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.

October 03, 1962 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1962-10-03

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

Seventy-Third Year .
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNYEMSrrY OF McIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Where Opinions Are-r STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBOR, MICH., PHONE NO 2-3241
Truth Will Pfevail" BD.
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: ELLEN SILVERMAN

DISCRIMINATION:
Our Own Backyard

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Criticism Misdirected

Due Process
For Students

AS AN institution theoretically devoted to
students, the University has a queer notion
of securing the right to continued enrollment.
University regulations, tracing back at least
a decade, declare that "attendance at the Uni-
versity is a privilege and not a right. In order
to safeguard its ideals of scholarship and char-
acter, the University reserves the right and
the student concedes to the University the
right, to require the withdrawal of any student
at any time for anly reason deemed sufficient
to it."'
Now, although I never recall formally con-
ceding the University this right-no sane
student can be expected to make such a con-
cession-the quotation appears in an official
publication, "Excerpts from University Regula-
tions Concerning Student Affairs, Conduct and
Discipline," 1961-62 edition, so it must prevail.
Although the 1962-63 version of the "Ex-
cerpts," now at the printer's, offers a milder
statement about the student's right to remain
a student, University policy clearly does not
guarantee procedural and substantive due
process for, its tuition paying scholars.
This error seems to one of commission rather
than ommission, especially when one considers
Regents Bylaw 5.10. This bylaw is a very de-
tailed 2500 word statement setting forth the
procedures and rights of faculty members in
cases of dismissal, demotion or terminal ap-
pointment.' Entirely rewritten after the ad-
ministration's censurable conduct in the H.
Chandler Davis affair, this bylaw insures a
professor's right to the full and fair hearing
with channels for review and appeal.
IN RECENT years there. have been few cases
of student suspensions or explusion which
have come to public notice. The most con-
troversial one, of course, was the Mark Hall-
Stanley Lubin fiasco of two years ago when
the two students were suspended from the
University in a rapid, high-handed series of
administrative moves for their role in a food
riot-panty raid. Both were later reinstated.
Even in the more minor violations of amor-
phous University regulations, students are not
given a chance to receive what a democratic
society usually defines as adequate justice.
Student Government Council has just es-
tablished a student-faculty committee to ex-
amine the judiciary system and point the way
to reform. The committee faces certain basic
questions in its approach to the problem and
to the various proposals' for changes it will
receive.
THE COMMITTEE must confront the ques-
tion of why there are student judiciaries in
the first place. Should students bear the job
of hearing, judging and punishing other stu-
dents for violating rules promulgated by ad-
ministrators? Perhaps students should refuse to
participate as extensions of the administrative
arm and demand the right to set rules before
they agree to enforce them. Another issue
which must be broached is the value of so
called 'student peer counseling.' Are students
more likely to be persuaded back to the
straight and narrow by other students or by
faculty men or by administrators?
The committee will be urged to create a
unified judicial system. Nearly a dozen dif-
ferent levels and types of student judiciary
councils exist now, but they are not bound
together in any coherent or intelligent manner.
Original and appelate jurisdictions and lines
of appeal must be clearly defined.
A unified system demands some sort of
ultimate judicial authority, a court of last
resort, an agency of final appeal-but what
kind?
HE PRESENT Committee on Student Con-
duct has not convened in 15 years; it has
delegated its authority to a three member
faculty Subcommittee on Student Discipline
which has acted as the appeal body for student
judiciaries. If this latter committee is to re-
tain its position as a final appeal body, stu-
dents should be added to the membership.
Extra classroom regulations and student social
misconduct are, at the least, matters of great
concern to students and, at the most, peri-
pheral ones for professors.

Editorial Staff
MICHAEL OLINICK, Editor
JUDITH OPPENHEIM MICHAEL HARRAH
Editorial Director City Editor
CAROLINE DOW ................. Personnel Director
JUDITH BLEIER .....,.......... Associate City Editor
FRED RUSSELL KRAMER .. Assoc. Editorial Director
CYNTHIA NEU .................. Co-Magazine Editor
HARRY PERLSTADT...........Co-Magazine Editor.
TOM WEBBER ......................... Sports Editor
DAVE ANDREWS...........Associate Sports Editor
JAN WINKLEMAN ........... Associate Sports Editor
Business Staff

An ideal might be for an all student "Su-
preme Court," but the political dynamics of
the organism which is the University demand
that students must share power with some-
body.
The relation of this final court to the Re-
gents is another ticklish question. The Regents
are responsible for everything that goes on
in the University and, therefore, a student
ought to be able to appeal his case to them
before seeking help from the county or state
courts. But how effective is an 'ultimate judi-
cial body' if its decisions can be appealed?
CERTAIN guarantees of procedural due pro-
cess must be written into the University
regulations so that students who are accused
of violating rules will have a fair hearing and
impartial consideration of their cases.
. The regulations should be as clear and un-
ambiguous as possible and should not dupli-
cate federal, state or city laws which already
restrict the individual student's behavior.
Maximum penalties for violating a given reg-
ulation must be outlined carefully.
For the actual hearing of his case, a student
should be treated under the same principles
as govern the law courts. He should be given
adequate prior notice of the charges against
him and access to relevant information. He
should be allowed witnesses on his behalf, for
both the judicial and counselling aspects of
the disciplinary bodies. To determine the -guilt
or innocence of the defendant, only eyewit-
ness accounts of the event should be allowed.
For "counseling" the student, the judic can
do a more decent job if it knows the back
ground of the student through a close friend
or physician or other counselor he could in-
vite in to speak for him.
To help prepare his 'defense' and guide him
through questioning of witnesses during the
hearing, each student should have the right to
bring in counsel. A student defender pool
made up of law school students or others
familiar with procedures of the law and the
substance of University regulations should be
established for this purpose.
Needless to say, the accused student should
be considered in good standing until such time
as he is found guilty.
MOST OF these suggestions for reforming
procedure would tend to make judic hear-
ings more of a coldly formal legal trial than
presently is the case. For many, this is not
a desirable trend. They claim that it would
destroy the warmth and concern that admin-
istrators and students rightfully feel toward
one another. It would eliminate the flexibility
and extra-legal dismissal of charges, the sort
of "setting out of court" which a disciplinary
officer and a wayward student can reach.
Too often, however, the absence of formal
guarantees of due process have meant that
students have not received a full and fair con-
sideration. Adoption of due process, more-
over, would. not necessarily mean that the
councils would be inflexible and blind to human
needs and untouched by human sensitivities.
Quite the contrary. The guarantees of pro-
cedural due process slow down the often hasty
deliberations of student judiciaries, enabling
them to know the student and his problems
better and forcing all parties to be more care-
ful and more concerned with the factors in-
volved in every case.
Just how legally formal the judiciaries
should be is an open question. Must testimony
be given under oath? Must the student and his
prosecutor adhere to the technical rules of
evidence? Should students have the power to
subpoena other students to testify in their
behalf?
ALL THIE procedural safeguards of the legal
world do not mean that full due process is
achieved. A student can be tried in a calm,
impartial and equitable manner only to be
found guilty of a regulation which had no busi-
ness being there in the first place.
In the past, universities have relied on the
'contract theory' of expulsion. On entering
the University, the student signs a contract
with the University where the latter is free to
stipulate the conditions of enrollment. The
courts are moving away from granting the
completely "free hand" universities enjoyed
in the past to a position that state universities,
at least, must contract within the framework
"of the 14th amendment. This is particularly

true of the latest reinterpretations of the
"equal protection of the laws" clause.
The power to discipline, regulate and dis-
miss-derived from the contract-is also sub-
ject to restraint. The manner in which it is
exercised is certainly open to questioning, and
the courts are granting a "property right" of
the student to continue his course of study.
To provide a minimum security for sub-
stantive due process, the University must
guarantee the necessary freedoms for full
academic inquiry. Freedom of speech and of
assembly-with the specific freedoms to ex-
press political and social opinions and to act
on them in organizations on and off the cam-
pus-should not be tampered with in Univer-

By MICHAEL ZWEIG
THE CONFLICT in Mississippi is
but one of a long progression
of racial incidents which have
brought castigation to the South
from citizens of the North. The
blame and the castigation are
justified, and it is to the eternal
shame of man that a human be-
ing acts like Ross Barnett.
But we have our problems here
in Ann Arbor too. It is sometimes
too easy to point to the South
and scoff when the Southerner
cries, "Clean up your own house."
Northern racial discrimination-
Ann Arbor discrimination-exists.
It is lesser in degree but identical
in kind.
Those who sit quietly in Ann
Arbor while racial inequality is
found in this very city are guilty
of the same kind of moral and
legal offenses as the Mississippian
who supports his governor in the
Meredith case. An acceptance of
status-quo, conservatism applied
to racial matters, is a support of
segregation, for that is the status-
quo.
Discrimination exists in Ann
Arbor in housing opportunities, job
opportunities, educational oppor-
tunities and recreational facilities.
These inequalities must be ended.
*R * *
PITTSFIELD VILLAGE is a
housing development just east of
A n n Arbor, established, after
World War II. It includes 422
apartment units. In the past,
neither Orientals, Jews, nor Neg-
roes were admitted. More recently
only Negroes were excluded.
They were excluded when they
were not allowed to see the hous-
ing units or visit the development.
They were excluded when action
was automatically not taken on
their application. They were ex-
cluded, occasionally by direct
statement that Negroes were not
allowed.
In November 1961 a group of
citizens from Ann Arbor, Ypsi-
lanti, Willow Run Village and sur-
rounding communities formed the
Ann Arbor Area Fair Housing As-
sociation (AAAFHA). The group
went td work to integrate Pitts-
field Village.
* * *
THEY FIRST ran two test cases
in December. A Negro school
teacher was told "No vacancy for
you now or in the future." Whites
were shown empty apartments im-
mediately before and after the
Negro was refused. A mixed couple
was refused for no stated reason,
although they were told explicitly.
that they were not refused because
of credit, personal references,or
any other data demanded on the
application. Again, Whites were
shown empty units before and
after the mixed couple was re-
fused.
These indications of discrimina-
tion, along with previous test cases
Danger
'THE EAST-WEST conflict is
likely to continue for a con-
siderable period of time. Never-
theless, it is my hope that we
shall live to see this conflict re-
cede and eventually prove to be
a passing phase in human history
. At the same time, the de-
veloped part of the world, both
East and West, must concentrate
sufficient attention on a problem
which may ultimately prove to be
of even greater danger to man-
kind - the gap between the rich
and the poor."
-Mr. Lange, Norway,
UN General Assembly

run by the Ann Arbor-Washtenaw
Council of Churches, were brought
to the attention of Leonard P.
Reaume, president of Pittsfield
Village Incorporated and Reaume-
Dodds realty company, the real-
tors handling rental of apartment
units in the Village.
Reaume told representatives of
AAAFHA in December that he, as
private owner and operator of the
Village, had the right to discrim-
inate if he so chose. He discredited
the open-housing covenant signed
by over 60 per cent of the resi-
dents of the Village, indicating
their willingness to live in an in-
tegrated community."
Reaume later refused to discuss
the matter further, and when ne-
gotiations broke down in January,
AAAFHA began picketing the
rental offices of Pittsfield Village.
The purpose of the picketing was
to create a public image of Pitts-
field Village as a segregated com-
munity, steering concerned citi.
zens to live in other places, and
to bring pressure onto Reaume
from the residents of the Village.
* * *
AAAFHA WANTED two things:
a general policy statement indi-
cating open housing in Pittsfield
Village, and actual residence in
the Village of at least one Negro
family. Only then would they dis-
continue picketing and public and
private pressure.
In May, when neither of these
conditions had been met, picket-
ing was extended to a Detroit
construction site of a building
clearly marked to be under the
management of Reaume-Dodds.
Reaume remained intransigent.
On June 1, 1962, the Greater
Detroit Fair Housing Practices
Committee sent a letter to Detroit
Mayor Jerome P. Cavanaugh and
to the Detroit Common Council
asking that Detroit's contracts be
withheld f r o m Reaume-Dodds
realty because of the company's
racial policy 'on Pittsfield Village.
The Royal Oak Township Hous-
ing Authority suspended a $50,000
contract with Reaume-Dodds for
handling resale of property in an
urban renewal project in the
township. Now the economic pres-
sures were added to the moral and
public pressure, since they alone
were not enough.
In June, Detroit Councilmen
Patrick and Ravitz moved at a
City Council meeting that Detroit
refrain from awarding contracts
to Reaume-Dodds realty company.
BY THE END of June, the loss
of contracts in Royal Oak Town-
ship, and the threat of further
loss from the Detroit City Coun-
cil, as well as pressures from 13
Detroit civic, social and religious
groups, began to have their effect.
Reaume circulated the long await-
ed policy statement pledging non-
discriminatory, open-housing in
Pittsfield Village.
Based on that pledge, Patrick
and Ravitz agreed to table the
motion, but warned that they
would re-enter it if Reaume did
not hold to his word.
Late in July, AAAFHA ran an-
other test case to try to place a
Negro in Pittsfield Village. The
Negroes were shown only the most
expensive units, and were told that
all cheaper units were occupied.
Tests with White applicants show-
ed that cheaper units were in fact
available before, during, and after
the Negro's application.
Picketing continued, and new
motions were possible from the
Detroit Common Council as well
as other groups. Finally, in Aug-
ust, a Negro was admitted to the
apartment of his choice, and a
joint statement of Reaume-Dodds

realty and AAAFHA indicated sat-
isfaction on all sides.
* * *
TODAY PITTSFIELD Village is
integrated. A year ago no Negro
was allowed. Dignity has come to
the Village, and any future abro-
gation will bring the same pres-
sures to bear to right the situa-
tion.
But there are other places in
Ann Arbor, other employers, other
facilities which do not allow
Negroes or other groups to live,
work, and relax in dignity.
The pattern of pressure is
roughly the same in all cases
where people seek to end discrim-
ination: documentation, personal
conferences and attempts at rea-
son, picketing and public pres-
sure, economic pressure, and in
some cases governmental force.
These are the stages, each one in
order, each one more powerful
than the last. Where they are ap-
plied, the dignity of man emerges.
* * *
THE INSTANCES of discrimin-
ation in Ann Arbor are many, In
the North still more numerous,
and in the nation the number is
almost overwhelming. As long as
they persist, even we who do not
feel the discrimination must rec-
ognize that real, free, and demo-
cratic opportunity in this country
is all but a hollow myth.
The integration of Pittsfield
Village is a case in point, exem-
plifying some of the channels of
action which are open to citizens
who wish to make "democracy"
and "freedom" operational and
meaningful terms, relevant to the
whole population.{
Those who do not support and
make use of these channels, those
who do not openly speak out and
act against discrimination in their
own community deserve the criti-
cism of the Southerner when he
says, "Clean up your own house!"
Pledge
THE HOUSING ACT of 1949
opened a new era in housing.
There, Congress set for itself and
the Nation the goal of "a'decent
home and a suitable living en-
vironment for every American
falily."
This goal which Congress an-
nounced is more than a vague ex-
pression of hope. It is a pledge
of the Federal Government that
its resources will be utilized and
the goal achieved. Insofar as it
is a pledge to assist in the achieve-
ment of a decent home for all
Americans, both the legislative and
executive branches of the Federal
Government have affirmed a pol-
icy of equal opportunity in hous-
ing which may be used as a
standard against which to measure
the Government's practices.
Some measures, mainly admin-
istrative, have been taken toward
achieving this goal of equal op-
portunity, but the practice cannot
yet be said to have matched the
promise.
R R *
TO THE EXTENT that dis-
crimination is practiced in 'con-
nection with Federal housing pro-
grams, the obligation of the Fed-
eral government remains unsatis-
fied.
For this pledge was made to all
Americans and it was to all Amer-
icans that President Kennedy re-
ferred when he declared before
Congress: "We must still redeem
this pledge."
-United States Commission
on Civil Rights Report, 1961

To the editor:
MISS DENISE Wacker's editor-
ial "Oh Goodness, Oh Graci-
ous" concerning the dining cus-
toms of Betsy Barbour House may
be classified as one of two things
-either a gross misrepresenta-
tion of facts or a monumental
lack of understanding on the part
of Miss Wacker.
First of all, food is not served
to each girl by a waitress; it is
served in the much more informal
family-style manner. Second, nor-
mal classroom dress and neatness
are required; certainly this is not
a burdensome request. Third, din-
ner conversation does not center
on "the latest issue of 'Look' or
Mademoiselle'. On the contrary,
it covers the entire gamut of sub-
jects that interest a group of
eight to ten upperclass college
women. Fourth, Barbourites are
not always "ready to eat whatever
is put before them with a grace
it sure as hell does not deserve."
They complain about and refuse
various foods as much as any res-
ident of the hill, and with as
much justification, we might add.
Miss Wacker's ignorance of all
these points is not surprising,
though, since she has not ap-
peared at the meals very often.
* * *
THE LITTLE pamphlet which
offended Miss Wacker so much
is an old one which was discover-
ed in a seldom-used closet, where
it had been stored for about 20
years. Most of those who read it,
particularly the old residents,
found it extremely humorous;
even the house director thought
it amusing. It is as shallow as any
;contemporary teen-age how-to-
look-and-act-your-best pamphlet.
Many of the booklet's methods
may be outdated, but its purpose,
to explain how one may make
mealtime pleasant, is not.
Barbour's sit-down meals are
not designed to shape up slovenly
rural girls (who do not exist at
the University anyway) so they
can land the "right man." They
provide a friendly eating atmos-
phere where courtesy and common
sense determine one's manners
and appearnce.
It is a shame that Miss Wacker
did not employ the various chan-
nels available tohher in order to
make her feelings known to the
other residents of Barbour. She
could have spoken to any one of
13 house officers, a service com-
mittee member, or the housedi-
rector, all of whom would be more
criticism or suggestions she might
wish to offer.
She could have attended a meet-
ing of the house council to bring
up the issue. These meetings are
open to all residents; and, as a
matter of fact, a question con-
cerning one aspect of dining room
procedure is on the agenda for
the first meeting on Sept. 24. She
could have embodied her suggest-
ions in a petition. (A dining room
d r e s s regulations suggestion
brought up by this method is be-
ing voted upon by the house Sept.
24.) There is a conveniently lo-
cated suggestion box the use of
which brings results whenever
suggestions do not conflict with
University policy. She might have
spoken up at that house meeting
she refused to attend or at a non-
compulsory corridor meeting.
However, she chose to air her
grievances to the entire campus
rather than to offer constructive
criticism within her house, where
she could have gotten far more
response for both sides of the
question because there her en-
tire audience is concerned with
what she has to say. She has made
it much more difficult for herself
and her new "crusade" because by
attempting to hold Barbourites up
for campuswide ridicule she has
alienated many of them, regard-
less of whether they agree with
her or not.
-Holley Parmentier, '64
-Gale Buchanan, '64
-Kathleen Yagelo, '64
and 20 Barbour Residents

Speakers.. .
To the Editor:
ON SEPTEMBER 19 Student
Government Council adopted
a resolution advocating revision
of the speaker policy Bylaw 8.11.
That this resolution did not
go far enough to satisfy Daily
workers Gail Evans and Richard
Kraut was evident in their editor-
ial of Friday, September 21; but
it did at least recommend removal
of 'the "accepted code of morals"
provision against which The Daily
has been campaigning for years.
That this much was done is a tes-
timonial to the lobbying efficiency
of The Daily, which. all of us,
whether or not we agree on the
desirability of any revision of the
Bylaw at all, should recognize. And
The Daily's influence did not stop
at SGC.
The Daily has been screaming
loud and long about the "hypo-
critical paternalism" of the State
Board of Regents, claiming that
the Regents continue on in their
mouldy old ways without paying
any attention to student wishes to
participate in making decisions on
University affairs. And lo, these
screams have now brought results!
The Regents have indeed react-
ed positively to a recommendation
of the students, as expressed in the

page of the issue of Saturday,
September 22, appears an editorial
signed by the Senior Editors con-
demning the Regental action as a
"perpetuation of a masquerade,"
"hypocrisy," and "either duplicity
or lack of understanding."
* * *
IT SEEMS that it may be The
Daily which is displaying "lack of
understanding" (duplicity?) For
The Daily apparently feels that
its desires should be fulfilled by
the Regents, and that those of
the student body as a whole be dis-
regarded. To say the least, the
castigation of the Regental action
which did the opposite ndicates a
state of mind which would not be
unreceptive to that conclusion.
Unfortunately this notion ig-
nores the fact that SGC is the of-
ficial "voice" of the students, while
The Daily is only the voice of a
few individuals to the students.
I suggest that The Daily either
recognize its proper role and ad-
here to it, or secede from the Uni-
versity community and make all
the decisions it wants independ-
ently of the Regents, administra-
tion, faculty, and the rest of the
students. I doubt that adoption of
the latter course would precipi-
tate repercussions so violent as to
be classified as civil war.
-Henry R. H. McAllen, '64L
Constitution...
To the Editor:
QO THAT no one will misunder-
stand this letter, permit me
to make a few autobiographical
statements. I am a Northerner by
birth and by preference who has
spent most of his life in the South
and has become imbued with a
bitter hatred and contempt for
the place. Personally, I would
greatly enjoy the spectacle of the
absolute subjection of Mississippi
by military force.
I have argued the case for in-
tegration against resolute South-
erners. I am emphatically no friend
of the South or of segregation. But
intellectually, I cannot condone
the sacrifice of those rights so
carefully spelled out in the tenth
amendment to those so vaguely
and subjectively read into the
fourteenth.
May I respectfully suggest that
the judicial and executive branch- ,
es of our government should rely
more upon the Constitution than
upon sociological textbooks? Moral
issues are far better settled in the
minds of men than in courtrooms.
-Carl Miller, '64
Revie . .
To the Editor:
IT BOTH amazes and disappoints
me that a paper such as the
Michigan Daily would print such
incompetent material as that of
David Marcus in his review of
"The Miracle Worker"
Mr. Marcus correctly says that
Anne Bancroft gave an excellent
performance. He continues by stat-
ing that Anne Sullivan had a
"properly hard surface" necessary
for helping Helen. He concludes
his discussion of Miss Bancroft's
performance by remarking "One
does not, at the end, feel that
Miss Bancroft has fallen in love
with. the child; rather, she has
done for Helen what is best for
her." I wonder, therefore, how
Mr. Marcus justifies the final line
of the film, "I . . . LOVE
HELEN." If he disregards Miss
Sullivan's final .words, then, was
her lack of feeling on the surface
or actually at the core of her
character?
Mr. Marcus went to great
lengths to comment on the acting
of Miss Bancroft and Miss Duke,
and yet he neglected to comment
on the major vehicle of the film;
which is movement. The film's
most dramatic sequences are done
without dialogue. Movement must
not be extraneous, it must be mo-
tivated, and it must be expressive.
Since these silent sequences held

a dramatic impact for the au-
dience, how can movement be
taken so lightly?
* * *
IN TERMS of Mr. Marcus' dis-
cussion of Victor Jory and Inga
Swenson, he is confusing the crit-
icism of a character with the crit-
icism of an actor. If Helen Keller's
parents had shortcomings as
people, which Mr. Jory and Miss
Swenson obviously brought out ac-
cording to Mr. Marcus, they are
to be commended rather than
criticized as actors.
Mr. Marcus also commented that
the character of the brother was
unnecessary to the story; which
demonstrates once again Mr. Mar-
cus' great lack of understanding.
In the first place, Jimmy is the
only character who remains at all
objective throughout the film. He
criticizes Anne as a teacher and
views Helen realistically rather
than emotionally. Secondly, he
helps to depict Anne not only as
a teacher, but as a woman. Lastly,
he is the means through which
Helen's parents are forced to rec-
ognize the importance of giving
Anne absolute freedom in dealing
with Helen; as illustrated in the
scene during which he bars his
parents from interfering physi-
cally during one of Helen's tan-
trums.
In conclusion, although Mr.

~}

A

,1

1

5uppI
f~4-LIioc~e-At
". t . 1
1% 1.
~~~~~y Mr".l ~~o~

#:i

11

yt U X1 65 A1

i. ji+? lt"Y i Fklf f 4*i,*,*'t " -.7 V.. -u:..4 }

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan