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 15, 1968 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1968-05-15

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


ElyEAitgan Date
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

Iv

420 Maynard 'St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily exp ress the individual opinions 6f staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: MARCIA ABRAMSON

The UC proposal:
The bylaw can wait

r- a
leiTb wSn~ae 4

IT IS UNCLEAR at this point whether
Vice President for Student Affairs
Richard L. Cutler will ask the Regents
to postpone consideration of the proposed
bylaws at their Friday meeting or wheth-
er he will only not recommend passage.
Either way, it would be a mistake for the
Regents to ratify the proposed Univer-
sity Council at this time.
There are a number of legitimate ob-
jections to the bylaw proposals as they
are now written - both to their sub-
stance and to the manner of their con-
ception. The major substantive problem
is that in at least two specific (and im-
portant) instances they stray from the
spirit if not the letter of the Hatcher
Commission's report.
-The report proposed a tri-partite
University Council to make conduct rules
for members of the University commun-
ity. The bylaw's UC would make rules
only for students and student groups.
Cutler's rationale for this is logically
unsound. The proposed supplementary
judiciary would be composed only of stu-
dents. If UC makes rules for faculty and
administrators as well as students, and
alleged infractions of rule violations by
faculty and administrators are adjudi-'
cated by an ,all-student judiciary, the
principle of trial by peers will have been,
violated.f
Unfortunately, it cuts both ways. If
the tripartite UC makes rules only for
students, then the principle of legislation
by peers will have been violated.
The quandary here is easily resolved.
The UC remains tripartite and makes
rules for the entire University commun-
ity - students, faculty and administra-
tors; the judiciary remains all-student,
but tries only student cases. Faculty
members and administrators are judged
by their peers hi separate judiciaries.
,-The report said rules would become
effective "only after submission to and
ratification by the faculty assembly and
the central body or bodies of student gov-
ernment." The bylaw would allow the Re-
gents to pass a rule over the veto of
either -or both after 45 days.
.The difference between these two ver-
sions is no quibble. Since the UC will
have a majority of faculty and admin-

istrators, rules regulating student con-
duct could be made regardless of student
veto. Instead of bringing forth a smooth-
running and progressive decision-making
structure which would incorporate stu-
dent opinion, especially on matters con-
cerning only students, the new bylaw
would institutionalize an anachronistic
step backward into the days before he
Reed Report.
THE METHODOLOGY of the imple-
mentation is also troublesome. Some
of the faculty representatives on the
Hatcher Commission left the Regents'
open hearing last month with the, dis-
tinct impression that a smaller tripartite
committee would whip the proposals into
final shape to present to the Regents.
As it was, Director of Student-Com-
munity Relations William Steude ap-
pears to have written the document him-
self. Steude and Cutler then showed the
bylaw proposals to Student Government
Council President and Vice President
Michael Koeneke and Robert Neff, nei-
ther of whom were Commission members.
They were expected to study and coin-
ment on the proposals in a few days
time, during summer when most of their
constituents are gone, so that the Re-
gents could approve a bylaw which
couldn't go into effect until the begin-
ning of fall semester anyway. When they
did make suggestions to Cutler, tbey
were for the most part told the bylaw
proposals were going to the Regents as
they were written, and they could make
separate proposals if they wished..
All of this undoubtedly transpired
without malice; nevertheless, it has
transpired and transpired mistakenly.
Preparations for decisions which will
have such lasting impact should not be
made hastily and without sufficient time
for full review. The ill-conceived pro-
posal going to the Regents this Friday
reflects the rush-rush, almost cavalier
manner in which it has been handled.
Rather than make a bylaw now which
doesn't have to be made now and which
might well be regretted later. the Re-
gents should wait to take action at a
later meeting.
-URBAN LEHNER
Co-Editor

. .Let's demand a urinalysis . ..

".ttV:. t :."J :VJ :V V :" Y.4": Y:: J: :": ": ":
": .v:1rJ: J.".};nr: r:::.l .. ...'Y.11Y::YA:1V':Y::.1 :":J::"L4"J"AV::J: '.V.:'J:::::J.tv.V: ::::ri Y.": t:t:VJ:"VAY: :VY:J.:V "
""""""""" "": "'J. :: AL"":::::.'a" 'JJ:JJ:.t :JN:J :'.: ". ':. Y::::. t"YY"
{. .:.t... 1............ J...........".......{t . .......... ......1... ..:..................{.{. ............{.. .. . .... ......n ...... .. ... ....... .........."........ J..t. 4.......1 4:: ":: Y:: .t .
....:........ ...... .;; ..1; ........................... h .............. r......................, vvve::.w:::: ::v. k..: .:C t...... { .... Jf,..l.. b....... +.r
{"::}::-::":^'"::":{4:^:{^::":" .}{fi::d :":";J: F ?S";"{r: .: .. r.... ..t... F. . . s.. . ..dl"..1 J... t...:.. J vv:.";: v:>. .l,.,t..; ...": J
.. v..J"a ....... ........:::J..,. ..v.'"."R.v.....,...{MJ..1..A.{"J.tB":J:....... "JJ."". .J.'M:......".................A...td:.{t.....J....«.......1 ":":u',":.............o .h:..,..lt.. :.: x'r :dtiv:

After the, bust

Time to reevaluate

By RICHARD ANTHONY
College Press Service
STONY BROOK, N.Y.-Modern
day Joe McCarthy's who are
looking for ways to beat back the
forces of change, particularly as
those forces find expression on
college campuses, could do worse
than study the methods of the
Suffolk County Police Department
and its supporting case of media
representatives, politicians and
just plan-mainly white, Anglo-
Saxon and Protestant-folks.;
The first and most comprehen-
sive part of their campaign against,
the State University of New York's
center here was' carefully plotted
in a 107-page booklet, drawn up at
at the direction of Suffolk County
Police Commissioner John Barry,
and entitled "Operation Stony
Brook."
Following the battle plan set
down in the book, 198 county po-
lice swarmed onto the campus be-
foie dawn on the morning of
January 17; fanned out through
the dormitories, rousting students
out of bed and ransacking several
rooms; and arrested 38 'students
and non-students, in what has be-
come probably the most notorious,
pot bust in history.
The immediate result of the raid,
aside from thrusting the arrested
students into the glare of a hostile
public view, was to generate a
deep fear among Stony Brook
students. As one of them described
it, "Paranoia was really rampant;
everyone was talking in closed
rooms."
THE RAID was only a first step,
however. Spurred on by the raid's
massive publicity a state legis-
lative committee on crime decided
to investigate Stony Brook. But
the committee discovered that
most of the faculty members and
administrators they subpoenaed
preferred to cite the Fifth Amend-
ment rather than give the names
of students they knew to be drug-
users.
Subsequently, though, another
investigation began, this one con-
ducted by a group that is in a
better position than' the Hughes'
committee to put pressure on wit-
nesses. The Suffolk County Grand
Jury, which drew up the indict-
ments for the original bust, now
plans to call many of the same
witnesses that appeared before the
Hughes' committee. If the Stony
Brook faculty members and ad-
ministrators refuse ,to testify be-
fore the Grand Jury, under New
York state law they are liable to
be fired from their jobs. It is
widely anticipated at Stony Brook
that those who refuse to testify
will be dismissed.
Stony Brook's enemies, who
clearly are out to damage the
school, have done their work well.
The raid and succeeding events
poisoned the atmosphere on the
campus, and effects of the poison-
ing are still very much in evidence.

The initial fear that took hold
of the campus is somewhat dis-
sipated. In early March, poet Al-
lan Ginsberg spoke, telling the
students they ought to explore
ways to combat the "political
forces who are putting pressure on
the police to harrass Stony Brook,"
and upbraided them for "sitting
back quietly and taking it. The
pressure is not from pot-it's from
the police and the politicians."
"Before Ginsberg came out
here," says Peter Adams, president
of the sophomore class, "people
were petrified, they wouldn't say
anything. After he was here, it
made everybody start thinking
about what had happened."
NEVERTHELESS, the easing of
tension has not diminished the bad
feelings between the administra-
tion and the students. The admin-
istration lost the good will of the
students early by taking a number
of drastic steps to curb drug use.
Stony Brook President John Toll,
a physicist who has been trying
to make Stony Brook into a re-
nowned, scientifically-oriented uni-
versity as quickly as possible, re-
actedytosthe raid by attempting
to placate the outside authorities.
Among the steps taken by Toll:
9 He established an emergency
set of regulations that called for
the inspection of student rooms
by dormitory officials, and the
reports from these officials when-
ever they have "any suspicions at
all that narcotics are being used
or obtained in any way."
S He hired a special dean to
oversee campus drug problems.
The new dean, a Lutheran minister
who previously worked with hard-
core drug addicts, has taken on
eight assistants to help him look
for drugs on campus. He has also
instituted a program called Diug
Abuse Prevention, Education and
Control (LAPEC) a group therapy
program modelled after programs
used at "half-way houses" where
addicts are rehabilitated.
" He signed an agreement with
the police pledging full coopera-
tion in catching students and non-
students who possess or sell drugs.
He warned the faculty not to
engage in confidential discussions
with students about drugs, be-
cause of state's laws covering its
employees' right to withhold testi-
mony.
These measures have not gone
unchallenged. After Toll's warn-
ing to the faculty about talking
with students, for example, more
than 100 faculty members said
they would talk with students
about drug problems regardless of
the hazards involved.
A group of students have set
up a program as a student coun-
terpart to the DAPEC program,
which is under the control of the
administration. The new program,
entitled Praxis, brings small
groups of students together twice
a week to discuss mutual prob-

lems. According to Pete Wohl, a
senior *nd one of the founders of
Praxis, the impetus for the pro-
gram came from the bust, but
drugs are not the center of dis-
cussion in the groups. "The idea
of the program," says Wohl, "is to
deal with any problems relating
to university life."
THE MOST militant action,
taken against the administration
was a sit-in at Stony Brook's
business office, held to protest the
presence of police on campus. The
sit-in began as a sympathy dem-
onstration for striking students
at Columbia University; but the
demonstrators decided to address
their action to Stony Brook prob-
lems after the demonstration be-
gan. They held the business office
for a day, but left it after Toll
agreed to discuss their demands.
These student responses to the
situation at Stony Breook have
contributed to a lessening of fear,
but have not ended the distrust
felt by many students and younger
faculty members for the adminis-
tration (one young faculty mem-
ber who was appointed by Toll last
year to deal with ,student com-
plaints says he's concluded that
most of their complaints are a
direct result of Toll's policies).
Furthermore, the problem of
further outside harassment is still
a grave one. In addition to the
Grand Jury investigations, there
is widespread feeling that another
bust will come. Commissioner
Barry has accused Toll of not ful-
filling his part of their agreement,
and, may use that accusation as
the basis for more undercover
work, leading to further mass ar-
rests.
According to one student who
is familiar with the drug situation
at Stony Brook, drug use has not
decreased appreciably at the
school. He said he knows some
"chronic users" who have given
up drugs, but adds that "there are
still a lot of drugs on campus."
Another student says that the
drug-users have "gone under-
ground."
IT APPEARS, therefore, that
Suffolk County officials won't lack,
for excuses to resume their attacks
on Stony Brook. And, of course,
drugs provide an excellent pretense
for doing so, because hardly any-
one will go on record in support
of drug-users.
Whatever additional harm its
enemies do Stony Brook, they have
already made their mark. Just as
college administrators are reported
to be watching to see how the
Stony Brook administration deals
with its "drug problem," its not
difficult to imagine that reaction-
ary politicians are keeping an eye
on their counterparts in New York
to see if they succeed in bringing
a university to its knees by capital-
izing on the drug issue. If they do,
the Right will have a potent new
weapon.

URBAN LEHNER--
The new reaction:
Democratic windfalfl?
THE NEW wave of reaction which is sweeping the nation couched
in the righteous rhetoric of law and order is unlikely to produce
much in the way of restrictive new legislation. The House-passed bill
to deny federal loans from students taking part in "disruptive" dem-
onstrations and the Senate amendment to the Safe Streets Bill which
would ban from federal employment anyone sentenced to one year
or more imprisonment for rioting represent nothing more than light-
weight grist for the backlash mill.
For who would suffer (or benefit) from the passage of either
measure? Statistics on the percentage of students in disruptive dem-
onstrations now receiving federal loans are a little hard to come by
just now, but it is a safe bet that the proportion is small. The same
is probably true of the present and potential relationship of rioters
to federal jobs.
The point is that neither of the proposed sanctions - disre
garding the flagrant threat to civil liberties they pose - is suf-
ficiently annoying in itself to discourage anyone from doing what-
ever it is that their proponents want to discourage.
And it is at least plausible that the Congressmen pushing these
pieces of legislation are cognizant of this. The type of constituent
who derives a vindictive thrill from talk of "getting" those protesters
and rioters is unlikely to obtain much additional emotional satisfac-
tion from actually getting them. It is enough for him that somebody
is concerned and doing something about it, whatever it is they are
doing.
If there was nothing more to the measures than this there would
be little point in talking about them. In fact, there is much more. In
the hands of a skillful issue-maker, they could become a rallying cry
for liberals, and inadvertently a test of the cleavage in the bemo-
cratic coalition wrought by radical defections over the Vietnam war.
One of the Democratic articles of faith is that no matter how
badly split the party may be before the convention, once the nomina-
tion is made all Democrats from every faction in the coalition (the
unions, the intellectuals, the Negroes, the ethnic groups) will unite
around that man and fight for him ,as if he were their own "man."
However noxious the party's nominee may be, the catechism goes, he
is indubitably better than whoever the Republicans are running; there
are always some basic issues of agreement, perhaps even a few pat-
ronage jobs to soothe unhappy party men who control large blocs
of votes.
In a year when the party is divided worse than ever before,
Richard Nixon - 1968 version - represents a challenge to that
pulling-up-ranks solidarity. Whether there is a new Nixon or not
is debatable; what is certain is that Nixon is impressing people
now who were revolted by him eight or sixteen years ago.
At a timne when the Democratic candidates are veiling their stands
on issues behind the vaguest of generalities, Nixon's major state-
ments have seemed surprisingly thorough and well-thought-out. And
he seems to have toned down his views, paring off the extreme con-
servative edges so skillfully that the image he is trying to create of a
middle-of-the-road, almost dovish moderate Republican Nixon is be-
ginning to take hold, even among some faithful Democrats.
Where Nixon is still weakest and most vulnerable to attacks by
Democrats seeking to reunite the party is civil liberties. Last Wednes-
day he issued a major position paper on crime in which he blasted
recent supreme court decisions designed to protect the rights of the
accused, supported wiretapping for use in some cases, and called for
a fundamentalist approach to solving crime: "crime creates crime -
because crime rewards the criminals."
A skillful Democratic candidate might well 'attempt to bind up
the party's wounds next fall by appealing to the flag of civil liberties,
under siege by the forces of Nixonism and reaction. It is a ploy which
has worked well in the past. And a moderate Democratic contender
like Humphrey in a race against Nixon would have few other issues
with which to woo the dissident intellectuals than the old standby,
civil liberties.
Adding attractiveness to this maneuver is the peculiar character
of the new reaction. Unlike similar waves of the past, the present
drive does not focus on the internal menace of Communism. Instead, it
is steeped in the hoary polemics of law and order. The objects of the
attack aren't put-ups and pinkos, but protesters and rioters, anarch-
ists and disorderlies.
Luckily for the liberals, it is a salvo fired by political forces
whose own position on law and order is far from unimpeachable.
How can Southern governors, who have broken federal laws and
resisted federal orders on national television themselves, claim
any more steadfast loyalty to law and order than the lowliest civil
disobedient in a Columbia library?
How can policemen who ignore Supreme Court procedural rules
(a recent Ford Foundation survey found the Miranda rules were not
followed in a majority of cases in one large city) - and Supreme
Court dicta are "the highest laws of the land" demand a respect for
law and order they themselves are unwilling to give?
A Democratic candidate who pointed out how inconsistent is the

devotion of anti-civil-libertarians to law and order couldn't play more
perfectly on the fundamental gutstrings of the dissenting Democratic
left. The Civil Rights Bill of 1964 specifically called for the with-
holding of federal funds from non-compliant school districts. Yet in
1966 when the U.S. Commissioner of Education tried to apply this
provision of the law to Chicago he found out that the law was written
for Southern school districts - not powerful friends of the President.
A moderate Democrat willing slightly to alienate his broad base of
support in hopes of winning back the dissenters could be very suc-
cessful with a campaign for law and order of his own.
How successful he would be depends on how deep the split is.
The line between McCarthy liberal and SDS radical becomes hazy at
times. Presumably, the McCarthyites would be amenable to a civil
liberties plea; the SDS or CNP member almost certainly wouldn't.
The genuine radicals in these groups believe that "civil liberties
are irrelevant in a revolutionary context." Even the relatively moderate
radicals distrust the traditional liberal emphasis on civil liberties.
They feel that it obscures substantive issues and hinders progress
toward more tangible goals.
So if a moderate Democrat is nominated and does make his
appeal to Democratic unity against the new wave of reaction, his
chances may hinge on the numerical strength of ex-Democrats who
will no longer be swayed by moral crusades to defend the Bill of Rights

4

AS DIPLOMATS try desperately to push
the)"on" button of the peace-making
machinery in Paris this week, the time
has come for a long-needed, long-avoided
reassessment of U.S. foreign policy.
Reassessment means a new look at
the basic assumptions which have con-
trolled the large portion of our actions
with relation to the rest of the world -
actions which in the past twenty years
have involved us in two Asian wars,
which have led to U.S. intervention in
Latin America, and which have contrib-
uted to growing enmity toward the
United States from both sides of the
melting Iron Curtain.
And it is assumptions about the co-
hesion of the communist countries, for
example, which have governed our pres-
ent line of action - a course of main-
taining the status quo in the world -
in the apparent belief that things can-
not possibly improve. The necessary re-
assessnent has, been continually avoided
by U.S. political leaders. Now, however,
the need' to make budgetary cuts has in-
duced Senate leaders to take a fresh look
at the foreign policy problem.
For example, some Senators are ques-
tioning the need to maintain six U.S.
Army divisions in Western Europe, while
others are challenging the functional
practicality 'of the anti-ballistic missile
system which the Johnson Administra-
tion hopes to begin this year. Still others
No comment.
WASHINGTON, May 13' - A key sup-
porter of Governor Rockefeller's
Presidential candidacy suggested today
that a Rockefeller-Reagan ticket might
emerge from the 1968 Republican con-
vention.

obj ect to a new type of fast deployment
logistic ship on the grounds that such
vessels could lead to greater military
commitments for the United States.
()THER assaults have been made on the
appropriations request for defense re-
search. For example, J. W. Fulbright (D-
Ark), chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, reportedly is ready
to challenge the need for a proposed
study of "witchcraft, sorcery, magic and
other psychological phenomena and their
implications on military and paramili-
tary operations in the Congo."
But, of course, Fulbright is already
outspoken in his opposition to the Viet-
nam war, so his stands where the defense
budget is concerned are not as signifi-
cant as those of some of the other Sen-
ators proposing changes: Majority Lead-
er Mike Mansfield (D-Mont), John Sher-
man Cooper (R-Ken), Stuart Syming-
ton (D-Mo), and Philip A. Hart (D-
Mich).
The positions of these men seem to
be grounded in their reaction to the
Vietnam conflict, rather than in direct
opposition to the war. These Senators are
attempting to create a U.S. foreign pol-
icy which will prevent further Vietnam's
from occuring.
While a significant change in U.S. for-
eign policy to the end of avoiding in-
volvements such as Vietnam will never
compensate for the horror this country
has created there, such a redesigning of
the nation's outlook on world politics
could hardly be for the worse.
THE WONDERFUL thing about reas-
sessment of policy is that you can
have your cake and eat it too. Future
historians will be able to say, perhaps,
that until 1968, fighting insurgents in

1p

We only work here

The following remarks by
Representative Elmer J. Holland
of Pennsylvania are reprinted
from the Congressional Record.
MR. SPEAKER, I have been
reading witi some amaze-

ent capacities can be abrogated are
the Members of the Congress.
"Here, sir," someone said, "the
people rule." We are but their
servants, and we can b8 dismissed.
But the American people them-

much as it belongs to any set of
Americans who come to talk to
us about our stewardship of their
business.
I SEE nothing wrong in the

II frV"' M~ni - .- )

x- I

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan