Seventy-Third Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS Om THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Where Opinions, Are FeSTUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBOR, MIcH., PHONE NO 2-3241
Truth will Prevail".
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: DAVID MARCUS
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Faculty, Staff Urge USNSA Support
Student Leadership:
Vague, Unfulfilled
T ODAY the student body, by exercise pf
franchise, will elevate seven students to the
position of "campus leader."
What exactly is a student leader? Who or
whom does he lead? How does the nature of
the campus shape his role?
Student leaders at the University have one
focus: Student Government Council. At Coun-
cil elected members from the student body
meet with ex-officios, the heads of important
campus organizations.
One might think that the elected members
should have more over-all stature, but this is
is not the case.
EX-OFFICIOS, since they both sit on SGC
and preside over their respective large
student groups, have greater stature on the
campus. However, both the size and the poli-
tics of the University prohibit the emergence
of any one of them as a "Big Man on Campus."
Instead, various spheres exist within which
the ex-officios dominate: The Daily, the
Michigan Union-fraternity-sorority orbit, the
Michigan League, and independent students
(Interquadrangle Council and Assembly Asso-
rclation).
Liberal students on campus receive little
direction from any of the above. Voice Politi-
cal Party;, a less structured group which is not
represented per se on SGC, ostensibly speaks
for these students. The conservative bloc's
views are enunciated by the Union, Inter-
fraternity Council and Panhellenic Association.
OBVIOUSLY, the ex-officios have the great-
est opportunity for control, for behind
them lies the support of a large campus
group. A leader .like the League president has
the opportunity to influence student affairs
both through the jurisdiction of her League
position and her voting power on SGC.
The power of the organization for the most
part is relative to the organization itself, al-
though a small measure of influence comes
from the strength or weakness of the leader.
For example, The Daily by its nature will, be
an influential part of a student's experience,
but its power varies with the type of leader-
ship it gets from the editor.
An analysis of the various organizations
shows that the Union president is in a key
position to exert influence. Robert Finke, for
instance, is extremely active in the fight to
withdraw from the United States National
Student Association.
By its nature the Union presidency is a
power position because the Union can do more
than most organizations. It has its own funds
and is virtually independent of University
control.
LEAGUE PRESIDENT Margaret Skiles this
year has unfortunately done nothing of
substance in a positive leadership role. Her of-
fice could allow much opportunity for express-
ing women's opinion and formulating policy
but she has not followed in the footsteps of
Bea Nemlaha, last' year's president. Conse-
quently, as a leader she now falls short of the
goal.
Interfraternity Council President John Mey-
erholz plays a strong part in shaping the
views of campus "Greeks." Witness his SGC
memorandum, for example, and his influence
on the decisions regarding the committee on
membership.
Panhellenic President Ann McMillan has
exerted more leadership than her two prede-
cessors. She has attempted to formulate a
strong Panhel policy but has for the most
part failed due to the problems of the national-
local relationship. She must be considered a
leader of her group for her opinions expressed
on SGC, few and far between, seem to reflect
the sorority opinion.
THE POLICY making power of Interquad-
rangle Council has never been realized this
year under the so-called leadership of Robert'
Geary. In all fields, he has been content to
let the organization limp along on the strength
of the bureaucracy underneath.
Mary Beth Norton, Assembly Association
president, has been far stronger in leading her
own organization. She has attempted to re-
vitalize a faltering group through constitu-
tional, changes and restructuring.
The Daily automatically wields power. The
extent to which an editor is a student leader
is shown in part by his actions on SGC. In
the past Daily editors have been in the center
of the liberal movement and the trend seems
bound to continue.
The leadership potential of the editor is en-
hanced by his access to the editorial page. This
power can be matched by none of the other
ex-officios. On the other hand, he represents
a small group of students and must rely on
the responses gained indirectly fromn his staff
to know the pulse of student opinion.
The president of SGC is at the top of an
organization much as the ex-officios are and
thus speaks with much the same authority as
they and wields as much power.
WITH ONE or two exceptions elected SGC
members are unrecognized as campus
leaders. This stems partially from the color-
less personalities now on Council; more im-
portant, elected members have no widespread
base of support.
The liberal and conservative blocs further
limit one-man leadership. As soon as an in-
dividual joins the leadership elite he must
commit himself totally to a particular point
of view.
In the case of ex-officios, not only they but
their organizations as well are committed.
It is futile to think in terms of over-all
campus leadership; the campus is splintered
into many factions, most of which are in-
dependent power structures. Each structure has
its own leadership. No single individual can
transcend his group so that he can honestly
claim to speak for the campus community.
-ELLEN SILVERMAN
-H. NEIL BERKSON
To the Editor:
IN THE PAST weeks we have
witnessed an increasingly in-
tense campaign on the merits of
this University's remaining a
member of the United States Na-
tional Student Association
Up to this time we have hesi-
tated to make our beliefs known,
The campaign ought to be con-
ducted by students attempting to
influence other students but the
issues should not be construed
narrowly as only "student con-
cerns." We feel that our responsi-
bility to the University and our
nation requires that we make our
conviction public.
For 15 years the USNSA has
functioned as the most important
student voice in the United States
and for American students abroad.
The leadership that Michigan has
given to the USNSA has been, to
us, one of the proudest contribu-
tions of this institution to the life
of our nation.
THAT LEADERSHIP has not
gone in vain; USNSA continues
to be an essential link between
American students and their con-
temporaries all over the world.
Domestically, some of the most
creative thinking about the prob-
lems of higher education comes
from this organization.
It is our conviction that stu-
dents on this campus will make
an intelligent and mature judg-
ment on the issue of affiliation
with USNSA. Our concern with
the University Community leads
us to urge a vote supporting con-
tinued affiliation with the United
States National Student Associa-
tion at this time so that the fund-
amental issues can be looked at
dispassionately and equitably as
benefits students at the University
of Michigan.
-Prof. Robert C. Angell
-Prof. James M. Davis
-John Hale
-Stanley Levy
-Prof. Victor Miesel
--Mark Noffsinger
-Hanley Norment
-_Prof. Marc Pilisuk
-Prof. James H. Robertson
-Allen R. Smith
Criteria . .
To the Editor:
W'E HAVE NOTED with inter-
est the approaching referen-
dum on membership in the United
States National Student Associa-
tion on campus. As delegates to
this past summer's National Stu-
dent Congr.ess, we approached the
Congress in the hope that USNSA
would at last return to discussing
the problems and potential of
student government, the theore-
tical basis of USNSA. We found
instead, a highly charged partisan
Congress, with students hastening
to align themselves with one side
or an6ther, and thereby neglecting
to reason out issues for themselves
because of the intense pressure to
identify with either conservative
or liberal forces. In this type of
atmosphere, issues are not decided
and problems are not resolved on
their relative merit alone; even
more unfortunately, students in-
terested in student government
(the very foundation of USNSA's
existence), are lost in the partisan
political shuffle.
But membership in USNSA
ought not to be a partisan ques-
tion because any objective evalua-
tion of the association will show
clearly that the concept of stu-
dent government has indeed van-
ished from the sights of those who
determine the course of USNSA.
Student government must be the
basis and primary concern of
USNSA because it is the only
concept of a national representa-
tive association of students that
can be defended rationally.
Thomas Hayden, President of Stu-
dents for a Democratic Society,
quite an influential group within
the high councils of USNSA, as-
serts in "Common Sense" on Aug-
ust 17, 1962, that the trend in
USNSA "is towards the accept-
ance of the idea that students
should engage in social action
both for its effects on society and
on themselves." In this argument
are the seeds of the concept of
students as a separate and dis-
tinct class, pitting themselves
against other segments of Ameri-
can society, and is this not clearly
a Marxian concept? We believe
that it most certainly is.
Hayden goes on to assert that
"the association, however, car-
ries a built-in problem." That
problem is that the "structural
and constitutional base of USNSA
is the student government, and
... it is not an institution which
encourages sophisticated students."
* *' *
NOW IT SEEMS to us who have
been active in student govern-
ment for four years that the in-
dividuals we have met in our ac-
tivities are indeed capable and
genuinely interested in improving
the position and quality of stu-
dent government, students, and
education at their colleges and
universities. If this is the kind of
student who hinders USNSA, then
clearly USNSA ought not to speak
for the American student popula-
tion.
Tra~An v aacrt that the Asanria_
trolled by "professionals," of
which, we submit, Hayden is one,
then clearly continued member-
ship in USNSA will only serve to
help a few unrepresentative stu-
dents ostensibly speak for several
million American students such as
yourselves and us.
We sincerely believe that the
above alone are criteria enough to
withdraw from USNSA. But when
added to the fact that the average
student (you) on the average
American college campus (the
University) gets virtually nothing
out of USNSA (what have you
received in direct benefits from
USNSA this past year?) for the
significant amount of his stu-
dent government's budget which
goes to support and maintain
membership in USNSA, then the
answer to continued membership
in USNSA becomes obvious: we
urge students to vote to no longer
force their student government to
remain a member of an unrep-
resentative association which is
not longer a confederation of stu-
dent governments discussing your
problems, but a national union of
in a declarative sentence that US-
NSA "has done wonderful things
... for 15 years . . . due in part
to the vociferousness . . . of col-
lege editors . . . and to a some-
times manipulative elite of USNSA
professionals."
Since Mr. Hayden has been ac-
tive in NSA and has demonstrated
ability as a newspaper reporter,
I presumed he knew what he was
talking about when he reported
his observations about the leader-
ship of USNSA. Had I quoted a
speech by a former State Depart-
ment official claiming the De--
partment is controlled by an elite,
would his statement of fact be
any less valid because in that
speech he criticized that elite?
Let him who runs read.
--William Madden, Jr., '64L
Representation .. .
To the Editor:
PAUL POTTER'S article con-
cerning the United States Na-
tional Student Association pro-
vides more than ample evidence
.4
"GoAhead-You Can Always
Put It Back Later!"
changes that they feel are needed.
The legislative process at the Na-
tional Student Congress is open
to any delegate, and before Mr.
Finke makes claims to the con-
trary he ought to be able to docu-
ment instances where people de-
siring change were denied access
to the legislative process.
IN SEVERAL places Mr. Finke
makes the charge that the Na-
tional Student Congress is con-
trolled and manipulated by "pro-
fessionals." Yet Mr. Finke never
makes clear what individuals or
groups of individuals he is refer-
ing to in his sweeping generaliza-
tions. It is ridiculous to answer
Mr. Finke's groundless charges un-
til he makes it clear which group
of people, if any, he is making
charges against.
He makes the point that the
delegates that SGC sent-all of
whom were SGC members-were
not elected to SGC on the basis of
their stands on issues that faced
the National Student Congress.
First, this is only partially true.
A number of SGC candidates in
past elections have discussed the
problems and issues confronting
USNSA with the eletorate during
their campaigns. Secondly, if Mr.
Finke is really concerned about
this problem then why have Mr.
Finke and his compatriots con-
sistently opposed any attempt to
institute direct election of USNSA
delegates which would give the
campus a chance to hear and
"vote upon the issues that are con-
fronting the National Student
Congress. This is a question that
needs answering.
-Howard Abrams, '63
Legislators . ..
To the Editor:
IT SEEMS to me that the entire
debate onethe question of the
United States National Student
Association referendum is almost
beside the point. If the members
of the Student Government Coun-
cil are truly committed to the
notion of student self -government,
as they say they are every time
election day rolls around, then
they should have no fear of a ~
referendum. But we see they are
trying to hedge the subject, and
they have been aided and abetted
in this effort by, I am sorry to
see, The Daily.
All of a sudden we see commit-
tees, e.g. "Friends of USNSA" and,
on the opposite side, "Better Off
Out," being formed. The Daily,
specifically Messrs. Oliniek and
Potter, suddenly breaks out in a
flurry of editorials and, one is
tempted to say, promotionals tell-
ing us how "USNSA Offers Ser-
vices For University Students" or
"USNSA Benefits Students of 'U',
World." Huzzah!
But where have all these edi-
torials and paste-job indoctrina-
tion projects been for the last
fifteen years since the birth of
USNSA? Why has there been no
constant program of information
to students in regard to the func-
tions and services of the USNSA?
We certainly contribute to the
dues paid out, in addition to the
other expenses, whether they
amount to $1,458 (Mr. Olinick's
figure) or $2,424 (the figures sup-
plied by Tom Brown, the SGC
treasurer) per school year.
MR. OLINICK tells us: "Even
if the average University student
does not know anything about
USNSA, this is no indication that
the association is failing. Sure,
everyone ought to know about
USNSA, but he can only do so
throughd SC. The Council has
yet to discuss, as a whole, this
year's congress." To the contrary,
it is an indication that everyone
concerned, and that includes SGC,
NSA, and The Daily, has failed in
this respect and is continuing to
do so.
"USNSA" stand for.
Campus supporters of the or-
ganization suddenly feel impelled-
to justify the group. Yet, if it
had been functioning properly
since its irception, there would
be no need for such a campaign;
we would know what USNSA is
and what it does, and could judge
whether we should remain in it.
But obviously the supporters of'
the group are afraid that an "un-
informed" student body will vote
to pull out. Perhaps, but if this
does happen, they should realize
whose fault it is that the students
are "uninformed."
Lastly, we come to perhaps the
more important query, as to why
students know virtually nothing
of USNSA. One need, I think, only
look at the configuration of people
who solicited signatures for the
peition to place the issue on the
ballot. They are what we might
call the campus conservatives.
Why are they particularly in-
terested in this matter? Because,
obviously, the USNSA congresses
of the past few years have tended
to pass motions antagonistic to
them, e.g. on HUAC, speaker-ban
policies, academic freedom, and
the like. The USNSA has become
polarized into a liberal-conserva-
tive dichotomy, and as a result
the congresses have become little
more than battle-grounds for per-
sonal political philosophies. -
* * *
sible any meaningful discussion
between the two camps . . . Mem-
bers sometimes vote against a
proposal not so much because they
disagree with it, but because they
have a grudge against its sup-
porters."
What we need, in my personal
opinion, are student legislators
and student representatives dedi-
cated not to fighting their own
private political wars, but to be-
ing real representatives of and
legislators for, the students. Then,
and only then, will students lose
their sense of alienation from
their groups and realize that SGC
and USNSA are not private de-
bating societies, as they are now,
but true student groups.
-Steven Hendel, '63
Proposal.
To the Editor:
T HE UNANIMOUS agreement of
SGC to the contrary notwith-
standing, the question, "Shall the
University of Michigan remain a
member of the United States Na-
tional Student Association?", vio-
lates common practice and logic
in two basic ways.
First, as the question was taken
exactly from the petition submit-
ted, it is not a result of a propo-
sition and is therefore not, In a
strict sense; proposed legislatin
as Section Nine of the SOC Plan
requires. But Council's submitting
the question to the electorate im-
plies that it is legislation, which
Section Nine also states must be
approved by the ,electorate before
taking effect. The electorate can-
not approve or reject the question
per se; they can approve or reject
only the proposition therein. How-
ever, the question on remaining
has nohproposition because it is
not the result of one.
Second, the question does not
propose a change in the status quo
and consequently creates a ser-
ious problem. If there were a tie
vote on the question, how' would
we interpret the result? Accord-
ing to one of the most funda-
mental rules of parliamentary law,
a majority in the affirmative is
necessary; otherwise the decision
is in the negative. A decision in
the negative in the event of a tie
will mean that one-half of the
electorate-not a majority, as is
fundamentally required-will be
able to effect a change in the
status quo; a decision in the af-
firmative puts the effect of the
result in an awkward position,
that one-half in the affirmative
is sufficient to effect some action.
* * *
FURTHERMORE, the purpose
of the question demands that it
propose a 'change in the status
quo and therefore be put, "Shall
the University of Michigan with-
draw from the United States Na-
tional S t u d e n t Association?"
Those who want to remain in the
USNSA would not propose a mo-
tion to remain because: we will
always remain in it until we de-
cide to withdraw; to submit the
question of remaining as a means
of arriving at that decision would
be senseless, for they would be
unnecessarily jeopardizing t h e
status quo, which they favor. Re-
calling that it was those who are
against continued membership in
the USNSA who initiated the pe-
tition, we recognize that their goal
was to have the University with-
draw, so that, in other words, the
purpose of the petition was to take
the first step in the withdrawal of
the University.
If the question on remaining
must by its purpose and meaning
be changed to a question of with-
drawal,. as shown above, then
there. is further grievance against
the present form of the question.
The question to remain suggests
that the "burden of proof' rests
on the "pro-USNSAites" and the
"anti - USNSAites" h a v e even
claimed that said burden does in
fact rest_ on the former the
"antis" supporting their claim by
reasoning that since the question
implies a result of a proposition
to remain, which it is not, those
for remaining must prove why
the University should do so. The
"antis" have ignored the fact that
common sense and common prac-
tice demand that they alone must
prove why the University should
withdraw from the USNSA.
I AM therefore convinced that
responsibility rests with Council
to clarify the issue, that A is a
question of withdrawing-not of
remaining-and therefore that the
burden of proof rests on those who
advocate withdrawal - n o t on
those who oppose it, and because
I realize that it would be imprac-
tical to insist on a petition which
proposes that we withdraw and
a subsequent question which asks,
Shall we withdraw?
Finally, with all respects to
Council's judgments, I suggest
that Council adopt a procedural
requirement that all petitions
hereinafter be worded in such a
manner as to propose a change
in the status quo and that Council
submit the question either in its
same form or in the form of a
question, "Shall the University
adopt the proposition that . .
(some change be made in the
Cr Stands for Status Quo
WITH THE ANNOUNCEMENT by Mayor
Cecil 0. Creal that he is seeking a third,
term, Ann Arbor appears doomed to another
two years of storekeeper government. In the
last three and a half years, Creal has run
Ann Arbor much as an absentee manager runs
a grocery store. He has provided an honest
and reasonably efficient administration that
has handled problems of concern to property
owners well, but outside of this area, he has
shown little vision and leadership.
Creal and his eight Republican cohorts on
the City Council seem disinclined to leader-
ship. They prefer to react rather than act.
In spite of this inclination, Creal's record is
marked by a number of achievements.
The city Is in the midst of revising and
codifying the zoning laws. Pay scales of city
employes .have been revised and made more
equitable by a Chicago management firm at
the request of the city. A new city hall and west
side fire station are being built. With the
acquisition of Huron River valley land from
Detroit Edison available park land has been
appreciably expanded.
HOWEVER, outside the property and pro-
perty-servicing areas, Creal hesitates, stalls
or does nothing. His philosophy is admittably
conservative-no change is desirable unless
there is a dire, immediate need for change-
and this limited vision is not preparing Ann
Arbor for the future.
The Creal-led Council refused to undertake
Irony
THE GALLUP POLL has done it again.
Just prior to last week's elections the poll
discovered that Republican voters show a clear
nrafavna e n.inhna . r71hnriirNivn a a
a manpower study to determine the city's
employment needs and the means for meeting
them until the county, in cooperation with the
University and the Ann Arbor Board of Edu-
cation, decided to start one. Then it squabbled
about its share of the cost. Finally, it es-
tablished its own temporary six-month man-
power commission, four months after the. idea
was first broached to Council.
Creal's handling of the income tax pro-
posal, aided by the oversight (ignoring the
lack of charter provisions for the tax) by its
sponsor, Democratic Councilman Lynn Eley,
and by political astuteness, failed to help the
city in the future.
Eley proposed an income tax to shift the
taxation burden from property to the more
copious wages and salaries. He saw that the
property tax has a limited return and that
one day Ann Arbor will reach that limit. To
prepare for that day and to make the tax
more equitable, Eley proposed an income tax
anda property tax reduction equivalent to the
amount raised by the new levy. The council-
man asked for an administrative study of the
tax, but Creal had the tax shelved in the
city attorney's office.
PERHAPS the most serious charge that can
be laid against the mayor is his blindness
to discrimination. In the face of mountains
of statistical data and reports from the Hu-
man Relations Commission, the Washtenaw
County Council of Churches and other agen-
cies that discrimination in housing exists
against Negroes, Creal continues to insist that
"Ann Arbor is a broadminded town. Every-
body here is a first class citizen."
Despite Creal's reticence-typified by his
repeated insistence that the voters elected
him on a campaign of no fair housing legis-
lation, and he intends to keep his word-a
students oriented to partisan poli-
tical and social action. We urge
you to withdraw from USNSA.
Vote NO!
-Steven Stockmeyer, President,
Student Government Council
-Robert F. Finke, President,
Michigan Union
-Ann McMillan, President,
Panhellenic Association
-John P. Meyerholz, President,
Interfraternity Council
Debate,. .
To the Editor:
IN AN EDITORIAL yesterday
Richard Kraut accused me of
being dishonest and insincere in
Sunday's debate on USNSA. He
charged that I falsified the rea-
sons why Harvard withdrew from
the USNSA in 1958 and miscon-
strued an article by Tom Hayden.
Mr. Kraut did not attempt to
give an account of just what my
arguments were. Rather he was
content with presenting only a
rebuttal to my arguments. It seems
to me that an element of an
"honest and sincere" editorial is
an account of the other person's
initial position. Allow me to cor-
rect the record.
What I maintained was that
Harvard withdrew because of ob-
jections similar to those of BOO.
If4 Mr. Kraut had bothered to
read a 20 page document pre-
pared by a majority of Harvard's
Student Council, a document writ-
ten principally by Eugene Zagat,
not Marc Leland, he would have
discovered the similarity of our
objectives to USNSA. At the very
next USNSA Congress, Mr. Zagat,
as an observer from Harvard,
wrote a resolution which called
for a year long campus debate on
one or two selected issues before
the NSA would take a stand on
them. This resolution was passed.
Mr. Zagat returned to Harvard,
wrote another report, citing this
resolution as a step in the right
direction, and urged Harvard to
rejoin USNSA.
I am not so naive as to deny
that typical campus "politics" did
not take place at Harvard, just
as it is now taking place here
by both sides on the USNSA ques-
tion. But the fact of the matter is
that the reasons for Harvard's
withdrawal were clearly stated, a
reform resolution was passed, and
the very person who authored the
report urging Harvard to get out
also authored the report a year
later urging Harvard to rejoin.
* * *
that it is beneficial for this uni-
versity to continue its member-
ship in that organization. Due to
our present system of selecting
delegates to NSA, however, our
students are not being represent-
ed democratically, nor are they
deriving all the advantages they
might expect to receive from this
affiliation.
At present, a delegate must
either be a member of an SGC
standing committee or sit on SGC
itself. This means that many dele-
gates have not been popularly
electedtoany position on campus,
and so cannot be said to represent
general student opinion in any
way. The others, who have been
elected to positions on SGC, have
generally campaigned on their
views on local issues, so that they,
too, do not represent student opin-
ion on international issues. ix-
thermore, these people, having
manifold duties in connection
with their council and committee
posts, do not have adequate time
to devote to USNSA.
This shows up, as Mr. Potter has
pointed out, in the inability of the
University to use the resources
USNSA has offered to it. It is
therefore imperative that dele-
gates to USNSA be popularly
elected. On a campus of this size,
that is the only way for con-
stituents and representatives to
have any rapport. Let delegates
campaign on their stands on na-
tional and international issues.
Let's get those delegates on a
ballot!
-Suzanne Levison, '64
Reform.,..
To the Editor:
IN ROBERT FINKE'S article, he
advanced a number of argu-
ments against Michigan's continu-
ed affiliation with the United
States Nationale Student Associa-
tion that should not be allowed
to go unchallenged.
Perhaps Mr. Finke's most basic
argument is that internal reform
such as he claims is necessary is
not possible because the channels
of access to the National Student
Congress have been blocked off,
i.e., the legislative mechanism of
the National Student Congress has
been closed off to those who de-
sire change in USNSA. This claim
is patently false. Any delegate to
the National Student Congress
may propose resolutions, basic
policy declarations, constitutional
amendments nranv nther form