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.

April 12, 1964 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1964-04-12

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

C 4r er t liapt fanl
Sevewty-Third Year
EDrED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
_ - UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Where Op1nio08 Ae r STUDENT PUWUCATIONS BLDG. ANN ARBOR, Mic., PHONE NO 2-3241
Trwth Win prevai"
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in at reprints.
SUNDAY, APRIL 12, 1964 NIGHT EDITOR: MICHAEL SATTINGER

Each Time I Chanced To See Franklin DO
Sorenson Confused over Bias Issue
by H. Neil Berkson

Wisconsin .Election HI story:
Failure of the Primary

THE WISCONSIN FIASCO is now elec-
. tion history. Gov. Reynolds ran scared
and seemed to get 70 per cent of the
Democrat vote; Gov. Wallace ran loud
and seemed to get 30 per cent of the
Democrat vote; Rep. John Byrnes also
ran and seemed to get all of the Repub-
lican vote, but therein lies the joke:
Gov. Wallace probably got more Republi-
can votes than Byrnes did.
In Wisconsin, it is possible for Repub-
licans to vote in the Democrat primary
and vice versa, so the loyal Republicans,
crossed party lines in great droves and
voted for George Wallace-simply to em-
barrass President Johnson, for whom Rey-
nolds has pledged support.
If embarrassment was the GOP's goal,
they were successful. Whenever an arch-
segregationist-racist and sometime bigot
can glean over 100,000 in a supposedly
virtuous state like Wisconsin, the result
must mean something.
IN THIS CASE, one can only suppose it
means that all those Byrnes and Wal-
lace supporters aren't enamoured of Lyn-
don Johnson-else why didn't they vote
for him?
Reynolds can declare his own stirring
victory-which he did, but Democrats
across the nation had better not believe
it, for Reynolds came far from winning.
Wallace can declare a victory for seg-
regation and other forms of provincial
bigotry, but he'd better not believe it.
THE ONLY PERSON who can declare
anything and believe it is Lyndon
Johnson, and he'd better chalk up Wis-
consin as a loss and a bad one. He al-
lowed his personal prestige to be laid on
the line against a symbol of civil unrest

and defiance, and well over 100,000 peo-
ple came out in favor of civil unrest and
defiance, regardless of their reason for
doing so.
There were no winners in Wisconsin;
the Democrats had too many Republicans
sloshing around in their affairs to get a
clear picture of how the land, in a posi-
tive sense, lies; the Republicans got stuck
with voting for a favorite son (Byrnes)
instead of a candidate or candidates with
even a remote chance of being nominated,
and thereby the Wisconsin GOP has little
or no idea of the party sentiment.
ALL THIS POINTS UP one thing clear-
ly: The primary system in the United
States has reached the ridiculous ex-
treme and should be abandoned without
delay. All that it accomplishes now is a
fantastic waste of public money, a fan-
tastic waste of newspaper space and a
fantastic waste of peoples' time.
A primary election that is set up so
that each party can select its candidates
and then allows every Tom, Dick and
Harry to vote can hardly be termed rep-
resentative of the party's choice. In fact,
it represents an unfair intrusion upon
party affairs.
HE SOONER the 50 states return to
the convention system of nominating,
regardless of its shortcomings, the sooner
a three-ring circus like the Wisconsin
mess can become a thing of the past.
And that glorious day, to those dis-
gusted with the elaborate expenditures
for campaigns and even more elaborate
lies, smears and half-truths by the can-
didate, cannot come too soon.
-MICHAEL HARRAH

THE WEEK THAT was was a week of lesson-learning
outside the classroom.
From Washington came word that when you invite
the President of the United States to be your com-
mencement speaker, you had better have someone else
waiting in the wings. (The story is an interesting one.
President Johnson accepted the University's invitation
some time ago, but his staff thought it was for June,
not May. Rumor has it that Dean Stephen H. Spurr is
now preparing a brief for the White House on the im-
plications of trimester.)
ONE CLEAR LESSON emerged from Lansing's she-
nanigans last week: the University ought to pray nightly
for Sen. Stanley G. Thayer. As a matter of fact, per-
haps we ought to pray to Sen. Thayer.
* * * *
AND IF IFC and Panhel learned nothing else, they
learned not to invite The Daily editor to their banquets
anymore. They made this mistake last Wednesday, and
consequently Regent Allan R. Sorenson's proposal to cut
all ties between the affiliate system and the University
became the issue of the week.
Sorenson's point of view has been public for some time.
He explained it in a letter to The Daily as early as last
November, but until last week he received little- reaction.

His proposal raises a number of questions because it
can be reinterpreted in so many different ways. A strong
case could be made that the University should subsidize
no student activity. If a Student Government Council or
a Young Democrats or a WCBN wants to organize, fine,
but is it the responsibility of the University to provide
any assistance?
A BETTER CASE could be made that, totally apart
from the issue of discrimination, fraternities and sorori-
ties are private clubs with a selective membership policy'
that says some University students are better than
others, based on thoroughly subjective criteria.
The University should be educationally committed to
oppose such an in-group, clique-oriented mode of
thought. Consequently, it should dissociate itself from
the Greek system.
BUT THE UNIVERSITY made its mistake in the
1840's when, after much controversy, it decided to recog-
nize fraternities as a part of the educational process. Is
the University willing, 120 years later, to suffer all the
problems which would arise by suddenly dislocating 70
organizations?
Sorenson's basic premise involves neither of the above
interpretations. He very clearly says that the University

should break with the Greek system because fraternities
and sororities always have, always will and should be
able to discriminate.
HE MAKES A very serious mistake when he bases his
case on that premise. Discrimination is not a primary
problem with the fraternity system. Even if the groups
were unbiased with regard to race, religion, etc., they
would still be an anti-intellectual force because of their
inherent selection policies.
Since fraternities and sororities have no objective
criteria for selecting their members, the potential for
discrimination may be higher than in other organiza-
tions. On the other hand, there may well be more dis-
crimination in various literary college departments than
there is in certain Greek houses.
* * * *
THE QUESTION of bias in fraternities is incidental.
The real problem comes with the process of selection,
whereby certain individuals assume a false sense of status
with regard to their peers.
While Sorenson doesn't think so, his suggestion, if im-
plemented, would quickly put fraternities and sororities
out of business. This may be desirable. The issue will be
sidetracked, however, if it is argued on the basis of
discrimination.

THE SEX DILEMMA, PART IV:
The Future: Freeing the Search for Love, Sincerity

'U' Abdicates Responsibility
In Alleged Discrimination Case

UNIVERSITY Vice-President for Busi-
ness and Finance Wilbur K. Pierpont
Friday confirmed rumors that the Uni-
versity has since 1956, owned a $180,000
mortgage on the Parkhurst and Arbordale
Apartments, the apartments currently
under fire for allegedly having discrimi-
natory renting practices.
Some people might feel that owning
such a mortgage is, in itself, ground for
criticism of the University. But this can
hardly be justified. In the first place, the
mortgage was issued in 1956, long before
the present case originated. And in the,
second place, the mortgage changed
hands to the present owners who are
charged with discriminatory practices in
1960.
THE UNIVERSITY can be criticized,
however, for its behavior toward the
present apartment owners when it dis-
covered their alleged discrimination.
This behavior has illustrated a great
lack of either administrative information
or interest in the matter, especially con-
sidering that Vice-President for Student
Affairs James A. Lewis said the Univer-
sity knew of the existence of the mort-
gage on the discriminatory housing be-
fore the Congress of Racial Equality ap-
proached him on the matter.
Why, once University administrators.
were aware that a University mortgage'
was supporting a discriminatory hous-

ing unit, was no action taken in the mat-
ter until CORE forced the University's
hand by making the issue public?
WE MUST REMEMBER the effect of
such actions on the two primary
trusts placed in the University by the
non-educational community.
The first is its justifiable responsibil-
ity to maintain a reputable public image;
the second is to enforce, within reason-
able administrative limits, the public mor-
ality within its control. University admin-
istrators were sadly deficient in both
these areas in the Parkhurst and Ar-
bordale case.
By its lack of action, the University has
ignored these two responsibilities. It is
conceivable that the entire case could
have been speeded up a great deal if an
institution with the size and economic
punch of the University had taken the
side of the Fair Housing Ordinance at
the outset and certainly its image would
have improved if it had done so.
NO INSTITUTION can afford to ignore
its public responsibilities, least of all
the University, considering the educa-
tional and social trusts it must maintain.
It is to be - hoped that lack of adminis
trative information or interest in a mat-
ter will not again put the University in
the unfortunate position in which it finds
itself today. LEONARD PRATT

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the
last in a four-part series on the
causes, characteristics, consequences
and future of the sex dilemma on
the college campus today.)
By JEFFREY GOODMAN
THE COMING YEARS will see
the final death of a priori pro-
hibitions on premarital sexual in-
tercourse-unless something is
done so that a couple may marry
very soon after they begin to de-
sire intercourse or unless we some-
how forget all about sex.
Barring these changes, inter-
course-even before marriage-will
finally be accepted for what it is:
a natural expression of sincere
human affection and a solution to
the tensions of college youth to-
day.
On the surface there appears to
be little hard-core evidence for
this prediction of change: even
though Kinsey and others looked
at attitudes toward and rates of
premarital intercourse as a func-
tion of decade of birth, no one
seems to have gathered data on
people born after the 1920's.
But what is happening today
is qualitatively different from the
experience of the '20's; it is a
change in moral beliefs and not
merely a change in practice. The
forces at work in contemporary
society are not different merely in
quantity; 1964 has innumerable
characteristics-discussed in Part
One of this series-which seem to
question the claim that we will
soon, or ever, turn from our sexual
limbo to sexual prohibtion.
JUST WHAT are we to expect if
things run their natural course,
and how are we to evaluate the
final product?
To Gael Greene it is definitely
a revolution, noticeable in the
seven short years since she at-
tended the University. Sex is more
explicit, rawer, as well as more
public; there is more sexual free-
dom and more sexual panic; the
old warnings no longer shock,
though they still gnaw.
Some disagree, seeing the trend
as much more subtle. Christopher
Jencks, reviewing Miss Greene's
"Sex and the College Girl," writes
in "The New Republic" that "if
there is a sexual revolution afoot
. . .it rests not so much on the
incidence of intercourse as on
the creation of an ideology to
justify and limit it.
"There can be no revolution
among those who steal their sex in
fraternity basementskand parked
cars; it must be worked out in a
more matter-of-fact way. This
seems to be happening, but not
often or everywhere. The new style
might, for lack of a better word,
be called proto-marital. It seems
to rest on two imperatives: no in-
tercourse without contraception.
and no intercoure without a semi-
permanent relationship.
"This kind of revolt, which links
sexual freedom with certain kinds
of responsibility, and which re-
places an old ethic with a new one,
might, if it were widespread, be-
come the basis for a true revolu-
tion. But so far it is found only
among a minority of students,
mostly graduates rather than un-
dergraduates."
4 ,
BUT INDEED, if what we are
witnessing rests "not on the in-
cidence of intercourse but on the
creation of an ideology to justify
and limit it," then there are even
more significant things to look
for in the future.
To the vociferous critics of the
trend, the changes forecast almost
imply societal destruction: Youth
will run wild in an orgy of
sensuality; thousands of unwant-
ed children will grow up under

practices it doubtingly and rebel-
liously and that cannot avoid the
mental consequences inevitable
when a way of behavior is at
once good and bad and the whole
society has made a fetish of both
the behavior and its restriction.
: THE HYPOTHESIS implicit in
denying disastrous - consequences
-both predicted and measured-is
that the consequences are a direct
function of the fear and stigma in
which pex is shrouded. The con-
sequences are not necessarily a
function of sex itself.
The state of affairs in the future
will not be one in which men and
women will, dash off to bed on
a first date under the same kind
of amoral desire for something
sweet with which one buys a candy

Beneath it all...

that is carried over from the 19th
century and from childhood and
reproclaimed in church, home and
media.
The need for meaningful affec-
tion is a constant, and it is only
under duress from powerful ex-
ternal forces that we are led to
seek quality in quantity. The re-
moval of those forces seems far
more likely both to allow us and
to spur us on to find that quality
than to impel us into a necessarily
unsatisfying orgy of quantity.
* * *
CERTAINLY there is a good
deal of meaningless and harmful
sexual activity today, but it is
something into which we are lit-
erally seduced by sexual satura-
tion. The saturation is not in our
impulses but in our doubts. It
manifests itself in vague or even
quite explicit desires to rebel, to
prove that we can take it. It
is seen in the compulsion literally
to capture an emotional security
which an act that is too much on
our minds seems to ensure us. It
can make sex a weapon for in-
flicting harm on others.
This is hardly freely chosen or
physically impelled promiscuity. It
is not unrestrained sex for sex's
sake; it is sick sex. And the sick-
ness-except for other, much deep-
er neuroses is to a large extent a
consequence of the uncompleted
transition in moralities, in whose
labyrinth the student is caught.
There are, of course, other rea-
sons why unmarried couples will
have sexual intercourse: specific
personality factors, other social
forces impinging on us which a
changed sexual code willhnothaf-
fect, general personal insecurity,
tremendous compulsions toward
deep romantic involvement, and
more.
WITH ALL of these influences,
the critics argue on, don't we
need even stronger restrictions on
sex to save individuals and so-
ciety from themselves?
On the contrary. First, the fact
remains that sex cannot create
truly meaningful affection. The in-
dividual himself is the one who
will feel the emptiness of sex
where that affection does not or
cannot exist, and it is the in-
dividual himself who will most
likely leave the purely sexual es-
capade, knowing his own dissatis-
faction, to search for sincerity.
If people today are nevertheless
capable of sex without affection
it is only because social emphasis
has vastly distorted the meaning
of sex in the individual's mind,
making it not an effect but almost
a condition of love.
SECOND, it seems highly likely
that freer sex ethic will not only
have few bad effects but numerous
positive ones, notably unpon inter-
personal relationships.
Today's students are seriously
shackled in their attempts to' find
meaningful bonds with members
of the opposite sex by the intense
sexual preoccupation in which the
whole college courtship pattern
functions. Dating too often takes
place in a context where sexual
fears and concern overshadow
much of the intellectual and emo-
tional intimacy which are so
necessary to significant relation-
ships and without which the in-
dividual is even more alone on an
already lonely campus, in an al-
ready lonely world.
IT IS NOT just that men are
worried about how far women will
allow them to go and women about
how far men will demand they go.
Equally important is the fear on
the part of both partners that the
other will mistake a desire for a

ing and a happiness with another
person in which the whole person-
ality is involved and fed. Such a
search is only complicated and set
back, can only be made tense and
ultimately less rewarding when a
majority of the motions of dating
are linked with sex.
It is eminently conceivable that
if society permitted a prior under-
standing within couples that inter-
course would be a natural and
mutually desired concommitant of
strongly felt affection, much of
the tremendous potential for find-
ing meaning in life with another
person could be released from its
dark dungeon corners.
* *
THE SAME ARGUMENT can
well apply to fears of increased
extramarital intercourse. Too

be much less inclination toward
sex outside of marriage-at least
in the early married years-if both
partners have had a better chance
during courtship to know just
whom they are marrying.
* * *
THE COMBINED weight of two
factors, then, seems to allay fears
that the sexual freedom of the fu-
ture will result in sexual chaos or
social destruction. First, sex is, in
at least one vital sense, indepen-
dent of the moral code: it is in-
timately tied up with the deep,
asexual emotions that rise from
and define sincere affections.
The vast majority of sexually'
experienced college. women today,
engaged or not, claim this as their.
motivation, according to Gael
Greene, and the claim is not made
simply to quell guilt. It is also
because something in them, some-
thing unconnected with any moral
view, says that this is the. way
they want their sex.
Second, there is good reason to
believe that freedom from mental,
sex-based tensions will not only
decrease the need for sex as re-
bellion, thus allowing more mean-
ingful standards of affection, but
will also allow a much easier
realization of the intimate knowl-
edge of another person upon which
that affection must be based.
None of this makes any mention
of the assertion by many students
that sex is in any case solely an
individual matter. Such may be
true, but an analysis of the whole
scene, projecting the personal and
social effects of change into the
future, must be more soundly bas-
ed.
ON THE other hand, sex ,is un-
doubtedly becoming just such an
individual matter, and this is as
it should be. Though gradually, it
is escaping the realm of societal
coercion and entering that of per-
sonal relationships.
Throughout this change, it will
remain and indeed grow as a deep-
ly significant consummation of
strong affection, and its withering
as a bludgeon for society's use, its
dying as an ever-present noxious
odor in the air, will do much
towards liberating the expression
and the realization of that affec-
tion.

... something of value

bar. It will not be an orgy of
sensuality for sensuality's sake, de-
void of any and all further mean-
ing.
* * *
PERHAPS to a limited extent
this prediction is plain old op-
timism. But what stands out is
that sexual intercourse is un-
changeably and intimately con-
nected with deep and beautiful
emotions-not appetities, but feel-
ings of love, respect and warmth
which of themselves seek an out-
let more powerful and expressive
than words, smiles or vows.
D. H. Lawrence romanticized
this idea perhaps best of all when
he talked of intercourse in whose
"final massive and dark collision
of the blood" he saw man's apoth-
eosis and fusion with the divine.
THIS IS NOT to say that sex
is the most vital part of love,
that it is either a necessary or a
sufficient condition for love or the
cause of love. To be at all worth-
while, it must rise out of much
more meaningful bonds between
two people.
But once those bonds exist, the
urge for sexual companionship is
powerful, magnifying and inten-
sifying the emotional feeling that
gives it impetus.
This interrelationship is so basic
that society's profoundest con-
demnations of sex cannot eradicate
it, though they can well pervert
it and certainly delay it.
* * *
BUT THE PROBLEM is still
deeper. Critics assert that while
sex is certainly meaningless with-
out love, nevertheless the thres-
hold for love will decline so far
in the future as to rob love itself
of all significance. And for sup-
port they will point to the already
declining requirements and the
rising rate of premarital inter-

heavily stigmatized in a society
too much preoccupied with it, sex
becomes a natural and potent ve-
hicle for the expression' of dis-
satisfaction from other sources in
marriage. Robbed of its destruc-
tive connotations, extramarital sex
may very well cease to be a weap-
on for those unhappy with their
spouses.
Furthermore, there will perhaps

FOLKLORE SOCIETY:

Bypass of Rights at Carleton

CARLETON COLLEGE'S recent suspen-
12 Carleton students for pub-
lishing an allegedly "vulgar" mimeo-
graphed paper brings two larger issues to
the forefront. First, did the Carleton ad-
ministration infringe upon the student's
basic rights of free speech? Second, did
Carleton officials act in poor judgment
by bypassing the proper and existing col-
lege channels that are designed to judge
complaints concerning Carleton publica-
tions?
The 12 students are now suspended and
will be until they formally apologize in
petitioning for readmittance. Many fac-
ulty members in a full faculty meeting

ble to the reputation of their school. He
did not enumerate further.
BUT EVEN IF WE ACCEPT Dean Gil-
man's reasoning, the fact remains that
the autonomous student body controlling
Carleton publications, the Board of Pub-
lications, was entirely circumvented by
the administration. One of the duties of
this board is controlling the material ap-
pearing in student publications, according
to Dean Gilman. Yet the board was cut
out entirely in making the suspension de-
cision.
What justification does the school have
to bypass an autonomous student body,
n"C ofAl-4b +a ack +is o Pq11A,P t he

'Hoot' Players Enjoy
'Wildly .Different' Acts
AT LAST NIGHT'S HOOTENNANY, there were 12 different acts,
each of them wildly different, yet despite differences, you could
divide the performers into two very rough categories: those con-
cerned first with their especial sound, and those concerned with
what they were saying.
IN THE FIRST CATEGORY came Bob McAllen, 12-string player
par excellence, whose vocal curliques were a bit too smooth for the
meaning of the songs; his best was "900 Miles."
Similarly, Dave Hirt played a first-rate blues guitar without
any blues feeling, paying too much attention to getting bell-clear
tone on his superbly handled guitar.
Candy and Carol were a negative image of the same picture,
concentrating not so much on guitar-playing as on artfully-woven
harmony of their smooth, sweet voices.
ON THE OTHER SIDE of the coin was the New York Public
Library, Ann Arbor's answer to the Smothers Brothers, who bal-
anced first-rate playing and "old-timey" singing with ribald humor.
Mark Schover slugged rough and bawdy blues out of his big JT7
with a directness and intensity that had the audience howling.
Similar in approachl were: Danny Dauterstein, remarkable 15-
year-old blues player from Chicago; Rick Ruskin, with his deep-
pounding treatment of "12 Gates to the City"; and old Folklorite
Howie Abrams with the fantastically-fingered "Buck Dancer's Choice.'
Ann Arbor's own bluegrass group, the Huron River Ramblers.
avoided the instrumental scratchiness, vocal whine and overse 1,

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan