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

FEIFFER

0


here, Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD $T., ANN ARBOR, MIcH.
True tbl Will Prevail

NEWS PHONE: 764-0552

. Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: SUSAN SCHNEPP

Student Power:
Means and Ends

TAB
61P15!
NOwU MAYTI
R1IH1" THE.
~~I eP~

fI6-L, '34..VIA?
7111' 5 5JApL~b
6U .)IE,A&WvZ
W\ IiS O~J6

OFsr
JIOAH

I O RP TO YOU PAU
NAM W17AYA oT
qflocr
1 SCYW?
OF ,Yoc
WILL 66L
UL-A

WHEN I WENT HOME for Thanksgiving
vacation, my mother asked me: "Dear,
what is all the uproar about at the Uni-
versity?"
"Student power," I said.
"Oh, goodness, not like that Hoagy Car-
michael fellow," she replied in astonish-
ment.
At that point I realized it was time to
define student power-and what ought to
come with it.
STUDENT POWER means a student vote
in University decisions which affect
them. It means that students, as well as
faculty and administrators, deserve a
chance not only to speak, but to use the
power of a vote, in deciding issues which
affect them.
An example is the issue of discipline in
University housing-rules on who lives in
it and how (hours, open-opens, and so
on).
Students are obviously affected because
the rules govern their behavior. Faculty
are affected because the rules ought to be
(even if they aren't) conducive to educa-
tion. Administrators are affected because
(for example) if the rules are poorly
written, parents won't send their children
to the University--which means that the
University could default on the bonds
which financed dormitory construction.
SO MUCH for student power, and faculty
power and administrators' power too,
for that matter. The University commu-
nity now seems to be in general agreement
that the present "constitution" defining
the relative power of each of its three
parts doesn't give a voting voice to stu-
dents.
A tripartite committee or students, fac-
ulty and administrators-equally repre-
sented, and each group having an equal
voice and vote--will eventually begin to
draw up a new decision-making "consti-
tution" which gives students such voting
power.
But student power-which faculty and
administrators seem to accept in princi-
ple-isn't sufficient if students are, in-
deed, going to become full members of
the University community.

STUDENT POWER means that students
have a vote in University decisions. But
which students? How many students? It
would be ironic to say that students ought
to have a vote in University decisions
without-at the same time-saying that
as many students as possible ought to de-
termine what that student vote ought to
be and what it should say.
Just as it is wrong for an elite to
dominate University-wide decision-mak-
ing (something administrators and facul-
ty now concede), it is also wrong for an
elite to dominate student decision-making
on how student power in University deci-
sion-making should be exercised.
THE TEACH-IN IDEA, like the "talk-in"
at the Administration Bldg. yesterday,
is one Way to enable as many 'interested
students as possible decide on what the
student voice in University-wide decision-
making will be.
But-as those present at Thursday's
teach-in ruefully admit-such vast, amor-
phous meetings are often organizational-
ly "messy" and disorganized.
On the other hand, working solely
through Student Government Council is
dissatisfactory for other reasons - SGC
may be more organized (perhaps) but,
even though it in theory represents all
students, SGC still is only 17 students sit-
ting around a table. There ought to be a
way for the rest of the 30,000 students here
to speak their minds directly.
SGC is a representative democracy; in-
volving the whole student body in some
direct way is participatory democracy.
Both elements are essential for valid stu-
dent participation; valid student partici-
pation is essential for student power; and
student power is necessary for valid Uni-
versity decision-making.
THEREFORE, to provide for both parti-
cipatory democracy and representative
democracy, ,SGC should work to set up
a broad-based student union to involve as
many students as possible in student de-
cision-making.
-MARK R. KILLINGSWORTII
Editor

The Campus Needs, a New Constitution

This is the second of a num-
ber of essays on the issue of
student participation in Univer-
sity decision-making. Robert J.
IFarris is a professor of law here.
This is the text of remarks de-
livered to a Nov. 30 Lawyers
Club discussion, entitled "Sit-
In at the Administration Build-
ing--Why Not?" It will appear
in two parts.
By ROBERT J. HARRIS
First of Two Parts
THE CITIZENS of Michigan
contributesto thetUniversity of
Michigan most of its capital and
much of its operating revenue.
In return for their contribu-
tions they expect the University
to provide educational opportuni-
ties for the more gifted children
of state residents, research prod-
ucts of value to resident industry,
prestige for the state and trained
manpower for the state's public
and private employers.
The teaching and non-teaching
employes, from the President to
the dishwasher, contribute full-
time services. They expect a wage
in return. The teaching personnel
expect academic freedom' in re-
turn, as well as wages.
STUDENTS contribute tuition
and their full-time labor for a
term of years. The students' labor
primarily benefits the students. It
is not compensated in money at
once. Thus it differs from the
conventional sale of services.
But it precludes use bf the stu-
dents' time for other full-time
employment and it requires stu-
dents to submit to industrial dis-
cipline. The students expect in
return education-in the narrow-
er and broader senses.
The state constitution and the
rules and bylaws of the Regents
vest basic political power in some
of these groups and not in others.
The constitution, by providing for
election of the Regents statewide,
gives the citizenry of the state
some fundamental power to pro-
tect its interests in University de-
cisions.
Similarly, by making the Uni-
versity largely dependent upon the
state Legislature for operating
funds and capital grants, the con-
stitution provides another mode
of long-run citizen control.
Citizen control must operate in-
directly through Regents and Leg-
islature, who in turn operate
through a complex administrative
bureaucracy, and I do not wish
to exaggerate the efficacy of the
control mechanisms.

THE CONSTITUTION vests no
basic political power over Uni-
versity decisions in the students,
administration, teaching staff, or
the non-teaching employes.
The Regents have delegated sub-
stantial parts of their power over
University-wide matters to top lev-
el administration people and they
have delegated some of their pow-
er over matters affecting a sin-
gle department to the department
and schools.
No substantial amount of the
Regents' power to make important
University-wide decisions has been
delegated to the students' repre-
sentatives, the faculty's represen-
tatives, or representatives of non-
teaching employes of the school.
Of course, the Regents and the
top administrators who exercise
delegated authority, are concern-
ed with the interests of students,
faculty, and non-teaching em-
ployes, as well as the interests of
the statewide citizenry.
HOWEVER, since the adminis-
tration is responsible to the Re-
gents and the Regents are elect-
ed by the statewide citizenry, it is
inevitable that the views of that
constituency tend to prevail when
controyersial issues arise which
pit the interest or ideology of that
constituency against the interest
or ideology of students, faculty,
or non-teaching staff. Recall the
HUAC episode.
It is worth stressing that in
most instances the interests of the
statewide citizenry and the var-
ious campus groups are congru-
ent. However, constitutions exist
for the occasions when men have
serious disagreements.
Under present arrangements the
student or faculty or staff inter-
est must come off the loser when
it is at odds with what Regents
or administration view as the in-
terest of the citizenry of Michi-
gan; there is no need to compro-
mise the difference except inso-
far as decency and public rela-
tions sense require that power to
be exercised tactfully.
WHAT PRESENTLY engages
the campus is a struggle to alter
the de facto constitution of this
campus to give students more rule-
making power in certain areas of
campus life affecting them. It is
appropriate to ask whether they
deserve more power.
Three arguments are ranged
against them, symbolized by the
catchwords, "education is a priv-
ilege," "the University stands in
loco parentis," and "faculty con-

ROBERT J. HARRIS

Unsafe at Any Speed

A NUMBER OF POINTS should be kept in
mind during the current student vs.
administration crisis:
Nowhere is it indicated that a univer-
sity should be a democracy or that its
main purpose is to serve as a playground
for the students' newly-acquired under-
standing of democratic processes.
The purpose of the university in our
society is to provide education. The ad-
ministration which makes the rules in the
university is appointed by a popularly
elected body-the Board of Regents.
BY THEIR WORDS and conduct some
students have clearly shown that they
want to defy authority-they don't want
to play by the present rules of the game.
They accuse the University of bad faith in
forming rules and policies.
But as Prof. Abraham Kaplan of the

philosophy department pointed out Wed-
nesday night, you can only gain an at-
mosphere of good faith by acting in good
faith. Sit-ins and disruptive behavior pro-
mote bad faith. To defy authority, no
matter what ends it may achieve, is not
a highly-accepted method of altering
rules,
Reliable sources indicate that the ad-
ministration is the duly-appointed au-
thority at this University; they don't have
to put up with irresponsible students or
be pressured by "student power."
SGC MAY CLAIM to be moving forward
at a reasonable pace; but by breaking
ties with the OSA and encouraging stu-
dent action outside of proper channels, it
travels on a road which is unsafe at any
speed.
-KEN KRAUS

trol of teaching must be maintain-
ed."
I shall not belabor these fa-
miliar arguments.
It suffices to note that in the
current job market educational
qualifications for employment are
rising so fast that it is unreal-
istic to speak of higher education
as a privilege which government
should be allowed to withhold or
control arbitrarily; higher edu-
cation opportunities are a species
of the "new property" with all
the complex problems involved in
marking out the "rights" of po-
tential beneficiaries to it.
In loco parentis has hard going
when 50 per cent of the student
is of voting age. The defense of
faculty control over what is taught
by whom to whom when and
where does not require an ad-
ministration monopoly of power to
make rules concerning matters
quite remote from the teaching
function.
THE ARGUMENTS in favor of
legitimatizing substantial student
rule-making power over student
conduct are the tired but valid
cliches of democracy: those who
are regulated should participate
in making the rules that regulate
them; otherwise the rules are like-
ly to be tailored ill; they will
lack morally binding force in the
eyes of many of the regulated;
and their application will be dis-
rupted by the rebellions of those
who balk at the rules as alient
control.
Two analogies are helpful here,
although neither is perfect. Col-
lective bargaining proceeds on the

assumption that labor as well as
capital deserves a voice in cer-
tain decisions concerning an en-
terprise that combines the two
elements.
Local government proceeds on
the assumption that there are some
questions which affect a specific
small community more than they
affect the entire state,, and as to
such questions the state should
delegate its regulatory power to
representatives of that smaller
community.
I HEARTILY agree with the
(Knauss) Report of the SACUA
Ad Hoc Committee on Student
participation in University Af-
fairs: "In certain areas, how-
ever, such as the making of rules
governing student behavior, stu-
dents should engage in the actual
primary or initial decision-mak-
ing, rather than play merely an
advisory role." (p. 20)
One reason the effort to revise
the campus constitution has be-
come unruly is that we seem to
lack orderly procedures whereby
students can participate in a
meaningful fashion in the process
of amending the campus constitu-
tion.
If students' sit-ins are an un-
acceptable way to participate in
this process because they are dis-
ruptive, students' obsequious re-
quests for administration consul-
tation are equally unacceptable
because they are demeaning and
apparently ineffective.
I SEE NO alternative to the
sort of suggestion made by the
administration, the Daily and the
Senate Assembly: some sort of a
joint student-faculty-administra-
tion committee to draw up a new
campus constitution, marking out
the areas where various groups
have sole or shared rule-making
power.
The powers distributed in the
constitution should be powers del-
egated by the Regents, and the
constitution itself would be a set
of Regental Regulations or By-
laws. As I see it, such a document
would be ,unworkable without two
supporting institutions.
First, there is need for an im-
partial, paid, off-campus arbitra-
tor of jurisdictional disputes. If
we had some general principles on
paper and a respected arbitrator
from outside it would be possible
to satisfy most people on campus
as to whether the decision to
compile class rank should be made
by the administration, students,

faculty, or some combination of
these.
Second, there needs to be some
express machinery for amending
the campus constitution. It should
not be, necessary for students to
threaten a sit-in to get adminis-
tration personnel to talk serious-
ly about whether and how cam-
pus power should be redistributed.
AT THE PRESENT juncture I
would propose that students have
the principal rule-making power
in matters -of student conduct
and that they share the power of
making other decisions directly af-
fecting them, such as establish-
ment of a bookstore and formula-
tion of policy vis-a-vis the Se-
lective Service System.
Having said all this in favor of
a new campus constitution, I must
express my views on the current
agitation towards this end. The
first point to be noted is that SGC
only gained something like mass
student support at the point where
it broke out of its officialmold,
"broke off relations" with the Of-
fice of Student Affairs, and the
SGC president converted himself
into the demogogic leader of what-
ever students would assemble en
masse to discuss and approve his
recommendations.
In fact, although the SGC pres-
ident has conducted the mass
meetings of these meetings' ac-
tions are not so much acts of
SGC as they are acts of a student
gathering convoked by Mr. Robin-
son.
OBVIOUSLY SG has traded off
legitimacy to gain more power. It
is less clear whether it has trad-
ed off responsibility to the constit-
uency to gain power.
While the acts of the mass meet-
ings obviously do not reflect the
sentiments of many of the stu-
dents who are interested in these
matters, it is equally true that
SGC, in its conventional phase, ap-
peared so feeble to most students
that it struck them as irrelevant,
rather than unrepresentative.
If one assumes, as I do, that
SGC could not have built up
enough of a following to wield any
power unless it adopted some such
form as it presently wears, and
if one assumes that the leadership
of these mass meetings has been
fair in sounding out audience views
as the situation permits, it fol-
lows that the student soviet has
been as representative as it can
be without returning to a state of
powerlessness.
TOMORROW: Goals and tac-
tics-how wise? How fair?

e

They're At It Again

Letters: 'Heroic

Students Are Mistaken

IN A PROUD BANNER on page eight of
yesterday's Daily, the Ad Hoc Commit-
tee on Raising Administrators Power (AH-
CRAP) said, in effect, "There is some ex-
crement we will not consume." '
Their demands, centered upon the am-
biguous cry of "more administrator pow-
er in campus decision making," include
power to choose the University's next
President, abolition of differential salary
levels and an end to "arbitrarily estab-
lished working hours." They threaten a
sleep-in at their homes if their demands
are not complied with.
SYMPATHIZE with the way these
administrators feel, but believe that
presenting such radical demands at this
time is a sign of a lack of faith in the fac-
ulty and students which can only lead to
feelings of bad faith on all sides. More-
over, who would respect a student or a
professor who responded to an ultima-
tum?

insignificant minority - 30 to 40 have
yawned support thus far. The administra-
tors seem to be once again resorting to
irresponsible inaction in making their de-
mands known to the University commu-
nity.
Their ultimate threat? The sleep-in.
Their ultimate goals? "We'll set them up
as soon as we get a quorum," a member
said yesterday.
WHAT MAKES the administrators think
that students and faculty will listen
to a bunch of pajama-clad men and wom-
en, raising their snores in unappropriate
with faculty and students?
Moreover, proposing a sleep-in to dis-
rupt the normal waking activities of the
University, the administrators have shown
that they are part of a national syndical-
ist movement taking place on campuses
across the country to re-affirm the role
dissent? Why the sudden break of faith
of administrators in the academic com-
muiin ity.

To the Editor:
AS A TAXPAYER and a Univer-
sity grad student I am very
much interested in the welfare
of the student body, faculty and
in the overall well-being of this
University.
It is so unfortunate that as we
approach this sesquicentennial an-
niversary of this institution it
seems highly fitting and idealistic
to some groups of students to
downgrade the administration, the
faculty and the majority of the
student body.
Last year they tried unsuccess-
fully to establish a free univer-
sity. This year they want to force
the principle of this free univer-
sity upon - the students, faculty
and administation.
IN OBSERVING numerous dem-
onstrations and while talking with
the sympathizers of the move-
ment, I have come to the realiza-
tion that these groups want to be
free of any normal responsibili-

er and some freedom to the intel-
ligent, wise and competent agen-
cies, but I cannot believe that
such student exhibitions as men-
tioned above are the examples of
either intelligence or wisdom.
As of today this University is
known as one of the best in the
nation, able to compete with Eu-
ropean universities even without
student power.
I am afraid that the proposed
changes such as grading only on
a pass-fail, or a simple teacher
evaluation would cause only more
misunderstanding between stu-.
dents and faculty, will hurt job
opportunities for graduates, and
will be a justification for more un-
rest and demonstrations.
SOME STUDENTS praise the
freedoms of European students. I
have studied at three foreign uni-
versities and in my opinion, the
freedom there consists of a com-
plete indifference on the part of
the faculty and the administra-
finn, fm-rlA f l ,fii ntc

highly efficient teaching and even
entertainment.
THE CURRICULUM forces stu-
dents to study hard, but in Eu-
rope the student left to his own
desires, studies very slowly, often
repeats the same courses several
times, very often drops completely
out, because he is unprepared and
the finals at the end of the year
are very stiff.
It is very clear why some groups
of the students advocate changes.
They are trying to destroy the
system which pushes them toward
excellence, away from their aim-
mediocrity.
With which degree do they ex-
pect to graduate? PAD? (Profes-
sional Activist Degree.) And what
about their post-graduate work?
Perhaps under Iin Piao as Red
Guards in China?
IN CONCLUSION, if the high
scholastic achievement and effi-
ciency are to be scorned than real-
1vrnir . riidPvf-c ha ?D .nm-thinPa'

principle of American education
and American democracy (to the
disbelief of foreign students who
look upon your achievement and
opportunities and patience of au-
thority with envy,
-Blandyna Ehrerikreutz; Grad
--Yeny Sielawa, Grad
Hazing
To the Editor:
WE, THE PLEDGES of Chi Phi
Fraternity strongly resent the
implication as presented in The
Daily of Friday, December 2, by
our former pledge brother Thomas
Germain, that anything which has
occurred at the fraternity during
our semester of pledgeship has
been either demeaning or person-
ally degrading.
We feel that our pledging ac-
tivities have been both construc-
tive and in complete accord with
the strongest traditions of the fra-
ternity system.

as }sophomoric and meaningless,
we realize that pledging activities
are essential to the building of a
cohesive fraternal organization.
We recognize Mr. Germain's
right to choose whether or not he
wishes to associate with a certain
group, but we are greatly saddened
that in his bitterness he chooses
to defame the character of a fine
organization.
-Dean Bell, '70
-Jeffrey D. Buchanan, '70
-Donald C. Tapert, '70
--Richard Northway, '70
-William H. McConnell, '70E
-Mathew A. Mendrygal, '70E
--James E. Wood, '69E
-Robert B. Lucas, '69
-James A. Morrison, '69
-David Craig, '69E
Low Level
To the Editor:
W~TTTT- . P~ T(-.TTP~Tr'AA Tr a ,na

'p
4
*

0