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


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.

October 06, 1970 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1970-10-06

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

9i4e 3iryigan Daily
Eighty years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

the unreformed source
Same old song... with

a different meaning
by jun nenuacher

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-05521

Editorials printed in The Michigan Doily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.



LSA governing proposal:
A misdirected effort'

EFFORTS TO ALTER the oligarchial
character of decision-making at uni-
versities have become almost an institu-
tionalized theme of academia.
Each year, the dialogue between stu-
dents seeking a berth in their campus
hierarchy, and those who comprise that
hierarchy, continues, with new proposals,
new debates, but a similar response from
the institution: The input of student
ideas is acceptable, but the final decision
must be ours.
Thus, the tone and orientation of aca-
demic life has remained under the aegis of
the faculties, and to a lesser extent, the
university administrations. And one
would be fooling himself if he thought
this situation was apt to change in the
forseeable future: T h e r e just aren't
enough people a m o n g the faculty, or
among the students, who feel any real
antipathy to the status quo.
HERE AT THE University, some sembl-
ance of democratization can be found
within a few of the 18 schools and col-
But that is all it is-a semblance. For
while students have, over the past few
years, been seated on a variety of com-
mittees which were formerly composed
entirely of faculty members, the ultimate
power to legislate requirements, admis-
sions policies, and other policy matters
remains a function of the faculty. And
the power to administer these decisions
is usually held by the dean and, in most
cases, an executive committee composed
primarily or entirely of faculty members.
Thus, the institution of bi-partite com-
mittees has served merely to allow ar
interchange of ideas; it has not touched
the mechanism which determines wheth-
er or not to implement those ideas.
THIS TERM, however, the government
of the University's largest unit, the
literary college, will be the subject of an
effort toward democratization, as the LSA
More bad news
for smokers
more bad news if they are the type
who worry about the possibility of cancer.
The fancy new filters made of exotic sub-
stances such as asbestos, glass fibers,
rockwool and diatomite-which supposed-
ly take out harmful tars and nicotine-
may themselves be toxic, according to
consumer advocate Ralph Nader.
Nader has accused the tobacco indus-
try of trying to shield the public from
knowledge of its jeopardy from the filter
Tests are presently being conducted on
cigarette additives at the American Can-
cer S o c i e t y and the Environmental
Sciences Laboratory of Mount Sinai Hos-
pital in New York City, where an official
says, "it would be a devastating discovery"
if Nader's claims that asbestos is being
inhaled by smokers proves conclusive... .
NADER HAS a reputation for being con-
-L. C.

faculty considers a proposal to grant a
vague amount ,of legislative power to a
college-wide assembly, which would seat
equal numbers of students and faculty
Although viewed by some students as a
far-reaching inroad into the college's
governing mechanism, the proposal con-
tains a number of provisions designed to
prevent it from undercutting the tradi-
tional governing powers of the faculty.
First, any proposal adopted by the
assembly could be nullified by a simple
resolution of the faculty. In addition, the
faculty could continue to meet regularly,
and take actions which would supercede
those passed by the student-faculty body.
Given these qualifications, the assem-
bly's actions stand to become nothing
more than proposals to the faculty, and
the assembly itself becomes nothing more
than a glorified committee - there to
gather input, not to effect a decision.
To be sure, the student-faculty body
would allow for garnering a broad-base
of support around a given proposal before
it is subjected to the scrutiny of the fac-
ulty. But by assenting to such scrutiny,
the plan amounts to a half-hearted, and
self-defeating attempt to democratize the
literary college.
IT SEEMS clear that any real effort
toward democratization must address
itself to the governing power of the facul-
ty, and to the questionable rationale for
that power.
A major aspect of the faculty's govern-
ing powers lies in the setting of require-
ments for completion of a college educa-
tion. Its authority to do this is often de-
fended on the grounds that faculty mem-
bers have a greater knowledge of what is
required of one in order for him to live
in compatibility with the rest of estab-
lished society. Thus, they are best able
to determine what should be assimilated
by students prior to their entrance into
this "world," - so the argument goes.
But implicit in such a statement is the
unfortunate assumption that education
should be focused on producing individ-
uals who will be able to function effec-
tively under the existing order.
THUS, THE existing order becomes a
given, which directly contradicts the
principles of academia, long valued as a
means of continually questioning a n d
evaluating what goes on around it.
If indeed the University should not be
a mechanism for insuring the perpetua-
tion of the status quo, the faculty becomes
shorn of its justification for governing
academic life.
And proposals which purport to seek
the democratization of college govern-
ance, yet fail to recognize this are devoid
of any real, lasting significance.
ONE MIGHT still welcome the creation
of any college-wide assembly of stu-
dents and faculty - if only as a forum
for debate and interchange of ideas -
and such a proposal in the literary col-
lege should indeed be accepted, but with
the recognition that it would do little to
alter the undemocratic and inappropriate
mechanism for governing the college.

20,000 STRONG, they marched last Sat-
urday. They carried signs calling for a
military victory in Vietnam in one hand,
and the Bible in the other. They want a
Holy War against the menace of atheistic
The mood of the entire weekend was
closer to a Billy Graham revival than a
political rally. But to say it was full of
Christian love and brotherhood and con-
cern for humanity would be far off the
mark. It was a collection of sacred, angry,
hateful Americans, afraid of the Red Men-
ace, afraid of dirty hippies, afraid of any-
one who isn't a fundamentalist Protestant.
Friday evening before the march. the
vanguard of the "Win the War" movement
gathered on the back steps of the Capitol,
looking out across Capitol Plaza. The
speeches and prayers that followed were
punctuated by "Amen" and "Yes, Lord."
And one found himself thinking of the
striking similarity between this gathering,
and many other gatherings, on the steps
of the General Library or in Regent's
TAKE AWAY THE "Win the War" flag,
a lovely white cloth with a field of maroon
and a bright red cross in the corner, and
substitute the banner of the National
Liberation Front.
The rhetoric in Washington was all
based on the premises that 1) this is the
best country on earth and 2) only the
Commies can take it away from us; sub-

tory", for winning the war. Now, the "V"
sign with two fingers, that's been taken
away from us. I think we should all use
three fingers, in the form of a "W", for
Win the War, see?"
Calmly, patiently, Mclntire said, "My
dear, we've been trying to take the ;,V'
back." He turned to another of his ad-
Saturday morning, it was bright and
beautiful. There is a long sidewalk which
leads down the steps from the Capitol, out
across, the lawn toward the Mall. Two
freaks, tote-bags at their feet, sat on the
concrete ledge along the sidewalk, talking
to a couple in their early twenties. The
couple was in town for the victory rally,
and was attempting to turn the freaks on
to the Bible.
The gulf between the pairs was enorm-
ous. The Jesus freaks did not believe in
anything except the Bible. Evolution? A
myth. Drinking, smoking, homosexuality?
Thou shalt not kill? Wait, there is chap-
ter and verse that qualifies that command-
mnent. You not only can kill, but you have
to kill sometimes. See, it's right there in
the Bible.
The other side did not even have the
Bible. Personal 'freedom, love your brother,
that's all.
It was all too simplistic. Ready-made re-
sponses for the same challenging questions.
Little was communicated, except a true
understanding of the great distances which
separate segments of our population.


stitute rhetoric based on the premises
that 1) this could be the best country
on earth and 2) only the oppressive system
can keep us from making it so.
Punctuate that new rhetoric with
"Right-on". For "Victory over the Com-
munists," substitute "Smash the State."
And there you have it. It doesn't matter
which side you're on, the formula of
crowd pleasing, self-gratifying rhetoric is

After the Friday evening service, about
50 people gathered around Rev. Carl Mc-
Intire, the organizer of the "March for
Victory" to shake hands and get their
Bibles autographed.
"Dr. McIntire," said one woman, with a
note of anxiousness in her voice, "I have
an idea."
McIntire listened politely.
"I think we need a symbol tomorrow in
the march, a symbol that stands for "Vic-


In response

to ugly bomb threats

Dear Bomb-caller,
I DON'T EXACTLY know how to begin this letter, except by
saying you frustrate me. Why do you want to close the UGLI with your
verbal bombs? What do you hope to achieve?
Do you want to shut the University down? I can understand
your being fed up with much of this University's activities. Certainly,
the few research projects we still conduct for the Defense Department
are intolerable in a moral sense. We should do everything we can
to stop them here.
Do you want to end ROTC on campus? Certainly the ROTC pro-
gram - in any form - is both intellectually offensive and morally
repugnant. As an institution dedicated to training men to fight and
command this country's unjust wars, ROTC is more than a military
symbol on campus; it is directly identifiable with the War in Indo-
china. We should do everything we can to end this University's legi-
timation of a military institution.
Do you want to restructure the academic orientation of this Uni-
versity? As time passes it becomes increasingly clear that universities
are out of touch with the needs of society. Aside from the intolerable
exercises in tedium students are forced to accept as necessary for
their "education," universities continue to produce graduates incapable
of dealing with the most pressing questions in our society: war, racism,
poverty, destruction of our environment, injustice, hypocrisy, indif-
ference, manipulation, and passive collusion with all of the above. Stu-
dents should be disgusted with the inadequacies of American universi-
ties; we should do everything we can to change them.
HOWEVER, WHY THE UGLI and why a bomb? With all that
is wrong in this University, how could a library possibly become your
target. Listen, man, libraries are for the people! Nobody tells you how to
use them. No book oppresses you. And while the UGLI, I grant you, is
not a carpeted living room with a fireplace, it is a place to go.
Furthermore, like I said, it's we, the students, who go there. The
UGLI cannot be construed as a symbol of any type of injustice. No
military research is conducted in the library, and no soldiers are trained
there. We don't have to restructure it: it's already ours.
If you want to win people to your cause, then don't alienate us by
depriving students of the one facility at this University that is untainted
by the injustices of society at large.
AS FOR A BOMB threat. I can only believe that you will never
place a bomb in the UGLI. You know your threats are just as disrup-
tive as any bomb could be. How can anyone take a chance of ignoring
you when people's lives are at stake?
What do you think when you make these calls? Does it give you a
feeling of power to know you're responsible for the evacuation of a
building occupied by hundreds of students? I can see how Grayson
Kirk at Columbia or S. I. Hayakawa at San Francisco State may have
felt that way at certain times. But not you.
Or is it that you can't tolerate the functioning of any institution
in society as long as injustice continues. If this is the case, then I hope
you would try to end social wrongs in the quickest possible way. And
from my point of view, this involves convincing sufficient numbers of
people of your position. There are numerous tactics for spreading con-
sciousness of the need for change-including confrontations when they
are productive. However, whom do you convince when you remain un-
seen, your motives unstated? Whom do you confront beyond a lone
telephone operator?
If you have something to say, say it in the open. If you have a
problem, there are good people in this town to help you. By all means,
join the ranks of those trying to change the functions of this University.
But do it in a meaningful, productive way. Don't close the UGLI.

Death to the Pepsi Generation:
Things go better with baloney.


"Robert S. McNamara, presi-
dent of the World Bank, painted
a somber picture today of the out-
look for poor countries and, hence,
for the world at large," intoned
the T.V. newscaster.
With a coke in one hand and a
piece of baloney in the other, Jus-
tin scanned the New York Times
in front of him. This was the half
hour of luxury he allowed him-
self each day, catching up on the
world in an easy chair, with a
handful of decent food and a soft-
ly mumbling television.'
The newscaster droned on -
"'It is inconceivable to me, Mac-
Namara declared, 'that the Amer-
ican people will accept for long
a situation in which they - form-
ing 6 per cent of the world's pop-
ulation but consuming almost 40
per cent of the world's resourc-
es - contribute less than their
fair share to the development of
the emerging nations'."
Justin shook his head, folded
up the paper and scowled into his
Coke. Forty per cent - almost
half the world's resources, piped
in to sustain the American dream,
General Motors, and Justin N.
Thyme (who munches on baloney
while he reads the paper, waiting
for dinner). That was the trouble
with the United States.
"The trouble with the United
States." said Ralph, "is that it's
an acquisitive society, but only in
an individual sense. Pass the but-
ter please."
Justin passed him the butter.
"You see, our success symbols

ple in the world who could use
that food you're wasting, you
"I had enough baloney before
"Overpopulation is one of the
most serious problems of the de-
veloping world,' Ralph continued.
"The death rate has gone down,
thanks to improved medical care
and technology. But the b i r t h
rate has remained at the same
level. All the gains these coun-
tries make in improving their eco-
nomic condition are eaten up, lit-
erally, by the population boom.
We have to persuade these people
that having more children is not
to their benefit, you see."

"No," said Justin. "What's hard
to believe is that we - you and I
and the United States of Ameri-
ca - are unsuccessful vampires.
Read this . .
Ralph looked at te paperback,
The Andromeda Strain, by Mich-
ael Crichton. A section in the mid-
dle of the book was underlined:
. . . Both man and bacteria
had gotten used to each other,
had developed a kind of mutual
immunity. Each adapted to the
And this, in turn, for a. very
good reason. It was a principle
of biology that evolution was
directed toward increased re-
productive potential. A m a n


FP-ON Tek)S(O&) " /
I; ,

KIS -AU IVE 607- OW MY H'( D

B3AL. ,.G
1G5.60X0 w IUENVY YOU.



W& ClOO C~ff1Yl
(k) ISE 11W LOA

t .

1 .1TMC CA


. I

t Y 1 I r * r 1

I -

"I see," said Justin, "that it is

easily killed by bacteria was

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan