Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNwERSrrY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
- P.Ft - -
Ions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
iUl Prev4H 40MYNl T, N RlRiC.
NEWS PHONE: 764-0952
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This maus t be noted in all reprints.
I WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 1966
NIGHT EDITOR: MEREDITH EIKER
r Nm mnrnnirrn -... irr rr rrrr r r r e ..rr.r.r
'U' Should Continue Ranking
Nov. 16:
By LEONARD PRATT tweeni
Associate Managing Editor try and
WAS TYPING a paper in my be adm
kitchen the other night and of the
got thinking some frightening haps, b
things: These f
The line between reform and modern
revolution in a society is usual- they ar
ly a thin one, crossed to every- Who
one's surprise when its outlets for sity is
reform movements are stopped up, how its
building ever-increasing pressures This U.
for change behind them. consists
And it's odd how this almost politici
classic prescription is beginning
to fit the University. Legitimate ALL+
attempts at reform this fall have the ins
been stopped at every turn - the eth'
from the Knauss Report to the an etho
referendum that's being held to- ductivit
day--and the pressure's building cial sta
up. to exp
run on1
CONTINUING with this line, I The
thought, the large modern Amer- The
ican university is, above all, a play a
creature of its society. Two-thirds lished
of this University's budget comes better v
from w hat m ight be called "so- ciety c a " - h t i , n n -n e n l - t c nda
cial" - that is, non-internal - it ca
sources. ptdc
- Product
The university's students are eventua
being groomed to take positions influen
in that supporting society, its fac- But b
ulty shuttle back and forth be- term-
ime
it and the society's indus-
d government and it must
ministered within the mores
society-a wide range per-
but a strictly enforced one.
unctions are more than the
university's activities -
e its definition.
is responsible for a univer-
another good measure of
s society defines its goals.
niversity's Board of Regents
s of five industrialists, two
ans and a banker.
OF WHICH is to say that
stitution is tied tightly to
Los of modern American life,
os stressing measurable pro-
ty, financial gainsand so-
atus. It would be fantastic
ect the University to be
bases other than these.
university can, of course,
leading role for its society.
lead it within the estab-
social ethic by developing
ways of doing what the so-
eclares should be done, or
actually alter that ethic by
ng individuals who will
ally themselves be able to
ce it.
both of these are very long-
20- or 30-year-phenom-
Yes ..
No ..
To
Throw the Bomb
ena, They have nothing to do with
how a university is run today,
THERE ARE probably few peo-
ple who would disagree with this
analysis, general as it must be.
But strangely enough, the very
people who should be most aware
of it-the activist faculty and stu-
dents, myself included-seem to
have been those least interested
in its policy implications this fall.
The Knauss Report, for exam-
ple, has as its self-confessed goal
the gradual shifts of authority
within the University to create a
"University family" in which all
members will actively participate.
Student Government Council's
draft referendum, for another, has
as its implicit aim a reformation
of power in order to grant some
amount of actual decision-making
ability to students.
YET the well-known analysis
given here could not emphasize
more the great futility of these
goals,
I have a professor who was an
undergraduate here 12 years ago.
Several weeks ago he mentioned
how surprised he was to return
here and find that "students to-
day are arguing for substantially
what we were arguing for then."
Looking through old Dailies more
than confirms his suspicions.
Nor is the Faculty Assembly in
any better position. The very issue
this fall which the Assembly would
have most wanted taken up with
its agents in the administration
-the faculty vice-presidential ad-
visory committees-was the one
issue which the vice-presidents
were not about to talk over with
the faculty-the HUAC disclosure
episode.
SGC and the Assembly have his-
torically been elements of reform
within the University. Their sig-
nal lack of success this fall, un-
der conditions which should have
given them greater successes than
any period in their history, marks
them as anacronisms which have
little place in the emerging Uni-
versity. To be sure, students and
faculty have reform roles to play
within their respective spheres-
the faculty within their depart-
ments and the students within
their various organizations-that'
do bear to a varying degree on the
University's future. It is here that
their efforts to reform the Uni-
versity should be concentrated, for
it is only here that they have a
prayer of success under present
conditions.
To reform the University as a
whole they cannot. It's much too
big and powered by forces much
too strong to ever be shaken by
anything less than a concerted at-
tack. And it is just that kind of
drive which has never been must-
ered on this campus, concerned as
it has been with reform.
SO WHAT CAN the reformers
do to get the sort of institution
they desire? Tragically, the only
answer is: go away. There is noth-
ing in the University today, and
there is not likely to be anything
in it in the future, that the re-
formers can keep from being con-
ditioned directly by its social con-
text rather than by its members.
There is brilliance here and
there is greatness, but it is aca-
demic brilliance and academic
greatness. A great institution the
University is not, and the reform-
ers cannot make it one.
SO THE ONLY way it can be-
come by one, I thought, is by
way of the revolutionary alterna-
tive, by enough people making
enough noise to force it to change.
Maybe someone ought to throw a
bomb ..
ON PART I of today's draft referendum,
students should vote in favor of con-
tinued compilation of class ranks at the
University.
In reaching a decision on this question,
students must bear in mind that to vote
for compilation of class ranks does not
implicitly entail an endorsement of the
present system of conscription in all its
details. Students wil be given a chance
to comment on these in Part II of the
referendum. Nor, does a vote for rank-
ing necessarily even imply acceptance of
class ranks as an ideal criterion for de-
termining a student's eligibility for defer-
ment. A vote against ranking cannot be
justified simply on the basis of dissatis-
faction with some of the class rank meth-
od's drawbacks; the issue is not simply
whether class ranking is good or bad.
Rather, the question is whether the
University best fulfills its obligation to
its students by cooperating with the pol-
icy established by the Selective Service
System, which clearly had legitimate au-
thority to act in this area.
The answer to this question is yes.
IT IS OFTEN ARGUED that the Uni-
versity has a moral obligation to de-
fend the integrity of the academic com-
munity by. challenging external laws and
other regulations imposed upon it which
hinder the educational process or are un-
fair to its students. But this principle
is applicable only when a fundamental
tenet such as freedom of speech or free-
dom of association is endangered. -
Although its wisdom is debatable, the,
Selective Service System's request for
class rank information clearly does not
constitute such a threat, and thus the
University's compliance with, it in no way
involves an abrogation of its responsibil-
ity to the academic community.
By compiling class rankings the Uni-
versity is essentially performing a serv-
ice for its students: it provides informa-
tion which, on their request, students
can transmit to their local boards \for
use as a basis for maintaining their de-
ferments.
Students should vote for a continua-
tion of this policy.
-JOHN MEREDITH
Associate Managing Editor
THE COMPILATION of class ranks by
the University for use by the Selective
Service System is a perversion of the
educational process and must be abolish-
ed.
Students are being asked today in the
SGC referendum whether this compilation
should continue. They must answer with
a decisive "no!"
There are many arguments used by the
administration and others to justify rank-
ing. A number of these are well-taken.
Probably the soundest defense of compila-
tion is that class rank provides an addi-
tional piece of information for draft
boards to use in considering a student's
deferment.
ALTHOUGH IN ITSELF, this justifica-
tion fails to consider the broader ap-
plications. The University is ostensibly in
business as an educational institution.
Its primary goal should be to provide its
students with the best education obtain-
able. Anything which diverts its func-
tions from that goal must be resisted.
By compiling class ranks for the Selec-
tive Service System, the University acts as
a screening agency for the draft. Educa-
tion ceases to be a primary value; it be-
comes a means for avoiding military serv-
ice.
There has been much dispute lately
over the relevancy of grading, but grades
do provide a useful function by providing
students with feedback on their academ-
ic progress. When grades are used to de-
termine who will be deferred and who will
serve, this function is subordinated to a
competitive struggle for survival.
Clearly the draft referendum encom-
passes a wide range of issues, philosophi-
cal and practical, idealist and pragmatic.
But the central issue is the role of the
University in society. Should the Univer-
sity serve the broad purposes of educa-
tion or should it act as a screening proc-
ess for the armed services?
THE CHOICE is clear.
-STEVE WILDSTROM
oV
4
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
SGCs Approach to the Referendum
More Flak for HUAC
"ONE OF THE MOST serious breaches of
academic freedom of students in re-
cent decades, not excluding the McCar-
thy era." -
This was the charge leveled by the
American Civil Liberties Union against
the House Committee on Un-American
Activities subpoenaing of membership
lists of campus organizations critical of
American policy in Viet Nam.
HUAC by its very nature is an intini-
dating organization designed to discour-
age free inquiry and debate as it at-
tempts to curb dissent.
AND THROUGH its compliance with
this un-American committee and its
violation of the guarantees of the First
Amendment the University is guilty of
an even greater violation of freedom.
The University, which claims to be
dedicated to free inquiry and debate has
failed miserably in its responsibility to its,
students, its faculty and its ideals.
Unfortunately, the release of member-
ship lists was only the first in a series
of attempts by the University to curb dis-
sent. The ban on student sit-ins, the re-
fusal of the administration to accept
the decision of the student draft refer-
endum as 'binding, the reluctance to
abolish membership list requirements for
campus organizations are all alarming
signs that while the administration may
applaud the freedom to dissent in theory,
it is unwilling to allow this freedom on
its own campus.
Business Staff
SUSAN PERLSTADT, Business Manager
JEFFREY LEEDS'...... Associate Business Manager
HARRY BLOCH .............. Advertising Manager
STEVEN LOEWENTHAL .......circulation manager
ELIZABETH RHEIN ........... Personnel Director
VICTOR PTASZNIK ................ Finance Manager
JUNIOR MANAGERS-Gene Farber, Erica Keeps, Bill
Krauss. Sam Offen. Carol Neimera. Diane Smaller.
IT IS TIME for the University to begin
practicing what it preaches. It is time
for the University to begin setting an
example for the standards of freedom
rather than blindly following the dictates
of McCarthy vintage institutions. And
above all else it is time for the Univer-
sity to "abide by the law"--the first law
of this land-the Constitution.
The New York Times, in its lead edi-
torial yesterday, specifically criticized the
University for its failure to uphold the
freedom of dissent. "A university where
no questions are asked and no hypothes-
es are challenged would be a school for
the living dead. Only the totalitarians
who fear truth try to create such schools.
"SINCE THERE IS no valid way to dis-
tinguish what may be questioned and
what may not, many students and many
professors inevitably criticize the society
in which they find themselves and the
governments that rule over them. When
this happens in Communist Hungary or
France or Franco Spain or Castro Cuba,
most of us applaud the students and pro-
fessors as fighters for freedom, as indeed
they are.
"When it happens in Ann Arbor, Mich.,
or in Berkeley, Calif., not all of us; are so
enthusiastic-because the agitation is for
things we don't believe in ...
"Any educator ought to know that those
who wish to expose radical student activ-
ities for the sake of exposure, and who
want to intimidate, harass and overawe
dissenters by a show of congressional pow-
er are also normally those who have little
respect for the liberties of other citizens
in other fields of activity.
"FREEDOM ON CAMPUS is indivisible
from freedom in the larger society."
It is regrettable that the University.
which was the scene of the first teach-
To the Editor:
SGC'S APPROACH to the draft
referendum is misleading with
regard to the wording, interpre-
tation, and aims of part I of that
referendum. Under the present
University policy students already
decide what information will be
sent to their draft boards. But
this fact is not explained on the
ballot.
The present policy protects the
individual's freedom of choice
whether he be in the maority
on this issue or not. SGC has ig-
nored this fundamental principle.
The male undergrad may now
choose to have the University send
or not send any of the follow-
ing information to his draft
board: enrollment in good stand-
ing, grade point average, and/or
class rank.
In addition he may opt to base
all, part, or none of his defer-
ment on the draft test. Thus SGC's
apparent intended success of part
I diammetrically opposes its prin-
ciples. Individual freedoms, as we
see it, would not be fostered, but
rather suppressed by the rule of
a tyricannical plurality.
SGC's, apparent approach to
make binding the outcome of part
I is sheer folly. It has already
confused the voter as to the is-
sue. Students are not sure what
participation means, let alone
what the outcome would signify.
For SGC to interpret student par-
ticipation as an endorsement of
SGC's implied desire to make
binding the outcome is presump-
tuous. Under SGC's assumption
those who favor the present pol-
icy would have their views distort-
ed.
WHEN WE VOTE in favor of
the present policy, we vote for the
individual student to determine
what information will be available
for him to send to his draft board.
Such a vote does not endorse a
desire for a binding referendum.
If SGC truly wanted the stu-
dents to make binding the out-
come, then it should have incor-
porated this question into the ref-
erendum.
Part I of the referendum's
worth has been exaggerated. The
abolition of class rankings with-
out a meaningful revision of na-
tional policy will hinder the stu-
dent on this campus while other
students on other campuss go un-
hindered. SGC would serve its con-
stituents far better by allocat-
ing its limited resources towards
areas that promise more direct
and concrete results, e.g., SHA
and the studentradvisory boards.
THE INDIVIDUAL'S direct ben-
efits from class rankings far out-
weigh any possible disadvantages.
He is not coerced by the present
system, but would be forced to
risk everything on the basis of
an arbitrary exam if class rank-
ings were no longer available.
This kind of exam abets dis-
crimination against underprivil-
iged students. Such students with
genuine aptitude, but lacking fav-
orable environmental factors, con-
sistently score lower on similar
exams.
For everyone the most equitable
policy is freedom of opportunity.
By voting for continuing the Uni-
versity's policy, you can voice your
support of this principle.
-James Feeney, '68
-Robert Bodkin, '67
Against Ranking
To the Editor:
A T THE LAST general meeting
of the University of Michigan
Young Democrats these two reso-
1iiunn wer enored-. 1 Thh.
fect educational choices and pur-
suits. Its abolition will not be
detrimental per se to Michigan's
students. Wayne State University
will not compile class ranks and
the campus has not been drafted
en masse.
IT SHOULD BE emphasized that
no resolution concerning the mor-
ality or necessity of the Vietna-
of a student governing body which
has been ignored. It manifests a
desire to strike back at the forces
which have ignored it:
The (revised) Strident Govern-
ment Council Plan (accepted by
the Board of Regents, Nov. 20,
1959), states that one function of
Council is, "To participate through
whatever means at its disposal in
:~4
* u -M = . ''j' j. t"
Dg, ,r Y7 ;r . '
's aY dtAI ' r, w . at
"Ti-lS TIME 6A 6\GcOG TO SH]DW YCAJ MY SCARS..."
by which decisions are made; even
when pursuing this intention in
protest, Council must show itself
capable of the responsibility it is
seeking.
I believe that the Monday mo-
tion issustrates a marked political
naivity in not recognizing the
total political entity in which the
Board of Regents, other vice-pres-
idents, faculty, and the President,
contribute to the decision-making
process. Newspapers across the
state are hearlding a schism be-
tween Council and the Office of
Student Affairs. The state legisla-
ture will be aware of this move-
ment . . . and the motion was
passed without consulting with
any administrator.
THIS POINT most vividly illu-
strates my argument. SGC has
acted without consulting. How can:
the same Council expect to have
other than the same courtesy re-
turned. The impact of the Mon-
day motion was not considered in
the dimensions which it has
emerged; and there is now little
thought of turning back because
the dialogue is breaking.
Now we will witness a lining up
of forces and a drawing of lines
The weighty problems we are com-
mitted to solve will be reduced to
"game" status, where the con-
testants will "win" and "lose."
THIS IS where student govern-
ment falls short. Our commission
as representatives of students in
a governing process will be traded
for positions on a team which
"attacks" and "defends," perhaps
winning an issue but inevitably
voiding a communication.
It is possible that Dr. Cutler will
act to'conciliate Council. The lan-
guage of the motion, in 'fact, en-
courages such a conciliation. This
action could be construed as a
"victory" but the day when stu-
dents can be consulted and serve
more effectively in deciding cru-
cial issues will be yet further re-
moved.
This year's Council cannot dis-
count its heritage of frustration,
nor can it discard its present mood
of discontent. However, there is
no case for continuing the present
course.
-Dick Wingfield, '67
Elected Member of SGC
Mine's Worse
To the Editor:
REGARDING Harvey Wasser-
man's editorial, "A Voice" (Sep-
tember 12), I still thing mine
(congressman) is worse. A former
FBI agent, H. Allen Smith was
just re-elected, by a 3-1 margin.
He was given a O rating by the
New Republic in votes on the cru-
cial issues of the last two years
(including most of those you men-
tion in your article).
No, Mr. Smith is not talking
about running for governor of Cal-
ifornia, at least, not since Rea-
gan's victory. But if the disas-
trous state of affairs is ever
reached when the Republicans
control the House of Represen-
tatives, Mr. Smith, as ranking mi-
nority member on the Rules Com-
mittee at the moment, would be-
come its chairman. And you think
Howard Smith was bad in that
position!
-John R. Greenwood
He's OK
To the Editor:
A CONGRESSMAN'S job is to
be the voice of the people. This
is the standard by which he should
be judged. A large majority in
Samuel Divine's district feel that
he has correctly spoken for them.
As distasteful as it may be for
some, by the definition of democ-
racy, Mr. Divine has been a good
congressman.
-Robert Prentiss, Grad
I disagree. A Congressman's
job is more than being
"the voice of the people"--he is
also elected to be the people's
leader. As a legislator my Con-
gressman has information in
Washington that the people in
my district do not have. He also
has access to the news media.
Further, he is held accountable
for his acts only every two years.
This means he can act Intel-
ligently in Congress, return to
present a case justifying that
action, and expect, within lim-
its, to convince his consti-
tuency of that right course of
action. His mandate is both to
lead and to follow.
This becomes especially ob-
vious when you consider that
because my district is tradition-
ally moderate Republican, the
Republican candidate has con-
siderable leeway of action and
stance within the limits that
will allow him to be elected. My
Congressman chose the extremes
that I consider the very worst
for the district. And in so doing
he has drawn the constituency
farther toward those extremes.
Thus he disserves both by his
votes in Congress and in the
type of consensus he leads.,
The "definition of democracy"
is not applicable when one con-
siders the real alternatives of
action allowed my unsatisfac-
tory Congressman.
-H.W.
ii
jV
mese war prefaced our decision.
Students on all sides of this is-
sue voted for the resolutions.
Finally and most importantly,
students should be allowed to par-
ticipate meaningfully in those de-
cisions which directly affect their
lives. Class rank is certainly one
of these!issues.
-Martin Katz, '67
Vice-chairman, Michigan
Young Democrats
Explains Vote
To the Editor:
AS ONE OF the two members of
SGC who went on record
against the action Council took
Monday, I would take this oppor-
tunity to defend my case.
Monday's motion is the response
the discussion of University policy
and to serve as an official liaison
between University policy-making
agencies and the University stu-
dent community." Dr. Cutler's fail-
ure to consult with the Council
in such matters as the recent
"Sit-In Decision" served to deflate
the spirit of the Council Plan and
became a catalyst for the Monday
motion; however, it didn't justify
the action Council took Monday-
which may serve to void the Coun-
cil Plan.
ALTHOUGH IT is" the role of
Council to demand its rightful
power, it is also the lot of SGC to
preserve student power.
In essence, the real intention of
Council was to change the process
i
Birch Society Should End Secret Policies
VIRTUALLY since it was born,
the John Birch Society has
been a pain or agony to Repub-
licans and Democrats alike. How
one stands on it or whether one
condemns it has posed a series
of serious problems of party uni-
ty when in-fighting politicians
try to exploit the group's contro-
versial status for factional gains.
I have not been and am not
among those who agree with the
blanket denunciation of this or
any other group of people with-
out consideration of individual
differences.
This seems an appropriate time
BARRY
GOLDWATER
and intended only in the long
run to destroy reputations and
make political hay.
When the John Birch Society
began, most members publicly
identified with it were those al-
most universally well thought of
in the communities in which they
live. Their goals seemed thorough-
ly reasonable: dedication to indi-
vidual liherty nnnnition to col-
I was perhaps the first man in
Washington to debunk and deflate
Welch's nightmare visions.
BUT FROM THAT time for-
ward, those who deal in political
slogans, rather than reality, neat-
ly packaged and sold the blanket
smear that everyone in the Birch
Society, including those who re-
fused to join the blind denuncia-
tions, is and was a dangerous
"right winger," possibly even a fas-
cist.
And at the same time it was
said that the Birchers were try-
ing to take over the Republican
ence in either party cannot by any
stretch of the imagination be
called "infiltration" or the Birch-
ers taking over.
TO CLEAR IT UP I would like
to make the following suggestion
-along with my often repeated
one that the members depose Rob-
ert Welch.
I urge that the Birch Society
drop its policy of secrecy regard-
ing membership, making it fully
public so that people working for
either party can know who the
Birch members are and then can
judge honestly whether they are
working for the best interests of
I