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 07, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1966-12-07

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

W IY A Y

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

ffilmsa =-- - -m

pinlons Are fe, 420 MAYNARD ST, ANN ARBOR, Micii.
h in iPreail

NEws PHONE: 764-05521

Is printed in 'The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This inust be noted in all reprints.

)AY, DECEMBER 7,1966

NIGHT EDITOR: LAURENCE MEDOW

The Literary College Faculty:
A Real Disappointment

Dec.
By LEONARD PRATT
Associate Managing Editor
"IF YOU crazy mad, sex, draft
dodgers don't know how to be-
have you can go and fight for your
country. . . we don't want any
more bull shit from you kids ...y
wrote a Detroit man who signed
himself "Damn Burned up Dad"
on a postcard which he addressed
last week to Ed. Robinson, Student
Government Council president.
The other side of the national
reaction to the University's cam-
pus situation was a terse telegram
from New Jersey which told SGC
members that "We support your
struggle. Keep sitting in."
Somewhere in the middle lies
just about everybody, including
the 2,000-4,000 supporters of the
movement here and theainnumber-
albeable thousands at Berkeley
who are so ready to boil over into
the streets..
IT'S HARD so say whether these
particular movements and the re-
actions to them will continue to
exist or not. But even if they die

7: The B
out leaving no specific results be-
hind them, they will have asked
the people in the middle some im-
portant questions about the kind
of world we live in.
There are some hints about
what kind it is in the reactions
to the movement here which have
come in from all over. They're ex-
treme, pure and simple. Either the
vilest or the purest motives are
laid to the protestors and either
the most disasterous or the most
promising future seen for the
movement itself.
Again, there are people in the
middle, but that's not the point.
The point is that anyone at all
close to the emotional extremes of
politics can find in the movement
a fine opportunity to tout his
political and social beliefs public-
ally.
THE SPREAD of the "protest
etihc" in America, a semi-populist
ethic which views the political
rocess as a combination of almost
natural forces to be molded by

political leaders, is another big
hint.
Mass protest, are certainly not
just an American phenomenon.
Greece, Japan and Korea have
taken their turns. But there the
upsurges seem as much the results
of the evolution of political and
social systems as anything else.
Aside from sporadic politically
leftist protests in Europe there
really doesn't seem to be anything
around to match the growing
American acceptance of activist
politics-acceptance of it either as
perfectly reasonable or as some-
thing to be bitterly contested, but
acceptance of it as legitimate
force in any case.
THAT'S a veryfunny thing.
Just why it's happening I don't
know, though theories about the
high-level technological society
are easy to throw out. I do have
some ideas about people's gripes,
though, gripes centering around a
great disenchantment with one's
ability to actually reach out into

'lack Toilet Revisited

this world and do something.
At the first movement "teach-
in" at Hill Aud. two weeks ago, a
student stood up and spoke about
revolutions and he sounded like
he knew what he was talking
about. He was from South Amer-
ica, one of the parts of the world
where, when the students go out
the police come in with just about
everything they can carry.
People listening to him almost
looked envious. Here was someone
who really knew what it was like.
"IF YOU'RE going to write this
story right, it's got to come out
that we're really playing a game."
a student in the movement told a
reporter a few days ago. Everybody
knows that no matter how mad
the administration might get, it's
not likely to go too far in trying
get people to shut up for fear of
making the University look even
worse than it looks now.
The movement's members won't
get what they really want, there-
fore, which is to do something
vital, to act in such a way that

others will notice them and take
cognizence of their actions. For
the same reason, the guaranteed
moderation of the outcome, its
oponents wil be denied that same
satisfaction.
Everyone knows that, so every-
one's playing a game but the im-
portant point is that this game is
created by the mechanics of our
society and that more and more
people are finding it necessary to
learn to play. And what sort of a
machine is it that makes people
want to play war?
THAT'S THE question the
movement and the extreme re-
actions to it pose. Everybody's
probably got his answer, and I
don't like mine.
By asking that question, the
movement's been a success even
if it doesn't attain all its campus-
oriented goals. Just by existing, it's
asked everyone connected with it
what kind of world he lives in and
how he wants to live in it. And
that is a very great deal indeed.

4

LAST SPRING, in what many considered
a bold move, the literary college fac-
ulty in principle condemned the practice
of class ranking. Their statement was
fairly strongly worded, and it received
strong criticism from several sources.
Nevertheless, the LSA faculty defended
the move as a just statement against an
unjust practice.
But now-in the days of the draft ref-
erendum, cries for student participation,
sit-in bans and 'resulting sit-ins - one
could at least expect the faculty to put
its money where its mouth is, so to speak.
Monday, it refused. The literary college
faculty soundly defeated a proposal which
did not even suggest that the whole school
end ranking (which the LSA faculty, un-
der the Regents' bylaws, has the right to
decide). It merely asked that professors
who, out of conscience, did not wish to
submit grades be allowed to do so.
THERE WERE OTHER mitigating fac-
tors in the proposal which should have
made it acceptable if the faculty were as
committed to ending ranking as its reso-
lution last spring would suggest. First, al-
though professors would not be required
to give a letter grade, they would have
to give an indication of whether or not
the student had passed a course-a pass-
fail grade.
Second, professors would also have been
required to give a one paragraph evalua-
tion of the students they did not grade-
if only in seeking employment and for
use by graduate schools for admissions
applicants.
Chi Phi
A LETTER APPEARING on todays edi-
torial page admits in almost unbeliev-
ably plain language goings-on in frater-'
nity pledging that were supposed to have.
been abolished a decade ago. As present
and past fraternity men we are apalled
at this type of behavior openly prac-
ticed and arrogantly defended by Michi-
gan students.
eW commend Mr. Thomas Germain foru
his courage in bringing such outmoded
and blatantly brutal practices to light,
and we demand that Interfraternity
Council and Student Government Council
conduct an immediate and open investi-
gation into the pledging practices of Chi
Phi fraternity.
-HARVEY WASSERMAN
-LEONARD PRATT,
-LAURENCE MEDOW
-NEAL SHISTER
-RON KLEMPNER

Third, any student who still wished to
be graded after this would only have to
ask the professors to do so. The professor
would be required to give him a letter
grade.
THE MAIN OPPOSITION to this meas-
ure, as stated by Prof. Alexander Eck-'
stein of the economics department, was
that allowing University policy to be de-
termined by individual conscience was a
"dangerous procedure."
Yet, it was not apparent in his objec-
tions how such a procedure could be dan-
gerous unless the individual rights of
students were ignored-all of which was
carefully avoided by Kelman's motion.
Could the procedure have been dangerous
to faculty prestige? It is a sad day when
a faculty member expressing his conscious
beliefs in this manner is subjected to offi-
cial disapproval by his colleagues.
The faculty seems to have become curi-
ously sidetracked on this issue. While the
welfare of the students-over whom, in
this instance, the faculty has so much
control-should have been at least one
main point of the argument Monday, it
was not. Questions of procedure and
precedent dominated instead.
Nor was the opposition based on the
fact that the motion did not state the
issue strongly enough. If the faculty re-
mained faithful to its statement of last
might have been the basis
for its defeat. But cloying caution pre-
dominated over the forthrightness of the
earlier statement.
QTUDENTS DID NOT hold a draft ref-
erendum in order that it be made
worthless by an abnegation of responsibil-
ity on the part of the faculty who rare-
ly, if ever, find it in their hearts to even
mention that vote. Students are not
fighting to gain a less centralized deci-
sion-making process only to hear the fac-
ulty speak of "maturity" and "responsibil-
ity' in the hollow phraseology of the ad-
ministration. If the faculty finds itself
unable to face its moral and political be-
liefs squarely, then perhaps it should just
get out of the way.
ADMITTEDLY, there was some degree
of "impolitical" handling of Monday's
resolution by those who were proposing it.
It seems, however, that more serious con-
siderations were at stake than political
ones, and that those to whom the stu-
dent body entrusts four years of educa-
tion might be counted on for braver and
more consistent leadership,
-CHARLOTTE WOLTER
Associate Editorial Director

Letters: A Clhi Phi Defends Pledging

To the Editor:
J AM SURE, gentlemen, that this
letter speaks not only for my-
self but for thousands of other
fraternity men both on campus
and across the country. We have
in the past years come under var-
ied criticism by many persons, the
majority of whom are in one
sense or another unacceptable by
many of the social and personal
standards we uphold.
There was a time, gentlemen,
when I, like Mr. Germain, felt I
was being goaded, sworn at, spat
upon, forced against my will to
eat raw garlic, drenched while
sweating with snow and water,
kicked, shoved, bruised, by men
who were drunk or drinking.
I also was forced against my
will to stare at bright lights, eat
dozens of raw eggs, have my head
submerged in a flushing toilet,
eat large onions raw, hold my body
in very awkward positions for long
periods, forced to disregard all
personal hygiene for long periods,
written upon, degraded, insulted,
forced to eat cigarettes, given too
little food, too little sleep, too
much work. too many exercises,
and a hundred other abuses, many
of them unmentionable.
And I am sure this was neither
particular to me nor to my fra-
ternity, and that this is neither
the pride nor the goal of our
brotherhood.
HOWEVER, gentlemen, there
was a necessary and important
product of this "shit" we had to
eat. There arose in those long
nights and hard trials something
within each of us that endured a
sweat session or a hellweek that
Fe llo
JN MARCH 1966, the Selective
Service System asked universi-
ties and colleges throughout the
United States to compute special
class rankings for all male stu-
dents. This request was not in the
form of a law or requirement bind-
ing on universities as national pol-
icy.
Further, the Selective Service
System yeseterday announced that
a draft test, which can be used to
defer students whose rank is not
available, will be given this year
in March, two months before rank
would be submitted by this Uni-
versity.
OPPOSITION to the University's
ranking policy can stem from three
lines of thought.
One argument against the rank
derives from an opposition to stu-
dent deferment in general and
therefore an opposition to any
policy which singles out some stu-
dents as deserving of special fav-
orable consideration by the draft
boards.
We have personal sympathies
with this position, but it is not
necessary to agree with this par-
ticular argument to oppose rank-
ing.
If one supposes that student de-
ferments are important for rea-
sons of national manpower policy,
and even that selective student
deferments are required, a method
of student selection should be fol-
lowed which least jeopadizes the
educational process and po'itical
balance of the University.
The compilation of class ranks.
has a seriously distorting impact
on education, intellectual cumiosity
and valuable extra-curricular ac-
tivity, and places the Universy
more deeply in the orbit of na -
tional military and foreign policy
administration. Among the educa-
tional distortions stemming from
the rank we offer the following:
1) Ranking intensifies the cen-
tral role played by grades in the
educational process. Students no
longer inquire; they comply.

Courses are no longer selected on
the basis of their inherent inter-
e:,, but rather on the basis of the
grade which they an he evneced

we might otherwise never have
seen. To one who has never com-
pleted his pledging and become an
active member it is very difficult tor
describe that word brotherhood.
It is very hard for an outsider
to imagine how men can come
together in times such as those,
in times when one searches his
self and his soul looking for the
strength to continue, looking for
character. There is no way to
communicate it to someone who
does not possess the feeling, just
exactly what a brotherhood means.
And so, gentlemen, we continue
under fire from those outside our
ranks who understand so little of
what we say. Once I was outside
looking in and my feelings were
exiremely critical and skeptical,
but I am indeed proud of that
which I know, of that which I
have become a part of.
NO MAN will ever say to me that
I am less for what I have done,
nor to any of my brothers for
what they have done, because the
outsiders do not even begin to
know what we all felt in those
hard times when we needed some-
one, some friend, some brother...
it's called pride .. . and character.
It's not foolish, but it's often
forgotten, gentlemen, and this is
the current status of Mr. Ger-
main. I am sorry to see it, yet I
am glad it has been discovered
before such a person has slipped
into our ranks. No man, I hope no
fraternity man, and certainly no
man of any character would ever
retaliate his failurs in such a pet-
ty manner. Such a person I could
never call my brother..

In an age when Quisling and
the Rosenbergs mar personal eth-
ics and integrity, such lack of
horor and character cannot pass
unnoticed among intelligent men.
MIGHT I SUGGEST, therefore,
gentlemen, that since he has prov-
en himself to be less than a fra-
ternity man, he be given special
permission to engage in sorority
rush.
--Frank H. Miller. Chi Phi '67
LSA Motion
To the Editor:
I AM DISMAYED that the lim-
ited nature of the resolution
proposed by Professors Gamson,
Kelman, et. at., at Monday's meet-
ing of the LS&A faculty seemed
to be so generally misunderstood
by almost everyone who rose to
discuss it. For discussion was al-
most entirely on other matters,
many of them important to be
sure related to ranking, grading,
Selective Service, etc.
Only one man clearly called at-
tention to the essence of the- res-
olution, which would merely allow,
for so long as class rankings are
being compiled by the adminis-
tration, those teachers who feel
compelled by consicence to do so,
to give a Pass or Fail grade to
those male undergraduate students.
who consent to be so graded.
THIS DOES NOT seem to me
to be such an earth-shaking is-
sue. It is already permissible to
give certain graduate students a

grade of S (Satisfactory), which
is surely equivalent to "Pass." To
extend this option to any course
when there is mutual agreement
between instructor and student is
indeed a precedent, but I think not
so undesirable a one as many of
my colleagues apparently suppose.
Either the professor who does
not care to accept this option or
the student who desires to have
more "precise" letter grades for
the benefit of future employers
could have. insisted on conven-
tional grading under the terms of
the defeated resolution, which re-
quired mutual consent for grading
on a Pass-Fail basis.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE that we
cannot have "conscientious objec-
tors" to an aspect of the grading
system on those relatively infre-
quent occasions when that system
is used by Selective Service for
purposes opposed by both student
and instructor. Such an option
would hardly infringe on the
rights of anyone else, to whom
normal grades and rankings would
be available.
-Edward G. Voss
Assoc. Prof. & Curator
Clarification
To the Editor:
THE LETTER of Mr. David Troup
(Dec. 6) contains some rather
serious errors of both fact and
rhetoric.
First, he notes that I took a
vote in my class concerning my
submission of their grades to the

registrar. The outcome, he reports.
was overwhelmingly in favor of
submission.
This is untrue. Earlier this year
(before the referendum), I' took a
vote among males in one class,
regarding the class's attitude to-
ward the University's ranking of
male averages for the purpose of
military manpower procurement. I
recall a vote of 8-8. I am quite
certain that this is the only vote
to which Mr. Troup could have
referred. It should be noted that
he is niot one of my students.
Secondly, even if his allegation
were true, I fail to understand his
involvement of Michael Zweig and
others in what. he" considers i1-
legitimate action on my part. On
Dec. 6, Zweig held a vote in his
two sections which meet on Tues-
day. Students in each section vot-
ed against the submission of
grades. 10-8 and 8-5. His third
section meets on Wednesday.
THIRDLY, his reference to par-
ticipatory democracy (which he
presumes Zweig and I support),
fails to recognize that I have tried
to make it clear that I will pur-
sue measures to protect students
from any difficulties resulting
from my actions. Some will judge
this to be paternalistic; I see it
as no more paternalistic than the
"accepted channels."
Lastly, his assertion that the
withholding of grades is much
more immoral than the war is
probably an exaggeration.
-Sander Kelman
Teaching Fellow, Econ.

I"

4

I

ows Present Stand, on Ranking

A Matter of Conscience

'HIERE'S SOMETHING ROTTEN in the
American Economic Association.
This September I plunked down $5,
which entitled me to a student member-
ship in the AEA and a year's subscrip-
tion to the American Economic Review in
the bargain.
I knew what to expect in the AER, and
it was there: higher-math gibberish. But
I didn't know what to expect from the
AEA itself. Inspired by visions of John
Maynard Keynes and John Kenneth Gal-
braith, I imagined a pure participatory
democracy, a meeting of intellects.
Editorial Staff
MARK R. KILLINGSwORTH, Editor
BRUCE WASSERSTEIN, Executive Editor
CLARENCE FiAN'rO HARVEY WASSERMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
LEONARD PRATT ........ Associate Managing Editor
JOHN MEREDITTH. ...Associate Managing Editor
CHARLOTTE WOLTER ... Associate Editorial Director
ROBERT CARNEY ..... Associate Editorial Director
BABETTE COHN . .......... . Personnel Director
ROBERT MOOREE.. ......... Magazine Editor
CHARLES VETZNER..........Sports Editor
JAMES TINDALL .........Associate Sports Editor
JAMES LaSOVAGE........ Associate Sports Editor
GIL SAMBERG .......... Associate Sports Editor
SPORTS NIGHT EDITORS-Grayle Howlett, Howard
Kohn, Bill Levis, Bob McFarland, Clark Norton, Rick
Stern, John Sutkus, Gretchen Twietmeyer, Dave
Weir.
NIGHT EDITORS-Meredith Eiker, Michael Hefter,
Robert Klivans, Laurence Medow, Roger Rappoport,
Susan Schnepp, Neil Shister.
DAY EDITORS-Robert Bendelow, Neal Bruss, Wallace
Inmen, David Knoke, Mark Levin, Patricia O'DOno-
hue, Stephen Wlldstrom.
ASSISTANT NIGHT EDITORS-David Duboff, Ronald
Klempner, Dan Okrent, Deborah Reaven, Jennifer
Rhea, Betsy Turner.
ASSISTANT DAY EDITORS-Michael Dover. Steve

I was wrong. iWthout consulting me--
or, I suppose, many other economists-a
backroom caucus of econometricians nom-
inated Prof. Kenneth Boulding of the
economics department as the AEA's pres-
ident-elect, and sent all AEA members a
ballot giving him as the only candidate
for the job.
IT IS AN OUTRAGE. But such a move,
which has the subtlety of a boss-con-
trolled Tammany Hall convention, sim-
ply points how rotten the whole system is.
It is time to offer an alternative to
such an inadequate way of deciding our
crucial issues. It is time for a show of
strength which no future candidate for
time to reform the system which leaves
the economics profession no choice.
Some may say my proposal will hurt
Prof. Boulding's chances of becoming
president-elect. It may, or it may not. It
could, for example; encourage many nor-
mally-apathetic economists to vote for
him, thus actually helping him,
But how it affects his chances are un-
important. It is time to start campaign-
ing on issues, not personalities. It is
time to offer economists a choice.
FELLOW ECONOMISTS, do as I did:
Write in Mrs. Elise Boulding for presi--j
dent-elect of the ABA.j
-MARK R. KILLINGSWORTI
t hat's Our

these grades are at best unreliable.
4) Institutions vary widely in
the quality of their student bodies
and programs. Comparisons of
ranks between these institutions
would be quite invalid.
5) Rankings within an institu-
tion may be able to separate the
very best from the very worst
students and each of those from
the vast middle, but it is in that
latter category where Selective
Service decisions must be made on
the basis of grade point averages
computed to two or even three
decimal places. William R. Keast,
president of Wayne State Univer-
sity, poses the dilemma in the fol-
lowing way: "The last student in
the upper half of the class is
found to have an average of 2.435,
and the top student in the lower
half of the class has an average
of 2.429!
"A Selective Service board, in-
formed that the first student stood
in the upper half and the second
student in the lower half of his
class, might well believe it was
making a rational decision if it
continued to defer the first and
drafted the second. But the uni-
versity would surely be remiss to
mislead serious citizens in this
way."
6) Classrooms become agencies
of conscription; professors, the
agents. The implications for aca-
demic freedom and university au-
tonomy will be explored below.
THE OUTCOME of the referen-
dum is the basis for a third posi-
tion calling for an immediate end
to ranking. Since it is students
who are ranked and whose educa-
tional environment is being affect-
ed, students should make the fin-
al decision on this policy.
Since students voted to end rank-
ing after widespread substantive
debate, the University administra-
tion should feel obligated to im-
plement the decision, to cease
ranking. Our own sympathies lie
with this way of thinking and with
the substantive anti-ranking argu-
ments made above.
CURRENT CONTROVERSY over
implementation often focuses on

fied 1-A as delinquents, according
to communication from their local
boards. Draft boards hold a per-
son delinquent if he willingly with-
holds available information re-
quested by the board.
So long as the University con-
tinues to make the rank avail-
able, the majority of students, who
do Iot wish to forward this in-
formation will continue to be in
the position of facing immediate
draft eligibility if they do not sub-
mit under pressure to providing
information to the Selective Serv-
ice System. By ranking, the Uni-
versity becomes an agent of this
pressure.
ONLY IF THE UNIVERSITY re-
fuses to compile class ranks is the
majority of students insulated
from possible delinquency charges,
because a person cannot be held
delinquent for failing to report un-
available information.
We believe that the University
should follow the lead of Cornell,
Wayne State, Antioch and San
Francisco State in not compiling
ranks for the purpose of zhilitary
manpower procurement. Students
at those colleges and universities
have not been reclassified 1-A as
a result of the lack of available
ranks.
QUITE APART from these tech-
nical and educational difficulties
which we see in the ranking proc-
ess, we hold rather deep philo-
sophical and political objections,
which arise out of the nature
and development of the university
itself.
Through history, universities
have existed, in varying degrees,
as communitiesseparate from and,
perhaps, even foreign to the larg-
er communities in which they re-
side. This separation has not been
attributable primarily to the dif-
ferential geography or to the in-
telligence of its inhabitants, but
rather to their commitment to a
different set of attitudes and an
environment in which that set of
attitudes flourishes.
In fact, the integrity of univer-
sities has depended upon the ex-
tnt +to ri nr -ha , Ima v .a mn'.. 4n

and environment of the univer-
sity.
IT IS NOT difficult to under-
stand why, for example, Michigan
State University, which, through
its School of Police Administra-
tion, conducted CIA operations in
Viet Nam, has no student free-
dom of the press.
Although active engagement in
external activities is not necessary
to produce an anti-civil-libertar-
ian atmosphere (for it exists on
many cloistered campuses), it is
sufficient to produce such an at-
mosphere in so far as the uni-
versity wishes to continue such ac-
tivities knowing that to do so it
needs to maintain a certain sta-'
bility (inflexibility?) of attitudes
within its own community. A civil-
libertarian atmosphere could be
inimical to such desires.
IN AUGUST the University
surreptitiously disclosed the names
of 65 students and faculty to the
House Un-American Activities
Committee, an act since condemn-
ed by faculty resolutions and in
student protests.
The University gave up its au-
tonomy in the face of a subpoena,
and defended itself on the grounds
that the subpoena was legal.
Yet in the name of autonomy
the University is currently fight-
ing the enforcement of Michigan
laws concerning the recognition of
trade unions here. We believe that
there are reasons why the Uni-
versity chose to defend its au-
tonomy in one instance while giv-
ing it up in the other.
The University of Michigan is
jealous of its constitutional auton-
omy, yet twice in recent months
it has willingly surrendered to gov-
ernmental pressures inimical to
academic freedom and intellectual
curiosity.
WE BELIEVE that the Universi-
ty administrators seek the kind of
autonomy which reserves to the
administrators themselves the wid-
est possible scope of unrestricted
decision making power. The rec-
ognition of collective bargaining
here would constrain that power,
-aand s hafnrn roa mmr . h

Those contracts and projects
give the University a public image
of serviee and good will, important
components in the smooth opera-
tions of a modern university and
important to the prestige and pow-
er of its administrators.
The University has further sur-
rendered its'autonomy by compil-
ing class ranks for the Selective
Service System. To refuse would
again make the University sus-
pect, thrust it into controversy,
jeopardize the Sesquicentennial,
and perhaps cause at least tem-
porary government threats to ad-
ministrative autonomy.
To comply shifts the full bur-
den of the impact of the admin-
istration's decision onto the fac-
ulty and particularly onto the stu-
dents. The University chose to
comply.
WE HAVE CONCLUDED that
the compilation of class ranks can
be expected to lead to a further
degeneration of the education
process. Ranking constitutes an
unwarranted and grossly inappro-
priate intrusion into university au-
tonomy, particularly the integrity
of the classroom. We cannot in
good conscience cooperate with
this intrusion.
Therefore, until this University
ceases to be part of the Selective
Service System, we shall:
1) Submit nothing to the regis-
trar which could be converted into
information used in compiling
class ranks;
2) Notify students of their
grades by informal means;
3) Report grades to the registrar
at a time wyhen the University
ceases ranking;
4) Make special arrangements for
students applying for, employment
and to graduate schools.
We believe that this is a very
serious step, taken to free our stu-
dents and ourselves from tasks and
severe pressures irrelevant to and
inimical to education and intellec-
tual experimentation.
WE SEE this step as a part of
the academic freedom which al-
lows univiually to structture

of

d

4

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan