Y
Seventy-Third Year
EDrrED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF M. HIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Where Opinions Are Free STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBOR, MICH., PHONE NO 2-3241
Truth Will Prevail"
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must b noted, in all reprints.
AY, FEBRUARY 26, 1963
NIGHT EDITOR: GERALD STORCH
Should the University Eliminate
Its Freshman, Sophomore Years?
Yes
PRESIDENT HARLAN Hatcher's continued
emphasis on research in recent pronounce-
ments reflects the growing inclination of the
University toward graduate and professional
studies and research. Today the greatness of
the University-its vision, initiative and results
-lies in this area.
Research, in particular, has been expanding
at an exponential rate. This year spending in
this area will reach an estimated $36 million
and by 1970, Ralph A. Sawyer, Vice-President
for Research, predicts, $100 million.
Initiative and inventiveness have also marked
the graduate program. Many of the schools
and colleges have been making reforms and
revisions as knowledge expands. Interdiscip-
linary programs have augmented growing de-
partment activities.
U NDERGRADUATE education, however, es-
pecially in the freshmen and sophomore
years, is the backwater of the University. In
his first two years, the student is faced with
many barriers. To meet the distribution re-
quirements designed to provide broad educa-
tion, he must attend large lecture courses
often taught by an unstimulating teacher in
a class so large that he can neither get the
proper attention nor be stimulated by the
instructor.
He rarely gets a chance to study with
the top up-and-coming men in various dis-
ciplines. Although the introductory course lec-
tures are usually given by department chairmen
or by senior professors, the student has little
contact with them outside of class. The recita-
tion sections, where the student may receive
personal attention, are taught by teaching
fellows or instructors just beginning their aca-
demic careers.
However, with the Junior year, the student
can sense the greatness of the University and
partake of its juicy morsels. When he enters
the advanced courses, he gets to the meat of
his chosen discipline taught by top men in their
fields. The department begins to exhibit
greater concern for its students, preparing
them for graduate studies.
THE UNIVERSITY'S orientation t o w a r d
graduate studies and research makes im-
provement of undergraduate education-espe-
cially in the freshman and sophomore years-
difficult If not unlikely. President Hatcher
recently underscored this orientation by declar-
ing that the University's first concern in meet-
ing the student population explosion was the
expansion of graduate and professional schools.
Increasing federal research aid is also ex-
panding and encourages graduate education as
research projects help support such education.
Static state appropriations which mainly sup-
port undergraduate education will also cause
the University to follow the line of least re-
sistance-and expand its graduate programs.
Thus it is time for the University to con-
sider dropping the freshman and sophomore
years rather than letting them deteriorate in
the face of pressures toward specialized gradu-
ate and professional education. This change
cannot, of course, occur overnight, but if the
University makes a basic policy decision now,
it can effect it gradually over the next 10-20
years.
CURRENTLY, it is possible for thestudentato
get the same basic education at any state
college or junior college. The important dif-
ference comes when the student specializes in
the third year and studies under the high-
quality teachers of the University.
With proper standards, the University can
assure that the incoming juniors could have
the proper basic education. Admission could
be based in large measure on a rigorus
achievement examination which would force
up lower standard junior colleges.
Before the University can drop its first two
undergraduate years, it must find a replace-
ment. The current state college system is not
large enough to absorb several thousand stu-
dents and meet the rising demand for college
education at the same time. It must encourage
the growth of high-quality junior colleges
which will provide the necessary basic educa-
tion. This encouragement would mean a seem-
ing reversal of current University policy which
appears to be indifferent or hostile to them
and a modification of its branch policy.
UNFORTUNATELY, there are a number of
drawbacks that would take 10-20 years to
iron out. It would take that long to create a
string of locally-supported, high quality junior
colreges to adequately replace the first two
years.
The University would have to overcome an
adverse political reaction. It has long sym-
bolized excellence in undergraduate education
and many legislators would hysterically react
to hsyterical constituent demands to put their
sons or daughters in Michigan as freshmen.
necessary. On the academic side, the enroll-
Internally, this move would radically change
the University and 20 years' planning would be
ment of University would shrink by several
thousand necessitating' a rearrangement of
No
SUPPOSE you are a highly qualified high
school graduate, and you're looking over
Michigan's higher education system, trying
to decide where to spend your undergraduate
years.
Now, suppose you discover that the idea of
dropping the University's freshman and sopho-
more years-has already been put into operation.
The freshman and sophomore years have been
pulled out of the University, its appropriation
has been cut proportionately and the money
the state saved has been passed out among the
various junior colleges so that they could ex-
pand enough to handle the 6000-odd extra stu-
dents. For the sake of comparison, let's also
assume that another University, say Michigan
State, remains as a four-year undergraduate
school.
So what choice do you have? You can go
to one of the junior colleges, as the theorists
expect. There (since these school would still
be fulfilling the function they fulfill today)
you would be thrown in with about the top 50
per cent of your high school class, be in cor-
respondingly slowed-down courses, and have to
interrupt education after two years to change
to another college. Or, you can go to MSU, with
somewhat higher admission standards and a
much more advanced academic program (in-
cluding a full-fledged honors program which a
junior college couldn't afford), where you could
get an uninterrupted four-year education. The
choice is obvious.
"Fine," says the split-em-up theorist, "so
you'll go to State for two years and then trans-
fer to the University." This is a good possibility,
as long as in your two years at MSU you don't
form any sort of ties with that campus. The
chances are very great that while at MSU
you will join a fraternity, or get involved in
some student organization, or form friendships
which you won't want to leave, or find certain
professors or departments stimulating, or simply
like the place in general enough that you won't
want to give it up and move elsewhere.
The resultant effect on the state's college
system would be far from what the theory en-
visions. A sizeable proportion-if not a majority
-of the most qualified upperclassmen would
stay at MSU. What would this do to the quality
of the supposedly elite, first-rate upperclass
school the theory implicitly asserts that the
University would become?
BUT LET'S PLAY the game. Let's assume
that the top MSU students do decide to
come to Ann Arbor for their last two years.
MSU would become bottom-heavy-a sort of
advanced junior college with a relatively small
and mediocre junior-senior student body
grafted on the top. "Great!" cries the theorist,
"there's the speeded-up junior college that my
system needs!" Okay. But if we're going to have
an elite junior college to supply the University
with its top-notch upperclassmen, why not set
it up in Ann Arbor? And why not make it part
of the University? And then why not eliminate
this artificial division altogether? Our reason-
ing leads us inexorably back to the status quo.
Just to be fair, let's start over once more, and
suppose that for some reason (perhaps to please
the theorist) you do decide to go to a junior
college. Good for you. Now, here are a few of
the rewards you get:
1.) You find yourself in what amounts to a
glorified high school. Not only will the pace
be slow for you and unchallenging, but the
range of courses available will be extremely
small compared to what the University now
offers its underclassmen. There would be no
way, for example, to take a junior-or senior-
level course or two, for they would all be in
Ann Arbor-so if you happen to be ready for
such courses, your choice is slim: how many
junior colleges can offer you, for example, six
different beginning philosophy courses or 13
different languages?
2) Contact with the University's top profes-
sors may be sparse for underclassmen now, but
at the junior college, the opportunities for such
contact would be nil. Only seeing such top
teachers in a lecture hall is far from ideal,
but it nevertheless is stimulating even there,
and is certainly better than not seeing them
at all.
3) Perhaps more important, you'd be iso-
lated from all contact with upperclassmen. The
newcomer benefits from their longer experience
and "(hopefully) increased sophistication in
innumerable ways. In an informal way, upper-
classmen perform many of the functions which
assorted bureaucracies would otherwise have to
perform: academic counselor, tutor, continu-
ing-orientation leader, social advisor, informa-
tion desk, and-perhaps most important-
source of inspiration.
4) You'd also miss out on numerous other
things: an extensive library system, large-scale
student organizations (which the split-'em-
upper gleefully sends to an untimely death),
extracurricular lectures and cultural events,
and all the other attractions a university can
offer.
T IS CLEAR that the simple act of changing
location does nothing but create problems.
If, indeed, freshmen; and sophomores are get-
tina a ra w ea at the University. the answer
"Only When I Laugh"
rc-c
y I
1 .r'- za~
k X-
-7-'
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
On Non-Dictation
Of Local Legislation
. M
.. .
,.
--,..+
- :.r '~
r
' .fr.:, .w-,aim
co'~
LATIN AMERICA:
Meeting Stimulates Theories
By CAROLINE DOW
Personnel Director
LAST WEEK a group of experts
and afficinados on Latin Amer-
ican affairs gathered at Swarth-
more College to discuss the prob-
lems and new developments in
that area.
The topics discussed by the 300
students and 30 experts in a three
day period are much too vast to
be covered intensively. However,
an attempt has been made to sur-
vey some of the more striking
theories and facts that highlight-
ed this second annual Swarthmore
conference. The following state-
ments by those who attended are
arranged under top headings and
present a brief glimpse into the
many discussions.
* * *
AMERICAN Foreign Policy-The
focus on economic development is
much too narrow. Economic
growth must affect the rural areas,
although this is much more diffi-
cult than building a cement mill.
-Chester Bowles, presidential as-
sistant for Asian, African and Lat-
in American affairs.
Do not expect too much of the
Latin Americans in the way of
gratitude-we are not going to get
much thanks .-Bowles.
The Alliance for Progress is the
most advanced step in the gradual
acceptance of the need for eco-
nomic planning in underdeveloped
countries. - Cleantho de Piava
Leite, executive director, Inter-
American Development Bank.
The basic idea of the Alliance for
Progress-that of attempting to
stimulate economic development
through technological change, is
sound.-Prof. George Blanksten, of
Northwestern University.
The Alliance will work in the
democracies (Brazil, Chile, Costa
Rica and Uruguay) and the revo-
lutionary countries (Boliyia, Cuba,
Mexico). It will not work in the
others because they are dominated
by groups dedicated to the status
quo ...,they just do not care-
Prof. Edmundo Flores, of the Na-
tional Autonomous University of
Mexico.
Will the landowning classes
commit economic suicide by as-
senting to substantive chance?-
a student.
The aim of American foreign
policy is to "do good, make a prof-
it and be liked"-Prof. Samuel
Shapiro, of Oakland University.
* * *
SOCIAL CHANGE-The prob-
lem of unassimilated Indians are
often discussed but Latin America
faces another problem of "unas-
similated slums" in the cities -
Gary MacEoin, of the Overseas
Press Club. "The slums are actual-
ly assimilated because their in-
habitants do participate in an
urbanized political pattern."-de
Piava Leite.
"There is no middle class in
Latin America-only an aristocra-
cy that did not make it."-Flores.
Positive nationalism may be a
viable competition for religion and
Communism.
* * s
STUDENTS-Although the par-
ticipation of the students in Latin
American universities gives a good
administration-the quality of the
curricula is lower.-panelist.
"The student leaders of today
in Latin America are the student
leaders of tomorrow." - David
Spencer, Harvard..
The Catholic Church is evolving
from a status quo alliance to a
great understanding of mass prob-
lems and the leadership of liberal
reforis.-de Piava Leite.
* * *
ECONOMY - Latin American
leaders are rapidly realizing that
they have more in common with
the Southern half of the world
(Asia and Africa) than with the
industrial powers North of the
equator. They recognize that the
world is no longer bi-polar but
multi-polar and that they can no
longer afford to ignore the grow-
ing market of the Eastern bloc.-
de Piava Leite.
"Coffee stablization is just a
hidden subsidy to plantation own-
ers."-Edmundo Flores, of the Na-
tional Automous University of
Mexico.
* * *
COMPARISON-Latin America
can be compared to the United
States of the 1850's. This was a
period of upheaval opposed by an
oligarchy of the Southern land-
owning artsiocracy. We can draw
an analogy between John Brown
and Fidel Castro.-Prof. Shapiro.
The existence of Communist move-
ments in Latin America is an ex-
ception to Prof. Shapiro's theory.
The good of Castro may be that he
forces the oligarchy to accept
change through fear of the Com-
munist alternative.-Prof. Robert
Alexander, of Rutgers University.
* * *
THE ARMY-There is a possi-
bility that the Army may be a
means of social revolution as an
authoritarian rather than totali-
tarian instrument of change. They
may also provide a Nasserite or
"Peronista" alternative to the rev-
olutionary pattern.-Prof. Alex-
ander.
The armed forces are becoming
a democratic force because they
are recruiting from all classes.-de
Piava Leite.
* * *
THEORY-We may be experi-
encing a revival of Social Darwin-
ism in our search for patterns of
change and our assumptions that
all change in a pattern is good i
the progressive sense - Prof.
Blanksten.
A typical revolution is "an as-
sault on the National Treasury"...
a real revolution involves nation-
alization and land reform.-anon.
Although we have sought three
closely related patterns at this con-
ference, those of derpocracy, de-
velopment and revolution, there
can be no generalization about
Latin America from which we can
predict the future.-Prof. Alexan-
der.
There are three possible theor-
etical relationships between politi-
cal revolution and economic devel-
opment:
1) Political revolution can arise
as a result of a need for economic
development.
2) Economic development can
cause dislocations which may re-
sult in political revolutions.
3) Political revolution and eco-
nomic development are mutually
exclusive-Prof. Alexander.
"Must we polarize democracy
and development?"-Prof. Blank-
sten.
To the Editor:
AS A PAST member of the Hu-
man Relations Board, I should
like to offer some comments ger-
mane to President Hatcher's re-
fusal to express, a need for fair
housing in Ann Arbor.
First, whatever merits the Uni-
versity's (public) hands-off policy
on local legislation may have,
President Hatcher's reply does not
explain his indifferent handling
of the previous request from the
Human Relations Board. This was
a simple request for public re-
affirmation of the University's
concern in the area of fair hous-
ing at a time when the question
of legislation was not even at
issue. Indeed, his cavalier dismis-
sal of that previous mild request
was almost certainly a factor in-
fluencing last week's less docile
reaction to his silence.
* * *
SECOND, in defending his po-
sition, the President pointed
proudly to the University's policy
of refusing bulletin board space to
landlords who discriminate on the
basis of race. And he is justly
proud, for the University has now
established a fairly good record
of nondiscrimination within its
own walls.
But it is unfortunate that the
community has been left with the
impression that the "rash" Hu-
man Relations Board is somehow
unaware of this massive "behind
the scenes" civil rights movement
to which he calls witness. For even
these small steps to which Presi-
dent Hatcher can now point so
proudly have themselves resulted
only from months of negotiation
and pressure by the HRB.
Finally, as statements by City
Council members made quite clear,
the Human Relations Board was
hardly asking President Hatcher
to "dictate legislation" to the city.
The crackling moral indignation
of President Hatcher's statement,
"We do not beeve . . . the Uni-
versity should attempt to dictate
legislation . . ." was admittedly
very dramatic. One could only
wish that the carefully cultivated
rhetorical skills so completely dis-
played by our leaders in the do-
main of public relations were as
zealously devoted to the service-of
human relations.
-Daryl J. Ber, Grad
Silence ..
To the Editor:
IT IS UNFORTUNATE that Pres-
ident Harlan Hatcher has had
to justify his silence on fair hous-
ing legislation for Ann Arbor by
implying that the Human Rela-
tions Board wishes "that the Uni-
versity should attempt to dictate
legislation in Ann Arbor."
We asked the President publicly
and unambiguously to state the
University's position on fair hous-
ing legislation for Ann Arbor.
Would such a statement consti-
tute, as President Hatcher sug-
gests, "an attempt to dictate legis-
lation in Ann Arbor?" We think
not.
The University has probably
been confronted with discrimina-
tion in housing in a more con-
crete form, and over a longer per-
iod of time than any other organ-
ization in Ann Arbor. The Univer-
sity was faced with this problem
before the NAACP existed, yet
President Hatcher feels we have
no right to make a statement in
this area.
LET US ANALYZE this "state-
ment" which President Hatcher
did make to the press. The first
paragraph was simply a restate-
ment of the University's nondis-
criminatory policy which was set
forth four years ago in Regents
Bylaw 2.14. He then sympathized
with student and staff victims of
discrimination, and stated that
progress has been made.
The sentiment is noble and so
is his optimism, but what does he
intend to do about the problem?
If President Hatcher has been "in
constant touch with the human
relations groups of the University
and Ann Arbor," as he stated, he
should be aware of how pitifully
slow progress has been.
Students have no voice in Ann
Arbor, yet they are subject to
both the legislation of the Ann
Arbor City Council, and the dis-
criminatory practices of its citi-
zens. The University must speak
for the vital interests ofits stu-
dents, faculty and personnel.
-David Aroner, '64
Chairman,
Human Relations Board
Furor? .
To the Editor:
WHAT IS the fair-housing furor
all about? The Human Rela-
tions Board is busy concealing
this in a flurry of misleading and
false propaganda.
The details of my indictment:
First, the HRB asks President
Hatcher a vague question which
they later point out doesn't neces-
sarily ask for what it obviously
does-a University attempt to in-
fluence city legislation (the pro-
per province of the citizens).
Second, the HRB and company
then claim that President Hatcher
as a person-not a spokesman for
the University-does not take a
stand on the proposed law. No
one has asked him.
Third, the HRB attacksthe
President for not commenting on
the general area of fair housing;
and the need of change if there
is to be no bias. Their question
was deliberately worded to prevent
this-it demands University com-
ment on fair housing legislation.
* * *
THE UNIVERSITY as an im-
personal institution-a constitu-
tional corporation, has no right
to attempt to influence the citi-
zens of any political unit by any-
thing but the presentation of
facts.
The HRB does not want Presi-
dent Hatcher to present facts;
they want him to tell people
what they should do-in the name
of the University of Michigan. (In
addition to being undemocratic,
this would probably create resent-
ment among Ann.Arbor politicians
for what they would rightfully
perceive as improper arrogation
of authority by the University.)
President Hatcher has taken
the only possible stand: he has
been misrepresented by the HRB
and to some extent by The Daily
itself. It is time this stopped.
-Robert L. Farrell, '63
AT THE STATE:
Lo-tery
A Dead See
IT HAS LONG been apparent that
good Bible stories make bad
movies, but "Sodom and Gomor-
rah" is ridiculous.
Effortlessly, the dialogue hits
the very nadir of the dramatic
art; itsrbrilliance can be attributed
to an inspired adaptation of Gene-
sis which bridges the gap between
King James and King Kong. The
main trouble with this is that
Stewart Granger (as Lot-believe
it or not) gets all the Bible-lines
("Yea, even as the Sodomites shall
we live") while the really good
stuff is wasted on the evil Gen-
erals ("The word of the day is
Kill").
Even Pier Angeli, not generally
noted for her effusiveness, takes a
try: After an incredible battle
where the catsup flows (almost)
like blood, where impassioned
thousands are successively burned,
drowned, and quartered, and which
leaves the survivors totally ruined,
she manages quietly and with poise
to deliver her big line. "Victory,"
she simpers, and the crowds go
wild.
Stewart Granger's big moment
comes in a jail cell while praying.
For a while all is quiet, and then
with an assist from Miklos (Quo
Vadis) Rosa, who causes God to
appear in the second violin sec-
tian, Mr. Granger is vested with
that celebrated ultimatum. Suffice
it to say that he is quite out of
tears by the time his wife is turn-
ed to salt. And by this time so is
the audience, which is released to
look back at the newsreel (pen-
guins walking) and turn its ticket
stubs into the box office.
-Dick Pollinger
1
FEIFFER
A PIKARUAHEJT
pbR EllJr
fnV
FUTURE
6FCU6A, P. 6rAP19
VP TO 70 m A TOMiffU
BACKC DOWN! 6Vftlf
InH1 ,fR!
qou 56& A)o
A M1ARMN.I6r
519. F~ 0 0")
U P T O T u e 1 0 5 T M U
f 'MN'tt BACK
AFTg T41t S ATRog
"T ~ rCMC6' O qoo)
5t FR A !1ARH-A-
MO A-R 'I M
POLAfl,51g aicZCoeto VA LA AtJT
5OVAKIA A00P PO4N0t2(. -qoU'te
5E. IF 106 5TA00 P PO hH
'(6' ACK D~OW
E0 WoiW9A AFOO.T116 1'fAI
PH. 6 O C u 151 ?
Qo qot,
FIRST N6 M05T 5AW' VPTO
MIAKE TLN fPUT BACK 146
AW! AFT69
TH{AT.
56 }ATO '
AFreCR k47CI~HA$
srOM LVCfrktt f
VA