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.

February 16, 1972 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1972-02-16

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


Eighty-one years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

Electronic
us

Warfaro: Brought to
by te ssoc.f Old Crows

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY16, 1972

NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT SCHREINER

On studentizing the Union

MICHIGAN IS one of the few major
universities in the country which
does not have its own student union,
and hopes for such a structure here in
the near future are slim.
Yet things at the Michigan Union are
slowly changing.
Demands have surfaced in the last
few years calling for more student input
in the Union governance system and
for, more student use of the available
Union space.
The idea of a student union is most
appealing. Students on this campus need
a single, centrally located spot where
they can go for meetings, conferences
or just to talk.
At present there is a proposal before
the Union Board of Directors which
would entirely change the administra-
tive organization of the Union. If passed,
the proposal would create a student-
dominated policy board to replace the
current Board of Directors - composed
of an equal number of students, faculty
and alumni.
There is little chance that the pro-
posal will be passed by the Board of
Directors, since it in effect would make
them obsolete. However the board should
take a close look at what the proposal
would accomplish before they consider
throwing it away.
The major achievement of the pro-
posal would be to create a policy board
with a student majority. The policy
board would be in charge of all Union
functions, including allocating space
within the Union.
This would be one of the first steps
towards creating a true "student" union.
IDEA of 'a student center appar-
ently strikes fear within the hearts

of the alumni. They feel that student
control of the Union would men a loss of
their own right to use the building.
But student use and control are not
incompatible with alumni rights. The
present proposal has a safeguard built
in to protect alumni interests in that any
change in the alumni offices must be ap-
proved by both the policy board and the
Board of Directors.
The major aspect of students' demand
for more Union space is for more meet-
ing rooms and conference space. This
same space would also be available for
use by the alumni.
If and when the Board of Directors'
refuses to approve the proposal--as ap-
pears likely - a petition drive will start
to have the issue placed on the ballot of
this spring's Student Government Coun-
cil elections.
An archaic feature of the election will
be that only male students - as mem-
bers of the Union, which technically bars
females,-will be permitted to vote on
tne issue. The males-only clause is be-
ing dropped from the Union's constitu-
tion, but not in time to effect the next
election.
IF THE BOARD of Directors refuses to
approve the proposal, they should at
least try to incorporate some of its ideas
into their present structure. Perhaps a
student majority on the Board of Di-
rectors would be a partial solution.
In any event, students have proven
themselves responsible in other areas of
policy making within the University.
There is no reason for the alumni not to
trust them now.
-JUDY RUSKIN

Brain Mistrust is a radical
research/action group based in
Ann Arbor and working with
progressive groups in the
Midwest. This article is re-
printed from the Feb. 11 is-
sue of the American Report.
By BRAIN MISTRUST
WITH THE RECENT govern-
ment emphasis on research
and development (R and D), re-
miniscent of the 1957 Sputnik-gen-
erated beat-the-Russians sience
race, we may all be hearing more
from the boys who brought us the
electronic battlefied as they seek
support for continued development
and long-range planning of the
field known to the military/in-
dustry as Electronic Warfare
(EW).
The chief proponents of EW are
the members of the Association
of Old Crows (AOC), a quasi-gov-
ernment engineering society that
numbers among its aims and pur-
poses those of "fostering and pre-
serving the art of EW" and "pro-
moting the exchange of ideas and
information in this field."
The official publication of the
AOC is the quarterly magazine
Electronic Warfare, which seeks to
keep AOC members "informed
about pertinent EW projetes, peo-
ple, and companies."
Electronic Warfarenrecently in-
cluded an article entitled "T h e
Continuing Role of Universities in
Electronic Warfare" by P r o f.
Thomas Butler, director of the
University's Cooley Electronics
Laboratory, which was presented
at the 1970 AOC symposium.
If an organization with members
called "Crows" and chapters with
names like "Patriots Roost" and
the "Mugu Crows Club" reminds
you of the Elks or Masons, you are
only partly right. Currently there
are about 40 chapters in the Unit-'
ed States, Canada and Austrailia,
with additional EW groups in the
Armed Forces elsewhere.
THE AOC began formally in
1964, but the Crows date their his-
tory as a group to World War II
when they engaged in a common
secret drive to thwart the achieve-
ments of German communications
and radar technology.
The name of "Old Crow" is a
derivative of the wartime c o de
word RAVEN used for EW work.
At least in the beginning, pe use
of code names and acronyms
(ECM, ESM, ECCM) was radly
motivated by the secretive nature
of EW, but at this stage :n the
development of the pushbutton
battlefield they seem often to func-
tion as euphemisms for the deadly
serious game they describe.
Deciding just what EW en-
compasses is a major activity of
the AOC because, as they pu it,
"one of its purposes is to see that
an adequate amount of the na-
tion's resources are put into EW
so that it may take its rightful
place in the nation's arsenal" But
at least as a point of reference
we can start with the Department
of the Army's list of EW defin-
itions.
The language is meant to imply
that EW is a "defensive action"
to be thought of as 'countering
an enemy threat."
In a more comprehensive

frame of mind, one of the editors
of Electronic Warfare proposed
that EW be defined as "any and
all utilization of electromagnetic
radiation for the purpose of mak-
ing war and the denial of same
to any and all enemies, real or
potential."
PERHAPS THE definitions will
be more meaningful in the context
of a brief look at the history of
EW technology asrit began in the
early days of World War II. The
most important new electronic de-
velopment of the time was radar
-the use of high frequency radio
waves that travel in a straight
line and bounce off of targets in
the path, the reflected waves bear-
ing an image of the object out
there.
With the United States in the
air, Allied efforts with Electronic
C o u n t e r Measures (ECM), and
Electromagnetic Support Measures
(ESM) continued, and though tech-
niques were often ad hoc, the re-
sults were, as often, significant
in the tide of battle.
With the end of World War II,
interest and support for EW eva-
porated except within the military
establishment. As one Old Crow
put it, "it was only the tenacity
of a very few people that prevented
the technology from being lost, and
then, of course, the Korean War
re-established the need, and t h e
field grew."
AFTER KOREA the same thing
happened and Old Crows every-
where were forced to tighten their
belts in the game of boom and
bust shared also by members of
the aerospace industry. The rest
of the history of EW you might
guess; compare yours with that
offered by the Association of Old
Crows:
"Now along comes our Viet Nam
involvement. In 1965, when t h e
real escalation began, we had vir-
tually no Electronic Warfare cap-
ability in Southeast Asia. Our
aircraft losses were very high and

someone finally realized that we
had better start reacting, "Arid re-
act is just what we did. We resur-
rected every piece of Electronic
Warfare equipment we could fird
and within a short time tie air-
craft losses dropped and everyone
said 'ECM is Good!'
"ECM is good, and it's getting
better every day, and some of the
companies that suffered through-
out the 'lean' days are starting to
make money. There is a lot of
politicking going on in government
to see who will get to administer
the major share of almost one
billion dollars in funding which
is the new and ever popular Elec-
tornic Warfare pie."
ONE SYSTEM that these funds
have developed in Viet Nam de-
'serves special mention as the
current counterpart to the radar
jammers of World War II bomb-
ers. It is the "Wild Weasel" fam-
ily of "passive ECM equipment de-
veloped to protect tactical a i r-
craft in Viet Nam."
The parallel is one of technol-
ogy, but also of the euphemism
of "protecting". aircraft w h o s e
mission is clearly that of destroy-
ing the "enemy" with laser, in-
frared, and TV-guided bombs and
antipersonnel weapons, all called
in for a strike by the electronic
sensors and other fruits of EW
technology.
The "Advanced Wild Weasel
equipment" (the weasel is known
for its agility in killing birds and
vermin) is an integrated systemn
of devices to help the pilot foil
surface-to-air 'missiles (SAM's)
and antiaircraft.
NOW THAT THE electronic bat-
tlefield is taking over the war,
the role of Old Crows and EW
seems at least~ secure. But still
the public needs to be assured that
-continued spending for EW is
essential to the defense of our
country even in peacetime. For-
tunately for the members, the AOC
draws support from the Govern-

CORPORATIONS INVOLVED in Electronic Warfare are quick
to tell trade magazine subscribers about it, as this advertise-
ment from Slyvania shows.

End ing pot penalties;
IN A LAUDABLE move, the National or ingester tends t
Commission on Marijuana and Drug ing, male liberal
Abuse has unanimously recommended an affiliation."
end to criminal penalties for the posses- The report blow
sion and use of marijuana. myths about why
But, the commission inconsistently dope. Johnny smo
recommends the retention of penalties friend Bill smokes
for sale and growing of marijuana, adolescent rebellio
In the commission's view, ending the society.m
criminal penalties would take the marl- the stereotypedha
juana user out of a drug-using subcul- destronypid hn
ture labelled as criminal, and thereby, crime due to the n
sever the tie of illegality between heroin crimeness and te
and marijuana, reducing heroin addic- sedbynsmong
tion. caused by smoking
The commission will present its re- fiThe report also
commendations to President Nixon and least once a wee]
Congress by March 22. Though the com- eastyonbe by19e
mission has worked under the illusion easily double by 19
that Nixon will listen to its, conclusions, THE COMMISSIO
they should realize that the majority of criminal penall
reports made by past commissions have must be recognize
been either ignored or rejected. necessity. But the
Nixon seems to have no use for recom- go far enough.
nendations that go against his expec- Eliminating pena
tations or personal opinions. retaining penalties
of marijuana is il
THE REPORT will, in addition, present and use cease to b
a number of worthy conclusions, in- next step should be
cluding the unique finding that mar- But none of it ma
juana use does not lead to heroin addic- March 23, Nixon
tion or violent crime. nounce that the Na
Other general findings, based on the Marijuana and Dru
many extensive research studies con- to common sense a
ducted over the past years on marijuana, rejected.
show that the typical marijuana smoker-

almost
o be a cigarette-smok-
with "weak religious
vs up more cherished
Johnny is driven to
kes because his best
, not as a symbol of
n against insensitive
user, far from being
phead bent on violent
fact deterred from
ecrease of physical as-
emporal coordination
predicts that while
icans now smoke at
k, that number may
76.
N'S call for an end to
ties for marijuana use
d as a long-overdue
commission does not
alties for use, while
for sale and growing
llogical. If possession
e crimes, the obvious
complete legalization.
ay matter anyway. On
may very well an-
ational Commission on
g stands in oppisition
nd is, therefore to be
-JAN BENEDETTI

ment, the military, and industry,
so at least they start with a
broad base.
Besides the publication of the
magazine, the main activity of the
AOC is the national convention,
which for the past several years
has consisted of a technical ,sym-
posium (for which you need secur-
ity clearance - presumed of most
members -- to attend) sponsored
jointly by the Department of De-
fense (DD) and the AOC, and a
banquet at which appropriate pub-
lic figures (e.g. Senators Robert
Byrd; Barry Goldwater, himself
an Old Crow; and Secretary of De-
fense Melvin Laird) affirm the ten-
ets of the AOC.
THE ONE GROUP least men-
tioned so far, but in many ways
most important, is the corpora-
tions. They are the source of most
EW production, if not also de-
velopment, and-if you oelieve their
ads, they are eager to take credit
for the results.
Textron says we have "RHAW
power" (radar homing acquisition
warning - the Wild Weasel
scheme).
Litton Systems advertises,
"We've been making a it of noise
lately" with "adaptive iammers."
With the General Instrument
Corp., it's "There's no business-
like Crow business/That's cno busi-
ness we know."
And General Electric brags,
"Noise or Deception? Whlichever
you choose, wecanhelp you meet
your specific mission r-equire-
ments."
About its airborne and ground-
based radars " a bigplus in
home-safe ECM," Westinghouse
says, of course, "You can be sure
. . . if it's Westinghouse."
But GTE Sylvania outdoes them

all with its claim that "Electronic
Warfare is our business," a n d
explains it all for you with a draw-
ing of the battlefield (see above).
Warfare is important to - these
companies and many more like
them in the electronics ,industry.
As recent industry surveys put
it, 'The military budget exercises
an important influence over the
fortunes of the electronics indus-
try, since almost a half of the
Industry's output goes to the de-
fense sector.
For a few companies, over 80
per cent of sales goes to the DOD.
In such cases, every time the Pen-
tagon sneezes, the companies, in-
volved catch pneumonia:"
BUT NEVER worry. The O1d
Crows have it figured out that
even without a war there is a
place for' them. First, one pro-
posed, change the name from EW
to "Electromagnetic Defene"
like changing the name of the War
Department to the Department of
Defense) and then find continuing
uses for the technology.
As this Crow continued in an
AOC editorial: "We must join to-
gether and collectively sell the ur-
gent and continuing peacetime
needs for our Crow talents. The
layman must be 7 made aware of
the never-ending requirement for
reconnaissance and surveillance.
"He must be alerted to the ne-
cessity of. developing new and up-
to-date active protective systems,
and he must be made to recog-
nize the need for versatile and
consistent training. And most of
all, he must be made to believe
that these things are sll vital
to the adefense of this country.

AI

4

THE OLD CROW'S symbol is used here in an advertisement for
Litten Systems. The "noise" refers to Litton's work with "adap-
tive jammers," part of the Electronic Countermeasures technol-
ogy.

superscription

Feminist House:. Envisioning the revolution

by, lyrn ginner

Out of the frying pan ..

HE RESIGNATION of Atty. Gen. John
Mitchell yesterday was almost an
occasion for rejoicing. Almost, but not
quite.
For, on the heels of the resignation an-
nouncement came the nomination of
beputy Atty. Gen. Richard Kleindiest as
his successor, and if you liked Mitchell,
you'll love Kleindiest.
As soon as the nomination became
public, Senate liberals announced their
intention to fight the appointment from
the floor, and well they might.
The question of who's politics are
worse, Mitchell's or Kleindiest's, is almost
irrelevant and there are conflicting re-
ports on the subject. Let it suffice that
Kleindiest is the spiritual son of Mitchell

dencies towards ignoring civil and hu-
man rights.
It was Kleindiest who stood with Mit-
chell in a Justice Department window,
looking down on the mass arrest of sev-
eral hundred anti-war protesters during
the May Day actions.
And it was Kleindiest who helped mas-
termind the roundup and arrests of 12,-
000 protesters that week, showing not the
least concern that police were not even
stopping to book their catches before
herding them onto buses to jails and de-
tention camps.
Kleindiest's potential elevation, and
Mitchell's announced intention of head-
ing Nixon's Presidential campaign this

IN THIS TIME of political apathy, 1,500
people meeting here on a political issue
is a rarity, a throwback to the 60's.
It seems that usually only sports events,
or entertainment, can draw large crowds
now.
Monday night at the Power Center saw
the exception. Two feminist speakers drew
a sell-out audience, where 1,400 paid $2,100
to jam the auditorium, and at least a
hundred more stormed the guards to sit
in the aisles.
The occasion? Activists Gloria Steinem
and Margaret Sloan speaking on sexism
and racism, in a benefit lecture for the
founding of a feminist house in Ann Ar-
bor.
The crowd heard Steinem and Sloan
speak on women's history and the link-
age of racism and sexism. There was also
an hour of dialogue between the audience
and speakers
MOST IMPORTANTLY, there was a sense
of excitement in the audience - a sense
unfelt here since the peak of the anti-
war movement in 1969, or the Black Ac-
tion Movement of 1970.
Here was an issue with potential -
one not yet stifled by the frustrations and
apathy which have choked so many of

*

-D~aly-S'ara rrulwi~h,

To see such a crowd now during a time
of minimal activism is a sign that there
is -yet a movement which has not been
smothered by failure.
Sloan and Steinem are both good speak-
ers, informal speakers who established an
immediate and warm rapport with a mas-
sive group.
Their time was donated to fund what
frmnvivi c4 hn,P s~ n~nvn-te~vrm "not, ni

a more open and humane society for both
men and women.
If the spontaneous applause and ovations
to the speakers, both on the stage and in
the audience, indicates political potential,
then there is a strong base for the
growth of the feminist movement here.
And we - both women and men - must
not let it slip. The enthusiasm expressed

law repeal, and a new approach to women's
courses must be supported. So must what
Steinem called 'remedial studies" - until
' we can approach our studies from the
total human - not only white male -
perspective.
1,500 people have not gathered for a long
time on a-political issues of such sweeping
implications in a long time here. The

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan