, .....
Seventy-seven years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan
under authority of Board in Control of Student Publications
i
Reflecting pool
A
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor; Mich.
News Phone: 764-0552
gyp, Si
W W~B~~7/At
' i 1
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily eyp ress the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
The president:
esp i
Sdisruption
MA
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1968
NIGHT EDITOR: LESLIE WAYNE
McCarthy for president
TODAY markjs a turning point in the
history of the Democratic Party and
of two-party politics in this country. The
State Democratic convention met Sat-
urday and Sunday in Detroit, a conven-
tion significant both for this year's na-
tional election and for the dismal omens
for the future of the Democratic party
it portends. Saturday night Sens. Ken-
nedy and McCarthy f"debated," and Sen.
Kennedy demonstrated again what ev-
eryone has long known: winning -
whatever the moral price - is what
makes Bobby run. Today is the Califor-
nia presidential primary election. Tomor-
row many young people - those who
hate the war and desire social change
but have still clung to the hope that
their goals can be accomplished through
traditional two,-party politics - will de-
cide whether they can ever vote for a
Democrat or Pepublican (much less vote)
again.
According to the usually reliable News-
week delegate count, the 60 convention
votes which Hubert Humphrey accord-
ing to most canvassers pocketed at this
weekend's State convention were all he
needed to capture the nomination. If
that turns out to be true, it will hardly
be surprising. County chairmen, not "the
people," decide who will and will not be
President, and according to a Gallup Poll
70 per cent of the Democratic county
chairmen in the country support Humph-
rey. Popular discontent can force a Pres-
ident at the helm of an unpopular war to
abandon ship, but it cannot prevent his
second-in-command, who favors the same
course, from replacing him.
[T IS necessary to avoid undue pessim-
ism over the impending Humphrey
victory, however, because the tears ob-
scure the vision which must be implant-
ed in the retina and the memory: some
of' the "alternatives" to what the nation
is about to get were never what they
were made up to be. Nelson Rockefeller
Is a hawk of long persuasion; even his
most recent statements on th war are
veiled in ambiguity. Furthermore, his
civil liberties record (as governor of New
York he has sponsored stop-and-frisk
and no-knock legislation and supported
mandatory interment of narcotics ad-
dicts in mental hospitals), as this month's
issue of Ramparts notes, is atrocious.
Rtobert Kennedy is so much the em-
bodiment of what is wrong with the old
order that it Is doubtful whether a Ken-
nedy victory could be any other than
Pyrrhic. He is the consummate Machia-
vellian man, the perfect politician with-
out principles, the archtypal realist who
would use any person, change any stance,
capitalize on any hope to enhance his
personal cause.
The political biography of Bobby Ken-
nedy is cluttered with examples. When
Joseph McCarthy was riding high, Bobby
was in the rumble seat as a staff re-
searc]ier; when repudiation was the or-
der of the day, he repudiated. In his book,
"The Enemy Within," he brags about
dumping unsubstantiated claims and ru-
mors on the public record as chief coun-
sel in the McLellan committee's vendetta
against Hoffa; at times in his career it
has seemed that "the ends justify the
means" was not a cliche but rather Ken-
nedy family property. As Attorney Gen-
eral he was unrestrained in his use of
wiretapping - now he evades questions
about it. When Johnson seemed a sure
winner, Kennedy was not willing to fight
a battle of principles in the Democratic
primaries; only when the dragon was
slain did Kennedy venture forth in armor
to kick the fallen carcass.
THE MOST recent and egregious ex-
ample of Kennedy's unprincipled op-
portunism occurred during the McCarthy-
Kennedy debate Saturday night. Kenne-
dy, a favorite among Negroes and pre-
sumably not a racist, made his pitch to
middle-class suburbanites (among whom
he is weakest) in a statement with dis-
tinct racist overtones:,
When you say you are going to take
10,000 black people and move them into
Orange County . . . putting them in
suburbs where they can't afford the
housing, where their children can't
keep up with the schools, and where
they don't have the schools or the jobs,
'it's just going to be catastrophic. I
dn..4 wwnt to have the., ,,,.an . i
them into Orange County .. ." is likely
to decide that perhaps the war isn't so
bad after all. Of course his Senate voting
record since 1965 has been impeccably
liberal; for a man with Kennedy's patent
presidential aspirations, only the most
studied liberalism could compensate for
his previous distasteful record..
THE PROTEST against the old liberal-
ism is a protest against those who
won't face up to the gravity of the prob-
lems facing this country but are instead
willing to accept half-a-loaf or worse
reforms and tout them as panaceas.
It is a protest against those who would
reform .only as it is necessary to keep
the country going without a blow-up,
like a man who continually puts new
patches on an old tire instead of buying
a new one.
It is a protest against liberals who
readily defer to wealthy and powerful
interests, but preach "law and order"
when they are besought by the poor.
But most of all, it is a protest against
those who run for public office on a
platform of superior moral virtue, and in
the course of the campaign sully their
hands so badly in their mad scramble
for votes that their virtue is all but un-
recognizable for the taint.
HUBERT HUMPHREY was an old lib-
eral in his youth, and for that reason
Prof. Otto Feinstein of Wayne State Uni-
versity was right in saying of Humphrey's
sweep of the Michigan convention: "If
the Democratic party wants young people
- and it badly needs theni - it chased
them away today."
Whether Robert Kennedy was ever a
young liberal in the first place is debat-
able; his lack of principles certainly puts
him in the old-liberal category today.
Even Eugene McCarthy is hardly as
white a knight as supporters would paint
him. His obvious play "to attract youth
back to the system" coupled with the
nauseating advertisements placed by
suburban mothers in The New York
Times ("Our Children have come home!")
smacks a little too much of the kind of
liberalism which is interested only in
making the machine run smoothly and
cares little for human values. Further-
more, although McCarthy's position on
the war has been the best of the declared
candidates (with the possible exception
of, yes, Harold Stassen), his domestic
proposals don't seem particularly imag-
inative.
FOR THESE reasons, we have not en-
* dorsed a presideptial candidate up
until now. We only do so now for very
limited reasons. None of the men running
is a dream candidate. Hubert Humphrey
-for the policies he represents or Robert
Kennedy-rfor the cynical attitude toward
politics which he shares with the "prag-
matic liberals" of the past, a cynicism,
in fact, of which he is the most accom-
plished practitioner: both offer only a
continuation of the dreary past.
Eugene McCarthy is far from perfect.
He could be committed to more thor-
oughgoing changes. He could be more
creative in his approach to domestic pol-
icy, more determined to end not just'the
war in Vietnam, but American support
of the status quo however and wherever
it exists around the world. His whole
view of racial problems is still hung-up
on the problem of de jure integration,
rather than in supporting black people'sd
efforts to govern themselves as equal hu-
man beings with no-strings-attached
federal money and in ending white
racism.,
Nevertheless, although we disagree
with McCarthy on many issues, we sup-
port his candidacy for the Presidency;
not because he is the best; not even be-
cause he is the best we have got. We sup-
port Eugene McCarthy because he is the
one candidate for President who seems
to care more about a principle than about
victory, the one liberal who we can trust.
AS PROF. Feinstein's prognosis points
out, the Democratic Party is in grave
danger of losing the young people it will
need to lead the country in the future.
If there is any hope left for two-party
politics, it will probably be in the Dem-
ocratic Party. If there is any hope for
the Democratic Party, it is probably Eu-
gene McCarthy. This is what McCarthy
rr
t968, The Register'
+' and Tribune Syndicate ,. ':,; ,
Letters to the Edtor
Who makes money o n out-of-state students?
To the Editor:
IT HAS BEEN frequently pointed
out in the Michigan Legisla-
ture that an out-of-state student
pays only 50 to 60 per cent of the
cost of his education and that the
balance is being paid by the Mich-
igan' taxpayer.
The state's economy, undoubt-
edly, is enriched by the additional
revenue generated by the out-of-
state student's spending in the
state. This should, to some extent,
offset the gap between his tuition
fee and the cost of his education.
Would someone in the' Economics
Department clarify this pointand
come up with estimated approxi-
mate figures?
Economic considerations apart,
no one can deny the high educa-
tional value of the diverse and
cosmopolitan atmosphere brought
about, by the out-of-state student.
A university justifies its greatness
by opening its doors to all ;who
are motivated by the desire for
free and unhindered pursuit of
knowledge. By discouraging the
out-of-state student, it will be
taking a great leap backwards, to
cultural and academic isolation.
--George Varghese, Grad.
To the best of our knowledge,
no studies of the economic gain
or loss to the state from stu-
dent. spending while in resi-
dence have been done. How-
ever, President Fleming's staff
researched the. economics of
out-of-state students from an-
other angle for the President's
speech January 8 before a
luncheon of the Detroit Econ-
omies Club. In that address
Fleming claimed, "Any rational
analysis will show that the
State of Michigan gains more
than it spends on out-of-state
students" and said that of a
study of 500 graduates origin-
ally from other states, 124 re-
mained in Michigan after grad-
uation. Twenty of these were in
the professions, and their taxes,
according to Fleming, "would
in a few years cover the sub-
sidy for the entire class of out-
of-staters." --Ed.
This is the text of President
Robben W. Fleming's May let-
ter to the faculty.
HE TRAGEDY of' Columbia
presumably will still be on
faculty minds when this letter is
received. I have no special in-
sights into the controversy at Co-
lumbia and I shall therefore not
comment on it. There is, however,
a verybasicsunderlying problem
that all of us must face. It is to
that problem that I address my-
self.
An enormous amount has been
written about student unrest and
the usual factors which we all1
know have some relevance. our'
statistics show that students are
brighter than ever before, there
is unquestionably stress on them
from competitive pressures, many
of them are highly idealistic, the
war and race problems seriously
disturb them and raise doubts in
their milnds about the attitudes of
the older generation, and many
of our internal procedures un-
questionably require revision in
order to give students a more
significant voice in what goes on
in the university society.
All of these factors, and others,
cause unrest. The new factor is
the ,plainly illegal and disruptive
tactics that some students are
now willing to use. Whatever one
thinks of Columbia, for instance,
there is no question that the uni-
versity was immobilized for days
by the seizure of certain buildings,
to the exclusion of all who would
normally inhabit them. It is also
clear that the president's office,
along, perhaps, with others, was
ransacked, damaged, and serious-
ly disrupted.
THERE ARE those among both
students and faculty at Columbia
who appear to pass off these tac-
tics rather lightly. Presumably,
they gloss over such tactics to-
day because they approve the ob-
jective. Tomorrow the objectives
of another group, which could be
completely unacceptable to them,
may be equally attainablefby
similar tactics., Moreover, force
and violence are antithetical to
the very purpose of a university.
At Michigan we have had but
one incident in which a building
was seized. That incident oc-
curred at the height of the emo-
tion over the despicable assassin-
ation of Martin Luther King. The
students (and some who were not
students) werewrong, in my
judgment, in using the tactic
which they did use. They could
have seen me, or other members
of the administration, by a mere
request. Nevertheless, we tolerat-
ed that wrongfor the brief period
because this is an imperfect world
in which emotion sometimes over-
comes logic. Happily, we found
that our objectives were not bas-
ically different in that instance,
and we were soon able to reopen
the building.
We must assume that a similar
event can 'happen in the future,
though all of us certainly hope
that it will not, and we must bend
all our efforts to seeing that it
does not occur. Much of our su-
cess will depend upon the fac-
ulty, and it is for that reason that
I write this i particular letter. In
1967, when a disruptive incident
occurred on this campus, the ex-
ecutive board of the Graduate
School promptly reacted with a
statement declaring that:
Members of a community of
scholars have the responsibility
for respecting And protecting
the rights of others to express
their views . .. interference with
orderly and peaceable discus-
sion is inexcusable and will not
be tolerated in a Uuniversity
community.
A graduate student' is in
training to become a member of
the community of scholars, and
one of the hallmarks of that
community is free and objective
discussion. When a student
seeks to curtail in any way the
freedom of discussion of others,
he calls in question his fitness
for a scholarly career.
The 'eecutive board has au-
thority with regard to student
discipline to the extent neces-
sary to maintain the freedom of
expression of its faculty, stu-
dent body, and guests.
The strong stand was helpful,
I believe, in setting the nroper
tone for the environment o this
University. I believe that exactly
the same principles apply to dis-
ruptive conduct involving seizure'
of buildings and interference with
offices. If administrative offices
are subject to occupation and ex-
amination of their files today, the
same thing can happen to faculty
offices tomorrow.
THE DILEMMA, of course, is
what one does at such a time. If
the police are called, the age-old
campus-police hostilities are in-
yoked and almost inevitably there
will be violence which will revolt
the whole academic community.
The result is a university tarn
asunder.
The other realistic alternative
is the impositiontof academic dis-
cipline. Students .who support h
such tactics of course will oppose
both alternatives. But to ac-
quiesce in this position is to-leave
the university defenseless. The
idea that seizureand vandalism
cannot be countered with aca-
gemie discipline disregards the
fact that they strike at the most
fundamental characteristic of a
university - its freedom.
If universities wish to continue
to govern themselves, they will
have to face the'fact that tactics
of this kind cannot be ignored. If
universities are unwilling to deal
with them, the power to do so
will be lodged elsewhere. Some
few students who view themselves
as revolutionaries for a new and
better order may welcome this.
Most of us realize that it would
spell the end for free universities.
IT MUST be evident that there
is little incentive to be a univer-
sity president in these troubled
times. The life of 'a professor is
infinitely happier. But in the last
analysis, it is the professors who
are going to have to face the
problem which now. confronts us.
If the faculty is unwilling to take
a stand, disruption will continue.
If it will take a stand, but also
recognize that the status quo can-
not be insisted upon, the unrest
can, I believe, be contained with-
in peaceful bounds.
There are many things wrong
with universities, including our
own. On the part of the adminis-
tration, we will make every effort
to maintain open channels for
discussion and for cdrrection of
deficiencies. This does not mean
that every proposal for change
will be accepted, but it does mean
that it will receive thorough and
sympathetic consideration.
If it is the desire of our aca-
demic community to have orderly
change, we will have it If our
community is twilling to accept
tactics that are incompatible with
its very existence, there will be
troubled times ahead. All of us,
administrators, faculty and stu-
dents have a, grave responsibility
in that connection.
This summer we will be revis-
ing many of our rules and regula-
tions. There will be student, fac-
ulty and administrative partici-
pation. If there is reasonableness
on all sides, there will be no dif-
ficulty in working out satisfac-
tory procedures. If there is not,
we will have some of the troubles
experienced elsewhere. I hope
very much that we will be suc-
cessful.
To Chicago.-and beyond?
To the Editor:
THE TIE-IN of continuity of
college-level rebellion spread-
ing now to high schools and the
McCarthy campaign is obvious to
everyone who sees the need for
vast changes. What the younger
people do not see quite as clearly
is the historic roots of the present
fermentation in the nearly forgot-
ten Henry Wallace bid for the
Presidency just after World War
II. Students were not as aware
and involved as they are now, and
very few could use Wallace's point
-which is as valid now as then,
and which is now made a para-
mount issue by Eugene, McCar-
thy's statement Saturday that he
would not cease his own efforts
at the Chicago Convention, but
would "carrygthem beyond that
point."
This statement could mean
many things including a write-in
campaign - in which students.
would play by far the largest role
in the whole history of political,
student involvement in America.
It means that the entire support-
ing body of the McCarthy camp is
reiterating Wallace's contention
that there is no difference be-
tween the two major parties in
America-that it makes no dif-
ference which party wins the Pres-
idential office, national policy on
too many issues will not undergo
significant change.
If Humphrey wins at Chicago,
both Republican and -Democratic
parties will smear the Commie is-
sue on McCarthy as they did on
Wallace-but what happens after
that is up to the students.
--Myron Wilder
:
- ---WAL TER SHAPIRO --
Grea debte a staemae
WHENTHE FEW whiffs of
smokegenerated by Satur-
day's limpid debate between Sen-
ator McCarthy and Kennedy had
finally, cleared, the only definite
result was a deflation of those
punidits and politicians who be-
lieved that "Great Debates" like
these of 1960 delineate isues, dif-
ferentiate candidates and decide
elections.
Indeed it is far more likely
that the value of Saturday's tele-
vision contest to win the hearts
and minds of California voters
was to demonstrate that in many
ways the choice is between a sec-
ond-rate demagogue and a sec-
ond-rate intellectual.
The hour of relatively polite
political prattle left in its wake a
bewildering collection of contra-
dictory political assessments
which illustrated the ease of in-
terpreting the debate's outcome to
fit one's political preconceptions.
And it demonstrated the futility
of contending that the position of
either candidate was significantly
enhanced by his performance in
the contest.
A HASTY survey by the Asso-
ciated Press contended that Cali-
fornia voters gave "Senator Eu-
gene McCarthy the edge over Rob-
ert Kennedy." But a hastily com-
missioned poll of 400 Los Angeles
Democrats published by the Chi-
cago Sun-Times concluded that
the debate resulted 'in a decided
gain for the New York Senator."
The perversely individualistic
nature of the reactions to the de-
bate was illustrated by the New
York Times which declared in
stentorian tones that the panel
discussion was' "a model of civil-
ized political discourse"-perhaps
a very circumspect definition of
boredom.
The New York Times then pro-
ination-somewhat eroded the
positions of both participants.
The failure of the Kenedy camp,
constantly searching for 1968's
equivalent of the West Virgina
primary, to rid itself of its pesky
rival after three primaries and a
"Great Debate" can only be re-
garded as telling.
But in many ways the debate
may have done greater long term.
damage to McCarthy. In general
the Minnesota Senator failed to
sketch out major policy differ-
ences between him and Kennedy
and instead blurred many differ-
ences which do exist under such
comments as "I think I'm in gen-
eral agreement here."
Implicitly basing his campaign
against Kennedy on differences of
style and manner, McCarthy, al-
leged to be the campaign's res-
ident "egghead," is unnecessarily
running his campaign from a very
shallow base. And in the end Mc-
Carthy's running his campaign
from a very shallow base. And in
the end McCarthy's continual
confidence in the efficacy of his
image as a mature man of sober
reflection could prove politically
fatal.
THERE WAS little that Ken-
nedy did Saturday night which
will destroy his reputation for
"ruthlessness." Rather than de-
nying that he had Martin Luther
King's phone tapped, Kennedy
avoided the question, in a less
than convincing manner, by ap-
pealing to reasons of national
security to justify an attitude of
"I won't tell."
But the most odious example
of the tactics that Kennedy can
employ was his response to Mc-
Carthy's contention that merely
bringing jobs and better facilities
to the slums perpetuates a "kind
of apartheid." To avoid this, Mc-
children can't keep up in the
schools . . . . It's going to be
catastrophic."
WHILE IT HAS BEEN argued
that Kennedy is far more sen-
sitive to the realities of the black
community than is McCarthy, re-
marks like Saturday night's and
his constant stress on law and
order indicate how appealing the
New Yorker's policies can be to
white homeowners determined to
maintain the racial status quo.
Attacking Kennedy on these
grounds was perhaps McCarthy's
finest moment of the debate, al-
though his forthrightness may
have cost him suburban support.
But moments like this have been
all too rare during the McCarthy
crusade.
Despite his reputation as a
critic of American foreign policy,
McCarthy's approach during the
debate illustrates his inability to
see a need for a reformulation of
many of the philosophic under-
pinnings of American foreign
policy.
RATHER than attacking the
basis for many of the untoward
commitments of the Cold War,
McCarthy instead set out the
highly pragmatic criteria that
commitments are unwise "where
sucess is unlikely." This kind of
policy is not attacking Vietnam
because it's wrong, it's attacking
Vietnam because it's unsuccesful.
Just as Kennedy's paternalism
in claiming to be a spokesman for
the poor and minority groups is
deceitful, so too is McCarthy's
boast that he has achieved "a
genuine \reconciliation of old and
young in this country."
The same implicity of-analysis
which won't acknowledge the er-
ror of our major foreign policy
premises, haunts McCarthy when
I
. tip . -;
....:... . .. . _ r: