'1
Seventy-Fifth Year
Errn AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PuBuCATIONS
Each Time I Chanced To See Franklin D.
The University's Summer: Crisis and Change
by H. Neil Berkson
1"
s Are Fe, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ABoR, MCi.
Prevai
NEWS PHONE: 764-0552
rials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
JGUST 28, 1964 NIGHT EDITOR: KENNETH WINTER
A
Fight illegal Fee Increase
Wit Dor RetSrk
G THE SUMMER, with most stu-
safely out of town, the admin-
i-or more specifically, Vice-Pres-
r Business and Finance Wilbur
pont and his associates-raised
e hall room-and-board fees by
used the traditional maneuver of
he release of unpleasant news so
e possibility of an effective pro-
I be minimized. But two mo'e
tricks marked the enactment of
ticular price increase.
the new charges were implement-
rooming contracts already had
ined for the fall. A student is
y his contract-he pays $50 if he
t-but the obligation isn't mutual.
c, the new rates were enacted 11-
Regents' Bylaw 30.02 quite un-
tily states that residence hall
e "subject to the approval of the
f Governors." The governors, how-
ver even voted on-let alone ap-
-the changes.
EOPLE responsible for this shady
ess have resorted to a customary-
te effective-device: set a policy
m clam up and lay low while
e protests it. Soon everyone will
bout it, and the policy will have
an accepted part of the status
onventional channels of protest
an dent this wall of silence. Angry
)ns can be "taken under advise-
rerbal protests can be politely ac-
ged and then forgotten, commit-
be ignored.
's only one way to deal with the.
trative cold shoulder-as the em-
of North Campus demonstrated
Imer. Fed up with the futility of
olite verbal complaints over new
fees, they simply drove some 200
,o a landscaped field and parked
iere for nearly a month. Faced'
s, administrators could no longer,
ly, by and wait for the storm to
r. Clearly, the storm was there to
Iorth Campus parking protestors
t they wanted.
ESIDENCE HALLS case, an even
clear-cut instance of administra-
.rpation, calls for the same sort
a. Specifically, it calls for a two-
ack.
the Board of Governors must re-
be a docile, ex-post-facto rubber-
stamp for the administrators who tried to
bypass it. It must reject their polite and
reasonable importunings and flatly re-
fuse to approve thefee increases.
Second,'Inter-Quadrangle Council and
Assembly Association must organize a
rent strike. This they would do by publi-
cizing throughout the residence halls just
how the charges were increased, why the
procedure was Illegal and why, therefore,
the increase is not binding on student
residents. It must spell out explicitly, for
each kind of room, just what residents
will be asked to pay and just how much
they actually should pay. By intensive
organization clear down to the corridor-
representative level, these groups could
elicit an overwhelming number of refusals
to cough up that extra $34.
NUMBERS ARE ESSENTIAL. The indi-
vidual student is easy prey. The ad-
ministration can simply withhold his
credits, and he will have to spend well
over $34 to get a court to force the Uni-
versity to release his transcript. ;Not only'
is a mass withholding, of hundreds or
thousands ofn transcripts less likely, but
the expenses of a test case could be borne
by the IQC and Assembly treasuries or
by modest contributions from the protes-
tors. The net saving would still be tremen-
dous.
If IQC and.Assembly prefer to concern
themselves with parliamentary procedure
and Christmas dances, perhaps some
quadrangle council will be more interest-
ed in serving its constituents. If not, an
ad hoc group' of students could organize
the operation.
Whoever initiates it, the rent strike
must continue until the increase is re-
scinded. This is not an unreasonable de-
mand. There are numerous corners which;
could be cut in residence halls operations.,
In the men's halls, at least, firing all the
housemothers-most of whom are des-
pised by students-would be a step ahead
which would save at least $34 per resi-
dent. Or the featherbedding maids who
periodically barge into rooms could be
eliminated.
Such a rent strike is not certain to
succeed. But given the tactics of the ad-
ministration, it appears to be the only
alternative to total submission. When the
University refuses to play by its own rules,
there is no reason why its students should
follow them, either.
-KENNETH WINTER
Managing Editor
PERHAPS AS A PREFACE to year-round operation,
Ann Arbor's usually quiet summer was highly event-
ful. Stories ranged from the University's continuing
saga of business office crises to the city's unwitting
flirtation with the Birch Society. But the big news
came from the upper administration where two vice-
presidencies were filled, another vacated, and the un-
expected death of William K. McInally created an
opening on the Board of'Regents.
Regent McInally was primarily a businessman, and as
such he was deeply interested in financing a college
education for those who otherwise couldn't afford it.
In 1962 he became the University's representative and
later vice-chairman on the Michigan Higher Education .
Assistance Authority, a nonprofit agency able to provide
up to $400 in low-interest student loans.
The MHEAA was established in 1960, but it did
very little until McInally became a member. Since Octo- ;
ber, 1962, well over 1000 students have received nearly
$1 million in loans.
THE UNIVERSITY'S public relations chief, Michael
Radock, moved a step up the ladder this summer,
from director of to vice-president for University rela-
tions. This sets no precedent: his predecessor, Llye
Nelson, had a vice-presidential appointment when he
left the University in 1961.
Radock has had his detractors at the University, and
some were surprised at his new title. His coordination
of "Operation Michigan," a massive public relations.
effort which sends the University's top officials around
the state and brings important alumni, legislators and
businessmen to campus for a 24-hour look at the world
of education, was a strong factor in the promotion.
USSPA RESOLUTIONS:
Moreover, the new vice-president is working on a
major fund drive which the University may run in
conjunction with its upcoming sesquicentennial.
* *
RALPH SAWYER'S RETIREMENT as vice-president
for research became effective in July with the naming"
of botanist A. Geoffrey Norman to succeed him. The 69-
year-old Sawyer will remain for another month or so
as dean of the graduate school; by that time the Regents
should also have a replacement there.
Sawyer's list of credits qualifies him for Who's Who
in Who's Who. He has produced more than 70 technical
articles concerning his scientific work in optical physics.
He is currently chairman of the governing board of
the American Institute of Physics and past president of
the Optical Society of America. He was civilian technical
director of the 1945-46 Bikini Atoll atomic bomb project
and has served on numerous government and military
agencies.
AFTER JOINING the faculty as a physics instructor
in 1919, Sawyer went right up through the ranks. In
addition to his other jobs, he was the first director of
the University's Phoenix Memorial Project.1
As research vice-president, Sawyer has coordinated
millions, of dollars ($40 million last year) worth of
research projects. At a time when the research and
teaching functions of higher education are in growing.
conflict, Sawyer has worked closely with Vice-Presidents
Niehuss and Heyns to keep tensions within bounds here.
He has been an outstanding representative for the
University in Washington, where he has been called
upon to testify before congressional committees countless
times.
Sawyer's 45 years at the University have been
marked by one accomplishment after another. His talents
will be missed.
*' * *
CONFIRMING RUMORS which had been, circulating
for more than a year, Vice-President for Student
Affairs James A. Lewis resigned some three weeks lago.
Lewis' ten years as the University's first OSA vice-
piesident have been stormy. -He is tired of controversy
and has wanted to return to teaching for some time.
"This is a job for a younger man," he told a Daily
reporter last year.
The vice-presidency for student affairs is a ready
target for both disgruntled students and faculty because
it represents the most peripheral area of University
concerns. While Lewis has deserved criticism in many
instances, he has not deserved the sporadic personal
attacks leveled at him in this newspaper and elsewhere.
Until 1961 Lewis had to suffer responsibility for the
19th century ideas of a practically autonomous Dean
of Women's office. Moreover, he rarely had the support
he needed from the Regents and President Hatcher.
SINCE THE RESIGNATION of Dean of Women
Deborah Bacon, the OSA has improved significantly.
While all is not perfect, student restrictions are few,
and those who still beat the in loco parentis. issue act
as if Lewis were running some Southern women's junior
college instead of one of the most regulation-free uni-
versities in the country.
This issue, drawn all out of perspective, has cam-
ouflaged Lewis' major weakness-an inability to articu-
late the relationship between curricular and extra-
curricular life.
Nevertheless, Lewis has given OSA a semblance of
structure absent when he took over in 1954. Perhaps
this will leave his successor free to move into other areas.
'A
;
Student Editors Make Poor Legislators
By KENNETH WINTER
Managing Editor
and DEBORAH BEATTIE
Associate Editorial Director
MINNEAPOLIS - T h e United
States Student Press Associa-
tion spent most of its recent sum-
mer congress demanding freedom
of the student press. But the reso-
lutions it approved-and the way
in which it approved them-leave
considerable doubt that the dele-
gates understand or deserve the
"freedom and responsibility" they
advocate.
The resolutions were purely ad-
visory declarations, aimed at con-
vincing the public that free ex-
pression should reign in the stu-
dent press. In particular, they are
intended to convince a tradition-
ally hostile segment of the public:
college administrators.
These resolutions, having no
legally binding authority, must
stand or fall on their power to
persuade such people.
Most of the resolutions fall.
* * *
THE GROUNDWORK for
USSPA's "freedom and responsi-'
bility" stand was laid when the
association passed its new "Code
of Ethics." This code (half of
which, incidentally, isn't a code of
ethics at all but a set of unilateral
demands) forms the logical basis
from which the more specific dec-
larations supposedly are deduced.
From its first premise, the Code
is a flabby foundation. The first
premise reads:
Freedom of expression and
debate by means of a free and
vigorous student press is essen-
tial to the effectiveness of an-
educational community in a
democratic society.
This is a tenable proposition,
but it is by no means self-evident.
For example, one who believes the
purpose of education to be pro-
fessional training or religious in-
doctrination-as do many of the
administrators who will receive
this document, - will deny the
proposition.
From this piece of self-evi-
dence, USSPA leaps to an even
broader conclusion:
The student press must be
free of all forms of external in-
terference designed to regulate
its content.
The delegates passed this sec-
tion without asking such basic
questions as: 1) Does this neces-
sarily follow from the first state-
ment? 2) If not, what does just-
ify such a demand?- and 3) Do'
we really mean "all forms of ex-
ternal interference"?
THIS FAILURE to step outside
the values and perspectives of
student journalism and consider
such questions seriously was the
fatal flaw 'in USSPA's legislative
procedure. It seemed to result
from two characteristics of the
four-day congress.
First, there was an unhealthy
unanimity of opinion. "Freedom
and responsibility of the student
press" was the uncontestable vir-
tue. (Speakers against motions
advocating it felt obliged to pre-
face their remarks with a dis-
9laimer such as "Not that I don't
favor student press freedom, but
. ") College administrators, on
the other hand, were at best po-
tential tyrants. Suggestions that
a university official might do
right or have rights got nowhere.
Seconds the assembly-line way
in which resolutions were passed
not only left little time for chal-
lenges to the sacred cows noted
above but did not even permit the
delegates to weed out the un-
ideological mistakes in their reso-
lutions. (In the Code of Ethics,
essentially the same point appears
twice on the same page. No one
noticed.) Legislative sessions fol-
lowed so closely on the heels of.
drafting committee meetings that
scarcely any of the delegates had
read-let alone studied-the mo-
tions they were voting on. There
was adequate time for the quicker
readers to spot and amend details
of the motions, and intelligent de-
bate and revision sometimes took
place on substantive issues. But
neither the clock nor the delegates
were in a mood for radical chal-
leriges to the committees' resolu-
tions.
THUS IT ISN'T surprising that,
having scrutinized some hastily-
selected trees, the congress barely
glanced at the forest. No attempt
was made to legislate all the sepa-
rate motions into a logically co-
herent whole.
Much of the legislation shows it.
In a resolution censuring Oakland
University for firing its student
editor, the following statement
was declared as a principle of
USSPA:
The student editor's obliga-
tion to be responsible is based
on his freedom to present all
issues of fact and opinion to the
public for critical examination.
Prior- censorship renders mean-
ingless the question of respon-
sibility.
In other words, unless an editor:
has total freedom, he has no re-
sponsibility: Not only is this a
rather remarkable assertion in it-
self, it effectively repeals over,
half of the Code of Ethics-in fact,
all of the Code of Ethics which is,
really a code of ethics-the part
which outlines student editors' re-
sponsibilities. The assertion makes
responsible conduct on the part of
a student editor obligatory only
when that editor has complete
freedom - a blessing enjoyed by
only ,the tiniest fraction of the
nation's college editors. The rest,
if we are to take USSPA seriously,
are ethically free to" employ per-
sonal bias, character assassina-
tion, misrepresentation and the
host of other devices which the
Code of Ethics would otherwise
have forbidden to them.
The Oakland resolution, though
generally a sound one, also mani-
fests the- "student press, si; ad-
ministrator, no!" perspective men-
tioned earlier. The resolution uses
the word "censure" to describe
its attitude toward the adminis-
trator in the case, Oakland Chan-
cellor Durward B. Varner. But
the delegates . couldn't bring
themselves to use even the words
"irresponsible" in describing the
actions of the fired editor, Wolf
Metzger. A clause using that word
was deleted, even though provi-
sions in the good old Code of
Ethics would have justified such
a charge.
THERE SEEM TO BE three
stages in the maturation of a
student newspaper. In the first
stage, the paper is still thoroughly
seduced by the glad hand of the
administrations' and feels that
those in charge can do no wrong.
In the second, a reaction to the
first, the administration is seen
as a sinister conspiracy, and can
do no good. In the third stage
comes the mature, if difficult,
understanding that administrators
have some legitimate concerns and
some illegitimate ones and are
sometimes right and sometimes
wrong. USSPA seems to be still
in the second stage of maturation.
As a result, the congress failed
to face the central dilemma of
those who advocate student press
freedom. On the one hand, they
want some continuing institution
-- a college or an independent
board-to establish the newspaper,
to take the legal responsibility
for it, see that buildings, offices
and other details. of its operation
are maintained, and sometimes
even subsidize it. On the other
hand, they want the colleges and
boards to relinquish all control of
the papers to a student staff. Thus
while the student staff expresses
itself with impunity, the institu-
tion is left helplessly holding the
legal and financial bag. This, in
rather oversimplified terms, is the
dilemma which USSPA ignored
almost completely.
* * *
IT VENTURED to the brink a
few times, but invariably backed
away. In a resolution on (you
guessed it) "freedom of the stu-
dent press," it came the closest:
The necessary correlative of
freedom is responsibility, but it
must be recognized that there
is no structure which can elim-
inate the possibility of an ir-
responsible editor. Suppression
of the newspaper is no solution
to the problem; internal control
must not be arbitrarily abridged
from outside,;
Which leaves the question: what
is the solution to the problem?
The resolution doesn't say. It
drops the issue right there.
Another resolution which stum-
bled toward the brink was con-
cerned with, of- all things, "the
role of the ,printer." The concern
here was that print shops, par-
ticularly commercial firms doing
student-publications work, had al-
tered copy or allowed adminis-
trators to do so without the stu-
dent editors' permission..The res-
olution explained, in irrefutable
terms, why the printer has no
right to change copy:
Unlike the publisher, the
printer is not legally responsi-
ble for the ideas, opinions or
facts presented in any newspa-
per it prints.
And therefore:
USSPA believes that no print
shop should change' or delete
newspaper copy in any way
without the expressed consent of
the editor-in-chief.'
A printer isn't responsible, so he
doesn't have a right to change
anything. So far, so good. But
why not complete the reasoning?
A publisher is responsible, so .he
does have a right to change things.
AT THIS POINT, the delegates
not only backed away from the
brink but simultaneously executed
an about-face. Not only doesn't
the publisher-if he's a college of-
ficial-have a right to change
copy, he doesn't even have a
right to see it. And not only that,
the printer is supposed to be the
one who prevents the publisher.
from seeing it!
US SPA believes that printers
should not divulge the content
of a newspaper to anyone with-
out the expressed'consent of they
editor-in-chief.
Again, anything is justified
which will preserve the absolute
control of the student editor.
It latei becamp eclear that
"anything" included outright lies.
Explicitly listed as a "fact" in a
resolution on "uninterrupted access
to news sources by the student
press" was this proposition:
The student press has made
a conscientious effort to oper-
ate under the Canons of Jour-
nalism of the American Society
of Newspaper Editors and the;
Code of Ethics of the United
States Student Press Association
for the best 'inttrest of the aca-
demic community.
Most of the deleg'ates in the
room had never read the ASNE
Canons. The fration of the stu-
dent press which pretends to fol-
low USSPA's Code (which has
been in existence for one year) is
about one-tenth. Even within that
one-tenth, allegiance to the Code
frequently is something less than
zealous. And all written documents
aside, it is clear that many a
student editor falls far short of
being "conscientious" in carrying
out his duties.
The chairman of the commit-
tee which drafted this classic ,ex-
plained that the ASNE phrase was
thrown into the "fact" section "to
give it an air of respectability."
BUT IT WAS another delegate
who gave the most convincing ar-
gument in favor of falsehood. And
in doing so,; he inadvertently sum-
med up,USSPA's whole pariamen-
tary effort.
"If we delete this section," he
declared, "we will be going against
everything we have done in the
past three days."
''
Fair Housing: Second Chance
MAY 27, Municipal Court Judge
icis O'Brien ruled Ann Arbor's
using Ordinance unconstitutional.
so on the grounds that it deprived,
zens and courts of Ann Arbor of
il procedures guaranteed to them.
of this decision will begin on Sep-
14 when Circuit Court -Judge
t. Breakey Jr. accepts briefs in an
f this decision.
>f the utmost importance to citi-
the state of Michigan that Judge
base his decision on the more
nt of the two issues involved in
a as Judge O'Brien did not. Judge
held that the procedures of the
ce forced an alleged violator to
hate himself, that the ordinance'
ed judicial authority to a non-
body and that the ordinance pro-
interferred with the original jur-'
a reserved to the courts.
H. NEIL BERKSON, Editor
H WINTER EDWARD HERSTEIN
ing Editor Editorial Director
RTZMAN...............Personnel Director
SATTINOER .... Associate Managing Editor
.NYAssistant Managing Editor'
BEATTIE ...... Associate Editorial Director
IND ........Assistant Editorial Director in
/ Charge of the Magazine
,LARD...........Sports Editor
LAND .............Associate Sports Editor
NER ..............Associate Sports Editor
TOWLE.........Contributing Sports Editor
Business Staff
VATHON R. WHITE, Business Manager
PEL .............Associate Business Manager
LDSTEIN............... Finance Manager
JOHNSTON ............Personnel Manager
PAUKER.............Advertising Manager
T HESE ARE WHAT are known as pro-
cedural issues. They have to do with
the functioning of the Fair Housing Or-
dinance, with the legality of the way in,
which the ordinance is organized. And
yet these issues were neither the issues
on which Judge O'Brien was briefed nor,
the very vital issues on which the civil'
rights movement in Michigan depends.
What everyone awaiting Judge O'Brien's
decision was interested in were the ques-
tions of whether the existence of the
state Civil Rights Commission automatic-
ally pre-empts civil rights enforcements
in Michigan, and whether local civil rights
commissions could co-exist with it.
Legally it is perfectly acceptable if,
somewhat unexpected, when a judge
hands down a decision on other grounds
than those on which he was briefed.
Briefs act as aids to the judge, not as
boundries for his work. But Judge
O'Brien's decision, while very proper on a
legal basis, was not justly considered
from the standpoint of the people of the
state of Michigan. For what they wanted
to know and, because of the nature of
Judge O'Brien's decision, what they still
want to know, is what the nature of fu-
ture civil rights laws in Michigan will be.
BUT THOUGH NO ONE can attack a
refusal to rule on this issue from a
legal standpoint, a judge has both le-
gal' and social responsibility. Judge
O'Brien upheld his responsibility to the
law. But in failing to rule on the prime
issue in question, he left Michigan with no
answer to a question which deserves the
strongest of answers. To that extent he
FEIFFER
6 IR GIULP,
YOU P5CRI8E
YOUR SQ F A5
A TYPICAL.
MEMER OF
A TYPICAL
COMMUNITY?
OWNeR, HAR
VMKER,
FATHE5R OF
T74RE6, CL~EAN
I m TNOT
I sv
L)X
STANV-
I
6lR, TH5 5ME7COURT ALL OFC
MES 5OBSCENITY ASP TIM.
TM4T WHICH4 AROU555
PRURIENT INTER5T l
ACCORDPING TO COMP4Lt4- T
ITY STANDARDS. NAVE T
YOU READ THESC r0000?
l
H'AVE
YUMe
T4
Nor
TO
/
SARXWEC
ITY5~ FRURIMT
tNT ,ST?
ThANK
FATE 4R OF
TMREFOR'
OXR com-
v!OWNC,.
VRltENCE.
SIR?
W
r 1 5T M viS!
CR1) , Ie~ LJCAL
RUt2I,-z, d1JA 4f
BTX)ANPSid
YOU MO OR
N5ceN'rRDLI
FINDi fL/'~Afev
A(NV IN T7W
5TIFET AND?
WATCH P'PLIE
ONE:
F