.


Seventy-Third Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
_ UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
hre Opinions Are iree STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBOR, MICH., PHONE NO 2-3241
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This muUt be noted in all reprints.
)NESDAY, JUNE 23, 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: MICHAEL BADAMO

The 1-52 Air Attack:

School Requests-Treated
Pettily in Lansing

HE UNIVERSITY, as usual, has surviv-
ed its annual appropriations battle in
nsing, including an unexpected close
1 in the -House Ways and Means Com-
ttee. Yet survival is not tantamount to
cess, and it would be foolish to casual-
dismiss the appropriations issue now
aply because disaster has been averted.
Amidst intra-party disputes, grand-
,nd plays for home-town constituencies
dl the alleged naivete of some freshman
mocrats, a number of serious issues
erged. And, while their involvement
,y have been largely inadvertent and
ey certainly were not squarely con-
nted, these issues are sure to make
eir presence felt again and again, pos-
ly with serious consequences for the
iversity.
ndeed, the fact that they were appar-
tly secondary to political consider-
ons in the past two weeks is significant.
that it indicates that crucial problems
ing higher education in Michigan are
t to be decided in a political atmos-
ere which clouds the stakes involved.
O TAIKE a brief look at just one case,
the issue of dividing the fiscal pie was
)ically obscured by favoritism for the
Tool back home. But, behind the facade
parochialism' was-or at least should
ve been-serious consideration of the
)per basis for allocating scarce funds
ong the different types of state
fools.
hould, for example, the state aim to
intain the Univrsity as an elite insti-
ion among its big three or try to equal-
* appropriations for the University,
yne State University and Michigan
ite University?
Phis question was raised by Rep.
orge Montgomery (D-Detroit), who
)posed to slash the University's and
U's budgets (ours to the tune of $10
llion) in order to raise Wayne's budget
>ITH WARREN ....................... Co-Editor
3ERT HIPPLER ........................Co-Editor
VARD HERSTEIN ................... Sports Editor
>TH FIELDS .................Business Manager
FREY LEEDS..............Supplement Manager
iT EDITORS: Michael Badamo, John Meredith,
obert Moore, Barbara Seyfried, Bruce Wasserstein.
be Daily is a member of the Associated Press and
.egiate Press Service.
be Associated Press is exclusively entitled to the
of ali news dispatches credited to it or otherwise
31ted to the newspaper. All rights of re-publication
1 other matters here are also reserved.
ubscription rates: $4 for lIA and B ($4.50 by mail);
or IA or B ($2.50 by mail).
cond class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Mich.
uiblished daily Tuesday through Saturday morning.

to a level comparable to the state's sup-
port for the other two schools.
MONTGOMERY'S position, whether sin-
cere or devised with Detroit's special
interests in mind, was patently absurd:
to equalize at the lowest common denom-
inator accomplishes nothing. The idea of.
equalization, however, using the term in
a broad sense that encompasses differ-
ences among institutions, seems .to ap-
peal to a number of people.
On the other hand, it may very well not
be economically feasible for the state to
support three schools at a level compar-
able to that of the University.
Moreover, even if economically possible,
it is certainly politically unlikely that
the Legislature will produce the fiscal
reforms necessary to provide revenue for
such an escalation of higher education
spending.
THUS, if equalization comes, it is apt to
be as much at the expense of; the Uni-
versity as to the benefit of MSU and
Wayne.'
True, Montgomery's proposal for a cut-
back failed ignobly this year; it was too
drastic for most legislators to take, and
many sayefforts ontitsbehalf were mis-
managed.
Nevertheless, Montgomery claims that,
he had six votes in the Ways and Means
Conmmittee on his side, and, aided by
maneuvering for a good bargaining posi-
tion in a Senate-House feud, a $6.27 mil-
lion cut in the University's budget did
get out of the committee. Furthermore,
while the University still ended up with
the highest budget of any state school,
the percentage of increase in its appro-
priation was smaller than that in MSU's
and Wayne's.
Hence, it is quite possible that the Leg-
islature will move in the direction of
equalizing appropriations for the big
three.
AS THIS YEAR'S appropriations budget
discussion demonstrated, higher edu-
cation appropriations are subject to a
number of political factors irrelevant to
the merits of the institutions' requests.
It is still an unanswered question wheth-
er the proposed unified budget request
and/or the new State Board of Educa-
tion can help remove them from the
realm of petty politics. At any rate, the
possibility that such issues as budget
equalization may be decided in the con-
fusesd atmosphere of this year's budget
battle looms ahead as a frightening pros-
pect.

/y
M , 1
\Io~uidle

Johnson
By JAMES RESTON
WSIGO-h irForce's
50 0-mie swipeat a ept
jungle clse to Saigon is clearly
the greatest achievement since
Big Mouth Clay knocked out
Sonny Liston.
It was apparently designed to
emphasize the power of the
American Air Force, but instead it
merely dramatized the Ineffective-
ness of long-range bombers in
jungle warfare. Worse, it raised
doubts about the administration's
credibility and judgment just
when these very qualities were'
being questioned in the public
press.
There are two possible explana-
tions for sending thirty B-52's
2,500 miles from Guam to bomb
a concentration of troops a few
miles from U.S. military head-
quarters in Saigon.
The first is that the attack was
necessary because no other air-
craft or weapons were available
in South Viet Nam that could do
the job
IF THIS IS CORRECT, we are
obviously in trouble, for the
Viet Cong can surely put together
attacking forces in battalion
strength at many places quicker
than we can shuttle the big B-52's
2,500 miles across the sea.
The other possible explanation
is that we do have in South Viet
Nam other means of breaking up
Communist troop concentrations
with fighter-bombers and heli-
copters. But that in this case we
wanted to give SAC a little ex-
perimental practice with the real
thing in order to remind the
Communists that we do have the
big bombers within range of Ha-
noi and Hiphong.
This, however, was no secret.
The Communists have known it all
along. In fact they apparently
knew so much about the bombers
that they were able to get out
before the B-52's arrived. And
even if two crews and planes ad
not been lost and 10 per cent of
the force had not failed to drop
its bombs, the exercise would still
have the air of using SAC to kill
a mockingbird.
EVER SINCE the Bay of Pigs,
there has been a curious assump-
tion or attitude of mind among
our policymakers herenthat ap-
parently still persists. This is that
the United States does not have
to use power effectively to deal
with the enemy, but merely has
to show him the power and sug-
gest that if he doesn't stop doing
whatever he is doing, we may use
that power to stun and destroy
him..
The assumption is that this
demonstration of power \will be
enough. It is, of course, an old
dodge. The Scottish clans used to
parade their men around and
around the tip of a visible moun-
taintop in the hope of persuading
the enemy in the vale to run away
from seemingly endless power.
The Soviets did the same thing
in Stalin's time by parading their
big tanks and rockets through Red
Square in the hope of intimidat-
ing the frozen diplomatic corps.

:A k),I

IN EFFECT, this is what Presi-
dent Kennedy did at the Bay of
Pigs. He let Castro and the Cu-
ban people know that he was
backing the Cuban freedom forces,
whom he provided with arms and
a few ships but no air power, and
the assumption was that when
Uncle Sam appeared on the scene,
even if merely holding the other
man's coat, the populace would
rise up and proclaim the libera-
tors.
The crossing of the 17th Paral-
lel in Viet Nam with our bombers
indicated something of this same
habit of mind.
We had a big argument about
this in the government and the
press in Washington--to cross or
not to cross-and in the process
the decision to cross became such
an important thing in Washing-
ton that at least some officials
thought it would bring the Com-
munists to the conference table.
IN BOTH CASES it is true that
the administration was trying to
achieve a political end with a
minimum use of force. It was re-
strained, but it was also a little
naive, and the same thing was
done at first in the Dominican
Republic.
The United States didn't go in
there at first with a large force
What they did was to land 400
Marines and then wait-again on
the assumption that once the
Marines had landed, the peasants
would be overawed and bolt for
the hills.
NO DOUBT there is a spirit
of moderation in' all this, but at
the same time there is also a
strong element of self-deception
in the conduct of American for-
eign policy-a kind of boyish pre-
tense and bravado that can be
slightly ridiculous.
On the basis of what we have
been permitted to know about the
B-52 raid, this is certainly the
case. We committed part of our
most fearful striking force. We
let the Vietnamese hear the high
whine of the big jets and see the
terrifying silhouettes of the fall-
ing bombs.
If the Communists picked them
up on the radar, they didn't put
their MIG's in the air or fire the
rockets (if they have rockets).
They just melted into the forest
and let us splinter the mahogany.
THE PENTAGON, however,
professes to be pleased. The enemy
troop concentration, it is said, was
broken up. Our men in the forest
found hot tea in abandoned cups,
which presumably were bomb-
proof, and the mission was there-
fore proclaimed a success.
All it cost was a couple of crews
and $18 million worth of B-52's,
and the dismay and ridicule of
half the world. But the croaking
of the frogs in the pond disturbeth
not the even tenor of the Presi-
dent's sleep.
He is a cautious man and a
powerful man, and to show both
power and caution is enough, par-
ticularly since the popularity polls
are going with him.
Copyright, 1965, The New Yok Times

Folly

w

*

"'T~t51 TimE WE'KE INOT

LONDON REPORT:s
Oxford's Problems--And Ours-

9

-JOHN MEREDITH


By ROGER EBERT
Collegiate Press Service
LONDON - Because England's
excellent magazine stands, un-
like our own, stock the best as well
as the worst magazines, I found
myself reading about the "prob-
lem with Oxford" in "Encounter,"
the monthly edited by Stephen
Spender and Melvin Lasky.
It was a short piece, less than
a page and a half, by John Vaizey,
the editor of the "Oxford Maga-
zine."
Mr. Vaizey takes notice of a
rising wave of criticism directed
toward his university in Britain,
and then handles the criticism in
a manner designed to inspire
thoughtfulness as we view our
own American educational prob-
lems.
And there are, he says, some
thinigswhich are good about Ox-
ford It has, for example, a fine
record as a teaching institution.
A "drawback" in the system, he
notes, is that it makes "excep-
tionally heavy demands on the
time and emotional stamina of
the dons-who work harder than
dons at other universities."
A SECOND good thing about
Oxford, according to Mr. Vaizey,
is its research. Even though its
library system is a "bad joke"
compared to American university
libraries, and the dons have to
struggle along without the degree
of secretarial assistance Americans
take for granted, and "it is ex-
tremely difficult for many people
to do much research in term be-
cause of the demands of the un-
dergraduates to be taught, to be
comforted, and to be entertained,"
even so, the amount of scholarly
work at Oxford is "surprisingly
high."
Set beside the "good points" of
teaching and research, there are,
Mr. Vaizey finds, two bad points
at the present: the problems of
admissions and the "zoology
tower."
In the first case, he admits
that while Oxford is perhaps no
greater a sinner than the other
British universities, it does not
exactly have an admissions policy
"biased in favor of the working
class." Oxford remains a part of
the Establishment.
THE ZOOLOGY TOWER pre-
sents a problem of a different
order, one which should be im-
mediately familiar to the inmates
of the big American universities:
a skyscraper had been promised
to the zoologists, but when the
plan was put before the Congre-
gation, or Parliament, of the uni-
versity, it was vetoed. What had
clearly gone wrong, Mr. Vaizey
finds, was the process "of seeking
out general university opinion."
What big university in the Unit-
ed States has not heard howls of
indignation recently over some
scheme or another to put up a


out general university opinion."
For in America, the general uni-
versity is no longer thought to
have opinions.
Again, is it not possible that Ox-
ford's "image," which at least in
America is supreme, might be due
in part to its very disdain for PR
men? In America these days
every cow college pays a PR man
to moo for it. Some departments
of U.S. universities even have
theeir..own PR men. Yet Oxford
has noie.
OXFORD'S "problems" of teach-
ing and research, coming as they
do from a school which in general
probably does the world's best job
of both, are also illuminating. We
have heard a great deal on this
suniect in the past few years
without realizing that we were on
the wrong tack in our concern for
separating these two basic uni-
versity functions.
Perhaps it is true that teaching
and research are related after all,

and that working harder at one
provides better results in the
other. This possibility' seems to
have yielded better results, at least
at Oxford, than the American
penchant for creating teaching
and research "specialists."
The Oxford admissions policy,
favoring the upper classes, is at
least under scrutiny in England
In America, where our slum
schools actually seem to retard
intelligence, and where admission
policies and even I.Q. tets are de-
signed to favor the middle and
upper classes, the question has
hardly been raised.
DESPITE all of its "problems,''
Mr. Vaizey maintains that the
process of education at Oxford is
"patently a good one," and I sup-
pose we would agree. For most of
us, it provides the model; the best
there is to be had.
Perhaps;we had best have an-
other look at Oxford's problems
and those of our- own.

*'

' .
r '
x
! ',
q3
2.
_ t
}.
f , ; r.
, }
SD:.
r
i)
k.

a'

it:1
ai

--- j(
r Y 4 .
.
t ' r .
S r
'
' ,ti
f a,
, s i sb'' .

rl
(PMA4D

The Teacher Has Duties Beyond Lecturing To Crowds of Students

I

T he Teacher's Role: To Guide the Student

= .

u

*
,.1$

N

I _

By PHILIP H. ABELSON
Science Magazine
THE CHARACTER of under-
graduate education in this
country has changed. Large classes
and the use of television, films
and programmed instruction have
tended to make teaching imper-
sonal and mechanical
This trend has been accom-
panied by increases in enrollments
and decreases in faculty teaching
loads. In 1940 college enrollments
totaled 1.4 million: in 1964 they
+-nai t, {} mmin P d a r mm egfim

search, administration, public
service, or graduate professional
service as paramount.
As a consequence of these de-
velopments, undergraduates have
fewer personal contacts with pro-
fessors, who at the same time have
less of themselves to give when
such contacts occur.
THE TIME has come to ask,
"What are professors for?" The
professor's primary activities
should be teaching and research,
with the priority in that order,
but with researcah clos seond.

forms of guidance for the stu-
dents.
AS A RESULT of his university
experience, a 'student should be
motivated to pursue continuing'
scholarship throughout his life; he
should acquire a sound value sys-
tem and the capacity for indepen-
dent thought.
We know that motivation and
taste can be forstered by close
association of professors and stu-
dents.'
There is no evidence that tele-
vlin a nnora mme instru1e.

reaches graduate school he is un-
likely to ever become so.
Failure to become motivated
early lessens the effectiveness of
the learning process. When a stu-
dent does not know what he is in
school for, he is half-hearted in
his studying and easily distracted.
Moreover, he he is deprived of
what should be a wonderful ex-
perience.
THE REALITIES of the present
make it impractical for us to re-
turn to the "good old days." Tele-
vision and nnoeranmmd instruc.

0

same

I t II yY I :li lI Ias i 11 .1:. i