Seventy-T bird Y er EDTD AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN - UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS ,mer' Opinions Are P'"re STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBOR, MICH., PHONE NO 2-3241 Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints. SATURDAY, MARCH 16, 1963 NIGHT EDITOR: MALINDA BERRY HISTORY SAID NO: Agricultural Cacophony Kept British Out Diplomat Hatcher Supports 'Concept' UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT Harlan Hatcher -a paragon of diplomacy-pulled a stun- ning about-face Friday. With the least possible amount of noise and with greatest subtlety, the president released a letter to Ann Arbor Mayor Cecil O. Creal stating Ihis and the Uni- versity's support of fair housing legislation. President Hatcher has changed his position. He has not changed it in the sense of negating "a position previously held but in the sense of taking a positive stand. Under pressure, he has at last issued an official University policy concerning the con- cept of fair housing. On Feb. 21, the president expressed "sym- pathy" with the efforts of the Human Relations 'Board to secure fair housing but declined to endorse the fair housing legislation before the City Council. His position was that the Uni- versity did not interfere in local politics. How- ever, he made it clear the University has been and continues to be against discrimination and will work for its removal 'when University personnel are concerned. T HE LETTER to Mayor Creal, said the presi- dent, was solely an attempt to clarify his and the University's position. According to him, his position had not changed and the only misunderstanding was on the part of 'the Hu- man Relations Board. He stated that he had been misrepresented in his views. In the letter the president goes only so far as to support the "concept" of fair hous- ing. He makes no specific referral.to the legis- lation presently before the City Council. Never- theless, this statement is the first one in which the president has endorsed even the concept of fair housing. Previously, the University has indicated its opposition to discriminatory hous- ing through the vehicle of Regents' Bylaw 2.14 -but no specific statement referring to fair housing was ever made. The president has taken a definite step for- ward. With the finesse of an experienced in- The Well SIBENIEW YORK newspaper strike is just about over, yet nothing has been settled. The International Typographical Union, Local Six, won the upper hand over the New York newspaper publishers in a truce proposed by Mayor Robert Wagner, but the major issue- automation--has been papered over. The union won a $12 week wage and fringe benefit increase, maintained the "bogus" re- setting of ads cast outside the shop and limited teletypesetting to the financial page. The settlement has only postponed the ul- timate decision. Automation is moving forward and oposition only leaves unemployment in its wake. The papers cannot survive without productivity increases and a desperation effort to automate may find all the linotypists out of a job. DESPITE STUBBORN union resistence, the movement to automate the technologically backward and featherbed-ridden newspaper shops continues. Three more papers have joined the Los Angeles Times in automating its lino- types through the aid of computers since the beginning of the newspaper strike. New suc- cesses with linotype-operaterless offset print- ing.are being recorded. The settlement is a step backward. It fails to solve the problem of automation that is plaguing the newspaper industry. The ITU cannot continue to walk with its nose in the air, blind to the need for technological change. It will soon fall into the well of oblivion. -P. SUTIN Fraternity Bi NOW THAT the campus liberals have been shot down, it looks like the "go-slow" ap- proach is in vogue again on Student Govern- ment Council in dealing with affiliate mem- bership selection practices. During the campaign, several of the mod- erate candidates asserted that overt fraternity discrimination is a "dead issue" because each house has eliminated its bias clause, if it ever had one. This stand is wrong both factually and in- ferentially. Trigon is still one of the 43 campus fraternities, and only Christians are allowed to join it. In fact; if SGC started to take punitive action, Trigon would probably re- define itself as a religious club, which is exempted from anti-discrimination provisions of Regents Bylaw 2.14. (In a way, it's a shame that Trigon is the best target for SGC activists. In contrast to * ~j~ £ic~i~wu&i~j ternational diplomat, he has managed to ac- complish it with the least possible embarrass- ment to himself and this institution. Unfor- tunately, he has done it by skirting the issue, by not endorsing the specific legislation before the council. Also, he has saved face by stating he was misrepresented. President Hatcher fails to see that no one has ever accused him, per- sonally, of discriminating. That is not the issue at stake. He fails to see that all that was asked by the HRB was support of fair housing legislation-and riot of the specific proposal. According to David Aroner, chairman of the HRB, the letter requesting the president to endorse fair housing was' sent to him even before the proposal was presented to City Council. Thus, an endorsement of a specific proposal was not involved and, consequently, interference in ,city matters was not a per- tinent issue. EXPLOITING the meeting to its fullest and using tactics which matched the president's in subtlety, the HRB managed to take another step forward. The president agreed to send a representative of the University to testify at future hearings of the council on specific questions concerning the ordinance if it is clear that substantial numbers of University personnel are involved. Whether the president, Director of Uni- versity Relations Michael Radock and Vice- President for Student Affairs James A. Lewis, all present at the meeting, are aware of the full implications of his statement remains to be seen. Whether or not they will act in fidelity to his statement 'also is a question for the future. Nevertheless, the HRB has obtained a statement of University position which directly refers to the fair housing ordinance before the council. This step involves no inconsistency on the part "of the University. It is in keeping with the University's policy as quoted by the presi- dent at the meeting Friday: "The Bylaw (2.14) also states that the University shall work for the elimination of discrimination from non- University sources which affect our students cr staff. We have done so and will continue these efforts." HE HBR should rightly be proud of its efforts. It has at last secured a significant and positive statement from the president. Real progress was made at Friday's meeting. The diligent efforts of the HRB have yielded significant results. Under its pressure-and probably other pressures which are not yet known-this University has made clear its exact position. The previous position, ex- pounded by President Hatcher after the HRB picketing, was at best vague and arbitrary. The present statement is weak-but it is positive and public. And that means that whenever the concept of fair housing is cosideed by City Council, the position of the Univeisity will be known and undoubtedly considered. In the past, President Hatcher has said that the University has worked quietly and steadily behind the scenes to eliminate discrimination. The work certainly has been quiet. The Uni- versity has failed to live up to its responsibility as a leader in this community. It has the moral responsibility as a leader in this com- munity. It has the moral responsibility, much as any large organization has, to take a definite stand for fair housing and it is ex- tremely unfortunate that the president did not realize this sooner; it would have saved much trouble, confusion and embarrassment. The stand should be stronger, it should have been presented earlier. President Hatcher has as- sumed the tactics of diplomacy but has out- diplomated himself; no amount of face-saving can compensate for his earlier inaction. -MARJORIE BRAHMS as Still Exists many other campus fraternities, Trigon stays out of trouble and sees something more to fraternal ideals than the round of TG's.) THERE ARE at least three other campus fraternities which are suspect, as discrim- inatory practices of their chapters at eastern universities have recently been revealed. Kappa Sigma has a "gentlemen's agreement" which prevents it from accepting non-whites; Phi Gamma Delta has a similar provision; Lambda Chi Alpha's ritual cannot be undergone by a Jew. Affiliate bias is not a dead issue, despite what Interfraternity Council and allies may profess. As long as the potential exists for a University chapter to be forced by its national not to pledge minority group members, the subject is obviously relevant, and the three locals cited, above should furnish some proof to SGC that they are not restricted like their brothers out East. THE COUNCIL needs members who under- stand the complications and difficulties By LAURENCE KIRSHBAUM WHEN French President Charles de Gaulle rejected Britain's application for entry into the European Economic Community (Common Market) last month, the American and British press ti- raded him for personal, dictatorial designs upon a France-centered and de Gaulle-centered European unification. Overlooked in this journalistic Bonapartizing was de Gaulle's stated explanation for the veto that the incongruencies between the British and the six-particu- larly in agricultural policies-made further negotiations futile at this point. As de Gaulle stated in his press conference of January 14, the ma- jor question to unity is: "What is to be done to make Britain, such as it is, enter the agricultural, system of the six?" De Gaulle was not playing Na- poleon deuxieme here. His initia- tion of the veto did, it is true, re- flect the more personal or nation- al concern of a leader in whose country 33 per cent of the popula- tion is involved in agriculture. But at the same time, de Gaulle was taking the much more inter- nationalist role as a sagacious European statesman aware that the problems of agricultural unity have practically precluded achiev- ing European unification since the second world war. AGRICULTURAL roadblocks to unity have been evident since the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), an international pact concluded between 17 na- tions in 1947. Established as one of the earliest arrangements to combat the European economic disintegration at the close of the war, the GATT's main feature was a general prohibition against quota restrictions. Under the GATT, the signing members (which included all of the current Common Market six) were to abolish their quantitative restric- tions on imports-both agricul- tural and industrial-on other member nations. This feature had to be quickly modified to allow countries to re- tain full quotas on most agri- cultural products. The reason was that various countries, among them Britain and France, had heavy domestic price-support pro- grams for their agriculture which relied on market controls. These in turn necessitated the control of imports, rendering the quota sys- tem unsatisfactory. If quota reduction would not AT THE CAMPUS: C lever Comedy THERE ARE at least two distinct features which make British comedies distinct from American ones: first of all, he troup of ac- tors is by and large the same in all of them; second, the actors are all usually character actors whose comedic talents are not glossed over by a "star" shine such as in the American "Doris Day-Cary Grant-Tony Randall" cycle. "Carry On Teacher" and "Doc- tor in Love," both currently play- ing at the Campus Theatre, are two good examples of British com- edies. The first, a member of the series which included "Carry On Nurse," ". . . Constable," etc., is as funny and as raunchy as its predecessors. If you are looking for subtle comedy, for quick and clever lines, for witty humor, you might as well save your money. But if you are just interested in having a few (correction-many) good laughs at some riotously unaban- doned humor, GO!M THE STORY, if such it can be called, revolves around the mali- ciousness practiced by a bunch of children at Mauldin Public School in an, effort to make a bad im- pression on some visiting inspec- tors from the Ministry of Educa- tion and thus retain their head- master, who hopes that a favor- able report from them will mean a new and better position for him. Practical jokes reign supreme, and of course any attempt to describe the film is really useless, for its humor is essentially visual. The second film, "Doctor In Love," is also another in a loosely- constructed series, going from "Doctor At Large" all the way on up to the present. The first few starred Dick Bogarde; this one does not, but it is the funniest of the lot. * * * * "DOCTOR . .." has even less of a "story" or "plot" than does tl-e other film on this double-bill, but its humor tends to be more ber- bal and slightly less visual. It traces the adventures of our young hero through the throes of love and romance, and cuts irrelevantly through several layers of absolutely unrelated-but quite funny-hum- orous episodes. The free vacation at the Colds suit the European national agri- cultural policies, tariff reductions proved equally unacceptable. When the Organization for European Economic Cooperation was es- tablished in 1948 to recommend ways to bolster the European econ- omy (and to allocate Marshall Plan funds) the first thing it called for was the reduction of tariffs. Seven years later, in a study conducted by the same or- ganization, it was noted that the major products which could not be "reduced" and which were still protected by tariffs were agricul- tural, particularly eggs, cereals and horticultural products. * * * IT WAS becoming obvious that external barriers, such as tariffs and quotas, were not the major impediments to agricultural unity. Whereas these constituted the ma- jor barriers to trade in manu- factured products, the trade in agricultural produce was being complicated by internal, non-tariff and non-quota barriers. These in- cluded the problem of domestic subsidies-such as the British pay- ment deficiency plan-and the question of important revenues like internal taxes which were collected on farm products in France, Germany and Italy. The importance of non-tariff barriers became clear in the Bene- lux Customs Agreement signed in 1947 between Belgium, Luxem- bourg and the Netherlands. In this agreement, although tariff and quota barriers were abolished, the price discrepancies in agri- cultural products (Dutch butter was several cents a pound lower than Belgian butter) caused the need for a minimum price stan- dard to be set in each country. The price standard meant that where prices in a particular pro- duct dropped below a minimum price for that commodity, set in- dividually by each country, the country was empowered to impose a tariff on that product. This standard was the failure of the agreement. By 1958, prices had not leveled off, tariffs (under this minimum price standard) were be- ing imposed, and agricultural pro- ducts were continually being smuggled across borders to obtain higher prices. * * * FROM THESE and other at- tempts at unifying various Euro- pean countries economically, a pattern was emerging. Industrial agreements were meeting prac- tically unqualified success-as in the European Coal and Steel Com- munity-while agricultural agree- ments were being broken faster than they could be made. The framers of the Treaty of Rome (the Common Market con- stitution) through the negotiating years of 1951-57 realized one major point: the expansion of agricul- ture into supra-national markets could not be governed as simply or as effectively as the expansion of industrial trade. As a corollary, the framers felt that where a part- ner was in fundamental dis- equilibrium agriculturally with the rest of its partners, there would be an increased tendency to add re- strictions between partners. The only recourse the framers could take-and the one they did -was to formulate a very vague, work-it-out-later agricultural pol- icy. Not wishing to endanger the treaty before its adoption and ra- tification, the framers chose to concentrate on the more success- fully-tested provisions for indus- trial trade. FOR AGRICURTURE they add- ed special provisions to these gen- eral clauses which would lead to- ward an organized market for European agriculture on the whole. There was also a special list made of produce which would be in- dividually negotiated as to tariffs and quotas. Generally, they did establish a framework for an agricultural pol- icy-but it too was vague, trading specifics for prescience. The gen- eral agricultural goals aimed to increase productivity; insure a higher standard of living for the agriculture populations; stabilize markets; and insure reasonable prices in supplies to consumers. All of which were very flavorful but without taste. Even the more specific measures adopted-such as a minimum price clause like the one that had existed at Bene- lux-were noticeably general. Ar- ticle 44 of the treaty did entitle countries to fix the minimum price standard, butneglected to. show how the Price would be established or maintained. In short, the agricultural pro- visions were geared to the fu- ture. Long-term contracts "to in- crease the volume of trade" were to be signed before the end of the first-stage of the agreement 'Jan 1961). Common agricultural or- ganizations were to be created af- ter the treaty came into effect. Even the most important agri- cultural items were conveniently placed on a special list, which meant that they would also await further negotiation. * * * THE TREATY as adopted in 1957 even provided for a waiver on all the "end of the first stage" musts if all six nations unani- mously wanted it, realizing that the agricultural problems would barely have been touched by De- cember of 1961. This was exactly the case. While the first three years of the imple- mentation of the treaty saw many agreements on tariffs of specific products, the non-tariff consider- ations (minimum price standards and long-term trade agreements, for example) arising from the na- tional incongruencies were left un- touched. Came the end of 1961 and the countries of the six-especially France-might have been willing to pass into the second stage of the treaty leaving the farm poli- cies basically unresolved. Except that a funny thing happened on the way to the farm: Great Brit- ain officially announced .ts in- tention to seek entry into the Common Market in October of 1961. * * * THE ANNOUNCEMENT did not come as a total shock. Sir Edward Heath, Lord Privy Seal of Britain, had been conducting preliminary negotiations with the ministers of the six for the past six or seven months. But the announcement did come sooner than expected. De Gaulle, realizing that once the treaty entered the second stage most agricultural decisions would be by majority vote, had planned on having the agricultural prob- lem worked out before considering British entry. Within fifteen days of the time that Heath had announced his acceptance of the Treaty of Rome "in principle," de Gaulle unleash- ed his first verbal bomb. On Nov. 30, his Foreign Minister Couve de Murville announced that unless a start could be made toward formu- lating and implementing the com- mon agricultural policy by the end of the year, a halt would have to be called in the progress of the Common Market. Two days later M. Baumgartner, French finance minister, suggested that the GATT call a conference of all the main agricultural pro- ducers. He wished to introduce a plan, he said, to drop all systems of subsidies and replace them with agreements to maintain normal prices. De Murville's threats and Baum- gartner's vagaries were clear in- dications that Britain had France aflame about the agricultural problems. Unrest in the country- side among the farm-workers (who comprise 20 per cent of the French labor force) had been the spark. And another irksome fea- ture about the British for de Gaulle was Heath's announce- ment that transitional arrange- ments'might have to continue for 15 years before the agricultural policies could be completely har- monized. * * * DE GAULLE thus forced the agricultural issue. Heath's pre- liminary negotiations had to be temporarily dropped as the Com- mon Market ministers got together to debate the agricultural policy in mid-December of 1961. After a month of haggling an agricultural program was blended from the conflicting non-tariff and tariff barriers. The program, once achieved, would apply to all members uniformly; would grad- ually bring the divergent price levels to a market-wide median; and would encourage the more heavy consumers of farm produce, such as West Germany,, to buy within the market from the big- gest producer, namely France. The program was to be financed by a special Common Market Guidance and Guarantee Fund which would administer farm sup- port programs, handle the stock- piling of agricultural surpluses (to keep the market steady) and fund structural changes in the econ- omies of the countries. This fund would itself be funded by a fixed assessment to each country, increasing as each part- ner had less and less need to ad- minister its own internal subsidy programs. The policy called for at least a 50 per cent reduction by 1966 on external and internal duties. By 1970, the abolition of all remaining internal discripan- cies was to be enacted. * * * THESE EIGHT YEARS were to be called a "transition period" to denote the drastic reorganization of traditional European agricul- tural patterns which would take place. It was this transitory period which was to be the bais for Britain's rejection. For although the farm problem was at least tem- porarily resolved to France and Britain's satisfaction in January, 1962, it was to pop up within the year. Heath returned to the nego-, tiations table wisely dealing with industrial concessions, leaving ag- riculture within the larger con- text of Common Market relations with the Commonwealth and the United States. But in the late summer the farm problem once more reared its fanged pitchfork. While both sides agreed that ultimately (by 1970) Britain would adopt the ECC's common agricul- tural policy, the dispute centered around what the British would do during the eight-year, two- stage transitory period. * * * - THE BRITISH wanted to grad- ually taper off their present price support system (called "deficiency payments"). The six wanted them to abandon the system immedi- atelyupon entry. Themsix feared that if the British price-supported farmers were admitted into the market, their (the six's) farmers would balk at having to compete virtually unsubsidized in the fluc- tuating market which the policy had established. The center of the controversy was the cereal trade. The British guaranteed price (under their pay- ment deficency plan) was 20 pounds (about $56) per ton while the lowest community level of cerial per ton was 32 pounds a ton. The six wanted the British to let their price rise to the com- munity level giving tapering sub- sidies to the consumer to compen- sate for his increased prices. But the British were having none of it. The upheaval (which such a jerk in prices would cause) would precipitate a lack of con- fidence on the part of their farm- ers, not to mention a tremendous additional expense. All this for something the British couldn't see was necessary. They believed that a free market was a free market: the community price should be lowered to meet their level. * * THIS PROPOSAL outraged the French. It just so happened that they had a surplus of cereal grains on their hands. They had been foremost (during the establish- ment of a common policy the past January) in pushing for a very- highly protected farm program- one which would admittedly help them pass off their grain-under the monetary guidance of the Ag- ricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. Now, here were the British, not even entered, threatening to crack-up the whole farm policy. To ice the cake, Orville Freeman, American secretary of agriculture, was pressuring for an open tree- trade farm policy which would permit American surplus grain to be dumped upon the market too. Not only did the French have a good thing in the agricultural policy, all of the six did. In the January negotiations, French con- cessions had been tremendous as they had abandoned a number of their demands for the ~et-up of the agricultural guidance fund. Even German Chancellor Ade- nauer, at odds with the French over the farm policy, had come out strongly in favor of the policy. And now here was England threatening to recreate problems. De Gaulle, wary since late 1961, was now violently concerned lest all that had preceeded go for naught. At the press conference he indicated the intensity of his wor- ries. De Murville officially vetoed the application two-weeks later in the same vein, asking rhetorically if Britain had or could or wanted to fulfill the necessary conditions for a successful agricultural pro- gram and for a successful Common Market generally. The answer from eight months of negotiations with the British was clearly no. 'TARAS BULBA': Unique Spectacle THERE'S A FUNNY thing about the spectacular, that peculiar idiom of American filmmakers- it keeps getting better and better. "Taras Bulba," the Harold Hecht production that opened last nght at the State Theatre, is easily recognized as an American spec- tacular. All the essential ingre- dients are there, yet this particular spectacular is better than the us- ual variety; it is almost tasteful. The thousand-fold cast looks more like the vindictive army it is sup- posed to be. and less like a band of local herders hoping to pick up a few pesos from crazy American filmmakers. The Eastman color is used as expertly in the blush of a maiden's cheek as in the glare of a ghastly battle wound. The Panavision wide-screen technique emphasizes the natural grandeur of the Argentine Andes (alias Rus- sian Steppes) as well as the scope of an attacking army. The battle scenes still make the audience in- hale and exhale in unison, but the grease paint gore is applied with a lighter and more subtle hand. The sex orgies are decadent, but attended by fine family men whom we know believe only in true love. Franz Waxman's music is resplendent, classical. .And, most important to all us romantics, the love scenes are played by the bravest of heroes (Tony Curtis) and the most vir- ginal of maidens (Christine Kauf- mann). UNFORTUNATELY, an other- wise "good spectacular" (if such a rating exists among movie cri- tics) is marred by faulty special effects, including a mile-deep cre- vasse whose sides do not match and the spires of the city of Kiev which look more painted than pointed. By far, the movie's finest fea- ture is Yul Brynner, castIas the firey Taras Bulba whose motto is to "put your faith in your sword and your sword in a Pole." Flank- ed by his two sons in battle, his Cossack arrogance is masterful, 'hic w4.. nrn'.'n.l y ne .n.4 a -alni lf in4 I I " ' . A it -..