Seventy-Fif th Year
EDrrED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Where Oinions Are Free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MicH. NEws PHONE: 764-0552
Truth Will Prevail
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1964 NIGHT EDITOR: KENNETH WINTER
Each Time I Chanced To See Franklin D.
Regents Struggle with Restricted Scholarships
by U. Neil Berkson
Auto Workers'Settlement
Further Strengthens Union
FRIDAY'S CONTRACT settlement be-
twfeen the Ford Motor Company and
the United Auto Workers was but an-
other in a series of incidents in which
auto manufacturers have unwittingly
strengthened the union's position by help-
ing to maintain an atmosphere of con-
flict between the two sides.
The settlement had all the earmarks of
a traditional auto contract agreement:
an aura of hostility whipped up by both
sides, discouraging reports from negotia-
tors on bargaining progress, a string of
overwhelmingly favorable strike votes
from UAW locals and. finally a dramatic
settlement only 55 minutes before the
strike deadline.
THE ROLE OF THE UNION in these
theatrics is relatively easy to under-
stand. Since the late 1930's, steady prog-
ress has been made through union ef-
forts in improving hours, salaries and
working conditions in the auto plants.
Thus the worker is not gripped by a
sense of anger at the practices of man-
agement and has a tendency to view
union negotiation efforts as merely an-
other regular occurrence rather than as
a struggle in which he personally is in-
volved. Most workers are still pro-union,
but not intensely so.
The vitriolic statements of UAW Presi-
dent Walter Reuther and other union
leaders during the summer negotiations
were made as much for the benefit of
the union workers behind them as for
the management negotiators ac oss the
table. Sending men out on strike over
complicated fringe benefit plans is not
likely to generate a spirit of purpose
among the strikers; the inflammatory
statements were designed to make the is-
sues seem vital and pressing to the men
who might be going without pay for them.
MANAGEMENT'S ROLE is more diffi-
cult to comprehend. Its comments
were equally vitriolic and made it sound
as if management also had a "team" to
arouse. Management negotiators seemed
eager to play along with the union's
game of trying to create an overpowering
sense of struggle.
The bargaining table is not the only
area where management has been play-
ing into the union's hands, however. In
many plants a vast fund of resentment
is being generated by ridiculous manage-
ment procedures which artificially separ-
ate union and non-union employes into
two distinct classes.
For instance, all union workers are re-
quired to use specific time clocks to stamp
their time cards. Non-union employes,
many of whom have similar jobs in the
same work areas, use an honor system to
fill out their cards and can arrive and
leave within a few minutes of their as-
signed times without any questions being
asked.
UNION WORKERS HAVE assigned
breaks, designated by a signal sound-
ing throughout the plant. Non-union men
walk out to the coffee machine or smoke
a cigarette whenever they wish, although
these informal breaks average out to
nearly the same length as the union
men's formalized ones.
Non-union workers have doors on their
toilets. Union workers don't.
Thus management, by its policies in
many insignificant areas, is making it
easier for a union worker to identify
himself as a union man rather than just
another company employe.
THIS IDENTITY IS precisely what the
union is trying to foster by its at-
tempts to create an aura of animosity
between the two sides. If management
would take a more rational and less hos-
tile approach to the entire union manage-
ment struggle, it would not only be mak-
ing things better for the workers but it
might find itself farther ahead in its
dealings with the union.
-JOHN BRYANT
L AST FRIDAY'S REGENTS' MEETING produced a
momentary stir when the body tabled a motion to
accept a scholarship restricted to Negro students. The
Regents had not registered any public disagreement,
either among themselves or with the University admin-
istration, since last November. At that time they voted
5-3 to approve Student Government Council procedures
aimed at eliminating discrimination in student organiza-
tions.
The Regents have only recently adopted a policy
against accepting discriminatory scholarships. This policy
is primarily aimed at the type of bias evidenced in the
very first scholarship in the University's award book:
"Eligibility: Caucasian, Protestant women of American
parentage'who need financial assistance." Nevertheless,
if the Regents want to stop discrimination, they must
stop it altogether.
IN THE SHORT RANGE, discrimination in reverse
might be justifiable. Certain classes and groups in so-
cieties do have special needs, and the scholarship de-
bated by the Regents would meet those needs.
However, if the scholarship money goes into a
general pool-and if that pool is as large as the funds
now available to the University are-minority groups
will not have to worry much about receiving necessary
aid. The Office of Financial Aids declares unequivocally
TODAY AND TOMORROW:
that it can find money for any student who really needs
it.
More important, discrimination in reverse is, in the
final analysis, as wrong as its evil counterpart. We must
learn to stop categorizing people in terms of race,
religion, nationality. Any attempt, however well-meant,
which establishes criteria along these lines only per-
petuates the barriers.
* *
IN THE MIDDLE of a political year, it is understand-
able that Gov. George Romney has let a month go
by without filling the vacancy on the Board of Regents
caused by the death of William K. McInally. The gov-
ernor would probably wait until after November 3rd if
he could possibly justify it. Whether he names a liberal
or conservative Republican to the board, he is certain to
alienate some faction of his party.
The rumor mill is currently grinding out two names:
liberal Lawrence Lindemer, a former state Republican
chairman who fell into disfavor with the party because
of his heavy participation in the Rockefeller campaign,
and Goldwater conservative Ink White, a 'newspaper
publisher who ran unsuccessfully for the board in 1962.
Another candidate, former University Vice-President
Robert Briggs, was eliminated when last Saturday's
Republican state convention nominated him for the
state board of education.
I DON'T KNOW enough about either White or
Lindemer to determine which would make the better
Regent, but Gov. Romney does.
The appointment should have come before the
Regents' September meeting so that the new man could
acquaint himself as quickly; as possible with the complex
problems facing the University. It should certainly come
well before the October meeting. Politics and education
don't mix.
* * * *
THE REPUBLICAN-ORIENTED city council has tried
to avoid any study of the potential parking and
traffic chaos which multiple housing will bring to Ann
Arbor. Republican Mayor Creal again kept this subject
off the council table Monday night, but the Democrats
did succeed in committing the planning commission to a
study of the problem.
The city has a year, perhaps two years, before "high-
rise" buildings such as the 18-story monstrosity currently
going up on South University, place the automobile
problem beyond solution. The planning commission ought
to take exception to its usual method of operation and
move fast. Or at least move.
Goldwater in South:
Sets New Strategy
+ f
J
tti 't
t . ^
Larcom's Housing Report
Indicates Inspection Failure
By WALTER LIPPMANN
AST WEEK Sen. Barry Gold-
water went campaigning in
the South. His purpose, it appears,
was'not so much to win this elec-
tion, but to inaugurate the so-
called southern strategy in order
to lay the foundations for a radi-
cally new Republican Party.
This was made plain by the exu-
berant welcome he extended to
Sen. Strom Thurmond who has
now joined the Republican Party.
This new Republican Party, which
was born in San Francisco, is to
be built upon a Goldwater-Thur-
mond alliance; it is to be a white
man's party and not conservative
at all, but radically reactionary.
THE FORMATION of the Gold-
water-Thurmond alliance explains
what is otherwise madly inexpli-
cable about Senator Goldwater's
campaign speeches during the past
week. There was, to begin with,
his almost total silence about the
civil rights act, though opposition
to it is by all odds the main rea-
son for his strength in the South.
There was no need for him to
mention civil rights or to take
notice of the existence of a large
Negro population when he could
consort publicly with Senator
Thurmond. Senator Thurmond is
the most extreme segregationist
and the most extreme reactionary
in the United States Senate.
SINCE THERE was nothing fur-
ther to be said on the race issue,
Goldwater devoted himself to the
one thing still needed to clinch
the kind of southern vote repre-
sented by Thurmond. This was to
be so boldly and extravagantly re-
actionary on other issues that
there could be no doubt that he
was wholly free of the taint of any
of that progressivism which is the
tradition of the West.
This was, I believe, why he chose
Florida, where there are so many
elderly people, to attack Medi-
care, why he chose in Tennessee to
renew his proposal to sell the TVA
and why he went to West Vir-
ginia to attack the poor.
Some have wondered whether
these are symptoms of a "suicide
complex." I think they are the
result of a decision to make over
the Republican Party in the image
of Barry Goldwater and Strom
Thurmond.
Here again, as in his demands
for a weaker government, but
stronger policies, we see that the
senator is enclosed, as in an en-
velope, in his private dream world.
One of his persistent fantasies is
that, since the poor are a minor-
ity, a great political result can be
had by arousing the rich against
the poor.
FOR THE PROOF of this we
must look to his speech in Char-
lestown, W. Va., on Friday Sept.
18-omitting the wild ad lib re-
marks which were reported in the
newspapers and using only the
official text given out by the Re-
publican National Committee. This
speech was an attack on the ad-
ministration's "war on poverty."
The senator said that the Ken-
nedy-Johnson objective is that "no
one is to be permitted to fall be-
low the average." This is obviously
sheer gibberish, since there can-
not be an "average" if no one is
below it.
What Senator Goldwater was
trying to talk about is the fact
that the administration regards
as "poor" a non-farm family of
four which has an annual income
of less than $3000. This figure is
not an "average."
It is an amount of money which
permits a f'aily of four to spend
about 70 cents a day per person
for food, to spend $800 a year for
housing, which covers rent or
mortgage payments, utilities and
heat. After food and housing, there
is left in this budget $1200-or
$25 a week for the whole family
to pay for clothing, transporta-
tion, school supplies and books,
home furnishings and supplies,
medical care,rpersonal care, re-
creation, insurance and every-
thing else.
SENATOR GOLDWATER sneer-
ed at this budget as luxurious.
And he went on to declare, em-
phasizing his words by under-
lining them in the text, that "a
society in which no one is per-
mitted to fall below the average
(sic) is one in which no one can
be permitted to rise above it."
This sentence must be described
as total nonsense. In his confu-
sion he seems to think that the
$3000 budget is the "average" and
that President Lyndon Johnson is
plotting to prevent anyone from
earning more than $3000! Or
what, in the name of sanity, does
he mean?
The more closely one examines
the actual texts of the Goldwater
speeches, the more apparent is the
divorce between what he thinks
and says and what actually exists
in the real world. His feet are not
on the ground. His head is in some
kind of private cloud. It is truly
alarming to think that the fate
of this country and of the world
could be in his hands.
(c) 1964, The Washington Post Co.
0
t I
r"1Y**"
CITY ATTORNEY Guy C. Larcom's
housing report to the Ann Arbor City
Council Monday night said more than
it intended to.
Itsintent was to report to the council
the poor condition of housing inspection
in the city and to propose means of cor-
recting the problem. But in addition to
this, the report was a statement of an ad-
ministration's failure to uphold its com-
mitment to its constituents.
Ann Arbor has had a separate housing
inspection office since 1955. Provisions
for housing inspection existed long be-
fort that. Yet the very essence of Lar-
com's statement was a report that these
ordinances were not being enforced. It
is very tempting to ask what sort of a
municipality passes laws only to ignore
them because it either costs too much to
enforce them or because it 'is convenient
to ignore the matter for the time being.
THIS IS NOT a theoretical question, to
be dealt with abstractly and at leis-
ure. It is literally as close and as vital to
Ann Arbor's citizens and student resi-
Second class postage paid at Ann Arbor, Mich.
dents as the buildings they live in. In
1955 it took a student's death by fire to
wake the community up to the necessity
for a separate housing department with-
in the city. It almost seems that the
councils and officials who have come
and gone since 1955 have been waiting
for a similar tragedy before putting that
housing department to work.
It is very probably impossible to as-
sign this blame to any particular person
or group of persons. And it is unfortunate
that this is so, because such an assign-
ment might tend to allow the rest of
Ann Arbor's residents to assume they
have no responsibilities in the matter.
This is far from the case.
Anyone who has had even the remot-
est connection with the housing inspec-
tion program since it was begun, must
share the responsibility for the absurd
state of affairs that inspection is now in.
When the city administrator can stand
before the council and say that less than
half of Ann Arbor's recently constructed
housing has been approved for occupancy,
it is time that something be done.
-LEONARD PRATT
6 14G 1 f 1J ,
C M1 c l9t-w. 'S 4r . "s". i yt.irAM
MOVE OR I'LL
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Reasons for, Rockwell Speech
FEIFFER
IF FVMR I
THINK'MX~
FINALLY
MATLR6
izz
it
f
ACID UT,E
I'LL C-0
PiC1MYS
ANDMY -
IAOTt4FR
LOST'
HAPPY
AND MY FA111R
WILL. TELLMe
I SHOVLa2MT
13E SUCH A
SMART 600
AND~ [WRY PONT
1 GIVE C vc
M-ONEY. UOM
To the Editor:
DUE TO recent confusion, the
Michigan Union would like to
explain the rationale for its
speaking invitation to George
Lincoln Rockwell, head of the
American Nazi Party.
The war is not a memory to the
majority of the students of this
campus; even fewer know the
goals and philosophy of present-
day Nazism. This is the primary
reason for our initial steps in
inviting Rockwell, a purely in-
formative undertaking which dem-
onstrates the rationale behindtour
whole speaker program. I want to
emphasize that this rationale dif-
fers in no way from that used in
the past nor from the one we will
use in the future. Our role is to
present an unbiased program with
ample opportunity for each stu-
dent to form his own opinions and
conclusions about the issue of
discussion.
We feel that the goal of knowl-
edge, endorsed byka college com-
munity of any kind, is reason
enough for the appearance of an
advocate or antagonist of a con-
troversial issue or creed. Knowl-
edge of any subject is not com-
plete-nor adequate-unless that
subject has been viewed from its
various possible angles. A univer-
sity community has the oppor-
tunity, even the duty, to present
these different viewpoints to its
students. The active involvement
of a university or its members
working against the presentation
of a more adequate knowledge of
a subject is totally against any
enduring concept of education.
tributes are not exclusively Nazi,
and Nazism is of course not the
exclusive danger. Any creed em-
phasizing these traits is a men-
ace, and one meriting awareness
to guard against its proven in-
fluence on today's mass mind.
A great deal' of consideration
preceded{ our invitation, and most
of the criticisms raised recently
were discussed months ago. Ob-
viously, a value judgment had to
be made, and the result of that
judgment is not yet completely,
ED McCURDY:
Sophisticated Balladier
BY FOLLOWING that brilliant bluegrass group the Kentucky Colonels
with the sophisticated man-of-the-world balladier Ed McCurdy,
Ann Arbor's only true coffee-house, the intimate Golden Vanity,
maintains its consistently high level of entertainment and simul-
taneously offers the community a good contrast in folk talent.
Claiming ". . . not to be a 'message singer' because I don't know
the answers," the articulate and undeniably witty McCurdy proves,
despite the current emphasis on folk instrumental virtuosity and
group singing, that an outstanding balladier is no less highly
satisfying and entertaining a performer.
* * * *
WHILE INTERESTED primarily in "the gentle erotic lyric of
the Elizabethan Era" (Tom Jones would have really dug Ed McCurdy!)
exemplified by the delightful "Lusty Young Smith," Ed mixes in
numerous other ballad types, such as the classic "Who Killed Cock
Robbin," "Colorado Trail," Jimmy Driftwood's well-known "He Had
A Long Chain On," and Ed's own haunting commentary on the
perpetual instability of our planet, "Last Night I Had the Strangest
Dream."
Ed McCurdy is a disciplined musician and possesses a superbly
trained and far-ranging bass voice-a refreshing change for those who
may be frankly dismayed with the gravel-throated deliveries of "ethnic"
folk singers.
visible. However, we feel that the
possible dignity and stature ac-
corded to Rockwell by his being
allowed to speak from a University
platform is small in comparison
to the positive effects of remind-
ing the campus of the ideology
which once threatened the world
and which is still present in some
sectors.
-John W. Warren, '66
Chairman,
Special Projects Committee
Michigan Union
,--
t
MD( MY MOTHER
WILL. ASK ME
WY I M NOT
EATIN6 AND
fif,e . r urn
l / ,
a
AND MY( FA
THR WILL.
1-TM ~ Ml'
f7~
AN 0TH OF
THEM WILL
THEY DONT
IfTQ
AND IF I CAN
THAT WI4OL-6
M'AN!
f.
I