Seventy-Third Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
OW UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
"Were 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. Thi smust be noted in all reprints.
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1962 NIGHT EDITOR: RONALD WILTON

THE SHAPIRO CASE:

Facts Remain a Puzzlement

tr

The Dormitory Experience:
Artificial Purposeless

WHILE A DORMITORY system is not neces-
sary to a University, certain goals and pui'-
poses may reasonably be conceived for its
existence. The dormitories at the University,
are not contributing to the University on the
basis of these goals.
One purpose of a dormitory may be protec-
tion, especially for undergraduate women. Does
our dormitory system protect its inhabitants?
For anyone who has lived in it more than six
weeks, the answer must be no. Any girl who
lives through this initiation period during
which she becomes the possessor of knowledge
that she can break any rule in the dormitory
with impunity-any girl who lives through this
period and is still coming in at 11:00 Sunday
through Thursday and 12:30 on weekends is
doing sofor her own convenience or through
her own convictions. If she wanted to break
these rules, she would do so. And many do.
It is well to know that, while coming in a
few minutes late is punishable, not coming in
at all is permissible. If a girl forgets to sign
out and then returns, she is liable for punish-
ment-but if she stays out all night after not
signing out, she is safe. One must be in the
front door by 12:30 precisely; but no one cares
(though'everyone knows) if one exits via the
rear door at 12:31. The alarm bells go off per-
iodically from the rear doors-but no one
checks the doors, either to see if some girl
has run off illegally, or, what is more important,
to see if some unwanted male visitor has
found a way to get in.
JFTDERAGE DRINKING is against the state
law. Everyone realizes that much drinking
goes on on any college campus, and that it is
unrealistic to try to stop it. Yet if the dormi-
tory is to protect girls from overindulgence
(as their parents think it does) why is it possi-
ble for a girl to become; or remain, a serious
problem drinker in the dorms without any of
her "guardians" attempting to help her?
This is not meant to be a moralistic essay
against those types of behavior mentioned. It
is meant to point out that any girl who wishes
to do so can conduct herself in a manner com-
pletely opposite to that facade of behavioral
standards'supposedly fostered by the dormitory
system. It is doubtful that many mothers were
aware when they left their daughters to the

tender care of the dormitory that they would
have access to so many opportunities.
The dormitory, then, is in this respect a
public relations joke. Parents and the gen-
eral taxpaying public are under the impression
that the women are kept more or less on ice
to curb their youthful and foolish impulses,
that they are taken care of while they live in
a dormitory.
BESIDES FAILING to protect its inhabitants,
the dormitory fosters a very artificial at-
mosphere. Certainly it is not like the home
so recently left by freshmen women. Any girl
who understands the implications of the non-
academic evaluation written about her by her
housemother is not going to go to that house-
mother for serious counseling.
A dormitory is a girl's home while she is at
school-but it is also a public place. She has to
live on a floor with perhaps 35 other girls, get
along with them, and get her studying done.
For freshmen away from home for the first
time, this is a big adjustment. But, once this
adjustment is made, what preparation for The
Outside World does it provide? When will a girl
ever again encounter the situation she encoun-
ters in the dormitory? If she lives in an
apartment building, she will have all her own
facilities. If she lives in a hotel, she will find
her own place to eat. If she lives at home she
will have 'a family warmth not found in a
peer group.
How much more realistic it would be if the
students were expected to find their own hous-
ing. The adjustment necessary to independent
living is no greater than that necessary for
dormitory living-and it would be a more life-
like situation. No housemothers would write
reports; no one would foster the hypocrisy of a
dormitorywhich fills up nightly from the front
door while emptying from the back. Women
could find some privacy-of which even a girl
with a single room has precious little while
she lives in a dormitory.
A few students will fall by the wayside with
this system. But many fall by that same way-
side now. This way would be more consonant
with the aims of a university, and, oddly
enough, of a residence hall-it would prepare
for living.
-RUTH HETMANSKI

By MARJORIE BRAHMS
INVESTIGATION, not protesta-
tion, is presently required in the
extremely confusing and emotion-
al case of Michigan State Univer-
sity-Oakland Prof. Samuel Sha-
piro.
No one, from the University
chapter of the American Associa-
tion of University Professors to
the small but active group of pro-
testing students, claims to have
all - or most - of the facts.
Everyone is in agreement that
the most valuable move that can
be made is an investigation, pref-
erably by the American Civil Lib-
erties Union. The Detroit branch
is currently involved in such a
matter.
Meanwhile, conflicting opinions,
estimations, rumors and official
statements are getting to be an
unwieldy mass - and there are
signs they will continue to grow.
FROM ALL appearances, Prof.
Shapiro is a competent academi-
can, both as a scholar and as a
teacher. Also, he is known for his
'WAR LOVER':
Psycho logy
Unsound
IN THE BOOK "The War Lover,"
John Hersey used a dramatic
antithesis to examine a complex
and pressing problem: Who's go-
ing to win in this war-torn world,
those on the side of life or those
on the side of death?
It wasn't hard to guess which
side Hersey was on. But his novel
was less than successful because
the conclusion was not valid. Her-
sey fails to convincehusin the
r±ovie version that the destruc-
tion-hungry B17 bomber pilot
(Steve McQueen) would collapse
under combat conditions merely
because of an unsuccessful bout
with a woman who was on the
side of life.
Nor does he convince us the
timid, relatively obtuse co-pilot
(Robert Wagner) should gain
strength merely because he comes
to understand the rottenness of his
hero, Steve McQueen. The co-
pilot's farewell to arms and his
maturing love affair are credible,
but his complete victory over Mc-
Queen doesn't seem quite honest.
Most likely, Hersey had a pre-
conceived plot, to prove a point,
then failed to prove it in writing
the denouement.
* * *
IN MAKING "The War Lover"
into a movie, the re-write men
avoided this mistake, but made
another just as bad. They made
Wagner's climb into maturity a
little too easy.
They kept the skeleton of Her-
sey's story, but didn't give it as
much flesh and blood. The only
character who achieves any di-
mension is McQueen. And then
their effort to show the pilot's
mystical feeling toward weapons
of destruction is unfortunately
corny, while in the book it was ac-
ceptable.
The woman, Shirley Anne Field,
is too sure of herself. Both men
turn to her and see themselves
mirrored. Wagner sees her desires
as his own. McQueen sees his help-
lessness when confronted with the
desire to live. His way is death.
"You can't make love," she tells
McQueen. "You can only make
hate. You can't give, you can only
take."
"The world belongs to the tak-
ers," he counters. And she answers
that the meek shall inherit the
earth.-
* * *
WELL, EVEN as late as 1943
this may have been possible. With
today's weapons the Sermon on
the Mount sounds obsolete, and

this makes Hersey's point some-
what irrelevant.
In small wars, there was a
chance for individual salvation.
On a modern scale, the side for
life may not win. In the philo-
sophical dimension, Hersey's so-
lution is acceptable. In the psy-
chological dimension, it fails.
-Tom Brien

outspoken views critical of United
States foreign policy.
Yet, at MSU-O there has been
no outcry from the faculty, either
personally or through the local
AAUP chapter, administrators or
students because of an injustice
done to Prof. Shapiro.
As a matter of fact, Oakland
Observer Editor Nancy Kowen
commented that personal differ-
ences among facuty members may
be a possible cause of the decision
not to renew Shapiro's contract.
Significantly, until only yes-
terday, Shapiro himself had not
requested an investigation of
MSU-O's decision.
* * *
HERE IS a run-down on the
situation and action taken so far.
In early October the routine re-
view of faculty members whose
appointments expire in 1963 was
made. Sixteen people were under
consideration.
A committee of three senior
members of the history depart-
ment, of which Shapiro is chair-
man, reviewed his case.
Their unanimous recommenda-
tion was that he should not be
reappointed.
THE NEXT step was review by
a four-member committee consist-
ing of the three divisional deans
and the dean of the university.
They unanimously recommended
that Shapiro, and two others, not
be appointed.
These recommendations were
sent to MSU-O Chancellor Dur-
ward B. Varner, who reviewed
them and sent them on to the
MSU Board of Trustees. The
Board met Friday and unanimous-
ly approved the action.
Varner has stated that Shapiro
"announced to some of his classes
and to some of his colleagues that
he had been 'fired'. The reaction
to this announcement on campus
was negligible, and the affair was
quite undramatic until" and Var-
ner goes on to list the fervor which
suddenly arose.
* * *
ON DEC. 8 the Detroit Free
Press carried the story on its front
page, followed by the Detroit News,
other newspapers, radio and tele-
vision announcements and a Free
Press editorial.
The Associated Press story of
Dec. 8 reported the comments
made by Associate Dean George
Matthews, (which he now cer-
tainly has cause to regret for they
added the first fuel to the fire and
have kept it fairly well ablaze ever
since.) Actually, they are the only
comments the press has been able
to dig up which are anything but
proper.
According to the Associated
Press, Matthews said that Shapiro
"would have had a better chance"
of being retained if he had written
and said less about Cuba and
Latin American affairs. The AP
has been known to be wrong and
Matthews has said that he was
misquoted.
Matthews further said that the
"principle factor" in Shapiro's dis-
missal was of an academic nature.
He did not relate these academic
reasons because "they are intern-
al considerations, which are pri-
vate."
LAST SUNDAY, a group of Uni-
versity students, joined by stu-
dents from Wayne State Univer-
sity, picketed at MSU-O.' Several
points about their action need to
be made clear.
First, they were nothrequested
by Shapiro to act in his behalf.
The initiative was their own.
Second, the students report that
they were not joined by MSU-O
students, although a few people
did meet them, mostly reporters
from the Observer. Thus, it ap-
Committee

'THE HOUSE committee is in
fact playing into the hands of
the Communists by eliminating
one of the major differences be-
tween them and us: the fact that
we stand for free expression.
-Ehpraim London
for the American
Jewish Congress

pears that at that time there
was a controversy surging off cam-
pus but on campus people either
did not care or did not challenge
the decision as improper.
Dick Rice, one of the organizers
of the Ad-Hoc Committee for the
Reinstatement of Shapiro, said
Shapiro was not particularly en-
thusiastic about the pickets al-
though they did have coffee to-
gether afterwards.
* * *
THROUGHOUT the past week
petitions have been passed around
the University campus, in the
Fishbowl and in some classes, by
the committee. And at MSU-O
there has been talk of the action
but Nancy Kowen reported there
was divided opinion among stu-
dents, and Shapiro still had not
yet requested intervention and has
commented that he has no legal
position to protest the decision.
* * *
WHAT EXACTLY is his legal
position? Actually he has none,
since when he was originally ap-
pointed, in 1960, it was for a
three-year "probational" term.
This does not mean he has ten-
ure. Therefore, the denial of ex-
tending his appointment was le-
gally in order.
His moral position, however, is
another question.
The protesters on this campus
are mainly affiliated with the So-
cialist Club, Voice Political Party
and Young Democrats (the first
two were the initiators and main
carriers of the action), although
Dave Aroner, an organizer, has
said that he wants the action to
be non-partisan. These groups are
concerned with the moral issue.
Is this a violation of academic
freedom?
But they, too, want to know the
facts. The purpose of their demon-
stration is to call for aninvesti-
gation and, if the facts prove there
has been a violation ofsacademic
freedom, the reinstatement of
Shapiro.
RICE HAS commented that the
demonstration has been poorly or-
ganized due to lack of time and
experience and perhaps a better
course of action - rather than
calling for reinstatement - would
have been initially to ask for an
investigation. Aroner and Rice
are planning to study the situation
more carefully to decide if there
actually is a case of violation.
Meanwhile, the secretary of the
MSU-O AAUP, Prof. Norman
Susskind, said Thursday that "I
think it will be found that there
was no infringement of academic
freedom." The president of the
University chapter, Prof.Ralph A.
Loomis, concurs in this opinion
but may change his mind if "fu-
ture developments" deem it neces-
sary.
Prof. George Peek, last year's
local AAUP president and a mem-
ber of the executive committee,
admits the facts as alleged "don't
please me" but he was adamant
on the fact that he does not have
all sides of the question yet.
* * *
A THIRD member of the exec-
utive committee, Prof. Frank Ken-
nedy, of the law school and vice-
president of the local chapter, said
he didn't know enough about it
but that it is interesting when a
man with Shapiro's qualifications
is not retained. He thought it
"worth looking into." According
to AAUP policy, this is the job of
the national organization and it
has not been requested to inter-
vene.
So the complications and opin-
ions grow. Underlying them all is
the subtle interplay of personal
dislikes, important to a faculty as
small as MSU-O's. There have
been implications that this was
significant in the final decision,
perhaps more so 'than Shapiro's
political views.
Also rearing its ugly head for a
change is the abominable factor
of outside political pressures, nev-

er to be underestimated.
However, the personality factor
cannot be considered in isolation
from other factors, such as aca-
demic freedom. If the other facul-
ty members have personal objec-
tions to Shapiro, these may stem
from a disagreement with his
views. The workings of the mind
are certainly complex; no one

thing can be considered by itself
in determining why Shtpiro was
not rehired.
* * *
TO MAKE the case more lucid,
take a somewhat analogous situ-
ation: Student Government Coun-
cil's attempts to stamp out dis-
crimination in fraternity and sor-
ority membership selection by re-
quiring the groups to submit
those clauses of their constitutions
dealing with membership. It is
one thing to obliterate written dis-
crimination and quite another to
dissolve the prejudice in peoples'
minds.
Similarly, all the official state-
ments about Shapiro's dismissal,
such as Varner's, certainly seem
to clear up all misunderstanding.
But, again, how does one get an
official statement on the under-
lying, psychological reasons for
the dismissal? So far it has been
impossible.
Still there is another question
that enters the deliberations: Ex-
actly what use does MSU-O have
for Shapiro? Rather than doubt
his competence, should we con-
sider his usefulness to the facul-
ty? Perhaps there was need for
a man with a broader area of spe-
cialization. And, to ask that knotty
question, is he a competent in-
structor?
* * *
MSU-O, in its short history, has
been involved in much unpleasant
haggling over aca6~mic freedom.

This state, which holds the desir-
able bag of money over the heads
of university administrators, has
been known to look disfavorably
on too-liberal tendencies. The edi-
tor of the Pontiac Press has dis-
approved of Shapiro's politics. And
the confusion continues to mount.
Out of the chaos perhaps some-
one may uncover the true reasons
for MSU-O's decision. First, how-
ever, much deciphering of person-
al animosities and differences will
have to be attempted by a respon-
sible group.
The University students who
have plunged headlong into pro-
testations are admirable for their
vigor but rather sophomoric in
their enthusiasm. Nevertheless,
they are to be respected for a ded-
ication to their task, willingness
to probe for all the facts and their
frank admission that all they -
as students - can do is agitate
for an ,investigation, and hope it
comes about.
*' * *
THE MOST telling fact of the
entire case, however, is Samuel
Shapiro's long wait before asking
for intervention.
Why? Does he not want to drag
his name through the mud?dAre
personal reasons underlying the
whole situation? Perhaps, as peo-
ple who are well-informed have
said, there is no case for academic
freedom; it may merely be anoth-
er dismissal, this time, coinciden-
tally, of a controversial person.

1

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:
American Support
Declines Slowly

r1

Christmas Spirit

SO YOU THINK you know the meaning of
that rather ambiguous term, "The Real
Meaning of Christmas?"
Well, I thought so, too-that is, I did up until
a few days ago, when I went to one of Ann
Arbor's friendly neighborhood movie houses.
While waiting for "The Manchurian Candi-
date" to begin, something hardly less illogical
came on the screen. To the tune of the usual
cheery Christmas music, I was informed of
"Good News from the friendly merchants of this
community!"
Before my anticipation could ;subside, the
message continued, "To assist in instilling the
real meaning (sic) of Christmas in the hearts
and minds of young and old," W. S. Butter-
field was going to "play Santa Claus" by show-
ing a free movie to one and all.
I can just picture all of you out there say-
ing, "Well, what's so bad about that?" And to
be sure, the idea of showing a movie free of
charge seems harmless enough on the surface.
Put things are not always what they seem. The
motion picture which was chosen for this gala
occasion with such obvious meticulous care is

a real blood-and-guts-spiller, a Civil War film
called "Thunder of Drums."
1 SUPPOSE I should be branded as an ideal-
ist or a fool-and I juxtapose those words
for whatever connection there might possibly
be between them-but I fail to see more than a
superficial connection between the showing. of
a war movie-free or otherwise-and Christ-
mas, traditionally thought of above all other
days as a day of peace.
Nor do I consider it representative of the
joyous holiday season; rather, it is to me rep-
resentative of only one thing: the utter con-
tempt with which the Madison Avenue-oriented
moviehouse owners of Ann Arbor view the entire
matter.
As the final insult, this same theatre is show-
ing a full-length cartoon feature, "Gay Purr-
ee," at the present time. But this mo-
vie, which would be an infinitely superior choice
for a family feature such as this "Joyous Mer-
chants' Free Christmas Show" deigns to be, is
not free of charge.
--STEVEN HALLER

(EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first
of two articles dealing with capital
punishment.)
By BARBARA PASH
rTHE ESSENCE of the contem-
porary controversy over the
death penalty is whether its re-
tention is warranted in the 20th'
century as a basis for punishing
major crimes.
The principle of "a life for a
life" appears to be as old as civil-
ization itself. Modern psycholo-
gists argue that it is now outmod-
ed, although it is possibly still the
only effective deterrent to capital
offenses.
The United States is one of the
few countries which applies capi-
tal punishment. The number of
executions, how ver, is diminish-
ing. Between 1930-'39, there were
an average of 166 executions per
year. In 1958, there were only 48;
in 1959, 49.
Almost always, in trials of capi-
tal crimes, the jury or the court is
given the power to fix the penalty
at long imprisonment rather than
death. Consequently there is a tre-
mendous disparity between the
broad extent to which the death
penalty is possible and the relative
infrequency with which this sen-
tence is imposed. The problem
then becomes one of equality -
whether a small and mostly ran-
dom selection of convicted people
ought to be executed while the
rest are sentenced to long prison
terms. * * *
FORTY-ONE states now prac-
tice capital punishment: only nine
states do not, but three of these
authorize the death penalty in
special cases. Michigan can invoke
it for treason. The United States
government applies the death pen-
alty for some federal crimes.
Kansas, South Dakota and Ore-
gon have restored the death pen-
alty in recent years, after having
periodically abandoned it. Only
Delaware abolished this penalty
recently, in 1958. Eight states
(California, Oregon, Connecticut,
Florida, Massachusetts, New York,
New Jersey, and Ohio) have re-
jected proposals to abolish capital
punishment in the last two years.
The trend abroad is to elimin-
ate the death penalty. Most na-
tions of Europe and Latin Amer-
ica have abandoned it, although
the Soviet Union, the Irish Re-
public, Spain, France, Great Brit-
ain, Canada and Australia still
apply it. * * *
HISTORICALLY, the death
penalty was widely used to punish

many. crimes, until a peak was
reached in the 18th century with
222 capital crimes. Only in the
last century has there been a defh-
nite recognition that capital pun-
ishment should be restricted to
murder and other heinous crimes.
Under United States federal law
there are six capital crimes, mur-
der, rape, bank robbery, kidnap-
ping, treason and espionage. There
are more than 30 major crimes
under state laws (for example,
aiding a suicide in Arkansas or
burning a railway bridge in
Georgia).
In practice, however, the death
penalty is' seldom carried out in
America for offenses other than
murder or rape committed by a
Negro in the South.
* * *
AMONG clergymen the capital
punishment issue is mainly ar-
gued on moral-religious grounds.
The Roman Catholic Church de-
fends #society's right to take a
criminal's life as an act of col-
lective self-defense.
A spokesman for the Lutheran
Church noted recently that the
Bible seems to permit the pssi-
bility of capital punishment.
Several other religious groups
have taken a stand against the
death penalty, among them the
Methodist Church, the United
Presbyterian Church, the Protes-
tant Episcopal Church, the Amer-
ican Baptist Convention, the Cen-
tral Conference of American Rab-
bis and the Union of American He-
brew Congregations.
PUBLIC OPINION will ulti-
mately decide whether capital
punishment will be retained, or
abolished in America.
The latest Gallup poll survey
taken in March, 1960 reveals a
decline in the percentage of Amer-
icans favoring the death penalty
for persons convicted of murder.
In 1936, 62 per cent said yes to
the death penalty for convicted
murderers; in 1953, 68 per cent;
in 1960, 51 per (cent. In 1936, 33
per cent said no to the above que-
tion; in 1953, 25 per cent; in 1960,
36 per cent. In the latter year, 13
per cent were undecided; in 1936,
five per cent; in 1953, seven per
cent.
If opponents of capital punish-
ment are patient enough, it ap-
pears that in practice the death
penalty will fade away, although
it will remain on the statute books.
Most state legislators, however,
seem to think that capital punish-
ment is necessary for the com-
munity.

Against brotherhood

EVERY YEAR at this time, cries of world-
wide brotherhood gush forth from "sensitive
intellectuals," among others. Deprecating hate
and spite, these secular thinkers proclaim man-
kind one great brotherhood, and chastise those
who do not also emphatically embrace the idea
of universal camaraderie.
When speaking of universial brotherhood, I
mean "loving one's fellow men." Certainly one
has no choice in biological brotherhood.
Loving one's fellow men implies that one as-
signs these men value. Whether one does this
consciously or subconsciously does not matter.
It does matter that one is considering these
people worthy of an absolute, favorable value
judgment.
THE PSEUDO-SAGES who declare that all
men are their brothers believe one of two
premises: either all men have the attributes
they expect of a brother, or, no standard of
personal value is needed when touting brother-
hood.
The man who believes that mankind in gen-
eral has the qualities he expects in a brother
either does not know reality, or his standards
are self-degrading. Are thieving, laziness, ad-
vocacy of unilateral force, and abject depend-
ence qualities which these pseudo-sages ad-
mire? These "qualities" exist, and it is notable
that abject dependence is the most common of
all.

tive Ones" from the incompetence and moral
leprosy of much of mankind.
That these intellectuals have no standard
of values in choosing their brothers means that
they negate any significance in the word. When
one fails to choose checkpoints by which one
can judge others, then one gives every mystic
and thief a carte blanche to one's respect.
This not only destroys one's capability to re-
spect others; it also annihilates self-respect.
Such a person wonders why he feels emptiness
in his brotherhood. He has not given the
word any meaning.
NOWADAYS, there can be no possible justifi-
cation for loving all of one's fellow men,
The latter are not equal in moral worth. That
they were born biologically alike is unimportant.
That most of them disregard the consequences
of their volitional actions is important, and
disgusting.
The person advocating universal brotherhood
either attaches no meaning to the word and
thus cannot be taken seriously, or he appeals
to the worst in mankind, the lowest common
denominator of humanity, the most despicable
dredge of leeches, for the purpose of satisfying
his own psychological insufficiency.
This is the character of one who wants to
grant the unearned, of one who donates with-
out justification, of one who calls everyone

I

FEIFFER

ppIf6Hf CHILDP tNA
VP.&MIA WHO A
HE MAOTHER A
FATHR ""i1
THM~ A SAO.TA
CLAVS,0 tMOTHS
o WAR1H ?" AJ
HM IATHeg A
FAT6R REPUG
15 A M!AOT
AMP~ SAPTA
CLAL$WOW'-9

-y A50
kme ?J g
/ZKCD '1lj
tJD ;1wlJ
10 I
DuJ
CLAUS."

CON'VII'JCO. 505H
tj~o To4~ A
SANT1A CLAUS,
0 N6WPAR'"
PAPCR WO I~
"yo VIROI ,U A
SANTA CMLS'
AQ H6 5N-r b ee
A $OOK ON)

trot y10 Rq
s //4

mVf VR$INIA WOAf 'I14G
CUL - a 1 Is 7
A '$A~)A CGAU5,
0 SAt~rA CA

MORAL:
A 1~T-Lj
Bpf~k

cc