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