C, hriAtdltgat Batty
sevidy-Third Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
Where Opinions Are Fre 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. This must be noted in at; reprints.
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1963 NIGHT EDITOR: STEVEN HALLER
'64 Marks Crisis Point
In 'U's Financial Squeeze
T EUNIVERSITY has been predicting sures. And there is a serious question as
"troubles ahead" ever since its legisla- to whether the student on this campus
tive appropriations became inadequate is receiving as good an education today as
seven years ago. Administrative cor- did his predecessors.
plaints have met with continual skepti-
cism, particularly in Lansing. The time WITH THE HIGHER NUMBER of stu-
for skepticism, however, is over-a finan- dents to be educated, the competition
cial crisis may be one year away. for top faculty among various institutions
Students are generally unaware of the has become cut-throat. Universities bar-
situation, though they are suffering its ter for quality professors almost as if they
effects more each year. The 'faculty were part of an auction.
knows vaguely what is happening, as. it The two main attractions for a faculty
faces distorted class sizes and teaching member looking for a prospective place of
loads while salaries become less competi- employment are salary and teaching con-
tive in relation to those at other institu- ditions. In neither of these areas has the
tions. But the administration grasps the University been able to maintain the top
picture, and the administration is fright- competitive position it held in 1957. Stud-
ened. ies show that faculty salaries here have
"How scared are we? We've had our dropped since then from 4th in the nation
problems ever since the Legislature start- to 21st. Inadequate additions to the staff
ed cutting our budgets in 1957. But this (between 1957-1962 enrollment increased
year we've started talking. There are only by 3300; staff increased by 39) have put
so many adjustments, so many retrench- greater burdens on the faculty.
ments you can make to the fact of less There has been no faculty exodus yet.
money." This is the language ;top admin- A few departments have been hurt-as-
istration officials use over and over. tronomy was decimated a few years back,
for instance, and still hasn't recovered.
AT STAKE is the reputation as a quality Some big-name professors are now else-
institution which the University has where. But the University has added some
enjoyed for so long. This institution has people and strengthened some depart-
long been acknowledged to be one of the ments also "We have been lucky so far.
two state schools in the country which The staff has remained pretty patient.
provides an education comparable to such But you can't keep giving them promises
schools as Harvard, Yale, Columbia. But of next year'," an administrator com-
the University has slipped in the last ments.
seven years to the point where it is living
off that reputation, rather than continu- THERE MUST BE a breaking point. The
ing the achievements which created the University can't keep adding students,
reputation, which it is committed to do as a state in-
In the last seven years the University stitution, without making the proper ac-
has not been able to convince the Legis- commodations so that an education here
lature that it needs the money it asks for. has the same quality it has always had.
Over those years the Legislature has ap- The problem attains an undeniable im-
propriated roughly $50 million less than mediacy with the enrollment boom one
the sum of requests. Before 1957 appro- year away.
priations were relatively consistent with The University, however, cannot even
requests. give top priority to that boom. Its budget
request asks nearly $10 million more than
COMING AT THIS particular time, the last year's appropriation, but at the top
shortage of funds only serves to in- of the list lies higher faculty salaries. The
tensify other complicated problems fac- University's biggest concern, in other
ing both this university and the whole of words, is maintaining the status quo. In
higher education. order to keep the present faculty quality,
While enrollment pressures have been a it must payhmore money.
source of complaint for years, the "war Only then can the University start
baby" generation is no longer teething worrying about adding new staff and new
and college enrollments are about to sky- facilities for the increased enrollment.
rocket. The University's population, which
has been steadily increasing by hundreds, YET THE UNIVERSITY is helpless be-
will start measuring its rises by thou- fore the state Legislature. It cannot go
sands. anywhere without money. If the Legisla-
Neither staff nor physical facilities ture treats this year's $47.6 million re-
which have been adequate in the past are quest as it has treated requests for the
sufficient for the coming numbers of stu- past seven years, the University may have
dents. But already, due to seven years of passed the point of no return on the way
under-appropriation, the University is far to becoming a second-rate institution.
behind in adjusting to enrollment pres- -H. NEIL BERKSON
SIDELINE ON SGC:

The Wayward Committee

~~~,2

Cold War At Home

'II, {
' fILL-
.!
'V&6kr
_^

?vRtGNjqjff

{ i
i lY

f
4
74
POO

-


UNDERSCORE:
Presidential Campaign:
Millionaire's Monopoly

. ..

7 - S
dkw ~ ~ .: TC
AyFACEpIN THE:CR.Wf:'
The Student as Spectator
By Ronald Wilton, Editor

By PHILIP SUTIN
National Concerns Editor
GOV. Nelson Rockefeller's an-
nouncement, five days short of
a year before the presidential elec-
tion, that he is seeking the presi-
dency points up several problems
in American politics. Campaigns
are becoming longer and costlier,
creating a trend that forces the
man with limited means out of
high political office.
It is estimated that an average
presidential campaign, from quest
of nomination to election day,
costs more than $100 million.
Modern mass communications and
a national electorate force high
expenditures upon the candidate
and his supporters. He must buy
expensive radio and television
time, maintain an elaborate staff,
ope rate a private airplane that
can whisk him coast-to-coast
within a day and purchase all
the paraphenalia that goes along
with modern campaigning.
These costs are intensified by
the long period of time they are
necessary. The struggle for the
party nomination may take years,
reaching expensive proportions for
eight or nine months. The nom-
ination expense must be borne
entirely by the candidate and his
supporters since this battle is car-
ried out within the party.
THEN COMES four months
against the opposition. The win-
ner of the money-draining nomi-
nation fight must now campaign
for the office itself. The machin-
ery that is already set up must
be expanded and made more per-
vasive. However, this cost is also
shared by the national and state
party organizations.
These expenses create quite a
strain on the candidate's and his
backers' resources. It makes a
candidate more dependent than
ever on wealthy individuals or
groups for his support. These
people do not support candidates
on principle alone; they seek some
sort of return which may limit
the actions of candidates. If the
candidate has angered enough of
these wealthy sources or if they
feel he cannot win, he may find
his bid stranded for want of funds.
Many proposals have been of-
fered to relieve this situation.
Some include tax credits for cam-
paign contributions. Others sug-
gest that the federal government
subsidize election campaigns and
that federal law be modified to
limit or diversify campaign spend-
ing and contributing.
HOWEVER, two proposals that
would be most beneficial call for
shortening election campaigns and
giving free radio and television
time torpresidentialncandidates.
The United States has one of the
longest election campaigns in the
world-over a year informally,
four to five months formally. Most
other countries elect their na-
tional government following six-
week campaigns. Britain, for ex-
ample, takes about six weeks to
elect its parliament. Canada's par-
liament last year was dissolved in
April and elected in June.
With modern mass communica-
tions, there is no reason why the
nation cannot be thoroughly fa-
miliar with the presidential can-
didates after six weeks of inten-
sive campaigning. One single tele-
vision program can draw an au-
dience estimated to include a third

of the nation. Jet flying can brini
the candidates through all V1
states in six weeks time.
The campaign period can be
shortened by holding the required
presidential primaries in August
rather than in the March-June
period. The national conventions
then could be held in early Sep-
tember, leaving about seven weeks
before the election in early No-
vember.
Currently, the lengthy span be-
tween the first primary in March
to the last in early June and the
further four to six week delay be-
fore the national convention
stretches out the campaign, run-
ning up its expenses. Bunching the
primaries and convention in the
summer will ease campaigning
since a shorter, more intense cam-
paign requires less work and
planning than a long, dragged-outw'
one.
To reduce expensive radio-
television costs and to extend the
exposure of the candidates to
more of the public, the federal
government should require the
networks to give presidential can-
didates extensive television and
radio time for debates and in-
dividual programs. Time could be
rationed between major and minor
parties on the basis of the per-
centage of total vote cast in the
last election. Those getting less
than 30 per cent of the vote could
get half as much time as those
getting more than 30 per cent, for
example.
* * *
THESE TWO IDEAS would ease
election costs without reducing
time for public consideration of
the candidates. It would also allow
less affluent candidates effectively
to run for the presidency, giving
the nation a wider selection of
talent and ideas. These two ends
must be served if the presidency
is to continue to reflect sensitively
the will of all the people.


w

LETTERS
to the
EDITOR

a

W HO KNOWS BEST how some-
thing will affect students?
Certainly not the students. Since
faculty members and administra-
tors have had more experience in
education, they are obviously in a
position to do the students' think-
ing for them and decide what is
important to them and what is
not.
This philosophy seems to be
standard operating procedure at
this university. Studies are com-
piled, decisions are made and stu-
dent opinion is rarely taken into
account. When it is solicited, it
is thrown into a pot with opinions
from other individuals and groups.
Only if it is in accord with what
the administration wants to do is
the student recommendation taken
into account.
When the opinion conflicts with
the result the administration
wants, it is not given much weight.
This is especially true on the
University-wide level. The end
result is that students usually end
up as spectators, sometimes sit-
ting behind a pole.
This observation was borne
out last Tuesday night when I
took part in a panel discussion
with two other students and
three administrators. The topic
under consideration was the tri-
mester, whose detrimental ef-
fects we are just beginning to
feel as a result of the new calen-
dar. The three administrators
spoke first on different prob-
lems being encountered under
thenew system. The result of
most of these problems has been
to increase the psychological and
academic tensions on the stu-
dents.
Why was the decision made to
implement the trimester before
coming to grips with these dif-
ficulties? Political considerations,
as could be expected, was the over-
riding factor. Why weren't stu-
dents included in the planning
and decision-making resulting in
trimester? None of the adminis-
trators present seemed to know.
I think the answer can be given
in two words: oommunication and
politics. Students can act to affect
University policies in two ways.
They can act on the decision-
making structure as an outside
lobbying group or they can act
from within as an integral part of
the structure, having a hand in all
decisions.
For students to act effectively
in one or both of these capacities,
they must have information about
what is going on and they must
be able to exercise political pres-
sure to see that their desires are
executed. If they do not have
either of these necessities, then
they are left hanging with no real
influence on the structure. This is
the present situation.
Communications are poor on
this campus between students,
on one hand, and the faculty
and administration on the other.
The Daily provides most of the
student body's information about
current University events and
concerns. We are the first to

admit that we are not able to
do a complete job. Daily report-
ers are not allowed to cover most
major faculty meetings where
academic policy is dicussed.
Those faculty members who
would somehow feel inhibited by
a reporter's presence prevailaover
those interested in stimulating
students and inviting their con-
tributions to the discussion.
The administration is also adept
at practicing secrecy. The open
Regents meeting is a facade,
fronting for the meeting the night
before where the actual decisions
are hashed out. Individual ad-
ministrators are even more reti-
cent now than in the past about
theirudepartment's activities.
Students are kept in the dark to
an unnecessary degree about what
is going on in the higher levels of
the University. It is interesting to
note, by comparison, that Student
Government Council now looks
with some disfavor on the idea of
going into closed executive ses-
sion for policy considerations.
Political considerations can be
added to communications as the
second reason students are not
included within the decision-
making structure. This involves
the question of actual student
political power and the Univer-
sity's image.
Students are a disenfranschised
group, both politically and eco-
nomically. Some blame for this
non-representation lies with so-
ciety for not making adequate
provisions for student participa-
tion in the spectrum of influential
interest groups. Partial alleviation
of this situation might be achieved
if the voting age across the coun-
try were lowered to 18. Much of
the blame, however, falls on the
students themselves; they are un-
willing to organize into any kind
of mass political or interest group
to affect total university policies
at the campus level.
The argument that students do
not sufficiently take the Univer-
sity's image into account when
making their demands is often
used to justify their exclusion
from decision making. We are told
that any liberalization of rules or
regulations aimed at increasing
student participation in Univer-
sity affairs is inappropriate in
these times of scant legislative
appropriations.
Students are given as much
power as will pacify them without
impinging on the authority of the
Regents and administrators.
People advancing the image
argument assume that student
participation and control means
anarchy. They view student con-
trol over their non-academic
rules and regulations as the
absence of any limitations what-
soever. Students are not asking
for this. A decision-making
structure composed only of stu-
dents in which these non-.
academic regulations would be
fought out and decided is their
goal.
Furthermore, valuations of SGC
reveal that when students are
given power in an area they often

Therefore they are not allowed
to participate or even be informed
on policy. But denying student
participation and information pre-
cludes any opportunity for them
to analyze reality.
What we really have is the
proverbial viciouscircle. Students
are left hanging outside a closed
decision-making structure with no
means of entry. The University is
willing to give students some free-
dom to develop their minds but
will not extend this to the de-
velopment of self responsibility.
We appear as second-class citizens
within the academic world.
Sometimes I wonder how the
faculty and administration would
react if the small number of stu-
dents criticizing the University's
direction and emphasis would give
up their commitment and turn to
the daily concerns of classes,
studying .and social life.
At first they might welcome
the death of these gadflies and
bask in the new peace descend-
ing upon the campus. But soon
they might become uneasy under
the pressure of a nagging ques-
tion. If students are apathetic
and acquiescent today what does
it presage for the nation tomor-
row?

WHAT KIND OF WORLD?
A College Degree,
Doesn't Mean a Job

To the Editor:
CANNOT HELP but feel that
Diane Dudley, in the Nov. 1
Daily, has presented a view of
Prof. John Clark's conservative
philosophy which does justice
neither to Prof. Clark nor to the
philosophy.
One statement in that article,
"Each man is responsible for his
own state, and the wealthy should
not be punished for working hard
nor should the lazy be rewarded,"
seems to derive more from the
ethics of the jungle than from the
morals of the Bible.
I had always thought that the
lesson in the tale of Cain and
Able was directly applicable to a
20th century world in which a
child dies of starvation every 13
minutes while others overeat and
hoard their surpluses.
* * *4
NO ONE should corner the mar-
Ret on views of human nature,
but I am one psychologist who
believes that the gravest misper-
ception of that nature exists
amongst those who ignore man's
interdependence with mankind.
Prof. Clark's views of human na-
ture were not given fair cover-
age in the article.
If the view in the statement
quoted above is intended to sug-
gest that each human feels re-
sponsibility only for his own wel-
fare, then those "yet to be born"
children around the world who
will face starvation, poverty, or
racial discrimination had better
take a lesson from the life of Sen.
Goldwater. Choose for yourselves
two wealthy white parents in Ari-
zona and inherit your own depart-
ment stores.
I hope Prof. Clark will be grant-
ed the opportunity to correct the
impressions suggested by what
must certainly be a weak report-
ing of his views.
-Marc Pilisuk,
Associate Research
Psychologist
Inspiration . . 4
To the Editor:
THE NOV. 6 ITEM headed
"Panel Cites Trimester Impli-
cation" provided an especially
joyous , bit of reading. Certain
priceless remarks contained in
Ruth Seligman's summary un-
doubtedly struck many students
as Great Truths of Life at the
University.
Take, for example, a sign which
I have placed on the previously
barren wall next to my desk. One.
inch letters cut out of old Daily
headlines are pasted on a large
sheet of poster board to form the
legend:
"If you get behind now you're
dead-James Robertson, Dean."
LEST THIS disturb me to any
great extent, I have another sign
next to it:
"Don't Worry-Dean Robertson
says anxiety won't set in i u 1
after Thanksgiving."
Another item, posted directly
underneath, will serve as r& con-
stant srce- of inspiration for me

STUDENT GOVERNMENT COUNCIL was
faced with a dilemma which it didn't
quite know how to handle at its last
meeting.
Chairman Stephen Grossbard of the
Committee on University Affairs reported
to his parent body, Council. He told SGC
that his personal philosophy concerning
the university affairs committee is that
"Our main function is to organize vari-
ous subcommittees so they can work to
get appointed to University Senate com-
mittees, as a first step toward student-
faculty government."
WHEN REMINDED that that was not the
main purpose which SGC had outlined
for the group, he mentioned his commit-
tee's need for autonomy. He also reaf-
firmed his view that the ultimate aim of
student-faculty government was of pri-
mary concern to the committee.
Later, he was asked what the commit-
tee does when faced with an SGC man-
date to do a specific study. Grossbard
answered that the committee first de-
cides whether or not it will do the study.
Editorial Staff
RONALD WILTON, Editor
DAVID MARCUS GERALD STORGH

When pressed further on this point, he
concluded that in the event that his
group decides not to do the study,
"There's nothing I can do."
Grossbard even went so far as to re-
fuse flatly requests by Council members
that the committee meet as a whole more
frequently then the current once month-
ly.
AFTER THE REPORT was accepted, SGC
President Russell Epker announced
that he would prepare a motion for next
week outlining Council's philosophy to-
war s its standing committees. Also, a
motion by Michael Knapp to hold a spe-
cial joint meeting of SGC and the uni-
versity affairs standing committee during
this week was defeated because Council
felt that it would be better to wait until
some concrete declaration was made con-
cerning SGC's view of its committees.
SGC SHOULD HAVE been aware of this
non-cooperative attitude a long time
ago. In the absence of sterner measures,
a declaration of policy towards commit-
tees in general is quite in order. However,
a single mass meeting of the entire Coun-
cil and the entire committee would be of
little value: there would be too many peo-
ple and too many conflicting opinions.
What is needed in this case is a calm,
disciplinary talking to, and some kind of
understanding on the part of the commit-
+n it s not mtnnnmnmi c and in-

By ROBERT M. HUTCHINS
ONE OF THE great hallucina-
tions of our time is that edu-
cation can solve the problem of
unemployed youth.
The reasoning runs like this. We
see that the proportion of employ-
ment among young people varies
directly with the number of years
they have spent in school. If we
increase the time they spend in
school, we shall increase the pro-
portion employed.
When jobs are scarce and ap-
plicants many, the better educat-
ed, or the ones with more cer-
tificates, diplomas and degrees, are
going to get the jobs. But this is
not because they are better qual-
ified, but because employers, con-
fronted with a choice between a
sweeper with a college degree and
one without, will take the one with
the degree.
However, this is not because the
degree shows the man is a better
sweeper, but because the employer
thinks he might as well get a
college graduate if he can do so
for the same money.
IF ALL young people move up
the educational scale, the same
proportion of them will remain
unemployed unless something is
done to create jobs.
If all the present youthful popu-
lation had college degrees, they
would all be older; perhaps some
of them wvould be. wiser; but the

third of our Negro youth out of
work and not in school.
In the early 1950's, the number
of people who turned 18 each year
was fewer than 2 million. That
number is about to double. Merely
to keep unemployment from in-
creasing, we are going to have 1.2
million new jobs 'a year, 50 per
cent more than were created an-
nually during the last decade.
ADD TWO relatively minor
points. The President's Manpower
Report estimated last March that
nine out of 10 young people now
on the farm will have to find em-
ployment elsewhere.
Meanwhile it seems unlikely that
the draft will absorb young men
at the rate at which it claimed
them in the '50s.
The Youth Employment Act,
proposed by the President, calls
for the creation of 60,000 jobs..
This is in the face of the neces-
sity of hundreds of thousands of
jobs for persons between 16 and
22, in public works of one kind or,
another.
A program of jobs is certainly
the answer, but not one of these
small dimensions. Yet one of these
pitiful proportions is estimated to
cost $100 million a year.
I OBJECT to the notion that
education is the cure for unem-
ployment on economic grounds:
it can't work.
I object, too, on educational
grounds: the aim of education is

I