8 y fra ttj
Eighty-two 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.
SATURDAY, JANUARY 20, 1973
Inaugural Only the start
Nixon req
By JAMES WECHSLER
IN SOME FUTURE memoir Elliot L.
Richardson, former law clerk to Learned
Hand and later Felix Frankfurter, may dis-
close that he secretly shared the wide-
spread outrage of humanity over the U.S.
terror bombings of North Vietnam. He may
explain that his outward acquiescence was
the price he had to pay for his appointment
as Secretary of Defense, a role in which
he visualized himself resolutely resisting
military pressures for even more drastic
action such as bombing the dikes or a
nuclear blow.
When Henry Kissinger's private reflec-
tions-for which the bidding is already said
to be astronomical-become a matter of
public record, he may tell us how heart-
broken he was after President Nixon re-
pudiated his October agreement with Le
Duc Tho. He, too, may then confide that he
remained steadfastlyathhis post because
he was convinced that his presence could
avert more terrible destruction.
During the most feverish days of Lyndon
Johnson's expansion of the U.S. involve-
ment, the most plaintive words heard in
Washington were, "What this country needs
is a good, loud resignation.
But each eminent figure found justi-
fication for staying on or contemplating
nothing more dramatic than a noiseless
departure from the stage and an exchange
of farewells.
Defense Secretary McNamara felt suffi-
cient obligation to history-and mankind-to
institute the inqlest that ultimately led to
the document popularly know as the "Pen-
tagon Papers." It must be sadly ob-
served that neither Kissinger nor Richard-
son, nor others suspected of rationality,
have found any urgent message in those
archives.
IT WILL BE SAID that a successful termi-
nation of the current talks will banish
memory of all that has gone before and the
roles of the participants. Kissinger himself
observed long ago that Vietnam will be a
"footnote" to the annals of this time of
detente with Moscow and Peking.
But in many traditionally pro-American
parts of the world the saturation bombings-
and the threats of more to come-have
already left an unforgettable imprint; it is
hardly coincidence that the White House
yesterday announced indefinite postpone-
ime uses intellectuals as foils
ODAY is Inauguration day, the time
when America officially gives the go-
ahead for another four years of the Nixon
administration. Since Nixon was elected
by one of the greatest majorities in our
nation's history, one might believe that
he is exactly what our country wants and
needs. Whether or not that is true, he is
exactly what our country got and we
must accept that.
Accepting a situation, however, does
not mean sitting back and apathetically
submitting to the world without any say
on our part. To accept the situation is to
determine exactly what the situation is
and to work our hardest within the
framework which is given to bring about
1
responsive and responsible government.
The estimated 40,000 protest marchers
in Washington today are there to show
that Nixon is still only our President, not
our King. He is still responsible to the
will of the people. This is the true mean-
ing behind the inaugural speech, to ans-
wer the questions proposed by the march-
ers and the people all over the nation:
Just what are we to expect in the next
four years, Mr. Nixon? The President
must realize that he is not just speaking
to his "silent majority" but also to the
protest marchers, to blacks, Chicanos,
American Indians, the poor, the elderly,
women, and all other Americans who
often find they cannot quite fit them-
selves into Nixon's "silent majority."
THE INAUGURATION signifies the be-
ginning of a new term, but on whose
terms is it going to rest? Hopefully, Con-
gress still has the powers granted to it
by the Constitution. They should not let
them go to waste. Through the control
of funds, aggressive action to assert their
Constitutional powers, and even through
the threat of impeachment the President
can be limited to his Constitutionally de-
fined powers.
To borrow a phrase, "now more than
ever" a working democracy is needed in
this country.
If it takes a President like Nixon to
bring the Congress to its senses, to make
it reverse the trends towards autocracy,
to direct it once again to strive to ful-
fill the objectives set out in the Consti-
tution, then maybe it is worth it.
THE NEXT FOUR years should not be
allowed to become a repeat of the
last four years. Congress and the Ameri-
can people should remind the President
that while he is in his last term he is
still a public servant.
-GERALD NANNINGA
ment of Mr. Nixon's travels to Western
Europe.
Indeed Kissinger himself may prove to be
the man who cannot win. A peace that
turns out to be fragile could render him
as vulnerable as the outright failure of his
mission; he seems to have been almost
set up for the scapegoat part. Why else,
one wonders, did Mr. Nixon designate him
to break the news that "peace is at hand"-
and then require him to assume the bur-
den of the grim retraction?
Earlier in his regime Mr. Nixon appeared
to have disarmed many critics in the
academies by making Kissinger and Pat
Moynihan major counselors in the realms
of foreign and domestic policy. Surely, it
was said, these selections demonstrated his
esteem for the intellectual manpower.
Certainly he has made use of intellectuals,
but the community of the mind must have
some deep forebodings about the con-
sequences.
For while Kissinger finds himself the
central figure in the bloody horror of the
Vietnam entrapment, Moynihan, architect
of the once-heralded Family Assistance
Plan, has been dispatched to India. In view
of our deteriorated relations with New
Delhi, Moynihan may be the cherubic
charmer needed in the post. His departure,
however, inevitably symbolizes the fading
of Mr. Nixon's interest in anything seriously
resembling the original program.
Yet Moynihan, who remained stoically
silent during the campaign (and stirred
furtive hopes of defection), is leaving be-
hind a testament in which he largely ab-
solves the President of any responsibility
for the collapse of the FAP dream. The
book will be published shortly and a three-
part preview, starting in the current New
Yorker, indicates the thrust of the work:
liberals in general and George Wiley's
National Welfare Rights Organization are
major villains. Certainly there were serious
and injurious divisions among welfare re-
form supporters. But Moynihan's charity
for the President is boundless and might
11
Elliot Richardson
almost be called a handout-matched only
by his generous abstention from public com-
ment on the bombings.
And now Elliot Richardson becomes the
front-man for Mr. Nixon's military policies
and the Pentagon establishment. A onetime
president of the Harvard Law Review, he
is new rebuttal to the thesis that the Ivy
League is a monolithic anti-Nixon nest.
There were moments when I thought the
bombings would shake intellectuals who had
embraced Mr. Nixon even if Kissinger re-
mained "a good soldier." I recalled the ad
that 45 Nixon adherents had published in
The Times in mid-October declaring:
"Of the two major candidates for the
Presidency of the United States, we believe
Richard Nixon has demonstrated the su-
perior capacity for prudent and responsible
leadership."
"Prudent" and "responsible?" How many
of the 45 would choose those words to
justify their decision now? But how many
have articulated any protest?
James Wechsler is the editorial page
editor of the New York Post. Copyright
1973, New York Post Corporation.-
XI
a
AI
,I
Daniel Moynihan
Henry Kissinger
Letters: Factions threaten to divide HRP
State funds and local schools
"MAY YOU. LIVE in interesting times"
is an ancient Chinese curse which is
applicable now. A serious dichotomy ex-
ists between proponents of state control
of public schools and its natural counter-
part, those clamoring for firm local au-
tonomy.
Nowhere is this more clearly visible
than in your neighboring city of Detroit
where the state government may have to
take over local educational funding.
Detroit residents have repeatedly voted
down various and sundry millage pro-
posals. The Detroit school system is vir-
tually bankrupt. Money is desperately
required to run the educational system.
Without financing, the result is obvious:
The system shuts down.
The only alternative that has been
proposed is the old and familiar "have
the state help us."
This is frightening for a number of
reasons.
It goes without saying that it is im-
possible to get something for nothing.
The money will have to come from some-
where and in the final analysis the peo-
ple will be paying.
A free gift from the state would deft-
Today's staff:
News: Debbie Allen, Angela Balk, Bill
Heenan, John Kahler, Terry Martin,
Jerry Nanninga, Chris Parks, Judy
Ruskin
Editorial Page: Linda Rosenthal, Eric
Schoch, Martin Stern, David Yalowitz
Arts Page: Herb Bowie
Photo Technician: Torm Gottlieb
Photography Staff
PHOTOGRAPHY STAFF
DAVID MARGOLICK ............Chief Photographer
ROLFE TESSEM . .............Picture Editor
DENNY GAINER ... ...Staff Photographer
THOMAS GOTTLIEB............Staff Photographer
KAREN KASMAUSKI............Staff Photographer
Business Staff
ANDY GOLDING
Business Manager
STEVE EVSEEFF .......... . .... Circulation Manager
SHERRY KASTLE..............Advertising Manager
PAUL WENZLOFF .... Promotions Manager
nitely be a sorely needed present, but
would it end there? Hand in hand with
state financial responsibility would be
state control.
Much of the reasoning behind local
educational autonomy has been fear of
rampant mass bureaucracy and to insure
the richness and variety local autonomy
would provide.
As Lt. Gov. James Brickley has said,
"Some districts which because of wealth
or other reasons would walk away from
the problems of school financing are do-
ing a great disservice to the principle of
administrative decentralization of edu-
cation."
It is ironic that at a time when many
are decrying the plight of the schools,
the ever-quickening approach of 1984 and
the encroachment of government into
private life, people can still vote down the
money requisite for education.
Eventually the voters will face a
choice of either paying for education via
local taxes or state taxes. Either way,
the people will be paying. Should they
choose the first option, they will have
the opportunity to control their chil-
dren's educational destiny. If they don't
they may lose that chance while still
footing the bill.
-LINDA ROSENTHAL
A new test
Recently the Nixon administration an-
nounced it would be willing to grant
federal money for local pilot programs
that would test the urine of grade school
and high school students for traces of
drugs.
The first such program, starting Feb.
1 at an intermediate school in New York's
Harlem district, will not force students to
submit to the tests. However, administra-
tion officials have said that they would
also be willing to provide funds for com-
pulsory programs.
A government spokesperson acknowl-
edged that the program is "a last resort,"
but defended it by saying that "when kids
are dying it may be time for last resorts."
That could possibly be true, but com-
pulsory (or even noncompulsory) urine
tests for drugs is not on the same level
of privacy as mandatory eye-examina-
To The Daily:
OBSERVING last night's HRP
mass meeting, something became
obvious to me that I hope everyone
realizes: There are two very dif-
ferent factions within the party
with about comparable strength.
One, the Rainbow People, is com-
mitted to building an Ann Arbor
party that will destroy and re-
place the local Democratic party,
because it will represent "the peo-
ple" better. They feel the party
must realign with its real constitu-
ency of street freeks, rainbow
merchants, etc., and build f r o m
there. It is absolutely essential to
win in April and any amount of
money and energy must be spent
for that purpose. Apparently, they
see nothing wrong with the inter-
nal structure of the other t w o
parties, or their practice of buy-
ing elections.
The other force, the "regulars",
is trying to build a statewide rad-
ical third party, affiliated with the
Nat. People's Party. Two parties
can never effectively represent all
views in this country - issues
will always be mushed. This group
wouldn't want to replace the con-
servative-liberal Democrat coali-
tion. It wouldn't try to represent
everyone or "get elected to g e t
things done". It can only honestly
represent those who want to dras-
tically change the entire system
into a system of mass participation
where people directly control po-
lice, schools, health care, corpora-
tions, etc. (i.e., democratic social-
ism).
The most important longterm
reason for campaigns, working on
City Council, and other non-elec-
toral "service" activities is to rad-
icalize and organize people. Every
group outside of the present sys-
tem - workers, students, women
and other minorities must organize
and demand what they need a n d
want. No party or elected official
no matter how well-intentioned will
ever be able to give it to them.
Collective decision-making does
not mean everyone has to agree. It
means intelligent, rational indi-
viduals sharing their opinions and
reasoning, and then a vote decid-
ing the prevailing view. U n 1 i k e
"democratic" centralism, disagree-
ment is legitimate. Last night
would have been democracy in ac-
tion exceptthatneither g r o u p
seemed to be listening to the oth-
er. RPP sees the "regulars" as
too intellectual, straight, and re-
volutionary to deal with, and what
the latter thinks of some of the
ideas of the former isn't worth
printing. Whoever cares, support
the idea of your choice.
-Ruth Caplan
Jan. 19
South Quad
To The Daily:
CONSIDERABLE confusion has
arisen lately over the credibility of
a recent Daily article on South
Quad. It is my hope at this time
to clear up some of the confusion
surrounding both the article a n d
the South Quad situation.
Let me first point out that a
telephone conversation I had with
the author provided much of the
basis for the article. I wish to make
it clear, however, that the context
of the comments as they appeared
in the article was altered consider-
ably from what was intended. Whe-
ther this resulted from a misun-
derstanding or a deliberate misre-
presentation I cannot say. My pri-
mary concern is to set the record
straight.
This is not an attempt to cover
anything up and I will not deny
that some of the problems outlined
in the article do exist. My intent is
merely to place these issues in
their proper perspective, as The
Daily failed to do. There is little
question that the Daily article was
extremely inaccurate, but you
needn't take my word for this. A
simple survey of South Quad resi-
dents will quickly verify this feel-
ing. The response that I h a v e
encountered has been nearly unan-
imous dissatisfaction with the ar-
ticle and often outrage.
Racial and security problems do
exist in South Quad and to deny
this would be foolish, for they must
be recognized to be dealt with.
Furthermore, they are being dealt
with.
These problems have no simple
solutions but definite progress is
being made through the efforts of
a number of individuals and organ-
izations. In any case, the situa-
tion is in no way as extreme as
The Daily article suggests. Resi-
dents here generally do not live in
fear and anxiety, but carry on
much the same living styles you
would expect to find elsewhere on
campus.
STILL, THE relatively high turn-
over rate does indicate some dis-
satisfaction with South Quad and
this question must be addressed.
It is most certainly not my belief
that this dissatisfaction stems pri-
marily from racial tension.
I am shocked that such a com-
ment was attributed to me, since I
have by no means ever expressed
such a belief. Instead I have found
most complaints to center around
such things as too much noise,
poor food, a stagnant social situa-
tion . . . in short the kinds of
problems a large dorm such as
South Quad is particularly suscept-
able to.
Even such problems as these are
being dealt with. Speaking for
South Quad Council, I would like
to emphasize that our primary oal
throughout this year has been to
respond to student needs and de-
sires. As a result, a variety of av-
tivities and improvements have
come forth with a far greater num-
ber yet to follow.
Perhaps life in South Quad could
never appeal to certain people, but
it is our hope that more and more
residents are able to find in South
Quad the kind of living situation
they are looking for. Furthermore,
South Quad Council is by no means
the only source contributing to this
end. It is unfortunate that such
a negative image of South Quad
was projected in The Daily article
and it is my hope that people
realize that such an image is un-
deserved.
-Rich Bonny
President, South Quad
Council
January 18
Hamburgers
To The Daily:
HAMBURGER FANS be advised
that you will be given an opportun-
ity to maintain the image of your
favorite repast by keeping its sala
in an appropriate context. There
will be a public hearing on Tues-
day, January 23, 1973 at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chamber on locat-
ing a Burger King building on the
southwest corner of Maynard and
Liberty Streets (across Maynard
St. from Jacobson's). Is this an
appropriate location for such a fa-
cility? Make your feelings known
at the hearing.
-Edward V. Olencki
Member of Board,
Citizens Association of
Area Planning
Jan. 18
Letters to The Daily should
be mailed to the Editorial Di-
rector or delivered to Mary
Rafferty in the Student Pub-
lications business office in the
Michigan Daily building. Letters
should be typed, double-spaced
and normally should not exceed
250 words. The Editorial Direc-
tors reserve the right to edit
dil letters submitted.
X. I
.4
4
I
Students express views
toward President Nixon
(Editor's note: In honor of President Richard Nixon's inaugura-
tion, The Daily sought out the viewpoints of "the average University
student" towards the President. The following are some of the
remarks obtained in a somewhat random sampling of students:)
"It's evident that (Nixon's) full of shit." DOROTHY RASTHE, '76.
"The American people forget about everything Nixon does the day
after he does it. And now he's pulling the Watergate Affair under the
rug. Everybody's giving up." JANET GRADY, '74.
"I'm feeling a great deal of paranoia." STEVE MARTIN, 'U' em-
ployee.
"I'm scared of what's going to happen. Right now, it seems like
he's a dictator. He literally has all of the power in the world. If
anyone is going to start World War Three, he's going to be the one."
PAULA MACLEOD,. '75.
"If he accomplishes one half as much as he did last year, it will
be to some benefit. JACK (requested to be unidentified), '74.
"I'm going to leave the country as soon as possible." LYNN ROSEN,
'74.
"I think he's ruining our democratic system by his failure to tell our
Congress or the public about anything. People just don't know what's
happening. His inauguration is more of a coronation. He's ready to
crown himself." JOHN STANISZEWSKI, '74.
"I'm all for four more years." AIMEE, (requested to be uniden-
tified), '76.
"(The inauguration) is the worst thing that ever happened." TIMO-
THY CARTER, Grad.
"(The inauguration) is a sign of doomsday. America is in the
biggest trouble we've ever been in." SUSAN MURRAY. '73.
"A definite change of his consciousness is needed." KATHY BAAD,
'74.
"He's gotten the mandate from the people to get the peace in
Vietnam." (requested to be unidentified), '73.
(Doing an M & M candy routine): "Peace is at hand. Which hand?
I
,;
L.
-I