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


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.

August 27, 1968 - Image 48

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1968-08-27

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

-- -1

Pege Two


Tuesday, August 27, 1968

f 3

Pag~ Two THE MICHIGAN DAILY Tuesday, Augu~t 27, 1968

y a


i- .n
Research sit-in
LAST NOVEMBER, a reporter for the Milwaukee Journal visited
Ann Arbor on an assignment which would have puzzled the
know-nothings in the state legislature who regard any political
expression by students as inherently subversive: he was to find out
why student protests at the University of Michigan were so tamhely
non-violent and non-disruptive compared to those at other univer-
At the time, it seemed like a good question for anyone-but
especially a reporter from a newspaper in the state of Wisconsin-
to ask. During the previous months there had been student demon-
strations at both the University of Michigan and the University of
Wisconsin, and by comparison Michigan, seemed a hotbed of sweet
In Madison, a few hundred students sat-in on the hallway floor
of a classroom building to protest recruiting by Dow Chemical Com-
pany. The police arrived and demanded an end to the sit-in. When
some of the students blocked their entrance, the police reacted with
savage brutality. Sixty-five students were injured, many of them
onlookers or'those passing between classes.
IN ANN ARIOR, over 250 students and 30 faculty members sat-in
in the lobby of' the administration building to demand an end to
University acceptance of classified research contracts from the
Department of Defense and University assistance to counter-insur-
gency work in Thailand. At the offset they voted to eschew "disrup-
tive" tactics, but that only serves to illustrate how meaningless
the word ha become: sitting-in in the lobby of the administration
building, the protesters here were far more disruptive of the normal
process of work and life than those who staged their demonstration
in a classroom building at Wisconsin.
Nevertheless, the day was uneventful. There was a lot of talk, a
number of paper motions were passed, a few University vice presidents
got the afternoon off. Six hours after it had begun, the protest
gagged in its own rhetoric and the 25 who had remained to the end
tramped wearily out of the building. Since then, the University is
still working hand in hand with the Royal Thai military, and the
faculty committee set-up the day before the sit-in to review classified
research policy has given Willow Run Labs a blank check.
NOW WHY, the journalist from the Journal wanted to know,
did the protests at the two schools have much different denouements?
The answer lies in the reactions of the administration. At the Univer-
sity the police not only weren't called in, according to one version of
the story Vice President Perpont actually asked them to stay away.
Vice President Norman volunteered to discuss the issues with the
sitters-in and for the next two hours an honest if sometimes un-
informed and frustrating evasive dialogue took place. Vice President
Cutler strolled through the crowd, joking with students. When the
scene shifted to the hallways on the first and second floors, Vice
President Smith sat-in with the protesters outside his own office.
President Hatcher, as was his wont, was out of town.
Although the University has never treated a student protest with
such civility, few protests have had more serious consequences. No
demonstration on the University campus In recent memory has ended
in violence, although the draft rankings crisis of November 1966,
in which over 5000 students mobilized, obviously had the potential,
Only one building has been "liberated" a la Columbia, by black stu-
dents last April, and that was under clearly extraordinary circum-
stances and the administration handled it thusly. The whole thing
was over in five hours, and there were no reprisals.
YET, I DO NOT subscribe to the "it can't happen here" school of
thought. The sociogical profile of the student body, and especially
of the radical students, is strikingly similar to that of students at
Wisconsin and Zerkeley, scenes of numerous violent incidents in the
past few years. The national issues are the same everywhere. And
although it appears that the administration here has finally learned
how to handle demonstrations when they happen, it is still incredibly
insensitive to student opinion on local issues.
In fact, I think the University right now is sitting on a bomb
which could explode at any time. Part of the explosive potential
exists because the administration, as well as much of the faculty, is
afflicted with the same law-and-order complex which riddles the
larger society we live in. Administrators are so concerned with
averting manifestations of unhappiness that they never really listen
to what students are saying, never deal with their arguments on a
serious intellectual level.
White Tie and Tails... ,On Tour.. . Go Blue
Songs of American Universities
Kick Off, U.S.A... Touchdown, U.S.A.
Hail Sousa ... On TourI
P.S. We also have U of M Songbooks



Bese t



The Hatcher Commission, a1
child of compromise and student
power, was born in December,
1966. In the wake of almost a
month of student teach-ins, sit-,
ins and ultimatums. At this print-
ing the Regents are considering,
a series of proposed bylaw revi-
sions that would translate some
of the Commission's proposais,
into the law of the University.,
The 17 months between the
formation of the Commission and
the beginning of Regental imple-
mentation were relatively quiet
for the Commission and its mem-
bers: a quiet that was in sharp
contrast to both the circumstances
of the formation and the threat
of student action following Re-
gental proposals for implementa-
In November, 1966,..the campus
was readying for a Student Gov-
ernment Council-sponsored ref-
erendum to determine whether the
University should compile class
rankings for the Selective Serv-
ice System. Before the voting,
SGC, Voice and The Daily de-
manded that the University abide
by the students' decision, what-
ever it might be. Voice threat-
ened disruptive sit-ins and dem-
onstrations if the demand was
Vice President for Student Af-
fairs Richard L. Cutler responded
to the threats by quickly and
quietly instituting a banon dis-
rptive 'sit-ins.' $GC 'promptly
withdrew from the Office of Stu-
dent Affairs to protest this move,
leaving itself in a state of insti-
tutional limbo that still cor fuses
members and administrators.
By this time, events had started
moving fast and it looked like
the administration had -a full-
fledged student movement on its
hands, First, the students reject-
ed ranking by a two to one mar-
gin Then, a teach-in sponsored by
a loose coalition of Voice and SGC
filfed Hill Aud. to capacity and
came up with a collective ultima-
tum: either the University imme-
diately rescind the sit-in ban and
comply with the results of the
draft referendum, or it would be
faced with a sit-in in the Admin-
istration Building.
The night before the sit-in was
to take place, then-President Har -
lan Hatcher issued a compromise
proposal to the University com-
Inunity. He set up three Presiden-
tial Commissions to deal with the
student demands and temporarily
rescinded the sit-in ban.

The proposals were met with
mixed reactions from the mem-I
bers of the loose student coali-
tion. Although some claimed thei
fight had been won, others de-
manded action rather than study.
And although 1500 students sat
in, the unity was lost, the mo-'
mentum was gone and finals were
coming up. The student movement
was effectively dead, leaving be-
hind a Student Government Coun-I
cil of doubtful status, three,.Pres-
idential Commissions and a lot
of bad feelings and distrust.
Hatcher's Commission on the
Sit-in ;Ban never got off the
groad: the issue was dead as the.
ban was never reinstated.
The Commission on the Draft
and Class Ranking issued its re-
port in April, 1967. Although it
supported the administration's;
stance on ranking, student lead-
ers never saw fit to make an is-
sue of it again.
The President's Commission on
the Role of the Student in Deci-
sion-Making deliberated for over
a year. When' its report was fi-
nally issue last March, it had
been all but forgotten by the
students whose-protests forced its
The Commission's report was
sweeping. Made up of four stu-
dents, four faculty members and
ifour administrators, the group
called for the formation of a-
campus- wide University Council
which would be composed of
equal numbers of faculty, stu-
dents and administrators and
which would make rules for all
"members of the University com-
The Commission also stated
that the formation of a student
judiciary system was "the pri-
mary responsibility of the stu-
The student judicial system,
like student government, should
be a primary responsibilty* of
the students ofrthe University.
The Commission recommends
that a central judicial system'
be established incorporating the
following provisions:
1. original jurisdiction by stu-
2. due process,
3. faculty review of those de-,
cisions involving suspension
or expulsion.-
The Commission recognizes,
that certain colleges and profes-
sional schools already have es-
tablished judicial systems that
incorporate these characteristics.
However, to provide the most
consistent campus-Wide pattern,
we urge that these units and all

others move to the central sys-
tem upon its development.
The Commission members neg-
ldcted to clarify the question of
who had judicial jurisdictior over
faculty and staff infractions of
University Council regulations.
According to most members of
the Commission, the intent was
that there should be separate sys-
tems set up for hearing com-
plaints against faculty and staff.
This summer's controversy over
implementation' of the Commis-
sioin report began at theRegents'
regular meeting in April. At the
meeting the Regents "approved in
principle" portions of the report,
including the formation of Uni-
versity Council and the principle p
that regulation of students while
off-acmpus should be left en-
tirely to civil authorities.
The Regents met with the mem-
bers of the Commission and de-
cided to have the report drawn
up in bylaw form. According to
Commission members, they agreed.
that the drafting would be done
by another commission, to be
composed of one student, one
faculty member and one adminis-
However, the Regents later as-
signed the task of drafting the
bylaws to Cutler. Their charge to
him did not include any of the
provisions that Commission mem-
bers say were agreed upon. He
was asked that the drafting not
be done by 'him alone, ,nd in in-
terpreting this request he con-
sulted with two faculty members
and two students of his own se-
When SGC and the Commission
became aware that the final draft
of a bylaw establishing Univer-
sity Council had been prepared,
many expressed immediate con-
cern that they had not been
aware of the drafting and its
procedures. After they read thee
draft, reactions ranged from being
"a littletroubled" to shocked in-
dignation at the proposal.
The consensus of those disturb-
ed by the proposed bylaw was
that more time was necessary.
Although the Regents charged
Cutler with preparing the bylaw
by their regular May meeting most
observers felt, that the Rhegents
shoulddelay action on the pro-
posal until all complaints had
been thoroughly considered and
Cutler agreed not to recommend
passage' of the proposal to the
Regents. But the final decision
remained with them.
A Regental move unacceptable
to most students threatens. at the
printing. of this article. If the
Regents do decide to pass the by-
law as currently proposed, stus
dent unrest - and perhaps an-
other Presidential Commission--
can be expected. -

Fall 1966, 1500 students s ttitg in prefaoe tQonhmiSsionI
How mucht cantthen-l

U know of. you

One of the great mysteries of,
the University remains: what kind
of records are kept for each stu-
dent, and how many people have'
access to those records?
With the numerous tabs the
University keeps on students. frcmt
results of the cooked 'or is it
raw) carrots test to encounters
with Health Service, the problem
of privacy becomes a touchy -
and confusing-issue.
For example, concerning the
draft, the University follows a
policy of releasing only "ublic"
information--such as addresses
and dates of attendance at the
University. All other information;
is released only upon written re-
quest from the student.
Yet many departments keep'
records, and each department has
its own rules.
The. problem swelled from a;
nagging concern to a crucial issue
in August, 1966, when the Uni-
versity, upon request, submitted
membership lists of three student

ol-gazations to the House Un-
American Activities Committee.
The groups were Voice-SDS,
the W.E.B. DuBois Club and the
Committee to Aid the Vietnamese.
Following a long, heated con-
troversy, a special subcommittee
of the Committee on Student Re-,
cords and Their Use was set u),
sponsored by Vice President for
Student Affairs Richard L. Cut-
ler. Members were the then As-
sistant to the Director of Coun-
seling James Lawler, who is now
assistant director of student org-
anizations. and two students, one
graduate and one undergraduate
By the following sprin-, th-
Lawler committee compiled a re-
port which would have detined
the position of the University in
respect to such records.
However, both Student Govrn-[
inent Council and Graduate As-
sembly refused to accept the Law -
lcr report, largely because it gA:,ve
wide disciplinary prerogatives to
the Vice President for Student Af-

During the past summer, both against unwarranted inquiry." If a student transfers to ano-
the Lawler conunittee and the However, the major objection ther University, his objective rec-
Civil Liberties Board have been to the report came over a section ord goes with him. The University
working on new repor ts. The re- granting the Vice President for will also answer direct questions
ports will be issued this fall. Student Affairs the privilege to about the student's behavior.
The original Lawlei report as- disclose information about a stu- "Only about five per cent of
sified most information as matter dent "to preserve and protect the the running comments are judg-
for public record, with the e(cep- reputation and integrity of the ments," explains James W. Shaw
tion of University activity ener- University." dean of the literary college. "The
al public information -suen as Records are divided into two rest are just notes about the gen-
address--could be released to any- categories. objective and subjec- eral course interests of the stu-
one. Limited public information tive, in the literary college, the dent."
could be released to the preper largest record - keeping depart- Extracurricular records, how-
source- -for example. a prospec- men t. All records are kept for five ever, are often of more personal
tive employer would be able to to nine years after each student's concern to the student than his
see employment rfcords. graduation or departure from the academic record.
However, no information wo .ld University. The records are stored If the FBI needs information
be released on University icavi- in the depths of Angell Hall. about a student or if he is being
ties without a stenement iromn the Objective records include trans- cleared for security, the admin-
student. cripts and any correspondence istrative board of the literary col-
Until a new report is isued, t he with the University, while com- lege will answer only factual ques-
Office of tudent Affairs a ma- ments from counselors make up tions on the "public information"
j;or record-keeping ,office, is tol- the bulk of the subjective evi- section but will not reveal the sub-
lowing the guidelines already set dence. jective record.
up by the Lawler committee. Within the University, both Neither the reconvened Lawler
The report alows the OSA to types of records are distributed committee nor the committee
withhold any information when on a need-to-know basis among headed by the Civil Liberties
"the interests of the University faculty, counselors and adminis- Board is able to disclose any de-
or the student are safeguarded trators. tails of their upcoming reports.t

417 E. Liberty music
Just past AA Bank

NO 2-0675

President Hatcher

Orp Olllrll r I

1 7

__ J Il




Am ir igttn




Swe saym




Make yourself athome.
You'll findh everythi'one d ing
you need ia
very friendly atmosphere.
All this. . nd more





336 So. State








Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan