100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

June 29, 1966 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1966-06-29

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.


Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

June 29: On the Nature of the Beast

- -~

Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH.
Truth Will Prevail

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.

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 29, 1966

NIGHT EDITOR: MICHAEL HEFFER

The New Housing Office
Is a Disappointment

By LEONARD PRATT
Co-Editor
ONE OF THE neatest ways of
defining any organism is by
describing how it works. Such
descriptions fit plankton, northern
lights and the solar system pretty
well.
They also fit universities.
In an attempt to define univer-
sities by their behavior Dean Wil-
liam Haber of the literary college
and Kenneth Boulding of the
economics department and the
Center for Conflict Resolution
gave their perspectives on that
behavior to the twelfth meeting
of the Institute on College and
University Administration which
met here last week.
Both came very close to the
mark.
BOULDING'S ARGUMENT is
that each of the conflicts within
modern universities forces an ad-
ministration to deal with it a little
differently than it deals with any
other conflict. The result is a
great deal of confusion on the

part of administrators as to just
what their job is. Each problem
forces them to interpret their re-
sponsibilities differently and thus
confuses them as to where their
real efforts should be concen-
trated.
Haber's discussion is a special
case of Boulding's general treat-
ment. Being closer to the realities
of departmental administration
than Boulding, he confirms the
fact that, in a university at least,
you can't administer for people
who don't want to be administered
for.
THE BUSINESS of a university,
be it teaching or research, is a
very individual business. It's so
individual that there really isn't
much room for an administrator
to affect a faculty member's work.
On the other hand, a faculty
member,, because he is the locus
of the university's raison d'etre,
can seriously affect an admin-
istrator's work. The every-day ex-
pression of this creates the need
for what Haber called the "judi-

cious" exercise of the admittedly
extensive authority of the ad-
ministrator.
It is a shame, as Boulding noted,
that more has not been done to
study relationships within univer-
sities. By the same token it is a
shame that neither Haber nor
Boulding had the time to put their
heads together and take their
analyses of the university's power
structure farther than they did.
JUST WHAT IS the fate of an
organism that behaves as Boulding
and Haber correctly analyze the
university as behaving?
To answer that question one
must realize that conflict is by
no means an extraordinary event
at a university. On the contrary,
it is the order of the day.
There are so many conflicts (in-
deed must they not increase geo-
metrically with staff size?) that
Boulding's postulate about admin-
istrators' role problems assumes
horrifying proportions. How many
diverse interests must administra-
tors satisfy? What is their con-
stituency?

Things get even worse when in-
creasing demands for attention
from research projects enter the
picture in weighted proportions.
The resultant morass is basically
the result of the fact that univer-
sities are to a great extent run on
a personal basis; they breed con-
flict-laden situations. They have
not yet adapted themselves to a
world more impersonally admin-
istered, Perhaps they never will;
and perhaps that is a good thing.
THUS IT IS impossible for an
administrator to simply make a
decision and be sure that it will
stick. He has to talk the faculty
into it, because that is the way
university people operate.
But can an almost $200-million-
a-year business operate that way?
Maybe, maybe not. Compromises
are made daily to ensure that it
can at least get along.
In any case. this is the real
conflict within a university: the
dichotomy between the way in
which its faculty, the real opera-
tional center of power, operates
and the necessity for some sort of

coordination imposed by the size
and complexity of those opera-
tions in their aggregate.
Some theoretical work doneat
Ohio State University's education
school indicates that the conflict
cannot be resolved and.that the
university as it exists cannot be
governed, because the faculty will
not change its anarchic attitude
and the complexitysof the total
operation will increase.
This implies either that the or-
ganization of the university must
change or that new means of
government must be devised for it,
perhaps even new definitions of
government,
NOR IS IT any coincidence that
Boulding and Haber could get to
the heart of the matter so quickly.
They work at a university in which
this major conflict is especially
pronounced and is getting worse
every year. It's a shame someone
with the authority to do some-
thing about it doesn't listen to
their advice.
But then, there's always 1968 . ,

4

AT LONG LAST, Vice-President for Stu-
dent Affairs Richard L. Cutler has ap-
pointed a Housing Director, a post sug-
gested last November by the President's
Blue-Ribbon Commission on Off-Campus
Housing.
However, as the new office of Univer-
sity Housing presently is planned, it does
not fulfill the hopes of the commission
and others who had called for a coordina-
tion of all the departments concerned
with all the types of housing in which
University students live.
THE NEW OFFICE all but ignores of f-
campus housing. Housing operations
will become somewhat more centralized
with the placing of married student
apartments under the Housing Office, In-
stead of under the Office of Service En-
terprises in the business office.
And, the consolidation of the business
and counseling aspects of residence hall
administration, with a shift to more au-
tonomy for the individual living units,
may well prove an efficient system.
But, both the switch in residence hall
operations and the shift of administra-
tion of married student housing from the
business office to the Office of Student
Affairs could have been accomplished just
as easily under the old administration
setup for housing with Eugene Haun as
Residence Hall Director.
Though administrators contend that
housing operations have been revamped,
there is, in effect, no significant struc-
tural change. Feldcamp is essentially as-
suming Haun's old position, with a bit
more responsibility. - married student
housing.
He will be discharging his duties in a
somewhat different manner, but they will
be the same duties, nevertheless. The
change was merely one of personnel.
POSITION created for Feldcamp
is not the one that the commission
called for. The suggestion for the position
was made in a report on off-campus
housing and asked for someone who
would be concerned with both University
and off-campus housing.
The report suggested that the Univer-
sity assume "a more active role in advis-
ing the private owners and investors of
the basic needs and desires of the stu-
dents, and urge their incorporation (in-
stead of less desirable and less important
but expensive frills) in the private hous-
ing available to students."
It also called for the construction of
off-campus centers where students in
private housing could have nonclassroom
contact with members of the faculty.
YET, FELDCAMP as Housing Director
will only assume an "advisory role" in
off-campus housing. The Bureau of Off-
Campus Housing in Student Community
relations will remain under a distinct
and separate administrative unit. It will
even be located in a different building
from the new Housing Office, being
handled along with motor vehicle and
parking regulations.
The commission's complaint that "pri-

vate developers and city officials with
legitimate need for information concern-
ing student housing problems" some-
times have obtained less of that informa-
tion than they need 'because it was un-
available in any single office" will cer-
tainly not be alleviated by the new direc-
tor or his office while it remains separate
from the Off-Campus Housing Bureau.
WITH TWO administratively separate
housing offices, suggestions such as
that for off-campus centers would be
difficult to implement. Which office
would administer such a center or other
types of programs concerned with the
academic and emotional well being of
students in private housing that the
commission's report suggests?
The University Housing Office person-
nel have experience with counseling pro-
grams currently offered in dormitories;
Off-Campus Housing Bureau personnet
have experience with the types of prob-
lems students living in private housing
are likely to encounter.
Specialists are useful and necessary
but their work needs coordination. The
new Housing Director is not empowered
to coordinate enough of the aspects of
housing.
And, the suggestion that the Univer-
sity pressure private landlords into in-
corporating what students want in apart-
ments has a shaky chance of being taken
seriously by present off-campus housing
officials. The major service they provided
last year was urging landlords to adopt
eight-month lease options, along with a
suggestion to hike rates concommitantly,
and even then few landlords agreed to
that.
BEYOND THE minor shakeup in resi-
dence hall and other University-
administered housing operations that the
new Housing Director will provide, a re-
organization of the Off-Campus Housing
Bureau and its coordination with other
areas of housing is needed.
Perhaps more personnel changes can
improve administration of off-campus
housing. Or, perhaps a Director of Hous-
ing that did have the powers originally
called for could have revitalized off-
campus housing.
He might even have reevaluated the
University's philosophy of providing only
dormitories for single students-taking
into account surveys that show many
students are dissatisfied with dorms and
would like to live in apartments but have
complaints with privately-owned apart-
ments-and seriously considered the pos-
sibility of University-owned single stu-
dent apartments.
BUT, AS THE NEW University Housing
Office is presently setup, its director
has power only to nod at the Off-Campus
Housing Bureau and to perpetuate the
uncoordinated housing policy that ig-
nores students' needs and desires.
The currently heralded change in hous-
ing administration is no change at all; it
is, at best, a disappointment.
-SHIRLEY ROSICK

Meteoric Demise of Jerome Cavanagh

By STEVE WILDSTROM
FIVE YEARS AGO, an obscure
young lawyer politician was
elected mayor of Detroit in a
stunning upset over incumbant
Louis C. Miriani. Last year, fol-
lowing his landslide reelection as
mayor, Jerome P.rCavanagh was
hailed as the bright new boy
wonder of Michigan Democratic
politics.
Today, it looks increasingly un-
likely that Cavanagh can ever be
elected to any public office beyond
the mayoralty if, in fact, he can
be reelected mayor.
CAVANAGH'S meteoric demise
in the public eye has been the
result of several severe political
mistakes the mayor has made re-
cently. Cavanagh was elected
mayor the first time by inner city
Negroes. Shortly before the 1961
election, Mayor Miriani's police
commissioner George Edwards
(now a Federal Appeals Judge)
ordered a crime crackdown. The
crackdown turned out to be aimed
virtually exclusively against inner
city Negroes and resulted in a
number of false arrests and much
alleged police brutality.
The crackdown so antagonized
Negroes that normally very apa-
thetic precincts turned out large

numbers of voters to register their
protests. One west side resident
said, "People who never voted and
who had no idea who Cavanagh
was went to the polls and pulled
the Cavanagh lever just to get rid
of Edwards."
Cavanagh managed to thor-
oughly alienate the same people
who elected him by this year pro-
posing a "stop-and-frisk" ordi-
nance. The law would have given
police the authority to detain and
search anyone on the slightest
suspicion. The proposal generated
the same kind of visceral reaction
as did the Edwards crackdown.
Although Cavanagh later backed
down from his support of the law
and the proposal died, his earlier
support is well remembered.
THE URBAN RENEWAL poli-
cies of the Cavanagh administra-
tion have served to further an-
tagonize inner city residents. De-
troit Housing Commissioner Rob-
ert Knox has become a sort of
bogeyman to the West Central
Organization, a new but influen-
tial Alinsky-type community ac-
tion group in the inner city.
Inner city residents have serious
complaints about the way they
are manhandled by the Housing
Commission, which has responsi-
bility for all relocation in urban

renewal projects. Also the way
the city reneged on its promise
to build low-income housingrin the
Elmwood Park redevelopment
project still rankles community
residents. Cavanagh's policies as
chief executive of the city have
thus caused much of his base of
support in the inner city to evap-
orate.
Cavanagh's major error, how-
ever, was his decision to take on
former six-term Governor G. Men-
nen Williams for the Democratic
Senate nomination. State Demo-
cratic leaders had wanted the
Detroit mayor to run for governor.
Cavanagh showed little inclina-
tion to take on Gov. George Rom-
ney, a proven successful vote
gatherer, and he decided to go
for the seat of the late Sen. Pat-
rick McNamara.
Like a recent movie, the decision
had something to offend everyone.
Old-line Democrats were affronted
by Cavanagh's attempt to buck
the party leadership. Labor was
offended by his disregard of state
AFL-CIO chairman August Schol-
le's advice to run for governor.
Detroit residents generally were
offended by Cavanagh's declara-
tion of himself as candidate only
six months after being elected on
a pledge to "keep Detroit moving."

Furthermore, he
on city time.

was campaigning

IT IS DIFFICULT at this point
to see where Cavanagh thinks his
votes are coming from. Soapy Wil-
liams, his opponent for the Senate
nod, is a political legend in Michi-
gan. While Cavanagh has been
furiously turning out position
papers, including a strong stand
against U.S. policies in Viet Nam,
Williams has been quietly shaking
hands, kissing babies, and making
nonstatements which the Wash-
ington Post characterized as "soap
suds."
The Williams campaign tactics
so infuriated Cavanagh that he
compared the exgovernor's style
to that of Huey Long. Williams is
merely campaigning with the calm
assurance of a man who knows he
can go into a small northern
Michigan town where people have
never heard of Jerry Cavanagh
and raise a crowd simply by an-
nouncing his presence.
IN ADDITION to having ser-
iously alienated Detroit inner city
residents and old-line Democrats
and being relatively unknown out-
side of the Detroit area, Cavanagh
is quite unpopular in the Detroit
suburbs.
His liability there is the Detroit

city income tax, a one per cent
levy on Detroit residents and one-
half per cent on nonresidents who
are employed in the city (origin-
ally the tax was one per cent on
everyone who worked in the city
regardless of residency, but a re-
cent state law forced the change).
The tax, passed during Cavanagh's
first term, is deeply resented by
suburbanites and should prove to
be a serious political disadvantage.
AS IT APPEARS now, Cavanagh
could lose to Williams in the
August 2 primary as badly as two
to one, and such a humiliating
defeat would in all probability
mean the end of his iareer in
Michigan Democratic politics. Had
he chosen tomtake party cohnsel
and oppose Romney for governor,
Cavanagh probably would have
lost but would have gained valu-
able state-wide exposure and
would havehremained in good
standing with the party.
As it were, Cavanaih's impend-
ing defeat will put him in a posi-
tion wrere he will be very unlikely
to ever again receive party back-
ing. Michigan Democratic and
labor leaders do not like being
ignored and have very good mem-
ories. Not even Batman can save
the Boy Wonder this time.

M
-4

Open Letter Questions Viet NamPolicy

The Press and the Law:
Historic Confrontation

EDITOR'S NOTE: The fol-
lowing is an open letter sent by
Prof, Anatol Rapoport of the
Mental Health Research Insti-
tute to former Governor G. Men-
nen Williams, now a candidate
for the Democratic Party nom-
ination for senator.
The Hon. G. Mennen Williams
Headquarters
Detroit, Michigan
Dear Governor Williams:
IT WAS GENEROUS of you to
to accept the invitation of the
Washtenaw County Young Demo-
crats, the University of Michigan
Young Democrats, and the Coun-
cil for Democratic Directions, to
speak to the people of Ann Arbor
on the issues of the coming elec-
tion.
I am sure also that your au-
dience was grateful to you for
staying longer than is usual on
such occasions to answer questions,
especially in view of the physical
strain under which you must be
laboring in this grueling cam-
paign.
IN ALL FRANKNESS, however,
I must point out that your dis-
cussion of the Viet Nam war and
related questions of foreign policy
left very many of your audience
dissatisfied and deeply disturbed.
Naturally, I can speak with as-
surance only for myself; but I
know how the people who, like
myself, condemn the Viet Nam
war think and feel, since for a
year and a half we have invested
more time and energy than ever
in our lives in activities entirely
new to most of us, trying to divert
our country from the road to
disaster.
In a way, therefore, I can speak
for many. How many I do not
know. President Johnson has es-
timated us at ten per cent. From
the returns to Congressman Vi-
vian's questionnaire, we were 24
per cent in this Congressional Dis-
trict six months ago. I suppose
we are somewhere between six and
fifteen million voters.
However, it is not our political
strength or weakness of which I
want to write to you. In fact, of
all the answers you gave at the
meeting last Sunday, I liked best

administration, you must be as-
suming that the administration,
too, is backing "free elections" in
South'Viet Nam. Now "Free Elec-
tions" is a good-sounding slogan,
but what does it mean in concrete
terms?
How are free elections to be
conducted by a regime which exists
by virtue of having prevented free
elections, a regime which, in fact,
prohibits the expression of any
views except those of which it
approves?
How can elections be free if
candidates who are in favor of
making South Viet Nam a neutral
country are to be explicitly exclud-
ed from running? (Actually, the
promulgation of such views is a
capital offense under the present
regime in Saigon.)
How are free elections to be
held in a country of which the
larger portion of the territory is
held by people who are in armed
revolt against the very regime
which is to hold the elections?
How is the projected election to
differ from the three previously
held under the sponsorship of a
dictatorial regime? Every impar-
tial observer has declared those
elections to have been fradulent.
We scoff at the elections held,
for example, in the USSR, on the
grounds that only government-
approved or Communist Party-
approved candidates are presented
to the electorate. In what way is
the "free election" presently pro-
jected for South Viet Nam to be
distinguished from the sort of
elections we proclaim to be farces?
Most of these questions were
asked at the meeting. You answer-
ed none of them.
YOU JUSTIFIED our waging
war in Viet Nam on the grounds
that the war was undertaken to
resist aggression from the out-
side." When was this aggression
committed, and by whom, against
whom? And what does "outside"
mean? China? Russia? If so, what
evidence is there that either China
or Russia ever committed aggres-
sion against Viet Nam? When did
this occur? This question was
never answered in the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee hear-
ings; nor have you elucidated upon

If so, why' was no action taken
by the Security Council? Why does
not the United States insist that
North Viet Nam or China or the
USSR, or whoever it is that has
committed aggression, be branded
as an aggressor by the Security
Council, thus legitimizing our war
several years ex post facto?
IF NORTH VIET NAM is "out-
side," how does this view tally
with our pledge to support the
Geneva Accord, which stated ex-
plicitly that the armistice demar-
cation line was in no way to be
construed as a political partition
of the country? If we are allied
to South Viet Nam, how is this
to be reconciled with the same
agreement, which we have pledged
to support, if it explicitly prohibits
such military alliances?
Again, if South Viet Nam is a
sovereign state to which we are
bound by a military alliance, when
was this alliance ratified as pro-
vided by our Constitution? If
North Viet Nam committed ag-
gression against its "neighbor"
South Viet Nam, when did this
aggression occur; and what was
done about it at the time in ac-
cordance with the provisions of
the United Nations Charter?
Why did we fail to secure the
approval of the Security Council
for a military response to aggres-
sion, as we did with regard to
Korea? Was it simply because we
knew that no such approval would
have been given? How, then, are
we fulfilling our obligations under
the Charter,uif we appeal to the
United Nations when we think the
response will be favorable, and act
unilaterally when we think it will
not?
WITH REGARD to the relations
between North and South Viet
Nam, what was the fate of the
two-year-long attempts on the
part of the North to negotiate
elections, as provided for in the
Geneva Accord? I am referring to
the elections which were to have
been held in 1956, which our man
Diem refused to hold.
The Geneva Accord put an end
to the French war and held out a
promise of peace to that unfor-

IT IS ARGUED (both by many
of those who support the war and
by those who oppose it) that we
are in Viet Nam to establish a
"bulwark against Communism."
Do you agree or disagree with this
interpretation? If you agree, then
what does our war have to do
with "resisting aggression?" Could
not any intervention, indeed any
totally unprovoked aggression (as,
for example, against the Domini-
can Republic) be justified by sim-
ply labeling it "resistance to ag-
gression?" Is this the sort of
foreign policy you espouse for the
United States?
Did not Hitler justify the de-
struction of Czechoslovkia on the
grounds of "resisting aggression?"
(Recall how Czechoslovakia was
described as a "pistol pointed at
the heart of Germany.") Was our
support of the armed attack on
Cuba "resisting aggression?" By
whom, against whom? Was the
overthrow of the democratically
elected government of Iran by the
C.I.A. "resisting aggression?" Was
also the overthrow of the demo-
cratically elected government of
Guatemala?
IF YOU ANSWER yes to all
these, then would you say that
Russia's intervention in Hungary
(in support of a government who
"invited them in") was also
"resisting aggression?" If not,
what is the difference between
Russia's action and ours, except
that Hungary is almost on Russia's
border, while Viet Nam is as far
away from us as one can get on
this planet?
You addressed yourself to none
of these 'issues. Was it because
facing them would disclose the
lack of substance in the argu-
ment that the United States is
"resisting aggression" in Viet
Nam?
It is clear to practically every
one who has examined the facts
and who is not committed to de-
fend our war at all costs, that
South Viet Nam is in the throes
of a civil war. This civil war was
instigated by us, because it was
we who backed a tyrannical re-
gime, which without our mam-
moth support would have been

ciple upon which our nation was
founded.
YOU WERE ASKED whether
you would place any limits on
the magnitude of our intervention
in Viet Nam, or anywhere else
where we chose to wage war in
order to support a regime of our.
choice, or to prevent a regime not
of our liking from coming to
power. You replied that we should
use the "minimum of whatever
means were required." This "mini-
mum" has been constantly going
up and, according to all expert
estimates, is likely to keep going
up. Does this mean that you will
back the "minimum" whatever it
happens to be? If so, does this
mean that you place no limits on
the expansion of the war? If so,
why did you not say so? If not,
what did you mean by "whatever
minimum is required?"
Should we fight until every
"communist" (that, is, every op-
ponent of the junta) is killed? Is
this the "Final Solution" of the
"Communist Problem?" Should we
fight even when a massive Chinese
intervention seems imminent?
Should we use nuclear weapons if
we cannot "win" with, napalm,
gas, supersonic jets, rice field
poisoning,, and green berets?
Should we continue the slaughter
if there is no end in sight except
a nuclear holocaust?
We say that we are trying to
teach the Communists that force
does not pay. Suppose we "win"
the war. Will we have taught them
that force does not pay or, on the
contrary, that force pays (if you've
got enough of it)? What kind of
a world are we preparing for our
children, if they live to see it?
VIET NAM is the main issue,
Governor Williams, as you well
recognize. Why not try to find
out more about it from other than
administration sources? After all,
the administration has an over-
riding aim-to justify acts which
at least 10 million Americans (a
disproportionate number of highly
educated among them) have
branded as illegal, immoral, and
stupid. The administration cannot
help distorting the issue in trying
to save its image. On several oc-

I

WHILE TESTIFYING on behalf of the
defendent in the controversial trial
of Annette Buchanan Hu Blonk, chair-
man of the Freedom of Information Com-
mittee of the Associated Press Managing
Editors Association, said "If you can't
protect your news sources, they will not
freely speak up. This is as mucn a part of
journalism as the typewriter you use to
write the story."
Oregon State Circuit Court Judge Ed-
ward Leavy may not want to dismantle
the journalistic typewriters in his state,
but nevertheless he punished Annette
Buchanan, editor of the Oregon Daily
Emerald, for protecting her news sources.
She did not receive the maximum penalty
of six months in jail but was given the
maximum fine of $300.
DESPITE THE FACT that Oregon law
does not grant newsmen the right to
keep their news sources a secret, no jour-

OREGON, AND the case of Miss Bu-
chanan, have pinpointed a problem
that has haunted reporters and their
sources since Guttenburg invented the
printing press. What can be printed?
How can crime, dope and controversial
issues in general be covered? The sources
for this type of coverage will obviously be
persons the law would like to interview
in their famous back room. Are prospec-
tive "stool pigeons" to be captured by the
local law enforcers through the friendly
services of the Associated Press?
In order to get the facts reporters must
go to the heart of a story. If the story
is about marijuana and its use on a college
campus then the reporter must talk to
marijuana users. Because the District
Attorney of Oregon does not have the
reporting 'instincts of Miss Buchanan,
Miss Buchanan is being fined $300.
uMmTf'TOAM A mT ' 1 ' .- 4-1 W7 . oo

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan