itr £irehjan 4aihj
Seventy-eight years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan

just a song in the wind
How to win egos and destroy students
by jim beck

I4

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 reprirs.

FRIDAY, MAY 23, 1969

NIGHT EDITOR: NADINE COHODAS


Burger and the Court:
Nixon told us so

NIXON'S APPOINTMENT of a "law and
order".man to the post of Chief Jus-
tice certainly comes as a surprise to no
one. Nixon repeatedly said during t h e
campaign that his -judicial appointments
would seek to re-orient the high court
back to "strict constructionism" - mean-
ing conservatism.,
Warren E. Burger appears to have the
conservative credentials that Nixon de-
mands. Described as a man who is a mod-
erate on civil rights, Burger is known al-
so to be one who takes a strong s t a n d
against recent Supreme Court action in
the area of criminal protection.
The Burger appointment is Nixon's
first appointment to theiCourt, ani it will
not be his last. The seat vacated by the
resignation of Justice Fortas is now up
for appointment. And, with the singleness
of purpose that Fortas' critics sought his
ouster for alleged financial misbehavior,
one can 'suspect that Justice William O.
Douglas will be exposed to the same kind
of fire.
While many. people were genuinely
shocked by the disclosure of Fortas' fi-
nancial dealings, Congressional disap-
proval of him was primarily disapproval
of the Court's behavior. Most Congress-
men have outside sources of income that

are no more detestable: than that of For-
tas. Nevertheless, it was good window
dressing for an attack on the Court. It is
no coincidence that Fortas and Douglas
are two of the most liberal members of
the Court.
THE APPOINTMENT of Burger and two
other justices may well swing the bal-
ance of the Court back to the right. This
may be the most damaging and lasting
legacy of Richard Nixon. One only need
look to the Taft Court to see what dam-
age a conservative court can do to pro-
gressive legislation.
In these days when Congress is consid-
ering repressive legislation to tame cam-
pus turbulence, w h e n Deputy Attorney
General Richard Kleindienst suggests
that campus rebels should be "rounded up
and put in a detention camp," a liberal
Supreme Court seems to be one of t h e
only hopes for maintaining a modicum of
sanity in government.
But, the appointment of Warren Bur-
ger and the attitude of Nixon and Con-
gress toward the Court make the pros-
pects for a sane future 1 o o k incredibly
bleak.
STEVE ANZALONE

WASHINGTON
FEW WILL DENY that the student
movement is in dire need of some kind
of solidification. But if it is to reach this
point, several prerequisites are necessary:
such as communication, interaction and
cohaesion. Unfortunately, however, the
simple realization that the ultimate need
is, indeed, solidification has caused some
ambitious souls to try to evade the pre-
requisites and jump right to the aspiration.
THE NATIONAL Student Association
(NSA) has been the only bona fide national
student group that has ever existed and its
legitimacy, which was always challenged,
was damaged almost qompletely with the
1966 expose of ties with the Central Intel-
ligence Agency. NSA was receiving almost
$300,000 per year in straight CIA cold cash.
It would have been appropriate for NSA
to disband itself at that point. Student
activism was creeping along, even though
the Berkeley Free Speech Movement was
at a lull. NSA's ability to lead was non-
existent because those concerned were
afraid to follow.
1
BUT NOT EVERYONE dropped out of
NSA like our own SGC did. And, in fact,
its membership increased from 250 to 380
in a two-year period after the CIA affair.
Most of the membership, though, came
from smaller, private institutions. Iron-
ically, however, NSA's leadership continued
to come from the large, potentially erup-
tive campuses.
Except for an interesting sidelight with
the CIA concerning the building NSA occu-
pies, the ties with the covert group seemed
to have been adequately severed. To this
day, of course, there is no way of knowing
precisely what ties were broken or if, in
fact, they were all broken.
Many other splinter organizations and a
number of "foundations" were also exposed
along with NSA by Ramparts and one of
the east coast's most progressive and dy-
namic reporters, Bob Walters of the Wash-
ington Star.
x
AFTER THAT haranguing incident, the
CIA-under direct and public ordei^s
from President Lyndon Johnson-would no
longer fundany organizations through its
conduit foundations. (In the NSA-CIA
arrangement, much of the money to NSA
was received through a front foundation
called the Foundation for Youth and Stu-
dent Affairs.) Johnson and others hoped
this would be one way of insuring the CIA
would n o t become involved in domestic
affairs.i
But in November 1966 the President
issued almost the exact proclamation again.
To this day that speech remains a mys-
tery, for supposedly, the CIA had at least
for the time being severed all domestic
ties, and thus, it seems either to be mean-
ingless or . . the CIA wasn't following the
President's orders.
Now the CIA has found a new way to
fund and subvert domestic organizations.
Under the Katzenbach commission the
CIA is now allowed to transfer funds freely
to and from the State Department.
IN ANY CASE, NSA has made it quite
clear it has no ties with either the govern-
ment or the CIA. But it still does have
ties; this time with the Ford Foundation
through a three-year $350,000 grant. The
first $35,000 of this has been lost and
according to NSA members disappeared
because someone forgot to log it. Another
$100,000 seems to have blown casually
away for such activities as "mailing letters"
and supporting a "five or six man" staff.
* *
E ARLY IN MAY NSA sponsored a press
conference for the "We Won't Go"
statement. The conference was called to
air the protest of some 253 "student lead-
ers" who signed the NSA statement
pledging not to serve in the Army if in-
ducted during the Vietnam War. (The
statement was relatively conservative)
At that weekend quasi-protest University

4v

4-4

Obnoxious bylaw revision

THE SECOND CLAUSE of Section 7.09 of
the ad hoc committee's bylaw proposal
is a direct affront to the spirit and pur-
pose of the Hatcher report. Unless this
clause is deleted or drastically amended,
Student Government Council should not
approve the ad hoc committee's proposal.
Section 7.09 is concerned with the del-
egating of regulatory authority. Clause 2
of this section states, "when the gradu-
ates- of a particular academic program
normally r e q u i r e a license to practice
their profession, the governing faculty of
the school or college offering that pro-
gram is authorized to set, clear and pub-
lish behavorial standards (relating to the
licensingi requirements) for determining
grades, awarding degrees and continuing
enrollment in the program."
Schools that would be affected by this
clause are the medical, education, 1 a w,
dentist and nursing schools and certain
divisions of the engineering college.
This clause is obnoxious because it au-
tomatically assumes that the University
has the right to establish codes of moral-
ity for students. It is repugnant to the
Hatcher report because these codes are to
be established without consent or con-
sultation of the student body. The pur-
pose and theme of the Hatcher report was
to increase student participation and in-
fluence in t h e functioning of their
schools.
SECTION 2 will be open to abuse by the
more conservative faculties particular-
ly in the medical, nursing and engineering
schools. Regulations could be set against,
students of a reformist or radical persua-
sion. Repressive measures could be passed
in order to prevent students from partici-
pating in demonstrations under the pre-
text of maintaining "responsible" behav-
ior.
'This section can also be abused by the
passage of petty regulations - like those
governing dress. This year the medical
school allowed the first beard. The rea-
son for banning beards was the excuse
that they were unsanitary. T h e dental
school still draws the line against beards
and only allows moustaches.
The situation in nursing school is even
more absurd. The nursing faculty governs
their students with an iron-fist that is
characteristic .of grammar school disci-
pline. Dresses must be worn to all class-
es. The only exception is lab.
Editorial Staff
MARCIA ABRAMSON .................... Co-Editor
JIM HECK.............................. Co-Editor
2MARTIN HIRSCHMAN .. Summer Supplement Editor
JIM FORRESTER.............summer Sports Editor
PHIL HERTZ ...... Associate Summer Sports Editor
ERIC PERGEAUX, JAY CASSIDY ...... Photo Editor
NIGHT EDITORS: Joel Block, Nadine Cohodas, Harold
Rosenthal, Judy Sarasohn.
ASSISTANT NIGHT EDITORS:.Lorna Cherot, Erika
Hoff, Scott Mixer, Sharon Weiner.
Business Staff

There was also an incident in the nurs-
ing school where a girl was three min-
utes late for class, a n d the instructor
'stopped lecturing and scolded the student,
demanding that the girl apologize for dis-
rupting her class.
It is inconceivable that a school would
expel a student for petty reasons 1i k e
dress and appearance, although they can
make life, unpleasant. But it is conceiv-
able that the faculties of the professional
schools will try to regulate their student's
private lives in the areas of drug use and
co-habitation practices. One man's mor-
ality cannot serve another's conscience.
jT CAN BE ARGUED that the University
has used its punitive powers in rare
instances and then only to a mild degree.
There hasn't been an expulsion from the
University in four years. Although stu-
dents have been requested to leave, it has
generally been for academic reasons and
not on a moral basis.
The medical school's example of n o t
wanting to license child molesters is
plausible. But certainly a code of moral
regulations is not needed to rid the school
of perverts. If a student were guilty of
s u c h an offense certainly the faculty
could discuss the matter with the student
personally and s e e k a solution to his
problem.
Yet this is not the most serious flaw of
Section 7.09. The regulations set by the
faculties of the professional schools will
not be subject to review by Central Ju-
diciary. A student's only recourse is to pe-
tition his own school, but if he is not sat-
isfied with the decision rendered bythe
faculty, his only recourse is to petition in
civil court. This is both costly and time
consuming for the student, who is forced
to take t h e initiative in defending him-
self.
Student Government Council cannot
approve a, measure which allows such ob-
vious tryannical control by the faculty.
The attitude expressed by t h e medical
school faculty that it would not approve
the bylaws proposal without clause 2 is an
example of their insensitivity to student
rights as outlined in the Hatcher Report.
The medical school can safely assume
such an attitude since the number of fac-
ulty greatly outnumbers that of the stu-
dent body. Also the medical school is as-
sured that Senate Assembly will not ap-
prove t h e resolution without their en-
dorsement.
THIS CLEARLY leaves the final decis-
ion up to SGC. The faculty is trying to
proposition the students, by threatening a
delay up to three months for bylaw re-
form, since President Fleming has said
that he will present the proposal to the
Regents unless Senate Assembly and SGC
agree on the proposal.
This leaves SGC in the role of spoiler,

of Chicago student editor Roger Black be-
came spokesman. Black has managed to
produce a bland less-than-daily newspaper
at Chicago and has consistently refused
any attempts at working with other stu-
dent editors, who, in his words, "are gen-
erally stupid."
But for some reason Black decided to
align himself not with the normally radi-
cal student editors but with small-town,
religion oriented student government pres-
idents. He and a few others talked for some
time with Henri Kissinger after they de-
livered their protest in suit and tie.
At this time Black and several NSA
people decided another meeting of repre-
sentatives of the 253 should be called to
formulate a statement on student unrest
trying to bring some definitions into the
student movement in hope a summer con-
ference of student leaders in order to
either set up a new national student or-
ganization or "re-legitimize" NSA.
A DAY LATER in Madison several stu-
dent editors and student government
presidents met for a press conference to
denounce ROTC. NSA Executive Vice Pres-
ident Bill Shamblin, an uninvited member,
showed up to participate.
Afterthe conference Shamblin posed the
question : Couldn't everybody meet some
time this summer with other student lead-
ers for a conference? This big meeting, it
was implied, could be used as a general
congress towards some kind of student
cohesion. Perhaps, it was tacitly suggested,
a new and more dynamic student organi-
zation could evolve from this.
FOUR DAYS LATER in a hasty bout
with' the telephone NSA staffer David
Haw, a well-known, well-intentioned draft
dodger, called some of the 253 together
for a weekend conference to formulate the
student unrest statement.
Together with some interesting unknown
people-a Mike Smith, ostensibly a past
VISTA volunteer now working in Harvard
(he is a member of the Ripon society
staff); Terry Barnett who was as quiet as
his credentials; Sam Brown and Clinton)
Deviaux, past avid McCarthy supporters,
and an occasional NSA staffer. These peo-
ple were not, to say the least, student
leaders and it was extremely difficult to
ascertain exactly what they were at all.
But the discussions began May 10. And

as they began, former University of New
Mexico Lobo student editor Robert Burton
saw Hawk pass NSA president Robert
Powell a mimeographed sheet. On the left-
hand corner of the sheet was scribbled in
pen: "First Draft/not for distribution/con-
fidential/May 6."
NEEDLESS TO SAY things were becom-
ing extremely unusual. For as the discus-
sions continued through the next day (with
an amazing amount of liquor brought in
by NSA staffers it became clear the dis-
cussions were being led by the "unknown"
people like Smith and Brown. Black, of
course, had his finger in the pie-he ap-
pointed himself chairman over the discus-
sions.
The next day NSA staff member David
Holwerk, who is uptight about the group
and leaving, privately told some of those
at the conference that the statement every-
one believed they were working towards
had already been written. Probably by
Alard Lowenstein or Arthur Schlesinger.
Liberals, Holwerk explained, felt it was
necessary that some students prove them-
selves to be "responsible leaders" or else
all hell was going to destroy the liberal
movement.
Holwerk claimed he could get Powell's
secretary to testify to everything he alleged.
THAT NIGHT several of the statements
were emerging and not ironically, Smith
-authored the tactics segment, Deviaux
authored the racism segment and Brown
authored the War part.
Black announced that by Sunday morn-
ing at 11 or 12 o'clock a rough draft would
probably be completed and that everyone
there could sign that di'aft. Those who
remained would "polish it up" and present
it to the news media Monday at 10:30 a.m.
The statements were conservative, far
more reactionary than student leaders
from the n}ajor schools would endorse. The
larger schools became uneasy with the sit-
uation. The argument was raised that it
was actually foolish to attempt such a
statement without representatives from
schools such as Wisconsin or Berkeley and
that how did anyone possibly expect a
statement to be written in a 36-hour
period that should take weeks to produce.
THEN THE INFO was spilled. Holwerk
got up, sweating and frightened, challenged
Powell: "Didn't you tell Margo (Powell's

secretary? you would never consider bring-
ing student leaders together for this with-
out already having a statement written?"
Powell fumbled for words and for all
practical purposes admitted to Holwerk's
allegations. Holwerk went into the back
room to call Powell's secretary, Powell fol-
lowed him and five minutes later Holwerk
refused to say anything else.
POWELL DENIED that Lowenstein or
Schlesinger had anything to do with either
the "We Won't Go Statement" 01 theone
towards which this group was working. A
minute later Brown admitted Lowenstein
had written the first of several drafts of
the "We Won't Go Statement" claiming,
"Everyone knows that."
The conference broke up in panic-to
say the least.
jT IS DIFFICULT to know who wrote
what. Certainly Lowenstein, who had
spread himself out so thin that all he can
do is wriggle from side to side, could have
had something to do with the conference.
NSA flew in two dozen student leaders and
boarded them for two days. The money?
From Blaire Clark, a past lieutenant in
the McCarthy for President campaign, al-
though NSA refuses to acknowledge this.
Amazingly enough, somehow scribbled
into the tactic segment of the statement
was the suggestion that all the work being
done was in order to facilitate a student
conference of many student leaders this
summer.
I VEHMENTLY disagree with NSA's
belief that a student conference can help
the present situation. It would be a gran-/
diose facade unless those prerequisites of
communication, interaction and, cohesion
sowehow developed first. But more impor-
tantly, the motif by which NSA operates is
totally unethical and completely question-
able.
There is no way of knowing who is
presently financing and directing this ex-
istential vendetta to get some conference
going this summer. It could be Lowenstein,
Schlesinger, the CIA or simply some rotten
minds in NSA. But nevertheless, the tactics'
by which NSA is operating in order to
bring about this conference are the same
they used when they were being subverted
by the CIA. And thus, while their pocket-
books may have changed form, their
ethics have remained repugnantly the same.

4+

*;

Letters to the Editor


To the Editor:
THE STORY by Howard Kohn
on Ferris State College in the
May 20 Daily and his editorial in
the May 21 issue are so distorted
by inaccuracies, omissions, and in-
nuendos that they give a com-
pletely false impression of the ad-
ministration and faculty of the
college (as well as the study body)
and their attitude toward blacks
and their education.
The inaccuracies in the story
(in incorrectly quoting President
Spathelf, in stating "some white
students had guns," in assessing
the damages to the library at $50
when it was many times that, in
stating "house mothers and resi-
dent advisors . . . work together
to maintain segregation," to point
out a few) totally distort the situ-
ation, as do the accompanying
pictures which were taken on
other campuses.
As a member of the Board of
Control of Ferris State College
since 1950, I have seen it develop
into a distinctive educational in-

premacists and black militants
among the students is certainly
true. That there is conflict between
these groups is too painfully evi-
dent. However, these are a small
minority of both blacks and whites.
The board has a policy, adopted
some time ago, in support of free-
dom of speech, of inquiry, and of
dissent, and of protest or demon-
stration in an orderly, peaceful,
and responsible manner. There
have been orderly demonstrations
at Ferris. The policytalso author-
izes the president to take legal
and/or disciplinary action when
college property is seized or vio-
lence takes place.
Ferris is not an armed camp full
of bigots andnmilitants, but a
valuable educational institution
serving the young people of the
state. It is plagued, like most cam-
puses, by a national malady that
distorted reporting only accentu-
ates.-
-Lawrence W. Prakken,
Chairman Ferris Board
of Control
May 2.2

'ill
rI. 'J1XFf

1.


A