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.

May 10, 1968 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1968-05-10

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



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 jndividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

"All We Want Is Old-Fashioned Law And Order Like
We Used To Have Down Yere Thirty Years Ago"
- \
"t
' .r

The Regents:
Who needs them?

FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: LESLIE WAYNE

Suddenly there came a tapping

RETAPPING provisions included in
the omnibus crime control bill now
being debated in the Senate represent a
grave threat to civil liberties.
The anti-crime measure, as approved
by the Senate Judiciary Committee,
would authorize court-supervised wire-
tapping and electronic eavesdropping
by state and federal law enforcement
officers in major crimes and in cases
directly related to national security.
Unfortunately, the normal mechanics
of wiretapping don't allow such sensi-
tive discriminations between conversa-
tions connected with major crimes and
normal conversations. Wiretapping in and
of itself is a dangerous thing. Police lis-
tening in on the phone conversations of
a suspect in a major criminal case would
.not just hear exchanges between one
guilty man and his accomplices, but be-
tween that same man and perfectly in-

nocent people, or between two innocent
parties.
Not only evidence of the crime in ques-
tion would be garnered by the policeman
wearing the headphones; he would hear
everything. including references to quite
licit activities which the people using the
phone might wish to keep private. This,
could open the door to blackmail or sim-.
ilar unsavory activity.
Furthermore, the knowledge by the
general public that phones--any phones
-were being tapped or mail--any mail
-was being opened by police would lead
to inhibition of communication and a
general stifling. of free expression of
opinion.
Wiretapping and electronic eavesdrop-.
ping have no place in a free society. The
Senate should reject the wiretapping
provisions of the anti-crime bill.
-JENNY STILLER

Are the Regents necessary?

A man for all seasons

DURING THE last 30 years the name
of Fritz Crisler has become synon-
omous with Michigan athletics.
Crisler achieved nearly unparalleled
success, first as a football coach and later
as an athletic director. He seemed to.
personify the Wolverine ideal of the
"Michigan Man," clean of mind, body,
,and purpose, but usually the winner of
any contest in which he became involved.
Crisler was a powerful man whose ideas
of how a university's athletic system
should be run seemed to permeate every
facet of Michigan athletics.
But for all of Crisler's wisdom', fore-
sight and common sense, the athletic 'de~
partment toward the end of his term of
service seemed stagnant. A fresh out-
look on the whole role of athletics in re-
lation to the University was needed.
The problem that arises when some-
one eventually replaces a man like Cris-
ler is that the new director may develop
an awe of his predecessor and feel bound
up in the-image of a man who is now

more of an entry in a record book than
an effective- guiding- force. Growth is
stifled and more stagnancy develops.
Don Canham appears to be the kind
of man who will not be caged by the
memory of Fritz Crisler. He seems intent
on injecting his own views and programs
into the athletic department,: as well as
his oven personnel.
THE DEPARTURES of assistant athletic
director Bert Katzenmeyer and sports
information man Les Etter may not be
the direct result of Canham's influence,
but they signify a new trend in athletic
department thinking. It appears that
while the department will continue to
recognize the importance of tradition in
Mich'igan athletics, they will perhaps
now be less wary of looking for new ways
to build a stronger administration.
The Crisler .years are over and the
Canham years have begun. The biggest
benefactor is Michigan athletics.
-FRED LaBOUR

"""'"7f :{Y 'ir{r r'3,?;:1r"rC-'{:ti"'":gCi^:7<?r'rY :i M!: >" tiii{?r$ti:
=:Y'"MY' l' ". rY:Y::{Y:':M, Y."'!;:}J: IJ:O.!J.+ ' LY:Y:{"::":':'.Y:ti

MURRAY KEMPTON

: ? 4r: r'.v°ri": C,%ir iiYs:'':i : il ai'*M.''v:;titi .i" {tii $ Mum

Taking Hubert tolun'ch

The call of the Weil

VICE PRESIDENT Humphrey
has retained the innocence
and acquired the experience which
make it unlikely that anything
would embarrass him. any longer.
Still, the style and the substance
of his luncheon dates do unsettle.
The Vice President's first Mon-
day was at Le Pavillon last week;
his second was at "21" yesterday.
He raised a million dollars last
week; yesterday his sponsors were
aiming for two million.
Roger Blough, chairman of the
Board of U.S. Steel, was the most
notable guest last week; his con-
tribution seems to have slipped the
attention of awed observers; the
major known offerings came from
Robert Dowling (100,000) and 0.
Roy Chalk (50.000).
THE VICE PRESIDENT, in
thanking the chef, pointed out
that the Presidency of the United
States is not for sale. That goes
without saying in his case; his
t curse isnnot greed but rather an
entire incapacity to be detached in
his liking for anyone who likes him.
Still, 0 Roy Chalk has the bus
company and the airline, both of
which need the tolerance of
subordinates of the President of
the United States; it is a proper
sentiment to think of insurance
for your dependents.
* * *
Yesterday belonged to the bank-
ers. Very clearly, the Vice Presi-
ent is the favored candidate of or-
ganized business as he is of organ-
ized labor. There is even a report
that Walter Reuther is holding

back a declaration for Sen. Ken-
nedy because Henry Ford is so
pitiably insistent on the merits
of Vice President Humphrey.
It ie by no means certain, of
course, that, once the Democratic
convention is over, capital's al-
legiande will follow Humphrey in-
to his confrontation with Richard
Nixon. It is enough for the mo-
ment that Hubert Humphrey is
not Robert Kennedy.
SEN. KENNEDY is seldom dis-
liked for uncomplicated reasons;
and it is difficult to say whether
Humphrey's accumulation of capi-
talists is afraid that Kennedy will
regulate their businesses or tap
their telephones or both. In any
case, Humphrey will go to the con-
vention a poor man and a rich
candidate; h'is banker is Sidney
Weinberg, who used to service the
most expensive Republicans. Alto-
gether the Vice President has risen
far from the days when he de-
pended for brokerage on Marvin
Rosenbergrand they were reduced
to making do with a single West
Virginia hotel room between them.
So has the Democratic Party. A
long time ago President Kennedy
used to talk about-the contest for
America as one between the con-
cerned and the comfortable. That
contest goes on; most of the tur-
bulence of this peculiar year-
the survival and even the flourish-.
ing of Sen. McCarthy, the eruption
before his time of Sen. Kennedy,
the exits and entrahces of Gov.
Rockefeller-reflects the wish of
a great many voters, whether

wistful or aroused, for something,
fresh and different.
* * *
AND YIET THERE is every sign
that the weight inithis contest,
close as it is in the American
spirit, is on the comfortable; Hum-
phrey becomes the most likely
Democratic candidate as Nixon
remains the nost likely Republi-
can one. Not 'often have werbeen
so discontented, and yet our fu-'
ture may very well be eftaklished
in the struggle between two for-
mer Vice Presidents, holders of an
office which, more than any other,
has come to disable its occupant
from any function involving ini-
tiative or pride.
What is organized in American
life knows it ctn trust the Dem-
ocratic Party of Hubert Humphrey.
That party has well served every
owner of a franchise; Humphrey
can take the money of the rich
without the smallest unease at
spectacles which would have em-
barrassed James G. Blaine.
His one qualification for being
President is that he can smile and
smile about. public evils about
which millions of Americans are
terribly ashamed. We are about to
be handed a choice between two
men who will say and believe any-,
thing.
Fifty years ago, Hubert Hum-
phrey's luncheons would have been
a scandal arousing every populist;
and now, the labor unions are
glad their candidate can get the
money.
(Copyright 1968-New York Post Corp.)

By MICHAEL DAVIS
First of Two Parts
EDITOR'S NOTE: In today's ar-
ticle the author - a doctoral can-
didate in philosophy who has been
active . in Student, Government'
Council for the past two years as
admiinstrative vice president and
as an at-large member - attempts
to refute arguments in defense of
the Regents. Tomorrow Mr. Davis
will- present constructive argu -
ments for doing away With the Re-
gents.
WHY DO WE NEED the Re-
gents? Both common practice
and long tradition shout that we
'do: Almost every college and uni-
versity in the country is governed
by such a lay board of persons
who are neither members of the
academic community nor selected.
by or responsible to that com-
munity. Most Atnerican colleges
and universities have always been
governed that way. And only,
rarely has anyone even suggested
that it should not bedso.
yBut practice and tradition are
only signs of good sense. Even
their shouts do not guarantee it.
I have, for several months now,
been asking myself (and others);
"Why Regents?" I have not found
o Ce' good. argumentrfor having
them. On 'the ,contrary, I 'have,
found several good arguments for
doing away with their positions.'
There are, I believe, four com-
mon arguments for therboars.
rThat the Regents; represent'
the people of the state of Mich-
igan who, because of their sup-
port of the institution, have
a right to control it.
I cannot see how, except in some
purely formal sense, the Regents
represent the people of Michigan.
The' Regentsand the, state legis-
lature often. disagree on impor-
tant issues like the size of the
University, whether it shall have
unions, what buildings it shall
build, and the like.
Now, either the Regents represent
the people in these issues or the
legislature does. They both can't,
I, for one, am inclined to believe
that the legislature is the more
likely representative, since the le-
gislature is more subject to public'
scrutiny, and , less likely to be
elected by party hacks who' vote
straight party tickets.
SBut, even if the argument, from
representation were well-founded,
it would still not prove that the
Regents should have the power
they now do. Students, alumni,
private corporations, and the fed-
eral government all contribute
handsomely to financing the Uni-
versity and have no where near
proportional power.
That the Regents supply a
worldly, urbane, and business-
like perspective needed by the.
University.
The University, this argument
runs, is composed of intellectuals'
who, while good poets, philoso-
phers, mathematicians, and the
like,,, are not prepared to deal
with the harsh realities of life.
Intellectuals need the guidance of

mature and practical men, that is
to say, the Regents.
There are three objections to
this argument:
M There is no reason to suppose
the University does not have at
least eight mature and practical
men the equal of and Regent (and
willing to take the job). The fed-
eral government has long found
the University an excellent place
from which to recruit just such
men for high office.
1 Even if, the University did
need to have such men imported,
it is anything but clear that the
present method of importation has
been, or is likely to be, anything
but inadequate. The Regents have
often been, and still are, primarily
rich men (often by inheritance)
who failed in political life but had
sufficient money to buy their par-
ty's nomination for the minor of-
fice of Regent.
* It is, of course, the belief of
most educators that learning cues
not unfit a man for practical life,
but, on the contrary, fits him for
it. Anyone who will compare a
thoughtful discussion by the Re-
gents with one by the faculty
(or, for that matter, by students)
on any question should have no
doubt of that.,
That the Regents protect the
University from the ignorant
and Illiberal meddling of the
state.
For this argument I can see no
grounds whatever. In the last ten
years, it has been the administra-
tion and the state legislature that
have had to protect the Univer-
sity from the ignorant and illiberal
meddling of the Regents. (It was
the state legislature that embar-
rassed the Regents into going
ahead with the, building of Bates
and Northwood IV; it was the ad-
ministration that kept the Re-
gents from abolishing student gov-
ernment-and throwing the Uni-
versity into deep crisis-over the
issue of women's hours.)
The existence of the Regents
has, by itself, been of absolutely
no use in the fight over University
autonomy, except insofar as re-
gental arrogance , has provoked
legislators. and students' to ques-
tion that autonomy.
'That there is no alternative to
the Board. of Regents running
the University.
Faculty, this argument runs, do
not want the work; students do
not have the time or experience
to do it; therefore, the Regents
must.,
This is pure sophistry. The ar-
gument supposes that the Regenits
and the administration are iden-
tical. They are not. If all eight
Regents dropped dead tomorrow,
the University would not be short
one administrator. The question
is not whether faculty or students
should administer the 'University
instead of the administration; the
question is whether the admin-
istration should have to answer to
the Regents or to someone else.

+

4

0

THE DECISION by Roosevelt University
President Rolf Weil not to rehire con-
troversial history professor Staughton,
Lynd is another indication of the need
for the restructuring of the procedures'
for decision-making at American uni-
versities.
The undemocratic nature of the de-
cision was patent. Lynd's competence as
a professor was unanimously endotsed
by the faculty of Roosevelt's history de-,
partment. Student demonstrations in
Lynd's behalf which resulted from the
decision only undersbore the lack of for-
mal channels of appeal.
Not only was the decision arrived at
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor;' Michigan,
420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104.
Daily except Monday during regular .academic
school year. .
Daily except Sunday and Monday during regular
summer session.
The Daily is a member of the Associated, Press, the
College Press Service, and Liberation News Service,

undemocratically. It also bypassed the
raison d'etre to which administrators
traditionally appeal when pressed for
reasons for their behavior: academic ex-
cellence. Lynd's colleagues and students
have vouched for his ability, and they-
certainly are better qualified to know
than administrators who - even on the .
rare occasion when they are profession-
Kally competent to judge - are too pre-
occupied with' their own work.
THE UNIVERSITY obviously allowed
considerations of public relations to
dictate its decision. Unfortunately, neith-
er democracy nor academic excellence is
necessarily the equivalent of good public
relations. The safe professor is not al-
'ways the good professor.
If the administration did indeed fire
Lynd with an eye to reverberations in
the press, then perhaps decisions should
be made by those who are more interest-
ed in education than image.
--JIM KAHNWEILER

ii

Letters: Rio-engineering sense

To the Editor:
WHILE IT IS possible to sym-
pathize with Mr. Craig Kuper
(Daily, May 3), for hating to be
made to wear something, his state-
ment "If you fall, off a motor-
cycle you're going to kill yourself
anyway, and the only thing a hel-
met helps is your head," is non-
sense.
It is a well-documented fact
that approximately three-quar-
ters of the fatalities resulting from
all accidents involve injury to the
head, emphasizing the dispropor-
tionate vulnerability of this organ
as compared to the rest of the
human body. Motorcycle riding is
potentially the most hazardous
pursuit as far as the individual
is concerned.
A recent study in Maine (not
exactly the most congested state
in the Union) produced the sta-
tistic that if an individual is
between the ages of 16 and 19
and owns a motorcycle for a
period of two years, he has a
10 per cent chance of being seri-
ously injured. 80 per cent of the
fatalities in motorcycle accidents
are due to head injuries.
. It would be superflous to men-
tion the numerous other head
injury studies in skiing, athletics'
automobile accidents and so on
since the statistics are quite defi-
nitive. Where use of protective
I, arinr A an,'nc 'a v, a,,tnrxr a, ani-

a watch; of the second objection,
no argument short of a smashed
skull will allay the self-conscious-
ness of the "scrambling" breed,
if then.
The helmet law as presently
constituted certainly, makes bio-
engineering sense. Any law on
health and safety is an abridg-
ment of the freedom of the in-
dividual. Considerations on its
constitutionality must ultimately
rest on reasonableness of the legis-
lation, i.e., does its public or social
good outweigh its inconveniences?
By this criterion, the helmet law
might still have its day in the
Supreme Court of the State of
Michigan.
-Y. King Liu, Consultant
Head Injury Project
Highway Safety Res. Institute
A to B
To the Editor:
S A FORMER chairman (1964-
65) and previously long time
member (1960-65) of the SACUA
Committee on the Economic Stat-
us of the Faculty, I wish to coni-
gratulate Martin Hirschman for
his excellent editorial, "The AAUP
Warning: When Salaries Go Down,
down," (Daily ,May 3).
The Committee on the Economic
Status of the Faculty for years
has been deeply concerned with
the trend of legislative support

tio~n in te1rms' o-f' avra o'nfaeunltyuVfxA,~lS~ASl AAtJ t..*tI~

salaries. Our position has slipped
each year to the present low point
of a "B" rating (for 'full profes-
sors) by the AAUP and 23rd in the,
nation.
In 1963-64, the Committee Re-
port in issuing a . warning to the
administration (and the legis-
lature) stating:
"Nothing seems clearer than.
the fact that a university with
a 'B' salary scale cannot long
continue to be an 'A' univer-
sity."
Later the Committee warned:
"Just as it may take several
years before an institution that -
has only recently attained a
high salary level can be ex-
pected to achieve high academic
status, it is likely that an in-
stitution whose relative salary
position has deteriorated may,
at least for some time, retain .
its high academic quality. As
surely, however, as the position
of one institution will improve
the position of the other will
certainly deteriorate."
The 1967-68 Committee echoed
these faculty concerns. The above
statements have even more sig-
nificance today. They certainly
merit further consideration by the
members of the faculty, the of-
ficers and the Regents of the Uni-
versity in this day when we are

The underground

The following remarks by Repre-
sentative Don H. Clausen of Cal-
itornia are reprinted from the Con-
gressional Record.
'YHETHER we choose to admita
it or not, I pelieve forces are
at work in this country to under-
mine. and subvert our national
fiber, and shatter the traditions
that have kept us strong and free,
these many years. Many Ameri-
cans who agree ,with this deduc-
tion are now asking: Just what
do the words "seduction," "an-
archy," "patriotism," "obscene,"
and "pornographic" mean any-
more?
Of all the forms this movement
has taken, one' of the most of-
fensive and obnoxious has been
the assault on freedom of speech
which we have all seen emerge in,
recent years. And leading the way
in this offensive are the so-called
underground newspapers and
magazines that are now being sold
openly at newsstands and by
"hawkers" on our city streets. Us-
ing the facade of "modern jour-
nalism," these publications fea-
ture a neatly woven combination
of obscenities and "anti-social
hate literature"'to tell their story,.

ing vile and obscene language are
freely mixed with seditious-like
denouncements of time-honored
American institutions.
While this brand of "yellow
journalism" may appeal to a
small, undesirable element in our
society, itdseriously undermines
law, and order by blatantly glori-
fying crime and violence. Such
publications have literally become
the "mouthpiece" for the "let's
kick America" crowd that is al-
ready receiving more than its
share of undeserved coverage by
the' legitimate press.
EVEN A superficial examina-
tion of the type of publications to
which I refer, will clearly suggest
they are intended primarily for
young people. While I do not sug-
gest that the Congress become
the guardian of the Nation's mor-
als, I am concerned over the fact
that such publications can be so
easily obtained by children and
teenagers in their formative and
impressionable years. In addition,
these publications go far beyond
morality per se. Their real goal
is what has become known as'the
establishment - our government

'p

Back to Top

© 2017 Regents of the University of Michigan