Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

November 05, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-11-05

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

Seventy-Sixth Year

Alternative Service and the 'New Loyalty'

0pnOunh s AreFree, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.

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;



Congressional Raee:
Mrs. Elise Boulding

ON NbVEMBER 8, support Mrs. Elise
Boulding for congressional representa-
tive from the second district.
A vote for Mrs. Boulding is not mere-
ly a vote against the Viet Nam war.
Rather it is a vote against the present
philosophy of foreign policy-shared by
both political parties-which has involv-
ed us in Viet Nam, and will continue to
involve us in similar wars.
A vote for Mrs. Boulding is also a vote
for a third political force in the second
district. The aim of the Boulding cam-
paign is to give a legitimate political
voice to those who cannot accept the
assumptions- of either the Republican or
Democratic party, and who have been ig-
nored in their efforts to change those as-
sumptions within the two parties.
A vote for Mrs. Boulding also supports
the conception of "New Politics" on a'
nationwide scale-a conception which de-
sires real, not symbolic, elimination of the
problems of poverty and racial injustice.
THERE ARE MANY second district vot-
ers who share the aims of the Bould-
ing campaign, but who will probably not
vote for Mrs. Boulding. There are varied
reasons for their decision.
They contend first, that this is not
the time. for a third= party movement.
Congressman Vivian has proved himself
a dove within the Democratic party, and
has established a liberal voting record on
domestic affairs.
Secondly, they feel a vote for Mrs.
Boulding will hurt Vivian, and thus stifle
the progress that Vivian has made in edu-
cating the voters of the second district.
While they desire a more liberal represen-
tative, one with the views of Mrs. Bould-
ing, they feel, that. the defeat of Vivian
and the election of Esch is too high a price
to pay.
Finally, they contend that the Peace

Campaign hasn't been organized well
enough to be effective-it's too little, too
However, the assumption that a vote
for Mrs. Boulding will lead to Vivian's de-
feat may be ungrounded. Some observers
feel that Vivian will win easily, despite the
peace campaign.
SECONDLY, the decision to make a
break with the Democratic party has
already been made. And it has been made
by people who have traditionally worked
within the Democratic party. Two months
ago, these people would not agree to de-
mands calling for a peace candidate in
the primary.
Since then they have changed their
minds. It was their decision to make.
If those who support the
existence of -a third party withhold their
vote now, they will help to bring col-
lapse of that movement.
Those who cite the campaign's weakness
-who will withhold their votes until it
reaches the level of Scheer's campaign-
are indulging in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
If you support the peace campaign,
and the philosophy behind it, but are go-
ing to wait until it is strong before you
cast a vote for it, you may be waiting
forever. Your vote can either further or
hurt the Boulding campaign. It can't do
And while one election couldn't break
one of the two major parties, it may well
do just that to Ann Arbor's third party.
sign the senior editorial endorsing
Vivian, which appeared on the front page
of yesterday's Daily. I urge the voters, of
the second district to withhold their sup-
port also.
Associate Editorial Director

This is the text of a speech
given by Ed Schwartz at Sun-
day's teach-in on the draft in
Hill Auditorium. Schwartz, na-
tional concerns vice-president of
the National Student Associa-
tion, has spent much of his
time this year formulating pro-
posals for alternative service.
T[HE QUESTION is that of loy-
alty: the meaning which our
culture gives to the term; the
ways in which it is fostered; the
burdens which it imposes upon
us; the spirit which it demands.
The students who picket the site
of a Selective Service Test have
been called disloyal; the students
who sit-in at their local draft
boards have been called disloyal;
the students who burn their draft
cards have been called disloyal;
and we are all called disloyal
for merely asking whether we
should be - for challenging the
rhetoric and the context of the
rhetoric; the policies and the con-
text of the policies; the symbols
and the emotions behind them.
Yet we must continue to ask
until our questions are answered;
we must continue to answer un-
til our questions are asked.
WORDS are vessels for feeling.
Without the appropriate language,
we stifle feelings we really want
to express. But we cannot for-
get our inner voices; we cry out
for the vessels through which they
can be heard; and when we find
them - when thewculture opens
them to us-we want to believe
that our culture is serious.
We want to believe that our
culture is serious when it says
that a spirit of compassion is the
spirit in which we act.
We want to believe that our
culture is serious when it says that
a devotion to helping other people
is the devotion upon which the
quality of our national life de-
WE WANT to believe that our
culture is serious when it says that
our generation provides hope when
it demands love; and that it in-
jects vision when it exposes the
sufferings of people around the
Does the culture let us believe
it, however?
To the Editor:
ON THURSDAY, Nov. 3, 1966, we
met with President Hatcher
and Vice-President Niehuss to dis-
cuss the University's policy of com-
piling ranks for the Selective Serv-
ice, and the SGC Nov. 16 refer-
endum on the above issue.
The result of that meeting was
that President Hatcher stated that
the administration would not
and could not accept a student
referendum as binding upon them.
The reasons for this denial are as
interesting and despicable as the
denial itself.
President Hatcher does not seem
to realize what democracy is.
Though democracy may be and
probably is subject to the dangers
of a mistaken citizenry, govern-
ment by unresponsive and power-
ful administrators is repulsive and
should be fought against.
AFTER ALL, a democratic proc-
ess for making decisions is always
subject to change, and the people
affected by policies have the pri-
mary right to determine the direc-
tion of their lives, free from coer-
cive conditions beyond their in-
fluence or control.
What President Hatcher seems
to feel is, that since there is no

We declare a War on Poverty,
as long as we don't have to sup-
port it.
We proclaim our love for the
Negro, as long as we don't have
to see him.
We tell the world of our desire
for peace, as long as we don't have
to seek it.
ARE THE WORDS really ves-
sels for feeling; or are they echo
chambers, upon which we rely to
tell us what we want to thing of
Yet for our generation the words
really are the vessels, because we
know what it means to be de-
prived of the right to feel. We've
known it in our high schools,
where we saw the children of the
poor whipped for shouting too
loudly in the halls; where we sawv
the children of the mind scorned
for becoming too involved with
the words of a poet; and where we
saw the children of the mass dis-
tilled and destroyed by the doc-
trine that the essence of maturity
is suppression of self.
We know what it means to be
denied the right to feel when a
professor gives the name of value
judgment to the expression of our
opinions; or when an administra-
tor calls us irresponsible for ask-
ing the right questions at the right
time in the way that we want to
ask them; or when the way we
express our love for a friend is
branded, "naive," or "dangerous,"
or "immoral."
THIS IS the meaning of the ex-
perience of our generation; this is
the cause of the desperation which
accompanies what we say. Give us
the vessels for our feelings, we
ask, and the culture answers -
"here ahey are; gram them-while
the culture is pulling the vessels
The question we face today is
that of loyalty. Yet what is loy-
alty but our own response to the
experience of life in our society;
and our own willingness to ac-
cept what the society wants us to
When the rhetoric challenges
our humanity, while the policies
block its expression, the emotion-
al bonds upon which community
must be founded become twisted
and broken.


IN THE END, we can be hon-
est, only if we pledge allegiance
to the rhetoric; but we can be
loyal, only if we accept the dis-
honesty with which it is express-
ed. Loyalty wins, more often than
not, but the victory is pyrrhic; we
were taught to expect much more.
In my wallet there is a card
which has become a symbol of
my loyalty. It is not the symbol
of what I have been asked to feel.
The rhetoric says that I am loy-
al when I am humane; the card
says that I am loyal only when I
am inhumane.
The rhetoric says that I am loy-
al when I build; the card says that
I am loyal only when I destroy.
The rhetoric says that I am loy-
al when I exercise my freedom;
the card says that I am loyal,
when I bow to authority.
The rhetoric says that I am loy-
al when I love; the card says that
am loyal only when I kill.
SHOULD WE broaden the card
to include the rhetoric? Or should
we spoil the rhetoric to spare the
card? To which set of values
should I be loyal?
That's the question which ad-
vocates of alternative service are
asking. We're not simply trying to
make a system more palatable; we
are trying to replace a bad set of
ideas with a good one. We're ask-

ing that this country broaden its
entire conception of loyalty.
We're asking those who have
led the battles which gave us the
rhetoric in civil rights, poverty and
peace-,to demand that the words
become the policies. And we're ask-
ing that they implement those pol-
icies - to continue to make this
country feel dissatisfied, until it
can feel for itself.
YET, THE IRONY is that the
people who should most strongly
support us are those who are most
against us. "Alternative service is
not the answer," they say, "be-
cause our country will never make
it mean what we would want it to
You'd never get alternative
service for doing what is neces-
sary to fight poverty--our coun-
try is not willing to do those
things. You'd never get alterna-
tive service to take the steps nec-
essary to guarantee civil rights -
our society is not ready to take
those steps.
"Alternative service will mere-
ly become another instrument to
perpetuate the conditions we're
trying to change; another excuse
to substitute the rhetoric for the
THESE CHARGES may be true,
but the question is how long you
are willing to accept their truth as
being inevitable-how hard' you're
willing to work to negate their
truth. If you want civil rights to
become alternative service - then
ask for that. If you want commu-
nity organizing to become alter-
native service-ask for that. If you
want the administration of a free
university to become alternative
service-ask for that.
We have a golden opportunity
to create an indelible bond be-
tween the social policies for which
we fight, and the ideals in whose
name they are fought--if we're
willing to take the chance of fight-
ing for them.
The question is that of loyalty:
the meaning which our culture
gives to the term.
A SOCIETY which denies its
citizens the right to feel can ex-
perience no loyalty other than a
faith in abstractions. We do this.

We are not loyal to America be-
cause we love the people of our
community; we are loyal to Amer-
ica because we love the Constitu-
tion. We do not fight to preserve
fraternity; we fight to protect
what we call liberty. We accuse
those who kill of nothing more
than murder; we accuse those who
burn a card of nothing less than
And we negate the loyalties of
our personal lives.
We are denied the right to feel;
we can no longer feel for our par-
We are denied the capacity to
love; our relationships become
cynical and distorted.
We are denied the pleasure of
kindness; our good deeds are the
product of guilt.
OUR POLLUTED and diffused
conception of loyalty is reflected
in every area of our lives. We
learn to sell out our friends in the
name of opportunity for advance-
ment. We learn to exploit other
people to gratify our own sexual
desires. We learn to shop around
for companions in the way that a
person picks up lettuce in a super-
market. And we learn these things
because we know that in a society
of evil men, only the selfish can
The selfish and the indifferent.
Yet the people who are urging al-
ternative service are saying that
a society cannot be indifferent
to the dissolution of the bonds
between people--that we cannot
be indifferent to a bastardized no-
tion of what loyalty means.
WHAT WE WANT to see in this
country is the kind of attitude by
which a person who helps in build-
ing houses in the slums can say,
"I have served my country." And
the person who establishes a co-
operative in Mississippi can say,
"I have served my country." Or
the person who teaches in an Afri-
can school can say: "I have serv-
ed my country."
And we want to see those who
serve their country, learn to be
loyal to the people within it; to
feel for the sufferings, in Au-
den's words, "to' which the poor
are fairly accustomed."
And to feel for themselves.

VOICE Conference wi Hatch er

18-Year.Uld Vote

AS A FELLOW turns 18, he becomes.
aware of those signs that say "Uncle
Sam Wants You"-with the white-haired
gentleman who points that long paternal-
istic finger.
He wants you to fight--but not to vote.
This injustice has been widely expound-
ed recently, and is now the subject of a
state referendum. It should be rectified-
not only on the grounds of "Old enough
to fight, old enough to vote argument"-
but for a number of reasons.
FIRST, in the eyes of the criminal code,
an 18-year-old is an adult. He is con-
sidered fully responsible for his actions,
and mature enough to perceive the so-
cial consequences of his conduct. He no
longer has recourse to a juvenile court.
Secondly, the state terminates its offer
of free education about the time the
young man turns 18. If he wants to con-
tinue his education, the state provides
the school, but he provides the money.
Aside from the vote, the only area in
which the stateddoes not treat the indi-
vidual as an adult is in the signing of
A WJBK EDITORIAL countered the "Old
enough to vote, old enough to fight"
argument Thursday night on the grounds
that the physical maturity needed to
make a good soldier cannot be equated
with the mental maturity needed for a
good voter.
The editors failed to realize, however,
that mental maturity is assumed when a

young man is asked to risk his life for a
set of ideals.
If a man is assumed to be mature
enough to understand the concepts of
denocracy when he is asked to risk his
life for it, then he is certainly mature
enough to participate in that democracy.
THUS, THE STATE recognizes an 18-
year-old's maturity in almost every
matter except the vote. Hopefully, the
election on November 8 will eliminate that
All major Michigan candidates, from
Romney to Williams, have endorsed the
18-year-old-vote. None of them, however,
have done any more than pay lip service
to it.I
Why do they secretly oppose giving the
vote to 18-year-olds? Can it be a. matter
of partisanship?
If the reason were one of partisanship,
then one party would actively support the
But thus far the only group to give
more than oratorical support is the Unit-
ed Auto Workers.
IF THE REFERENDUM is defeated on
November 8, a great injustice will be
committed. The political leaders who kill
the referendum by failing to give it active
support will be taking part in this injus-
We strongly urge that all voters no
matter what age or party preference,
refuse to take part, and vote, "Yes" on
Amendment 1 on next Tuesday's ballot.

institutionalized process whereby
students can be a real part of the
decision making process, admin-
istrators should continue to make
policy and exercise power with the
condition that they should consider
(not necessarily heed) student ad-
vice and opinion.
But, now that students have of-
fered up a democratic and legiti-
mate process for expressing them-
selves to the issues that concern
their lives more than anyone else's,
the administration has floundered
in its own words and has made it
seem very clear that an "institu-
tionalized" process of decisive ex-
pression is not what they desire.
THEY HAVE shown themselves
to be hesitant hypocrits who feel
"student participation" to be mere-
ly the partaking of advice devices
and acquiescence to administra-
tive disgression. To this we stand
opposed, and urge that students
act in solidarity against the evils
of administrative power.
We demand that the referendum
be binding upon the administra-
tion. In the time between now and
Nov. 16 the student population will
have the opportunity to hear SGC
placed speakers discuss the argu-

ments for and against ranking.
WE URGE people to become fa-
miliar with the issue, because we
feel that ranking must be abolish-
ed. To realize this the student body
as a whole must vote on Nov. 16.
-Skip M. Taube
-Larry Hauser, 70
--Ken Pickard, '69
--Dan Spitzer, '67
--Carl Murphy, Grad
To the Editor:
Mrs. Boulding, the peace can-
didate, has generated a quantity
of emotion, but it has done so
by abandoning self-consistency,
facts, aid fairness. I refer speci-
fically to the letter in Wednes-
day's Daily by Dr, Rapaport. Dr.
Rapaport contends that only the
Administration has any real power
to change foreign policy. In the
same letter he blames Congress-
man Vivian for doing no more
than expressing peace sentiments
in the Congress.
If I have read Dr. Rapaport's

letter correctly, he has indicated
that despite the fact that Mr. Vi-
vian has risen fifteen times on the
floor of the House of Representa-
tives and in conference with the
President with peace proposals,
some at which have been adopted,
Mr. Vivian has done nothing to
work toward an effective settle-
ment of the Viet Nam war,:where-
as if 500 or 1000 voters in the sec-
ond congressional district repudi-
ate that Congressman, this is re-
garded as an effective means of
attaining peace. The logic of this
position escapes me.
DR. RAPAPORT, perhaps having
read Mr. Vivian's peace record in
this column Tuesday, extracted
the one item from that record
which could be attacked as a move
supporting the war, the vote on
the supplemental appropriation,
and said that it is the only thing
which really counts.
THE THEORY that the peace-
through-imediate-withdrawal sup-
porters can get their way by pro-
viding the margin by which peace-
through-negotiation Congressmen
are defeated by peace-through-
victory candiates, also bears some
examination. The political reality

of this position is that it effec-
tively writes off the '66 election,
talks about building for '68, or
later, and in essence says, "Mr.
Vivian's proposals for a negotiated
settlement are too slow-let's
everybody wait till we build our
third party, and maybe in '68 we'll
have our way and then we can
withdraw immediately."
recent times a third party has not
been an effective force in national
U.S. politics in that cataclysmic
changes in foreign or' domestic
policy have not been forced by
third party tactics.
WITHIN THE framework of our
rather sluggish political systeril
the most effective means of at-
taining a stable peace -is through
the efforts of those, such as Mr.
Vivian, working within the current
political framework and establish-
ment, to continually, gently, and I
hope, effectively, influence the
Congress and the Administration
to work toward what the majority
of American people can consider
a peaceful settlement of the war
in Viet Nam.
-Robert E. Beyer
Department of Zoology


.:.:::. S":'vk'>Z. t "" ::::":f; ^. k::4a:Avi. '":i).:::. St ... , . +. > a... .a,: .:. .t~ r. ... .
.I" w. .., .>,. ,. : tk . (+ :{>YY<:i: 'tnfi" ty <n. +,. .: . . x E , I
s. . . ....,. r .:..x. N. 'f .: ~ .t :',. ,::: , "' .r:: . S
Elections.. r; 1966t .... ....., :. .:....ES " '': The: Wild3WestfShow

Omissions Tell Tales

ining national motives is to examine
what is and is not said by the nation's
leaders. Take, for example, the Presi-
dent's two lengthy speeches in Seoul:
"We are going to have to stand and say,
'might doesn't make right.'
"There are 3 billion people in the world
and we only have 200-million of them.
We are outnumbered 15 to 1. If might did
make right they would sweep over the
United States and take what we have.
We have what they want.
"We had better establish a rule we es-
tablished in Europe when we went there.
that no dictatnr iut heciaue he has now-

Pacific. We are showing right now it can't
be done in Viet Nam.
"It is better to do it there than it is in
Honolulu. We hope that we can establish
the fact that men are equal in the world,
might doesn't make right in the world.
"We don't ask for much, but what we
ask for we are going to get, we are going
to keep, we are going to hold."
NOW, IN ALL FAIRNESS, the President
does mention "national self-determi-
nation"-once in two speeches. He also
mentioned "your (Korean) right to be sov-
ereign and independent"-twice. "Free-
dom" annears a nhr of tims- hut the

Third of a Five Part Series
R ONALD REAGAN is not a joke.
When the largest state in the
union falls under the control of
reactionary, it is tragic, not hu-
morous. A man who is opposed to
civil rights, opposed to welfare
spending,s u p p o r t s increased
bombing of North Vietnam, and
is against just about every piece
of leberal legislation passed during
the last six years will 'probably
gain a position of tremendous
public importance and political
influence on Tuesday. And most
people just laugh and say, "Look
at the funny actor."
The real issues of the campaign
have been clouded by Reagan's
opponent, the two-term incumbant
governor Edmund "Pat" Brown.
Brown's major campaign issue is
that Reagan isonly an actorrand
thereby, by use of some sort of
primitive folk logic, must be an
incompete and irresponsible ad-
A key series of Brown television
advertisements features n o t e d
actors bemoaning the fact that
Reagan seems to have forgotten
+he iffravanrae hexata fantaveu

Throughout the campaign, Rea-
gan has shown that he is anything
but a bumbling clown. For two
years, he has calculatingly nur-
tured a moderate, responsible
He has hired several public re-
lations firms to build up his
image, and, taking his cue from
George Romney, he relies on his
good looks, smiles, jokes and
Nixonesque name-calling more
more than on issues. It is all part
of a skillet campaign to make
Reagan seem like your cheery,
Kesponsible, albeit conservative,
neighborhood druggist rather than
the reactionary that he is. Rea-
gan has been quite careful to
avoid the irresponsible, warmonger
image that his ideological mate,
Barry Goldwater, created.
No, his campaign has not been
that of a fool.
And by portraying Reagan as a
clown, Brown has only preluded
the people from examining Rea-
gan's ideas seriously. What dif-
ference does it make what he says,
because he is such a fool that he
could not implement any of his
members of the New Left at

vestigation of-which needs a
state investigation like it needs
more riots-Berkeley by the legis-
lature or a committee headed by
former C.I.A. head, John McCone.
IDEAS have fallen on receptive
ears in California, particularly
Southern California. This area
has been a hotbed of John Birch
Society suport and largely respon-
sible for the triumph of Gold-
water in the 1964 Presidential pri-
It must be recalled that Barry
Goldwater came within a few per-
centage points to defeating John-
son in the 1964 election in Califor-
PAT BROWN has been governor
of California for eight years. At
times, he has shown remarkable
leadership, and insight, while in
other cases he has been an incred-
ible bungler.
Brown led a long and at times
very lonely struggle against !ap-
ital punishment in the state. He
has been an active supporter of
civil rights, and has continued to
advocate open housing legislation,
in spite of despite its vast unpop-

lives were lost that he acted firmly
to quell the violence. The'riots and
Brown's handling of them cost
him many votes.
The recent trouble in San Fran-
cisco was thought to be partic-
ularly damaging, for until that ex-
plosion, most of the racial tension
caused by Watts had subsided.
Also, during the Berkeley up-
rising, Brown sent forth a con-
stant stream of inanities, many of
which he has come to regret. He
has also been involved in constant
intra-party bickering that nas at
times made him look like a name-
calling housewife.
BUT BROWN'S major handi-
caps seem to be his lackluster im-
age and his longevity. He is about
as dynamic a personality as Wally
Cox and speaks with -an eloquence
befitting Don Knotts. Against such
nondescript personalities as Wil-
liam Knowland in 1958 and Rich-
ard Nixon in 1962, this lack of
dynamism did not hurt Brown.
But this year Brown has palel be-
fore the dynamic, eloquent image
of Reagan. And any official loses
his glamour after eight years in
office, as well as accumulating a
large band of enemies-ask Nelson
Rnafnlo n af.hv i, amncm in




Rights Bills of 1964, 1965, and
1966. He has expressed complete
disagreement with any and all
types of open housing legislation.
He has denounced all Negro lead-
ers as incitors of violence.
Drastic cutbacks in the state
welfare programs have been prom-
ised by Reagan. The only purpose
the m,'ocRn+ uai farp vCDtam Co


Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan