f

Seveity-Third Yeor
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNNvEKSIrY 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 Prevair"
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. Thhs must be noted in all reprints.
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: DENISE WACKER

CO-ED HOUSING REPORT:
Do the Means Justify th End

I

'U' Philosophy of Paternalism
Needs Student Opposition

WHY DO men have to live in the quad-
rangles during their freshman year and
women in university approved housing until
they are seniors? Why should women have cur-
fews? Why shouldn't you, be able to listen
to any speaker you choose, including Com-
munists?
Because the Regents say so, and they have
the legal right to say so.
The Regents are the ultimate rule-making
body for the University. They are a "constitu-
tional corporation" free from legislative con-
trol. Thus while to the outsider the Regents
bylaws merely seem like organizational rules
and regulations, to the members of the Uni-
versity community they carry the weight of
law.
Y ET THE FACT that they have this legal
power does not mean that we should just
sit back and accept whatever decrees "they"
issue. Since these decrees affect our lives we
should at least ask some questions about them.
Should the Regents have this right and since
they do have it now, are they using it wisely?
If they should not have it or are using it
unwisely what should and can be done about
it? Questions like this are essential if the
University is to continue on the road to ex-
cellence. .
ThenRegents and the institution they govern
suffer from a lack of unity of purpose stem-
ming from the fact that one is a political
body and the other an educational institution.
The Regents are elected by the people of
the state to govern the University. The people,
with some exceptions, tend to view the Uni-
versity as something serving the state of
Michigan and as such something which should
conform to the norms, customs and whims of
the people.
They usually have no understanding of the
ideals which the educational process depends
on. Unfortunately the individual Regents all
too often share this lack of understanding.
Owing their political lives to the electorate
they are extremely sensitive to the feelings of
both the people of the state and their repre-
sentatives in Lansing.
THESE REPRESENTATIVES often have an
even more extreme "service" concept of the
University than their constitutents. They love
to emphasize the research aspect of the Uni-
versity because it brings industry and money
into the state. That this is at the expense of
the academic which in the long run affects
society far more doesn't bother them because
in the short run academics consist of varied
intangibles having no political value whatso-
ever.
Because they are elected by the people of
the state the Regents are very concerned that
the .children of the people are able to get a
university education if they or their families
desire. This must of course be at the expense
of the academically superior student who has
the misfortune to come from another state.
The University people, especially the faculty,
take an opposite view. They conceive of the
University as a place where individuals are
mutually engaged in the search for truth,
truth not as the state wants it, but as it
actually is. Thus, to them, society is dependent
upon the University for without it society would
die from a lack of members capable of running
and advancing it.
BUT A UNIVERSITY cannot operate without
money and it is society that controls the
purse. And since the state is doing the buying
their views, they feel, should be given pre-
cedence. And since their views are (or are at
least represented to be) that the natural
boisterousness, impetuousness, and idealism of
youth should be curbed, the Regents, sen-
sitive to the financial and electoral pressure,
feel compelled to comply. And so they pass
laws compelling students to live a certain way
and act a certain way. The parents are satis-
fied-their children are being cared for, maybe
not as much as they would be at home and
maybe more than they would be at home but
they are being cared for. The legislators are
happy because the parents are happy
And the students? The students just sit
back resignedly. Trained to be obediant before
they come to college, they accept the orders

of the faceless, nameless "them" (how many
students know the names of different Regents
and administrators, much less being able to
identify them on the street), without seeming
to realize that they are getting short-changed
on their education.
BECAUSE they are not learning how to make
choices, they are not learning how to live
democratically with the responsibilities which
a democratic life implies. They are not being
exposed to life as it is in order one day to
be able to contribute to life and act as re-
sponsible, participating members of society.
Instead they are being trained for specializa-
tion, as pegs to fit certain slots in life and
society. They are being trained, molded and
shaped; they are not getting an education.
The student tends to accept this for two
reasons. He has been reared in an atmosphere
which emphasizes the service concept of the
University and he knows the trouble he will
get into if he rebels.
A student who wants to choose to live out
of the quads his freshman year or who
wants to come into the dorm at whatever time
she pleases will have a difficult time. If he
decides to break the law the student will be
rebuked, by punishments ranging from more
restrictions to expulsion from school. Then if
he wishes he can take the case to court and
get a ruling on the constitutionality of the
Regents bylaw as applied to the specific case.
And the odds are that unless the regulation
is a flagrant violation of the student's con-
stitutional rights the court will probably rule
that the institution is within its rights of
operation and the student will lose.
But even if he manages to win he is ex-
posed to publicity and display which can
seriously influence his future.
THIS IS ONE of two ways that the student
can change his situation by playing the
rules of the political game. The second way
has its disadvantages in the short run but is
just about the only way short of revolution
that students will be able to effect far reach-
r ing change.
The way lies in organization. At present the
student body on the campus is fractionated into
too many different units. Their natural rally-
ing point, Student Government Council, has
been undermined by undynamic leadership,
and the one campus organization interested in
real change, Voice political party, has been
inweighed against for its partisanship.
Yet campus-wide organization is the only
way to success. Instead of apathetic acceptance
of the undemocratic rejection of the women in
the quads motion (where quadrangle residents
voted to allow women in their rooms and the
Board of Governrs of the quads vetoed it),
there should have been campus wide demon-
strations. Instead of accepting senior women
apartment permission as a gift from heaven
there should have been student pressure for
a lifting of required housing altogether. The
trouble with students on this campus is that
they consider themselves engineering students,
or literary college students or quaddies or
fraternity men or- sorority women, but not
as students. And first, last and always they
are students.
ORGANIZATION also includes political ac-
tivity. Instead of regarding Regental elec-
tions as something outside of their sphere of
influence students should inform themselves
on the positions of the candidates, try to in-
fluence their platforms by letters and petitions,
and most important of all talk to their parents
and friends and get them to understand that
voting for a Regent who Is not for paternalism
is voting for someone who puts educational
objectives first.
Until the voting age is lowered to 1&students
can best affect Regental policy by getting their
parents and adult friends to vote for the
educationally oriented, least paternalistic Re-
gents candidates. This is in the interest of all
students (whether YD's or YR's), all parents
and society. Only by getting the type of edu-
cation that exposes them to life as it is will
students be able to develop into the people
that society needs to keep it progressing mor-
ally, ethically and aesthetically as well as
technologically.
--RONALD WILTON

By MICHAEL HARRAH
City Editor
CO-EDUCATIONAL housing is
hard upon us; we cannot avoid
it. We shall embark assured that
we want it, assured that it is good
for us, assured that it has been
done right.
In short, co-ed housing appears
to have been the greatest snow job
since Delilah convinced Samson
he needed a haircut. But the slick-
est thing about the co-ed housing
scheme is that its perpetrators
have also sold us on the notion
that it was all our idea.
The supposed basis for the de-
cision to embark upon a co-ed
housing project on this campus is
contained in a formidable but
fuzzy document, with the improb-
able title: 'Assembly Association-
Inter-Quadrangle Council-Office
of Student Affairs Co-educational
Housing Survey Report.' Now if
that isn't an impressive moniker
to start with, I don't know what
is. It even sounds authentic until
one reads a bit further and dis-
covers the words: "Prepared for.
and with the assistance of The
Co-educational Housing Commit-
tee." (Ever hear of that one? You
bet you haven't, and they aren't
statisticians either.)
* * *
YET ALL THAT is neither here
nor there. Amateurs have a right
to run a survey and whip up a
few results if they like. But wait!
The respected name of Survey
Research Center creeps into the -
picture. Rumor has it that the
SRC took this survey, although
.its name does not appear any-{
where in the report.
The document starts out: "Sum-
mary and conclusions (which sort
of gets the cart before the horse,
but it conditions the reader for the
propaganda that follows). This is
a report of a study which was
conducted in residence halls to
determine the feelings of the resi-
dents toward co-educational dor-
mitories.
"The results are clearly (says
who?) as follows:
1) Students are in favor of co-ed
dormitories (Oh no, it doesn't);
2) about two-thirds would be
willing to live in a co-educational
hall, and
3) the students feel Mary Mark-
ley and South Quadrangle should
be made co-educational dormi-
tories (Oh definitely; in fact half
of them are so gung-ho this de-
cision they couldn't even stop
quivering long enough to put it
down)."
* * *.-
SO THERE we have it. Three
sweeping generalizations, sup-
posedly made from analyzing a
set of attached figures. But num-
bers are elusive. When one goes
to analyze them one is apt to get
as many different results as one
does analyses.
It appears that what the report
has unearthed were more justifica-
tions for predetermined decisions
than true analyses of the figures.
But it gets better! The report
next states the problem. Let's re-
view it line by line: "It is an ac-
knowledged fact that the success
of the University's venture into co-

educational residence halls de-
pends primarily upon being able to
find sufficient interested (under-
scored) students to fill the co-ed-
ucational halls."
Oh how true! But let's take a
look at the report's own figures.
In South Quad, 25.7 per cent
"strongly prefer" co-ed dorms and
24.8 per cent "somewhat prefer"
them, for a landslide total of 50.5
per cent. In Markley, 6.2 per cent
"strongly prefer" the co-ed ar-
rangement and 16.8 per cent
"somewhat prefer" it, for a whop-
ping total of 23 per cent.
MOREOVER, of ALL those sur-
veyed, only 43.4 per cent showed
any preference at all for co-ed
housing. Therest eitherr"didn't
care" or were opposed in some de-
gree. Of those who indicated they
thought (an uncertain term at
best) they might be returning to
the residence halls next fall (a
long time off), only 42.3 per cent
showed any preference and only
24.1 per cent were wild enough
about the idea to "live in any
co-ed hall."
None of the figures exceeds 50
per cent, and many of them are
so low they couldn't even win a
French election. Yet, the report
blandly asserts that students fa-
vor co-ed housing when in fact it
should say that most students are
against it or don't give a damn.
(More than half fall into that
combined category.)
But the report goes on: "Last
year when East Quadrangle and
Alice Lloyd Hall were being con-
sidered as possibilities for co-ed
halls, there was a strong doubt
raised by the negative opinion put
forth by the girls to co-ed living."
* * *
SO THE promoters of co-ed
housing met with resistance in
Alice Lloyd, and they decided ,to
switch over to the more gung-ho
women's dorm, Markley, where a
landslide 23 per cent want co-ed
housing, as opposed to 40 per cent
in favor in Lloyd. Good reasoning
there.
And in the men's quads, they
abandoned East Quati, where 71.1
per cent favor co-ed housing, for
South Quad where 50.5 per cent
favor it. Brilliant work, gentlemen!
So far, so good. We have by now
moved from two dorms where a
good number of residents favor
co-ed housing to two other dorms
where they don't.
And the report continues: "Thus
far this year there have been many
conflicting statements, by house
councils, students and other in-
terested parties, who have claimed
to know the real feelings toward
co-ed dorms on this campus."
* * *
NOW IF THAT isn't pompous!
The report, we would surmise,
knows all, sees all, and tells some
of it, house councils and other po-
litical media notwithstanding.
"This investigation is an at-
tempt to determine the opinion of
the students presently in residence
halls (well over half of whom, they
fail to point out, aren't coming
back) toward co-ed dorms, to find
an approximate number of stu-
dents willing to live in co-educa-
tional halls, and finally, to find

where these students feel the co-
ed halls should be located."
* * *
BOY, IS THAT one loaded!
First off, almost 60 per cent of
the respondents aren't returning
to the residence halls, so they
couldn't care less one way or the
other for the most part. It's sort
of like voting to increase the mill-
age assessment when you don't
own any property: Pretty easy to
do.
What's more, the investigation
is admittedly being conducted with
the idea of determining where to
put the co-ed halls. Now this
hardly sounds as though the deci-
sion as to whether co-ed housing
itself should be implemented is at
all uncertain. In fact, the report
goes on: "In order to obtain these
goals, a questionnaire was de-
signed and administered to those
living in the residence halls."
In other words, the goals might
well have already been determined.
The objective then is simply to ob-
tain the necessary figures to jus-
tify these goals. This is fairly easy.
Anyone can think up the questions
if he's already got the answers.
"The questionnaire was designed
to be self-administering (ambigu-
ous, in other words) and to mea-
sure the following things:
1) Attitude toward co-educa-
tional halls;
2) willingness to live in co-edu-
cational halls, and
3) opinion of location for co-ed-
ucational halls."
* * *
SEE? ANY SET of goals that
exhaustive could hardly have been
designed just to get student opin-
ion on the matter of co-ed hous-
ing. But they might well have been
designed to justify a decision that
had already been made and to
frustrate any opposition to it.
(There's nothing better than a
bunch of numbers to confuse your
opposition.)
"The sample consisted of ten
per cent of those presently living
in the halls, excluding seniors,
(though senior responses appeared
in the tabulations), graduates and
special students ..."
And statisticians will tell you
that ten per cent is a fairly risky
cross-section, so amen to that.
* * *
THE REPORT hurries along:
... men are much more in favor
of co-educational halls than wo-
men. (So it would seem.) An in-
teresting fact (?) is that while
approximately 36 per cent said
they would rather not live in co-ed
halls, only about 20 per cent (24.6
per cent, or almost one-quarter,
to be exact) said they would not
be willing to live in co-ed halls.
One can notice that there is a
downward trend in the positive
opinion toward co-ed dormitories
among the older students. This
was to be expected because co-ed-
ucational living has most to offer
to underclassmen. (S u c h as
what???)
"South Quadrangle is the first
choice of every group except the
men of East Quadrangle. The men
of East Quadrangle seem to prefer
East Quad (I wonder why?); how-
ever, they preferred South Quad-
rangle almost as strongly. (23.7
per cent lower is NOT almost as
strongly. In fact it's pretty weak.)
. one (women's) hall stands
forth as the preferred location for
co-educational living, Mary Mark-
ley Residence Hall. The girls in
Markley also feel strongly that
their hall should be co-ed."
* * *
WELL, IF YOU lived in Mark-
ley, you'd agree something should
be done with it, too. Most anything
would be an improvement - even
boys.
"Three important conclusions
can be drawn from this study:
"D The general attitude toward
co-educational residence halls is
favorable."
(Oh sure! Then how come 56.7
per cent of the respondents didn't
register some degree of prefer-
ence? How come 72.5 per cent had
no strong preference either way?

It would be more correct to say
that the general attitude toward
co-ed housing is confused.)
"2 Most residents would be will-
ing to live in a co-educational resi-
dence hall."
(In other words, if it came right
down to the buzz-saw, there
wouldn't be a mass exodus due to
co-ed housing - a not unexpected
conclusion. Most people do as
they're told by 'the authorities'
anyway; it's less traumatic.)
"3) The majority feel that South
Quadrangle and Mary Markley
should be selected for conversion
to co-educational halls."
(It's the old story. Measles are
fine as long as your neighbor has
them. And if you have a choice,
wouldn't you vote for your neigh-
bor having them rather than your-
self? You bet you would.)
* * *
SO THERE IT IS. The report
justifies co-ed housing; it justifies
the selection of South Quad and
Markley. Too bad it couldn't jus-
tify the selection of the exact
houses within the dorms to make
the move, but the co-ed housing
proponents will figure out some
way to get around that too.
However, and here's the kicker,
the figures also justify making
further investigation into the mat-
ter of co-ed housing (72.5 per cent
had no strong preferences); it
could also justify the selection of
East Quad and Alice Lloyd (92.1
per cent of the East Quad resi-
dents were willing to live in a
co-ed dorm, and 56.6 per cent of
them actually preferred East
Quad; in Lloyd 63.6 per cent were
willing to live in a co-ed hall, and
41.1 per cent actually, preferred
Lloyd.)
Now if we are to believe the
opening remark in the Levine Re-
port ("It is an acknowledged fact
that the success of the Univer-
sity's venture into co-educational
housing depends primarily upon
being able to find sufficient inter-
ested students to fill the co-ed
halls."), then it would seem that
East Quad is a better choice than
South Quad, for 71.1 per cent of
the East Quad residents expressed
an interest in co-ed housing, 92.1
per cent said they'd be willing to
live in a co-ed dorm, and 56.6 per
cent actually preferred East Quad.
* * *
THIS IS contrasted to South
Quad, where only 50.5 per cent
showed any interest in co-ed hous-
ing and 84.1 per cent would be
willing to live -in a co-ed dorm.
Clearly (?), East Quad residents
have shown a greater propensity
to co-ed housing than South Quad
residents. The objection that
Markley residents didn't prefer
East Quad is demolished by the
fact that 31.7 per cent said they'd
be willing to live in ANY co-ed
dorm. Certainly this is sufficient
to effect the exchange.
Further, the problem does a
double-reverse. It's one thing to
talk about co-ed housing on the
main campus, and quite another to
talk about it on the Hill, which,
when you're walking, seems like
half-way to Ypsilanti.
In this area, the question was
put thusly: "(Check One) a) I
would be willing to live in a co-ed
hall EITHER on campus or on
the Hill, b) . . . only on campus,
c) ..: only on the ]Jill, or d) ...
not at all."
* * *
QUITE LIKELY the bulk of re-
spoidents answered the question
with the idea that they would be
the ones to move to the campus.
This is pointed up by the fact
that barely five per cent said they
would only live on the Hill. Among
the men, four per cent said "Hill
only," while 40.4 per cent said
"campus only." The 34.5 per cent
that said "either one," quite likely
looked upon their neighbors as
being 'the ones to go.'
We can only speculate as to
what the response might have been
been if the choice had been simply
between "Hill only" and "campus
only."
The digressions can go on and

on, for the figures are copious, but
the point is that conclusions can
be drawn all over the place. The
figures can be used to justify all
sorts of conclusions. They in them-
selves are nowhere near sufficient
to be a go-ahead signal for em-
barking on co-ed housing.
,* * *
HOWEVER, they are quite ade-
quate when one wants to JUSTIFY
a decision that has already been
made. Just what the doctor or-
dered. The proponents of co-ed
housing HAD the cure. All they
had to do was find the disease.
Ergo, a nice, ambiguous, confus-
ing survey.
Now then, once having 'decided'
on co-ed housing, the proponents
apparently realized the figures
were open to some debate. So they
concocted another justification,
this one to cover the selection of
South Quad and Markley - es-
pecially South Quad, where vehe-
ment opposition to the idea sud-
denly materialized. (Those in-
grates! Can't they read the sur-
vey? They're supposed to WANT
co-ed housing - all 50.5 per cent
of them.)
This time the story goes like
this: South Quad was selected over
East Quad because it will cost less
per student to make the transfer
into South Quad.
* * *
NOW SLOW down there, Felix.
This shell game is fun, but let's
not lose sight of the bean. The
per student cost is irrelevant, be-
cause we're not going to charge
the students anything extra for
the privilege of being in on this
fine innovation (or is that anoth-
er new one you're going to spring
on us?) We're interested in the
TOTAL cost, as any paper. boy will
tell you, since we want to put our-
selves to the least possible ex-
pense (or have we suddenly got
a lot of money to burn?)
The fact; it would seem, is that
East Quad would cost less to con-
vert, but it cannot -accommodate
as many women as South Quad,
where the cost is more. The exact
figures are still not public, but
the point is clear. We want to get
the most enthusiasm for the proj-
ect at the least cost. As we have
seen, both exist in East Quad, not
South Quad. So which one was
selected - You guessed it.
Yet what makes all this a joke is
that it is becoming more and more
apparent that the proponents of
co-ed housing are making suckers
out ofr the dormitory residents,
staffs, faculty associates, the Res-
idence Hall Board of Governors
and a whole host of other folks, by
creating the illusion that everyone
will participate in the realization
of co-ed housing. The claim that
its implementation will be a com-
munity effort - step-by-step - is
beginning to look like a sham. The
decision appears to have been
made already, right down to the
smallest detail. The 'community
effort,' the Report and all its pos-
sibilities, and the shell gaine-cost
justification are all part of a
smoke-screen to make the sheep
feel they are blazing the trail,
when in fact they are simply al-
lowing themselves to be herded
in the right direction.
* * *
THIS IS, however, the preroga-
tive of the Office of Student A-
fairs. The decision to change to
co-ed housing can be rightfully
made, right down to the last de-
tail, by OSA officials, without so
much as a by-your-leave to any-
one else. They have the power, to
do it and also the right.
But they do not have the right
to create an elaborate puppet show,
in an attempt to disguise what
they have done. This will only
create hard feelings when the pup-
pets realize how they have been
manipulated, as eventually they
must. Far better it would be to
lay all the cards on the table -
and those who don't like it can
just lump it.
That's the honest way, and, for
an academic community, obvious-
ly the best way.

.1

AT THE STATE:
Bdad-Bad 'Pigeon' Flops
FROM A reviewers standpoint, there are two categories of movies;
good and bad. The good movies deserve honest critical effort. The
bad movies should be preserved for several years, and put on after-
noon television.
Now the categories can be broken down further into: good-good,
bad-good, good-bad, and bad-bad. The trouble is that many good-bad
movies receive the same treatment as good-good movies and are

CINEMA GUILD:
Superficial
Tolstoi
THE BOOK is classic. Garbo is
great. But Anna Karenina, as a
movie, just never comes of".
It suffers the same problem
which seems to mar most book-
turned-movies. The script is torn
between remaining true to Tol-
stoi's 900 pages but doing so in
an hour and a half. The outcome
is that the meaning of the book
is lost and the plot is a super-
ficial conglomeration of uncon-
nected events.
The book takes its theme from
the love affairs of both Anna
and Levin. The movie treats Levin
as a mere extra.
* * *
EVEN WHAT the movie does
portray, it portrays badly. Frederic
March is totally inadequate as
Vronsky, Garbo's lover. He never
displays the forcefulness which
would make credible Anna's leav-
ing her husband for him. Director
Clarence Brown relies more on
gimmickry to depict their love
than he does on the characters
themselves. Anna literally enters
Vronsky's life through a puff of
smoke. From that point you can
close your eyes and tell what's
happening by the varying inten-
sity of the music.

usually treated better-in th'e
hands of a reviewer-than bad-
good movies.
"The Pigeon That Took Rome"
is a bad-bad movie and it's ma
shame to give it respectability by
even considering it as good. How-
ever, kindness is the best policy.
* **
TWO GI'S storm Rome to sct
up a ham radio station to inform
the allies, stalled back near Anzio,
what the situation is behind the
Nazi lines.
They soon have the situation in
hand, and their hands full of Elsa
Martinelli and Gabriella Pallotta.
Miss Pallotta gotta gdt married,
and Harry Guardino is her prize.
The plot sickens. Miss Pallotta
will enhance her chance if she
can make Harry tarry. Since she
won't when she oughta, Miss Pal-
lotta wins. See?
* * *
WHILE THESE two pigeons are
billing and dooing, Heston isn't
restin. No sir!
Chesty Hesty sneaks into Ger-
man headquarters, dodges into
the shower and discovers Miss
Martinelli. It's love!
Meanwhile, the girls are pre-
paring a pre-wedding feast. Since
they have no meat, they steal all
but one of the pigeons. (Radio has
failed and the boys are using
carrier pigeons. Okay?)
* * *
BACK AT the coop, some stoop
brings in some Nazi replacements.
So when the notes are sent by
pigeon, they'll go to German head-
quarters. Understand?,

GOVERNMENTAL REVIEW:
Stockpiles Undergo Change

Freedom Calling

IF YOU think Student Government Council
is devious, you should take note of the tactics
of a group over in Gladwyne, Pa.
They call themselves "'Feedom Calling" and
they have sent out letters addressed to "Ameri-
can Patriots." The salutation is simply that
--no "Dear"-jus.t "American Patriots." Maybe
this is intended to arose with impact your love
of country.
The letter tells about the "incredible record"
of accommodating world-wide Communism
"unfolded by scores of witnesses testifying un-
der oath" (how else?) before hearings of the

THE LETTER tells you to get,, not both sides,
but just Senator Thurmond's minority re-
port. But getting and reading the report is not
enough, according to Freedom Calling. The let-
ter underlines the following sentence: "How
you obtain your copy, however, is of crucial
importance."
Don't just write once, the letter says. "Write
both your Senators and your Representative
and request from them (the letter's italics
again) a copy of the Thurmond report."
Why get three copies from three different
nsnn-..surielv nnt t orea, it three ima

By BARBARA PASH
L AST WINTER President Ken-
nedO expressed "amazement" at
the vast stockpiles of industrial
materials and foodstuffs which the
government has accumulated over
the past 23 years.
He urged a modernization of
the "essential" materials in the
hoard to better fit defense emer-
gency needs in case of a nuclear
war.
And yet, the fact that the gov-
ernment's stockpiles are valued at
$7.7 billion, $3.4 billion of which
has been ruled surplus since 1958,.
it can hardly be surprising to
Kennedy, who as a junior Senat .r
from Massachussetts, voted eight
times out of nine.to support them.
* * *
THE PROGRAM was conceived
by former President Franklin D.
Roosevelt in 1939 as a means of
preparing America for World War
II. It was slightly expanded in the
1940's by Congress. During the ad-

squelch any effort to revise the
existing stockpiles. They are wor-
ried that the government might
undercut the already depressed
metals market by dumping from
its abundant supplies.
Congress, which must approve
any sale from the stragetic and
supplemental stockpiles, so far
has turned down all Administra-
tion requests to make such sales.
* * *
THE STOCKPILES are divided
into three categories:. strategic, de-
fense production and supplemen-
tal. The strategic stockpile in-
cludes 98 separate "essential" ma-
terials, its current value being $5.8
billion. The defense production
stockpile was started by Congress
in 1950 and was designed to en-
courage certain industries to main-
tain or create sufficient capacity
to meet anticipated wartime re-
quirements. Its current value is
$959 million.
The supplemental stockpile
houses imported materials which

rent administration have under-
taken are: a Cabinet-level com-
mittee reviewing stockpile policies
recommended disclosure of the
previously secret contents of the
strategic stockpile since it no lon-
ger bears much relatioi to actual
defense shortages; more careful
swapping of surplus farm goods
for foreign-produced minerals to
meet American needs better; and
abolition of the veto many agen-
cies exercised over stockpile dis-
posal plans. These suggestions
have been put into effect.
Kennedy has kept his policy-
makers busy drafting new legis-
lative proposals for speeding dis-
posal of some of the surplus met-
als, oils and fibers. Other officials
are studying possible national-
recovery needs following a nuclear
attack.
* * *
HOWEVER it will be many
months, perhaps years, before all
stockpile needs for all kinds of
modern wars are reviewed and

I