Seventy-eight years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan

.JAMES WECHSLER
Unionism in' the South and in the unions

Ar

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.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 14, 1969

NIGHT EDITOR: HAROLD ROSENTHAL

Drafting by lottery:
Gambling with priorities

DESPITE THE RECENT intemperate
blasts by Defense Secretary Melvin
Laird that campus opposition to ROT1
is endangering t h e future of draft re-
form, President Nixon h a s asked Con-
gress for draft revisions that will include
random selection of draftees by a lottery.
Nixon's plan for random conscription
would mean that a young man would be
especially vulnerable to the draft for only
about one year- usually at 19 years of
age. Undergraduate deferments would not
What prie
IM funding?
THE PROPOSAL to construct additional
intramural facilities seems commend-
able; the possible-even probable-deci-
sion to fund the $10-15 million worth of
building from student fees is not.
The need for intramural facilities must
be weighed against the academic de-
mands of the University's various schools
and colleges, and the housing and living
costs of students. And while expanded in-
tramural facilities are sorely needed, stu-
dents have not been consulted on the
proposal to finance construction with al-
ready skyrocketing student fees.
The Advisory Committee on Recreation,
Intramurals and Club Sports is planning
to send an interim report to the Regents
this summer with a probable suggestion
to increase student tuition to pay for the
buildings. Committee members have said
they do not intend to ask for a student
referendum on funding. Athletic director
and committee chairman Don Canham
has said, "It isn't our position to initiate
or recommend a referendum. We should
just try to be as fair as possible."
Leaders of various student organiza-
tions-including SGC, IFC, IHA and the
Tenants' Union-have cried foul and have
lashed out at the committee's disregard
for "taxation without representation.",
They have demanded student opinion be
tapped before a decision is made.
JNCUDED IN the committee's report to
the Regents will be a survey taken by
a graduate course in Bio-Statistics par-,
tially funded by the committee.
However, the survey was never designed
to be any kind of reflection of student
views and was in fact only taken into.
consideration when the committee learn-
ed the study would be taken independent-
ly. According to survey director Prof.
John Kirscht, the survey is simply a
teaching exercise for his statistics stu-
dets and is by no means a -substitute for
a referendum. The primary purpose of
the Kirscht study is to delineate student,
faculty and staff recreational preferences.
Nowhere. in the survey are students
asked' if they would ask for facilities if
they knew ,construction might involve a
tuition hike of up to $30 per year.
CANHAM HAS stated that methods
other than student funding do not
seem feasible at this time, and perhaps
students will agree that IM facilities
warrant their dollars. But they should be
allowed to determine how their money is
spent first..
--SHARON WEINER

be abolished and students exempted by
them would become vulnerable after they
finished college.
'Nixon feels that this is a temporary
solution to: the problems of draft in-
equity and still envisions an all-volun-
teer army under "more stable world con-
ditions." The new plan, he feels, would
reduce the uncertainty in individual lives.
by cutting the threat of disruption from
seven years to one.
WHILE NIXON'S proposal is some im-
provement over the deplorable exist-
ing conditions, it nevertheless fails to deal
with the real objections to the draft.
Por one, students who are able to at-
tend college will maintain an advantage
over those who cannot by having the op-
tion of postponing their conscription for
four years. At 21, there will be minimum
risk of an ex-student being inducted. In
other words, under the President's pro-
posal, student deferments may mean stu-
dent exemption from the draft - an ap-
petizing but highly inequitable procedure,
even worse than the present selective ser-
vice set-up.
Moreover, conscription to the army at
19 is not any more appealing than at 25.
Nixon is not doing anyone any favors by
calling the youngest first, although his
proposed measures would undoubtedly
function as a deceptive safety valve to de-
crease student pressure for draft reform.
INDEED, THE striking thing about Nix-
on's proposal is that it fails to do any-
thing about the draft itself other than
change 'the method of selection. The real
objection to the draft is not how it is be-
ing done but what'is being done: forcing
young nen into two years military con-
scription.
Nixon fails to realize that most people
are opposed to the draft because they do
not want to be coerced into two years of
military services where they face the fur-
ther prospect of coercion into American
intervention overseas. Just because an in-
dividual is chosen to take part in Viet-
nam-type foreign wars by a lottery in-
stead of by a humorless Selective Service
clerk does not make the situation a n y
more tolerable.,
Any real solution to the draft will re-
quire a change in American attitudes to-
ward the military intervention in the af-
fairs of other nations. A meaningful
change in the draft must allow a person
to refuse induction because he conscien-
tiously objects to a particular war.
OR BETTER STILL, N i x o n and the
Pentagon should divert a little time
away from drumming up support for the
ABM to consider the prospect of not
fighting any m o r e Vietnams and not
keeping, a large peacetime army, t h u s
eliminating the need for the draft other
than in times of national emergency.
Nixon rightly believes that a system of
compulsory military service is unreason-
able in times of peace. But it will be up
to him to egin a revision of American
policy that will contribute, to conditions
of peace. Until then, tinkering with the
draft will not make America much bet..
ter.
-STEVE ANZALONE

IT WAS ALMOST a decade ago-the date was Sept. 23, 1959-when
Asa Philip Randolph rose at an AFL-CIO' convention to cry out
against the existence of segregated locals in the labor movement and
AFL-CIO chieftain George Meany angrily responded: "Who the hell
appointed you as the guardian of all the Negroes in America?"
Now it was Tuesday night of this week in the year 1969 and in the
ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria and one of those paying homage
to Randolph was saying "I consider it a great privilege to come here
this evening." The speaker recalled Randolph's long battle against
labor's discriminating sins and added: "He is no longer alone."
The speaker was George Meany and, while his detractors will say
that he was belatedly performing an act of penance (or responding to
the pressures of critics), Meany's largeness of spirit is too often de-
precated; he is too old to feel any desperate need for a contrived
political gesture. But it must also be said that the drama reflected Ran-
dolph's remarkable gift for evoking the best impulses in those whom
his life touched-including many with whom he has bitterly clshed.
THE TURNOUTAT this tribute underlined how deeply Randolph
has challenged so many consciences. I know he would regard it as
ungracious if I marred the occasion by naming some of those present,
including some fancy labor-skates, whose dedication to the rights of
Negroes have been less than ardent.
Randolph would prefer to believe their attendance was symptomatic
of a small moral awakening that he has helped to arouse, and that
justifies in some degree the rationality and patience that always ac-
companied his most militant endeavors.
THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT more than half the membership of
AFL-CIO executive council was on hand evoked memories .for one
reporter of a melancholy time long before the Meany-Randolph ex-
change of 1959. It was the AFL convention of 1940 at which Randolph-
without the support of a single white delegate-spoke out passionately
against the Federation's Jim Crow practices. I will never forget the
deadly silence in which he was heard and ignored. Now many of the
elder statesmen who subjected him to that indignity are dead or mori-
bund, and many of the survivors were saluting him. It is not Randolph
who has changed.
WHAT MIGHT HAVE been an evening of rambling nostalgia
fortuitously acquired very contemporary relevance because of the strike
of hospital workers in Charleston, S.C. For Randolph this must have
provided special satisfaction; although ill health has reduced his labors,
it has not diminished his sense of involvement, and ceremonials are not
his favorite affairs, even when he is the honored dignitary.
.Someone other than Randolph might have been dismayed by the
fact that, in theatrical terms, Mrs. Coretta King stole the show with her
moving plea in behalf of the underpaid, exploited Charleston employes
who "are sick and tired of being sick and tired."
BUT ONE COULD detect in Randolph's closing response the old
scent of battle, an analogy between the oppressed Pullman porters for
whom his leadership meant a glimpse of sunlight and dignity and the
embattled Charleston Negroes who refuse to be awed by the intrasige-
ance of Gov. McNair and the hospital officialdom.
There was also the felicitous coincidence that it was exactly 10
years ago this week that New York's hospital workers began the strike
that led to a breakthrough against anti-union establishments and the
emergence of Local 1199 as a major fact of local life. Randolph was
a large figure in mobilizing support for that victorious upsurge.
NOW CHARLESTON HAS beconie .a convulsive battleground for
unionism in the South, and especially for Negroes whose pay, in Mrs.
King's words, is "not a wage but an insult."
And now Philip Randolph, Mrs. King, Roy Wilkins and Bayard
Rustin were saying in unison that the Charleston conflict could herald
a revival of the labor-Negro coalition that has disintegrated so omin-
ously in the face of blue-collar backlash and black separatism. Perhaps
the hope is beyond realization, and one wonders how many of those in
the audience who cheered the sentiment are prepared to act out the
commitment. Yet it is conceivable Charleston may be a new turning
point, and that some history was made on the night when Coretta King,
with her rare blend of grace and gravity, joined hands with George
Meany and Phil Randolph. Whatever the outcome, it was surely Ran-
dolph's triumph that the news of this alliance went out to the be-
leagured strikers as a sequel to the singing of "happy birthday."
(C) New York Post
cinema
Monterey Pop'

*1

Letters to the Editor

Dow now
To the Editor:
READ WITH interest Lorna
Cherot's editorial in Friday's
Daily on Wednesday's demonstra-
tion at Dow Chemical. As the one
designated by Clergy and Laymen
Concerned About Vietnam (CAL-
CAV) to speak first in the meeting,
I must sadly concur in Miss
Cherot's judgment that the CAL-
CAV speakers and demonstrators
had little apparent effect on Carl
Gerstacker, the other directors and
the stockholders or Dow. Ger-
stacker's dismissal as half-truths
and untruths of thefacts cited on
CALCAV's Fact Sheet on Dow, all
of which were attested by publica-
tions such as the U.S. Department
of Defense Technical Abstract
Bulletin, was a sorry performance
-as was this shrewd, successful
effort to reassure the stockholders
of Dow that the company was
quite right to make napalm; either
he is not very bright, or his scale
of values is defined by what bene-
fits Dow - probably the latter.
I agree with Miss Cherot that
if a demonstration occurs next
year it should not be like the one
held last year or this.
FOR THE RECORD, I enclose
a copy of the remarks I made,
which were apparently so signally
unavailing. I say apparently, for
in speaking at St. John's Episcopal
Church in Midland three days be-
fore the demonstration, and at the
meeting itself, I got the impression
that a minority does exist, even
in Midland, even of- Dowstock-
holders, who are troubled by na-
palm; unfortunately, they lack the
courage to speak out on the mat-
ter.
-Prof. John A. Bailey
Near Eastern Studies
May 12

Nudes 'n prudes
To the Editor:
THIS LETIER is concerned with
one of the most significant
symbolic issues of our times : the
public exposure of the unclothed.
or nude, human body.
There have been many expatia-
tions on this issue both in your
paper and elsewhere, and there
seems to be a strong i concensus
afoot that the naked human form,
is in fact not obscene, as has been
the current of opinion during most
previous periods of human his-
tory.
This odd new opinion seems to
me to be merely an emotional and
unreasonedsreaction of today's
youth against Puritan and Vic-
torian ethical strictures-which
they apparently consider to be too
binding for a free expression of
the soul. But we mustn't let such
emotional -reactions cloud our
esthetic judgment about the mat-
ter. Indeed, the nation looks to us,
the intelligentsia, to' evaluate and
solve this divisive social issue. We
cannot fail them now.
AN INTELLIGENT esthetic
judgment about the undraped
male or female human body is
actually quite simple-childsplay,
in fact, for truly sagacious persons.
I have endeavored such an evalua-
tion, and present it here for your
and the public's approval.
The body has little, if any, func-
tional beauty when undressed.
The absurd distribution of body
hair, the scant musculature, the
oddly elongated legs, and the color
fin Caucasians)resembling that
of a dead fish's belly are-even if
regarded as exceedingly beautiful
in themselves - indications of
functionless or disfunctional at-
tributes. The body is not well'
adapted to any environment, it
would seem, except perhaps for

that found beneath several layers
of cloth.
A decorative esthetic analysis
of the body, of homno sapieps is
even more disastrous than the
functional analysis. There is no
decorative or attractive coloration;
the skin reacts in an arbitrary and
unlovely way to prolonged ex-
posure to the rays of the sun; bi-
pedal motion has an uneven and
jerking effect; and the body is
disturbingly elongated in the ver-
tical axis-such that its center of
gravity is far too high for appro-
priate decorative effect.
CERTAIN PRACTICAL con-
siderationsdmust also be niade. A
will-trained,,athletically fit, and
goodly proportioned body may not
be wholly repulsive, especially if
one' enjoys the pale-brown or
pastel blood color of large stretches
of undifferentiated flesh; but the
large majority of people (as any
statistician will tell you) are ill-.
proportioned, badly developed, and
highly blemished and scarred.
Such shortcomings are well-dis-
guised among other members of
the animal kingdom, but we seem
to have made an evolutionary
stress upon certain distinctive
mental tendencies-aspects which
are of no concern to us here-at
the expense of the corporeal as-
pects.
Now that I have completely
analyzed the topic, let me throw
off the cloak of objectivity to re-
veal my own opinion on the mat-
ter. In view of what I have said,
it might be thought that I am
totally opposed to exposure of
human bodies, and would favor,
perhaps,badpermanent coating of
some kind for it. But this is most
certainly not true, for I myself
can recall times when I have de-
sired most strongly a more undis-
guised look at certain bodies. But
it must be added that my concep-
tions at these times were both
tainted with personal emotions
and applicable only to certain
private situations, and not to such
activities as acting, singing, or
dancing.
THUS, I AM FORCED to admit
that--while exceptions must be
made for such occurrances as
physical examinations' and show-
ers and baths-I do not strongly
desire to be surprised with a look
at some public figure's navel, his
rolls of fat, his appendectomy'
scar, or other features of his ana-
tomy which are, in keeping with
the Victorian ethic, normally cov-
ered by clothing.
Perhaps it will be objected that
my views are due to my lack of
true exposure to the naked body,
and that time would foster in me
a full'er appreciation of its finer
aspects. In answer, I will allow
that my exposure (thank good-
ness) has been minimal, except for
brief and harried excursions into
nublic showers and such. And it

poop-zzz

600!


1

By DAN BEItMAN
IT'S VERY nice to see the dream-like stage performance of the Who,
the gross acrobatics of Jimi Hendrix, and close-ups of Janis Joplin on
film; it's fun to watch Mama Cass flow around while standing still on
stage, and touching to watch the late Otis Redding sing. Yet sitting
through the 72 minutes of Monterey Pop, is boring.
Eve1y song and every group is good, but although the film has
recorded moments dear to the heart of any pop fan (the Who smashing
their instruments and Hendrix's erotic guitar routine), there is an im-
portant dimension missing. The festival is never really "present" be-
cause director D. A. Pennebaker has not integrated his shots of the
audience and of the performers with the proper balance that could in
some sense place us at the scene.
Monterey Pop is a documentary which has missed the finer touches.
At the end of the movie, the festival audience gives Ravi Shankar a
standing ovation. This is somewhat of a surprise because throughout
the rest of the film there does not seem to be an audience at the
festival; there are the usual cute shots of individual members of the
audience reacting, but rarely are there shots to show the enormity of
the crowd that was' present. A contrast between loud sound and the
surrounding quiet is made by an irritating jump from the end of the
Who (singing "My Generation") to people resting in a field, and also by
cutting directly from the end of a song by Canned Heat to a softer
number by Simon and Garfunkel.
Yet, not once between the 13 acts does Pennebaker show anyone
setting up their instruments, which could have helped create a realistic
atmosphere while at the same time pointing out the contrast in sounds.
And maybe close-ups of instruments being played is a cliche in films
of *musical performances, but it is without question one of the most
valid cliches in this type of movie and one that is sadly lacking in
Monterey Pop.
Many of the acts are filmed and edited perceptively. The familiar
first notes of "Ball and Chain" are heard before we see close-ups of
Janis Joplin doing her wailing overwhelmingly intercut with views of
her communicative dancing feet and with her view of the crowd. There
are lingering shots of Grace Slick for which everyone should be grateful,
and the spirit of Jimi Hendrix is amply conveyed simply by recording
his puckish singing and his usual antics.
The virtue of the movie is in the subject matter, however, and
Pennebaker has not produced a work of art brut an everyday television
special.
m'ar era nn enari a affnn nuic rs~in n in p+heavant iq

*

KING T 56-meTHE AVWY
I4AID COVU T50W
RU 561 I1.T
~ri~ o L Pis Publibes-al Sydiate19
S !JTO C A MCPlFlI9 12) 1ATf

'SHALL 6 TII
OF THE
-EATH

NI1 6 l AK&hCFATEr2 FAL-AC S
UR6OFT86tj~Im S TESRVY
7D PPPOV6 A I46AVY ~r, L/KC'i
S H 11 ) OeL26PMoT PO OUCAO,
I

OY :ISM tOW Th6 N71CI - YOU) f t
aCL FAlW E 0F IruTU GHEE6
CW 55t5 MSyrEH TO- G

,P AP .OUR FAR



G