r
Seventy-Fifth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVLRSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY Of BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Michigan MAD
kesFeeHikesFeeHikesFe
By Robert Johnston
LAST GLANCES
Student Parochialism
And Poor Education
9: - -: , , -- - -,j M
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 individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
THURSDAY, 8 APRIL 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: W. REXFORD BENOIT
Sororities Should Go Intellectual
Or Off Campus
THEFUTURE of the sorority system is
not a question of survival, as many
have said, but a question of choosing per-
spectives.
Two lines of action are open to sorori-
ties-continuation of their social orien-
tation or a change to a more intellectual
orientation.
Since sororities exist within the frame-
work of an intellectual community, it Is
obvious they are out of kilter with the
academic trends of'the University if they
continue their social orientation. Being
out of context with the academic com-
munity gives the sororities no right to
belong to it. Unless they at least attempt
a change to more intellectuality, they
should not be recognized by the Univer-
sity.
AN INTELLECTUAL perspective means
turning away from the social goals so
prevalent in the sorority system. It means
taking an interest and a part in the aca-
demic opportunities the University pre-
sents. Spending more time studying is
only a small part of those opportuni-
ties; nor do the various extra-curricular,
academic activities, such as lectures, con-
certs and plays, complete the picture.
What is also needed is the development
of an examining, skeptical, inquisitive at-
titude toward knowledge and the seeking
of knowledge.
The girl who participates in the aca-
demic life of the University in the fullest
sense does not have time, nor is she as
interested as at present, in the social
goals of sororities. This is not to say in-
dividual sorority members may not have
their own personal goals and values; it is
to say, however, that these goals and val-
ues apparently become lost in the face of
more external pressures.
These, external pressures are, abstract-
ly, the search for social prestige which
underlies .the system. Whom a sorority
member dates and' what kind of clothes
she wears-these are the kinds of factors
on which a girl's status depends.
Other external pressures are the re-
quired functions of sororities. Chapter
meetings, song practices, rush practices,
rush itself, pledge teas, day-long initia-
tion ceremonies and the practices for
them, all these reinforce the in-group so-
cial orientation.
[OREOVER, some sorority members feel
the sole purpose of sororities and fra-
ternities is to participate in campus ac-
tivities such as Winter Weekend and
Michigras. They feel these ' relieve aca-
demic pressures and are worthwhile to
the campus as a whole.
None of this is to say that if sororities
continue their social orientation they will
not survive, for there will always be
enough students at the University who
are interested in social prestige and would
join a group for this purpose. It is to say,
however, that if these are the only pur-
poses for the continuation of sororities,
then the present system doesn't deserve
to survive at all.
The only set-up whichwould justify the
continuation of sororities would be one
similar to Regent Allen Sorenson's pro-
posal of last spring: that sororities and
fraternities be separate from the Univer-
sity, i.e., without the status and privileges
of student organizations. Such a set-up
would avoid the anomaly of having so-
cially-directed groups tied to and partial-
ly supported by an intellectually-directed
institution.
BUT SORORITIES have the potential to
be much better than they are now.
It would be preferable if the system could
remain within the University and alter
its emphasis from the social to the intel-
lectual.
To do this, sororities might encourage
their members to participate in activi-
ties outside the house apart from Winter
Weekend and Michigras. Bringing back
to the house things they had learned
would be more beneficial to both the in-
dividuals and the group as a whole.
Allowing members to participate in the
things that interest them is certainly
more, worthwhile than the required func-
tions which presently consume the sorori-
ty member's time.
If sororities were to recruit the type of
person who could add to the house in-
tellectually, they would probably pledge
many of the girls who are now extremely
anti-sorority. These girls are the ones
who object to the social orientation sor-
orities have now and to the time-con-
suming activities sororities require.
But these girls are precisely what the
sororities need. They would participate
and add to the group simply by living
within the sorority house, and the chap-
ters would come to represent a much
larger cross-section of the campus. A
group of girls like these would be worthy
of a place In an academic community.
THE CRUX of the problem of perspec-
tives, then, rests with the type of girls
belonging to sororities. Perhaps sororities
could start to change perspective (if they
choose to) by revamping their rush pro-
cedures.
Adopting some of last fall's proposals
for an even more unstructured rush than
at present would be a beginning. Yet at
the time, Panhellenic Presidents' Coun-
cil consistently voted down measures that
would alleviate some of the superficial-
ity of rush, despite the fact that the lib-
eralizations were supported by the small-
er Panhel Executive Council. Hopefully,
this year's executives will continue along
the same paths as last year and con-
vince the larger presidents' body to fol-
low them. Perhaps the only way this can
happen is if individual members of the
system communicate to their presidents
their desire for changes.
AS THINGS STAND, however, the mem-
bers who have the ability to help the
system gain the perspective it needs are
quickly becoming disillusioned with and
resentful of the system they belong to and
have stopped caring for the system. If
the system is to keep these people and
change its perspective, somehow those
dedicated to its improvement must bring
it to a stop and demand that it evaluate
where it is going.
Otherwise ,the only place for it to go
is off-campus.
-JULIE W. FITZGERALD
IT'S LIKE musical chairs. When
there aren't enough to go
around, somebody has to lose.
Next fall John Q. Studentstands
to lose anything from $50 to $200
for fee hikes.
A dormitory fee hike this fall,
now a virtual though unofficial
certainty, can be expected to
range from $50 to $75, depending
on a whole host of factors. A tui-
tion hike would depend on what
action, or lack of it, a very unpre-
dictable Legislature takes in the
next two months on the University
appropriation.
THE ODDS ON a tuition hike
stack up something like this:
-If Gov. Romney's budget cut
is untouched by the Legislature,
chances are probably three out of
four that there will be a tuition
hike in addition to a dorm hike.
Right now, odds are maybe one in
three that the legislators will end
up adding anything from $1 to $5
million, with something in the
neighborhood of $2 million most
likely.
-With $2 million restored to
the University's budget, chances
would be slim that tuition would
be forced up this fall, especially
with a dorm hike at the same
time; but it could happen.
-Since junior-senior tuition for
out-of-state students has more
than doubled through four tuition
hikes beginning in 1956 (it has
gone from $470 to $960), and since
freshman-sophomore out-of-state
tuition is not far behind at $900,
the in-state students will prob-
ably get the bite this round, if it
comes.
-The 1962 tuition hike was $30
for in-state juniors and seniors.
The 1960 boostuwasr$30, from $250
to $280 for all in-state students.
These figures would probably be
minimums in considering the size
of possible hikes for the fall.
-There is, however, some room
for trade-offtwith the dormitory
hikes since the counseling system
does not have to come under the
self-liquidating stipulation applied
to the rest of the residence halls
system. That is, money from either
a dorm or tuition hike could go to
cover these costs.
THE MAIN question is, of
course, how two residence hall fee
hikes in two years can be justi-
fied. (Dorm fees were raised $34
last summer.) It's not too hard,
actually. The University residence
halls system is caught in the
middle of a whole series of pres-
sures, all of which are adding up
to crisis proportions.
First, the student population is
expanding rapidly, which means
the dorms are called on for many
more rooms-fast. Second, costs
of food service, the principal ex-
pense for the residence halls, are
spiraling. Third, a student em-
ploye wage boost in the fall will
require a wage boost for all em-
ployes. And fourth, the residence
halls have been allowed, particul-
arly over the past 5-10 years, to
offer a rapidly deteriorating en-
vironment for students. It is im-
perative that something be done
to reverse this trend.
Finally, and this is the crux of
the matter, the residence halls are
run on a self-liquidating basis.
This was fine when building and
food service costs were reason-
able, and when the student popu-
lation wasn't growing by one or
two thousand every fall. But now
construction costs have soared out
of sight. Whereas the University
could once provide dormitory
space at a capital expense of
$2800 per person, it now takes
over $6000-and that for Markley-
style cells.
Given the small capital base the
University has to work with, the
burdens falling on student assess-
ments to cover large mortgage
costs incurred to meet dormitory
needs have reached 'the present
figure of 21 cents per fee dollar.
SO NOW, with housing con-
struction on North Campus about
to begin, the University is bonded
to the hilt. Under the present sys-
tem, it simply can't do any more.
This year bonding payments due
are not even being fully met, one
reason for the hike. Further,
strange as it may seem, doubling
and tripling of 'rooms actually
costs more than the additional
fees collected. This results from a
strange interplayebetween food
costs added with each person and
bond payment requirements on
each dollar taken in.
It would seem clear at this point
that the self-liquidating stipula-
tion applied to residence halls
ought to be seriously re-evaluated.
Dorm fee hikes can only be stop-
gap measures if the University in-
tends to provide a living situation
in the dormitories that offers a
little more substance than a poor
man's Holiday Inn.
. The student is not expected to
cover the full costs of his class-
room education through tuition.
There is no reason he should be
expected to pay the full costs of
both present and future residence
halls, which, if they cannot add
much to his education, at least
should not destroy it.
FORTUNATELY, the rest of the
University is not in such a mess
as its residence halls system. The
relatively small amount that a
tuition hike would bring in would
not be the difference between the
rise and fall of the University. But
it might, if it comes, be the dif-
ference between a relatively good
and a relatively poor year.
But unlike the residence halls
situation, the poor student can
never really know how badly the
extra tuition is needed. It would
be impossible for him to discover
how many terrible teaching fel-
lows that extra money saved him
from. Or how many professors the
University was able to keep from
losing. Or how many library books
would not have been bought with,
out that extra money.
He can ask, but it won't do
much good.
In fact there might be a lot of
unfortunate questions coming up
in the fall. It's going to take a
lot of talking to explain whatever
fee hikes are finally approved.
And no amount of explanation- is
going to rectify the terrible dorm-
itory crowding that is inevitably
going to occur, no matter how
thorough the preparation. .And
then there are going to be 600
students, left roomless by the un-
completed high-rise, who will have
to be taken care of.
IT COULD be an interesting
year.
By MICHAEL SATTINGER
Associate Managing Editor, i964-'65
1THE DIVERSITY of the Univer-
sity is not matched by the
diversity within an individual stu-
dent in it, and herein lies the
basic failure of the University.
The University is large. On a
small campus, there is little
chance one could find many peo-
ple whose attitudes conform to
some degree with one's own; there
just wouldn't be that many people
and there would be too many at-
titudes and interests.
So the groups that form on a
large campus couldn't form on a
smaller one or within a smaller
population. But on a large campus
such as ours, sectionalism can, if
permitted, evolve.
And this is the case at the Uni-
versity: the campus is not even.
It is clearly split up into distinct
sectors, easily identifiable by
school, location and even dress.
There is, furthermore, great
antagonism between these groups.
Quadrangle residents are vegetable
"quaddies;" sorority residents are
fretting, brainwashed "dollies;"
fraternity residents are vulgar
"social beasts;" apartment dwell-
ers are insecure, outcast "GDI's;"
engineers are narrow-minded; hu-
manity students are irrelevant.
There is a tendency towards little
communication, less toleration and
no acceptance.
WHAT IS the result? First, a
student has freedom. Since he can
pick his friends from such a large
population, he can choose which
sector he wishes to belong to, He
is also free to avoid associating
with certain sectors.
The result is that, although he
is free to join any group, in prac-
tice he chooses to restrict himself
to a few.
At the University such differ-
entiation has been allowed to de-
velop, but there has been little
if any effort focused on this prob-
lem of parochialism. What can be
done to counter the centrifugal
forces on the campus?
FIRST, THE most often repeat-
ed criticism by outsiders of this
campus is that there is no place-
no one place-where students can
meet. The Union, the UGLI, the
League and other places are not
universally popularand are not
adequate for the job, and it is no
wonder that students spin off to
other places. A central gathering
place is essential.
Second, the value-laden conno-
tations of certain forms of resi-
dence must be destroyed. Aside
from the motivation of inhabi-
tants, there is little difference be-
tween Greek residences and apart-
ments except the natural results
of size.
Apartment residents are free to
choose their roommates; social
fraternities are a little less free.
In practice, apartment roommates
are drawn from within a friend-
ship group, so that the final choice
is much narrower; social fraterni-
ties must, because of their size, go
outside strict friendship groups, so
that within a. pledge class there
will be a wider range than within
an apartment.
BUT NOW let us put back that
one outside element, the motiva-
tion of inhabitants. Now one can
say that members of the pledge
class have one very important
attitude in common - they all
want to belong to a fraternity or
sorority; or, conversely, that those
who live in apartments want to
avoid the Greek system. It is this
added connotation which destroys
the diversity and range of both.
Residence halls are typically
characterized by the little respon-
sibility residents bear for their
own sustenance and the sterile
and animalistic existence going
on inside them. Because of their
organization, the halls tend to
scare off students, so that what
advantages they offer are lost.
Further, students who leave the
halls after the first year are left
with a distaste for the way of life
there, and this distaste naturally
falls upon those who remain un-
der the system.
IT FOLLOWS that the halls
must be made more attractive if
the negative connotations of liv-
ing in them are to be destroyed.
Third, subdivision of the stu-
dent population into sufficiently
small colleges-such as the resi-
dential college-will ensure that
sectors of parochial interest do
not crystallize. Admittedly, the
freedom of which I spoke might
be destroyed, but then that free-
dom is only an initial freedom; it
is hindered and destroyed by the
social pressures that establish the
group in the first place.
Students' inability to escape
sectionalism is matched by their
inability to think objectively. Time
after time, student requests pre-
sented to the administration dem-
onstrate an amazing degree of
narcissism. The ignorance and
lack of understanding in their pro-
posals result from a "we want"
attitude, and are easily refuted.
Student demands are further
weakened by the division among
students themselves; with section.
alism predominating, students are
too busy fighting among them-
selves.
FACULTY members are for the
most part no better. They perpetu-
ate teaching methods which con-
tradict the purpose of a univer-
sity. By pacing student learning,
faculty members lead students to
abdicate responsibility for moti-
vation. The result is usually a thin
soup of knowledge in a silver tu-
reen, a world of tests, magic-
markers and dex.
Educational goals are further
distorted by the aura of graduate
school. The primary purpose of
undergraduate education is to get
the student into graduate school,
according to some. There's no time
for much else.
If sectionalism prevails among
students and education is often
artificial, just what is left to a
college education? It is, basically,
a process of socialization, not edu-
cation. If the University allowed,
a student could go through four
years of life here, flunk all his
courses, get his degree, and no
one would know the difference. A
college degree indicates a person
is a college graduate. To show he
also learned something a student
has to get recommendations from
faculty.
AM I pessimistic? No, I'm not.
If I had the choice over again, I'd
still come to the University. The
teachers, the students, the institu-
tions are there--one only needs
the guts to go out and get what
he wants and the courage to lump
the rest
'4
-t
r
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Bluestone on 'U' White Paper'
To the Editor:
LAST WEEK Robert Johnston
wrote of student activism in
the student economic welfare area.
He discussed to some extent two
methods for proceding to solve
crucial problems of economic wel-
fare in the University.
One method he praised: the
specific issue was a research proj-
ect of the Graduate Student Coun-
cil regarding student parking. The
other Johnston disapproved of:
the call by the University of
Michigan Student Employes' Un-
ion (and later by SGC) for a
University administration "White
Paper" on its philosophy and
policy concerning the economic
welfare ofnstudents. Johnston dis-
approved for several reasons, in-
cluding:
1) No "White Paper" is possible
at this time because the Univer-
sity does not have a "philosophy"
in this area;
2) No one can.actually speak for
the University regarding a philos-
ophy or policy;
3) The students proposing the
"White Paper" have not proposed
any alternatives to the present
economic situation.
JOHNSTON is somewhat myopic
on all three counts. 1) One of the
main reasons for asking for a
"White Paper" at this time is
precisely that the University ad-
ministration and the Regents do
not have a philosophy or real
policy for dealing with questions
of student economic welfare. This
is the crux of the problem. Except
in limited areas, the University
has not done anything about mak-
ing this State University a place
where financial restrictions do not
hinder the great number of po-
tential college students in Michi-
gan. Its "no-policy" of non-in-
volvement has hindered many stu-
dents in the past and certainly at
this rate will hinder future stu-
dents.
It is necessary as a first step
for the University administration,
in connection with the Regents, to
formulate a basic philosophy of
student economic welfare, one that
can be the core of a meaningful
University community dialogue on
this pressing subject. With a phi-
losophy, the University will then
be able to move on to basic policy
decisions on specific issues such
as tuition, room and board rates,
book prices, Ann Arbor rents and
the general high cost of living in
this city.
Granted, there has been some
There is no reason, except pos-
sibly ignorance of the situation
surrounding the economic prob-
lems of student, which would pre-
clude a "White Paper" in this
area.
3) Contrary to Johnston's third
criticism, students, including
members of the UMSEU, have
been formulating alternatives to
the present economic situation
facing students in Ann Arbor. In
the area of housing alone, at least
two concrete proposals are being
considered, and students are at-
tempting to engage administrators
in their research.
One proposal involves the pos-
sibility of giving incentive to non-
profit, but wealthy social organ-
izations in order to interest them
in building low-cost student hous-
ing at nation-wide profit rates in-
stead of Ann Arbor profit rates.
Such organizations include vet-
erans groups, foundations and
unions.
A SECOND alternative would
have the University take the mil-
lions of dollars it has invested in
American business and reinvesting
it in student housing. The Univer-
sity would reap a fair profit and
at the same time lower the cost
of living to students In addition,
this would take the pressure off
residence halls.
At the present time, at least
two major studies of housing are
being done by students. The Voice
committee on housing has put
together impressive material on
this subject.
In other areas of student eco-
nomic welfare - such as book
prices, food costs and the like-
students are doing ample research.
Hopefully, they will be joined by
the rest of the University com-
munity, including the admin-
istration. This summer the UM-
SEU is going to be involved in
considerable new research to sup-
plement existing studies.
THE PROBLEMS of student eco-
nomic welfare are indeed complex
and difficult. But we must begin
to look for solutions. Specific al-
ternatives to the present situa-
tion are helpful, such as GSC's
parking problem-E sticker pro-
gram. But broader programs like
the "White Paper" must be ad-
vanced in addition. The adminis-
tration must make its position
known, and the University com-
munity as a whole must act.
-Barry Bluestone, '66
only why standards ought to be
enforced and actions policed, but.
also precisely what these stan-
dards are!
At last we have at our dis-
posal objective -criteria, so long
and vainly sought, to decide on
appointments, promotions, faculty
wards, student prizes and,'I would
urge, grades! At last we have been
handed the magic formula that
will put an end to all delinquencies.
--juvenile and adult!
I would only like to make one
modest suggestion: the quiet cir-
culation of a four-page memor-
andum can hardly be said to rise
to the occasion and to the nobility
of the task. Times being what
they are, I would, instead, propose
an all-out dress-in. Outstanding
members of the local Rotary Club,
selected film actors (preferably
from upper class families) and
mannequins from the more con-
servative fashion journals could
be hired as speakers, or dressers;
volunteering faculty could parade
on the Diag in their best suits,
whitest shirts and most decorous
ties.
Topics of discussion might range
from "The Good Old Days" to
"Manners Maketh the Man," from
"If Gold Rust, What Will Iron
Do?" to "The Young Executive's
Choice in Fashion."
AS TO possible resolutions, the
following might be a beginning:
1) That faculty members who
can produce evidence that the
main effect on their students rests
with their impeccable exterior be
permitted to change their suits
at least once during every class
hour, thus doubling their influ-
ence; 2) That faculty members
who teach in a manner that makes
students .insensitive to their at-
tire be considered subversive and
be banished from this campus and
3) That no effort be spared to
stop the University from trying to
be like such schools as Yale, Har-
vard, Columbia, the University of
Chicago, instead helping it to
approximate, as closely as possible,
the "neat and clean, well-kept and
well-equipped" Delta College
which Prof. Rice found so enviably
wholesome.
-Ingo Seidler
German departmaent
'Inadequacy'
To the Editor:
A NUMBER of my colleagues,
4
;
Honors: Is It Worth It?
"HONORS PROGRAMS, designed to pro-
voke an opportunity for able and well-
motivated students to assume a large
measure of responsibility for their own
education, represent one of the most im-
portant concepts to develop in higher ed-
ucation during the last 35 years."
This quotation by Prof. Robert B. Mac-
Leod appears at the beginning of the
Honors Program leaflet. Apparently this
statement was chosen because it repre-
sented the philosophy of the University's
Honors Program. But are the aims of the
program being realized?
Within the present educational struc-
ture is it possible for the Honors student
to assume a larger measure of respon-
sibility for his own education than the
non-Honors student can?
THE HONORS STUDENT must conform
to the same stifling distribution re-
special housing?
Smaller lectures, yes, but the recita-
tions tend to be the same size as in non-
honors sections. And it is true that the
honors sections of the introductory cours-
es are not led by teaching fellows.
AS FOR HONORS housing, the worth
of this endeavor is presently under de-
bate. Honors housing is based on the
idea that the educational process can be
equally or even more effectively contin-
ued outside the classroom, given the en-
couragement of helpful conditions.
But, in practice this idea does not seem
to be working out. The tone of the
Honors houses is the same as that in the
rest of the dormitories. The speakers who
come to the Honors houses are faced
with embarrassingly small audiences. It is
obvious that these so-called brighter stu-
dents find it hard to work overtime and
BRIDGES 300 YEARS
Harmonious 'Galileo'
High Note 'of Season
AtTrueblood Auditorium
IN AN AGE which presupposes reason as the guide to truth, it is
difficult to imagine a time when sense perceptions were denied
and individual thinking was denounced. But the University Players'
presentation of Bertoldt Brecht's "Galileo" last night reawakened
this historical dilemma very effectively.
The thematic construction of "Galileo" centers upon the issue
of freedom of scientific inquiry when it contradicts established
authority. Although he employed the life of Galileo Galilei to illustrate
this conflict, Brecht's epic drama far transcends the 17th Century,
and his didactic approach successfully penetrates 20th Century minds.
Brecht's theatrical techniques are as anti-Aristotelian as were
Galileo's concepts, and the production employed those techniques
skillfully. Directed by Dr. William P. Halstead, the play's theatricality
was accentuated by its multi-level, bare Elizabethan setting, by scenic
projections and by the free movement of the actors outside of the
picture-frame context.
THESE FACTORS enhanced the impact of the play: it was
presented without pretense and with a directness which respected the
intelligence of the audience. Obvious unreality was rampant especially
in the delightful carnival scene of "All Fool's Day, 1632," as singer
James Marsh employed every musical comedy device he knew.
Although a cast of 24 portrayed 79 roles-necessitating some
amazingly fast costume changes-"Galileo" never ceased to be a
dramatic unity. Stephen Wyman played Galileo with living humanism
-at times overpowering, at times whimsical. Douglas Sprigg as
Andrea Sarti excuded a vitality which made, him as believeable as
a boy of 10 at the start of the play as he was as a man of 40 at
i
<I
I
+.