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 30, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-11-30

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


' :

LAt-r4t-gatt Batly

Nov. 30: A Little Bit of Sunshine

Seventy-Sixth Year
EDrrED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD M CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

here Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD $T., ANN ARBOR MICH.
Truth Will Prevail

NEws PHONE: 764-0552

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

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1966

NIGHT EDITOR: ROGER RAPOPORT

Thought Should Follow
After Sit-Inners' Actions

By LEONARD PRATT
Associate Managing Editor
THANKS CAMPUS.
Everybody operates on pretty
implicit articles of faith and one
of mine has always been that this
campus exists in some sense other
than people going to class in the
snow and getting scalped at the
local restaurants.
And yesterday I found out that
it does.
Watching other people find out
about it, and hearing how some
inaccessible people found out
about it, has beei one of the
most interesting sidelights of the
last several days.
Faculty members seem as-if their
feelings have varied between hurt
surprise and relief.
"Student power! I've never
heard such crap in my life," toss-
ed off one professor coming out
of the Faculty Assembly meeting
Monday, and he must have spok-
en for a good number of people.
BUT MOST professors I've talk-
ed with sound surprised and rath-
er pleased to find out that The
Students live. Yesterday's' sit-in

dimmed some of their enthusiasm
for the movement, but the fact
that organized constructive ideas
are coming, for the first time, from
a powerful broadly-based student
body at the University has an ap-
peal to the faculty that disen-
chantment over tactics isn't like-
ly to shake.
Unfortunately the means by
which the faculty has decided on
its official reaction to the move-
ment is very similar to the stu-
dent mechanism which created it:
a wide spectrum of backers who
can, within fairly broad limits,
be guided to many different spe-
cific actions by the people they,
recognize as their leaders. The re-
sult is that what individual pro-
fessors say and what the Faculty
Assembly does will probably be
related, but the relationship will
be an awfully loose one.
So it can't really be said what
the faculty thinks, because just
what "faculty" means is not clear.
But given that limit, they sound
generally like their prodigal son
has made good in the big city-
they're happy about his success,
but they sort of wish he'd never
felt like leaving home.

THE ADMINISTRATION hasn't
really been surprised by the stu-
dents' resurrection. After Berkeley,
in the fall of 1964, Daily report-
ers talking to administrators were
often themselves interviewed by
men wondering "if it can happen
here." Vague talks among officials
have gone on ever since, right up
until this fall. Then it happened
here. Officials didn't have a time-
table,, but the movement wasn't
unexpected.
What do they think now that
it's happened? "The big shots are
runnin' scared," said a not-so-
little-shot the other day.
They're scared not so much be-
cause they feel their authority or
position threatened, though that's
certainly a part of it. Adminis-
trators sound as if the Universi-
ty's conduct toward the move-
ment is being dictated largely from
public relations considerations -
and in this light, the University
looks bad.
INTERESTINGLY enough, these
events have brought out incred-
ible differences between admin-
istrators, some ideological and

some personal. Administrators
have recently laid their beliefs
and ways of acting on the line as
never before, with some hurt feel-
ings and a lot of vigorous discus-
sion as results. The sit-in may
have been officially disapproved
of by all administrators, but the
issues it brought out have been an
intellectual stimulus such as 500
S. State St. hasn't seen in a long
time.
Students sound rather elated
with their success-those of them
who understand it, at any rate-
but somehow don't seem to believe
it's real.
They don't believe it, because
of this University's great tragedy:
the incredible suspicions which
pervade it. For example, President
Hatcher's Monday proposals-sub-
stantive concessions to student de-
mands in many ways-were greet-
ed by many'faculty and students
as an "attempt to sidetrack- the
students' 'ultimatum." The same
sorts of suspicions pervade the ad-
ministration as well, each segment
of the University fearing the other
two.
So the students are unsure

whether, and what, they've won.
This insecurity is probably
what's leading so many otherwise
moderate students to demand ex-
tensive concessions from the ad-
ministrations and to lead them to
feel that only fairly radical tactics
will obtain those concessions.
OVERALL, MEMBERS of the
University community seem in-
creasingly willing to recognize this
situation for what it is: an at-
tempt at reforming the structure
of the University so that its be-
havior will better coincide with
its ideals. People seem less hyster-
ical and more willing to think
about what's going on than they
might have been a week ago.
A week ago it looked like the
University was in for a lot of
shouting. These new attitudes on
the part of the faculty, students
and administrators speaks well for
the chances of dramatic construc-
tive changes to come out of the
shouting.
So thanks again, campus.
Thanks for giving yourself a
chance to be a lot more than just
a campus.

THE SNOWS CAME on the eve of the sit-
in, as some Regents might have been
wishing, but it did not freeze the spirits
of a thousand students who gathered on
the Diag yesterday and marched into the
Administration Building's hallways during
lunch hour. Like a "white, upper-middle
class" Coxey's Army, they braved the wind
and snow and cold to express dissent for
a system which has neglected them for
too long.
Most of those who sat-in had never done
so before. A few attempts to start the
group singing protest songs ended in vain.
But the sitters all listened closely to those
who chose to speak out, and were all very
proud of themselves when it was all over.
And the students had every right to be,
for the demonstration was orderly, em-
phatic, and above all, impressive.
THE CAMPUS had been preparing for
this event for weeks. With the surprise
announcement of the new sit-in ban more
than two weeks ago ,what had started as a
trickle of protest became a torrent. The
administration, argued student leaders,
had just gone a step too far. But the ad-
ministration remained quiet and self-
righteous during a semester that it would
certainly like to begin over.
The students wasted little time in ex-
pressing their disdain for administrators
who refused to consult those primarily
affected by the decisions. Student Govern-
ment Council broke from the Office of
Student Affairs, the campus' largest vote
in history called for the abolition of class-
ranking, and two consecutive all-campus

meetings were unable to seat all the stu-.
dents who came to listen.
The question that now arises is, very
simply; what next? Another teach-in to-
morrow is on the agenda, but the repe-
tition of mass meetings will soon turn
them sour. President Hatcher has estab-
lished three student-faculty-administra-
tive committees to study the problems spe-
cified during the last few weeks. Although
such committees did not satisfy the ulti-
matum of those who lined the halls of the
Administration Building, it could produce
a valuable understanding among the dis-
puting factions.
WHATEVER IS DONE next by those stu-
dgnts in positions of leadership, sev-
eral things must be remembered. First,
faculty support must be constantly sought,
for it remains a source of coercive power
stronger than the largest rally.
Second, as painful and seemingly un-
productive as committees often appear,
they remain the best source for construc-
tive proposals from all sides on the crisis.
And third, yesterday's sit-in and the ac-
tion of the last few weeks demonstrate
the effectiveness of numbers reinforced by
legitimate arguments. The events clearly
have demonstrated to those who feared
SGC's withdrawal, the mass teach-in and
the sit-in that an effective display of
commitment is a powerful weapon. i
This proper mixture of thought and ac-
tion is what the philosopher Martin Bu-
ber meant when he implored, "Let us
think as men of action, and act as men
of thought."
--ROBERT KLIVANS

Letters: 'Re-examination

Stalls Action

SGC. After Smoke Clears

To the Editor:
THE FACULTY SENATE Assem-
bly recommendations of last
week, by seeming to lend support
to student demands, all the more
strongly aid the administration in
evading those demands:
They recommend
1) OSA suspension of the sit-in
ban pending further re-examina-
tion.
2) OAA re-examination of
ranking policy.
3) Student suspension of de-
mands that ranking cease.
4) Faculty, student and admin-
istration re-examination of the de-
cision-making process.
THE ONLY substantive recom-
mendation of these four is the one
without the word "re-examination"
-namely that students give up
what we have been fighting for.
Nowhere do they call for a change
in administration policy. After
"re-examining" for six months the
administration can simply say,
"How about that-we were right
all along."
Students are now learning that
this is precisely how the admin-
istration has always operated and
hopes to continue operating. SGC's
break with the OSA underlined
this realization. It was born of the
frustration engendered by years of
student consultation with no
meaningful results.
BUT IF THE administration
says after re-examination that
they have decided to cease rank-
ing, it will be only because we
students haveunot suspended our
demands, though they will point
to the Faculty Senate recommen-
dations as causing their change in
policy.
The implied message to students
will be to act with "moderation,"
"responsibility" and "maturity,''
and the faculty will intercede with
the administration in our behalf.
But had not 4000 students defied
"maturity" and voted an ultima-
tum, the Faculty SenatedAssem-
bly would never have acted at all,
and the administration would cer-
tainly have ignored the referen-
dum results.
HATCHER'S COMMITTEES to
Re-examine fall short of even the
above recommendations, since the
administration remains adamant
on ranking for this year. Tues-
day's sit-in proved that students

are not so easily taken in, but that
sit-in was not sufficient. We must
continue with more sit-ins for in-
definite periods of time until the
administrations says they will
compile no rank this year.
If the University were a "com-
munity" of interests as the Fac-
ulty Senate Assembly, the admin-
istration, and even SGC would
have us believe, students would not
have to fight for their demands.
In the long run only the attain-
ment of student power will per-
mit us to run our lives in our own
interests.
-Karen Sacks, Grad
-William M. Sacks
Research Associate
Studernt Bigots
To the Editor:
THERE HAS BEEN a great
amount of criticism directed
toward the administration in the
past few weeks. It has been ac-
cused of being narrow-minded in
its- failure to recognize the de-
mands of the students.. In truth,
it is the students involved who
are the narrow-minded bigots, and
they have demonstrated this on
three different occasions.
At the teach-in last Monday
night many students were so de-
cided on student power that they
often failed to listen to their co-
horts. Those who were opposed
to a proposition were met by a
barrage of hisses.
Finally, in my mind, the sit-in
could never have been construc-
tive. A large part of the stu-
dents who took part did so be-
cause, "I've never been in a sit-
in," or, "Maybe I'll get on na-
tional tube," and one fellow stu-
dent claimed that the reason he
was going was because he had a
date.
HOW CAN the administration
even consider the students' pro-
posals while the students continue
to act in such an immature man-
ner? Are the students participat-
ing because they want to improve
their school, or because they want
to get both themselves and Michi-
gan in the national spotlight? If
the latter, why don't they stand
outside the Administration Build-
ing and chant "Student power!"
-Hugh Riddleberger, '70

Sit-In Dismay
To the Editor:
WAS VERY MUCH dismayed
by the large group of students
who staged the sit-in yesterday
in the Administration Building.
Student demands were extreme
at the teach-in of last week: im-
mediate abrogation of the sit-in
ban and complete acceptance of
the draft referendum.
But this is quite usual. We
were just establishing a bargain-
ing position, a status from which
we could debate the issues with
the administration. We could not
realistically expect the University
to accede fully to these demands,
because of the need to "save
face" and to attain a debatable
position of its own.
I REMIND the student body
that Student Government Coun-

"Silly Chinese"

WHEN THE SMOKE and fire from the
present situation clears, it 'will be in-
teresting to see just how much of the
old SGC is left. Granted, the struggle for
a larger student voice in decision-making
is a noble effort, but the question, to be
answered only by time, is whether the
SGC can withstand the strain of rebellion.
By severing ties with the Office of Stu-
dent Affairs, the Student Government
Council also destroyed its channels to legi-
timate power. The Office of Student Af-
fairs grants the SGC its appropriations,
as well as recognizing its elected student
leaders as the representatives of student
voice to the administration.
Before the break with the OSA, SGC
leaders, while elected by the University
students at large, derived their real power
mainly from the fact that the University,
that is the Regents and the administra-
tion, allowed hem to present student views
on University policy. Without the legiti-
macy from University officials, the unaf-

cil on the 'night before Thanks-
giving vacation would have voted
10-5 against the use of the word
"binding"-in our call for the dis-
missal of class ranking had not
a few irate members walked out
and caused a loss of the required
quorum for voting. The 10 SGC
members recognized the extremity
of our demands.
However, President Hatcher has
offered us real and meaningful
concessions. He has initiated com-
missions with presidential back-
ing (and therefore with consider-
able power) to re-evaluate student
government in its relation to the
University.
He has temporarily suspended
the sit-in ban, pending student
consultation; he has specifically
named the future members of a
committee to reconsider the draft
referendum issue. And finally, I

filiated SGC must'now derive its power
and legitimacy from the electorate - the
students.
THE DISSENSION that has exploded on
campus in recent weeks has brought
all student leaders into the foreground of
University influence-Voice, Young Dems,
Young Republicans, Engineering Council
members and others-all had constitu-
ents to represent and they represented
them fairly. The SGC used to represent a
united front of student opinion to the ad-
ministration. But the lack of financial
support and uncertain student endorse-
ment of an affiliated body now hamper
the continuation of SGC as the consoli-
dated voice of student sentiment.
If no reconciliation between the ad-
ministration and the SGC occurs, then a
new power basis must be firmly establish-
ed. Students must construct new methods
to deal with administrators and to settle
disputes' among themselves.
-CAROLYN MIEGEL

}l

, I
''r
. : "''
i
,' V.,

note that Dr. Hatcher stated that
the administration still considers
SGC to be the legal representa-
tive of the student body.
SGC and its affiliates must
show the responsibility given to
it by the University. The admin-
istration has conceded much. Let
us work through consultative proc-
esses with both of our bargaining
positions and resolve the conflict
in the best interests of the stu-
dents and of our community, the
University. Sit-ins can await fu-
ture results.
-Greg Kandel, '70
Hurt Feelings
To the Editor:
EVEN THE MOST apathetic ob-
server on campus can see that
the University is reaching a state
of crisis. Student and administra-
tive forces are gathering them-
selves for a pitched battle. In a
way it is good for revolutions tend
to breathe new life into a system.
In another way it is horrible.
THE ADMINISTRATION can-
not be excused for betraying the
trust of the students but on the
matter of sit-ins I think I can at
least see their point. A sit-in is
an extremely effective way of mak-
ing your point and being heard
but shouldn't it be used only as a
last resort?
If I were a member of SGC I
would be extremely discouraged
by a comment made by one of the
Voice members after the sit-in. He
was quoted in The Daily as say-
ing: "We didn't consider going
through the channels of SGC for
help." That is not an exact quote
but I believe I got the meaning
correct.
The administration is as impor-
tant a part of this University as
the students and Vice-versa. They
have a right not to be interferred
with except in cases where they
have flagrantly ignored all chan-
nels of student communication,
SHOULDN'T WE the students
hesitate'to see if all these chan-
nels of communication have been
used before we consider drastic
action. It is a shame that we stu-
dents who abhor a war in which
human lives are sacrificed would
charge into a fight in which hu-
man feelings are sacrificed.
-Tom Tirrell, '70

1N'
/f Di~
{ '

1t

Student Apathy Disruptive

tS".* 2.. fn .ri^rynv. ":l '4:M:r.'N %n; "},;.a};;2"wy:.i:.:: W:2"Y" %:.. .l:flY."p:y.:x"ns..::.a".vv :"v ".c:.c ""r..: "..ruv rv:.^e ::.ew::: "r. n ,. .......«.... .. w
.,..... .v.v ...: . . ::....... ..... .. .::.,.. .v. \.,.n ....: .. .:... ......:.. .. ,v .... ...:.::. q, .. .. .v.}"4...b...v,,......v .... ......b.. ..nnv..... ........ ., .,. v ..:....... ... ... ..... K,. ., \ .... ;, .......... a0i::"n . ."....n ..:. ::.1.: .., r. ,v. ... \ ....f. \.... rc. r... ..Y. ......r.. 'A. .. .:,.......... .. :.r: ........
.. . ... .. ...?.. ... ....r.. .... .:.. rr a... r m . nv .. a ... .. ......
......:.. ,.....k. ......... fir... .Y. .. .... .:.,...'. "... :.,,, . s......... b.... .... .Pt.:S ., ...:r . ^s .a r ,:. , ..a xa n. p ., r...: .,::.,, }s a oaa :" r,;"r .r..r :. "
"..n..!k.\ ..Sfi:.X,......, .r. .. r. :,... nfid.,}. ~ .,,,. ... .}......a.: }...,.. , .....Z: .R"..,.. 35:........24, ei,.... rx .... /... ...:.?.a. .. \.. . .. ,... m ,,. .:....... ? .............. .... ... .../:i.n >.:...: r.:.... . v.y ,:< ):._..... Al .s,. v. ,./ .t'...! ,,,.,...u 'n":l':2. ...

-: 8i} iii: i+f.4: {i.
.vv:: ". .. . .::: :n.. . ::. ::.v :.v::::: nv "x:.v ":::.:.: "" . .: ... .......... . . n.. 4...n...n .. : v:. :": :.:: ..>..

.y4 .. . . . ..4...:. .:.. .:.x...:.... x.:'..-... .. ~:. .....".......
.. . ,y ... y}V..,. . ........... ,{ t , ...... '.,tk ''. '> 2. y
W O*N0..,N........~...... . 1+}x..\ rt.:NC*:~ .+.: ,lY.:. .1 ... ?.. Z.. t k. .. n . . . ..: A. ')."1. 5

a

4

A LARGE AND PERHAPS increasing
number of Americans see' violation of
the law, even for laudable ends, "not only
as an assault on the rule of law, but also
as subversive of the democratic process."
Dean Francis A. Allen of the Law School
expressed this view in a lecture he deliv-
ered at the University of Cincinnati No-
vember 17.
In discussing the perils and perplexi-
ties of civil disobedience, Allen hypoth-
esized, "If one compares, for example, the
reactions of the middle class community
to two forms of law violation-violations
of the building code by a slum landlord
and a breach of peace committed by the
tenants in the landlord's building who
conduct a demonstration to protest their
living conditions-the latter will often
produce the greater fears and anxieties.
This is true even though the demonstra-
tion may do less tangible harm and reflect
much more elevated motives."
This, it seems, may also be true of ad-
ministrative and Regental views of the
current student movement.
FOR MANY, the breakdown of public or-
der is "the natural and'inevitable con-
sequence of protest movements that as-
sert the propriety of civil disobedience as
an instrument of social reform," Allen
said. Again, it seems the administration
and +h p Re,.Lan vtf ara a nrt or th a

that class, believing that sit-ins will only
make the situation worse by disrupting
and antagonizing the "enemy," leading
them to tighter controls to restore order.
Students are asking for a voice in de-
cisions which effect them. Student Gov-
ernment Council is asking that it be giv-
en some potency as a body elected to rep-
resent students. More than 9000 students
indicated their desires for a role in Uni-
versity decision making by voting in the
draft referendum and more than 3000
expressed interest and support by attend-
ing the rally last week.
THIS, OF COURSE, is not a majority of
the student body. Perhaps the re-
mainder consists of an apathetic mass of
students who just want to put in their
four years at the University, pull good
grades, have some good times and get out.
BUT MY POLI SCI 100 course taught me
that apathy is as disruptive to the
democratic process and the freedom of
the individual as sit-ins are to the public
order. And, if those students can be con-
vinced that an effective student govern-
ment could accomplish things that would
make it easier for them to survive their
four years at the University, academical-
ly, financially or otherwise, they, too,
would probably become aroused.

Assassination: Of Sealing Wax and Kings

Now it could have been that
my son and the Secret Service
were all involved in a mercy
killing.
-Mrs. Marguerite Oswald
A matter of reasonable doubt.
-Life Magazine
Kennedy's assassination, the
murder of Patrice Lumumba and
Dag Hammarskjold's death were
all the work of forces that were
behind the recent U.S.-Belgian
rescue operation in the Congo.
-Ousman Ba
Mali Foreign Minister
By DAVID KNOKE
IMMEDIATELY after the assas-
sination, European writers be-
gan touting claims that a cabal
was responsible for the death of
the President. Most Americans
were skeptical. Not any longer.
Fortunately for amateur detec-
tives and assassination buffs, will-
ing to shell out $108 and avidly
devour the 26 volumes of the
Warren Commission R e p o r t,
"Earl's Pearl" contains enough
errors and omissions to keep two
separate arguments thriving: the
how'd-it-happen and the who-
dunit.

sin or two?-and the reputation
of the Warren Commission hinges
largely on what one can believe
about the situation.
With the celebrated Zapruder
homenmovies timing perfectly the
sequence of events at 18.3 frames
a second, the problem of what
bullets did which to whom from
where should be perfunctory. Not
so. Gov. Connolly contended, in
an exclusive investigation for Life
Magazine, that "an entirely sep-
arate shot struck me."
Arlen Specter, who handled the
commission's investigation, sum-
med up the one-bullet theory om-
inously: "Where, if it didn't hit
Connally, did that bullet go?"
WHERE, INDEED?
Of course, there is a theory to
explain the meanderings of the
mysterious missile. Commission
Exhibit 399, a bullet scratched
by hide nor hair of man and
found reposing on a stretcher out-
side the hospital where Connally
and Kennedy were taken, was
"planted." Vincent Salandria, a
Philadelphia lawyer, concludes
that a total of five bullets were
fired-separate ones for Connally
and Kennedy's wounds, the fa-
tal Kennedy head shot, Number
399, plus a pot shot at a spectator.

evanescent double-all hyperac-
tive on the day in question.
Further, any or all of the fol-
lowing organizations may be di-
rectly implicated: Oswald imper-
sonators, Ruby impersonators, CIA
and FBI men, the Mafia, the Rus-
sians, the Cubans, the Military-
Industrial Complex, the now-
President Johnson ("Macbird," a
satire by Barbara Garson) and
the "Evil Forces" of Ousman Ba.
Personally, the last explanation is
the most watertight and irrefut-
able.
And for those whose tastes in
conspiracy run to the grandiose.,
the Midlothian, Tex., Editor Penn
Jones has come up with 72
"strange" deaths in the last three
years of witnesses, friends; etc.,
involved in thedtwo assassinations.
If there is indeed some myster-
ious "super gang" bent on rub-
bing out witnesses, one can take
comfort in the fact that, with 35
million people watching the Os-
wald slaying on TV, one has a
better than 50-50 chance of sur-
viving to a ripe old age.
SUCH A SITUATION of multi-
ple killers would be intolerable:
Not only does it defy the tenets
of Aristotelian logic, it disrupts

terial and do their own detailed
analysis. But they lack the cru-
cial evidence-the color films tak-
en during the autopsy showing
the location of bullet exits and
entries. But, nobody knows the
whereabouts of the undeveloped
film strip; evidence for another
case of collusion?
FOR THOSE whose delight is in
conspiracy theories, this final one
is offered as a plausible explana-
tion for the sudden rage over
the commission report, culminat-
ing, incidentally, 1,095 days after
Nov. 23, 1963. A unique charac-
teristic is shared by the most vo-
ciferous and prominent critics:
They are all making fantastic
amounts of money off the con-
troversy.
Item: Mark Lane's (Oswald's
attorney) book, for example, has
sold well over a hundred thou-
sand copies.
Item: The propounders of sev-
eral diverse opinions Appeared on
a recent TV roundtable, reaping
profits for the networks.
Item: With Time and Life tak-
ing opposite sides on re-opening
the commission investigation, the
fires of controversy will continue
to be fed for a prolonged time.
Life also sold out a record press

4

.o m sm smmnn

I I

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan