i

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

Why we

must cheer for the enemy

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.

SATURDAY, APRIL 8, 1972

NIGHT EDITOR: TAMMY JACOBS

Supporting peace research

LAST SUMMER the Regents' cut off
funds for the Center for Research on
Conflict Resolution (CRCR).
Now a group of interested students,
with some faculty support, is trying to
revive the concept of peace 'research at
the University through the establishment
of peace-oriented courses.
If such courses attract enough student
and faculty interest, the group says it
maypress for the opening of a new peace
research center.
It is likely that such a request will meet
opposition from University officials for
"financial reasons" or the alleged "inef-
fectiveness" of such a center - the same
excuses which led to the dissolution of
CRCR. But this should not be the case.
There is potential value inherent in the
application of scientific knowledge to the
solution of world problems, especially
when one considers the tremendous
amount of intellectual resources this

country utilizes which directly or indir-
ectly contribute to war efforts.
A true peace research center which
does not fall into the trap of using its
workers to write long essays on how bad
things are and what should be done,
would be of inestimable value.
The use of controlled studies and em-
pirical. evidence leading to verifiable
conclusions provides an authority which
mere polemic can never achieve.
EVEN IF the center's conclusions turn
out to be rediscoveries of what many
consider to be already obvious truths, po-
litical leaders and the general public will
take such conclusions more seriously
when given the status of scientific fact.
The task now is for students and fac-
ulty to support the concept of peace-
oriented courses - the first step on the
road to bringing peace research back to
the University.
-KAREN TINKLENBERG

spouted at Fort Campbell.
Vietnamization will make it seem like
the decade of combat, with its 50,000
deaths and hundreds of thousands of cas-
ualties, was really worthwhile. We will
have preserved the right of self-determina-
tion of the Vietnamese people, and we will
have stopped the spread of Communism,
yet another time.
MOST IMPORTANTLY, however, a suc-
cessful program of Vietnamization w ill
a'low Richard Nixon to go before the
mothers and fathers of deceased Vietnam
veterans, and tell them that their sons
did not die in vain. With that assurance,
those parents will be able to keep Johnny's
medals in a prominent position on the
living room shelves, for all the world to
see and admire.
Of course, not everyone will fall for this
clever deception. Those of us who have
opposed the war for the last five or six
years, will continue to view it as a tragic
mistake, which needlessly claimed the lives
and resources of America.
Many veterans, too, who spent their
time in the battlefield of Southeast Asia
may find it difficult to!justify their actions.
Yet, as is so often the case, most people
will accept the word of the President, and
will write Vietnam off as one more chal-
lenge that America had to face and over-
come.
After all, most people who have come
out .against the war, only did so when it
became apparent that we weren't going to
win. The moral questionls about our policy
came only as afterthoughts, and t h ey
can be erased just as easily as they were
developed.
And in a few years, when the visions of
bloody bodies and missing limbs fade from
our memories and TV screens, we might
be ready to accept a similar challenge
somewhere else in the world.
THAT IS WHY, cruel as it may seem,
we must cheer when we hear reports about
the failure of our Vietnamization efforts.
For only in defeat, will we be forced to
recognize the failures of a foreign policy
that allows us to attach the label "moral"
to a decade of war and destruction.

By CHARLES STEIN
"THE SOUTH Vietnamese forces a r e
being beaten back," the newscaster
tells us. "ARVN troops are abandoning out-
post after outpost in the wake of the
strongest enemy drive since the Tet of-
fensive of 1968."
"American planes supply heavy tacti-
cal support, but no U.S. ground troops are
being committed. In Washington, some of-
ficials are hinting privately, that the cur-
rent enemy attack may well shatter all
American hopes for Vietnamization."
"Tremendous", my friend shouts. "I hope
the goddam South Vietnamese get destroy-
ed." His burst of enthusiasm quickly fades,
however, as he realizes the full impact of
his statement.
"Why am I so happy? Our allies are get-
ting killed and I'm sitting here rooting for
the Viet Cong!"
After a. moment of thought he adds, "I
don't regret being happy, but how am I

going to explain that to my mother when
she asks?"
An interesting question. How does one
explain to one's mother or anyone else for
that matter, why so many people can
smile and even rejoice at the news of a
South Vietnamese defeat? After all, these
are the soldiers who have fought side by
side with our own troops for the last ten
years, suffering and dying in the struggle
against Communism.
Even if we disagree with the Presi-
dent's Vietnam policy, aren't we being just
a bit too vindictive in applauding the vic-
tories of our announced enemies? How can
we possibly take comfort in the systematic
destruction of our ally's armies?
I STRUGGLED to come up with a good
answer, but was saved the trouble by the
perfect timing of the next item on the
national news.

For right before my eyes, was our
own vice president, Spiro Agnew, address-
ing returning troops in Fort Campbell, Ken-
tucky. The President, himself, we are told,
was supposed to deliver the address to
emphasize the success of our withdrawal
program, but with the current military
situation, he is maintaining something of
a low-profile.
"We are involved in a moral struggle in
Southeast Asia," the vice president, proud-
ly states. "Perhaps the most moral action
the United States has undertaken in its
history of foreign affairs. That is what I
have to say to those Americans who tell
us that this is an immoral ,war."
Those remarks, sum up better than I
ever could, the reason why we are so hap-
py to see the entire Vietnamization pro-
gram go down the drain. Because Vietnami-
zation, if it is indeed successful, will allow
America to leave South Vietnam with the
kind of noble rhetoric that Mr. Agnew

V

Laird says 'Bombs away"'

THEECURRENT offensive against the
Thieu regime in South Vietnam has
provided a dilemma for the U.S. military.
With base after base falling and the
Army of South Vietnam (ARVN) fleeing
headlong before the assault of opposing
forces, the Pentagon sees that even an
attempt to maintain the stability of the
Thieu regime requires massive air raids
on all parts of North Vietnam..
We have thus seen the deteriorating
military situation for the Thieu forces
bring on the heaviest bombing raids since
1968, with even heavier still to come.
Planes have been hurriedly moved from
Kansas and U. S. bases in the Pacific to
Indochina, and a fifth aircraft carrier
is now heading for the Vietnamese coast.
These reinforcements will place the
American air presence in Indochina at a
higher level than during the most in-

tense bombing in thg years of the John-
son Administration.
Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird tries
to justify the wholesale destruction these
bombers will wreak on a country already
pock-marked by twenty million craters by
illustrating the faltering position of
ARVN troops.
Yet, at the same time, he stolidly main-
tains that "the South Vietnamese have
the capability to handle the situation on
the ground." He cannot admit what is
now an obvious fact: the Vietnamization
program, heralded as a stunning success
by the Nixon Administration, has fallen
flat on its face.
THE NATIONAL Liberation Front may
be opening a fourth front in the Me-
kong Delta and has shown the capability
of attacking wherever and whenever it
chooses.
Two provincial capitals - Quang Tri
City in the north and An Loc only 60
miles north of Saigon - are on the verge
of falling to Communist forces.
These devastating attacks have led re-
tired Adm. U.S. Grant Sharp to say that
the U.S. must launch air strikes against
Hanoi and Haiphong if the Thieu gov-
ernment is to remain alive.
"There's still a chance for South Viet-
nam," said the Admiral, equating that
country with its dictatorial government.
"If their ground troops can hold on, U.S.
aircraft can beat down the North Viet-
namese forces moving south," he said.
This remark reveals the almost desper-
ate straits ARVN forces are in, contrary
to Laird's ebullient optimism over their
supposed capabilities.'
More strikingly, a military officer in
Indochina said yesterday that bombing
northern areas of North Vietnam
"wouldn't help the South Vietnamese in
Quang Tri Province or in the Central
Highlands very much now." In fact, form-
,er Secretary of Defense Robert McNa-
mara admitted five years ago that bomb-
ing North Vietnam to reduce fighting in
the south was ineffective.
THE NIXON1 administration is obviously
worried over the situation in Indo-
china. The problem we must face is keep-
ing that worry from turning into a holo-
caust for the Indochinese peoples.
-ZACHARY SCHILLER

4

Letters to The Daily

Defending Segal
To The Daily:
THE DAILY of April 6 has earn-
'd a certain dubious immortality
by laying before the world one
of the most insulting pieces of
drivel ever to befoul its pages.
I refer to a notice by one Marty
Porter of a lecture delivered Wed-
nesday by Prof. Erich Segal of
Yale University.
I am no great admirer of Prof.
Segal, nor did I find his lecture
particularly instructive or enter-
taining; but it is completely inac-
curate if not downright malicous
for Mr. Porter to conclude from
the enthusastic response accorded
his efforts that "most people still
find the classics a bombastic
bore."
The classics may fail to excite
Mr. Porter's patently sophomoric
imagination, but study of them
sufficed for centuries to instruct
men in powers of thought and ex-
pression - faculties in which Mr.
Porter's article demonstrates his
egregious deficiencies.
Had he ever applied himself to
the study of language and litera-
ture your readers would presum-
ably have been spared his emi-
nently forgettable description of
the scholars in attendance as
"corn-starched" (which, Webster
tells me, is an ingredient of pud-
ding), to say nothing of having
our "rumorous thirsts" (whatever
they are) "mollified" (whatever
that means).
I pass over the final indignity,
his rendering of Plautus' name
(twice) as "Plaudus." Perhaps
we may look forward to further
reviews of lectures on Shake-
speare, Terense, or Ionesko (sic).
The Daily does neither its read-
ers nor its own fine traditions any,
service by publication of s u c h
fatuous twattle; we may only
hope that more diligent editorial

supervision will spare us
similr atrocities.
-William E. Metcalf,
April 6

from
Grad

More Segal

To The Daily:
AS A STUDENT at the Univer-
sity who has neither read Erich
Segal's Love Story nor really in-
tends to see the movie, I would,
like to answer Marty Porter's
critique of Prof. Segal's lecture
on Roman Comedy. I don't object
to Marty's obvious dislike of
"America's latest sweetheart" -
that's his problem - but I do
object to the irresponsibility and
ignorance he has displayed on the
front page of the Daily.
In the first place, Prof. Segal
did not speak about "Plaudus the
Roman Comic" - for the simple
reason that there never was a
Roman Comic named "Plaudus".
In the second place, the lecture
did not delve into "Plaudus' thea-
tre and Moliere" - the theatre
of Plautus it did, Moliere it hard-
ly mentioned - Shakespears was
perhaps a main, and I want to
add, an excellent comparison.
In the third place. I fail to un-
derstand Marty's use of the Eng-
lish language. What in God's name
are "rumorous thirsts" - dehy-
dration that people gossip about?
And how could it become appar-
ent that "most people still find
the classics a bombastic b o r e"
when Prof. Segal discussed what
he openly admitted was not the
Classics at all? Marty should al-
low people to form opinions only
about subjects under considera-
tion.
And in the last place, I don't
think I'm being unreasonable in
making general objection to th'e
Daily's degrading their newspap-
er by publishing a camp, super-
ficial, and pretentious article on

Editorial Staff
ALAN LENHOFF
Editor
SARA FITZGERALD ............... Managing Editor
TAMMY JACOBS..................Editorial Director
CARLA RAPOPORT.................Executive Editor
ROBERT SCHREINER ................... News Editor
8OSE SUE BERSTEIN................Feature Editor
PAT BAUER .............. Associate Managing Editor
LINDSAY CHANEY .............Editorial Page Editor
MAARK DILLEN................. Editorial Page Editor
ARTHUR LERNER..............Editorial Page Editor
PAUL TRAVIS ................. ... ... Arts Editor
GLORIA JANE SMITH..........Associate Arts Editor
JONATHAN MILLER.........Special Features Editor
TERRY McCARTHY.............Photography Editor
ROBERT CONROW ..................... Books Editor

the lecture of a' Professor of Com-
parative Litertaure by an *inefti-
cient and uninformed ass.
-John Tomhave,
April 5
YAF troubles
To The Daily:
A FEW DAYS ago at my Con-
gressional office, I received a most
distressing visit from Wayne
Thorburn, executive director of the
Young Americans for Freedom,
and one of their national direc-
tors, Bruce Eberle.
They told me of a most acute
problem at YAF. It appears that
even though YAF is doing more, to
counter the left on campus and
educate students on conservatism,
and even though there are now
over 656 local YAF chapters, con-
tributions from their adult sup-
porters are down to a dangerous
low in this new year.
Wayne believes that because the
radical left decreased their bomb-
ings on campus last semester,
donors to YAF think the battle is
over. In point of fact, it now looks
as if 1972 could become another
volatile year - just like 1969 and
1970!
I tend to share Wayne's analy-
sis and I would add that the econ-
omy has also had an effect in
keeping down the number of
pledges to YAF.
Whatever the reason, Wayne
has asked me to drop you this let-
ter for the problem at YAP is at
a criticalrstate. Unless they are
able to 'raise $187,000 over the
next three weeks, YAF will be
forcedhto sharply cut back its
Spring program against the revo-
lutionaries and radical militants
on campus. This would be tragic.
As you know, YAF is providing the
major coordinated alternative to
campus radicals and agitators.
I know something about con-
servatives and their commitment
to freedom. That is why when
Wayne told me about this prob-
lem, my reaction was this: Go to
your friends, tell them the truth
about your financial problems -
I know they will help.
If 4,000 people would contribute
$25 each and if 1,000 people would
contribute $50 each and if $400.
people would contribute $100 each,
YAF would have the funds neces-
sary to carry on its vital programs
and not have to worry about mak-
ing drastic cuts in basic and vital
areas of action. They would then
be free to spend time doing the
vital work of educating students
to the evils of communism and the
failures of liberalism and socialism.
I would not take your valuable
time with this letter if it were not
of the utmost urgency. Please let
me and the dedicated students of
YAP hear from you today. We'll
all be eternally grateful.
-U.S. Rep. John Rousselot
(R-Cal.)
Washington, D.C.

:.PETEHAMILL
The good old days:
Did they ever exit?.
THE COLD WEATHER broke yesterday, and froni the hills of Brook-
lyn, you could see the old 19th century city stretching away to the
harbor, with Staten Island and Jersey beyond, and the great towers
of lower Manhatten climbing way to the right. The streets were filled
with children, and the light had that hard, deep-etched quality that
always marks the New York spring, and it was time for taking a
walk.
So it was a day for poking around in the park, the children doing
handstands beside me, the old paths and laks beginning to burst
into life from the packed cold past. The paths were thick .4th mud
from the rain and snow, and the trees had not yet lost their skeletal
shyness. But flocks of birds were moving around Monument Hill and
people were out riding horses and a lot of kids were weaving the old
intricate dream of baseball.
DOWN AT THE Brooklyn Museum they were showing paintings by
Norman Rockwell and you could see again how much he had influenced
this country in the days when we all believed a lot more in our
goodness.
Rockwell was essentially a reporter, not an artist, but he reported
what Americans wanted to feel about themselves, and not what was
actually there all along. There are not many black .people in these
pictures, no Puerto Ricans, no slums, no men sitting in boardrooms
getting rich at,the expense of poor people. You don't see Henry Ford's
goons breaking heads in a Detroit strike, or the Rockefeller goons
breaking heads in Colorado. You don't see the America of heroin,
stick-up men, slimy politicians.
We are a pretty decent people in those Rockwell pictures, with our
hopes and desires expressed in visual anecdotes, in simple meals, in
departing servicemen, in people going on dates. Rockwell made us
believe in that America, although it never truly existed by itself; the
nostalgia of an entire generation of Americans today lies not in the
America they lived in, but in the America Rockwell presented to
them. The desire to believe that it really was like that is overwhelm-
ing.
Walk down on Flatbush Av. after a long session of Rockwell and it
isn't difficult to believe that everything is forever gone. And yet
Joe Ferris has opened a saloon right over there on Flatbush," and
Pintchik's magnificent paint store is bursting with people buying wall-
paper and paint and all the other things that go with a home's spring
renewal; those are acts of faith.
A few stores are closed, a few others are opening. And some
of the decayed hulks down near the Long Island RR station are sched-
uled to be pulled down. Something fresh and new will replace them,
because the land is too valuable to die.
THE CHILDREN have been away and the city is strange to them.
But one of them asks why it is so much cleaner than she remembered
it, why the great clouds of flying newspapers, the dust and trash
a few years ago are now gone.
It was difficult to explain; she which eats away at the New
York still does not understand the nostalgia heart, the memory of
a time when the city seemed some extraordinary marvel; perhaps
even then, we had succumbed to a Norman Rockwell vision of New
York, a place where Fiorello would always be the mayor and we
would be forever a great, brawling confident town.
But in a few short years, those children have already experienced
several New Yorks. A few years ago we were at rock bottom, and
now that our period of emotional blitz seems over, even the kids
are beginning to notice.
Weber and Heilbroner might be leaving, but that doesn't matter as
much as it might seem; a lot of the business that departed is business
that had become irrelevant.
Places like Weber and Heilbroner are going because not enough
people bought their clothes; young people went to jeans and cowboy
hats and other wild things: some of the stores in the Village are so
packed you can't get into them, and a store like Barney's, which
learned to change with the times, is doing very well, thank you. Times


mTe OF H1S O fJWTS-
.

t 'T ~HU
M jL2UR
4 .S /

suroE
Sll EIL

116C AEI

W
s1X5-

I

ACID2 V)TIL Th6 FWS h
W~O\W- ;1t7H PAT-
Ip(to-US OF HIS
FOR M~OTHR
FOUR YEAS -

9pS TC 
SIE

_ r MXVR Q0L19
PAT 9T'H
(IT HR
l

A MV Tr({K) f £oMfJYf 'RM
tF I WAS 5SPC(OV3