Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
POERald The Once and / Future Residen aetial Colleg%e
>POETRY by MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH
............ ....:}J.4; Fy &r,....Lb'{G'..}...........}:"........:{:............... G1..
WWROMUMMO-- -_77
re o Are ee 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
NEws PHONE: 764-0552
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 11, 1966
NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT KLIVANS
.. ..
Nu Sigma Nu
Non-taxable Fraternity
THE UNIVERSITY'S decision to help fi-
nance a new chapter house for Nu
Sigma Nu, a medical fraternity, has solv-
ed that fraternity's financial problems,
but it raises other questions, which may
be much more difficult to answer.
The fraternity complained that it was
in need of a new house, and that funds
could not be raised through the normal
contributions from alumni. Gifford Up-
john, president of Upjohn, Inc., a phar-
maceutical firm, then suggested that the
fraternity ask the University to build and
own the new house. Money would be pro-
vided by a special fund set up by the
University expressly for the future house.
Upjohn also promised to contribute a
substantial amount of money to the fund.
BY ALLOWING the University to own
and build the house, the alumni's con-
n would be tax deductable as
contributions to an educational institu-
tion, Also, because the new house would
be owned by the University, it would be
exempt from local property taxes.
John Feldkamp, director of housing,
said that the University would only sup-
port the rebuilding of such houses if his
office saw a need for the building, and if
money for the program could not be rais-
ed by any other means. If used sparing-
ly, this policy is fine. However, if it is
followed indiscriminately, and these serv-
ices made available to all organizations,
some interesting situations could develop.
FIRST, IF ONE GROUP of alumni can
make such a contribution to their old
fraternity, then other alumni who have
similar ties with their fraternities, might
insist on equal treatment. If a fraternity
like Nu Sigma Nu with an abundance of
wealthy doctors as alumni must resort to
tax gimmicks to raise funds, then it is
more than likely that other houses with*
fewer prominent alumni, will insist on
the same privilege.
Secondly, will this tax sanction only
be offered to the privileged elite who
want to go Greek? If -the University al-
lows this, it is becoming a tool of the
fraternities. It is not furthering its own
ends, but those of a private group.
Thirdly, if the University, in a sense of
equity, would extend this privilege to
other groups who want to raise funds,
this would lead to all sorts of gross viola-
tions of the privilege of tax exemption. In
this case the University would allow itself
to become a tool of all minority groups
on campus. Again they would be further-
ing the ends of these groups, and not
those of the University community as a
whole.
Fourthly, University ownership of a
fraternity also exempts its members from
payment of real estate taxes. Fraternities,
especially when placed in or near resi-
dential areas, make use of city facilities.
Even when they do pay taxes, they pay
proportionately less than others, consid-
ering the number of persons living in the
house. The University also could become
a vehicle to avoid paying real estate
taxes.
THE UNIVERSITY should treat its tax
, exempt status as a privilege, that
should be used only in instances which
benefit the academic and cultural pur-
poses of the college community; not as a
means of benefiting the social needs of
private organizations. A lack of respect
for this position can only lead to a ques-
tioning of the University's integrity in
such matters. The gains from such a pol-
icy are limited to a minority of students,
with few benefits for the rest of the com-
munity.,
Unless the University plans to make it-
self an active owner of the fraternity
houses, and not just a paper landlord,
then it should not extend its name and
reputation to fraternities to be used le-
gally.
-RON KLEMPNER
AS THE UNIVERSITY wends its
merry way toward the comple-
tion of its $55M fund drive, one
gets the unavoidable impression
that the Residential College -
probably the single most impor-
tant item on the University's
shopping list-will wind up get-
ting nothing.
The drive has netted nearly $50
million so far-about $48 million
in earmarked money, and some $2
million in no-strings gifts. The
Residential College hasn't gotten a
dime of the restricted money; and
there are literally dozens of other
deserving University projects
which could use a part of the $2
million.
To make the obvious obvious, if
this trend continues the $11.55
million Residential College will not
only have to be cut back even
more (the lack of ready money has
already forced planners to cut out
$1.45 million from earlier plans).
The lack of money for the Res-
idential College is also going to
retard its development-such as a
long delay in getting its science
and library buildings, for exam-
ple, which are already planned for
only in the distant future.
AND THE LACK of money for
the college could also weigh heav-
ily on the literary college, which is
already in serious need of new
facilities like a new chemistry
building and a romance language
building.
It is scarcely a very appealing
prospect. The principle behind the
Residential College-to create the
atmosphere of a small, 1200-stu-
dent college while retaining the
intellectual and cultural resources
of a large university-is, as Presi-
dent Hatcher says, an attack on
one of the fundamental problems
of universities and of society at
large.
All.agree that it would thus be
a tragedy for the Residential Col-
lege to die stillborn, without a
chance to prove its worth. But
there appears to be no activity at
the moment which will ensure that
this will not happen - which
means, to be concrete, that no
one seems to be having much suc-
cess at raising money for the
college.
PRESIDENT HATCHER, Regent
Paul Goebel and others are, to be
sure, beating the bushes for money
for the college. Regent Alvin Bent-
ley, in charge of special gifts, is
working with the faculty plan-
ning committee for the college and
others to develop donor "pack-
ages."
Yet the visions of eager donors
which danced in administrators'
heads - most notably the Presi-
dent's - last spring have quite
obviously failed to materialize. De-
spite the combined efforts of fac-
ulty, administrators and alumni,
the Residential College has not a
cent more now than it did in
April, when the Regents approved
plans for the college.
It would be foolish to try, to
find a "scapegoat," for there is
none. The major cause for the
Residential College's continuing
poverty is the fact that apparent-
ly nobody wants to give any money
for it; there is very little anybody
can do to change that.
BUT THERE are two things
which the University should begin
to consider-now-even as it re-
doubles its efforts to conclude the
$55M fund drive with the entire
$4 million President Hatcher has
set as the Residential College's
goal in that drive.
First, the University should
recognize that aggregate figures-
$55 million, for example - are
meaningless if their composition
fails to achieve what, in fact, the
$55M drive is trying to do: to en-
sure "the vital margin of excel-
lence."
Ten million dollars of the nearly
$50 million already collected goes
for a highway safety research in-
stitute, for example--but nobody,
not even Arjay Miller, kids him-
self that a dime of that money
will "ensure the vital margin of
excellence," regardless of what-
ever else it might do. .
THUS, WHEN the University
raises the $55 million which is its
goal, it should simply raise the
goal-and refuse to count as part
of its receipts towards that goal
anything which does not contri-
bute towards its "shopping list."
It may make fund-raising seem
more difficult, but the ease at get-
ting $10 million for an indoor
plumbing institute has no relation
to such an institute's contribution
to "excellence."
Second, the University is also
clearly going to have to solve its
problems with the state legislature
in the field of construction.
The University objects to a
state law which requires state
approval of university construc-
tion plans and choice of archi-
tects as an invasion of constitu-
tional autonomy. In an attempt to
avoid the law's restrictions, the
University refuses to take money
on the law's terms.
WHETHER OR not the law is
constitutional is a matter for the
courts. It would certainly seem
wise, however, for the University
to settle the question-it may need
some legislative support for the
Residential College in the future,
and it will surely need state
money for a number of other long-
overdue buildings.
The signs of strain from the
freeze on state money are already
obvious. For the first time, stu-
dent tuition fees are being used to
finance one building (the new
Administration building - a su-
preme irony!): the "evening-out"
of student tuition scales, which
netted about $330,000. went to
help build the University Events
Building.
But the University's needs are
so great that this kind of back-
door financing probably will not
be possible much longer, and
eventually state money will be the
only way out.
THUS THE UNIVERSITY ought
to seek Attorney General Frank
Kelley's advisory opinion on the
constitutionality of the construc-
tion law. Kelley has already ruled
an earlier law violates university
autonomy: he hinted here last
week that he is sympathetic to the
University's plea for autonomy:
and the University has already
sought to overturn another law,
concerning collective bargaining,
as unconstitutional. Why not test
this one?
If the University is serious
about starting the Residential
College on a firm basis, it should
renew a drive for funds and act
on its convictions concerning state
construction law. Anything else
would be hypocritical; anything
else would have unsolved a central
problem of all big universities-
and probably create a few new
ones.
Just When
Things
Were Going So Well
THE ADVOCATES of student
participation have been having
a rough time lately. And just when
it looked like things were going so
well.
Judging by the speeches of Uni-
versity administrators over the
past year, the establishment of
new student advisory groups, the
new policy in the OSA, and finally
the recent Knauss Report, one
would think that the University
was going to take the lead and
grant students real decision-mak-'
ing power.
Some still think so. But the
statements and actions of the so-
called "liberals" within the admin-
istration following the sit-in in the
administration building indicates
otherwise.
There's been an administrative
backlash.
THE SAME people who ac-
knowledged the rights of students
and faculty to make policy for
this University are now concerned
with other things: the image of
their University; the efficiency of
their operations; law and order.
We'll give you participation, they
say, but this is still going to be
an administration-run University.
Hmm.
The contradiction is the result
of several factors. First, the ad-
ministrators are beginning to real-
ize what the rhetoric they've been
using really means to students.
And they don't like it.
For in fact, there are two con-
ceptions here. The 'student par-
ticipation' of the administration-
meaning just participation, and
that of the students-meaning ac-
tual student decision-making pow-
er, to which they're entitled sim-
ply as human beings.
The administrators' statements
on participation have given rise to
greater student hopes for actual
power.
The sit-in was the result of the
frustration of these" expectations,
Students are realizing too, that
they and the administration are
talking about two different things.
THE ADMINISTRATION hoped
to satisfy the demands of students
by talking student participation.
Now they must deal with the frus-
tration that they have helped to
create. (This of course is aside
from the central point that stu-
dents have a right to authority in
the areas they know best and not
just an advisory status.)
The administrators must realize
that some things are going to be
out of their control-if they grant
students and faculty the rights
they deserve. Efficiency simply
can't be as great when power
presently in one place is divided
among students, administrators
and faculty. Like those in the
North who condemned the actions
of Selma, but had different feel-
ings about open-housing, the Uni-
versity administration isn't an-
xious to accept what those stu-
dents are demanding.
THE SECOND reason for the
University reaction last week was
mis - understanding. Wilbur K.
Pierpont obviously cannot conceive
of the frustrations that caused
The Associates
by carney and wolter
the members of Voice to sit-in.
And Mr. Pierpont is not an ex-
ception.
These students are serious. They
have a right to decide about things'
that concern them, and they aren't
about to be told, "I don't talk to
students."
NOR ARE THEY about to ac-
cept to Mr. Pierpont's argument
that they should first go to SOC
with their problems, on grounds
that SGC is the students' legiti-
mate power. SGC's legitimate al-
right, it just isn't power. Richard
L. Cutler's veto right proves it.
And if SGC can't act (without
administration a p p r o v a 1) why
should they let it do the talking
they can do just as well them-
selves?
In the police affair, all they
wanted to do was talk to Pierpont,
which isn't too much to ask. Es-
pecially since their group is effect-
ed more than any other by the
police camera force.
BUT IF THE administrators are
getting some shocking realizations,
the advocates of student power
will eventually get some of their
own.
For these students-Voice is a
good example - are liberals. And
this is not a liberal campus. Nor
is SGC a traditionally liberal body.
Think back a few years, and you
know what I mean. This campus
is a picture of the middle class en-
vironment which provides it with
students.
The faculty is no exception.
Presently, the liberal members
have had considerable interests.
But remember the administration
is protecting the interests of the
remainder of the faculty. (And
even then, class ranking, the grade
system and other such non-liberal
policies are present.)
THINGS WILL change when
faculty is granted real power.
In fact, when the days of stu-
dent power finally arrive, the ad-
vocates of liberal policy may have,
more trouble than they're having
now.
While they're still the major
participators, things are OK. But
when the students here get used
to real decision making power,
they'll be more participation. And
the apathetic today, will be con-
servatives then.
AS IN THE case of the admin-.
istrators, the liberals are going to
discover that democracy isn't al-
ways efficient.
They'll discover that demonstra-
tions and marches and such things
just don't pack it with their con-
servative peers. They'll have to re-
learn the old SDS system com -
munication. They'll have to learn
to organize the middle class:
But that's a way off at present.
Another problem is more pressing.
That problem is the establishment
of a constitution defining in de-
tail the domain of administration,
the faculty and the students. Sort
of a checks and balances system.
FOR STUDENT power will not
merely evolve. The administration
reaction last week revealed the
impasse to that power. And since
the administration is presently
calling the shots, they'll win.
With a concrete legal docu-
ment, however, the students and
faculty will have first, a means of
coalition, and secondly, a positive
issue upon which to fight.
They will no longer be reacting,
they'll have the initiative.
If the administration finally ac-
cepts their position, the document
can only help to speed and ease
the period of transition.
Some of the more apathetic
would argue that the realization
of student and faculty power just
ain't worth all the effort it'll take
to solve the problems we've posed.
Nothing good be farther from the
truth.
But the total result is worth it.
First, because students and fac-
ulty will have power they're en-
titled too. But more important,
because this University will pro-
vide a more relevant education
for the real world.
IT WILL TAKE the same effort
here to get things done that it
does in the world of post-educa-
tion. People on this campus will
have to learn to communicate.
That kind of training is badly
needed.
,+
First Degree Murder
Comes in Second
EVER SINCE the Warren Commission
report ;cA the assassination of Presi-
dent Kennedy was issued, the mystery
surrounding the event has declined to
nothing among the majority of citizens
in this country. It is generally accepted
that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and
that Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby
to avenge the assassination.
The reversal of Ruby's murder convic-
tion and death sentence by the Texas
Court of Criminal Appeals last week
seems to add support, however, to the
widespread belief in Europe and the.
claims by American skeptics that Ruby
was acting as a. member of a complex
conspiracy to silence Oswald, with the
expectation that he would escape the
electric chair.
There seems to be little doubt that Ru-
by's trial had been conducted under ques-
tionable circumstances. The atmosphere
was one of great excitement, and Judge
Joe B. Brown, Sr. made several question-
able rulings. Yet, the reason given by
the Appeals Court for its reversal was
not, as had been expected, that a change
of venue to a county other than Dallas
was not granted:
THE REASON was that Judge Brown ad-
mitted as evidence testimony from a
Dallas police officer who said that Ruby
told him shortly after he killed Oswald
Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINOSWORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor
CLARENCE PANTO HARVEY WASSERMAY
Managing Editor editorial Director
LEONARD PRATT........ Associate Managing Editor
JTOHN MEREDITH....... Associate Managing Editor
CHARLOTTE WOLTER . .Associate Editorial Direct
ROBERT CARNEY ...... Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT MOORE..................Magazine Editor
BABETTE COHN................Personnel Director
NIGHT EDITORS: Michael Heffer, Merle Jacob, Rob-
ert Klivans, Laurence Medow, Roger Rapoport, Shir-
ley Rosick, Neil Shister,
CHARLES VETZNER..............Sports Editor
JAMES TINDALL.........Associate Sports Editor
JAMES LaSOVAGE.........Associate Sports Editor
OIL SAMBERO.............Assistant Sports Editor.
h n/T11Td 11!^.Ti'.T 'MlY'1YT ~ fb, !".- wt. !?..,4wi .'.T .n w
that he had planned to do it for two days
if a chance arose.
The reversal on this ground was based
on a 41-year-old Texas statute ruling out
any oral statements made by a defend-
ant "while he is in the custody of an
officer." Because the remarks were made
from 10 to,40 minutes after the shooting
took place, the court ruled that Judge
Brown should not have used his preroga-
tive to admit the evidence as a spontan-
eous confession.
By ruling this testimony inadmissable,
the Appeals Court has removed all the
evidence of premeditation. This would
permit only a conviction of murder with-
out malice at the new trial ordered by the
Appeals Court to be held in another
county and presided over by another
judge.
THE PENALTY for murder without mal-
ice is five years. With the time Ruby
has already served plus the time he is
likely to serve before all his appeals have
been exhausted, he will more than likely
be a free man by the time he is finally
convicted, if at all.
This fact-that in all likelihood Ruby
will never go to the electric chair-gives
added emphasis to the claims that he was
a member of a conspiracy to assassinate
the President, and killed Oswald to silence
him.
The claims that the courts are in on a
plot to "get Ruby off" are, of course, ab-
surd. They do not detract, however, from
the fact that Ruby probably knew, if the
murder was premeditated, that he would
never be executed with his background of
epilepsy and the great excitement which
would undoubtedly surround the trial.
THOUGH THERE was no evidence in
the Warren Report or at the trial to
indicate that Ruby was in fact a member
of a conspiracy. However, the action of
the court last week has, at least, made
it possible for the supporters of this
theory to point to it and say that there
is still some question. They say that, if
Ruby was part of a complex conspiracy
led by people in high governmental posi-
tion these neonle wouldn not have al-
'Old Politicians Never Die They Just .0
l*
By STEPHEN FIRSHEIN
LATELY we have been subject-
ed to more of those old re-
runs starring the Rosencrantz and
Guilderstein of the Republicans,
Ike and Dick.
Eisenhower, the Grand Old Pa-
triarch of the Grand Old Party,
spends less time on his namesake
college in New York, than he
does on politicking. He contin-
ues to prove that old soldiers
never die-they just publish their
memoirs, make asinine speeches,
and write dull articles for Read-
er's Digest.
In one such piece a few months
litical hibernation to propose a
ago, Eisenhower came out of po-
mandatory military draft for all
18-year-olds to make "men" of
them, prevent juvenile delinquen-
cy, abolish illiteracy, and do all
sorts of other swell things.
THE DRAFT and the war con-
tinuing to preoccupy his thoughts,
he gave a press conference on
He noted that the gradual esca-
September 30 to clarify his views.
lation of the fighting posed an
eventual "threat to the freedoms
we are advocating" and called
for "as much force as we need
to win." An incredulous reporter,
asked whether this included nu-
clear weapons. "I'd take any ac-
tion to win," replied the former
President, presumably forgetting
the tightrope-walking he had to
do in Korea.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch,
President Johnson shed his non-
partisan "give-me-your-tired-your
poor" aura, and laced into Re-
publican criticism of his admin-
istratinn "Thev have no eonstrue-
tensions. They don't know what
to do about crime in the streets,
or how to end the war in Viet
Nam. But they do know that if
they can scare people, they may
win a few votes."
"They," it appears, means main-
ly Richard M. Nixon, the man
who lost the presidency because
of a lousy makeup job. He is deep-
ly immersed in the GOP cam-
paign circuit and is obciously get-
ting under Johnson's tender skin.
NIXON CONTINUES to have
tremendous political appeal across
the country, as he stumps on be-
half of Republican candidates for
the House and Senate. He will
show up in some 60 districts be-
tween now and November. He
senses a widespread discontent
with Johnson, and hopes to make
sizable inroads into the predom-
inantly Democratic Congress.
He now has considerable finan-
cial security, to the tune of $200,-
000 per year from his senior par-
tnership in the law firm of Nixon,
Medge, Rose, Guthrie and Alex-
ander and from an intense speak-
ing and writing scnedule. He is
untarnished by the Goldwater dis-
aster, although he faithfully back-
ed the party ticket and platform
in 1964. And he has learned from
Barry that the route to the Re-
publican nomination is paved with
ALLIES'
atj-. \
\1i
political debts and allegiances
chalked up during the non-presi-
dential election years and the
primaries.
BUT HAS the old pro really
changed? From his recent inane
remarks, it appears not. The man
is still a sleight-of-hand artist,
and a master of vicious innuendo.
We hoped that he would keep
his, promise made at that ill-tem-
pered teary-eyed press conference
after his 1962 gubernatorial loss
to Pat Brown in California. He
told the reporters then that they
wouldn't have Dick Nixon to kick
around any more, and announced
his retirement from politics.
But the Nixon legacy in Cali-
fornia politics lives on and he is
after the biggest prize again. Ron-
ald Reagan has mastered the Nix-
on Comsymp tactics perfected in
the 1962 California contest, and
initiated a decade earlier in a
congressional race against Helen
G. Douglas. The idea is to accuse
your opponent of being soft on
Communism, while stopping short
of actually calling him a Commu-
nist-a kind of "Brutus is an
honorable man, but . . . " ap-
proach.
NIXON IS applying much the
same treatment on Johnson. "In
Viet Nam the administration has
been too little and too late with
its reaction to Communist ag-
gression," he asserts. And, "I think
we're at a great turning point in
history. That is why I'm for a
strong policy in Viet Nam. I've
concluded that if the Commu-
nists are stopped here, this would
be a great turning point in the
struggle between freedom and
Communism."
Thirteen years ago, as Vice-
President, he pointed with pride
to the cessation of hostilities in
the Far East noting that "the
Truman-Acheson policy got the
United States into war and the
Eisenhower policy got us out." But
the nation had hardly won a con-
vincing victory over the Commu-
nist foe. Nixon's turning point in
1953 was a truce; in 1966 he
wants total victory.
In addition, he is disturbed by
all the anti-war sentiment in the
Democratic party, and considers
it vital for Johnson to unite his
brethren for the good of the na-
tion. "Damn dissent, and full speed
ahead," might be his battle cry.
FINALLY, he is highly critical
of the impending Manila Confer-
ence between the United States
and her Asian allies ,terming it
"The first time a President may
have figured the best way to help
his party is to leave the coun-
try." But, then again, Dick hasn't
been to hot on any of the peace
offers advanced by his country.
As the great writer Samuel
Johnson once said, "Patriotism is
the last refuge of a scoundrel."
For Dick Nixon, we might add
"anti-Communism."
$
Jo
Z . jo/ _
The 'Most Practical' People
r-Vwv. TWRNTTV..TTN nPnt. rv has
an he sn to snring out of their
r