Seventy-Fifth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Defense of OFFSET Policy
Where Opinions Are free, 420 MAYNARD ST., ANN ARBOR, MicH.
Truth Will Prevail
NEWS PHONE: 764-0552
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This ,must be noted in all reprints.
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1964 NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT HIPPLER
The First Convocation:
Students and the President
AT HIS FIRST student convocation on
Thursday evening, President Harlan
Hatcher was everything that a Univer-
sity leader should be.
By its poor attendance, the student
body was everything that it should not
be, a group that insulted its President
(who was discussing student affairs) and
shortchanged itself by filling less than
150 of the more than 1200 seats.
But the students who did come found
President Hatcher willing to exchange
ideas on the future of undergraduate
education,, an attitude which made the
forum successful and set a valuable pre-
cedent for futher student-administration
dialogue.
PRESIDENT HATCHER was eloquent,
reminding undergraduates that at the
core of the University "is still the con-
cept of a liberal education in the great
tradition usually profiled by Oxford and
Cambridge."
He was humorous, recalling a cartoon
in a national magazine which shows a
blase salesman telling a bewildered cus-
tomer: "This toy is designed to hasten
the child's adjustment to the world
around him. No matter how carefully
he puts it together, it won't work."
But most important, President Hatch-
er's words showed he was unmistakably
concerned about the role of the under-
graduate here, a point of view which
administrators rarely express in public.
THE PRESIDENT has been under fire
from faculty and student quarters for
his lack of communication with students.
Although he addresses the freshman
class annually and holds several open
houses for students, more intellectually-
minded members of the academic com-
munity have called for a less frothy
means of communication.
With the aid of student leaders, the
President devised the format for Thurs-
day's night convocation, the first meet-
ing to discuss student problems in four
decades. To provide a give-and-take,
Hatcher was to deliver a brief prepared
speech and then answer questions posed
by the audience.
The President has long been concerned
that the undergraduate is floating with-
out a post to cling to in the complex tide
of today's University.
BUT IT WAS NOT until Thursday that
he made this concern so vivid and so
public. Lower echelon administrators
double-talked on the "so-called" housing
and classroom crisis in recent months,
but the President was not afraid to lock
horns with these issues.
He promised to appoint a "blue rib-
bon" citizens' board which can probe the
problems of non-University residences.
He predicted the new residential college
and other attempts to establish integrat-
ed living and learning environments will
set the pattern for the entire University.
The President devoted his longest an-
swer to the complex problem of in-state
and out-of-state students. He regretted
no solutions were readily available, but
advocated the formulation of a policy
statement on this subject.
DESPITE a rather meaty session, some
students were skeptical afterwards of
President Hatcher's performance. They
thought he had talked around the ques-
tions of housing and education and con-
tinued to question "whether he really
understands the issues."
That he does was obvious, not from
the prepared speech or his formal ex-
pressions of concern, but in those little
unprepared moments and gestures which
to those familiar with the President are
signs of great sincerity.
It was a rather touching performance,
the President proceeding almost as if
he weren't facing bank after bank of
empty chairs.
He may have even felt a moment of
disgust, the leader who has seen student
grievers interrupting an open house but
failing to appear at a forum where they
could more properly air grievances.
NONETHELESS, the hours with the
President were well-spent. The stu-
dents who were there heard the Univer-
sity's highest administrator tell them
that he too thinks about the threat of
growth, the danger of complexity, the
over-reliance on symbols of learning, the
impersonality of the educational process.
It is unfortunate that the students
could not tear themselves away from
their studying to spend a few moments
learning why they are here.
--LAURENCE KIRSHBAUM
To the Editor:
WELL, The Daily's "Letter to
the Editor" column seems to
be rapidly becoming Ann Arbor's
answer to Central Park after
dark-a good place to work out
agressions. For instance, Mr. John
Ward made excellent use of
Thursday's column by getting in
a great number of cutting slash-
es. . . although I'm not sure
whether he was aiming at me (as
he originally said) or at the "Off-
set" publication or at undergrad-
uate writers in general.
Despite the fact that Mr. Ward
sprinkles his letter with "wild"
quotations from my letter, he
really disputes only two state-
ments-that Mike Handelman
should have been given as much
freedom to express himself as was
given the editor of Generation,
and that the "Offset" magazine
will not be in direct competition
with Generation.
Mr. Ward feels that The Daily's
profusion of statements made by
George White, Generation editor,
was quite proper because "George
White was present; Michael Han-
delman was not." As far as this
goes, it is true. However, it is al-
so is the function of a new arti-
cle to present the reactions of the
central figures to new develop-
ments. Handelman was contact-
ed after White had made his ob-
jections, but The Daily said noth-
ing about Handelman's reactions
to White.
* *
Mr. Ward insists that the "Off-
set" magazine will be in compe-
tition with Generation in the
areas of circulation and advertis-
ing. I suppose that there may be
a sizeable block of students who
would refuse to part with a quar-
er on Wednesday because they
had spent forty cents a week ago
last Thursday, and vice-versa.
However, it is my "naive" conten-
tion that unless the two maga-
zines went on sale at approxi-
mately the same time, the exis-
tence of one magazine would not
seriously affect the circulation of
the other.
I will certainly concede that
Mr. Ward is correct in asserting
that all magazines are automatic-
ally in competition for advertis-
ing. However, my statements per-
taining to the lack of competition
between Generation and t h e
"Offset" magazine were based on
George White's published fears,
and nowhere in the article did he
mention any qualms about adver-
tising (probably because this form
of competition, as Mr. Ward well
knows, is simply taken for grant-
ed).
Yet one can't help wondering,
in view of Generation's alarm at
any potential financial competi-
tion, why the magazine's editorial
board doesn't just turn its back
on all the rest of the capitalistic
system and dispense its publica-
tion for nothing. If Generation
is above challenge from other
student magazines, then it should
adopt a system whereby it never
need fear competition.
Mr. Ward's other criticism of
my statements are not so much
criticisms of me as they are of
the "Offset" magazine and of un-
dergraduate writers. Mr. Ward
complains that the "Offset" maga-
zine has not yet crystallized into
any clearly-defined form. He is
doubtlessly correct, but so what?
The shape of a magazine is de-
termined by its contents, which
the "Offset" group is now just be-
ginning to collect. Until these
have been solicited and a prece-
dent established, a magazine real-
ly stands in need of nothing more
than a vague and general outline
of policy and form.
Since Mr. Ward himself is an
indergraduate, I suppose we
should applaud his nobility in
fearlessly doubting the value of
undergraduate writing. However,
most of these doubts seem to be
based on the fact that Generation
prefers the work of graduate stu-
dents (one of the most important
reasons for undergrad "apathy").
A second editorial policy on un-
dergrad work in any field of writ-
ing might well have some effect
on these doubts-but that will be
up to the "Offset" contributors.
Let me state that, as a student,
I am not against Generation. I
am opposed to Generation's op-
position to the "Offset" magazine.
I wish Generation all the luck in
the world, and if the senior mag-
azine runs into any advertising
difficulties, I am sure the "Off-
set" publicity campaign manager
will be glad to talk to Generation
ad solicitors.
-John Knox, '68
Book Policy
To the Editor:
A FUNNY thing happened to me
on the way to a liberal educa-
tion . . I am referring to the
UGLI's policy on overnight books.
Many times, after a grueling
session of sweet silent thought, I
have wandered lonely through the
stacks of social science books,
searching for anything, anything
to relieve the parched feeling occa-
sioned by required philosophy
readings. Lo! here are 20 or 25
copies of "Principles of Something
or Other," Second edition, spank-
ing new. But oh sorrow! they are
all marked 'Overnight." How in-
finitely jealous I am of those lucky
students who have the opportunity
to justify checking out and read-
ing such a book (for who has
ever checked out an overnight
book unnecessarily?).
* * *
NOW COMES a momentous dis-
covery: copy No. 22 of this desir-
a6le work, although marked "over-
night," has not been checked out
since April 14. Research proves
that neither have 70 per cent of
the remaining copies. Thus, by
being marked "overnight," these
books have simply been relegated
to a forced retirement immediately
after purchase: nobody checks
them out.
I would like to suggest this: that
whenever the UGLI has more than
a half-dozen copies of any given
book, and if, after that book has
been on some form of reserve for
a month, it has proved to be very
unpopular, then the library ought
to transmogrify a few of its copies
from "overnight" to two-week
status.
By allowing dilettantes to learn
from the required reading of
courses they are not taking, with-
out having to compress this read-
ing into the short period of time
one can legally possess an over-
night book, the library would be
encouraging. more liberal educa-
tions.
-Fred T. Bookstein, '66
King Latex
To the Editor:
TODAY, against my better judg-
ments, I chanced to be read-
ing past issues of The Daily.
Among the letters to the editor
in the Sept. 18 issue, I found one
from an East Quad student com-
plaining that his room was being
painted unnecessarily. It was evi-
dent, even without mentioning,
that he was not from the West
Quad.
I would like to supplement his
complaint, being one of the many
in a room which could not have
been painted since the Quad was
built, somewhere around 1776.
LET ME assure you that I have
often begged to have the room re-
painted. I was told by certain
authorities that the rooms are
painted on a regular yearly sched-
ule. However, my room still openly
displays scars inflicted by former
occupants; these include a large,
crude patch where some poor
quadie missed his bed and went
through t h e wall, footprints
marching proudly across the ceil-
ing, and literally hundreds of
smaller patches and beauty spots.
Although my roommate has gal-
lantly tried to cover these with
large maps and murals, this is no
improvement, and only adds to my
frustration.
Be it heretofore known that I
would happily have my desk
moved intothe hall and, further-
more, would even sleep there a
few days, were it only possible to
persuade the ominous "King
Latex and his men in white" to
invade these dear portals.
-Jon Tilburt '69
Featherbedding
To the Editor:
IN REPLY to John Varriano's
Letter to the Editor of The
Daily which was published Sep-
tember, 1964. Subject: Feather-
bedding.
I do not dispute the article as
written, but I feel that this was
and still is a very narrow, pes-
simistic outlook and unqualified
judgement of the situation.
First of all, was this "unusually
brawny looking employe" as stat-
ed in thenarticle a supervisor or
not? Second, was the hourly rate
$4.50 an hour or was this too an
assumption?
I PERSONALLY feel that to
look at only one department of the
University, which is plant, and
label it as a stronghold of feather-
bedding, without taking a good
look at the other departments is
an injustice to all concerned in
that department and is a person-
al insult.
You, as an observer in this sit-
uation, can evidently see only one
side of the coin in this game. Did
you ever take a close look at the
employes of the University that
wear street clothes daily on their
jobs? What about the time they
spend on coffee breaks. Is it fif-
teen minutes two times a day or
is it nearly one hour two times
a day? Are they always back on
time after lunch?
I, AS A taxpayer and supporter
of the University do not feel that
the above mentioned employes are
bad, nor do I feel that these em-
ployes sit idly by and let their
work go undone. Because at the
University it is much different
than in private industry where the
whistle blows and the assembly
line starts, so they work and live
under a different situation.
Under the present policy of
merit increases where the boss can
either give you a pay increase or
he may deny the same by the
stroke of his pen without legal
reasons. Why shouldn't the em-
ployes become acrimonious and
rebellious? You may call it feath-
erbedding or what have you, but
people have a way of striking back
at injustices.
-Reginald Harrison
IMARIAGE DE FIGARO':
Cinema Form Ditorts
La Cornedie Francaise
At the Cinema Guild
PERSONALLY, I think the theatre is fine, the cinema is finer.
Logically, they are two distant and different performing arts. The
theatre relies on sound and the spoken word to communicate with the
mind of the audience; the cinema uses light and the moving image to
communicate with the sensuous feelings of the audience. I prefer the
latter, as most people do. "In the theatre, I am always I," a French-
woman once said, "but in the cinema I dissolve into all things and
beings."
Movie producers have always tried and will keep trying to make
motion pictures out of plays. They have never succeeded completely
and usually have failed miserably, because they do not realize the
innate differences that exist between the theatre and the cinema.
For several- years, La Comedie Francaise has been making films
of their classic productions. The producers, for once, have realized, I
think, what can and cannot be done in putting a play on film, and
have decided the best thing to do is to record the actors and actresses
going through their paces without cinematic embellishment. Thus
there is only a little incongruity and distortion of the play, "La Mar-
iage de Figaro."
* * * *
BEAUMARCHAIS' COMEDY of the inter-plottings that are one
day weaved in the house of a Spanish nobleman, is precisely and
colorfully presented by La Comedie Francaise in front of a static
camera.
Many people around the world and for years to come will thus get
a chance to see this fine troupe in action, by watching the play in two
dimensions instead of in-the-flesh three dimensions. Unfortunately,
the Eastman Color is of poor quality. Because the subtitles are short
and incomplete and because the lines are delivered with shot-gun
rapidity, the play is only mildly amusing.
* * * *
A FEW YEARS agog the Cinema Guild showed the first play La
Comedie Francaise put on film, Moliere's "Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme."
It was a much better production than this one, the color was out-
standing and the Moliere play was indefatigably fascinating. And it
was much more obviously a filmed play than Beaumarchais', because
all the action took place in a single room. That motion picture oddly
succeeded in statically filming a play without diminishing its .enter-
tainment value.
The theatre-cinema alloy is almost always very brittle and weak
because of the unharmonious reactions of our minds and our senses
to what is happening on the screen. Producers must learn that they
cannot have things both ways. They must make a choice. The pro-
ducers of La Comedie Francaise have chosen to record a theatrical
performance without any extraneous interference from the camera.
-Michael Juliar
'KITTEN WITH A WHIP':
4
4
11
,4
4
4
4
4
4
I
A Ludicrous Film with
The Residential College
DEAN TRUMA asked in yesterday's let-
ters column for more discussion on
the residential college. More discussion
certainly is necessary. Unless present'
thinking is drastically altered, the resi-
dential college will become a four-year
institutiop-and just that.
College goals and college life can gen-
erally be divided into two part: the aca-
demic and the nonacademic. Some people.
come to college so they can get a job;
be it as an engineer or an academician.
They find what they want from college
in the classroom. Some people come for
the social life; they find what they want
outside of their classes. Some people
come for intellectual stimulation; they
may find it either place, neither, or both.
ALL THREE TYPES belong at college.
Those of the first type can't get the
degree society says they need anywhere
else. Those of the second have nowhere-
else to go; they may be able to retire at
40, but they had darn well better be
busy at 21, and college is about the only
place to save-by spending-their youth
before it fades away. Those of the third
need the time, resources and stimula-
tion a college community can provide.
Who is to say which type is getting the
most out of college, regardless of grade-
points and class attendance? A state-
supported college is supported because of
its value to the people of the state. This
value can and should manifest itself in
many ways.
FURTHERMORE, there is no reliable
way to distinguish between the three
types of people, nor are many people
overwhelmingly one type alone: the en-
gineer plays I-M football; the football
player attends Union-sponsored lectures.
To exclude in large measuree opportuni-
ties for any of the tvDes would be harm-
further objection. The United States is
a democracy, in which every citizen is
a participant. The better the citizens,
the better the nation. And what makes
a citizen better? Knowledge of how the
country is run, of the likely consequences
of various policies it might pursue, of
how policies and personages can be in-
fluenced and changed, of how to tell
when someone is lying or being insincere,
of how to cooperate with fellow men,
To the extent that these things can-
not -or are not-being taught in the
classroom, it is necessary that there be
time to learn them elsewhere. Lounges,
tennis courts, card tables,, stages, all
offer more opportunity to learn some of
these things than does what is between
the covers of a textbook.
THE NEW OBJECTION this argument
makes to present residential college
plans concerns the proposed curriculum.
Maybe one cannot be taught in the class-
room to perceive lying or understand
cooperation, but he can be taught how
governmental policies are made and
the implications of deficit spending and
regulation of big business.
In a larger sense much that is wrong
with the University can be attributed to
its emphasis on the academic rather
than on real problems in the real world
-and to its lack of concern about what
could be done to solve them.
SOME PEOPLE claim that the residen-
tial college will not promote an aca-
demic atmosphere; they are saying that
it will fail. They may be right, and at
present that kind of failure would be
a good thing. On the other hand, the
college may not, in this sense, fail; it
may create an academic atmosphere. In
this case, I would regret that there was
a residential college at all.
=i: j t;
i ; t 4 Y R 4 ?};
t - . '. ! 3 S
r r: w
4 i <. ...;. t
+ t
,,. . ',
;,
t S -
' t4 r.. 9v K.
.,' ,
^ fit. 'il, 'r . y. t;
v - - .t ; ;
; 1 ,, '
S
Ir; y'. , 11 p {.
k Y{l1 S xl:,.
i.ti y t f t..,
{ j, ,
-
' M f , i f
Lt: ! fl.
fi ;,
r 's r fI i 1 ,,.
' I , +: d is
r , t" , 1 t' r }i
o i _ t 't . {;' 3
y. ! x' 5
t! rti Y f f - I tp t
t { I
x,
h fi_ lit } ,A t t j: ~ t itt;Y;
} 4 r
d.''r/ f
! %
i Jrg 'f ''at ' t
1' .,. t Ct : 11'41 y It
1 t
: t t1(y 3 ,}t ? ( 1 ait t 7
Y i , , t rl ':
S + i a . r '
} '
Y 7. i kk i .1. kS L ' 1 r ..
A Preposterous Plot
At the State Theatre
WHEN I WAS entering the Architecture Auditorium the other night
to see "Birth of a Nation," a friend suggested that I clobber any-
body near me who laughed during the picture. After seeing Universal's
latest attempt to set up Ann-Margret as an actress in "Kitten With a
Whip," I can only say that if anybody near you laughs during this
film you should go right ahead and Join in.
I don't wish to imply that it is Ann-Margret's thespian ability
per se that makes "Kitten With a Whip" ludicrous, although that
certainly doesn't help matters any. Nevertheless, since her reputation
seems to be built purely around her Vogue-model figure and her talent
for belting out a song, it is surprising that neither of these phenomena
is exploited in the film. (In fact, the picture of Miss Ann-Margret
used in the advertisements has nothing whatsoever to do with the
picture.)
EVEN IF ALL members of the cast were actors of the first order,
this movie still would be ludicrous, by virtue of the preposterous plot
foisted upon one and all. At the outset, a senator (played by John
Forsythe; certainly a far cry from his "Bachelor Father" role) returns
home to find an escaped delinquent (played by guess who?) in his
house.
The average man probably would have either seduced her or
called the police; but since this senator is a "loser" all the way, he
instead believes the sob story she tells him and gives her some new
duds (including the dress she wears for the duration of the picture)
and some money to leave town.
Naturally, she returns, with the police* on her tail (seems she
stabbed a juvenile-home matron) and decides to stick around awhile.
The rest of the film is nothing but a series of alternations between
her attempts to act sexy and to be docile, his thoughts of turning
her in and of helping her out further, etc., etc., etc. Every time he has
a chance to wash his hands of her, the scriptwriter thinks up some new
angle to prolong the picture another 15 minutes.
I won't reveal how the whole mess reaches its denouement, if for
no other reason than that it really isn't worth revealing. Frankly, I
think only Ann-Margret's true-blue fans will consider the admisson
price to this film well spent.
--Steven Halle
'SEND ME NO FLOWERS':
Hints, Winks, Nudges
And Lots of Doubletalk
At the Michigan Theatre
FIRST THERE WAS "Station Six Sahara" and we all thought
they'd done it. But then along came "Kitten With A Whip" and
Ann-Margret outdid even Carole Lynley. But leave it up to good o'
Hollywood, they still can surprise you even when you're sure they've
done their best before.
For now we have "Send Me No Flowers" and Doris Day, the
New American Sex Symbol proves once again that she holds exclusive
rights to the title. No one, but no one makes worse movies more often
than Doris Day.
* * .* *
"SEND ME NO FLOWERS" is another in the long and seemingly
infinite series of soft core pornography/psuedo sexy situation comedies.
Sex is hinted at with winks and nudges and knowing doubletalk but
never, oh bless our puritan hearts, never actually talked about, or
heavens . . . shown. Consequently "Send Me No Flowers" is a "clean"
comedy. It also is dull, embarrassing, hypocritical, trite, false, and
in this case very-sick.
Rock Hudson, who always seems like a misplaced Fuller Brush
Man-slick, slimy and a little too smooth-plays a healthy hypo-
chondriac. He is incredibly inept at even this. Doris, sweet Doris,
who is beginning to look like a middle aged Bessie the Borden Cow
-all peaches and cream . . . only now a little curdled-is his loving
middle-class wife.
AT ANY RATE Rock cracks and mistakingly thinks he has
only two weeks to-live. Enter complications.
Complication one: Tony Randall, playing the next door neighbor
who is always drunk. Typecasting perhaps?
Complication two: Hal March, as obnoxious now as he used to
be on the old Heartline show.
I