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.

January 08, 1961 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1961-01-08

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

Credits and Education


~" - e

Seventy-First Year
iU Prevai"
printed in The Michigan. Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.


zy 8, 1961


Idea of Free Society
Demands Courage from 'U
TOR'S NOTE: Following is the first part of a debate on University attitudes and polices toward
A defense of the University position will appear Tuesday morning.)

versity speaker policies,. which stemmed
Inally from incidents at Wayne State, is
eaing in official scope now that Wayne
asked for , a united stand among state
dges and universities. The situation remains
bizarre as ever, but also is increasingly
is bizarre partly because of the individuals
lved; the aggressive anti-Communist
1e Byerlen ("Civil liberties are derived
from law, but from God ... Communism
aierently evil"), and the ornery Senator
a Blissfield, Elmer Porter, who sided with
a Byerlein even before he knew all the
a of the Wayne situation. It is bizarre
because while Wayne has remained under
4y pressure from Byerlen and Porter, the
r state institutions have carried on un-
urbed with speaker policies much like
ne's own.
hei situation is dishartening for other
Sans. So man educators have commended
0ne fr its admirable" or "courageous"
id that one is driven to fear for the future
raditional democratic practises: because the
oial position of Wayne State (and also of
;University) is a profound and hypocritical
~tion of the principles upon which a Uni-
ity ought to be built. Wayne's new "liberal"
cy is meant to allow speakers who investi-
Sfact, to enhance the scholarly reputation
he university, while at the same time pro-
ing it (Wayne) from becoming a sounding
rd for propaganda."
has called Wayne's attitude "the reasonable
I1n keeping with the responsibility of the
versity to its constituents." The President's
tude is reflected in University bylaw 8.11:
The policy of the Board of Regents
to encourage timely and rational dis-
of of topics whereby the ethical and
tellectual development of the student
ody and the general welfare of the public
'ay be promoted and a due respect in-
ilcated in the people for society at large
rd for the constituted government of
be state and nation . . . during such
ieetlngs or lectures there shall be no
advocacy of the subversion of the
,ernent . nor of the state, and such
aeetings and lectures shall be in spirit
nd expression worthy of the University.. .
o addresses shall be allowed which urge
be destruction or modification of our
rm of government by violence or other
lawful methods, or which advcate or
istify conduct which violates the fun-
aiMentals of our accepted code of morals."
'es bylaws of two state institutions reveal
ighly discouraging philosophy of democracy
Seducation. WSU believes itself competant
0$4 to ditinguish that which is "investi-
on of -fact" from "propaganda." Can a
anguing speech from a Marxist agitator
both propaganda and educational in con~
t? Is "Operation Abolition" also an attempt
propagandizing, or is it purely educational?
)' ADEE TO A distinction between what
is "educationally valuable" and what is
are progaganda" is to become, at worst,
ltarlan in orientation. It is not the role
a University to determine what its students
ft to hear; that is the role of a leviathan.
ber I believe it is the role of the university
actively cultivate a climate in which any
Rion may be peacefully advocated and at-
ded without fear of reprisal to either
aker or listener. Let them be ideas of any
de-fascist or democrat, brief or docu-
nted, rational or irrational, revolutionary
c onservative, responsible or irresponsible.
ait there be an atmosphere of order in
meeting, and that there be time provided
oiposing opinions, are the only necessary
rhat does the University, the proud "Athens
he West" (such irony), mean when it pro-
Is its dedication to "ethical and intellectual
elopment," then claims 'the role of pro-
;or of such absolute and inviolate goods
"the fundamentals of our accepted code

lation of free expression, we ought to place
strengthening and sustenance above any
i all institutions of society or accepted codes
norals. This faith in ideas, this recognition
Pie prevalent human need for self-assertion,
. . ..
FditoriaI Staff
City Editor Editorial Director

this conception of universities as the standing
vessels of freedom, is strangely lacking in
troubled times. One recalls, for example, the
"Red Scare" of 1952 when the University, in
one semester, invoked its bylaw against
speakers four times. Or one remembers the
Lecture Committee expressing grave doubts
about permitting ex-communist John Gates
to speak here. three years ago. When will the
axe, suspended now, fall again?
I am aware that there are social and politi-
cal pressures severe enough to force the
universities not to step out defiantly for their
vital freedoms. There is the Legislature, dom-
inated by rural, irritable elements. There are
Detroit and outstate business foundations who
look with disfavor on the full implementation
of the Bill of Rights. There are Communists
waiting to exploit student minds, as yet
young and untrained in the American Way.
With these pressures and concerns one may
sympathize; then one must lament America's
lack of democratic courage. It is understand-
able and yet pathetic that even the universities
are without the ability to translate their
private "boldness" into public affirmation.
Such a condition is pathetic not simply be-
cause it speaks ill of the men who reign in .
society, but also because it tends to train the
student in acceptance of the current reality of
compromise and dishonesty. It tends to dis-
-courage rebellion, bravery, creativity. It re-
places the ideal of principle with the ideal
of expediency. Appeasement displaces frank-
ness. "Ethical and intellectual development"
are vacuous words, sorry monuments to the
myth of the free state. ,
AM FURTHER TOLD that the actual word-
ing of our policy on speakers is irrelevant
"because this is a government of men, not of
laws"- that is, the bylaw itself is not so
important as its implementation by the Ad-
ministration and Regents. At the moment
these powers are apparently very benign; but
a moment does not represent the future.
The right to hear a public lecture should
not be determined b whether the Regents
are Democratic or Republican, conserva-
tive or liberal, brave or without courage.
servative or liberal, brave or without courage.
Neither the Regents, nor the Administration,
nor members of the Lecture Committee are
equatable with Miss Byerlein's God; our civil
liberties are not a consequence of their beni-
ficence. Bylaws of the University should not
be open to the whimsy of interpretation, or the
pressure of public opinion.
Again, I am told that since the present times
are touchy, it would be unwise to change the
current bylaw. I am told that "subversives"
can speak anywhere in this area, just not in
University buildings. But if we do not believe
in academic freedom, why do we not let
freedom flourish in our buildings, why do
we not speak of freedom forcefully to our con-
stituents, why do we permit "subversion" to
go on in a closed atmosphere of privacy? A
university should not keep a bylaw such as ours
on its books merely to comfort financially-
influential groups which might be upset by a
more-classically liberal statement of speaker
policies. The University's obligation is not to
fool or falsely placate those of its constituency
who fear controversy; its obligation is to see
that controversy receive the fullest examination
possible by the whole constituency. Why do we
blur and falsify issues by masking academic
freedomdbehind bylaws that make no demo-
cratic sense?
Finally, I am told that the idea of intellectual
freedom is a naive concept which disappeared
with the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. Since
that time the United States has been threaten-
ed by subversive elements who, while posing as
friends, are secretly eroding our freedoms;
therefore, our freedoms must be relative. But
in the first place, what is a relative freedom?
If I am not free to think and say X, I am not
a free man. Second, it seems generally true
that American sensitivity to subversion is
usually hyper, when compared to the actual
extent of that subversion. If "subversives"
exist, let them speak their will in an orderly,
peaceful public forum; let students and other
qualified citizens challenge that thought; let
the test of confrontation proceed. If the ideas
are acceptable, let us be "subverted."

THIS IS NOT a request that there be no
safeguards of the general welfare, although
some of the American Tremblers will read
it as such. It is an appeal for this University
and this society to place in these negative times
a more positive trust in the safeguards as-
serted by our radical founding fathers. Ono
finds it discouraging to realize that not even
a university has the capacity to openly declare
itself for such traditional concepts by eliminat-
ing its bylaw and the cankerous Lecture Com-
mittee which will implement that bylaw in
the next crisis.
What do we fear? Subversion? University
budget cuts? Other economic reprisals? Making

(EDITOR'S NOTE-Following
is the fifth article in The Daily's
series on "Tie University's
Greatest Needs." Prof. Eastman
is an associate professor of Eng-
ETWEEN the academic fur-
lough at Christmas and the
Armageddon of final examina-
tions the old chorus starts to
rise: "I don't care about the
grade myself, Professor, but
I'm applying for Law School
'"Will the exam cover the
stuff we had on the midterm?"
"I got this C plus on the long
paper and a 78 quiz average:
what'll I need on the final to
pull a B for the course?"
"Grades, schmades! That's all
they care about around here.
But I. don't see it that way,
Prof .. ." "I do all the reading
and I never cut -well, just
once when my roommate had
that trouble-and I don't see
how you can give me a D."
"Will there be a make-up?"
"I'm not really asking about
my grade, Sir. I just want to
know how I can do better. I
mean, this course is terrific."
AND WITH THE chorus, the
antiphonal response from the
Professors: "What matters to
me is that you've learned some-
thing, even if the grade doesn't
show it. That's what counts,
isn't it? That's what you're
here for, isn't it-an education,
not grades?" "But my dear
young lady, you haven't been
in class since Thanksgiving
You must take your medicine
like a man . . . You'll find a
Kleenex by the door." "My as-
sistant handles the grades.
Why don't you see him?" "For
myself, I don't believe in
grades. Why, if I had my way,
you'd all have A's. But you
know the system . ."
* * *
THE SYSTEM? The educa-
tional system? One sometimes
wonders whether "the educa-
tional system," like "business
ethics" or "Soviet democracy,"
doesn't involve a contradiction
in terms, the values Inherent in
the adjective at war with those
in the noun. The means would
seem to have got out of whack
with the end. Students and
faculty and administration
would appear to have joined in
a conspiracy to defeat their
own purposes. They buy grades
and sell growth. They reduce
the dazzling complex and ex-
citing business of enlarging
man's mental potential to a
figure on an examination, on
a record, on a transcript. They
substitute the external and
quantitative for the internal
and qualitative. They keep the
system and let education go
whistling down the wind.
* * *
I DON'T THINK it's as bad
as all that, nor do my col-
leagues-nor, I trust, do most
students. But we all recognize
at finals time that something
is amiss with the way we go
about our great common en-
terprise of education, and we
are likely to focus on grades
as the festering center of what's
wrong with the system.
We know the arguments on
behalf of grades. They are
necessary if future employers
are to choose wisely, if the
student is to find opportunity
commensurate with his proved
potential, if there is to be any
substance to the University's


-Daily--David Giltrow

certification of a student.
Grades are necessaryto show
the student how well he is do-
ing-at the stop watch shows
the miler, as the scoreboard
shows the basketball player.
Grades are useful as reflecting
this 'inescapable reality: that
value is a dimension of all that
we do, that judgment, now and
later, operates on all human
performance. And given our
frailty, grades are necessary to
motivate our diligence. With-
out grades and their built-in
reward and punishment, how
many would work as hard as
they do .now? Would you?
What about your neighbor?
Doubtless some of these ar-
guments can be overthrown,
but their collective force is most
powerful, and it suggests to me
that it is not grading that cor-
rupts our system but that to
which grading is attached and
without which our present
grading has almost no mean-
ing. I refer to the credit hour.
* * * ,
here. You take three hours of
History, or four. Your grade
isn't an A or a B. It's three
hours of 4 point, or less. It's
the credit hour on which the
system ultimately rests _-t so
many for this course, so many
for that, until the great day of
graduation when some hun-
dred and twenty hours have
added up and the various grades
have averaged out to a 2 point
or better.
And now let me fulminate a
moment. The credit hour is
American education's surrender
to quantification, the ultimate
testimonial to a mechanistic
rather than a mental or spiri-
tual view of man's nature. De-
gradingly it analogizes the ed-
ucational process to the thrifty
materialism Horatio Alger and
Ben Franklin used to celebrate.
Giant oaks from little acorns
grow. Many a mickle makes a
muckle. Put your credit hours
in the University Savings Bank
... But what has a bank to


Of M ajorities


do with the organic unity of a-
man's being? With the stateof
his mind, thequality of his.
curiosity, the fiber of his inner
discipline? With his dedication
to accuracy, his faith in the in-
terrelatedness of knowledge,
his hunger for truth?
* * *
DREAM HOW IT might be if
we threw the credit hour onto
the junk heap of quantitative
reductions that seem to aid but
finally betray us, there to rot
alongside "the average voter"
and "economic man." We would
have requirements still, for it
is the job of a university to de-
fine the nature of a good edu-
cation. And we would grade the
student still on his success in
mastering the requirements.
But the grading would be lim-
ited to comprehensive exami-
nations-the grading, that is to
say, that would stay on the
books and appear on the tran-
scripts. There might continue
to be other grading too, but
solely for the student's imme-
diate use, to indicate to him
the quality of his performance
measured against the instruc-
tor's vision of the ideal. There
would be papers, still, and
quizzes, midterms and finals,
but taken not for the system's
sake, but solely to guide the
student to the attainment of
enlarged and disciplined un-
derstanding. The old chorus
would fade into stillness.
The dream would mean giv--
ing up a lot-the neatness of
our present system, its testi-
mony in a quantitative age to
quantity, its comfortable re-
semblance to our institutions
of banking and currency, it
easy supply of apologies and
subterfuges for student and
faculty alike. It would be a
tough dream to live up to-as
they've found in England and
elsewhere. But it might bring
about the end of the warfare
between "the educational" and
"the system." It might replace
educational emphasis where it
ought to be, on the growing and
organic mind of man.

IN EACH HOUSE of Congress,.
there are formidable obstacles
to the rule of simple majorities,
and the question is how far these
obstacles -are to be reduced or
removed. But the problem in the
House is different from the prob-
lem in the Senate, and the differ-
ence involves an important dif- .
ference of principle, and indeed
of the spirit and the intent of the
constitution itself.
r *
THE PROBLEM in the House
of Representatives does not, as it
does in the case of the Senate,
arise from the power of a minor-
ity to prevent legislation by a
filibuster. The House does not
have unlimited debate. The prob-
lem there arises from the fact
that the Rules Committee has al-
most absolute power of life and
death over bills before they can
be voted upon.
In recent years the Rules Com-
mittee has had twelve members
-eight of them Democrats and
four of them Republicans. But
two of the Democrats, Howard W.
Smith of Virginia and William M.
Colmer of Mississippi, have form-
ed an alliance with the four Re-
publicans, thus dividing the Com-
mittee six to six. This prevents it
from acting affirmatively, and en-
ables the conservative coalition to
block not only civil rights legis-
lation but all maner of so-called
progressive legislation. hk
It is impossible,. I think, to
defend this arrangement on the
ground of principle. For the House
of Representatives represents the
people of the United States and
its spirit is that there the sim-
ple'numerical majority shall pre-
vail. The bi-partisan deal in the
Rules Committee is in fact a
usurpation of power, depriving the
majority of its rights, and thwart-
ing the will of the people.
* , ,
THE PROBLEM of the Senate,
on the other hand, involves ques-
tions of high constitutional prin-
ciple. The crux of the question is
not whether the majority should
rule but what kind of majority
should rule. Shall it be a simple
numerical majority ofthe Sena
tors present and voting? Shall it
be two-thirds of all the Senators
elected? Or shall it be something
between the two?
Here lies the crux of the argu-
ment. What kind of majority shall
have the right to end debate in
the Senate, and therefore to bring
about a vote? The kind of ma-
jority that has the power to do
this has the power to legislate.
may be various kinds of majori-
ties is deeply imbedded- in tle
constitution. Simple majority rule
-one more than half of a quorum
-is by no means the general prin-
ciple of the constitution. Consti-
tutional amendments, the expul-
sion of members, the over-riding
of the President's veto, require
two-thirds of all the Senators
elected. Treaties and impeach-
ments require two-thirds of those
presentrand voting. '
In my view it is important, in-
deed vital to our liberties, to pre-
Serve the principle that for great
issues, for issues that affect deep-
ly great regions or sections of the
nation, there should be required
moie than a simple majority. For
we must never forget that majori-
ties are not always liberal and that
they may be quite tyrannical. It
is, I have always thought, a. short

view of history, to equate simple
majority rule with the defense of
the civil rights of Negroes. The
civil rights of all Americans will
be safer if within the Senate,
which .represents the.Feideratl,
principle, we do not give absolute
power to simple majorities.
THE PRACTI9AL conclusion
which I draw from this is that
the questionof cloturen the-
ate is not one of this or that but
of more or less. Between the two
extremes of ia simple majrity opf!
a quorum and of a two-th ds ma
jority of all the Senators elected,
there is plenty of room for com-
The proper point at which t
make the compromise is where
moderate Southerners likeLyndon
Johnson and Sam Rayburn aan
live with the solution, and feel
that they .are no ubein g dragooned
and over-ridden. For nothin go-
can be done by persuasIon and
education if the ioderates in the
South feel that they are coerced.;
(c) 1961 New York Herald Tribun, Inc.
Rig ht ,.
"E TRUTH would seem to be
that the young college genera'
tions of America may be at the
beginning of another big swing,
this time away from the state-
welfarist political ideas that have
dominated campus arguments
since F.D.R. first tilted his ciga-A
ret holder at a rakish angle and
said 'My friends .. . the new radi-
calism-a radicalism which 16oos
with favor on more freedom and
responsibility for individuals and
more power over taxes and spend-
ing for local political units-ia
already on the attack In college
communities . . p
"Much of the stir on the cam-
puses is due to a mwshroming
national organization called the
Intercollegiate Society of Idivid"
ualists.. . The IS, which is con-
sidering changing its name t;o get
the word conservative into its'
running title, is educational In ita
aims, and does not partake in o-
litical campaigning. But the stu-
dents who have been affected by
Its principles have translated them
into political action. Last wInter
when the National Defense Educa-
tion Act of 1958 was being attacked
by university presidents because it'
required a loyalty oath from s .
dents availing themselves of gv'
ernment tuition subsidies, under
graduates responded by forming a
National Student Committee for
Loyalty Oath.
Talking to the young right-wing-
ers at one of their functions is an
illuminatipg experience Th'eir re-
sponses to recent history are quite
uncomplicated. They don't relish
looking forward tO a life in which
their paychecks are destined to b
hacked Into by growing- charges
for a 'social security' whithl they
are sure will be paid in monstrous-
ly inflated coins some forty-five
years later. They don't want to be-
come veterans of future wars and
they are sure the best way of stay-
' ing out of the American Legions
of the future is to keep, Soviet
Russia in its place now.
-John- Chamberlain
The Wall Street Journal


Students' Rights Suppressed in- Haiti

A TELEGRAM to the Student
Government Council asking
the organization's denunciation of
the Duvalier government in Haiti
came close on theheels of a No-
vember 22 student riot in the
Camille Lherrison, an anti-Du-
valier exile residing in New York,
asked SGC "to protest against
tortures inflicted on innocent col-
lege and university students."
He cited the jailing of students,
the dissolution of student organi-
zations, and the closing of schools
as acts against the young people
of the country. The Association of
Haitian Students declared an
"unlimited general strike" on No-
vember 21.
The former minister of edu-
cation also said that two students
were killed in the November riots
and that police were "ordered to
shoot on school children at the
LHERRISON, who served in the
cabinet of ousted Haitian dictator
Louis DeJoie, is waging a cam-
paign for a Duvalier coup that
might put the two into positions
of power in the tiny Caribbean
SGC President John. Feldkamp

would be "irresponsible" for the
group to act on every one.
* ** *
THE LHERRISON telegram came
to Ann Arbor a day after Port
au Prince students protested
against the government's dictator-
ial policies. Both the university
and secondary schools were clos-
ed by the Department of Educa-
tion on November 22 for an
"early Christmas holiday."
A communique from the De-
partment, reported the Port au
Prince paper le Nouvelliste, blam-
ed "penetration of Communist
ideology in certain Faculties, sev-
eral high schools and colleges in
the Capital" for the riots. School
closing came with "the goal of
pacifying students" and making
them "reflect on the grave danger
which constitutes the action of
Haitian agitators and foreigners
who attempt to upset national
peace . . "
At a November 24 press con-
ference, minister for education
and foreign affairs, Joseph Ba-
guidy, pointed the finger at stu-
dent Joseph Roney, who had been
arrested in September for distrib-
uting subversive literature of a
"Communist . . , character." He
was released at the urgings of
other Haitian students.

try in political turmoil. On No-
vember 22, following student ac-
tivity, the government declared
martial law in Haiti "in order to
counteract the anarchical effects
of Communist activities."
Four days later, on November
26, 6,000 Duvalier partisans pa-
raded in the streets of, Port au
Prince, proclaiming their loyalty
to the Duvalier government. Some
sources claim the demonstration
was the effort of the Haitian civil-
ian police, the Caribbean country's
modified version of the Nazi Ges-
policies did not end with stu-
dents and a later declaration by
laborers. The Vatican got into the
act on November 28 with a pro-
test against the expulsion of Arch-
bishop Francois Poirier, charged
with giving $7,000 to the Commu-
nists for overthrow of the Du-
valier government. Only passing
notice of the event was made by
Le Nouvelliste, which depended
on, official government commu-
niques during the days immedi-
ately following the crisis.
The archbishop was hustled out
of Port au Prince for Paris with-
out warning. Montreal's "Le De-

THERE HAS been considerable
unrest in Haiti since the 1957 free
election of Duvalier, In which
three opponents charged voting
irregularities. With much of the
population illiterate, for example,
electors inked each voter's hand
to indicate a cast vote, but the,
voters soon discovered the ink is
soluble in water; in some districts,
there were more votes cast than.
eligible voters.
Duvalier has ruled with an iron

bles In Haiti stem from Commu-
nist Influence as the government
insists, or whether unrest is born
of real dissatisfaction as the
Lherrison telegram indicated is a
question for debate.
It is accurate to say, however
that although it claims to be a
government of reconciliation and
though its dictator declares "the

Back to Top

© 2018 Regents of the University of Michigan