Sevmwty-Third YeAw'


EDITED AND MANAGED B1 STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHTGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Where Opinions Are Free STUbENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG., ANN ARBOR, MICH. PHONE NO 2-3241
Trutb Will Prevail"'' '
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in al: reprints.

s irk'.. . w a

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:
'U' Principles Shaky
In Student Regulations

AY, OCTOBER 30, 1963

NIGHT EDITOR: GERALD ST9RCH


Miami's 'Free Press'
Given Narrow Definition


THE RECENT DISMISSAL of the editor
of the University of Miami Hurricane
shows once again that freedom of the
press does not exist on many campuses.
The Miami administration strongly
stre'ses that the dismissal had no relation
to an editorial written by the former edi-
tor, Elayne Gilbert. The administration
further says her dismissal was merely re-
lated to the fact that she did not have
enough class hours.
However, the timing of the dismissal,
the rapidity of the action and the fact
that the administration did not like the
editorial tend to indicate that the simple
reasons given for dismissal do not tell the
whole story.
MISS, GILBERT wrote an editorial that
said that there was only one Negro
graduate assistant on campus and that
Negroes do not have enough opportunity
to, participate in athletic programs. It is
also true that the administration felt the
editorial created a "false impression,"
especially since Miami has been com-
pletely integrated for a year.
She also indicated that there were cer-
tain taboo areas that she was not to
write on; these included integration and
freedom of the press.
There is little doubt that university
officials were very disturbed by such an
editorial. Like most campuses, Miami
wants to keep a good image and editors
who upset this image are considered dan-
gerous to have around.
THERE ARE, however, some topics that
college editors feel they must speak out
on and Miss Gilbert was doing just that.
It also is probably true, even though the
areas about which she was not to write
were unofficially understood, that Miss
Gilbert had limited areas to write about.
This isprobably the way Miami defines its
freedom of the press-nothing that might
upset the smooth runnings of the univer-
sity or that might create the wrong im-
pression.
The administration dropped her for the
reason that she did not have enough
class hours to be editor. The university
requires that an editor carry a minimum
of 12 class hours to maintain this posi-
tion. Miss Gilbert was dropped from two
journalism courses last week, because she
had been cutting them excessively. It is
therefore an open and shut case for dis-
missal as far as Miss Gilbert's meeting
the basic requirements for being the edi-
tor.
Yet she also claims that she was told
without warning by the paper's adviser
(who also taught one of the courses) that
she had been dropped from the courses

and could no longer be editor. She said
that she had an understanding with her
professors that she could miss class to
work on the paper, and her dismissal as
editor came as a complete surprise to her.
The whole issue of the class cutting also
did not arise until immediately after the
editorial had appeared.
MIAMI IS NOT UNIQUE in its policy
about editorials. Many other college
campuses define good journalistic prac-
tices as those areas that are apolitical
and non-controversial. Consequently, the
papers write eritorials on apathy about
homecoming, student politics or some
similarly bland topic..
Editors who differ from this policy lose
their jobs, and usually the administration
finds some reason for the dismissal. The
definition of a good journalist is one
who is technically competent but silent
on many thought-provoking and disturb-
ing areas. The editor is, in effect, in a
powerless position, taking dictates from
an adviser who criticizes the final prod-
uct and keeps his eye out for troubles
that may arise.
When an editor decides that he no long-
er can keep silent, he realizes that he may
lose much by speaking out. Often, how-
ever, he decides that to be true to him-
self he must go ahead. In the academic
world, one believes in being true to one's
self intellectually and this same concept
must and does apply in the journalistic
world.
THE CONNECTION between Miss Gil-
bert's editorial and her dismissal is too
strong to brush off casually. Miss Gilbert
was wrong in that student editors have a
responsibility to try to remain students.
They, too, should attempt to go to class as
regularly as possible. She did fail in this
responsibility-and this cannot be ig-
nored.
But it all happened so quickly and was
so close on the heels of the editorial that,
by the standards of ideal freedom of the
press which actually exist on some cam-
puses, the administration has probably
neatly and conveniently gotten rid of a
problem editor.
THE VICE-PRESIIENT from Miami I
spoke to said this, is not a question of
freedom of the student press and that I
should not try to make such an issue of
the case.
But as an editor who cannot easily ig-
nore Miss Gilbert's comments, who does
have the chance to speak out and who be-
lieves that this is not such an open and
shut case-I must make a case of it.
--BARBARA LAZARUS
Personnel Director

It r 4 ;
t g1-I\

- ~ J'~~ '-4 N4'

UNION REPORT:
Regents' Statement Inadequate

CITYSCOPE:
Police Films Justified.

By JOHN BRYANT
THE RECENT STATEMENT by
the Regents on the Union-
League Study Committee Report
(the Robertson Report) shows
some serious inadequacies in
thought as well as some basic
misinterpretations.
Many of these faults are shown
up in the Union senior officers'
"statement of comparison" of the
Rpbertson Report with the Re-
gents' statement.
The officers' statement was not
intended as a criticism of the
Regents. It merely restates por-
tions of the Robertson Report
which correspond to the criticisms
that the Regents voiced.
FOR INSTANCE, the officers
pointed out that the Robertson
Report was intended to formulate
a general plan for a University
Center.
The Regents drafted their
statement only after talking with
some of the members of the Rob-
ertson committee and getting their
specific ideas as to what a Uni-
versity Center would entail. From
these discussions they developed
an idea of a center that would
include a faculty club and a con-
ference center.
This idea, even though it did
conform with the views of some
of the members of the Robertson
committee, did not necessarily
conform with the ideas of the
whole committee and was not
mentioned in the actual commit-
tee report. Thus, the Regents were
criticizing only a possible course
that could stem from the report,
not the report itself.
The Robertson committee de-
veloped the idea of an implemen-
tation committee which would be
responsible for converting the
broad concepts of the report into
specific proposals. Criticism of
specific ideas concerning a Uni-
versity Center ought to have gone
to this committee for discussion
rather than being voiced in a
statement such as the Regents'.
** *
THE UNION OFFICERS also
stated that "the inclusion of any
other group than the Union and
the League (in the University
Center) would be at the specific
request of that group."
Thus, if the faculty chose to
establish a faculty center inde-
pendent of the University Center,
they would be completely free to
do so. The University, likewise,
would be free to develop a con-
ference center outside the Univer-
sity Center structure.
If the faculty objected to having
students play a role in the policy
decisions of their organization-
the faculty center- they could not
be forced to enter into such an
arrangement.
The Courts
TO A LARGE extent the law has
always been a conservative
force in society. Therefore the
courts tend to be conservative-
a factor that is reinforced by the,
advanced ages of judges and the
fact that most lawyers are largelv

THE UNION OFFICERS also
noted that the Robertson Report
had proposed student participa-
tion on a University Center Board
( even though the students' rep-
resentation would be nostronger
than that of the faculty or the
alumni which, along with the
vice-president for business and
finance, would make up the
board) with the idea that such a
center, serving the entire campus
environment, ought to have rep-
resentatives from all segments of
that environment.
The Regents rejected this view
in favor of that of several organ-
izations directed toward only one
goal. HowAver, in doing this the
Regents failed to realize that an
all-encompassing University Cen-
ter would serve to bring students,
faculty, administrators and alumni
closer together by giving them a
common organization to work
through.
AS FOR the Regents' proposal
of merging the student activities
organizations of the Union and
the League and making them a
separate entity, apart from the
present organizations, the Union
officers noted that "there is no
indication . . . as to what would
happen to the student members

and officers of the Union Board
when the student activities be-
come separate."
It is questionable what would be
left of the Union and the League
if student activities were removed
from their jurisdiction and placed
elsewhere. Certainly some better
way could be found to merge the
student activities functions.
* * *
FINALLY, the Regents said that
space in the Union and League
buildings would continue to be
provided for student activities as
long as this space was being used
effectively. The officers' pointed
out that the report neither gave a
definition of effective use nor
told who would determine this
definition.
If the administration, for ex-
ample, were to be given the power
to determine the nature of effec-
tive use, it might decide that the
rooms in the Union or the League
could be more effectively used as
classrooms than as student activi-
ties areas.
THUS THE REGENTS have
drafted an inadequate reply, limit-
ed in scope and lacking in logic.
Fortunately, their statement does
not represent their final decision
on the matter.

To the Editor:
I N LIGHT of the remarks at-
tributed to me in Sunday's
Daily, I feel a compulsion to clar-
ify and expand my notions of
student responsibility fortwhom-
ever cares to listen.
First of all, I must take respon-
sibility for several of the ideas
discussed in the news article.
Those thoughts which are my per-
sonal opinions will be expanded
presently. I was somewhat sur-
prised to see that my remarks
about immorality and academic
success were treated in the man-
ner in which they were. While not
verbatim, the quote is accurate
enough to enable me\to stand by
it with only two qualifications.
First, the "not necessarily" of
the previous sentence must carry
over into that in which I was
quoted as saying that "immoral-
ity does not mean poor study
habits or absence of education."
Secondly, my next statement (un-
quoted) established a taste of
facetiousness which the article
does not convey. I will repeat. I
don't think it appropriate to come
out for immorality at this time.
QUITE SERIOUSLY, I feel quite
strongly that this University, and
others, operate on many shaky
principles in maintaining and en-
forcing regulations governing the
extra-classroomyconduct"ofrstu-
dents. Ostensibly, the University
is concerned with stimulating "in
each student the maximum per-
sonal growth of which he is cap-
able and to enable him, through
resultant development of character
and abilities, to make maximum
contributions to society." ("Stan-
dards for Students," preface)
I would not quarrel with this
goal nor impugn the motives of
those (officials who seek to make
it a reality. But I believe means to
attain this end are ill-conceived
and unsoundly based.
I AM TOLD that I fly, in the
face of Judaeo-Christian tradi-
tion when I assert my belief that
most individuals have had their
last opportunity to achieve per-
sonal growth before they reach the
University. The establishment of
standards of morality and social
conscience and responsibility is
(and should be) the concern of
other institutions-churches, ele-
mentary and secondary schools,
and (most basically) the family.
The University, it seems to me,
cannot hope to rebuild parental
failures and social and moral
cripples. It can at best attempt
to protect the more innocent of
these by establishing rules ap-
plicable to the lowest common de-
nominator among students-rules
which can be circumvented by the
less innocent cripples.
* * I
THIS BRINgS ME to another
criticism of University policy.
Without reference to actual rules
and regulations, the inconsisten-
cies in their application and en-
forcement seem to indicate that
the concern has , shifted from
education to public relations. [t
would be naive to ignore the fact
that the University must cater
to the social sensibilities of par-
ents, alumni, citizens and legis-
lators. The single fact that Uni-
versity housemothers have met
with shocked and suspicious ques-
tions about "mixed halls" (co-ed
housing) would lead me to believe
that the University has fallen
down in its extra-campus educa-
tion and public relations.
Further, it is the students who
are capable of exercising personal
responsibility who bear the in-
convenience and insult ("four
feet on the floor, door ajar")of
regulations aimed to help the
sub-standard individual and please
the public. Residence halls and
fraternities and sororities are
much more closely regulated with
regard to guests and liquor than
are apartments. Enforceability is

certainly a consideration. But so
is visibility to the University's
publics.
* * *
I DON'T WISH to rail about
in loco parentis or argue for an-
archy. And I must acknowledge

that there are those who will in-
terpretliberty as license-there
always will be. And I will grant
the Office of Student Affairs a
year of "acculturation" for fresh-
men women.
But past this point, the Uni-
versity should permit and en-
courage students to regulate them-
selves, collectively or individually.
without regard to sex.
Let us operate on the assump-
tion of responsibility and deal
"promptly and vigorously" with
those deviants who show lack of
discretion and imperil the right
of others to exercise their judg-
ment. I believe that students
should strive for the opportunity
to make personal decisions for
themselves, and that the Univer-
sity should shift the burden of
transmitting moral and social
values back to parents where it
rightfully belongs.
I respectfully request agreement
or criticism from faculty, parents
and administrators, as well as
from my fellow students.
-Thomas L. Smithson, '65
Sermons .
To the Editor:
YOUR NEW SERIES of criti-
cisms of sermons given in Ann
Arbor caught my attention-
mainly because of its oddness and
the feeling of revulsion it created
in me. I have never seen a column
of this kind in any other news-
paper before, and, fortunately, it
is highly unlikely that I ever will
again. I really fail to see what
purpose it can accomplish other
than to antagonize people.
The introduction with the first
article claims that "intelligence
and sensitivity" will be brought to
these critiques. On the contrary,
to tear apart local ministers for
public consumption, I feel, shows
extreme insensitivity, the height
in poor taste, and a sophomoric,
troubled personality. Judging from
some of the reactions I have heard
and plain common sense, I know
that faithful members of a church
do not appreciate reading sarcas-
tic barbs hurled at their church
staff.
** *
AND I FRANKLY DOUBT that
many, if any Daily readers other
than confirmed atheists or sick
minds are interested in how ner-
vous a particular minister might
be, how inadequate he is as a
public speaker, or how poorly he
interprets the Bible or meets cer-
tain literary standards according
to Mr. Stoneburner's cynical
values.
There are many, many lectures
and speeches given in Ann Arbor.
Surely Mr. Stoneburner could find
more appropriate subjects from
them if he feels it necessary to
continue indulging in a semi-
monthly classroom exercise of this
type. Probably, the most intel-
ligent thing he could do at this
time, though, is to ask himself
why he, an ordained minister,
needs to write an irreligious
column.
Virginia Rees
English ..
To the Editor
I AM ALWAYS alarmed when I
see mistakes in grammar, spell-
ing, etc., in print, especially if
these errors appear in a news-
paper which represents an aca-
demic institution with high stand-
ards. I usually try to dismiss such
slips as typographical, but, when
I unfolded my paper this morn-
ing (editor's note: Oct. 27) I was
immediately struck by a case of
gross misusage which can be at-
tributed only to the situation best
described by the epigram: "A
little knowledge is a dangerous
thing."
In his attempt to be fancy by
using antiquated foris, the per-
son who wrote the headline
"Whither Goest the University?"
might well have checked the third-
person-singular ending for verbs.

This is, admittedly, a pedantic re-
minder, but I hope it is successful
in saving our language from such
deplorable mishandling.
-W. E. Hettrick, Grad

f

NEW ALIGNMENT?
The 30 Year-Cycle
In Political Parties

VI

THE ANN ARBOR branch of the Nation-
al Association for the Advancement of
Colored People has charged that the po-
lice department violated the "privacy of
individual demonstrators" by filming var-
ious demonstrations.
The NAACP claims that pictures of in-
dividual demonstrators are "a potential
instrument of intimidation and place in
police files pictures of citizens who have
broken no laws."
THIS POSITION is based on two erron-
eous foundations. First, taking films of
individual demonstrators picketing in full.
public view is not a violation of the "pri-
vacy of the individual demonstrators."
Secondly, and most important, the police
department does not go around taking
films of demonstrators just to have "a
potential instrument of intimidation."
As for the rights of the individual dem-
onstrators, the NAACP has no argument.
The situation is not the same, for exam-
ple, as the wire-tap method of obtaining
evidence in a manner which may be a
violation of individual rights.
THE NAACP, in holding pickets and
demonstrations, immediately d r a w s
public attention. It is in the public eye.
As long as the demonstrators are on pub-
lic streets and subject to public view, the
police are completely justified in taking
their pictures.

tive and the films strictly for police files.
If accusations or charges involving dem-
onstrators are brought forward after such
a demonstr'ation, then the police can con-
sult their picture files, either for identi-
fication purposes or for evidence in the
case.
The practice has been going on for a
long time in Ann Arbor. But so far there
has never been an instance when the pic-
tures were admitted in court as evidence.
If a situation did arise in which the films
were put before the bench as evidence,
they would supply information that in-
dividual witnesses may have overlooked.
AS TO THE NAACP'S CLAIM that the
/ pictures can be used by the police as
potential instruments of intimidation, the
group is on still weaker ground. '
Pictures police take of demonstrations
and many other public incidents are
placed in what they call a "non-criminal"
file. This file comprises approximately 80
per cent of the police department's total
file system. Many "innocents" have their
pictures in police files and may not even
know about it.
TO MAINTAIN THE PEACE in Ann Ar-
bor it is necessary that the police have
a complete understanding of and avail-
able reference to incidents affecting the
public interest of Ann Arbor. The fact
that the department has a high percent-

By ROBERT SELWA
SEN. B A R R Y GOLDWATER
should change his mind and
hold a debate with Gov. Nelson
Rockefeller. Goldwater so far has
refused a Rockefeller request to
this effect. He should change his
mind not only because debates
are healthy to the democratic pro-
cess but also because the future
of the Republican party is at
stake. The reason lies in a little-
known pattern of American his-
tory.
About every 32 years, there
comes a re-alignment of party
forces in this two-party system. By
1796 the federalist and the anti-
federalist parties had emerged,
and the election of 1796 was the
first clearly partisan contest. Dur-
ing the 20 years after the election
of 1800, partianship dissolved so
much that the only reason James
Monroe was not re-elected unan-
imously in 1820 was that one elec-
tor felt this honor should go to
George Washington alone.
But by 1828 parties had re-
emerged, with Andrew Jackson of
one party defeating President
John Quincy Adams of the other
party. During the next 24 years
one of these parties, the Whigs,
gradually weakened. In 1854 the
Republican party was created as'
its replacement, andthem odern
parties began.
AT THE END of a 32-year
cycle in 1860, the Republicans
captured the White House and

During the next cycle, much of
the Negro vote left the Republi-
can party and much of the farm
vote left the Democratic party.
The cycle culminated in 1932, with
Franklin Roosevelt leading a new
Democratic party to victory over
Herbert H o o v e r' s Republican
party. The cycles lasted, respec-
tively, about 28, 32, 36, and 36
years.
NEXT YEAR'S election will
mark 32 years and a new or mod-
ified alignment can be expected
to emerge. Goldwater and Rocke-
feller represent two sharply dif-
ferent possibilities forthe Repub-
lican alignment:. Rockefeller as
the 196, candidate could mean a
Republican party of international-
ists, moderates and liberals, sub-
urbanites and city dwellers, sup-
porters of federal government ac-
tion and advocates of presidential
initiative. Goldwater as the 1964
candidate could mean a Republi-
can party of nationalists and iso-
lationists, moderates and conser-
vatives, suburbanites and farmers,
supporters of state and local gov-
ernment power and advocates of
congressional initiative.
Thus it is important that there
be the maximum opportunity for
comparing and contrasting the
views of Rockefeller and Gold-
water and any other leading can-
didates. The best way to achieve
this comparison, the clearest way
to illuminate the contrast, is a
series of debates betweenGold-
water and Rockefeller and any

h


Carrying Goldwater 0
'

n Both Shoulders
A ' P

fI


' rt111"WtV

. '