100%

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

Share

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.

June 12, 1968 - Image 2

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1968-06-12

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

I

4e Sijgirw Dai1t
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

Dear Officer Krupke, what are we to do?

4

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily exp ress the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: LESLIE WAYNE

The stop-and-frisk decision:
An., unwarranted step backward

THE SUPREME COURT'S affirmation to
stop and frisk procedures by police.
forbodes a new and reprehensible trend
in the Court's criminal law rulings.
In an eight to one decision written by
Chief Justice Earl Warren, the Court
ruled in Terry v. Ohio that police may
frisk suspicious persons without probable
cause to make an arrest. In two other;
cases involving the New York state "stop
and frisk" law, the Court also ruled gen-
uine windfall evidence obtained in such
searches could be used in a court of law.
The Court defended its actions, as
others have defended the "stop and frisk".
law, by stating the need to protect po-
licemen combatting crime in the streets.
But will the ruling actually protect po-
lice and innocent bystanders from gun-
carrying criminals? In a situation where
a truly dangerous armed suspect is ap-
proached by a policeman, the suspect
will probably shoot the officer before he
gets close enough for a frisk. If he is not
dangerous, the need for a frisk is no
longer necessary, since its stated purpose
is to protect police and bystanders.
yes
fHE BLISTERING, sweltering, sticky
and downright uncomfortable weather
situation in Ann Arbor recently may pro-
voke violent student reaction, including
a Adisruptive confrontation sit-in at the
gates of heaven.
And it seems probable (status-quo
riveted institutions everywhere tending
to similar responses in difficult situa-.
tions) that the forces on high may agree
to set up a tripartite commission to in-
vestigate the causes of the unrest.
-MAYNARD

And carrying out the Court's rationale
to its logical conclusion, dangerous sus-
pects will be more prone to use their
weapons if they think a cop will auto-
matically frisk them.
WHATEVER LOGIC the Court may have
used, the real logic behind stop-and-
frisk is clear. In allowing cops to not
only stop and frisk but also to use any
evidence obtained to be used against the
defendant, the Court has given police-
men across the country a license to
search persons and their property with-
out a warrant.
Police harassment of minority groups
was bad enough before the stop and frisk
ruling. With this new mandate from the
High Court, a racist policeman will have
a lawful excuse for persecuting blacks
and anti-war types because "his safety
or that of. others was in danger."
The Court ruling will make it easier
indirectly to search for narcotics or illegal
numbers slips on persons allegedly sus-
pected of carrying dangerous weapons.
True, only unanticipated evidence found
in such searches is admissable in court;
but it's hard to prove that police are
aware of a certain pusher's or bookie's
activities.
WHAT THE Court in fact has done is
to negate the fourth amendment
clause protecting "the right of the peo-
ple to be secure ... against unreasonable
searches and seizures, . . . and no war-
rants shall issue, but upon probable
cause..."
Law Professor Yale Kamisar has ob-
served that in most first opinions on
judicial practices, as in the Terry case,
the Court is intentionally ambiguous. We
can only hope that the next case will
find the Court more concerned about the
freedoms of the people.
--JOEL BLOCK

By MARTIN HIRSCHMAN
Last of a Series
KEEPING demonstrations going
at a university submerged in
final examinations is not easy-
especially when you are protesting
something as easily rationalized
away as arrests under a federal
law.
As might have been expected,
it was the campus police them-
selves who provided the impetus
needed to keep the demonstrations
going as Michigan State Univer-
sity students last week protested
the assistance the campus force
gave officials in arresting several
students for sale of marijuana
and LSD.
And, fittingly, the reason cam-
pus police were able to act so as
to provoke further support for the
protests-the almost complete
functionalautonomy of the force
-was precisely the thing students
were demonstrating against.
The campus police force is hired
by the MSU Board of Trustees to
enforce laws passed by the Trus-
tees as well as state and local law.
Members of the force are de-
putized by the county police and
act not at the direction of the
MSU administration, but at their
own discretion.
SOME OF THE activity of the
campus police during the demon-
strations show that, in using their
discretion, they were not always
discrete:
" Students sitting-in at the
administration building on the
first day of demonstrations
(Tuesday) had been promised
they would be allowed to stay un-
til the regular closing time, 5:30
p.m. However, police surrounded
the building and threatened to ar-
rest students if they did not
leave. All the demonstrators va-
cated the building and it was
closed well before 5:30.
0 Police from five state and
local forces (including the campus
police) were standing by on cam-
pus all Wednesday afternoon as
protesters met to decide whether
to take the administration build-
ing. The presence of the police
was a contributing factor to the
decision of many demonstrators
to enter the building despite a 45-
30 vote by the body of the pro-
testers against such action.

closing. It is unlikely that a repe-
tition of this tactic would then
have been undertaken.
Had police ignored demonstra-
tors on Wednesday, the sit-in
would not have lasted past 5:30.
Even with police standing by the
sit-in almost fell through when
students learned that a faculty
committe considering their de-
mands would react unfavorably to
such. action.
AND AT 5:30, when campus
police came to give students their
final warning before locking the
door, only 17 students and a lone
faculty member refused to leave.
This number was indicative of the
support the protesters had at the
time.
The tone of the demonstrations
was such that five campus police
could have cleared the adminis-
tration building-there was never
any threat of violent reprisals
from the protesters.
Instead of sending in a small
force of campus police, however,
80 helmeted police from state and
city forces, carrying. three foot
long poles arrived at the scene
and cause the very violence which
gained the most support for the
demonstrations.
At every juncture, except when
they attacked students on the
steps of the administration build-
ing, the police acted within the
bounds of legality.
But their actions were hardly
designed to cope with the nature
of the student protests.
FORTUNATELY for the dem-
onstrators, the action of the cam-
pus police will probably lead to
their (the police) own demise.
If the police continue on their
present course, the combined re-
vulsion of students, and faculty
will insure reorganization of the
force.
And as it is presently constituted
the campus police cannot help but
act as it has in the past.
Hopefully, the administration
will avoid further confrontation
by instituting the necessary re-
forms without delay. But they
must realize that the reforms are
inevitable, that the movement is
strong, and that to give ground
now is the only safe course.

@ No administrators were in-
volved in decision' to arrest those
who sat-in after 5:30 Wednesday.
Th entire operation was under the
leadership of MSU's Director of
Public Safety Richard Bernitt.
0 One, of the five forces called
to- the scene, the state police,
"without warning, without hesi-
tation" (as one faculty member
later described it) pushed into a
crowds of students blocking the
door to the administration build-
ing with clubs swinging to clear a
path. This single unconscionable

action was most responsible for
the success of the demonstrations.
O After police arrested those
sitting-in students outraged at
the violence followed the police
bus shouting and occasionally
throwing projectiles. Five 'more
were arrested.
* Plainclothes campus police-
men kept the demonstrators under
constant surveillance, adding to
the tension.
HAD THE POLICE ignored the
protesters, or had the administra-
tion kept them away from the

demonstrations, the movement
would probably have died on Wed-
nesday afternoon. At that time
there were only 100 students
meeting and oven the very course
of action they chose-entering
the administration building -
would probably not have been the
same were it not for the presence
of the police.
Had police allowed demonstra-
tors to remain in the administra-
tion building until 5:30 on Tues-
day, the students-still very dis-
organized-would almost certain-
ly have vacated the building at

The great debate with a Canadian accent

The parliamentary advantage

_TIME HAS come for a total revi-
sion of the American political system.
Before we can recover from five years
under the disastrous Johnson adminis-
tration, we are faced with the imminent
non-choice between Hubert Humphrey
and Richard Nixon.
Regardless of how this choice turns
out in November, we will be stuck with
the winner for at least four years.
While a change to a parlimentary sys-
tem would hardly cure all the ills of
American politics, it would serve to relax
the inflexibility of choice.
In a parlimentary government, the
head of government, who normally does
not double as the head of state, is an
elected member of parliament. He is
elected by his party conference. In a,
stable two- or three-party system, which
is what one would expect to develop in
this country, there is always ready and
waiting a leader of the opposition, ready
to step in as prime minister, and a sha-
dow cabinet, appointed by the opposition
leader, ready to take over the other ex-
ecutive posts In the government.
WHEN THE head of government or the
party in power makes a disastrous
mistake, such as the commitment of
350,000 men to a war in Vietnam, the
opposition can act immediately to throw

out the government. All it takes is a
simple majority- on a vote of censure and
the prime minister and his government
are obligated to resign. At this point,
generally, new elections are called and
the people get a chance to make new
choice about their elected representatives.
The head of state in such govern-
ments is essentially a figurehead (there
are exceptions of course. Gen. De Gaulle
is nominally not the head of government
in France but the chief of state.)
Such a system has two great advant-
ages. One is that the option of a change
in government is available at any time.
The second, a direct outgrowth of ยข the
first, is the head of government, deprived
of his four-year sinecure, can be forced
to become much more responsive to the
demands of the electorate.
THE DISADVANTAGES of parlimentary
government most often cited is that
it can lead to instability in the manner
of the French Fourth Republic. But when,
as in the United States, the virtue of
stability has deteriorated into rigid in-
flexibility, a little instability might not
be unwelcome.
At least it will keep everyone on their
toes.
-STEVE WILDSTROM
Managing Editor

By URBAN LEHNER
and
WALTER SHAPIRO
T HERE IS something extremely
refreshing about being able
to observe the political processes
of a foreign country in your
living room in 24 inch full color.
While the Sunday night CBC
debate between representatives of
the parties vying in the June 25
Canadian election was short on
political fireworks, it did reveal to
at least some extent the kind of
role a left-wing third party can
play in a modified two party sys-
tem.
In the past half-year, Canada
has undergone some notable polit-
ical transformations as the aged
Liberal party standardbearer Les-
ter Pearsontstepped down and the
Liberal Convention chose a man
twenty years his junior, 46-year-
old French-Canadian bachelor
Pierre Trudeau. Soon after, Tru-
deau - in an attempt to obtain a
Liberal majority unattainable for
Pearson-called for a general
election.
THE CANDIDATES' reputations
were not borne out by their show-
ing in Sunday night's debate. Tru-
deau, a popular Canadian figure
who is mobbed by crowds of
swooning women at each stop of

his political junkets and whom
the British Manchester Guardian
Weekly has called "the hottest
political property Canada has
known" appeared bland and dis-
stinctly uncharismatic, almost a
Gallic version of Joey Bishop.
Robert Stanfield as the Conser-
vative candidate for Prime Min-
ister seemed an urbane and com-
posed replacement for the ponder-
ous ex-Conservative leader and
Vrime Minister, John Diefenbaker.
The problem was that Stanfield-
looking like a younger version of
Alec Douglas Hume with a voice
reminiscent of Walter Cronkite-
also seemed much duller than
either Trudeau or the New Dem-
ocratic Party challenger, T. C.
"'Tommy" Douglas.
The aging New Democrats, with
only 22 of 265 seats in the House.
provide a quasi-Marxist-Socialist
opposition and running critique
of whatever government is in
power. Sunday night's forum was
an especially good one for Dou-
glas because Trudeau, as the rep-
resentative of the incumbent par-
ty, lacked the ability or the plat-
form to attack the status quo,
while Stanfiel lacked the inclina-
tion.
IN A DEBATE where the issues
ranged from Canada's role in

NATO to homosexuality laws, but
focused especially on bread and
butter issues generated by the re-
cent downturn in the Canadian
economy, Douglas repeatedly was
able to dictate the terms of the
discussion.
At one point, when asked
whether he as NDP Prime Minis-
ter would raise taxes, ,Douglas
turned what the other two candi-
dates found a tough question into
an attack on the -inequities of the
existing system of taxation and a
call for a capital gains tax (Can-,
ada doesn't have one) to supply
revenue which otherwise would
have to be raised by a tax hike.
Douglas, looking like an oldtime
labor leader, was able to capitalize
on the special niche the NDP fills
in Canada in providing an inti-
tutionalized attack from the left
on a liberal incumbent govern-
ment. Trudeau was consistantly
"putting things into perspective,"
admitting that there were prob-
lems but "looking at the progress
we have made," and defending the
lackluster record he inherited
from the aging Lester Pearson.
Against this, the Conservative
Stanfield could only pose objec-
tions of the "more efficiency in
government" and "reduce waste
and taxation" variety, promoting

as the Conservative panacea, "a
government of talent."
THUS, DOUGLAS had all of
left field to himself, and he played
his territory beautifully, again and
again quoting largely ignored gov-
ernnent and Liberal Party re-
ports to buttress his contentions
that Canada. wasn't moving fast
enough or distributing its wealth
with sufficient equity.
After the debate, a CBC news-
caster reported the results of a
"quickie. phone survey" taken in
Toronto. Eleven people thought
Douglas had won the debate, six
said Trudeau and two Stanfield.
Nevertheless, winning debates and,
winning elections are two differ-
ent things. Douglasadmits the
party will not win" and may lose
seats in the June 25 balloting and
the pros in large agree with him.
It seems that the NDP is more
valuable as a gadfly than an act-
ual wielder of power; perhaps the
party forces the liberals to do
things they might not otherwise
have done. It is a role the liberals
undoubtedly do not relish and, in-
deed, Trudeau's continual 'ipy
stares \ at Douglas-which wre
noticeable to television viewers-
gay indicate how deep the divi-
sions between responsibility and
free-swinging conviction are.

During the first two-thirds of
the debate it was difficult to re-
member Canada's bilingual prob-
lems had not Trudeau and Stan-
field made a practice of periodic-
ally lapsing into French for a few
minutes, often almost in. mid-
sentence.
THEN, AS THE result of the
complex rules of the debate, Real
Caouette of Canada's "funny-
money" fourth Party, the dying
Social Credit movement, entered
the fray. Exuding Gallic exuber-
ance, Caouette launched into a
free swinging and largely inco-
herent tirade whose vehemence
was only slightly masked by trans-
lation.
Demonstrating a kind of army
wavingdemagoguery, rendered al-
most ridiculous by television poli-
tics, Caouette launched into an
almost classic attack on Trudeau's
attempt to update Canada's homo-
sexuality -statutes
According to the CBC's harried
simultaneous translation, he said,
"This bill will support homo-sex-
ulality_ and will create a tremen-
dous problem. Why, under this
law it will be possible for a man
to marry another man. What will
the government do about the
children of such a marriage?
Only in Canada?

o

Letters: Hoist on his own logical petard?

Conspiracy theories?

THE DEMANDS of protesting students
at Michigan State University:
* Reorganizing of the campus police
under the control of a student-faculty
committee and the disarming of the
force; ,
" "disciplinary action" against offi-
cials responsible for calling of police and
the subsequent beatings;
-. . .
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Michigan,
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104.
Daily except Sunday and Monday during regular
summer session.
Daily except Monday during regular academic
school year.

* "The administration must never be
allowed to call on outside law enforce-
ment agencies to interfere with student
activities;"
* "General amnesty" for all those ar-
rested in demonstrations.
THE DEMANDS of protesting students
at the University of Belgrade (Yugo-
slavia):
* removal of riot police patroling
around the university buildings;
* release of students arrested in
clashes with the police and guarantees
that no reprisals would be taken against,
them;
* nSirdv nnhlieation of a renort hv 'a

The logicians
To the Editor:
I'M PLEASED Prof. Copi res-
ponded to my letter of June 8.
I regret that he misunderstood al-
most all of it. I don't blame him
for that: It's difficult for faculty
to see beyond. the prejudices fos-
tered by their position, to see
what disturbs students. Prof. Copi
has tried harder than most mem-
bers of the faculty to overcome his
prejudices. His failure proves the
depth-and therefore dangerous-
ness-of those prejudices.
Prof. Copi argues that SGC's
refusal to "tolerate any rules gov-
erning students except those made
by students . . . (is like) the warn-
ings of some States that they will
not tolerate any rules except those
legislated by themselves". This is
an argument from analogy. Will
it hold? I think not.
The issue is more complex than
Prof. Copi realizes. There are the
distinct questions of (a) adjudi-
cation and (b) legislation.
CONCERNING adjudication,
SGC has held to the principle of
trial by one's, peers (one's peers
being those who might be brought
before the same court on similar
charges). SGC has never said it
would not aent an all-Tniversity

systematic exclusion of blacks
from Southern juries.
Which brings me to legislation.
I'll admit, for the sake of argu-
ment, what Prof. Copi asserts
without proof: that the outside
community has expressed its de-
sire for order at all costs. So, yet
me make it clear, just in case
there is any confusion, that SGC
has neither taken a stand against
order nor yet declared any state
law not to apply to students. Let'
me also make it clear that I can-
not envisage SGC doing either in
the near future.
What is at issue is whetacr a
small minority of the University
community-a hundred or so ad-
ministrators and two thousand fa-
culty--are to legislate for a dis-
enfranchized thirty-five thousand
students. SGC has said that it
will not tolerate that.
If there's an analogy here with
the South, it again does not favor
Prof. Copi's argument. Southern
whites were, at the time of popu-
larity of the doctrine of imposi-
tion, overrepresented in both the
estate and national legislatures.
What the doctrine of imposition
amounted to was a claim by Sou-
thern whites that they be allowed
to legislate for the disenfranchized
blacks of their respective states. If
that claim was unjust. then the

too quickly. There is in the Uni-
versity an equivalent to racism: a
snobbery of faculty and adminis-
tration, a prejudice leading them
to argue that students cannot and
should not be given power because
they're not interested, not willing
to work, too young, hot-headed,
inexperienced, transient, not com-
mitted to the University, irrespon-
sible, and so on, all this in the
face of massive, intelligent, and'
continuous student participation
in the daily life of the University.
That snobbery infects every mem-
ber of the faculty more or less,
often making it impossible to un-
derstand what students are say-
ing, however clearly it's said. That
inability to understand students is
dangerous: it makes miscalcula-
tion easy and conflict almostin-
evitable. Fleming's letter repre-
sents such a miscalculation. My
letter of June 8 was meant to sig-
nal the miscalculation, to remind
the University community that
there can be no order without jus-
tice and that justice means now
a least what it did at the time of
the Declaration of Independence,
the equality of all men, the just-
ness of legislation resting on the
consent of the governed, and the
right to resist unjust regulation.
I Isuggest that Prof. Copi go
hbrk to Fleming's letter and re-

Ineffable glee
To the Editor:
T IS IRONIC that Michael
Davis' letter (Daily, June 8)
was published on the same day
that Senator Robert Kennedy was.
buried. Unknowingly Mr.'Davis
himself reveals the disease gnaw-
ing at American society - a
healthy disrespect for the rights
of others hidden behind a facade
of supposed injustice or, more
rarely, justified post facto by a
real political, social, or economic
problem.
Mr. Davis dislikes President
Fleming's letter to the faculty and
expresses ; his unhappiness with
several strings of epithets. This
is his prerogative. When he con-
siders locking up Fleming to "talk
some sense into him" "with no
(feelings of) guilt." however, he
obviously v i o I a t .e s Fleming's>
rights. Unfortunately only a small
step separates imprisioning some-
one with whom you disagree from
assassinating him,thereby "solv-
ing" the problem by supposedly
eliminating its cause.
"Mr. Davis has a right and a
duty to express his disapproval
and to try to'change the existing
order. When he presumes to dis-
rupt the orderly operation of this
University, however,- he and his
fnr rnr- a.w na +hn ricr e o

ludicrous to think of the blind
(students) leading the blind
(other students and many admin-
istrators) as well as those with
more vision (some faculty and
administrators).
It is one thing to demand those
constitutional and legal rights to
which all men are entitled. It is
foolish, on the other hand, to con-
ceive of a university as a haven
from the law and its enforcement
where laws can be indiscriminately
broken by a handful of elite stu-
dents without fear of reprisal or
where the rights of others can
be waived by a small minority.
Such a situation smacks of an-
archy and reeks of fascism. But
Mr. Davishadvocates such a uni-
versity when he states that he is
opposed to any discipline save
that of his peers "through the es-
tablishedslegal system." Unfor-
tunately he is not referring to civil
justice for he decries the havoc
at Columbia,
The plant and resources of this
university are owned by the State
and all its citizens and are in-
tended to be shared by the entire
community. Any disruption of its
services or destruction of its pos-
sessions by "democratic students,"
no matter how well-intentioned, is
selfish, undemocratic, and, thank
God, illegal.
4.

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan