Seventy-Sixth Year EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN UNDER AUTHORITY O$' BOARD M CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS 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; SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: L4AURENCE MEDOW 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 late. 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 both. 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. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, I did not 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. -ROBERT CARNEY 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. By ED SCHWARTZ 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- pends. 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 world. Does the culture let us believe it, however? Letters: 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 ourselves? 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 away. 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 feel. 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. ED SCHWARTZ 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 mean. 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 policy." 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 treason, And we negate the loyalties of our personal lives. We are denied the right to feel; we can no longer feel for our par- ents. 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 survive., 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 contracts. 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 exception. 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 referendum. 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- tice. 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. -RONALD KLEMPNER 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. THE STUDENTS Will Decide. -Skip M. Taube -Larry Hauser, 70 --Ken Pickard, '69 --Dan Spitzer, '67 --Carl Murphy, Grad Vivian To the Editor: THE WRITE-IN-CAMPAIGN for 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." I WOULD CONTEND that in 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 'V .:.:::. S":'vk'>Z. t "" ::::":f; ^. k::4a:Avi. '":i).:::. St ... , . +. > a... .a,: .:. .t~ r. ... . .I" w. .., .>,. ,. : tk . (+ :{>YY<:i: 'tnfi" ty