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.

January 04, 1963 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1963-01-04

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

gAi4dan
Seventy-Third Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNVERSITY 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. Thin must be noted in all reprints.

DAY, JANUARY 4, 1963

NIGHT EDITOR: DAVID MARCUS

Two-Sided Speaker Policy:
Strange Inconsistency

FREEDOM OF speech at Michigan universi-
ties has taken on a dual standard since the
University has triggered a movement toward a
state-wide policy: there are rules governing
staff and students and there are regulations
for outside speakers.
Michigan State University swallowed the
Michigan Coordinating Council for Public
Higher Education's speaker policy at the last
Board of Trustee's meeting. Wayne State Uni-
versity is expected to adopt the policy shortly,
and the other state-supported colleges will
follow.
There is no doubt that the new policy is
better than the more restrictive regulations in
force before. Prof. Samuel Estep's committee
proposed the new speaker bylaw. However, it
seems inconsistent that the University would
forbid outside speakers to urge the audience
to take action which is "prohibited by the
rules of the University or which is illegal under
federal or Michigan law," but not prohibit
its own faculty and students from urging the
very same actions.
ANY VOCAL student can publicly urge the
audience to overthrow the United States or
Michigan governments by violence or other
unlawful :neans at such functions as Hyde
Park or organizational meetings in the Union,
so long as he is willing to face civil conse-
quences for his actions.
Robert Ross has already demonstrated with
impunity the student's freedom to advocate
actions contrary to University regulations at
Hyde Park this fall.
Any faculty member can get access to the
Mason Hall auditoriums and urge his audi-
ence to subvert the regulations of the Uni-
versity, state or the nation.
A faculty organization can invite a Com-
munist speaker or an advocate of civil dis-
obedience to come to the University without
any prior understanding whatsoever about
University rules. I
A ND THIS is as it should be. The University
would not want or dare to infringe upon
the rights of these more intimate University
individuals.
The danger of embarrassment from a stu-
dent or faculty speech is probably minimal in
the eyes of the University. Undoubtedly the
university believes that civil authorities would
be able to handle any breech of state or federal
statutes by students or faculty. Also the Uni-
versity can keep a tighter rein on the faculty
hI that the background of the faculty member
.s public record. The professor, like any other
employe, is under pressure to conform to the
norms of the institution.
Bidgi the Gap
PROF. WILLIAM M. CAVE, of the education
school, finds in his research that class-
nates should be allowed to help each other
earn, and even learn more readily from their
eers than from their elders.
Here at the education school we study the
iest way to teach students and then we teach
Ws it was done in the Middle Ages-in the large
ecture. This type of teaching, initiated when
here was only one book for a class to learn
rom, is probably the most sterile atmosphere
onducive to peer interaction.
ERE IS ANOTHER technological gap-this
time between knowledge and action. When1
an we learn? r-C. D.
laudits I
PROGRAMS SUCH as yours are at once a
practical demonstration of our determina-
[on to achieve a peaceful world and valuable
deans of approaching that goal," United Na-I
ons Ambassador Adlai E. Stevenson said.
"Your consideration of this . . .- objective is
oth gratifying and welcomed. I believe that
ventually all nations must recognize that it
in this direction that world peace and se-I
Lrity shall ultimately be found," PresidentE
ohn F. Kennedy commented.C

0TH OF THESE men were noting the ac-c
complishments of the recent Internationals
rms Control Symposium held at the Univer-a
Editorial Staff
MICHAEL OLINICK, Editor
JDITH OPPENHEIM MICHAEL HARRAH E
Editorial Director City Editor n
ROL NE DOW.................Personnel Director
JDIT?3 BLEIER ..............Associate City Editorn
lED RUSSELL KRAMER .. Assoc. Editorial Directora
YNTHIA NETT.. . . . . ,.,,........Co-Magazine Editora
ARRY PERLSTADT.............Co-Magazine Editor
)M WEBBER....................... ..Sports Editor
WE ANIDREWS............Associate Sports Editor0
N WINKLEMAN ............ Associate Sports Editor
Business Staff

However, the professor must also be intel-
lectually honest. One would expect that within
the academic community, the faculty member
would be free to criticize the status quo and
even urge action to correct injustices where-
ever they might exist.
THE UNIVERSITY has no way of knowing
what the student may wish to advocate or
,overturn. Can the University safely let the
radical student or the "intellectually honest"
professor, or a faculty group invite speaker
incite an audience to storm the administration
building in protest of a University regulation
or to move on Lansing in an attempt to pres-
sure the Legislature? Why should this type of
action be condoned, if a recognized student or-
ganization cannot sponsor an outside speaker
on 'the very same subjects?
The advocates of the speaker policy firmly
maintain that there is a difference between
allowing just anybody to use University facili-
ties for a talk and the academic freedom ex-
tended to the faculty member and student.
The University is not and should not be a
soap box for everyone wishing to voice his
opinions. However the speakers whose freedoms
are being curtailed by the speaker policy are
not just strangers wandering into a University
auditorium. They are the invited guests of
student organizations, just as a guest of a
faculty organization. Why should students have
more limited opportunities to invite guests than
the faculty?
Another inconsistency arises under the
speaker policy. The Rev. Martin Luther King
publicly advocated civil disobedience as a form
of action in some Southern states at a Uni-
versity lecture. For some reason, the speakei.
policy condones speeches inciting the audience
to take action against the laws of other states
but not the State of Michigan.
PEOPLE speculate that the real reason for
any form of speaker policy is to appease
the tax-payer or the legislator. Can this be far
from the truth when two such different stand-
ards are applied to different types of University
guests? It certainly appears that the policy is
merely a facade to divert attention from the
University as a stronghold of radical ideas.
Perhaps the average tax-payer has not un-
derstood the fact that although students are
limited in the types of speeches they can
sponsor the faculty is not, nor are the students
and faculty themselves limited in subjects they
can speak on.
To be consistent the University should either
muzzle faculty, faculty organizations, and stu-
dents with the same limitations as are placed
on outside speakers invited by students or
should remove all such restrictions.;
THE UNIVERSITY is caught between two
strong forces: the sincere desire for a "spirit1
of free inquiry and timely discussion of a wide9
variety of issues" and the need to maintain a
cautious ,public image. And the easiest way for
the University to solve this dilemma was to
pass a mildly restrictive policy on student in-
vited speakers, which merely supplements exist-
ing civil statutes.r
The Regents will give final consideration tot
the speaker bylaw later this month. Every indi-
cation points to only mild stylistic changes inl
the bylaw before the Regents give final and t
permanent status to the bylaw. Hopefully, theyf
will again consider the need and philosophy>
behind such a speaker rule.t
-GAIL EVANS 1
or Peacet
sity and sponsored by the University and Ben-
dix Systems Corp.
The conference was distinguished not onlyI
by the "famous" names who attended but fort
its definition of aims and discussion of prob-
lems.
In an atmosphere of slow if any progress
on disarmament at Geneva, men in industry,
politics and education came together to view
aspects of possible disarmament and arms
control. This was a first of its kind. Yet it
opened the door to future fruitful discussions

of the same problems and held out a hope for
solutions,
The arms control symposium was not just
a meeting of academic minds to consider an
academic question. There were practical men
here to discuss solutions which could be im-
plemented and translated into United States
foreign policy.
OF COURSE, the conference did not solve
all of the complex problems of'arms control.
But by bringing together men who build arms,
men who have the power to explode them and
men who are concerned with the economic
and social implications of both an arms race
and disarmament, the meeting achieved much.
The meeting of minds is always a beginning
of solutions. This meeting was fortunate in
having some of the best minds in the country-
Sen. Hubert Humphrey (D-Minn.), John R.
McNauhtnn nf the defense donartment Wal-

- 'fV ~~ u
- I'-"
41
.01/
Y /
4 "
r s t x
FROM NEW YORK:
Reaction to Lincoln Center

TODAY AND TOMORROW:
Congo Solution
Lies with UN

By MARK SLOBIN
Daily Correspondent
EVALUATING Lincoln Center
as a force in the performing
a::ts is an exercise in balancing
opinions.
Since the Center has just be-
gun actual operation in only one
of its many units, judgment has
to be based primarily on predic-
tion, straw-in-the-wind philoso-
phizing, official publicity and
statements, and on one's own in-
tangible impressions of what will
become of this major project.
* * *
TO BEGIN with, let us sum-
marize what the Center, when
finished in 196, will consist of,
and how it will reach its final
state, in terms ofrfinancing and
planning. Lincoln Center is to be
a joint enterprise of the Philhar-
monic-Symphony Society of New
York, already at the site, the Met-
ropolitan Opera Association, the
Juilliard School of Music the Lin-
coln Repertory Company, the New
York Public Library, and possibly
the New York City Center of Mu-
sic and Drama.
This is an impressive listing; the
groups involved are leaders in
their fields of the performing arts
in this country, and play major
roles in the larger international
sphere of activity. An attempt to
combine these groups in some sort
of working relationship must
therefore be an important effort.
And it is important. Even before
most of the Center has even got-
ten underway, communities all
over this country and Canada
have shown their great interest in
the project by writing and con-
ferring with Lincoln Center peo-
ple. The idea of combining a large
part, and in smaller cities, all, of
the performing arts under one
heading is a new concept, a con-
cept that requires an interest on
the part of all performing artists,
and above all, on the part of the
public. This is why Lincoln Cen-
ter has aroused so much interest
and controversy.
* * *
FROM THE very beginning, the
Center has been a large-scale
project, In all, $142.15 million will
be required to complete the bud-
get's needs. Of this total, only
$28.8 million is lacking; it is clear

that the project has aroused the
interest of individuals and foun-
dations.
The size of the budget is a main
reason for the importance of the
Center; it is rare, in this country,
that such large jums of money
can be raised for the performing
arts, and so one is interested in
the disposition of this scarce com-
modity. Of the money raised, over
half has come from individuals,
foundations, corporations, and a
group labelled "others" in the of-
ficial report, and of this group
the individual and foundation
gifts from the overwhelming ma-
jority. Individual contributions
have'been, on the average, $40,-
000 each, while the average foun-
dation has given 10 times that
amount.
Government is involved to the
extent of over $40 million; how-
ever, most of this is for specific
projects: New York state is build-
ing its own theatre, New York
City its own library, and the fed-
eral government nas picked up the
bill for miscellaneous items. Yet
the involvement of government in
a project involving the perform-
ing arts is a vital part of the
Center, increasing its importance
still further.
WHAT THEN is Lincoln Cen-
ter to be? William Schuman, its
president, has ,no doubts on this
subject. In the official brochure
for the project hq calls it "an in-
comparable gift from the Present
to the Future." In an interview
with me he called it "the greatest
thing that's happened to the per-
forming arts in America." Others,
however, do not share Schuman's
enthusiasm; criticism has ranged
from mild to bitter, and the Cen-
ter has been called anything from
"unimaginative" to "a mausoleum
for the arts," or worse.
But aside from mere words, what
are the specific defects of this rap-
idly materializing concept? Per-
haps the most frequently heard
criticism can be summed up in an
article written recently in the
New York Times by Ada Louise
Huxtable: "There is no great hope
that Lincoln Center will see the
birth of new movements or be the
source of the kind of creativity
that takes place in back rooms or

makeshift theaters - the brilliant
minority spark that nourishes the
growth and development of the
arts . . .-It (the Center) will be a
popular showcase of a broad-based
orthodox culture."
This is an understandable view-
points, and it is unfortunate that
the Center has failed to give the
impression that it will live up to
such an ideal. Whether it actually
will or not is another question.
* * *
SCHUMAN feels that much of
the criticism directed at the proj-
ect is due to misinformation, and
the rest to factors such as inabil-
ity to accept something new and
congenital nastiness; the Center's
public relations staff could have
done little to correct these last
two items, but could perhaps have
attacked the first more vigorous-j
ly.
Schuman was able to fill me in
on only some of the projects in
the works for Lincoln Center that
have not been widely heralded.
However, those he mentioned
sound impressive: a chamber mu-
sic organization "comparable to
the Metropolitan for opera and
the Philharmonic for symphony "
a full-time repertory .theater to
enable actors to work on many
sorts of plays, including avante-
garde, instead of running in just
one for an extended period, a new
$2.5 million drama center at the
Juilliard, summer institutes for
teachers in the performing arts
(these last three are mentioned in
the official brochure), and a large
festival of all the arts in 1966, in-
cluding works commissioned in all
areas, to coincide with the com-
pletion of the total Center project.
Perhaps it is the large amount
Philharmonic Hall received that is
of publicity that the opening of
responsible for the impression that
Lincoln Center is to be a glitter-
ing meeting place for the elite;
everyone saw Jackie and Lenny,
read about the fantastic prices for
opening week seats, and heard
about the Rolls-Royce traffic jam.
At that particular stage in the
fulfillment of the "incomparable
gift," those whose dimes and dol-
lars had been solicited to help that
fulfillment began to wonder what
share they were to have in the
present or the future, of the proj-
ect. As usual, time will tell.

By WALTER LIPPMANN
WTE KNOW from experience that
in the Congo a settlement,
which looks as if it were just
around the corner, usually turns
out to be a long way off. So it is
with the United Nations police ac-
tion which Tshombe or perhaps
his subordinates provoked before
the United Nations had completed
the military buildup planned for
January. Though the immediate
result was an easy success in the
capital of Katanga at Elisabeth-
ville and at the big air base at
Kamina, the most modern mining
properties at Jadotville and Kol-
wezi along the rail line to Portu-
gliese Angola are still in the hands
of European mercenary troops.
The secession, therefore, is not
yet defeated, and if Tshombe en-
ters into new negotiations with the
Central government at Leopold-
ville, he may still be able to do
what he has always done in the
past, to evade andyprocrastinate.
For Tshombe's objective is to
avoid a settlement in the hope
that the United Nations will go
bankrupt, abandon the operation
and resign itself to the secession
of Katanga.
* * *
THE MINERAL wealth of the
province of Katanga is very great.
Colin Legum says that Katanga
produces some eight per cent of
the world's copper, 60 per cent of
the uranium of the Western World,
73 per cent of the world's cobalt,
80 per cent of its industrial dia-
monds as well as important quan-
tities of gold, zinc, manganese and
many other rare metals. Although
Katanga has only 12 per cent of
the population of the Congo, it
produces 60 per cent of the reve-
nues. The mining wealth of Ka-
tanga is controlled in the main by
Belgian and British interests,
though there are some American
shareholders.
The central fact in the problem
of the Congo is that, without the
revenues from Katanga, the rest
of the Congo is doomed to misery
and backwardness and to the sav-
agery that they will produce.
The international significance of
Katanga can best be appreciated
by looking at the map which
shows that the richest part of Ka-
tanga borders on Northern Rho-
desia and Portuguese Angola. If
Katanga is able to secede, it will
become a theater of struggle be,
tween that 'region of Africa which
is still under the control of white
men and Black Africa which is
now composed of independent
states.
* * *
THESE ARE facts which have
to be kept in mind when we think
about the 'United Nations opera-
tion and the backing of that oper-
ation by the United States. In
1960, with the blessing of Presi-
dent Eisenhower, the UnitedNa-
tions under the leadership of Dag
Hammarskjold made the hard and
dangerous decision to intervene
with United Nations troops drawn
from countries which were not
aligned with NATO, 'the Warsaw
Pact or Red China. The Congo
had been "liberated," in fact cast
off, before any serious effort had
been made to prepare the Congo-
lese for self-government. The im-
mediate result of this premature
independence was chaos and mas-
sacre. Who should restore order?
Belgium, Britain, France and the
United States? There is no doubt
that the Soviet Union would have
insisted on intervening also.
So, although Lumumba's gov-'
erinent appealed to President
Eisenhower for military aid, we
turned to the United Nations as
the best hope of restoring order
and of keeping the Congo from
becoming a cockpit of the cold
war. This initial task was carried
out successfully. But it was at
once plain that the Congo would
fall into chaos unless a reason-
ably strong government, using
European technicians, was estab-
lished. It was evident, however,
that such a strong government
was impossible if Katanga, with

its riches, seceded from the Congo
and in effect joined the White
Rhodesians, the Portuguese and
the South Africans.
* * *
IT IS TRUE that, in taking this

position, we find ourselves some-
what at odds with certain of our
European allies. There is total dis-
agreement with General De
Gaulle, who has no use for the
United Nations and would gladly
see it dissolved. There is partial
disagreement with Great Britain,
the Conservative Party which has
more specifically with a wing of
great influence in the Macmillan
government and is responsive to
British financia interests in Ka-
tanga and elsewhere in Africa.
But we are not at odds with the
Belgium of Mr. Spaak; indeed, we
are in substantial agreement with
it, and we know with what selfless
courage Mr. Spaak is acting.
It is painful to differ with allies.
But, in my view, there is no tol-
erable alternative to what Eisen-
hower and Kennedy have done,
which is to support the United
Nations. We cannot afford to see
the Congo in chaos. We do not
want a Communist lodgement in
the heart of Africa. We do not
want to becometengaged ourselves
with American troops.
No doubt there have been mis-
takes in the administration of the
United Nations operation. But
what else could we have done but
wish it to succeed?
(c) 1963, The Washington Post Co.
FLICKS:
A uthentic
Phantom
LIKE BANQUET speakers with
introductions, The Phantom of
the Opera needs no review but is
going to get one (pretty obvious-
ly) anyway. As everyone knows,
Lon Chaney was the movies' mas-
ter of makeup and except possibly
for his Quasimodo in "The Hunch-
back of Notre Dame," the "Phan-
tom" was his greatest role.
As everyone also knows, the plot
of "The Phantom" concerns a
hideous madman who lives in se-
cret chambers bordering on the
sewers beneath the Paris Opera
House. He loves an understudy and
systematically goes about sabotag-
ing the Opera House and its stars,
much to everyone's discomfort, in
order to create an opening for his
true love. Although she has never
seen him, she promises all in re-
turn.
* * *
WHILE THE ENDING isn't
exactly secret (especially by now--
the movie was made about 1924)
no synopsis can do it justice; there
are things better left unsaid.
The Cinema Guild has obtained
a bad print, unfortunately, but
with secret panels, torture cham-
bers, sewer-gondolas, underwater
breathing tubes, and title cards
which run the gamut of type fonts
and emotions (e.g. "No longer like
a toad shall I secrete the venom
of hatred iii these foul cellars!"),
who needs a good print?
There are several remade sound-
color versions of this film but they
are all unfaithful and (therefore).
worse. This is the real thing, and
it cannot be improved. There is
simply no one who can hold off a
hundred bloodthirsty Frenchmen
with a single fist, except Lon
Chaney.
FOR SOME REASON, Cinema
Guild muses decided that it was
better to accompany the silent
print with records of Liszt piano
transcriptions of opera themes.
Therefore, we are treated to Tris-
tan while Faust is on the stage,
and the rest covers the field from
Don Juan (which matches up with
the action) to Benvenuto Cellini
(Berlioz) which is a laugh in it-
self.
The records are not only dis-
tracting but they destroy whatever
suspense the film might otherwise
induce. After all, its a pretty far

suspension, even willing, to have
to make in the first place, without
putting up with the music too.
If it's true that everybody loves
a monster, this is nothing but' a
two hour moment of truth.
-Dick Pollinger

I

FEIFFER

6~ M165 711 OF TI{6
TEWHP oCOMPMJL{,
FORMER( q MI155
M L P 6..PW,1FAC!LWTATC A
MAOW~ grnFC!6?Jr (k) OMA11O0)
e~vLC At t FUTURE T~UPMO!J6
$OK ILVL. A~fl

WH~AT I'MCMUM ABOUT !1R.
t ERCEN EE, qov?, REFOSAt
eBi R61TR~ED R V i
AM4-W 05 70 CUNZ$6
gjocR PRE560
EXHW RMCANAL- 6 TO
3441515./
YOU Wit-t- '$6 MR- 16. Ey~p-
FORZ OUT OF 'STATE CA&LS Wtie
qo ton6

W51 W XAKCU( AtJAA' OF t06
At, 660 WAI.ES OF VEHUMNJ-
W6 'Too 96AP T116 -
ELS6 WNWUL W PI~~ON 4
FROM WOHICH PAPRS
10 t (f4VN 0012
RECAGCMADT 'r
-0CI6R MAC 11.

Tf{ROufI OUR VCS} q5T6H OF Q(6TN% COW"
┬░TRMS MA UCH FA'19 APAT
A COV.-ORAM6 SAVING~
IWCH W t 06J1"flPASS~
Oyu TO YIOU fICJtHW FORM
ofFU~LRTHE~R Qt4aJJIZ 0.1u \,if

/W
Wt7fL( 47 .
1400~ooii
K4Agr

,-®

I

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan