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: 764-055r

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

J
2
r

This Gun Has Never Jammed"

.FRIDAY, ,MAY 17, 1968

NIGHT EDITOR: LESLIE WAYNE


Rejecting the bylaws:
A matter of good faith

WHEN the Regents meet. today they
will have before them drafts of pro-
posed new bylaws which are represented
as attempts to transcribe the report of
the Hatcher Commission on the Role of
the Student in Decision Making into a
working form.
It is indeed unfortunate that the by-
laws have been drafted in a manner
antithetical to both the spirit and the
letter of the Commission's Report. Per-
haps it is unfair to contend that the
drafting procedure was set up with in-
tentional malice by either the Regents
or Vice President for Student Affairs
Richard Cutler. But malicious or not,
the procedure was unfair to the students
and has created bylaw proposals which
should be unacceptable.
At last month's Regents r eeting the
members of the Hatcher Commission
agreed with the Regents that the bylaws
should be drafted by a panel of one stu-
dent, one administrator and one facul-
ty member. The Regents chose instead
to have Cutler prepare the drafts, ask-
ing, but not specifically charging him
to consult with faculty and students on
the matter.
CUTLER chose Director of Student-
Community Relations William Steude,
a member of the Commission, to prepare
the drafts. It is worth noting that at
least some members of the Commission
felt that there had been an understand-
ing that Steude should not have a hand
in any such preparation.
The manner in which the bylaws, were
drafted, while enough in itself to de-
mand further consideration by the Uni-

versity community before their imple-
mentation, is largely irrelevant to the
decision before the Regents'today. What
is relevant is that the proposals are un-
acceptable because of their content.
In at least two particulars the bylaw
which would set up a University Counlcil
departs from the Commission's recom-
mendation. It would have the Council
make rules only for students and con-!
tains a clause circumventing effective
faculty or student veto power. The Com-
mission specifically intended University
Council to be the rule-making body for
all members of the University commun-
ity and also stated that no rule it passed
would take effect unless it was accepted
by both Faculty Assembly and Student
Government Council.
WHAT IS more relevant is that the Re-
gents must take this opportunity to
demonsrate their good faith to the stu-
dents and faculty who have been dis-
turbed by this whole controversy. They
must take the responsibility for draft-
ing new bylaws out of Cutler's hands
and return it to the tripartite commis-
sion originally, agreed upon. They must
specifically charge this commission to
hold its meetings in full view of the
entire University community.
Perhaps the Regents were not aware
of what they were doing when 'they al-
lowed this procedure to be set up. Today
they are aware of it. Failure to form
the agreed-upon committee could only
be interpreted as an act of bad faith
and only add to the misunderstanding
and ill will now building at the Uni-
versity.
-JOHN GRAY

i
t


::.;::.".:::...... .........
..:: X "r: J: h".':::: 'i:":":"::::.....,. .......::...., . .: :"::.....:...
... .... ...... " ::: r N J'
...........,: :. ,...... t :::vtt;:.":::::; z}::: hy::: r:: ae{:v """.; }i"{.; .. h.,... " . . .:^: .. ,,.......... ... . , ; $%{i"'r:"... F. J::-0"'{" a{{ {... , .:: dtrxh;NJJ ". .
..... ....Y .............."":::t:: J.:: h..... .....................t,::..1..:..:SY::':~:.:".".'.":::.{"::S'Y:.fit:JJ.JSJ.lA 1':ti":"Jfit:::{"J:'!:{Y: ::":::t {'r:'1'4J.Y:"J}{J::J:titt.J':"::44:ti: 11.'r":'LY":I }JJXK".'M
i ..
- Ift" ,, o ibus

.-WALLACE IMM;EN
Nixon vs. Rocky:
The issues in '68
WHEN New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller entered the Republican,
presidential race three weeks ago, Richard Nixon welcomed the
competition as a way of bringing his campaign into focus.
Since that time, Nixon has made no pretense of "focusing" his
platform and has instead moved toward an even vaguer approach.
Neither Rockefeller nor Nixon has begun to attack the other's stands;
both have remained conveniently innocuous on the key issues of
Vietnam and domestic economics. In fact, Rockefeller has tried to T
discourage network requests for a direct televised confrontation.
Yet if Rockefeller is not going to come out strongly and quickly,
his presence in the campaign will be meaningless and futile; he might
as well invest the money he is spending on his campaign in a few
deserving charities.
UNLESS NIXON makes a tremendous blunder in the next three
months, or is cornered by a shrewd opponent, he will march triumph-
antly out of the National Convention in Miami next August as Mr.
Republican. The nomination process - controlled by the handful of
party representatives who make their decisions long before they are
buttonholed at the conventions - makes it impossible for a candidate
in Nixon's position to be stopped'by low key oratory.
Even though Rockefeller is known and respected, he cannot charm 4
enough delegate support; even if he. has fantastic support in the
polls and in the popular vote, he will fall far short of the nomination.
His disappointing write-in support in the Nebraska primary did= little
to sway delegates now leaning to Nixon.
The most recent Harris ratings actually found Rockefeller with
the edge among its 1500 member sample. This news flustered Nixon
little, however; he actually toned down his speech topics for the.
Oregon primary.
Nixon knows he will go to Miami Beach with nearly 600 pledged
delegate votes. Undecided delegates have also been in the party for
many years and he may well be able to cajole and order enough sup-
port from the many who owe him political favors to amass the 667
votes necessary for first ballot nomination.
TALK OF Rockefeller and the profusion of favorite sons block-
ing a first ballot decision is tremendously overrated. A change of only
about 20 votes now leaning to Nixon would release the pledges, but
a bandwagon for anyone else is nearly impossible because Nixon has
been carefully engineering support.
Since his unsuccessful bid for the California governorship in
1962, Nixon has worked tirelessly for the party, building up loyalties
at all levels. He is reputed to know the name and policy stands of
every Republican official from the ranlk of committeeman on up, and
has spent six years helping them in local elections. He knows a great
deal about campaigning and how to appease thp party power struc-
ture: He knows that above all else he must avoid controversy within
the party. As the man, who fought a Republican split in 1964 by
preaching party unity, he is waiting for Rockefeller to make the first
move.
' AN IMPORTANT consideration in holding support this year is that
Goldwater forces still have a great deal of influence and would make
it difficult for a liberal or a flashy moderate. Rockefeller knows this
and apparently is not willing to alienate Republican leaders who
might help him in future elections.
It is difficult to believe that Rockefeller, being that cautious, would
reassess his position and decide to enter the race after he had safely
withdrawn. His advisors apparently expected him to come out more
strongly and enter the Oregon primary which he ,won four years ago.
If he wants to win, he has to capture at least 300 delegate votes. For
this he has too little tine without a totally unexpected change in
Nixon's position. This has been a year of unpredictable politics, but
even trusting fate, Rockefeller must take some definite steps to stop
Nixon's bandwagon if he wants to win.
Nixon is a walking encyclopedia of foreign policy from his vice-
presidential experience, but his knowledge of domestic issues and
economics is incredibly vague. This has already worked to his dis-
advantage in confrontations in rural. areas and with students.
IT IS ALSO exactly the place where Aockefeller's strength is
greatest. The Rockefeller Brother's Reports are some of the best' f
analyses. on domestic planning available. Rockefeller may have some
very definite opinions and plans for sweeping domestic changes, but
he has yet to take specific stands. So Nixon is continuing with well
rehearsed press conferences and asking why his opponent has no
alternatives to policies virtually the same as his platform of 1960.
Yet he would still do badly in direct debate. Although the term
"new new Nixon" is not just a slogan, but rather a conscious. effort
on his part to show that he is more mature and well informed than
the Nixon of 1962, he often hesitates over answers. It is true that he
can laugh at himself and has an expensive makeup man to hide his
dark beardline this year. But Rockefeller could still present a more
believable image and he does not want a debate.
THUS, since Rockefeller's campaigning is not aiming at any of
Nixon's weak points, it appears that he is not seriously contemplating
beating him. If he hopes to develop 'iore liberal planks in the Re-
publican platform he should make his position clear immediately.
The Vietnam war, for example, has been a major issue of the

Democratic campaign. The closest-Nixon has come to a coherent
posture has been to advocate a hard line policy aimed at "pressuring"
Communist elements. Yet, he has advocated no higher expenditure
or troop buildups. Rockefeller has yet to fully explain the results of
his promised reassessment of Vietnam.
IF ROCKEFELLER can make a series of stunning pronouncements ,
which drastically raise his popularity in both polls and the remaining
primaries, the desire to present a new face may actually create a
Rockefeller bandwagon which will deal Nixon his third straight loss.
Rockefeller, if he moves quickly, may have the potential the Republi-
cans are looking -for to make up for their battering in 1964.


By STEPHEN M. YOUNG

ANOTHER VIEW
Revolution on the campuses

5

THE WAVE of disturbances that has
swept university and college campus-
es in the last few months ought to be
deeply troubling to all Americans. It
tells us that something is seriously wrong
-with the students, with the educational
institutions, or both - and that this
something is far more serious than the
disputes over the war in Vietnam or the
civil rights problems that seem to trig-
ger the disurbances.
That something has two parts. One
is that a small group of students are
so disillusioned with the United States
that they want to destroy the existing
institutions although they have nothing
to offer in their place. The other is that
a far larger number of students are so
unhappy with particular aspects of so-
ciety or of education that they are will-
ing (or naive enough) to join the game.
This view of the rebel leaders received
substantial support last week from two
different perspectives. David B. Truman,
vice-president of Columbia University,
told Newsweek magazine, ". . .(I)t's per-
fectly clear from what (the rebels) do
and say and what they write that they
regard the universities as the soft spot
in a society that they're trying to bring
down."
TWO STUDENTS, involved on the side
opposing Dr. Truman at Columbia,
wrote in The New Republic that the de-
cision "to take physical control of a ma-
jor American university this spring" was
made months ago at a conference of the
Students for a Democratic Society. Co-
lumbia was chosen because it was an
Ivy League school, had a liberal reputa-
tion. and was situated in New York.
Claiming that the demands made by the
Second class 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, the
College Press Service, and Liberation News Service,
Summer subscription rate: $2.50 per term by car-
rier ($3.00 by mall); $4.50 for entire smmer ($5.00
by mail).
Fall and winter subscription rate: $4.50 per term
by carrier ($5 by mail); $8.00 for regular academic
school year ($9 by mail)

demonstrators were tailored to fit
bia after the decision to seize
made, the two students explain:

Colum-
It was

The point of the game was power.
And in the broadest sense, to the
most radical members of the SDS
Steering Committee, Columbia it-
self was not the issue. It was revolu-
tion, and if it could be shown that a
great university could literally. be
taken over, in a matter of days by
a well organized group of students
then no university was safe. Every-
where the purpose was to destroy in-
stitutions of the American Establish-
ment, in the hope that out of the
chaos a better America would emerge.
Anyone who has spent much time
talking with the leaders of student re-
bellions has a feeling these views are
accurate. The rebels are out of touch
with and do not understand the prin-
ciples of democracy. Their heroes are
the modern revolutionaries and the lan-
guage they talk is that of anarchy. Free-
dom of speech means nothing to them
except insofar as it protects their free-
dom to speak. The idea that differences
are resolved through discussion and
reason is irrelevant to them.
The only thing that counts in their
lexicon is power and the only way they
believe power should be used is to en-
force their beliefs on others. They have
no doubts about the rightness and the
righteousness of their views and they;re-
fuse to entertain any suggestion that
they may be wrong. The historical paral-
lels to this set of mind are only too easy
to draw. It is sufficient to say that it is
totally a war with everything this coun-
try has ever stood for.
IT IS NOW clear, for example, that the
rebel leaders at Columbia never had
any intention of negotiating a truce.
They wanted what they got; forcible re-
moval by the police, not to win their
argument with the Administration but to
solidify their following. Thus, the more
violent the police action, the better it
fit the rebels' purpose.
Confronted with this kind of mentality,
among leaders of student demonstra-
tions, a university administration has
little choice. It cannot tolerate students
who seize offices and classrooms, hold

5
F ',

i
l
1
z
c
a
,Y
Y
I
..
t
t
a
f
i°
c
a

EDITOR'S NOTE: The fol-
lowing, remarks by Sen. Young
(D-Ohio) are reprinted from
the Congressional Record.
THE OMNIBUS Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act report-
ed by the Committee on the Judi-
ciary is essentially an abominable
legislative proposal and presents
one of the most serious attacks
in our Nation's history against in-
dividual privacy and the concept
of due process of law. Under the
guise of providing law enforce-
ment assistance, this legislative
proposal would overturn recent
Supreme Court decisions protect-
ing the civil liberties of individual
citizens, permit greater use of'
electronic eavesdropping devices,
and condone more widespread
wiretapping.
While the bill does contain some
meritorious features in that it
provides a semblance'of gun' con-;
trol and some features of the safe
streets measure recommended by
the President, I would prefer to
see no legislation at all rather than
to vote for the proposal as report-
ed by the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. President, title II of the bill
is a manifest attack on the Su-
preme Court of the United States,
It would have the effect of re-
versing the Court's Mallory and
Miranda decisions and invite a
return to third degree police prac-
tices which in the past have been
standard operating procedure inr
many police station houses and
detective bureaus throughout the
Nation. I am able to speak with
some authority on this subject,
having served as chief criminal
prosecuting attorney of Cuya-
hoga County, Ohio, and having
prqsecuted many felony cases.
This bill would allow police to
arrest and question suspects in
total disregard of their consti-
tutional rights to be free from
arrest on mere suspicion, to be
free from compulsory self-incrim-
ination, and to enjoy the advice
of counsel to the extent to which
an individual is now entitled.

IT CANNOT be said with au-
thority that the Miranda decision
has seriously hampered law en-
forcement. Each of the two major
fiele ;tudies published to date on
the impact of that decision-one
by the Yale Law Journal, two
other by two professors at the
University of Pittsburgh Law
School-has concluded that the
impact has been small and that
the decision has had little effect
on police practices or the control
of crime.
Also, the so called Mallory rule,
declaring inadmissable in evidence
in a Federal court any confession
obtained from an arrested person
who is not taken before a magis-
trate or other judicial officer
"without unnecessary delay" as
required by rule 5(a) of the Fed-
eral Rules of Criminal Procedure,
is based on sound law enforcement
policy.
Prompt arraignment of arrested
persons is necessary in a free so-
ciety which values the fair ad-
ministration of criminal justice.
Prolonged incarceration and inter-
rogation of suspects without giving
them the opportunity to consult
with friends, family, or counsel is
surely not in keeping with our
principles of justice.
Furthermore, title II would for-
bid the Supreme Court of the
United States from reviewing
State court rulings admitting con-
fessions found to be voluntary-
no matter how fictitious or errone-
ous the findings of the State court
might be. It would narrowly re-
strict the power of Federal courts
to grant writs of habeas corpus
in connection with persons in the
custody of State authorities. It
would also overturn the recent
Supreme Court decision in United
States against Wade in which the
Court held that an in-court wit-
nes is inadmissable unless the
prosecution can show that the
identification is independent of
any prior identification of the
witness while the suspect was in
custody, and while his court-ap-
pointed lawyer was neither noti-
fied nor present.
THE REQUIREMENT in the
Wade case is unlikely to place an

undue burden on law enforcement.
The Supreme Court suggested that
a variety of procedures could con-
veniently be used by law enforce-
ment officials to insure fair and
impartial police lineups. The Court
suggested appropriate alternative
procedures that could be used in
circumstances where the presence
of a suspect's counsel at a lineup
was likely to cause prejudicial de-
lay or obstruction of the confron-
tation.I
The opinion offered workable
guidelines for achieving a reason-
able accomodation ' between the
requirements of law enforcement
and the rights of individuals ac-
cused of crime. The proposed
legislation while dispensing with
the , procedural safeguards estab-
lished in the Wade decision does
not even attempt to establish al-
ternative safeguards in lieu of the
requirements in that decision.
Instead, the pertinent, section
of the bill is a blanket provision
making eyewitness testimony ad-
missable in all circumstances
whether or not even the most
fundamental and time-honored
requirements of due process have
been met in the identification,
let alone the requirements of the
right to counsel under the sixth
amendment to the Constitution of
the United States.
In all probability, those pro-
visions of this proposed legislation
on police interrogation and eye-
witness testimony if enacted into
law would themselves be declared
unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court of the United States, and in
that process the orderly procedure
of justice would be seriously dis-
rupted and impaired.
Since no Congress in our Na-
tion's history has ever enacted
such extreme curtailment of the
authority of the Federal judiciary,
there has been no occasion for the
courts to decide upon such issues.
Those who believe that the Su-
preme Court has misinterpreted
the Constitution and that there
is a need for a change in its
jurisdiction and authority should,
proceed through the' only method
established, under our, system, of
law--by amending the Constitu-
tion of the United States.



Box score: 6 down, 2483 to go

Collegiate Press Service
IN THE WAKE of the up-
heavals at Columbia Univer-
sity there were student sit-ins
and demonstrations on a wide
variety of issues on half a
dozen campuses.
Following is a round-up of
the demonstrations:
STANFORD.
After a 56-hour sit-in 650
Stanford students left one of
the campus administration'
buildings early Thursday morn-
ing with faculty support of
their major demands.
The students' immediate goal
was to stop the suspension of
seven students involved in a
protest against the Central In-
telligence Agency last fall. They
were also calling for an over-
haul of the campus judiciary
system

doubted that he would take is-
sues with the faculty's wishes.
In a development that may
not have been related to the
protest, the Stanford Navy
ROTC building was burned
down for the second time this
year.
ROOSEVELT
On three successive days Chi-
coga police arrested students
sitting it at the Roosevelt ad-
ministration building. And the
administration followed the po-
lice action by expelling the ar-
rested students.
The students are protesting
the refusal of President Rolf A.
Weil to hire historian Staugh-
ton Lynd, now a part-time'
teacher at Roosevelt, was rec-
ommended for a full-time ap-
nointment hv the ehool's his-

others who had warned the
protesters that th$ police were
coming. A similar arrest of 16
additional students occurred
Thursday and another 11 were
arrested on Friday.
The use of police is believed
to be aiding the demonstrators'
cause. Several students'not in-
volved in the demonstration
were circulating a petition de-
manding that they be treated
in the same way as those who
sat in.
The exact -plans of the stu-
dents in the wake of the ar-
rests are unknown. President
Weil says he will "consider all
advice but will not change his
mind" about Lynd. At the same
time the Black Student Asso-
ciation has drawn up a list of
demands, including allowing
the BSA tn nnrove faculty an-

ministration announced it
would increase the black enroll-
ment "as rapidly as possible."
In meeting the blacks' de-
mands, the administration is-
sued a statement that it "rec-
ognizes that throughout its
history it has been a university
of the white Establishment.
The students had taken over
the business office May 3. A
group of white students staged
a sit-in in the dean of students'
office in sympathy with the de-
mands of the black students.
Later in the week, the agree-
ment came under attack on the
floor of the House of Repre-
sentatives. Rep. Tom Railsback '
(R-Ill.) said the agreement to
provide black-only housing
"might very well violate some
of the provisions of the 1964
and nerhans the 1968 Civil

Among the students' de-
mands are a student-faculty
committee with the authority
to overturn "any administra-
tion policy affecting students"
and the hiring of Dr. Sidney
Simon, who was denied tenure
earlier this year for giving all
A's in his classes.
The Temple faculty has ask-
ed President Paul Anderson to
withdraw the injunction but
he has refused. Two of the
demonstrators h a v e b e e n
threatened with legal action.
The students have not yet de-
termined what future! action
they will take.
SOUTHERN ILLINOIS
Campus, state, and local po-
lice broke up a brief sit-in at
the administration building in
protest against the university's

$*