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.

March 16, 1971 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1971-03-16

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


ii1e Sfditg!n Da4
Eighty years of editorial freedom'
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

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. Th
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1971

is must be noted in all reprints.
NIGHT EDITOR: LARRY LEMPERT

On classified research

IT IS ALWAYS difficult to legislate
morality for an entire University
community, indeed for any community.
Yet there are times when those in a
position of authority have the respon-
sibility to cope with moral issues, par-
ticularly when the question has con-
siderably agitated and upset their con-
stituents.
Three years ago, Senate Assembly,
the representative body of the Univer-
sity's faculty, found iself in such a
situation on the issue of military and
classified research at this campus.
And in Spring, 1968, Assembly accepted
the principle that research "directed
toward means for the destruction of
human life or the impairment of hu-
man welfare is not consistent with the
values of a university."
Acting on Assembly's recommenda-
tion, the Regents prohibited University
researchers from engaging in pojects
whose "specific purpose . . . is to des-
troy human life or incapacitate human
beings."
To implement this policy, Senate As-
sembly appointed a committee to re-
view all proposals for classified re-
search. When the proposals violated
the Regents guidelines, the committee
was to prohibit the researcher from
agreeing to the proposed contract.
However, the committee, some of
whose members are actual participants
in classified research, has in fact re-
jected only one out of 199 proposals
made to it In its three-year existence.
As Michael Knox, one of only two stu-
dents on the committee, has said, "The
committee has become an ally rather
than a judge of the appropriateness of
classified research."
NOW, IN ,MARCH 1971, Senate As-
sembly'is finally being confronted
with the nature of the work that its
"watchdog" committee has allowed to
progress on this campus. And there is
mounting evidence that Assembly's
goals in setting up the committee have
not been realized.
Recently, the federal government be-
gan to remove some of the secrecy sur-
rounding the purpose of millions of
dollars of on-campus classified re-
search over the past several years; its
result: the Electronic Battlefield, a col-
lection of complex, advanced devices
which greatly enhance the effective-
ness of military weapons.
And there can be no doubt - indeed
the military will readily admit - that
the success of the federal government's
efforts has been heavily dependent on
classified research done at this Univer-
sity.
"In these areas," reports John Foster,
the Pentagon's director of defense re-
search and engineering, "the University
of Michigan has been continually at
the forefront of research, making im-
portant contributions to new develop-
ments and to the state of the art in
these areas."
Thus, despite the Regents 1968 guide-
lines, University researchers have con-
tinued to receive costly contracts from
the Department of Defense for the
development of complex devices used
by our armed forces to locate and des-
troy "belligerents."
Quite understandably, this disclosure
has caused agitation within the Uni-
versity community. Senate Assembly
reopened discussion of the issue yes-
terday, and will be asked to take some
stand on the question at a meeting to-
night.
WE FIRMLY believe that Assembly
should reaffirm its 1968 position
that research directed at killing or im-

pairing- human welfare is not consist-
ent with the values of a university.
To this end, we urge Assembly to
consider recommending to the Regents
a ban on all reseach which is classified.
The arguments against the presence
of secret research at the University
extend far beyond the mere fact that
most military research is classified.
Whatever its nature, secret research is
inconsistent with the principles of an
academic community, for several rea-
sons.
First, the aim of research at a uni-

searcher and his sponsor. When a fa-
culty member signs a research con-
tract which required him to sequester
his results, he is no longer able to ful-
fill the educational function of re-
search, and might as well be working
for a private firm, not as a member of
a university community.
Secondly, secret research is incon-
sistent with the principles of academic
freedom so important to the dynamics
of a university. The right to academic
freedom entitles members of the com-
munity to absorb and intellectually
benefit from the endeavors of other
members of the community. When re-
search is kept secret, however, t h i s
freedom is infringed upon.
Some argue that a ban on secret re-
search would violate the academic
freedom of the small number of faculty
members who engage in such research.
But they themselves are asking to be
exempted from the most important
precept which an academic institution
thrives upon - openness, and the re-
sponsibility of each individual to share
his knowledge with others.
Third, the restriction of a scientific
endeavor to the scrutiny of only a few
people is a grave violation of the scien-
tific method, which educational in-
stitutions should seek to foster. For a
scientific problem to be solved with any
degree of assuredness, the researcher
must receive feedback from his col-
leagues, both at the University and at
other institutions.
The accuracy of his data, the correct-
ness of his hypotheses, and the validity
of his conclusions are dependent upon
multiple input into his experimenta-
tion. When a man's research is classi-
fied, of course, the rest of the academic
community is barred from evaluating
his investigation, and from applying it
to their own research.
The University, at the will of the
U.S. government, has thus subjugated
many of the ideals .to which it should
be committed. For an institution which
should remain distinct and unbridled
in its ability to criticize and evaluate
its society, a policy which undermines
its independence and inhibits the aca-
demic process is grievious.
IF THE VERY existence of this rela-
tionship between the University
and the government is odious, however,
an even more compelling argument
against classified research is that it
makes the University part of the mili-
tary establishment which enforces this
country's foreign policy.
By virtue of its research, the Univer-
sity aids the government in waging
better wars, in killing and maiming
more effectively - all as part of an
effort to maintain our world-wide mili-
tary posture and our economic domina-
tion of other nations and peoples.
It is becoming increasingly import-
ant that the faculty take cognizance of
the large number of community mem-
bers who are violently opposed to this
foreign policy. In the eleventh year of
American involvement in the Indo-
china war, in the tenth month after
the invasion of Cambodia, in the
second month since the invasion of
Laos, a growing majority of the com-
munity finds it difficult to accept the
idea that the University is a prime
instrument in these endeavors.
IN RECOGNITION of the relationship
between classified research and
U.S. foreign policy, and with the un-
derstanding that secret research in it-
self violates the principles of academia,
we urge Senate Assembly to seek a
broadening of the current University

policy to clearly and effectively pro-
hibit researchers from accepting con-
tracts whose purpose is to facilitate the
death and incapacitation of h u m a n
beings.
To do this, we feel it imperative that
military and c a s s ifiedresearch
be barred from the University.
Bearing in mind that many well-re-
spected universities have taken such
action - including Harvard, Yale,
Stanford, Berkeley, Wisconsin, Michi-
gan State, Indiana, Minnesota, Iowa,
and Northwestern - Senate Assembly

"Backing out of the Saloon"

U.S. Army ads sell
new military image
By LYNN WEINER
ULNCLE SAM, the Army's star-spangled symbol of tradition and
authority, has become one of the first casualties in the bombard-
ment of the hot and cold media by the hot and cold war people.
The familiar "I want you" recruiting poster leads the body-count
in the U.S. Army's current 10.6 million dollar ad campaign to attract r
new enlistees. The message "Today's Army wants you" superimposed
over the image of a long-haired, cow-eyed soldier, has become instead
the keynote slogan.
Despite Marine Corps reservations last week that the ads will
damage recruiting effort of other service branches, the Army has
initiated a massive 13-week
radio ,and television promo-
tional package to saturate
prime-time slots with a n e w "
"soft" image.
The revised poster slogan
is central to what the N. W.
Ayer and Son advertising
agency, which had handled the
Army account since World War
II, calls a "concern for individ-
ual expression and changing
life styles."
The Army has, in this con-
cern, ordered references to
Vietnam deleted in its ad pitch,
and has also killed references
to new relaxed discipline and
haircut policies.
An Army spokesman explains
that officials fear an enlistee
attracted by a liberal b a s e
portrayed in the media might I
be assigned a post where inno-
vations are not in effect.
The "soft" image has been battling on prime network space since
March 1 with beer and car commercials. Perhaps the Army believes
it must counter-attack those dreary news broadcasts which so graphi-
cally expose side effects of Army employment.
These side effects, such as My Lai, may soon result in FCC
legislation requiring Army ads to caution that military actions often 4
constitute hazards to one's health.
THE SCOPE of the Army ad campaign, according to the Associat-
ed Press, has greatly surprised
the Office of the Secretary of
Defense. A defense official, ap-
V prehensive of a future inter-
service ad war, last week barred
further military contracts for
paid radio and television time
until the Army program is
evaluated.
The present contract, though,
extends until June, when t h e
selective service act is up for
congressional renewal. T h e
draft is expected to be extended
for two more years, after
which an all-volunteer A r m y
will be raised. Presumably, in-
creased recruitment statistics
may convince a hesitant Con-
gress that the volunteer army
can re realistically achieved.
After two more years of the
draft, however. And after the
expenditure of 10:6 mii o n
dollars to hawk the Army's
wares.
"ADS WILL HELP any product- sell," an Ann Arbor military
spokesman claims, and ads on prime time slots sell more than odd-
hour public service spaces. The Army has, apparently for this reason
chosen to pay networks going rates for prime time commercials,
upping its advertising allotment seven million dollars from last year.
The new, 1971-model Army gently asks periission of the recruit to
enter his life, through ads promising "concern for individual expression
and changing life styles."
Uncle Sam was more honest. He wanted you, he could get you,
and he directly appealed to the patriotic, "masculine" ideals which
the Army, whether draft or volunteer, actualizes.
Poor Sam. It's a competitive world, and when they ran him
up the flagpole, no one saluted.

Letters to The Daily

Election circulars
To The Daily:
I'VE GOTTEN used, during the
last few weeks, to finding my rail-
box stuffed with Jack Garris elec-
tion circulars,. all tricked out in
colorful red and blue ink on a white
ground. But as I have read through
the monotonous qualifications and
traditional platitudes, I have found
it increasingly hard to recognize
that Jack Garris whom we al
know and love; that Jack Garris
who once announced in a public
meeting that sex was un-American
and rock music was a Communist
plot to rot our minds.
No, that Jack Garris has ap-
parently gone under the rug, a vic-
tim of mayoral image-makers at
least till election day. Only once
in these ads does he appear in his
familiar pose, leading a parade of
beer-sodden fellow citizens who loft
signs proclaiming: "They want a
street? Give them the ;utter!" An
amiable crowd, no doubt.
This rubbishy propaganda had
at most a mild amusement value;
not till Friday last did I first won-
der if something might be in it
after all. Imagine my surprise
when the morning Daily brought
within my purview a pro=Garris
letter written by one John A. Clark;
who (as it emerged) is chairman
of the department of mechanical
engineering. Now Garris-ites are
exceedingly rare in the faculty, as
indeed among all people who have
read a daily newspaper in the last
several years. Aha (I exulted, an

alone-this last a quality greatly
intelligent man who dares to walk
prized at universities and mental
asylums.
Alas, it was not to be. Though
the letter was composed in <a sort
of dispeptic patois, I think that I
got its main points. Mayor Harris
is accused of an "appeal to the
fringe element among the student
bodyf' whatever in the world that
means. He is unable "to maintain
a civilized quality of life in the
city" (sic). This failure appaiently
explains what Dr. Clark terms "the
rapidly disintegrating civil environ-
ment in Ann Arbor." To all this
wooly bombast I can only reply,
well yes, but at' least the military
environment's still topnotch.
NOT THAT I'm apathetic after
my perusal; lordee no. The pros-
pect of Jack Garris and his Merry
Men stalking in the wings is now
more frightening than ever; and
Mayor Harris can be bloody sure
that a tidy bundle from me already
awaits him at campaign headquar-
ters. But maybe that's what the
letter was all about in the first
place. I
--Prof. Bruce W. Frier
Dept. of Classical Studies
Mar. 13
Garris' victory
To The Daily:
I HAVE BEEN dismayed by in-
dications I have had recently that
much of the student body feels
Harris will easily defeat Garris

and that the upcoming election ;s
a ho-hum affair. Your editorial
suggesting that Garris' victory was
due to liberal Democrats crossing
over to secure an easily-defeatable
opponent for Harris was especially
upsetting.
True, some Democrats did vote
for Garris in the primary. But, as
anyone who has been talking to
voters lately must realize, many
of these will also vote for Garris
in the April election. They believe
in him. Many Democrats support
the kind of "stamp the students,
hippies, and revolutionaries" men-
tality he represents.
Those of us in the fourth and fifth
wards are very conscious of that
fact and very worried about the
election. We are especially con-
cerned in light of low student regis-
trations and less student support
than a vigorous and able mayor
like Bob Harris deserves. His ef-
forts to meet the problems Ann Ar-
bor faces have been light-years
ahead of the non-efforts offered by
the backward-looking Republicans,
whose concern seemed to he pri-
marily for the local businessman,
or the repressive approach Garris
and friends would surely usher in.
STUDENTS DO have a stake in
this election. If things sometimes
seem bad now, it's nothing comn-
pared to what they well might be
next year. And students can make
the difference. Do remember to
vote April 5.
-Kirsten Kingdon
Mar. 4

False advertising: Weapon against ARM?

EDITOR'S NOTE: The following
is a statement of ARM (American
Revolutionary Media) Ann Arbor
Collective.
(8:30 a.m. SATURDAY, March
13, 1971 Ann Arbor) -
"Hello."
"Hello. Have you seen today's
issue of The Daily?"
"No.'"
"Well, you should really take a
look at it. It will explain this tel-
ephone call. You are ARM. We
are DisARM. We are g o i n g to
smash you."
(Laughter.)
"Seriously, you are guerrillas;
we are anti-guerrillas. We live in
Markley Hall, a n d you'd better
not put any leaflets for the film
up there. It won't do you any good.
We'll just tear them down. Some
of our members are in the Persh-
ing Rifles. We're going to smash
you. That's all I have to say."
(click.)
ARM / Michigan - American
Revolution Media - is a collec-
tive of nine white Americans, pri-
marily engaged in media work.
In A n n Arbor, we derive our
basic subsistence from the work
we do for the film series of the
University of Michigan Film So-
ciety, a recognized student-com-
munity organization. Some of you
have come to our "dollar double
bills," the cheapest regular series
in town. We do our best to make
the series meaningful and enjoy-
able, in terms we hope we share
with you. We work hard design-
ing, electrostencilling and produc-
ing leaflets and getting them all
over campus and into the com-
munity; and we try to do good
projection of the films.

celled leaflets, but audiences were
small. We lost something m o r e
than $100 on a high-rental dou-
ble bill.
Later in the week, brother Doug
at the Argus told us he had seen
three short-hairs cancelling in a
similar manner leaflets for the
Tenants Union benefit screening
of "Cool Hand Luke."
At that point, we deduced that
we had been attacked by some
right-wing political opposition,
this being the only logical moti-
vation for the two targets.
This weekend, The Daily was
printing again, so we placed a
medium-sized display ad for a
Josef von Sternberg double bill:
"Saga of Anathan" and "Shang-
hai Express" with Marlene Die-
trich and May Wong. The ad was
supposed to run Thursday, Friday
and Saturday for screenings Fri-
day and Saturday. It ran Thurs-
day, did not appear Friday, and
Saturday, the day of the call, a
slightly larger display ad appear-
ed, announcing the films had been
cancelled and postponed.
IT NOW APPEARS that can-
cellation ad was placed by Dis-

ARM. We're out money again, for
the Thursday ad in the Daily, and
for the films. But that's ok.
We figured DisARM has over-
played its hand. We figure that an
overwhelming majority of decent
people - many more than reg-
ularly come to our films - will
disapprove of DisARM, and do
what they can to neutralize them.
ARM is a small collective - nine
women and men in all, five reg-
ularly in Ann Arbor. We are com-
mitted (existentially) more than
either politically/culturally to de-
velop ourselves and our example
of Liberation through Self-Deter-
mination for some masses of peo-
ple, in media practice.
That project is as surely t h e
basis of the film series as of our
more obviously "political" work:
leaflets and radio for the Black
Action Movement strike 1 a s t
spring, and for the Black Eco-
nomic Development League-Wel-
fare Rights Organization last fall;
China Week here in January and
China Report last weekend in
Lansing - East Lansing a n d
Grand Rapids; newspaper and
multimedia work for the People's
Peace in Indochina.

So it should be clear we intend
to be revolutionaries, "extreme
leftists," if you like, working for
a world revolution against U.S.
imperialism, led by Third World
peoples and necessarily involving
white Americans. And it should
be clear that we advocate that
revolution "by any means neces-
sary" - ARM.
But almost regardless of how
you relate to the practical exam-
ple of our politics, we believe that
we can find common cause with
you in effectively opposing Dis-
ARM and its blatnntly illegal at-
tacks on us and the Tenants Un-
ion.
There are significant bodies of
armed right-wing militants as
close to Ann Arbor as Dexter and
other towns. There is significant
coherence and coordination among
right-wing groups in Michigan, in-
volving - the Ku Klux Kla n
(2,000 members in Michigan, ac-
cording to ABC News), John Birch
Society, Breakthrough, etc., in the
Statecraft political action front.
Whether DisARM's reference to
the Pershing Rifles represents a
practical threat of direct armed

violence, or whether t h e y are
meiely daydreaming their old
men's fantasies of fascist heroism
matters little. The threat and the
fact of reactionary armed violence
function identically to intimidate.
Not us. Because, while we are pri-
marily revolutionary media work-
ers, and not "guerrillas," we are
prepared to encounter and with-
stand DisARM and its ideological
fathers by any means necessary.
But to intimidate the people's
movement for meaningful. social
change, for world liberation, jus-
tice and peace. To intimidate you.
If it proves practically ,impos-
sible, because of right-wing ha-
rassment, for us to operate a ser-''
ies of Hollywood, European and
Asian fiction feature films, and
for you to have the option of at-
tending them, things are v e r y
much farther gone toward fasc-
ism than any of us would be com-
fortable to recognize. But it will
not prove so.
Trust ARM leaflets. They have
a clearly identifiably clean, elec-
trostencil - mimeograph appear-
ance. Anything we have to say, in-
cluding cancellations, will be ma-
chine printed, and it will not have
the peace symbol appended. That
was simply a ploy to divide usp
from our sisters and brothers in
struggle to end t h a t genocidal
war now. Similarly, with the help
of the Daily, it should now be im-
possible for DisARM to place ads
in our name.
Beyond that, we as an authen-.
tic film society, and for that mat-
ter as a revolutionary collective,
are open to your support and par-
ticipation.
AcA. m~inmum.don't disARM.

I

I

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan