At

......... ..... .

gIr Mirtk3n faiiw
Eighty years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

deep greens and blues
Justice in Ann Arbor-A dog's ife

4


by larry lempert

1420 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.

THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1971

NIGHT EDITOR: ROBERT SCHREINERI


The research debate

THE VOICES heard most frequently
during Senate Assembly's Tuesday
night session on classified research were
those of researchers. Their presentations
clearly illustrated a new version of an old
adage - as war is too important a matter
to be left to generals, so military research
is too important to be left to the research-
ers.
In general, the researchers strove to de-
politicize the issue and to emphasize the
inoffensiveness of their work. Well, yes,
they said, some projects do happen to be
classified, and well, yes, the Defense De-
partment has the money so we go to them
for contracts. But, look - look at the
applications. of our work to civilian life.
A series of articles published in this
newspaper - whose essential facts have
gone unchallenged - has amply demon-
strated the direct relationship between
research done at this University and the
technology used by American forces in
the Indochina War. Yet, since we do not
actually develop guns and napalm here,
researchers can claim that their work
does not actually destroy human life.
THE RESEARCHERS' pathetic attempts
to ignore the relationship between
what they do and how their work fits in
with overall government plans, has a
familiar ring.
Finding it painful to accept evidence
that they are aiding in an enterprise not
enjoying general approval, those who are
not it's convinced supporters. and yet will
not disengage themselves from it must
make some adjustment to explain their
role - both to themselves and to others.
If they cannot deny the nature of the

enterprise, they will deny the offensive-
ness of their role in it. Well, sure, I work-
ed at Buchenwald. But I just drove the
gas to the chambers - who could say
what it was being used for? I just cleaned
their blankets. I disposed of their val-
uables. I took away the eyeglasses and
gold teeth. I didn't destroy human life.
I'm a good man.
It must be clearly faced - by the re-
searchers and by the University commun-
ity as a whole - that military research
being done here aids in the execution of
U.S. government policies which have at-
tempted and still attempt to suppress re-
volutionary movements at various points
throughout the world, most notably in
Indochina.
Those researchers who are honest
enough with themselves to see the results
of Defense -Department research, often
defend the University's co-operation with
the military. Here the battle can be
openly and honestly joined. Do we regard
the continued co-operation of this Uni-
versity with the military policies of the
United States tolerable?
THIS IS THE crucial issue. Whether or
not classified research, per se, is ap-
propriate to our ideal of a University, this
question remains. Military research done
at this University - the most obnoxious
of which is classified - plays a signifi-
cant role in developing the technology
used by American forces in Indochina.
Will the student body and the faculty al-
low this to continue?
--STEVE KOPPMAN
Editorial Page Editor

Justice and the American Way Dept.:
I think the Ann Arbor police had been
looking for something to do ever since
Officer L. gave me a ticket for going the
wrong way on a one-way street on a
bicycle.
(I was riding along peacefully, straddling
the center line between two lanes of on-
coming traffic, when he flagged me over.
I was surprised and I even felt sorry for
him, writing out a ticket to a freak sitting
on a bicycle with five people looking on
and laughing.)
But I paid my $9 and the guardians of
justice once again lapsed into boredom.
And that must be why they decided to is-
sue a warrant for Bob's arrest.
I don't really know Bob, I just met him
once. But he impressed me then as being
very likeable. He wasn't a complicated
person but there was a sense of searching
inside that edged through the easy-going
outside. He wasn't searching when I talk-
ed to him, though, he was just smiling.
"There was actually a warrant out for
your arrest?" I asked him.
"YOU SEE, there's a big black dog
named Active," he began. "The owner
lives in the house next door to me, but
he doesn't keep a real close watch on
him or anything. He kind of runs wild. The
dog, that is."
He spoke slowly, with that slight Ann
Arbor drawl of resignation mixed with
humor that comes from studying for years
and getting nothing out of it. Bob was
realizing, in the last term of his senior
year, that he had no interest whatsoever
in his physics major and was wondering
what to do with himself.
"Well, there's another dog named Peace.

"And he started to write out a ticket,
right there. It was," and Bob paused for
a second, "Section 9-47. The back of the
ticket said I could pay or appear in court.
I was going to demand a jury trial.."
"I was going to do that," I broke in,
"when I got a ticket for going the wrong
way on a one-way street on a bicycle!"
"But I got in touch with the owner and
he promised to pay the violation. I said
OK, gave him the ticket and forgot all
about it. That was my mistake - I
should have kept it in my own hands."
Bob leaned back. "I came home one day,
over a month later, and I found a note on
my door from one of my roommates. It said
to get out of town fast, there's a warrant.
out for your arrest." He sighed, stopped for
a moment, then continued. "I didn't know
whether to go in or not - I thought it
might be an ambush.
"I went to Legal Aid the next morning.
They told me to see the owner again and
to avoid the police. That was Friday. I
went to see G., the owner, but his brother-
in-law said G. was in New York City.
"'THAT'S FINE," I said. 'He's in New
York City and there's a warrant out for my
arrest because I let his dog into my
house.'
"The brother-in-law didn't want to talk
to me when he heard I was a fugitive. But
that night he came over with some money
from G. I stayed in my room for the
weekend, then went and paid the violation
Monday morning.There were no exciting
chases with lots of police cars and sirens or
anything like that.
"But since then Active chases cop cars
all the time, and even dogcatchers, and

does all sorts of great things. He's a real
smart dog."
Moments of Communication Dept.:
The woman with gray hair who walks
down S. Division St. - itisn't so much
what she says, it's how she says it. She
never prefaces her remarks, she just stops
and speaks.
She's pretty old and her voice has a
friendly eccentricity to it. Once I was
walking down S. Division (walking because
I never ride my bicycle there - it's one-
way and I got a ticket once for going the
wrong way) and I saw her coming toward
me, carrying a bag of groceries. She stop-
ped, held up her finger to make her point,
looked straight at me and said, "I didn't
think it was going to get this cold." Then
she walked on.

,+

Peace taught Active how to chase cars and
now sits on the steps and watches. Active
learned fast, so fast that somebody finally
reported him.
"I was about to go to class one morn-
ing when I heard a terrible racket out-
side. Active was barking his head off at a
police jeep parked across the street. I
thought it would be a whole lot quieter
if I just let him inside. So I did. That's
how I got the violation."
"JUST FOR letting him inside?"
"Yup. Dog-at-large, the policeman said.
He was large, I'll admit, but I didn't see
what difference that made. 'Officer,' I said,
'he's not my dog.' t
"'It doesn't matter,' he told me, and he
pulled out a tablet from his back pocket.
'You're harboring him.'"

10

Judicial plan:

Whtswrong, what's right.

Abortion: A woman's choice

LAST SATURDAY, a primarily female
group of 1,500 persons marched at the
state capitol, demanding the repeal of
existing abortion laws.
For a long. time, persons favoring the
repeal of laws regulating what they con-
sider private matters have been arguing
that it is impossible to legislate morality.
In recent years, doing away with so-
called crimes without victims h a s be-
come a campaign promise heard more
and more often from persons expressing
varying political beliefs. Y e t, deciding
which "crimes" do and do' not have vic-
tims is not easy.
With reference to abortion, the desig-
nation of criminal and victim is the sub-
ject of much emotional debate. A group
calling itself the "right to life," champ-
ions the right of unborn babies whose
lives would presumably be endangered
were current abortion laws repealed.
But is it not hypocritical to argue for
the right to life of an unwanted child who
will not be given the care and attention
that every child should have?
Regardless of one's beliefs about the
morality of abortion, it is hardly fair to
women that predominantly male legisla-
tures make the decision on abortion's le-
gality. Nor does it seem just for the un-
wanted children born each year. It seems

least fair for the women who die each
year from illegally performed and self-in-
duced abortions, and as suicides stem-
ming from unsuccessful abortion at-
tempts.
A LEGISLATOR'S personal beliefs on
abortion need not determine his vote
on that issue. Voting in favor of repeal-
ing the present law need not indicate
personal approval of abortion. Rather, it
should indicate that every woman must
have the right to control her own body,
her own life. Abortion should be c o n-
strued as a private moral matter, not a
public legal matter.
Women are dying because of the pres-
ent system - a harshly discriminatory
system which enables rich women to ar-
range for expensive illegal or o u t-of-
state abortions, but requires poorer wo-
men to suffer the consequences of both
their ignorance and societal sanctions.
THE PRESENT LAWS burden society by
allowing unwanted births in an al-
ready overpopulated world, unwanted
births that lead to improperly cared -for
children. How much longer will it be be-
fore we have an equitable abortion sys-
tem?
--ROSE SUE BERSTEIN

By MICHAEL DAVIS
Daily Guest Writer
Michael Davis, a doctoral candi-
date in philosophy, is a member of
the Committee on a Permanent
Judiciary.
HERE'S AN IRONY in the way
the faculty, administration,
and regents (our established pow-
ers) responded to the proposal of
the (student-faculty-administra-
tion) Committee on a Permanent
Judiciary (COPJ). That irony tells
something about what's wrong
with the University and r i g h t
with the proposal.
COPJ proposed a complex ju-
dicial system to hear a11 cases
arising under University Council
rules (rules which govern students,
faculty, and administrators equal-
ly). COPJ argued that any Uni-
versity judicial system has to meet
four criteria to deserve adoption.
The system has a) to be fair, b)
to work with reasonable speed, c)
to be unlikely itself to become a
source of serious conflict within
the University community, and d)
to win initial acceptance (if not
acclaim) from all significant ele-
ments of that community.
COPJ argued that its proposal
satisfied criteria a) a n d b) by
guaranteeing a high level of judi-
cial fairness to all parties coming
before it; that it satisfied criter-
ion c) by guaranteeing that high
level of judicial fairness in a cer-
tain way; and that the proposal
should satisfy criterion d) because
it demonstrably satisfied the oth-
er three.
The response to the COPJ pro-
posal has, on the whole, b e e n
friendly. Criticism has been intel-
ligent, thoughtful, and restrained.
Only concerning three aspects
of the proposal has there been
seemingly thoughtless carping.
Those three aspects are 1) the
role of the President of the Uni-
versity in choosing members of
the judicial system, 2) the unan-
imity rule for jury decision on
guilt, and 3) the composition and
voting rules of the procedural

panel (the part of the trial court
making procedural ruling).
THE ESTABLISHED powers ac-
cepted, with surprisingly little op-
position, provisions of the COPJ
proposal designed to give students,
faculty andadministrators a fair
trial. (I have in mind provisions
like trial by jury of peers, the per-
manent trial court independent of
any single element of the Univer-
sity community, lay supervision of
the outside presiding expert, and
appeal from decisions of the trial
court.)
Yet, though now evidently will-
ing to give up efforts to create a
machine f o r expelling students,
t h e established powers rejected
procedures which - while unlike-
ly to interfere much with fairness
or speed - reduce substantially
the likelihood that the new ju-
dicial system will itself become a
source of serious conflict (criter-
ion c). The established powers
seem to have rejected those pro-
cedures out of an honest inability
to understand them.
And that is ironic, because
COPJ proposed to satisfy criter-
ion c) by giving the new judicial
system authority (that is, a struc-
ture evoking the respect of those
observing or participating in it).
What makes that rejection ironic
is t h a t the established powers
seem unable to recognize author-
ity - or, at least, the means for
assuring it - though they're the
established powers of an institu-
tion traditionally governed almost
entirely by authority.
WHY HAVE the established
powers rejected those aspects of
the COPJ proposal providing for
the authority of the judicial sys-
tem? We'll see how to answer that
question if we consider, even
briefly, some arguments the es-.
tablished powers made against
the three aspects of t h e COPJ
proposal mentioned before, to-
gether with the COPJ responses.
FIRST ASPECT. The COPJ
proposal carefully avoided giving
the President of t h e University

any role in the appointment of
any member of the judicial sys-
tem. T h e established powers
claimed that the President should,
if ordinary procedures of appoint-
ment failed, be able to fill any
vacancy caused by such failure.
They argued that the President
was the one man who could be
counted on to act quickly and fair-
ly when ordinary procedures fail-
ed.
COPJ admitted the n e e d for
some extraordinary procedure for
filling a vacancy when ordinary
procedures failed (and h a d so
provided in its proposal). COPJ
also admitted, for the sake of ar-
gument at least, that the Presi-
dent would probably not act
slowly or unfairly in an emergen-
cy. Nevertheless, COPJ contended
that the President should not fill
a court vacancy under, any cir-
cumstances. It should not even.
seem possible, COPJ argued, that
a defendant could come before a
court the membership of which
had been picked by the complain-
ant. Since the President is likely
to be a complainant (either ac-
tually or implicitly) in most diffi-
cult cases heard by the University
judicial system, the system would
be stronger if it were not even
possible for the President to
choose members.
SECOND ASPECT. COPJ pro-.
posed that the jury always decide
guilt (or innocence) by unanimous
vote. The established powers ar-
gued that unanimity was unnec-
essary (because there's nothing
inherently fairer about deciding
by unanimity rather than, say, by
majority) and inefficient (because
the unanimity requirement in-
creases the likelihood of a hung
jury).
COPJ countered a) that t h e
likelihood of a hung jury is small
anyway (judging by the rarity of
hung juries even in complex civil
proceedings), b) that the trial
court would look less like a crude
disciplinary device if it followed
the strict (and commonly accept-
ed) vote of the criminal jury, and
c) that a unanimous decision

would carry more weight in the
University community than would
a decision by a bare majority (and
in the difficult case, the addition-
al weight might make considerable
difference in how the decision was
received).
THIRD ASPECT. COPJ propos-
ed to experiment with the form
of the procedural panel. The trial
court was to operate for the first
six months with a panel composed
of an outside legal expert (presid-
ing), one student, and one faculty1
member (1-1-1). For the second
six months, the panel was to be'
composed of the presiding legal
expert, two peers of the defendant
(that is, two students if the de-
fendant is. a student, two faculty
if the defendant is a faculty mem-
ber or administrator), and o n e
other person not peerdof the de-
fendant '(1-2-1). All decisions of
the 1-1-1 panel were to be by.ma-
jority vote of the three, with two
exceptions: There had to be a
unanimous vote a) to exclude evi-
dence or b) to exclude a party to
the case from the courtroom. A:1
decisions of the 1-2-1 panel were
to be by majority vote, the legal
expert having no-vote.
The established powers found
the unanimity rule (for exclusion
of evidence or parties) unaccept-
able. Their arguments stressed
simplicity of procedure, the prac-
tice of arbitration panels, and the
good sense of following a legal ex-
pert in the doubtful case. The es-
tablished powers found the whole
1-2-1 panel so silly (that is, over-
loaded with students) they hardly
bothered to argue against it at all.
COPJ explained that both panel
forms are supposed to do the same
thing and that the experiment is
to see which will do it better. Both
forms are supposed to keep the
procedural panel from looking like
a conspiracy against the defen-
dant. The rule of unanimity (for
exclusion of evidence or parties)
is to do for the 1-1-1 panel what'
apportionment is to do for the 1-
2-1 panel; namely, to assure that
at least one of the defendant's
peers votes on the prevailing side
when the court decides to exclude
evidence or exclude the defendant
from the courtroom (when, say,
he has made it impossible for wit-
nesses to be heard).
COPJ w a s trying to solve a
practical problem: finding a
method of procedural decision
that would not, in the excitement
of a trial, provoke a participant
or observer to do something ev-
eryone might later regret, a meth-
od of decision that would demand

the respect of those involved in
the proceeding.
WHAT DO ALL these arguments
have in common? In each argu-
ment, t h e established powers
considered only efficiency and
outcome, while COPJ considered
as well the feelings of those in-
volved 1in the process as it en-
gaged their attention.
Though they may no longer
think of the judicial 'system as a,
machine of expulsion, the estab-
lished powers still think of it as of
machine of some sort, that is, as a
device operating on passive mater-
ial to produce something (in this
case, a decision). They don't un-
derstand that a court, like any
other institution, is a structure
appearing TO people as well as a
structure of objective relations
among people; that it's the ap-
pearances that most directly. affect
people's actions (especially their
spontaneous actions); a n d that
therefore a n y court constructed
without providing for people's
feelings is probably not going to
survive its first difficult case
(without being discredited by the
use of outside force).
Consider the trial of the Chica-
go Eight (1969): The trial record
contained no legal error substan-
tial enough to earn reversal of
either the riot convictions or the
contempt convictions. We m u s t r.
conclude then, that the fairness
of each individual decision Judge
Hoffman made is at least argu-
able. Nevertheless, because of the
way Judge Hoffman carried him-
self (because of what he seemed
to be), he was given to use force
continually to' keep order in his
court. Without authority, that de-
cent enough old man c a m e to
symbolize the failure of justice in
America.
AND THIS BRINGS me back
to what's wrong with the Univer,
sity. The established powers (es-
pecially the administration a n d q'
regents) suppose that it's enough
to do what's right (or, more ex-
actly, to do what t h e y feel is
right), whether the rest of the
University community agrees or
not. They don't understand how
the old procedures f o r 'deciding
once gave their decisions author-
ity, why those procedures no long-
er do that, or that the established
powers have had to use force in-
creasingly because t h e y haven't
found new authoritative proce-
dures.
They act like scoundrels, expect-
ing us to wait indifferently until4
time proves them right. But, of
course, we don't.


1I

t ( p
.T
Owl
,,''f

_ .


x

Letters to The Daily


~ ri:
'
/ r'
F
i
r
//
{

1
' '
' '
;
;

Apartheid
To the Daily:
I HAVE BEEN following the re-
cent controversy on campus con-
cerning the South African ques-
tion. The thing that really bothers
me is that no one really gets into
the ,issues on the basis of facts. I
have personally been utterly frus-
trated in finding anyone on cam-
pus who has even the foggiest no-
tion of what is going on "down
there." I hear an endless incanta-
tion of cliches about racism but,
whenever I introduce some im-
partial discussion based on current
facts, my. potential listener scit-
ters away. I have written several
letters to The Daily, attempting to
flush out the arguments with
some facts but I wonder if most
people don't just react rather than
thin4 nhni .f- h-P rm e+n

blacks of South Africa, no mat-
ter how transient or superficial, is
the "correct" approach. The ten-
dency seems to be to consider ex-
clusively the political ambitions of
the tribal blacks currently living
within the national boundaries of
South Africa. It is almost com-
pletely overlooked that people
other than blacks also have legiti-
mate political claims within t h e
Republic. The Afrikaaners of
Dutch descent and, indeed, t h e
English-speaking people there,
also know no other home and are
just as much Africans as the Zu-
lus. If they were not white, I won-
der if we would have ever heard
of them. It would be no more rea-
sonable to dismiss their claim as
Africans than to dismiss the claim
of the American blacks to t h e i r
rights in this country. Further-
more, let us not forget the 1.5 mil-

boycott and to further isolate
South Africa would have the im-
mediate effect of further en-
trenching the system there, rather
than weakening it. Instead of
treating the white tribes of South
Africa as people who should be
punished and humiliated, perhaps
it would make more sense to try
to understand the cultural and
historical aspects of their dilem-
ma. Perhaps they also have t h e
right to maintain their own cul-
tural identity within their o w n
national homeland also. To com-
pletely boycott South- Africa can
only cause the most extreme hard-
ship to the blacks there.
I would like to suggest that the
biggest single threat to the South
African system of Apartheid is
continuing contact with reason-
able and informed men and wo-

I

RI

I