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.

September 24, 1964 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1964-09-24

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

~i~r£hrlgan ~uUx
Seenty-Fifth year
EDITED Aft MAwActR BY STUIDENTSof ''M UN IYEZST'Y oCW M CMC.
UNDMR. AUrrHOVMTYOF BoARD Im CONTROL of S1uDmrr PuMJicA'no

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

t

Social Discontents and the Loyalty Oath Tradition

ma Are e,420 MAYNARD ST., ANN AR3OR, MiCH.
Li Prml

NEws PHoNE: 764-0552

iitorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
)AY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1964 NIGHT EDITOR LOUISE LIND,

T he Residential College:
Finally a Non-Monster

YOU WOULD THINK an enlightened
institution like a university wouldn't
build monsters.
Monsters such as Mary Markley and
South Quadrangle. When the Army builds
cold, impersonal barracks, no one thinks
twice. But in a university-almost by
definition replete with intelligent peo-
ple who ought to be aware of the re-
lationship between the physical and the
human-it's genuinely surprising.
That there{ are people here who under-
stand how the physical structure of liv-
ing quarters affects the quality of life
in them is unmistakable; there are men
like Prof. Theodore Newcomb, the resi-
dential college's top faculty mind orn the
housing problem.
That those men are not in the offices
where existing dornitories were planned
is also unmistakable.
HOW ELSE COULD we have ended up
with long, depressing corridors down
which the drop of a pin resoun'ds, minis-
cule, artless, uncomfortable cubicles,
tasteless food, annoying meal lines, huge,
cold dining halls? How else could a struc-
ture be built that towers forebodingly
above and beyond the individual, facing
him with its lackluster monotony of
bricks, glass and steel?
To be sure, there is meaningful inter-
action in the dormitories. But it is al-
most exclusively In spite of them-rare-
ly because of them.
Maybe the answer isn't a paucity of
imagination. Maybe it's just a dearth .of
courage to stand up to the economizers
in the administration and assert con-
vincingly'that this will not do.
Whatever the reason, planning really
need not have taken such a course. The
residential college will prove that some-'
thing much better is possible.
JF CURRENT THINKING is put into the
final blueprints,- its structures would
have only 30 people in them-in build-
ings three stories high, that's about 10
on a floor. The rooms would be distinctive

as imagination allows. They would be
somewhat more spacious.
They would be more flexible-not only
might furniture be moved around, but
with the opening of doors and the shift-
ing of living arrangements, singles could
be made into doubles, doubles into quad-
ruples, almost without end.
There would be lavatories serving as
few as three people, perhaps lounges on
each floor and certainly a comfortable
lounge for each unit of 30. There would
be regular dormitory rooms, some apart-
ments, some cooperatives.
MOST LIKELY, there would be facili-
ties for seminars or classes right in
the dormritories.
All the units would be so close to
each other and so close to the main class-
rooms and libraries that the invidious
psychological segregation of learning
from living which the central campus
now generates would be greatly mini-
mized.
As Newcomb puts it, the residences
will be built so as to ensure "informal,
repeated interaction on a personal, mean-
ingful level.",
OF COURSE much of this might not
materialize in the final analysis.While
residences can afford to be less parsimon-
ious because they are largely self-liquidat-
ing, the unforseeable configuration of
cost and administrative decision may
modify many of the brilliant ideas cur-
rently circulating.
But even if that happens, the fact re-
mains that someone actually did plan an
exciting place in which to live. Some-
one will actually have designed a resi-
dence that students might like.
One only regrets that no one thought
of building pleasant residences before,
or that no one had the courage to in-
sist that accountants should not design
the places in which human beings must
live.
-JEFFREYGOODMAN

To the Editor:'
EVERY YEAR it happens . .
and just about this time. Som
social discontent makes public tha
he has had his basic human right
torn from his very soul by bein
made to sign a chauvinistic oath
of loyalty to the United States
This year, alas, is to be no dif
ferent. Indeed, someone from th
picket-sign platoon has already
made sure that the tradition wil
be carried on.
What is perhaps more distaste-
ful is, the disgustingly apologeti
attitude displayed by Universit
officials in defending the oath
They make issue of the fact thai
the onee-required Communist dis-
claimer ha.s been abandoned, a
regrettable move of which they
have no basis for being proud
They should assume, and correctl
so, that most American citizens
would proudly sign an oath of
loyalty to the United States.
WHAT I would like to know is
what will be the next item for
protest. Have not M. Zweig and
other guardians of human liber-
ties ever noticed that there is an
American flag flying right on the
diag itself? No other flag, mind
you, just an American flag!
Actually, though, there seems to
be somewhat of a contradiction in
the "line" of the Anti-oath Folks.
To wit, the loudest protests against
the Mississippi and Alabama dele-
gates who did not wish to sign a
party loyalty oath came from
members of the ADA (Hubert not
being the least of them). The ADA,
let us remember, has 'always fa-
vored doing away with, among
other things, loyalty oaths of any
kind. Strange indeed are the
travelings of M. Zweig and other
fellows in liberal politics.
-Steven M. Freedman, '65
Dying Socialism
To the Editor:
I WAS SADDENED to read your
recent articles reporting the
comments of Show and Blomen,
vice-presidential candidates . for
the Socialist Workers and Social-
ist Labor parties.
I was saddened not because of a
deep personal commitment to so-
cialism, but because their speeches
seemed demonstrative of the ap-
proaching death of a great move-
ment. Aside from the vigorous aid
they are giving to civil rights
causes, these great idea leaders of
the past seem very sterile. It's ob-
vious that American socialism has
run its course and is on its death-
bed.
Mr. Blomen talked of our pres-
ent system as "sick and insecure,"
suffering from "mental break-
down" and "obsolete." Well, I'm
afraid those words better describe
his own movement. Somehow this
'THE LADY':
Vintage
Hitchmcck
At the Cinema Guild
TONIGHT and tomorrow night.
the Cinema Guild audience will
be waiting in anticipation through
two very bad and one mildly fun-
ny Woody Woodpecker cartoons
for a 1938 Alfred Hitchcock film,
"The Lady Vanishes" with a top
name cast.
On its collective mind will be
the thought that Hitchcock has
been slipping of late, cf. "The
Birds" and "Marnie," and that
his best work-the movies in which
his technical and ironic prowess
shine-can be found during his
English years in the thirties. "The
Lady Vanishes" provides an op-
portunity to examine this theory,
if only partially.

I feel that "The Lady Vanishes"
is technically superb, but suspense-
fully immature and melodramat-
ically implausible. But then, this
is true of all his works. Only
in recent years, suspense has been
heightened to a satirical and
heart-thumping pitch.
HITCHCOCK, in this film, has
infested one of his typical "con-
spiracy" plots with several in-
triguing minor characters. His
eye is always open for the in-
congruous in their actions and
idiosyncracies. However, his leads
are straight - jacketed, sweet-
mouthed imbeciles.3
Margaret Lockwood is sweet,
pretty and, quite accidentally, the
target of the conspiracy plot.
Michael Redgrave comes to her
aid, playing on his clarinet like
Pan and smoothing her ruffled
feathers. But we have seen this
a million times from the days of
Douglas Fairbanks to the ever-
bubbling Cary Grant.
As Nero probably said, "It's 2
bore," and he went back to fid-
dling. Hitchcock hasn't realized
this yet. 'But he has learned how
to masquerade this defect with
subtle grace-such as having the
audience expect to find the body
of a woman, but turning up a
spotted calf. These touches are
sardonic comments on life in the

movement never kept pace with
an evolving society, and it now
e lies decayed and politically bank-
t rupt.
s*
g THE SOCIALIST publication on
h sale in Ann Arbor, The Weekly
People, reminds one of the quo-
tation: ". . we are hollow men,
e empty men, headpieces filled with
V straw." I would commend that dis-
I appointing publication to anyone
who has any doubts of what I
- say. No one with any education or
ccritical bent 'could help but be
repulsed by its blatant shallow-
ness. Ideas of replacing the civil
t government of the republic with
industrial unions, for example, are
too insane to be taken seriously.
Speaking with embarrassing
frankness, I regret to say the ob-
vious: that this dying movement
not only is devoid of viable, con-
structive ideas, but also clearly
gathers most of its support from
the response-seeking elements of
sther dissident, disoriented and
paranoiac, who, incapable or un-
willing to cope with their environ-
ment, reject it.
The country needs new ideas
and a little agitation. I certainly
hope new sources spring forth, but
it is time for the socialists to stop
kidding themselves.
-Thomas Rasmusson, '66L
More Rockwell
To the Editor:
IT SEEMS TO ME, that in the
course of the editorial com-
ments opposing Mr. Rckwell's
forthcoming visit, a very signifi-
cant ruse has been perpetrated on
your readers. None of the writers
question Mr. Rockwell's right to
speak, but only his right to speak
at the University, and thereby
miss the point completely.
What these people have done is
to raise the question of whether
we others have a right to listen,
and I submit that there can never
be any doubt about that.
I reject Mr. Rockwell's ideas
flatly, and I also reject any sug-
gestion that the Union, operating
in its proper function, does not
have the privilege of inviting
whomever It considers to be of
interest or controversy. Simul-
taneously, I reject the presumption
of any man to deny me the privi-
lege of listening to Mr. Rockwell
after that occasion has been of-
fered, simply because some in-
dividuals, like myself, happen to
disagree with his views.
* * *
I CANNOT HELP making the
observation that an ideology which
has managed to create one of the
most hideous circumstances of
civilized history ought at least to
be subject for discussion. And I
think the appropriate place for
that discussion is in an intellec-
tual community where intelligent
Americans are most likely 0o con-
tribute constructively to the exam-
ination of ideologies, i.e., in the
universities.
By the same philosophy which
promoted these anti-Rockwell dis-
sertations, one could reasonably
continue to the point of outlawing
all discussion of Nazism, thereby
reconstructing the curricula of the
philosophy, political science, his-
tory, and psychology departments.
It seems, really, that the reason
why these people have opposed the'
Rockwell visit lies much more
deeply than the mouthing of pla-
titudes about etiquette and re-
sponsibility and propriety. Beneath
these comments is an irrational
fear that perhaps Rockwell will
convince us he's right. This is
rather obviously absurd since the

vast majority of-us will come away
unimpressed even if those who
distrust us will refrain from tell-
ing us that we have to do so.
Most Americans do not hate
Negroes and do not hate Jews.
Most of us are opposed to wars for
aggrandizement, and genocide
turns us cold. All in all, I cannot
escape the feeling that America
will still be America after Rock-
well departs.
-Ev Woods, '65
T HE HEAD of the American
Nazi Party is to speak in Hill
Auditorium on October 13. Some
students see constitutional liber-
ties endangered if this party is
not given a University forum. We
do not advocate that Rockwell be
denied the Constitutional guar-
antees. But let him come to Ann
Arbor on his own initiative and
let him rent a hall at his own
expense. Let the University re-
main untainted. Hill Auditorium
is not the place for the call t re-
ignite the crematoriums. Plane
fare and accommodations for
Rockwell and his zealous storm
trooper(s) should not be supplied
by the student body. We cannot
see how failure to subsidize him
constitutes a denial of his rignts.
The University is, or ought to
be, a moral force in our society.
When it sees injustice or corrup-
tion, it must voice its disapproval
in loud tones. Are we now to con-
clude that genocide does not merit
this denunciation?
Some students persist in making
freedom of speech the dominant
issue. They fail to see that free-
dom of speech never was a con-
sideration. One and only one stu-
dent-Jack Warren-is responsible
for bringing Rockwell here. It was
his job to screen Rockwell from a
wide choice of personalities. The
normal power structure of the
Union rubber-stamped his deci-
sion, and that was that. One stu-
dent decided for twenty nine thou-
sand. If it is not too bold, may
we suggest that this was the
clearest example of an infringe-
ment on freedoms.-
* * *
SO IT IS DONE. Our campus
will be a culture medium for the
perpetuation of a psychopath's
dream-unless, by the remotest
chance, enough student and fac-
ulty have "an emotional orgasm,"
and demand that the invitation be
withdrawn. "Silent protest" is no
protest."
-Samuel Broder, '66
Robert Greenberg, '66 _
Alvin R. Jaffin, '66
Jay Kleiman, '67
James Orcutt, '66
To the Editor:
A S LONG AS George Lincoln
Rockwell is our guest on this
campus, the rules of etiquette and
hospitality will require that we
feed him and provide him lodging
and pay his travel expenses. Un-
doubtedly we will also pick up the
tab for his lackeys. In addition
his presence here will gain him
(and already has gained him)
widespread attention not only here
on the campus but in the local
press and in nearby communities
as well.
This is the type of nourishment
cancer needs if it is to grow.-
Sterilization kills diseases. I for
one do not want to contribute to
the encouragement of Rockwell, I
don't want him to have a chance
to find out how courteous we are
to our guests, (as we were to Gov.
Barnett, who was no more than a
sideshow exhibit), and as a mem-
ber of the Michigan Union, I

t . .. ., . ,..,

Tight Little Island

protest that he is being brought
here.
Now that he has been invited,
let's deflate the ego boost .;our
Union staff has honored him with.
Let's send Rockwell a cancellation;
let's do our part to let him know

i/f

pop-~

perience, and extends mental ana
moral horizons beyond the here
and now. University students will
learn far more about Nazism,
German and American, by going
to the library than by listening to
the leader of the American Nazi

T
J
1

I

that we think of him as we think
of all opportunists and hate mer-
chants. Let's. reject Rockwell!
-Lawrence Okrent
To the Editor:
R. JOHN WARREN'S letter,
attempting to clear up "recent
confusion" pertaining to the im-
pending visit of the leader of the
American Nazi Party to this cam-
pus, under the auspices of a Uni-
versity student group, is com-
mendably well-intentioned, moder-
ate in tone, and eminently civil-
ized. None of these qualities, how-
ever, lends substance to Mr. War-
ren's arguments.
Mr. Warren gives four reasons
for the invitation to the. Nazi: 1)"
that, because most University stu-
dents are too young to, have any
personal recollection of World"
War II, and because even more
are uninformed about American,
Nazism, the Nazi's speech will-have
educational value, allowing "each
student to form his own opinions
and conclusions about the issue
of discussion"; .2) that the very
nature of a university necessitates
efforts to present all viewpoints
on all subjects lest knowledge of
that subject remain incomplete;
3) that the Nazi and his party are
no threat, but that the concept
behind him is, and that conse-
quently the University community
can increase its awareness of a
dangerous concept by listening to
one of its innocuous exponents (a
bargain basement value, surely) ;
and 4) - that the University can
well afford to risk lending the
Nazi the dignity of a University
platform for the sake of assisting
"the c a m p u s" to remember
Nazism. None of these reasons sus-
tains serious analysis.
* * *
ONE OF THE chief values of
formal education is Lhat it re-
moves the limitations of the pos-
sibilities of so-called practical ex-

Tale of Quad Treatment

RECENTLY A FRIEND of mine, a fel-
low quadrangle' resident and an in-
dividual not generally given to telling
wild tales, informed me of an interest-
ing incident which befell him some time
ago. Despite the length of time which
has elapsed since that day, the message'
remains the same.
It seems that this friend of mine (I'll
call him Jack, although of course that's
not his real name) and his roommate de-
cided that they would prefer a bunk bed
in' their double-room instead of the two
separate beds they had to begin with.
Their reasoning was simple enough: hav-
ing both beds in one unit would mean that
they would have more room to study. So
Jack went to see East Quadrangle Di-
rector Stuart M. Zellmer about obtain-
ing a bunk for their room.
THEIR CAUSE seemed lost from the
outset when Zellmer told Jack that
there were no bunks to be had in the
quad. This was enough to placate Jack the
first time around; but when he happen-,
ed past the storage room a while later
and saw hundreds of bunk beds stand-
ing around gathering dust, he lost little
time going back to Zellmer.
It would seem that now that all con-,
cerned knew the bunks were there, there
would be no reason why' Jack couldn't
have one. In all probability, there
wasn't, either; but Zellmer came up with
the excuse that the beds he had said
earlier were nonexistent (but which were
in the storage room all along) were ac-
tually part of a quadrangle system "bunk
pool." Noting that all quadrangles took
bunks from this "pool" to use them in
temporary housing, Zellmer concluded
that Jack had no right to have one for
his own room.
'WELL, JACK HAD BEEN in temporary
housing before, when he first came
to South Quadrangle; and so he realized
from his own experience that surplus
Navy cots and not bunk beds had been
used in his temporary housing. Moreover,
one doesn't argue with Authority; so
Jak returned deifetd to his room.

total distance of about six feet (exclu-
sive of the wall).
BUT ALAS AND ALACK for sweet con-
tentment and congenial study sur-
roundings, the dragon of Bureaucracy
once again reared its ugly head in the
person of Stuart Zellmer. Entering the
room on other business not too long
after the transaction had taken place, he
was horrified to see a bunk bed where
two single beds should have been. He
called poor Jack onto the carpet and told
him that he (Zellmer) would have to
think the whole sordid matter through
and decide whether he could allow Jack
and his roommate to retain their bunk
bed. In the next day's mail came a terse
memorandum stating that the boys would
have to return the beds to the rooms
whence they came or face a heavy fine.
And so the sad tale has ended. Jack
and his roommate} had two single beds-
which they didn't like-and their neigh-
bors had their bunk bed-which they
didn't like. It would have cost nothing
to allow the four students to retain the
type of beds they preferred, and Zellmer's
agreement to the original proposition
would have saved all concerned a lot of
needless bother, to say nothing of the
way in which such an action would have
demonstrated Zellmer's concern for the
students.
ON THE CONTRARY, the actions of
that week demonstrated that Zellmer
has little (if any) concern for the stu-
dents. Nor is this a fact demonstratable
for only one person on the University
payroll; the bunk bed matter is only one
of a number of events (including the
North Campus parking controversy and
the $34 residence hall fee hike) that show
not only the University bureaucracy's
lack of communications with the students
but also its lack of concern for them.
There is no use crying over spilled
milk, as an old proverb tells us; and the
events delineated above have probably
already been long forgotten by those in-
volved. But nobody should ever forget
that Jack's sad tale represents only one
n+,,,4- 4'n a- -n # ,a nu n , ni 'norl

Party. Whatever titillation the
Nazi may provide, it will not be
relevant to the formation of sound
and informed opinion.
A university neither can nor
should attempt to view knowledge
democratically: as if knowledge
were composed of so many individ-
ual subjects, 9ach with an equal
claim to representation. It is
perhaps possible to argue that.the-
community of universities can
claim all knowledge for its prov-
ince, but even then' only within
those bounds .that are' evident
from commonly acepted ethical
standards.
To argue that we cannot know
what is.good unless We first taste
what is evil is to pretend that we
are still living in the Garden of
Eden. I am sure that most Uni-
versity students know better. And
no case at all can be niade for the'
notion that the University has a
responsibility to its students to
let. them hear the Nazi, any more
than could be made for the ide
that it has the responsibility to
let them witness an act of sexual
perversion, for the sake of broad-
ening their experience.
* * *
MR. WARAEN'S third argu=-
ment is incomprehensible. If the
reader feels that my paraphrase
of It, is mere caricature, I refer
him to Mr. Warren's letter mn The.
Daily (Sept. 23).
As to Mr. Warren's fourth argu-
ment, this is, as he implies, a
matter of opinion. Obviously I dis-
agree with him. It seems to me
strange that Mr. Warren and his
committee should be in a position
to confer the very real dignity of
a University platform upon the
Nazi.
It strikes me as peculiar that
Mr. Warren and his committee
have the power to decide that it is
more important for this year's
undergraduates to have the oppor-
tunity to hear the Nazi than for
the University, which will be here
for some time to come, to assign
a level of dignity to its platforms
beneath which It will not descend.
And it seemss to me amazing that
Professor Ilie's profound and elo-
quent letter, published last week,
falls apparenty, on deaf admin-
istrative ears while Mr. Warren's
letter has all the earmarks of a
fait accompi.
THE REASONS fr not permit-
ting the Nazi to 'speak on our
campus are not dealt with by Mr.'
Warren. I will content myself with
giving just one. It is that we can-
not :allow our University to sink
Into amrality, as if, notoriety
enhanced any perversion with suf-
ficient intellectual interest for its
public display .on University
premises.
I call on Mr. Warren to recon-
sider his stand, and I fervently
hope that the University will r-
consider the implications of its
silence. Twenty years may seem
long enough to Mr. Warren to
have given Nazism only historical
interest. But I assure him that it
is still far too soon to see a
swastika again, and the curiosity
of the young is a particularly
ironic reason to urge those of us
who will not forget because 'we
cannot forget to pretend that we
are living fossils.
-Rudolf B. Schmer
Office of Research
Administration
Democracy'..d
DEMOCACY .as the West de-

i

I

I

4

I \ -~ & u~a a' if I

i

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan