Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
June 8: Making the Green One Black
a.
eret Oii Ae Free. 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
NEws PHONE: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
FEDNESDAY, JUNE 8, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: MICHAEL HEFFER
The University's Budget:
Who Is to Blame?
By LEONARD PRATT
A COUPLE HUNDRED of us
took off last Friday morning
and went out and killed a fellow.
We couldn't be sure who it was,
nor even of where or how we did
it, but we killed him anyway.
It wasn't particularly difficult,
being a collective effort. It was
in self defense too, which even
makes it legal.
And all we did was take a draft
exam. Talk about the perfect mur-
der.
THE ONLY THING one had to
do to get in on it was ink one's
left thumb and stamp it on a card.
The ink was difficult to get off;
everyone who tried said that the
results of their efforts was to turn
the wash water black. Try as hard
as you'd like, you just couldn't
get your hands clean.
The shooting was conducted by
a man and woman who were most
careful to ensure that all the par-
ticipants played by the rules.
"Ready"; they said as they trotted
him out, "aim; the following set
of words consist of a pair which
is pinted in all capitals followed
by four sets printed in lower case.
You are to pick the lower case
pair which come closest to having
the same relation to one another
H. C. ALLEN, an English history
professor who visited here last
semester, once told his class a
story: during the war, he was
riding in a jeep with an American
soldier and asked him how he felt
about serving with Gen. George
"Blood and Guts" Patton. "Hell,"
the GI replied, "his guts and my
blood." Allen kindly commented
that the story illustrates the
"unique perspective which rank
gives a man."
If rank gives a man a unique
perspective, then so does the lack
of it. And, strongly influenced by
our own unique perspective on
military service, we killers all
scribbled away madly-trying to
convince a secretary somewhere to
kill anyone but us.;
We had the odds on our side, of
but when you're fighting for your
life it never seems particularly bad
to have the odds with you. The
test gave us a fairly good chance
of staying alive, and so we took it.
And keeping ourselves alive en-
sured that someone else, some-
where, somehow would have to die
in our places. We will have killed
him no more than the man next
door, true; but how little a degree
is that, anyway? Not very small.
PERHAPS IT'S impossible for
an individual to do, or to refrain
from doing, much of national im-
portance without taking an action
that is almost certain to have
someone's blood on it. The great
interrelationships between dif-
ferent segments of modern society
plus the democracy of this coun-
try mean that individuals in the
right places have a good deal of
power over the lives of others not
so well placed.
There is nothing harmful about
the interrelationships in them-
selves; they are neutral. What
course. Unfair? Well yes, probably,
makes them harmful is the wide-
spread public failure to recognize
their existence and to act accord-
ingly.
As a result these relationships
are allowed to seep into the tiniest
cracks in the society. It is not
possible, to take a minor example,
to go for a drive in one's car with-
out adding to the smog-dominated
miseries of urban America 25
years from now.
SO, THIS MADDENING inter-
dependence must be lived with.
But living with it is far from
sanctioning the often peryerse ef-
fects of its misuse. And sanction-
ing its effects is even farther
from having one's nose rubbed in
it by an examination which is
utterly insensitive to them, and
which thus perpetuates them na-
tionally in the attempt to provide
men for a war wvhich is perpetuat-
ing them internationally.
MODERN LIBERALS have often
been criticized for their inability
to suggest alternatives for the
conditions they condemn. Very
largely this is an unfair criticism:
their condemnations are more re-
action than criticism and while
it may be hoped that criticism will
be constructive, it is hardly the
role of reaction to be so.
Yet if those liberals ever attempt
to codify their alternatives to
present power arrangements they
could do far worse than to base
their suggestions on this: the
destruction of the American pub-
lic's lethargy by making them
aware of their incontrovertable in-
dividual impact, no matter what
they do or do not do, upon the
lives of their fellow citizens.
The reasons why the public has
not yet fully recognized that im-
pact are the principal criticisms
that the New Left makes of Amer-
ica today. It is a very puzzling
complex of reasons.
EVEN MORE puzzling is just
how a society clever enough to
disguise guns as pencils and an-
swer sheets as bullets ever allowed
itself to get caught up in such a
complex. Maybe it's just that the
ink wears off after a while.
*
THE STATE LEGISLATURE has come to
a decision on the amount of state
funds it will give the University for its
1966-67 budget. The Senate and the House
have decided on a figure of approximate-
ly $58 million.
After the allotment of such a disap-
pointing sum, it is natural for critics of
the University and critics of the state
Legislature to throw brickbats at each
other.
The real issue, however, is not one
of tossing out the blame or accepting the
inevitable decrease in our request.
The crux of the issue goes much deeper
than who is to blame for the loss of "x"
million dollars to the University for a
certain fiscal year.
THE LARGER FAULT lies with the en-
tire government of the state. It lies
in the failure of the legislators to create
a suitable tax structure for the state of
Michigan. Only when enough money is
coming into the state treasury, will the
state be able to provide sufficiently for
its educational needs.
The state's underlying objective should
be to set itsgoal towards providing the
best education available for any young
person who has a good chance of bene-
fiting from a college education.
The federal government has recogniz-
ed its responsibilities in this area, and has
made great increases in educational
spending. It's about time the state of
Michigan does the same thing.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY in the state
of Michigan has pledged itself for
years to the idea of a state income tax
to raise state funds. When faced with the
opportunity to act on this proposal in an
election year they were more concerned
with petty politics than the state's edu-
cational needs.
The impetus must come from the state
government. Education costs money and
they must be able to find the means of
providing it.
The University provided the legisla-
tors a figure for minimum needs of the
University, and they failed to meet them.
This has also happened to every other
state school.
lators are swamped with figures from the
10 other state supported colleges and uni-
versities.
The University has also alienated some
legislators by its somewhat stubborn
stance on autonomy. This is not to say
that the University should sit back and
lose its autonomy to the state Legisla-
ture step by step. But, it seems wasteful
that University officials are alienating
many labor-oriented congressmen on the
issue of Public Act 379, when the Uni-
versity basically agrees with most labor
men in the area of unionization.
THE LEGISLATORS, on the other hand,
have tended to be narrow-minded in
their dealings with the University. They
don't seem to grasp the University's posi-
tion of one of the leading schools in the
country, and have shown no interest in
the necessity for keeping it there. They
don't see the University as a tremendous
asset to the entire state. They are more
interested in the quantity rather than
the quality of education.
The legislators can be criticized for
their parochialism. They picture a visual
count of the number.of rejection slips the
University sends out to their particular
district, rather' than a first-rate univer-
sity beneficial to the state as a whole.
But, it is not the University's function
to court the legislators in order to wrench
their limited funds from them. Their
goals should be synonomous. Quality edu-
cation for the state of Michigan.
THE UNIVERSITY had originally re-
quested $65 million. When the Legis-
lature appeared to be stingy, the Univer-
sity reduced its request by $4 million.
University officials announced that this
was the lowest figure they could receive,
and still keep the educational standards
of the University close to their present
level.
As a result the University will spend
insufficient amounts on two top prior-
ity needs, faculty salaries and teaching
staff. Equipment, space, supporting staff
and obsolescence funds will not be taken
care of. The University has already drop-
ped to 17th on the AAUP scale for teach-
ers salaries.
In a list of states with Big Ten col-
leges, we have dropped from third to fifth
in the total per cent of state income
spent on education.
MeNamara: Freedom Captivates Man
Address by Robert S. Mc-
Namara, secretary of defense,
before American Society of
Newspaper Editors, Queen Eliza-
beth Hotel, Montreal, Canada,
May 18, 1966.
Second in a Two-Part Series
NOW, I HAVE SAID that the
role of the United States is to
help provide security to these
modernizing nations - providing
they need and request our help;
and are clearly willing to help
themselves. But what should our
help be?
Clearly it should be help towards
development. In the military
sphere, that involves two broad
categories of assistance. We should
help the developing nation with
such training and equipment as is
necessary to maintain the protec-
tive shield behind which develop-
ment can go forward. The dimen-
sions of that shield vary from
country to country; but what is
essential is that it should be a
shield, and not a capacity for
external aggression.
THE SECOND - and perhaps
less-understood category of mili-
tary assistance in a modernizing
nation-is training in civic action.
"Civic Action" is another of those
semantic puzzles. Too few Ameri-
cans-and too few officials in de-
veloping nations-really compre-
hend what military civic action
means.
Essentially, it means using in-
digenous military forces for non-
traditional military projects-
projects that are useful to the
local population in fields such as
education, public works, health,
sanitatin, agriculture - indeed,
anything connected with economic
or social progress.
It has had some impressive re-
sults. In the past four years, the
U.S. assisted civic action program,
worldwide, has constructed or re-
paired more than 10,00 miles of
roads, more than 1,000 schools;
hundreds of hospitals and clinics;
and has provided medical and den-
tal care to approximately four
million people. What is more im-
portant is that all this was done
by indigenous men in uniform.
Quite apart from the developmen-
tal projects themselves, the pro-
gram powerfully alters the nega-
tive image of the military man,
as the oppressive preserver of
the status quo.
BUT ASSISTANCE in the pure-
ly military sphere is not enough.
Economic assistance is also essen-
tial. The president is determined
that our aid should be hard
headed and rigorously realistic:
that it should deal directly with
the roots of underdevelopment,
and not merely attempt to allevi-
ate the symptoms. His bedrock
principle is that U.S. economic
aid-no matter what its magni-
tude-is futile unless the country
in question is resolute in making
the primary effort itself. That
will be the criterion, and that will
be the crucial condition for all
our future assistance.
Only the developing nations
themselves can take the funda-
mental measures that make out-
side assistance meaningful. These
measures are often unpalatable--
and frequently call for political
courage and decisiveness. But to
fail to undertake painful, but es-
sential, reform leads to far more
painful revolutionary violence.
Our economic assistance is design-
ed to offer a reasonable alterna-
tive to that violence. It is designed
to help substitute peaceful prog-
ress for tragic internal conflict.
The United States intends to be
compassionate and generous in
this effort, but it is not an effort
that it willcarry exclusivelyby
itself. And thus it looks to those
nations who have reached the
point of self-sustaining prosperity
to increase their contribution to
the development-and, thus, to
the security-of the modernizing
world.
AND THAT brings me to the
second set of relationships that I
underscored at the outset; it is
the policy of the United States to
encourage and achieve a more
effective partnership with those
nations who can, and should,
share international peace-keeping
responsibilities.
America has devoted a higher
proportion of its gross national
product to its military establish-
ment than any other major free
world nation. This was true even
before our increased expenditures
in Southeast Asia. We have had,
over the last few years, as many
men in uniform as all the nations
of Western Europe combined---
even though they have a popula-
tion half again greater than our
own.
Now, the American people are
not going to shirk their obligations
in any part of the world, but they
clearly cannot be expected to bear
a disproportionate share of the
common burden indefinitely.
IF, FOR EXAMPLE, other na-
tions genuinely believe-as they
say they do-that it is in the
common interest to deter the ex-
pansion of Red China's economic
and political control beyond its
national bounaries, then they must
take a more active role in guard-
ing the defense perimeter.
Let me be perfectly clear: this
is not to question the policy of
neutralism or nonalignment of
any particular nation. But it is
to emphasize that the indepen-
dence of such nations can-in the
end-be fully safeguarded only
by collective agreements among
themselves and their neighbors.
The plain truth is the day is
coming when no single nation,
however powerful, can undertake
by itself to keep the peace outside
its own borders. Regional and in-
ternational organizations for
peace-keeping purposes are as yet
rudimentary; but they must grow
in experience and be strengthened
by deliberate an dpractical co-
operative action.
IN THIS MATTER, the example
of Canada is a model for nations
everywhere. As Prime Minister
Pearson pointed out eloquently in
New York just last week: Canada
"is as deeply involved in the
world's affairs as any country its
size. We accept this because we
have learned over 50 years that
isolation from the policies that
determine war does not give us im-
munity from the bloody sacrificial
consequences of their failure. We
learned that in 1914 and again in
1939 . . . That is why we have
been proud to send our men to'
take part in every peace-keeping
operations of the United Nations
-in Korea, and Kashmir, and the
Suez, and the Congo, and Cyprus."
The Organization of American
States in the Dominican Republic,
the more than thirty nations con-
tributing troops or supplies to as-
sist the government of South Viet
Nam, indeed even the parallel ef-
forts of the United States and the
Soviet Union in the Pakistan-
India conflict-these efforts, to-
gether with those of the UN, are
the first attempts to substitute
multinational for unilateral polic-
ing of violence. They point to the
peace-keeping patterns of the
future.
We must not merely applaud the
idea. We must dedicate talent, re-
sources, and hard practical think-
ing to its implementation.
IN WESTERN EUROPE - an
area whose burgeoning economic
vitality stands as a monument to
the wisdom of the Marshall Plan
-the problems of security are
neither static nor wholly new.
Fundamental changes are under
way, though certain inescapable
realities remain. The conventional
forces of NATO, for example, still
require a nuclear backdrop far
beyond the capability of any
Western European nation to
supply, and the United States is
fully committed to provide that
major nuclear deterrent.
However, the European mem-
bers of the Alliance have a natural
desire to participate more actively
in nuclear planning. A central
task of the Alliance today is,
therefore, to work out the relation-
ships and institutions through
which shared nuclear planning can
be effective. We have made a prac-
tical and promising start in the
Special Committee of NATO De-
fense Ministers.
Common planning and consulta-
tion are essential aspects of any
sensible substitute to the unwork-
able and dangerous alternative of
independent national nuclear
forces within the Alliance. And,
.even beyond the Alliance, we must
find the means to prevent the pro-
liferation of nuclear weapons.
That is a clear imperative.
THERE ARE, of course risks in
nonproliferation arrangements;
but they cannot be compared with
the infintely greater risks that
would arise out of the increase in
national nuclear stockpiles. In the
calculus of risk, to proliferate in-
dependent national, nuclear forces
is not a mere arithmetical addition
of danger. We would not be mere-
ly adding up risks. We would be
insanely multiplying them.
If we seriously intend to pass on
a world to our children that is
not threatened by nuclear holo-
caust, we must come to grips with,
the problem of proliferation. A
reasonable nonproliferation agree-
ment is feasible. For there is no
adversary with whom we do not
share a common interest in avoid-
ing mutual destruction triggered
by an irresponsible nth power.
THAT BRINGS me to the third
and last set of relationships the
United States must deal with:
Those with nations who might be
tempted to take up arms against
us.
. These relationships call for
realism. But realism is not a hard-
ened, inflexible, unimaginative at-
titude. The realistic mind is a
restlessly creative mind-free of
naive delusions, but full of practi-
cal alternatives. There are prac-
tical alternatives to our current
relationships with both the Soviet
Union and Communist China.
A vast idelogical chasm separ-
ates us from them--and to a
degree, separates them from one
another. There is nothing to be
gained from our seeking an ideo-
logical rapprochement; but breach-
ing the isolation of great nations
like Red China, even when that
isolation is largely of its own
making, reduces the danger of
potentially catastrophic misunder-
standings, and increases the in-
centive on both sides to resolve
disputes by reason rather than by
force.
THERE ARE many ways in
which we can build bridges to-
ward nations who would cut them-
selves off from meaningful con-
tact with us. We can do so with
properly balanced trade relations,
diplomatic contacts, and in some
cases even by exchanges of mili-
tary observers.
We have to know where it is
we want to place this bridge; what
sort of traffic we want to travel
over it; and on what mutual
foundations the whole structure
can be designed. There are no
one-cliff bridges. If you are going
to span a chasm, you have to rest
the structure on both cliffs.
Now cliffs, generally speaking,
are rather hazardous places. Some
people are afraid even to look
over the edge. But in a thermo-
nuclear world, we cannot afford
any political acrophobia. Presi-
dent Johnson has put the matter
squarely. By building bridges to
those who make themselves our
adversaries "we can help grad-
ually to create a community of
interest, a community of trust,
and a community of effort."
WITH RESPECT to a "com-
munity of effort" let me suggest
a concrete proposal for our own
present young generation in the
United States.
It is a committed and dedicated
generation: it has proven that in
its enormously impressive per-
formance in the Peace Corps over-
seas; and in its willingness to
volunteer for a final assault on
such poverty and lack of oppor-
tunity that still remain in our
country.
As matters stand, our present
Selective Service System draws on
only a minority of eligible young
men. That is an inequity.
IT SEEMS to me that we could
move toward remedying that in-
equity by asking every young per-
son in the United States to give
two years of service to his coun-
try-whether in one of the mili-
tary services, in the Peace Corps
or in some other volunteer de-
velopmental work at home or
abroad. We could encourage other
countries to do the same; and we
could work out exchange pro-
grams-much as the Peace Corps
is already planning to do.
While this is not an altogether
new suggestion, it has been criti-
cizedasginappropriate while we
are engaged in a shooting war.
But I believe precisely the oppo-
site is the case. It is more appro-
priate now than ever. For it would
underscore what our whole purpose
is in Viet Nam-and indeed any-
where in the world where coer-
cion, or injustice, or lack of decent
opportunity still holds sway.
It would make meaningful the
central concept of security: a
world of decency and development
-where every man can feel that
his personal horizon is rimmed
with hope.
MUTUAL INTEREST --mutual
trust-mutual effort; those are the
gals. Can we achieve those goals
with the Soviet Union, and with
Communist China? Can tfjc7
achieve them with one another?
The answer to these questions
lies in the answer to an even more
fundamental question.
Who is man? Is he a rational
animal?
If he is, then the goals can
ultimately be achieved. If he is
not, then there is little point in
making the effort.
ALL THE EVIDENCE of history
suggests that man is indeed a ra-
tional animal-but with a near
infinite capacity for folly. His
history seems largely a halting,
but persistent, effort to raise his
reason above his, animality.
He draws blueprints for Utopia.
But never quite gets it built. In
the end, he plugs away obstinately
with the only building material
really ever at hand: his own part-
comic, part-tragic, part-cussed,
but part-glorious nature.
I, FOR ONE, would not count a
global free society out. Coercion,
after all, merely captures man.
Freedom captivates him.
4:
9r
The Economic Consequences of the War
IT IS NOT EASY to know what
to think about the economic
issues which are now before the
country. Thus, the President's
closest official economic advisers
have been surprised by the boom
since they published their esti-
mates in January.
One of the members of the Coun-
cil of Economic Advisers, Arthur
Okun, explained in a speech made
last week why the advisers find
it difficult to forecast the course
of the economy: "The most im-
portant message bearing on eco-
place, and is unofficially estimat-
ed to reach 400,000 men by De-
cember, is not reflected in the
budget of 1967, the budget under
which the government will oper-
ate for a year from this July. We
know that the budget places a
figure of $4.6 billion on "special
Viet Nam costs" for the year end-
ing this June 30, and $10.3 bil-
lion for the year which begins
July 1.
BUT THESE FIGURES are mis-
leading. For until recently the
Today
and
Tomorrow
By WALTER LIPPMANN
magazine for April. This article
has all the earmarks of expert-
ness and conservatism, and it
comes to the conclusion that the
war at its present level is actual-
v in ,yc Al1'shillinn a~r1 that at
less total demand is reduced by
taxation.
ON THE QUESTION of what to
do about the developing inflation,
the administration has thus far
refused to heed the advice of its
own economists, of men like Dr.
Heller, who are the architects of
the Kennedy-Johnson prosperity.
Though these economists are
urging the President to ask for
the standby legislative authority
to levy higher taxes which would
yield an additional $5 billion of
rvnue. t1~ head ,ministration isre-
fort not to let the excessive de-
mand operate against the inade-
quate supply of goods.
It worked pretty well during
World War II: there were no
great black markets, the people
did save and did buy bonds. It
was only when the war was over,
when the patriotic emotion was
no longer controlling, that' the
pent-up inflation burst upon us.
The administration may prefer
to repeat the policy of World War
II. There will, however, be one
ingredient of that policy which
01
E. AX iSW 'f 5.frfJW ~ i. a3yY . .[ : .'Y'L 5 i* dY 't .. . r Y y, .. . ,