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