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.

December 09, 1962 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1962-12-09

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
aTruth ,Will Preval"'
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: ELLEN SILVERMAN

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
Statewide Speaker Policy
Unfortunate, Injurious

UNDERSCORE:
World's Uneasy Truces
Cannot Lead to Peace

SGC Elections Prove
Need To Vote for the Party

STEVE STOCKMEYER made a backroom
political deal with Kenny Miller and then
pulled a doublecross.
Now Stockmeyer, and to a lesser extent
Miller, are being dammed around campus for
acting unethically (and probably for destroy-
ing two of the most shining images on the
campus). Rightly so.
Yet out of ,his whole mess will hopefully
come the death of one of the political in-
anities which have become legendary in this
country-and on this campus-that of "voting
for the man rather than the party." If this
happens the whole SGC intrigue may even
have been worthwhile.
Ask the average citizen which party he
will vote for in an election. He will probably
look down his nose at you and haughtily pro-
claim "I vote for the best man."
This appeals to the citizen because it makes
him feel he is considering both sides equally
with an open mind. To him there is some-
thing wrong with "the party" which usually
appears dogmatic and is reminescent of smoke-
filled rooms.
So the citizen votes for the man-the know-
ledgeable, incorruptable, dedicated and usually
moderate man-who may not have expressed a
real opinion on any important issue. This is
especially true if the candidate is a moderate
trying to be all things to all people..
SO WHAT HAPPENS? The citizen is a home
owner and after a month in office the
new official proposes -a higher land tax. Or
the citizen is a Republican woman who votes
for Kennedy because he is handsomer than
Nixon and Kennedy later raises the minimum
wage causing her husband to take heavy
business losses.
Or it is you, and you vote for Stockmeyer
or Miller because they both present fine, clean-
cut images and appear to know what is going.
on and since you don't know too much about
the issues involved you will be swayed by
appearance.
Then they go ahead and make back room
deals. And the citizen suddenly finds out that
despite the physical appearance and supposed
open-mindedness of the candidate he voted
for he made a, mistake because the candidate's

stands on certain key issues are contrary to
the citizen's interests.
THE PRIMARY EFFECT that a politician
will have on you will be by the way he
votes. It may be very nice to have a handsome
president whose picture you can hang on your
wall and admire-but if he votes to raise your
taxes he hits you where you hurt.
No politician is free of interests and opinions,
if he were he would not be a politician. Thus it
is in your interest to vote for those candidates
whose opinions are similiar to yours. E
When accused by Miller of the doublecross
Stockmeyer gave what to him was the right
answer. He said that he knew his action was
unethical and he didn't particularly like doing
it but he did it for partisan reasons and these
took precedent.
AFTER ALL look at what he accomplished.
First he got an executive committee with
a majority for the conservatives. Secondly by
getting the conservative Epker elected treasurer
instead of the liberal Abrams he is giving
Epker the necessary base from which to run
for the presidency when Stockmeyer leaves.
So in effect he consolidated conservative
strength on a fairly evenly divided Council and
made provisions for perpetuating conservative
control of the presidency after he was gone.
He may have tarnished his image in some
people's eyes but he is not up for re-election
anyway so what do ethics matter?
TNHERE IS one big lesson to be learned from
this. The next time you vote-be it in a
national, state or campus election-get to
know the issues. See how you stand on them,
and then vote for the man who comes closest
to your views, no matter what his race, religion
or physical appearance.
And you may get a surprise. You may find
that one of those parties, which are despised
for being dogmatic, may correspond with your
views, which makes it not dogmatic but right.
A member of your party may be ill-informed,
unable to think for himself, at worst a com-
plete tool. But if his interests or his party's
are similiar to yours then you are better off
voting for him than you are by voting for the
open-minded moderate who may wind up tak-
ing the other side.
THIS IS NOT to say that ethics have no
place -in politics. Neither is it condoning
Stockmeyer's action-nor Miller's for that
matter. And voting just for the people who
agree with you is no guarantee of instant
morality in politics.
What it will do however is eliminate the
feeling one has of being duped when the per-
son one votes for votes in turn for an opposing
program, or is exposed as doing something un-
derhanded in order to get his program adopted.
The elimination of ticket splitting is also
ensured, which sometimes leaves a state for
instance with a Democratic governor and a
Republican legislature which equals stalemate
for two years.
Ethics are fine and should be promoted as
much as possible-only you might find that the
more you regard a person as right the more
you may agree with his ethics. So vote for
candidates who are ethical, open-minded and
honest-just be sure they agree with you.
-RONALD WILTON

To the Editor:
THE "SPEAKER POLICY" which
has recently been formulated
by the presidents and governing
board members of state-supported
colleges and universities in Mich-
igan is, in my view, an unfortunate
one, and more injurious to demo-
cratic process, I fear, than its
authors realize.
I do not for a moment question
the sincerity of that body, or its
genuine intention. to 'foster a
spirit of free inquiry and to en-
courage the timely discussion of
a wide variety of issues . . :" I
submit, however, that there are
more straightforward and effec-
tive ways of doing that than with
the policy proposed.
1) It is claimed that this policy
imposes no prior restraints on
speakers, no "pre-censorship." I
am not sure that this is the whole
truth of the matter. It is true that
the speaker's text need not be
pre-examined, nor his character,
background, or associations in-
vestigated. However, the nub of
the policy is a set of three pro-
visions which are clearly imposed
restraints. Of these, the first two
describe things which must not
be spoken, and the third obliges
.the inviting student organization
to inform the speaker of these
restrictions. Inform him to what
end? I can only conclude that he
must be informed in order that
he may delete such passages as
may offend against the rules. It
is intended by this policy that
such deletion (if it is needed)
take place prior to the speech it-
self. When else could it take place?
IF THIS POLICY, then, does
not serve the purpose of prior
restraint, I do not know what
does. That censorship takes many
forms is known by all. That these
restraints are hidden in a warn-
ing the student organization is
obliged to give does not erase them
or excuse them. It is a good prin-
ciple, frequently employed in the
law, that what you may not do
directly you may not do indirectly.
2) The proposed policy can be
defended not on the ground that
it imposes no restraints, but that
those it does impose are justified.
What are these restraints and how
are they justified? The restrictions
are :
a) "The speaker must not urge
the audience to take action which
is prohibited by the rules of the
(university or college) or which is
illegal under federal or Michigan
law."
b) "Advocating or urging the
modification of the government of
the United States, or of the State
of Michigan, by violence or sabo-
tage is specifically prohibited."
The justiciation of restraints
upon freedom of speech in a
democracy is always difficult; but
the authors of this policy have
made some effort to present such
justification. It is to be found in
the second paragraph of the first
section, and in the third of eight
principles upon which the recom-
mendation is based. As these are
the only passages which support
restriction, and as the principles
involved seem reasonable, it is
worth looking at these justifica-
tions more carefully.
1) The most basic of the justi-
fying principles provided is this:
"Restraint on free inquiry should
be held to that minimum which
is consistent with preserving an
organized society in which peace-
ful, democratic means for change
are available." Granting that this
principle is a good one, my ques-
tion is whether it can be used to
justify any restrictions whatever
upon speakers invited by students
to their university. The advocates
of this speaker policy assume that
allowing persons to speak publicly
who advocate violence, or sabo-
tage, or disobedience to law, is
inconsistent with the preservation
of our society. This seems to me
to be simply false. In the long
run, and in the short run,.nothing

will encourage or strengthen our
peaceful and democratic proce-
dures as much as the deliberate
opportunity to hear and evaluate
the arguments of those who would
deprive us of them.
* * *
WHAT IS THERE to fear? Are
we afraid that hearing the ad-
vocacy of such views will incite
out students to violence, or sabo-
tage? Have we so little confidence
in the strength of democratic
conviction among our citizens? Do
we fear that university students
are particularly subject to sub-
version? Is it that they know too
little or too much? The above
mentioned principle can only
serve to defend the stated restric-
tions if these fears are justified.
If they are, I suggest that we be-
gin to pull from our library shelves
all those books which advocate,
under any circumstances violence,
sabotage, or disobedience to law.
Begin with Marx, Lenin, and Mao
Tse-Tung; finish up with John
Locke and Thomas Jefferson. If
this strikes one as absurd, should
the restriction of advocacy of the
same acts by persons not nearly
so effective or well known, to a
smaller group by far, in speech

is such a threat must be decided
in light of the circumstances. In
university circumstances the ad-
vocacy of violence poses no such
threat; indeed, it may contribute
far more than it detracts from
the security of a democratic order.
The truth of the matter is that
our democracy is strong; in uni-
versity and college communities
(where the consequences of vio-
lence are better understood) it is
particularly strong. One who ad-
vocates the subversion of demo-
cracy in communities such as this
will be treated as beneath con-
tempt; he will be laughed out of
court. Those of us interested in
the preservation of peaceful and
democratic means of change,
among whom I know are the
authors of this policy, have no-
thing to fear from the advocates
of violence.
ii) The secondary justification
given forrestraint upon university
speakers reads as follows. "The
campus should be used to foster
intelligent and rational discussion
of every variety of idea, including
advocacy of changing existing
legal rules, but emotional and in-
flammatory incitement of an au-
dience to take action which is
made illegal by duly elected gov-
ernment bodies has no place in
the campus setting and different
rules than those applicable to
the soap box speech on the street
corner are justified."
AGAIN it appears to me that a
sound principle is being improperly
applied. We will all agree that
intelligent and rational discussion
requires self-restraint and cool-
headedness. Such rationality has
its natural home in a university
setting. But the desirability of
reasonable conduct in inquiry does
not justify the prior exclusion of
those who will not so conduct
themselves. The judgment of what
does and what does not constitute
emotional and inflammatory ex-
citement can only be made within
the process of inquiry, not before
it.
Of all the places in which such
a judgment can be made, the uni-
versity or college is the best. These
communities do not need protec-
tion against inflammatory speak-
ers; in this context such speakers
are their own worst enemies, and
if we disagree with them we have
every reason to be pleased when
they depart from rational proce-
dures. It is always more likely that
reason will be abandoned and self-
restraint forgotten by those sup-
porting the opinion of the great
majority. If restrictions upon the
manner or argument are ever
called for, they are needed more
for ourselves than our opponents.
But if it be true that the rules
of the university and the rules of
the soap box ought to differ
(which I gravely doubt) it is the
soap box speaker who needs to
be restrained from without, (con-
ceivably as a protection to his
audience), surely never the uni-
versity speaker. If offensive and
inflammatory conduct is the chief
point at issue (which I also
doubt) Mill is right again in say-
ing that law and authority have
no business with restraining it on
any side of any question "while
opinion ought, in every instance, to
determine its verdict by the cir-
cumstances of the individual case;
condemning everyone, on which-
ever side of the argument he
places himself, in whose mode of
advocacy either want of candor,
or malignity, bigotry or intoler-
ance of feeling manifest them-
selves; but not inferring these
vices from the side which a per-
son takes, though it be the con-
trary side of the question to our
own: and giving merited honor to
every one, whatever opinion he
may hold, who has calmness to
see and honesty to state what his
opponents and their opinions
really are . . ."
THE ARGUMENT applies in

every context; in a university con-
text it is embarrassing that we
must even have to present it.
3) The proposed restrictions up-
on invited speakers have not been
justified. The basic principles em-
ployed are largely wholesome;
their use, I submit, has been er-
roneous. On the other side of the
picture, the arguments against any
restrictions upon such speakers
are many; some are complex; I
cannot hope to present them here.
I will say only this: Every
restriction, of whatever sort, how-
ever innocuous it may appear,
upon the freedom of persons in
a democracy to express their views,
particularly on political matters,
is destructive of one of the chief
conditions upon which democracy
depends. I believe that the dan-
ger of subversion and sabotage
which the authorities seek to min-
imize by means of this policy is
very small indeed when compared
to the actual (not potential) in-
jury done to a democratic com-
munity when any opinion, however
extravagant or absurd, is silenced.
4) "But," it will be replied,
"these restrictions are so reason-
able and harmless that no one of
good sense and good intentions

miliar with these arguments, and
have experience in reply, are de-
prived of contact with them. There
is every good reason for us to want
the advocates of violence and sab-
otage to be heard, in order that
their refutation be understood,
their errors exposed. Forbidding
the advocacy of such action is not
merely theoretically wrong in a
democracy; it is practically dan-
gerous.
b) Some of the conduct whose
advocacy is forbidden in these
provisions seems to me a plausible
and proper subject of intellectual
defense in a democratic commun-
ity. The speaker must not, on this
policy, advocate that the audience
take action forbidden by law. Why
not?
no ?* * *
ARE ALL the laws so sacred
or so just that our obligation to
obey them is never, under any
circumstances, outweighed by mor-
al or religious considerations? I
hardly think so. To be sure we
must do all in our power to
change unjust laws by established
procedures. But if such attempts
have beenrepeatedly madeand
have repeatedly failed, what then?
If the representative process is
too corrupt, or the legislative pro-
cess too slow, and the injustice too
severe to be borne, what then? Is
civil disobedience never, under any
circustances, an appropriate means
of protest?
AND EVEN if one believes that
.disobedience of the law is never
justified, does it follow that the
advocacy of such conduct is not
proper in a university, and ought
to be forbidden? If such topics
are forbidden here, where may
they be discussed?
5) I have heard it alleged, re-
peatedly, that the proposed speak-
er policy is a device which has
been cleverly constructed to pla-
cate the State Legislature, while
soothing the sentiments of the
campus communities. I do not
believe it. For:
a) It surely won't placate those
members of the legislature who
wish to prohibit all communists
from speaking on the state cam-
puses. Quite obviously this policy
permits communists to speak if
they guard their statements.
b) Nor will this policy placate
those members of the campus
communities who have been con-
cerned about the deterioration of
freedom. Their interest is not in
hearing this or that view, but
creating and maintaining an at-
mosphere in which we may proud-
ly say: "Here anyone may speak.
We listen to and weigh the argu-
ments of all." Such an atmos-
phere is not promoted by this
policy.
c) I do not believe that the
presidents of our colleges and
universities, andutheir boards of
governors, are men of so little
principle as that claim supposes.
I do not believe that they would
formulate a policy of such high
import on grounds of political ex-
pediency. Too much is at stake
here; their honor, I am convinced,
cannot be bought.
THAT IS WHY I write this let-
ter. I believe that when these
authorities recognize that it is
not in their interest, nor in the
interest of this institution, nor
in the interest of Michigan or the
Nation to adopt such a policy they
will not adopt it. I believe that
this matter is being weighed by
most in the spirit of the demo-
cracy we are concerned to pre-
serve. That is why I have confi-
dence that a wiser policy will
emerge at last.
6) "What would you have us
do?" I will be asked finally. My
answer is simple. In this con-
nection: nothing. Or if any state-
ment is called for, let there be a
simple straightforward one to the
effect that we have no "speaker
policy," that we recognize the
need for none because, being what
we are, it is inconceivable that

any person not be allowed to ex-
press or advocate what he pleases
among us. Do we have the ,cour-
age to say that? To say it openly,
to the whole world? I hope so,
and I thinkso. If such principles
of freedom cannot be expressed
and practiced here, in the great
universities of the world, where
then can we look for them? If we
do not say it now, when shall we
expect to do so?
7) Finally, we will be told, such
a policy of intellectual toleration,
though it may be our ideal course,
would be impractical because in-
jurious to the University. I find
this argument crass and mistaken.
It may be that our budget will
be cut; we will surely be attacked
vindictively by those who, en-
joying the freedoms which our
democracy makes possible, do not
understand why these freedoms
must be universal and would keep
them only for themselves.
The growth of important pro-
grams within our universities may
even suffer seriously because we
are firm and honest. I should
hate to see that, and I do not
believe it would happen; but for
my own part I do not think it
+n high a nice to nv. T m told

By MALINDA BERRY
WORLD HISTORY shows a pat-
tern of nervous truces agreed
upon by major powers which pro-
duce no peace and no hope of it.
And history is repeating itself. No
balance of power - or perhaps it
should be called balance of terror
-can hopeato keeli peace indef-
initely. Practically and psycholog-
ically it's impossible.
Practically, temporary "peace"
between reluctant allies cannot
work, if for no other reason than
the accident factor. Truces can
dissolve when they are built on
nothing but fear and expediency
with the insult to a minor embassy
official. Or, as is the case with our
understood truce with the Soviet
Union, a person could destroy the
"peace" by accidentally fingering
the wrong button and sending off
a missile.
PSYCHOLOGICALLY, an ill-
kept or ill-intended truce can't
work as a starting point for nego-
tiations which are intended to pro-
duce a real peace. All sides just
sit around scared, afraid to do
anything for fear of offending the
other side or losing footing. So
the contending powers just stall
over powerless and meaningless
conference tables, sending out
periodic reports that the "talks
are progressing slowly."
There are queasy truces exist-
ing between the United States and
Cuba, the United States and Rus-
sia over Berlin, and several other
major and minor powers in the
world today.
Under pressure from the West,
India and Pakistan have recently
agreed to negotiations for settle-
ment of the long-standing Kash-
mir dispute, though neither side
shows any real intent of com-
promise.
* * *
THE MOST meaningless and
yet paradoxically important truce
now, is the Himalayan truce. The
Sino-Indian conflict is the one
most likely to erupt into World
War III. Therefore, it is most
vital to the entire world that In-
dia and China, when they sit down
to negotiate, talk under protection
of a workable truce based on some
mutual trust. Most of all, both
sides must want to settle their
basic differences, not simply use
the discussion table as a decoy
while building more agressive ac-
tions at home.
There are two likely motives
for the Red Chinese truce offer.
Peking is not ready to buck the
United States, especially without
Russian support, and there is a
definite political advantage to be-
ing the side to propose a truce.

Thus, Indian Prime Minister Neh-
ru appears to world eyes to be
the aggressor if herbreaks an un-
acceptable truce.
Expediency and a desire to ex-
pand bargaining power are not a
stable basis for entering into dis.
cussions. And unfortunately all
too often as in China's case these
are the only rationale behind
truce proposals.
* * *
THE ONLY good point behind
any sort of a truce offering is
that it does temporarily stop
bloodshed and actual fighting--at
least it diminishes the intensity
of conflict, even if it does not re-
move it.
However, with this plus point
is the paradox of "discussions."
It is good to cut down the rate of
killing, but if there is no pressing
urgency behind the meeting table,
then negotiations will sink into
the meaningless mire of semantics
and diplomacy. To have the
knowledge that his troops are be-
ing killed and his supplies dimin-
ished always in the back of his
mind at the truce talks will give
the negotiator the needed impetus
for fair and responsible compro-
mise.
But it is a hard man who would
think that war should be contin-
ued just because it intensifies the
efficacy of negotiations. Therein
is the conflict of truces and truce
talks.
* * *
GAINING A bargaining victory
isn't all that's necessary. The na-
tion which gains from truce talks
needs to be in the position to take
advantage of it. Peking appears
to be unprepared to exploit its
initial victory over India, just as
the United States was unable to
exploit her victory over the Soviet
Union in Cuba.
The long-held hope that fear
can lead to concrete achievements
on the road to cooperation is not
borne out either with regard to
specific settlements in specific
places, or in the negotiations over
the broader, underlying philoso-
phies of disarmament, nuclear
control, or the end to Communist
aggression.
Even if one side should retreat
when the going gets tough, the
philosophy undergoes no change,
and coexistence merely returns to
its time-honored place as the maj-
or threat to the side that relaxes
its vigilance
The trouble is, that initiative
for truces and more basically for
peace, rests with the aggressor.
So, until the non-aggressive side
displays a determination for all-
out victory, not just piecemeal
peace, skirmishing will continue
across the truce lines.

IN SEARCH OF THE GPA:
Under grad Edication

POLICE IN Greensboro, North Carolina aren't
usually too reluctant to arrest Negro sit-in
demonstrators. But when motion picture cam-
eras are around it's another story.
CORE members have been picketing seg-
regated restaurants in Greensboro, and last
month 117 of the demonstrators found their
way to jail at one time or another.
On November 27, however, the United States
Information Agency came to Greensboro to
include the sit-ins in a documentary on the
status of the American Negro. On November
27, coincidentally, the police decided to allow
the demonstrators their legal rights as Ameri-
can citizens.
Reminds one of the old saying that dis-
cretion is the better part of valor . . . or
something.
-H. NEIL BERKSON

Communism Course Valuable

IHE TEACHING of Communism at the high
school level is a worthwhile and forward
step toward acquainting young Americans with
the workings of a large and powerful com-
peting ideological system.
Communism courses taught objectively and
without emotion can greatly broaden the views
of American students and can help them
analyze better what they read in newspapers
and what they hear in personal conversation.
The program "Teaching About Communism"
offered by the Council for Social Studies, the
Bureau of School Services and the Extension
Service at the University last week offered
secondary school teachers a good opportunity
to discuss methods and possibilities for teach-
ing such a course in Michigan.
In some states such courses have already
been put into operation, and teaching pro-
grams have been arranged as well as text-
books prepared for the course. Teachers are
adequately preparsed to answer student's ques-
tions and to analyze effectively the Marxist
ideology and its operation in present-day
Russia.
HERE ARE, however many problems arising
from the teaching of such a course. Often
objectivity of presentation can be lost, and
the course can degenerate into an emotional
comparison on the relative values of Com-
munism and Democracy. In Florida, which re-
cently began such a program, the course title,
..It.t..1..

"Communism vs. Democracy," already implies
that value judgments enter into the frame-
work of teaching. This does not mean that
students should not form opinions of the
systems, but that they must do it after the
ideologies have been covered objectively.
Another problem is the preparation of course
materials for the program. Until recently, when
one of its own teachers prepared a book of
readings, Florida used Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation J. Edgar Hoover's
"Masters of Deceit" for its course. This book
presented the views of an experienced dealer
with the workings of Communism in the
United States, but did not objectively offer
readings in Marxist ideology free of editorial
comment. Before such a similar program can be
launched in Michigan, course materials will
have to be carefully selected and prepared.
Teachers will also have to be well prepared
to handle the complexities of the topic. Prob-
ably the most feasible method is to have
secondary teachers take a special course at
a state university and learn about the course
material as well as the techniques of teaching
it.
HE OFFERING of a basic Communism
course at the high school level can offer
a great opportunity for American students to
learn about their own system as well as the
Communist one. Programs now in operation
and ones in the planning stage mark a great
advance over the time when Communism
would never have been considered as "fit"

By GLORIA BOWLES
SEVERAL hundred students of
German at the University,
those enrolled in the third semes-
ter course, have recently completed
the reading of a novel written
by Erich Kastner, and have been
tested on that book.
The assignment was labeled
"outside reading;" therefore lit-
tle class time was allotted for dis-
cussion of "Drei Manner im
Schnee," used as a vehicle to test
the individual capabilities of each
student in the German language.
The course also covers another
novel, a book of short stories for
vocabulary building, and a book
of review of German grammar.
German 231 is only one in a host
of courses - and freshman and
sophomore instruction on the in-
troductory course level is particu-
larly guilty - that serves as an
example of an undergraduate
school floundering, concerned
more with quantitythan quality
and, as it promotes "grade grub-
bing," fosters a false set -of edu-
cational goals among University
students.
* * *
THE TEACHERS of German 231,
slaves to a rigorous schedule and
with a large amount of material to
cover in a short time, could little
spare the moments to discuss the
story behind the story of "Drei
Manner im Schnee."
Despite hours of work spent in
translation, few students of Ger-
man 231 are now any more ac-
quainted with the man who wrote
this remarkable book, Erich Kast-
ner. Kastner, whose most prolific
period came in the difficult years
of the 30's is still a major influence
In German literary circles.
Kastner's view of the role of the'
writer in society is well worth
consideration: after World War
II he was asked why, like many
other writers, he did not emigrate
from Germany to escape a Nation-
al Socialist regime that more
artistic spirits found stifling.
HERE IS A writer with a social
conscience, who, when rating writ-
ers, considers the value of their
works to be directly proportional
to the sense of social responsibility
that thev revealed. "Drei Manner

the end of a good grade, in using
such methods does little to develop
the critical sense or intellect of
the individual student. The stu-
dent on the undergraduate level
is a mechanism, a passive organ-
ism, a sponge which absorbs dur-
ing long hours in a fluorescent
lighted undergraduate library,
and until wee hours in the morn-
iing. Little time for creativity!
Little time for thinking, and for-
mulation of ideas! Precious little
time for a development of the
critical sense! And hours and
hours devoted to undermining
what should be the real goals of
education at the University level.
IT IS almost as though one were
going to an advanced high school.
American teachers are still look-
ings over student shoulders; in
Europe, university students at
this age are working independent-
ly. Most of them are self-moti-
vated and in love with education
and learning for education and
learning's sake. Many of Ameri-
ca's 18 and 19 year olds, coddled
and coddled, are going to a uni-
versity and they can't tell you
why. For them, in this mass of
material to be memorized and as-
similated there stands out like a
shininglight, one major goal:
good grades.
Professors here would probably
argue that freshmen and sopho-
mores at the University are not
ready to begin thinking, and that,
in the case of German 231, the
literary aspects of a book are dis-
cussed in more advanced courses.
* * *
A RECENT report in the New
York Times tells of a new plan to
encourage third grade students to
get better grades: a grocery own-
er has made a deal with a teach-
er at Brooklyn Avenue school to
reward student with 20 trading
stamps for every "A" on a report
card. The school's principal has
called the plan "a nice commu-
nity endeavor."
We can tolerate such ridicu-
lousness on the primary school
level. And, at the same time, feel
a little sick over such an incident
which reflects the educational
orientation of a "grade-grubbing"
society. But when that orientation
finds a great number of adher-
ents at the TTniversity level--and

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan