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


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.

October 01, 1960 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1960-10-01

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

' eA kgau :4ay
Setenty-First Year t
Truth Will Prevail" STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG. " ANN ARBOR, MICH. * Phone No 2-3241
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staf writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

"This Is Your Friendly Pilot. It's A Lovely Day, We
Are Still Above Ground, And So Everything Is Fine"

Big Theme In Big Movie
Too Big.For Brooks
HE word 'vulgar' appears in the film "Elmer Gantry" only once
or twice and then this latest movie by Richard Brooks proceeds
to define the word in Hollywood's newest, biggest fashion. Based
on the novel of Sinclair Lewis, vulgarity, according to "Gantry," is
slipshod treatment of emotions and/or artful use of them.
Gantry is a born salesman with a background in theology (he
was expelled from the seminary for seducing the dean's daughter).
He is brought up in the southern United States during the 'twenties,
when reactions to everything from lynchings to Prohibition were
highly emotionally charged. The rural South was, in fact, raw emo-
tion ready to be harnessed, and Elmer Gantry was the man for the
Drawn instinctively to a traveling revival troupe both for the




Campaign Emotionalism
Blocks Discussion of Issues

EVEN THOUGH both candidates have par-
tially tried to avoid it, the presidential
campaign has already been clogged with many
superficialities - particularly the so-called
religious issue - which have misdirected the
course of the campaign and injected un-
necessary emotionalism into crucial discussions.
The level of public discussion reached a new
nadir two days ago when Thomas Dewey was
quoted as arguing "neither we nor any part
of the free world will survive if we have
naive leadership which believes Russian pro-
paganda and spreads it." Dewey's remarks, a
direct attack on John Kennedy, were made
with reference to the national rate of growth
and American defenses.
Kennedy has warned that the Soviet Union's
gross national product is increasing relatively
faster than America's, that this country's de-
fenses should be stronger, and that the re-
sponse to these economic challenges has been
"sporadic, timid, and inadequate."
CERTAINLY Kennedy's arguments represent
a legitimate position for one to take, and
for someone else to question in honest debate,
but Dewey simply charges that the rate of
growth statistics are based on communist
economic propaganda.

In doing so, Dewey has brought forward an
important but undocumented - and therefore
vicious - charge against Kennedy. The im-
mediate implication, that Kennedy is a com-
munist dupe, will hopefully not have impact
on the campaign.
BUT THERE is a larger and still more dan-
gerous implication - that anyone who
questions American strength will be liable to
the same charge. Such inhibition of discussion
is somehow based on the untenable assumption
that a nation or an individual best survives
through self-flattery rather than self-criticism.
And it does not simply assume that critics are
"naive", but that they are also subversive.
There are now five weeks remaining before
the public selects its next leader. In that time
one hopes faintly that the focus of discussion
will swing away from the Roman Catholic
faith, women's clothes, men's ages, and com-
munist dupery. One hopes even more faintly
that the focus will swing towards America's
position in this world, towards disarmament,
human rights, international economics, inter-
national ideologies and aspirations.
Dewey has done nothing to change the
focus. Instead, he has blurred it all the more.

above reasons and. because of its
beautiful preacher, Sharon Fal-
coner, he soon becomes its second.
biggest attraction and woos his
fellow preacher with equal facility.
* * *
(who directed and wrote the
script), goes all out to make it as
big as its theme. It is big in act-
ing talent,' big in action, big in
implications and very, very long.
Though the first scenes in the
movie handle all of these so well
as to make it all worth the ef-
fort, (so well, In fact, as to sug-
gest perhaps a great movie), it is
sad to report that Brooks soon
loses hold on the continuity.
I would say that his cinematic
talents are far i nadvance of his
dramatic sense. His characters are
beautifully created and contain
within them life-energy and exub-
erance, but the energy soon dis-
pels itself in many directions, leav-
ing the plot holding the bag. His
characters end up having no pre-
dictability and eventually so does
the plot,
' * * *
task and a big failure. The final
scenes of physical violence are
merely chaotic and ludicrous when
they could hold powerful symbols
of the turbulent battle between
the emotional conflicts within and
without Elmer Gantry.
The fault is certainly not with
the acting. ,1
Jean Simmons uses her femin-
ity as other actresses use their
voice (although she is in complete
control of that, too) in the role
of a woman with vital and healthy
emotions who has completely ded-
icated herself to a vision. Burt
Lancaster's Elmer is effective in
sheer force.

6S ympathy
'TEA and Sympathy," at Cine-
ma Guild today and tomorrow,
could have been the painful and
interesting portrait .of a boy who
finds himself at. the age when
"he's not a boy anymore, and not
a man yet."
Deborah Kerr, John Kerr and:
Leif Erikson are quite good, but
separately good-the emotions are
not woven into the same pattern.
Because of this lack of interaction
between the characters, we watch
the comical scenes, the psycholog-
ical evolution of the boy Tom Lea,
fights around the bonfire, the
bullying of the boys, with the
same cool and dry eye.
even though the pieces are de-
tached from each other-prevent-
ing the spectator from participat-
ing-the pieces are interesting and
some of them very good.
Tom Lea has the misfortune of
falling in love with the wrong
woman, which drives him to some
awkward occupations, such as
sewing on the beach with faculty
wives. And we have the conflict
between the "sister boy" and the
"regular fellas."
And the question is: How much
tea and sympathy should she
give, and how much does she, in
fact, give?
You can have the answer for
just fifty cents.
-Christiane Angeli



Analyzes Comment On Party

Debates And D

SO FAR, the only really comprehensive criti-
cism of the new political party that has
been offered is that of InterQuadrangle Council
President Dan Rosemergy. Other SGC members
have commented, certainly, but they have
endorsed the idea with certain qualifiers.
The organizers of the as-yet unnamed group
in general concur with the qualifiers.
Rosemergy, on the other hand, has launched
a comprehensive attack on a brdad front,
questioning both the practicability of and
philosophy behind the party.
He said first that the party willnot work,
though he is willing to be shown. He may be.
About 100 people came to the first organiza-
tional meeting, a strong nucleus of party
regulars. The people concerned do not appear
to be solely a "small cell-group of self-styled
liberals" as Rosemergy thought they might be.
ELABORATING on his point, Rosemergy pre-
dicts that broad support will not develop.
This, of course, will not be shown until the
election-the answer will definitely be a func-
tion of the party's platform. The IQC president
also feels no opposition party will materialize.
This may well be so, though it may also be
irrelevant. The new party can be effective
in running candidates against the general
pack as well as organized opposition.
The assumption here seems to be that or-
ganized opposition is necessary. Certainly this
would be a good thing, if the two parties would
end up being broad-based in terms of participa-
tion by varied segments of the campus. There
is no particular reason why the parties would
have to be as ideologically incohesive as the
major national parties.
ROSEMERGY'S second criticism, which goes
deeper, questions the need for a party
because it would have no real purpose to
fulfill. He bases this attack on three objectives
enunciated in the party's initial manifesto.
If it is to be a political action group, Rose-
mergy says, it isn't needed because the campus
already has such groups in the Young Demo-
crats, Republicans, Socialists and the like.
However, it would seem he is misinterpreting
the aim of the party, which is not partisan in
the Republican-Democratic sense. If he means
that the party cannot take stands, and work
for certain extra-University political objectives,
such as disarmament or integration, then it

would seem he is on less firm ground. Such
issues lack the ring of party politics.
ROSEMERGY says further that, if the party's
self-appointed task is to make students
aware, then it is not needed because the
present college generation is the most well-
informed of any to date. "I particularly object
to their telling students what they should be
aware of," Rosemergy adds.
Rosemergy is probably right - that the
present generation is the most well-informed.
But, at the same time, in general it is far
from being fully informed, and any further
effort along this line can help. As to the
party dictating issues, it is up to the individual
student voter to decide whether the party's
diagnosis is correct when he votes in the
Rosemergy feels the most valid purpose is
the party's desire to aid SGC. Amen.
On the other hand, no matter how noble
this purpose, it is hardly a sufficient stimulus
for the amount of activity the new party
promises to put forth.
ROSEMERGY concludes his criticism with a
critique of the "new role" for students on
which the party's philosophy is based.
He says the proper role of students is a
familiar threefold one; yet, within even Rose-
mergy's concept of the student role, there
should be room for a party.
The first true task of a student is study,
-Rosemergy asserts. He tends to limit this to
formal academics plus other intellectual pur-
suits. But what is educational in the democratic
political process if not membership in an open
political party? On-the-job training is often the
The second task is a responsibility to learn
about and contribute to the University. Rose-,
mergy envisions this within the present organ-
izational context. Yet, the political party could
add a great deal of vitality to this context; it
could also mobilize people and activity that
had not participated in aiding the University.
The third role is for the student to enjoy
himself - in his remaining time. This also
is true, and a good thing for the party people
to remember. Students in general tend to take
themselves too seriously, especially activists.
The world is not changed in a minute, -and
thinking it can be will only cause neuroses. A
little enjoyment is necessary for a balance.

THERE is a rather touchingr
American dream about the
Presidential campaigns. Wouldn't
it be nice (it runs) if the whole
nation could watch and listep to
the major Presidential contenders
while they argued out the great
issues of our day, and then pick
the man who showed by his
knowledge, clarity and strength
that he was the obvious leader to
Thisewas not the dream at the
time of the Lincoln-Douglas de-
bates. which were a local Seator-
ial affair that somehow attracted
national attention. It was hot un-
til much later that the dream be-
gan to take possession of the
American imagination, and then
the Lincoln-Douglas encounter
was invoked as a haunting symbol
of what Americans wanted.
As Americans look back, they
may well ask themselves why it
took so long for the experiment to
be tried, as it was in the Kennedy-
Nixon encounter. Surely what is.
possible today was possible in 1952
and again in 1956. I can't help
wondering what might have hap-
pened in both those campaigns if
Adlai Stevenson and Dwight Ei-
senhower had faced each other in
** *
BUT THESE ARE bygones.
Turning from the past to the fu-
ture, we may be pretty certain that
no Presidential candidate in fu-
ture elections will dare turn down
a request from his rival for a se-
ries of debates. Whether for good
or ill, the political TV debate as
a method in Presidential cam-
paigns is here to stay.
Is this, as a child might put
it with disarming directness, good
or bad? The democratic dream,
which would like to have total
participation of all citizens in an
election and total exposure of the
candidates to the voters, would
obviously call it good. Yet I note
in the current discussions a degree
of wariness about it and fear of its
possible consequences.
Put most simply, the fear is
based on the belief that TV is a
magical medium to conjure with,
and that it plays all sorts of
tricks on those who watch it. Add
to this the belief that a medium
which we associate with enter-
tainment is bound to turn even
a Presidential debate into an en-
tertainment rather than an intel-
lectual exercise.
Add finally the fear that since
every political technique tends to-
ward a natural selection of the
people who are adept at it, the
Presidential TV debate will put a
premium on candidates with the
skill of debating tricks and with
a good TV image rather than on
men who can think, make deci-
sions, and lead the nation.
I HAVE PUT the case against
the debates as strongly as I
know how, yet I don't go along
with the argument myself. Sure,
TV plays tricks and can be rigged
with hokum, as witness the his-
toric appearance of a remarkable
trio-a Vice Presidential candi-
date under heavy fire, his wife and
his dog. But to cast away a com-
munication medium because it

must be made available to 1
major parties and cand
rather than be restricted
one that can afford to pa
mercially for it. As far as p
both parties should have
access to it.
I should add that this mi
be at least a partial answer
problem of the "one-party
in America. There are tho
of small communities when
one party-in the South the
ocrats. in the North the R
cans-gets the break in nev
sentation. But when Nixo
Kennedy appeared togethe
were watched by almost the
population of these isolated
ets, and they broke throu
one-party barrier.
" , ,
on-Kennedy debate destroy
crust of apathy that had
around the campaign, an

e moc rcy
both the breaking of it benefitted Ken-
lidates, nedy more than Nixon. The day
to the following the debate both candi-
y com- d
)ossible dates had unusually good turn-
equal outs where they campaigned per-
sonally, but Kennedy in Ohio was
ay also greeted with a dramatic warmth
to the he had not previously had any-
press" Where.
usands shall we lament that it took
re only a TV debate to accomplish this
e Dem- breakthrough? I don't see why
epubli- we should. Americans are living
ws pre- with advanced technology in every
n and field: Why not in politics? Just
r, they as people in undeveloped coun-
whole tries are having to shift their
I pock- perspective with the new indus-
gh the trial machines which are break-
ing up their traditional societies,
Americans must learn to use the
big media, not be used by them.
st Nix- Running away from them, or
ed the lamenting their dangers, will nev-
formed er make America move forward.
d that (Copyright, 1960)

--Robert Kraus

China, Moscow Agree;
Berlin Crisis Mounts

Protests Communist Spe

Associated Press News Analyst
RED CHINA has flip-flopped back into line with Moscow on the
matter of peaceful coexistence versus inevitable war, and the two
may be burying the hatchet in their ideological disputes.
But that isn't sure. Peiping has given lip service to the Khrush-
chev line before, while he was still displaying some enthusiasm about
the Paris summit conference. Mao Tze-tung, Chinese Communist
~~-------Ichairman and chief theoretician,
continues the old lime in a book
just being published.
iker BansHC
aka Bin the new move, however, which
comes after reports that Khrush-
nvalid) choose democracy over chev was planning to apply more
ommunism. Without proper ex- pressure. Chou En-lai, Chinese
osure to the Communist view- premier, and his ambassador in
oint, students may be attracted Moscow made similar statements
o communism by the secrecy and at the same time, endorsing peace-
lamor of belonging to a banned ful coexistence after a long per-
rganization. iod of insistence that war might
* * * be necessary forthe eventual
WE COMPLETELY dish gree Communist conquest of other
vith statements which compare conre.
It leads to wonderment wheth-
ommunism to the Plague, sug- er Soviet technicians have been
esting that contact with com- withdrawn from Red China as
niunism means certain conversion. par fapesr rgai n
Pa us, this is a defeatist attitude. part of a pressure progra, in-
f a person believes that free stead of being evicted.
- - ~ ---.--- *,*,~~ 4~4* * *

To The Editor:
WITH reference to Wayne State
University's lifting of its ban
on Communist speakers and the
subsequent petition to reimpose
the ban, we would like to express
our views in favor of allowing
Communists to speak, at least in
our higher educational institu-
As we see it, one of the basic
ideals of democracy is the right
of free discussion of any issue. A
proper decision can only be made
after all viewpoints have been
heard and considered. Banning
the expression of certain view-

points can lead to many incor
plete, and therefore weak, opi
"We shouldn't have to "protec
our college students from new ar
"dangerous" ideas. Students
this level have the ability to ma
rational decisions. In particul
we feel that the merits of demo
racy make it far superior to coi
munism in, practice and in theor
The vast majority of studen
given a chance to hear all vie'
points before making a decisi
about governmental systems, w9
(unless our American ideals a




'Ostriches' Fear Khrushchev Talky

E OSTRICHES are running again. This
time, they're hiding their heads in New
Jersey sand, at Rutgers University.
Five Rutgers students started it all two
weeks ago when they sent a telegram to Sec-
retary of State Christian Herter, asking him
to lift travel restrictions long enough for
Nikita Khrushchev to speak to the student
The telegram was sent with the permission
of Rutgers University president Mason W.
Gross to Herter, the New York Times, the New
York Post and Richard Rettig, president of the
United States National Student Association,
Editorial Staff

IT READ in part: "Although we are not in
accord with his political practices or phil-
osophy, we propose to invite Nikita Khrush-,
chev to address the students of our university."
The ostriches, some of them students and
some state legislators, began their predictable
screams of "dishonor! shame! infamy!" The
issue is still being debated, and Herter has
not yet replied.
The Rutgers administration seems to be of
the intelligent belief that seeing the Soviet
Premier and hearing him talk will not warp
the student mind. But the protesting members
of the student body disclaim academic curiosity,
believing their minds too weak to resist pro-
IF THIS is to be a discussion of what is and
what is not "American," we would agree
with the, New York Post columnist who com-
mented that "small-minded" refusals to allow
Khrushchev to visit are worth more communist

h 1 +,
!' V
ti y
M ;.
.. ...3
! ,a 4'
' a
f "
y T
I _
""' ! M w+M"'"
, " r
J", 5ya

Americans, enjoying the benefits
of the world's greatest democracy,
are this susceptible to Communist
ideas, he must have little hope for
the survival of democracy in the
world. This defeatist attitude is a
harmful substitute for faith in
democratic ideals.
We feel that to ban Commu-
nist speakers is to hide from the
problem and handicap ourselves
in our fight against communism.
For our part, we are not ready to
concede victory to communism
unless America and the other
Western democracies abandon
their ideals.
-Peter Jensen, 64
-James Mason, '63
Agitating Comment . ..
To the Editor:
THE following excerpt from
Matthew Arnold is pertinent
to the recent pursuit for The
Student 1960-Social Agitator!
"We are all terrae fili, cries
their eloquent advocate; all Philis-
tines together. Away with the no-
tion of proceeding by any other
way than the course dear to the
Philistines; let us have a social
movement, let us organize and
combine a party to pursue truth
and new thought, let us call it
the liberal party, and let us all
stick to each other, and back each,
other up. Let us have no nonsense
about independent criticism, and
intellectual delicacy, and the few
andf~h msn ,,n't - m t,,-a


WEST GERMANY'S decision to
embargo trade with East.-Germany,
a reaction against Communist
travel regulations in Berlin, is a
grave matter.
Khrushchev has kept on delay-
ing any Berlin crisis to keep the
issue as a club in negotiations
with the West, but has been per-
mitting the East Germans to take
steps advertising how much trou-
ble they are capable of causing.
The West had to retaliate.



The Daily Official Bulletin is an
official publication of The Univer-
sity of Michigan for which The
Michigan Daily assumes no editorial
responsibility. Notices should be,
sent in TYPEWRITTEN form to
Room 3519 Administration Building,
before 2 p.m. two days preceding
General Notices
Rhodes Scholarships: There will be a
meeting of all those interested in
Rhodes Scholarships on Mon., Oct. 3
at 4:15 p.m. in 2012 Angell Hall. Appli-
cations for Rhodes Scholarships will
be due Wed., Oct. 12 in 202.6 Angell
Hall. Application blanks may be oh-
tained from Prof. Clark Hopkins, 2011
Angell Hall.

Back to Top

© 2023 Regents of the University of Michigan