SKELETONS IN THE CLOSET 'U'sex: Now you see it, now you don't A Special Report THIS IS THE STORY of how a mountain of newsprint (and, incidentally, money) was made of a sexual molehill, and how the University was buried in the resulting avalanche. The University community thought the question of sex in the dorms was settled back in 1968, when open visitation rights were won by a student movement that realized its demand almost in- stantly because the issue was so potentially explosive. At the time, the University retained housing regulations that prohibited premarital sexual in- tercourse and cohabitation in the dorms. Most dorm residents never read the rule books any- way, so keeping the regulations was a device to make uneasy parents and alumni happy. The rule was unenforceable, and everyone in the University knew it. BUT THIS YEAR, when stu- dents took over a majority on the newly-formed housing policy board, the board decided to abolish the sex regulations be- cause members found them of- fensive and unnecessary. The board couldn't make cohabita- tion legal, because state law pro- hibits it, but they could cut out what they considered an ob- noxious rule. The board was simply trying to make dorm regulations conform with reality, since state laws on cohabitation have also proved unenforceable. Like the Univer- sity, the state finds it simpler to keep the law on the books to avoid offending the many moral- ists in its constituency. Board members reasoned that the rest of the dorm rules might be taken more seriously if such clear nonsense was eliminated. Since housing policy board meetings are not notoriously in- teresting, it all might have ended right there. No press was in at- tendance, and most alumni and parents, like their children, would never bother reading the rulebook. Even if they had, they probably would never have no- ticed the lack of the prohibition. BUT, BY CHANCE, fate, or whatever, the board member who initiated the action, Jerry DeGrieck, happens to be friends with two "stringers," part-time reporters for out-of-town news- papers, who cover Ann Arbor. When DeGrieck mentioned the board's action to them, two weeks .ater, they remembered the infallible adage that "sex sells newspapers" and sent off stories. So, by June 30, eight days after the action, there were stories in both Detroit papers and The Daily. "U-M Drops Its Ban on Sex," heralded the Free Press, unable to resist such a tantaliz- ing headline even though the story simply explained the board's decision, with comments from DeGrieck and Housing Di- rector John Feldkamp. The Detroit News got even bet- ter material by choosing to play up the student reaction angle. "Students yawn as U. of M. lifts sex ban in dorms," the News reported, no doubt antici- pating the reaction from its de- cidedly conservative readership. The News featured interviews with students who laughed and said they had been living with boyfriends and girlfriends in the dorm for a long time. MUCH MORE BLASE, The Daily carried a story simply de- tailing the board's action. But the controversy was already be- ginning to mushroom. The Asso- clated Press and United Press International in Detroit soon had the News and Free Press stories rewritten and sent over on state and radio news wires, ready for the eyes and ears of the Univer- sity's hordes of alumni and par- ents. All the stories carried quotes from Feldkamp explaining that the deletion of the rule was not a change in policy. He pointed out that the University does not have rules against murder or robbery either because such il- legal acts are adequately cover- ed by state, local, and federal laws. But the papers-or at least their readers-were much more interested in DeGrieck's asser- tion that the "rule was never enforced and cannot be en- forced." Not only did DeGrieck state that the rule had been abol- ished, but he also led many readers to believe that the resi- dence halls are dens of the darkest sin. WHILE THE STRINGERS for the News, Free Press, and UPI - were counting their money, the controversy was brewing. Papers as far away as the New York Times and Cleveland Press were picking up the story. Initial University reaction to press reports was not forthcom- ing for two weeks. The execu- tive officers met a week after the first appearance of the story, but said nothing about the issue. It was only upon President Fleming's return from a Euro- pean sojourn that the executive officers discussed the situation. The day after their meeting, and three days before the July meet- ing of the Regents, who have always been very concerned about student morality, Vice President for Student Services Rcbert Knauss issued a state- ment designed to counteract the press reports: "Published reports recently in- dicated that the Housing Policy Committee of the University has abolished a rule against cohabi- tation and premarital sexual in- tercourse in University resi- dence halls. This implies the Uni- WHEN THE BATTLE for open visitation began in fall 1968, it ended almost immediately - the issue was too potentially explosive. versity condones such behavior. This implication is incorrect." KNAUSS CAREFULLY ex- plained that, as a landlord, the housing office was obliged to see that state law was not violated, and that cohabitation had not be- come permissible in University residence halls. Knauss' statement did not ans- wer any of the growing contro- versy, or contain any new infor- mation, so only the Ann Arbor News bothered to print it. When this move failed to pub- licize the University's determina- tion to protect morality, Flem- ing came back with another statement at the Regents' meet- ing. "I want to make it perfectly clear what my own position is, what the Regents' position is, and what the University's position is," Fleming said, no doubt knowing full well that the De- troit papers and the wire serv- ices regularly cover Regents meetings, FLEMING BEGAN by accus- ing the newspapers of lying. His exact words were: "The news- paper reports quite inaccurately represented what happened." But, he offered no examples of what he considered to be the in- accuracies. Instead, he referred to Knauss' statement that the University would not condone cohabitation, and threw in some personal views to prove his own moral up- rightness. He commented on changing sexual attitudes in so- ciety, saying, "Much of that is healthy in the sense that it brings out into the open ques- tions that have been too long hidden. On the other hand, in so far as there is a view today that emphasizes the purely physical aspects of sex, I've said I'm very old-fashioned on this." Finally, he promised twice: "We do not condone cohabita- tion in the residence halls. That will be made perfectly clear to students and we will enforce that rule to the best of our abilities. "IF THERE IS ANY question about our position on this, it ought to be laid to rest and it ought to be perfectly clear what it is. We do pot condone this kind of conduct and we will to the very best of our abilities en- force that rule in the dormitor- ies." With this statement, Fleming not only took a much m o r e authoritarian line than Knauss, but also implied that the rule had not been deleted at all - which it had been. Instead of resolving the real issue, the unenforceability of any ban on sex, Fleming manag- ed to raise it anew. His state- ment was basically a "gut 'reaction", shown by the emo- tion of the moment, his unsub- stantiated attack on the press, his injection of his own moral views, and the strongly author- itarian stand taken. While the press may be fault- ed for its concern with sexual comings and goings at the Uni- versity, the news stories them- selves cannot be faulted on the grounds of accuracy. The hous- ing board DID delete the rule, and DeGrieck DID say that the rule had never been enforced. NEITHER KNAUSS, Feld- kamp or Fleming attempted at any time to refute DeGrieck, nor could they. Unable to deal with the issue of fornication in the dorms in a direct man- ner, Fleming chose instead to attack the bearer of the news, rather than the news itself. It is equally important to note that the need to mount some kind of attack rested al- most entirely with Fleming. Nothing had been done before his return, and nothing w a s done afterwards except with his direct involvement. Certainly his concern with the University's public image is great, but so is that of the Re- gents and other executive offi- cers. Of the three administra- tors who have made p u b l i c statements on the matter, Flem- ing alone felt compelled to in- clude his own views on the mat- ter. After Fleming's statement, Re- gent Robert Brown (R-Kala- mazoo) then asked Knauss if DeGrieck's honest statement that enforcement was impos- sible was the attitude of the whole housing board. "If it is, were in real trouble," Brow n intoned. Knauss promised to check, and said he would seek a clarification by the board. BUT CONCILIATION w a s foiled again as neither Detroit paper reported Fleming's state- ment: it wasn't news., The Daily alone carried the statement, coupled with a report from the Ann Arbor police that "we just don't bother" with the cohabi- tation law any more. The police said they could not recall such a case for at least 20 years. If the police don't care about cohabitation, a lot of other peo- ple do. That was what De- Grieck found out a few days lat- er from Feldkamp, who explain- ed that some donors had stop- pod giving money, that parents were calling and writing Uni- versity officials, and that some students had asked if they could room with members of the op- posite sex in the fall. DeGrieck reported the new developments to his friends. The next day, The Daily carried a front page story, telling how a member of the prestigious President's Club, the Univer- sity's top money-givers, had quit and returned his plaque; how the University had been written out ofsa will; how a minister in Birmingham had blasted t h e University from his pulpit; and how other administrators were hearing from concerned citi- zens. THE FREE PRESS, News, AP and UPI were quick to jump in on the story, All three network television stations in Detroit got in on the act, too. The me- dia again reported the denials by the University that cohabita- tion was permissible, but were much more interested in the, growing controversy itself. So the next policy board meet- ing was covered by all the med- ia, including the three televis- ion stations. The board approved the min- utes of their now infamous June meeting, but decided to issue a letter to all incoming dormitory residents explaining that the rule was deleted because it was offensive, since other illegal acts were not mentioned specifically.. The board felt that existing y policies on the rights of room- mates, the prohibition against permanent guests written into the lease, and the state statute against "lewd and lascivious" cohabitation gave sufficient basis for the housing office to deal with incidents of co- habitation. DeGRECK, whose term on the board had expired, con- tends, however, that the ori- vina objection was to the pol- icy, not the wording. The rest of the board apparently believ- ed differently or else found it currently diantageous to issue the letter, That letter was the only re- sult of the executive officer, meeting, the Regents meeting, and Fleming's nromises. Whet it contains is really the same thin Ferk-mp was saying all stng - that the move was essentialty administra tive, and did not re- present a policy change. Faced with the problm, the University had onty one coin se: to assure the public that the de- letion of the rule constituted no real chan'e. and to steer clear of the fornication-enforcement issue. Along the way, the admisis- tration wvas inept, v ui in.ult- lug, in its handling of themed- ia. It attempted, mainly throuh Fleming, to go beyond main- taining the status quo, and to create the. impression that ac- tive attempts would be made to stop cohabitation and, by im- plication, premarital sexual in- tercourse. IN THE UNIVERSITY, of course, everyone knew the letter .4 would have no effect on dorm residents. As Feldkamp s a i d , "We'll send it out and watch the wastebaskets fill." And out- side the University, the letter also failed to have the desired effect. While the media gave cursory j mention to the letter, Detroit .television got right down to the real issue in interviews w i t h students. All three stations opened with stories on the controversy, com- plete with freshman coeds who said, invariably, "Every b o d y cohabits, and there's n o t h i n g anyone can do about it, or wants 0,,, If it can be said that the media made a minor adminis- trative action a "hot story" for the public, it is also true that Continued on next page 420 Maynard Street, Ann Arbor, Mich. Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily express the individual opinions of the author. This rust be.noted in al reprints. Saturday, August 7, 1971 News Phone: 764-0552 NIGHT EDITOR: TAMMY JACOBS Stiut'e Edits/orial Staff MARCIA ABRAMSON LARRY LEMPERT Co-Editor Co-Editor ROBERT CONROw ........................................ Books Editor JIM JUDKIS ................ ..... . ..... Photography Editor NIGHT EDITORS: Anita Crone, Tammy Jacobs, Alan Lenhoff, Jonathan Mitter. ASSISTANT NIGHT EDITORS: Patricia E. Bauer, James Irwin, Christopher Packs, ZacarSchtiller. Summer Sper/s Staff .......,....... .............. ........ Sports E ditor ........................... Associate Sports Editor RICK CORNFELD SANDI GENIS .... Summer Business Staff JIM STOREY .... .................................. Business Manager JANET ENGL . ........ . .................... ............. Display Advertising FRAN HYMEN ,,,.............,,..........lasified Advertising BECKY VAN DYKE ................................Circulation Depactment BILL ABBOTT ..................... ....... ,......... General Office Assistant