100%

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

Share

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 15, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-11-15

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


Seventy-SixthYear
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

andE Pipeline Pete,th Pentag9on and Prejudice
POETRY by MARK R.KILLINGSWORTH
i% h; S ^ .. i.. . i'r:4Y.rr rk ,>t{ ? . t. ..:: hinfi*.r ... :~:. . ... ..'55 ~S. ., . . , ...

. - -Aw

!Oinons Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.

NEwS PHONE: 764-0552

I A

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This msus t be noted in all reprints.

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 1966

NIGHT EDITOR: ROGER RAPOPORT

Endorsements for Student
Government Council Seats .

S0*

IN MAKING our endorsement for Wed-
nesday's SGC election, the senior edi-
tors of The Daily are pleased to note that
all of this year's SGC candidates are
relatively well-informed and creative.
We analyze each candidate's qualifica-
tions and possible contribution to Coun-
cil's work in the future as follows:
EXCELLENT
JOHN PRESTON - Preston was ap-
pointed earlier' this year to a vacant
seat on SGC. He has proven to be a
knowledgeable and hard-working mem-
ber of that body. He has served on SGC's
Civil Liberties Board and the commit-
tee reviewing University judicial pro-
vedures. His past enthusiasm for stu-
dent government and creative political
abilities make him an outstanding can-
didate.
BRUCE KAHN-He was also appointed
this year to fill an empty seat on Coun-
cil. He has put in a considerable amount
of time organizing the SGC-sponsored
draft referendum. Familiar with the
workings of the University and political-
ly adept, his election would be a great
asset to SGC.
MICHAEL DAVIS-Davis is a graduate
student in philosophy with a large amount
of experience as an undergraduate in
student government. An analytical think-
er and tatician, Davis will give SGC a
more mature and experienced means of
achieving its goals. Willing to work and
informed on campus issues, he would
broaden the base of Student Govern-
ment Council's support in the University
community.
NEILL HOLLENSHEAD-Is an incumb-
ent who, if re-elected, would probably
only serve half of his year-long term
because he is graduating this May. How-
ever, in the past he has been both crea-
tive in his thinking and- hard working
on Council. For example, he was one of
the prime movers behind the idea of stu-
dent advisory boards to the vice-presi-
dents, and spent long hours working on
the student voter registration drive. We
feel that the skills and experience he will
bring to Council justify his re-election
even if he stays in office for only half
of his term.
GOOD
NELSON LANDE-Lande is a senior
with a lot of ability in student govern-
ment and a backlog of information on the
University. He is president of Zeta Beta
Tau fraternity. More important, he has
been a member of the literary college
steering committee, one of the most pres-
tigious and knowledgeable student ad-
visory groups on campus. He is commit-
ted to the goal of more student partici-
pation in University affairs.
One basic mitigating factor in his
case is that the second half of one's sen-
ior year is a little too late to start work-
ing on Student Government Council.
However, Lande's election would still be
an asset to Council's work.

MIKE KOENEKE-Was also appointed
to SGC this fall to fill an empty seat.
Known as one of the hardest working
members of Council, he is quite well-in-
formed about the University. He also has
a broad perspective on student affairs
which he picked up attending the Na-
tional Student Association Congress in
August. He is, however, reluctant to take
an activist role even when he has strong
doubts about University policy.
MICHAEL DEAN-Dean is an incumb-
ent who will graduate this year. He show-
ed much promise when first elected to
Council but has failed somewhat to live
up to it or to put in the hard work ex-
pected of a Council member. Neverthe-
less, he has been a strong supporter of
student participation and an effective
spokesman in its behalf. We feel that
Dean, if returned to Council, could work
more industriously than before, especial-
ly in the implementation of plans for
student decision-making.
UNACCEPTABLE
LESLIE MAHLER-Is, as she admits,
"a novice." Although she seems to be in-
terested in University affairs, she has
neither the necessary knowledge nor ex-
perience. at this time to be effective on
Council. However, because of her inter-
est, we urge that shesrun againcat some
later time. a
JOHN KELLY-Has gained consider-
ably more knowledge of the University
than the last time he ran for Council.
Nevertheless, he still has a simplistic
view of the University and SGC's role, and
has not been particularly effective in
carrying out projects with Student Gov-
ernment Council's committee system.
ROD LOCKWOOD-Displays a consid-
erable lack of knowledge of the Univer-
sity, particularly the crucial area of stu-
dent participation. He obviously needs
more experience with student govern-
ment and a quick course on the Univer-
sity.
JOHN BURGENER-While he showed
slightly more knowledge of the Univer-
sity than Lockwood, is ineffective in com-
municating his ideas and obviously has
not thought in any depth about the more
important issues that will be facing
Council in the next semester.
STUDENT GOVERNMENT COUNCIL is
at what is perhaps the most crucial
point in its history - its membership
must be dynamic and thoughtful in its
fight for student participation and more
effective administration of the ambitious
projects such as the student voter regis-
tration drive and the Student Housing
Association which it is attempting to im-
plement.
The candidates we have chosen to en-
dorse demonstrate those qualities which
will enable SGC to achieve these goals.
--THE SENIOR EDITORS

THE DEFENSE Department's
recommendations for "broad-
ening equal opportunities" here
spotlight a crucial-and virtually
unrecognized-University problem.
There are presently less than 25
Negro faculty and administrative
staff members and less than 350
Negro students on campus.
Not only is the University
known as a school "basically for
'rich white students,'" as the Pen-
tagon declares; it is in fact a
school composed basically of "rich
white students."
YET WHAT WAS the Univer-
sity's reaction? It should be print-
ed in full:
'The document in The Daily is
a set of confidential suggestions
made to the University at its re-
quest in order to expand and
broaden its existing equal oppor-
tunity programs.It isnotaa report
to the Defense Department and its
release was not authorized by that
Department nor by the University.
"The suggestions were sought by
the University in advance of any
formal report in an effort to
broaden programs already under-
way. These programs include a re-
lationship with Tuskegee Institute,
a broad program of equal oppor-
tunity scholarships, and a con-
tinuing effort to recruit additional
faculty, staff and students from
among qualified Negroes. These
programs are a matter of public
record, and all of them pre-date
the visit to the campus by a De-
fense Department representative."
AS PIPELINE Pete put it in yes-
terday's Detroit Free Press: "A
biased interpretation?"
Biased, no; but misleading, yes.
For the statement implies that
The Daily said the document
which appeared Friday is a report,
Letters
To the Editor:
MEET THE manpower needs
of the constantly expanding
war in Viet Nam, large numbers of
college students will soon be
drafted. The Selective Service Sys-
tem has decided to choose which
students will be drafted by the
use of two basic criteria. The first
is the national aptitude test and
the other is the class ranking of
males within a given year and
college.
The University administration
has decided to comply with these
guidelines and compile ranks
whose sole purpose will be to de-
termine who is to be drafted.
VOICE OPPOSES the compila-
tion of ranks for these reasons:
1) Ranking distorts the aca-
demic setting of the University by
twisting the classroom experience.
Ranking intensifies tremendously
the importance of grades. Course
material is not studied so that it
can be understood and analyzed,
but so that it can be regurgitated
during tests. Students will tend
to take easy courses, rather than
risk receiving a mediocre grade
in a tough stimulating course.
2) Ranking splits the student
body. Competition for grades be-
comes a life and death affair as
students battle for deferment. The
end of ranking will make more
possible a unified student body
which can bring about improve-
ments in the University and the
society.
3) Ranking penalizes students
engaged in extracurricular activi-
ties. Those taking part in SGC,
The Daily and political organiza-
tions will tend to get lower grades,
yet these groups are essential parts
of a university community. Rank-
ing will also prohibit an expan-

sion of the number of students
participating in these activities.

not suggestions; that the recom-
mendations were made to the Uni-
versity because the University
asked for them; and that the rec-
ommendations were intended to
broaden programs such as its
Tuskegee exchange program. It is
well to deal with each separately:
4 "not a report but recom-
mendations": The Daily's Friday
article clearly called its text
(which was titled, "Recommenda-
tions for Broadening Equal Op-
portunities under Provisions of
Title VI, Civil Rights Bill) "the
complete text . . . of Defense De-
partment recommendations to the
University . . ." and The Daily's
story said that the document
"makes 25 recommendations . .."
* "sought by the University ...
to broaden programs already un-
derway": The recommendations
printed in Friday's Daily are titled,
"Recommendations for Broadening
Equal Opportunities under Provi-
sions of Title VI, Civil Rights Bill,"
a Defense Department spokesman,
quoted in Saturday's Daily, said it
is "standard operating procedure
to give our recomnendations to
the parties involved, whether they
request the recommendations or
not."
0 "not a report to the Defense
Department": The Daily said on
Friday that "the recommendations
made available yesterday ... (have
been sent) to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense, which orig-
inally requested the study." The
Daily on Saturday corrected the
one error in its Friday story, say-
ing that a report has not yet been
written and that-while the rec-
ommendations had been sent to
Washington-the report itself is
not yet finished.
Hence what appears to be a cor-
rection of flagrant errors becomes
on further scrutiny somewhat

dubious exercise in public-relations
gamesmanship.
Now that the record is straight,
it is useful to see what it means.
* * *
IT IS IMPORTANT to under-
stand first what the recommenda-
tions do not say.
Under Title VI of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act, the Defense Depart-
ment-which provided nearly $20
million of the total $52 million
which the University received last
year from Federal agencies-like
other Federal agencies, must see
if discrimination exists at institu-
tions which receive its money.
The Defense Department ac-
cordngly conducted the first of
many "routine" reviews of com-
pliance at colleges under Title VI
here; while no reasons can be de-
termined to explain why the Uni-
versity was chosen first, the Pen-
tagon's recommendations to the
University based on its investiga-
tions here clearly do not suggest
that the University has failed to
comply with Title VI. (The Daily's
Friday article noted, "There is no
judgement in the recommenda-
tions that the University has failed
to comply . ."
MOREOVER, the University and
the Contracts Compliance Office,
whose Detroit branch conducted
the study of the University, appear
to have had very cordial and
agreeable relations during the
whole time of the study. There is
no evidence that either party has
been less than unfailingly coopera-
tive and helpful to the other.
In addition the recommenda-
tions disclosed Friday have, at this
point, only an advisory nature.
They are focused not on deter-
mining compliance with Title VI's
discrimination ban, but rather on
broadening equal educational op-

portunities under Title VI at the
University
That is an admirable goal and
one towards which, under the 1964
Civil Rights Act, Federal agencies
are not only entitled but directed
to give recommendations.
SOME OF THE recommen-
dations-such as appointing Ne-
groes to faculty policy-making
posts - are questionable. This
would play havoc with faculty
democracy and it presupposes that
there are enough interested Negro
facultytwho could serve on such
committees.
The recommendations neglect
the fraternity and sorority system
entirely, and are vague on what
kinds of record-keeping are nec-
essary for informed decisions on
equal opportunities. And they have
little to offer on how the Univer-
sity's existing programs for equal
opportunity might be improved.
Yet the recommendations gen-
erally present some excellent sug-
gestions and an unavoidable chal-
lenge to the University. They do
not merit uncritical acceptance;
but they very much deserve some
serious thought.
As one University official ad-
mits: "Discrimination and affir-
mative racial balance are two dif-
ferent things." The University has
not discriminated, but i t has
scarcely achieved even a minimal
degree of affirmative racial bal-
ance.
AND IT IS a tragedy that is has
failed to do so. The crisis in race
relations has entered a new, more
urgent phase recently; and if the
great universities of this country
fail to meet the problem within
their own environs, they will, to
that extent, be unable to provide
the wisdom and leadership the
country needs in race relations.

For that reason, the Defense
Department's recommendat i o n s
offer hope for improvement in the
future. Its suggestion that the
University work closely with high
schools and civic groups to recruit
able Negro students and inform
minority groups of educational and
vocational opportunities is excel-
lent.
Its emphasis on improving the
University's dismal image among
Negroes is unquestionably neces-
sary. Its sense of urgency on the
need to recruit qualified Negro
faculty and students is commend-
able.
WHAT IS DISTURBING, how-
ever, is that administrators are
now aware of the Defense Depart-
ment recommendations but as yet
have not done anything about
them, even though the Defense
Department discussed them with
University officials in a four-hour-
long meeting last Aug. 4.
It has been observed that all
that is necessary for evil to
triumph is for enough good men
to do nothing. The University
community has its share of good
men. Yet the University has failed
to meet its responsibilities on equal
opportunity in the past, and an
uneventful present is slowly drift-
ing into an unencouraging future.
UNTIL THE problem of equal
opportunity is solved here at the
University, its Sesquicentennial
slogan of "Knowledge, Wisdom
and the Courage to Serve" will
sound hollow, pompous and not a
little hypocritical. Thorough dis-
cussion and swift action on the
Defense Department's recommen-
dations are a first step towards
solving a major moral challenge-
to the University and, indeed, to
our own society at large.

A

1

Vote Against Submitting Rank

9.

4) Ranking involves the cooper-
ation of the University in the Viet
Nam war effort. Voice opposes the
war and believes that the United
States government has no right to
maintain troops in Viet Nam.
SIX MAJOR universities have
already stated that they will not
compile ranks, including Wayne
State University. The addition of
Michigan to this list will give a
large boost to the national move-
ment to abolish ranking.
The- end of ranking will not
allow the drafting of all male stu-

dents at Michigan. Those who de-
sire a 2-S deferment oan obtain
one by passing the national draft
test. Voice opposes the 2-S defer-
ment but believes that, if it is to
continue, the test is a preferable
criterion to class ranking because
it does not have the effects de-
scribed above.
The decision to compile class
ranks is one which directly in-
volves students and faculty. It is
a collective decision and should be
determined by a vote of those af-
fected. The faculty senate should
have an opportunity to approve a

AWOL-

resolution opposing ranking. The
Nov. 16 referendum is the stun
dents' opportunity to judge this
crucial question. Those votes
should be binding on the admin-
istration.
ADMINISTRATORS have view-
ed students as a group to be man-
ipulated and controlled. They
have kept students away from the
critical areas of University author-
ity. The accomplishment of a
binding referendum on the rank-
ings is the first step in a long-
range drive for student participa-
tion in decision-making.
Vote Nov. 16.
--Eric Chester
Voice Political Party
Black Power
To the Editor:
IN YOUR Oct. 28 issue Dick Plat-
kin viewed with alarm the fact
that Senator Robert Kennedy had
rejected those Negro leaders who
were calling for "hatred, racism,
and violence"-and he wondered
if the senator could be referring
to the same Stokely Carmichael
that we "heard explain Black
Power in Hill Aud.," the one who
spoke of "passive resistance."
MR. PLATKIN'S problem is that
he has apparently never bothered
to learn what Mr. Carmichael says
elsewhere-at Black Panther ral-
lies in Harlem and in position
papers within SNCC. In Hill Aud.
Mr. Carmichael offered nothing
more radical than a garbled con-
geries of Unitarian history and a
Sambo-shuffle; but away from
white audiences he is more candid.
He recently declared t h a t
"When you talk of Black Power,
you talk of bringing this country
to its kness, . .. you talk of build-

ing a movement that will smash
everything that Western Civiliza-
tion has created" (N.Y. Times
Mag. Sept. 25). At a rally in Har-
lem (from which "the white press
and all our enemies" were expel-
led) Carmichael intoned "We'll
have to move from Malotov cock-
tails to dynamite. If we had' any
sense we'd have bombed those
ghettos long ago."
At the same rally another mem-
ber of the Black Panther Party
declared: "Black men must unite
in overthrowing their white op-
pressors, but we must do it like
Panthers-smiling, cunning, scien-
tifically . . . striking by night and
sparing no one." "This fight is
going to be won in the streets.
The United States can be brought
down with a rag and some gaso-
line and a bottle." (N.Y. Post
Aug. 30).
AS LESLIE DUNBAR has com-
mented, the only contributions of
Black Power are racism and vio-
lence. It has been repudiated by
virtually every representative of
the civil rights movement, includ-
ing the many members of SNCC
who have resigned in disgust
Julian Bond, John Lewis, Charles
Sherrod, Bob Mants, etc.
In the past I have worked for
both SNCC and CORE, in Georgia
and in New York's lower east side,
but I have now reluctantly accept-
ed this conclusion-that Black Su-
premacy is not a superficial varia-
tion of the old themes of protest;
it is a basic betrayal of the values
and aspirations of the civil rights
movement.
-Bob C. L. Brannon
Center for Research on
Conflict Resolution

OSA Aets in Bad Faith

THE ARGUMENTS used by the Office
of Student Affairs to justify its new-
est regulation over student conduct are
specious. The way the enactment of the
new regulation was handled was an act
of bad faith toward Student Government
Council and the student body-as a whole.
OSA Vice-President Richard L. Cutler
announced Saturday that he has put in-
to effect, under the powers recently
granted him by the Regents, a rule ban-
ning sit-ins "which interfere with the
normal and orderly operations of the
University."
Cutler announced the independently
conceived regulation despite the fact that
he told SGC Thursday night that he
would not pass any rule concerning stu-
dent organizations without first consult-
ing them. He now claims that this regula-
tion is one concerning "the individual
student."
THE ARGUMENT is a ploy. Sit-ins are
organization activities-the brunt of
Business Staff
SUSAN PERLSTADT, Business Manager
JEFFREY LEEDS ........ Associate Business Manager
HARRY BLOCH .............. Advertising Manager
STEVEN LOEWENTHAL .......circulation Manager
ELIZABETH RHEN ............ Personnel Director
VICTOR PTASZNIK ............. Finance Manager
.7TA 7.1 MA fAD- .f.. Wa,.Ivr r. Rein m ' ill

them in the past, specifically the recent
Voice sit-in which prompted this new
regulation, leaves little doubt that such a
regulation should have gone directly to
SGC, not to the head of the Office of
Student Affairs.
Ironically, the recent sit-in was more
an individual effort than a Voice one-
the University administration is the par-
ty that placed the organization label on
the act. Yet now, that administration
would bypass the proper student author-
ity on the basis that sit-ins are "indi-
vidual" acts.
FURTHER, sources indicate that Cutler
held up the announcement until the
weekend because "no one reads the paper
on Sunday." Again the administration
acts in bad faith. It is willing to play
politics-fine, that is to be expected. But
politics is a two-way game.
Acting in bad faith before Student
Government Council and purposely hold-
ing a press release for "political" consid-
erations can only bet more ill-will.
But then, the ill-will must by defini-
tion exist from the new act itself. The
OSA has seen fit to pass a regulation
which represents a very real restriction
within the University community on the
limits of political action. That decision

"You're probably wondering why I've called
all of you together . ."

e " ...v.' .Fa-.:q..R...
:..'?+ :": m'... . . . . . . . . . . ...,..:., .. . ..aY--------------:. ...
<: "..+, ,t ... >. Y.... ..<,.*. i..y... ....f. ..\a..W... k.:.do-..... .. . . . . .. . ,:. t n::.
A Philosophy or Student Participation

By HARVEY WASSERMAN
Editorial Director
THE JUSTIFICATION of stu-
dent participation-whether in
policy-making or veto capacities-
is based on both practical and
philosophical considerations.
FIRST, TO DENY students first-
class citizenship is philosophically
indefensible. There are court laws
to prevent certain infringements
on student legal rights. But there
are a number of areas in which
the University as an institution
presently has the power to make
decisions for the individual stu-
dent which it should not have.
The perfect example is that of
submitting grades and class rank
to draft- boards. The community
as a whole is affected only marg-
inally by University policy on this
question-the student body is af-
fected very definitely. Neverthe-

values in complying with social
dictum on how to select men for
the army.
THE ARGUMENT is full of
holes. The University is set up as
a separate institution precisely to
offer a respite from social pres-
sures. A university is in many
ways a mirror of social values, but
that is certainly not a dictum-in
fact, it is a call to the opposite.
Universities are, along with the
press, the historic leader of value
change. That is their function. To
say that a university must, by
definition, comply with what so-
ciety deems correct is absurd -
rather like the New York Daily
News' saying "we give the people
what they want."
The supposition that the uni-
versity administration is the care-
taker for the student who is "on
his way to becoming a full member

they can legitimately be expected
to sacrifice certain rights to that
institution, but only if they are
allowed their rightful voice in that
institution.
HISTORICALLY, the University
administration has considered it-
self the embodiment of that in-
stitution. This is no longer accept-
able.
Any institution whose decisions
involve the lives of many people
must not let too much power con-
centrate in the hands of a few.
The three basic interest-groups at
the University - the administra-
tion, the faculty, and the students
-have no real framework for in-
stitutionalized cooperation. The
administrative branch here has
far more than executive powers-
there is simply no institutional
check on decisions made in one
office by an appointed official.

sult when the deciison lies with
one man, with one specific seg-
ment of the community which has
its own specific interests. The best
way to safeguard against wrong
decisions like the HUAC decision
is to open them up and share them
with as many people as possible.
OUR SOCIETY is not a perfect
democracy; neither can we expect
our University to be one. But
power has centralized too much. ,
Thus, the Office of Student Af-
fairs has become the instrument
through which the University ad-
ministration dictates its decisions
to the student body. That is why
Dr. Cutler's decisions to subject
sit-ins to OSA jurisdiction and
continue to submit class ranks to
draft boards are not to be accept-
ed. We will not continue to allow
the administrative branch of the
University to dictate decisions

ity. If they themselves are tran-
sient, the interests of the student
body carry over in relation to the
community. In the bhest interests
of the community as a whole, stu-
dent ideas, contributions, interests
must no longer be ignored.
There is one way to avoid more
demonstrations, more sit-ins, more
distaste on the part of the student
body for the administration-that
is to allow students their rights.
The very worst thing to be done
is to pass restrictive measures, to
antagonize those who are looking
out for their rights and interests,
to leave the door open for more
fiascoes like the HUAC subpoena
by refusing to institute checks and
balances which are not meant to
antagonize but rather to insure
the efficient operation of the Uni-
versity.
What, in fact, has been changed
since the dreadful mishandling of
ta + a ,ff.' tr movri d aimilar re-

*i

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan