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 14, 1975 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1975-10-14

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


a1t ,n DaUil
Eighty-Six Years of Editorial Freedom
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan

Tuesday, October 14, 1975

News Phone: 764-0552

420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, Mi. 48104
Politicking hurts schools

early to begin making book
on next year's Presidential
Sweepstakes ,the way things
look now Gerald Ford may face
a tougher challenge than he had
One thing he apparently had
going for him was the opposi-
tion. The Democratic field at
this point is glutted with a
bunch of lackluster, uninspiring
The loyal opposition has not as
yet coalesced around any one
candidate, although to some ex-
tent that will happen as the
convention and the election
draw closer. (Obviously the pri-
maries will winnow the field
considerably.) But a Harris
Poll released last week shows
Ford just barely edging out
some of those supposedly unap-

event of national as well as local
interest, will be taking place in the
near future. Twenty-five speakers
from across the country will be ad-
dressing themselves to the theme,
"The Bicentennial Dilemma: Who's
in Control?" Notable speakers in-
elude activist lawyer William Kunst-
ler, author Herbert Marcuse, and Di-
rector of the Citizen's Commission of
Inquiry, Mark Lane.
The LSA Curriculum Committee is
debating whether or not the Teach-
in, or for that matter any event of
this nature, qualifies for LSA Mini-
course standing.
The organizers of the Teach-in,
along with their Faculty sponsor, Dr.
William Rosenberg, submitted a pro-
posal to the LSA Curriculum Commit-
tee which would give the Teach-in
Mini-course standing. Students en-
rolled in the course would receive one
credit for attending some of the
teach-in as well as lectures by the
University faculty.
On September 29, the LSA Commit-
tee rejected the proposal. At the next
meeting, however, they reconsidered
and approved the proposal, sending it
on to the University Executive Com-
mittee,,, which found it unacceptable
and returned it to the Curriculum
Committee. At the last meeting of
that committee Monday, members de-
cided to draft a series of suggestions
designed to make the proposal ac-

ceptable to the Executive Committee.
The committee is to reconsider the
matter at its next meeting.
While we agree that the mini-
course policy needs to be revamped,
we wonder whether this procedure
should take place at the expense of
the Ann Arbor Teach-in.
Dean Jean Carduner, who acts as
chairman for the committee has stat-
ed that according to the Mini-course
guideline currently in effect the
Teach-in should be granted mini-
course approval. Since the Executive
Committee rejected the Curriculum
Committee's recommendation that
the teach-in be granted mini-course
credit in the first place, we feel they
shcild clarify to the Teach-in com-
mittee just why they seem to disa-
gree with Dean Carduner's observa-
tion that the proposal does indeed
meet all requirements previously ap-
plied to proposals of this nature. Is
the University making a policy of
sponsoring educational events such
as this only if they are in agreement
with the political views of the Uni-
With the almost daily press re-
leases revealing abuses by the various
US intelligence agencies, the theme
of technology and repression has be-
come important to every American
If the University ignores this fact,
it can only be because it is more in-
terested in politics than in educa-

pealing Democrats - not at all should s
a comforting thought for the who rer
Chief Executive. the. Pres
STILL, three of Ford's top per cen
four competitors have not as is offici
yet declared an interest in run- Humphr
ning for president. noises in
Leading the pack, not sur- ously thi
prisingly, was Senator Edward go onei
Kennedy who trailed Ford by a A HAP
slight margin. Of the 1,300 vot-
ers polled, 48 per cent exppres-
sed a preference for Ford and
46 per cent for the man fromr
Given the size of the sample r
and the polling techniques used,
the error factor is three per
cent for either figure. Kennedy
might, in fact, be leading Ford.
by as much as four per cent..
Of course, the Kennedy cam-
paign, or rather non-campaign, -
has been the subject of specu-
lation, consternation, and just ,
plain rumor-mongering.
has declared himself definitely
out. No draft, nothing, will con-
vince him to enter the arena
next year. Others, however,
don't write the politically skill-
ful Kennedy off so quickly, sug-
gesting that Sargent Shriver,
who has announced his official
candidacy, is merely Kennedy's cluding
stalking horse. Bayh a
But even against lesser and Ca
known and decidedly less mag- mund B
netic foes, Ford also failed to the Pres
win decisively. Noneti
Against declared candidate gins beta
Senator Henry Jackson, Ford ing Den
led 47 per cent to 43 per cent poll mu:
in the poll. That's also an in de- Republi
cisive margin, given the nature Ford's
of the survey. has und
Senators Edmund Muskie and shuffling
Hubert Humphrey, a pair that appeari

ound familiar to anyone
members 1968, trailed
sident by five and six
t respectively. Neither
ally in the running, but
ey has been making
ndicating that he is seni-
inking about giving it a
more time.
NDFUL OF others, in-



Times and elsewhere last week.
Apparently the fund raising
just wasn't what it should be,
and a number of the GOP stra-
tegists were getting antsy over
the lack of preparation for the
New Hampshire primary elec-.
tion next year. Although months
away, New Hampshire is im-
portant because it's the first
primary of the election. The
identities of "the front runners,"
those candidates who supposed-
ly have the inside track to the
White House, will emerge from
the New Hampshire results.
IN 1968, FOR instance, Lyn-
don Johnson's poor showing
against avowed peace candidate
Eugene McCarthy led to the
end of his abortive re-election
For Ford, the opening hike
down the campaign trail will be
of crucial significance.
The way things shape up now,
arch - conservative former Cali-
fornia Governor Ronald Reagan
plans to run and run hard in
New Hampshire. As the leader
of the Republican Party's right
wing, he is a force that must
be dealt with. Ford must de-
cisively beat Reagan to bring
the conservatives back into the
fold, and he knows he probably
cannot win without their back-
tor is that Ford has, yet to
prove himself a viable vote get-
ter on a national basis. The on-
ly office he has ever run for is
Congress, which required cam-
paigning in and around Grand
Rapids, not glad - handing in
the Northeast, Florida, the Mid-
west and the Far West in quick


Shriver, Senators Birch
nd William Proxmire,
lifornia Governor Ed-
rown, fell well behind
sident in this poll.
heless, those small mar-
ween Ford and the lead-
rocrats included in the
st be disquieting to the
campaign organization
ergone a significant re-
g, according to reports
ig in the New York

succession. Couple all of this
with the possibility of Alabama
Governor George Wallace wag-
ing a third party campaign as
he did in 1968, and the Ford re-
election bid looks rather vulner-
It's different to gauge the im-
pact, of a Wallace drive, but
seven years ago he apparently
pulled a considerable number
of votes from Richard Nixon.
That would probably be repeat-
ed against a candidate of Ford's
conservative bent.
scared at this point and there's
no reason he should. But, by the
same token, he won't be handed
a full four-year term on a sil-
ver platter or a besieged presi-
dent's resignation.
Gordon Atcheson is co-Edi-
tor-in-Chief of the Daily.

Senate Bill One: Invitation to tyranny

School bias cheats women

IT HASBEEN more than a decade
since the modern women's move-
ment got off the ground. Conscious-
ness - raising groups are giving wo-
men the courage to cast aside the
mop and pail, publically - funded
counselling centers have been estab-
lished to help women through the
crisis following a sexual assault, and
women's studies departments can be
found in several major uni'versities.
However, it is not time to sit back
and relax and assume that all wo-
men's problems have been solved. De-
spite: the progress made in the area
of women's liberation since the early
1960's, the "weaker sex" mentality
still pervades this country's educa-
tional Institutions.
tional Assessment of Education
Progress (NAEP) found that males
geneally outscore females in tests
ranging from math and science to
social studies and consumer skills.
News: Gordon Atcheson, Barb Cornell,
Elaine Fletcher, Ken Parsigian, Sara
Rimer, Tim Schick
Editorial Page: Marc Basson, Steve
Harvey, Debra Hurwitz, Mark Ort-
lieb, Tom Stevens
Arts Page: David Blomquist
Photo Technician: E. Susan Sheiner

This, study represents an evalua-
tion of eight surveys made of 640,000
persons between the ages of nine and
The only two areas in which fe-
males maintained an advantage
were in music and writing. Men did
better in mathematics, sciences, so-
cial studies, politics, reading, and lit-
erature. Even an area in which it is
generally assumed that women would
do better -- grocery storemath -
men held a sizeable advantage.
Roy Forbes, director of the NAEP,
had no concrete explanation for the
disparity in educational achievement
between the sexes, but suggested
that it might be due to a biased cur-
ricula which does not encourage wo-
high school, females are often
encouraged to tackle less difficult
courses and to set their sights on less
demanding careers, than are chosen
by men.
The fact that women consistently
scored lower on educational achieve-
ment tests indicates that there is
something amiss in the educational
system. It is about time that this
problem is recognized and steps are
taken to ensure that women receive
an equal education and are encour-
aged to achieve their fullest poten-

SENATE BILL-1 has been called the
single most repressive piece of legis-
lation in US history. Vern Countryman,
Professor of Law at Harvard Law
School and Thomas I. Emerson, Pro-
fessor of Law at Yale Law School state:
"The enactment of S. 1 would constitute
an unparalleled disaster for the system
of individual rights in the United States
. The objective of the draftsman was
to incorporate into the criminal code
every restriction upon individual liber-
ties, every method and device that the
Nixon Administration thought necessary
or useful in pursuit of its fearful and
corrupt policies . . . The bill is inherent-
ly unamenable and should be recom-
mitted for complete overhaul and re-
The bill is a proposed revision of the
United States Criminal Code which is ad-.
mittedly in need of reform. In 1966
President Johnson appointed the "Na-
tional Commission on Reform of Crimi-
nal Laws (the "Brown" Commission)
which spent six years preparing a new
code. However, the Brown Commission's
recommendations were junked by Nixon
and then-Attorney General John Mitchell.
The present S.1 Bill is a 753-page con-
solidation of two bills offered in 1973-
S. 1400, prepared by the Department of
Justice under Mitchell, and S. 1, intro-
duced by Senators McClellan (D. Ark)
and Hruska (R. Neb.).
Senate Bill 1 spares no one in its at-
tack on freedom and justice. It is per-
meated with a spirit of distrust of the
American people and threatens to de-
stroy protest and dissent. Yet, the bill
has received almost no coverage in the
To begin, the sections of the bill which
deal with espionage broadly criminalize
the knowing collection or communication
of "information relating to the national
defense," with the intent that it be used
or "knowledge that it may be used, to
the prejudice of the safety or interest of
the US, or to the advantage of a foreign
power . .." As Mary Ellen Gale, former
counsel to the ACLU, points out: "what"
is not 'information relating to the na-
tional defense'?" Gale continues, "Un-
der the present terminology a newspa-
per report that bad weather had de-
layed an Air Force airplane test, that a
prominent general was hospitalized for
minor surgery ,that the North Vietna-
mese had deployed troops in South Viet-
nam, or that US troops were using de-
fective rifles, would all be proper sub-
jects for invocation of the espionage pro-

.visions. iYet the first two are probably
trivial, the last two are not only proper
but necessary to informed public debate,
and all four are protected by even the
narrowest reading of the First Amend-
The provisions regarding the mishand-
ling of national defense information and
the disclosure of classified information
are equally vague and overextended.
Had the S. 1 Bill been law at the time
of the Pentagon Papers revelation, re-
porters ,editors, publishers, secretaries,
and members of Congress and their
staffs could have been swept within the
statute's reach. S. 1 would make it a
crime for a government official or for-
mer official to communicate classified
information to the "unauthprized" per-
sons, regardless of his intent and re-
gardless of the probable or even possi-
ble effect of his actions.
The S. 1 Bill would re-enact the Smith
Act, used by Joe McCarthy and related
tunes to terrorize America in the fifties.
Mere advocacy of revolutionary change
would be a criminal offense. Since no-
overt act is necessary, judgment would.
be based on passion and prejudice
against politically unpopular minorities.
Moreover, one would be guilty of the
offense of military activity against the
United States if "with the intent to aid
the enemy or to prevent or obstruct a
victory of the United States, during a
time of wear and within the United
States, he participates in or facilitates
military by the enemy." Neither "facili-
tates", "military", "war", or "enemy".
is defined by S. 1. Again Gale's re-
marks, printed in the Congressional Re-
cord (S20500, Dec. 1974) are to the point:
"The apparent purpose and likely effect
of this section of the S. 1 is the stifling
of political dissent, of conscience, and of
loyal opposition. By its vagueness and
overbreadth, it authorizes sanctions
against those who express disapproval
of or actively urge changes in govern-
ment policy."
Telephone tapping is another means
through which the reach of government
is extended. Taps are authorized without
a court order whenever a law enforce-
ment officer "reasonably believes that
an emergency situation exists with re-
spect to conspiratorial activities threat-
ening the national security" and the
President is completely exempted from
all liability for wiretapping instituted
"to protect the US against the overthrow
of the government by force or other un-
lawful means." This is obviously inap-
propriate in view of the abuse of wire-

taps throughout the past fifteen years.
"Inherent in these sections is a potential
for abusive surveillance of political dis-
sidents or other disfavored groups", says.
Professor Carole E. Goldberg of the
UCLA School of Law, in an article writ-
ten for the Society o American Law
Teachers. S. 1 expands the areas where
wiretapping is permitted and directs
telephone companies and landlords to
cooperate "forthwith" and "unobstru-
sively" with government wiretappers; it
further provides for compensation for
such cooperation.
Laws concerning riots have also been
redrafted by S. 1. They provide for up
to three years in jail and/or up to one
hundred thousand dollar fines for "move-'
"The apparent purpose and,
likely effect of the S. I is the
stifling of political dissent,
of conscience and of loyal
opposition . . . it authorizes
sanctions against those who

express disapproval
actively urge changes
ernment policy."

of or
in gov-

ernment function. An influx of cars car-
rying demonstrators to the chosen site
or a protest action in a driveway of a
federal building might constitute the
proscribed felony.
There are even more horrors hidden
in the bill. The statute on entrapment
permits conviction of defendents for
committing crimes which they were
induced to commit by improper pres-
sures of police agents. The burden is
nliced on the defendent to prove that
he was "not nredisnosed" and was sub-
ject to ""nlawful entrapment".
In addition, provisions designed to
make "voluntary" confession admis-
sable even if obtained by secret police
interrogation in the absence of counsel
and warning prescribed in the Miranda
case, and provisions designed to assure
admissability of eyewitness testimony
regardless of prior police irregularities
in suggesting identification Bare incor-
Stiff retributive sentences for an array
of crimes is another characteristic of
the bill. The death penalty, long opposed
as cruel and unusual, punishment, would
be reinstated. Despite the overwhelming
recommendations of penologists and
lawyers that sentences be reduced sharp-
ly, long term prison terms'and manda-
tory sentences are favored,. thereby de-
stroying any possibility for rehabilita-
The icing on the cake is the new de-
fense allowed for alleged acts of a fed-
eral official if he or she "believed that
the conduct charged was required or
authorized." It would prevent punish-
ment for acts, otherwise criminal, which
conformed to an "official, written inter-
pretation" by a government agency re-
sponsible for administering "the law to
which the offense relates."
Senate Bill 1 is an attempt to prevent
future Watergates by making them legal.
It talks about "national security" but
aims at preserving personal power, and
concealing the mistakes of public offic-
The bill is currently being considered
by the House Judiciary Committee which
will probably pass it. In Ann Arbor a
group called the Coalition to Stop the S.1
Bill is meeting to develop a strategy to
defeat the S. 1 proposal. The meeting
will be held at 332 S. State street on
Wednesday evening at 7:30 p.m.
Robert Miller is a member, of the Edi-
torial Page staff.

ment of a person across state lines" in
the course of execution or consumation
of a "riot". A "riot" could involve as
few as ten participants whose conduct
"creates a grave danger of imminently
causing damage to property." Gale com-
ments, "The anti-riot laws are broad and
vague, sweeping within their terms con-
duct clearly protected by the First
Amendment, failing to notify the law-
abiding as to what conduct is clearly
forbidden, and providing' a convenient
tool for discriminating 'prosecution and
governmental oppression of political ad-
versaries." Frank Wilkinson adds, in Oc-
tober's issue of Center magazine, that
federal jurisdictional involvement is
brought down to the level of the bar-
room brawl. .
Under S. 1, physical interference with
federal government functions is a fel-
ony. Almost every mass demonstration
would, at one moment or another, fall
within this prohibition. It would be up to
the prosecutor _to determine whether a
large demonstration on federal grounds
or near federal buildings was or was not
"physically interfering" with some gov-


Letters: Rally against Franco's Spain

To The Daily:
THE TIME HAS come for the
Franco regime to come to an
end. Franco's fascist govern-
ment was founded through the
suppression of the Spanish peo-
ple. He achieved his power
through genocidal attacks on
the masses of Spanish people
and through the direct inter-
vention of fascist Germany and
Italy. As France himself put it
in a letter to Adolph Hitler in
February of 1941:
"I consider as you yourself
do that the destiny of history
has united you with myself and
with the Duce in an indissolu-

people supported the cause of
democracy and hundreds of
thousands actively stood up to
Franco's fascist war machine.
Because of this universal resist-
ance Franco and his Nazi allies
were forced to resort to geno-
cidal terror, leveling entire ci-
ties like Guernica, Granollers,
Nules, Castellon de la Plana,
Durango, and many others too
numerous to mention.
and democratic forces from
around the world sent material
aid and volunteers to fight side
by side with the Spanish people.
Although the Soviet Union was
the only government to officially

sell arms to the Spanish Repub-
lic, the Spanish people suffered
a major defeat and Franco was
able to consolidate his fascist
rule. Today the same fascist
government stands over the
Spanish people. The United
States, which claims to be a
force of democracy, has taken
over the role formerly played
by the governments of Hitler
and Mussolini, as chief prop of
the Franco regime. This US-
Franco alliance depends on the
needs of US imperialism to
plunder and exploit the Span-
ish people and on the needs of
the fascist rulers of Spain for
military assistance in order to
sunnress the nnish neonle.

and general public uproar have
forced the governments of West-
ern Europe to break relations
with the Franco regime. The
United States is not only one of
the few remaining powers main-
taming diplomatic relations with
this regime, but is continues to
send hundreds of millions of
dollars worth of military and fi-
nancial aid to keep Franco in
power. We too must join the
people of the world in demand-
ing art end to the Spanish dic-
tatorship. A committee is be-
ing formed to organize mass
action here in Ann Arbor
'around the following demands:
No more aid to Franco - U. S.
bases out of Spain.

To The Daily:
of September 23, 1975, published
along with Ms. Suzanne
Young's letter to the Daily
must certainly be responsible in
part for the positive attitude
toward the University regula-
tions, which prohibit smoking,
drinking and food consumption
in Hill Auditorium, during both
the Springsteen and Corea con-
certs in September. Almost the
entire audience followed the reg-
ulations,,and all of us who are
responsible for ensuring the
safety and care of the audi-

IA !- V . - _ r -- . 'ti ~r , ."t _I'T*" .'1 r . -,S

Back to Top

© 2023 Regents of the University of Michigan