Atw £i n ailt
Eighty-two years of editorial freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

Inauguration Day: Alternatives in futility

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mich.

News Phone: 764-0552

Editorials printed in The Michigan Doily express the individual opinions of stoff writersj
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
FRIDAY, JANUARY 19, 1973
Denying more than tenure

THE VERDICT is in on Mark Green.
But the decision of the chemistry de-
partment to deny him tenure, does not
neatly lay to rest the whole ugly mess.
For even though the final decision may
be a just one, the glaring violations of
academic freedom and basic liberties,
that have characterized "the Green case"
will always make us wonder.
The entire history of the Green mat-
ter is filled with such infringements.
First, Thomas Dunn, the acting depart-
ment chairman, suspended Green Oct. 9
for presenting an anti-war slide show to
his Chemistry 227 classes. Dunn wrote
Green that he considered the slides
"completely inadmissable".
In doing this, Dunn showed that he
had prejudged the showing of the slides.
Hence, he violated the principle of aca-
demic freedom which works to ensure the
individual professor the widest possible
latitude in determining what's relevant
to his course,
THEN, A WEEK later ,the chemistry de-
partment chose a seven-member
committee to investigate the incident.
The committee met for a total of 70
hours, amassing a written transcript of
500 pages.
But the committee's proceedings were
also unfair. For the committee itself suf-
fered from being too close for comfort to
the incident on two counts-it was both
ad-hoc and in-house.
The committee, moreover, failed to af-
ford Green and his attorney such legal
rights as the opportunity to confront
one's accusers or a bill of particulars as
to what exactly it was investigating.
Members of the committee explained
away these infringements of Green's
civil liberties maintaining that the com-
mittee was not a tribunal, but could only
recommend further inyestigation. They
argued that Green's suspension was a
simple departmental matter.
This; however, turned out not to be the
case. The committee in its report of
Nov. . rendered damaging judgments
that proved it was a tribunal. Worse
than this, the report glossed over
Dunn's capricious action and called the
showing of the slides "an inappropriate
use of class time."
LAST WEEK, the tenure committee
made its decision. It said that Green

did not measure
search, teaching
does this mean?

up in the areas of re-
and service. But what

Green, for example, has disputed those
judgments. He said yesterday that copies
of student evaluations of his last two
courses show "very, very good" re-
sponses. He also said that no chemistry
professor has ever sat in on one of his
course lectures.
Clarification therefore is needed, but
sadly it does not seem to be forthcoming.
The report is confidential, except to
members of the chemistry faculty. And
those in a position to comment on the
specifics, such as Dunn, remain tight-
lipped.
THE LINE OF reasoning expressed by
Dunn and others seems to be if they
reveal specific reasons for the tenure
committee's decision, Green's ability to
find a job elsewhere might be hampered.
The rationale of course is ludicrous.
It's the denial of tenure that may ham-
per Green's job-hunting - obviously,
other Universities are not naive enough
to believe the committee didn't have rea-
sons. Why not bring those reasons out
into the open?
As in the case of the review commit-
tee's proceedings, we are being asked in
effect to take the decision on faith. But
why should we take on faith the justness
of the committee's decision, when at
other points along the way, the chemis-
try department has carelessly disregard-
ed Green's rights.
Whether the tenure decision was just
or not, in fact, is not the point. It is the
suspicion that perhaps the showing of
anti-war slides figured prominently in
the decision of the four-member tenure
committee that must be, purged.
TRAGICALLY, the suspicion probably
will not be erased. And the unjust
judgment of the review committee last
Nov. 7 will stand.
Hopefully, Green may still find redress
in appealing to LSA Dean Frank Rhodes
and the LSA Executive Committee, or if
he chooses, through court action.
But if he doesn't, chalk it up as an-
other instance when the University's
supposed values of openness, fairness,
and justness turn out merely to be empty
slogans.
-TED STEIN

By ROBERT BURAKOFF
TOMORROW AFTERNOON, R i c h a r d
Nixon will be inaugurated and it is to
be expected that there will be editorials
and stories of all sorts, commenting on
this event.
Writing such a piece is not an easy job;
not many options are left to the writer.
A burlesque treatment might have been
in order on the event of Nixon's f i r s t
inauguration, but hardly his second.
To laugh at the same joke twice is ap-
propriate only when the joke is a really
good one. And the election of Richard Nixon
certainly is not that.
Passionate anti-Nixon rhetoric would be
another possibility. After all, the man that
will put his hand on the Bible tomorrow
is responsible for the most devastating
bombing attack in the history of the human
race (a fact often quoted but seldom fully
comprehended).
NIXON WILL also swear to protect the
Constitution. This notwithstanding the fact
that he has done as much as any American
to undermine several of the document's
principles (most notably the concept of sep-
aration and balance of federal power).
Yet, anti-Nixon rhetoric is by and large
a bore. Those people who have come to at
least a partial realization of the absurdity
and immorality of the man and his admin-
istration do not need to have their sensibili-
ties assaulted by another 'right on' editorial
at this stage of the game.
Nor would such a piece have much impact
on those that still believe in "The Presi-
dent" and who continue to watch network
news for the anouncement of the impend-
ing "just peace".
Ruling out rhetoric and farce, the only
remaining approach that presents itself is

a simple exhortation: Watch the w h o I e
thing on television and follow it in the
papers.
If cynical satire is one of your passions
you'll have plenty of raw material at hand.
ONE EXAMPLE: Ray Caldiero, director
of entertainment for the Inaugural Commit-
tee tells us that the inauguration will be
"not just for the fat cats and big names,
but for everybody, with an emphasis on
the ethnics and young people."
Very true. Representing the average Hun-
garian-American will be Zsa ZsaGabor.
Other average people in attendance will
include Bob Hope, Jimmy Stewart, Henry
Ford II and Sammy Davis Jr. (Davis, you
will perhaps remember was featured on
election night in a network interview. He
patiently explained why the average black
man was voting for Nixon, gesticulating
with diamond-laden fingers.)
And for you young folks, as Ed Sullivan
used to say, there will be post-inaugural
entertainment by Pat Boone.
In short, those who would put on a wry
smile and enjoy a chuckle or two will have
plenty of opportunity to do so over the
next three days of festivities.
IF YOU ARE inclined to be contempla-.
tive, and really can't get up for laughing
at a time like this, you won't be at a loss
either. Suggested activities: Read Robinson
Jeffer's poem, "Shine, Perishing Republic"
and Daniel Ellsberg's fine collection of es-
says, "Papers on the War" tonight.
Then get up tomorrow morning, settle
down in front of the TV set with your fa-
vorite intoxicant, watch the swearing-in
and get utterly depressed. (Being rather
morose and sedentary by nature, this is
the option I will probably take.)

#

SPOTLIGHTS AND PRE-FAB Corinthian c olumns will provide the proper atmosphere
for tomorrow's inauguration ceremony.

If you are, on the other hand, a hard-core
political activist you will already be on the
turnpike to Washington.
THIS ALTERNATIVE is indeed a com-
mendable one. Certainly it beats sitting
in front of the TV, getting depressed or
cracking jokes.
But not many people have the determina-
tion required to ride a bus half way across
the country and half way back again know-
ing full well that it will have little or no
actual effect on the political developments
of the next four years.
What is required of those making the.

trip is obstinance - the stubborn convic-
tion that Richard Nixon's little show must
not be allowed to come off without a hitch.
Certainly for those of us that will watch
the whole affair on TV it will be reassuring
to know that such people are there too,
even if the cameras carefully avoid them.
Somehow that knowledge will come in
handy when we are once again confronted
with Tricia Nixon Cox' saccharine beaming,
and the pious phrases and sincere glances
of our once and future President.
Robert Burak off is an editorial staff
writer.

vj

(I

.1

Nixon ' clan clamps down on news media

By BEN YABLONKY
j MAY BE obsessed with Presi-
dent Nixon's hostility towards
the press. Other Presidents have
also had their differences w i t h
newsmen.
But the Nixon administration is
something special. Those of us
who have studied the history of
the relations of government and
the press can really find no paral-
lels for the frequency and inten-
sity of assaults on all the media
since President Nixon took office.
Now comes another shot at the
media which. could either be an
astute political move on the part
of the Nixon administration or
sheer coincidence.
The matter involved is that of
license renewal challenges of two
Florida TV stations.
In the past such challenges have
come largely from minority
groups, mainly blacks, who at lic-
ense renewal time have filed com-
plaints with the Federal Commun-
ications Commission, maintaining
that the stations, most of them in
large industrial centers, have not
served the interests of the com-
munity.
In practically all the cases, the
disputes were settled "out of
court" and the challengers h a v e
dropped theircomplaints while the
licensees have maintained t n e r
franchises.
THE INTRIGUING part of the
Florida challenges is that t h e v
come from conservative applicant;.
And the target is the owner of the
two stations, The Washington Post.
Let me lay out the cast of char-
acters for you.
The licenses in dispute are those
of Channel 4 of Jacksonville, Flor-
ida, WJXT-TV, and Channel 10 in
Miami, WPLG-TV.
Both stations are owned a n d
This article is excerpted from
another installment of journalism
Prof. Ben Yablonky's weekly ra-
dio commentary, "The Press and
World Affairs", broadcast over
WUOM and thirty other stations.

operated by The Washington Post.
THE POST has been one of Pres-
ident Nixon's sharpest critics and
the target for assaults by W h i t e
House officials in return. During
the presidential campaign last
year, The Post pursued the Water-
gate affair relentlessly and w a s
responsible for a number of dis-
closures.
THE NEW YORK TIMES, along
with it, was one of the first news-
papers to publish the Pentagon
Papers, against the efforts by the
White House and the Justice De-
partment to prevent their publica-
tion.
In addition, The Post's Jackson-
ville station WJTX, helped to block
the Supreme Court nomination of
G. Harrold Carswell by uncovering
the judge's endorsement of segre-
gation in 1948.
Now three separate groups are
challenging the license of the Jack-
sonville stations. One of the groups
is the Florida Television Broad-
casting Company. The president
and a thirty-three per cent owner
of that company is George Champ-
ion, Jr. Champion was President
Nixon's chief fund raiser in Flor-
ida during the presidential c a m-
paign last year.
AN APPLICANT and challenger
for the Post's Miami station is the
Tropical Broadcasting Company,
And the president of that company
and an eleven per cent owner is
Cronwell Anderson.
Anderson is one of a group of
businessmen friendly with the
President. He filed, and then with-
drew, a competing application
three years ago.
Another owner in the company
challenging the Miami license is
Edward Claughton, Jr. of Coral
Gables, who is in the notel and
motel business. Claughton made
his home available to Vice Pres-
ident Agnew during the Republican
national convention in Miami last
summer.
Champion, whose father is a re-
tired board chairman of the Chase

Manhattan Bank and is now a
director of the Storer Broadcasting
Company, one of the large group
station owners, said his work in
behalf of the President would not
enter into the license application.
"I would never tell him (mean-
ing President Nixon) that we are
making an application," he said.
HE DESCRIBED his group "as
concerned citizens who feel the
needs of the community will be
better served by a television sta-
tion which is community-owned."
"Many community leaders," he
added, feel that Channel 4, WJXT,
is not responsible to the commun-
ity."
At the White House, presidential
news secretary Ron Ziegler, was
asked by reporters if the Presi-
dent or any of his aides in any
way had encouraged Champion or
members of his group to file an
application for Channel 4 in Jack-
sonville.
His curt reply was, "No, ab-

solutely not."
Another name in the cast of
characters in the company led by
Champion is Edward Ball, who is
said to be one of Florida's weal-
thiest financiers and is co-trustee
of extensive DuPont holdings.
Ball is chairman and thirty-three
percent owner of Florida Tele-
vision Broadcasting Company, the
Channel 4 challenger, and accord-
ing to some observers, the prime
mover in the organization.
WJXT, as part of its aggressive
news and editorial policies, has
clashed with Ball on several oc-
casions.
The two Post stations, along with
the Miami Herald supported Gov-
ernor Reuben Askew's ultimately
successful effort to put a corpor-
ate income tax bill through the
state legislature - a measure Ball
had opposed.
The Florida challenges have left
the broadcasting industry rather
unsettled, although voices from
within are yet to be heard.

The Detroit Free Press on Jan-
uary 6 devoted its leading editorial
to the move, with the headline ask-
ing, "Is Nixon's Pique at The Post
a Warning to Broadcasters?"
The editorial in its concluding
paragraph said:
"If the FCC grants the WJXT li-
censes to any of the challengers,
it could be a signal to other broad-
casters to line up behind the ad-
ministration, or lose their licens-
es.
"That would leave the govern-
ment free from criticism on the
airwaves. And with newspaper re-
porters in jail, or intimidated by
the threat of it, the print media
could not effectively criticize ei-
ther.
"As we said," the editorial con-
cludes, "nothing has yet happened
on the Jacksonville challenges. But
if tote FCC decides The Post is un-
worthy of the license, watch out
because 1984 could come a bit ear-
ly this year."
Those are my sentiments, too.

"I

r

Letters to The Daily

t

Watergate: Still no answers

WHEN THE WORD "vigilante" is men-
tioned, most Americans picture irate pio-
neer settlers taking the law into their
own hands and hanging such menaces
to society as horse thieves.
Sometimes the vigilantes of those days
felt justified, because many times there
was no legitimate law enforcement avail-
able. Often, however, vigilantes decided
that a trial was more than prisoners de-
served, and proceeded to hang people
themselves.
Now in the trial of the Watergate Two,
formerly the Watergate Seven, vigilante
justice is being proffered as a defense for
James McCord Jr. McCord is one of the
two Watergate defendants who has not
pleaded guilty to charges of breaking and
entering and attempting to install espi-
onage equipment in the headquarters of
the Democratic National Committee.
McCord's attorney has said that his
client felt he was justified in attempt-
ing to spy on the Democrats in order to
prevent possible harm to Republican of-
ficials at the Republican National Con-
vention.
This, to paraphrase federal judge John
Sirica, is hard to believe. It's doubtful
that the Democratic National Committee
would have had much inside information
on planned Yippie and Vietnam veteran
demonstrations. Certainly not as much
as the Justice Dept. and other govern-
ment undercover operations which would
be infiltrating protest groups.
BUT WHAT about this vigilante defense
being used in the case of McCord?
Are Americans to assume that anyone
can commit a criminal act in the nebu-
lous hope of preventing another crime?
The whole idea is absurd, not to mention
dangerous.
But the formost danger lies not in the
possibility that American citizens might

danger arises when government uses
such a ploy.
McCord will attempt to prove himself
innocent by basing his actions on the
protection of important Republicans.
The five men who have pleaded guilty
-Bernard Barker, Eugenio Martinez,
Frank Sturgis, Virgilio and E. Howard
Hunt - have tried to connect their ac-
tions with the political situation in Cuba.
All committed crimes to prevent some-
thing or another, although it is unclear
what.
VET THESE MEN- were financed with
money from President Nixon's cam-
paign fund. They have not offered any
explanation why, except to claim that
the money came mysteriously in un-
marked envelopes. And to that explana-
tion, Judge Sirica told Barker, "I'm sor-
ry, I don't believe you."
Indeed, it is hard to believe, since the
money has been traced to the Republi-
can campaign fund. Why was it given to
such men as McCord, once head of se-
curity for the re-election committee?
Who doled out the money? Who author-
ized the plot and who else knew about
it? How far up the hierarchy of the Nix-
on administration does the responsibility
lie?
Unfortunately, the American people
may never know. Now that most of the
trial defendants have pleaded guilty, the
scope of the inquiry may be narrowed
considerably.
Sen. Sam Ervin (D-N.C.) is attempting
to head a Senate committee investiga-
tion into the entire affair to answer
some of these questions. Heretofore, ad-
ministration officials, including the
President, have refused to answer ques-
tions about the whole mess. Unfortun-
ately, they probably will continue to do
so.

Caucuses defended
To The Daily:
WE ARE WRITING as members
of the Human Rights Party and the
Chocolate Almond caucus candi-
dates in the HRP primaries f o r
mayor and 2nd ward councilper-
son.
Recent Daily articles have re-
peatedly described HRP as being
on the verge of disintegration, torn
apart by infighting and "factional-
ism."
This is a totally inaccurate ana-
lysis of HRP's present state, and
is due to a profound misunder-
standing of the reasons for caucus-
es such as the Chocolate Almond.
To clarify: The advocates of cau-
cuses see HRP as a healthy, rapid-
ly growing coalition of people who
agree on some very important
basic points. The foremost of these

\ .,yam--" --
,.
r

,,, { S 14Ls
WOW
-.t
t 1
%i

is that a radical third party is
necessary to create significant so-
cial change. Such a party is of
tremendous value in its own right.
Beyond the common goals which
embrace all HRP members, there
are differences in viewpointhon
party priorities and strategy. As
the party has grown since its
founding, its membership has very
naturaly become more heterogen-
eous in this respect.
These differing perspectives are
each valid, and should be system-
atically clarified and discussed
among all members. This would
enable HRP to move forward on
the basis of democratically chosen,
well worked out guidelines, rather
than on an ad hoc basis. Politi-
cal discussion in HRP has often
tended to occur primarily at pri-
vate social gatherings. We must
change this. We must make dis-
cussion and debate open, publiciz-
ed, and clarified. Chocolate Al-
monds see the formation of a cau-
cus system as the only way to
achieve these goals.
Thus, the advocates of caucuses
do not see openly discussed dis-
agreements within the party as be-
ing divisive. Rather, they are a
natural, healthy, and vitalizing
force in the party.
How would a caucus system
work? HRPer's who feel they hold
views in common with each other
would group together and write a
caucus position statement. Each
caucus would argue its politics in
mass meetings and before the pub-
lic. But caucus members w o u I d
continue to work together to fur-
ther HRP and the third party
movement as a whole.
All caucuses would be open and
their meetings and political posi-
tions publicized. Anyone interested
could drop in to participate or just
listen at any caucus meeting, com-
paring their own political perspec-
tive with that of each caucus.
No one should feel pressured to
join a caucus at any point. We con-
tinue to want people to be active
in HRP on any level they choose.
And no one would be locked into a
caucus.

a democratically run party It is
entirely possible to have various
different viewpoints clearlysrepre-
sented in an open, honest, and un-
manipulative manner.
-Lisa North, 2nd Ward
council candidate
-Anne Bobroff, mayoral
candidate
Jan. 18
Super Sunday?
To The Daily:
LAST SUNDAY we had a chance
to laugh - Super Bowl VII was
the occasion. The astronauts led
off the entertainment by making
two false starts. on the Pledge of
Allegiance. Then Howard Twilley,
who stars as a teenage punk in
1957 grade B movies in the off-sea-
son, provoked a wiley comment
from tight-lipped Curt Gowdy when
he popped a pill to relieve a muscle
spasm in full view of 75 million
people.
And of course there were the leg-
gy girls who flopped their wares
inside 10 foot self-propelled hel-
mets representing the 24 franchis-
es of the National Football League.
I especially, liked the "Marching'
Men of Michigan's" 1935 rendition
of "Put On a Happy Face."
All in all, chalk up one giant
step for football and one small
step for mankind.
-Bill Byrd
Jan. 14
Back to school
To The Daily:
AS ANOTHER term begins, tle,
inevitable thoughts of "what am I
doing here?", "isn't there a better
way to become educated?" etc.
etc. probably are crossing many
students' minds. A little known fact
that I learned recently added some
fuel to that fire, and for the sake
of those who share my occasional
disillusionment with the Big 'U'
and for those who never have ques-
tioned our educational process, I'd
like to share this with everyone.
Did you ever wonder how cours-
es get their numbers? Well, for a
course to be labeled a 400-level'

r


SALARI .d.~

kI

N

{4,

,N'

I