Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNiVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

Student Power: What Now, Comrade?

-

ere Opinions Are Free.420 MAYNARD St., ANN ARBORMica.
Truth Will Prevail

NEws PHONE: 764-0552

rials printed in The Michigan Daily ex press the individual opinions of staff writers
ofthe editors. This mus t be noted in all reprints.



DAY, DECEMBER 1, 1966

NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT KLIVANS



Tonight's Teach-in:
Some Preliminary Questions

p RESIDENT HATCHER'S commission on
student and University government
can be, of some real value to the Uni-
versity community. But as stated in a
senior editorial yesterday, the concession
is a meaningful one if and only if the
commission reports directly and openly
to the Regents' proposals which have been
previously approved by the faculty and
the student body.
IT REMAINS to make clear exactly what
the relationship of that commission
and its members shall be to the student
body as a whole.
To allow students to sit on such a
commission in other than an informal
manner at this time would not be justi-
fiable - one cannot represent a body
which has not made clear exactly what
it wants.'
On the other hand, it is obvious that
there are many key areas in which the
views of administrators and faculty will
be vital to defining areas of obvious over-
lapping interest as well as providing
needed perspectives.
Thus the teach-in should elect rep-
resentatives to the commission to offer,
and receive information and points of
view in an institutionalized fashion. It
should be clear, however, that final ac-
tions by the commission await a clearly
defined plan for student government
from the student body.
THERE WILL OCCUR at this first teach-
in and at all ensuing ones which deal
with establishing a new constitution for
student government, a question of "stu-
dent power" versus "student influence."
These phrases, like all catch phrases, are

fraught with vagueness and misunder-
standing.
It seems obvious that the two terms are
on a spectrum of degrees of control, and
that the justifiability of an expanded stu-
dent role varies with different areas of
University life.
The quickest way to kill an organiza-
tion, or a movement, is to bog down in
discussing nothingness (ask SGC, for ex-
ample). The only meaningful way to re-
solve the argument is to consider struc-
tural definitions.
That will both save time and insure
that what is being said is of some value
and interest.
ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED tonight is
the possibility of another sit-in tomor-
row. Such a sit-in would be unjustifiable
as a tactical move to increase long-run
participation. It is in many ways true
that discussion is without meaning unless
the administration is willing to accept a
student referendum as binding.
But, one might also ask, what has been
accomplished once that battle is won. A
precedent? It seems far sounder to estab-
lish and implement a structure through
which all such referendums are guaran-
teed their rightful weight rather than
expending the effort now, when the long-
range effects are not clear.
RAFTING THE CONSTITUTION for
that structure by convention or by com-
mittee' will be a long, difficult and mun-
dane process. But it will also be educa-
tional and in many ways uniquely excit-
ing.
It starts tonight.
-HARVEY WASSERMAN
Editorial Director


EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the
first of a number of essays on
the issue of student participa-
tion in University decision-
making. Ed Schwartz is National
Affairs Vice-President of the
National Student Association,
and was a speaker at last
month's teach-in on the draft.
By ED SCHWARTZ
THUS FAR, the conflict has
proceeded along familiar lines:
1) A specific point of conflict
develops between a group of stu-
dents and the administration-i.e.,
whether the University should
cease class ranking.
2) Student government then
broadens the terms of the demand
-they ask that students have the
power to determine policy in this
area. The administration equivo-
cates.
3) The student government an-
nounces a referendum on the ques-
tion. The administration refuses
to accept the results as binding.
It adds to student anger by pro-
mulgating a ban against sit-ins
without consulting students.
4) The referendum demonstrates
visible student support for the spe-
fic demand. The administration
still refuses to yield on this and
will not rescindtthe sit-in rule or
consult with students on a new
one.
5 Administration instrangience
moves "mainstream" student opin-
ion 30 degrees to the left. Much
to the dismay of student conser-
vatives and apathetics, a tenuous
coalition between radicals and
"activist" student government
types coalesces around "direct ac-
tion" against the administration.
6) At the last minute, the ad-
ministration tries to capitulate by
offering to "set up a committee,"
in the same manner that Louis
XVI suggested reforms when revo-
lution appeared imminent. In both
cases, this is deemed inadequate.
Amidst moderate dissension, the
sit-in occurs.
THAT'S BEEN the pattern up
to now. Furthermore, subsequent
steps are easy to predict:
7) Resentment of the sit-in by
''apathetic'' students is serious.
The "moderates," in response, feel
that direct action has served its
purpose-they urge a modified ac-
ceptance of the administration's
demands for the time being. The
"radicals" accuse them of "selling
out" and threaten to go it alone.
8) A mass meeting is held
which considers tactics more than
substance. By this time, the con-
servatives want to oust the "main-
stream" leadership for engaging in
direct action. The radicals want to
move the middle to the left. The
middle, unable either to bring the
groups together or to choose be-
tween them, adopts a "wait and
see" posture. The radicals alienate
the campus with a second sit-in.

9) Activity dies. The "middle"
joins the administration's commit-
tee without a clear program in
mind. The committee meets for
several months, suggests a few
minor structural changes which
are adopted out of fatigue, more
than anything else. Amidst much
fanfare, the administration ac-
cepts the proposals.
10) The year ends, bringing with
it lengthyarticles in Time, Harp-
er's, and the Saturday Review on
"What Happened at Michigan."
QUESTION: Can the last four
steps in this progression be
avoided?
At the present time, two spe-
cific demands have been used to
dramatize the broad concept of
"student power:" the demand that
the Univer~sity, not rank its stu-
dents and the demand that the
University revoke a sit-in regula-
tion. It is quite clear that while
the campus continues to support
these demands, it will be unwilling
to encourage further militant ac-
tion on this basis a"one.
It is also clear that "student
power" as a principle has little
meaning toastudents beyond the
two specific demands. An incident
at the Voice meeting Tuesday
night is indicative.
In the middle of the debate, a
"moderate-conservative" suggested
that, "You don't know what's go-
ing on here. Many of the kids in
the dormitories aren't aware of the
issues, let alone 'student power.'
What's in it 'for them?" Voice
never answered.
THAT'S THE problem right
now. Anyone interested in encour-
aging student involvement should
face three points of reality:
1) If student power as a prin-
ciple is going to live, it must be
wedded to a broad theoretical and

practical program which will make
sense to the student body.
2) If militant action is to be
continued, it must be based upon
a demand other than ranking or
sit-ins, since the students feel that
the proverbial bolt has been shot
on those questions.
3) A new sit-in which gears
student power to the old demands
may destroy the potential popular-
ity of the theory as well as the
credibility of the immediate goals.
AS FAR AS I can tell, no one
has confronted this situation ade-
quately. Voice wants to sit-in on
"student power," but it refuses to
tell the rest of the campus how
the theory meets the peoples needs.
The conservative-moderates op-
pose radical tactics without show-
ing the radicals that they favor
certain long-range goals. The ac-
tivists on student government -
who have tried to conciliate-are
uncertain as to both tactics and
programs.
Under these circumstances, the
meeting tonight will probably sub-
stitute a name-calling session on
immediate tactical maneuvers for
a discussion of the issues. The tra-
ditional pattern will follow.
IN THE HOPE that this not
occur, I offer some comments on
each question.
First, as to the relevance of stu-
dent power to campus needs. If I-
werea radical, I wouldswant. to
say something like this:
"Forget ranking for the mo-
ment, all you guys out there in the
fraternities. Start thinking about
other things which might be both-
ering you.
"A fraternity house was fined
$700 recently for student drinking.
Inter-fraternity Council levied the
fine. Did they make the rule, or
did the administration? Wouldn't
it be great if you could decide for
yourselves whether drinking could
take place in your houses? That's
student power.
"Many of you have to sneak girls
into your rooms because the ad-
ministration forbids invervisita-
tion. Don't you think that you
should decide for. yourselves
whether girls should be allowed in
dormitory rooms? That's student
power.
"The administration passed a
rule this year stating that fresh-
men can't have motorcycles.
Shouldn't the students have had
a say in formulating that rule?
That's student power."
THAT'S THE KIND of argu-
ment which would make student
power relevant. Even the moder-
ates have their theorists, how-
ever, and the radicals should be
prepared to answer them.
The moderate might say: "Okay,
maybe I would like to have con-
trol over these things, as well as

over these things, as well as over
ranking and sit-ins. But we can't
expect that? The university has
the legal authority, doesn't it? We
can always leave."
Radicals generally become as
polemical on these questions as
they grow on specifics. The task
should be to relate student power
to educational goals. I would use
the following arguments:
"THE QUESTION is not who
possesses the legal authority. The
question is whether the exercise
of such authority enhances or in-
hibits the educational process.
"We believe that education is
more than a process of memor-,
izing facts or even developing pre-
cise analytical mechanisms to de-
termine what is. Education, to us,
should involve an intense personal
exploration of goals, values, and
directions. It is a living process,
requiringsa direct relationship be-
tween classroom material and
everyday activity
When the administration says
to us 'Think what you want, but
do as we say,' what it is really
saying is that education should
have nothing to do with life, and
we can't accept that.
""The administration says that
we should become responsible be-
fore we exercise power. We dis-
agree. We say that a universitys
failure to grant power to its stu-
dents discourages thought about
education. Instead of facilitating
the process of development, the
policy reinforces the adolescent
tendency to rely on other people
to make personal choices."
THESE ARE the arguments
which I use; perhaps the radicals
prefer alternatives. That's their
prerogative. At least they should
present some sort of a case to the
rest of the students, however.
Those who have asked them to
do so are being perfectly reason-
able; they deserve a response.
Let us suppose that the meeting
tonight reaches an agreement on
the theory of student power, and
a number' of specific areas over
which it should be exercised. The
third question I raised was wheth-
er such an agreement would justi-
fy a sit-in.aThat question should
be considered.
THE MODERATE will say: "All
right, we've agreed on a few broad
aims. These should be part of a
long term discussion, however.
You can't expect a sit-in to pro-
duce administrative capitulation
on all these points. Nor can we
sit-in on the draft and ranking.
We've done that already. What's
the point?"
The task becomes that of find-
ing a new, immediate demand to
add to the earlier two. I see such
a point of conflict. I'm not sure
whether it justifies a sit-in at this

time, but it's worth debating the
tactical question around this issue.
The administration appointed
students to serve on the draft
commission (who declined): and
implies it should select the stu-
dents from student nominations
to serve on the other two.
This poses a real question: If
the administration is interested
in providing students with a say
in the decision-making process,
why can't it even demonstrate
that it is in making its mildest
proposoal for change?
THE QUESTION is one of trust.
The moderates implicitly trust the
procedures outlined by the admin-
istration to achieve desired results.
The radicals do not.
Neither, quite frankly, would I.
How can you trust someone who
says: "I'm going to establish a
committee which is going to de-
cide how much power you should
have, but I'm going to let you
choose your representatives to the
committee?"
To me, then, the burden of proof
would rest as fallows: The'moder-
ates would have to try to convince
the radicals that the present pro-
cedures demonstrate good faith,
and vice-versa; the radicals would
have to convince the moderates
that sit-in on this specific ques-
tion could yield administrative
capitulation, and vice-versa.
As an observer, I remain un-
dscided. I disagree with the mod-
erates that the present admin-
istration proposal is adequate.
But, I'm not sure whether or not
a sit-in is the best way now to
attack the proposal. The radicals
should try to prove that.
I'VE TRIED TO cover both the
long term and the immediate here.
I've tried to divide the issues, as
they should be divided. My an-
swers might not be the best. The
questions remain valid.
And that's the trouble with both
sides-a ,failure to ask the right
questions. The radicals are so in-
tent on proving the worth of di-
rect action that they have failed
to develop theoretical justifica-
tions for, student power and to re-
late these to practical proposals
which the average guy would sup-
port.
The moderates are so intent on
attacking the radicals that they
have failed to develop their own
long-range goals by which they
could judge administrative sin-
cerity and tactical means to deal
with that.
AT FIRST, the radicals trusted
the moderates; now they don't.
The modrates trusted radical ac-
tion; now they trust the admin-
istration.
Who's going to trust himself
and try to convince the rest?
That's the one who will lead.

1

0

9

,t
0


Toward Ending- Conscription


HE RIPON SOCIETY, a Republican re-
search and development organization,
released a 10,000 word "proposal to re-
place the draft" on Tuesday. This "pro-
posal" is actually a convincing appeal
to the Republican party for opposition to
peacetime conscription of any kind.
W ILE RECOGNIZING the necessity
of conscription in time of war, the so-
ciety brings up a point which has been
overlooked too often in the recent de-
bates on the draft. And they tell it like
it is: "Conscription is, by definition, anti-
thetic to a free society."
This is the basic point, the point
which must be accepted before rational
action on the draft issue can occur. Cer-
tainly conscription may have to be used
in times of major crisis but if we expect
to live up to the ideals we are trying to
defend we can only use it as our very last
resort. The question before us is not what'
means are most efficient or inexpensive
but how we can reconcile our means
with our ends.
THE RIPON SOCIETY has offered the
Republicans a policy that effectively
answers this question. It proposes that
the government concentrate its actions
on making military service attractive as
a career, that salaries be raised and con-
ditions be improved until conscription
becomes unnecessary. This is an .argu-
ment that can be challenged but cannot,
however, be summarily dismissed.
Nevertheless, the Democratic party
seems to have dismissed it. Indeed, Rep-
resentative L. Mendel Rivers (D-SC),
Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINGSWORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor.
CLARENCE FANTO HARVEY WASSERMAN
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
JAMESGaSOVAGE...........Associate Sports Editor
GIL SAMBERG.......... ... .Assistant Sports Editor
SPORTS NIGHT EDITORS: Grayle Howlett, Howard
Kohn, Bill Levis, Bob McFarland, Clark Norton, Rick
Stern, John Sutkus, Gretchen Twietmeyer, Dave
Weli'.
JUNIOR MANAGERS-Gene Farber, Erica Keeps, Bill
Krauss, Sam Offen, Carol Neimera, Diane Smaller,
Michael Stecklis, Jeanne Rosinski, Steve Wechsler.

chairman of the House Armed Services
Committee, opened last summer's hear-
ings'on the draft by stating flatly that a
draft of some kind is necessary.
The Ripon Society feels that since it
has been a Democratic Congress that
has stymied meaningful draft reform the
Republicans have an obligation to "take
up this cause, which, would have been a
natural one for Robert Taft, Sr. or Ar-
thur Vandenberg. The Republican party
has an opportunity to demonstrate a
rounded program of reform superior to
any other, reform that will rank among
the proudest and most significant of our
era."
THIS IS, INDEED, a great opportunity
for the Republicans. One wonders,
however, whether in moving from Taft
and Vandenberg to Romney and Nixon
the Republicans may have left the' Ripon
Society behind.
-JOHN GRAY
No Comment
"IN ORDER to provide conditions where
your personal, social and moral devel-
opment will be enhanced, we have sought
to provide a climate where you will have
the opportunity to make a great many of
your own decisions. We believe that your
personal freedom is a vital part of the
educational experience.
Along with the great freedom that you
will enjoy here, and as a part of your
right to make your own decisions, goes
a demand upon you to accept responsibil-
ity for your actions. The greater the free-
dom given, the greater the responsibility
demanded.I
. . The services are here, and we are
eager to help. Do not make this mistake
of trying to "go it alone" when help is so
easily available if you need it."
-RICHARD L. CUTLER
Vice-President for Student
Affairs in the Guide to
Counseling booklet
-CHARLOTTE WOLTER
Enforcing
The Law
"CARACAS, Venezuela (UPI) - A bus

"rmrv;;Mi.NL .'nw.xtbYi3dG'_AiG' {GdSk dG'fA'. '.d5:0}Y.{M}}DYJS

-: ;... ..: .:. :x.:.x.:. : '4:-:. , :::;> .... :.:":....... .. ..v.. .... ... .'t:''...-..his-....
Letters: Hatcher 's Seech t the Faculty

KEli

A

To the Editor:
AS A MEMBER of the faculty
of this University, I was de-
pressed and embarrassed at the
proceedings of the Faculty Sen-
ate meeting on Monday, Nov. 27,
1966. Senate meetings are quite
infrequent and this one was un-
usually well-attended.
As a result the meeting offer-
ed an unusually fine opportunity
for the faculty as a body to dis-
cuss the rather pressing and con-
troversial issues that have arisen
on campus in the past few weeks.
Instead, the responsibility of fac-
ing these issues and discussing
their significance was totally ig-
nored.
It is difficult to apportion the
blame for the proceedings. I found
the handling of the meeting by
the chairman, President Hatcher,
very unfortunate. But this does
not excuse the manner in which
the faculty, with only one excep-
tion, failed to live up to its ob-
ligations.
AT THE BEGINNING of the
meeting, Mr. Hatcher read his
statement which wassubsequent-
ly made public. There is no need
to comment here on the value of
that statement, for its value is
irrelevant to any remarks about
the subsequent course of the meet-
ing. After Mr. Hatcher's state-
ment, a motion was made to in-
dicate the faculty's support of
that statement, which motion was
passed by a voice vote,
Neither before nor after that
motion, was an opportunity seri-
ously offered to the assemblage
to discuss either the President's
statement or the points which it
raised and had been raised by
recent events.
Had the printed copies of the
President's statement that were
distributed immediately after the
meeting been made available be-
forehand, discussion would have
been encouraged. Admittedly, as
Mr. Hatcher said at the end of
the meeting, his statement did not
require a vote of the body, since
that statement was not a reso-

the chairmen of several subcom-
mittees who delivered their re-
ports, There was no discussion of
these reports. Immediately after
these reports were given, the chair
asked for a motion to adjourn.
An allusion was made to the
possibility of discussing new busi-
ness. But. this remark was so
brief and was followed so quick-
ly by a request for a motion to
adjourn that little time was af-
forded to accommodate the nat-
ural inertia of such an assembly.
Only one of our colleagues,
Prof. Carl Cohen, had the quick-
ness of mind to rise to his feet
with a point of order and suggest
that the Faculty Senate could not
discharge its obligation to the
University community if it failed
to focus, as a body, on the topics
of the day.
In response to this, Mr. Hatcher
asked if anyone had a motion to
make of any kind. No one had a
motion or insisted upon initiating
a discussion. The meeting was
adjourned.
IN RETROSPECT, it is difficult
to see why each faculty member
(of LSA, at least) was sent a
note by the dean asking that the
Senate meeting be attended in
large numbers. It was said that
the occasion was very important,
but the faculty, collectively and
individually, did nothing of im-
portance whatsoever.
The substance of the meeting
consisted in President Hatcher's
reading a statement which was
issued to the press anyway. The
presence of the -faculty was ir-
relevant.
TO REPEAT, I find it difficult
to say where the fault lay on
Monday. As I indicated, I believe
that the meeting was not chaired
in a way which optimized the pos-
sibility of faculty discussion. But,
then, it also appears that the
members of the Senate simply
had nothing to say, or nothing
that it ventured to say, about re-
cent administration actions and
student actions.

literary college, at least, will re-
deem itself at next week's meet-
ing by facing up to the issues that
confront us.
-Alvin.I. Goldman
Asst. Prof. of Philosophy
Getting Power
To the Editor:
F OR THE PAST two weeks the
administration, SGC, The
Daily, Voice and numerous oth-
er organizations have been play-
ing games with each other. But
the stakes are higher than any
game merits.
If students are ever to make
decisions in those matters which
concern them directly, it must be
recognized that these games are,
in fact, very serious matters.
ALAS, the players are'- afraid
to look at the question seriously.
There is a fear of power. Stu-
dents question the notion of their
exercising power over themselves.
They have existed within a pa-
ternalistic system all of their lives
and they do not want the crea-
tive insecurity of independence.
Students also reflect society's
abhorrence of failure. If student
control is not going to solve all
problems facing students today it
will be branded as irresponsible

and the students who participate
are going to be made to feel them-
selves irresponsible.
It is obviously in the interests
of the administration to treat the
whole affair as a game. They are
afraid that if students begin to
approach the matter seriously, the
established process of the univer-
sity' will be disrupted and even
changed. As long as students con-
tinue playing games, administra-
tors will be happy to respend in
like manner.
IF THERE IS a seriousmove-
ment for student control on cam-
pus let it emerge, for only through
such a movement can substantive
change come to the University.
On the other hand, if students
are willing only to unite and press
demands on the administration, in
the same half-hearted manner In
which they have already done, let
this movement fold, for it can
bring good neither to the institu-
tional structure nor to the stu-
dent community of the University,
-Richard Gordon
Cutler Power
To the Editor:
"YOU EXPRESS a great deal
of anxiety over our willing-
ness to break laws. This is a

legitimate concern ... The an-
swer lies in the fact that there
are two types of laws: just and
unjust." (Martin Luther King,
"Letters from Birmingham Jail")
This is the issue at stake in Mr.
Cutler's attempt to gain dictator-
ial powers and use them at his,
and the administration's will. I see
the administration, through Mr.
Cutler, attempting to gain the
last voice, regardless of who makes
the initial utterance.
Mr. Cutler feels he has the right
to release names to the House
Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities, the most vile and indecent
committee in the American gov-
ernment, yet he allows those vic-
timized no recourse. Mr. Cutler
has assumed the power to ignore
dissent.
THE STUDENTS, those who are
most concerned with the draft,
have been told before they vote,
that they will have no voice in
determining their fate. The ad-
ministration feels they should
have an absolute voice in decid-
ing the students' fate.
Finally, Mr. Cutler and the ad-
ministration have decided where
and low students can protest in-
justice. The purpose of the Uni-
versity is to encourage thinking
and to help people establish high-
er values and concerns for hu-
man dignity.
But this decision has placed the
administration's operations and
business above this, and I am
astounded, because there is no
need for a university without stu-
dents, and this indicates that they
are more important than admin-
istrative operations.
I FEEL, as Mr. Cutler's author-
itative power evolves, there are
gross injustices which must be
terminated. There are just and
unjust laws, and unjust implies
wrongness.
I think the injustice of his at-
tempt for power is obvious. If he
is going to dictate and leave the
students no recourse, beyond a
point determined by him, then I
feel we must protest, and break

0

I
"1V

p


EEL m a m N EL in