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 19, 1962 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1962-10-19

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

Seventy-Third Year
EDPTED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Where Opinions Are Free STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBOR, MICH., PHONE NO 2-3241
TIrth lWill Prevail"
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staf writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: DENISE WACKER

Anatomy of

a Regents Meeting

Odious Amendments Replace
NDEA Disclaimer Oath

P RESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY signed into
law Wednesday a resolution recently passed
by the House of Representatives calling for the
deletion of the controversial Communist dis-
claimer oath from the National Defense Edu-
cation Act.,
The disclaimer oath, which required appli-
cants for aid to swear that they did not be-
lieve in Communist causes, has been replaced
by three amendments to the NDEA and the
National Science Foundation Act.°
The three new amendments are an effort to
define more precisely who is morally qualified
to receive aid from the government, but this
attempt is hampered by the obscurity of the
amendments and the confusion and controversy
which will arise from them.
I71E FIRST PROVISION makes it a crime for
any member of .a Communist organization,
as that term is defined in the Subversive Activi-
ties Control Act of 1950 (also known as the Mc-
Carran Act), to apply for NDEA aid or try to
use it. The penalty is five years in jail or ,a
$10,000 fine or both.
The McCarran Act's definition of what con-
stitutes a Communist organization and support,
of same has been widely criticized as being too
vague. ;
It divides Communist organizations into ac-
tion and front groups, both of which are de-
fined as "substantially directed, dominated and
controlled" by agents of the Communist con-
spiracy. The act further states that "the giv-
ing, lending or promising of support or money
or any other thing of value for any purpose .tot
any organization shall be conclusively presumed
to constitute affiliation therewith .. ." From this
obscure definition, the Subversive Activities
Control Board must hand down its rulings.
'J7HE PROVISION does not mention other
groups, such as the fascists and Nazis, who
also try to undermine society.
Transition 1
AN IMMENSE amount of effort went into the
restructuring of the Office of Student Af-
fairs. But unfortunately many of the new,

To Work

IN THE WORK of recovery, in the heat of
war, in the rush of boom and throughout a
decade of settling down, the common sense
prescriptions of the administration of Franklin
Delano Roosevelt for the economic ills of the
nation have largely been relegated to happy
memory.
But there remain currently over four million
unemployed, almost six per cent of the nation's
work force, waiting to return to the payrole
There are also countless slums and unkept
areas marring the cities and rural lands; there
are public works wanting, redevelopment and.
many other projects.
Why? These two problems are allowed to
co-exist and yet might be used mutually to
solve each other.
ROOSEVELT and his intellectual entourage
profoundly dug out the obvious solution.
They simply put the unemployed to work.
There is, of course, not the overwhelming
necessity to find jobs today. The great depres-
sion saw a quarter fof the working force idle.
There is none of the demand to find jobs-
no agonized cry that would shove politics to
the side-to negate private and powerful con-
cerns and twisted concepts of the public in-
terest, that would drive Congress to willingly
pass a useful program.
Roosevelt's Congress was stunned by the
great tragedy it had to solve. Half the worthy
representatives did not know what legislation
they were passing. Opposition was easy to melt
away. But it is different when only five per
cent have trouble eating-these do not make
so much noise. The President could not expect
to railroad through such legislation nowadays.
HERE ARE, however, hopeful indications
that the Kennedy administration may work
to revive the old recovery program in this time
of relative stability. While he was in town re-
cently to promote his party, the latest Ken-
nedy representative, recently appointed secre-
tary of labor, W. Willard Wirtz, spoke of "un-
precedented opportunities in this period of
change and growth." The public works re-
development program is what he had in mind.
"When we start cleaning up there will be no
manpower shortage in this country," he said.
"There is no reason why we can't put every-
body back to work."
There is no reason why the total labor force
shouldn't be back to work. Private industry
cannot seem to handle this labor surplus. The
government should be able to. A constructive
and effective and reasonably efficient plan
should not be difficult to draw up. The relative
lack of urgency should eliminate the waste
of the Roosevelt programs.

The second new amendment requires that ap-
plicants submit a list of all criminal convictions,
including traffic violations carrying fines of
more than $25, but excluding crimes committed
before the age of sixteen.
This means, presumably, that the govern-
ment does not want to lend money to criminals,
but the reasons for setting the age limit at 16
remains to be explained.
The implications of the last provision are
the most unsavory. It declares that "nothing
contained in this act shall prohibit the com-
missioner from refusing or revoking a fellow-
ship award ... in whole or in part, in the case
of any applicant or recipient if the commis-
sioner is of the opinion that such award is not
in the best interests of the United States."
THIS GRANT of unlimited power is, perhaps,
the most frightening aspect of all three
amendments. Even after an applicant has ful-
filled the first two provisions, his aid is still
not fully guaranteed unless he works for what
the commissioner considers to be "the best in-
terests" of America.
Certainly' the government has the right to
deny those working for its overthrow special
privileges that would help them realize their
goal. The President and the House of Repre-
sentatives are to be congratulated for revoking
the Communist disclaimer oath, which, it might
be mentioned, was ineffective anyway since a
person who was a Communist and wanted to
get NDEA aid would probably have no scruples
about lying.
However, the above amendments will solve
nothing and will only cause further aggrava-
tion. They will not satisfy the demands of the
liberals, nor will they clear up thecontroversy
which surrounds the 1DEA.
-BARBARA PASH
i0 Nowhere
glossy names and positions fail to conceal the
defects of the previous system which remain.
The new structure was instituted to super-
cede the need for a dean of men or a dean
of women. The philosophy is that students can
be treated as students and a sex segregation
need. not be artificially imposed. But the con-
dition was imposed that if either a man or
woman needed special attention, this too could
be gained from the new office.~
This is one of the most admirable state-
ments to come from the Office of Student
Affairs in a long time. It is too bad that in
practice the theory is being distorted and
twisted to fit into the old context of two
deans; one for men and one for women.
Special Assistant to the Vive-President for
Student Affairs, Elizabeth Davenport justly
ventured a hope that once the OSA got
started she would not be saddled with trying
to be a dean any longer. In fact, she has been
put into this position more and more each
day, not by her own doing but because of the
structure itself.
MRS. DAVENPORT is the only woman in
the top hierarchy of the OSA. She was the
previous acting dean of women. Therefore to
her logically fall all of those special problems
which women might have. But in the past five
weeks it seems as if all of the problems re-
garding women have fallen to her. And it is
not without regret that students see her forced
into her old role once more.
Since there is no housing director, the job
of coordinating housing this year has been
taken over by the office in general. Mrs.
Davenport figures importantly in the role of
women's housing to the point of having to
rule on specific placements personally. When
one asks a question about housing for women
the standard answer is "please see Mrs. Daven-
port."
All of this type of work does need to be
handled by someone. And it is probably pre-
ferable, for the time being, to have a woman
who knows of the past procedures. This should
insure transition without chaos. But why is
everything subordinated to Mrs. Davenport?
Two little-known women, Mrs. Coady and Miss
Cody, are named in the personnel list of the

OSA as assistants to the director of housing.
Now perhaps these two are little more than
secretaries; if so they have very fancy titles
for secretaries these days. If they are not, then
precisely what they do is" uncertain since Mrs.
Davenport's actions intrude on almost all areas
of women's housing as well as special counsel-
ing for women.
/RS. DAVENPORT is not to blame; she is
after all the only woman in the structure
who has any authority of note. The officials
in the hierarchy seem unwilling to allow other,
newer people to enter their own realm of
authority. Consequently, Mrs. Davenport is
entrusted with all of her old duties. And once
*nra .tna..- n l .A v-nmtha -s af m,-f-, an

By RONALD WILTON
YOU COULD TELL from the be-
ginning that Wednesday's was
not going to be just another Re-
gents meeting.
Usually the meetings are com-
posed of a series of "all those in
favor say aye, those opposed nay,
motion carries," type statements
with time taken out for individual
regents to sing the praises of some
motion or to ask an intelligent
question to show that they are
awake.
How come this amazing peace
and unanimity?,The night before
every public meeting the Regents
get together in private and hash
out their differences so that they
present no discord to the public.
But as one regent put it, "Tuesday
night we went to see the Spanish
dancers instead of meeting."
* * * *
THE RESULTS of this depar-
ture from practice were signifi-,
cant. The Regents could have put
the University in a position of
leadership throughout the nation
on the question of outside speaker
policy-and they did not.
But they made their decision as
individuals, with public debate, a
large improvement over past prac-
tice. And the stands that some of
them took as individuals kept
alive, the hope that one day they
may realize their leadership po-
tential in this area.
Admittedly it is a tricky area.
The present controversy started
with the formation of Prof. Es-
tep's committee to recommend
changes in old bylaw 8.11 which
featuredsa lecture committee that
ruled, as one of its more un-
appetizing aspects, on the de-
sirability of individual speakers.
THE COMMITTEE submitted
its report to University President
Harlan Hatcher in January and
resubmitted it after acting on
certain changes recommended by
the administration.
The Regents first formally con-,
sidered the report, which took the
form of recommending a new by-
law replacing the old one, at their
last meeting. They voted to adopt
the report as a statement of policy
but decided to hold off on making
it a bylaw until the Michigan
Coordinating Council for Public
Higher Education sub-committee
on speaker policy made its report
regarding a common policy for
all state colleges and universities.
The Regents were not supposed
to take any action on the policy
because Regent Eugene B. Power,
Who represented the board on the
coordinating committee, said its
statement would be coming out
on November 15.
* * *
THUS JUST ABOUT everybody
from Daily reporters to the Re-
gents to Cleland B. Wylie of In-
formation Services, who gives out
advance information on Regent
meetings, dropped their jaws when
Regent Allen B. Sorenson of Mid-
land interrupted the first order of
business, which was a motion to
adopt the minutes from the last
meeting (and which is about as
automatic a process as most ma-
chines), to complain that a state-
ment of his-which contrasted
with the praise the other mem-
bers of the board had heaped on
the new speaker policy-had not
been included in the minutes.
So the board talked about en-
rollment and housing and scholar-
ships and then they came to
speaker policy. And everybody put
his gloves on.
* * *
PRESIDENT HATCHER started
the ball rolling by reading a letter
received from the Faculty Senate
Advisory Committee supporting

IRENE B. MURPHY
.. . no surrender

establish the committee by in-
stituting a new bylaw passed un-
animously.
Regent Thurber had said that
"it would be a positive step to
adopt the first part of the propos-
ed bylaw and let the balance go
until more deliberation both
among the Regents and among the'
coordinating council has taken
place."
* * *
HOWEVER Regent Eugene Pow-
er thought it would be a wise
idea to pass the second 'half of
the substitute, which deals with
student organizations sponsoring
public meetings with outside
speakers, as a replacement for the
old 8.11 bylaw and its lecture
committee.
It contains four provisions for
student organizations to follow
when inviting speakers. Two of
these, the first and the fourth
caused all the trouble.
The first states that the speaker
may not advocate that his au-
dience take action prohibited by
national, state or University regu-
lations.
It also prohibits advocating the
modification of the national or
state government by violence or
sabotage. The responsibility for
informing the speaker of these
prohibitions rests with the spon-
soring student organization.
* * *
AND NOW the serious battle
was on. Regent Irene Murphy of
Birmingham pointed out that the
first provision, with its restrictions
on the speakers was not included
in the original Estep motion, that
the committee had approved it at
the recommendation of the ad-
ministration, that Estep and cer-
tain other committee members still
regarded it as unnecesary and
that furthermore she would be
happy to see it deleted.
Regent Carl Brablec of Rose-
ville who has ties with the Unitd

the proposed substitution for bylaw
8.11. He also mentioned in passing
a letter the Regents had received
from 20 student leaders, which
was generally criticalofathe sub-
stitute as not being liberal enough.
Regent Donald M. D. Thurber
of Detroit who is representing the
Regents on the Coordinating
Council sub-committee then spoke
up and recommended that the
Regents pass the first part of the
substitute as a new bylaw, without
giving it a specific number. This
part of the substitute calls for
the creation of a Committee on
Public Discussion whose basic job
would be to set up a University
lecture series.
This has fine potential and if
handled with imagination and
vigor could be an important ad-
dition to the educational process
on the campus. The motion to

Auto Workers then went on to
make comments that demonstrate
the concern for expediency which
causes many people to accuse the
labor movement of growing solid
and fat in its old age. He called
the policy "the best one possible at
this time and a significant im-
provement." He admitted :t was
not as good as policies at some
other schools, for instance as
''some schools in Oregon,'" but
said that "it would serve our pur-
poses."
Backing up this position, R~egent
Thurber then referred to-student
opponents of the new proposal by
saying that they tended to place
on one or two phrases a tortured
significance which did not occur
to him at all. His attitude towards
the new proposal was optimistic-
the optimism of a person who
makes the laws and rules on them
as opposed to the pessimistic at-
titude of the students-the pes-
simism of people who are affected
by the laws and may suffer
through them.
* * *
BUT THEN Regent Sorenson
said that it was rather poor, to
say the least, to be talking about
a free exchange of ideas and then
follow it up with a paragraph
warning you to be careful about
your free exchange. Regent Mur-
phy reiterated her belief that the
two provisions should be deleted.
And the image .of the Regents as
people who let outside pressures
override educational considerations
suddenly had a few very velcome
cracks in it.
And Regent Murphy continued
to put some more cracks in the
image by pointing oft that pos-
sibly one or two speakers in 15
years would have been excluded
by th e new bylaw's provisions.
"Ther is a little cloud of threat
on the horizon and I don't :ike
to see us surrendering anything to
it unless there is a definite crisis.
which now there is not."
She pointed out that under the
new provisions Governor Ross Bar-
nett would not be able to speak
on. campus about his stand because
he advocates sabotage of federal
laws. When she finished Regent
Sorenson moved to delete pro-
visions one and four.
* *
AT THIS POINT something
must have diverted Regent Mur-
phy's attention because the mo-
tion died for lack of a second. Re-
gent Paul Goebel of Grand Rapids
then made a plea forcontinuation
under the old bylaw in order to
explore the substitute further and
wait until the coordinating coun-
cil met.
At this point Regent Murphy
suddenly turned her attention back
to the table and talked in favor of
Regent Sorenson's motion. When
she was informed that it had died
for lack of a second she retorted
"that's what I'm doing now."
Sorenson promptly reintroduced
his motion causing Regent Power

to comment that "this is as bad
as Student Government Council."
He was wrong; it was worse, be-
cause after another round of dis-
cussion the Regents found them-
selves voting on a motion by Re-
gent Power to adopt the whole
second part of the substitute bylaw
as the new 8.11, with Regent
Sorenson's motion out in outer
space somewhere and forgotten.
SO A VOTE was taken on Re-
gent Power's motion. Regents
Power, Brablec and Thurber were
for it and Regents Sorenson, Mur-
phy and Goebel abstained which
left a "no vote" situation since
two Regents were absent and a
majority of those present had not
been attained.
At this point the University still
had its old 8.11 bylaw with its
lecture committee and the new
committee on public discussion.
Here the Regents apparently
thought they were giving up fight-
ing for the day. They went on to
pass the legislative appropriation
request and renamed the men's
swimming pool the Matt Mann
pool in their inimitable unanimous
style.
S* *
BUT THEN Regent Thurber an-
nounced that he had a serious and
grave announcement to make and
you could feel the storm clouds
gathering again. What he said in
effect was that last month the
Regents had adopted the proposed
substitute to bylaw as a statement
of policy, but the only position
he could take back to the Co-
ordinating Council -after Wednes-
day's vote was the old bylaw with
its lecture committee and pre-
censorship.
Regent Power immediately en-
tered the lists on the side of Re-
gent Thurber by reiterating the
paradox and attributing the cause
of the disagreement to "a couple
of words in the bylaw which we
don't. like."

EUGENE B. POWER
.'. a few words'

But to lay such a big disagree-
ment on ust "a cuple of words
seemed slightly incongruous to
many in the room including Re-
gent Sorenson who simply but
effectively pointed out that if it
were only a question of a couple
of words they could be deleted and
all the Regents could unanimously
agree on the rest of the motion.
REGENT POWER, quickly see-
ing that his line of attack would
get nowhere, asked Regent .Soren-
son if he would accept the sub-
stitute until the first ,of the year
and then re-examine it. Regent
Murphy, jumping back into the
fray, said that the board had
created the Committee for Public
Discussion and that the individual
Regents had made their views
known on the 'rest of the substi-
tute. She repeated her desire to
have the original Estep report.
At this time Regent Power must
have lost patience completely with
what was going on because he said
something which he might not
have said if he had reflected oh
it.
Turning to Regent Murphy
with a particularly harassed look
on his face he asked her, "Have
you thought about the political
situation in the state."
The real devil was out of its
bottle, with all the strength on its
side that a political necessity can
muster.
* * *
BUT IT DID not have enough
strength to deter Regent Murphy.
She met his blast head on by de-
daring that she had been afraid
that the political situation was
behind his position and that "you
are surrendering and bending with
every wind which I do not want to
do." It is not often that one feels
like getting up on a table and
leading the 175 piece Michigan
Marching Band in three cheers
for a Regent but this was defin-
itely one of those times.
At this point President Hatcher
apparently decided that it was
time for the administration to get
its licks
He said that the reason the
whole question of revision of the
old 8.11 bylaw had come up was
that many people thought the
lecture committee was a oad thing
and that he agreed with this but
could not help feeling that the
present discussion had lost sight
of the great advance in the dis-
cussion of free ideas that had al-
ready come 'about.
* * *
IT SEEMED that President
Hatcher thought getting rid of
the lecture committee should be
a liberal enough step without go-
ing any farther now, and the Re-
gents and the administration
should sit down and pat them-
selves on their respective backs for
several years before doing any
more democratization.
Regent Sorenson, obviously no
in a self-congratulatory mood, re-
plied that the substitute was an
improvement but that it "doesn't
go far enough in liberalizing our
position."
Regent Goebel then reiterated
his plea for more time to consider
the substitute but showedthat the
whole argument had gone over the
head of at least one Regent by
saying that for the interim he saw
"no practical reason why we can't
operate under the old bylaw 8.11."
* * * .
WHILE President Hatcher had
been speaking, Regent Power had
left the room and come back in
time to hear Regent Goebel. As
Regent Goebel finished, footsteps
were heard entering the room'and
a new vote, affectionately known
as "Sam" to his collegues and
Regent William K. McInally to
the outside world, marched into
the room, upsetting the political'
balance.
Just where Regent McInally had
been until 1:30 on the day of a

Regents meeting that was sup-
posed to end at 12:30 is a matter
for idle speculation as is the co-
incidence of Regent Power's re-
entry into the room closely pre-
ceding Regent McInally's ap-
pearance.
So Regent Power quickly called
the question on his motion. After
Regent McInally was informed of
what he would be voting on and
promised Regent Murphy that if
it passed the new bylaw would
come up forreconsideration in
January. Regent Power then pro-
ceded to walk away with the vic-
tory laurals by a vote of five for,
Regent Sorenson against and Re-
gent Goebel abstaining. The meet-
ing was then adjourned at 1:50
p.m.
* *
SO WHY was this meeting so
significant? For one thing it show-
ed the need for completely open
unprepared Regents meetings. The
discussion Wednesday was an im-
portant contribution to the free
interchange of ideas which never
would have occurred.if theRe-
gents had ironed out their dif-
ferences in a prior secret meeting.
It is not exactly ethical for the
Regents to sing the praises of free
discussions and then subvert it
by holding secret meetings.
It was important also because it
.showedjust how far the leaders

'AIDA,' 'BUTTERFLY':
Operas Fail on Screen
I HAVE VOICED my doubts in these pages before as to the effective-
ness of opera on film, and Messrs. Butterfield's combination of exotic
extremes in the double bill, "Aida" and "Madame Butterfly" at the
Campus Theater has done very little to make me change my mind.
It would be difficult to find a kind work for the "Aida." Renata
Tebaldi, the vocal half of the evening's performance, need hardly
concern us, as her supreme voice comes through on the jumpy sound
track as thin and strident, or worse, just loud. As for the rest, I doubt
that Guiseppe Campora and Ebe Stignani would appear in anybody's
dream cast.t
The part we saw was even worse. In the first place, nobody looked
as if they werefreally singing. Of course they weren't, but they could
have tried a little. Fortissimo cad-
ences launched from teeth set in
tooth paste smiles and supported
by chests that never qvaver are
beyond comprehension, much less
creditibility. Sophia Loren, for in-
stance, who embodied Mme. Te-
baldi's voice, was totally non-di-
rectional. Far from being the
"lithe bundle of frenzied passion"
promised in the ads, she simply
looked vapid and a little confused.
,

I

j
?A
1.: .
~.
k, Y i
h *' i'
t
," s, ' j
p.
.
t. :x ,
, , ;
4r"
4, , .
.., ' :
t '.
s

r4
9tr
S.',
.tk :' 4
' r
Vd' 1
. ar ' f? '
t
a
.3H , ' . i,
. t,
. ,
j
._ .. ..... .r' ... ' .. . t. .. 1.

1'

1.

.
fir,
r,?y
.
, i

f-

\
'' , a
' S
i,

13 ' :i lfa .
c f
t in ^Ffi:.i :r .
' + -IN
: .F 1 ^
.l'x.
_ r.
' r , ,c; ,
'1
k" 4 .

F OR THE REST, the tenor, since
he didn't sing, needn't have
looked like one. Nor did the Pha-
rah need look, and act, like a
Mason. Amneris would have done
credit to the silent screen, Amon-
astro could not have been fiercer,
or less convincing.
Of course it has the opera that
suffered through it all. Situation
followed situation, and set follow-
ed set. Every scena got at least
one new and spectular locale.
"Aida's sololoquy in the. first act,
for example, had no less than
three.
The Grand March and the bal-
let were indescribable. Ditto for
the Nile scene. And of course the
tomb was huge. Starvation would
have come weeks before suffoca-
tion, but, nevertheless, Miss Loren
quivered her lip' one Last time and
closed her eyes in the angel of
death as Amneris, somewhere
above, cast passion flowers on the
pavement. The audience was left
as it all faded out, gasping one
last bored invocation to mighty
Phtha.
"SHE MADAME Butterfly" I

)

u i,1 , j
$ }k" 1d
h;
t '
'r:', C F'
Y r
",
" Q". 'e. E'.

l

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan