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.

December 04, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-12-04

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

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

The Movement: How Wise, How Fair?

ere Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Truth Wil 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.

NDAY, DECEMBER 4,19667

NIGHT EDITOR: MICHAEL HEFFERI

1

It's No Time For
Closed Meetings

THOSE WHO ACCUSE students here of
intransigence in the current dispute
over student participation, might examine
the administration attitude in this mat-
ter, especially as expressed by President
Hatcher himself in calling for a closed
meeting Thursday with the members of
SGC.
Closed meetings have been partially re-
sponsible for the problems that beset the
campus at this time, and the students'
tendency to mistrust the administration's
replies, concessions and explanations in
response.f
That .the Thursday meeting with SGC
was also closed at this crucial time was,
at best, serious misjudgment by the ad-
ministration of the mood of the campus.
AS THE MEETING began, several stu-
dents who were not members of SGC
were present, including some Daily edi-
tors and members of Voice.
President Hatcher insisted that these
persons leave. SGC President Ed Robin-
son replied that, while only SGC members
should participate in the meeting which
Hatcher himself had called, he saw no rea-
son why others should not behallowed to
observe.
Hatcher refused, arguing that he had.
called the meeting only with "his student
government." When it became apparent
that Hatcher would not allow observers,
Robinson left the meeting on the grounds
that he, personally, could no longer attend
closed meetings.
It is obvious that Robinson could only,
have expected President Hatcher to al-
low observers at the meeting if Hatcher
had known in advance that this was to
be a condition of Robinson's attendance.
And, Robinson should have made him
aware of this fact.
HOWEVER, this is still no defense of
onorous closed meetings and behind-

the-scenes dealing which have charac-
terized some past administrative action.
The practice should not continue.
What followed at the meeting after
Robinson's departure illustrates the ne-
cessity for open meetings. The discussion
which followed failed to increase Hatch-
er's understanding of the movement or
the legitimacy of its demands.
Hatcher's conception of the movement,
it appears, is that it is some sort of left-
wing "pattern" designed to disrupt cam-
puses across the country.
THE MEETING, however, was not a com-
plete failure. The SGC members in at-
tendance did gain one concession. He
agreed to accept their choices for student
representatives to his committee on stu-
dent government and participation, in
place of his original request that SGC
furnish him with a list of 12 names from
which he would pick, the four represen-
tatives.
Nevertheless, Hatcher stated that he
would accept only names picked by SGC,
not those elected at a mass student meet-
ing.
N SUM, the meeting was but a shadow
of what it could have been. Because of
the disagreement that marked its begin-
ning, little could have been done to sal-
vage understanding for the rest of the
meeting. President Hatcher met with some
of the members of Student Government
Council Thursday and both left disap-
pointed and probably confused.
Perhaps in the future President Hatch-
er will not make the mistake of secrecy at
a time when the whole campus wants to
know what the administration thinks
about the movement. As some who had
to leave the meeting said: "We just want-
ed to listen.
-CHARLOTTE A. WOLTER
Associate Editorial Director

By ROBERT J. HARRIS
Second of Two Parts
G IVEN THE FORM the student
organization bears and the is-
sues that bind it together, it is
inevitable that the tone of its
leaders is strident. That should not
be held against it.
However, it is fair to ask, how
wise are the goals they have es-
poused? How wise and fair are
the tactics they have embraced?
As to goals, I think it unfor-
tunate that the students chose to
pick as its issues abolition of class
ranking and student consultation
on sit-in rules.
I think the better issue is stu-
dent power in making rules con-
cerning students, and the Gradu-
ate Student Council was right in
seeking to force this issue into
the foreground.
The two issues SGC has pushed
both bear on this larger issue, of
course. But the class rank issue,
as framed by the SGC, asserts
that a student plebescite major-
ity must conclude the issue -
presumably whether the returns
were pro or anti ranking.
THIS IS an assertion that there
is no room for faculty or admin-
istration votes on this issue. I
fail to see the justice in this as-
sertion of exclusive student juris-
diction over this issue.
On the sit-in ban issue SGC ap-
parently asserts no greater claim
than to be "consulted." Here I
think they assert too little. As J1
read the Knauss Report, it would
give students exclusive power to
make rules on student conduct-
and the sit-in rule dealt with stu-
dent conduct. I would go that far.
THE TWO specific issues are not
handled well on the merits of
either. SGC has not criticized the

substance of the sit-in ban-only
the failure to consult students be-
fore issuing it. I think its sub-
stance is contrary to First Amend-
ment notions and there is a good
chance it is unconstitutional for
that reason.
In effect it says that any stu-
dent actions (undefined) inter-
ferring with the orderly normal
processes of the University (un-
defined) are banned unless, in
effect, they are protected by the
First Amendment.
As I read the Supreme Court de-
cision in Edwards vs. South Carc-
lina (voiding a conviction for a
captol steps demonstration on the
ground that a breach of the peace
statute was too sweeping and vague
to use to regulate political pro-
test), the University's now-sus-
pended rule gives insufficient no-
tice as to what protest activity is
permitted and what is not and
thus it tends to chill freedom of
expression unduly. The issue is a
hard one.
The University could use some
good legal help in framing more
specific rules. Ann Arbor's ofdi-
nances could use some good lawyer
work, too, along these lines.
SGC HAS CRITICIZED the fur-
nishing of class rang information
to students who seek to use the
information to gain draft defer-
ments.
The only reasons I know why
the University should stop furnish-
ing this information are (1) the
present practice, by exacerbating
competition for grades, hurts the
educational process; (2) the Uni-
versity should withdraw this as-
sistance to the Selective Service
System as a protest against the
Viet Nam war; or (3) similar to
the last, but the protest is against
the idea of deferring students.
I am dubious as to whether the

furnishing of class ranks hurts
the academic process more than
the alternative-refusing to fur-
nish ranking and seeing some de-
ferment-eligible students drafted.
On the last two arguments -
stopping class ranking to express
opposition to the war or to cur-
rent draft policies-I feel that
the ranks of protest movements
should be filled with volunteers,
not conscripts.
I see no reason why the entire
institution of University of Mich-
igan should boycott Selective Serv-
ice because a majority in that in-
stitution have a quarrel with Se-
lective Service they feel they can-
not conduct through conventional
channels.
THE BASIC ISSUE is sound,
however: the students deserve a
bigger share of power in making
certain rules. And certainly the
present administration has dem-
onstrated monumental incompe-
tence and insensitivity in making
and announcing delicate decisions
that should have been made after
students and faculty had patici-
pated in a meaningful way.
President Hatcher's outrageous
chairing of the Senate meeting
Monday was only the most recent
of a series of offensive acts.
As to tactics selected by the
students: I regard last Tuesday's
sit-in demonstration as non-viol-
ent and lawful. The students were
not asked to leave and they did
not conduct the demonstration in
a fashion calculated to disrupt.
The demonstration was massive.
It was hostile. It was a show of
muscle. But all this is legitimate
and appropriate in a struggle to
make those with power share some
of it with those over whom the
power iz being exercised.
The earlier ultimatum was un-
fortunate, not only because its

form gave needless offense to the
administration and observers but
chiefly because it tied the students'
hands on Tuesday and prevented
a more flexible response then.
THE SPECTACLE of unauthor-
ized mass direct action-however
non-violent and however restrain-
ed in its choice of tactics - is
frightening to many.
The middle-aged and elderly
probabably are threatened most.
But even in the younger genera-
tion this no doubt is 'frightening
to all those whose personalities
strongly crave order and unemo-
tional rationality in all things.
By contrast, such a spectacle is
exhilarating to all the mesomorphs
and intellectual mesomorphs who
crave excitement at all costs.
Demonstrations as a form of poli-
tical panty raid no doubt have
appeal to some immature under-
graduates.
If we try to look behind these
visceral reactions to the cons,!-
quences for society I see this kind
of picture: On the one hand there
is the peril that demonstrations
aill unloose forces that tend to
pull society apart.
On the other hand there is the
peril that college students will
grow up so conformist that they
will never examine the moral pro-
priety of the rules made for them
by the men at the top echelons of
our mass institutions.
AS BETEWEEN these two per-
its I think the latter peril is much
greater at a big, middle class
state un4versity like this one.
Hence, I welcome demonstrative
student political movements as
long as the bulk of leaders and
fellowers are attempting to imple-
ment thE ir sincere ideas about how
the good society should be orga-
nized, and they are trying to use

their inte'ligence in picking tac-
ics of prctest appropriate for the
task.
Some Regents spread tales that
some sticent leaders believe that
things must be made worse before
they can become better and that
these leaders want to destroy the
University as a step to destroying
most other institutions of this sc-
ciety.
I DO NOT KNOW if this is the
view of any student leader or rot
But it st'yikes me that there is no
reason for Regents or administ-a-
tors to entertain fears that any
large part of our student body
will adop+ nihilistic views.
And the peril that unrepresen-
tative nihilistic leadershipmwill
long control a mass student move-'
ment is slim indeed, in my opin-
ion, unless the University, through
stupidity, furnishes issues which
weld the nihilists to the more cre-
ative students.
If the University acts reason-
ably, the unreasonable response of
nihilists will alienate them from
the mass of student protesters.
THERE ARE RISKS in this
course as there are risks involved
in every experiment with freedom
of expression and active educa-
tion. I think we should run the
risks and accept the fact there
will be some unrest and some in -
terference with normal oderly
processes of the University.
The amount of interference can
be kept in reasonable bounds; the
education about power and its uses
that the students will receive jus-
tifies the costs.
Students who react to Injustice
with indignation and political or-
ganization are our most valuable
national resource. We should cul-
tivate them.

4

00

Misconceptions of U.S. Role in Europe

CURRENT HIGH level discussion
of the extent to which we may
safely reduce the number of our
troops stationed in Europe has,
for me, two particularly interest-
ing facets:
It entirely misses the point.
It entirely vindicates another
portion of the 1964 Republican
Presidential campaign.
Those two points together clear-
ly indicate a third:
This administration, in one
more major matter, is proving
dangerously incompetent and cyn-
ically misleading when it comes to
foreign policy and the defense
policy needed to back it up.
LET'S TAKE the points in
order. When the possibility of re-
ducing our troop commitments in
Europe is discussed these days, the
discussion usually revolves around
economy and symbolism.

The economic point is made
that if we withdraw troops it
would cut way down on the for-
eign exchange drain on our cur-
rency. There is no doubt that it
would. This point usually is fol-
lowed by the assertion that Euro-
pean troop commitments could
and should be increased to take
care of the manpower situation.
The symbolism point is that our
troops are in Europe really just
"to show the flag" and that,
therefore, darn near any number
from a few platoons to a few
armies would achieve the same
effect.
BOTH OF THOSE arguments,
the only ones now being offered
by the administration, miss the
point by a mile..
The question of our military
commitment is not nearly so much
what we have or who we have in

BARRY
GOLDWATER
Europe as it is a question ofhwhat
we intend to do with either in
case of an emergency.
At present our commitment in
Europe calls for a conventional
response to any Communist ag-
gression. This response, it is said,
would give the situation a chance
to calm down in hopes of being
able quickly to get to the negotiat-
ing table.
For such a response, troop com-
mitments of some size are needed.
For such a response, the more men
you have "showing the flag," the
better.
This whole notion is utter non-
sense. To tell the Soviets that we

will make a "polite" conventional
response to any aggression is a
standing invitation to trouble. It
means the Soviets can launch an
aggression, large or small, and be
assured that it can move directly
from violence to the conference
table with only a minimal risk
between.
OUR STANCE should be less
rigid. It should permit whatever
immediate response is needed to
halt and/or punish an aggressive
move, and it certainly should not
offer the enemy a comfortable
cushion of assurance of a less
than adequate response. ,
Most European defense officials
feel the defense of Europe by
conventional means is laughable,
that only the poised power of
nuclear retaliation can securely
keep the peace and deter aggres-
sion.

The point is blunt and clear.
Conventional forces are not the
key to Europe's defense, and the
current debate about their size is
misleading and dishonest. We
should 'be debating quality, not
quantity.
AS TO THE vindication of the
1964 Republican campaign: that
campaign went squarely on the
line for thrashing this matter out.
It said we could reduce our troops
but it also called for a discussion'
of the European defense questions
that really matter.
It frankly told the American
people that this well could mean
giving Europe the nuclear capa-
bility that it so clearly wants.
That is still the issue. And' this
administration is still weaseling
on it.
Copyright, 1966, Los Angeles Times

*
4

We Need Speakers' Bureaus

rALK-ithas been called debate-has
made the late hours of the plenary
sessions of The Movement grueling al-
though not futile. But, characteristically,
the same people have been talking and
those same people have been listening.
The majority of students on campus,
and the vast majority of Michigan citi-
zens are not well-enough informed to
take part in the debate.
PROPOSALS TO REMEDY the situation
through speakers bureaus on and off
campus are worthwhile and should be
implemented. The movement will con-
tinue to lose momentum without them.
The idea of a campus speaker program
developed out of expressed fears that
more students were not represented in
the several activities of the movement.
Voice Political Party has contributed
much to the concept and has had propos-
als from members that Voice itself set up
such a program to serve its own needs.
An expansion of this concept, with the
help of the SGC machinery, would be of
great benefit.
THE OFF-CAMPUS speaker program was
originally proposed by a sociology in-
structor who envisioned the speaker bu-
reau as a method of reaching unions, so-
cial groups, charitable organizations, etc.
in hometown Michigan.
He suggested that students determine
what resources of air time on radio and
television they could gain through FCC
laws, equal time on stations which broad-
casted anti-movement editorial commen-
tary.
Both the programs-on campus and off-
campus-meet urgent needs.
FOR WHILE the importance of reducing
student apathy here cannot be denied,
it is equally important to reduce apathy
or hostility among Michigan citizens out-
side Ann Arbor. Until now, the informa-
Business Staff
SUsAN PERLsTADT, Business Manager
JEFFREY LEEDS........Associate Business Manager
HARRY BLOCH.E A.........Advertising Manager
STEVEN LOEWENTHAL ..,..... Circulation manager

tion they have received about the move-
ment has come in the form of capsulized
news accounts and often-unfriendly edi-
torial comment.
For the Michigan community to be in-
formed this way hurts the movement.
Michigan voters elect the Regents, the leg-
islators, and the governor. It is in these
four agencies that the real power has
been assigned. It can only help the move-
ment to have these agencies-the people
and their officials--on its side.
TWO PROBLEMS, however, arise in the
consideration of these two types of
speakers' programs - first, defining ob-
jectively the goals of the students; and
second, the possibility of increased hos-
tility outside Ann Arbor as a result of
the speaking program.
However. an intelligent speakers' bu-
reau, one that would make sure speaker
appointments would be reasonable and
that student speakers would be informed
enough to defend student positions under
intelligent debate, would eliminate these
objections.
With the help of the administrative ma-
chinery of SGC this can be accomplished.
Speakers' appointments could be coordi-
nated, and transportation for engage-
ments off-campus could be organized.
IN SUM, the speaker program can
strengthen the effort of students in
recent weeks, and put an end to prema-
ture talk that the movement is dying on
its feet.
--NEAL BRUSS
U 'thant
THE MEMBERS of the United Nations
are feeling pretty good today.
They've just signed a new five-year
lease, on the services of U Thant. Swell!
But let's hope that they don't spend the
five years forgetting why they almost lost
him.
U Thant, respected and acclaimed
though he may be, can do nothing on his
own. The responsibility for UN policy and
power lies with the member nations.
IN THANT'S YEARS as secretary-gen-
r.1 hI hiaRntnte m n tonue wnrld nrnh-

Letters: Faculty-Student Cooperation

To the Editor:
AS MEMBERS of a campus or-
ganization, we wish to express
our concern that everyone-relig-
ious groups, student groups of all
kinds, and individual students,
faculty, and administrators -
should contribute more openly to
the intellectual task of clarifying
our ideals and goals, and acting
upon them.
For our part, we hope that
Guild House can be widely used
as one forum for the discussion of
these issues by people of all vari-
eties of opinion.
We support new structures to
give the student body a central
role in making decisions on mat-
ters affecting primarily the stu-
dents.
There is no doubt in our own
minds that any decisions affect-
ing students . .. would be superior
if the students were fully and
formally involved in the decision-
making process.
THE FACULTY also has an
equal role to play in the present
movement. We are distressed that
some distinguished faculty mem-
bers have unfairly indicted stu-
dents for not caring about the
good of the University as a whole.
We hope they will come to see
that students and many of their
faculty colleagues are -willing to
risk their futures for no less than
a highly constructive version of
what this University could be.
The apathy shown by a large
number of faculty members is
equally distressing. The movement
may succeed without you, but your
experience, your advice, and your
influence can contribute to reach-
ing the goal of a more democratic
University-a goal that will bene-
fit you too-with a minimum of
disruption and damage. As stu-
dents, we do not want this just to
be a student movement.
WE APPRECIATE the efforts of
members of the faculty who have
already m o v e d administration
opinion on behalf of the students.
We especially applaud those cour-
ageous members of the faculty
who intend to refuse to grade as

-Helga Gable, '68
--Marge Eichmann, '64
-Susan Boscov, '68
(Two other signers)
--Members of Guild House
Really!
To the Editor:
WHAT IN AITCH is going on at
my old alma mater?

administration remains to cope.
with new waves of malcontents
less interested in learning than in
beating their big fat gums.
NOW REALLY, what do stu-
dents want in the way of partici-
pating? Do students wish to
choose which texts will be used
in a literature course ?
Do medical students want to

want to remake the world. It's a
library of facts, not a social in-
strument. Learn from it - don't
try to manipulate it.
The University will be here
many years after you are a grand-
parent. Learn now-bitch later.
-Jerome S. Miller
BS, MS, PhD '55
Splinters

Perennial demands to be heard decide whicn patients theywil
in past years have been so com- examine? Do law students want To the Editor:
monplace that both university and to tell their professors what the FRIDAY the 25-member execu-
students take it all with a yawn. law should be? Do engineering tive board of the Young Dem-
It's a routine, a sort of games- students want to tell their faculty ocratic Club issued the following
manship, with the knowledge that how to design a car? policy position:
every four years the student body Listen, you idiots! The Univer- The Young Democratic Club
will shift and the troublemakers sity is a source of information for strongly supports current efforts
vanish to other parts, while the you to use in the future when you for greater student participation

in making decisions which affect
them.
On the other hand, we believe
no single student group should
take unilateral action which re-
flects on the movement without
that action being sanctioned by a
b r o a d 1 y representative student
body organization or assembly.
WE 'OPPOSE splinter group ac-
tivity not representative of the
majority of those active in the
decision making process. Groups
which unilaterally break away
with action counter to what the
whole student group decides re-
flect on the responsibleness of the
entire movement. We believe such
action is counter to the principle
"Let the majority of the stu-
dents decide."
Those groups and individuals
who participate in making deci-
sions should then abide by those
decisions.
We again reaffirm our desire
for legitimatizing substantial stu-
dent power in making rules con-
cerning students.
-Steve Handler, '66
President,
Young Democratic Club
Protected
To the Editor:
WHILE STUDENTS are demand-
ing more "complete" power,
the recent "mandate" on class
ranking shows that some of the
students only want to do is avoid
responsibility. The "tricky" ad-
ministration has adopted a policy
on rankings that places all the
responsibility on the student. If he
doesn't request the ranking, his
draft board can hold no one re-
sponsible but the student himself.
By voting no against class rank-
ings, the students have said that
they don't want this responsibil-
ity. They again want the Univer-
sity to provide the protection from
the outside world that they out-
wardly decry, but i n w a r d l y
cherish.
It is also interesting to note
that the "mandate" doesn't look
so powerful When stacked up
against the 6000 plus male stu-

4

v

I l*w -~~.~As"'vl w 'Aiu" A i w4

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan