Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Oct. 26: Just Like
The Lone Ranger
IW
"- -I" PW
Where Opinions AreaFree, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MIcH.
Truth Will Prevail
NEws PHONE: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 196@
NIGHT EDITOR: MEREDITH EIKER
Heyns' Speech:
The Political University
"The Master said, it is only
the very wisest and the very
stupidest who cannot change."
--Analects, XVII, 3
By LEONARD PRATT
Associate Managing Editor
SINCE HE'S not likely to change,
which of the two is Richard
Cutler?
That's the question that's going
the roundsabout the vice-presi-
dent for student affairs, and I
don't know the answer.
Cutler is interestingly-nothing
perjorative intended-like Lyn-
don Johnson. It's hard to imagine
another man who could have done
more for the interests of the peo-
ple who promoted him for office,
but it's also hard to think of an-
other who, because of the policies
with which he has been associated,
has been as maligned by those
same people.
HOW CUTLER has become as
isolated as he has from the Uni-
versity's liberal establishment, is
an interesting story.
At the base of the story is this:
,Cutler'is an administrator. Any-
one who works with a group for a
period of time soon becomes a
part of it in every sense. He
adopts its values and its views
just by association.
It was pretty inevitable that
after a while Cutler would come
to adopt the outlook of many
members of the administration,
an outlook emphasizing harmony
with the Regents, the alumni and
the President to the detriment of
values held by other University
groups.
BUT SURELY the community's
disaffection from Cutler could
have stopped there. Why didn't it?
One big reason is simply Cut-
ler's history in office.
When he was appointed, he
came to an emasculated Office of
Student Affairs.
Clearly an administrator is out
of water without some power with
which to exercise his opinions,
so it was only natural for Cutler
to begin streamlining his office
and boosting his authority to
create that power.
But that required maneuvering
and maneuvering requires politics.
Unfortunately, as Louis Feuer
pointed out in a recent article
in the Atlantic Monthly, the one
thing a university administrator
cannot afford to become known
as is Machiavellian. This is what
has happened to Cutler.
A UNIVERSITY Community.
suspicious of centralization of
power and administrative en-
hancement no matter what the
cause, has been a little uneasy
about Cutler's work ,or a long
time.
Students, prior to this fall, have
always felt a little hypocritical
about their uneasiness. Was not
Cutler's rise in status a rise in
the status of their spokesman
within the administration? It was
indeed, but the uneasiness was
always there nonetheless.
It was there because Cutler so
clearly enjoys his work and the
authority it gives him. There is
surely nothing wrong with that in
itself, but the dual role of the
vice-president for student affairs
makes it suspicious.
ON THE ONE HAND he is the
students' spokesman within the
administration. In this respect, the
general student feeling has always
been that the more authority Cut-
ler has, the better.
But on the other, Cutler is the
administrator responsible for en-
forcing the University's rules on
its students, and suddenly having
a vice-president who clearly un-
derstands what he has to do to
carry out his enforcement func-
tion efficiently has made mary
students suspicious of Cutler's real
role: "Is it to aid the students or
the administration?" one asked
recently, assuming a natural op-
position of the two goals.
Recent events have confirmed
their suspicions. Cutler's role in
the HUAC affair, the role he as-
sumed after the Voice sit-in and
now his unprecedented role as sole
guardian of Student Government
Council has made many people
more than uneasy.
"MANY PEOPLE" is more than
students. The liberal faculty es-
tablishment from which Cutler
came is perhaps more disenchant-
ed with his performance in office
at this point than any other group
on campus. That's easy enough
to understand. While to students
Cutler is merely beginning to be-
have like many administrators, to
these faculty members he is one of
their own who "sold out."
All this disenchantment with
Cutler is pretty unfortunate.
Idealistic considerations aside, the
vice-president' for student affairs,
along with the vice-president for
academic affairs, needs the sup-
port of the community. It wouldn't
make much difference if the Fac-
ulty Assembly were mad at Gilbert
Lee. But Cutler's successful per-
formance in office depends on
daily contact with the University
community; if that community is
down on him, his effectiveness
can't help but suffer.
MAYBE ALL TIIIS is just a
passing thing. I doubt it.
Cutler has taken it on nimself
to remake student life at the Uni-
versity in the way he considers
proper. The problem here is that
this goal leaves Cutler's ends-
active student organizations, free
political discussion, student par-
ticipation in University affairs-
and his means-boosting his own
authority-open to confusion. And
everybody has indeed confused
them.
Because of the confusion he
seems to many to have made this
drive into a personal crusade. He
is thus feared and resented by
those who ought to be his natural
allies.
POSSIBLY none of this is fair
to Cutler. Certainly none of it is
fair to what he is trying to do for
students.
But that's the way it i
CHANCELLOR ROGER W. HEYNS of the
University of California at Berkeley
last week listed three misconceptions gen-
erated by the nation's press that have
distorted Berkeley's "role as a center of
learning":
* That Berkeley consists of three pow-
er blocs-the administration, the faculty
and the students. The essential processes
that take place are those of power con-
frontations, bargaining and temporary
coalition.
* That Berkeley is an instrument of
direct, social action in which university
facilities and influence are used for pro-
grams of social activity selected by the
members of the academic community.
* That Berkeley is a public utility, ex-
isting to serve the needs of taxpayers.
As a rebuttal to these "misconcep-
tions," Heyns defined a university as a
center of learning in which faculty and
students are partners in the process of
learning, and not the political mechan-
ism that is portrayed in the press.
Heyns said that the pressure exerted
on universial officials by the press give
Berkeley a "modified stimulus-response
type of existence. Immediate university
policies are demanded, and subsequently
issued, without time for thought and
examination of the situation at hand.
Both the administration and students
are caught up in an endless treadmill of
action, statement, reaction and restate-
ment."
HEYNS' THIRD POINT, his objection to
the treatment of the university as a
public utility, is quite a valid one. The
university must retain its autonomy and
independenoe from the general social
mentality if it is to function as a former
of ideas and a source of new ideas. The
university as a "public utility" means the
university with a set and carefully con-
trolled mentality-a useless appendage.
Heyns' first and second points, however,
are not "misconceptions": It is unfortu-
nate, but there seems little denying that
many major universities, Berkeley and
Michigan included, have boiled their in-
tra-university affairs down to three clear-
lydefined . power blocs-the administra-
tion, the faculty and the students.
Recent dealings at Michigan have made
such divisions all too clear for the public
to understand-there are no misconcep-
tions involved. Ultimately, of course, we
are all working for the same goal-the
maximum benefit in terms of education
and research. But whereas historically
there has been only one philosophy as to
how that goal is best achieved-the ad-
ministration decides with, perhaps, some
help from the faculty-now things have
changed. The faculty is more active, the
students are more active. Because there
was no structural provision for general
participation in university decision-mak-
ing, early visible power blocs have formed
along the most natural lines of the new
political interest.
0 Which carries over into the second
"misconception." American universities
are the hotbed of social action that keeps
the nation going. The new stress on so-
cial science and the new feeling of the
need for genuine social activism has
brought university people into the field in
droves. They are politicians, social work-
ers, activists while moving in and out of
the university.
HEYNS' POINT, of course, was that the
institution, as an official institution,
does not participate in social action proj-
ects. That is true. But by now that seems
irrelevant. The universities of this na-
tion have become its heart-they have
supplied and must continue to supply
the social experts and activists that keep
the country going. That is its function
as an institution-"an instrument of di-
rect, social action."
HEYNS CALLED these images of the
university "misconceptions" to pro-
tect his state institution politically-peo-
ple justifiably do not like the institutions
they support working on their society in
a manner they might not like. But then
the defense rests on a "public utility"
concept.
Perhaps the only "image," and one
which university administrators, both
state and non-state, should be promot-
ing is the combination-a realistic assess-
ment of the American university whose
utility to the public lies in the fomenting
of the social change without which our
society will burst its seams. If the gen-
eral public can be made to understand
that function, one barrier to advancing
university and social progress will be
eliminated.
UNFORTUNATELY, the implication of
Heyns' speech is that it's going to be
awfully tough keeping the universities
away from public pressure long enough to
keep doing the job. And impressing the
public with the necessity of that free-
dom will be no mean task.
--CAROLYN MIEGEL
AO
4-
Letters:
Waeler's Resignation Notice
St riped Power in Chester, Pa.
To the Editor:
This is a copy of the letter I
sent yesterday to Dick Zucker-
man, chairman of Joint Judici-
ary Council.
THIS LETTER is to serve as no-
tification of my desire not to
actively participate in any further
activities of the Joint Judiciary
Council.
In light of the Regents' meet-
ing of Friday, Oct. 22, 1966, where
Dr. Richard Cutler, vice-president
for Student Affairs, was granted
(as he had requested) sweeping
powers in the area of non-aca-
demic discipline, I fail to see the
possibility of the Joint Judiciary
Council having any meaningful
role in the future.
Although it is true that the
Council can work with Dr. Cut-
ler to set up what he considers
is an "equitable" judiciary sys-
tem, the final proposal must still
pass Dr. Cutler's approval, and
I sincerely doubt if I could agree
with anything that would be nec-
essary to pass this final approval.
Prior to the Regents' ruling, I
felt that the best solution to prob,
lems that had developed in this
area of non-academic discipline
was to establish a University-wide
committee composed of represen-
tatives from the faculty, the stu-
dent body and the administration,
to be charged by the Regents to
deliberate and suggest what should
be done.
IT WOULD have been the place
of this committee to write a phil-
osophy and a mechanism to carry
out this philosophy. It is perhaps
unfortunate that events of recent
days, specifically the sit-in, caused
the Regents to take immediate
steps and probably prevented this
committee from ever becoming a
reality.
I feel that the area of non-
academic discipline is so broad
in scope at the University of
Michigan that in order to formu-
late a practical system, a system
amenable to all and one that will
pass the test of time, it must en-
compass all segments of the Uni-
versity-the faculty of all the
various schools and colleges, the
students and the administration.
The concentration of power in
one office, and more directly in
one administrator, is both dan-
gerous and impractical. While it
is true that the Regents did "sug-
gest" that Vice-President Cutler
consult with these, different seg-
ments of the University, he is
neither required nor obligated to
do so. This is unfortunate. While
I cannot speak for the Student
Government Council, I can speak
for myself as a member of the
Joint Judiciary Council when I
say, I think we have been pre-
empted without a reasonable op-
portunity to express our own views
concerning non-academic disci-
pline, which we too have debated
and considered for more than the
past year.
I FEEL it is very unfortunate
that we have once again been mis-
led by the Office of Student Af-
fairs, concerning whathDr. Cutler
was going to do-ask the Regents
for this incredible delegation of
power. Specifically I refer to state-
ments made by Dr. Cutler and
by his assistant, Mr. Baad, that
the Office of Student Affairs was
not interested in asking for Re-
gental bylaws to codify the new
system proposed by their office.
It appears however that this is
exactly what they did want, Re-
gental bylaws and Regental ap-
proval to back their position.
Very simply I do not feel that
as an individual or as a member
of the Joint Judiciary Council, I
am interested in working with Dr.
Cutler to set up what he considers
is an equitable system for han-
dling non-academic discipline.
I do feel that granting Dr. Cut-
man the incredible power to do
anything he desires in the area of
non-academic discipline.
EVEN THOUGH the Regents
allow appeal to themselves or to
the President of the University,
the power, it mugst be agreed, does
for all practical purposes stop at
the vice-president's level. I will not
further speculate as to what pre-
cipitated this incredible delega-
tion of power at this time, but I
will predict that if this University
is not to regress to the point where
there are rules for everything, un-
necessary rules, the Regents will
be forced to change their minds
in the near future. Neither the
students nor the faculty will ac-
cept this present situation result-
ing from the Regents' ruling.
I do feel that there was a need
for a change and I think now is
the time to consider that change.
As you know, I expressed to Mr.
Baad recently that if his office
were really interested in coming
up with an equitable solution to
prob oms in the handling of non-
aca mic discipline, there were
three things his office could have
done immediately:
FIRST, the Office of Student
Affairs could have set up clear
and unambiguous lines of author-
ity in the areas of University stu-
dent housing, student organiza-
tions and the driving regulations.
Then, even before the Regental
ruling, these areas fell within the
purview of the Office of Student
Affairs.
The Joint Judiciary Council
could have been given the oppor-
tunity to work with the Office of
Student Affairs to investigate and
remedy problems in these specific
areas.
Second, all other cases of non-
academic discipline could have
been referred to the respective
deans of the various schools and
colleges until a revision was com-
plete.
Third and finally, the Office of
Student Affairs could have active-
ly supported the position taken
by the Joint Judiciary Council in
proposing a University-wide com-
mittee charged by the Regents to
deliberate in this area and write
a philosophy and mechanism for
handling non-academichdiscipline.
I DID NOT understand then nor
do I understand now, why, if the
Office of Student Affairs wants
a meaningful and practical revi-
sion in the area of non-academic
discipline, that these. proposals
could not be carried out. Mr. Baad
clearly rejected them.
Since it appears that these pro-
posals are no longer practical un-
der the present situation, I fail
to see the possibility of a mean-
ingful and equitable solution. I
cannot in good conscience serve
in a totally meaningless capacity.
I therefore respectfully submit my
resignation to the Joint Judiciary
Council of the University of Mich-
igan.
-John Weiler,
Executive Secretary
Joint Judiciary Council
:M1otoricycele Meeting
To the Editor:
A MID THE MANY charges of
lack of communication between
university students and those who
make the laws and regulations,
an unusually happy development
has been quietly taking shape in
connection with the proposed city
motorcycle ordinance.
It has come along so well that it
deserves much wider attention-it
is a bright sign as to how issues can
be resolved with mutual satisfac-
tion when each group approaches
the other as fellow human beings
sharing residence in the same city,.
rather than as faceless adminis-
trative entities.
Tonight (Wednesday, the 26th)
there will be an open hearing on
how to deal with motorcycle traf-
fic in Ann Arbor. It will be at
7:30, in the Multipurpose Room of
UGLI. This is a cooperative ven-
ture, a chance for everyone to be
heard-bike dodgers as well as rid-
ers-and actually to help write an
ordinance that will do the job that
is needed without leaving rough
edges to irritate anyone.
Members of the City Council and
of the University Traffic Advisory
Board will be there, ready to open
their ears as well as their mouths.
They want students, who will be
most affected by the ordinance, to
participate as much as possible in
formulating the law.
THE CITY COUNCIL has been
very receptive to constructive sug-
gestions made during the last few
weeks, and its members have gone
out of their way to be encouraging
and helpful. This meeting is the
culmination-the chance for the
give and take of real communica-
tion.
If it's a success, who knows what
other administrative a g e n c i e s
might notice it, and living could
become astonishingly friction-free
in these parts as we move on to
tackle profounder and more sen-
sitive issues in the same spirit.
--Peter A. S. Smith,
Professor of Chemistry
Pirandello
To the Editor:
T HOUGH Miss Marchio's reviewv
of October 13 was eagerly re-
ceived in these quarters, it should
be explained to the reading pub-
lic that some of us in the audi-
ence had an experience rather dif-
ferent from hers. What was, un-
fortunately, "the one weak point
of the play" for Miss Marchio,
was for many of us the most
meaningful: the entrance of the
veiled woman.
Miss Marchio is quite right in
saying that Pirandello has used
an ingenious device to interpret
the significance of the action. But
that device was not Laudisi, as
she would have use believe. It was
the veiled woman. Laudisi's main
concern was the significance of il-
lusion, which was not really Pir-
andello's main concern; the veil-
ed woman's was-the significance
of illusion in human terms.
Look at the words she spoke.
Illusion is "the remedy which
our compassion finds" for the
misfortunes of life. The question
Pirandello posed to us in this play
CAMPUS FORUM: The YR's
FOUR NEGRO9S died recently in the
ghettoes of Chester, Pa.-in fires in
condemned housing which had never been
repaired. The Negro comimunity was ang-
ered and wanted action. There were two
alternatives-to riot, or to organize.
Don Roose, a white social worker and
a graduate of this University, had assum-
ed the head position at a local settle-
ment house just before the last fire. He
was the only white staff member-in fact,
he was the only white man in the area.
However, Roose is an organizer, and a
good one. The people were brought in
off the streets to activate the already
existing Chester Home Improvement
Project (CHIP). Overnight, a "fix-up,
clean-up" organization became a pressure
group.
A SET OF DEMANDS and grievances
were drawn up and presented to the
Chester City Council. For the first time
in its history, Chester's council listened
and reacted to the black slum-at least
to a certain extent. Immediate destruc-
tion of condemned vacant houses was one
of the demands. The council quickly guar-
anteed the demolition of five of the 400
such houses in Chester within the next
30 days.
Further, the committee called for the
enforcement of a Pennsylvania state law
Business Staff
SUSAN PERLSTADT, Business Manager
JEFFREY LEEDS......Associate Business Manager
HARRY BLOCH...........Advertising Manager
L-PWPOT T l.^ MrW. Lv n4 ....rmila .f f...anap
which requires that all rent paid by wel-
fare clients to a landlord of substandard
dwellings be held in escrow until improve-
ments are made. The council supported
the proposition although it took no im-
mediate action.
Endorsement was also given to a pro-
posal suggesting the creation of a Volun-
teer Program of Inspection to be set up
and run by the city. Local residents would
be trained and appointed as official in-
spectors. At present Chester has only
four inspectors for 25,000 dwellings.
ALTHOUGH the actual action which was
taken by the council is nominal, the
reaction to such pressure was quite dif-
ferent than it has been in the past.
Council listened and will continue to
listen-if forced to. And, CHIP has no in-
tention of letting upnow.
This is black power on a grass roots
level. The black man had no voice and
he lived in slums, died in fires in slum
housing. Now they are organized and have
power-so council listens..
But when Stokely Carmichael talks of
"Black Power" he talks of not letting any
white people into the ghettoes as lead-
ers. Don Roose is white. The Negroes of
Chester were not effectively organized
until Roose came.
WHITE PEOPLE-truly interested white
people such as Don Roose-must not
be excluded. The slum-dwellers are, in
addition to being black, hopelessly poor
unless organized. Every day spent with-
out the organization of the poor black
man is another day he suffers miserably,
and is two or three more days lost in the
race for economic betterment.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the
second of four articles in the
Campus Forum series "Cops on
Campus: Problems and Solu-
tions."
By LARRY EATON
Chairman, College Republicans
IN RECENT WEEKS, Ann Arbor
tpolice have instituted a prac-
tice of attending certain activi-
ties of some campus organizations.
Specifically, the police were
presenteat certain campus rallies
of Voice political party, and it
is alleged that there were pictures
taken of people obtaining litera-
ture at tables which Voice set up
at these rallies, and attempts made
to obtainlinformation regarding
membership of the organization.
The police maintain that they
have followed their present course
of action in an attempt to pre-
vent social disturbances they an-
ticipate as possibly resulting from
such gatherings. Voice maintains
that whatever the purpose of the
police presence, it is operating as
a form of intimidation directed
toward their activities. The ques-
tion seems to be whether cam-
pus groups have a valid right to
protest the involvement of police
was: How can we be kindest to
one another? This was the issue
at stake. The veiled woman an-
swered again. The remedy can
avail only if the misfortune re-
mains hidden and the integrity
of the illusion is maintained.
MISS MARCHIO'S objection to
this character seems well found-
ed. The veiled woman's speech
did, in fact, sound a little formal
and dramatic, not as we are ac-
customed to hearing. But this was
understandable. She was a sym-
bolic character, not a real one. She
was the illusion. Her quiet dig-
nity reminded us very much of
Athena at the end of the Ores-
teia, restoring justness and kind-
ness.
And yet, we were a little star-
tled when the veiled woman first
appeared on the stage. We too,
expected to see a real character-
the real Signora Ponza. And be-
ing startled into recognizing. this
expectation served as a powerful
reminder of our own all-too-hu-
man weakness. But the rules of
kindness are inviolate. To be kind
to one another, we must be strong.
AND SO, as we left the theatre,
it was not with the impressions of
Pirandello's bitterness and pessi-
mism that Miss Marchio had. But
rather we were singularly struck
by his warmth, hopefulness, and
quiet wisdom. Let us add without
reserve, to make up for what cer-
tainly must have been an unin-
tentional omission on Miss Mar-
chio's part, ,that this production
was masterfully directed and bril-
liantly acted.
-Thomas A: Segal, Med.- 1
in what the group considers its
own functions.
We are not here involved with
the presence of police, without in-
vitation, in private meetings. The
police concede they would have
no right to cover a private meet-
ing. We are here dealing with a
public mass gathering in a pubiic
place.
THERE SEEMS to be no one
denying the right of campus
groups to assemble peacefully
when they so desire. But the po-
lice maintain that since these are
public meetings, they are entitled
to be present as wellas anyone
else. And they have seen fit to
attend, and, as they say, remain
in the background to assure that
the purposes of the 'meeting are
indeed peaceful, and that they re-
main so.
At this point it seems to become
clear that the University itself is
no longer involved. There is in-
volved merely a situation which is
within the jurisdiction of the lo-
cal police, and which such police
feel they must cover in the pub-
lic's interest, to prevent any un-
lawful disorder, which they feel
is likely to result. And, although
it may seem somewhat stifling
to the group involved, it never-
theless appears clear that the po-
lice are acting within their full
legal rights in "covering" the
meetings in the manner they say
they do.
But at least two other matters
need to be considered.'First of all,
if the police merely "cover" these
meetings, remaining in the back-
ground, as they claim to do, we
have one situation. But this claim
does not seem to accord with the
allegation that they have gone
to the extent of photographing
people taking literature, and that
they have attempted to get mem-
bers' names.
THIS NO LONGER sounds like
the policeare remaining in the
background. They are making
themselves conspicuous, upsetting
the meeting to some extent, all.
longer based on any valid reason
whatsoever.
Indeed their actions seem at
that point to degenerate into pure
harassment; and it further ap-
pears that they are using unwar-
ranted methods of obtaining in-
formation and evidence which very
probably should be considered an
invasion of privilege, for purposes
which might be in fact quite in-
nocent, but which could well ap-
pear to be for the purpose of
bringing future pressure to bear
on the organization.
In the second place, what is
the wisdom of having police cov-
erage of such meetings? Indeed,
they maintain that it is for the
protection of the public from civil
disturbance which might result
from the meeting. But in fact, is
this a reasonable fear, in the light
of past experience? It would
seem at least questionable that it
is.
Although it might be unfair to
charge that the police have a
different reason for attending the
meetings than they admit to, their
actions would seem to manifest to
some that indeed they must have
a different reason for their ac-
tions.
WHAT IS the practical reality
for the future, then? The police
contend that they will continue
to cover all such activities, in
view of their opinion that the
meetings manifest an aura of pub-
lic hazard. Therefore, whether or
not this is a fairassumptionton
their part, and in spite of the
nuisance value which their pres-
ence creates for the meeting, it
would seem to be the right of the
police to decide that the contin-
uance of their policy is advisable;
and if it is made clear to them
that their presence is not needed,
they will surely give up the prac-
tice after a time.
But when the mere presence of
the police should become more -
when they begin taking pictures,
or in any other way disrupt the
orderly process of the meeting -
A.
"_:-:
,
J
. 1~l
'i
~\
Vll
{"
6tAN TooR
AI11
. .
'
;<
I