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.