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.

May 10, 1969 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1969-05-10

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

Elr 3fricligan Dat
Seventy-eight years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan

the jaundiced eye
Shoveling news copy for the Establshment


by ri l aiidsm a

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

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

SATURDAY, MAY 10, 1969


DlOWN, Down, down'

AMID THE ECONOMIC chaos which is
seriously injurying the state's system
of higher education, the University is
slowly losing its place among the nation's
leading schools.
Despite an apparently significant in-
crease in 'average compensation for fac-
ulty members, the University this year.
slipped still another notch in the nation-
wide salary ratings provided by the
American Association of University Pro-
Two factors explain how this decline
could take place despite the seemitig in-
creases. Inflation makes a significant
dent in the purchasing power of the Uni-
versity's increased expenditures, and, at
the same time, the general level of faculty
the Navy .
FOR A NAVY that self-rightously as-
sumes that a captain must destroy and
go down with his ship, Secretary of the
Navy John H. Chafee's decision to over-
rule any action against the Pueblo's cap-
tain and crew is a relief but not unquali-
fibly laudable.
While everyone, except possibly for
some die-hard Navy men, is pleased that
Chatee voided the Navy's court of inqui-
ry recommendation for disciplinary ac-
tion against Cmdr. Lloyd M. Bucher and
his crew,' one must examine the context
in which Chafee acted.
Chafee did not absolve Bucher. H i s
statement was: "I make no judgment re-
garding the guilt or innocence of any of
the officers of the offenses alleged against
them assuming that further pro-
ceedings were had, and even going so far
as to assume that a judgment of 'guilt
were to be reached -,they have suffered
enough, and further punishment would
not be.justified."
the case under the rug, refusing to
make any moral decision. Thus the ques-
tion of the validity of the Navy's code is
unanswered. And Bucher and his crew.
are not cleared.
A navy that wants to deal in espionage,
and without allowing anyone to find out
should not hold a captain responsible for
failure to do his duty if that navy know-
ingly sends him out with an inadequately.
equiped ship.
A navy that signs a confession under
pressure, as it did to get the North Ko-
reans to release the Pueblo and its crew,
in the name of humanity should not ex-
pect a captain to act any less humanly.
ALTHOUGH CHAFEE'S, action is a sign
that our military is not completely
inhuman, it would have been more sig-
nificant had he completely cleared the
men of the Pueblo.

salaries around the country is, rising
THE DROP IN the ratings - like the
nose dive from 17 to 23 last year -
comdes as little surprise to those who have
watched the State Legislature short-
change the University around appropria-
tions time each year.
And this year is unlikely to be much
different. The Legislature is presently
entertaining an appropriations proposal
submitted by Gov. William Milliken which
includes a provision for a seven per cent
increase in faculty salaries at the Uni-
But the Legislature, more likely than
not, will make signficant cuts in the gov-
ernor's proposal, leaving the University
with a minimal salary increase. And even
Milliken's seven per cent figure is to some
extent illusory. For some of this money
will have to go for non-salary expendi-
tures like an increase in the amount of
money the University pays the city for
police and fire protection.
MEANWHILE, THE long-range picture
for University financing continues to
look bleak. With the continuing shortage
of funds for all state expenditures, the
University can eventually expect a fate
like that which overtool Michigan State
University this year. MSU dropped from
51 to 75 in the AAUP rating.,
If, as appears almost certain, the Uni-
versity's decline in faculty compensation
continues, the result will be a concom-
mitant decline in the ability of the Uni-
versity to compete with other schools for
quality faculty members. And as the fac-
ulty goes, so goes the entire school.
Faced with this continuing decline, the
University administration stands virtual-
ly without the power to stop it. The power
to arrest the decline of the University lies
rather with the people of the state and
with the federal government.
Legislators argue, with considerable
justification, that for many citizens of
the state taxes are already too high and
that an increase without a change in the
tax structure would be intolerable. No
significant increase in higher education
appropriations - or, for that matter, in
appropriations for the public schools and
for welfare - can come until the state
moves to a more equitable tax system, a
graduated income tax.
AT PRESENT, SUCH a move is barred by
the state constitution, and the voters
of the state have defeated attempts to
amend the constitution. Hopefully, they
will change their minds before the
amendment next appears on the ballot.
Meanwhile, the federal government
could also aid the University by institut-
ing a system of inrestricted institutional
support and pouring large amounts of
money into higher education. But, at
present, the huge expense of the Vietnam
War precludes this possibility. Hopefully,
the Nixon administration will soon end
the war.

NOTHING MAKES ME hate newspa-
pers and the journalistic trade more
than returning home in the summer to
suburban Oak Park, Mich., and reading
the local journalistic fare.
Most of what I find is in the greatest of
the American know-nothing tradition,
breeding on ignorance with an absolutely
pathological resistance to any insight or
thoughtful consideration of political ac-
tions they dislike.
The first item I c a m e across was a
piece in the April edition of the Reader's
Digest, a piece that would be funny if it
were not so serious, entitled - a la True
Confessions - "Our Son Is a Campus
Radical." The author, coming forth to
tell the truth about these dangerous mat-
ters was, yes, Anonymous..
The story is the confession of two
guilt-ridden parents. Their boy came out
wrong. They didn't raise-him-right and
they got what-they-deserved - a long-
haired, wild-eyed, r u d e and unwashed
Radical for a son. Oh, they cry between
every line, The Shame.
ANONYMOUS recounts the horrors
when she visits her son at graduation,
and the shock she has. (She apparently
wasn't paying much attention for t h e
previous four years.) He was among some
protesters tormenting the commencement
But there is something coming. Peter,
the young Radical Son, really has a heart
of gold (every campus rad should be so
noble) -- his summer job after school
was working with disadvantaged ghetto
kids, helping them improve their reading.

One of the virtues of the job Anony-
mous noted, was that Peter was learning
"t h a t the chronic ailments of society
could not be healed by the magic wave of
a protest sign," which they had been try-
ing to tell him all along.
Confrontation comes - Peter asks his
mother to come with him to work one
She is, needless to say, shocked a n d
overwhelmed. She cannot believe the suf-
fering and poverty she sees, and she ad-
mits to him what he had earlier charged,
"We (America) have run out of time." It
is too late, she admits, for apathy.
BUT MIXED IN within the admission
of tguilt is the over-riding impression of
the vileness, of the basic wrongness, of
the Radical Son. She hopes Peter "learn-
ed something from our battles last year,"
Anonymous wrote, and s h e concludes,
"For everyone who cares, the t i m e is
now to show the Peters of America that
the greatest experiment of humankind
(presumably the United States) can be,
made to work."
It's a nifty little piece. It takes all the
wrong information and says all the right
things. Good, clean America is making
mistakes - and, let's face it, those dirty,
obscene, Commie, pinko-radical hippies
are the ones that showed us. Now we'll
make it all right.'
W h a t the piece says is stomachable
(i.e., it does n o t induce one to vomit,
though just barely), but its presentation
is the key. A similar attitude runs
through much of what one of the local
papers, the Detroit News, does.

THEY FEATURE, among other things,
a two-column "ombudsmen"-type piece
every day (copied from their rival, the
Detroit Free Press) that answers readers'
questions and lets them vent their wrath.
One such "Soundoff" piece was much
like the Reader's Digest atrocity. T h e
writer told of her pleasant encounter with
hippies - three bearded, bell-bottomed,
long-haired guys - who helped change a
flat tire for her, while all her social peers -
had gone whizzing by, leaving her strand-
ed. She was amazed at their kindness and
helpfulness (God, they were almost Boy
The coverage of the blow-up at Cor-
nell, which was largely the fault of the
wire services, was in the same implicitly
anti-student vein. Even the news sec-
tion of the New York Times seems to
have been guilty of nearly tragic distor-
tions. All printed the same picture -
vicious, armed, uncompromising black
radicals forcing a pliant administrator
into unconscionable compromises of their
But to read Tom Wicker's "In the Na-
tion" column of Sunday, April 27, is quite
a different story. According to Wicker, it
was the blacks who conceded by desert-
ing their only tactically-advantageous po-
sition on the word of one administrator,
the man Wicker interviewed for the col-
Whether Wicker was right on Cornell
or not is impossible to say from here.
But there can be no doubt that the news-
paper and wire service editors were re-
miss in not entertaining then perspective
Wicker brought out. It is bad, y e 11 o w

BUT THERE is a more -distressing as-
pect to the failings of the news media.
They don't print the news, t h e y print
what people want to hear. And if t h e
newspaper-buying public doesn't agree,
then its going to be tough kazatz for the
From what I've gathered from various
places in the city, from the letters col-
umns of the papers and from friends of
friends, the view represented by the De-
troit News and the Reader's Digest are
what the people want to hear.
They cannot understand students who
want to have a voice in the institutions in
which they are educated - students go
to study and to listen to their professors,
and that's all. Anything else is radical
and uncalled for, and the kids should be
booted out. It is that simple to the great-
er readership of the papers in this town.
The question of whether the newspa-
pers lead or the readers do is difficult to
ascertain right now. The example of Chi-
cago and the Democratic convention
seems to imply that the media just fol-
low the public's lead, and when they don't
they aren't believed. But that applies, it
seems, only to the short-range roles.
In the long-run, the media are in the
driver's seat. Through subtle changes and
a gradual redirection of their news cov-
erage and editorializing (on front page
and otherwise), the news media could go
a long way in healing relations between
classes and races in American society.
That it won't is both unquestionable
and regrettable, but a fact of life.
Some healthy proselytizing on the part
of student and black groups may -be what
is needed.



. m m

The b affling masochism of Abe Fortas

Fortas knew nearly five months
ago that Life Magazine had learn-
ed about the $20,000 fee he had
received in early 1966 (and re-
turned nearly a year later) from
the dubious "Wolfson Founda-
He must have known because it
was on Dec. 10 of last year, Bill
Lambert, Life's enterprising in-
vestigator said yesterday, that
Lambert interviewed Paul Porter,
Fortas' long-time partner, and ob-

tained corroboration of the essen-
tial facts about the initial pay-
ment and belated reimbursement,
along with Porter's rationalization
of the episode.
Indeed, in one of those freak
journalistic accidents, the ebullient
Porter may have revealed more
than Lambert knew at that mo-
THE CRUEL, baffling human
mystery is why, during the long
interval in which Fortas realized

he faced this exposure, he did not
choose to resign gracefully from
the Court. Such an exit, coin-
ciding with the end of the Johnson
regime, would have seemed wholly
plausible, dignified, and well-
timed; it would also have spared
Earl Warren the agony of this
final chapter.
On the other hand, the fact that
Fortas accepted such a fee from
a manipulator whose extensive
troubles with the government were
so well-known suggests that the
moral climate of the Johnson era
dulled the senses of many wise

Dept. so soon after the Wolfson
indictments were handed down?
Had he resisted pressure to block
The questions may, be unfair.
But it is precisely because such
questions now arise that the "ap-
pearance of impropriety" is the
crucial test of judicial conduct.
Fortas may feel aggrieved that
so few of his friends have rallied
to his banner in the current ordeal.
But he should have contem
plated last December-or in the

long ensuing period- Ae pain to
which he was exposing those who
stood by him valiantly during his
earlier battles. When he spurned
the option of resignation, he
placed not only himself in jeo-
Perhaps there is still an untold
story; if so, it is Fortas' obligation
to seek a Senate forum promptly
and tell it. No one can allege that
Bill Lambert didn't give him full
chance to do so.
(C) 1969 New York Post

"it is my duty to inform you of your,
constitutional rights . ..


^"^"._ .
4 ...^ '


} y tht Rcpasrr
"M Tr e nv yndRaw
' 91MfS. 1 $.



Letters: Defending the sociologyv de pt.

BUT IN LATE 1968 Fortas had
no reason to believe that Lambert
had been talked out of the pursuit
even by so skilled an advocate as
Porter during the December meet-
ing (initiated when Porter heard
that Lambert was working on the
story). For he and Lambert had
met and jousted before.
The time was the campaign of
1964, when the same magazine and
the same reporter were preparing
a critical report on the Johnson
financial empire.
When rumors of that inquiry
reached the White House, Lambert
received an invitation to a seance
with, LBJ. Upon arrival, however,J
he was asked by press secretary
George Reedy to proceed to Fortas'
law office. He did so, and there
ensued a long, somewhat ran-
corous confrontation between him-
self and the President's unofficial
but ubiquitous advisor. Finally
Lambert won his point; he got his
interview with LBJ.
Perhaps a recollection of that
meeting explains why, when Lam-
bert had finished his researches
last month and asked Porter to
arrange a pre-publication audi-
ence for him with Fortas, the an-
swer was negative. Porter told him
he had discussed the matter with
Mrs. Fortas and they agreed that
"they didn't want to bother" the
LAMBERT thereupon wrote For-
tas a registered letter-dated April
21-telling him that his inquiry
indicated "there might be some
impropriety" disclosed by his find-
ings. He also told him that his
editors had ordered him to begin
writing the following weekend.
A letter from Fortas, dated two
days later, (marked "personal"
and containing no secretary's ini-
tials) rejected the overture and, to
Labert's astonishment, contained
no reference to the $20,000 fee. At
thatspoint Life decided to publish
the story.
When he was named to the
court, he was presumably accept-
ing a large financial sacrifice. But
the going rate of $60,000 a year is
hardly a sweatshop wage and, for
men who care about the traditions
of the law, elevation to this tri-
bunal is the ultimate triumph in
ma is why anyone who had
achieved this eminence would risk
everything by the tawdry Wolf-
son involvement. His defenders
wil lsav that norta must have

martin lnirsekman
Regental reactio
'HERE HAS GOT TO BE some relationship between discipline and
disruption. If there's no discipline ..
This is the voice of reaction, the voice, in fact, of Regent Robert
Brown speaking privately with Regent Lawrence Lindemer at, last
week's special meeting.
Brown was apparently upset by the wave of student disruptions
which has hit innumerable college campuses over te past months. Or,
alternatively, he was trying to-create the feeling that the existenoe of
these disorders necessitated firm regental action in the area of student
Fortunately, Lindemer did not appear to be impressed by Brown's
empty rhetoric. While the question of discipline still remains unsettled,
it is one which the majority of the Regents no longer consider over-
whelmingly significant -- at least as long as Ahe campus remains calm.
Liberalism, even of this nebulous nature, is of course, rather new
to the Regents. It is the happy result of the Democratic sweep of the
state last November and the appointment by Gov. William Milliken ,of
Lindemer, instead of a more conservative Republican to fill the seat va-
cated by the death of Regent Alvin Bentley.
But Brown is not alone in his political views and his attitudes to-
ward University students. He still has company in Regents Paul Goebel
and William Cudlip. Goebel is perhaps the most conservative of the
Regents. He was the single dissenting voice, for example, in the vote
last January to give the senior editors of The Daily the power to choose
their own successors. In addition, he was the only one to oppose the
abolition of freshman women's curfews.
The moderate-liberal majority is a shaky one, of course. It is sub-
ject to a possible sudden reversal should one Regent drop off the board
and be replaced by a conservative. But, in addition, even the liberal
majority is populated by a few Regents who seem too ready to com-
promise their principles to suit the political mood of the time.
The sensitivity of the Regents to the mood in the State Legislature
is apparent in the board's discussion of almost any issue. The possible
legislative response was of paramount concern, for example, in the de-
bate a year and a half ago over abolishing curfews for freshmen women,
and in the attempt of several Regents to attack the moderate stance
taken by President Fleming in the obscenity controversy over Dionysus
in '69 last January.
In the Dionysus controversy, at first only two Regents, Gertrude
Huebner and Robert Nederlander, supported Fleming. The anxiety over
legislative disapproval felt by Regents like Democrat Gerald Dunn is
exemplified by his argument that The Daily should never print an "ob-
scenity" - no matter how relevant to the news - because it might up-
set the Legislature.
Gerald Dunn is indeed a liberal, but he is also a former state sena-
tor, and his familiarity with the mentality of the Legislature is per-
haps too intimate for the good of the University.
In fact, there was little legislative response to the production
of "Dionysus" and none over the abolition of freshmen women's hours.
The idea that the Legislature cuts state appropriations to schools that
are too liberal is, on the whole, an empty myth. Some legislators talk
much about things happening on college campuses, but these rantings
are not so much a reason for appropriations cuts as they are an expe-
dient excuse for the inadequate funding the University would have re-
ceived in any event.
The politics of those like Dunn is hurting the University more than
it is helping. For example, with the high level of tuition, the Regents
should go to a system, as Michigan State University has done, under
which students pay fees based on their parents' income. Thus more low-
er income students could afford to attend the University - long noted
.- - _-- f--- - kz .u 1ihawai..hA wkh-wamnheralm of the

To the Editor:
temperate and defamatory
letter about my colleagues, David
Segal and Marcello Truzzi in The
Daily, April 2, was as demeaning
to your editorial page as was your
choice of a headline' "Sociology
Students Plan Attack."
I would like to comment on a
number of the issues:
1. Professors Segal and Truzzi
were carefully selected by our
elected executive committee (not
by the chairman alone) to repre-
sent us in discussions with student
representatives in developing pro-
posals for change which the fac-
ulty and the students organization
can consider with the deliberation
and care they deserve.
These colleagues -have our re-
spect and backing. They were
chosen as men who have a vital
interest in teaching and in stu-
dents, and because we believe that'
they canconmunicate effectively
with studens if given an oppor-
tunity to do so without harass-
MRTV AW mmIT UT nT y',,m, _

which Mr. Van der Hout espouses.
The fact is that the department
has made many innovations when
appropriate as a' response to
changing situations and needs.
For example, a completely re-
vised doctoral program is now in
operation following intensive in-
ter-action with the graduate stu-
dents over a period of time.
4. THE TERM "bureaucracy" is
used in a pejorativeusense by Mr.
Van der Hout as if it were an in-
cantation against evil. Any ra-
tional organization for a complex
goal by a large number of people '
can be called bureaucratic; that
doesn't make it undesirable.
Of course, there must be an
orderly division of labor in a de-
partment as large as ours, subject
to general staff review of the
major decisions made by special
faculty committees.
Our executive committee is
elected by a secret ballot by the
whole staff. It always must include/
at least one staff member of non-
tenure rank; often, as this year,
it includes two.
The executive committee, in

University school
To the Editor:
THE DECISION regarding the clos-
ing of the University School is a
complex one, involving the financial
squeeze, space, importance of re-
search, and so on, for the list of fac-
tors affecting this decision can be
continued indefinitely.
Because the ultimate decision de-
pends upon the priorities given to
these issues, and this is a matter of
,opinion, it'is impossible to argue with
the intent of your April 16th editorial
in which you favor the closing of this
facility. It is however possible to ar-
gue with the substance.
'A significant portion of your edi-
torial is devoted to the thesis that
the University School h a s lost its
place as a research facility because
its size is too small. You have an ex-
tremely narrow view of research. You
seem to believe that all research is
statistical in nature, requiring x
number of students randomly select-

school could have rightfully argued
that its students should have greater
assurance that they were going to
learn something.
This was exploratory research -
the major goal was to see if a larger
study might be feasible. (Why begin
a large study if the idea is shown to
have no merit with a small group?)
Because of the results, we decided
to go through with a larger project
this year, a project which involves
1000 students and 15 schools. (The
closing of grades 10-12 of the school
has precluded continuing t h i s re-
search there, and in fact, in order to
continue my explorations, it has been
necessary to travel 80 miles to Adrian
each day to teach one class in geo-
metry. It is not easy to find public
schools that will agree to such re-
There is little question t h a t the
University School could be more ex-
tensively used in this t y p e of re-
search. We can always do better. But
great use is being made. I have chos-
_ __. . ..


Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan