F TTHE MICHIGAN DAILY

Marriage Lectures

pHE RETURN of the marriage relations
lectures to campus-as the "Marriage
nd Family Relations Lecture Series" is in-
leed good news.
The demise of the series threatened last
'all would have been a serious loss to an im-
portant extra-curricular education program
n campus.
But now, after months of discussion and
careful consideration by faculty and stu-
dent members of the lecture committee,
they will again be held this year, begin-
ning February 22.
And it looks as though the series will be
better than ever. The talks promise to deal

with the most vital problems that most stu-
dents face in their post-graduation days.
Lectures will deal exclusively with specific
topics, after an opening, general lecture on
the institution of marriage.
Genuine attempts will, or should, be made
to keep the talks on the level of student in-
terest-neither childishly below it, nor ultra-
scientifically above.
"Emphasis on contemporary problems"
will be the keynote of the talks. The mar-
riage customs of the Melanesian Islanders
will have no place in this year's discussions.
Two sociologists, an anthropologist and
a practicing physician will approach mar-
riage and family problems from their own
viewpoints - viewpoints recognized as
sound and experienced nationally and
internationally.
The lectures should be well worth attend-
ing. And they should be well worth the stu-
dent support which will make possible their
continuation next year.
-Mary Stein

Editorials published in The Michigan
are written by members of The Daily
and represent the views of the writers

Daily
staff
only.

6w

NIGHT EDITOR: FRAN IVICK

(N


Fitness for ruth

THE UNIVERSITY of Washington's deci-
sion to fire three professors because they
are Communists has brought forth a sturwr
of comment and investigation, praise and
blame, that has seldom been equalled.
Two of the professors admitted their
party affiliation; thus the important ques-
tion remains: Does membership in the
Communist Party make a man unfit to
teach?
Clearly there is no easy answer. There are
distinguished educators on both sides of the
question. It would be difficult to find a more
suitable case to test exactly the limits of
academic freedom.
In calling for dismissal of the Communist
professors, President Raymond B. Allen of
the University of Washington said:
"Academic freedom must be maintained.
. . But academic freedom consists of
something more than merely an: absence
of restraints placed upon the teacher by
the institution that employs him. It de-
mands as well an absence of restraints
placed upon him by his political affilia-
tions, or by dogmas that may stand in the
way of a free search for truth . .."
The president of Sarah Lawrence College,
Harold Taylor, took an opposite stand:
"The dismissal of the three University of
Washington professors sets a dangerous pre-
cedent ... It is a sign of weakness and lack
of faith in ourselves if we must resort to
dismissals in order to gain protection from
dangerous thoughts."
For dismissal was Provost Albert C. Jacobs
of Columbia University:
"A person who is a member of an or-
ganization which adheres to the doctrine
that our free institutions are to be de-
stroyed by force if necessary, and who is
pledged to follow the 'party line;' is nei-
ther loyal to our Constitution nor is he
free to seek and to teach the truth. To
allow the infiltration of such persons into
the faculties of universities would tend to
defeat the ends which academic freedom
is designed to attain."
There is a suggestion in this statement of
the argument that those who would destroy
freedom should not be allowed to enjoy it.
And this view was explicitly stated by some
educators in support of the discharges.

This idea is now being tested in the trial
of the 11 Communist leaders. The Supreme
Court will ultimately decide whether it is to
gain acceptance as a sort of unwritten con-
stitutional principle.
The question here is whether Commu-
nists, or fascists, are automatically dis-
qualified as teachers-whether they are
rendered professionally incoimpetent by
their beliefs.
Itis difficult to see how a mathematician,
for example, could be disqualified on ac-
count of unusual or extreme political views.
On the other hand, an economist might very
well be incompetent as a scientific investi-
gator because of dedication to Marxist
dogma.
Whether he would therefore be disquali-
fied as a teacher is another matter, and one
which depends on a number of factors. The
Marxist economist, like the fascist sociolo-
gist and the Lysenko geneticist, is neither
objective nor scientific because he refuses to
recognize that his belief does not square
with verified fact. He is a special pleader
for ideas that have not been proved and, in
many instances, have been apparently dis-
proved.
Throughout our educational system
there are those who teach particular be-
liefs. Every Aristotelian critic, every Chris-
tian philosopher, is a special pleader for
ideas that have not been and possibly can-
not be proved.
The test of a teacher's competence, and
of his right to academic freedom, is not whe-
ther he holds opinions which are not scien-
tifically demonstrable or with which some
administrator does not agree.
The decision to dismiss a teacher should
restinstead on whether divergence of view
is represented on the faculty, where free
competition in ideas is maintained. Teach-
ers who are honest enough to state their
bias should be retained if theirs is not
the only point of view represented.
In any case, the students themselves must
evaluate what their teachers believe and say.
In a democracy the best course is to trust
the judgment= of those who must finally
mal e tip their own minds.
-Phil Dawson

Precocity
LITTLE BABY ATOM is three and one-half
years old now, and with great apprehen-
sion the parents of the unexpected child
watch it grow.
Already it has taken its first faltering
steps. Westinghouse has been commis-
sioned to develop the first atomic pow-
ered ship, more scientists get Phoenix
Project grants, and artists begin depicting
interplanetary travel.
Meanwhile, the U.S. proudly announces
the birth of another child-a bigger, better
(or worse, if you like) atomic bomb.
And the reprecussions follow.
Russia demands that the U.S. count its
atomic noses. Elsewhere, the cry for atomic
birth control becomes louder.
Writing in the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, the president of the British
Atomic Scientists' Association last month
came forth with a new proposal. H sug-
gests that the U.S. and Britain make the
following declaration: "That in any future
conflict they will not bomb civilian centers
of population either with atomic or with
any other weapons, unless our own cities
or those of an ally are first attacked in
this way."
The purpose of the declaration, the writer
says, would be to remove the threat of stra-
tegic bombing-a very noble ideal.
But the phrase "in any future conflict
converts the declaration into a "Rule of
War," and like afl other rules of war, it
becomes a farce.
The outlawing of the atomic bomb can
accomplish no more than did the outlaw-
ing of poison gas. In such efforts to "civi-
lize" war is implicit the idea that war can
be civilized-that the game of war can be
played fairly.
But you cannot civilize a wild beast; yo i
can only lock him up in a prison strong
enough to prevent his escape.
Maybe it was the memory of the London
bombings of 1940 that prompted the Eng-
lishman to propose this pledge. War, or
course, would be a little more pleasant if
civilian populations were spared. But then,
war would be a little more seldom if it were
closer to the warmakers.
The best way to prevent murder is not
to confiscate the murderers' guns-they'll
turn to knives, poison, etc., which, though
maybe not so efficient, are just as effective.
The preservation of civilization will not
ue realized by outlawing the atomic bomb,
or any other weapon of war, but only by
outlawing war itself.
The frightful idea that there is "No Place
To Hide" makes the demand that the bomb
be outlawed even more powerful.
But there'll never be a place to hide from
the sight of the crippled and the maimed, or
the grief of a dead soldier's family.
-George Walker
THE TIME OF YOUR LIFE: By the
University of Michigan Student Players.
THE CAST of "The Time of Your Life",
a tragi-comedy by William Saroyan,
covered itself with individual if not col-
lective glory last night at Pattengill Audi-
torium. Each of the major characters drew
spontaneous applause from the audience at
least once during the play, and "Killer"
Sheila Millman and "Sidekick" Shirley
Shambaugh received big laughs after only
a few minutes duty. The steadiest and most

sustained performance, however, was de-
livered by Sid Corbett, who as bartender
Nick displayed a remarkable facility for
getting along with a number of unusual
characters.
Unusual as they appeared on the surface,
they were really not so underneath, being
mostly simple-hearted people witl hearts
of gold. I am not scoffing; I admire "Joe"
for his fierce, gruff defense of them. But'
if I were an actor, I would want to punch
Saroyan in the nose for some of his more
hysterical lines; and the cast deserves the
highest kind of praise for pushing across
the Saroyan philosophy as if they actually
believed it. Sometimes they didn't; Nick
didn't enjoy some of his lines, and the cast
in general found the humorous parts more
enjoyable.
Of those who had to emote, Carolyn Herr-
williger as "Ditty Duval" and Alan Jackson
as "Tom" had the greatest success.
Special mention, for competence in screwy
roles, must go to George Boucher as "Kit
Carson", and to Aram Nahabediau as the
"Drunkard."
The most notable achievement in this
production was the strenuous attempts of
the cast to keep the play from degenerating
into a complete farce, which it almost is
anyway, if you are a tough guy. Much of
the credit for this should go to Jim Reghi,
who as Joe, the un-illusioned optimist, keeps
things on an even keel.
-Fred Schott.
New Books at Gener al ibrary

MATTER OF FACT:
B rtish Miracle

By JOSEPH ALSOPI
LONDON.-If good news were generally re-
garded as headline-worthy, what has
been happening in Britain would long ago
have made the headlines in American news-
papers. There is only one way to describe it.
In the past year, the British people have
accomplished a miracle.
In November, 1947, when this correspon-
dent was last in London, the economic out-
look was as dark as the military outlook
in July, 1940. The nation was sufferifag
from a massive financial hemorrhage
which threatened the collapse of its cur -
rency. Exports and imports appeared to
be hopelessly unbalanced. Recovery of coal
and other production was gravely slow.
Now the traveler observes that things are
better in the very hour of arriving in Lon-
don. This sprawling, imperial city is one
which depends heavily on smartness for its
effect. And now fresh paint, the polished
brass, the whitened steps and even the neat
bay trees in tubs that made the old London
are at least beginning to reappear.
The British people are still accepting with-
out grumbling a degree of austerity theat
would bring on a revolution in most coun -
tries-barring starches and fresh vegetables,
an Englishman's weekly ration would not
make two reasonably hearty meals. But the
shops are none the less full now. The res-
taurant food tastes less like a series of de-
pressing variations on a central theme of
mucilage. And although home cookery is
hardly a British forte, British housewives
have managed to do much with the slight
increase in variety and quantity of food al-
lowed them. Outwardly, in short, British life
seems to have returned almost to normal ex-
cept that there is none of the glittering dis-
play of luxury which used to make very rien

century. Then too, there is the peculiar
British political system under which the
Tory opposition, behaving in a most un-
Rpublican manner, has helped the govern-
rent on all fundamental issues.
What has happened here also has vast
meaning for the United States. If the Brit-
ish'miracle is not upset by a collapse of
world trade, Britain will be standing on her
own feet by 1952. Contrary to many predic-
tions, Britain will be a great power again.
For the United States this means that we
shall no longer have to deal with the world
emergency single-handed, with all the re-
sulting strain on our resources and our peo-
pie, if the Anglo-American partnership is
maintained. This will be a combination
pretty formidable to be challenged by any
aggressor.
PromirsingGa
rT'HOUGH unsung and undramatic, steady
progress is being made against filibus-
tering in the Senate.
As the rules now stand, a filibuster can
only be stopped by the application of a
cloture, a two-thirds vote of the Senate to
stop debate (that is, filibustering) on a
hill.
But should some Southern gentleman be
sly enough to "debate against" a motion to
bring the bill to a vote, rather than the mea-
sure itself, "debate" can continue until the
Senator dies or the session of the 'Senate
endswhichever occurs first. The cloture
rule would not apply.
Wednesday, the Senate Rules Committee,
by a 10 to 3 vote, decided to send a measure
which would sew up this loop hole in the