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


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.

November 17, 1962 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1962-11-17

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

Seventy-Third Year
'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.

"Indeed, Suh! Some Of Mah Kinfolk Are Yankees"

Republican Liberals
Bite the Dust

Campus Responds
To Vigorous Election

THURSDAY was probably the calmest day
the Unive':sity campus has experienced in
the past two and one half weeks. It was a
day of wistful smiles, broad grins, and pen-
sive expressions of disappointment.
The United States National Student Asso-
ciation referendum coupled with the Student
Government Council elections resulted in one
of the most vigorous campaigns in University
The record vote of 7,193 students at the polls
and Council president Steven Stockmeyer's im-
pressive 1,711 first place ballots gain in sig-
nificance when one remembers that the elec-
tion was held on just one day this year.
Indications from the tremendous voter-turn-
out are both encouraging and discouraging.
One fourth of the student body participated in
balloting, making the seven elected candidates
more representative than candidates have ever
been in SGC history.
THE RESULTS indicate that at least a
quarter of the campus can be stimulated
when a meaningful issue is forcefully brought
to the student body. Actually, however, to
fully understand, this election it must be split
into two distinct aspects: the election of SGC
candidates and the referendum.
The election of candidates went rather
smoothly, but was completely subordinated by
the referendum issue. Apparently, the candi-
dates were much more aware of the election
and petitioning rules in this election than
candidates were last spring, and on the whole
it was a clean election.
However, it cannot be said that political
chicanery was excluded from the election pro-
cess. Candidates are requiredto submit pe-
titions to SGC by a given deadline. The word
petition has always been interpreted to mean
all election materials, including the signed
,petition for non-incumbents, a statement of
candidacy, a platform and a couple of other
items. This year two of the incumbents applied
a strict interpretation of the word "petition"
and failed to submit their platform by the
established deadline for petitions. Technically,
they were within their rights, since the Rules
and Credentials committee and election direc-
tor had not realized the legal loophole pre-
sented by the phraseology of the petitioning
This loophole has existed in past petitioning
regulations but incumbents and new caldidates
alike have always met the deadline or been
disqualified. Certainly there is no reason why
incumbents should be given preferential treat-
ment. In fairness to the other candidates the
platforms of the incumbents must be sub-
mitted at the same time as all others. The
rules governing future elections must clearly
state that all materials from incumbents and
new candidates alike are due by the specified
ALSO, THE ILLEGAL distribution of dittoed
sheets with statements explaining the anti-
USNSA position and endorsements of five
candidates in some of the quadrangles repre-
sents an attempt by some organized group to
get certain people elected.
Certainly these points are minor compared
to the infractions of election rules which oc-
curred last spring.
The .three most deplorable aspects of the
election, however, were the candidates them-
selves, the usual apathy of the campus towards
the candidates, and certain parts of the ad-
ministration of the election.
SGC needed a group of informed, interested
and dynamic candidates to bolster its prestige
and power. Instead, excluding the incumbents,
those campaigning were either mediocre or
extremely uninformed. Fortunately, the campus
selected the better candidates from those who
were poorly qualified.
AN IDEAL GROUP of candidates would have
recognized the significance of the USNSA
question but not rested their campaign on it.
Several of the candidates had other points
in their platforms but tried to clinch their
case on the issue. The USNSA question was
in part an artificially created campaign issue
handed to the candidates by a few campus
A really good candidate would have used
the USNSA issue as a point of departure for

some concrete suggestions for new areas of
Council action or inquiry. These suggestions
necessarily must be backed up by a substantial
knowledge of the academic and administrative
structure of the University. On the whole, can-
didates in this election were not aware of
such basic aspects of the University as the
new Office of Academic Affairs, the actual
content of the new speaker bylaw or the Reed
Report and Council's evaluation of it and there-
fore were not able to offer well thought-out
areas for potential Council consideration.
Agood SGC member should have an inquir-
ing mind open to ideas encompassing all view-
points. However, often it appeared that each

tings with candidates. The other campus-wide
attempts to allow candidates to express their
views were flops. The Union-WCBN radio
forum was attended by 22 students, and it is
doubtful that a great percentage of the campus
would have listened patiently to the two-hour
program over the radio.
Another campus-wide opportunity for the
student to hear the views of the candidates is
Hyde Park, yet both -of the Diag sessions were
unsuccessful because only a few of the can-
didates had enough conviction to get up and
talk to a militant crowd. Several of the can-
didates circulated in the audience but refused
to speak even when asked to present their
views. Other candidates never even put in an
Campaigning at the individual residence
halls and other housing units is not only te.
dious for the candidates but the attendance is
usually a small percentage of the total num-
ber of inhabitants. Face to face campaigning
in these units is, of course, the best way to
win votes, but the effect of this form of cam-
paigning is limited by the apathy of the in-
dividual student.
CERTAINLY, large, campus-wide gatherings
where the candidates can present their
views to many students are an important part
of any campaign. Yet both the student body
and the candidates themselves seem to have
been unwilling in this election to grasp the
opportunity of listening to all the candidates
together, where positions can be compared and
The administration of the election was good
up until count night. Only one real criticism
can be leveled at the polling process itself and
that is that student identification cards were
not punched after voting. Instead a grease
pencil was used to mark the card. Students
with long fingernails or creative minds could
easily have removed the pencil mark.
Count night was doomed to confusion a full
week before the actual election. The new per-
centage process, incorporated into the Hare
system of voting, supposedly to remove the
randomness of ballot redistribution, was not
thoroughly thought out by the Council. Even
the election director and the executive vice-
president, who are in charge of count night,
did not understand how often the percentages
had to be computed and how the invalidated
ballots fit into the computations.
Consenquently, it took about two hours to
figure out the first and second ballots. At times
it was doubtful if any one from Thomas Moch,
who ran the desk computer, to Thomas Brown,
was conceived the percentage system, under-
stood exactly what was going on.
THE SECOND and distinct part of the cam-
paign concerned the USNSA referendum.
This is the issue which provided the entire
impetus of the election, which was clearly
demonstrated by the fact that 7,193 students
voted on the referendum while only 6,654
students cast ballots for SGC candidates.
The USNSA campaign, thought much clean-
er and more intelligently handled than at
other campuses, left much to be desired. In-
jected emotionalism and "do-as-I-sayism"
rather than do what is logical, or rational in
the face of personal conviction lowered the
level of the referendum campaign. Students
were told to vote in a certain way because
campus or national leaders were voting that
way, not because the student had substantive
reasons for or against the association. And
often the students followed this dubious ad-
The Daily and the Michigan Union also
played significant, but somewhat questionable
roles. The Daily's duty to adequately cover
the USNSA issue was overdone and perhaps
news judgement was a little too closely linked
to partisanism. At least the campus was
aware that the Senior Editors were publically-
committed to the support of the association.
The Daily's position can be partially justified
on another ground.
The paper has always given USNSA exten-
sive news coverage-it did not just discover
the association two and one half weeks before
election day.
THE UNION'S ROLE, led by its president,
was also extremely partisan, especially for

and organization that was not publically com-
mitted to an anti-USNSA position. The wide-
spread circulation of "The Michigan Union
Reports" which contained a biased article on
the association without a disclaimer is one
indication of the injudicious role the Union
Actually, the only criticism one can levy at
the tactics used in the referendum campaign is
that they were "injudicious." There are no
rules governing referendum and initiative pro-
cedures. Certainly, existing residence hall rules
should have been observed.
However, one of Council's projects in the im-
mediate future should be to develop a concrete
too of _tls a 1 . r--, ,,n f « r..~w.....

A Country Divided

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This isr
fourth of a five part analysis ofl
dia's problems.)


Daily Guest Writer
MADRAS-With even the Dravi-
dia M u n n e t r a Kazagham,
strongest secessionist party of all,
supporting the Indian govern-
ment, the border crisis is creat-
ing at least a facade of unity.
Despite this, strong forces exist
and will continue to exist that
threaten the unity of India as a
national state.
India is, in many ways, more
than a collection of rather auton-
omous regions, and regional feel-
ings, notions that one's own area
is markedly different and better
than the rest of the country, can
often outweigh national allegi-
ance. Local politicians, including
the Communists, stand ready to
exploit and encourage regionalism.
EXPERTS are divided about the
effects on India of a regionalism
much greater than that existing
in the United States. Some for-
see the breakup of the union, oth-
ers minimize the problem or say
the regional differences are nat-
ural and a democratic state is de-
signed to permit them.
Here's a quick non-evaluative
survey of various disunifiying
In many ways, the most impor-
tant is language. Fourteen Indian
languages are listed as "national
languages" in the constitution, and
(leaving out Sanskrit) the terri-
tories of 13 of these form the basis
for India's states, the structures,
the political and cultural arenas
for regional feelings.
TO ASSESS the language prob-
lem, consider the following:
The United States is divided in-
to several language regions. The
largest, the middle west, wants to
impose its particular language as
the nation's tongue in preference
to all others. This is strongly,
even bitterly, opposed in otner
areas which can't understand mid-
dle western. This is especially true
of the Deep South whose people
prefer Russian to the national
language. New England, whose
language is most developed, and
other areas speak different lan-
guages than either the south or
Now for "middle west," substi-
tute Uttar and Madhya Pradesh,
Bajasthan, and Bihar; for "Deep
South," South India; for "Rus-
sian,' English, and for "New Eng-
land," West Bengal. This is a very
rough approximation of the situa-
tion in India where one's language
is a matter of principle.
Regional groups unite behind
their own language and fight to
uphold its place.
* * *
THE NET RESULT is inevitably
i n c r e a s e d fragmentation and
greater difficulties in inter-region-
al communication. Universities
can serve only a limited area, for
instance, and government workers
and politicians may find areas of
opportunity and perspective limit-
ed to their own language areas.
With increasing literacy in re-

citizen of central Indian Hydera-
bad remarked of the south: "Oh,
they're darker down there." Ne-
groes in India have complained of
color prejudice, too.
The fascist-like DMK answers
the fairer people with a vengeance.
As its name implies, it attempts
to base itself on "race"-the dark-
skinned; broad-faced Dravidian
population of the south, alleged
descendants of India's original in-
habitants. The Dravidians sup-
posedly stand in opposition to the
lighter, taller, "long - headed"
northerners, who are very vaguely
connected with the Aryan invaders
of centuries past.
Color, caste, and economic inter-
ests combine to create a general
sense of ill feeling between north
and south. Some southerners com-
plain the "northern dominated"
central government discriminates
against them in planning. Pres-
sures from every region have in
fact forced political rather than
economic decisions on investment
Southerners complain northern-
ers unfairly dominate their eco-
nomic life. When the DMK touch-
ed off a recent riot in Madras
city, many northern shopkeepers,
likely targets of any uncontrolled
violence, immediately shut their
s + .
THE BASIS for the partition,
religion remains a potentially dis-
turbing factor. Forty million Mus-
lims live peaceably in India's sec-
ular state, but communalism could
flare again. There are a number of
militant Hindu parties in the filed.
Beyond these broad factors, there
remains the well-nigh inescapable
localism of the average peasant
A middle view of what these
forces will lead to is as follows:
they will continue to exist, though
it is unlikely they'll be strong
enough to break the union into
small parts. The desire to enforce
national unity might lead to much
more authoritarian all-India gov-
ernmental institutions.
Unquestionably, however, re-
gional strains will distract atten-
tion from the national effort to
move forward and will make the
task much more difficult.
# s .
THE UNITY picture's other side
can be sketched quickly: actual
separatism, except in a couple of
places, has shown little strength;
the constitution provides adequate
means to deal with a secessionist
movement; the Hindu way of life
unites Indians (though historical-
ly this hasn't worked in the past):;
the Congress and the independ-
ence ideal still unit most people
and most regions within them-
selves; economic development can
lessep regional grievances (though
it can also stimulate them by in-
creased expectations); no region
could go it alone.
The central government is not
taking any chances on natural
evolution, however. It is making a
broad effort at "national integra-
tion," using all the propaganda re-
sources at its command to draw
the nation together, to turn eyes

dia's new-found unity is unclear,
so is democracy's. Ignoring the
basic question of its suitability, i,
may be said that, albeit with a
low level of participation, democ-
racy is operating. But can it sur-
It has to work in an unfriendly
climate of illiteracy, poverty, apa-
thy, limited personal horizons and
an authoritarian political tradi-
tion. There are either mountainous
economic expectations the present
order can't hope to meet or enough
indifference to negate efforts at
democratic mobilization.
To counteract the latter, the
government has started "panchay-
at raj," a program to create a vi-
able system of local governments
across the land to spearhead local
development. One of the most mov-
ing sights I've seen was a meet-
ing of one such group to explain
its program. Speaking in fractured
English of the virtues of local con-
trol, the groupilisted the wells,
schools, and irrigation canals it
was building. The local group, they
said, suggests a local plan, and
higher authorities approve it rnd
provide some funds. The local area
provides the balance, either in
cash or in labor, hopefully involv-
ing the people in the projects their
representatives proposed and they
carried out. But this panchayat
group was the only effective one
for 70 miles around.
*'I* *
tive democracy is lack of an effec-
tive, nationally-based opposition to
Congress whih, although it doesn't
command an overall majority,
vastly overshadows its divided op-
ponents. Like American parties,
the Congress contains all shades
of opinion, and some give-and-
take goes on, but this is no substi-
The Congress itself must find
further support as the party of
national development and not
merely as leader of the Freedom
Parliament itself needs to gain
stature. At present, most decisions
are made either by Nehru or the
Congress party executive and not
hammered out in the legislature.
Another constitutional problem:
since the center must work through
state governments, and since Con-
gress is likely to lose control of
some state government before pow-
er in Delhi, what will be the rela-
tions between center and state
when, as in Kerala under the
Communists, the opposition takes
* *
AND THERE IS the cliche,
"after Nehru, what?" Has India
depended too much on one man
to provide unity and make the big
decisions? Panditji's charismatic
hold on India's masses has been a
big unifying factor. So has his
leadership of Congress, where he
reputedly unites right and left
Will Congress hold together aft-
er he goes? Some say its organiza-
tional strength will keep it togeth-
er. Others suggest it would be
preferable for it to divide to form
the nucleii of two new national
parties. The resulting turmoil

City Editor
AT FIRST glance, last week's
elections would seem to have
dealt the Republicans a severe set-
back, and, taking the word "Re-
publicans" to encompass everyone
who ran on the ticket, perhaps
this is so.
But on closer scrutiny, we find
it was not real "Republicans" who
lost out, but the pseudo-Republi-
cans, the modern Republicans, the
liberal Republicans.
NOW THIS is not to say that
the GOP's misfit fringe has been
exterminated. Not by a long shot.
But it was Republicans of that
ilk who suffered the overwhelming
majority of the campaign setbacks.
Of the conservative Republicans
seeking re-election in the House,
85 of the 88 were returned to
Washington. Those who were de-
feated - Reps. Hiestand, Rous-
selot and McDonough, all of Cali-
fornia - were hopelessly gerry-
mandered out of their seats.
In the South, not one Republi-
can was dislodged and the GOP
gained five seats.
In addition, the GOP sent a to-
tal of 32 new congressmen to
Washington. Practically to a man,
they campaigned as conservatives,
within the party organization.
* * * i
ON THE other hand, long-time
GOP liberals were, in many cases,
rejected. Sen. Alexander Wiley of
Wisconsin, long noted as a liberal
in his party, was bounced soundly
by Gov. Gaylord Nelson, a Demo-
crat who, more often than not,
has veered to the right of the
party line.
In Indiana, Sen. Homer Cape-
hart, whose conservatism is some-
what fuzzy except around election
time, was also edged out. Same
goes for Rep. Perkins Bass in New
Hampshire. By and large, the
"moderate" and "libeal" Repub-
licans got their lumps in districts
where they should have been safe.
On the other hand, the conserv-
atives, placed in jeopardy by al-
most every pollster, were returned
in grand style. Witness Sen.
Thruston B. Morton in Kentucky,
Sen. Wallace F. Bennett in Utah,
Sen. Len B. Jordan in Idaho, Sen.
Frank Carlson and Sen. James
Pearson, both of Kansas, Sen.
Bourke B. Hickenlooper of Iowa.
* * *
lengers on the GOP ticket won
out also. Oklahoma wheat farmer
Henry Bellmon captured the
Sooner statehouse for the first
GOP victory in that state's his-
tory. Political novice John A. Love
bounced incumbent Gov. Stephen
McNichols in Colorado, and he
carried fellow conservative Rep.
Peter Dominick to victry over
New Frontier Sen. John B. Car-
roll. Wyoming removed two Dem-
ocrats, Gov. Jack Gage and Sen.
J. J. Hickey, in favor of Republi-
cans Clifford P. Hanson and Mil-
ward Simpson.
True, there were exceptions to
all these cases. Gov. Rockefeller
was re-elected in New York along
with Sen. Javits. Sen. Aiken re-
turned to the Capitol from Ver-
mont, George Romney became the
first GOP governor in Michigan in
14 years. But these deviations,
notable though they be, are only
a handful, when stacked up
against the number of Republican
conservatives that were elected
and the number of Republican
"moderns" that were defeated.
In these results, the Republican
Party itself can take hope. For
years, since the Eisenhower era
that began in 1952, the GOP has
been plagued by self-styled in-
dependents and moderns, who
sought to enter the political arena
on the general's coattails.
* * *
IKE HAS a universal appeal.
Basically he was a conservative,
but his luster as a war hero tend-
ed to obscure his political philoso-
phy. He was not, in fact, a poli-
tician. When the so-called "Eisen-

hower Republicans" -a t t a c h e d
themselves to him, he did not
clear up the confusion. Only after
his heart attack did he chance to
make himself clear. "Ike is not an
Eisenhower Republican," he said.
Hopefully, the result the GOP
has suffered at the polls will dis-
courage some would-be politicians
within its ranks. Hopefully, the
parasites will desert the ship, de-
fect to the Democrats, or put in
their time furthering some pursuit
other than politics.
Only when the GOP has rid it-

self of those people who are not
really Republicans, can it hope to
win again, for the electorate, when
faced with the choice of electing
a real Democrat or a kind-of-a-
Democrat, will almost invariably
choose the Real McCoy., That's
human nature.
But when given a clear-cut
choice between the Democrats and
real Republicans - well, let the
situation in Oklahoma, Colorado
and Kentucky answer that.
* * ,
NOW THIS is not to say that
the GOP cannot make room for
the Javits, the Rockefellers, and
the Romneys. It can, to be sure.
But they must accept the Republi-
can principles and campaign on
them, not in spite of them..
And coupled with this, the GOP
must realize that times have
changed. The population in this
country has shifted around; the
complexion of the various com-
munities across the nation has
changed. And the places where Re-
publican principles were sacred
50 years ago are, in many cases,
no longer GOP sanctuaries.
Yet, everything must be in bal-
ance. For almost 200 years, our
nation has remained faithful to a
two-party system, and there is no
sign it will stop now. Republicans
must seek fertile soil in the Demo-
crat strongholds, just as the Dem-
ocrats have usurped the en-
trenched GOP.
* * *
THE SOUTH and the Southwest
offer excellent replacements for
the New England and Atlantic
states which seem to be slipping
On the other hand, if they keep
up an offensive where they are
losing ground, the combination of
the two should spell victory and
a Republican majority in America
once again.
The Republicans were cast aside
during the 30's and 40's because
they failed to keep up with the
times in terms of their own prin-
ciples. Rather they attempted to
water down the Democrats' pro-
gram and present it as their own.
The voters, understandably, were
not impressed by a half-hearted
substitute when they could have
the real thing.
Now, in the second half of the
century, the GOP finds itself cast
off from the protective coattails of
Gen. Eisenhower and it stands at
the crossroads. The record of the
30's and 40's shows what "me-
too" Republicanism leads to. The
record of the 1962 campaign shows
what real Republicanism leads to.
The question remains: Will the
Grand Old Party be smart enough
to "spin the right platter" or will
it continue to let the Democrats
"call the tune."
to the
To the Editor:
MOST OF our parents raised us
with a number of slogans;
one of these was "Don't trust
strangers; don't talk to strangers."
For a while I thought I was the
only honest person around, aside
from my parents, relatives, and
friends. Then I began to think
about the slogan; I decided it was
untrue-I was no different from
most other people and therefore
the majority of people were hon-
est, kind, and considerate. I be-
lieved this naively until this year.
Since school started, some slick
gal in Couzens Hall has been de-
pleting other dorm inhabitants of
their wallet money. Unfortunately,
while I Was away from my room
one evening for fifteen minutes,
I became one of the fifteen-or-so
.* * *
purse in back of Couzens Hall
near the bike-racks. The purse,

with all the identification that
any twenty-one year old girl car-
ries with her, has not been re-
turned to the desk, the house-
mothers' office, or to my room.
Just think-some honest sweet
cheap college student who prob-
ably lives in' one of the dorms
near me is using my money, my
identification, my semi-expensive
sun glasses, etc. May she have
nightmares for the rest of the
year! I now believe my parents'
--Cathie Platt, '63

'Alice inwonderland'.

N OW LISTEN carefully children.
Be good and I'll tell you about
something better than candy and
bubblegum and chocolate and pull-
ing your sister's hair and all those
other fun games.
At the Architecture Auditorium
(you know, the building where
they play with mud pies), Donald
Duck and Pluto and Goofy (char-
acters not made out of mud but
out of full-blown Disney colors)
are cavorting across the screen

Cheshire Cat and the Queen of
Hearts, and the flamingos hit the
curly little balls of fur like cro-
quet sticks and croquet balls and
all the other silly wonderful char-
acters that people the screen.
* * *
JUST THINK. Alice will give
you a guided tour of a dream,
DonaldvDuck will show you that
true love wins in the end (be-
lieve it or not) and Goofy will give
vn, A t w ,,,v c in

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan