, ..... 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: