JAMES WECHSLER.-
4'I
94C EtdiaptBatig
Seventy-nine 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 Doily express the individual opinions of staff writers
or the editors. This must be noted in all reprints.
FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1970
NIGHT EDITOR: NADINE COHODAS
The proxy campaign:
What's good for GMNl...
NEXT WEEK IN Detroit, a group of
would-be reformers will confront the
masters of air pollution, armaments, and
highway unsafety in an attempt to make
General Motors responsible. By all indi-
caions, the insurgents of Campaign GM
will be overwhelmingly rebuffed.
Among the factors that stand in the
way of success for Campaign GM is the
University Regents, who own some 25,000
shares of GM stock. Last month, accord-
ing to reliable sources, the Regents re-
fused to even discuss the matter in closed
session before they issued a statement
saying they would adhere to there present
policy of either voting shares in favor of
management proposals or abstaining.
Today, the R e g e n t s will hold their
regular monthly meeting and a group
organized by Campaign GM Will attempt
to confront the Regents and convince
them to change their minds, and vote the
Uilversity shares in favor of the three
proposals by Campaign GM at next week's
shareholders' meeting.
Another setback is the only likely out-
come.
THE REASON for the Regents' support
of present GM policy is fairly straight
forward: As the Regents define the best
interests of the University, what's good
for General Motors really is good for the
University.
In line with the general view that it
should function as a service institution
for U.S. society, the University has de-
veloped in such a way as to have a con-
fluence of interests with large corpora-
tions like GM. This alliance manifests
itself in a number of areas:
-Regent Otis S m i t h (D-Detroit) is
general consel for General Motors.
-University researchers do occasional
research for GM.
-GM, along with Ford, recently funded
the multi-million dollar building for the
Highway S a f e t y Research Institute, a
University subdivision whose work, will
aid automotive research.
-Like all good neighbors, the Univer-
sity will sometimes let GM have some
land it needs. In a secret a c t i o n last
March, for example, the Regents author-
ized the sale of 26 acres of land near Wil-
low Run Airport for $113,000 to GM, which
owns contiguous parcels.
In light of these ties, and because serv-
ice to the corporate world is a financial
prerequisite to the continuation of many
of the University's activities, the reluc-
tance of the Regents to slap the GM man-
Despite tt
" e
crisis, a gr44
IT WAS BAD ENOUGH when President
Nixon ordered American troops i n t o
Cambodia. But he did it without consult-
ing or even informing Congress and now
that omission is coming back to plague
him.
An increasing number of Senators, fed
up with the war and angered at Nixon's
cavalier treatment of them, are striking
back with proposed legislation to cut off
funds either partly or totally for the es-
capade in Indochina.
Two amendments to a $20 million mil-
itary appropriations bill have been in-
troduced in the Senate. A motion spon-
sored by Senators Frank Church (D-
Idaho) and Jobn Cooper (R-Ky.) would
end appropriations for ground forces in
Cambodia. Another amendment, spon-
sored by Sen. George McGovern (D-S.D.)
and Sen. Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.) would
end all money for the war in Indochina
by the end of the year and all funds for
withdrawal of troops by June 1971.
While the Cooper-Church amendment
is given the better chance to pass, both
would serve to provide a long-overdue de-
bate in Congress over the war. Further-
more, if a large enough number of Sena-
tors and Representatives vote for either
measure, Nixon will be forced to think
twice before expanding the war again.
agement by supporting Campaign GM is
hardly surprising.
BUT EVEN if the Regents did support
the drive for "corporate responsibil-
ity," and even if shareholders approved
the three proposals submitted by Cam-
paign GM, the change in the mammoth
corporation would be imperceptible.
Campaign GM's three proposals are, in
fact, the embodiment of moderation. The
first motion would amend the GM Certifi-
cate of Incorporation to include a state-
ment insuring that the corporation would
act lawfully and in the public interest. A
second would add three seats to the 23-
man board of directors so that "public
representatives" can be a d d e d to the
board without challenging the status of
p r e s e n t members. A third proposition
would create a special Committee on Cor-
porate Responsibility to report on possible
adverse social impact of corporations ac-
tivities.
THAT THE conspicuous impotence of
these three resolutions was intentional
becomes clear from a glance at literature
put out by Campaign GM. Organizers con-
tinually, for example, emphasize that
they are not intent on unseating the elite
which controls GM.
The moderate nature of these proposas
is unfortunate. Doomed to failure as it
was from the start, the campaign would
have served a better educational function
by attacking the real source of GM's dis-
regard for the interests of the people.
Profit maximization and expansion of
profitable activities continue to be the
guiding motives of U.S. corporations. This
is why GM has blocked development of
auto safety devices and schemes of public
mass transit, and why the corporation is
heavily involved in military production.
O THE EXTENT that they have at-
tacked this problem only incidentally,
the organizers of Campaign GM are evad-
ing the real issue behind "corporate re-
sponsibility." Corporations like GM will
only be responsive to the interests of the
people when the people take control from
the corporate elite.
At present, reform of General Motors
is impossible and essentially irrelevant.
Campaign GM will have meaning and
impact only to the extent that its failure
further demonstrates that failure in such
reformist ventures is inevitable-.
-MARTIN HIRSCHMAN
Editor
e current
tin of hope
pected to come in early June, when many
schools have already let out for the sum-
mer or are holding final exams. Fortun-
ately, schools'and citizens' groups around
the country are working to see that such
a situation does not occur.
Some schools have called off classes for
the rest of the term to allow students to
w o r k against the war. Others may be
forced to follow, as they discover the im-
possibility of re-opening their protest-
rocked campuses. But that still leaves a
large body of people who are opposed to
the war but have not reached the level of
militancy necessary for taking to t h e
streets. For them there are groups such
as the "Community Coalition" in A n n
Arbor which is working to pressure Sen-
ators and Congressmen to vote in favor
of anti-war legislation.
The Coalition is presently conducting
a door-to-door campaign in the commun-
ity, urging people to contact their rep-
resentatives in Washington-by mail, tele-
gram or personal visit and ask them to
vote in favor of measures such as the
McGovern-Hatfield amendment.
DESPITE THE unresponsiveness of gov-
ernment, especially to student opin-
ion, the present situation seems to carry
some grain of hope for results. The Sen-
ate has s h o w n its willingness by the
Reuther:
WHEN WALTER REUTHER led his Auto Reutheri
Workers Union out of the AFL-CIO ing hosp
two years ago, a veteran labor colleague just a ye
privately lamented his decision. "Walter Reuthe
was too impatient-if he had just waited, fered fro
and avoided some arguments, George while he
Meany would eventually have resigned and lishment,
he could have been head of the whole labor entrench
movement," the elder statesman said. the John
But Reuther finally would not wait; obsessive
while others saw him as an eternally tion, he f
youthful indestructible, perhaps he was from the
brooding over time and mortality. Assassins many of
had nearly murdered him in 1948; there war issu
had been other narrow escapes; for more Meany'sI
than two decades-and at the moment of lude can
the fatal crash-bodyguards were frequent- totality o
ly'at his side.
There was also the remembrance of other IN A
long years of waiting-the years in which liberated
the late R. J. Thomas, a genial bumbler, signs tha
presided over the UAW, while Reuther central r
vainly challenged him. Then, having war. His
achieved the top UAW post, he waited dent was
again-until saintly, revered Phil Murray executive
died and Reuther finally became the CIO's scale att
leader. and a vi
He had committed himself to reunifica- istration
tion of labor and in 1955 he negotiated the Despit
peace pact with -Meany. While Reuther years, he
again was "No. 2," the assumption was that history-b
he was destined for ,the succession before initiative
too long. only wh4
range of
MEANY PROVED RUGGED and robust; promise
his reluctance to abdicate was probably tragic in
intensified by Reuther's increasingly vocal of events
criticism of his rule. Their painful differ- He ha
ences were temperamental as well as with bott
philosophical; Reuther was vexed by the ing JFK'
lethargic, "middle-class" mentality that cussion
seemed to be suffocating much of the labor Reuther
movement; Meany, a salty product of the is likely
building trades, was more disposed to look an appoi
with pride at past accomplishment than tact with
to dream of new worlds. Reuther, who had dentialc
grown up in a Socialist family tradition, with Hu
had a compulsive commitment to social been ele
change; Meany, although his horizons had for a po
notably broadened in many matters, re- ginningi
fused, for example, to sanction AFL-CIO
involvement in the Freedom March of 1963. WALT
Never
'one of the
boys'
marched-as he did for the strik-
ital workers in Charleston, S.C.,
ar ago.
er's insurgences in the 1960s suf-
m an inescapable inhibition. For
was tilting with the labor "Estab-
," he was very much a part of the
ed political structure throughout
son years. As Vietnam became the
, oppressive national preoccupa-
found himself uncomfortably aloof
e rising currents of protest. To
the young his quiescence on the
e was almost indistinguisable from
pro-war'advocacy. But that inter-
not overshadow the affirmative
of his life.
SENSE President Nixon's election
Reuther, and there were recent
at he was preparing to assume a
ole in rallying opposition to the
last important act as UAW presi-
to win approval from his union's
board last Thursday for a full-
tack on the Cambodian invasion
gorous repudiation of the Admin-
's overall Vietnam policy.
e the doldrums of the past few
has a secure place in the labor
books; his pioneering audacious
s will fill a large chapter. It is
en measured against the infinite
fhis talents andlimitless early
that there remains a sense of
completeness, and of the perversity
S.
d a continuing, warm relationship
rh John and Robert Kennedy. Dur-
s Presidency, there was serious dis-
of a high government post for
and in a second Kennedy term it
that he would have received such
ntment. He was also in close con-
Robert Kennedy's ill-fated Presi-
drive, although hesitant to split
bert Humphrey. Had either man
cted, he would have been in line
sition of influence and a new be-
in life.
ER REUTHER was never "one of
4
4
the boys." He skipped the beer-drinking
and poker-playing and dirty jokes and was
taunted for his abstinence. Even many of
those closest to him could not claim any
deep intimacy. Now one realizes how little
was known of the interior man, and won-
ders how much loneliness was concealed by
outward self-assurance.
If he lacked some of the common touch.
few have fought harder or more valorously
for so many common men, or with more
tangible result. At the news of his sudden
death one thought with anguish of the
construction workers who have recently
defiled New York with their savage assault
on peace demonstrators. Are labor's a} into-
crats" to be the rightist replica of the com-
pany goons who brutally assaulted Reuther
on the Ford overpass in 1937?
Now eulogies for Reuther will fill the air.
A true regard for his memory would be ex-
pressed in condemnation of these local
union sluggers by Meany, Harry Van ,Ars-
dale and other leaders of labor. That would
have mattered to him; that would be rele-
vant to the meaning of his life, and to his
vision of justice and human dignity. Does
no labor dignitary dare to say to the :bard
hats what Walter Reuther would have said
as they dishonor the traditions of union-
ism?.
New York Post
*i
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
4%
Married
To the Editor:
The following is an opetn letter
to the UniversityDRegents:
AT A CLOSED, unannounced
meeting in April you decided to
make a payment of $252.000 to
the Ann Arbor Board of Educa-
tion and that this payment would
come directly out of the rentals1
paid by married students living in
the University Housing. The rea-
son for this payment is sunposedly
the closing of the University
School which "traditionally" serv-t
ed as a balance to the children in
married housing attending the
public schools.
This reasoning is fallacious and
the decision to raise rentals by $22
per month is a dangerous one,7
which will have far reaching con-
sequences all across the State.
What is worse, this decision was
made hastily, and in secret, with-
out full knowledge of all she facts
of the present situation and ob-
viously without concern for the
welfare of the married student
population.
You seem to think that the 1245
families at Northwood and Univer-
sity Terrace would not be a power-
ful enough pressure group to op-
pose such highhanded tactics. You
seem to think that these families
could pay as much as 50 per cent
of their income for rental without
undue hardships.
You do not appear to care about
the effect this raise in rents will
have on blacks, and other minor-
ity groups to whom you have made,
a commitment for their education.
You do not seem to realize that
housing rents'are high enough
when University rentals go up.
private relators in Ann Arbor also
raise their rent, so your decision
will effect everyone living in Ann
Arbor.
Furthermore, you seem to have
abandoned the whole concept of
"low cost" housing that has been
the avowed philosophy of the Uni-
versity in building University Ter-
race and Northwood.
You have chosen to ignore that
for all the years the University
School was operating, there were
no children from married student
housing attending the Ann Arbor
School System.
YOU SEEM TO have preferred
making a payoff to the City of
Ann Arbor for the recent troubles
on this campus in order to pacify
them, than to keep the best in-
terests of the students at heart.
You have succeeded by your
short memories illogical argu-
ments and high handed decision
making in alienating a stable
segment of the college community.
You have succeeded in making a
few more of us lose faith in the
"establishment."
Overall, your decision is going
to hurt many more people than it
can possibly benefit since the Ann
Arbor Board of Education does not
really need this money at this
time, they just want it.
I can only urge you, most sin-
cerely, to reverse this harmful de-
cision because so many people are
going to suffer if you do not.
-Ted Oegema, Grad.
May 13
It's not new
To the Editor:
THIS LETTER IS' directed to
all students at Kent State Univer-
sity (KSU) who organized, sup-
ported or in any way participated
in or observed the recent tragic
events on campus. The entire na-
tion was shocked, frightened, and
appalled at these events.but prob-
ably none as badly as you were.
For many of you this was your
first close encounter with sudden,
violent death.
But death is not a new arrival
on the K.S.U. campus. Remember,
just last month Jerry Rubin came
to Kent and told you that you
should be.ready to kill your own
parents in support of "the revo-
'lution."
Unquestionably a few were glad
this tragedy took place and will
seek to cause others. But for the
majority of you who were sadden-
ed - if you don't like the heat
perhaps now is a good time to get
out of the kitchen.
-Philip S. Tokich, Grad.
May 12
V'P--OSS
To the Editor:
IN SEVERAL recent stories The
Daily has stated that I refused to
meet with President Fleming un,
less a reporter was present. This
is slightly inaccurate. I refused to
meet with President Fleming un-
less the Daily was invited to at-
tend. And, if I understand correct-
ly the President's position (as it
was relayed to me'by his secretary)
it was that he refused to meet
with me unless the press was
barred.
I am sorry to learn that the
President considers me unaccept-
able as a candidate for the vice
presidency, but I thank The Daily
for giving me this information. As
was apparently the case with the
other candidates, I have never
received any communication from
the University administration on
the subject.
-Peter Steinberger
0'
ow
I
Soviets ask Henry Ford to help build a
truck plant.-News Item
#
PRESIDENT VS. SENATE
Gum bodi~
By EDWARD ZIMMERMAN
DURING THE RECENT controversy over
the Carswell nomination and the cur-
rent heated debate over the involvement
of American forces in Cambodia, the Presi-
dent has encountered stiff resistance from
many members of the Senate. Perhaps the
single most important development to come
out of these two- cases has been the Senate's
exercise of "Advice and Consent" over the
President's nomination of G. Harrold Cars-
well for the Supreme Court and in ques-
tioning the Presiden't deployment of troops
in Cambodia without its consent.
Previous to the final vote on the Carswell
nomination, in a letter to Senator Richard
Saxbe (R-Ohio), the President stated that
he was angered by the fact that some sen-
precipitates power struggle
senators who so disapproved of the Presi-
dent's meddling in senatorial affairs that
they voted against Judge Carswell.
A SECOND MAJOR FIGHT over the ex-
tent of the President's powers as Com-
mander in Chief was initiated when Presi-
dent Nixon moved American troops in
Cambodia without the approval of Con-
gress. But the Cambodia issue is only part
of the issue.
To understand why a fight wili occur.
one -has to understand a certain principle
of the men in the Senate. They resent any
intrusion upon their constitutional powers
and for the last several years, they have
felt that the President has been ignoring
them, and are extremely disgruntled.
FROM TIME TO TIME, Congress has
tried-though with little succcess-to con-
trol the President's use of force in the
conduct of foreign policy. In the 1930's for
example, Congress passed a series of Neu-
trality Acts designed to keep us out of
"the next world war." But this legislation
was not effective in deterring Franklin D.
Roosevelt from making the U.S. "the ar-
senal of democracy."
In 1952, during the Korean War, Presi-
dent Truman ran into difficulty when the
steel mills went on strike. He seized the
steel mills but was rebuffed by the Supreme
Court 6 to 3 when the cas went to court.
Justice Hugo Black, who explained the
opinion of the majority, explained it quite
cimnl "Tp Pr.,id~ntC+owpr if' arv to~
In 1969, the Senate passed a "sense of
the Senate" resolution demanding that the
President consult with them before enter-
ing into a treaty with a foreign country
or before committing the U.S. militarily.
Nixon did not feel obliged to adhere to that
resolution either.
BY PLACING EMPHASIS on "Advice
and Consent," the Senate has s o u g h t
more of the responsibility for foreign
policy formulation. But by his actions con-
cerning Cambodia, President Nixon has
flagrantly violated these restrictions.
President Nixon promised to extricate us
from Vietnam. Instead, he has involved us
in Cambodian affairs. Fifteen years ago,
when Nixon was the Vice-President. he
#I