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