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
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.

Huey P. Newton's

testament- Pt. II

THURSDAY, JULY 18 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: MARCIA ABRAMSONI

Let's go see the Regents!

T S AFTERNOON, the Regents will
hear the views of students and fac-
tlty members on the bylaw proposals
emanating from the Hatcher Commission
on the Role of Students in Decision-
Making. Students should accept the Re-
gents' invitation and attend the open
hearing.
The issues are admittedly complicated,
but the underlying principles are simple:
Students should make and enforce their
own rules. This is not only a rephrasing
of one of democracy's most fundamental
axioms, it is also a principle which the
University administration itself has en-
dorsed for several years.
Part of the dispute arises over apply-
ing the principle. President Fleming
claims an exception to the rule. It is his
contention that when the misconduct in
question is of a disruptive nature (a lock-
in, for example) it affects not only stu-
dents, but the entire "University com-
munity." Disruptive conduct, in Fleming's
view, strikes at the fundamental tenet
of the University: the free and open in-
terchange of ideas. As such, all the ele-
ments of the community must share the
responsibility of passing legislation on
such behavior.
BY SEPTEMBER or October, there will
be a University Council composed of
students, faculty members and adminis-
trators to make rules covering disrup-
tive incidents. Until then, Fleming has
asked the faculties of the University's
17 schools and colleges to devise such
rules on the college level. They have
agreed, and as a result the President will
ask the Regents today at their private
session not to pass interim bylaws in
lieu of the University Council.
But there are flaws in this reasoning,
flaws which students should bring to
the Regents' attention at this afternoon's
open hearing. Student Government Coun-
cil last September passed two legally im-
peccable rules on disruptive conduct (in
fact, the faculties - at the advice of
Second cls 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 Daily is a member of the Associated Press, te
College Press Service, and LiberationNews service.
Summer subscription rate: $2.50 per term by car-
rier ($3.00 by mail); $4.50 for entire summer ($5.00
by mail).
rall and winter subscription rate: $4.50 per term
by carrier ($5 by mail); $8.00 for regular academic
school year ($9 by mail).
Summer Editorial Staff
URBAN LEHNER ......................., Co-Editor
DANIEL OKRENT ........................ Co-Editor
LUCY KENNEDY ....... Summer Supplement Editor
PHIL BROWN ........................ Sports Editor
ANDY SACKS .......... ............ Photo Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Marcia Abramson, Jill Crabtree,
John Gray, Henry Grix, Steve Nissen
ASSISTANT NIGHT EDITORS: Nadine Cohodas, Stu-
-art Gannes, Alison Symrosci
Summer Business Staff
RANDY RISSMAN ..... . ..:....... Business Manager
JANE LUXON .................. Advertising Manager
DEBBIE RIVERS .............. Circulation Manager
PHYLLIS HURWITZ Classified Manager
JOEL BLOCK ...,........ Asst. Advertising Manager

Fleming and the Senate Advisory Com-
mittee on University Affairs - have for
the most part adopted SGC's rules as
their own). If disruptive behavior affects
the entire community, what is the logical
justification for turning over the rule-
making authority from one element of
the community (students) to another
(faculties)? The entire community will
make the rules with the establishment of
the University Council. If there is a need
for rules in the interim, the rules should
be made by students; certainly of all
the elements of the community, students
-who will be the objects of the regula-
tions-have the clearest objective interest
in the interim rules.
FURTHERMORE, students should insist
to the Regents that enforcement of any
interim rules should be handled by a
student judiciary, preferably Joint Ju-
diciary Council. Once again a fundamen-
tal democratic premise which the Uni-
versity recognizes is at stake: Peers
should be judged by peers. Under the fac-
ulty procedures which have been devised
at Fleming's behest, judiciaries domin-
ated by faculty members would enforce
the interim rules, on disruption.
Students also have an interest in other
bylaw proposals which the Regents may
consider. The Committee on Communica-
tions, another proposal mentioned in the
Hatcher Commission Report, could po-
tentially be a major first step toward
creating a genuine "University Commun-
ity." If the Regents agree to establish
the Committee on Communications, stu-
dents and faculty members would have a
clear channel for reaching the adminis-
tration and each other with their griev-
ances. Students should ask the Regents
to implement the Commitee on Commun-
ications proposal.
Finally, students should advise the Re-
gents to delay consideration of the by-
law proposal which would reorganize the
Office of Student Affairs. The bylaw has
been drawn up hastily, without suffi-
cient time for review by students and
faculty members. In various places it is
legally sloppy, gives more power to the
OSS instead of less, and violates the
spirit of the Hatcher Commission Report.
Reorganization of OSA is not a particu-
larly pressing Issue, and there is no rea-
son why the Regents should ratify an
inferior proposal.
TrHE REGENTS have been very gracious
and open-minded in creating the
open hearing system to listen to student
opinion on matters of University policy
which they find crucial. Although at-,
tendance at some of the hearings has
been considerable, it has been far from
overwhelming.
The issues which the Regents will dis-
cuss today are of paramount importance
to students. And the Michigan Union,
where the hearings will be conducted, is
one of the few air conditioned University
buildings. Hopefully, every student with
an opportunity will be there at 3 p.m.
-URBAN LEHNER
Co-Editor

EDITOR'S NOTE: This is
the second in a series of ar-
ticles in which jailed Black
Panther Party Minister of De-
fense, 26-year-old Huey P.
Newton, explains his group's
philosophy and his own. New-
ton is currently on trial on a
charge of murdering one Oak-
land policeman and attempting
to murder a second. The inter-
view was conducted by The
Movement, a San Francisco
radical newspaper, and was
supplied to The Daily by Libe-
ration News Service. Part Three
will be published tomorrow.
MOVEMENT: Would you like
to be more specific on the con-
ditions which must exist before
an alliance or coalition can be
forced with the predominantly
white groups? Would you
comment specifically on your
alliance with the California
Peace and Freedom Party?
HUEY: We have an alliance
with the Peace and Freedom
Party. The Peace and Freedom
Party has supported our program
in full and this is the criterion for
a coalition with the black revo-
lutionary group. If they had not
supported our program in full,
then we would not have seen any
reason to make an alliance with
them, because we are the reality
of the oppression. They are not.
They are only oppressed in an ab-
stract way; we are oppressed in
the real way. -We are the real
slaves! So it's a problem that we
suffer from more than anyone
else and it's our problem of lib-
eration. Therefore we should de-
cide what measures and what
tools and what programs to use
to become liberated. Many of the
young white revolutionaries real-
ize this and I see no reason not
to have a coalition with them.
MOVEMENT: Other b I a c k
groups seem to feel that from
past experience it is impossible
for them to work with whites
and impossible for them to
form alliances. What do you
see as the reasons for this and
do you think that the history
of the Black Panther makes
this less of a problem?
HUEY: There was somewhat of
an unhealthy relationship in the
past with the white liberals sup-
porting the black people who were
trying to gain their freedom. I
think that a good example of this
would be tpe relationship that
SNCC had with its white liberals.
I call them white liberals because
they differ strictly from the white
radicals. The relationship was
that therwhites controlled SNC
for a very long time. From the
very start of SNCC until here re-
cently whites were the mind of
SNCC. They controlled the pro-
gram of SNCC with money and
they controlled the ideology, or
the stands SNCC would take. The
blacks in SNCC were completely
controlled program-wise; they
couldn't do any more than these
white liberals wanted them to do,
which wasn't very much. So the
white liberals were not working
for self-determination for the
black community. They were in-
terested in a few concessions from
the power structure. They under-
minued SNCC's program.
Stokely Carmichael came
along and, realizing this, started
to follow Malcolm X's program of
Black Power. This frightened
man yof the white liberals who
were supporting SNCC. Whites
were afraid when Stokely cme
along with Black Power and said
that black people have a mind
of their own and that SNCC
would seek selfdetermination for
the black community. The white
liberals withdrew their support
leaving the organization finan-
cially bankrupt. The blacks who
were in the organization, Stokely

and H. Rap Brown, were left very
angry with the white liberals who
had been aiding them under the
disguise of being sincere. They
weren't sincere.
THE RESULT was that the
leadership of SNCC turned away
from the white liberal, which was
very good. I don't think they dis-
tinguished between the white lib-
eral and the white revolutionary,
because the white revolutionary is
white also and they are very much
afraid to have any contact what-
soever with white people. Even to
the point of denying that the
white revolutionaries could give
support, by supporting programs
of SNCC in the mother country.
Not by making programs, not by
being a member of the organiza-
tion, but simply by resisting. Just
as the Vietnamese people realize
that they are supported whenever
other oppressed people throughout
the world resist. Because it helps
divide the troops. It drains the
country militarily and economic-
ally. If the mother country radi-
cals are sincere then this will defi-
nitely add to the attack that we
are making on the power struc-
ture. The Black Panther Party's
program is a program where we
recognize that the revolution in
the mother country will definitely

4 '

ways been a black group. We have
always had an integration of mind
and body. We have never been
controlled by whites and therefore
we don't fear the white mother
country radicals. Our alliance is
one of organized black groups
with organized white groups. As
soon as the organized white groups
do not do the things that would
benefit us in our struggle for lib-
eration, that will be our departure
point. So we don't suffer in the
hangup of a skin color. We don't
hate white people. we hate the
oppressor. And if the oppressor
happens to be white then we hate
him.
And right now in America you
have the slave-master being a
white group. We are pushing him
out of office through revolution in
this country. I think the respon-
sibility of the white revolutionary
will be to aid us in this. And
when we are attacked by the po-
lice or by the military then it will
be up to the white mother country
radicals to attack the murderers
and to respond as we respond, to
follow our program.
MOVEMENT: You indicate
that there is a psychological pro-
cess that has historically existed
in white-black relations in the
U.S. that must change in the
course of revolutionary struggle.
Would you like to comment on
this?
HUEY: Yes. The historical re-
lationship between black and
white here in America has been
the relationship between the slave
and the master; the master being
the mind and the slave the body.
The slave would carry out the
orders that the mind demanded
him to carry out. By doing this,
the master took the manhood
from the slave because he stripped
him of a mind. He stripped black
people of their mind. In the pro-
cess the slave master stripped
himself of a body. As Eldridge
Cleaver puts it, the slave master
became the omnipotent admin-
istrator and the slave became the
super-masculine menial. This puts
the omnipotent administrator into
the controlling position of the
front office and the super-mas-
culine menial into the field.
The whole relationship devel-
oped so the omnipotenit adminis-
trator and the super-masculine
menial became opposites. The
slave being a very strong body
doing all the practical things, all
of the work becomes very mas-
culine. The omnipotent adminis-
trator, in the process of removing
himself from all body functions,
realizes that he has emasculated
himself. And this is very disturb-
ing to him. So the slave lost his
mind and the slave master his
body.
THIS CAUSED the slave mast-
er to become very envious of the
slave, because he pictured the
slave as being more of man, being
superior sexually, because the
penis is part of the body. Theom-
nipotent administrator laid dwn
a decree when he realized his plan
to enslave the black man had a
flaw, when he discovered he had
emasculated himself. He attempt-
ed to bind the penis to the slave.
He attempted to show that his
penis could reach further than
the super-masculine menial's pe-
nis could. He said, "I, omnipotent
administrator, can have access to
the black woman." The super-
masculine menial then had a
npvcholoical attraction to the

nipotent administrator decreed
that this kind of contact would
be punished by death. At the
same time, in order to reinforce
his sexual desire, to confirm, to
assert his manhood, he would go
into the slave quarters and have
sexual relations with the black
woman (the self-reliant Amazon).
Not to be satisfied, but simply to
confirm his manhood. Because if
he can only satisfy the self-reli-
ant Amazon, then he would be
sure that he was a man. Because
he doesn't have a body, he doesn't
have a penis, he psychologically
wants to castrate the black man.
The slave was constantly seek-
ing unity within himself: a mind
and a body. He always wanted to
be able to decide, to gain respect
from his woman. Because women
want one who can control. I gave
this outline to fit a framework
of what is happening now. The
white power structure today in
America defines itself as the mind.
They want to control the world.
They go off and plunder the
world. They are the policemen of
theworld, exercising control, es-
pecially over people of color.
THE WHITE MAN cannot gain
his manhood, cannot unite with
the body, because the body is
black. The body is symbolic of
slavery and strength. It is a bio-
logical thing as he views it. The
slave is in a much better situation
because his not being a full man
has always been viewed psycholo-
gically. And it is always easier to
make a psychological transition
than a biological one. If he can
only recapture his mind, recap-
ture his balls, then he will lose
all fear and will be free to deter-
mine his destiny.
This is what is happening at
this time with the rebellion of
the world's oppressed people
against the controller. They are
regaining their mind, and they
are saying that we have a mind
of our own. They're saying that
we want freedom to determine the
destiny of our people, thereby
uniting their mind with their
body. They are taking the mind
back from the omnipotent ad-
ministrator, the controller, the ex-
ploiter.
In America, black people are
also chanting that we have a mind
of our own. We must have free-
dom to determine our destiny. It
is almost a spiritual thing, this
unity, this harmony. The unity
of the mind and of the body, this
unity of man with himself.
CERTAIN SLOGANS of Chair-
man Mao, I think, demonstrate
this theory of uniting the mind
with the body within the man.
An example is his call to the in-
tellectuals to go to the country-
side. The peasants in the country-
side are all bodies; they are the
workers. And he sent the intel-
lectuals there because the dicta-
torship of the proletariat has no
room for the omnipotent admin-
istrator's; it has no room for the
exploiters. So therefore he must
go to the countryside to regain
his body; he must work. He is
really done a favor, because the
people force him to unite his mind
with his body,by putting them
both to work. At the same time,
the intellectual teaches the people
political ideology, he educates
them, thus uniting the mind and
the body in the peasant. Their
minds and their bodies are unit-
ed, and they control their coun-
try. I think this is a very good
example of this unity and is my
irpa of the nrpen+ man

not only the warrior, the military
fighter; he is also the military
commander as well as the political
theoretician. Debray says "Poor
the pen without the guns, poor the
gun without the pen," the pen
being just an extension of the
mind, a tool to write down con-
cepts, ideas. The gun is only an
extension of the body,' the ex-
tension of our fanged teeth that
we lost through evolution. It's the
weapon, it's the claws that we
lost; it's the body. The guerrilla
is the military commander and
the political theoretician all in
one.
In Bolivia, Che said that he
got very little help from the Com-
munist Party there. The Com-
munist Party wanted to be the
mind, the Communist Party want-

ed to have full control of the
guerrilla activity.-But they weren't
taking part in the practical work
of the guerrillas. The guerrilla on
the other hand, is not only unit- A
ed with himself, but he also at-
tempts to spread this to the peo-
ple by educating the villagers, giv-
ing them political perspective,
pointing out things, educating
them politically, and arming the
ipeople. Therefore the guerrilla
is giving the peasants and workers
a mind. Because they've already
got the body, you get a unity of
the mind and the body. Black
people here in America, who have
long been the workers, have re-
gained our minds and we now
have a unity of mind and body.
Tomorrow:
Guerrilla Beauty

"t, 4".' '.XC :"iMURJ.RA Y KEMPT!O 7!,?, "1'eaW
Fame and its
mixedbledssings
TELL the truth, when I offered myself as a candidate for dele-
gate to the Democratic convention, it had not seriously occurred
to me that anointment might follow. The opposition consisted of Rep.
William Fitts Ryan, State Sen. Manfred Orenstein and Mrs. .Paniel
Cox, all three infinitely experienced in the public portrayal of recti-
tude and at least two quite sincere in its possession. But then Sen.
McCarthy moved one of those mysteries of his with the waters, bring-
ing me among other curious objects in with his tide.
So, for the moment, I stand the equal of James A. Farley and
Stanley Steingut and it takes the vote of the District Attorneys of
the Bronx and Manhattan together to match my own. In addition
to this cosmic joke on all my notions of social precedence and public
order, there is the pleasure of having my inanities in conversation
with politicians heard with a respect which they have never before
received and no more now than ever deserve. But then politicians,
from self-examination, have a habit of mistaking chance for genius.
AS PROOF OF my high moral worth, I can testify that it was at
least a week before I began to wonder whether more tangible pleasures
might go with this new, if transient, majesty. This serpent entered
my garden when one of the Vice President's agents told me he was
counting no more than 30 McCarthy delegates as "hard core."
Since McCarthy elected 62 delegates, 61 of them visibly more
honorable than I, it was a natural assumption that any campaign
to corrupt us by the bankers, the labor goons, the space contractors
and others of Mr. Humphrey's coalition would have to begin with
me. Make no mistake; hard core I'm not, but bigoted Bolshevik I
am; if McCarthy falters, Benjamin Spock will be surprised to have
one vote called out for him.
BUT HOW delightful to endure six weeks of temptation. For
five days, I sat by the phone waiting for Mr. Sidney Weinberg to ten-
der a few stock options. But no one has called except the Internal
Revenue Service in its customary tone; you might think that an Ad-
ministration so much at my mercy would at least leave me alone
until September. And so, in the awful absence of tangible tempta-
tion, I have sought solace in scholarly works, namely "The Politics
of National Convention Finances and Arrangements," just issued by
the Citizens Research Foundation, in hopes of finding descriptions of
the fleshpots awaiting.
The first shock was the discovery that the average delegate to a
Democratic convention normally contributes $288 a year to the state
party organization. I let that pass on the excuse that' this would be
an unprincipled thing for an insurgent to do; but then I was stopped
by the estimate that the average delegate spends $455 of his own
money at the convention. And I had never spent a nickel of my own
money to witness or transact, the public business in my life.
EVEN SO, New York seems to be more decent to us than some.
Indiana and Iowa tax their delegates $250 apiece for the maintenance
of their headquarters and hospitality suites; I am grateful to John
Burns for sparing me the spectacle of my colleagues deriding my opin-
ions while drinking whisky I have paid for.
But there is at least the compensation of those corporation stay-
ing us with flagons and comforting us with apples. There are chair
cushions inscribed with the word, Life; roll call tally sheets, compli-
ments of Newsweek; kits of drugs and cosmetics; convention tele-
...- .A--. * +m orm + f14 +ai1lnhone nmnanv a

. . One of the worst cases of the grippe I've seen!"

.
..
t .
':
- f ' '
.' ' ' ,t , -
.
I
' , \
"a


h'
sv
!
:
i;
,,

. 1

~1
r ,

AV
IO
RAI -

I

I!P

xA
g '.I r i , r~
k 'r
rte''~
_ r.r

are k. r :

o- , '.a ~