Seventy-Third Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
1- .. UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Where Opirilong Are r"'STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBoR, MICH., PHONE No 2-3241
Trutb Will Prevail"
"Hey, Look What The Shifting Sands Have Turned Up"
ROCKY IN '64:
Pundits Prophesy
Rockefeller Is 'In'
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily ex press the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This mustI b. noted in all rebrints.
FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 1963 NIGHT EDITOR: DAVID MARCUS
Soft-Sell Persuaders
Sell Out 'U' Purposes
- *
'* Y ' ° s ^' i. ~r" '" ; .- ' f .re. ' "
+ a; "Y
* ag
" 4 > 7 .r:±"
THE UNIVERSITY is not a Ford car. It can
not be sold to the public on the basis of its
horsepower in producing dentists or doctors
or on the shining chrome of the glittering de-
vices from its research laboratories. Nor can
there be any attempt to hide the rust spots
from the public.
The University and all those who are part
of it must have a primary commitment to pure
education and to studying man's environment.
If this means controversy and public dispute
over the best manner to secure goals, if this
means studying areas which can produce no
economic benefits for the state, if this means
sacrificing quantity for quality, it must be
done. The Image Maker has little place in an
educational institution.
YET WE ARE constantly becoming more
aware of the role of the University's Image
Maker. There are objections both to the type
of image provided by the Office of University
Relations and to the idea of "image," the
degree to which the University is being in-
fluenced in educational questions by the con-
cept of what the outside community thinks of
it,.
The University would like to enjoy good pub-
lic relations so that support would be readily
forthcoming in the form of volunteer con-
tributions, increased state appropriations, a
greater general willingness to support educa-
tion. The method employed is to stress the
University's contributions to the economy of
Michigan, the victory of the Cold War, the
improvement of the state's health-the public
service aspect of the University.
There is nothing inherently wrong with
such a publicity program. Sometimes, however,
it does get out of hand as the University as-
sumes a low brow, Madison Avenue approach
to the problem.
FOR EXAMPLE, the University's presentation
in Lansing is a queer one. It ought to pre-
sent a sober and comprehensive picture of the
University's needs through an intelligent dis-
cussion of the problems. However, the Uni-
versity has apparently decided that the repre-
sentatives in the Legislature do not have the
mental capacity or interest to follow such argu-
ments.
This year, in its plea for more funds for
the Institute of Science and Technology, the
University brought the products of high civiliza-
tion to awe the primitives in the capitol-a
Laser rod, an OGO package, a gauge to measure
the moon's atmosphere and a cestraton: here
is the complex gadgetry the people's money
goes to build.
The impact of such a display is clear: im-
pressed by the visual perception of an object
he can't understand, the senator sees both
that he is not really in a position to evaluate
the way the University allocates its money
and that results are produced for the money
appropriated.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE of the not-so-hidden
persuaders in action is "Alexander Michi-
gander and the University of Michigan," a
14 page brochure financed by gifts of Uni-
versity alumni and recently mailed out across
the state. It is the story of Alexander Michi-
gander, "a fairly typical resident" of Michigan
(36 years old, three children, $6,000 year sal-
ary) and what the big University in Ann
Arbor does to improve the water he drinks,
the job he holds, the piano lessons of his
daughter, the cold war security of his nation.
It is written on the intellectual level of Reader's
Digest advertisements and appeals to the
"financial-expert" instinct in all men and to
the notion that the University is after all a
good financial investment.
In such presentations before the Legislature
and in such booklets as "Alexander Michi-
gander," the accent on the need and spirit
of liberal education is totally ignored. The
importance of social scientific work is kept to
a minimum and the humanities are almost
totally ignored.
Big Daddy
VIEW of the current fraternity fad to
adapt to the University's academic emphasis,
there has been some talk of making such soph-
omoric terms as "big Brother-little brother"
more mature.
We might suggest a reform to Big Daddy-
Little Daddy, in which case the whole set-up
could be termed a "paternity."
-B. MICHAELS
Editorial Staff
MICHAEL OLINICK, Editor
JUDITH OPPENHEIM MICHAEL HARRAH
Editorial Director City Editor
CAROLINE DOW.... ,... ,....... Personnel Director
JUDITH BLEIER............Associate City Editor
FRED RUSSELL KRAMER .. Assoc. Editorial Director
Rather than cultivating in the people of the
state an appreciation for what a University
really ought to mean, the approach has been
aimed at what the people will buy: Sputnik
made the American people afraid of the Rus-
sians and thus willing to spend some money
to shoot a man into space. The public is willing
to grant money for an IST or for new NASA
constructions and the universities are cheer-
fully milking this willingness dry. Other as-
pects of education-particularly the non-
physical sciences and undergraduate teaching-
are being neglected. In this area, the Uni-
versity's persistence in requesting capital out-
lay funds for a new Music School is highly
commendable.
QUARRELING AGAINST the type of image
of education being propogated by the Uni-
versity-the accent on productive research-
will not get one very far. For one thing, the
University has not shown itself to be completely
cold to other aspects of the campus: it does
attempt to use the funds freed by federal re-
search grants for those areas which have not
been given much public support. For another,
this sort of pitch seems to work. Members of
the Senate Appropriations Committee praised
the University's presentation as something new
and different and exciting. Unfortunately, no
money came out of this session but eventually
it will probably produce more funds for the
University. Certainly, more in the immediate
future than a program which didn't stress the
concrete and tangible.
My chief criticism is of the mood on campus
which is created by a University overly con-
cerned with its image. Too many decisions
are influenced by what the public's reactions
to the new policy will be, even in cases where
the Office of University Relations is not directly
involved and where it has no knowledge or
consultation role.
For an instance, the Office of Student Af-
fairs frequently rationalizes restrictions on the
grounds that Michigan parents would complain
too vociferously about the changes. For an-
other, the University Senate is reluctant to
open its session to Daily reporters partly be-
cause some faculty members fear that publica-
tion of the fact that faculty members do not
always agree with the administration or with
each other will destroy a "united front" toward
the public and will thus hurt the financial
hopes of the Athens of the West.
Internal controversy is frowned upon and
" the best interests of the University" as a cri-
terion for enacting policy may too often become
nothing more than "what will people say?"
THE UNIVERSITY as a Ford-car symbol
means that all advertising about the cor-
porate product must be coordinated from one
central source, that all programs aim at a con-
sistent and complete attack on the consumer
and his motivations, that one story and only
one story emanates from the University and
that story is a light, cool one stressing the
happy family of man which lives and works
on the fair campus, its eyes and heart devoted
to the ever-expanding Gross State Product of
Michigan.
What this can imply when certain types of
advertising executives ride the helm of the
public relations office is that individuals in
the University who don't salute the flag with
the company slogan are chastized for ex-
pressing their own version of the story of the
University. There is little enthusiasm for speak-
ing one's own mind about campus issues when
one seeks to better the educational environment
and finds himself at the other end of the
telephone at 8:30 in the morning listening to
the Director of University Relations tell you
he is becoming "fed up" with The Daily's
"Olinick-Oppenheim-Kramer axis" or accusing
you of direct misrepresentation of the president
of the University or challenging your sincerity
in wanting a better University.
The influence of public pressure or fear of
public pressure has been seen quite a few
times in educational questions around the state
in the last year: How strong a stand on free-
dom of speech would the Legislature tolerate
in framing University speaker policies? What
would parents say if women were allowed to
visit in the men's quadrangle rooms? What
would be the reaction of parents and alumnae
to the changes in the OSA eliminating the posts
of Dean of Men and Dean of Women? How
will the public interpret a Daily editorial
writer's opinion about a Regental candidate?
What sort of a deal on out-of-state students
is necessary to quiet the Legislature?
In the extreme, the desire for more money
for the University's budget could sanction the
restriction of some of the very things a
University is supposed to promote. A univer-
sity which avoids a $10 million appropriations
slash by banning a Communist speaker is not
fit to be called a university.
Fortunately, we have not hit that extreme
here in Ann Arbor. But there must be an
ever vigilant check that considerations of
public reaction and capacity for drawing in
more dollars does not lead to a prostitution of
educational values.
-MICHAEL OLINICK
5..,.. e
.2 ~
. .,. ,iv,. u,:1.;:tc:}'; . " ~ i
By ELLEN SILVERMAN
THE NEWSPAPER pundits have
been asking themselves and
their Republican readers lately,
"Who in '64?" And, in true form,
they have answered, "Rocky."
The question is a little pre-
mature but the answer is nonthe-
less true. Two years before the
Republican convention the out-
come of the Presidential nomina-
tion race seems virtually assured.
New York Gov. Nelson Rocke-
feller is the current front-runner
for opportunity to wave the GOP
banner in the '64 election, and
for good reason: the Republicans
have lost their leadership in Wash-
ington and Rockefeller is the most
logical choice from the "outlying"
areas.
* * *
REPUBLICANS, now out of
power, lost their Washington
leadership when former Vice-
President Richard Nixon lost the
race for governor in California.
Former President Dwight D. Eisen-
hower, although titular head of the
party and a willing campaigner,
is not a leader in forming policy
or strategy.
Since the leadership of the party
depends on those who are willing
and able to formulate policy and
strategy, the leadership has shift-
ed to Congressional leaders and
governors.
But in Congress the number of
candidates for the Presidential
nomination is small. Sen.. Barry
Goldwater of Arizona has re-
peatedly stated that he will not
run in '64. Even if this were so
(and in politics candidates often
change their minds just prior to
the actual convention) the chances
of Goldwater securing the nomina-
tion are slight.
He is a conservative who may
be acceptable to the Southern
wing of the party but he is too
far to the right for the GOP who
follow senators like Jacob Javits
of New York and Rockefeller him-
self. The Southern wing, too, is
still growing. It does not yet have
a hold on the party and it is
therefore highly debatable that
the Southerners alone could swing
the nomination Goldwater's way
at the convention.
* * *
AWAY FROM the Capitol, the
GOP is in better shape. The gov-
ernors of most of the key states
are Republicans-Ohio, Michigan,
Pennsylvania and New York. Yet
most of these men just came into
office in the last election. It is
not only too early to predict what
each man will do with his state's
problems-most of them are fi-
nancial problems-but it" is also
too early for any of them to de-
clare their intentions of running.
And even if nominated, any one
of these governors would have a
difficult time presenting his views
when the Democrats are sure to
run on a platform "experienced
leadership is what we need."
BUT ROCKEFELLER is in a
unique position. He has been in
office for more than four years
now and therefore is "experienc-
ed." He is well liked in both the
moderate and liberal wings of the
Republican party. He can almost
make the died-in-the-wool con-
servatives admit that he has some
good programs.
Therefore, by playing his cards
cagily, he could pull all the seg-
ments of the party together and
pull off the nomination in short
order.
There have been rumblings that
Rockefeller is having trouble in
his own state, which may be true;
but the national attention which
is now focused on New York is not
the result of the governor's tax
plan.
Rockefeller has been speaking as
if he were campaigning already
and the national press is eager to
repeat his pearls of wisdom on its
front pages across the country.
His "domestic" problems are then
easily lost in the shuffle.
Rockefeller, in the slang of the
campus, seems to be "in." And in
politics, a little less than two years
is a short time.
Fetish
WHEN THE HISTORY of oar
times comes to be written, the
current furor over the possibility
of secret nuclear tests under-
ground or in outer space will be
recognized for what it is--a form
of mass delusion, like those which
once set whole countries crazy
with the fear of witches.
It will take its place with other
instances of human credulity and
superstition ,The word supersti-
tion may seem strong when we
are dealing with the very latest
advances in technology, but our
national , obsession with nuclear
weapons belong in the realm of
ancient magic-the Bomb stirs in
our still primitive unconscious the
reverence the Cannanites once
felt for Moloch; it too is both
God and fiery furnace.
We regard science with the awe
a tribesman accorded his witch
doctor-who knows what will be
the next miracle of destructive-
ness-to emerge from the mumbo-
jumbo of mathematical formulas?
We live in fear that some other
tribe may outdo our magic, may
some dark night work up a more
devilish device than ours, may test
it when we're not looking.
-I. F. Stone's Bi-Weekly
a
r + t ~
-- "'° ,7 T tJfkSN tr T CSt"e '" CSZ '
"rS L s
HISTORICAL IRONY:
What Lincoln and Marx Began
By ROBERT SELWA
THE AUDIENCE attending Her-
bert Aptheker's lecture last
week on the Emancipation Proc-
lamation realized that he was ex-
aggerating when headescribed the
Republican party at its founding
as a "criminal Communist con-
spiracy." He was speaking in sar-
casm, of course. But his sarcasm
points up some of the irony in the
history of the development of
Marxist and related philosophy.
Aptheker, editor of "Political
Affairs" magazine, a theoretical
organ ofuthe Communist Party,
pointed out that President Abra-
ham Lincoln and Karl Marx ex-
changed letters and that Marx
was the European correspondent
of the New York Tribune,a van-
guard of the newly-born Republ-
can party. Aptheker did not men-
tion it, but the salary that the
Tribune sent Marx helped keep
him going while he wrote Das
Kapital. This was probably the
major contribution that Repub-
licans made to the development
of Communism.
Aptheker's conclusion may have
been far-fetched, but it served as
a jibe against those who wouid
persecute radicals for their as-
sociations and beliefs. Unfortun-
ately, Aptheker left the analysis
there.
HE SHOULD have carried it
further, especially for the sake
of the people who view the Cold
War as a battle between Chris-
tianity and atheistic Communism.
For it is an irony of history that
Christianity got its start in the
East while Marxism got its start
in the West.
Aptheker's reference to Lincoln
was appropriate. Both Lincoln and
Marx sympathized with workers,
with the poor and with the op-
pressed. Lincoln had humble be-
ginnings and most Americans know
his story, but most Americans do
not know that Mrs. Marx wished
that Karl would have spent less
time writing about capital and
more time making it.
Like an earlier President, An-
drew Jackson, Lincoln was the
common man in the White House,
and he tried to help the common
man. He signed the Homestead
Act which benefitted those who
had nothing to lose by beginning
life anew on a 160-acre plot of
land that could someday become
their own. Lincoln also freed the
slaves, and while for him this was
secondary to restoring the union,
it was a major step in the ad-
vancement of that exploited group
of workers.
* * *
BOTH LINCOLN and Marx be-
lieved in a right to revolution.
While Marx saw this as the way
to achieve the workers' state, Lin-
coln's belief stemmed from his
devotion to the Declaration of In-
dependence.
The Declaration of Indepen-
dence has always been and still is
a radical document. It provides
that "whenever any form of gov-
ernment becomes destructive" of
the ends of life, liberty equality,
and the pursuit of happiness, "it .
is the right of the people to alter
or to abolish it . . ." And to leave
South was preparing to secede, to
"throw off" the federal govern-
ment, and even though Lincoln's
main goal was to maintain the
union.
* * *
WHILE FOR Lincoln the drive
behind revolution was primarily
political, for Marx the drive be-
hind revolution was primarily eco-
nomic. The working class would
end the exploitation it suffers by
overthrowing the exploiters, the
bourgeois class, according to Marx.
For Lincoln what was at issue
was a relationship between the
governors and the governed; for
Marx what was at issue was a
relationship between a huge class
of poor workers and a tiny class
of rich owners.
This distinction is important be-
cause it is at the root of the
difference existing today between
the American Communist and
what might be called the civil
Democrat. The civil Democrat
seeks political freedoms such as
due process of law and the right
to speak and associate as one
chooses because he views these
freedoms as the framework on
which good men will construct a
good society. Many American
Communists, perhaps out of self-
interest, also crusade for these
freedoms, but maintain at the
same time that these freedoms are
not enough. These political rights
have to be founded upon econom-
ic and social rights, American
Communists say; industrial Demo-
cracy and equality of opportunity
are the first necessity.
Sound familiar? It should, for
Marxism has its roots in the West.M
The point about equality of op-
portunity was also made in that
radical document, the Declaration
of Independence. The Declaration
states that "all men are created
equal," and most defenders of the
Declaration explain that this
means equality of opportunity.
* * *
THOUGH LESS familiar than
equality of opportunity, the eon-
cept of industrial Democracy is
also rooted in our society. It was
the goal of a Western manufac-
turer, Robert Owen, and other
Western utopians.
The ideals of Karl Marx were
promulgated in Russia by force,
by a Bolshevik junta that sup-
pressed all opponents with armed
force. In the West, the ideals of
Marx were spread not by force
but by persuasion. Marx was view-
ed favorably by a great many
Americans, especially at the turn
of the century. Marxian and uto-
pian Socialism are in part the
roots of the social democratic
movement of Europe and of the
United States this century. The
oddity about the United States
was that after 1910 America has
almost totally abandoned all phi-
losophies with the name socialism
while actually implementing the
aspect of socialism that urges
government participation an the
economy. Two world wars and two
periods of anti-Communist hys-
teria have resulted in the rejec-
tion of the name Socialism while
the most severe economic crisis in
our history has resulted in the
implementation of the least in-
small group of Russians in their
ascendency to dictatorship.
Many of the greatgrandfathers
of this generation of Americans,
judged by the general outlooc of
this generation of Americans,
would be heretics and subversives
today.
are fellow travelers of his. And
actually social democracy is a
fruition of the seeds of Western
development while Soviet Com-
munism is an ugly hybrid.
Thus, today the United States
and its Western allies stand op-
posed to a system that claims to
be based on Marxism. Yet histoxy
reveals that Marxism and utopian
Socialism were kept alive in the
West, kept alive until used by a
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Union A Bad Bargain
To the Editor:
THE MICHIGAN UNION, we are
told, is supposed to be a stu-
dent organization run by students
for the benefit of students. I think
that several happenings over the
years, and a few recent ones,
should convince anyone that this
is not the case, and the the Union
in reality is: (a) run for the
benefit of alumni, local business-
men, and "visiting firemen," and
(b) a good-sized pressure group.
For instance, in regard to the
current Creative Arts Festival, we
will note that the Union has
chosen to credit as a part of the
CAF and thus itself any remotely
cultural event that occurs within
the times the CAF is set to run.
Thus, the Toronto Symphony,
which I had always thought was
a part of the Choral Union series,
suddenly becomes a part of the
CAF; but it is in connection with
the taping for television of the
Limeliters' concert that the fact
that the Union knows where to
put a little payola where it will
do the most good becomes evident.
* * *
THE TICKETS distributed Tues-
day were for the dress rehearsal
of the show; the tickets, as far as
I can tell, for the actual taping
never saw the light of day in
terms of student distribution, but
were placed here and there around
the campus in various organiza-
tionsy where the Union hopes to
make friends and influence people
towards the aims it propagates.
Now the Union is run with stu-
dent money and hypothetically for
all the students (the males at
least); why were not these tickets
made generally available, so that
more students and perhaps fewer
potential friends of the Union
could get them?)
Finke, in his letter to The Daily
last week, stated that the Union
services are self-supporting and
that the X-many dollars deducted
from each student's tuition are
used to pay off the bonded in-
debtedness on the new wing of
the Union constructed a few years
ago. Although students do get
lower rates in this wing, it is
often used for visiting business-
men and convention-goers who
Union is, plainly, ridiculous. The
service is amazingly slow, the por-
tions small, the prices high. For
all their wretchedness, local Ann
Arbor businessmen give more and
better and cheaper food than does
the Union.
These teeny little portions of
French fries, for instance, for
which the student is charged 15
or 25 cents, the ham sandwiches
with a thin slab of meat between
two pieces of bread for a price 5
or even 10 cents higher than most
local places, and so on.
The Union, Finke says, is not
a monolith ("such as Voice") but
harbors many individuals with all
shades of opinion. Well, this may
be true, but I have rarely heard
any voice other than the tradi-
tional conservative one reach the
light of day; running through my
mind is that picture of Finke,
Stockmeyer and Meyerholz look-
ing jubilant upon learning that
the ex-officio referendum didn't
pass.
We are also told that future
issues of the Union Reports will
be paid for by advertising. It is
bad enough that Union opinion'
has in the past been expressed
there, at times unsigned, and paid
for by student money (although
I suppose it makes no difference
Carder, Finke, and the Board of
Directors may come and go, but
the Union goes on [progresses?]
forever.) The new procedure, it
seems to me, will merely mitigate
the injury. The bad thing about
the past procedure was not who
paid for the issue or even whether
they were signed or not, but that
they were issued by the Union, a
supposed service organization for
the students; even were they lib-
eral editorials, I would still object,
because any opinion expressed in
the Reports has behind it the
force and body of the Union, being
as it is an official journal.
I would, by the way, seriously
request and appreciate a message
either from Finke or his successor
on the distribution of those tickets.
-Steven Hendel, '63
Healthy Sign.. .
of autonomy of thought and ex-
pression.
To one unfamiliar with the
workings over at 420 Maynard,
Michael Olinick's Sunday editorial
creates the initial impression that
this oppressive board is one step
short of snuffing out the last
breath of liberty. This idea which
he connoted is a cross between
overstatement and misinterpreta-
tion of the board's attitude, in my
opinion.
To anyone familiar with The
Daily (andl its relation to the
board) the conclusion is ines-
capable that the board has no
interest, desire or intention to
restrict the free flow of ideas. Any
regular reader of The Daily's edi-
torial page has witnessed the free-
dom of expression which is pres-
ent-and such expression is at
no time pre-judged or reviewed in
advance of publication.
PERHAPS in an attempt to
prove a point, Olinick has taken
the sole editorial restriction which
exists (and has existed for some
time), to hammer home a per-
sonal feeling which is not sup-
ported by the record. The restric-
tion in question is the prohibition
against printing partisan editorial
comment on Regental elections.
This limitation does not say that
The Daily cannot discuss the elec-
tions, platforms. It memerly re-
stricts the taking of sides, and
this is based upon the close ties
between the Regents, the Univer-
sity, and The Daily. It is deemed
in the best interest of the Uni-
versity community that The Daily
should not endorse candidates for
the Board of Regents. This is not
an attempt by anyone to protect
individuals or save feelings.
This is not the proper place to
debate the desirability of the re-
striction in question. This is the
time and place to point out that
the students who read The Daily
have an opportunity to be exposed
to all points of view, many of
which are controversial, and all
of which are un-muzzled. Freedom
of the press does exist here, and
those that contend it is missing
havefailed to comprehend the
meaning and purpose of the only