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.

April 22, 1952 - Image 6

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1952-04-22

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

PACE SIX . -

. THE MICHIGAN DAILY

bAY, APR.TT; 9.?_ 1 n

PAGE sir THE MICHIGAN DAILY TTJE~DAY. APIflT. P~

Ii r - I. w~

A

rrI

(PAID ADVERTISEMENT)

0

4

A

Sta

ement

of

cts

We, the students who have been accused of violating
a University regulation because of alleged connections with
the McPhaul dinner, wish to make the following statement:
We contend we did not break any University regulation.
We exercised our constitutional right as citizens to hear
a speaker at a private dinner.
We could not possibly have violated the regulation in
question, which reads:
No permission for the use of University
property for meetihgs or lectures shall be
granted to any student organization not
recognized by University authorities, nor
shall such permission be granted to any in-
dividual student.
As it is now written, this regulation is a restriction upon
the discretion of University authorities to grant the use of
University property. Since no student is in any position to
grant permission for the use of University property, he can-
not possibly violate this regulation. If anyone is guilty, it is
the individual or individuals who gave permission for the use
of the room in the Union.
Secondly, we have been taught to believe in a govern-
ment of laws and not of men. This means that laws should
be enforced impartially and in a non-discriminatory manner.
In our case, however, the opposite seems true.
Though we have been told that the Union is University
property and though the University regulations state that "the
Committee on University Lectures is given jurisdiction over
all public lectures and addresses held in University build-
ings"" we.know that meetings and lectures have been held
regularly both by students and non-students in the Michigan
Union without the consent of the Lecture Committee. This
rule has never been applied, at least to our knowledge, to
those who rented rooms. Therefore we fail to see why it now
should be applied to us.
Those of us who attended this dinner merely heard a
man speak. We conducted ourselves civilly, paid our dinner
bill, and did not act in a disorderly manner. We stress this
fact because while the University has been particularly zeal-
ous in attempting to find a regulation which we allegedly
have violated, it has at the same time decided to take no action
against the students who participated in the riot of March 20.
Yet those students destroyed private propery, invaded dormi-
ories, brought out the whole Ann Arbor police force and vio-
lated innumerable University rules. While we are not at all
advocating that the University should punish those victims
of "Spring-fever," we feel that its leniency in sucli a case

indicates that the University uses a double standard.
Thirdly, the University has indicated that in-as-much
as it does not know who the host of the dinner is, it holds all

those who attended it guilty. Some of us have been told that
if it had this knowledge it would drop charges against the
other participants. In other words, it is applying the prin-
ciple of collective punishment in lieu of finding "the guilty
one."
Fourthly, we contend that the procedure used in invest
tigating this case was quite arbitrary. While the University
took six weeks to decide that a rule had been broken, it gave
some of us an average of fifteen minutes to "defend" our-
selves. Some of us were not permitted to make statements.
Some of us were told we could only answer questions "yes"
or "no'' or "I don't care to answer." We were placed in an
atmosphere of intimidation. One of us asked whether the
investigating committee realized it was intimidating students.
He was told that students would be intimidated if necessary
to enforce Unversity regulations. Some of us were asked
many irrelevant questions, such as "Do you know ... . .?'
Those questions made us believe that the University was trying
to find some of us guilty by association. Our confidence was
violated in that the special investigating committee handed
the transcript of our testimony ovei- to the members of the
Joint Judiciary Committee after giving us the impression that
our testimony would be strictly private. The members of the
Joint Judiciary Committee had copies of the testimony, but
denied a copy to several of us who requested it for our de-
fense.
We further contend that the hearings represent politi-
cal discrimination. The University saw fit in the case of
Senator Taft to interpret liberally the rule which states that
University regulations "are designed to serve the educational
interests of the academic community rather than the political
interests of any party or candidate." Yet it interpreted most
stringently the rules in the case of Mr. McPhaul.
In view of the above facts, we are appealing to the stu-
dent body and to the faculty members for support. We urge
everyone to contact President Hatcher asking that the charges
be immediately dropped.
Signed:
JOAN BERLER
MARGE BUCKLEY
VALERIE COWEN
SHELLEY ESTRIN
GORDON MacDOUGALL
DOROTHY MacKAY
ETHEL SCHECHTMAN
BOB SCHOR
ED SHAFFER
MIKE SHARPE
STEVE SMALE

We wish to thank the many students -and faculty
members who so generously contributed for this Ad.

- ;:: - -
F

w

r

.
d
y
1

A

k,

/

enIII

ul

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan