Seventy-First Year
EDITEDAND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG. * ANN ARBOR, MICH.* Phone NO 2-3241
The Anatomy of
Protest
"Where Opinions Are Free
Truth Will Prevail"
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
UNDAY, MAY 28, 1961 NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT FARRELL
Why Not Sell Out:
The Purpose Withi Process
IN MANY WAYS, Life magazine's recently
publicized search for new articulations of
this nation's purpose touches a sore spot. Public
anxiety is roused by the implied question. Is
the national purpose lost, then? Has it
changed?
Why national purpose seems vital is evi-
dent. The world is divided against itself. In
the United States, the war is so far ideological,
but its accompanying guilt and anguish are un-
mitigated. The term "national purpose" does
not distinguish between two separate but re-
lated sources of concern: motivation for na-
tional survival and the framing of personal
purpose in a world marked by the coercive
pressures of conflict. Widespread doubt is poor-
ly satisfied by, "A nation should not mean,
but be."
The physical problems of our society are
being solved. We are on the whole a rich, liter-
ate, conscientious and vigorous nation. A vocal
minority of the population, recently shaken
awake, have taken in hand, specific troubles:
segregation, McCarthyism, foreign policy. Our
national devotion to perfecting an institutional
compromise between free enterprise and social
welfare, elite leadership and popular represen-
tation, has brought us near what some call the
"end of ideology." We are a historical phenom-
enon of political practicalism among the na-
tions of the world. The stage is set for Utopian
pursuits.
BUT THE UNITED STATES is cast as the
protagonist of a drama on a wider stage.
As self-styled defenders of free thought and'
individual rights against totalitarianism, we
can no longer contain either our problems or
our solutions within national boundaries. The
conflict cannot be meaningfully resolved. With-
in his role the actor doubts the value of the
opus, and begins to wonder how early the play
will fold. It has no social or esthetic message.
Intellectuals who grasp the broad issue cease
shouting. "When' there is no cause to be be-
trayed, there is no point in shouting 'treason'."
What they see in various analyses of our be-
havior, from their vantage points in Berlin or
Cairo or Boston, is no more germane to na-
tional purpose than ever before. The presiden-
tial election and its aftermath dramatize an
overriding concern with the nation's image:
both candidates and most of the electorate miss
the vital point for their future.
A totalitarian society contains its own pur-
pose. If the maintenance of the state is a
priori, the submersion of the people must be
rationalized to this end. The individual is bound
to the state by ironclad ideology, terror and
force. Our democracy rather envisions the
state as a means to preserve individual freedom
in so far as common institutions can. This is
to reduce the national purpose to a process, or
a system of processes. It is impossible to work
backward from a process to a reason; purposes
are imposed on processes, not inherent in them.
The vacuous definitions of national purpose
now on sale in hardcover prove it. They are
based on extensive quotation from public docu-
ments and reams of interpretive material writ-
ten to analyze American society. Left unan-
swered is the question, "Freedom for what?"
The exercise of freedom devolves not on the
state, but on its inhabitants.
WFIGHT t maintain freedom, we work to
have leisure, we study to prepare ourselves
--for what? The member of a free society faces
a unique problem of choice. His actions are
directed not by heritage, not by higher author-
ity, but by his decision, if he chooses to make
it. In order to make this manifold choice ac-
tual, not mechanical, he must accept the stag-
gering task of discovering and creating real
alternatives of conviction and action. Only as
an individual can he frame his purpose or the
nation's. He can resolve the separation of the
two purposes neither existentially nor by ref-
erence to natural law, but by some course
between them which depends on his capacity to
integrate his understanding of himself and the
world.
He also has the option of abdicating his
unique problem of choice. Millions do so un-
consciously. Those who consciously forfeit both
the opportunity and responsibility of choosing
are sellouts; only they know what and to
whom they are selling out.
As soon as realization of the true range of
alternatives comes to the individual, his exem-
plary and relational life begins. He must accept
the immediate organizational structure as his
milieu, with the option of changing or exchang-
ing it. It must be to him a theoretical and
working model without and within which he can
live.
A UNIVERSITY--this University--is one of
the best theoretical models to use in de-
veloping the power to realize alternatives and
to choose among them. It is required of one
here, as it will always be, that one want, ex-
pect and attempt to know everything discov-
erable about the structure and oneself within
&1 i1i gai.y
it. Is the administration-student relationship
vertical and authoritarian behind its contrac-
tual, non-directive facade? Is the bureaucratic
system of the University rotting from the top
down? Are various pressures exerted on the
student to conform, to accept rote "midwestern"
or "cosmopolitan" values? Are students en-
couraged to "develop themselves as individ-
uals" at the expense of examining the insti-
tutional situation they live in? Has the Univer-
sity something to gain by masquerading as an
artificial, "incubatgr" society? Do conservative
yet permissive administrative and academic
policies veil a tragic dearth of educational and
programmatic vision? Are the exigencies of
economics, politics and alumni pressure used to
excuse the crumbling stature of a University
that failed to show fight this year on the issues
of NDEA money and loyalty oaths, speaker pol-
icy, appropriations and internal inconsistencies
of university policy and practice?
These questions can-and can't-be answered
"yes".or "no." Three years at the University
have convinced me that they are not artificial
questions, but questions so significant as to be
unanswerable once and for all. Above all, they
are worth asking. They have shaped my image
of the University, which is not its public image.
Ultimately, I think the joy and trouble of
holding all information relevant to the sheer
desire to know everything can change from a
naive, spongelike assimilation process into a
directional and fruitful pursuit. Choosing a role
on campus which demands partisanship as
well as information is also a limitation. It is
the only limitation which has positive signifi-
cance. But I have found that within an organi-
zation exist other tensions and pressures to
distort and create images. Only by acknowledg-
ing and attaching values to these pressures can
one hope to see beyond them.
THE PROCESS within a process which Y
think infuses purpose into the individual
and state gives life a picaresque quality. Ad-
ventures must be sought and faced, issues must
have response, choices must be made. The
thread of choice runs through all one's days;
sometimes it is a drab thread in a colored pat-
tern, but sometimes it is the last, only thread
holding the weft together. The tension which
must be preserved between individual partisan
commitment and individual commitment to
objective extension of knowledge can nev-
er be resolved by a common-sensical, eco-
nomic, political or personality-oriented sur-
vey of the issue at hand to deter-
mine the expedient. It cannot be resolved by
limiting the field or direction of one's infor-
mation-seeking to the point where it merely
affirms one's interests and beliefs. It cannot
be resolved by using the everyday necessity to
compromise for communication's sake as an
alibi for becoming committed to a compromise
itself. It cannot be resolved by maintaining a
private, clean, ethical position concurrently
with a public, ambiguous, no-comment position.
And I think it cannot be resolved by accepting
existing conditions and channels of information
and action.
Ultimately, it can be resolved only, arbitrar-
ily; but when the crisis arises, the individual
has to use his entire background of principle
and action as a frame of reference within which
to plot the next point in his individual ethical
progress. If he is honest both in striving for
objectivity and in carrying principle into ac-
tion, crises will come. He must then be ready
to expect a telephone call that will lose him a
job or a friend. He must be ready to jeopardize
his reputation for objectivity and responsibility,
or his social standing. He must resist the temp-
tation to value these potential losses too much,
as well as the counterpressure to count them
as valueless when they are gone. Either course
would divorce him from the realities of his
predicament; it is not existential because it is
not self-definitive, nor a priori, because it is
not deterministic, but exists where these di-
mensions intersect.
AS A CONTEXT for this predicament, the
University community is no more artificial
than any. We face the same issues that demand
choice. Deciding whether to use money paid for
with an oath of allegiance is much like decid-
ing whether to accept a good job with an or-
ganization whose principles one cannot re-
spect. Deciding how to treat minority group
members in a campus living unit is much like
deciding whether one will permit them to live
on the same street in a community. Deciding
whether student government should consider
issues impinging on the University from out-
side is much like deciding what one's future
concern with public affairs will be. Self-con-
scious awareness of the principle implicit in
everyday problems is the only aspect of deci-
sion which is often lost when the university
experience is ended, and the burden of proving
its relevance is on the individual.
A "liberal" student does notturn into a "con-
servative" adult automatically, nor is a "com-
mitted" individual naturally subsumed in a
"great uncommitted electorate," nor is any gen-
uine form of commitment focused by heredity
or environment on one issue. The honest in-,
dividual, I think, has no alternative but to ac-
tualize his princinles when he deems it neces-
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Following is
the first segment of a two-part
editorial)
By THOMAS HAYDEN
Editor
THE late-night giggling, intellec-
tual passions, angry tirades,
and occasional peace which seem
to have characterized my under-
graduate career fit no neat pat-
tern; hence the traditional edi-
torial Summing Up must be in
some ways non-thematic-all I
can think of as being perhaps rele-
vant to a reading public are cer-
tain things I have come to guess
are true about me and other things
which I believe true about the
University of Michigan.
What follows in this first sec-
tion is about me and only pro-
visional since I may choose at a
future time to disown myself:
* * *
I HAPPEN TO WORRY about
justification and I find more and
more these days that the recorded
answers are not personally satis-
factory. I ask why a student should
give himself up to social or poli-
tical struggles outside the academ-
ic world, why for me nonacademic
journalism has been such a need,
and I look to any one of the
numerous paragraphs spilled out
in defense of action:
... the role of the student
involves a commitment to an
educational process that ex-
tends beyond classroom trin-
ing. It involves also the at-
tainment of knowledge and
the development of skills and
habits of mind and action
necessary for the responsible
participation in the affairs of
government and society on all
levels. He must be prepared
to face the challenges of
modern life and he must be
willing to confront the crucial
issues of public policy that
affect him beyond the class-
room and that determine the
course of his society ...
A justification of this type suf-
fices usually. But following the
failures or the tremendous and
LETTERS
to the
EDITOR
United Fund *. *
To the Editor:
THE PURPOSE of the United
Fund is to furnish money to
help the needy. Those administer-
ing this aid are not supposed to
mix any "sectarian" propaganda
with it: people simply do not
donate to UF for this purpose.
Protestant welfare agencies do not
apply for admission to UF, since
they do unavoidably exert some
influence. For the same reason,
they feel that the Catholic agen-
cy ought not to be admitted.
There are three reasons why
Catholics might want a hand in
UF: 1) because they do not like
the present distribution of funds
to various types of aid, 2) because
they feel that some needed type
of aid is not being given, or 3)
because they would like to have
greater means for giving aid with
sectarian propaganda than they
now have.
If 1 or 2 is the problem, let's
know about it and find a non-
sectarian remedy which will not
reduce total contributions to UF.
Such questions are almost un-
mentioned in Michael Harrah's re-
cent article, which instead points
out important "truths" like the
"refusal" of the March of Dimes
to join UF (supposedly because of
UF unfairness in membership);
and thefact that many charities
in UF are sponsored (or is it
"boosted?") by labor unions or
other special interest groups ob-
jectionable to many.
-Roger Schlatter, '63
The Forest.. .
To the Editor:
WOULD LIKE to call to your
attention this statement in Sun-
day's Daily (Problems of Free
Speech, By G. Storch): "The dis-
tortions and misrepresentations of
fact only deceive and harmfully
misinform the people .. . "
It is strange indeed that the
Daily can see through the com-
ments other people make, but
when asked to take a good look
at their own policy, they can't see
the trees for the forest.
-Harvey M. Kabaker, '64
ISA ***
To the Editor:
RARELY does the Daily publish
something like the report on
the International Students' As-
sociation. The reporter's zeal for
ameliorating the work of the ISA
is, indeed, very commendable and
after all he uses such fashionable
terms like "integration of foreign
students," "passing resolutions,"
making "protests" etc., etc. And
there can be no complaints about
the prose of the article.
But the contents of the article
make one wonder. Can it be that
people who have known the work
of the ISA or have worked in the
futile expenditures of energy that
are necessarily part of the poli-
tical dynamic, I will lie back and
think, frightened somewhat, about
the superficialities of those justifi-
cations. Why must we be prepared
to face these crucial challenges?
Why me? It won't do to argue
that if we all don't become pre-
pared the social order will collapse
all about us. The assumption of
such an argument, totally unjusti-
fied, is that everyone will slough
off into the same unpreparedness
which characterizes me. Again,
why must I act? I sometimes think
the blanket answers apply to
groups but don't supply the real
answers for the personally re-
sponsible individual participating
in social action.
Yet I recognize that the broad
justifications usually given do
strike at and vaguely impress
themselves upon more meaning-
ful chords within myself, and I
recognize that those chords-call
them unconscious needs, if you
must-are somehow closer to the
true character of justification.
When I emit a political expression
or commit a political act, to what
extent can there only be a psy-
chological explanation? If my
personality functions most com-
fortably in a relatively chaotic
context, for example, am I justi-
fied in intellectually preaching
that men enter into my psycho-
logical condition? Is it after all a
psychological dissimilarity which
prevents human cooperation and,
if so, can there be intellectually-
contrived means of effecting co-
operation? I suspect that a valid
response to the question "Why
Care and Act?" is that of a friend:
It's all rather paradoxical,
because I must give up the
hope of a reason before I am
really free to act, and then
my action again demands of
me a reason for its existence.
The only final answer is that
I have time between my birth
and my death and when I ac-
cept my freedom to choose
the means by which I use the
time then I have no choice
but to also choose to cease
looking for justification for
my choice, at least so long
as I am acting. Sartre calls it
the 'en soi' and the 'pour soi'.
Camus calls it the absurd. I
don't call it anything because
that is the easiest way to run
away from myself and I get
along with myself only occas-
sionally when we meet.
'* * *
WHEN I began college I operat-
ed on a single premise: I would
try not to avoid doing anything
which was both interesting and
possible. It was difficult, if not
entirely impossible, to recognize
that others did not operate in a
similar manner: they preferred
occasional relaxation to what they
perceived as wild behavior on my
part. They rested, turned off their
brains and muscles, and liked it,
called it "leisure." Meanwhile I
read everything I could find and
have time for in the humanities,
I wrote non-fiction and bad fic-
tion, I participated in athletics
and attempted all the possible hu-
man passions. This was a revolt,
in part, against those who wished
to impose their need for such
conditions on other men by trans-
forming their needs into restric-
tive regulations which had no
other base but in their own per-
sonal inability to contend with
turmoil.
Two French verbs, "faire" and
"etre," became personal guide-
lines; they mean, respectively, "to
do" and "to be," but somehow
more inclusively than in the Eng-
lish. I used to write them habit-
ually at the beginning of papers or
scratch pads I used for schedules.
The point, by this time coming
clear to me, was simply that doing
and being were non-moral terms,
except in the special normative
sense of implying that my total
action ought to give the two verbs
the fullest and most complex
meaning possible. This was the
essential imperative.
* *
THEN one spring I was faced
with the possibility of editing The
Daily. I had paid the idea little
analytic attention, thinking that
when and if it came I would ap-
proach it with all my energy and
that would suffice. In order to
seek the position, one is supposed
to fill out several forms, includ-
ing a long statement of reasons
for wishing to be an editor. I
talked with some'others, my peers,
and after much talking and think-
ing and remembrance of the early
day, it became very clear that to
become an editor meant willing
the creation of a fantastic set of
physical, mental and moral limi-
tations.
For example, it became really
necessary-faking would never do
-to attend and understand what
other persons wanted, what they
were saying and thinking and
feeling. And it became necessary
to trust others with responsibilities
and in turn to accept their trust.
It meant I could no longer pose
as the omnipotent, isolated ar-
bitor; it meant answers and reso-
lutions had to be reached with
others. All this was not a sudden
suspend students as they did last
spring, and realize that some per-
sons don't even believe there is a
problem for every individual to
answer, implicitly or explicitly:
why should there be limitation on
human action, physical, mental
and moral and how is limitation to
be determined? The why has been
coming clear, slowly: because
people want help with their busi-
ness or because they want to share
in something I want, or be'cause I
want their help or their sharing,
and finally, because without limi-
tation there is no possibility of
human relationship, but only per-
sonal suspension apart from hu-
manity which amounts to denial
of doing and being.
*- * *
I pondered this question of Why
for a long while, feeling a little
like the man who sits in front
of one mirror looking behind him
into a mirror in front of him
(Action is socially useful, that's
why we should act. But what is
the utility of utility, and what,
furthermore, is the utility of util-
ity of utility?") and seeing him-
self reducing into an infinity of
images. That man, watching him-
self recede, or watching his jus-
tifications retreat before the re-
lentless WHY, rises finally to
shatter the mirrors, to shout: I
must espouse this thing, this value,
and I admit there is no ultimate
answer that will satisfy the in-
quisitors.
And as for the extent of limita-
tion, I am willing to believe that
death and physical suffering are
limitations enough on man; and
apart from their inevitability there
should be no limitation save that
which we consciously impose or
to which we consciously consent.
Listen to the poet Auden:
Nothing is given: we must
find our law.
Great buildings jostle in the
sun for domination;
Behind them stretch like sorry
vegetation
The low recessive houses of
the poor.
We have no destiny assigned
us;
Nothing is certain but the
body; we plan
To better ourselves; the hos-
pitals alone remind us
Of the equality of man.
Children are really loved here,
even by the police:
They speak of years before
the big were lonely.
And will be lost.
And only
The brass bands throbbing in
the parks foretell
Some future reign of happi-
ness and peace.
We learn to pity and rebel.
I do not believe that men will-
ingly decide to hurt themselves
very often, unless it is to prevent
the hurts of another. And I don't
believe we very often decide to
give up our right to pursue what-
ever we desire' the most. But
everywhere there are forces curb-
ing our aspirations and many of
these forces are neither sought
nor welcomed by those who feel
their effect. They come from out
of the society for which we are
all responsible; they come from
men who would kill others that
they themselves might not be kill-
ed; they come from institutions no
longer humanly controlled, such
as churches or governments or
managerial "classes" which do not
measure hurt or restrictions in
human terms.
* * *
THE TASK I SEE, then, is one
of liberation and it implicates us
all. "The heart of liberalism,"
Hobhouse writes,
is the understanding that pro-
gress is not a matter of me-
chanical contrivance, but of
the liberation of spiritual
energy . . .the development of
will, of personality, of self-
control, or whatever we please
to call that central harmoniz-
ing power which makes us
capable of directing our own
lives ...
Individual liberation, i.e., the free-
dom of the elitist who wishes
nothing to do with humanity, is
a sterile freedom and nothing
more than transmigration, which
is too like death in its limitation
on action. No longer the isolated
arbiter, I must pursue the elimi-
nation or arbitrariness insofar as
it results in pain or self-deface-
ment or unwanted barriers.
Why? Not only because liberty
is a necessary condition of a vig-
orous society, not only because
equality of social opportunity leads
to certain material and aesthetic
benefits, not only because we are
endowed with the foggy thing we
call human dignity, not only be-
cause consciousness of choosing
and of context are distinctly hu-
man characteristics and cannot
be coerced or destroyed without
denegation of man, but also -
psychologically or existentially,
call it as you wish - because I
must make this choice or accept
self-immolation.
Now not every man faces a
personal crisis of having to draw
lines and in effect tell his an-
tagonist: "I will not cooperate
with you in this terrible thing."
Some men, particularly in totali-
tarian political systems, are so
affected by institutionalized terror
that they positively compete to
demonstrate their loyalty to their
arbiters. Even the McCarthy period
in America brought traces of this
tendency toward not simply si-
lence but positively toward con-
formity.
For men of this sort, immolation
or loss of self-respect never con-
sciously occurs because the terror
has been internalized, euphoria
has replaced freedom, and respon-
sibility to the conscience of the
leader is identical with respon-
sibility to one's own conscience.
* * *
BUT FOR OTHERS, including
myself, there is an autonomy sur-
rounding conscience which is the
most precious of properties because
it is ,witness to our uniquely hu-
man capacity for conscious and
responsible decision-making and
guiding of our lives. Because of
this belief we are faced with the
problem of separating, defining,
and prioritizing our responsiili-
ties to ourselves, to the state and
to society - and living in eternal
conflict (for the strict totalitarian,
there is no essential conflict be-
tween his will and the will of
history or of the leaders.) Max
Weber defines the problem as a
continual dilemma between an
"ethic of responsibility" and an
"ethic of cnoscence." Someone
else has recently called it a choice
between joining the Party of Or-
der, which stresses duties to so-
ciety, or the Party of Freedom,
which stresses the rights of man.
In either case the dilemma is re-
ducible to a choice between ac-
cepting or rejecting the placement
of one's conscience in subservience
to a general will as expressed In
law, customs, ritual, or through
government or a single or mul-
tiple set or institutions. The prob-
lem is complicated tremendously
the moment one accepts the sug-
gestion that only on some oc-
casions is there a conflict between
the individual and the group
which is so serious that:
1) if the individual subjects him-
self to the group by choosing some
form of reconciliation rather than
an uncompromised position of di-
sent, some measure of his self-
respect will be permanently
smashed,
2) if the individual chooses to
abide by his conscience, the con-
sequences will be physically or
socially destructive to him,
3) a combination of both oc-
curances would result.
"Some" signifies the need to be
selective, to draw one's line not
before participation in any form
of social action but to draw the
line in the midst of social situa-
tions. The latter approach is by
far the more difficult. In such
situations, it is sometimes neces-
sary to remain with one's con-
science, which means a decision to
relentlessly attack arbitrariness
wherever the arbitrariness is per-.
ceived to be of such magnitude
that one's integrity would ir-
retrievably give way were he not
to respond.
* * *
-A FINAL complicating remark:
pain and abstraction are too com-
plex to determine in the abstract
or to approach with completely
inflexible operating principles;
they are to be understood sub-
jectively, from situation to situa-
tion, and this leaves responsibility
for final judgement not on God,
the Ten Commandments or fi-
mutable principles, but on the
living, changing, social, organio
single mind and strength of man:
the question here is not whether a
god exists, or an eternal set of
principles or a life after death;
the question is whether or not
man in history has even achieved
consensus on these question and,
if not, how is the existence of god,
natural law or life after death
going to help us improve our col-
lective life on this complicated
earth where, regardless of the
existence or non-existence of free
will, we suffer through "choices"
and their consequences.
If the answer is only that re-
ligion provides us with assurance,
I do not yet need to live my life
with assurance of the ultimate
rightness of my decision. Yet with-
out decision or judgment, no mat-
ter how severe the complications,
there has been a failure and a
tacit deference to the decision-
making powers of death.
I cannot justify my life very
easily without maintaining a rela-
tionship with others now living,
nor without judgements and deeds.
Postponement of decisions and ac-
tion amounts to refusal to dis-
tinguish life from death. And once
we have acted 0 liberate men so
that they may judge and act and
perhaps avoid some hurt, then we
have acknowledged and rejected
despair and pain and impotence
and isolation, and have affirmed
doing and being within their pro-
per limitation.
SIDELINE ON SGC:
Liberals' TacticsDeplorable
By JUDITH OPPENHEIM
Daily Staff Writer
THE TWO COURSES of possible
evil open to Student Govern-
ment Council-what is said and
what is done-are usually clearly
distinguishable, and lately it seems
that the evil of the former is a
greater threat to the Council than
the evil of the latter.
The evils are committed by two
distinct groups (boundary lines
are arbitrary and membership is
on occasion interchangeable). The
so-called "conservative" members
are generally responsible for the
tangible legislative evil that is
done.
The so-called "liberals" commit
nearly all of the verbal evil. They
constantly speak out of order for
love of hearing their own wise-
cracks (they are witty), swear
colorfully and expertly -- not to
emphasize points, but to antagon-
ize their "opposition"-and are
rude beyond belief to both the
chair and the "conservatives."
A third group of Council mem-
bers is comprised of the four
women who, ideally, should act as
a buffer between the two warring
factions since they are uncom-
mitted to either side, with per-
haps one exception. The fact that
both the liberals and the conserva-
tives need the women's votes does
not in the least make them alter
their tactics in an attempt to woo
rather than coerce them. The re-
sult is that the women, although
they sometimes make the most
cogent points of the evening, sel-
dom bother to speak because the
servatives, insult them to the
point where every liberal onlooker
is ashamed to agree with those at.
the table even politically, and then
become exasperated whenthe con-
servatives hold more firmly than
ever to their positions.
This is the standard operating
procedure at SGC meetings. Usu-
ally the issues are not controver-
sial enough to make a prolonged
death struggle worthwhile and the
question is settled in the interest
of moving on to other orders of
the day. It is understandable that
tempers shorten as the night
lengthens, but if members would
stick to business through the first
part of the proceedings, they
would not find themselves staring
groggily at a half-completed agen-
da at two a.m.
THE SHENANIGANS began
Wednesday night when James
Yost, '62, brought in a tin-can
telephone ensemble for Roger
Seasonwein, '61, and Philip Power,
Spec., to use for out of 'order,
trans-table communication.
The whole -incident and the
necessary reaction took about five
minutes. The disturbance was not
Yost's fault. If Power and Season-
wein had been able to contain
their comments until the recess
they would not have been disrupt-
ing proceedings sufficiently to.
warrant the introduction of the
telephone.
Power's crack about the dubious
privilege of eating Michigan Union
food, raised during a discussion of
the inexcusable sum spent on
tion of the rules of commc
decency occurred at about 2 a.
when Seasonwein introduced
motion which permits Daily Edit
Thomas Hayden, '61, to attend ti
National Student Association Co
gress with alternate status th
summer.
The debate was over a porti
of the amendment originally it
troduced stating that Hayde
should receive no compensatic
for the Congress. Seasonwein the
wished to amend the motion
offer Hayden some compensatic
Protests over Seasonwein's actic
arose, during which Arthur Rose:
baum, '62, said he considered tl
maneuverdcontemptible.
Granted that Rosenbaum's pro
test was neither civilly phras
nor warranted, Seasonwein's ei
suing rage, during which he a
cused Rosenbaum of hiding d
liberately the day before the mee
ing so as not to hear Seasonweir
explanation of his intentions w
totally uncalled for.
AS USUAL, when Seasonwe
launches one of his tirades, it w
all the other "liberals" could do
placate the opposition enough
keep them from defeating
worthwhile motion just becau
they would all have' liked
strangle Seasonwein.
As it was, the discussion of t
motion, which involved persona
ties, was entirely out of order
the meeting and should have be
carried on in executive sessik
Members were too busy sileni
and verbally hating one anoth
to consider this, however.
I