Seventy-Sixth Year EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS What Happens After the Machines? 1 PI , w. ^ =,If ere Opinions Are Free. 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH. Truth Will 1Prevail 2 ANR TANABR in 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 alt reprints. SATURDAY, JULY 16, 1966 NIGHT EDITOR: MICHAEL HEFFER I The Student's Decision: To Kill or To Hide A COLLEGE BOY-like so many others, worried about the draft and in a vague way about the immorality of his nation's part in the Viet Nam war-explains why he would prefer to stay out of the bloody mess by struggling to keep up his grade point and retain his II-S, not by CO-ing It. "I couldn't object to killing on any sweeping moral grounds; I just can't ra- tionalize my feelings about it. I only know that if I were called up, I'd have to explain to draft officials that it would be' better not to send me; I'd be useless. My first reaction to confronting the armed "enemy" would be to hide behind a tree" (said with unabashed honesty and humil- ity, not cowardice, or even a mockingly deigned brand of it). IN A SENSE, the boy's philosophy is ad- mirable because his objection to killing was arrived at by thinking of himself as a potential killer and rejecting that role on intense emotional grounds, grounds in- capable of being rationally and morally explained, yet not really needing that ex- planation. His reaction is an example of a well-thought out and committed emo- tionalism, not that of a momentary ex- plosion. Yet, he goes on to say that if he were to find himself "up against a wall" facing that same armed enemy, having no chance to hide, he would shoot or do any- thing, naturally, to preserve himself. But, he continued, first, he would try to do anything possible not to get into that combat situation. And what does his "anything" include? Avoiding the draft-again, by virtue of a high grade-point or by personally trying to convince his draft board that he refuses to kill. THOUGH HE SAYS he feels that many, if asked to kill, would share his senti- ments, organized protest does not appeal to him because, though it's rhetorical, sign-waving manifestations may be star- tling and commanding, its message is not. It offers vague hortatives about the killing and criminal intervention, in terms of the distant sufferers, sufferers in the mass. It all evokes no feeling in comparison to his placing himself in the role of mur- derer. It's like a poet trying to talk about beauty, hate, compassion - using the terms themselves, but forgetting about his "objective correlatives." And yet, the only way that the boy may avoid playing the role of murderer is by strengthening the bond between himself and the man he feels would also "hide" if asked to kill. FOR WHEN IT IS impossible to retain his student deferment, how likely is it that this individual can convince se- lective service officials --concerned only with supplying manpower, not with the rights and wrongs of the operation they supply it for-that the decision to kill can only be made by him? And, how many others who would never have killed if someone else hadn't "forced them up against a wall" have already kill- ed because their voices, heard separately were to a weak, drowned out in the grinding of an already all too-well-orga- nized and efficient war machine? Unduobtedly, the war's directors, too, if they stopped to place themselves in the college boy's war scenario would also re- ject killing on an individual basis. But, as the scale of the conflict enlarges, it be- comes easier to forget about the individ- ual confrontation and misery and think instead about battles and mass strategy. And, individual deaths, when consider- ed in the mass, are easier to justify by abstract echoes of "preserving democracy" (add capitalism and the Protestant ethic,, though the justifiers would rather not). BUT IF THE COLLEGE BOY who doesn't want to kill is repulsed by the abstrac- tions used to justify that killing, he finds those, polar but abstract, nevertheless, of organized protest equally as repugnant. Anti-war protestors have not alienated others from joining their movement be- cause of a lack of fastidiousness in dress or because their protest lack reasoned ar- gument against administration foreign policy, as some writers have suggested. The college boy speaking above (who also wears jeans and work shirts) just wants the whole bloody mess stopped so he can avoid being a murderer. He doesn't have to have reasons to justify that de- sire, nor does he demand reasons from anyone else. He only asks a little well- thought out emotionalism that will ap- peal to his personal experiences and im- aginings. T1HE WAY to successfully argue against those who justify the war in human abstractions is not to counter their state- ments with yet more abstractions. What is needed are more tactics like the war crimes sign, which a poet and for- mer Daily staffer defended against charg- es of "poor taste." She called the arrow pointing from the sign to a Marine re- cruiter nearby "decidedly healthy to me, because it located in time and space the wrong being protested. If armed forces, whose purpose is killing, are wrong, then those recruiters are wrong, those very ones, right there." THE COLLEGE BOY will not be added to the ranks of protestors merely by cries that all the killing is senseless and im- miral. He needs to be assured that those screaming about the immorality have per- sonally placed themselves in his imagin- ary combat situation and can feel, if not explain, why it is all too immoral.. -SHIRLEY ROSICK IT MAY BE HARD to get used to, but someday most of us will probably be out of a job. And, it won't be any disgrace, either. The ultimate result of the "cy- bernetic revolution" may be to re- place most man-hours with ma- chine hours, in professions from secretarial work to operating a steam shovel to accounting to farming to teaching to almost any "job" that can be named that does not involve theoretical or developmental science. Even today, many semi-skilled and un-skilled jobs have been completely replaced by machines- such as the development of a com- pletely automated steel plant. Communications and data sciences have begun to replace such hither- to indispensable workers as the secretary and the telephone opera- tor. FOR THE FUTURE, the pos- sibilities are unlimited. There are devices to clean a house com- pletely by machine and television telephones that make the idea of a "store" and clerks to wait on customers obsolete. The prospec- tive buyer merely tunes in on a showing of fashions, foods, or household goods, and makes se- lections accordingly. In education, the teaching ma- chine has proved more effective at communicating the basic in- formation on a particular topic than most lecturers. With this problem out of the way, the process of teaching may become a dis- cussion by "equals"-the person possessing the most information acting as the prompter or the in- ovator of in-depth exploration of the topic at hand. For farming, a radical change will be the traveling farm. This is a farm that literally travels on a conveyor belt through a factory that nourishes, harvests and prac- tically processes an infinite variety of plant foods. The factory needs only be programmed for each as it passes through. THESE ARE NOT idle day- dreams. They are ideas and in- ovations that have either been planned to the point of instiga- tion or are already in operation. What of politicans, and the mechanics of government, one may ask? Well, don't tell your local congressman just yet, but he too may soon be merely serving in an honorary function. For, with the mechanics of gov- ernment located more often than not in the administrative ma- chinery set up by each President (and much more that operates irregardless of who is in office), and the increasing tendency for that function to fall to the machine, the decisions of elective government will have less and less of an effect on the daily life of the individual. Machines, after all, do not take breaks, are difficult to program incompletely, are highly efficient, and don't retire or have ambitions for the supervisor's job. But with all this inovation in cybernetics, we will obviously find most of the country out of work. The problem of what to do with these people, and how to make their roles rewarding and accept- able to them, then, is the job of all the working institutions of society that we have established through so many years of ma- chine-less history. The Associates by Carney and wolter THE PEOPLE who must make these decisions will be the elected officials, the teachers and the social theorists. They will have to realize that the society that they will be planning may well endure, with changes made only by ad- vances in machinery, for many years. First, if people do not work, then they must have some means of sustenance. This will mean that they must either be given a salary by the government, based on graded scales for number of chil- dren, etc., or must be given their food, clothing and shelter for nothing. The specific mechanics of this kind of change are extremely complex, and will provide jobs for a number of HEW administrators for years. Nevertheless, even this crisis can be overcome with rela- tive ease compared to the, adjust- ment that will have to follow. For, when a man is out of work, and is living on subsidies from other sources, under the traditions of this society, he is some sort of indigent-he is, by definition, of a lower status. Therefore, he must be given a task, an occupation of some sort, and he must be made to feel that his function in society is useful. Society, up until now, made such great demands on each individual in order to progress to the point of automation and relative com- fort for all (this, too, is possibility with machines), that the concept of "work" is firmly engrained on the mind of each individual. Con- sider the agonies of most youth of today as it tries to select an "occupation." WHAT CAN a man, for whom there is no possible means of em- ployment that would not be mere featherbedding, do to feel useful to society? For a start; what is disgraceful about the task of raising a family. Why shouldn't the "laborer" be in charge of the job of raising human beings, and of doing it in relative comfort, free from the damaging demands of a competi- tive society? This is *not a trifle when one considers the toll taken by the demands of labor today on the American family structure. Though even the family may be effectively replaced by some sort' of mechanization, there is no rea- son that this be done in order to "advance" society. Therefore, men have "work." In addition, unemployed men need recreation. For this purpose, they can also be "employed." So- ciety today, from the most meagre to the most important occupations, functions with organization. Men are needed on planning commis- sions, on the office bowling team, to plan the office party. They take the task seriously, even while considering the work a trifle. There is no reason why this idea cannot be applied to our unem- ployed man. Planning a sports event, or a social gathering, or a community play is not without responsibility or reward. It involves a great deal of commitment, time-wise. The entertainment arts, (and these need not be mediocre in artistic value) then, will become a source of occupation for many. FINALLY, we are obviously reaching for the stars. As we explore planets, even other solar systems, we will want to colonize them, as man must always bring something of himself to previously untouched areas.. For this task, large numbers of enthusiastic colonists will be needed. They may very well have to begin society all over again, as was done with the discovery of the new world. And, with the universe that we can now see through our strongest telescopes, there are no limits on our expansiveness. Society, as we know it will not entirely disappear with the coming automation. Neither, thankfully, will the value of the individual, if we are willing to make the necessary provisions for it. As our technological know-how increases so do the resources at our com mand necessary for this task. Right now, the early conse- quences of the nascent automation are taking some nasty forms. There are crippling strikes, such as the airline strike, or the mari- time strike in England. We still have not learned to accommodate those who are ethnically or ra- cially different in our society, and they are the first victims of the machine. The divisions of warfare make the united effort needed impossible. BUT THE enormity of the prob- lem lying ahead has already caus- ed many to work for these pre- liminary changes. When we no longer look at others with dis- trust, the task at hand can begin. ,4, Two Movies and Two Excellent Directors By ANDREW LUGG THE SHORT LIST of great Hol- lywood film directors includes John Ford, Otto Preminger, John Huston, Alfred Hitchcock and Jer- ry Lewis. At the Campus Theatre John Huston's "Beat The Devil" is showing whileathe State Theatre has Jerry Lewis' "Three on a Couch." So, for a change, we have two "home-grown" films which are worth seeing. "BEAT THE DEVIL" which was filmed in 1954-and not before its time!-stars Humphrey Bogart (Billy), Jennifer Jones (Gwende- line) and Robert Morley (Peter- son). For the "cultists" the mere mention of Bogie should be enough. Although "Beat The Devil" is no "Big Sleep" or "Key Largo" (show- ing next week at the Cinema Guild), Bogart's performance in- cludes all those verbal tricks of which he is a past-master. The Bo- gart mystique is summed up nice- ly in the film in one of Bogart's "throw-away lines"-"I've got to have money, doctor's orders, or I'll be dull, listless and have a poor complexion." Beautifully filmed in Italy "Beat The Devil" has a complicated story line which runs roughly as fol- lows. A gang of criminals, a mot- ley crew of stereotypes, and Billy who is not quite in the gang and yet Bogart-wise seems indispensi- ble, are involved in a shady deal to purchase land in Africa in or- der to exploit the uranium de- posits which are apparently there. THE FILM is a "study" of the gang's pre-voyage preparations and their voyage to the "Dark Continent." The Chelms are at first sight part of that odd institution, the British aristocracy-as Bogart puts it "with more pomp than circum- stance." But later we learn that they are just "rudy refugees from Earls Court." Mrs. Chelm (Gwen- doline) dotes on Billy and Billy.s wife on Harry Chelm. So we have the "sub-plot." With Robert Morley, frog-like; Bogart, smooth; Jennifer Jones, sweet and Gina Lollobrigida as seductive as a horse-radish, the plot rolls out in quiet hilarity to its inevitable conclusion-the hang "put away" and Bogart free to deal with the "sub-plot." ANOTHER CULT is centered around Jerry Lewis. Perhaps it is not so great here as it is in France where Lewis' films are completely endorsed by such "highbrow" film magazines as "Postif" and "Cah- iers du Cinema." This is probably due to the fact that Lewis' humor which seems to work even better when not encumbered by dialogue. Another reason is that Lewis as- pires to being an "auteur"-one in complete control of all the var- ious aspects of making his mo- vies. Lewis is director, produces and leading actor and this in the French critics' eyes is a place where judgment may begin. Amistophee Pride (Jerry Lewis) has just won an art competition which, as part of the prize, in- cludes a commission to paint a mural in Paris. His affianced, Eliz- abeth (Janet Leigh) is a psychia- Reply to Stein beck's Defense of ti The City and the Suburb CERTAIN UNIVERSITY supremacists be- lieve Detroit is a suburb of Ann Arbor, and make it their business to follow De- troit affairs. Such events as the Northern Rebellion, the Ecorse teachers' strike, the shakeup in police headquarters, and the opening of a new wing to the city's Art Institute have been made known to the University. Coverage of Detroit affairs is important for University students, and not merely because the city and its industry are so close to campus. HIGHWAY PLANNERS, architects, Paul Goodman, and others talk about America evolving into a network of ex- panding urban centers with minimal sub- urban buffers between. Detroit is important because it is The City moving toward 1985 and shows all the symptoms. Its official population is dropping while its suburban population is rising. Its un- employment level is down but its annual crime rate is up. Its city council is subordinate to its mayor. Its municipal school system is pitifully atrophied while its fire depart- ment is the best in the country. In less than half a year it has been scandalized by its computerized Friend of the Court welfare agency, its prosti- tutes, and its urban renewal program. STILL, ITS SYMPHONY has never sounded better. Its commuter university, Wayne State, is devouring slum land. The city itself expands in three direc- tions; in the fourth, the south, is the De- troit River, and it is fashionably polluted. Detroit is pleasant to watch because it keeps its problems in perspective. Its citi- zens have not felt the bitter despair not- able in New York, Philadelphia, Roches- ter, and Los Angeles. IT IS A GOOD TEXT for students who will eventually get into the rhythm of the megalopolis. As long as Detroit continues to grow up and out in three directions, it will have a message for Ann Arbor, college town in the West. -NEAL BRUSS On the Job THE SENATE has decided, 1-28, not to increase the size or change the com- position of its surveillance group keeping tabs on the Central Intelligence Agency. The move is a good-sized victory for Sen. EDITOR'S NOTE: This let- ter to Yevgeniy Yevtushenko was stimulated by his recent appeal to John Steinbeck and by Steinbeck's reply, excerpts of which were published in the Ann Arbor News. Mr. Yevgeniy Yevtushenko c/oTEditor, Literaturnaya Gazeta 30 Tsvetnoi Bulvar Moscow I-51 U.S.S.R. Dear Yevgeniy Yevtushenko: JUST READ exerpts of John Steinbeck's reply to your ap- peal where you urge him to raise his voice against the crimes per- petrated by our armed forces in Viet Nam. I feel compelled to write to you to tell you that I am ashamel of Steinbeck's reply. If Steinbeck were a spokesman for the Johnson administration, I would feel contempt but no shame, because I do not identify myself with that administration. But Steinbeck is (or was) a member of a large community, with which I do identify, as I am sure you do, a community which knows no national boundaries, a community which, in spite of ideological differences, shares a devotion to life, depicting it, examiningtit, glorifyingtit--the community of thinkers and schol- ars, of scientists, artists, and poets. Steinbeck once served well as a member of that community, and we, Americans, were proud of him. And this is why I feel ashamed of his reply, for members of a community feel responsible for each other. In a way, I feel re- sponsible for the hypocrisy and mendacity of Steinbeck's reply. HE WRITES: "Surely you don't believe that our pilots fly to bomb children . . . " I don't know whether you believe this, Yevgeniy, but let me assure you that I believetit. It issclearly on record that our pilots fly to poison rice fields, so as to deny food to the peasants who have rebelled against onrIV riiint ~in SaiDyon. OUR PILOTS are instructed to drop their "excess" bombs on vil- lages "suspected" of harboring revolutionists. There are children living in those villages and the bombs kill them. Perhaps Stein- beck wants to say that our pilots to not aim their bombs at chil- dren; that the children get blown up, incinerated, and maimed, be- cause they happen to be in the way. This may be so. But then, I would ask Steinbeck why are Ameriran children able to stay out of the way of falling bombs, the splattering napalm, the sizzling white phorsphorus. I suppose this is because the bombs and the napalm and the white phosphorus fall far away from American children, in fact, 12,000 miles away, as far away as one can get from America on this planet. Does this say nothing /to Steinbeck about who is fighting whom and for what? Can one meaningfully equate the "two halves" of this war? STEINBECK calls the Viet Nam war "the work of Chairman Mao, designed and generaled by him in absentia, advised by him and cyni- cally supplied with brutal weapons by foreigners who set it up." Two years ago, our government declared that the Dominican Re- public revolution against the mili- tary dictatorship was mastermind- ed by Fidel Castro. Seventeen years ago our govern- ment insisted that the Chinese Revolution was ordered by the Kremlin. Forty-eight years ago our gov- ernment implied that the Russian Revolution was engineered by the German General Staff. Now Steinbeck has evidently joined the progeny of the Bour- bons, who, it was said, never learned anything not forgot any- thing." SINCE STEINBECK insists on condemning both "halves" of the Viet Nam war, it is conceivable that he might answer "yes" to all those questions, like a true the pacifist view), they tell all the ugly facts about the origins of both Viet Nam wars (the French and the American) and the dis- graceful role which three succes- sive American administrations have played in both. The pacifists keep proposing reasonable and honorable peaceful solutions to both sides. They some- times argue that non-violent re- sistance would be a more effective way of frustrating aggression than armed resistance. But the pacifists never pretend that both sides are "equally guilty" or that had it not been for the evil Chinese. Viet Nam would be at peace and democratic. STEINBECK'S most amazing statement, however, is that he doesn't know a single American who is for the war. Is it possible that a man who writes as bril- liantly as Steinbeck cannot read? Or perhaps he does not choose to read? That might be conceivable, for a sensitive man could well decide to cut himself off com- pletely from what goes on-a cowardly but understandable ges- ture. But no, Steinbeck must read, or else where would he have got all those yarns about the Viet Nam revolution being designed and gen- eraled by "Chairman Mao in ,ab- sentia?" He must have got them from the same sources where I read them-from Time, Life, Reader's Digest, etc., which lie around in every barber shop. But if he reads that "literature," how did he miss the boasting, the gloating, the blood-thirsty rejoic- ing on those pages? Has he not read articles on how Viet Nam serves as an ideal testing ground for new weapons? Has he never heard the talk of a Bircher, a Goldwaterite, an American Legion- naire, or read a speech by Senator Dodd, Senator Stennis, Senator Long, nor a column by David Lawrence or Joseph Alsop? Has he never seen Lyndon B. Johnson on TV? CAN A MAN who, in view of his literary achievements, may justly claim an understanding of the human psyche, seriously maintain that all these people are against the Viet Nam war? If so, what does it mean to be against war? To wish that you could get your way without having to fight? Is trist torn between being doctor and "human being." She can't leave three of her patients, young girls who are having problems with men. In order to get his woman to Paris with him Jerry Lewis um. dertakes some "housewife's" ther- apy which consists of him dating each of the girls. Jerry Lewis be- comes cowboy, sportsman, zoologist and Heather, the zoologist's sister. Thus there is a fine vehicle for Lewis who is at his best as a "sit- uation" comic. Lewis is superb, THE CAMERA work and the use of color is of the best Hollywood has produced. It is for these rea- sons that Lewis may be consider- ed as an "auteur" and that he appears in the list of directors heading this review. te War that, perhaps, the source of Stein- beck's "personal hatred" of the Viet Nam war? Or does he per- haps dislike the war in the same way as a gambler dislikes losing or a drinker dislikes a hangover, or a glutton dislikes being fat? I realize, Yevgeniy, that I have told you nothing new. But I simply had to write to, you, perhaps in order to reassure you that there is still a great deal of decency left in this country, which will not be easy to root out even with Stein- beck's help. Also please believe me that men of Steinbeck's ar- tistic stature who support the war are very few. MOST OF THE outstanding in- tellectuals in America, those who have gained the respect of the world regardless of their positions on the political spectrum, are dis- gusted with the present policy of the Johnson adminstration and are working to restore America's honor in the eyes of the world. Allow me to take this oppor- tunity to thank you for what your voice, the voice of conscience,;is doing for humanity. -Anatol Rapoport Prof. of Mathematical Biology 0 -4 4 REVIEW: Serkin: Maturity Is Needed By JEFFREY K. CHASE Program Beethoven. . . Sonata in E major, Op. 14, No. 1 Beethoven . . . Sonata in G major, Op. 14, No. 2 Beethoven . . . Sonata in E major, Op. 109 Bach . . . Three-part Inventions (complete) PETER SERKIN doesn't look much like a pianist. He's tall, big-boned, and will be only nine- poser's music displayed by his father. SERKIN PLAYED the Beethoven Op. 14 sonatas with the delicacy of Mozart, and with the rhythmic freedom of the romantics. It just didn't fit. A good guess might be that he learned these works in sections, because he played them that way. Serkin had very little sense of a unified unfolding in his playing and evendseemed to be at a loss for the direction certain notes were taking-what they were leading to or what they were coming from. nice to hear in succession, be- cause they contain so much vary- ing material and mood. Serkin played them in general better than the Beethoven. although one grew to expect the not always appropriate and often awkward ritard at the conclusion of each. Many of his editorial ornaments were in the fine Baroque tradition, but there were some that just didn't seem to fit. Peter Serkin demonstrated that he has the ability to produce beautiful tones on the piano. It's IF