't do it!! We won't let them!!
Like hell. That's what Ann Arbor's 1500-
plus motorcyclists said last year when
laws were going to be passed. This year,
they've cut the decibel limit, are requir-

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is a
reprint of part of a statement
by William R. Keast, President
of Wayne State University last
June explaining the decision by
that school's administration to
refuse to compile and release
class rankings to Selective Ser-
vice local boards,
THE CHANGING guidelines for
student deferment under the
Selective Service System, and the
widespread concern over the op-
eration of the system in general,
especially as it involves the uni-
versities, make it urgent that we
review the policies under which
Wayne State University's relations
with Selective Service System are
conducted.
This statement is confined to
the role of the University, under
current legislation and national
policies, in providing information
to be used by Selective Service
Boards in deciding upon the defer-
ment of students. ItI Idoes not at-
tempt to deal with national service
policy as a whole.
I hope that this statement will
not only clarify Wayne State Uni-
versity policy but that it will con-
tribute to general discussion of an
urgent national problem.
UNTIL THE SPRING of the cur-
rent year, Selective Service guide-
lines for student deferment requir-
ed local boards to determine whe-
ther a registrant was enrolled in a
regular academic program, and
whether he was making satisfac-
tory progress toward completion
of that program in the time nor-
mally required. Wayne State Uni-
versity has supplied to local
boards, when requested to do. so
by its students, official statements
on these questions. It has also sup-
plied, at the student's request,
transcripts of his course record
and grades to supplement the
statements concerning enrollment
and progress.
Wayne State University will con-
tinue to provide these categories

THE REVISED Selective Service
guidelines on student deferment
issued this Spring introduce a new
element. Selective Service Boards
are now directed to consider not
only the student's status and his
progress toward a degree, but in
addition his class standing or, al-
ternatively, his performance on
the new Selective Service Test.
These new factorsare intended to
provide local boards with a basis
for selecting, from within the
group of students making satisfac-
tory progress toward degrees, those
to be called first as draft quotas
increase.
Students are eligible for defer-
ment, in general, if they rank in
the upper half of the full-time
male students in their class at the
end of the freshman year, in the
upper two-thirds at the'end of the
sophomore year, and in the upper
three-quarters at the end of the
junior year. Graduate students are
eligible for deferment if they rank-
ed in the upper quarter of their
undergraduate senior class. Stu-
dents falling below these ranking
points are eligible for deferment if
they score 70 or above on the Se-
lective Service Test as undergrad-
uates and 80 or above as gradu-
ates.
CLASS RANKINGS may be de-
termined in any way an institution
sees fit, provided the ranking in-
cludes only full-time male stu-
dents. Rankings may be determin-
ed by colleges within the Univer-
sity or on a university-wide basis.
They may be based on cumulative
grade averages or on a term-
by-term analysis of grades.
Currently, Wayne State Univer-
sity practice is to determine and
record the class rank, by college,
for men and women together, only
for students completing an under-
graduate degree program, on the
basis of the student's total record.
Class rankings are not recorded
for freshmen, sophomores, and
juniors. The questions of Univer-
sity policy, therefore, are whether

the conclusion that it is unsound
educational policy to establish
class rankings of Wayne State
University students prior to the
completion of their undergraduate
programs of study and to make
rankings available for use outside
thethe University. (I have serious
reservations about our present po-
licy of making senior class stand-
ing a part of the student's final
transcript, but I am not prepared
to modify this policy without fur-
ther study.)
THE EDUCATIONAL arguments
against class rankings are num-
erous and in my judgment compel-
ling. Many of them have been put
forward in the public discussions
of selective service during recent
months. I have space here to list
only a few of the more important
of them.
1. Grading practices and stan-
dards vary widely among members
of the same faculty, among units
of the same university, and be-
tween institutions. Inferences as
. to comparative aptitude, applica-
tion, and progress based on such
variable measures are highly un-
reliable. Institutions also vary
greatly in their selectivity, in the
quality and intellectual homogen-
eity of their student bodies, and in
the rigor and difficulty of their
programs. Comparisons among
students of relatively equal abil-
ity or promise enrolled in differ-
ent institutions will almost cer-
tainly be untrustworthy, even if
we could assume that grading
standards were comparable.
2. IT MAY PERHAPS be pos-
sible to make tolerably accurate
discriminations between the very
best and very poorest students in
a class on the one hand, and the
great bulk of students on the oth-
er. But fine distinctions based on
grade-point averages among stu-
dents in the large middle range
-and this is the zone where such
distinctions must be made for Se-
lective Service purposes-are im-

in the upper half of the class is
found to have an average of 2.435,
and the top student in the lower
half of the class has an average
of 2.429!
A selective service board, in-
formed that the first student stood
in the upper half and the second
student stood in the lower half of
his class, might well believe it was
making a rational decision if it
continued to defer the first and
drafted the second. But a univer-
sity would surely be remiss to mis-
lead serious citizens in this way.
Its culpability would be the great-
er if it were to follow the advice of
a national professional organiza-
tion on how to break ties between
students who have identical aver-
ages: "date of birth and alphabe-
tic sequence," we are informed, are
"reasonable" ways of breaking
ties.
3. THE EMPHASIS on grades
and class standing produced by
these selective service procedures
will surely intensify several un-
desirable features of our present
system of higher education. Many
educators are troubled by the em-
phasis on conventional academic
achievement in the form of high
grades already pronounced in our
colleges and universities, and in-
deed in our secondary schools as
well. Competition for admission to
colleges, competition for graduate
places and for scholarships and
fellowships, and competition for
:employment opportunities often
distorts the normal patterns of in-
tellectual growth, curbs the im-
pulse to experiment and explore,
which should be encouraged in col-
lege students, and suggests to stu-
dents that immediate and obvious
evidence of achievement, whether
or not accompanied by other evi-
dences of personal development, is
educationally and socially desir-
able. These pressures are also like-
ly to inhibit needed experimenta-
tion in colleges and universities.

work for a living will place our
students at a disadvantage.
5. The awareness on the part of
both student and teacher that
grades are to be converted into
class standings. for a purpose not
directly educational may well in-
troduce into their relationship an
element prejudicial to fruitful ed-
ucational experience. Some in-
structors will be too lenient. Some
students will substitute compliance
for serious inquiry with the risk of
being wrong. In any event all will
be aware of a new and disturbing
presence.
THESE ARE SOME of the rea-
sons that have led me to conclude
that the determination and publi-
cation of detailed class rankings
is educationally undesirable. The
University Council has recom-
mended that the University should
not provide class rankings on its
students. I have attached the
Council's recommendation on this
and related topics.
I am directing the University's
administrative officers to inform
selective service boards that class
standings will not be provided for
students before the completion of
their undergraduate studies. We
will of course review this policy
continuously. We will conduct dis-
cussions with student 'representa-
tives to assess its impact.
I am aware that the policy an-
nounced here is at variance with
the current practice of most in-
stitutions in Michigan and else-
where, and that it runs counter
to the recommendations of cer-
tain national educational associa-
tions. I hope to see a widespread
reappraisal of current institutional
policies.
ACCORDINGLY I am forward-
ing copies of this statement to my
colleagues on the Michigan Coun-
cil of State College Presidents and
in the Michigan Association of

4
T

,.*f

w

Back to Top

© 2022 Regents of the University of Michigan