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

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

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

November 18, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-11-18

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

r s ww ri iwrrr . .rrr.in... r r

Seventy-Sixth Year

Back to Office of Student Discipline
:by:Bruce Wasserstein

=. -

Lone Ae Fre

NEWS PHONE: 764-0552

torials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This mus t be noted in all reprints.
Student Power: New System,
N~~t ust Prtciptio

Student participation will not solve
the problems of this University. The prob-
lem is the system; not who is running
the school-although certainly those who
are running the school right now agree
with the present system.
faculty-those who are hurt most by
the present order? Unfortunately, the.
students seem to have little desire to re-
vamp the system. They have continually
accepted meaningless piecemeal "re-
forms," when they should be examining
the entire system.,
By accepting these reforms, they only
legitimize the current system rather than
alleviate its many problems. I am afraid
that many student leaders and students
have so incorporated the ethic of their
masters-the administrators-that if the
University were turned over to the stu-
dent body tomorrow it would be run in
essentially the same way as it is run
The faculty? They often talk of their
disaffection with the present system, but
so often they seem reluctant to act
upon their beliefs. Too many of them,
especially the poorer ones, have too strong
a vested interest to agitate. against it.
Yet there does seem to be a large group
of faculty members that could be mo-
bilized by an effective revolutionary pro-
tive revolutionary program for the ills'
of the University?
I know.
We need to radically change the en-
tire educational system at the Univer-
sity. The first step is to abolish grades.
Completely. Then all distribution require-
ments should be eliminated. Attendance
at any course should not be compulsory.
Students should be free to attend the
number of courses that they desire to,
not the number dictated by the admin-
istration or the draft board.
Simply, I am proposing that the Uni-
versity adopt a system similar to that
employed throughout Europe. It requires
a good deal of maturity on the part of
the students to work, but more impor-,
tant, it requires that the student have
the desire to learn.
The coercion, the pressure that makes
the University the hell that it is, that
creates the tremendous anxiety and dis-
satisfaction of the students, that causes

an ever increasing suicide rate among
college students is eliminated.
tive to go to a class, or even college
in general, is the desire to increase one's
knowledge. Educators argue that under,
this system few would ever bother to
attend classes.
The answer is simple. Those people do
not belong in a liberal arts college. The
purpose of this University is not to churn
out managers and technicians for so-
ciety, but to increase the student's knowl-
edge of himself and the world about
him. Vocational colleges are for those
who wish only to be trained for their
future jobs in society.
The University should be a communi-
:ty} of scholars- both: students and fac-
ulty-working to increase their knowl-
edge, with the faculty providing exper-
ienced guidance rather than stern con-
This system works well in Europe, why
not here. It treats students as the young
adults that they are rather than im-
mature, irresponsible children who need
a strict set of commands. This type of
system is the great hope for improving
thei University.
BUT WHO WILL implement this radi-
cal upheaval of the system?
Certainly not the administration. In
the past several months, they have clear-
ly demonstrated, their' allegiance to the
present. method. They are so entwined
with the business and governmental
forces of ,our society that they are per-
fectly content to be a factory that churns
out technicians rather than scholars.
The students and faculty of this uni-
versity are, at best, a doubtful force for
reform of the system. They lack the revo-
lutionary program of education reform
that is needed to make their rule any
different from that of the administra-
BUT THEY ARE the, only group that
has a possibility of instituting change.
If someone can come up with a sound
proposal for entirely revamping ithe aca-
demic system-and the European system
is but one example of what can be done
-he would be able to tap the large pool
of anxiety and dissatisfaction, that exists
among faculty and students.
Why, he might even get enough sup-
port to change the system.

THE OFFICE of Student Affairs
has returned to being an office
of student discipline.
In 1962 the old office of student
affairs was abolished because of
campus wide reactions to its pa-
ternalistic policies. The Dean of
Women, Deborah Bacon, kept tabs
on "her girls" making sure they
didn't go astray by dating Negroes
and otherwise committing "im-
proper" acts.
The new office of student af-
fairs fully came into being with
the appointment of psychology
professor Richard Cutler, one of
Dean Bacon's critics, in 1964, as
the Vice President for Student Af-
fairs. Student leaders began to
thing that at last their viewpoint
would be reflected in the admin-
ALTHOUGH traditionally the
area of student affairs had been
regarded as secondary by the key
executives of the University, the
Berkeley free speech demonstra-
tions drastically changed their
perspective. It became clear that
if the University was not to suffer
the adverse consequences of a stu-
dent riot, a more enlightened

policy toward students would have
to be formulated.
Not only has the administration
tolerated teach-ins, vigils, and war
protests, but it has actually gone
out of its way to defend students'
right to dissent.
There has also been an attempt
to make the students identify with
the decision making process. A
host of student advisory commit-
tees have been established and al-
though their meaningfulness is
quite dubious, they are certainly
a step in the right direction.
THUS UNTIL this sumer, the
University seemed to be avoiding
the pitfalls which beset Berkeley.
It looked like the University would
survive the activist sixties un-
But, starting this sumer, the
University administration has con-
sistently blown its cool until its
relations with the students have
reached the crisis stage.
First came the formulation of
the University's policy on releas-
ing class rankings to draft boards
without consultation with stu-
dents; then the release of member-
ship lists to HUAC without con-
sultations with students or fac-

ulty; then the reorganization of
disciplinary powers in the Univer-
sity without consultations with
students; then the issuance of a
ban on sit-ins without consulta-
tions; and now the refusal of the
University to discuss meaningfully
its ranking policy after the draft
hands a crisis of confidence. Stu-
dents of this University do not
view the office of student affairs
as serving their interests; it
merely represent sa source of dis-
ciplinary power.
This crisis is not necessarily the
fault of Vice President for Stu-
dent Discipline Richard Cutler.
Apparently, the Regents and Har-
lan Hatcher have been breathing
down Cutler's back. As long as the
structure of the University leaves
representative organs of the stu-
dent body such as SGC impotent,
crises such as the current one are
bound to arise. An activist student
body which seeks a meaningful
role in deciding its own affairs,
plus an intransigent administra-
tion, yields explosions.
FEW PEOPLE want another

Berkeley here; but the adminis-
tration seems to be leading the
University on a path of no return.
The explosion can not be avoided
by empty promises such as the
ones made yesterday by adminis-
trators in the office of disciplinary
affairs. Student leaders have
heard these promises before and
know from experience that the
University administration speaks
with forked tongue.
To demonstrate the hypocrisy
of the administration the Vice
President for Student Discipline
promised SGC that he would con-
sult them on major policies at a
meeting last week. That weekend
he unilateraly issued the sit-in
THE TIME has come for a ma-
jor re-examination of the division
of powers in the area of student
affairs. Students have seen the
pretty sentences of the Reed Re-
port and the Knaus Report on the
importance of "meaningful par-
ticipation" fall on blind eyes and
deaf ears in the administration.
We don't need more pretty words;
what we need are concrete steps
to give the students. power over
their own afairs. Since, the need

for such a plan is so pressing, a
joint student-faculty committee
should be formed to give its report
within a month to the Regents.
MEANWHILE the new powers
allocated to the Vice President for
Student Discipline eariler this year
should be suspended until the
committee makes its final report.
Regulations such as the sit-in
ban should also be suspended until
these issues can be handled with
due process.
The issue must also be broached
as to whether or not the present
vice president for disciplinary af-
fairs, whatever his personal attri-
butes, should remain in his present
position after he has lost the con-
fidence of the students. Unfor-
tunately, although it would be
easier to view the situation in an
ad hominum sense, the basic prob-
lem is structural.
SOMETHING'S got to give;
hopefully it will be the adminis-
tration before it is too late. .
Meanwhile George Romney's
office is watching the situation
closely; he, like the University, can
not afford another Berkeley.


The Peace Corps: The Frst Answers

Associate Editorial Director
First of a Series
That's the first question the
Peace Corps asked us. We'd vol-
unteered for the Thailand Com-
munity Development advanced
training program. Sixty of us.
They wanted to know why.
The snap answer, of course, was
"I figured we'd train in Hawaii."
We ended up in Columbia, Mo.)
But, when it came to writing
our personal motivation on that
first questionnaire, we took it
pretty seriously. After about an
hour of thought, this PCT (Peace
Corps Trainee) wrote something
like ...
I WANT to genuinely do some-
thing for others. I've felt this way
for a long time. I now want to put
in concretely in action. I also
want° to live in and learn the
workings of aoculture different
than my own. Finally, I feel that
the training itself, whether I de-
cide to go on or not, will be a
valuable personal experience."
The feeling of the group, as I
appraised it, was similar. It can
be summarized in one line from
"The Fantastiks."
"Please, God, please. Don't let
me be normal."
Vague and idealistic, you say.
Most of the trainees' answers
were like that, I'm sure. Many

of us didn't realize then what
those vague ideals meant.
We didn't realize either that
we would ask ourselves that same
question-"Why did you join?"-
time and time again in the com-
ing 10 weeks.
FIRST, you learn that the Peace
Corps is not so divorced from
the "real world" as you might
have it. Like General Electric and
your recitation instructor, the
evaluators wanted "motivated"
people. Achievers. "Ideals don't
teach you Thai." "Good intentions
don't get a village organized."
The evaluators were good. No
doubt about that. Theoretically,
they had enough psychological
information to know us better
than we knew ourselves. They still
judged on what they saw, and it
appeared superficial compared to
the self "only you know."
But that's hard to swallow.
With classes from seven in the
morning until 10 at night for six
days a week, you get plenty tired
of that word "motivated." For
someone who's weak in that de-
partment, like myself, it can make
for a pretty precarious 10 weeks.
In the end they "deselected"
only three people. But the pres-
sure, especially after the "feed-
back" session in which the psy-
chologists tell you just what they
and the trainees think of you, gets
to you. And, when one of those
three deselected is a good friend
of yours-well, you're disillusion-
ed with the process.

SECONDLY, your answer to that
opening question is different be-
cause you learn what "helping
others" means.
In our case, it means a kind of
roughing it that no one enjoys.
One volunteer returned from
Thailand after one night in the
village,, yet she was considered
one of the best in her group. The
"culture shock" got to her. I kept
asking what it would do to me.
Another one-again the best in
the group - returned after one
month. We read his letter and
asked that same question again.,
HE DESCRIBED his early
morning ritual after waking at
dawn :
"I brush my teeth-not that
they need brushing-this is just
a habit I've formed. The lady
next door is watching me . I
feel a sense of pride that . .. I am
really functioning as an Agent
of Change. The volunteer should
brush his teeth publicly every
chance he gets. Maybe it will
become a fad like the Twist. The
lady next door has black teeth
(from chewing beetlenut) .. . she's
as likely to start brushing her
teeth . . . as I am to begin chew-
ing beetlenut."
His conclusion is biting:
"Maybe this letter . .. will help
you get the picture. You must de-
cide whether you fit into that
picture. I suggest you decide with
care: It's a bitter experience to
resign overseas, take it from me."
There are other pictures also.

"Naked children . . . in stagnant
klongs full of garbage and decay-
ing matter." You learn that the
only latrine in a village may be
the one you build. That you'll need
iodine pills for your water. Mos-
quito nets for sleep. And that
THESE ARE all words in train-
ing-and you hear the brighter
side too-but you continue to won-
der if you'll be able to take it
when the words become facts. The
"culture shock" could blow your
But it isn't just the physical
aspect that forces you to ask
that question again and again.
You ask questions of ideology
too. The government you'll be serv-
ing, while supported strongly by
the people, is anything but a de-
mocracy. It forbids things like
freedom of press and association!
Corruption is common. Age and
wealth are valued before youth
and education.
You wonder also about the po-
sition you'll serve for the U.S.
government. "You're tools of the
State Department. You might as
well admit it," one of our lectu -
ers told us point blank.
The whole question of the re-
sponsibility you must accept by
the fact of your mere presence as.
an American in a foreign country,
bothers you again and again.
I'VE GIVEN YOU one side, and
just one side, to illustrate the kind'
of doubts that went through my

mind, and I believe the minds of
nany other trainees.
There's another side, and in my
case, that other side won out. I
will go to Thailand. I feel very
strongly now about going.
But to explain all the argu-
ments I went through in reaching
that decision would take two of
these articles. Something like a
groom explaining why he decided
to marry the bride.
In the end, I look at my two
years in the Peace Corps 4as the
test of the answer I gave on that
first day.
The training program showed
me the cost of the idealistic feel-
ings I've been harboring for sev-
eral years. It's taught me about
myself. It's given me a real pic-
ture of the organization behind
the simple; appealing title "The
Peace Corps."
I'LL GO to Thailand in Septem-
ber to prove to myself that I'm
rugged or dedicated or idealistic
enough to act in the same way
I've been talking. If'I fail to re-
tain the values I presently hold
when I become immersed in a
different society, if I fail to com-
municate and work with people
who are different than me in
every conceivable way, if I can't
take the "culture shock" during
that rather miserable 'first month,
then I'll know enough to quit talk-
ing like I can.
Same question. Same conclu-
Different reasons.

Letters: Ana Arab Student Views Israel

Think We Don't Mean It?

ED ROBINSON is right. When some-
thing affects students they will get in-
A record 10,000 students spoke Wednes-
day. They spoke loudly and in unison
against the University's compliance with
Selective Service policy.
But the draft referendum was only'
the focal point for the deeper and more
significant issue that underlies all cam-
pus activity this year-student participa-
10,000 votes is student participation-
more than -this campus has ever seen.
It is overwhelming proof of what Stu-
dent Government Council has been say-
ing all year-students want a voice in
University decisions that affect them.
LAST SATURDAY Vice-President for
Student Affairs Richard Cutler sud-
denly announced a ban on sit-ins in
University buildings. Violators will be
subject to fines or suspension. Students
were not consulted and were given no
opportunity to affect the decision.
Editorial Staff
FiRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor
Managing Editor Editorial Director
LEONARD PRATT ....... Associate Managing Editor
JOHN MEREDITH ....... Associate Managing Editor
CHARLOTTE WOLTER .. Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT CARNEY ...... Associate Editorial Director
BABETTE COHN..........., Personnel Director
ROBERT MOORE ................. .Magazine Editor
CHARLES VETZNER ................ Sports Editor
JAMES TINDALL ........... Associate Sports Editor
GAMES LaSOVAGE .......... Associate Sports Editor
OIL SAMBERG........Assistant Sports Editor
SPORTS NIGHT EDITORS: Grayle Howlett, Howard
Kohn, Bill Levis, Bob McFarland, Clark Norton, Rick

Student reaction was prompt and ex-
plicit: SGC has announced plans to dis-
affiliate from the Office of Student Af-
fairs if Cutler does not suspend the ban.
The administration's decision to com-
pile class rankings was made with no
prior consultation with students. More-
over, the administration has repeatedly
stated that the referendum will not be
binding on the University.
Student reaction was decisive: Voice
political party, at- its largest meeting of
the year, voted to stage a sit-in if the
administration refuses to accept the stu-
dents' decision as .binding.
LAST MONTH Cutler asked for and was
given full authority over non-academ-
ic student discipline by the Regents. Stu-
dents were unaware of the move, which
makes Cutler unquestionably "the man
who makes the rules."
Cutler subsequently announced a re-
organization of the judiciary system,
concentrating all judicial powers previ-
ously divided among the student judi-
ciary council and college deans in the
OSA. One student' member of Joint Ju-
diciary immediately resigned his post,
maintaining that students no longer have
an effective voice in the judicial process.
The one bright spot in student-admin-
istrative relations this year has been,
the Student Advisory Board System to
the President and vice-presidents of the
University. But here the effectiveness
the boards will have remains undefined.
Here, too, contrary to the doubts of
many, student response has been excel-
IT IS CLEAR then that students want
to-and are ready to-play a more im-

To the Editor:
D URING THE PAST few weeks,
the armed Arab-Israeli inci-
dents have drawn a couple of
articles in the editorial column
in The Daily. From personal con-
tact, I have high regard for the
editors of The Daily who are
responsible for the editorial col-
umn and for their critical and
objective spirit.
It. therefore, distresses ne very
much to see that their sense of
impartiality and fair play is quite
lacking with regard to the recent
conflicts in the Middle East.
WALLACE IMMEN, who seems
to me to be the Daily's special
editor in defense of Israel and
an avid reader of Time magazine,
has had a complete monopoly to
analyze this issue in the editor-
ial column. Since last year, almost
all of the editorials that Immen
wrote concerned Israel, whether
her relations with the Arabs or
her relations with Germany and
the Nazis.
This could have been quite in-
formative but for the fact, which
is easily recognized by the sensi-
tive and rational reader, that his
opinions are very prejudiced and
not conducive to clarifying the
reality and the truth of the is-
sues. This in turn is harmful to
the unsuspecting reader.
IN ORDER to prove my asser-
tion, I will discuss his last article
with regard to Israel's latest ag-
gression against Jordan. Immen
admits that Israel was the ag-
gressor in this incident. Later on,
he states that as a result of this
aggression, "Israel is girding for
a fight and they expect action
soon." In previous occasions, he
has claimed that Israel is a peace-
seeking nation trying to live in
harmony with her Arab neigh-
bors. What shall we believe?
Due to outraged Arab reaction
to Israel's aggression, Immen
states. "Israel is under consider-
able pressure and it needs the di-

AS PRESIDENT of the Arab
Club, I am Very concerned that
this conflict should receive full,
unbiased analysis and criticism.
I urge the responsible Daily edi-
tors to make sure that any fur-
ther analysis concerning this is-
sue be done by a competent, ob-
jective person; or at lease insure
the presentation of both sides of
this controversial issue - a just
demand, indeed.
-Imad Khadduri
Physics Teaching Fellow
Female Service
To the Editor:
WITHOUT ANY alternative on
the ballot raising the ques-
tion of female service, was it
valid for women to vote on al-

of world peace? .

. This I call

ternatives to Selective Service af-
fecting only men? Perhaps if there
werena question of universal serv-
ice, then a universal vote would
have been justified.
For example, there could have
been the following alternative:
"Universal service by both men
and women upon reaching the age
of 18 years." Of course the ca-
pacity in which a woman would
serve may not be the same as that
of a man. Her role would be as-
signed on the basis of her men-
tal and physical abilities.
that, regarding the mandate which
SGC will claim as a result of the
referendum, a little more than 45
per cent of the males who voted,
chose to retain class rank, while
the total vote for ending the class

"What's This Crazy Left Hand Doing?"
^ ,
t 'w
z 4P ~

rank was just under 70 per cent
of those who voted.)
--Kenneth D. Krone, '67LSA
-David R. Stutz, '67LSA
Whose Mandate?
To the Editor:
Admittedly VOICE must speak
Admittedly the vote was 2-1
against the compilation of class
BUT HONESTLY, do the stu-
dent activists have the mandate
to raise hell which they claim?
Perhaps it is understandable that
the women voted 4-1 against send-
ing class rank to their 'Selective
Service System (Operation Match
does not ask for marks).
However, when the difference
between those males who voted
against the compilation of class
rank and those who voted for it
is less than 10 per cent of the
total number of male voters, and
when less than 30 per cent of the
student body voted, it is hard to
believe that the student activists
really have the blanket mandate
which they claim.
In that the band will not be
playing at the Rose Bowl, per-
haps it is all justified, but only
if VOICEsasks them to play "Hail
to the Victors Valiant" and to
lead the protest against the um-
pire's last call.
-Alfred Mudge, '69 Law
-Allan Lapidus, '67 Law
--Kenneth Dresner, '68Law
Sfit-in Plans
To the Editor:
S A RESULT of the student
vote on the ranking referen-
dum and the administration's in-
transigence in heeding that vote,
there will be an open meeing to-
day, Friday, the 18th, at 4 p.m.

To the Editor:
the University's propriety in
furnishing membership lists of
certain student organizations to
HUAC, there is one point which
to my knowledge, has been over-
The University is a tax-support-
ed institution, and student groups
receive some of that support.
Therefore membership lists of
these organizations should be pub-
lic information. No one can deny
the right of a private organiza-
tion maintained by private funds
to keep its membership roster se-
cret. If members of these student
organizations feel they need sec-
recy, let them reorganize outside
the aegis of the University.
-John W. Boyse, Grad
Teachers, Too!
To the Editor:
W HY HAS THIS University
placed extra responsibility and
unwanted pressure on their teach-
ers? As long as this University
continues to compile class rank-
ings and grade points for the draft
boards it is defeating its pur-
pose as an educational institution.
According to the educational
objectives listed in the L.S. & A.
handbook, they hope "to stimulate
a student to explore the unknown"
and "to insure this intellectual
growth." But does the University
accomplish this by increasing the
importance of grades, while de-
creasing the attempts of knowledge
for knowledge sake?
Even before the class rank was
considered as criteria for a II-S
deferment, many teachers looked
upon grades as a necessary evil.
Now, with deferments granted on
class rank, teachers are deciding
more than just an "A," "B," or
"C." They have been forced to

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan