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.

June 05, 1965 - Image 2

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1965-06-05

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

4r mlrhigau Baligy
Seventy-Fifth Year
EDrYED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSrrY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

The Teach In Sponsors
Need Somfe New Ideas

*

ere Opinions Are ree 420 MAYNARD $T., ANN ARBOR, Mici-l.
Truth 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.
ATURDAY, JUNE 5, 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: JOHN MEREDITH
Putting Olympus Behind
The Residential College
Plans for the University's resi(iential college, a new departure for
indergraduate education here, have been well formulated by interest-
ed students and faculty. What is needed now is high-level support to
bring in the needed noney and see the project through to successful
ulfill ient.

By CAL SKINNER, JR.
S0 McGEORGE BUNDY has
agreed to reschedule his de-
bate with the protesting profes-
sors, the outside world thinks
that the academic community is
united against President Johnson's
Viet Nam policy and some of the
public at-large is beginning to
wonder why the U.S. really is in
Viet Nam. This much the teach-
~* in movement has accomplished.
But can it change foreign poli-
cy? It seems rather obvious from
President Johnson's commence-,
ment address to his daughter's
graduating class that "rational
discussion" from the professors is
not going to change his mind.
"After all, they don't have the
facts," Johnson probably reasons.
If intellectual argument won't
do the trick, the profs will have
to take the long route of chang-
ing public opinion. Teach-ins iso-
lated on college campuses haven't
accomplished this. Not even a
teach-in televised nationally was
able to do it. Certainly a rerun
will have little more effect than
again raising questions regarding
our Viet Nam policy; it will not
change many people's minds.
(This is to be expected since
neither side has an air-tight case.)
A KEY QESTION' now arises
* that must be answered by the
Inter-University Committee for a
~Public Hearing on Viet Nam:
where does the teach-in movement
go from here?
If the committee decides to di-
rect its primary efforts at the
campus it will take years before
- any policy changes result. (Even
now on campus where administra-
tion supporters have tried to dem-
onstrate the extent of student sup-
port a majority is usually found

that disagrees with the protes-
If the committee decides to
2oncentrate on the national tele-
sion and press audience, it should
'emember that the Survey Re-
search Center has discovered that
TV serves mainly to reinforce ex-
isting opinions, rather than to
:hange people's minds. The latter
trust be the committee's goal.
PERHAPS it would be worth-
while to glance at where the
teach-in movement has been in
order to gain an insight as to
where it can go and under what
conditions.
This spring the United States
was in the process of changing
its foreign policy with regard to
Southeast Asia. A stronger com-
mitment was being made. While it
was obvious that this was the
course of events, the administra-
tion did not explain why the
change was taking place. Congress
refused to press for an explana-
tion.
Into this informational void
stepped the teach-in movement.
To put it bluntly, the teach-in
movement was a situational mir-
acle.
IT IS DOUBTFUL that a sim-
ilar combinationi of events and.
non-events will repeat themselves
now that Johnson must have real-
ized that he must explain what
he does in critical foreign policy
areas. Evidence of Johnson's reali-
zation for the necessity of keep-
ing the public' informed can be
seen almost weekly on TV.
If situational leadership can be
planned, that is the task facing
the Inter-University committee to-
day. Continued innovation is defi-
nitely called for.

FOR SEVERAL YEARS the idea of a
small residential college at the Uni-
versity has been lovingly nursed toward
fulfillment by a small, select and dedicat-
ed group of students, faculty and admin-
istrators. But theyhave carried the ball
as far as they are able, and unfortunately,
this is not far enough to see the plan
move from dreams to brick and mortar.
It's now in the hands of the gods.
President ;Hatcher and his vice-presi-
dents can't afford to play Olympians very
often, for the politics of their offices
(both internal and external) and prob-
lems of finance place far too many limi-
tations upon :them. Power and influence
are, in any case, limited commodities to
be dealt with sparingly.
THEY MUST BEstored up carefully and
saved for the day when that truly ex-
traordinary opportunity, that creative
idea crying out for recognition, is pre-
sented. Every effort in behalf of that
new idea, that one opportunity, no mat-
ter how difficult or painful it may seem
at the time, will be many times repaid.
The residential college is such an oppor-
tunity.
It calls for the single-minded thrust-
ing aside of perennial economic delaying
tactics and of the political derailing
schemes that beset such projects at every
turn. It calls for what Michael Olinick,
Daily editor in 1962-63, called "vision." It
calls for Olympians. No equivocation. Just
commitment.
Philosophical arguments for the resi-
dential college have been rehearsed many
times. Most of them add up, to a pro-
found interest in providing an intellec-
tually and emotionally exciting environ-
ment for undergraduates. Though elusive,
it is a goal worth seeking at this univer-
sity.
T'S AN IDEAL that cannot be bought-
but neither does it come cheaply. If
careful, toilsome planning could buy it,
then we would have it. But the ultimate
power to kill; or implement the college
doesn't rest with Associate Dean Burton
Thuma and the series of advisors and
committees that have hashed over detail
after detail and idea after idea. It rests
with President Hatcher and Vice-Presi-
dents Heyns and Pierpont.
The great problem of implementation
facing the residential college is money.
The present trend is toward compromise,
if anything. In this case, the correct path
should be clear. Cut too many costs, im-
pose too many financial restrictions, and
it will be all over. Half a residential
college would be worse than none at all.
New ideas and creative experiments
have high death rates under the best of
:conditions. As various limitations are
placed on what can be done, various paths
that, the project can take are cut off and
barred. Cut off 75 per cent of such paths,
and you may cut off just that one that
would have led sto the success that every-
one had dreamed of. Funds can be pared
down to a certain level-an unfortunate-
ly high one in this case-but below that
threshhold the residential college would
be born unequipped to explore new paths,
barely able, even, to struggle down the
same old paths-paths with which we are
already all too familiar.
SO WHERE IS $12-15 million to come
from? Thuma hasn't got it, that's for

JUDITH WARREN ........ ..Co-Editor
ROBERT HIPPLER Co-Editor
EDWARD HERSTEIN................ Sports Editor
JUDITH FIELDS.................Business Manager

MICHIGAN ON THEMOVE

sure. The literary college has pulled an
awful lot of rabbits out of some awfully
thin hats in its time, but such a figure is
beyond even the magician's capabilities.
It becomes, therefore, a challenge to the
vision and resources of President Hatch-
er and his vice-presidents.
A lot of alumni money is flowing in
right now. Some can be channeled in the
direction of the residential college. If the
vision of the residential college is power-
fully presented, as it should and can be,
some large alumni gifts will be forth-
coming. Neither is the Legislature totally
immune to a well-documented and well-
founded argument (it sees, after all, very
few).
Money for the library facilities is avail-
able in the federal Higher Education Act's
Title II. Money for psychology teaching
facilities is available from the National
Institutes of Health. And an extension
of the National Science Foundation's gen-
erous graduate teaching facilities pro-
gram to the undergraduate level is in the
works in Washington.
INTERNALLY, the residential college can
be compared to "seed money" the Uni-
versity spends on promising research
projects. Several hundred thousand dol-
lars goes for such projects every year,
and the returns are immeasurable. (Some
research leading to a Nobel prize project
got started this way.) Money for the resi-
dential college would be seed money (al-
beit a pretty large sum) in the name of
undergraduate education.
There are no really large, untapped
sources of wealth within the University,
but the days of "payless paydays" are
past- Given generous doses of fiscal in-
genuity, an impressive fund could be put
together to, to quote a phrase, "insure
the vital margin." It is done quite often
in the name of research, and a change in
that tune would be refreshing-for fac-
ulty and students alike.
Of course it's going to hurt like hell.
Putting real money into undergraduate
education to destroy the status quo in a
frontal assault rather than a slow, inglor-
ious retreat is a rather novel idea. (The
UGLI may have been a frontal assault
and an even brilliant maneuver, but the
initial motivation was largely to relieve
intolerable pressures on the library sys-
tem as efficiently as possible. Putting
money into the residential college will un-
doubtedly cause added strains in the
short run, rather than relieving any.)
FINALLY, YOU GET down to a ques-
tion of administrative leadership with-
in the University. Here is a thought-
through, hashed-out plan to infuse new
directions and new sources of creative
energy into the University. It has been
put together' over several years by many
stundents and faculty. It is what they
want. Administration exists to serve the
students and faculty who are the univer-
sity. Students and faculty rarely say what
they want (and almost never do they
work together), and they certainly aren't
in the habit of backing words with con-
certed thought and action.
This isn't to say that faculty and stu-
dents are unanimous in their support;
that isn't to be expected on any issue. It
is to say that a sizable and respectable
segment has held up a vision of what the
University might create within this vast,
swirling vortex of. generally uncontrolled
and uncontrollable intellectual currents.
A residential college integrated into the

University in thought and facilities, yet
able to provide some measure of new
freedom to experiment in tackling hard
core issues of undergraduate excellence,
led by students and faculty personally in-
volved in what they are doing, is a very

DOMINICAN WAR:
According to High Sources . .

By MARK KILLINGSWORTH
j" .. .99 per cent of our rea-
son for going in there was to
try to provide protection for
these American lives and the
lives of other nationals . . . The
lives of our citizens were in
danger and men were running
up and down the corridors of
the Ambassador Hotel with
tommy guns shooting out win-
dows, and through the roof,
and through the closets, and
our citizens wererunder the beds
and in closets trying to dodge
this gunfire and our ambassa-
dor, as he was talking to us
(Wednesday, April 28) was un-
der the desk."
--President Johnson. June 2,
1965 on his decision to in-
tervene in the Dominican
crisis
'HE TRUTH about the United
States intervention in Santo
Domingo is finally beginning to
filter through the vast mass of
propaganda inspired by left-
leaning critics who seem to prefer
to let that country languish in
the throws of anarchiac violence
and godless Communism than to
have it find peace and, freedom.
Newly available evidence-from
the highest sources-is proving
the utter hypocrisy and falsehood
of a number of "issues" about U.S.
intervention.
AMONG THOSE "issues"-and
among the proofs that they are
phony-is myth number one: that
the U.S. intervened to prevent a
Communist takeover.
In raising this issue the presi-
dent's left wing critics demon-
strate their utter insincerity.
As the President himself point-
ed out, "99 per cent of our reason
for going in there was to provide
protection for these American lives
and the lives of other nationals."
IN OTHER WORDS, this is ob-
viously no "issue" at all. And those
who don't believe , the President
ought to be convinced by the
simple facts of the case.
The President is a precise man.
When he says 99 per cent, he
means 99 per cent, and not more
or less. As we will see below, there
were approximately 56 agents of
the International Communist Con-
spiracy in the Dominican Repub-
lic-at least.
We helped evacuate over 5600
American citizens and foreign na-
tionals.
INFORMED SOURCES in
Washington point out that the
sum total of these two numbers
(5,656) divided into 5600 is 99 per
cent.
In short, 99 per cent of the
problem was, indeed, protection

A Pragmatic' Defense
Of Viet Nam Policies

WVhy Is This Man Laughing?

By JAMES BURNHAM
National Review
THE SPOKESMEN for the Unit-
ed States government offer an.
inadequate and unconvincingmo-
tive for our intervention in Viet
Nam.
In the Johnson as in the Ken-
nedy administrations, they insist
that we seek only to defend the
right of the South Vietnamese
people to choose their own form
of government, that we help the
Viet Cong only because it is es-
sentially a foreign force interfer-
ing with that choice.
According to the official expla-
nation, our troops and technicians
are in South Viet Nam in response
to a request by a legitimate gov-
ernment to assist it-by "advice
and economic aid"-against an
external, aggressor.
THAT IS REALLY preposterous
in the face of what has been go-
ing on in South'Viet Nam and
what. we have been doing there.
The U.S. statements have come to
seem rather silly, fraudulent or
hypocritical.
As a consequence they are vul-
nerable targets for the domestic
and foreign opponents.of U.S. pol-
icy, and the more so as a) the
So u t h Vietnamese population
grows weary of the war; b) the
successive coups drain legitimacy
out of the Saigon government; c)
the U.S role progresses several
orders of magnitude beyond "ad-
vice," and d) we escalate the qial-
ity and range of the fighting.
No doubt these formulas ("at
the request of a friendly govern-
ment," "to help defend freedom
against aggression," etc.) are

thought to be diplomatically con-
venient. They may easily turn
into traps.
WHAT IF A NEW coup or coun-
ter-coup produces a government
in Saigon that orders a cease-fire,
joins the National Liberation
Front, asks us to start packing?
This is not excluded, is even
likely.
. What if North Viet Nam and
its allies did stop all traceable
aid, and yet the war continued?
Our formulas would tumble about
our ears.
IF WE HAVE an excuse for be-
ing in South Viet Nam, it can
only be our own security.
Our security would be critical-
ly threatened by the advance of
the Communist enterprise into
Southeast Asia and the South
Seas; we therefore resist that ad-
vance by what means are neces-
sary.
Resistance is the means, also,
of protecting the freedom of the
local nations and serving the long-
term interests of the local in-
habitants, and we are therefore
present in their country as allies
and friends.
pur action, however, should not
be made dependent on their pos-
sibly changing wishes but on our
own interest and decision. Our ac-
tion, if successful, will incidental-
ly make possible a free, peaceful
Laos and South Viet Nam, but its
fundamental aid should be. to meet
the challenge of the Communist
enterprise.
Only thus understood can our
action in Southeast Asia be ef-
fectively conducted, intelligibly ex-
plained and convincingly justified.

A

for American and other nationals.
Although Johnson has not re-
vealed it yet, a highly placed
Washington source has said that
the final decision to intervene
came after one top Johnson ad-
visor, Srank M. Charrette, chief
of the statistices and reports di-
vision of the agency for inter-
national development in the state
department, established those .two
basic figures and then computed
the 99 per cent-one per cent
breakdown which was, as has been
seen, crucial.
After all, you can't just sit idly
while marauders with tommyguns
are shooting up the best hotel in
Santo Domingo. China might be
sitting idly by in Asia, but that's
the inscrutable East for you.
SPEAKING of Communism, it
is obvious that the presence of
Communist elements in itself
would have justified our interven-
tion. But administration critics
believe myth number two-that
the "minimal" preserce of Com-
munism in the country did not
justify intervention.
Some will say we could not pos-
sibly know how many Communists
there were in the country, and

especially hdw many were actually
influencing the course of the re-
volt.
Nonsense. The state department
counted 54 Communists in the
country of 3 million people (or
58, depending upon which report
you read) who were active in the
revolt. At any rate, this averages
only 56, or about five times the
number of an average presidential
cabinet-or four cabinents plus a
supreme court, which is far worse.
OF COURSE some of those 54
54 (58) (56) on the list (s) were
found to be in jail or deceased at
the time of the revolt. But anyone
who knows the influence of Lenin
or for that matter, the resurgence
of Stalin in today's Russia, is not
impressed.
Some will say Ambassador W.
Tapley Bennet couldn't have
known the extent of Communist
influence of the revolution. They
point out he was hiding under
his desk as he called Washington.
But-as is usual-these left-
tainted critics do not point out
where his secretary was. They re-
fuse to admit that anyone with
a name like W. Tapley Bennet
ought to be hiding under a desk
anyway.
AND THEY absolutely ignore
the obvious fact-which President
Johnson jointed out on June 2-
that Ambassador Bennet had been
getting periodic intelligence re-
ports from U.S. citizens who have
done research on the situation-
by looking for Communists under
their beds.
MYTH NUMBER THREE that
the critics of intervention believe
is that President Johnson "shot
from the hip" in sending the
troops to Santo Domingo, whether
or not the danger of Communism
and violence justified it.
Ridiculous. Secretary Rusk
pointed out in his news conference
last week that the administration
acted quickly only after getting
a top secret telegram on the dan-
ger ridden situation from Ambas-
sador Bennett.
"It was that telegram, which
was emergent, which was what we
call a critic telegram-that is, it

4.

"'l Where I'm In Charge, There's
Danger Of Government Bein--

AhsobillyNo
Subve~rted"

/}
-10

Moll's Adventures:
Fun for All1
At the Michigan Theatre
"THE AMOROUS Adventures of Moll Flanders" is a morality play-
with very little morality and a great deal of play. Patterned
roughly after Tom Jones," the picture makes no apologies: "Any
similarities between this film and any other film are purely coin-
cidental," we are told.
Moll, taken as a child from an orphange by a country squire, is
raised as a servant in the squire's home, and grows into quite a well-
rounded lass, She is seduced by one of his sons and marries the
other who supbsequently drowns after falling from both a carriage
and a bridge (figure that one out!).
Since she is dealt out of her late husband's will by his family,
Moll leaves for London to seek her fortune-in the form of a rich
husband. She finds one right away-or so it seems. But Sir William,
her prospective benefactor, swears off women as a result of a stroke
of apoplexy, and Moll is on her own again.
A HIGHWAYMAN (known only as Jimmy) who robs the carriage
Moll rides to London, draws a wrong conclusion and thinks that she
Is~ a Lady of some means. He poses as a wealthy ship owner and
captain in order to marry her and live off her money. Their hilarious
courtship around London (and the "Captain's" ever-growing fleet of
ships) enids when they find out that they were really after each other's
money.
But meanwhile they have fallen in love. However, in order to
pay the debts he ran up courting Moll, Jimmy takes once again to

4

/0

I

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan