wr r M r®i+rm e w ee n ronr i

Seventy Fifth Yer
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UN.iERSITY Or MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD N CONTROL OF STUDENT PUTBLCATIONS

.
'-'.
'r0
"",

420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MIcH.

NEws PHONE: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. Thismust be noted in all reprints.
THURSDAY, 7 JANUARY 1965 NIGHT EDITOR: KENNETH WINTER
Contradictory Images
Across 74 Years
ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1890 the U. of WHERE LIETH THE TRUTHE about
M. Daily made its first appearance The Dailye? Somewhere betwixt
in Ann Arbor. In the intervening 74 controversy and contradiction. When
years, as we have fought the good fight Emerson called consistency "the hob-
goblin of little minds," the seed for The
for Truth, Justice and the American Daily was planted.
Way, a penetrating aura of myth has Since Herbert B. Shoemaker's first
enveloped us. paper in 1890, we have changed our
This extends from the international name, our layout and typography, our
This hexends rom tnhentnonl h size. The concerns of staff members--
Housevel Un-American Activitieshment of the individually and collectively - have
Commit-shifted focus many times. Hallowed
tee, a Russian ambassador once rose in traditions have risen and fallen with
the UN Security Council to denounce the same frequency as French govern-
us as "warmongers," to the local scene:
Whyis he ail cosciusl sekin tomenus of the Fourth Republic.
Why is The Daily consciously seeking to The Daily, in a situation virtually
destroy the fraternity-sorority system? unique, proceeds without any editorial
a sweet young thing asked last semes- policy: every editorial is the individual
ter. opinion of its writer, as the masthead
Various University administrators piously proclaims. Few people realize
have alternated between unstinting that to attribute any viewpoint to the
praise and stinging attacks on our mo- newspaper as a whole is a gross dis-
tives, and we have returned both f.a- tortion of fact.
vors. The Daily has been equated with
the information ministry in the Third JN A LARGER SENSE, however, every
Reich; it has been relegated to the in- Daily staff, past and present, shares
sides of numerous garbage cans. We a common dedication to the highest
have been accused of selling out to but little-known values of the free
the administration; inciting students; press. Integrity and objectivity within a
greatness and madness; insanity and framework of excellence have grown
inanity. We have been called an intel- nearly archaic in contemporary usage,
lectual hothouse, but the Honors Coun- but they still breathe faintly in the
cil persists in a dedicated campaign to pages of this newspaper.
keep its students away from here, de- Or so we tell our freshmen.
claring that The Daily is basically -H. NEIL BERKSON
anti-academic. Editor
Free Tuition: The Best Answer.

V tilei
ti S;tra.yl
10
' ,c"yd

TODAY AND TOMORROW:
Johnson Needs a Wide
Consensus for Reform


lJ..rYCS~y~ f w r rh t Y1 { r
fS.n S 1-
a r .tif v. , w ' -
q*
t .- ,' f..:4,OW

J
Y

: ;:
.E:
t4f;'AF
t .

q'' s 1'V t.,

PLL py

IT COL ThA~ T*-

)tk G( I' s

D)0N!E...

EUROPEAN COMMENTARY:
MLF Dispute Divides Europe

REGENT ALLAN R. Sorenson, one of the
two members of that august body who
seems to have done any independent
thinking about education, thinks students
shouldn't pay any tuition.
From his statements in a recent Daily
interview and elsewhere, it appears that
Sorenson's heart is in the right place. But
his proposal isn't.
The situation which moves humanitar-
ians to call for free education is the
situation of the underprivileged youth,
full of potential and dedication, unable
to realize it because he can't afford to
pay college expenses. Undoubtedly a so-
ciety which claims to educate on demo-
cratic principles is cheating both this
youth and itself if finances keep him
from getting the help he needs for self-
development-help which is usually given
best by colleges.
BUT MOST people who are academically
qualified to attend college don't fit
this description. They aren't at all the
poor, deprived people the liberal worries
about.
The wealthier a person's family is, the
greater the likelihood that his environ-
ment provided him with high motivation,
good elementary and secondary educa-
tion and the sort of attitudes and habits
necessary for entering and surviving col-
lege. Thus the academically eligible, as a
group, are considerably better off than
"the average taxpayer, who the "free
education" advocate thinks should pay
for their education.
Moreover, state taxes tend to be re-
gressive-they place a heavier burden on
the poor than on the prosperous.
Thus, an across-the-board abolition of
tuition would, in effect, constitute taking
from the poor to give to the rich. This,
needless to say, is precisely the opposite
of what the liberal wants to do.
BUT THIS isn't the whole story, either.
The academically qualified may be
prosperous as a group, but many indi-
viduals within that group do desperately
need the sort of financial aid the "free
education" advocate offers. What the
University needs is a financial plan that
will help them without dishing out free
education en masse to those who can
and should pay for it.
The neatest answer is a tuition sched-
ule graduated by ability to pay. Each
student applying would submit a finincial
information statement similar to those
required by many scholarship-granting
'i l $$f ir tt ttl fi

agencies. From this, by a pre-determined
formula, the University would calculate
his tuition. During his University career
he would report any major changes in
his family's financial status and his tui-
tion would be adjusted accordingly.
This would no doubt be an unpopular
move. Prosperous, articulate and influ-
ential state residents would find them-
selves paying $400 instead of $150 a
semester to send their sons and daughters
to the literary college, and the political
repercussions might be too much for the
University to take.
IF SO, THE University should continue
doing what it is doing now: redistri-
buting income more subtly by giving fi-
nancial need. But it should do more.
Former Vice-President for Student Af-
fairs James A. Lewis recently declared
that no intellectually qualified student
need forego a University education be-
cause of inability to pay. The University,
he explained, has sufficient scholarship
and loan funds to ensure that no one
would find himself too broke to come.
Even if this statement is strictly true,
it isn't enough. Implicit in it is the idea
that once the University has given, loaned
or paid a student enough to add his name
to the enrollment list, everything is fine.
Equality of opportunity has been
achieved.
IT HASN'T. For while everybody's name
may be equally large on the enroll-
ment list, the prosperous student has a
much greater opportunity to benefit from
his college experience than does the
more needy one. During college, the well-
off student studies, joins extra-curricu-
lar activities, interacts with people and
attends concerts while the less affluent
student washes quad dishes and shelves
library books. A large and immensely val-
uable part of the University remains off
limits to all but the prosperous. After
college, the lucky one is a free agent; the
low-income graduate is still shackled to
that student loan he must repay.
The specific answers to this problem
are numerous. Student activities scholar-
ships based on financial need, for ex-
ample, would open up one worthwhile
area to students now excluded from it.
Other, less structured activities would be
harder to underwrite directly-how do
you give a scholarship for falling in love?
The answer in such cases would have to
be simply giving the student more schol-
arship money and having faith that he
will make good use of the time thus
released.

By ERIC KELLER
Daily Correspondent
IF THERE is any one issue that
characterized Western Europe
'64, it was MLF. The dispute over
the Multilateral Nuclear Force is
more than a one-man war that de
Gaulle has been waging against
the rest of NATO. It is the ex-
pression of a basic change of po-
larity that is taking place right
now in the middle of the 1960's.
Several developments in 1964
added a decisive share to the pres-
ent situation. Except for a num-
ber of strategic air bases, United
States forces in Europe are not
needed any more. Several big air-
lift and landing operations during
the year have shown that U.S.
NATO reinforcements c an be
flown into Europe very quickly.
Aggression with tactical weapons
can be countered by native troops
until U.S. and other NATO troops
are available. Within a few years,
therefore, American troops can
safely be drastically reduced from
the 360,000 that are presently sta-
tioned in Europe.
THESE prospects are laudable
not only from the viewpoint of
Washington's balance of pay-
ments, but also from that of
NATO members. Despite official
protestations from the German
side about these prospects, Euro-
peans personally wish less of the
obvious American wing of protec-
tion.
Actually German protests are of
a more material variety. NATO
countries realize that much of the
dollar flow is going to stop and
that if they plan to take over
some of the U.S. military installa-
tions, their maintenance will re-
sult in heavier defense expendi-
tures.
Even heavier expenditures, how-
ever, would have to be incurred
if the U.S. withdraws her nuclear
shield. This is what de Gaulle de-
sires. He wants to build his own
"European" nuclear deterrent, the
force de frappe, at any price.
Yet that kind of price tag is too
high for the smaller nations and
even for Italy and Germany.

Great Britain is presently examin-
ing the value of its own deterrent
and the budget-conscious Labor
government is uneasy about it.
ANOTHER drawback to a nu-
clear deterrent for each Western
European nation (even tiny Switz-
erland is considering the pros and
cons of its own deterrent) is the
nuclear spread. An "accident" is
much more likely to happen
among minor nations and the cost
of an escalating nuclear arms race
would be too hard to bear for any
one nation.
There are also many Europeans
-especially citizensyof smaller
countries-who would hesitate to
have Germany buy nuclear weap-
ons.
One single nuclear force with
all its branches, tactical for the
field, submarine-to-surface and
surface boat-to-mainland, certain-
ly would be economically desirable
for all NATO members. But this
kind of MLF raises the one ques-
tion which has caused dispute
from the beginning: who will
make the ultimate decisions in
such a nuclear force?
THE U.S. proposal provides that
the President would keep ultimate
control over the use of MLF. But,
as was to be expected, this policy
did not tie in with de Gaulle's con-
cept of European self-manage-
ment. Other nations appeared to
adopt a "better-than-nothing" at-
titude in favoring the proposed
MLF. Britain, however, came up
with a new plan which seems to
arouse more enthusiasm than the
older U.S. proposal.
This plan would provide for a
double veto power, one veto for
the U.S. President and one for a
combined European authority.
That authority would be a council
representing Germany, France,
Great Britain and Italy, plus one
rotating . seat for the smaller
NATO member countries. The
French force de frappe and the
British nuclear deterrent would be
integrated into such a force,
which would cooperate with Amer-
ican nuclear units. In such a so-
lution, France would have to sub-

mit to majority decisions of the
council and England would aban-
don her present right to withdraw
her nuclear deterrent if she
desired.
The double veto would be highly
desirable. It is a fair proposal for
both sides, giving Europe some re-
spectable military autonomy, with-
out excluding Great Britain, Can-
ada and the U.S. from continental
military policies as de Gaulle de-
sires.
BUT IT is still too early for
such a compromise. First of all,
de Gaulle very probably would not
want to take the chance that
France be overruled in any way
whatsoever. And, the European
unification process is still too
littlefadvanced.rFrench and other
European nationalism has worked
against military as well as eco-
nomic unification. The formation
of such a European nuclear coun-
cil might run into major diffi-
culties from the start.
Yet, under no circumstances, it
presently appears, is the rest of
Western Europe willing to submit
to a French "Monroe Doctrine"
under pressure of the force de
frappe. The resentment against
any single nation dominating
Western Europe is so deeply root-
ed in Europe that the chances of
a complete conversion from Wash-
ington to Paris seem impossible.
This historic disinclination is
paired by purelydeconomic and
military considerations which at
this point make a separate con-
tinental nuclear force absolutely
senseless.
IN A forcecast for 1965, there-
fore, one may expect much more
dust-rising around MLF. Such
fundamental decisions cannot be
expected to be made without some
effective give and take on all
sides. But if sensible military and
economic considerations prevail in
future decisions, one may count
on two factors: first, Europe will
become increasingly autonomous
and maybe more arrogant in her
own defense policies; second, Eu-
rope will, nevertheless, take the
path of joint nuclear deterrence
with the U.S.

By WALTER LIPPMANN
PRESIDENT LYNDON Johnson,
it is said, hopes to keep to-
gether the big and diverse major-
ity which elected him, and some
of his friends have been shaking
their heads and saying that this
cannot be done. It would mean
reneging on his commitments to
wage war against poverty end
ignorance and racial discrimina-
tion.
These friendly critics say that
if the President's program is to
be effective, it is bound to alien-
ate a considerable number of his
conservative supporters. If, on the
other hand, he does not alienate
these conservative supporters, it
would mean that his program has
been watered down until it is
ineffective.
*.* *
THIS POSES, it seems to me,
a fundamental question which
lies at the heart of the process of
formulating the domestic program
of the Johnson administration.
The question is whether the
politics of consensus, which was
the Johnson hallmark during the
election, is incompatible with the
politics of progressive reform, to
which President Johnson is coin-
mitted.
I believe there is no contradic-
tion. Indeed, I would argue that
the only way iii which the pro-
gressive reforms can be truly
achieved and made to work is by
winning for them a wide con-
sensus of the American people.
WHAT DO we mean by a con-
sensus? I think we can say that
in the American political tradi-
tion a consensus is more than a
simple majority, that it is a ma-
jiority of about two-thirds, some-
where in the range between three-
fifths and three-quarters. In the
pragmatic sense this is, I think,
a correct definition of a con-
sensus.
We do not regard the great
issues under the Constitution and
in our political history as genu-
inely settled if they command no
more than a 51 per cent majority.
It is only when there is a big
majority that the Constitution
can be amended, that treaties can
be ratified and that historic
changes of national policy can be
genuinely adopted.
In this century, for example,
the country has turned away from
an isolationist policy. The turn
was not made even after our in-
tervention in World War I. It was
really made during the course of
the second world war when there
began to develop a popular con-
sensus for acceptance of world re-
sponsibility. Then this consensus
was reflected in Congress by an
overwhelming ratification of the
relevant international treaties.
This has been true, also, of the
big breakthroughs in recent years
-the test ban treaty, the civil
rights bill and the acceptance of
modern fiscal doctrine in the tax
bill.
* . *
IN THIS sense, so I believe,
the programs dealing with pov-
erty, education and race relations,
which are all overlapping and in-
terlocked, will come to very little
until there builds up behind them
a mighty consensus, similar to
that which now supports the
national defense. The inner prin-
ciple of that consensus is tnat
enough money must be fcund to
insure an adequate defense and
since there is this will, there
must-in this rich ian-be a
way.
We have arrived, I believe, at
the threshold of a new realiza-
tion like that which came to us
about defense during the fifties.
We had been unprepared for the

first world war, unprenared for
the second world war, unprepared
for the Korean war, unprepared
for the cold war. At long last our
people realized that the protec-
tion of the national interest
meant giving unquestioning prior-
ity over all other public and pri-

vate interests to defense. The day
is coming, and it cannot now be
far off, when schools, housing,
urban revival and help for the
young, the old, the helpless will
have a priority in the public
mind second only to defense.
*. * *
THE REAL point about the pro-
gram of the Johnson administra-
tion will be whether it prepares
for and promotes such a break-
through in the public understand-
ing. The war on poverty, ignor-
ance and discrimination is cer-
tain to be a long one. It is the
task not of one administration,
but of a generation. Nothing that
can conceivably be done now can
be decisive. What is essential is
that energetic measures be taken
against the crucial points of re-
sistance - as, fo example, the
antiquated c o n t r o v e r y about
church and state schools, the in-
sufficiency of state and local
revenues, the inertia of bureau-
cratic special interests.
As the realization becomes
clearer that the internal progress
of the republic is a vital matter,
there will come also an under-
standing that the costs of in-
ternal progress are not painful
liabilities, but are, in fact, highly
productive investments. Poverty,
ignorance, discrimination, disease
and ugliness exact a far higher
sacrifice from us all than the in-
itial costs of investing to overcome
them. The country will not be-
come poorer by fighting poverty.
It will, on the contrary, become
richer.
(c) 1964, The washington Post Co.
Humanists
And
Scientists
OUR SOCIETY depends upon
much more than any individ-
ual can compass. It depends on
all the arts, humanities and
sciences, but no one person can
be artist, humanist and scientist
all in one.
The only proper person to con-
cern himself with the problems of
society is the humanist, but he
must learn to concern himself
with society in a scientific age
and not with society in an age
that is past.
Today it is the humanist's turn
to be harnessed to a more com-
plex society. The demands .placed
upon humanists have been. alter-
ed by the advent of science. I
think the fact that we derive most
of our social and business guid-
ance from.illiterates in science is
a sufficiently serious problem to
demand attention from universi-
ties. I suggest they form new De-
partments of Scientific Studies
directed to the training of scien-
tifically literate humanists
kq
TODAY, STUDIES of planets
and of space are important, but
even more so are the group of re-
searches directed to understand-
ing the brain, including informa-
tion and computer theory, gene-
tics and the DNA code and bio-
logical brain research.
This is a drastic change in the
direction of science. Studies of
engineering, chemistry and phy-
sics all concerned the study of
matter and energy which are ex-
tensions of man's muscles. Brain
research and the like are directed
to extensions of man's mind. But
surely, man's mind is a proper
study for humanists. Thus, the
forefront of scientific research-
has now entered upon one of the

chosen fields of the humanists. I
feel it is appropriate to start de-
partments directed to study of the
humanities in the light of modern
sciences.
--J. Tuzo Wilson
American Scientist Magazine

.t

r

*

V

t

'4

A
*

U

k

FEIFFER

A14Pt
WMT
01

L~OVED~ MEff AMPc
WERE 'SORRY FORi
W WADI IOU
POOP you
I

0g, NO. YOO IAATJ6
SURE. 10 6ON A
5ORE. FERRY RIE POP T
ONHe~ YOUlL APrLO61M
I TO.OK 1VIME ALL THE
YOU VIAY- 130TH WA1IS.
Noce;
RI&HTa

OR, PD.DO T YOU
VAGTS COlPlOT FIM2 A
RIGHTTAX( AMP YOU
91 0 IT AA'
Y(OUR FAUUT SE.-
I CAUSE YOUWERE
you 60Y A 66v
I{OM~ CjTO CRY,
t, "

ISM
I
TBEM-

AND T %AIV YOU )ERC
A LOMYL'(6LP( AN
YOU JUST [SAD A
U1rTLV Too MUCH To
9VflJK ANN? WNY NOTJ1
EVERYWP'{ HA A,
RI60T ON NEW YES
6VE.1

ThAT5 I-Ne
1AY YOU
rAS e

Ky

f


RDM6MBR ?

o.. .. _. ,._..

WHI~AT A TMRIFhW,

Rewi "~IJP,9

.1 1