# t
Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
TINDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
rPOWER C te ' "t et
andaDr.Happens tS tudents,
POETRY by MARK R. K ILL INGSWORT H
^:"}+,:"::^:L'Ii ' ::.,.; r,, ..+l.:rr: vJJY:,:J~or:$r .i;r.J; .pi"r'r,'vi~. f: iii . ., ...
ere Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Trutb Will Prevail
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 25, 1966
NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT KLI VANS
Election Tax-Credit Plan:
Limiting Democracy
IN ITS FRANTIC RUSH to adjourn, Con-
gress enacted a careless, bad law-the
election tax credit provision.
This measure will provide sorely-need-
ed funds for the Republican and Demo-
cratic national committees for presiden-
tial contests by permitting any taxpay-
er to claim a tax check-off of one dollar
as a contribution to either party.
Ostensibly an extension of participa-
tory democracy, the optimum utilization
of the procedure will put some $60 mil-
lion additional dollars in the collective
tills of the two major parties-dollars
from individual citizens, and not from
vested, financially powerful groups. The
apparent result will be a lessening of the
power of pressure agencies that work
against the public good.
THE UNFORTUNATE clause in the law,
. however, states that tax credits may
be earmarked only for parties which poll-
ed at least five million votes in the pre-
vious election. This is unwarranted dis-
crimination against the minority politi-
cal parties, which soak up the one per
cent differential between the total and
the major party vote.
In light of burgeoning "peace" cam-
paigns in various parts of the country-
Ann Arbor included-and after Stokely
Carmichael has called for an all-Negro
political party, the restriction sets a bad
precedent. It opens the valves on a po-
tential financial source to the two big
parties, while leaving the others in their
unimproved monetary conditions.
To argue that the dollar per taxpayer!
is not worth haggling over, is to insist
that a single vote is not important -
both, votes and dollars accumulate to
bring about power changes, and to change
history. Under the new measure, dollars
might be withheld or diverted from third
parties that merit financial backing as
much as the Democrats or Republicans.
WHENONE of the Big Two runs into
debt after a presidential election,
the satraps form tinseled Republican or
Democratic clubs, with $500 entrance
fees, and gilded membership cards. Or
they hold $100-a-plate dinners, featur-
ing some old windbag extolling him-
self, the Party, and the Nation. A small
political group has no such resources,
and usually finds itself hanging by a
thread over the pit of financial insolv-
ency.
While it is desirable to have a wider
population contributing to political cam-
paigns, the hastily conceived rider seri-
ously threatens the longevity of the law.
It is doubtful whether the law will stand
.the test of constitutional validity if ever
challenged and brought before the Su-
preme Court.
BECAUSE THE TAX-CREDIT law flag-
rantly discriminates against small po-
litical parties, it is unfortunate that Con-
gress wasted its precious end-of-term
time in its passage. Hopefully the next
session will bring revisions of the meas-
ure to provide equitably for the support
of all parties.
-STEVE FIRSHEIN
YOU GET your date back to
Stockwell a half-hour after
closing.
Or you get caught bringing beer
to your fraternity party.
Or you forget to put on your
"M" car sticker and get nabbed.
Or you want to run for Student
Government Council and ask how
to go about it.
What happens to you next?
Viewed in the context of re-
cent weeks and recent decisions,
the Regents' approval of near-
dictatorial powers for Vice-Presi-
dent Richard L. Cutler presents
some profoundly disturbing ques-
tions.
The major one is: What's going
to happen to students? The an-
swer: Nobody knows yet.
The next issue is: Who decides
what happens to students? The
answer is the same.
CUTLER NOW HAS all non-
academic disciplinary powers for-
merly spread out between Presi-
dent Hatcher, the other vice-presi-
dents, academic deans and the
faculty.
He has all the non-academic
disciplinary powers which Intra-
Fraternity Council, Panhellenic
Association and Inter-Housing As-
sociation used to have.
And Cutler also has the pow-
er to conduct a comprehensive re-
view of all campus regulations and
Student Government Council ac-
tivities-a review which, among
other things, is supposed to "fur-
ther the goal of personal, social
and moral development of indi-
vidual students and student groups
in their life outside the class-
room."
In short, if he wanted to, Cut-
ler could easily institute a one-
man control over every aspect of
non-academic student life at the
University.
CUTLER'S new powers are sin-
gularly ironic in view of the Uni-
versity's history in the area of
student affairs. After the then-
dean of women had outraged the
University's collective conscience
in the early 1960's by her policy
of notifying the parents of coeds
who dated inter-racially - and
after further disclosure of sim-
ilar activities built up intense
pressure-a review committee in-
vestigated the entire mess.
In its 1962 report called the
"Reed Report," after its chairman,
the committee declared:
The University student "must
be considered a participating
member of a 'community of schol-
ars,' with responsibilities and op-
portunities commensurate with his
capacities. He should be expected
to participate . fully in decisions
affecting his welfare . . . He should
work with faculty and administra-
tion for the broad welfare of the
University, tempering his self-in-
terest to the common good.
It was an inspiring philosophy.
Partly as a result of the dean of
women scandal, and partly as a
result of the philosophical direc-
tions the Reed Report suggested
to the University, since the Reed
Report students have been in-,
creasingly involved in University
affairs.
FOR EXAMPLE, Cutler set up
student advisory committees for
each of the nine subdivisions in
his own Office of Student Affairs.
The Regents provided for a stu-
dent advisory committee to work
closely with them as they select
President Hatcher's successor.
And last Friday, the Regents
approved the establishment of stu-
dent advisory committees for each
of the vice-presidents.
The record suggests that, when
the University bothers to ask stu-
dents what's on their minds, it
usually gets some fairly intelli-
gent answers.
President Hatcher, for example,
said Friday he had found students
were "perceptive and mature in
understanding what the proposal
(for vice - presidential advisory
boards) is about"-not surprising,
since students proposed the idea
to Hatcher themselves.
THE RECORD also suggests
that, when the University takes
the time to explain its workings
to students, the students get a
better understanding of University
goals and problems-and are that
much better at offering advice.
Indeed, Vice-President Cutler
said facetiously Friday that the
advisory panels might affect stu-
dent protests on campus because
"some students who are members
of advisory groups may understand
administrators' problems better
and thus become less than satis-
factory representatives of militant
groups."
And, finally, the record sug-
gests that, when the University
ignores students, a crisis erupts.
The University ignored the
thoughts of the students involved
when it complied with the House
Un-American Activities Commit-
tee's subpoena in August. The re-
sult, as the Faculty Senate As-
sembly put it, was "regrettable"
and a nightmare of administrative
bumbling. The University ignored
students on the police-on-cam-
pus issue. The result was a sit-in.
SO, WHAT IS particularly
alarming about Cutler's assump-
tion of dictatorial powers over stu-
dents is this recent trend in Uni-
versity policy - away from the
Reed Report, away from the idea
of asking students' opinions, away
from the belief that people who
live under rules should help make
them.
Indeed, Cutler asked for these
vast new powers without consult-
ing a single student or faculty.
As Prof. Robert Knauss of the
Law School-the chairman of a
special committee which only re-
cently urged greater student par-
ticipation in University affairs-
said in a massive understatement:
"It would have been better to get
wide consultation with students
and faculty before bringing the
new regulations to the Regents."
If Cutler got the power to is-
sue new regulations about student
life without asking students and
faculty advice, he might well issue
such new regulations in the same
way.
If Cutler conducts his "imme-
diate and comprehensive review"
of student life without asking stu-
dents and faculty for advice and
counsel, he will not only abrogate
tradition. He will have undermined
student faculty faith in and sup-
port for the processes of the
University itself.
YET THERE IS no sign that
this will not occur. Cutler has not
yet come up with a plan to in-
clude students and faculty in his
review of student affairs. He has
yet to announce his intention to
get faculty-student advice on dis-
ciplinary regulations. In short,
Cutler has all the power, and
there is as yet no sign he intends
to share it-to use it wisely.
As John Stuart Mill said long
ago, "We need not suppose that
when power resides in an exclu-
sive class, that class' will know-
ingly and deliberately sacrifice the
other classes to themselves: it suf-
fices that, in the absence of its
natural defenders, the interest of
the excluded is always in danger
of being overlooked: and, when
looked at, is seen with very dif-
ferent eyes from those of the per-
sons whom it directly concerns."
THAT IS the issue. A careful
reading of the Regents' working
papers on Cutler's new powers
makes it clear that these powers
were granted, for fear of the re-
cent sit-in and other student un-
rest.
But if Cutler ignores student and
faculty opinion in exercising these
new powers-if he fails to share
these powers with them-if it is
true that "power resides in an
exclusive class"-then the Regents'
action will inevitably intensify the
very problem it was supposed to
solve.
Letters:* New Draft Premises Needed
To Whon. It May Concern
ONE PHENOMENON of American jour-
nalism is the syndicated medical col-
umnist. Fortunately, our American doc-
tors have seen fit to keep themselves in
the mainstream of American thought and
have not fenced themselves off into a
dream world of medicine and professional
practice.
The best example I have run across
recently is the column by Dr. George
Crane entitled "Worry Clinic" and cir-
culated in a large number of newspapers
to millions of people across the country.
I present his medical advice in toto:
DONNA STRESSES a vital point
that should challenge every patri-
otic American and especially all par-
ents. Like Daniel Boone, Donna wants
more privacy as regards to her per-
sonal rights. But the gradual spread
of communistic doctrine has thus in-
vaded even the plumbing equipment
of our schools!
ByDR. GEORGE W. CRANE
CASE A-549: Donna D., aged 15, is an
attractive Hoosier high schooler. Dr.
Crane, her mother began, we have a
beautiful new high senooi that cost over
$2 million. But many of our daughters
are like Donna and complain at the lack
of privacy.
"Although the showers for the girls
are available for them after gym classes,
there are no curtains to give them any
privacy. So the girls must walk around
in the nude and take a shower in plain
sight of all their coed classmates.
"Don't you think this breakdown in
modesty and the violation of privacy is
destroying what we cultured mothers
have tried to build up?"
"YES, Donna's mother is 100 per cent
correct! Even in our standard Amer-
ican homes, we still have doors to the
bathroom! And shower curtains! Neith-
er children nor adults are supposed to
take baths in public.
- "Yet there has been a pernicious trend
to destroy personal privacy and turn our
homes into goldfish bowls. It started in
1913 with the Income Tax law which
£1tltiat &ilg
Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor
CLARENCE FANTO HARVEY WASSERMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
LEONARD PRATT.......Associate Managing Editor
JOHN MEREDITH.......Associate Managing Editor
CHARLOTTE WOLTER .. Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT CARNEY.......Associate Editorial Director
BABETTE COHN............. Personnel Director
ROBERT MOORE... ......Magazine Editor
CHARLES VETZNER .............. Sports Editor
JAMES TINDALL ... ........ Associate Sports Editor
JAMES LaSOVAGE........Associate Sports Editor
GIL SAMBERG......... ..Assistant Sports Editor
SPORTS NIHT EDITORS: Gravle Howlett. Howard
permitted bureaucrats to invade the bank
accounts and pay checks of every citizen.
"And it has spread ever since into so-
cial, political and even religious realms.
Yet we physicians still find that many
cultured adult males, reared with a sense
of privacy in the bathroom, are shy
aboutour request to produce a fresh urine
sample for a diabetes test.
"And many of these cultured patients
will protest that an occasional callous
doctor will even expect them to void in
the office, in front of a female nurse!
Indeed, many men (perhaps of the "old
school" where privacy instead of Commu-
nism was the rule) can't even use the
public of "goldfish bowl" urinals at air-
ports, hotels or railway stations.
"Instead, they seek the walled-off priv-
acy of a booth. So it is time to highlight
this public schoof violation of the time-
honored rules of American privacy! Priv-
acy is thus a symbol of free enterprise,
wherein you enjoy private property rights,
too, and freedom from unwarranted
search or seizure in your private homes.
"By contrast, the tendency to expose all
your personality, your business records,
bank figures and wage rates to public
view, is an integral doctrine of Commu-
nism and socialism. Many blase Ameri-
cans pooh-pooh those who keep exposing
the insidious encroachment of govern-
ment on us private citizens.
"Oh, you're just looking for a Com-
munist under every bed! They try to
ridicule the smart patriots. But ever since
1905 the Socialists have been diligently
invading our 'free enterprise' field and
taking over our lives. They started with
a big banquet in 1905, to which profes-
sors of our eastern universities and sem-
inaries were invited.
"For they figured those professors
could brainwash the school teachers and
clergy, as well as college sociology pro-
fessors, till Americans would soon accept
socialistic doctrines as the sophisticated
viewpoint. Beware !"
THANK YOU, Dr. Crane, for your ad-
vice. I feel better already.
No Comment
Deprartment-- I
"PRESIDENT HATCHER said, in an ap-
parent reference to the September 30
sit-in in the office of Vice-President and
Chief Financial Officer Wilbur K. Pier-
pont, that the new regulations were not
'drawn up with reference to any recent
innidnti'
To the Editor:
THE RECENT series on the draft
reviewed, in the main, the
standard list of objections to, and
revisions of, the present system.
The list was standard for it ac-
cepted the premises of the sys-
tem as presently arranged. To ac-
cept these premises is to end up
with yet another version of the
Rube Goldberg machine of which
this present arrangement is but
one variety.
What is needed is some think-
ing about alternative premises that
might lead to substantially dif-
ferentarrangements. Here is a
list of three alternative values that
lead rather directly to some dif-
ferent principles of selection and
service.
1) THE UNITED STATES is a
political organization. Its armed
forces defend this organization.
Therefore, only actual participat-
ing members of the organization
should be called upon to partici-
pate in its defense.
Given this premise, no one has
any obligation to bear arms un-
less he in fact can participate as
a citizen in the political life of
his state, and in the federation of
states. The rule is no vote, no
fight. Incidentally, this clarifies
the 18-year-old vote question. Peo-
ple should not get the vote be-
cause they are called upon to sol-
dier. Rather the reverse, they
should soldier because they are
citizens as indexed by their stat-
us as voters. If women vote, they
too should serve. Senior citizens
also.
2) DEFENSIVE WARS, preven-
tive interventions, police actions,
advisory expeditions, etc. which
are undertaken to defend the
benefits of the American Way of
Life should be manned by those
who reap said benefits. '
Thus, assuming that education
and gross income are crude but
more or less representative in-
dicators of what most Americans
give thanks for on the last Thurs-
day of every November, citizens
should be ranked by the relative
size of their slice of each. Citi-
zens then might be obliged to de-
fend the AW of L in direct pro-
portion to their benefits. This in-
cidentally maximizes another bas-
ic American premise: that the
first shall be first, and the last,
last. A highly motivated military
ready and able to engage in a
spirited and meaningful defense
of the U.S. would no doubt result.
3) THE U.S. as a political entity
wages wars to defend its free-
enterprise economy. Therefore, its
defenders should be recruited by
free-enterprise methods. Thus,
soldiers should be attracted from
the usual labor-markets that ex-
ist in American society. This by
offering competitive wage levels
and fringe benefits.
Although the slogan "a living
wage for American killers" may
jar the sensibilities of some, it
nonetheless follows from the log-
ic of American enterprise. To one
who objects that the result of
this arrangement would be a mil-
itary establishment of mercenar-
ies, one can only say: no doubt.
But we are all mercenaries, are
we not. And anyhow, isn't that
what we have now, except at the
enlisted and draftee level.
THESE THREE premises are not
the only ones possible; nor are
they the best. The point is that
the general issue of the citizen
and the structure of obligation
that bind us all to the state is
what is in questionhere. Draft re-
visions that fail to inspect the
premises on which the issue is
built are likely to fall of their
own weight.
--E. T. Silva,.
Instructor in Sociology
Fraternities
To the Editor:
I REALIZE that I am, in effect,
answering Prof. Hagen's letter
rather than the original editor-
ial on fraternities, but I fear that
many administration and faculty
members may share his viewpoint.
I failed to notice when the con-
cept that the human mind could
be forced to think certain noble
and idealistic thoughts, if legisla-
tion was passed against outward
admissions to the contrary, was
accepted, but indeed it appears
to be.
The Supreme Court has ruled
that owners of public services
cannot refuse to serve on the bas-
is of "race, color, creed," etc.;
schools are required to "inte-
grate"; employers are prohibited
from discriminating; legislation
was suggested to regulate home-
sellers choice of buyers. Each of
these is very proper on the basis
of the principle, "the end justi-
fies the means."
Correlated: If people can be
forced by fear of prosecution to
conceal their prejudices, in time
their prejudices will disappear. I
agree that this may conceivably
happen. Yet, I fear the damage
to the concept of human dignity
and intelligence which may occur
in the meantime.
PERHAPS Prof. Hagen's remark
(with apparent pride) that fra-
ternities had been "forced" to
integrate and the implied appli-
cation to the Michigan campus
compelled me to criticize this all
to prevalent means of accom-
plishing "good."
I wonder how you can force
anyone to integrate. Do you arbi-
trarily pick a community or fra-
ternity and declare, since there
are no Negroes inthe group, that
they are discriminating? Do you
then arbitrarily pick a Negro and
attempt to place him in the
group? If you fail, do you then
declare discrimination is proven
and attempt to force him in by
threats, legislation, or sanctions?
If this is the procedure, as it
seems to be on manycampuses, in
what way does this exemplify the
"educational and training goals of
the University?" You would teach
me by these methods that it is
no longer necessary to reason with
a human being, to educate, in-
form, and convince him of the
proper moral goals of our society,
that they may be forced into his
mind by threats and accusations
that he is thinking otherwise.
THEREFORE, I suggest that, if
our University is dissatisfied with
the present goals, achievements,
or attitudes of students, that it
seek to convince them of the va-
lidity of other goals and atti-
tudes in an informative well-rea-
soned manner. Admittedly, this
may not broaden the student out-
look as quickly as some hope for,
but it is more likely to leave the
student with a sense of dignity
and confidence in his own ability
to apply his education and Intel-
ligence to the moral problems of
today.
-Larry Halvorsen
Pace Vote
To the Editor:
WHY VOTE for Mrs. Boulding,
when a vote for her is ac-
tually a vote against Representa-
tive Vivian? Because if Mrs.
Boulding's candidacy contributes
to Mr. Vivian's defeat in 1966.
the Democratic candidate in 1968
will know that he will at least
have to talk about the war.
But if her candidacy does not
contribute to his defeat, do you
expect Mr. Vivian to drop his suc-
cessful policy of silence and be
more outspoken in 1968 or 1970?
More immediately, a vote for
Vivian will help American lead-
ers conclude (correctly) that the
war in Viet Nam is not the most
important single political issue.
HOW COULD THEY conclude
otherwise, if a candidate for
whom the war is not the most
important issue were to win next
month?
A vote for either Mr. Vivian
or his Republican opponent prob-
ably will not affect the war ever.
A vote for Mrs. Boulding may
have some slight effect eventually.
If not this year, when will you
make your vote count against this
war? 1968? .
-Dave Ermann, Grad.
""
CAMPUS FORUM-
EDITOR'S NOTE: Today be-
gins a new editorial page fea-
ture entitled "Campus Forum."
The feature consists of position
papers from members of campus
Young Democrats, Young Re-
publicans, Young Americans for
Freedom, and Voice Political
Party.
The articles will appear per-
iodically in series Monday
through Thursday and will deal
with a pressing campus issue.
The first topic is "Cops on Cam-
pus: Problems and Solutions."
Today's statement comes from
Young Americans for Freedom.
MUCH COMMENT in recent
weeks among student politi-
cal groups has been centered
around the appearance of plain-
clothesmen at, certain political ral-
lies on campus. It has been the
position of Students for a Demo-
cratic Society, our counterpart on
the left side of the political spec-
trum, that the appearance of these
police officers is a serious restric-
tion upon freedom of assembly.
It has even been suggested that
the police have no right to be on
campus, and that a joint student-
administration committee be
formed to resolve this "problem."
The major question is, does the
appearance of police (in uniform
or otherwise) on campus really
violates the rights of any stu-
dent organization? Is this appear-
ance by law officers another ex-
ample of the "police state" whose
"rise" ultra-liberals have been so
unanimously attributing to the
"anti-clmoeratic right wing of
adequate system of law, such that
the rights of any citizen may not
be impeached by arbitrary force.
We recognize that the chief in-
strument for the protection and
maintenance of domestic peace is,
and must be, the police, and that
because of their unique position
in society, theirs must be the right
to enter into any situation which
they deem of a disorderly nature
or harmful to the best interests
of society in general.
LOOKING more specifically at
the Michigan campus, then, we
ask whether the appearance of
police in any situation out of
which violence or law-breaking
may arise, is a restriction of the
right of free assembly. Young
Americans for Freedom doubts
very much that it is.
In the past few years, SDS
and many of its sister organiza-
tions have taken up a new catch-
phrase called "civil disobedience."
But what does "civil disobedi-
ence" amount to, if not a deliber-
ate attempt to flout the Ameri-
can system of law in the name
of some "higher" code of moral-
ity which seems, conveniently, to
be accepted only by those who en-
gage in this glorified law-break-
ing.
YAF CONCLUDES that in any
situation where the law may be
broken (and what is law-break-
ing, if not the arbitrary negation
and denial of another man's
rights), the police have the right
to be on hand, and if necessary,
'V
V
j.'Wl ZY 41 NK !'I/1 vgm. I am,