Page Four

THE MICHIGAN DAM

Tuesday; August 27, 1968

PageFourTHE iCHIAN DI:'

_ .


Dorm
By LUCY KENNEDY
The student-led move to end
dormitory regulations, although
Marked by confusiop on all sides,
ended the University'i 6co par-
entis stand without obvious show
of force by students or adminis-
trators.
Catching the administration
and ,in some cases the students by
surprise, Joint Judiciary Council
(JJC) paved the way for elimina-
tion of dormitory regulations in
the spring of 1967 by announcing
it would not discipline students
for breaking rules students did
not make.
The tenuous position in which
JJC's decision put the University
administration eliminated many
of the grounds for the open stu-
dent display of- force seen in thej
fall of 1966. Tensions, however,
were there.
Students remembered the 'Uni-
versity administration's h i g h
handed implementation in the
fall of 1966 of a sit-in ban and

an admiinstrative refusal to con-
sider a student referendum asking
discontinuation of class ranking
for the draft. During the battle
to end dormitory regulations there
were several occasions when the.
memory of fall, 1966 could have
become a violent reality.
Revolutionary but quiet, JJC's
new stand on discipline students
came when Student Govei'nment
Council (SGC) appointed nine
new members to JJC pledged to
uphold only student made regula-
tions. The new members gave JJC,
previously more oriented to ex-
plaining rules and acting as an
appeal body, a new policy-making
function.
JJC's jurisdiction, which would
later confuse student and admin-
istrative group§, did not become
a problem in the first SGC-
administration encounter.
Immediately after the election
of Bruce Kahn, '68, to SGC pres-
idency, SGC recommended elim-
ination of sophomore women's

iLoco,
hours, and also resolved that reg-
ulations for both curfew and
hours when members of the oppo-.
site sex could visit would be de-
termined by the individual hous-
ing units.'
JJC STAND
According to JJC's stand soph-
omore women staying out after
the midnight curfew could be
breaking a rule but would not
be punished. They could stay out
beyond the curfew for sophomore
women set up in the 'University
Regulations code. JJC, however,
would not punish sophomore wo-
men for staying out after cur-
few because the student made
rule (passed by SGC) did not set
a curfew.
Although . immediately after
SOC's elimination of sophomore
women's hours, chances for ad-
ministrative approval seemed dim,
no plans were made to use JJC's
new stand on discipline. This was
to come later.
Vice President for Student Af-
fairs Richard Cutler reversed
early disapproval of SGC's move
and recommended sophomore wo-
men's hours for a trial period of
one year to the Regents. The s-
sue of visitation hours was
dropped.
SGC INDOCTRINATION
Later, the administration was
to become more rigid, recognizing
the subtle yet sweeping changes
SGC, and JJC were making in
the power structure.
Over the summer, in orientation
talks to freshmen, the neatness of
a student take-over of University
regulations through JJC was
talked up. SGC was developing a
surer. and surer strategy for elim-
ination of non-student made
rules.
In the fall of 1961 the new
Residential College gave the cam-
pus a lesson in the simplicity of
student power in setting up its
government. Residential College
faculty, students, and adminis-
trators banded to form a com-
munity government with auton-
omy from the rest of the Univer-
sity and no formal structure.
Iuestion
Despite possible administra-
tion and landlord apoplexy over
premarital cohabitation and ac-
companying activities, the fran-
tic brouhaha raised over the
issue seems unnecessary.
While many students do suc-
cessfully cohabitate, frequently
tudents are beset by every day
complications which make the
supposedly convenient rooning
arrangement more trouble than
it is worth.
One junior says he and his
companion are con st an tl y
frought with financial prob-
lems. "It's a real bind deciding
how the rent's going to be split
and who buys groceries each
week," he says.
A harried senior elaborated
on another more common situ-
ation - "When your room-
mate's woman no longer knocks
at the bathroom door, there's
bound to be difficulty."
Probably the biggest dilemma
is how to handle the folks back
home.. One coed relates her
weekly panic to beat her par-
ents' telephone call at her
"supposed residence."
Mailing addresses pose yet
another complication. "I can't
tell my dad to write care of my
boyfriend's apartment, can I?"
asks a junior woman. "Instead,

every day I've got to run over
to my old place and pick up
the bills."
Unquestionably though, co-
habitation exists in Ann Arbor.
Apparently it can survive com-
plaints from fellow tenants,
landlords, the pressures of stu-
dent life-and dormitory rules.
Given biology and contem-
porary American society, the
old University regulations seem
a weak weapon in the fight for
chastity.

parentis,

dies

with

if icult

RC was the first campus unit
to vote for abolition of freshman
women's hours. Director of Uni-
versity Housing John Feldkamp
and Cutler were more open to the
experimental college's proposal
than they would later prove to be
to other housing units. However,
they never gave the RC move ap-
proval and did not send the mat-
ter to the Regents.
RC's move can only be appre-
ciated in the light of the trend
it set for other units. Once RC's
community government approved
elimination of freshmen women's
hours in the College, RC freshmen
considered the issue closed. As
far as they were concerned, no
punishment (handled in final -ap-
peal by JJC) would be levied for
staying out after University cur-
few, so freshmen women's hours
no longer existed for RC women.
'All campus living units were
given the opportunity to follow
RC's example after SOC com-
pletely revised the University Reg-
ulations code in mid-September to
fulfill the promise of JJC's move
of the previous spring.
The SGC written regulations
code provided for a decision on
women's hours through an all
campus referendum, an all women
referendum, an all freshmen wo-
men referendum, or a decision at
the housing unit or Inter House
Assembly (IHA) level.
In the new regulation code men
living in University housing were
to be responsible for their own
internal regulations - this would
include visitation hours-through
house councils "or any other m it
deemed appropriate by he stu-
dents."
NEW REGULATIONS
Rules for all women in Univer-
sity living units were to be deter-
mined through house councils "or
other appropriate units" with the
exception of women's hours.
Following city and state regu-
lations, less stringent than the
University's the new SOC regula-
tions allowed students over 21 in
University housing to possess in-
toxicants even with minors pres-
ent.
The University's blanket ban en
"any disruptive sit-in" that ,iad
touched off the student power
movement of fall, 1966, wasre-
placed by a new SOC regulation
prohibiting "individual or :.ass
acts that destroy University prop-
erty or are against city, state or
federal law."
STUDENT DOUBTS
After this September meeting
SOC found itself dispelling doubt
and confusion-some created by,
the administration and some from
students questioning what body
should make the new student
rules-for the next semester and
a half.
Among students the main prob-
lem was that student rule-making
depended on student initative.
South Quad Council took advant-
age of abolition of old University
regulations less than a week after
the SOC meeting by dropping all
dress regulations. They had the
approval of the South Quad di-

rector but said they would have
gone ahead even if they hadn't
had it.
Other house councils, however,-
were slower to make their own
rules.
Which students would initiate
the new rules caused problems be-
tween IHA and house councils.
Until Blagdon House, Markley, in
the beginning of October, dis-
carded all punishments for stay-
ing out after curfew, many IHA
members f e 1 t standard rules
should be made for all housing_
units.
JURISDICTION CLARIFIED
After Blagdon's action SC re-
versed its earlier call for some
type of referendum and recog-
nized the right of individual hous-=
ing units to make their own hours
as well as'other regulations.
Many units, with the exception
of some conservative groups -
notably sorority houses--then fol-
lowed Blagdon's example with
little hesitation.
Students were not being pun-
ished for breaking curfew unless
it was a curfew set by students.
ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS
Administration attempts to
halt the spread of SOC's move in-
creased. All of the adminstration
moves were surrounded by deeper
and deeper examination of the
Regents Bylaws to see if SOC
could:
1) seize control of disciplining
procedure.
2) seize control of rules--making
itself
3) separate rule-making from
discipline.
On point one SOC and most of
the students had no question. JJC
was the final body of appeal and
if they chose not to punish stu-
dents for breaking the old, large
ly administration written, rules
those rules were defunct.
HOW TO PUNISH?
Feldkamp, however, considered
the old University regulations in
effect.
Feldkamp and other adminis-
trators argued that JJC had the
right to discipline only from the
Regents, so could have this power
removed. No administrator, how-
ever, was willing to court the stu-
dent movement that would have
been inevitable. if JJC's right to
discipline were usurped.
Without JJC it was impossible
for residence hall staffs to
punish rule-breakers except by
going to their schools or colleges
and asking that they be given
academic Punishment.
At least in the literary college,
faculty members showed them-
selves quite hesitant to give out
academic punishments for break-
ing non-academic conduct rules:
The faculty-student Board, of
Governors of Residence Halls
claimed SOC did not have the

right to give individual house
councils power over rule-making.
Only the Board had that right
they argued.
By the next month. the rule-
making, disciplining situation was
chaotic.
In mid-October, Alice Lloyd
Douse judiciary wastelling fresh-
man women that only the Uni.
versity' could regulate hours while
Blagdon House in, Markley was
drawing up parental permission
slips for Blagdon freshmen who
had already abolished curfew.
But student determination was
higbe and a hasty administrative
re-structuring or blanket punish-
ment would have touched off
student action.
Without recourse ; to drastic
measures, the Office of Univer-
sity Housing was inan unques-
tionably delicate 'position. The
only way, with existing University
structures, Feldkamp could see
that a student get non-academic
punishment was to bring the case
before JJC. JJC would have
thrown the case out as a non-
student made rule.
Meanwhile, another branch of
admnistration residence hall gov-
ernment, the Board, dropped its
earlier disapproval of SOC's move
and asked Cutler to recommend to
the Regents an end to freshman
women's hours.
BOARD REVERSAL
The issue of visitation, recently
brought up by Frost House, Mark-
ley, in a house council move that
extended visiting hours from
noon to midnight, was not dis-
cussed .
In mid-November a report of
Faculty Assembly's Student Rela-
tions Committee (SRC) generally
lent support to the.student argu-
ments but pointed out the need:
for Regental or administrative
clarification to once again bring

ir
4

Coed protests impersonality of U ateteach n

the rule-making and disciplining
bodies together.
"The SRC," the report. said,
'believes that students, at. the
Ulniversity have> the primary re-
sponsibility to develop sets of
rules affecting their personal con.
duct."
SWC RE-ENFORCEMENT
However, the report further
argued that, "The sitaution. at
present is one in which the legal
authority over non-academic mis-
conduct resides in one place, while
the mechanisms. with which to
exercise authority over miscon-
duct resides in another. .In such
a state of affairs it is difficult
and may be legally impossible to
discipline students for misconduct
unrelated to academic behavior.
"It is advisable . . . to identify
the legal problems involved to es-
tablish a clear University policy
for, misconduct unrelated to aca-
demic behavior ,and to establish.
a proper judiciary procedure for
handling cases that are relevant
to the, University's educational
function."
SRC looked to the report of
the ;Hatcher Commission for suchi
a solution.
CUTLER, REGENTS STA L
As faculty and, administrative
(Board of Governors) approval of
rule-making at the house council
level increased, student tension.
over stalling by Cutler and the
Regents mounted.'
But Cutler agreed at the end
of thefall semester to reconmend
elimination of women's hours
and the Board granted students.
power to determine visitation

hours through their house coun-
cils. This was largely aresult of
several mass co-ed visits in Fred-
erick House, South Quad.
Kahn, although pleased, with
the Board's approval reminded
students that this was an ex-post
facto approval and that students
made the rules.
In the beginning of the winter
semester, 1968, deliberate stalling
on implementation of the'.Board's
new policies made Kahn's re-
marks a valid warning.
REGENTAL REVIEW
The Board's decision was by
bylaw and tradition a final deci.
sion.
However, on the request of Uni-
versity President Robben Fleming,
the Regents decided to review the
Board's decision.
Students retalitated to what
they c:a l le d "administrative
games" with three mass violations
of curfew at Markley, Bursley, and
South Quad.
The day after the third teach-
in Prof. Frank B3raun, chairman
of the Board of Governors, " ad-
dressed the Regents as a member
'of their own generation explain-
ing that although hard to accept,
it was necessary -to initiate rea-
sonable changes."
The issue of loco parentis,
mortally 'wounded two semesters
earlier, formally died the next
day. when the Regents approved
elimination of curfew require-
ments to all students with par-
ental permission. They also al-
lowed each University housing
unit to determine by a democratic
process its owns visiting hours,

SGC President Bruce Kahn supports new rules
...and amiid

By NADINE COHODAS
After spending the eighth
consecutive Saturday n i g h t
strewn over the sofa in your
apartment because your room-
mate is otherwise occupied, you
fondly remember the old days
in University housing when the
reliable R;A. would case the
halls each weekend evening
around 1 a.m. and deliver the
familiar "Time's up." T h i s
catchy little warning invariab-
ly meant you could return to
your regulation puce-colored
dorm room and finally settle in
for a good night's sleep.
Unfortunately with the new,
more liberal dormitory policies,
this isn't always true. Despite
the administration's unflinch-
ing attitude, ("Cohabitation
and overnight visitation will
subject student's to University
discipline."), couches, general-
ly lacking in the dorms, are still
needed for those of us with
frisky roommates.
With the new dormitory pol-
icies, individual houses are able
to set up their own visitation
rules and women have no hours
if granted parental permission.
The administration, however, is
quick to clarify its stand. Hous-
ing director John Feldkamp re-
affirms the administration po-
sition: "The University finds
unacceptable premarital sexual
intercourse."
The University has held firm
to this no-sex-in-the-newly-
liberated-dorm policy. In an
April incident, for example,
Thomas Fox, director of South
Quad, took action against a
Quad coed who had a boy in
her room after hours.
Fox sent a letter to the girl's
parents informing them of her
misdemeanor. Feldkamp says

these letters are always "fac-
tual and objective."
However, the U n i v e r s i t y
seems to be something less
than 100 per cent successful in
regulating morals in the dorm.
Their record for successful loco
parentis becomes even lower
for students in' off-campus
housing.
Since a majority of Univer-
sity students live in apart-
ments, anyway, the University's
adamant stand appears rather
ridiculous.
Even if Ann Arbor landlords
take their tenants' morals to
heart as the administration
professes, their control over the
renting students' personal be-
havior is minimal.
Some landlords, however,
seek to insure moral upright-
ness in their establishments.
Consequently, they include in
each lease a passage which pro-
hibits cohabitation.
The landlords admit it is dif-
ficult to substantiate the
charge of cohabitation, but in
one case a student was actually
evicted after he was found to
be living with his girlfriend.
In most cases, however, land-
lords say the cohabitation issue
is so delicate an affair that it
is seldom the reaon for evic-
tion. If tenants are suspected
of cohabitation, landlords tend
to seek other reasons for evic-
tion - making too much noise
or having a pet.
While some landlords may
worry a great deal about
breeding sin and vice in their
buildings, other realtors take a
laissez-faire attitude toward the
whole situation. One landlord
bluntly said it was "none of his
business" who his tenants slept
with. All he asked was that
they "exercise good taste."

Richard-Cutler

..
. 1 X
..
i. f
n. 1 r

4

0'

soo1

0

to

5,

t

0

A

fol

'0

I
0

The back-to-school rush always includes a

John Feldhamp


._ ii

GOT YOURSELF

A PROBLEM?


Mistake?
Wet Books ?
Type Faint ?
Birthday?
No Room?
Tough Course ?
Forget?

Try ERASABLE paper

rush for telephone service. Every year at this
time we gear up by putting, on extra people
and working extra hours. But there Siave always
been many who had to wait for their tele-
phones longer than we'd like.
If you want telephone service, this ,fall, the
sooner you, can, place your, order with us :the
sooner we'llbe able'to install it.
You can order telephone service any day,
Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
As soon as you know your new' address, call
(Area 313) 761-9900 or visit our office in the
City Center Building, 220 E. 'Huron. Or, if
you're out of town, just call us collect.
For those of you who can't order until the
last minute, we'll be open an extra day, satur-
day, August 24 from 8-5.

f,

Try our BOOKBAGS
Try a NEW RIBBON

. . 4 Colors

.

Try a MUG . . . Several Types
Try a BOOKSTAND or RACK
Try an OUTLINE for Help
Try an ADDRESS BOOK

I4





r1

t