100%

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

Share

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.

June 27, 1973 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1973-06-27

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


Summer Daily
Summer Edition of
THlE MICHIGAN DAILY
Edited and managed by students at the
University of Michigan,
Wednesday, June 27, 1973 News Phone: 764-0552
Nixon v. the people
WITH THE testimony of John Dean, the Senate Water-
gate Committee has set the stage for a long-awaited
confrontation between Richard Nixon and the truth.
Dean has charged, with convincing evidence, that the
President knew for eight months of extensive efforts to
block investigation of the Watergate scandal. And far
more importantly, the former White House counsel
alleges that the coverup proceeded with the support and
encouragement of the highest office in the land.
Dean's statements, accompanied by the growing mass
of Watergate testimony and evidence, indict the integrity
of the Presidency.
THERE IS NOW an imperative need for Presidential
answers to the questions of Watergate. As long as the
chief executive remains silent, the electorate shall justi-
fiably lose any remaining faith in the electoral and
judicial processes, the upper levels of the federal govern-
ment, and the Presidency.
The "cancer on the Presidency," in Dean's phrase,
may infect and destroy those few ideals and institutions
which offer fragile protection for this nation's de-
mocracy.
The President refuses to answer. As Ronald Ziegler
offers the press a bland and continuing "no comment"
on matters which urgently demand comment, Nixon's
blanket of protection remains "national security."
AS IF THE Watergate coverup in itself were not enough
to torpedo White House credibility, the public is now
confronted with a second "cover-up":
Charged with fraud, perjury, deceit, and obstruction
of justice, the President has pleaded "national security"
and refused, as it were, to testify on the grounds that
his statements could incriminate the entire government
and sink the ship of state.
But the ship of state has foundered long enough in
the hands of inept criminals disguised as officers.
It may be hightime for a mutiny by the crew and
passengers.
The national security cover is utterly false: We are
asked, incredibly, to believe that Nixon blocked Justice
Department and other investigators for the safety of the
state. "Overzealousness," it is said, is the collective excuse
for planned criminal activities by the highest officials
in the land.
National security? Did John Mitchell enhance na-
tional security by approving Gordon Liddy's plan to
sabotage the electoral system? Did the President act in
the interest of the nation by offering hush money and
executive clemency to convicted criminals?
T HE WATERGATE AFFAIR, ironically, has removed the
burden of national security from the executive branch
of government. The men who would stop at nothing to
gain control of national policy, to express the national
will, have forfeited that responsibility.
"National security"-the task of maintaining and
protecting freedom of thought under a fair and respon-
sive government-now becomes the business of the press,
the Congress, and the courts.
Much as Richard Nixon would have it otherwise,
"national security" now rests in the hands of the people.
It is ours by default.
MyIE AS C pIAlJ -re COMEE -' EEiACtrt tHNEP C GF.. x

The Gemstone Gang, Part Two:
The President prevaileth, maybe

By DAN BIDDLE
(Editor's Note: What follows is Part
11 of the strange and terrihle tale
of that hand of criminals and
Waterbuggers disguised as govern-
ment officials, The Gemstone Gang.
In oue last episode, Messrs. Ziegler,
Dean,Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Liddy,
hunt, Magruder, and Gray gathered
apprehensively in the Oval Office
on a bizarre night in April, The
President arrived late.)
L LIT UP another Multi-
filter as the President began
to speak.
"Good evening, my fellow Ameri-
cans," the Commander-in-Chief in-
toned ominously.
"Hi"said Dean. The other men
were silent.
"My friends, and, uh,"-the
President glared momentarily at
Dean and Magruder-"associates
. . . we are gathered here tonight
to discuss a matter of utmost seri-
otsness. But it won't be the first
crisis for most of us. Why, except
for young John and Jeb here, who
may have to leave the kitchen if
they can't stand the heat, so to
speak, and-say, shere's Ron? Is
Ron here?"
Ziegler, head bowed, emerged
from behind Hunt's mirror. "Yas-
sum," he said.
"WELL," SAID Nixon, "that's
good. As I was saying, most of us
have been through crises before,
and, God forgiving, we'll go
through them again."
"Amen," said Haldeman and
Ehrlichman in the same voice.
"And we shall prevail!" said
Nixon, with somewhat greater fer-
vor.
"Amen," said the two aides, with
equally improved projection,
"We shall prevail as we pre-
vailed over Helen Gahagan Doug-
las!" said the President in a tone
that could only be described by the
casual wiretapper as a dignified
shout.
"Amen!" spake the aides with
similar dignity.
"And as we prevailed over Jerry
Voorhis!" shouteth the winner of
landslides.
"Yeah, yeah!" spake the aides.
"AND AS WE most gloriously

evidenAcet back up e suc a-l-g n-Oh,
evidence to back up such allegations-Oh.. . ."

prevailed over GEORGE Mc-
GOVERN!" raveth the slayer of
Communists.
"HELL, YEAH!" roareth the
flattopped German and his paunchy
partner.
"Right on," shouted Dean, but
the words were barely out when a
hard right cross from Hunt sent
him sprawling. "Watch your lan-
guage, you two-faced sonofabitch,"
said Hunt.
"Now we didn't prevail over
John Kennedy," continued the na-
tion's number one football fan.
"Shame, shame," whispered the
Katzenjammer kids, joined now in
their chorus by Patrick Gray and
Ziegler.
"But HE GOT HIS!" cried the
Quaker from Southern California
with an insidious grin.

"Yeah, YEAH!" Now Liddy and
Hunt, each with a slight smile, led
the chant.
Ziegler leaned over to the Presi-
dent and whispered something in
his ear.
"Thanks," said Nixon, and
climbed awkwardly to the top of
his file cabinet. He straightened his
tie, lowered his forehead, and
spread his hands in the familiar
"V for victory" stance.
THE OTHER men rose as one
body and began to clap methodi-
cally, but seconds later one of the
desk legs broke and Nixon was
forced to step down as his cabinet
collapsed around him.
Will the President prevail? Will
Hoot and Liddy murder Dean? Or
wilt Dean spilt the heans? Watch
this space (and your TV set) for
further developments.

____ t

Letters: Di
To The Daily:
AS A MEMBER of the University
community who has been studying
the University's Athletic picture
with some disbelief, I am protest-
ing against the anticipated funding
structure foethetproposed newath-
letic facilities on campus. My rea-
son - the virtual neglect of wo-
men by the athletic program. The
proposal would have all students
(users or not) be assessed either
$10.0 or $7.09 (the latter for a re-
duced program) as the major
means of supportingsthe "recrea-
tion package of increased facili-
ties for physical education, intra-
mural sports, recreation, and in-
tercolleeiate athletics."
The following facts alone should
serve to justify my concerns:
1) The University spent in the
1971-72 school year $2,611,196 for
intercollegiate athletics. for men.
There is no official Intercollegiate
Athletic Program for women at
the University of Michigan; there-
fore no money was spent for in-
tercollegiate athletics for women.
Arguing that "the men's program
brings in the money, and therefore
deservesthe expenditures" is un-
tenable since women's regulations
have until now not permitted the
charging of admission to athletic
events.
2) In the University's handbook
for Intramural and Recreational
Sports for Men and Women, scarce-
ly four pages out of 36 refer to
athletic opportunities available to
women ("Gals") or mention -
without photographs - female ath-
letic achievers.
3) In the Athletic Directorship
hierarchy of the University, out of
seven Directors, Associate Direc-
tors and Assistant Directors in var-
ious categories, there is only one
woman; Jan White, who must han-
dle essentially all aspects of the
athletic opportunities available to
women. She is paid well under
$10,000 a year.

iscrimimathon
4) Women students, as men, have
been contributing a set fee to the
funding of Crisler Arena since its
construction. NO women have ever
participated in an athletic compe-
tition in that facility.
5) Both the 18-member Board in
Control of Intercollegiate Athletics
and the 15-member Advisory Com-
mittee on Recreation, Intramural
and Club Sports (ACRICS) contain
only a sprinkling of women. (Va-
cant seats on these committees are
being refilled at this time by new
appointments.) Unbelievably, Don
Canham, the University's employed
Director of Athletics, chairs both
of these bodies governing Univer-
sity of Michigan athletics.
6) The University's seasonal ath-
letic calendars and the officially
published descriptions of Univer-
sity athletics fail to mention that
the numerous sports programs and
schedules are available only to
men - even those in which women

in sports
regularly compete, such as Swim-
ming, Basketball, Gymnastics,
Golf, and Tennis. At the University
of Michigan, Swimming means
M e n' s Swimming; Gymnastics
means Men's Gymnastics.
In view of the above indications
of negligence and with the pros-
pects for truly equitable change
slim (despite the appointment of a
committee to study the problem),
financing this new "recreation
package" by means of a blanket
charge for all students, female and
male, would be exceedingly un-
just. Proposals have been offered
for alternalivesfunding and the Uni-
versity should seek still others.
I wish only to suggest that wo-
men students might be willing to
be assessed a token fee in propor-
tion to the percentage spent on
them in the past: a penny a semes-
ter. But maybe that's a little high.
-Marcia Federbush
June 22

In memoriam
EMERSON F. GREENMAN, University of Michigan curator emeritus
of the Division of Great Lakes in the Museum of Anthropology and
professor emeritus of anthropology, died here Sunday at St. Joseph's
Hospital. He was 77.
Greenman served as curator of the Division of the Great Lakes from
1937 until he retired in 1965. He was an expert on prehistoric and historic
cultures of the Great Lakes area and made many contributions, includ-
ing the discovery of the importance of fossil beaches.
Prof. James S. Griffin, chairman of the U-M department of anthro-
pology and director of the Museum of Antropology, said: "Prof. Green-
man was one of the leading archaeologists in the interpretation of the
prehistoric material in the Great Lakes area and Ohio. He was well
known throughout the state for his work and for his assistance to citi-
zens of the state and public officials interested in Michigan archaeology."
Funeral services will be at 10:30 am. Thursday (June 26) in the
Muehlig Funeral Chapel here. The burial will follow at Oakhills Ceme-
tery, Owosso. Friends may call at the Chapel beginning Wednesday
noon.
The family has requested that instead of flowers, contributions
should be sent to the Museum of Anthropology Special Fund for Re-
search, in care of the 'U'.

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan