Seventy-Sixth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLIcATIONS
Whew Opinions Are Free 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MICH. NEws PHONE: 764-0552
Tnith Will Prevail:
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the inidividual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
FEIFFER
FEE-r
GGC Fa
C4ORI P] PARK.
*1,
1
11 1i l^lxre76
1 .r. /"- 1, lrr
1 1 ? A55!Vb
rI
Cc
A~UPR68T, MY M'AR, LWE VC
PFr0ORAUMW THE COMPUTER'
RCS' YOUR IDECA MW, PLEAE
ATEP WkTO -MEMACK~E.
1I
FRIDAY, MAY 20, 1966
NIGHT EDITOR: SUSAN SCHNEPP
_
Censorship Strikes Again
At Michigan State
IT'S JUST NOT a Michigan State year.
First the Rose Bowl, then the CIA, then
the increased prospects for an out-of-
state tuition boost, and now the denial of
due process to The Paper (explain a bit)
and the suspicion that MSU conspired to
prevent its publication anywhere. Some-
one should fire MSU's public relations
man.
If they give him the same treatment
they gave the Paper he may already be
out and not know it. It's that kind of uni-
versity.
THE WITHDRAWAL of MSU approval
from The Paper involves the use of
rash, arbitrary power to squelch what
some consider to be a dirty publication.
Yet the content of The Paper could be
no where as obnoxious as the tactics used
to destroy it.
At the moment it is hard to get more
than a one-sided view of the situation.
Members of the Publications Board have
said nothing except they feel a perusal of
the last issue of The Paper would con-
vince anyone it should be banned. This
indicates little more than that the Paper
may be right in claiming the board made
a purely emotional decision.
Although board chairman Frank Sen-
ger said he would discuss the issue before
the student government, for some reason
neither he nor anyone from the board
appeared at a meeting scheduled for that
purpose. The student government has
passed a resolution supporting The Paper.
THE PAPER'S arguments are these:
1) In earlier discussions, "the board
assured The Paper that it was in no way
concerned with the material printed in
The Paper . . . but rather the adherence-
to standard business procedures";
2) Although showing great concern
with the future of The Paper as an in-
stitution in earlier discussions, "instead
of counseling or disciplining any of the
individuals accused of offending the read-
ership, the board simply dropped the en-
tire publication";
3) One reason "informally" given for
the action was The Paper's "shaky finan-
cial condition," but "no warning of any
kind" was ever given The Paper, and The
Paper is presently in the best financial
condition it has been in;
4) "No guidelines are provided for au-
Editorial Staff
CLARENCE FANTO .......................GCo-Editor
CHARLOTTE WO LTER .... ............... Co-Editor
BUD WILKINSON....................Sports Edtor
BETSY COHN .. . . . .. Supplement Manager
NIGHT EDITORS: Meredith Eker, Michael Hefer
Shirley Rosick, Susan Schnepp, Martha Wolfgang.
The Associated Press is exclusively entitled to the
rase of all news dispatches credited to it or otherwise
credited to the newspaper. All rights of re-publication
of all other matters here are also reserved.
Subscription rate: $4.50 semester by carrier ($5 by
mail); $8 two semesters by carrier ($9 by mail).
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Mich.
Published daily Tuesday through Saturday morning.
thorized or non-authorized
in regard to what they may
print";
publications
or may not
5) The chairman told The Paper's edi-
tor not to come to the board meeting,
that The Paper would not be discussed,
did not inform the Paper's adviser;
6) Four of the board's 10 members miss-
ed the discussion and vote, and nothing
was said about the possibility of acting
until the meeting started;
7) There has been no public statement
of the board's reasons;
8) The whole question about the mean-
ing and relevance of the board's action
has been left in doubt.
'THIS FINAL POINT means that the
status of The Paper is in doubt. The
question of how MSU is to "de-authorize"
The Paper if it actually is going to do so,
of what is to happen to The Paper's funds
now in MSU hands, and whether or not
The Paper can distribute must be answer-
ed.
The board's action has leftThe Paper in
mid-air, with three more issues planned
and advertisers and subscribers awaiting
more issues. Will they appear?
IN THE AIR over MSU is the suspicious
odor of dark conspiracy. The Paper's
staff,.having been presented with the loss
of their rights, may now be faced with a
conspiracy to destroy their publication.
Their publisher has had them blacklisted,
they claim, and they wonder how deep his
connections with MSU were, for he ad-
mits speaking to MSU officials, some of
them board members.
In yesterday's State News, long before
The Paper staff discovered they lacked a
publisher, an editorial hinted they would
have trouble finding a "printer willing to
print its material."
The absence of any other MSU action
and the absence of any action actually
de-authorizing The Paper leaves the staff
wondering if everyone at MSU simply ex-
pects they will be unable to publish and
therefore unable to distribute.
MICHAEL KINDMAN, editor of The Pa-
per, in discussing the situation, said
he felt The Daily should be brought to the
MSU campus more often to provide the
students with news about their campus.
He was wrong. What MSU needs is a
drive to do away with the atmosphere
and philosophy in which censorship
thrives as a necessary and accepted insti-
tution.
MSU needs an independent newspaper
with the spirit of the Paper. It needs,
above all, student support for a drive to
eliminate censorship and give students a
chance to show the administration that
they can be responsible when not watched
over with a stick in hand.
MSU WANTS TO BE a first-rate insti-
tution. It's about time it realized qual-
ity starts inside, and cannot be gained by
importing merit scholars alone. It might
try importing ideas first. Someone should
bring the sixties to MSU.
-MICHAEL HEFFER
Kf(
Y(
N ,
j/J
If,
zr cr
I OW ~6k)0IW
~ARJLA'W o )o~r
Q0eLC ' T tk
HUD, m
KOKIJ~
x2
.
Power and Pride:
White Man's Burden
IN A CAREFULLY prepared ad-
dress at Princeton University
the President said last week that
"the issue for this generation .. .
has to do with the obligations of
power in the world for a society
that strives despite its worst flaws
always to be just, fair and
human."
This is indeed the issue for this
generation of Americans. What are
our obligations in the exercise of
the great power which we possess?
This is the question which is
troubling our people deeply and is
dividing them dangerously.
THE OLDEST and the first
American answer to the question
is in the Declaration of Indepen-
dence, that power may be used
only with "a decent respect to the,
opinions of mankind."
This has been tne American idea
from the beginning, and in the
course of time it has evolved into
a fundamental belief that the use
of power must be brought under
the reign of law. In this century
the conviction has expressed itself
in American support of the prin-
ciple of collective security, as rep-
resented by the League of Nations
and then by the United Nations
and by the regional agreements for
the maintenance of peace.
FROM THIS, the fundamental
obligation of power that it should
not be exercised unilaterally,
President Johnson has departed
conspicuously. Though his inten-
tions have been honorable, though
his purposes have no doubt been
good, the fact of the matter is
that he has used military force
more than once-in Santo Do-
mingo, in the Stanleyville inter-
vention and in Viet Nam-without
asking advice or seeking the con,
sent of our Allies all over the
globe.
He did not go to the United
Nations for a verdict as to whether
there was an aggression in South
Viet Nam. He did not consult, as
the treaty stipulates, the other
members of the Southeast Asia
Treaty Organization. He did not
seek the advice and approval of
the Organization of American
States before going into Santo
Domingo.
His conduct of foreign relations
has been willful, personal, arbi-
trary and self opinionated, and
the fact is that he has won no
important supporthfor the Viet-
namese war. All the great states
of Asia and Europe are absent
from Viet Nam; and they are
anxious and suspicious.
THE PRESIDENT and his apol-
ogists have persuaded themselves
that the war in Viet Nam is a
continuation of, and is legally and
morally and strategically the same
as, the resistance to the Kaiser,
the resistance to Hitler, the resist-
ance to Stalin, the resistance in
Korea. They are mistaken. The
conduct of American foreign policy
since President Johnson was
inaugurated in 1965 marks a radi-
cal break with the past.
Today
and
Tomorrow
By WALTER LIPPMANN
President Truman did not inter-
vene in Korea on his own decision;
he intervened after he had re-
ceived the approval and support
of the United Nations. This was no
mere legal and moral facade. The
proof is that the war was fought
with the support of 17 nations. In
neither of the world wars of this
century did the United States in-
tervene alone or fight alone,
THE PRESIDENT said at Prince-
ton that "unlike nations in the
past with vast power at their dis-
posal, the United States has never
sought to crush the autonomy of
her neighbors," Someone should
explain to the President that a
remark like that, showing that vast
power is combined with perfect
self approval, grates badly on the
nerves of many people at home
and abroad.
'THE PRESIDENT believes,"
writes Tom Wicker of the New
York Times, "that one reason
domestic criticism -of the war is
rising is because- too, many Ameri-
cans, particularly liberals and in-
tellectuals, do not prize freedom
for Asians as highly as freedom for
Americans and Europeans."
THIS SURELY is a curious way
to explain the rising dissent-that
it comes from a kind of race
prejudice against Asians on the
part of the very men who have
been in the forefront of the
struggle against racial discrimina-
tion in this country and have been
in the forefront of the struggle to
extend foreign aid to the under
developed nations of the world.
If indeed the President has
chosen to believe this, it must be
because he has accepted the argu-
ment that there is no essential
difference between this war and
the world war, between Ho Chi
Minh and Hitler and, therefore,
presumably, between himself and
Churchill.
The crux of the President's
growing troubles at home is that
the liberals and intellectuals, and
a good many conservatives as well,
think that the analogy between
Viet Nam and Europe is false and
has led the administration into
a quagmire from which there is
no easy or attractive way out.
WHEN WE LOOK at the sub-
stance of the argument, I would
say at the outset that there is a
radical difference between Amer-
ica's relations with Europe and
America's relations with Asia. This
radical difference is due to the
historic fact that Americans, being
for the most part Europeans in
origin, have to live with the Asian
remembrance of three' centuries of
white imperialism and colonialism.
They are separated from the
people of Asia by this heritage as
well as by color, affluence, military
superiority. It is not easy to ex-
punge the rancors and suspicions
of three centuries, and, therefore,
it is naive and dangeiously silly
to think that we can treat Viet
Nam as if it were another Ap-
palachia.
There is, indeed, a radical dif-
ference between the Western posi-
tion in Asia and the American
position within the Western com-
munity itself. The most important
thing to learn from a realization of
this radical difference is that the
first and indispensable condition
of good relations with Asia is to
liquidate all that remains of the
imperial and colonial system in
which the Western white man
plays the role of the superior of
the Asian man-indeed of all the
"lesser breeds without the law."
IN THE WORLD today, military
is essential in maintaining a
stable balance among the military
powers. But to use officialese, it
is counter productive in dealing
with weak and backward peoples.
The less they have to live with
our military presence, the better,
and the less will they be suspicious,
the greater will be their confi-
dence. That is why the latter day
disciples of Kipling and the
apostles of the white man's bur-
den in Asia are poor advisers.
(c), 1966, The Washington Post Co.
4
The Trouble
With a 'More Perfect Union'
11T13
i!
'I'
-r~r
-,,s
By ED SCHWARTZ
Collegiate Press Service
PATRICK HENRY strode dog-
gedly around the room.
"I'M sorry, Jim. I've backed you
up to now. but this going too far.
That Constitution is the cheapest
power grab I've ever seen."
"Now Pat. you know that's not
true. I would hardly call a three-
months' convention to prevent this
contry from falling apart, a 'power
grab'." Madison brushed some
powder from his wig into a large
pewter dish on his desk.
"Falling apart? Who says we're
falling apart. You guys have been
manufacturing crises ever since
the war over taxation without
representation.'Why don't you do
something positive for a change?"
"PAT, HAVE YOU looked at the
financial situation of the Con-
federacy recently? We've got 13
separate governments out there,
each with its own budget. its own
currency, its own tariff walls, war-
ring with everybody else. You call
this a way to run a seaboard?
Why, we're just lucky the British
haven't decided to invade again.
Two more years like this, we
wouldn't stand a chance, and they
know it."
'So the answer is to put every-,
thing under centralized control. Is
that it, Madison? One big govern-
ment to oppress the people?"
"No. Mr. Hardy, that is not it at
all. We are, asking for one gov-
ernment so that the people of the
continent, as diverse as they are,
will begin to look upon this as
one country and not 13. We fought
the Revolution together, and we
should stay together. Otherwise,
we'll never be able to do anything
for anyone."
"MADISON, that's a lie and you
know it. As soon as you put these
in their own self-importance and
personal interests than the wel-
fare of their constituents; to rich
landowners who are keeping the
rest of the countryside in perpetual
debt-that's your idea of respon-
sive government.
"We've got safeguards against
the evils of faction in the new
plan. W've been through all that
before, but you won't listen. You're
so blinded by your dogmatic in-
sistence that a government should
not do any thing at all, that you
refuse to recognize the obsoles-
cence of the system you want to
perpetuate."
"NOW, JIM, don't get angry.
I'm trying to be reasonable. Didn't
I knock 'em dead with that 'Give
me liberty or give me death' speech
when the chips were down? I
want this country to succeed as
much as the next guy, but one
cent'al government just isn't the
answer.".
"Well, then what's wrong with
it? You're quick to criticize, but
I want some specifics."
"I've already given you one, Jim.
The tax structure is unfair-the
people won't get anything for their
money."
"And I've already given you an
answer. The people aren't getting
anything for their money as it
is. Currency is badly inflated; the
state governments can't handle
their own internal needs; ineffi-
ciency abounds. If anything,ithe
new system will be more efficient
and enable better allocation of
resources. What more do you want
me to say?"
"ALL RIGHT, then, skip that.
How representative do you think
a government can be with a few
people, elected for a minimum of
two years in the House, located
far away from their states, prone
to all the vices and corruptions
which any politician faces? Why,
They'de be coming from dif-
ferent parts of the country-that,
initself, would be enough to guard
against a clique. Besides, no one
institution would have all the
power-there would be checks
against abuses. We thought of that,
Pat, that's why we designed the
system the way we did. Don't you
read the newspapers?"
"YES, I READ them, but that
doesn't mean I have to like what
I read. I'm telling you that if you
give people a little power they'll,
abuse it."
"Pat, I'm surprised at you. Have
not you been in this business long
enough to know that money isn't
the only enticement for satisfac-
tion? Something honor and pres-
tige can be as important. If we
create a government with some
meat to it, we'll get better people
who want to serve on it-people
who will cenceive their success tn
terms of the public welfare: You
don't have that now. All you've
got is a bunch of people whose
personal pride is measured in
terms of the number of other
states they can attack."
"Honor! Prestige! Public In-
terest! Jim, you've been hanging
around Tom Jefferson too long.
What in the world are a bunch of
people who have control of a
standing army, a navy and militia
going to care about the public
interest for? Just you wait. They'll
get some chance to push the states
around, and they'll use it."
"Well, Pat, I must say I have
more confidence in the possibili-
ties of leadership than you do.
They're still going to have to
agree on policy, and if they do
that, then a lot of different people
with different interests are going
to have to come together, Maybe
they will, but if they do, you can
be pretty sure that the citizens
will be behind it. That's one of
the virtues of the new system-it
centralizes while insuring that
minorities will be protected.
"BESIDES, you talk about the
states as if they were abstract
entities. The government we en-
vision rests opn the wilt of the
people. Can you honestly say that
the people wifhin the states are
getting the kind of government
they need?"
"Well . . . uh . ..
"Unsure, eh? You should be
The fact is that they aren't and
we're going to change that"
3,
The Infinite Variety of London
p
By KAY HOLMES
Special To The Daily
"IF YOU CAN'T live in London
you can't live nowhere. right
mate?" Seconded by a nodding
head.
A bit blatant, perhaps, but de-
spite his intrepid manner this
cockney gentleman's statement is
not easily refuted. As a sweeping
generalization it implies many
things: that London is lively, that
London offers something for al-
most everyone, that London ill-
received lies to the fault of the
perceiver.
WHAT IS LONDON?
London is the capital of the
United Kingdom, the largest city
in the world. Existing almost since
time immemorial, it is the city
which Tacitus called "busy em-
porium for trade and traders." It
is also the city which withstood
man 4nd a violin entertaining a
queue. London is fog.
London is Lord Nelson looking
proudly down on the people in
Trafalgar Square. and London is
the pidgeon who rests comfort-
ably in the crack of Nelson's
bronze hat. London is baby prams
and dogs, both riding on double-
deckered buses. London is a bobbi
stopping traffic to take a little
boy across the street, and the
little boy reaching for his hand.
It is a pastry shop in every block
and a pub on every corner.
FOR THE AESTHETE, London
is culture. The granite grandeur of
the National Art Gallery rests
compatibly with the outside art
festival in Hampstead. Piccadilly
Circus radiates the life of the
theatre and the love of Eros. The
London Philharmonic and the
Royal Opera herald their events
on underground billboards. Chelsea
barely tranished by time and the
movement of men through history.
FOR THE REBEL, London is
freedom. It is the coffee house,
where by day the bearded youth
seeks solace in puffs of whipped
cream on hot chocolate. Or where
he sits and thinks opiate thoughts
of life and death, having discarded
love . . . and then puts a shilling
in the jukebox to hear "Barbara
Ann." It is Soho by night, where
the garrish lights and turbulent
sounds erase the momentary lone-
liness, momentarily.
For the child, London is en-
chantment. The excitement of a
contest with the unpredictable
closing doors of the underground
can only be rivalled by the wonder
of a first glance at Peter Pan in
Kensington Gardens. A trip to the
Tower, and then a reassuring look
to be sure that LondonBridge has
I
-1011,'117EII i gs -