100%

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

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

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

April 09, 1965 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1965-04-09

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

Seuenty-FiftbhYear
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS

LAST GLANCES
Activism and a New Breed

Where Opinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, Mica.
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,
FRIDAY, 9 APRIL 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: LEONARD PRATT

A Possible Alternative

To Johnson S
PRESIDENT Lyndon B. Johnson's plan
for eventual peace in Viet Nam, as he
elucidated it in his Wednesday night
speech, will probably never approach
reality. This is because Johnson distorted
the central facts of the situation in Viet
Nam-as the United States government
has distorted the situation all along-
and then based his conclusions on the dis-
tortions.
Johnson said that the U.S. is ready
to begin, without prior conditions, diplo-
matic discussions to end the war. The
aim: "An independent South Viet Nam,
securely guaranteed and able to shape its
own relationships to others, free from
outside interference, tied to no alliance,
a military base for no other country."
FIRST OF ALL, Johnson's statement is
doubletalk. The President expressed
the wish for an "independent" country
able "to shape its own relationships with
others." But he then stipulated that it be
"tied to no alliance, a military base for
no other country." If South Viet Nam is
to be truly independent, it must have the
right to decide whether or not to ally
itself with other 'countries, and must not
be required to bow to the wishes of any
nation which wants it to be neutral-in-
cluding the United States.
Johnson's aim ("independent enforced
neutrality"?) for South Viet Nam is not
only internally contradictory, but also
goes against all of the facts of the sit-
uation in South Viet Nam today.
Most important; Johnson did not say
he would negotiate with the National
Liberation Front, which, according to an
estimate by Walter Lippmann, controls
three-quarters of South Viet Nam's land
and commands the allegiance of two-
thirds of its people in the daytime. At
night its control of both land and people
becomes more extensive. According to
the New York Times, high administra-
tion officials ,say that the U.S. will not
deal with the Front, calling it only an
"agent of North Viet Nam."
THE GOVERNMENT" has thus limited
itself to dealing with Hanoi. In its
own "white paper," however, the govern-
ment conceded that more than three-
quarters of the Front's personnel is

Doubletalk
Southern in origin and that more than
three-quarters of its weapons are cap-
tured from the Southern forces. Can the
government hope to halt what it admits
is largely an indigenous rebellion by con-
ferring with the leaders of a nearby
sympathetic country? North Viet Nam's
Ho Chi Minh is the morale leader of the
Front and does supply it to a limited ex-
tent, but experts on Viet Nam say he
could not halt the rebellion if he wished
because of his limited role.
Even if Johnson were to negotiate with
the right people-the Front-he certainly
could not hope to bargain for neutrality.
After all, the South is mostly controlled
by the Front now. Why should it wish to
give this up for neutrality?
THE ONLY WAY the United States can
hope to begin effecting a solution in
Viet Nam is first to deal directly with the
Front, which has the support of most
South Vietnamese outside Saigon. Any
government of South Viet Nam-to be
successful-must include the Front.
Second, the U.S. must also start to do
what it should have done ten years ago,
when it first came to South Viet Nam-
pressure the Saigon government into
making meaningful social and economic
reforms. Dissatisfaction in the country-
side because of lack of such reforms and
persistence of feudal practices was the
central cause of the national liberation
movement in the first place.
The moderate, reforming elements of
Saigon would also be imperative as mem-
bers of a coalition government, since they
would represent the thousands of pro-
U.S. Vietnamese in Saigon.
THE U.S. COULD NOT expect such a
coalition government to be neutralist;
most likely, it would lean far to the left.
But if the U.S., along with other powers,
were to guarantee the country freedom
from external military domination-along
with complete policy freedom--the coun-
try could survive. This sketch of a solu-
tion is surely more feasible than the
doubletalking, devious courses outlined
by the President Wednesday night.
--ROBERT HIPPLER
Acting Associate Editorial Director

By MARY LOU BUTCHER
Contributing Editor, 1964-65
I'HE UNIVERSITY student leads
a life which is both envied and
criticized but rarely appreciated
by anyone outside the halls of the
academy. Outside observers reduce
his world to books and papers on
one hand and parties and ath-
letics on the other. He is not
thought to have pressing interests
divorced from the day-to-day re-
quirements of the academic time-
table. He is credited with a little
knowledge about a lot of things
and commended for pursuing a
liberal education. He is cited for
whatever achievement may be
signified by his grade-point aver-
age. He is laughed at for his im-
maturity and his idealism, but
nonetheless encouraged to learn
for himself. And on the whole, he
is exonerated from responsibility.
Such attitudes are responsible
for perpetuating the concept of a
student as a member of a sub-
stratum of society, sealed off from
Life. Paradoxically, it is also as-
sumed that only the college grad-
uate, with degree in hand, is qual-
ified to grapple with the tests
which contemporary society poses
and will continue to pose. How
the supposedly-alienated student
is ever to comprehend and tackle
societal needs after four- five-
or eight-year incubation period is
not considered, but rather is in-
corporated into the general mys-
tique of higher education.
WITHIN the framework of these
narrowly-conceived views, it is no
wonder that burgeoning student
activism gives cause for surprise
and even alarm. Reactions to stu-
dent demonstrations, petitions,
protests and political endeavors
range from utter mystification to
rank indignation. Activism is just
an extra piece which does not fit
the puzzle of student life as it
has been theoretically carved out
and clung to.
What is missing from the out-
siders' analyses is the taste of
rootlessness which today's stu-

dent experiences and the conse-
quent acute need for commitment
which he senses. Within the last
four years the American student
has demonstrated within and
without the nation. Growing
memberships withinstudent di-
rect action groups and political
parties portend a continuing ac-
tivist element within he univer-
sities and a lifting of the paralysis
which so long existed.
Having been reared in a climate
of ostensible peace and prosperity,
in a society geared to the bright-
est and the hardest-working, at
a tempo prizing urgency and ef-
ficiency, the student observesthat
these factors are debilitating to a
large proportion of society. And
he finds them hollow insofar as
they demarcate the environment
in which he is to live, work, love.
WHEN the network ofdmiddle-
class values is stretched to its
limit, it fails the student. It re-
jects involvement, tolerance, cre-
ativity and self-sacrifice out of
hand. It promotes in their stead
complacency, expediency and-iso-
lation.
Perceiving that many -of these
values are based on fear and in-
security, the student is faced with
a choice between the unsatisfying
but more comfortable path of
quietism or the challenging and
demanding road of involvement.
To avoid the sterility of the ma-
terialist ethic, to escape the lim-
itations of the classroom, to ne-
gate the pursuit of a degree for
sake of a degree, to break down
barriers among individuals-the
student must seek commitment,
involvement, responsibility.
Impotent though he may be to
alter the behavior, convictions or
values of older generations, the
student yet is accountable for
what he purposes to be. And he
must bear responsibility for the
effect he has both on his peers
and on succeeding generations.
Fear and/or cynicism can ef-
fectively cripple the student's po-
tential for effecting social change
and finding a purpose. The cult

of mass education must inevitably
reinforce this unhappy prospect.
Competition, anonymity, speciali-
zation spell dichotomy-between
student and student, student and
educator, academy and the Real
World.
WHAT, THEN, of the activist?
What motivates him and enables
him to surmount the negative as-
pects of the contemporary ethos?
How can he affect his peers?
Above all, the student activist
possesses and cherishes a sense of
freedom. It is this disposition
whichrliberates him from fear
and requires him to engage in
responsibility for his own future
as well as for his potential con-
tribution to the well-being of
others is also fundamental.
It has been suggested that many
a student activist will eventually
abandon his present path to re-
turn to middle-class origins and
institutions-only to subvert them.
If this be the sole consequences
of his endeavors, it is perhaps the
most worthwhile. The best-edu-
cated members of our society must
not be divorced from the realities
of our society-cybernation, il-
literacy, poverty, integration,
alienation-nor must they re-
nounce their roles in effecting
change.
It is reasonable to assume that
the student activist will continue
to clamor. His vociferousness has
progressively intensified since the
"freedom rides,"' the "sit-ins" and
the student movement got under-
way four years ago. It is upon
his peers, however, that the areal
burden of change rests; they must
listen, think, accept and act. And
from them will come many of the
educators who will affect succeed-
ing generations of students.
THE ACTIVIST strain has been
fermenting within the University
for four years as it has through-
out the nation. A new breed of
student is emerging. His impact
on and off campus should spark
much productive thinking-and
action.

"""""""*WHY NOT?
Senate Restructuring:
An A pproximtation
By Jeffrey Goodman
IMPRESSIVE (and somewhat undeserved) numbers of hours, im-
passioned words and friendships have been staked over the past
year on a proposal to restructure the faculty Senate, the basic political
organization of the University's 1200 professorial-rank teachers. If
the proposal is passed at Monday's Senate meeting, the faculty could
end up with a noticeably, if not too significantly, improved voice in
the conduct of general University affairs.
There is widespread faculty agreement that the Senate as it
now operates is at best unsatisfactory, at worst inconsequential. Con-
vening only once a semester and rarely attracting more than 12 per
cent of its eligible members, the body is too large for meaningful
debate and too small for its decisions to represent anything approxi-
mating "the faculty." Its time is cluttered with hearing and passing
usually outdated committee recommendations about which few know
anything and fewer care, and any administrator to whom the
recommendations are directed is quick to learn he need not take
them seriously.
Whatevervoice "the faculty" exercises is through its 15 or so
subcommittees and their parent, the 19-man Senate Advisory Com-
mittee on University Affairs. The subcommittees are continually
engaged in studying vital University conditions and trends, writing
resolutions and advising vice-presidents; SACUA receives their reports
at its monthly sessions; reviews them and-a recent development--
approves them, disapproves them or passes them on without comment
to the next Senate meeting.
The subcommittee members gain a good deal of knowledge in
their areas, and their small size (the average is 10) facilitates intimate
discussion; their evaluations and advice, however, carry the weight
of only 10 men. If SACUA upholds one of its subcommittees, more
weight is added, yet officially, SACUA also speaks only for itself.
Unless and until the Senate puts its questionable mark of approval
on a given resolution, still no one can claim The Faculty Has Spoken,
ENTER THE SUBCOMMITTEE on University Freedom and Re-
sponsibility, which feels quite emphatically The Faculty Should Be
Able To Speak. The subcommittee would have the Senate elect-at
large but with proportional representation across all schools and
colleges-a 65-man Assembly. Like SACUA, the Assembly would meet
monthly and more often in emergencies.
Unlike SACUA, whose composition is far less coincident with the
relative sizes of the schools and colleges, the Assembly would be
specifically empowered to speak as a representative of the faculty.
And its actions would become actions of the Senate if not revoked
at the next Senate gathering.
THE BASIC ISSUE separating the proposal's supporters and ,its
detractors is whether the Assembly would be any different from a
slightly reformed SACUA. The detractors claim SACUA is more and
more willing to proclaim its collective opinion on conditions at the
University as reflected in reports of its subcommittees. De facto, these
statements are often taken as statements of the faculty, not simply
for the faculty, since both faculty and administration respect SACUA's
reasonableness and its reflection of general faculty views.
Just as subcommittee resolutions are rarely reversed or radically
amended by the Senate, so it is safe to predict SACUA can continue
to enjoy the same privilege. If the Assembly's functions can be per-
formed by SACUA, the detractors argue, it would be foolish to burden
the faculty with a 65-man body instead of a 19-man one, simply
because debate becomes less meaningful as the size of a group increases.

.
6

&

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Messiness Stifles Education

f1
mnester

x-
Aj

Alumnae Control or Autonomy?

To the Editor:
LEONARD PRATT'S editorial on
Prof. Rice contains one state-
ment of fact that isnbound to be
misleading: during Rice's tenure
as chairman of the English De-
partment "the salaries of (de-
partment) teaching fellows have
remained among the University's
lowest."
Thisgis true only because all
teaching fellows' salaries are
among the University's lowest. The
stipend is the same from depart-
ment to department.
It may not be generally known,
incidentally, that Prof. Rice has
worked consistently and success-
fully to improve the financial po-
sition of teaching fellows.
LEST MY singling out one state-
ment of fact for correction leave
the impression that I concur with
Pratt's statements of opinion, let
me say flatly that they answer to
nothing in my 10 years' experience
in the English department. I
would add that, like Prof. Rice,
I too regard the teacher's function
as extending beyond the trans-
mission of a specific subject mat-
ter.
The "restoration of discipline"
in its best sense would not be
punitive or "repressive." It would
be the rounding out of- a liberal
education, they supplying of a lack
that students now feel when they
speak of faculty indifferenceto
teaching.
In the meantime, littered build-
ings, mudpaths across the green-
sward, slovenly dress and the like
are not merely displeasing; they
are distinct impediments to edu-
cation.
-Prof. H. M. English
Chairman, freshman English

Pierogatives
To the Editor:
N HIS recent Memorandum,
Prof. Rice prefaces his con-
clusion with the phrase, "In my
old fashioned way of thinking;"
and the reply by Prof. McConnell
poignantly confirms the state-
ment.
Yes, Mr. Rice is very old fash-
ioned. One finds in his essay con-
stant reference to such outdated
concepts as character, decorum,
taste, manners, obligations, re-
spect.
This antiquated outlook is re-
flected also in the choice of au-
thorities he cites-Spencer, Milton,
Blake. They have been dead for
years! And as Prof. McConnell
points out, what about Churchill,
the drunkard; Picaso, the lecher
and Hemingway, the suicide.
Evidently, what Mr. Rice doesn't
realize is that in this community
of scholars all of us - faculty,
teaching fellows and students-are
on the same level of intelligence
and accomplishment with any
genius, modern as well as ancient.
So. if Einstein wore tennis shoes
and no tie or if Picasso kept a
mistress, we should be allowed the
same prerogatives.
AND PROF. McConnell's sug-
gestion to go back to the Greek
gymnasium is a sparkling plan.
(Plan, from the Latin planus-
flat). The psychology department
could provide the Whipbearers,
and with appropriate stimuli to
the caudal regions of the ephebi
the intellectual aspects of the
University would be emphasized.
-Bede Mitchell, Grad.

IN A UNIVERSITY community the intel-
lectual atmosphere perpetuated by the
student organizations is indeed import-
ant. However, concentration on a "lack of
intellectualism" in sororities ignores the
crucial problem that the Greek system
will have to face this year. That is the
issue of self-determination as raised by
the recent request for recommendation
forms by the Membership Committee of
SGC.
But the true orientation of social
sororities is by definition primarily so-
cial, and if the University were to deter-
mine the future of housing units on the
basis of intellectual productivity, the dor-
mitory system itself would be the first
unit to be thrust off campus.
IF THE SORORITIES are to be threat-
ened with excommunication from the
campus community, it is far more likely
that the reason will be the recommenda-
tion system. Most houses require the re-
ceipt of a recommendation before a
rushee is pledged. This "recommend" is
secured from alumnae of the sorority liv-
ing in that area. Although the function
of such a recommendation is not clear-
ly defined, even the most pious purposes
can be distorted by its mechanical pres-
ence in the process of membership selec-
tion.
SGC's request for recommendation
forms follows its investigation of discrim-
inatory clauses in the constitutions and
bylaws of campus organizations. This is
not merely a coincidental ordering of
events, for within the recommendation
system there are possibilities for mem-
bership discrimination.
If a recommendation is neeaed to pledge
a girl, the absence of such a form auto-
matically negates her possibilities for
adisioin. Since ~the ". recommendation

Fitch, '65, president of Panhellenic, has
summarized the dilemma: the problem
becomes one of whether or not the local
chapters have the right to assert an in-
dependent opinion, and if they do have
this right, whether or not they want to
use it and accept the responsibility it
implies.
Sorority membership is composed of
college women from the ages of 18 to 22.
Therefore, the assumptions of the final
responsibility of membership selection in
the local chapters does not appear an im-
posing one.
One of the attributes of the Greek sys-
tem is the opportunity for the students
to assume organizational responsibility
for group activities. Expanding this priv-
ilege and obligation would be very edu-
cationally beneficial for the members of,
this system, and expansion in the area
of membership selection, which is the
propagating force of the system, would
provide a particularly meaningful oppor-
tunity for the exercise of responsible in-
tellects.
Of course these problems are not ab-
sent from Panhellenic's perception. This
issue has been discussed in its circles
for many years.
Last weekend a resolution on the rec-
ommendation system was passed by the
delegates to the Panhellenic and IFC Big
Ten Conference which concluded: "We
feel that collegiate chapters should have
the right of final decision in member-
ship selection."
THE FACT that action on the recom-
mendation system has been initiated
by Panhellenic leadership evidences a
positive direction which will aid greatly
in solving the problem.
In all problems of change, when a pro-
ar fiv nI'c~t x7A rn frnntc t rn 10f~i-.

To the Editor:
AS THE TRIMESTER draws to
close, school gets ever more
hectic. That is rather a shame,
when you think about it.
The Greek original for the word
'school' is skole, meaning leisure.
Once upon a time, it seems, people
at school had leisure-leisure to
read, discuss, maybe even to think.
Admittedly, this notion was in-
cubated in ancient Greece where
the free citizens owed much of
their time for culture to the large
number of unfree men.and women
who did their drudgery. Still, the
concept of leisure as the basis of
culture does have a way of per-
sisting. For students at the Uni-
versity perhaps it is only wishful
thinking. In the trimester frame-
work, the possibility of leisure (not
playtime, but a mature academic
leisure) looks hopelessly Utopian.
BUT MAYBE the idea of leisure
should not be abandoned without
a fight. A case can be made for
the human mind's not being like a.
factory, which can be kept run-
ning night andedayandbe made
to work at ever greater speeds.
There might even be some correla-
tion between the trimester's high
compression and a certain dull
bewilderment in the student body
(as well as absenteeism in class
and a severe drop-off in extra-
curricular campus activities).
Maybe the trimester as now oper-
ated is not an awfully good idea
from the student's viewpoint.
--Rev. James Torrens, Grad.

T ri

SUPPORTERS OF the restructuring, on the other hand, claim
the Assembly could wield considerably more influence than SACUA.
Its more explicitly representative composition than SACUA would
enable it to present a wider cross-section of faculty interests to the
administration. It would be specifically mandated to speak out as a
faculty representative, whereas SACUA, not so authorized, would
always be hesitant about overstepping its legal bounds.
The Assembly would be reversed or corrected as rarely as SACUA,
largely as a function of its stature within the Senate, its formal
authority and its being three times as large (thus perhaps three times
as important) as SACUA.
Though both sides are arguing largely speculatively, the Assembly
does come out looking better. If its initial years would be chaotic
and stumbling and if the extra influence it would provide the faculty
is definitely not earthshaking, nevertheless there is just enough justi-
fication for the attempt.
UNFORTUNATELY, the proposed cure is only infinitesimally ade-
quate to the real disease. To the extent faculty non-involvement in
directing the University-too little participation in or feeling of re-
sponsibility for vital policies-is a function of individual emotional
and ethical capitulations to our allegedly complex super-society,
structural changes can do little. Men who have become content-by-
default to let administrators make important decisions and who are
indifferent both to the decisions and to those few who still try to
change them cannot be brought to life by revamping organizations.
But to the extent that the lack of adequate structures has hurried
and magnified these capitulations, what is ultimately needed is formal
representation for responsible, elected faculty within the administrative
offices where policies are set. But this requires change in the larger
organization-the University itself-rather than in mere components
of that structure; it must rest on formal power, not prestige.
SENATE RESTRUCTURING can make voices louder and perhaps
stimulate concern for prerogatives among a wider group of men.
Maybe this is sufficient, for most, especially as many faculty claim
their professional duties come first. Yet teaching, counselling, writing,
research, etc., are irrevocably tied to the administration of the Uni-
versity in the broader sense, and in the long run those functions will
flourish only if administrations are legally bound to serve them.

a,

i

a

I

Teac-in Brings PLEASANT:
6Th 14' 11 ) 1

Mushrooming Cloud

i ..
.. '.'*
A '
J1
. .. !att.
1
. }
i7
N rr.
.
l 3.

.'.'i - Y.
'- " q A - :

'1
'.'

To the Editor:
WE HAVE just written our first
annual donation check to the
University Alumni fund. We'd
probably not have written it at all
had it not been for the letter of
Mr. and Mrs. George Wolf (Daily,
April 1) in which they cut off
their share of the University's
alumni support for the Univer-
sity's refusal discreetly to close its
faculty's mouth and leave discus-
sion of Southeast Asia to the poli-
ticians and the Army.
WE WERE overjoyed to see the
University again taking its place
as the locus of free investigation
-without predetermined conclu-
sions-of vital political andtmoral
issues, and doing it in its tra-
ditional way: visionary yet moder-
ate, avoiding both the extremes
of a professors' strike and a Dra-
conian legislative suppression of
discussion more worthy of other

*Hetetows RKates
As Light Comedy
At the Michigan Theatre
STRANGE BEDFELLOWS" is yet another in the seemingly endless
stream of "sophisticated comedy" films which are definitely not
meant for the small fry and yet hold no particular worth for their
parents either.
Gina Lollobrigida and Rock Hudson play a couple whose peace-
ful separation for seven years is shattered when he has to present a
good family-man image to win a promotion. Back in each other's
arms after meeting again in the divorce counselor's office, they
separate and rejoin each other several times throughout the rest of
the movie.
Complications are provided by her bearded boyfriend, who resents
the intrusion of the husband just when things were going so smoothly,
and by her tendency to picket for any imaginable cause (which is
what broke up Rock and Gina to begin with). When she plans to
don a flesh-colored suit of long johns and ride, protest in hand,
upon the American embassy (a la Lady Godiva), he pretends to receive
a phone call from his boss sending him to some God-forsaken land

4

4

4

41.

.

I.

r;,

F ..

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan