.:1 "N:::{::t{ "{+i':l:. s:."."."J.i:t; J.:'ti:;ti: ^:":" ."i:::+. . . i.....,.+ i::V:'"'. "i
Sh ;{::>zr<r} i:::'+. i."::a. y;:;{}%a :.............:..+ar$ .;:ft":+ .+": tt+ .+.^.+"i if:o:?:.}: Y+ :?::'v.'"r:
....:. . ..:. . .
0DrAtriggatt :mail
Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
POWER
and
POETRY
a
Labor Relations Record May Invite Pressure
by MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH
#N
:.....,.i. V.}:ti :"Y. ."'.':': :1 .::,.""11"{h;.;.;.4:':::::: hi.."1 :::' i'1J.t"::.1V.vf "f:.iii+
.. iiV "!:f Y".M ".1ly.f.,....:::":.".::".11W:W:.1":fii:":..":'.1 :"".': :i':: ': J: tii .'.': ":'11" ".Y. Vi.S ..; .. ..... y......... ..
..".::::::::::."... f:tX::. ... ... .h.... J'...Jh. .. . 1.tC.... :1........ ;}....:L1.. ... .. ....J..11V."." ............... ......1..,. .......5.......1 .h. ... .!: :{., ..tt.,... f i"iit5'. . h1 '.".HY".":: ".5
.:::.11111 .1:::.{... ....::f .J .... ....i.A, ..... .................1.. ...,... ...t....,...... ...1 .....tt.. h...111 L...ti1 :1':'::: .": '::Y: "':ti" '" 1 ,r.Mi::;:;;}:1 ' '1 ..+i+ti '' ' h. .
...h.......l.: h1t ."'t" .ham. : ....7"J .."...i.,:i ..:.............11.......h.............,h....1..........,.... : .1..... {";':;.;:. . 1...1 ..: ' ".. ..V::1y .' L.4 :1.h. + f* - i{ .Stti'. .'
.,.. .... h.: ." ....... ........r w hip*'d.... txv:.i....: r.+v:.,{s4v;:::....,.:+ ":. ...,....... . .........................................................5.......a::"::::..',...:::::. :.,... .i .vr r 4.a....:{v......a4.:".v.nviiM1?.i"' i?.' }W ;?v: .^g: os,}1.'Lt;.;:;,:4.
.... t Sth . ...
Are Free, 420 MAYNARD S., ANN ARBOR, Micu.
Preal 42MANRSTANABRMIH
NEws PHONE: 764-0552
I
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, OCTOBER 4, 1966
NIGHT EDITOR: LAURENCE MEDOW
Voice Sit-In Results:
Urge Local Police Curb ...
THE WHOLE RELATIONSHIP between
the University and the police needs to
be thoroughly reviewed. Charges that en-
forcement agencies have been abusing
their police powers with the tacit approv-
al of the University should not be lightly
brushed off.
Although the University claims that it
has no legal control over the specific po-
lice tactics used in patroling the cam-
pus, it is clear that the University's pow-
ers of persuasion in this area are consid-
erable. Not only does the University pro-
vide about 18 per cent of the police de-
partment budget, but precedent has
shown that the police are open to direc-
tional guidance from the University.
Thus the real issue is not whether the
University can legally compel the police
to cease given tactics, but rather whether
the University administration wants to
persuade the police not to use them. Al-
though the University should ask for a
ruling from the attorney general on the
legal question, operationally the most im-
portant factor is the attitude of the ad-
ministration.
THE FIRST STEP which must be taken
is to establish a joint student-faculty
group to investigate the University's rela-
tionship with not only the local police
but also the FBI and other government
security agencies which roam around
the campus. Among the responsibilities
of this group would be to investigate the
possibility of establishing an independent
police force for the University similar
to that at Wayne State.
In the meantime the University ad-
ministration should assert clearly the fol-
lowing to the local police.
-Police should not take pictures of stu-
dents attending rallies. These pictures
have no functional utility and covertly in-
timidate students from going to, certain
gatherings. Although Director of Student
Organizations J. Duncan Sells requested
last year that the police no longer take
pictures, certain students have alleged
that the police are still snapping photo-
graphs. It is time that the University take'
a stand on this issue.
-Peace officers attending outdoor ral-
lies should be uniformed. According to
Vice-President for Student Affairs Rich-
ard Cutler, police must be at mass rallies
in case of disturbances. If, indeed, that
is the purpose of the police, it would seem
that uniformed police could prevent viol-
ence more effectively by making the
crowd aware of their presence. At the
same time, uniformed policemen could
not go about such unnecessary tasks as
photographing and taking down the
names of students who take literature
from the Voice tables, without their ac-
tions being publicly noticed.
-Meetings of organizations in places
such as the Union should not be attend-
ed by plainclothesmen. In such cases the
probability of violence is practically nil,
and no useful purpose is served by having
detectives in attendance.
DESPITE THEIR PROTESTATIONS of
deep concern, the administration has
been procrastinating on the police issue
since last year. It is about time that the
University policy was clarified and nec-
essary reforms instituted. The University
has no business financing a mugshot col-
lection of students.
--BRUCE WASSERSTEIN
T HE UNIVERSITY'S dismal la-
bor relations record has already
cost it the sympathies of the la-
bor movement in general influ-
ential state legislators, the sup-
port of two Regents and the dis-
illusionment of its own collective
bargaining experts.
But now it appears the Univer-
sity may also be inviting the most
direct sort of pressure, pressure
which would be intensely embar-
rassing and highly painful.
THE UNIVERSITY'S problem
derives from Michigan's Hutchin-
son Act, which prohibits public
employes from striking. It was.
amended by PA 379 in 1965 to
further provide that units of pub-
lic employes could, ,nevertheless,
be represented by labor unions-
and the employer would have to
recognize and bargain with the
unions as the exclusive bargain-
ing agent for those groups of em-
ployes.
Because the State Labor Media-
tion Board polices PA 379 to en-
sure that the public employer and
the public employe bargain in good
faith, the University feels the law
is a violation of its constitutional
autonomy-because it gives a stat-
utory body, the board, the power
to declare a constitutionally-es-
tablished body, the University, in
violation of state law.
The University has, accordingly,
gone into court to try to over-
turn PA 379. The case has been
dragging along at a snail's pace,
but another fight over the act
has not. This was the University's
attempt to get an injunction ban-
ning the board from drawing bar-
gaining unit boundaries and hold-
ing elections to see which unions
shall represent University em-
ployes. The court turned this Uni-
versity attempt down flatly, how-
ever, and that is where the legal '
battle stands at the moment.
BUT REGARDLESS of the out-
come of the legal battle, the Uni-
versity is eventually going to have
to reach a modus vivendi with
its labor unions. They are not go-
- ing to disappear; indeed, they are
probably going to get stronger and
stronger, as have most other pub-
lic employe unions in Michigan.
And hence the University is go-
ing to have to come up with some
collective bargaining formula of
its own-if it wins its case against
PA 379-or else follow PA 379 if
its suit fails.
Yet the University administra-
tion, most notably President
Hatcher, has stiffly resisted any
attempt to work out some collec-
tive bargaining procedure of its
own, despite the February state-
ments of Regents Irene Murphy
and Carl Brablec that this would
truly fulfill the principle of Uni-
versity autonomy.
In fairness, it must be observed
that President Hatcher, whose dis-
torted belief in autonomy has be-
come an idee fixe, is becoming in-
creasingly isolated within the Uni-
versity administration. Executive
Vice-President Marvin L. Niehuss
opposed the idea of even going
into the courts to overturn PA
379; nobody doubts that Literary
College Dean William Haber has
ever been sold on opposing col-
lective bargaining: and none of
the University's collective bargain-
ing experts in the Law School,
the business administration school,
the institute for labor and indus-
trial relations, and the economics
department agrees with Hatcher's
philosophy.
BUT "THE UNIVERSITY" -
which in this context is more and
more becoming to mean President
Hatcher-is continuing its oppo-
sition to collective bargaining here.
Despite the success of the sys-
tem President Kennedy set up by
executive order in the federal gov-
ernment and the generally satis-
factory record of public employe
bargaining elsewhere, President
Hatcher on September 22 said "the
ancient and weary bitterness of
labor-management strife and war-
fare should not be carried into the
public service or into a modern
university environment."
According to the University's
news release, he also called on law-
yers and law professors for "fresh
perspectives and new approaches
to employe relations in the public
sector" - ironic because he has
been ignoring the "fresh perspec-
tives" the University's own experts
have been volunteering to him for
over 12 months.
President Hatcher is, it is under-
stood, very concerned and angry
with the treatment his remarks
on unions have received in the
press-because, he is said to feel,
they were misconstrued. Thus,
Jack Hamilton, the assistant to
the vice-president for university
relations, claimed recently Hatch-
er wasn't questioning the rights of
public employes to bargain collec-
tively-which must have sounded
odd, even to a casual student of
labor relations.
BUT IT COULD BE that the ad-
verse reaction to Hatcher's re-
marks is due not to any misun-
derstanding of them, but a very
clear understanding of them. The
Greeks observed that when God
wants to punish us terribly he
gives us what we deserve: it ap-
pears the same is true of the Uni-
versity's stand on unions.
And it appears that more of the
same is coming. Although the
AFL-CIO decided at the last min-
ute not to boycott the University's
education programs-primarily be-
cause it hoped the University
might be more rational and be-
cause Wayne State University
would find it embarrassing to have
to abandon the labor institute it
operates jointly with the Univer-
sity-the unions here have some-
thing else up their sleeve.
ONE OF THE UNIONS is now
considering appealing all its em-
ploye grievance cases all the way
up to the Regents-a right guar-
anteed by University policy. If
each of the three unions seeking
recognition by the University
adopts this tactic, the Regents,
with a large docket of cases be-
fore them, would be immobilized,
subjected to itnense public pres-
sure to reach an accommodation
and increasingly acquire the ap-
pearance of a group of hapless
clowns.
It is not a very appealing pros-
pect, but it is imminent. And un-
less the University gingerly gets
off its isolated and questionable
perch, the unions will probably
come in with both feet.
p0
Johnson Image Falters Under Attack
.. A Dangerous Meeting*
By DAVID BERSON
IN OCTOBER 1966, it seems hard
to believe that, less than two
years ago, President Lyndon John-
son was being hailed as the most
adroit political manipulator in
American history. "Landslide Lyn-
don" he was tagged after making
a mockery of the two party sys-
tem in the 1964 election against
Barry Goldwater. Now the poli-
tical pundits are busying them-
selves with new tags for the
President as the 1966 election
looms as a major setback for
Johnson.
When the President dealt con-
servatism and the Republican
Party those serious blows in 1964,
the word was that Lyndon John-
son was the man in command.
It was thought that here was a
man who had mastered the com-
plexities of the most challenging
job in the land as they had never
been before.
He had Congress under his wing
and vote-gathering power was
nearly unparalleled. But in these
days LBJ is a man on the ropes,
looking for a little daylight to
get back into the match.
A CLUE to the depth of the
Johnson tumble came last Satur-
day when the New York Times
reported that Johnson intended
to scrap his plans for extensive
stumping in the current campaign.
The article gave weight to the
vague notion that Johnson's grass
roots appearance would do most
Democrats more harm than good.
In the South, the two year
retreat from tradition has appar-
ently come to and end. Segrega-
tionists running on anti-Johnson,
anti-federal government, and an-
ti-integration tickets will chalk
up victories not only in Alabama
and Mississippi" but in Georgia,
Louisiana, and perhaps even Tex-
as. Last week, Lester Maddox,
the one-time restauranteur, de-
feated moderates in Georgia, and
his victory is likely in November.
In the North, Republicans feast-
ing on the white backlash will
probably win back the seats they
lost in the 1964 massacre, and
Democrats like George Mahoney,
running on "Your house is your
castle-vote to protect it" are like-
ly victors. Mahoney, a 65-year-
old paving contractor, defeated
liberal Rep. Carlton Sickles and
Thomas Finan, the heir to the
Tawes Machine, in the Maryland
gubernatorial primary.
IN NOVEMBER, the President
will face a Congress which came
in not as a reaction to Goldwater-
ism, but to Johnsonism. In this
year, the House and the Senate
have been sputtering along, re-
flecting the turnabout, held up* in
Washington in October rather
than facing the tough questions
waiting for them at home.
The questions are simple and
direct, "What about inflation?",
"What about the war?" and
"What about the civil rights move-
ment?" Johnson's Republican op-
ponents and some of his former
supporters have two answers: fi-
nancial bungling, and every man
has the right to do whathe rpleases
with his property. Viet Nam, which
costs the American people around
half of their income tax dollars,
has costover 5000 lives and in-
volves over 300,000 men is not a
major issue, only a significant
event.
IN 1964, the economy was bub-
bling, and Johnson could say,
"Never before have the American
people enjoyed as much contin-
ued prosperity." In 1964, civil
rights was a matter of being for
or against. It was Wallace versus
King, and if anybody won that
one, it was King. In 1964 Viet
Nam was still a far off place
where Americans were stationed
on a peacekeeping ,order-main-
taming mission, as the President
scoffed at his opponents' call for
victory in Asia, assuring the Amer-
ican people that the U.S. was
not going to become involved in
a major war in Southeast Asia.
In 1966, the economy reels
from one strike to another price
increase, from an assertion of ap-
propriate wage-price guidelines to
rising food prices. In 1966, what
"being for civil rights" means is
not clear. Is it being for integra-
tion? Is it for shared power? Is
it for riots? Where there was the
neat dichotomy between those who
were true human beings and those
who were not? There is now a
split within the black leadership,
and questioning if being liberal
and being moderate means selling
homes to Negroes.
AND, ALTHOUGH nobody will
stick their necks out and propose
a few solutions to the Viet Nam
war, detracting from the major is-
sues, the war is in the papers
every day, men are dying every
ped up, too. Once, Johnson was
from anybody's point of view. It
is something to complain about
every single day.
Even the secondary proposals of
the Johnson administration are
running into a little trouble. Last
week the House Republican lead-
ership stirred up a little trouble
over the anti-poverty program.
Personal attacks have been step-
ped up ,too. Once, Johnson was
the folksy old "Uncle Cornpone,"
a bit unmannered, but refreshing
in a wry"way even when he show-
ed off his gall bladder scar. Now
he is the guy who urges Americans
to seeit first while his daughter
Lynda tramps around Europe; and
the humble ex-school teacher
whose other daughter's marriage
resembles a coronation. Then,
there is Lady Bird.
IF THE PRESIDENT finds the
current situation discouraging, he
is likely to be joined in these
feelings by liberals, "true liber-
als," and radicals. The 1964 elec-
tion was taken as an affirmation
of stout liberalism in this country.
For once, it seemed, that old bat-
ties between Northern liberals and
Southern reactionaries and re-
spectable conservatives were over.
"The Establishment" was now
"The Liberal Establishment" and
liberals could get down to the
business of securing the welfare
. state, while radicals could take
dead aim on th6 wishy-washy lib-
erals.
True, Lyndon Johnson's creden-
tials were dubious for the leader
of a Liberal Establishment. He was
a pragmatist, a wheeler-dealer
who nobody was really sure saw
the light. But he was the man who
could get the job done, and that
was what really counted. Now the
liberals could play the nasty game
of politics, and maybe it wouldn't
be so bad after all.
THAT KIND of thinking is burn-
igitself out as the November
elections grow nearer. The new
attitude is something like "Back
to, the drawing board," because
Lyndon Johnson, master politician,
can't go to the hinterland, for
fear that he will make his pre-
dicament even more complex.
The only things that can bail
him out, get him back in the
fight, are a long way from around
the corner. The civil rights move-
ment isn't going to be pacified.
There will be more riots, more re-
bellions, more infighting and more
victories for the forces of open
housing. The end to the Viet Nam
war isn't in sight. The economy
needs more than reform.
The Great Society has come a
long way, maybe as far as it will
go, and President Johnson is go-
ing to have to stay at the wheel
without the steering or throttle
control he once enjoyed.
There is alittle talk of saviours:
Robert Kennedy of New York,
George Romney of Michigan,
George Wallace of Alabama are
possibilities, but Kennedy has only
a few answers, Romney fewer,
and Wallace, the wrong ones.
FOR LYNDON JOHNSON, the
control board is now the hot
seat, and the man who was so
carefully trying to carve himself
a pedestal of pride for future gen-
erations, can now barely hope to
brea keven.
Along with him, come the well-
wishers, and good samaritans, the
articulate, educated people who
liked to imagine they were climb-
ing to the top with him. The
tenacious ones will go back to
the front lines, to try and stamp
out the bush fires. Others won't,
either convincing themselves that
it is all a bad dream or succumb-
ing to combat fatigue.
Some will even welcome the new
battles because they will break up
the fright of the apparent success.
The only trouble is they are the
old battles, and, in the midst of
a war which somehow sneaked up
on us all and gets closer to home
every day, the wrong battles.
YESTERDAY'S open meeting on the re-
lationship between the police and the
University was an unnecessary display
that may seriously retard the develop-
ment of effective communication among
students, faculty and administrators at
the University.
Although a number of intelligent ques-
tions were directed to the vice-presidents
in attendance, several members of Voice
Political Party showed themselves incap-
able of self-control. That the meeting
did not degenerate into an abusive har-
angue, as a similar session did six weeks
ago, is to the credit of Student Govern-
ment Council President Edward Robin-
son, who, as moderator, firmly silenced
potential hecklers and maintained some
semblance of decorum.
THE DETAILS of the meeting, however,
are much less important than how and
why it came about and what it may mean
in the future.
First, adequate means for student and
faculty participation in the decision-
making process at the University do not
yet exist. Administrators' doors may be
open, but some of them are not open very
far. Had they been open a little wider,
Voice could not have found an excuse for
Thursday's sit-in and yesterday's ses-
sion with the vice-presidents.
Nevertheless, Voice acted upon an ex-
cuse, not a reason. Finding one door open
only a crack, Voice members failed to ex-
plore other possibilities for presenting
their case when there was good reason to
believe that patience would have yielded
fair treatment from the administration.
The result was the pointless series of
incidents culminating in yesterday's
meeting.
THE EVENTS of the past few days, of
course, cannot be reversed. The prob-
lem now is for responsible members of
the, University community to prevent
them from obscuring discussion on the
immediate issue of police on campus and
from retarding development of a more
productive dialogue among students, fac-
ulty and administrators.
There is a real danger here. Mass
meetings tend to make administrators
and students adversaries in an atmos-
phere more apt to breed hostility and
distrust than to encourage agreement.
If students and faculty do not now
demonstrate a willingness to pursue the
issues raised within established avenues
for faculty-student participation, and if
the administration reacts angrily against
the irrational behavior of a small number
of students without considering the mer-
its of the issues in question and the rights
of those students interested in rational
discussion, then yesterday's meeting will
prove a major step in the breakdown of
communications between the administra-
tion and the rest of the University com-
munity.
-JOHN MEREDITH
Associate Managing Editor
,p
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
B oulding 's
Views of Peace Candidacy
Student Loyalty Evaluation:
Threat to Free Thought
THE DISCLOSURE last week by Dean
William Haber of the literary college
that there will be an investigation into
the eight-year-old chemistry department
practice of "personality evaluation,"
raises some questions about the efficiency
of the turning wheels of the University
bureaucracy.
The question in point is a request ex-
tended to teaching fellows in introductory
chemistry courses to qualitatively com-
ment on a student's loyalty to the United
States ("Do you know of any facts indi-
cating disloyalty to the United States? If
so, state them.").
There is no need to go into a detailed
criticism of this form of an involuntary
"loyalty oath." The proliferation in the
NEITHER DO THE MEANS of "evalua-
tion" used by the department have to
be thoroughly examined. It should be evi-
dent that one can hardly expect a labora-
tory instructor devoted to imparting the
intricacies of the benzine ring to his stu-
dents to be able to pass judgment on his
pupils' political and social sympathies.
The criticism, therefore, should not be
aimed at a chemistry department slow in
academic realization and lax in revoking
the question. Of importance is the fact
that Dean Haber, who is entrusted by the
University's Regents with supervisory
reign over his college's activities, knew
nothing of the practice in dispute until
The Daily so informed him.
To the Editor:
I FIND MYSELF in sharp but I
hope friendly disagreement
with the analysis of the possible
efforts of a "peace candidate"~ in
the coming election, as given by
Messrs Wasserman, Austin and
Cocks.
In the first place, their analysis
of the effects of a peace candidate
on the relative chances of election
for the candidates of the two old
parties seems to me quite ill-
founded. It is true that probably
most of the active supporters of
the peace candidate think of
themselves as Democrats. The
total result of the peace candidacy,
however, on the outcome of the
election is a result of a large com-
plex of factors, many of which are
favorable to the Democratic can-
didate. The peace candidate, for
instance, will result in political
arousal and almost certainly in
a substantial increase in the num-
ber of votes cast.
If the peace candidate is per-
ceived as more of a "threat" to the
Democrat than to the Republican
this will mobilize many Democrats
who otherwise might not have
voted. It will almost certainly
mobilize many more Democrats
than Republicans.
IN THE SECOND PLACE, it is
quite improper to assume without
further knowledge that even those
who would have voted anyway
would have voted mainly for the
Democratic candidate in the ab-
surely convince them that they
made a mistake. They will not
forget that it was Eisenhower's
avowed intention toend the Ko-
rean War, which almost certainly
led to his election in 1952.
THERE IS GOOD REASON to
believe, therefore, that a substan-
tial proportion of the support for
the peace candidate, at least in
terms of votes, will come from
people who would otherwise have
voted for the Republican ticket,
The truth is, of course, that we do
not know enough about the elec-
toral system at the moment to be
able to make any secure predic-
tions about the effect of a peace
candidate on the outcome of the
current election.
It will be a great political mis-
take on the part of the supporters
of the existing parties to under-
estimate the intensity and perhaps
even the extent of the moral out-
rage which the existing inter-
national posture of the United
States is producing among its sen-
sitive citizens. When very deep
political needs are not being met
by an existing system it is ripe
for change.
THE OBJECTIVES of the peace
party are politically realistic and
feasible. They involve a radical re-
evaluation of the national image
of the United States in the direc-
tion of the voluntary renunciation
of power. This in itself of course
will not produce peace. It is, how-
kind, traditional party loyalties
must bow before the moral im-
perative. There are costs involved
in this, as there are in every-
thing.
I myself would regret very
much the defeat of Congressman
Vivian (assuming, that is, that
the peace candidate is unlikely
in fact to be elected, especially
as a write-in), both because I
admire him as a person and be-
cause he has been a conscientious,
hard-working and very intelligent
congressman.
AS I HAVE INDICATED above,
I think there are good reasons to
suppose that a peace candidate
will improve his chances of elec-
tion rather than diminish them.
If it did in fact diminish them I
would regard this as a cost. The
gain, however, involved in wide-
ning the political agenda and in-
troducing a new and lively stream
of thought into the stagnant con-
sensus of American political life
seems to me to be worth quite a
large cost.
I am supporting the peace can-
didate therefore not merely be-
cause she happens to be my wife
but because I believe most strong-
ly that this is the time and the
place for a movement of this
kind.
-Kenneth E. Boulding
Professor of Economics
those of other Big Ten schools
however.
in the smaller men's colleges of
the East (Williams, Amherst, Wes-
leyan, Trinity, etc.) where the
present facilities were built at least
twenty years ago for total male
enrollments of 700 to 800 (now
expanded to 1000-1200), the num-
ber of squash courts, for example,
is at least ten and usually fifteen
to twenty. Compare this with the
1928 contribution of ten squash
courts to a major university now
serving over 16,000 male students.
Similar comparisons could be
made for other sports.
THE CRUCIAL PROBLEM, of
course, is that of the Administra-
tion's attitude to the whole af-
fair. With its current approach
to student matters, which might
someday be immortalized by the
writing of a play entitled "I Am
a Parking Meter," the idea of
shelling out money for student
benefit is obviously not a matter
to be put under the control of any
recognizable authority which can
be confronted with the problem.
The issue is further dramatized
by the current construction of an
edifice rather euphemistically ti-
tled the University Events Build-
ing. The cost of its construction is
an Event, but otherwise the re-
wards of the investment are few:
national figures and university
presidents will speak there at
graduations if it happens to rain;
basketball games and gymnastic
few millenniums from now when
they excavate the two structures.
After climbing down all those
steps and seats, in one stone, in
the other wood, they will discover
grass and decayed wood at the
bottom of the respective digs.
Obviously, part of a complex
system of worship and ritual they
will conclude-and they'll be right.
-Charles Smith, Grad.
Draft Referendum
To the Editor:
REGARDING SGC's approved
draft referendum, hasn't a
glaring omission been made? The
second part of the referendum
offers the student three "choices"
and no basic alternative. Once
again what is being debated is
the means by which we are to be
disposed of, ,not whether we are
disposable.
The issue of whether the Uni-
versity should cooperate with the
Selective Service generates the
overwhelming, emotional reaction
that it does precisely because the
rights of students are being cir-
cumvented in a way that cannot
be ignored.
The issue is not the Viet Nam
war, which is merely a more blat-
ant example of an end we must
serve. Moral judgments and com-
pulsion are niot compatible.
SO WE ARE to decide whether
1) all men are to serve voluntar-