Eighty years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
The real story behind the
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.
FRIDAY, MARCH 12, 1971
NIGHT EDITOR: TAMMY JACOBS
Police controversy re-opened
FROM the viewpoint of the student com-
munity, the most glaring failure of
the Harris administration has been its
inability to effectively control the often
over-zealous actions of the Ann Arbor
Police Department. This failure has been
brought to the community's attention
again this week.
Reacting to complaints received by
Mayor Harris, the city decided 1 a s t week
to make public showing of a television
newsfilm which shows Ann Arbor Pa-
trolman John Pear swinging a riot baton
at a University student who had already
been subdued by another officer. The
incident occurred during last year's Black
Action Movement (BAM) class strike.
The showing of the film sparked a con-
troversy in City Hall.
City Administrator Guy Larcom Jr. ad-
mitted that viewing the film frame-by-
frame showed the incident to be more
serious than he had reported last Oc-
tober to Mayor Harris. It was on the basis
of this report that Harris decided not to
press charges against Pear last fall.
Detective Jerry Wright, head of the
Ann Arbor Police Officers Association
(AAPOA) blasted Harris for showing the
film, charging that the mayor had re-
opened the case in an attempt to "buy"
the support of the black and student
communities for the upcoming election.
"It is no coincidence that one month
before the mayoral election, Mayor Har-
ris has resurrected an incident that oc-
is God on?
VATICAN theologians are examining a
pro-Marxist document that was
adopted in principle Monday by a Ro-
man Catholic Church assembly in Italy's
northernmost province. Its publication
has attracted nationwide attention.
Tuesday, many Italians were surpris-
ed to read a report by the synod's labor
commission asserting that, at least in
theory, Marxism was more pleasing to
God than capitalism.
"The society in which we live commits
a grave sin against the plan of God by
placing capital at the center of every-
thing and subjecting man to the law of
profit," the document said. Marxist phil-
osophy - as distinct from "deviations"
in Marxist political systems - but built
a model of society "in which exploitation
of man by man is impossible or at least
very difficult" the report went on, call-
ing it a model "that appears more at-
tuned to God's plan than capitalist so-
--THE NEW YORK TIMES
JIM BEATTIE DAVE CHUDWIN
Executive Editor Managing Editor
STEVE KOPPMAN .... Editorial.Page Editor
RICK PERLOFF .. Associate Editorial Page Editor
PAT MAHONEY. .. Assistant Editorial Page Editor
LYNN WEINER Associate Managing Editor
LARRY LEMPERT ... Associate Managing Editr
ANITA CRONE ......................... Arts Editor
ROBERT CONROW .. . .. . Books Editor
JIM JUDKIS ................Photography Editor
curred almost a year ago," Wright said.
"This is politics at its worst. It is de-
signed to open old wounds and polarize
the community for his benefit. It is a sad
day when Ann Arbor politics is conducted
on such a vicious plane."
Wright, however, has over-reacted to a
situation which poses no real danger to
the city police department or Patrolman
The case against Pear has not been
re-opened. City Council has viewed the
film and each councilman's opinion of
it has been duly recorded in the Ann
Arbor News, but the council plans to
take no action on the matter.
Larcom says that re-opening the case
is impossible as it would constitute "dou-
ble jeopardy" since the city had already
decided not to press charges against Pear.
This statement is rather tenuous when
one considers the fact that Pear was
never brought before a tribunal of any
sort. But it is simply too late to make
Pear stand trial for his actions.
REGARDLESS of one's views about the
case, Pear should have the right to
a fair and speedy trial, and this right
would surely be violated by a proceeding
one year after the incident when the
basis of the prosecution's case has already
been publicly displayed.
At this point, then, the responsibility
for his judicial farce clearly lies with Har-
ris and Larcom, and a closer look at the
procedure used by these men in deciding
not to prosecute Pear makes this clear.
Larcom headed the committee that was
assigned to investigate charges against
Pear last fall. The group considered the
evidence it had, which included the tele-
vision newsfilm, and concluded that Pear
should not have legal action taken
against him, citing the tension of the
situation and the hostility of the crowd
toward the police as excuses for Pear's
Larcom now views the same film and
comes up with a substantially different
appraisal of the situation. He explains
that the film had never been shown
frame-by-frame before, and claims that
this gives a totally different picture of
This is rather difficult to believe. Show-
ing this film frame-by-frame does not re-
veal anything that cannot be seen when
viewed at normal speed. There were no
mysterious phantom blows that would
only show up in individual frames.
Rather, the film clearly demonstrates
that Pear made two concerted efforts to
strike the student while another officer
had the student firmly pinned to t h e
ground. This is apparent regardless of
the manner in which the film is viewed.
On the basis of Larcom's report, Har-
ris decided to drop the charges against
Pear he had previously requested. Cur-
iously enough, Harris took this action
without seeing the film - a rather cal-
lous move considering the importance of
SEVERAL TIMES a year, Harris shrugs
his shoulders and claims that he
cannot control the police department.
In view of the Pear case it appears that
perhaps Harris has not tried hard enough.
The mayor must realize that he has been
empowered and has an obligation to pro-
tect the community from all threats, in-
cluding those from the police.
By STEVE ANZALONE
ANYONE WHO bothers to read
Roscoe Drummond's column
in the newspapers would discover
a comparison he recently drew be-
tween the recent bombing of the
U.S. Capitol and t h e Reichstag
fire of 1933. Roscoe is sure that
the Capitol bombing was the work
of leftists. These leftists, he claims,
are following the Nazi example so
as to invite more repression upon
themselves and become martyrs.
Roscoe's history is a little slop-
py. At the time the Reichstag went
-up in flames, Hitler was already
Chancellor of the Reich. The Nazi
party was included in the govern-
ment; its position f a r different
from that of the American left to-
day. The Nazi role in the fire was
not a means to invite repression
on itself, but a tactic (and a suc-
cessful one) to grab more power
within the government. Besides,
Roscoe should know that the left
would be more likely to go after
the White House or the Pentagon
where the real power is.
But before we scold poor Roscoe
for his Spiro Agnew historicism, it
must be admitted that he is un-
wittingly on the right track. The
analogy between the Capitol blast
and the Reischstag blaze is more
apt than we would suspect. As we
examine the fantastic story of the
bombing conspiracy a n d all its
startling ramifications, we will
find Roscoe's mistake very instruc-
THE INCREDIBLE chain of
events that led to the Capitol ex-
plosion began last year. It start-
ed in Canada with the kidnapings
of James Cross and Pierre Laporte.
The kidnapings triggered a swift
response in Washington. Theoriz-
ing that similiar actions would
take place here, the Nixon admin-
istration put into effect an elab-
orate counterinsurgency strategy
using sophisticated infrared sur-
veillance techniques. The move-
ment of hundreds of government
officials and foreign diplomats
was monitored in an attempt to
catch a left-wing kidnaper in the
act. The project was headed by
the CIA and was called Operation
CHE (Commie Hunting Expedi-
Alas, there were no kidnapings.
This left the Nixon Administra-
tion sourly disappointed, and there
were private denunciations of the
"impotence a n d timidity" of
American left-wing extremists.
How premature the pessimism
proved to be. For Trudeau was to
assume tough powers under the
War Measures Act, setting a pre-
cedent for governments every-
where. Civil liberties suspended,
t h e FLQ outlawed, leftist sym-
pathizers rounded-up . . . T h e
possibilities of those powers being
exercised in Washington were said
to be so exciting that Atty. Gen.
J. Edgar Hoover recommended.
going on the offensive and not
waiting for the Commies to get it
together. He would arrange a kid-
naping and his choice of victim
was Henry Kissinger. The strategy
had an aura of Woody Hayes to it,
and Nixon liked that.
When Nixon broke the news to
Kissinger, the loyal adviser report-
edly snapped to attention and in
his unmistakable Dr. Strangelove
manner replied, "Mein fuehrer, I
am always ready to serve."
unexplainable accidents that have
changed the whole course of
events. It was probably one of
these fateful coincidences that a
reporter from a prominent East-
ern newspaper got wind of the
plot. The news of the plot posed
a dilemma for the liberal publish-
er of the paper - should he print
the news and risk national chaos?
In the end he followed the exam-
ple of the New York Times, which
suppressed advance news of the
Bay of Pigs invasion "in the na-
tional interest." However, two
concessions were made: the re-
porter was reassigned to Vietnam
and Nixon called off the plot.
NIXON'S DREAM, like Gatsby's.
still eluded him. As he began his
third year in office, Richard Mil-
hous Nixon, the grocer's son from
Whittier, Calif., recalled his prom-
ise of two years ago - to bring
the nation together. To fulfill this
earnest committment he made,
Richard Nixon did. as he usually
does in a time of crisis - turn to
the lessons of the past. A compe-
tent student of history, Nixon
realized that he was making the
same mistake that we ,now find
Roscoe Drummond guilty of. A
man in power who wants more
power must use different tactics
from those u s e d to topple the
power structure. He must follow
the example of someone like Hit-
ler and not the FLQ.
The first hint of all this came
in Nixon's state of the union ad-
dress when he called for a new
American revolution. Liberals and
radicals alike scoffed at his co-
optation of the language. Nixon?
Revolution? He was serious. He
was not talking about a revolu-
tion from below, the kind on most
people's minds these d a y s. No,
Nixon was talking about a revolu-
tion from above. And who waged
a revolution from above like Nix-
on envisioned? That's r i g h t,
He called upon the Joint Chiefs
of Staff to aid him in his plan to,
yes, bomb Congress.
At a meeting Nixon told them
soberly, "Congress m u s t be de-
In their standard knee-jerk re-
action, the Chiefs leaped to their
feet, eager with anticipation, and
pleaded in unison, "Tactical
"You fools," Nixon shot back.
"You can't use nuclear weapons
Similarly, anti-personnel bombs
were ruled out. The Chiefs chafed
at the restriction. Always there
were restrictions - the 37th par-
allel, the Yalu River, the DMZ, the
Laos border, and now homemade
bombs. They didn't seem to un-
derstand that if they hit the Cap-
itol with an Atlas-Titan missile,
someone like I. F. Stone might
start putting two and two togeth-
er. But, in what can only be seen
as a wonderful testament to our
constitutionally - prescribed doc-
trine of civilian control of t h e
military, they relented to Nixon's
IN THE MEANTIME, talk be-
gan spreading among t h e press
corps about a plot to kidnap Kis-
singer. After a call f r o m the
White House. Hoover soon had a
witness to say that the Berrigans
were involved. Maybe he couldn't
prove anything, but it would work
as a smokescreen.
Also, while the bombing plans
were bing discussed, Nixon order-
ed Laos invaded. Why wait. Both-
ered by the press more than ever
before, he refused to let newsmen
cover the Laos invasion. The press
howled, but Nixon s t o o d firm.
Then things took a strange twist.
The Pentagon refused to let news- __
men ride on helicopter flights in-
to Laos. This was the only way
they could see what was happen-
ing. It proved to be a blessing to
the Vietnam correspondents as
the helicopters were shot down in
flocks. But Mel Laird is no fool
He figured that if we are going
to lose helicopters and pilots, why
not get rid of a few newsmen with
them. So the policy was changed,
and Nixon smiled.
Back in Washington, it was
suggested that the .bombing take
place on a Saturday for maximum
press coverage in Sunday editions.
The Saturday would have been
February 27. Nixon shrewdly re-
called that this was the anniver-
sary of the Reichstag fire, didn't
want to take any chances with
nosy liberal historians, and moved
the date up two days to March 1.
According to plan, the Capitol
was supposed to crumble. But the
bomber, an ex-Green Beret whose
name is still not known, messed
it up and only one bomb detonat-
ed. Security men who accompan-
ied him quickly removed the oth-
er bombs and kept people and the
press at b a y while the injured
soldier was hustled out of t h e
building and the otherbombs re-
The damage done was pitifully
small. The whole fiasco lasted in
the papers for scarcely more than
a day. For Nixon to ask for emer-
gency powers after a fire-cracker
blast like that would be ludicrous.,-
CAN NIXON still salvage some-
thing from the remains of t h e
blast? The aborted Kissinger plot
produced a case against the Ber-
rigan brothers. Will he be able to
manufacture some evidence to im-
plicate other left-wing nuisances? I
It's hard to say. B u t already
people are beginning to suspect
the r e a culprit. The suspicion
runs the ideological gamut from
the Daily World to t h e Detroit
News. It is apparent that someone
at the News has the whole story
because that paper offered a $10,- 4
000 reward for information lead-
ing to the arrest and conviction
of those responsible for the bomb-
ing. It's an obvious grandstand
play: the News knows very welt
that the President is immune from
THESE ARE indeed troubled
days for the young Republic:
Steve Anzalone is a former Daily
Editorial Page Editor.
This bombing is a dastardly attempt to limit the
John Mitchell sustained an erec-
tion at a Cabinet meeting.
Now if only those "chicken shit"
radicals would cooperate.
BUT THIS WAS the middle of
October - already too late to be
kept waiting. Nixon realized that
a kidnaping before the upcoming
elections would spark a stampede
to law-and-order Republican can-
didates. After the election, a
frightened Congress would gladly
grant broad "emergency" powers.
It was a perfect plot. Some of
Hoover's men would abduct Kiss-
inger, issue some standard left-
wing demands, and keep him out
of sight during a massive FBI
search while Nixon and Agnew
accused -the Democrats -of com-
plicity. Nixon would use the emer-
gency powers to wipe out every
trace of opposition in the country.
He would then be free to pursue
victory in Indochina.
But history, as we all know, is
riddled with fateful quirks a n d
Letters to The Daily
To the Daily:
AS A MEMBER of the student
body of this University I feel my
intellectual capabilities were be-
littled by Rose Sue Berstein's edi-
torial (Daily, Feb. 17). By seeking
to set strict guidelines as to who
can use University facilities to pre-
sent his point of view Berstein is
presuming to impose her -"noral
standards upon me. I am no de-
fendant of racist and sexist poli-
cies; on the contrary, I deplore
them. But, it is my right to hear
what these people have to say, It
is my privilege to agree or disagree
with them, but not to force my de-
cision upon anyone else.
In the article Berstein said "it is
true that by allowing corporations
devoid of social responsibility to
recruit on campus, the University
lends its tacit approval .o their im-
morality." This is not so-if it were,
the University could be said to
"lend it tacit approval" to every
group that appears on campus. It
is not the place of the University
to say who is right and who is
wrong; it exists to provide an at-
mosphere for open debate and dis-
cussion. How can any thinking per-
son attempt to decide an issue
unless he has heard the arguments
for all sides.
It is our job to make sure the
University remains an open set-
ting for debate, not close it to all
but those holding one viewpoint.
Only by allowing everyone to voice
his opinion freely can we keep
from becoming the very thing we
condemn in others-repressive.
-Leslie S. Grommet, '74
To the Daily:
AS MEMBERS OF the Women's
Liberation Movement and the Gay
Liberation Movement we didn't
know whether to scream in rage
or laugh in mockery at the in-
credibly sexist letter (Daily, Feb.
24) by Dave Wesley. If the revo-
lultion proceeds as you would ap-
parently have it proceed it will be
a black straight man's "revolu-
tion" that will oppress (and ob-
viously is now oppressing) women
and gays. Women and gay people
would never refer to anything as
a "nigger issue" because we know
what a racist oppressive term that
Yet you who profess to be so re-
volutionary can use the term "fag-
got issue". We would not tell black
people how to relate to their own
oppression and struggles yet you
so condescendingly "give" us "re-
cognition" of "the importance of
some of the issuesbeing raised
by Women's Liberation and the
Gay Liberation Front" and "en-
courage them (us) to intensify
their (our) struggles." If we, as
white gay women and men said
that we recognized the important
of some of the issues being raised
by the Black Liberation Movement
and encouraged you to intensify
your struggles, you might see
(might be slapped across the face
with) how unbelievably patroniz-
ing and oppressive that attitude is.
Any group that attempts to fur-
ther its own cause at the expense
of other oppressed groups is coun-
ter-revolutionary. Women have for
too long been told to wait until af-
ter the revolution to be heard and
that then the Man (white or black
or any color) will take his foot off
our necks. Gays are now being
told the same thing. "Revolutions"
that ride on the backs of other op-
pressed peoples are not revolu-
tions, they are coup d'etats.
Perhaps the reason that you can
so patronizingly "recognize the im-
portance" of some of our issues
is that you have never really con-
fronted any of our issues - that,
in fact, you are a blatant sexist -
so blatant that if anyone were so
blatant a racist you would un-
doubtedly (we infer from your let-
ter) want to off him or her.
WE MUST ultimately feel sor-
ry for you because in all your
macho militarist zeal (and with
all "your women" oppressedly be-
hind you) you may one day find
yourself offed. It takes some real
consciousness-raising and revolu-
tionary self-examination to under-
stand that you may not only be
oppressed but an oppressor as well.
Being black does not give you the
right to oppress anyone.
-Members of the Elizabeth
St. Gay Collective
To the Daily:
YOUR EDITORIAL regarding
Jack Garris' primary victory is
nothing more than wishful think-
ing. Your "proof" of the tactic of
"switching over" is very uncon-
vincing. Some switching doubtless
did occur by Democrat voters
whose political sensitivities are in
accord with those of Mr. Garris
and sincerely felt he would be the
best Republican candidate.
Whether Mr. Garris is victor-
ious in April is something the vot-
ers of the city of Ann Arbor will
have to decide. Mayor Harrisdhas
an absolutely appalling record to
many citizens of the city. He has
made every effort to appeal to
the fringe element among the stu-
dent body and thus is highly vul-
nerable politically. Because of
Mayor Harris' political ineptness,
the details of which will doubtless
be a subject of much discussion
during the next six weeks, M r.
Garris represents to many citizens
of Ann Arbor what liberals like to
refer to as a "viable alternative".
Mr. Garris' victory in the April
election will be a result of t h e
overwhelming support of voters
from both parties who have had
all they intend to take of Mayor
Harris' inabilities to maintain a
civilized quality of life in t h e
city. Incidentally, Mr. Garris' elec-
tion will not be only by the "Con-
servative Wing" of the Republican
party, although you can be sure
By. TAMMY JACOBS
"HAVE THOSE bags been checked, young ladies?" demanded the uni-
formed officer standing at the entrance to the Capitol Rotunda.
Was it my imagination, or was he looking more at our faded blue-
jeans and Michigan tee-shirts than at the apparently illegitimate shop-
"No sir, nobody told us they had to be checked." As a matter of
fact, I was surprised that we hadn't been stopped before this. There were
officers swarming all over the Capitol on this sunny day, a bit too late
to protect the awesome white building from the bomb that had exploded
the day before.
We had already passed several uniformed men. All they had done was
eye our typical-college-student outfits knowingly.
"Come this way." The officer led us to a small hallway to one side
of the Rotunda. There was a starkly empty desk in the hallway.
"Now," he said with the air of a detective about to grill a suspect,
"let's see what's in the bags."
"Why, certainly," I said as cheerily as possible. I held out my shop-
ping bag for his inspection.
He drew back, refusing to touch the bag. "Open it up," he demanded
suspiciously. "That's right, empty it onto the table."
I reached in to pull out the dress.
"What's that?" he asked. t
CAREFULLY restraining myself from verbalizing any one of the
dozen answers that came to mind (a second bomb, a giant phallus, 3.5
grams of good hash, Tricia Nixon), I decided that honesty would be the
"It's a dress.I bought it in Georgetown this morning. We went shop-
ping there before we came here. I'm going to wear it to my friends'
wedding. Isn't it pretty?"
He didn't seem to think so. After motioning for me to shake it out-
what did he expect to fall from its long skirt?-he continued the interro-
gation. "What else is in there?"
"Candles. I bought them in Georgetown too. See, this one's green,
and this one is blue, and these little ones are floating candles."
"Oh." Again, he didn't seem impressed. "What about the other bag?"
My friend pulled out two postcards. "These are postcards," she said
irrelevantly. "Here's the Washington Monument, and here's the Capi-
"All right, all right. What's in the box?"
IM NOT A MAU
C&IAU V1?JST PIE..
IM A MM, 4
E AL- HAV6 THE
4HE 60A S.
OU NU H1AWLUF
BUT WHAT I CAN'T UM9ERS7AAD
TO A CHN Ii 7H06 0A S-
k6J VI CT(US OF
(0T M TO )A
'Y CCMM WE
IT WAS A huge photograph of a cat's face. "It's a cat," she said,
displaying it for him to view. "It's for our friend Paul. His birthday's
coming up and we got this for him."
"We bought it in Georgetown, too." I was having fun. "See how its
eyes follow you?" I didn't want the officer to miss the artistic value of
our purchase. "It's a really farout photograph."
"Is that it?" he asked weakly. We nodded. "Okay, you can go now."