.3
TEr, Airbigan Dafly
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. This must be noted in all reprints.
*
~ l~r
I.
- ?-
rte,
---sir:
;;:7:1
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1970
NIGHT EDITOR: LYNN WEINER
a moral commitment to life
t
THE PURPOSE of a university is life not
death. Studying life in all its f o r m s
- its origins, environment, internal
workings, social relationships and artis-
tic .and physical creations - is the work
of a university community.
For a university to aid in death is a
betrayal of its purpose, perverting t h e
character of its teaching, research and
function in society. "Any man's death
diminishes me, because I am involved in
mankind," wrote John Donne and this is
true for all of us.
This University, however, is engaging
in research for the military which is di-
rectly leading to the deaths of literally
thousands of people in Southeast Asia.
University researchers are now refin-
ing capabilities of infrared detectors to
sense the heat of enemy troops, missiles
and vehicles; airborne radar apparatus
to locate moving ground targets and map
battlefield terrain; acoustic devices to
monitor sounds of enemy activity and
seismic techniques to pick up vibrations
of troop movements.
In other areas University researchers
are working on how to keep tanks going
in high ;dust' areas, countermeasures
against aircraft and missiles, underwater
communication systems and many other
projects to improve military effective-
ness.
T[OUGH UNIVERSITY scientists and
engineers are not building better
bombs or manufacturing naplam, their
efforts to pinpoint people for destruction
are just as necessary for the military to
wage war.
No matter what one's personal feelings
are about Vietnam and the international
political situation, it is simply inappro-
priate for a university to help kill peo-
ple.
This University receives more money
from the Defense Department f o r re-
search than all but four other colleges
and universities across the country. One-
sixth of the total sponsored research ef-
fort here is funded by the military.
One result of this involvement with the
military is classification of projects and
strict security at some University facili-
ties. Over half the military projects here
are classified, preventing the results of
some of them from reaching the general
scientific community for years.
The University does have a policy, es-
tablished three years ago, to deal with
military and classified research, two in-
terrelated yet different problems.
The policy says the University will not
engage in any project "the specific pur-
pose of which is to destroy human life or
incapacitate human beings" or for which
the University cannot identify the spon-
sor, purpose and scope of the research.
Presently, however, there is no public
record of the purpose and scope of indi-
vidual University classified research pro-
jects for members of the University to
consult. All that Is available is a listing
of projects by confusing and often inac-
curate titles.
A committee was set up at the time to
monitor all proposed classified research
projects. The group meets in secret and
does not reveal information about, or its
decisions on, individual projects to the
public.
Through March of this year, the latest
period for which figures are available,
the committee reviewed 119 proposed
projects and rejected only one as inap-
propriate.
This suggests either that the commit-
tee is not doing its job, a conclusion for
which there is little evidence, or more
probably that the ground r u 1 e s under
which it is working are inadequate.
The committee has continually approv-
ed projects which a r e at this moment
leading to the death of human beings be-
cause any scientific investigation can be
phased so the "specific purpose" of the
Editorial Staff
MARTIN A. HIRSCHMAN, Editor
STUART GANNES JUDY SARASOHN
project is not to kill or injure human be-
ings.
HOWEVER, PEOPLE are being killed
and the responsibility lies somewhere.
While some are opposed to the Vietnam
war, military researchers here continue
to provide instruments of death for the
military in the name of advancing tech-
nology and aiding the careers of them-
selves and their students.
No amount of rationalizing can alter
the basic truth that the University is aid-
ing in the killing of h u m a n beings.
Whether or not this slaughter is justi-
fiable (which it emphatically is not), the
University has no place in this type of
operation.
Apologists for military research argue
that any research could conceivably help
kill people. One cannot believe, however,
that these intelligent men are so naive
to think their research will not be used to
improve military effectiveness when pos-
sible.
They claim their work is necessary for
the national defense, yet both the United
States and the Soviet Union have enough
atomic weapons to destroy the earth. Ov-
er one trillion dollars has been spent on
armaments since World War II and it has
not brought us any closer to peace.
IN FACT, University military research is
not even aimed at defending the
United States. Emphasizing surveillance
and target acquisition techniques, w a r
research here focuses on defeating guer-
rilla wars of national liberation that
threaten U.S. interests in underdevelop-
ed countries.
Researchers often contend their work
results in important civilian applications.
If they are really concerned about civil-
ian-oriented problems, however, they
should work on them directly, j u s t as
they are n o w solving explicit military
problems.
They further believe they are not re-
sponsible for what the military does with
their technology, shifting responsibility
to the political leaders of the country.
The same lame excuse was used by the
Germans who developed the V-2 rockets,
constructed the crematoria and provided
the instruments of war for the Nazis dur-
ing World War II.
The problem, and it is not a simple one,
is defining a procedure to bar war re-
search which results in the death or in-
jury of human beings.
It would not serve a useful purpose to
bar all research projects funded by the
Defense Department f r o m campus.
Through several historical accidents, the
military is the sponsor of much of the
nation's basic research that is only per-
ipherally related to waging better wars.
ONE MUST THEN DECIDE if it is pos-
sible to judge whether projects di-
rectly result in killing people. Apologists
for military research argue, for example,
that people might suggest automobile re-
search inappropriate because cars k i11
people.
When the University t r i e d to screen
classified projects on the basis of their
"specific purpose" it failed and new
standards are needed. If a committee can
use common sense to screen proj ectswith
this criterion, why can't it judge them
with another - whether the direct re-
sult of the project is death?
Another approach would be to bar all
research the actual results of which are
secret. Classified research is undesirable
for the atmosphere of free inquiry neces-
sary in a University community to ad-
vance knowledge.
More importantly, s u c h an approach
would rid the University of most of the
projects designed to improve military ef-
fectiveness in killing because m o s t of
these projects are clasified.
The University now defines classified
research as any project for which an in-
vestigator requires a security clearance,
even though the results of the work are
not secret.
This definition is not sacred, however.
By barring only research the results of
which are classified, one would allow, for
example, historians to consult classified
documents and scientists and engineers
~7O..helgntf
acrd Tribune Syndcate
"The time has come," the walrus said, "to talk of many
things: of DDT-and mercury-and what pollution brings."
Letters to The Dal
HEW report
(Editor's Note: This is a copy
of a letter sent to President
Robben W. Fleming on Sunday.)
President Fleming:
RECENTLY YOU suggested that
the women of the University take
upon themselves the task of writ-
ing an affirmative action program
to answer the HEW report which
exposes discrimination by the Uni-
versity against women. We object
to your suggestion for three rea-
sons. First of all, since you refuse
to give the women in the Univer-
sity access to the HEW report,
you make it impossible for them to
write an affirmative action pro-
gram which would respond to the
charges made in that report.
Secondly, the Department of
Health, Educationand Welfare
put the responsibility of ending
discrimination on the University.
not on the women who are the vic-
tims of the discrimination. Third-
ly, we believe that women must
not only be involved in creating
the University's affirmative actio:
program but must be guaranteed
that their proposals will be fol-
lowed.
It is time for you to recognize
that, because the University of
Michigan has the responsibility to
end its discrimination against wo-
men, it must immediately release
the HEW report and guarantee
women the power to enact correc-
tive programs.
Coalition of
Students for a Democratic
Society
Students to Support the
Auto Workers
Ann Arbor Tenants Union
Ann Arbor Womens
Coalition
Nov. 8
FOCUS
To The Daily:
AN ARTICLE entitled "HEW
Withholds 'U' Contracts" in the
Daily of Nov. 6 refers to a com-
plaint filed last May with the
U.S. Department of Labor by a
chapter of FOCUS on Equal Em-
ployment for Women.
FOCUS is approximately one
year old, and this chapter includes
women employed in biology, econ-
omics, education, labor, psycholo-
gy, and law. Some of these women
are affiliated with the University
-most are not. They live in sev-
eral cities in southern and western
Michigan. Today there are several
groups of women at the U of M
organized and working in the area
of sex discrimination.
FOCUS conceives of its function
as initiator and catalyst of actions
which promote the practical out-
come of equal employment for
women wherever employed. We
hope that the action of withhold-
ing Federal contracts will serve to
draw the attention of those who
manage large institutions to some
of the inequities that womCn face.
Mary N. Yourd, '38LS&A
Jean L. King, '68L
Co-spokes women for
FOCUS
Chicanos
To the Daily:
TWO WEEKS AGO, the Daily
ran a series of articles wh ic h
showed that the School of Social
Work was using bureaucratic pro-
cedures (red tape) to prevent the
Chicano Social Work students
from contacting Chicago appli-
cants to the School of Social Work.
Shortly afterwards. Student
Government Councill (SGC) voted
$75 to the Chicano social work
students, in order to help them
overcome the red tape being
thrown in their way. This was
an especially significant alloca-
tion because SGC has just turned
down several requests for money,
due to a shortage of funds. Thus,
the fact that SGC allocated money
to the Chicano Social work stu-
dents showed SGC's belief that the
situation at the School of Social
Work was of particular import-
ance to students at the U of M.
SGC HAD TWO basic reasons
for its act. First, it realized the
injustice towards Chicanos by the
U of M - there would be 400 Chi-
canos (since over 1 per cent of
Michigan's people are Chicanos)
at the U of M, if not for the rac-
ism and national oppression which
has limited the number to 30.
Second. SGC recalled that one
of the demands won by last year's
BAM strike was an agreement by
the U of M to enroll 50 Chicanos
this year. SGC felt that the activi-
ties of the School of Social Work
could be part of an effort by the
University administration to un-
dermine the BAM settlement, and
that we students have to defend
our victory.
The trend of the University's
actions is clear - there is a con-
certed effort to undermine t h e
BAM settlement.
ALL MEMBERS of the Univer-
sity community should understand
that if we allow the BAM vic-
tory - which came after the most
prolonged, massive, and militant
struggle in the history of the
U of M - to be sabotaged, then
no future victory can be viewed
as secure.
The Young Workers Liberation
League calls on all concerned
members of the University com-
munity to fight against the cyni-
cal, corrupt, and racist acts of
the University. In every possible
way, but not limited to, letter
writing, delegations to adminis-
trative and legislative officials,
and demonstrations, we should in-
dicate our willingness to fight for
the BAM demands, and to fight
against all forms of racism at
the U of M.
We should all say to the U of M:
End the run-around at the School
of Social Work! Fully implement
the BAM demands! No more racist
practices of any kind!
-Ann Arbor Branch,
Young Workers Liberation
League.
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The pic-
tures in Sunday's Daily for
"Clonara: Where a kid can be
a people" were taken by Photo
Editor Jim Judkis.)
Making the rounds of
election night parties
By MARK DILLEN
Watching the climax of a political campaign can be exciting, yet
discouraging at the same time. All the frustrations of the campaign -
both collective and individual - at last surface at inevitable election
night parties. The tension and the mystery are over; the candidates
either celebrate victory or suffer defeat. For one new at watching these
events, the pagaentry of Americana may take some getting used to.
Last week's parties were no exception.
In a way, I suppose it has to do with one's idea of what a party
is. You have to be among your own kind to really enjoy yourself at a
party, I think. Both Republican and pemocratic festivities were open
to the public, but only those who really felt part of the organiza-
tions could feel at home there. So, for mne, the mood was strange.
I had decided to go to the Democratic headquarters at the Shera-
ton Cadillac. For one accustomed to the Ann Arbor womb, the scene
appeared particularly contrived.
Three ballrooms w e r e slowly being filled: carefully manicured,
commentators along with their cameramen set up in one room, ad-
justing endless lines of electrical cable. In another room, decorated
with Austin placards, a rock band was setting up. In all three, the
"freebie" drinks that had made this hotel a f a v o r i t e "watering
grounds" for all the "two fisted" journalists were being prepared. Hands
clenched, I tried one. It was 8:30.
Soon after, the politicos began arriving on the scene and my iden-
tity with the celebrants began to go downhill. You could easily pick
out the groups. There were firstly the suburban avante-garde.liberals.
Gold lapel pins emblazoned "HART," or "LEVIN" or "WILLIAMS"
identified them. It meant they had given their candidate $50 or more.
(Austin, it seems, could only afford the standard circular pins.)
Their wives gossiped and chatted; some had tired faces and when
they smiled it seemed forced and ugly - as if the natural lines of dis-
pleasure resented being disturbed. Their eyes and lips displayed arti-
ficial colors and strange perfumes followed their starched hair around.
Everything in its place.
Their girls were their daughters. They were children-sophisticates.
With polyethylene "straw" hats that spelled the names of their politi-
cian, they giggled and talked about "the party" they were planning "up
on the 11th floor." They manned a Pepsi stand at the ballroom's en-
trance and gave men and others paper cup fulls as we went in and out
of the ballrooms.
That was the motion - in and out, In to catch a glimpse of your
hero-candidate while you basked in the glow of his "charisma"' (look
in the monitor and wave at it, boy"). Hours later, you would realize
you had been following the same faces around all night. The girl in
the pink dress, the liberal with the peace symbol cuff links . . . and
the group of young rich kids. The child leader tried to look swarthy
with his thin string of love beads showing above his shirt and necktie.
As the evening went on, the crowds in the ballrooms grew, until
1:00, then leveled off. The middle-aged, still-believing blacks tended
to congregate in Austin's room - I guess they felt more comfortable
there. The band was good, but only a handful of young danced; the
old just watched and drank some more.
By midnight, most everyone was drunk. Cameramen became in-
creasingly annoyed as the milling throng refused to keep out of their
camera shots. One couple enjoyed playing "piggy back" as the mini-
skirted lady rode her escort's shoulders, both precariously close to fall-
ing. As they came in front of the live shot of Levin, the- cameraman
shouted his disapproval while the crowd yelled its approval. And all
the while, the politicians made their token appearances before "their
people."
Ex-Detroit mayor Jerry Cavanaugh led a winsom, stylish woman
(probably in her twenties). He was there for the ritual. He knew he'd
be asked by the older-looking-than-on-TV commentators for a com-
ment. "Want to be on TV?" he asked his companion. She signified no
and sank back into the crowd, puffing nervously on a cigarette.
An old drunk approached Cavanaugh. "Hi, Jerry;" he blurted out,
his arm embracing the new corporation lawyer. Then, turning to his
new audience and the camera he thought was live, "I just want to tell
you he's the best goddamned mayor this town ever had."
Somehow, the party was over as quickly as it began. Stragglers
and newsmen downed the final drinks. Black porters ini white uniforms
began to pick up the trash in what would be a day's effort. The new
Populism was going home to bed, not knowing, nor m u c h caring
whether Levin had won. Politics hadn't really been discussed much.
Epithets were launched at Republicans if they appeared on the TV's,
but little else.
A giant poster of Levin behind the speakers' podium had persisted
in tilting earlier in the evening. One zealous worker drew cheers when
he mounted a ladder and attempted to straighten it out. He failed.
Somehow, the whole evening was that way.
I decided to see a friend at the GOP party down the street at the
Hilton, wondering what differences I would find. The Hilton's ball-
rooms were no different than the Sheraton's and all the physical sur-
roundings led me to expect a repeat performance from the Republf-
cans. But everything about the atmosphere at the Hilton was inverted.
A four-piece dixieland band had replaced Austin's rock band. Middle-
aged ladies talked; but with little emotion. When I asked the few men
standing about whether Levin would defeat Milliken', they responded,
"who knows?"
Everything at the Hilton seemed too cosmetic. There was no push-
ing and shoving to see the candidates - only about a fifth as many
people were here as down the street. The drinks cost $1.50 here.
A band of street people had accompanied me down from the Demo-
cratic party. Later, when the band began to play "hava nagila," they
danced the hora. I joined. We laughed and enjoyed. Maybe we taught
the Grand Old Parties something about parties that night.
I
4
MI
m
9
balancing teac-ups
Sexxe Pickings: A night with Werner von Braun
nadine cohoda..
This column is for women only.
I am sorry to make such a sexist
statement but the editors of News-
week, Madison Avenue and Group
W Productions, producers of the
Mike Douglas TV show, leave me
no choice. You see, Newsweek ran
an ad last week for the Mike Doug-
las show which listed "100 men
who turn women on." Mike Doug-
las' name was asterisked and the
note at the bottom of the ad
said, "several million women a
day."
nI am assuming "turn on" does
not refer to drugs here. Madison
Avenue isn't that advanced )
You can see now that this ad
would interest women because they
now know who it is they like. And
you can likewise see that it would
be of no interest to men, except
those 100, none of whom w e r e
University students, faculty, ad-
ized list, for example, is William
Buckley. William Buckley? Well,
he may dress very nicely, and he
certainly is articulate, and has
very vivid eyes. But my goodness,
those politics! Can you imagine
that conservative in bed?
Farther down the line we have
Pablo Casals. Now Pablo may
play a mean cello and all, but
honestly girls, don't you think he's
just a little bit too old to -
well, you know - turn anything
on but the record player?
And there's Tom Jones. N o w
this is admittedly a toughy. Group
W Productions may be correct
here. After all, on his TV show
Tom did have multitudes of fe-
males shrieking and writhing in
the aisles, offering him t h e i r
earings, necklaces, bracelets, and
other trinkets. And if that isn't
Ponti (maybe for Sophia Loren)
and Werner Von Braun?
But still and all, this is only my
opinion and maybe Group W Pro-
ductions knew whereof it spoke.
Maybe these 100 men are THE 100
turners on. Chances are Group W
undertook extensive sociological
studies to determine just who has
it and who doesn't. And who am I
to argue with Group W?
I am curious about one thing.
I wonder exactly who is Number
One among the 100. Who out of
thosegturners on REALLY turns
the greatest number of us on.
Well, ladies, that's not hard to
determine if you enter our first
annual Sexxe Pickings. Just circle
the man who turns you on the
most. And he who garners the
greatest number of circles wins!
(Space permits us to run but
88 of the 100 select men.)
Sex'xe Pickings
Mario Andretti
Alan Arkin
Charles Aznavour
Burt Bacharach
Christiaan Barnard
Warren Beatty
Harry Belafonte
Jean-Paul Belmondo
Leonard Bernstein
Marlon Brando
Charles Bronson
Yul Brenner
William Buckley
Richard Burton
Michael Caine
Pablo Casals
Johnny Cash
Maurice Chevalier
Cassius Clay .
Barnaby Conrad
El Cordobes
Franco Corelli
Bill Cosby
Joseph Cotten
Ossie Davis
Howard Hughes
Engelbert Humperdinck
Mick Jagger
James Earl Jones
Tom Jones
Louis Jourdan
John Kerr
Burt Lancaster
Claude Lelouch.
Liberace
John Lindsay
Marcel Marceau
Dean Martin
Lee Marvin
Marcello Mastroianni
Groucho Marx
Steve McQueen
Robert Mitchum
Joe Namath
Paul Newman
David Niven
Rudolf Nureyev
Laurence Olivier
Aristotle Onassis
Pablo Picasso
4i
1