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.

November 18, 1962 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1962-11-18

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

Seventy-Third Year
EDITED 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
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.
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: DENISE WACKER

PROBLEMS OF INDIA:
S ituation Calls for Increased U.S. Aid

A

&A

The Paradox
Of A University

T HE RELATIONSHIP of the University and
the Legislature typifies the paradox of the
very existence of a university.
A university is an institution dedicated to
an attitude, a way of looking at things, a
process. The Legislature, on the other hand,
is an institution dedicated to the immediate
values and problems of the state and society
which have created it.
In effect, the scholar must inquire and
question. He cannot, or at least should not,
accept the myths and popular explanations
offered by society. The Legislature and the in-
dividual legislator, on the other hand, are
products of the very myths which the scholar
ought to question. Inherently, there must be
conflict between the two institutions.
BECAUSE the Legislature holds the purse
strings, it is the University which has had
to compromise. This is why the University has
a speaker ban.
In practice, the speaker ban precludes almost
no one from expressing ideas which are not
prohibited from expression by state and fed-
eral laws. Advocacy of violent overthrow of the
government is against federal law. These in-
dividuals could not air their views publicly at
the University whether or not there was a
Regents' bylaw.
The bylaw also prohibits the advocacy of
violation of state and federal laws as well as
University regulations. But it is only vaguely
understood what this means; as in the case
of someone speaking on civil disobedience, and
it is highly doubtful that this will be enforced
with any strictness or at all.
HAT IS DISTURBING about the speaker
policy is that the University is compromis-
ing its transcendent values in return for ap-
propriations. It is worried about image as
opposed to reality. It is concerned that people
will think it a "hotbed of radicalism." It is
stating that the University must impose upon
itself values other than the intellectual pro-
cess itself.
In all fairness, the University does have
cause for worry. As a recent Daily survey and
many past actions have shown, many Legis-
lators are ready to cut appripriations and take
other action if the University were to have
a completely open speaker policy. The Uni-
versity, to' them, is a place where scientists
and technicians are trained, where people can
be prepared to enter any number of respect-
able professions.
But this is all the more reason for the
University to take an independent course even
if it means slightly less money.
After all, it is only another form of this
institutional schizophrenia for the University
to measure itself in terms of its budget or
the total dollar value of its plant. It is true
that faculty salaries and research funds are
critical issues. But to say that the size of the
University budget means anything in itself
is plainly silly. It takes no cognizance of the
functions of the University. /
HAT IS REALLY BAD is that in making
these compromises, the University may be
strengthening its image and its facilities while
destroying itself. In effect, the University is
giving in to the very myths which it ought to
question, to the very prejudices which are
being explored within the institution -itself.
I wonder what the Universtiy would have
done if it had existed several thousand years
ago and a man named Socrates tried to speak;
or if it had existed several hundred years ago
and a man named Galileo had tried to speak;
or if it were located in the Soviet Union sev-
eral years ago and a man named Boris Pas-
ternak had tried to speak.
The principle involved in these instances is
exactly the same; these men opposed some of
the most basic values of the society in which
they lived. They were radicals whose views
were considered "unsafe" and beyond the ac-
ceptable range of ideas allowed within the
society.
History has, or probably will, justify Socrates,
Galileo and Pasternak. There have been many
others, now forgotten, who were persecuted and
later proved wrong. To dissent does not make
one inherently a prophet. But the examples
above point to one conclusion: that our ar-

tites of faith must be considered as articles
of faith. We must recognize the inherent pro-
vincialism of any age or place and deal with
them accordingly.
A UNIVERSITY is the only institution within
society that can do this. With no premises
except the intellectual process itself, a uni-
versity should offer the opportunity to reach
any conclusion. It is a difficult and in some
ways an impossible ideal.
The University does not control society. Even
though the ideas of today's University may
become tomorrow's society, the University does
not have the power to eliminate the Smith Act
today. But it does not have to support the lie

chance, limit the University and its faculty
and students to the level of automatons.
This has happened at other universities. At
the University of Mississippi, aside from any
implications of the Meredith case, the faculty
has long been kept under wraps. Faculty mem-
bers, every year, must submit a list of all or-
ganizations to which they belong.
Similarly, at the University of Illinois, a
faculty member was fired because he said there
was nothing wrong with pre-marital sexual
relations.
Here at the University, faculty members
have been fired because they refused to answer
questions before the House Un-American Ac-
tivities Committee. Several years ago stu-
dents were disciplined for bringing a Com-
munist speaker to campus.
Only last spring, University President Harlan
Hatcher received an irate call from Sen. John
Smeekens (R-Coldwater) protesting the ap-
pearance of Frank Wilkenson and Carl Braden
who had served prison terms for refusing to
answer questions before HUAC.
THE LEGISLATORS and their attitudes,
quite aside from their appropriations power,
symbolize all the pressures that fall on the
University to avoid completely free thought.
They run the gamut of men one might expect
to find in a fairly broad spectrum of ordinary
middle-class experience: farmers, lawyers, real
estate salesmen, small businessmen of all sorts,
a few schoolteachers, and a few wealthy men.
But they have little or no understanding of
the critical function of scholarship. Their con-
cept of higher education and indeed all edu-
cation is rudimentary and limited. They are
both upset and confused by anything which
exceeds their own experience.
This limited viewpoint is easily illustrated
by the ,confused and laughable ideas of some
of the more extreme examples. One legis-
lator wants all speakers barred from univer-
sity campuses who oppose the free enterprise
system. Another feels that while the Legis-
lature is not capable of setting University
policy, it ought to have a voice in selecting
University administrators. Still others wanted
the John Birch Society banned from campus.
An often-expressed opinion was that academic
freedom should be complete but that the
United States is "at war" with the Communists
and the University ought to be true red white
and blue about the whole thing. One legisla-
tor even said that he was "shocked" that any-
body could ask him whether Communist speak-
ers should be allowed.
Certainly the legislators have a right to
think and say what they wish. But their state-
ments do reflect a lack of incisiveness, a
lack of understanding of what the real issues
are. They are based on slogans and prejudices
rather than thought.
Having been elected, they probably reflect the
popular will. If one doubts that they have a
mandate from the people, then one need only
look at the huge collection of signatures that
a petition campaign managed to gather against
the lifting of Wayne State University's speaker
ban two years ago. There is no real question of
what the people want.
IT IS NOT that the University ought to'be
in necessary opposition to the ideals of
society. A University professor or student may
well wind up with the same conclusions as the
society in regards to Democracy, free enter-
prise and individual freedoms. But hopefully
they are conclusions based upon a more round-
about process of questioning, of the recognition
of beliefs of beliefs and of an understanding
of the implications and consequences of the
conclusions.
It is in the area of form rather than con-
tent that the sccholar, along with the Univer-
sity, is necessarily at odds with society. The
University strives to bridge the gap between
myth and idea, analyzing the meaning of what
most people simply accept. But there is always
the possibility of somebody reaching a different
conclusion; and within the academic ideal
one must always admit the possibility that he
is right.
THE UNIVERSITY and the scholar are
caught within the context of the society.
Rather than choosing to face the issue with
courage, the University has chosen to insti-
tute speaker bans. Worse, it has chosen, when

it dismissed professors for their refusal to
answer HUAC's questions, to draw a line
between thought and its translation into action.
A University ought to stand above the
society in which it exists. Its faculty ought to
transcend the issues of the moment as much
as possible in order to understand them better.
If we recognize the impossibility of carrying
this concept to its ultimate and not undesire-
able consequences, we ought at least to recog-
nize the disparity between the ideal and the
reality. The University must provide leader-
ship in a society which it does not lead. It
is forced to be dependent upon men who re-
flect all the prejudices and provincialisms its
processes attempt to limit.

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the last
of a five part analysis of India's
problems.)
By PHILIP D. SHERMAN
Daily Guest Writer
MADRAS-If you came to In-
dia now, you likely wouldn't
hear the standard correspondents'
joke: "If the United States really
wants to fix the Russians, it should
let them have India."
The present situation is too
serious for humor, but it should
not conceal the fact that the tem-
perature of Indo-American rela-
tions hav been constantly fluc-
tuating. There have been Goa and
Kashmir, "socialism," "neutral-
ism" and allegagations India is
too "soft" on international Com-
munism. Embodying these sup-
posed evils and a good many more
besides has been Mr. Menon.
All this has led to some skep-
ticism above and beyond normal
about aid to India, and the under-
lying realities that have fed this
skepticism aren't going to dis-
appear once the border crisis
either dies out or is solved, if it
is. Fortunately, the recent Con-
gressional foreign aid cuts report-
edly will have little effect on In-
dia, but the real issue is not hold-
ing the line on aid but increasing
it.
IN STARK contrast to U. S.
shilly-shallying: a Congress MP's
private warning that economic aid
must come quickly and in greater
amounts. If democratic India
shows progress over the next 15
years, he says, maybe she will
succeed. But if the West waits for
serious danger signals before rush-
ing to the rescue, then it will be
too late, just as it was in China.
Right now, foreign aid looms
importantly in India's Third Five
Year Plan, which calls for $5.5
billion in outside help, one fourth
of planned investment. East and
West have given or pledged 43
billion.
Over the years, the United States
has loaned or given more than $4
billion to India, with major em-
phasis on food production, power
generation andhigherstechnical
training. (The University is part
of an American educational con-
sortium sponsoring a technical
institute at Kanpur.) Recent
loans: $18 million to enlarge a
private sector power plant and
$30,000 to study peanut uses.
AID COMES from appropria-
tions, rupees earned from com-
modity sales under Public Law 480
and the Export-Import Bank. (See
table.)
In order to make the rest of the
West pay its share, the U. S. con-
tributes to India only as much as
a consortium of its allies and the
World Bank. So far this year,
each side has pledged $435 million.
The U.S. will give $65 million more
if the rest of the so-called Aid
India Club also coughs up.
Assessments of the U.S. program
vary. In answer to usual general
allegations of "waste," Ambas-
sador John Kenneth Galbraith
said after a recent tour of U.S.-
backed projects that India is us-
ing its aid well.
A major criticism is that in-
terest ought to be lower and loan
repayment periods even longer. It
is also pointed out that P.L. 480
grants cost the U.S. very little
since, under price support pro-
grams, it would buy the commod-
ities it ships to India anyway.
And use of sale proceeds only
transfers money, rather than
creating additional capital.
SCELIG S. HARRISON says

U.S. aid appears based on the
premise India will preserve demo-
cratic institutions. His own view
-there's a good chance she won't
-makes him ask what the U.S.
will do ifrthe central government
either breaks down or becomes
authoritarian.
Harrison also says that in ex-
tending aid to large established
private firms, the U.S. tends to
back a social-economic order that
dissatisifies many. Citing the fav-
orable effects of a grant of $30
million in surplus World War II
machine tools, he argues for more
aid to small and growing business.
He also advocates more for pub-
lic sector heavy industries such as
steel. Such projects may not al-

stitute but a necessary supple-
ment for internal striving for ec-
onomic growth and political sta-
bility, two of the ingredients in
such a stable system of indepen-
dent states. To the greater ex-
tent foreign assistance can make
for faster achievement of these
internal goals, it should be given.
* * *
IN non-Communist Asia the
king-pin of such a system is India.
Her collapse would mean wide-
spread instability and concomit-
ant Communist opportunity. Faced
with immense problems and rising
expectations, India clearly needs
help in all areas of development.
The present border crisis only
magnifies this need. At the best,

HERE'S A program-by-program summary of United States loans
to India as of May 4, 1962, a table that's already out of date.
USAID Technical Cooperation Program $ million
Grants................................. ...... 351.6
Loans (repayable in dollars or rupees) ............. 156.1
USAID developmental loans (repayable in dollars) .... 363.8
US Development Loan credits (repayable in rupees) .... 513.4
Public Law 480 assistance ........ ..................2,497.3
Emergency Flood and Famine Relief grants .............5.5
Export-Import Bank loans (repayable in dollars)......... 246.9
1951 Wheat Loan (repayable in dollars) ................ 189.7
Total 4,324.3
MORE THAN HALF this total, $2.23 billion or 51.5 per cent,
is in loans repayable in rupees. Another $1.3 billion (30 per cent)
is in straight grants and the remaining $800 million (18.5 per
cent) loans repayable in dollars.

its record. She already has sub-
stantial social overhead capital,
and if she has not met all her eco-
nomic goals, still her accomplish-
ments have been considerable. She
recognizes her failures.
India possesses all the compon-
ents Ambassador Galbraith has
maintained a nation needs to use
outside capital properly: a sub-
stantial literacy and adequate
managerial and technical know-
how; social justice to distribute
development's dividends; a reli-
able apparatus of government, and
a "clear and purposeful view of
what development involves."
Finally, India's geography and
present trade patterns incline her
towards the West, as do the wide-
spread use of English, and the
Western backgrounds and pro-
democratic sentiments of most of
her leaders and much of her elite.
But the latter three, especially,
won't last forever. Common sup-
port for the UN is another tie.
IT IS OBJECTED India should
not be aided because she won't
line up behind the United States,
has been "soft" on Communism
and has accepted Soviet bloc eco-
nomic aid.
Here would have been the replies
before the present crisis:
1) India is in fact pursuing a
policy of self-interest with which
the U.S. doesn't always agree but
which is not even close to conflict
with basic U.S. goals since India
desires above all to maintain her
independence,prosperity and ter-
ritorial integrity.
2) For the basic text of non-
alignment policies of new nations
suspicious of colonialism, Ameri-
cans ought to read Washington's
Farewell Address.
3) As long as her interests and
security aren't threatened, why
shouldn't India get aid from all?
4) India isnt quite as soft on
Communism as sometimes appears.
She opposes internal subversion
and the Congress party definitely
opposes Communism at the polls.
In stressing Communist means of
violence and suppression of liberty,
Nehru is awake to Communism's
internal threat. Internationally, he
does remai na bit suspicious of the
West, a result of his anti-colonial
heritage. But sometimes he is
right, and he recognizes basic
changes are taking place. Although
inclined to be a bit lenient with
Communism's international poli-
cies, Nehru has never condoned
aggression and is doubtless learn-

ing a good deal from what's nap-
pening to him in the north.
5) Inclined itself toward moral
preaching, the West should be a
bit more tolerant of India. Be-
sides, India's opinions only have as
much effect as the West allows
them to have. Also, India needs
peace to develop, and she works
for it in her own way. In some
cases, she might be right.
6) Like any other power, India
has sometimes been wrong.
* * *
INTERNALLY, the bugaboo is
India's easy-going socialism, whose
nature has already been reviewed.
Generally, Americans should con-
sider the possibility their own clas-
sical liberal ideas are at least par-
tially inapplicable to new contexts,
both in and out of their own so-
ciety .
Finalily, what should be done?
1). Economist-publicist Barbara
Ward suggests a "Marshall Plan"
approach, with the West making
a political commitment to success-
ful Indian development and pro-
viding adequate appropriation and
machinery to ensure effective and
continuous cooperation. What ever
the name, future programs must
involve more outlays, for India can
and must develop faster.
2) Lower interest ,rates and
longer payoff periods on loans, not
to say more outright grants, would
ease the future burden on India's
economy.
3) Trade policy must be adjust-
ed. India can earn much needed
foreign exchange if allowed to
trade. The prospective end of Com-
monwealth preferences would be a
serious blow. New trade patterns
and agreements must be encour-
aged.
4) Since it is presently conduct-
ing, in effect, an arms race with
itself, the U.S. should rethink its
joining India-Pakistan policy. It
gives arms to Pakistan instead of
more development aid and then
India diverts potential develop-
ment money of her own to main-
tain military equality. Foreign aid
fills the gap. Unfortunately, it's
easier to ask re-thinking to sug-
gest new ideas.
5) U.S. universities should pro-
mote Indian studies and educate
even more' qualified Indian Stu-
dents in skills they can't adequate-
ly learn at home. Opihion leaders
taking their clue from the intel-
lectuals, must mobilize the nation
to its proper business.
For Mao has merely underlined
the MP's warning: enough, now,
before it is too late.

1

I

ways be economically as sound
as presently aided ones, he ex-
plains, but they are important,
politically, as symbols of national
aspiration and foreign sympathy.
The U.S., in fact, is dickering
about a steel mill, and one report
says aid will be approved. But
given the critical importance of
agriculture, power and technical
training, it's hard to see how aid
can be diverted from these cri-
tical areas. Rather, the more showy
projects require additional aid
outlays.
The matching principle is criti-
cized reasonably as tying U.S. a"d
too closely to policies of stingier
European powers; but how can
they be induced to pay their
shares?
* * *
UNION FINANCE Minister Mor-
arji Desai and many others favor
the multi-lateral aid approach,
with aid actually administered
through neutral agencies like the
UN and World Bank. The Soviets.
many say, should join the West.
Coordinated, multi-lateral aid can
be more effective, and there will
be fewer fears of "strings." Sup-
porting this, Harrison adds it's
dangerous for both parties if In-
dia depends too much on any one
nation for aid because this would
tend to obscure her own fincal
responsibility for development. It
would also tie her development
too closely to her friend's policy.
There remains the basic ques-
tion-should the U.S. aid India at
all. The answer-yes, of course,
the only thing really wrong today
is there isn't enough foreign aid.
In its present search for secur-
ity and some external economic
opportunities, the United States
is clearly interested in peace,-sta-
bility and keeping territory and
power from falling into her op-
ponents' hands. Thes objectives
can be most easily secured by
creation of a stable system of
prosperous nations, each guard-
ing its own independence and ter-
ritorial integrity.
Foreign assistance is not a sub-

development plans will have to be
altered to suit military require-
ments if the crisis is prolonged.
At the worst, substantial increases,
both in military expenditures and
in foreign exchange outlays for
weapons purchases will necessi-
tate cutbacks in development
plans, which nevertheless retain
their critical importance. Barred
by India's own policy from giving
military aid, the 'West, through
economic aid, can still help almost
as directly to maintain the inde-
pendent nation's territorial integ-
rity, economic progress and in-
ternal stability in face of a Com-
munist threat.
According to latest reports here,
the U.S. will ship some arms to
India immediately on a commer-
cial basis, but won't worry about
immediate Indian payment.
Why not broaden this deferred
payment idea a bit with elements
in already successful programs?
A lend-lease arrangement might
be made; the U.S. was sympa-
thetic to Great Britain, but no
ally, when the program was orig-
inally passed, and Britain retained
her freedom of action. This would
save India, as it did Britain, from
having to make payments in
scarce dollars.
ANOTHER idea: just as with
P.L. 480 commodity shipments,
why can't the U.S. accept pay-
ment in rupees and then promise
to invest the proceeds in a similar
sort of revolving fund. After all,
it pays for the grain in dollars.
Why not the same for arms it
would purchase at home for the
expr s purpose of sending them
to belyagured India?
The United States further as-
serts its ideals of democracy, lib-
erty and social justice, ideals
which India follows. It is impor-
tant therefore that democracy
acquit itself adequately in the
development race in comparison
to more radical or chauvinistic in-
stitutions and ideas. Although the
present situation is surely chang-
ing conditions, it has been argued
that such a "competition" between
India and China is given more
stress than Asian attitudes actu-
ally warrant, it wouldn't be wise
to chance this and, in any case,
the U.S. should feel a moral stake
in the success of a liberal nation
as such.
On a more prosaic level, foreign
aid to India, or any other place,
stimulates American trade, as aid-
backed purchases are made in the
United States. And if, in the short
run, it means a resources drain, in
the long run a healthy and grow-
ing world economy, of which India
would be a major part, means
profitable opportunities for inter-
national trade, investment and
specialization.
* * *
STAYING at this level, it' can
be argued that, unlike many oth-
er nations, American aid to India
will do some good. India has made
a good start on development and
shows every sign of maintaining

I

LE DESTIN':
A Franct
Agaigsl
By GLORIA BOWLES
SUNDAY in France has tradi-
tionally been set aside for go-
ing to mass, but the French seem
to have taken to going to the polls
on this day, too.
A nation which has experienced
a series of referenda in the last
year and a half will this Sunday
be asked to choose a new Assemble
Nationale.
Parliamentary candidates repre-
senting President Charles de
Gaulle's party, the UNR, cam-
paigning hard, hope the French
will reaffirm theirconfidence in
Le Grand Charlie, and in the new
constitutional amendment provid-
ing popular election of the Fifth
Republic's President passed by
referendum only two weeks ago.
THE LEFT in France, however,
greatly fears a UNR victory. The
fear has been translated into an
unexpected move by Socialist
leader Guy Mollet, who entertains
few hopes for an SFI0 win in the
first round of voting, when it takes
a majority to win, but looks to an
alliance in the second round of
voting, when only a plurality is
needed. The Mollet proposal for an
alliance to defeat Gaullist candi-
dates is not in itself disturbing
until one names the party the
SFIO hopes to join: the Com-
munists.
French democracy, in a year
when French democracy has been
endangered time and again, finds
before it another threat. Guy
Mollet, one of the nation's great-
est democrats, so much fears the
right that he feels obliged to join

e~ Divided
t Herself

UNDERSCORE:
Indispensable UN
Preserves the Peace

By H. NEIL BERKSON
AT THE PEAK of the Cuban
crisis, some bright quipster re-
marked that the United Nations
had proved indispensable before it
had become effective.
The quip was perceptive, per-
haps, more than it was humor-
ous. For the UN is indispensable
today-it is needed simply because
it ranks prominently on that tenu-
ous list of factors responsible for
keeping the world at peace.
The current college generation
little understands the meaning
of peace because it doesn't know
war. This generation barely recalls
Korea; World War II is nought
but an historical event.
Few can grasp the import of the
fact that there were over 15 mil-
lion military casualties alone be-
tween the years 1939-45, or that
that war will have cost the United
States $700 billion by 1972. More-
over, who can understand the
endless personal tragedies which
lie behind every statistic of that
war, indeed, of every war.
* * *
THE WORLD of 1945 lived in
tragedy. And it was a bewildered,
desperate world which begged for
relief. "We, the peoples of the
United Nations," this world com-
mittPi to ,itin. "Dtm ine. t

At times, the UN has failed mis-
erably. At times, its sacrosanctity
has been mocked by the vicious,
treachery of national whims-our
own and those of other' countries.
But every success the UN has had
is worth a thousand mistakes, for
every success strengthens the
dream of its founders-the dream
of world peace.
\* * *
ASSUREILY, the UN's signifi-
cant role in international power
politics is a mark of its success.
The organization has defied its
opponents by weathering crisis
after crisis. It has grown stronger
each time it has been called upon
to save the world from the hell
of war. In what other hands could
the impossible Congo situation
have been placed? Who has main-
tained the truce in the Middle
East? Who has kept the nuclear
powers talking instead of fight-
ing? Whom did both East and
West ask immediately to mediate
the Cuban crisis?
The UN has been invaluable in
these confrontations. At the most
dangerous periods of the Cold War
the UN has kept the channels of
communication open so that nei-
ther side has fallen into war
through misunderstanding. It has
been a mecca for the exchangerof
ideas on how to save the world.
'rhP,. giirival o-f humay~nity is a

the extreme left. Mollet obvious-
ly has great qualms about the man
who is running his country, and
the people who are giving him the
powers of a dictator. Those who
love France, and her people, and
admire the revolution whose call
for Liberte, Egalite and Frater-
nite has inspired many men since
1789, cannot help but be greatly
disturbed when a man of Mollet's
conviction feels himself compel-
led to join the Communists.
THIS SOCIALIST attempt to
defeat the right is helping to legit-
imize an extreme left whose power
in France increased in multiplying
proportions to every OAS bomb
that was exploded in Paris and in
Algeria. The Communists took full
advantage of unrest in France,
masterfully exploited a tense situ-
ation and provided a fervent oppo-
sition to the terrorist activities of
the Secret Army Organization. On
the liberal side of the Algerian
question, the Communists began
to look as though they weren't so
bad after all.
Though the Party polled 20 per
cent of the votes cast in the 1958
parliamentary elections, constiu-
tional manipulation has knept them
from taking a proportionate num-
ber of seats in the Assembly. Al-
liance and coalition is the Com-
munists' only chance for power in
France.
It is ironic that Mollet should
be the one to offer the chance. The
Socialist concession to alliance
with the Communists, a purely
negative move, is one of the sad-
dest pieces of news to come out of
France in a long time. The Mollet
announcement does not portend
well for French democracy or po-
litical stability.
GENERAL de Gaulle came to
power in France in 1958 to put
down an army rebellion in Al-
geria. He put down the rebellion,,
and even a war. But France's
problems are far from being solved.
Though outwardly it appears that
de Gaulle and stability reign
peaceful, there is trouble bubbling
under the surface.
France, as she goes to the polls
this Sunday in November, harbors
an extreme right which is dwind-
ling but ever present, an extreme
left whose power is increasing, an
aging President, and a constitu-
tion which only that President can

MARRIAGE OF FIGARO:
Delightful Experience

T HE NEW YORK Opera Com-
pany combined an outstanding
cast, chorus, and orchestra to
present Mozart's opera, "The Mar-
riage of Figaro." From beginning
to end, the opera was delightful
and enjoyable, both musically and
artistically.
Susanna, sung by Doris Yarick,
was purely delightful throughout
the opera; the climax of her per-
formance was her final aria. "Deh
Vieni, Non Tardar" in the fourth
act, in which she displayed a

small voice, but she was very con-
vincing in the role of he page.
The remainder of the cast was
of equal excellence, particularly
Don Basilio, whose voice is of fine
quality and projects very well.
Some of the singer seemed to have
difficulty being heard in the lame
auditorium, but this is rather in-
nate in opera production in Hill
Aud.
THE OPERA COMPANY orches-
tra deserves special commendation

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan