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 08, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-09-08

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


Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
LNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATION!

1

FEIFFER

7

Whe~~t Op411lfls AN rV' 420 MAYNA

ARD ST.. ANN ARBOR, MICH.

NFWS PHONE: 764-0552

Th-r

Editorials printed in The Michigan )aily e press the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
JRSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: MICHAEL HEFFER

The Education School's
View of HUAC

yIou KnJott
WH4Y y~ou RI
YOU KMOWu
CHAeW-E ?
11Op) THEE OThEk
'AMP,, TOOK
iVUYNI)5S Z
M-ap, A01? TIE K
LOopL-p C&U&P
bLbo&) UP
TI MOP?{2U3-

16WO&) 0$ 15
prr6Q. MAO~
I ' cOPRT'
;XF15 WPS 4X
Alp THE iGOR}-P
COut-PD o~W
UP TOMOPROU),

I

Y'OUR A
F 5CST l"
E7IM Ali OQTM1$T.

P

V
ep

st CxsP WRY~2

THE EDUCATION SCHOOL'S resolution
expressing concern over the adminis-
tration's failure to consult the Faculty
Assembly and the students and faculty
involved before complying with the sub-
poena of the House Committee on Un-
American Activities is a commendable
one.
As its proponents pointed out in Tues-
day's debate, after which the approxi-
mately 90 faculty members present ap-
proved the resolution by about a two-to-
one margin, the resolution is carefully
worded and, if anything, mild. It deals
with the process by which the administra-
tioijdecidedto comply with the subpoena
--the failure to consult students and fac-,
ulty-rather than the decision itself.
FOR WHILE THERE ARE many possible
conclusions about the validity of their
decision, it is unquestionable that admin-
istrators committed a serious error when
they failed to consult faculty and stu-
dents. It is perhaps unnecessary to argue
that a university in its 150th year, which
talks of "Knowledge, Wisdom and the
Courage to Serve" and which likes to
think of itself as great, should base its
decisions at least in part on the views of
its students and faculty. Not only is there
the benefit of added insight and assist-
ance which increased consultation can
gain; there is the simple principle that,
in a free society, the people who are to
be affected by a decision should be con-
sulted about it before it is made.
Although the University has made great

strides in this area-from the establish-
ment of vice-presidential advisory com-
mittees to the inclusion of student and
faculty advisory groups in the selection
of its next president-a number of events
prompt grave concern that such oppor-
tunities for greater participation in Uni-
versity decision-making are still more il-
lusion than reality.
['pE ADMINISTRATION has, for exam-
ple, completely ignored the advice its
labor-relations experts have been offer-
ing on the University's misguided resist-
ance to employe unionization. Last spring
the administration failed to consult the
Senate Advisory Subcommittee on Uni-
versity Affairs (SACUA) before accepting
the auto industry's $10 million grant for
a highway safety center.
Hence the most recent episode is scarce-
ly unique. When SACUA protested to Vice-
President for Research Geoffrey Norman
about the highway safety decision, Nor-
nan apologized, and later put a SACUA
research subcommittee member on the
center's planning committee. Evidently
only further strong action to protest this
latest failure to consult students and fac-
ulty about the subpoena will produce
similar results.
FOR THAT REASON, resolutions like the
education school's - or stronger ver-
sions--should be considered and approved
swiftly by each of the University's schools
and colleges.
-MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH
Editor

lb

P

C

3
.

Secret Research and Higher Education

By DAVID KNOKE
THE ACTIONS of the Univer-
sity of Pennsylvania last week
in banning classified research
raise questions about the rela-
tion of secret researchto the pri-
mary purposes of institutions of
higher education.
The student newspaper at Penn-
sylvania last year uncovered in-
vestigations into the use of biolog-
ical and chemical weapons for Viet
Nam at the Institute for Coopera-
tive Research there. Activist anti-
war faculty members organized an
effort to have classified research
removed from campus. Their ef-
forts resulted in a faculty senate
resolution last April calling for
an end to secret research con-
tracts with the government. Last
Sunday, Penn President Gaylord
Harnwell said the university would
henceforth decline to take con-
tracts that did not permit the
faculty researcher to publish the
results of his investigation.
AT MICHIGAN State last year,
as almost everyone must know by
now, Ramparts magazine uncov-
ered a classified defense contract
with the Central Intelligence
Agency for the training of a po-
lice force for Premier Diem's South
Vietnamese government. The ex-

pose evoked criticism from fac-
ulty and state legislators, denials
by the MSU administration and
cancellations of similar contracts
at other universities.
Even the Office of Research Ad-
ministration at the University ran
a routine check of research con-
tracts of its Area Studies programs
to find out if the University were
involved in any such contracts
with political implications. The re-
sults were negative, but the fact
that the University showed enough
consternation over the MSU-CIA
affair, demonstrates that the Uni-
versity is not insensitive to the ef-
fects of secretive research on its
public image.
A LONG tradition in academic
freedom, brought to this country
through the Germanic university
concept of lehrfreiheit, considers
as a fundamental function of the
university the right of a faculty
member to pursue research of his
own choosing and publications of
the findings. The University has
adhered closely to this tradition by
allowing classified contracts to be
initiated by the interested faculty
member and by requiring the
sponsor to permit publication of
basic new knowledge discovered.
University of Michigan research
contracts stipulate that the facul-

ty member must have the right
to publish "fundamental and gen-
eral principles" of his work, ex-
cluding any specific details of his
investigation which might endan-
ger the national security.
But the furor over the MSU-CIA
affair, and the University's own
concern that its image not be sim-
ilarly tarnished in the backlash,
was not centered around a pica-
yune point of right to publish.
THE QUESTION of classified re-
search, aside from pragmatic
problems of security procedures
and information leakage, carries
with it greater implications about
the University as an educational
institution in society.
In the cases of Michigan State
and Penn, the implications of the
secret research have a potentially
great effect on the relations be-,
tween the universities and the so-
ciety to which they are supposedly
responsible. "Germ warfare" and
"political intrigue" are charges
carrying nasty connotations; yet
they are concise .descriptions of
exactly to what the fine print in
the contracts boiled down.
For a university, presumably
constituted for the education of its
constituency in the highest ideals,
engagement in partisan activities
of such damaging import is in-

consistent with the spirit of aca-
demic excellence. These were the
accusations of the MSU and Penn
critics and they require some deep
consideration, for they bring into
focus fundamental questions about
the nature of education and hon-
esty in a democratic society.
THERE ARE great pressures on
public universities to become
"service stations" to the society,
and on multiversities offering di-
verse benefits to the citizens of
the state. At universities strug-
gling to, build their reputation,
contract money-never mind what
it is to be used for-and the facul-
ty it can attract are quick ways
to build prestige. Even the older,
established universities are not
above such temptations; indeed,
they are the most guilty of gob-
bling up the research grants wav-
ed before them.
The result of such a situation is
that the educational function of
the universities lag behind while
the research facilities bound off
into the distance. The armed forc-
es need the universities to do the
basic research; they can then turn
the knowledge from this research
into tangible results by technolog-
ical development. Yet the condi-
tions under which the research is
required, critics of classified re-

search contend, is antithetical to
the role of the university in so-
ciety.
CLASSIFICATION, however lit-
tle it may actually affect the re-
searcher's right to publish, is a
potential source of restriction on
the public's right to know. This
was a central criticism of the Penn
institute; the fact that some of its
892 projects were studies of rice
crop poisoning in Viet. Nam was
uncovered by a bookstore employe
who was subsequently fired. Such
evasiveness, as exhibited by the
MSU administration when con-
fronted with a charge of duplicity,
is the type of behavior which cre-
ates a crisis of credibility in a
university's image and policies.
The University has been remark-
ably astute in drawing little sub-
stantive criticism of its classified
research contracts. At the same
time, there have been secret re-
search projects going on for years
at University research facilities,
particularly, at Willow Run Lab-
oratories, about which little fac-
tual information is available.
HOPEFULLY the University
keeps tabs on exactly what is go-
ing on in its own backyard and
will not have to face a "crisis in
classifieds" as Penn and MSU did.

A

Losing War on Poverty?

THE INITIAL BRIGADE was a fine one.
In its struggle, it had all the advan-
tages of warfare since it is a country of
abundance, and, most important, the con-
flict was to be fought on the home front
and not in far away rice paddies. But
there are no reinforcements in sight. The
battle has scarcely begun, yet, the war
seems already lost. Why?
The war is the War on Poverty. Liberals
have praised President Johnson's domes-
tic measures which he skillfully pushed
through as legislation. But now, due main-
ly to the expense of the perpetuation and
escalation' of U.:S. involvement in South-
east Asia, the community action section
of the anti-poverty legislation is in grave
danger..
THE ECONOMIC Opportunity Act de-
fines a community action program as
one which "provides services, assistance,
and other activities of sufficient scope
and, size to give progress towards the
elimination of poverty." However, H.R.
Bill 15111, the appropriations bill for
community action and other projects,
currently being discussed in Congress,
would provide far less funds for commu-
nity action than had been requested. H.R.
15111 would slash the administration's re-
4uest of $944 million to $832 million na-
tionally. Should this bill pass, cutbacks
would be necessary in community action
programs throughout the country. If this
cut is effected, important new programs
would be aborted in the planning stage.
Equally significant would be the dam-

age done to programs on the local level,
where federal and local government work
hand-in-hand. Such projects are vital
catalysts for motivation and self-help in
poverty areas.
THE MAYORS' Committee on Human
Resources has proposals for new and
present programs amounting to $111/2 mil-
lion. Last year these programs provided
employment and educational opportuni-
ties along with health, social, legal, and
house improvement urban renewal serv-
ices' for millions of this country's poverty-
stricken. The vital additional '$4 million
the mayors' committee is requesting now
seems out of reach.
But the House committee was not sat-
isfied with strangling such relevant proj-
ects. It has amended H.R. 15111 to nec-
essitate the doubling of local contribu-
tions (from 10-20 per cent) to render an
area elegible for joint local and federal
aid. Worthy recent projects and the ini-
tiation of new ones will be asphixiated.
AS THE U.S. spends billions on "defense"
and to give the Vietnamese a "choice"
(Nguyen Cao Ky), thousands are shackled
to their shacks and ghettos in the U.S.
Should H.R. 15111 be passed, the internal
war on the home front will .go on, and
"long hot summers" will continue. The
Great Society, this Affluent Society, must
help its ill-fed, ill-clothed, and ill-housed
masses to help themselves, or it will sure-
ly lose its most important war.
-DAN SPITZER

i*

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

Course Evaluation

Validity Q uestioned

Successors To Tragedy

To the Editor:
THE STUDENT evaluation book-
let printed in last Tuesday's
Daily gives a few students an op-
portunity to write anonymously
summary comments, based on
grossly inadequate data, which
may do serious damage to the pro-
fessional careers of University
teachers.
I am one of those who received
an essentially "negative" rating
(for Sociology 430). I am in a
better position to comment than
many others receiving such rat-
ings, because I have been teaching
at the University for 20 years. I
have given considerable attention
to this particular course, and I
have had many sets of rather com-
plete and systematic, anonymous
student ratings over the years on
this course.
I ADMIT FREELY that the
course and my teaching could be
greatly improved. I revise the
course every year in an attempt
to mend my evil ways, such as
they are. However, I don't think
that the published ratings as col-
The Great
Society?
ALL THAT I HEARD had the
effect of arousing the strongest
antagonism in me. Everything was
disparaged-the natioi because it
was held to be an invention of
the capitalist class; the nation be-
cause it was held to be an instru-
ment in the hands of the bour-
geoisie for the exploitation of the
working masses; the authority of
the law because this was a means
of holding down the proletariat;
religion, as a means of doping the
people, so as to exploit them aft-
erwards; morality as a badge of
stupid and sheepish docility. There
was nothing they did not drag in
the mud.
Then I asked myself: are these
men worthy to belong to our great
society? The question was pro-

lected, summarized, and published
are either helpful to me in this
difficult task or informative to
students.
More than 80 students took the
course, and only 13 wrote the
evaluations on which the sum-
mary is based. Since 13 is a very
small sample, the haphazard man-
ner in which the raters were self-
selected for this task makes the
data suspect initially. It may be
relevant that the 13 who wrote
the evaluations in this particular
course were drawn disproportion-
ately from those receiving the low-
est grades.
Since I felt that this class was
unusually good and since al-
most all of the students were eith-
er graduate students or seniors, I
gave unusually high grades. Only
10 students received grades of C
or D. Four of these 10 students
-40 per cent-were among the
raters, while only 10 per cent of
those receiving grades of A and
B were in the rating group. The
students who didn't do well may
have legitimate complaints. They
have every right to have their
views represented-in an adequate
proportionate sampling. This bias
between grading levels is in addi-
tion to the bias that exists when
students are self-selected for this
kind of evaluation within grading
levels.
An additional crucial question is
how the results were summarized.
We are told that "there were mix-
ed feelings" about the course. It
was favorably received by "some.''
Presumably, this is a minority. Let
us guess that four students were
in this category. The remaining
nine, then, would be those who
found ". . . the lectures dry and
dull ..." and the instructor ".
insensitive to and unconcerned
with student reactions . . ." The
last phrase, in particular, hits me
at a sensitive spot, because I have
prided myself on having some in-
sight into student reactions and a
concern for student needs.
STUDENT evaluations in the
past have given me rather high
ratings in this department. Per-
haps, this year, I slipped serious-
1v -r . lA notri-n- th t n .cc

must also be left in doubt as to
whether they should avoid a
course in which the instructor is
described as "dull" and "insensi-
tive."
I imagine that most instruc-
tors receiving negative evalua-
tions will remain silent. A reply
like this one only calls the nega-
tive evaluation to more general
attention, and, after all, the rat-
ings may be correct.
I DO NOT DENY that the re-
port about me may be represen-
tative of student opinion (al-
though I doubt it). I do deny that
that evidence used and the meth-
od of summary can produce a val-
id evaluation.
I think it is scandalous that
The Michigan Daily should lend
itself to the dissemination of this

kind of product, without even
making an initial statement about
the questionable quality of the evi-
dence.
As an older and seasoned aca-
demic campaigner, I receive the
evaluation with reasonably good
humor. For some of my younger
colleagues, the results may be
much more serious, both for their
self-esteem and for their profes-
sional reputations. Shouldn't stu-
dents who are so concerned about
the rights, development and pro-
tection of individual personalities,
have a little humane concern in
this area too? Shouldn't the stu-
dents managing this enterprise
and The Michigan Daily have
some sympathetic concern for in-
suring at least a careful and sys-
tematic sampling and summariza-
tion of data which may be so im-

portant to the individuals involv-
ed?
-Ronald Freedman, Professgr
of Sociology and Director,
Population Studies Center
EDITOR'S NOTE: The exact
status of last semester's Course
Evaluation Booklet has been
hard to determine. There was
an agreement between Student
Government Council and The
Daily, and the task was under-
taken by a former Daily staff
member, but he was no longer a
Daily editor at the time. Except
for sporadic part-tim labor' and
the fact that the shop of the
Student Publications Building
did the printing, there was no
on-going connection between the
booklet and the staff of The
Daily.

BARRY GOLDWATER:

I~

Labor-and-Learning Camps

DESPITE THE TRAGIC assassination of
South African Prime Minister Hendrik
Verwoerd yesterday, that country's lead-
ers still fail to see that racism and repres-
sion merely breed more violence and ter-
ror.
Verwoerd offered his apartheid policy
of total separation for 13 million blacks
and 3 million whites as a panacea for ra-
cial unrest in his prosperous nation -
the ultimate result being that it estab-
lishpd white supremacy. His assassin, a
45-year-old messenger, reportedly stab-
bed the prime minister to death, ironical-
ly, because he believed Verwoerd was do-
ing too much for the blacks and not
enough for the poor whites.

EXPERTS IN WASHINGTON think Bal-
thazar J. Vorster, the country's minis-
ter of justice, is Verwoerd's most likely
successor. Vorster was imprisoned in
World War II for leading the Oxwagon
Watch, a pro-Nazi group.
VQrster drafted and enforced many of
the country's rigid security regulations.
Among them is a pass system where a
Negro was to have a passbook stamped
to move, travel or take a job in another
city. Blacks can be arrested and jailed
for prolonged periods without benefit of
any judicial process. Observers think that,
since Vorster drafted the law, he would
"resort even more readily than his pre-
decessor to harsh use of it at the first sign
of unrest."
Moreover, Verwoerd's followers have
pledged to uphold apartheid. His nation-
alist party announced its "unshakable
determination to maintain his policies,"
yesterday.
T TNFORTUNATELY. Verwoerd's succes-

EDITOR'S NOTE: While Wal-
ter Lippmann is on vacation,
Barry Goldwater and Robert M.
Hutchins are filling in for the
Los Angeles Times Syndicate.
Mr. Goldwater is, for those of
you who are shaking your heads
in disbelief, the former senator
from Arizona who once advo-
cated bombing Hanoi (the war-
monger). -H.W.
ROBERT Strange McNamara,
our disastrous secretary of de-
fense, has added a fourth great
issue to the forthcoming elections:
new evidence of his admiration for
the extremist powers of totalitar-
ian government.
Prior to McNamara's recent
bombshell, there were three basis
issues:
1-This administration's failure
to successfully conclude the war
in Viet Nam and its half measures,
its predictable disposition to give
away at the conference table ev-
erything that might have been
wonin tha e P.

amounts to government labor-
and-learning camps.
THE SECRETARY'S announce-
ment of this scheme, completely
bypassing Congress and complete-
ly distorting the purposs of the
selective service law, says that he
will, by the power of his office
alone, grab 100,000 young men a
year as a new step in the admin-
istration's war on poverty. These
young men, he says, would ordi-
narily be rejected for military
service because their schools, their
teachers, their doctors and, pre-
sumably, their parents are not fit
to educate them for a useful role
in life or to keep them' healthy
enough.
McNamara barely makes even a
pretense that this sweeping new
program will benefit the military
services. He would be lying in his
teeth if he pressed that point.
McNAMARA has consistently op-
posed every measure that would
raise miliarv nav aidmiltary

to cover every young man, assign-
ing some to some other types of
federal service where not needed
for military service.
No, the McNamara scheme is a
pure and simple expansion of the
old Civilian Conservation Corps
idea or the Job Corps idea. It is
a reflection of every totalitarian
regime that has used the raw
pressure of its power to force peo-
ple into government molds and
to "retrain" them as the central
government wishes.
IT IS A SCHEME, purely and
simply, to bypass every local school
system, to bypass every private
training effort, to bypass every
parent, every doctor, every hospi-
tal, every charity and every local
welfare effort. It uses the vast
power of the military organization
for purely political purposes, in
absolute defiance of our tradi-
tional separation or balance of
military and civil power.
Fears of a military take-over of

U 1

Business Staff
ATTRA-A .7 RUT 'ADlVT Business Ma4,nage7r

*

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan