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 13, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-09-13

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
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Ter tpnon Are F'ree 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH. NEws PHONE: 764-0552
Trutl, Wmf Preva1
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily ex press the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This mus t be noted in all reprints.
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: MARTHA WOLFGANG

WER The Committee So Goes On and . .
POETRY by MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH
:r ...... .......:v~h....:.::::.:::rr:::r~h .......:....

Rush Hour: Time for New
Questions and New Answers

ONCE AGAIN the Interfraternity Coun-
cil is moving into high gear for an-
other of its semi-and ual concentrated ef-
forts to bolster fraternity lists.
As the process moves into the lightning
pace of formal rush, the real issue, the
question of the values of fraternity mem-
bership, will once again be overlooked in
the frenzy of deciding whether Alpha
Alpha Alpha Alpha is better than Beta
Beta Beta on the basis of their members,
their house, and their academic, athletic,
social and/or financial standing.
FRATERNITIES WERE BORN to provide
an atmosphere of intellectual stimula-
tion and individual development which
would encourage academic excellence
commensurate with the goals of the Uni-
versity. Do rushees ever ask why this aim
is so often contradicted by fraternity em-
phasis on social life and their physically,
abusive sweat sessions? Rarely. The fra-
ternities appeal to a desire for status and
group identification-affiliation puts you
a step above the independents. In this
light, will anyrushees ask actually why
the all-fraternity average was well below
the all-med's average last semester?
Probably not.
Equally .neglected as ruch conversation
topics are questions of hazing, conduct
(the drunk and disorderly kind) and dis-
scrimination.
OW MANY Sigma Chi's were question-
ed during the last rush about their
national's policies or the problems their
Stanford chapter encountered when they
pledged a Negro? How many Delta Chi's
will be asked during this rush about the
charges made against their national by
Wayne State University last spring (are
there any Negroes in the 52 Delta Chi
chapters?)? How many Negroes even
bother to rush all-white houses?
And how many rushees will ask. their
hosts more than why they are fraternity
men or even why they chose the house
they're in? Who will ask them what their
fraternity does to develop them as indi-
viduals, as whole people? Where are the
critics, doubting the contributions of
fraternities to the educational experi-
ence, during rush? Why don't rushees
ever ask the questions voiced by facul-
ty members and administrators who are
critical of fraternities?
One reason, which in itself says a lot,

is that fraternities and rushees have to
make "good" impressions so they shy
away from meaningful discussion and the
chance of voicing an offensive opinion.
BUT THE PURPOSE of rush is to re-
solve thie question of joining a fra-
ternity; don't pertinent issues have a
place? Rush is often viewed as a selling
process; shouldn't the rushee question
the quality of the product before he buys
(and it will cost him plenty) as he would
question any other salesman?
But rushees all too often avoid "em-
barrassing" questions and instead join
in the discussions of sports, cars, what's
your major, where are you from, etc. In
their effort to get "in," they forget that
fraternities must take pledges to survive;
they have to have their houses full and
if a small pledge class doesn't catch up
with them next year, it will soon after.
FRATERNITIES are all acutely aware
that rush is the life-blood of their
existence, their means of subsistence.
Embedded in this most integral part of
fraternity life are the causes and solu-
tions to the problems which justify cri-
ticism of Greek systems. A change in ap-
proach to rush might mean a totally dif-
ferent kind of fraternity system, more
closely integrated with the University
community and its emphasis on academic
excellence.
The difficulty in solving problems fac-
ed by fraternities in adjusting to changes
in the academic, community is that too
few fraternity men-basically the IFC of-
ficers and some, but not all, house offi-
cers - are really concerned about the
problem. And most of the non-fraternity
men who see faults in fraternities don't
rush because of them, missing their
greatest opportunity to put the largest
number of fraternity men "on the spot."
RUSH MUST BE approached as an op-
portunity to discuss the issues of dis-
crimination, of academics, of social val-
ues, instead of allowing the system to sell
itself at face value. If the questions are
never asked, they will never be answer-
ed: if they are asked during rush, the
houses will have no choice.
If rushees ask more than they are told
this rush, they would do the individual
houses, the system as a whole, and them-
selves a very big favor.
-LAURENCE MEDOW

Special To The Daily
ESTRAGON: Unforgettable.
VLADIMIR: And it's not over.
ESTRAGON: Apparently not.
VLADIMIR: It's only the begin-
ning.
ESTRAGON: It's awful.
VLADIMIR: Worse than the pan-
tomime.
ESTRAGON: The circus.
VLADIMIR: The music-hall.
ESTRAGON: The circus.
-from "Waiting for Godot,
Act I, by Samuel Beckett
WASHINGTON - Political in-
sanity, extraordinary delu-
sions and the madness of crowds
are not infrequent in the life
of the American polity, but rare-
ly was it quite so grandiose as
during the recent hearings of the
House Committee on Un-Ameri-
can Activities on the Viet Nam
protest.
The hearings ostensibly con-
cerned a bill introduced by an
obscure Texas congressman, Joe
R. Pool, who told a reporter dur-
ing the hearings he couldn't think
of any other legislation he'd been
interested in in his four years as
Texas' representative-at-large.
Pool's bill makes it illegal to
give "aid and comfort" to the
enemies of the United States;
the State and Treasury Depart-
menits o"'ose the bill because it
adds nothing to existing prohi-
bitions like the Export Control
and Trading with the Enemy Acts
which they are now administer-
ing.
In evident defiance of the strip-

ed-pants boys and the interna-
tional bankers' conspiracy, how-
ever, the committee decided to ap-
prove the bill anyway. And such
was the reason, so-called, for the
HUAC hearings.
BUT TO IGNORE the hearings
and focus on Pool's bill, which will
probably never come before the
full House, is a little like saying
Raquel Welch's eyebrows are
what makes her attractive. Not
the bill but the hearings were
the committee's raison d'etre, and,
in a curious way, that is true of
the radicals under study as well.
The atmosnhere of the hear-
ings did, indeed, suggest the pan-
tomime, the circus and the music-
hall. All the good guys wore two-
pants suits and all the bad guys
wore blue jeans, (or vice-versa.
depending on one's political af-
filiations).
The impact of the hearings be-
gan to be felt, however, only as
one approached the hearing room.
where the corridor was strewn
with television cables, cameras and
tired reporters. About every half-
hour or so there would be a fear-
ful commotion, sounds of scuf-
fling, and a new protestor would
be ejected from the hearing room
for having yelled his defiance to
the committee.
THEN THE SCENE would come
alive. Since the hearings were held
on the fourth floor, and since the
cops took their charges down to
the waiting paddy wagons by the
elevator ,the press was forced to

fend for itself-which meant run-
ning downstairs in an attempt (us-
ually successful) to get close to
the paddy wagon before the strug-
gling protestors did.
Hence the hearings acquired a
rather rollicking air, and everyone
not actually involved entered into
the spirit of things. The Capitol
cops flirted with all the pretty
secretaries waiting in the staff
line to get into the hearings; the
press zoomed eagerly downstairs
to catch new ejectees; and one
photographer, making his jaunt
for perhaps the fifteenth time,
joyfully shouted, "Oh, boy!!" for
the sheer fun of it all.
WHETHER OR NOT the hear-
ings did anything more than en-
tertain is, of course, still debat-
able. They were certainly livelier
than the Dodd hearings the Sen-
ate has been conducting, which is
not surprising since the Senate
usually does such things (if it
does them at all) with more de-
corum. They undoubtedly helped
Congressman Pool, who was in-
volved in a (previously) tough pri-
mary fight in Dallas, of 9ll places.
THERE ARE, however, at least
two other accomplishments of the
HUAC hearings, and they are not
inconsiderable, because everyone
on both sides of the table is sat-
isfied as a result.
For, as one congressman put it:
"You can't say both sides didn't
get just what they wanted. The
right wingers in Congress got a
chance to put the radical left on

display, and vice versa. It would
be good Greek comedy if it wasn't
so ghastly."
But Aristophanes would prob-
ably have had trouble thinking up
what occurred during the hear-
ings. Rep. Richard Ichord (D-
Mo. one of the committee mem-
bers, noted darkly that one of the
subpoenaed witnesses, Prof. Steph-
en Smale of Berkeley, was "on his
way to Moscow to receive a math-
ematics award," thereby missing
the summons (he was attending a
mathematics convention, and was
later manhandled by the Russians
for delivering a protest against
both U.S. and Soviet Viet Nam
policy).
But Ichord, to his credit, later
came- out for responsible proced-
ure. Rep. John M. Ashbrook (R-
Ohio) suggested, when a friendly
witness (an Alameda Cointy dep-
uty district attorney) offered an
exhibit, that the committee ac-
cept all exhibits the witness might
want to offer immediately rather
than bother considering them as
he got to them.
This was too much even for
Ichord, who suggested it would
perhaps be more proper to follow
the normal procedure of accepting
each exhibit separately. Ashbrook,
a little miffed, agreed somewhat
shamefacedly,
ON THE OTHER hand, the wit-
nesses themselves, with several ex-
ceptions, could scarcely have got-
ten more publicity if they had
immolated themselves in the hear-
ing room. Berkeley's Jerry Rubin

came in a Revolutionary War suit,
which he said had something to
do with his appearance h-fore the
committee, and I getting
thrown out.
Stuart McRae fro 'ord re-
versed a tradition foi stile wit-
nesses of nearly 30 years' stand-
ing by not only declining to tes-
tify, but insisting on it. When
Pool raised his right hand to ad-
minister the oath, McRae re-
sponded with a Nazi salute. He
then misquoted Robert Kennedy
on giving aid to the Viet Cong and
declined to answer a question "on
grounds that it nauseates me and
I might vomit all over the table."
Making his first appearance at
the hearings, the committee chair-
man. Edwin E. Willis (D-La) -
also faced with a primary contest
which he won-said, referring to
those who aid enemies of the U.S.,
"' ro s ve1ow-bellied cowards,
in my opinion."
THE FACTS that the right wing
put the left wing on exhibit and
vice-versa are beyond doubt the
two most important facts about
the hearings. Pool's staffers exud-
ed triumph at Washington cock-
tail parties: the witnesses felt they
had exposed the committee for
what it was.
"The conservatives think they
showed up the Communist con-
spiracy, and the radicals they they
are martyrs.
"So everybody's happy," com-
ments one observer, "except for
perhaps the rest of the Congress
and most of the country."

of

4

Kennedy: A Roadblock on

the Left

By DAVID BERSON,
THE METEORIC rise of Sena-
tor Robert F. Kennedy ap-
pears to have filled a hope of dis-
enchanted Democratic liberals for
an acceptable replacement to Lyn-
don Johnson. But for the moreu
liberal and radical elements re-
pelled by LBJ, Kennedy is still
something less than a Messiah.
Indeed the junior senator from
New York is more a mystery to
those with serious questions about
the way American democracy is
operating.
No one doubts, of course, that
Kennedy has set up a political en-
campment to the left of the Presi-
dent, but there remains serious
doubts concerning his motivation
and consequently the philosophy
he would implement if he attain-
ed the Presidency. As one ob-
server tartly remarked recently,
"We knew what Johnson was go-
ing to do, didn't we."
The questioning of Kennedy's
motives is indeed an ironic turn
on the political scene. While John-
son has been denounced as a
cold - blooded super - politician.
Kennedy is viewed in some circles
as a ruthless hothead grinding his
personal ax at the expense of any-
one who might get in his politi-
cal way.
The Kennedy climb itself is a
mixture of both calculated politi-
cal finesse and personal charisma.
While openly disagreeing with ad-
ministration policies and battling
with Johnson officials like Secre-
tary Robert Weaver, he has con-
stantly reiterated his support for
the present administration in the
1968 election.
AT THE SAME time, Kenne-
dy's back bending to attract young,
people, which takes up a large
portion of his time, has been
executed with the soft-spoken,
wide-grinned mop-haired magic
that any politician would envy.
One of Kennedy's principal road-
blocks appears to be that he has
not yet proved to the disgruntled
factions that he is above petty
politicking and personal witch-
hunts.

There was the scene this sum-
mer in which he rather crudely
stepped into the surrogate judge
campaign in New York County, a
campaign which held important
prizes of that Democratic party
apparatus. And on Capitol Hill
there is the almost daily spectacle
of Kennedy at committee hear-
ings, getting his licks in before
the television cameras and then
walking out. He has also been at
odds with th recognized off-
Johnson left. with men like Wayne
Morse and Vance Hartke.
On the personal level, few will
forget the Bobby Kennedy at the
1960 convention. Almost everyone
close to politics in Washington has
their personal valise of "Bobby
the Back-Stabber" stories. And
few of the labor rank and file can
forget his unrelenting assault on
Jimmy Hoffa, the Teamster boss,
PERHAPS the real question is
whether, in the face of an in-
creasingly awkward LBJ and an
increasingly liberal RFK, they can
not so much forget as forgive.
Kennedy has after all seemed
to have taken a noticeably op-
posing position to Mr. Johnson on
Viet Nam. The Kennedy move or
the Kennedy nhilosohy, which-
ever it was, called for admitting
the Viet Cong to a share of the
responsibility in Viet Nam. Yet
disbelievers will . point out that
only a few days later the sena-
tor's position was watered down
considerably.
What appeared to be the initial
break came in February during
the height of the controversy ig-
nited by the Fulbright hearings.
In a prepared statement Kennedy
said: "There are three things you
can do with such groups (as the
Viet Cong): kill or repress them,
turn the country over to them,
or admit them to a share of re-
sponsibility. The first two are now
possible only through force of
arms. The last-to admit them to
a share of power and responsibil-
ity is at the heart of the hope for
a negotiated settlement."
That was the trigger. One near
delerious radical exalted, "That'

does it. The power elite has been
smashed." And the front page of
the Chicago Tribune screamed
"Ho Chi Kennedy." Kennedy had
made his move, and Washington
was momentarily stunned.
ON THE 23RD day of February,
three days later, Kennedy explain-
ed that he had not proposed that
the National Liberation Front
should be "automatically" given
a share of power, but only that
they shouldn't be automatically
excluded.
After a White House-Kennedy
telephone session the same day,
Press Secretary Bill D. Moyers
kappeared and said that the kind
of Saigon government created
"should be left to the negotiat-
ing parties." Moyers said that
there was no disagreement be-
tween the administration and the
senator "if Senator Kennedy did

not propose a coalition govern-
ment with Communist participa-
tion before elections are held."
Maxwell Taylor then chimed in,
saying the Kennedy position "is
very, very close to what I con-
sider my position."
Kennedy told reporters, "In dis-
cussing with Mr. Moyers I find no
disagreement between what Mr.
Moyers said and what I have
said."
On February 28, Hubert Hum-
phrey, interviewed on the ABC
program, "Issues and Answers,"
said that the Viet Cong "engage
in assassination, murder, pillage,
conquest, and I can't for the life
of me see why the United States
of America would want to pro-
pose that such an outfit be made
part of any government,"
ON THE SAME day, Kennedy
said on CBS's "Face the Nation,"

"I think statements that are made
that we will never deal with as-
sassins and we will never deal
with murderers makes it difficult
for them to believe that they
should come to the negotiating
table other than to surrender."
That one week in February is
the bulk of the Kennedy Viet Nam
dissent. There have been no new
proposals from the Kennedy camp
since.
In the meantime, Kennedy has
been largely dealing with the is-
sues of Latin American policy,
peace conferences, and urban
problems ,each time standing
slightly to the left of the admin-
istration.
And so the disgruntled radical
elements are confronted with Rob-
ert Kennedy, themselves, and the
clear fact that he is the only ser-
ious contender or successor to
emerge to the left of President
Johnson.

'V

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Rep. Vivian Soft on HUAC

4

Hollow Stand on P.A. 124

FOR THE PAST YEAR the University
has refused to accept state money to
begin planning $28 million worth of
high priority construction projects., It
thinks the strings attached might make
the University into Lansing's puppet.
Last summer the state ,offered $170,000
to begin preliminary studies for six new
buildings as outlined in new legislation
called PA 124. Essentially the school must
let the state budget bureau direct plan-
ning and approve the University's choice
of architect to get the money. Formerly
the University, Michigan State, and
Wayne State did their own planning be-
cause of their constitutionally autono-
mous status.
ONE REASON the University refuses to
comply with PA 124 is that the state
might reject a choice of architect or plan
inadequate facilities 1or the school.
More important, the University fears
that submitting to PA 124 would erode
its historic autonomy.
As Executive Vice-President Marvin Nie -
huss explains, "If we submit to this, the
state might extend control to other as-
pects of the University." In other words,
if the University gives in here, the state
Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor
CLARENCE FANTO HARvEY WASSERMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
JOHN MEREDITH ........ Associate Managing Editor
LEONARD PRATT ........ Associate Managing Editor
3ABE TT COHN .. ..............Personnel Director
CHARLOTTE WOLTER .. Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT CARNEY .. .Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT MOORE.................. Magazine Editor
CHARLES VETZNER ........... .....Sports Editor
JAMES LaSOvAGE . , ....... Associate Sports Editor
JAMES TINDALL ........... Associate Sports Editor
GIL SAMBERG ........ .....Assistant Sports Editor

might impose other restrictions such as
refusing to let operational appropriations
pay the salaries of professors or teachers
that sit-in at draft boards.
WHILE BOTH REASONS hold some the-
oretical merit they bear little rela-
tion to reality. Every other state support-
ed school except the University has com-
plied with PA 124 during the past year.
What were the results?
First, as Niehuss points out, the Legis-
lature has accepted every architect sug-
gested by the other schools under PA
.124. And, as Niehuss says, "The state has
built some fine buildings."
And the other schools have been able to
move ahead rapidly with construction.
Michigan State received $12.8 million for
capital outlays last year while the Uni-
versity got $5 million.
Besides, the Legislature has always been
able to regulate the University's building
program by simply appropriating or not
appropriating funds, PA 124 or not.
The new law itself appears to pose no
threat to the University's building pro-
gram or its autonomous status.
INDEED, if the University really believ-
ed PA 124 jeopardized its autonomy,
then it would have sought an advisory
opinion from the attorney general-as it
has done over earlier construction legis-
lation-or it would have ,gone into the
courts-as it is doing over collective bar-
gaining legislation.
Administrators also imply that, even
if PA 124 itself does not violate the Uni-
versity's constitutional autonomy, it is
the entering wedge in a scheme to do
just that. But this confuses the inno-
cent present with the unforeseeable fu-
ture. If the Legislature someday should
pass laws'which do, indeed, infringe on
+ha TTniPro al'ninnnmv_ the ehnn1 on

To the Editor:
SUNDAY'S editorials included a
defense of Rep. Weston Viv-
ian's silnt reaction to the chal-
lenge upon his position in rela-
tion to the HUAC hearings. In
what seems, of late ,a requisite
condition for publication in The
Daily, the editorial displayed an
admirable combination of political
naivete and verbal palmistry.
According to Cynthia Boyer,
Rep. Vivian's refusal to condemn
openly HUAC was justified on
grounds of political necessity. Miss
Boyer's main line of argument
goes something like this: any such
condemnation would alienate some
segment of the voters, perhaps
jeopardizing Vivian's chances for
reelection, and - the argument
turns on this-since Vivian is a
"true liberal" we, naturally, all

want him reelected. Fos Miss Boy-
er, silence on the matter of HUAC
is the price we must pay for hav-
ing a ".true liberal" in office.
THE FIRST and most obvious
weakness of this argument is
Miss Boyer's evocation of the
phrase "true liberal" to wrap Viv-
ian in a warm cloak of critical
immunity. If one were to attemnt
-in a responsible manner-a def-
inition of the term "true liberal.
it sems to me that a politician's
position on HUAC is exactly the
tyne of evidence one would con-
sider in establishing logical cri-
teria. To excuse Vivian's reticence
on HUAC because he is a "true
liberal" seems to be something of
a contradiction.
Miss Boyer- argument, how-
ever, suffers from a wdrse fault
than mere manipulation of emo-
tively-loaded words. Miss Bover is
nerhans correct when she identi-
fies Vivian's perspective as one
concerned with voter-coalition
building. However, she nimlies
that we, Vivian's constituents,
should share this same persnpe-
tive. She implies that we should
adopt "vote-getting-potential" as
the basis for evaluation of Viv-
ian's actions. It is obvious, how-
ever. that in many cases the per-
sonal goals o fa legislator, e q.,
reelection, and the goals of a con-
stituent, e.g.. condemnation of HTU-
AC, may differ, in which case it
is not surprising that there is a
dispute about policy-alternatives.
An extremely simnlified econom-
ic analogy suggests itself. In a
market situation a producer may
have the goal of maximizing his
profits, while a consumer has the
goal of minimizing his expendi-
tures. If this consumer had a
choice of two identical products,
one for $1 and the other for $2,
all things being equal, it is to be
expected that the consumer will

choose the $1 product, that is to
act rationally in accordance with
his goal. Now, according to Miss
Boyer's line of reasoning, this con-
sumer should adopt the goal (use
the "perspective") of the producer
(maximize profits), thus purchas-
ing the $2 product.
WtITLE I RE ATTZ1 that in
evaluating the political merit of a
legisIntor, one must strike a bal-
ance between the sometimes dis-
parate policy-views o fa politi-
cian. One cannot expect to have
his own policy-views perfectly mir-
rored, in his representative. Be-
cause. for example, one places a
high priority on liberal foreign
policy views,,he may be favorably
disnosed-in general-toward J.
William Fulbright ,even though
one might disagree with his views
on domestic issues. However,no
one would seriously maintain that
one's agreement on foreign poli-
cy issues should change one's views
on domestic issues. It is quite con-
sistent to be generally in favor
of Ren. Vivian and, perhaps, de-
sire his reelection, and still dis-
agree with his actions on a par-
ticular issue.
One further point about Miss
Boyer's editorial is her claim that
Vivian's vote against HUAC ap-
propriations is a satisfactory sub-
stitute for a public condemnation.
There is a significant difference
between the two. It is much
"safer" for a legislator to ex-
press controversial views through
the voting record--which few con-
stituents ever see-than to issue
a public statement. I am not sure
whether Rep. Vivian adopted this
strategy in the matter of HUAC-
neither, however, am I sure that
the possibility of the denial being
true is so clear that it can stand
as the foundation of an argument
such as Miss Boyer's.
-R. Buckles

4

-Tge W OUSWt4&
5ECTIOtI OF 1T4E
e4LL 16
to

fi

8

*
9

Fundamental Axiom-

s
._..rrrr" _..

There is no more fundamental
axiom of American freedom than
the familiar statement: In a free
country, we punish men for crimes

pionage, sabotage, or other actions
endangering our national security.
But we would betray our finest
traditions if we attempted, as this
hill would attmnt +t Merh the

Oil

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan