Seye.ty-Fift Year
EnrrD AN MANACEI BY STuDNrs oF mT UNIVERSITY OF MICHGAwM
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT P-C - IONS

Where OpinionsArere,420 MAYNARD T$., ANN AIBO., MICH.
Truth Will Prevail

NEWs PHONE: 764-5352

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily ex press the individual opinions of staf f writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 1964 NIGHT EDITOR: MICHAEL SATTINGER

Goldwater: Not Courage
But Fear and Distrust

. 4a .' . 1, ,.
' "
' ,r ..

THE VOICE of Barry Goldwater echoes
throughout the country as he boldly
calls for individualism, freedom and
states rights, the great American ideals.
But the intense cries for "losing our num-
bers and getting back our names" are
not those of an'independent leader re-
viving worn out ideals. Instead, they are
those of a man dominated by a fear and
distrust which masquerade in an ultra-
nationalism. It is a fear and distrust that
lead to wild statements and to conven-
iently oversimplified solutions for the
complex problems of today.
This fear is best exemplified by Gold-
water's military program. To defend his
almost Orwellian transformed freedom,
he claims we must expand our nuclear
stockpile, we must use space for mili-
tary purposes, and we should permit
military commanders to use "convention-
al nuclear weapons at their own discre-
tion." This, of course, is to stave off the
risk of Russia gaining some military ad-
vantage and catching us unawares.
WHATTHE COST of nuclear build-up
is exorbitant doesn't seem to phase
the budget-minded senator who con-
demns federal spending for medicare, for
schools and for poverty programs. That
his country already has such a capacity
to exterminate human life that the word
"overkill" has been incorporated into our
vocabulary, is blithely ignored. That
"conventional (nuclear) warheads" have
a destructive capacity equal to the Hiro-
shima bomb and that escalation is an
ever-present threat pass unnoticed.
The justification Mr. Goldwater of-
fers is the defense of freedom. Appeal-
ing to patriotism, he claims we should
be willing to defend our own country and
the freedom of our allies. But Mr. Gold-
water is equating courage with a will-
ingness to fight, like in the good old
days. We are no longer dealing with min-
utemen and their rifles. We are deal-
ing with a destructive capacity so great
that its use would probably devastate civ-
ilization and end forever the possibili-
ties of freedom.
SUCH A POLICY of militarily striking
back, of referring to conciliation, ne-
gotiation and discussion as "soft" or
"weak" or antithetical to the real idea
of freedom. Freedom implies diversity of
thought. It implies that no man can
claim knowledge of the ultimate truth
and impose it upon others. That Gold-
water should find "co-existence impossi-
ble" and victory the only answer is in-
dicative of an absolutism and an intol-
erance violently contradictory to the
principle he holds as fundamental.
How could Goldwater claim he is for
peace when his advocations are so nar-
row and so militant? How can any intel-
ligent, thinking American support a man
who believes not only that Red China
should not be recognized, but that the
U.S. made a grave error in recognizing
Russia in 1933, and who tosses off the
Sino-Soviet split as a hoax, claiming
"they're all Commies?" How can a leader
of the free world be a man who lumps
together complex problems with conven-
ient, highly connotative phrases? And this
is the man who claims he wants freedom
and individualism!
AS A MATTER OF FACT, Goldwater is
not preserving the integrity of the
individual. How medicare programs or so-
cial security or welfare or educational
aid are destroying individualism is left
unexplained by the senator. In recalling
the frontier image, he is ignoring Fred-
erick Jackson Turner's classic statement
that the frontier closed in 1890. He blat-

antly ignores the New Frontier facing
us today, the frontier that automation
and mass society have produced. Horatio
Alger died at the turn of the century and
the social scientists of today have done
extensive study of the socio-economic-
psychological conditions working on the
modern man. Nonetheless, Goldwater
pipes up with comment like: if a man
has enough initiative, he can find ajob.
It is not that individual thought or
creativity are suppressed. It is not that
H. NEIL BERKSON, Edit'r'

diversity of ideas is lacking today. The
loss of our individuality is simply owing
to the fact that the federal government
has made certain limited moves to in-
sure the material well-being of Ameri-
cans. Apparently Mr. Goldwater's idea of
individualism is simply that of a man
maintaining total economic self-suffi-
ciency.
AND SOMEHOW our federal govern-
ment has been transformed from a
group of popularly elected representatives
legislating for this country to a thieving,
conniving monster that is stealthily
snatching our freedom. Why Goldwater
so distrusts this machine of which he is
a part, why he so disparages its use to
solve common national problems, is
something else left simply to broad, over-
simplified cliches.
Mr. Goldwater seems anxious to pre-
serve individualism and freedom only if
they happen to coincide with his own
notions. His strong support for the House
Committee on Un-American Activities
hardly indicates a man who believes in
the freedom of a multiplicity of ideas.
His desire to outlaw leftist groups and his
continual use of black and white tabs in
phrases like un-American and Commu-
nist to refer to ideas he doesn't like are
not the tactics of an open-minded, intel-
ligent governmental leader who firmly
believes diversity is the primary means
for progress.
GOLDWATER, not only by his intoler-
ance of disagreement, but also by his
unwillingness to protect human rights,
contradicts his cry for individualism.
Nowhere is it more evident than in the
civil rights legislation. Goldwater voted
against the civil rights bill apparently
because he felt it was unconstitutional
to place human rights before property
rights. He does not believe in legislation
designed to protect an unfairly perse-
cuted minority. This is protecting the in-
dividual? This is permitting freedom?
And Mr. Goldwater's latest classic
statement was that federal courts should
not disregard evidence gathered illegal-
ly. He claims wire tapping and illegal
search and seizure should be permitted.
He objects to court logic which is a way
"to say that a criminal defendant must
be given a sporting chance to go free
even though nobody doubts in the slight-
est that he is guilty." How "everyone"
could be so certain of one man's guilt
even though it was necessary to use il-
legally obtained evidence is left unan-
swered by the senator. How the individ-
ual is protected when wire tapping and
unwarranted search and seizure are per-
mitted has not been elaborated upon as
yet. But this self-righteous attitude in
regard to a defendant, the dehumaniza-
tion of the individual to the position
merely of criminal, has been a character-
istic of Goldwater's child-like black and
white approach to problems.
GOLDWATER IS NOT the answer to
the problems of today. His anti-intel-
lectualism, his oversimplifications, his
intolerance will not bring a sense of
identity to the masses who are products
of an automated society. What is needed
today is not a virtual return to the state
of nature where conflict is solved by
ignoring or wiping it out. What we do
need is an intelligent, sophisticated and
a tolerant policy aimed at resolving con-
flict..
-ROBERTA POLLACK
The Regents

FOR A FEW MINUTES yesterday, the
Regents abandoned the pompous emp-
tiness which usually characterizes their
public meetings in favor of some mean-
ingful dialogue.
The spark was Regent Carl Brablec.
The Regents were being asked to accept
a scholarship earmarked for Negroes,
and he asked if in doing so they would
not be violating their own non-discrimi-
nation policies. There ensued an intelli-
gent and reasonable debate on educa-
tion's aspect of what is a difficult ethi-+
cal dilemma: is discrimination in favor
of a minority group an evil in the same
sense that discrimination against a mi-.
nority is?

TODAY AND TOMORROW:

The Dirksen Rider and
The U.S. Constitution

s. f 7 .
"OL' BARRY ?RoBAB LY Gob A$RouNID LAVINb

.. iaso .i- C +
NI £Is6Hf& SoN.#

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Student Employment at the t'U'

To the Editor:
IN A RECENT ISSUE, readers of
The Daily were made aware of
the student employment situation
in the dormitories, where there are
jobs for 1250 students and only
900 students actually employed.
I am sure that I was not the
only one who found this fact sur-
prising and disturbing as well. I
had assumed, from my own job-
hunting experience, that the first
employment possibility on most
students' list would be the Uni-
versity itself. This somehow in-
volved the assumption that the
University would be an intelligent,
enlightened, 20th century employ-
er, aware and concerned about the
welfare of student employes (or
at least more so than any other
employer).
THIS ASSUMPTION was ob-
viously naive. While student em-
ployes aren't working in sweat-
shops by any means, they are
underpaid (most work for about
$1 an hour before taxes) and have
practically none of the benefits
which are enjoyed by non-student
employes.
The fact that this situation is
coming to a head is evident in
the present situation of under-
employment in the dormitories.
Students simply aren't finding it
worth their while to work for the
University. They are turning to
jobs in the community instead
(only to find that many Ann
Arbor employers take the Univer-
sity pay scale as a standard for
their own).
IT APPEARS to me that the
University, in regard to student
employment, has forgotten its re-
sponsibility to the students while
regarding them merely as a source
of cheap labor. Most students work
while attending. school to partially
or wholly support themselves. This
is a motive which the University,
as a university should endorse and
encourage and, as an employer,
should respect.
-Linda Rosenwein, '65
Germ Warfare
To the Editor:
THE COMMUNISTS say t h e
United States used germ war-
fare in Korea and is using it in
South Viet Nam. Nonsense, we
reply; America would never
stoop to such immoral tactics.
But don't be too sure. The
Pentagon is considering germ-war-
fare weapons as a deterent to
Communist China. This informa-
tion is found in a Sept. 17 news
analysis by John G. Norris of the
Washington Post.
Norris writes: "W h a t then
might deter Mao Tse-tung? Many
planners feel that the threat of
mass biological or chemical attack
on China's crops - which would
destroy the Communist control
over the vast nation-might well
be a credible deterrent."
He admits in the next para-
graph: "Any suggestion of germ
warfare immediately raises hack-
les-and rightly so-but it is no

soon to be sent to the Pacific)
warheads could not carry chem-
ical or biological agents rather
than nuclear explosives. This fact,
with its infinite implications,
could be a more credible deterrent
to Peking than the H-bomb."
Such is the amoral thinking of
military planning and the near-
ness of its fulfillment unless
checked by some political decision.
Theoretically, the United States is
fighting the Cold War to uphold
democratic, humanistic principles
as well as maintain its narrow
national interest. Most Americans
would be disinterested in the Cold
War if it were being waged only
on the latter grounds.
GERM WARFARE, with its in-
cideous agents poisoning all life,
runs counter to the American
tradition. However, because to-
day's major enemy appears to be
Communist China and these
weapons will not bring total world
destruction, the United States is
likely to use such weapons in a
conventional war with China un-
less a political decision blocks
their use now.
Hopefully, the United States has
been waging the Cold War for
more than mere self interest, but
for the maintainence of demo-
cratic values around the world.
The use of germ warfare-even
as a deterrent weapon - would
give American ideals a very hol-
low ring.
-Philip Sutin, Grad
More About Housing
To the Editor:
I MUST ADMIT that The Daily
of Friday, September 18, pro-
vided an interesting contrast in
good and bad journalism. On the.
front page was a fair and un-
biased account of a "debate" be-
tween Miss Karen Kenah and
members of Frost and Blagdon
Houses on the subject of honors
housing. On the editorial page
was another misdirected editorial
finding fault with honors housing.
Since my opinion is intrinsically
biased by my decision to be in
honors housing, I will not attempt
to debate the "issues" as such,
but will simply try to point out
some of the fallacies present in
the editorial stands thus far taken.
FIRST, both editorials were
written by persons who have had
no personal experience with the
Honors Housing Program on this
Campus, namely living in either
Frost or Blagdon. One ditorial
went so .far as to criticize fresh-
men for writing letters defending
their position as honors housing
residents because they didn't have
"experience with any other type."
May I be permitted to point out
that this is the exact same posi-
tion that the editorial writers are
in?
Secondly, both editorials assume
that there is an "image" automa-
tically associated with honors
housing. I would like to take ex-
ception with this, also. What and
where is it? I know that when I
elected for honors housing, I had

I would like to know what these
are so that I may take advantage
of them. So would everyone else I
know.
Finally, I would like to point out
the contradiction present in the
two editorials. The first declared
that honors housing was bad be-
cause it narrowed the individual's
education. The second proposes
putting students in the same pro-
gram in the same house! How
much more "narrowing" could be
accomplished?
I WOULD LIKE to propose that
some impartial study group, per-
haps under the auspices of SGC
or some other similiar organiza-
tion, be set up to gather the true
facts about honors housing, rather
than allow these blatant general-
izations, conjectured from hear-
say-type evidence to be pictured
as the true story of honors hous-
ing. The situation is, at present,
somewhat analagous to an editorial
written on the dangers of food
poisoning based on the reports of
residents subjected to dormitory
food..
-Charles Ballard,'68
AFECICWGE
To the Editor:
IN RESPONSE to an increasing
number of inquiries I should
like to make known to the cam-
pus at large a few facts about the.
newest campus organization, AF-
ECIGGE (af-a-siggy). The Amer-
icans for Emigration to Canada
If Goldwater Gets Elected grew
out of the spontaneous fear of
many students that life in the
United States, in the event of Sen.
Goldwater's election to the Presi-
dency, would be "solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish, and short." It is
this fear which drives us to or-
ganize and preparekeeping in
mind the time honored lesson of
history that one must be always
on guard against the calamities
which mankind is heir to.
We are not a subversive organ-
ization as some of our critics will
undoubtedly charge; our loyalty
to the United States is beyond
question. Indeed, it is out of our
love for the United States that
we do what we do. We are a bi-
partisan group cutting across ali
racial and religious lines united
by a common fear. We are not a
pro-Johnson group but rather an
anti-Goldwater group.
I. .. s
WHILE WE ARE active here at
Michigan we will endeavor to
supply the student body and all
other interested persons with in-
formation about Canada's educa-
tional and employment opportuni-
ties, transportation facilities, hous-
ing accommodations, naturaliza-
tion and emigration laws as well
as a general briefing on the cus-
toms, laws, and traditions of Can-
ada. In short, it is our intention
to acquaint interested persons
with the facts about emigration to
Canada as an alternative to liv-
ing in the United States should
Sen. Goldwater become President.
In conclusion I should like to

By WALTER LIPPMANN
THE COMMOTION which has
been stirred up by the Supreme
Court's decisions in the state ap-
portionment cases is inconvenient.
The Dirksen rider has, for ex-
ample, muddled up the foreign aid
bill and delayed the adjournment
of Congress.
Morevover,in the case of the
Tuck amendment which passed the
House, though not the Senate, the
attack on the court is subversive
of our constitutional system. Yet
the changes in American public
life that reapportionment will
bring about are so deep and so
broad that it is well, I think, that
the country is compelled to take a
serious look at the whole affair.
Very great things are at stake,
and it would be a bad sign if those
of us who favor reapportionment
were not made to debate the plan
and justify our case.
THIS IS now assured, whether
in the end the Dirksen rider is
adopted or there is substituted for
it the amendment-just barely de-
feated on Tuesday-proposed by
Senators Jacob Javits, Eugene Mc-
Carthy and Hubert Humphrey.
There is already clearly in sight
a broad agreement on cretain es-
sential propositions. There is a,
very big majority in the Senate
against the extremism of the Tuck
amendment, which would forbid
the federal judiciary to deal with
apportionment at all. There is
broad agreement that while re-
apportionment is necessary and
inevitable it should not be treated
as a crash program.
There ought to be a broad agree-
ment, so it seems to me, that this
momentous change in our public
life should have behind it not only
the federal courts, but also a sanc-
tion from Congress.
MY OWN VIEW has been that
the Dirksen rider could be read
as favoring these broad agree-
ments and that the best thing to
do with it was to accept it as a
breather in the complicated pro-
cess of bringing about reappor-
tionment. But there has, however,
been a strong objection to it from
those who know the need for re-
apportionment and have been told
by Sen. Everett Dirksen that his
objective is to halt altogether the
application of the Supreme Court's
ruling. This is the ruling that
every voter must count equally in
both houses of a state legislature.
Lawyers tell me that.the Dirk-
sen amendment was itself a com-
promise and that there is a dif-
ference between what Senator
Dirksen would like to do and what
his rider says must happen. My
own view is that we could live
with the two-year delay which the
rider calls for and that it is not
likely that a constitutional amend-
ment reversing the court could be
steamrollered through in two
years.
THOSE OF US who want reap-
portionment should not, I think,
shrink from the challenge to de-
bate the problem all over the
country. We ought to be able to
win that debate, and if we do,
reapportionment will have behind
it a mighty sanction and a mighty
impetus.
I am also told, however, that
the Dirksen amendment is no
longer what it was when it was
first proposed. It has now acquired
legislative history, and the courts
will be bound to interpret the
rider in the light of what has been
said about it in the Senate. For
that reason, a resolution like that
which was barely defeated on
Tuesday is desirable. It would pro-
vide time to carry out this diffi-
cultbchange, but it would leave no
doubt that the Congress favored
reapportionment.
* * *
THERE WILL REMAIN, of
course, the belief of many that
the dissent of Mr. Justice Harlan

was right and that apportionment
in the states is no business of the
federal government. The issue here
is a difficult and delicate one. For
it brings us to a problem, which
must arise in a country governed
by a constitution. This is the prob-
lem of how to find a legal redress
of grievances for which in es-

tablished precedent there is no
remedy.
The stark fact is that in a
great many state legislatures at
least one of the houses is grossly,
unjustly, indeed outrageously, mal-
apportioned. In many of the states,
despite their own state consti-
tutions, the entrenched minorities
refuse to reform themselves.
* * *
A SOUND and vital constitu-
tional system is boud to find a
legal remedy for such a funda-
mental wrong. This does not mean
that the Supreme Court can or
should set itself up to provide a
legal remedy for. eery wrong. But
for this specific wrong of malap-
portioned legislatures that will not
reapportion themselves, the court
has found a remedy which goes
beyond the establshed precedents,
but is not contrary to accepted
principles.
This is, to be sure, a view of
the Constitution which is safe
only for the mature. It is a strong
medicine which must be very cau-
tiously dispensed.
(e) 1964, The Washington Post C'
TWO WOMEN:
A bsorbin
At the Cinema Guild
A FINE PERFORMANCE by
Sophie Loren, skillful directing
and competent technical assist-
ance make Vittorio De Sica's Two
Women" an absorbing film. Based
upon a novel by Alberto Moravia,
the film depicts the unsettled con-
ditions in Italy at the time of the
Allied invasion inWorld War II.
De Sica deserves.-praise for his
recognition and useof Miss
Loren's talents in this film. He
often uses her facial expression
alone to convey the meaning of
a scene. At the end of the movie,
for example, Miss Loren's face
carries a heavy acknowledgement
of suffering. But she also express-
es an honest happiness at the real-
ization of the hope, however
compromised, that remains in her
life.
Miss Loren's facial expression
also .makes the seduction scene
with Raf Vallone a success. As
Vallone locks up his store, the
room grows darker. It becomes
dark enough to be sinful but light
enough to reveal Miss Loren's face.
Her strained expression portrays
the struggle between her respon-
sibilities and her desires,
* * *
DE SICA ACHIEVES his most
powerful effect in the rape scene,
with the aid of a skilled camera
crew. An overhead, panoramic
view shows the two women (Miss
Loren and her daughter, Eleanora
Brown) being chased through the
cathedral by two groups of sol-
diers, as if they were animals be-
ing hunted in a primitive ritual.
The next shot is from the floor
level, where the inability of the
two women to help each other be-
comes apparent. The camera then
focuses on the faces of the vic-
tims, showing the inhuman vio-
lence of the soldiers. A shot of
the rapists' eager faces adds to
the shocking effect of the scene.
A straightforward plot with
well-chosen incidents directs our
attention to the horrors of war-
time Italy. Most important is the
lack of human concern for others,
apparent in the Italians, the Afri-
cans and the Americans, as well
as in the Germans. The film dis-
plays the general lack, of moral
principle in a war-time society,
as in the senseless machine-gun-
ning of the harmless old man rid-
ing his bicycle.
Using incidents provided by the
course of the war, De Sica pre-
sents a bold, hard, inhuman s-o
ciety. He uses the history of the

two women to make these condi-
tions meaningful to us as indi-
viduals. Thanks to Miss toren's
performance, which won her an
Academy Award for Best Actress
in 1962, the movie provides two
hours of vivid involvement in a
horrible world.
-Lee Carl Bromberg


"Mind if I Watch While You Draw?"

.. _ ,

I