Sevety-Third Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Where OpinionsAe Free STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBOR, MICH., PHONE NO 2-3241
Truth Will Prevall"'
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must bA noted in all reprints.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Students Discuss Candidates, Issues
DAY, MARCH 12, 1963
NIGHT EDITOR: RONALD WILTON
OS"A Makes Mockery
Of Restructuring Days
ASSEMBLY ASSOCIATION, and specifically
Assembly President Mary Beth Norton, have
been publically criticized for their recent at-
tempt to "capture" the authority on dress
regulations in the women's residence halls.
The issue of whether Assembly House Coun-
cil had a right to presume such authority has
been linked . with issues concerning the As-
sembly statement of authority, first submitted
,to the Office of Student Affairs last November.
Unfortunately, viewing the two separate prob-
lems as one has resulted in confusion over
both, and a clouding of the real significance
of Assembly's act.
The statement of authority was drafted by
the excutive board of AHC in recognition of
the need for a clear demarcation on the
group's powers and limitations. This move
surely could be no surprise, either to members
of the body (who were in general agreement
on the need for such a clear statement on
authority) or to administrators In the OSA.
Miss Norton's platform in last year's election
clearly set forth her intention to seek such
a paper. The platform stated: "It may be dif-
ficult to .obtain an exact definition of the
powers of Assembly until after the transition
(of the OSA) is completed. But efforts should
be directed towards obtaining such a definite
statement, for how can any organization func-
tion effectively if it does not know what it
can do?"
THE STATEMENT submitted to the OSA
by Miss Nortn consists of 10 proposals de-
fining suggested limitations and capacities for
the organizatloio. Because of the contents of
the document, charges that it would give AHC
ultimate authority over the government of the
individual women's residence halls must be con-
strued as blatantly false.
The rationale for the statement indicates
that "Assembly will not, without their consent,
assume powers which the houses now enjoy."
Hence any powers currently held by the house
governments are not about to be usurped be-
cause of the statement.
A further clause which has been criticized
publicly gives AHC the power to "enact legis-
lation which shall have jurisdiction over that
of the houses or individual dormitories." The
paper also suggests that "the Assembly As-
sociation constitution shall be final authority
and take precedence over a house constitution
or that of any other governmental body or-
ganized in the women's residence halls."
Theoretically, there is nothing amiss in As-
sembly's asserting authority of this sort. The
women's residence halls are organized on the
basis of representative government, and it is
the responsibility of the constituency to make
its desires known to AHC reps.
BUT EVEN MORE important, there are prag-
matic considerations. There is no other
feasible way to facilitate communication with-
in the vast women's dormitory system and
unify the houses' better efforts, except through
a coordinating leadership body similar to AHC.
It has been demonstrated in the past that
when students are seeking extension of their
rights, the more representative a communica-
tion they are able to present, the more likely
they are to achieve their goals. This philos-
ophy underlying the statement of authority is
the only concept in the report relevant to the
dress regulations issue. The report, however,
says nothing specifically about dress regula-
tions.
The first time AHC had an inkling that these
regulations might come under its jurisdiction
was at a meeting February 12 at Alice Lloyd
Hall. It had been more than two months since
the Lloyd Council requested liberalization in
the dorm's dress regulations; members were
getting impatient.
Assistant to the Vice-President for Student
Affairs Mrs. Elizabeth Davenport, had called
the meeting. Present were Assistant Program
Director Sally Jo Sawyer, Miss Norton and
the Lloyd intra-dorm council. At this meeting
the authority on dress regulations was dis-
cussed. Miss Norton, Miss Sawyer, Alice Lloyd
President Marion Jackson, and several others
present came out of that meeting believing
that Mrs. Davenport had granted to AHC the
final authority on dress regulations.
HOWEVER, at an Assembly Executive Coun-
cil meeting a week later, Mrs. Davenport
indicated that she had been misunderstood.
She meant only for AHC to be the final point
for "discussion."
This stand presented definite problems for
Editorial Staff
MICHAEL OLINICK, Editor
JUDrrH OPPENHEIM . MICHAEL HARRAH
Editorial Director City Editor
CAROLINE DOW .................. Personnel Director
JUDITH BLEIER................Associate City Editor
FRED RUSSELL KRAMER .. Assoc. Editorial Director
CYNTHIA NEU.................Co-Magazine Editor
the executive council since as a result of the
impression previously given, Lloyd had taken
a house vote on specific regulations and was
preparing to submit them to Assembly the
following Monday.
On Feb. 22, Miss Norton informed Mrs.
Davenport of the situation. According to Miss
Norton, Mrs. Davenport's advice at this time
was that "if there was nothing else to do"
Lloyd should be permitted to bring the pro-
posal for approval that Monday. Mrs. Daven-
port stressed that the OSA structure did not
clearly define the authority on matters of dress
regulations, and the Assembly approval would
set a precedent, therefore clarifying the place
of the authority for the future.
WHEN THE ISSUE was brought before AHC
Feb. 25, Lloyd had not been informed by
the OSA that its action was in any way illegal
or improper. In fact Miss Norton's conference
three days earlier established beyond a doubt
that the OSA was aware of Lloyd's plan to
bring the proposal for approval.
The proposal was passed.
Lloyd, however, received word from Vice-
PresidentLewis that the approval of AHC
was not binding, and that OSA would indicate
in the future whether or not the request for
alteration of regulations would be granted.
A FEW DAYS after Lloyd had received this
communication from OSA, a Residence Hall
Board of Governors meeting was held. At this
time Miss Norton, now extremely confused
about just exactly where the authority lay,
requested that Vice-President Lewis clarify the
point.
His answer, totally irrelevant to the dress-
regulations issue, was that he had never seen
the statement of authority. It did not concern
any question of the authority of ARC as op-
posed to OSA authority. In fact, the statement
specifically says that all legislation enacted
by AHC for the houses "must comply with
general University regulations." It is ironic
that, having never seen the statement, Vice-
President Lewis was able to totally misconstrue
it.
SUBSEQUENT to the Board of Governors
meeting, the OSA worked out a watered-
down set of recommendations for the dress
regulations at Lloyd. Miss Norton disclaimed
AHC sponsorship of these recommendations.
She did not want Assembly identified as the
sponsor of the regulations simply because AHC
had no part in their formulation. The previous
requests, the result of a democratic consensus
of the independent, residence hall women,
were rejected by Vice-President Lewis.
It seems evident, then, that the AHC action
was anything but a "power grab" or an "at-
tempt tp usurp authority from the OSA." If it
were to be considered a "power grab" it would
have to be one directly requested by the OSA.
For surely Mrs. Davenport, in instructing Miss
Norton to go ahead and approve the proposal,
thereby setting a precedent for future times,
was directly requesting a "power grab."
But, before one can grab power, there must
be a source from which one takes it. Evidently,
Mrs. Davenport, representative of the OSA,
did not feel that the power was clearly vested
in that office. Since it did not belong to the
OSA, perhaps Mrs. Davenport felt that it
ought rightly to belong to the representative
body of the dormitory women.
WHY SHE LATER denied that she had given
ARC the authority, when there were sev-
eral witnesses present at Lloyd when she had
done so, is anybody's guess. Miss Norton claims
that Mrs. Davenport is sincere in her desire
to see the independent women gain more
self-government. However, administrators are
under notorious outside pressure.
The most unfortunate part of the whole
fiasco was that the inconsistent and vacillat-
ing "policy" of the OSA resulted in criticism of
the Assembly action by those who were not
aware of why the action was taken: Mrs.
Davenport's instruction.
This is the second example within the month
of poor communication between members of the
OSA staff and poor communication between
Vice-President Lewis and student organizations.
Mrs. Davenport and Vice-President Lewis gave
directly opposite directions to, AHC. It would
seem that they were completely out of con-
tact with one another.
Further, when Vice-President Lewis has not
read a proposal submitted by the representa-
tive of all the residence hall women-when
apparently the proposal had just been sitting
around his office, entirely ignored for three
months-there is something definitely to be
desired in OSA-student communication. And,
the facts indicate that the fault does not lie
with the students.
THIS COMEDY of errors merely illustrates
the mockery which the OSA has made of
the splendid promises of its restructuring days
--miiarif4e +in naninlnpc of mmmi-L
To the Editor:
THE UPCOMING election will
offer the students a rare op-
portunity to elect a non-athlete,
Bill Bullard, to the Board in Con-
trol of Intercollegiate Athletics.
Bullard is a Daily sportswriter and
a very good one by all standards
of editorial excellence, integrity
and his avid interest in Univer-
sity sports.
His independence of the ath-
letic department is not to be
feared because he has never be-
trayed their confidence as a re-
porter, yet his independence, en-
ables him to represent student
opinion as no athlete could.
This is not a letter against Bob
Timberlake and Rick Bay, two out-
standing candidates, but a letter
for Bill Bullard who is even more
outstanding for this particular job.
-Buck Dawson
Convenient ...
To the Editor:
I NOTE with interest the passage
in the Voice platform that con-
demns the publication of editorial
viewpoints in the Michigan Un-
ion Reports as a "gross violation
of ethics for the Union to use stu-
dent monies to propagate the views
of the Union staff." The real fears
of Voice seem to be that such
viewpoints might be entirely one-
sided and contrary to its own, and
that they would be financed with
student monies.
Unlike Voice, the Union is not
a monolithic organization dedi-
cated to the propagation of a
single viewpoint. The Union staff
is large, and all shades of opinion
are to be found within its mem-
bers. The Union is not that last
stronghold of conservatism on
campus, as Voice seems to fear.
A look at the views of this year's
executive council and the work
that it has done will clearly in-
dicate this. In fact, one of the
most active members of Voice
served as a member of the execu-
tive council.
*'I* *
MEMBERS OF Voice have been
told repeatedly in the past several
months that all future editions of
the Michigan Union Reports will
be financed from advertising rev-
enues. This decision has not been
occasioned alone by the fact that
editorial viewpoints may be in-
cluded in future Union Reports.
It is a long-standing policy of
Union student activities that a
project ought to pay its own way
if this can be done without undue
cost to the University community.
By making future editions of the
Union Reports self-supporting, the
Union will be able to provide more
projects like the current Creative
Arts Festival, for the campus to
enjoy at little or no cost. And it
is an additional fact that Union
student activities are financed
wholy from the operating revenues
of the building.
The allocation of funds which
the Union receives from the Board
of Regents is pledged for some
years to come to pay off the
bonded debt on the North Wing
of the Union building, completed
in 1956. Thus I hope the members
of Voice will take steps to clear
up their misunderstanding. Or per-
haps their misunderstanding is
politically convenient at this time.
-Robert Finke, '63
President, Michigan Union
Graduate Vote .. .
To the Editor:
HE GRADUATE Student Coun-
cil urges all graduate students
to vote in the campus elections
this Wednesday.
Graduate students traditionally
do not participate very heavily
in Student Government Council
elections, with the rationale that
SGC is an undergraduate con-
cern, doing littleeornothing for
the graduate student. Although
we agree there is some validity to
such a charge, we feel SGC need
not evoke this image.
SGC does occasionally demon-
strate its concern with issues
directly affecting the graduate
student, witness the recent action
urging implementation of Re-
gents Bylaw 2.14 by the passage
of a fair housing ordinance in the
city of Ann Arbor, but we believe
SGC can be effective in many
more areas.
* * *
FOR EXAMPLE, we feel:
1) SGC should concern itself
with legislation proposed in Lan-
sing which will affect the Uni-
versity, such as the recent at-
tempts to reduce the proportion
of out-of-state enrollments and
to increase even more the dif-
ferential between in-state and out-
of-state tuition fees;
2) SGC should secure more stu-
dent parking facilities near cam-
pus with the more than $80,000
that have been amassed since the
present system of collecting an
annual fee from each automobile
owner was instituted several years
ago;
3) SGC should attempt to elim-
inate the Regentas bylaw pro-
hibiting student economic activi-
ties within University facilities,
thus paving the way for a student
book store.
AT OUR monthly meeting last
Thursday, we listened to 11 of the
12 SGC candidates discuss several
matters of concern to graduate
students. Six of these candidates
evidenced sufficient concern with
our problems to merit our endorse-
ment. They are Howard Abrams,
Kenneth Miller, Mary Beth Nor-
ton, Edwin Sasaki, Thomas Smith-
son, and Henry Wallace.
We call on all graduate stu-
dents to help us elect the above
slate. We believe we can depend
upon these individuals to con-
centrate their efforts primarily
upon matters of concern to all
students and hence give SGC a
sense of responsibility and effec-
tiveness that it now lacks.
In addition, we urge a "yes"
vote on the question of whether
or not all members of SGC should
be elected by the student body.
We have long opposed the present
system of ex-officio members on
SGC, since these so-called ex-
officios have full voting privileges,
represent only certain select seg-
ments of the total student body,
and constitute seven of the 18
members of SGC.
-Stephen J. Maddock,
President, Graduate
Student Council
Ivory Tower.. .
To the Editor:
IT IS FRIGHTENING to note
that candidates for election in
the present SGC campaign dili-
gently and systematically ignore
that aspect of university life that
is most crucial: the academic edu-
cation itself. The assumption in
all cases is, of course, that "the
shibboleth of the 'ivory tower' .. .
must be attacked if education is
to have the (necessary) depth and
intensity," if the student's mind
is to be trained for "free and
creative inquiry."
Votes, then, are solicted by each
candidate on the basis of his par-
ticular definition and elaboration
of the rights and privileges that
ought accrue to the student as a
"vital part of the academic com-
munity." The candidate's locating
the academic community in the
larger nonacademic world and in
the smaller world of campus social
life.
It is certainly possible that the
candidates, in the manner of Ken-
nedy and Nixon, are ducking more
relevant issues for ones that will
sell. Granting, however, that the
candidates are sincere in asserting
that students' rights and privileges
and issues of the politics and so-
cial role of education are most im-
portant, then the academic edu-
cation itself ends up loser.
* * *
FOR WE ARE students here,
luckily able to learn the scholarly
way to creativity. Though we con-
tinue to focus on nonacademic af-
fairs-how could we help but do
so? - still the great, unique op-
portunity offered students is to
be able to gain knowledge in order
later to sharpen the focus and
to redirect it. And the greatest
problems facing students con-
cern the adequacy of the mechan-
isms of gaining knowledge, the
academic education itself, academ-
ic affairs, not nonacademic af-
fairs.
Accordingly, the assumption
that the "shibboleth of the 'ivory
tower'" must only be attacked is
unfortunate. Being a student
ought not- by students, especially
-be assumed to be a second-rate
chore, one merely necessary for
the real and profitible life after-
wards, one luckily made less pain-
ful by looking away from the
education to the more exciting
nonacademic fringe. Perhaps the
chance-temporary and delicate
as It is- really to live off In the
"ivory tower," academia, ought
not be slighted and attacked, but
praised and protected instead. At
any rate, the rights and privileges
that SGC candidates ought most
aggressively to demand should
concern the actual processes of
academic education.
-Jeffrey Piker, Grad.
Change...
To the Editor:
THE COMING election should
prove to be an interesting one,
because it will determine whether
a sincerely interested student can
defeat Fritz Crisler's "rubber
stamped" candidates for a position
on the Board in Control of Inter-
collegiate Athletics. For many
years, these elections have been
dominated by candidates who are
supposedly nominated by the man-
agers of the various athletic teams.
This, however, may not be strictly
true. People who are in a position
to know, feel that the mangers'
decisions are heavily influenced
by high officials in the athletic
department.
Having athletes exclusively rep-
resent the student body may have
its advantages for the athletic de-
partment, but it also has its dis-
advantages for the student body.
If the student members on the
board were a little more indepan-
dent, we might expect the board
to formulate some really modern
athletic policies.
This year we have a chance to
change all this and get a really
independent student member elect-
ed to the board. This man Is Bill
Bullard. Having petitioned for a
place on theballot he is indepen-
dent of the athletic department.
Being a sports writer for The
Daily, he has an intimate know-
ledge of University sports. Now is
the time to dry up the athletic
department's rubber stamp and
get some really independent think-
ing on the board. Let's not pass
it up.
-C. R. Pellett, '65
Explanation.. .
To the Editor:
T AM WRITING in response to
The Daily's senior editors' ap-
praisal of my candidacy for Stu-
dent Government Council. Let me
emphasize that this is not to be
a self-righteous tirade against mis-
treatment and irresponsibility on
the part of the senior editors. Such
mistreatment and irresponsibility
has not occurred. It is my opinion,
however, that the information
from which The Daily drew its
evaluation, could and does lead to
the formation of quite another
opinion.
.
FIRST: As President of East
Quadrangle for the past year, I
know very well the problems of
residents, student government,
rules and locus of authority, and
Administration-student relations
in the Quadangle system. This
experience is transferable to the
SGC level, and a soundly-based
extrapolation indicates its rele-
vance to my ability to represent
dormitory views as well.
Second: I support the removal
of ex-officio votes from Council.
Careful consideration of an ade-
quate substitute for their know-
ledge and prestige is necessary.
Third: I support steps to pro-
mote "student economic welfare"
- co-op bookstore if practical,
pressure for removal of Regental
restriction on student enterprise,
and pressure on the University and
bookstores for explanation of the
"town and gown" separation.
My prime interest is 'fast becom-
ing student-faculty government.
My lack of detailed plans for im-
plementation rests on the follow-
ing realistic consideration. Before
the faculty will be willing to par-
ticipate, and the administration
willing to approve a true student-
faculty government, student re-
sponsibility (in the perception of
faculty and administration) must
be shown. The process is an edu-
cational one-not merely one of
drafting constitutions. A speech
by a Prof. Sparks at Antioch Col-
lege states our need explicitly. We
as students must show a sincere
concern for a student-faculty
government which will benefit the
entire University community-not
merely act as a level for student
autonomy. If elected, I will work
for student-faculty government
through correspondence with in-
stitutions which have community
government, drafting of plans, a
"sales job" of personal contact and
panel study and discussion, and
meaningful student participation
on existing University Senate
committees.
* *. *
ON DISCRIMINATION: Due in
part, I suppose, to a lack of pol-
tical sophistication on my part,
I have found my opinion divergent
from that of the senior editors,
my liberal colleagues, and a sub-
stantial portion of the campus at
a rather unstrategic point. I find
myself writing in defense of a
"right" which I d not believe
should be exercised-that of racial
and religious discrimination in
fraternity and sorority member-
ship selection.'
My argument-over-simplified-
goes thusly: Fraternities and so-
rorities were originated as private
clubs. The question of their right
to pick their members in their
own fashion (by whatever criteria)
arises only In light of their recog-
nition by the University as stu-
dent organizations.
The liberals specifically reject
the notion of the University as an
institution with an obligation to
society to impose moral and be-
havioral values on its students.
Yet inconsistency arises when the
moral wrongs of bigotry and dis-
crimination enter the picture. Here
the University apparently has that
responsibility. The University need
not accept, and can specifically
disclaim, the idea that permission
to exist implies approval of policy.
.
IN STATING my personal op-
position to the imposition of fur-
ther restrictions on fraternities
and sororities, let me make the
following assurances:
1) I deplore the membership
discrimination as a moral wrong
but regard it as a privte right.
2) I will act to end discrimina-
tion whenever civil rights are
violated.
3) I will take positive action if
a substantial portion of a fra-
ternity or sorority asks SGC for
help in altering its membership
procedures.
4) I will follow the letter of the
law.
-Thomas I. Smithson, '65
Elect Bullard ..
To the Editor:
IT IS HEARTWARMING to see
that at long last we have a
genuinely interested candidate
running for student representa-
tive to the Board in Control of
Intercollegiate Athletics. For the
past 10 years the only candidates
in serious contention for this post
have been two athletes selected
by the varsity managers. These
two candidates have nearly always
run unopposed.
The managers this year have
selected two athletes as candidates
for the single position to be filled
and so far neither of them has
shown even the slightest interest.
They have done no campaigning
whatsoever and to all outward
appearances they do not plan to.
On the other hand, Bill Bullard, a
sports writer and a sports fan,
has devoted considerable time and
effort to obtain over 300 signa-
tures for his petition to be placed
on the ballot, make out and dis-
tribute posters, seek endorsement
from various groups, and make his
views know. Bullard definitely
wants to be elected whereas the
managers' candidates have not
even publicly acknowledged their
appointment as candidates.
The Board in Control is com-
posed of faculty members, alumni,
two student representatives, and
Fritz Crisler. They have control
over such matters as the building
of a new fieldhouse, the means
that will be used to pay for its
construction, and the price of stu-
dent football tickets next year, to
name a few. It can perhaps be
argued that student athletes
should be represented on the
board, but they already have a
representative in Frosty Evashev-
sky. Now it's time to elect some-
one to represent the student body.
-William Schroeder, '65
Contrary.. .
To the Editor:
SINCE ITS INCEPTION several
years ago I have always un-
derstood the Voice political party
to represent a liberal element on
this campus democratically striv-
ing to express the views of its
members, and striving, in so far
as possible, to implement these
views in student government legis-
lation.
I was, however, disconcerted and
somewhat disilusioned to find that
during the current campaign the
Voice party endorsed one of Its
own members for the position of
LSA President without even invit-
ing the other candidates to express
their views. Although some mem-
bers of the party have apologized
for this error, others have sug-
gested that the announcement
that appeared in The Daily of
Feb. 21 stated that candidates for
Senior officer positions were invit-
ed to appear, and none of them
did except the candidate the party
subsequently endorsed. Yet ac-
cording to the Organization No-
tice on page eight, and the news
blurb on page two, the invitation
was clearly tendered only to SOC
candidates.
I would hope that in the future
Voice will clarify its position on
this question
-Harvey L. Kaplan, '64
ye...
To the Editor:
AS MEMBERS and friends of
Student Government Council
we have witnessed the damaging
effects of an unrepresentative and
undemocratic government for too
long a period of time. With nearly
40 per cent of its membership
coming from ex-officios repre-
senting narrow interest groups,
SGC has failed time and time
again to confront (in any mean-
ingful way) the issues of most
vital concern to the students of
this University.
These seven ex-officios are not
elected by the =student body and
they are not responsible for their
actions to the students. Most are
not even responsible to their own
student organizations for actions
taken as SGC members. They be-
come the heads of their organiza-
tions on criteria which have little
to do with the issues or effective
operation of SGC.
Their first commitment is al-
ways to their own organization and
in any conflict of interest, Stu-
dent Government Council and, in
turn, the students as a whole will
lose out. Few have shown the
ability to spend the necessary time
to act as an effective agent for
students of the University. Yet
they are empowered to cast votes
for resolutions purporting to carry
the official representative opinion
of the students.
* * *
AS STUDENT government en-
tirely elected by the stu'dent body
would be receptive to the desires
and needs of the students and
would, in a democratic manned,
legislate for the welfare of the
students and accurately reflect
their opinion on issues of con-
cern.
We urge a "Yes" vote on the
referendum to elect all members
of SGC. We urge a vote to remove
institutionalized elitism and wast.
ed interests. We urge a vote for
responsible and accurate repre-
sentation. We urge a vote for
democratic student government.
-Howard Abrams, '63
Gary Gilbar, '65A&D
Michael Kass,'65
Kenneth Miller, '64
Mary Beth Norton, '64
Robert Ross,,'63
Edwin Sasaki, Grad,
Henry Wallace, '64E
I
FEIFFER
~'tfOU'R6 ONIM)5AOTh6.
P~RON'G TRACK.
EVIL.. MRS 15I
1/JIfH NI A(CAM~ ~
&VQQN~OR. IV'W."
I 6AJP rO 1 O HrNRctlovlR6
OVR-E4MPIFY1NG CO ,
PHIU. w We Oml ~iES
TMTf MAID} COtMITS
(,RCAT SIIJS. UT LONTr
DARK X16W' o<KA
THE FE'FO
ANMtCAG, PI. MAUJ Pom~Jr RMO-R
120 G009 TO AU LVIOL 50M .
L0E5 6009 I75 MCAU&C
No~61 L.60017 P)A~
WCT~'Y HAS MADE'
HIM 1rHAf Af.'
t AUo TO IOM: 4 Rt'OtTo1.0 t
THE~ P6I5M1j. ,PHU-. CERTA
q4LR RP'ft
tOOT' ACCOQM)6
h to t Ar AAiri
10 IOAFO itOHAT
NEC1 t10VqOU 0
i0 . l '
LAm41
LcDuQr
tCAS0lJA6,.
II
it