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