She Mr4loatt Bal'o f
Seventy-Fifth Year
EDrrED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

Each Time I Chanced To See Franklin D.
The University Presidency: Present and Future
by H. Neil Berkson

II'

Where Opinions AreP'O e, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, McH.
Truth Will Prevail

NEWs PHoNE: 764-0552

T
1

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
SUNDAY, 10 JANUARY 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT JOHNSTON

University Growth:
Some of the Drawbacks

IT'LL BE JUST THE SAME, only bigger.
This is the major theme of the recent-
ly-released document outlining the Uni-
versity's plans for expansion from now
until 1975. While presenting almost stag-
gering projections of sheer numbers, it
reassures us, that the vital statistics-
students-to-faculty and in-state-to-out-
of-state-student ratios, for example -
will remain constant. The net implication
is that the character of the University
will endure, and hence that only an irra-
tional aversion to growth per se could ar-
gue against the expansion plans. "If you
find the University agreeable, or at least
tolerable, now," the report seems to say,
"you'll be happy enough with it in 1975."
But there are many vital statistics ig-
nored by the report, and they indicate
that a University of 50,000 will be sub-
stantially different from one of 30,000.
While none of these effects are logically
necessary concomitants of growth, it is
highly unlikely that any of them would
in fact be avoided. The hidden implica-
tions of growth are too numerous to ex-
plore completely; a few examples will
have to do. But these three examples
alone constitute a formidable argument
against this sort of expansion.
fWIRST, there is the administrative
problem. It is hard enough to run a
static University; to run one that is
growing by 2000 students a year without
losing quite a lot in the process is virtual-
ly impossible. '
We have already seen this. The Univer-
sity was sadly unprepared for the wave
of students that arrived this fall, as the
students still trying to live and study in
"doubled up" rooms will testify.
The usual cheerful administrative as-
sertion that things are much worse at
other institutions only begs the ques-
tion; University President Harlan Hatcher
has assured students and faculty that
growth will bring no decline in the qual-
ity of they University. But there will be
another housing crisis next fall.
SECOND, there is the likelihood that,
although the University as a whole
would remain as cosmopolitan as it is
now, the individual student's life would
be even more provincial.
The stereotypical example of provin-
cialism is the affiliate system, but the
tendency of students to seek their own
kind is equally evident in the selection of
apartment roommates and even in the
formation of cliques in the relatively
heterogeneous residence halls. The only
path to emotional survival on this cam-
pus is to find a small group of some sort;
the easiest group to find and join is the
one most like oneself.
BUT WHAT'S THIS got to do with
growth? The size of these friendship
groups won't change very much; the ca-
pacity of the individual student to be in-
timate with people is not going to grow
by 67 per cent even if the University
does. The number of groups would have
to grow.
And so, to the extent that students are
successful in seeking out their owi kind,
growth would mean that the student
would be able to find a group that match-
es himself even more closely than any
he canl find today. It would mean a great
increase in the already too great tendency
of students to segregate themselves by
geographical, ethnic and economic cri-
teria.
In a somewhat oversimplified micro-
cosm, it would mean that the upper-
middle-class Lutheran mathematics hon-
ors student from Illinois, who now has
to undergo the unbearably exotic exper-

ience of living with an upper-middle-class
H. NEIL BERKSON, Editor
KENNETH WINTER EDWARD HERSTEIN
Managing Editor Editorial Director
ANN GWIRTZMAN............... Personnel Director
BILL BULLARD ........... ............ Sports Editor
MICHAEL SATTINGER,... Associate Managing Editor
JOHN KENNY ............ Assistant Managing Editor
DEBORAH BEATTIE. Associate Editorial Director
LOUIS LIND ..........Assistant Editorial Director in
Charge of the Magazine
TOM ROWLAND .............Associate Sports Editor
GARY WINER ............... Associate Sports Editor
STEVEN HALLER .... Contributing Editor
MARY LOU BUTCHER .......... Contributing Editor
JAMES KESON ........ . .. . .... Chief Photographer
NIGHT EDITORS. David Block, John Bryant, Robert
Johnston, Laurence Kirshbaum, Karen Weinhouse.

Lutheran mathematics honors:
from New York, now would be
find and join up with someone
an exact carbon copy of himself.

student
able to
who is

WITH CLARENCE HILBERRY finally in possession
of a successor at Wayne, the next major figure
to retire from the state's educational scene will be no
less than University President Harlan Hatcher. Currently
moving toward his 14th year in office, President Hatcher
has already declared that he will step down during the
University's 1967 Sesquicentennial. By that time he
hopes to have capped the $55 million fund drive an-
nounced last November.
Speculation regarding his successor is already cock-
tail party fare-depending on who the guests are. Vice-
President for Academic Affairs Roger Heyns has sig-
nificant faculty support. Defense Secretary Robert
McNamara, a former Ann Arbor resident, is mentioned
by some. The current Bowling Green University presi-
dent, William T. Jerome, a young progressive "on his
way up," is named by others.
THE TALK is still off-hand, however, and at this
point the more important issue is anevaluation of
Mr. Hatcher's presidency, an exercise which will occur
with more and more frequency in the next two years.
The one liability of most observers will be their lack
of perspective-few of us, including faculty, have been
around the University since 1951. We will have to rely
on others for many observations.

It is relatively clear that President Hatcher got
off to a bad start by vetoing a measure to halt
fraternity-sorority bias, was nearly destroyed by the
McCarthy Era two years later and earned no laurels
in the Sigma Kappa affair of 1958. Nevertheless, in the
past two years his grasp of the University appears to
have become secure. His attitude, particularly toward
student freedoms and responsibilities, has opened up
quite a bit, and he has made a tremendous effort to
reach more students. A partial listing of some things
to his credit shows the following:
-A refusal to bar Frank Wilkinson and Carl
Braden, convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing
to answer HUAC members, from speaking on campus
in the face of right-wing pressures;
-A preference for the quarter system as opposed
to three 15-week terms-a stand which looks increasingly
correct;
-Willingness to hold the first student convocation
last November and, more important, willingness to go
ahead with another one despite a disappointing turnout;
-Unequivocal-if belated-support for the Reed Re-
port on the Office of Student Affairs, backed up in
deed by the naming of Prof. Richard Cutler to the OSA
Vice-Presidency.

-Defense of the right of Berkeley student leader
Mario Savio to speak on the Diag here.
-The promulgation of a "blue ribbon" off-campus
housing committee to meet needs and solve problems.
Both faculty and students are beginning to recognize
the quality job of running the University that President
Hatcher has done. His last two years appear to promise
more of the same.
SOMETIME before Christmas, while the Free Speech
Movement was gathering most of the headlines, the
University of California-Berkeley discontinued journal-
ism as a major because "it is neither an art nor a
science."
The journalism department here is just as ridiculous,
but instead of cutting down, the department is now
trying to turn a two-year masters' program into three
years. The program doesn't even include a thesis. It is
merely a conglomeration of "workshops" and random
courses outside the department.
By way of comparison, Columbia's excellent journal-
ism school runs a one-year program. So does North-
western. What Berkeley started, we should finish.
* * * *
"YOU KNOW," she said, "I'm not so sure I like Michi-
gan as a jock school."

I

THIRD, growth will reinforce the alarm-
ing trend toward specialized education.
It seems hardly coincidental that spe-
cialization has grown along with enroll-
ment. This is only the 30th anniversary
of the last literary college class in which
students were not forced to choose a ma-
jor, yet already the concept of a major is
almost obsolete. In very few departments
do the "concentration requirements" pro-
vide a broad view even of that field. Each
department's catalogue consists of so
many specialized courses that the stu-
dent must either choose a maj or within
a major or content himself with a broader
selection of courses which don't relate
to one another because each course is so
specialized.
Sheer growth isn't the only reason for
this specialization which so fragments
the undergraduate's experience. But it is
an important one which is often over-
looked. Professors here are given a good
deal of freedom in choosing what they
will teach. Given the choice, they gen-
erally pick the area in which they are
doing research-a very specialized area.
NOW, IF THE DEPARTMENT is rela-
tively small, this faculty member will
be forced to broaden his course to cover
more area; there simply won't be enough
people to teach a whole course in each
specialty. But if that department ex-
pands to dozens and even hundreds of
members, each of them will be able to
offer his own narrow course; the depart-
ment will still be able to pride itself on
covering the field completely. Trouble is,
the student would still be able to take only
about the same number of courses -
which means that, even more than now,
his college education would consist of a
potpourri of unrelated courses.
A side effect might also be noted. As
a department grows, it becomes more and
more a self-sufficient community, and
walls between departments (and even
within them) grow higher and stronger.
Soon perhaps each department would
have its own building, as the art his-
tory department already has and psy-
chology (a department larger than many
small colleges) and mathematics may
soon have. It will take quite an inter-
disciplinary movement to break down
such isolation.
IT IS TRUE that none of these conse-
quences need occur even if the Uni-
versity does hit 50,000 in the next dec-
ade. Optimists will point to the residen-
tial college as a device with which to
fight isolation and specialization. With
such possibilities open, if we all pull to-
gether, it is argued, we can grow without
suffering.
The likelihood that we all shall pull to-
gether is very slim. Despite the attempt
at University-wide planning which this
report represents, the key decisions made
daily in the schools and colleges are sel-
dom made with the University as a whole
in mind. And even if the various devices
were applied enthusiastically, they would
be unable to keep up with growth. The
first residential college is only an experi-
ment, the results of which will only be-
gin to be clear by 1975. Meanwhile, what
about the other 48,800 students?
THERE IS ANOTHER theme, a familiar
one, which runs through the report on
growth. It is the old inevitability theme.
Because college-age population will grow,
it seems to say, the University of Michi-
gan must grow correspondingly. This is
the only rational course; any major de-
viation from it would be unrealistic.
But there are alternatives. There is
nothing sacred about the percentage of
the state's students which the University

takes; it is clearly absurd to maintain
this quota if it means sacrifices in the
education of everyone included in the
quota. It costs no more to build new
buildings and hire faculty for a new col-
lege elsewhere in the state than it costs
to do it here, and both the new college
and the University would be better for it.
THE UNIVERSITY, with 30,000, has al-

:

THE NEW SENATE MAJORITY WHIP:
A Personal Institution and a Personable Candidate

I

Last In a Two-Part Series
By HAROLD WOLMAN
Special To The Daily
WASHINGTON-Why did Sen-
ate Democrats elect Sen. Rus-
sell Long (D-La), a Southern con-
servative with some radical agrar-
ian tendencies, to the post of
party whip in the Senate?
The answer to this intriguing
question is not found solely in
the ideology and policy prefer-
ences of the Senate Democrats, a
body largely made up of non-
southern liberals. Instead, par-
ticularly in matters of internal
organization, it is necessary to
view the Senate as an institution
with its own social system-a web
of social and personal felation-
ships within a specific set of
formal arrangements.
With this approach. it is pos-
sible to solve the riddle of Long's
election.
* * *
THE FIRST FACTOR which
must be considered is the position
of majority leader Mike Mans-
field (D-Mon), In the past, the
whip has not been elected in
caucus except in a pro forma
manner; he had been selected for
the post by the majority leader.
Mansfield,rhowever. has not
been a notoriously strong major-
ity leader, nor has he attempted
to be so. Unsuited by tempera-
ment for the type of personalized
leadership which Lyndon Johnson
gave the Senate, he has provided
a more collective democratic lead-
ership. Predictably, he did not
exert his power behind a single
whip candidate, but threw the de-
cision to the party as a whole.
The President himself was
pledged to neutrality; he could
hardly have been otherwise. A
three candidates-Long. Sen. John
Pastore (D-RI) and Sen. Mike
Monroney (D-Okla)-were his
personal friends and supporters.
To back any one would have risk-
ed the enmity of the other two,
and that is not the way Lyndon
Johnson has reached his present
position.
* * *
FURTHERMORE, the annoint-
ing of any one candidate by the
President would have been viewed
by many Senate Democrats-
some still smarting from his "dic-
tatorial" handling of party affairs
while serving as majority leader
-as an unwarranted interference
by the President in internal legis-
lative affairs.
Nevertheless, it was widely
thought after Humphrey's nom-
ination as Johnson's running-mate
that Pastore was the President's
favorite to take over Humphrey's
whip post. Pastore had been per-
sonally selected by Johnson to
deliver the keynote address at
the Democratic convention, and
the Rhode Island senator as
effusively congratulated by the
President for the success of the
speech.
However, Pastore hesitated to
declare his candidacy formally,
perhaps waiting for more con-
crete White House support. The
support was not forthcoming.
AT THE SAME TIME, Demo-
cratic senators began to express
doubts about Pastore's ability to
handle the whip job. All agree
thathe has a brilliant mind ad
is one of the sharpest, most ef-
fective Senate debaters. However,
he is cold and aloof with his col-
leagues. and his short temper
over the years has won him the
dislike of many senators who have
been the objects of his scorn. At
the same time. some senators re-
sented the almost slavish follow-
ing of the administration line
which Pastore took.
As associate of Sen. Wayne

tore to the punch. Russell Long
announced his candidacy shortly
after the convention.
Long, in many ways, is the
opposite of Pastore. Friendly, well-
liked and respected, he is con-
sidered one of the deans of the
Senate, having served there since
1948.
The contrasting methods of
campaigning for the whipship the
two employed emphasizes the dif-
ferences between the two men.
Pastore announced his candidacy
shortly after Long and wrote for-
mal, identical letters to every
Democratic senator asking for
support. He took no other action.
Long, on the other hand, made
use of personal telephone calls
and visits to his friends and po-
tential supporters, first lining up
a strong bloc of southern senators
behind him. He had solicited sup-
porteduring the 88th Congress,
before either Pastore or Mo-
roney had formally declared.
* * *
LIKE PASTORE, Long has the
reputation of being atcompetent
and effective legislator. He won
acclaim for his handling of the
administration's tax cut bill last
year, when Harry Byrd (D-Va)
stepped aside as chairman of the
finance committee to let Lng
manage the bill. Long is second i
seniority on Byrd's committee, and
he received the support of almost
the entire Democratic membership
of that body in his bid for the
whip post.
A strike against Long, however,
was that he represented a south-
ern state and had voted against
the Civil Rights Act, making him-
self anathema to civil rights
groups.
But, unlike some of his fellow
southern senators, Long is not
known among his colleagues as a
racist or a race baiter. Long was
one of the first southern senators
to urge compliance with the 1964
Civil Rights Act. According to one
of his staff, he, like most other
senators, expects little additional
civil rights legislation will be con-
sidered for some time. What legis-
lation will be proposed can be
expected to deal mostly with vot-
ing rights, and here, according to
the staff member, Long feels he
will be able to support any reason-
able proposals.
* *
LONG'S OTHER PROBLEM was
that he has not consistently sup-
ported the administration. Besides
the Civil Rights Act, he has op-
posed medicare and the nuclear
test ban treaty. Nonetheless, he
campaigned actively for the en-
tire Democratic ticket last fall
when other politicians, both in
Louisiana and elsewhere in the
South, found it more expedient
to remain quiet.
Senator Monroney entered the
race late and conducted a iairiy
vigorous campaign. Like Long,
Monroney is thoroughly _iked and
respected, and, as a moderate
from the Southwest on friendly
terms with all elements of the
party, he was thought to be the
perfect compromise candidate.
His age (62) enhanced his ap-
peal because it made it unlikely
that the Democrats would be giv-
ing him the inside track to the
next majority leader if they chose
him as whip.
MONRONEY had several prob-
lems, however, which he ultimate-
ly found impossible to overcome.
He entered the race too late-
several of his possible supporters
had already committed them-
selves to one of the other can-
didates. He was known as "too
nice a guy," one who would not
be able to engage in the some-
times rough give and take neces-
sary for the whip post.

and 20 for Pastore. When the
Oklahoma senator dropped out
on the second ballot, Long won
easily, receiving 41 votes to 25
for Pastore and two for Sen. Phil-
lip Hart (D-Mich).
DESPITE the decisiveness of
Long's victory, the issue was in
doubt right up to the day of the
caucus. However, the deciding fac-
tors occurred weeks before when
the highly respected Sen. Clinton
Anderson (D-NM)-an establish-
ment liberal termed by one staff
man as "the liberal's front man"-
and Sen. Paul Dougles (D-Ill)-
the liberal's liberal-both publicly
declared for Long.
Both Douglas and Anderson are
on the finance committee with
Long, and both have worked in-
timately with the Louisiana sena-
tor. Douglas considers him an
economic liberal in the populist
tradition and a man of the people.
The Illinois liberal fondly re-
members Long's role in the com-
munication satellite bill filibuster,
led by Long, Douglas and the
late Sen. Estes Kefauver (D-
Tenn). And the floor manager of
that bill which Long and Douglas
claimed would give- away to a
large corporation what rightfully
belonged to the people was none
other than Sen. John Pastore.
As a member of Sen. Douglas'

staff commented, in trying to ex-
plain his boss' behavior, "Why
did he vote for Long? He likes
him!"
* * *
HOWEVER, other considera-
tions may also have been present
in Douglas' mind. Long is second
in seniority on the finance com-
mittee and will take over the
chairmanship when Harry Byrd
retires or dies (although the latest
rumor around Washington is that
Byrd will never retire and possibly
never die).
Should Long become chairman,
Douglas may feel the close friend-
ship he shares with the Louisiana
senator may induce him to more
closely follow the advice of Doug-
las, a former University of Chi-
cago economics professor, in legis-
lative matters.
In Anderson's case, it has, been
suggested that some sort of an
agreement may have been made
with Long on medicare, an item
of which Anderson is co-sponsor.
Long voted against the Senate-
passed medicare legislation last
fall, but then, as one of the Sen-
ate conferees, vigorously support-
ed the Senate bill when it wznt
to conference with the House,
which had passed no medicare
provisions.
But whether Anderson therefore
supported Long simply out of gra-

titude, whether a deal had already
been arranged last fall, whether
Anderson has extracted promises
of future support for medicare
from Long, or whether the whole
issue had anything to do with
Anderson's support can only be
speculation.
* * *
HOPFULLY much of the puzzle
surrounding Long's election has
been dispelled by the above analy-
sis. One thing at least seems clear.
Russell Long did not capture the
whip post because he was a con-
servative southerner, but rather
because he was Russell Long, a
man whose personality and ex-
perience made him well suited for
the job.
Undoubtedly the fact that he
was a southerner helped by pro-
viding him with a solid bloc of
votes. It also helped by putting
him in a position of committee
seniority which a non-southerner
might not have. Nonetheless, it is
impossible to think of more than
two or three other southern sen-
ators who could have begun to
approach the support which Long
accumulated.
Although not divorced from out-
side forces the Senate is a per-
sonal institution--and often must
be viewed as such before its ac-
tions can be fully understood.

't

y

T

I.

The Week in Review
Students Gone, work Goes On

T

By JOHN KENNY
Assistant Managing Editor
and LOUISE LIND
Assistant Editorial Director
THIS WAS the week that saw
an estimated 28,000 students
return to school and 950 bright-
eyed coeds attend their first
sorority rush mixers.
But while students enjoyed tur-
key, champagne and the Rose
Bowl and finally made the bi-
annual pilgrimage back to Ann
Arbor, the business of running a
University-and all the other ac-
tivity infinitely interrelated with
it-continued.
On the state level, two new de-
velopmentsoccurred which will
directly affect the University. A
new system for processing budget
requests submitted by state col-
leges and universities may mean
greater coordination of financial
affairs among Michigan's 10 state-
supported schools.
The new plan calls for the
schools to submit their requests
to the State Board of Education
which will review them and for-
ward them to the governor as a
unified package. Colleges cur-
rently present their requests to
the governor's office, which re-
vises the requests and submits
them to the Legislature.
THE SECOND development is
a ruling from State Atty. Gen.
Frank Kelley indicating that
once the state Legislature makes
its annual dispersement of build-
ing funds to the colleges and uni-
versities, the control by state of-
ficials over use of the funds
ceases.
Kelley's ruling, while it is only
advisory, has overturned a pro-
vision in the current legislative
construction bill which grants the
state controller a number of con-
trols over school expenditures, in-
cluding review and approval
authority over building contracts.
The opinion, in effect, has con-
firmed the autonomy of the 10

at Michigan Technological Univer-
sity, was made the new Tech
president.
Both appointments are, of
course, of significance to the Uni-
versity. However, the WSU ap-
pointment struck closer to home
than may at first seem apparent:
three University men, including
Vice-President for Academic . Af-
fairs Roger W. Heyns, reportedly
were underaconsideration by the
Wayne Board of Governors for
the post.
* * *
ON THIS CAMPUS, Prof. N.
Edd Millersofsthe speech depart-
ment and assistant to Heyns, ac-
cepted an appointment as chan-
cellor of the Reno campus of the

University of Nevada.
In California, the regents at the
University of California replaced
Edward Strong as chancellor of
the Berkeley campus.
The new chancellor, Martin
Meyerson, seems to be more liberal
than his controversial predecessor:
he rapidly issued a set of campus
rules authorizing student political
activity at specified times and
places.
Leaders of the Free Speech
Movement which led the Berkeley
demonstrations have announced
plans to disband after Meyerson's
relaxation of campus regulations,
providing "the regents do not im-
pose any more limits on student
freedom at Berkeley."

''

I.

ANN ARBOR DANCE THEATRE:
Concert Highlighted -by
ExcitingChoreograph
THE ANN ARBOR Dance Theatre presented its second concert last
night at Ann Arbor High School. This young organization sponsored
by the Ann Arbor Recreation Department has now proven that it
has assembled the most talented choreographers and, dancers in
the area.
The program opened with a work titled "Regale" choreographed
by Gay Delanghe. Miss Delanghe has shown a mastery of this work
over the past year as indicated by the fact that this number, in
reverse, also closed the concert. Certainly, if one can perform a number
forward and backward one has mastered it. In this performance the
work reached a degree of polish and precision of the pure rondo
form which it had not previously achieved.
This concert contained three outstanding numbers: "And So
Forth," choreographed by Taya Bergmann easily won her the laurel
of "most creative choreographer." While the number needs work and
cutting, the mechanical precision of five unaccompanied dancers was
a new and exciting concept. The second noteworthy number was
Judith Nestel's "Harvest" to original music by accompanist Quin
Adamson. Mrs. Nestel had an exciting musical score to work with
and her choreography and dances did it justice.
THE THIRD APPROACH which must be noted was the use of
the poetry of Dylan Thomas in the number "Fern Hill," choreographed

I

..
"t
x1

A,

M(

r