F THE MICHIGAN DAILY TUESDAY, MAY 20, I TUESDAY, MAY 20, mmpwqa Academic Freedom Iditor4 eote "Hot, Isn"t IE ?"'° And The Speakers' Ban The Progress of Ennui The Lecture Committee Saturday added another encroachment on aca- demic freedom to a list which has been growing rapidly since the March ban- ning of Abner Greene and Arthur McPhaul. The banning of Ann Shore, Civil Rights Congress member, differed in one important respect from the earlier ones: there was no pretense that this was to be a "temporary" ban pending further information-it was an out- right veto. In defending its previous decisions, the Lecture Committee made a great point of the "temporary" na- ture of the prohibition. It based its need .for more information on the claim that there were some grounds for suspicion that Greene and McPhaul, since they belonged to organizations branded subversive by the Attorney-General, might advocate the vio- lent overthrow of the government. In the latest decision, however, the mere label of "subversive" attached to Mrs. Shore by virtue of her membership in a black- listed organization and her recent expulsion from the CIO were considered sufficient grounds for a definitive, permanent quietus. Thus the lines of interpretation harden. Another nibble has been made at academic freedom. The by-law stating "no addresses shall be allowed which urge the destruction Or modification of government by violence or other unlawful methods . . ." now covers not only died-in-the-wool Communists who advocate force but also all those who can by association, be conceivably suspected of this intent. U seemed of no consequence to the Committee that this was to be a debate on a specific topic, the charge of genocide by the American government against the Negro race. The other side of the picture was to be presented by two eminently capable men, Prof. Preston Slosson and John Ragland of the Dunbar Civic Center. It is our opinion that the two could have dispensed with the genocide arguments with ease, as simply as Prof. Slosson dis- peused with Prof. Phillips' defense of Communism two years ago. Such a de- bate is even more than a mere speech, fully consistent with the educational ideals of this institutio nin presenting all view. DORIS FLEESON: W ASHINGTON-Sen. Estes Kefauver, too liberal for the states' righters of his native South, is too much the reformer for the cities' righters of his party. When the Senator paraded the sins of the big city machines in front of the television cameras last year, he violated a kind of gentlemen's agreement long exist. ing between them and Washington. The fear that the Senator from Tennessee may have the reforming habit is the basic cause of the hostility big-city leaders gen- erally oppose to his candidacy. Their states are vital, they are powerful and shrewd, they are extremely cooperative on the federal front. With so much to offer a President, their voice may well be heeded. (Copyright, 1952, by The Bell Syndicate, Inc.) points for the intelligent consideration of the student. However, a rather absurd arbitrary dis- tinction was drawn between the two deba- ters on the "pro" side, Mrs. Shore and Lebron Simmons, Detroit Democrat and trustee of a Protestant church. In effect, the Lecture Committee reasoned thus: It is permissable for a "non-subver- sive" to advocate a "subversive" idea; it is not permissable for a. "subversive" to advo- cate a "subversive"~ idea. It is hardly necessary to elaborate on the fallacy of these labels as a criterion for banning. Apparently a good "Democrat" and "Methodist" is "safe" to discuss a topic which a CRC member cannot debate. The earlier Greene and McPhaul rulings were somewhat understandable because of the furor stirred up by the House Un-Ameri- can sub-committee's Detroit investigations and the pending consideration of the Uni- versity budget by the State Legislature. However, there was no such outside pres- sure brought to bear in this case. It is now clear that the Lecture Committee is intent on barring all those whom they may sus- pect of being "subversive" from speaking on University property under any circumstances. We feel this represents a curtailment of academic freedom which canot go unchallenged. We feel that the whole concept and principle of the Lecture Committee is wrong; however, there seems to be little indication that the Regents will see fit at present to abolish the Com-. mittee. Perhaps a practical alternative at this moment is to seek liberalized inter- pretations of the by-law through what- ever channels available. Students have already expressed by a significant margin their opposition to the Lecture Committee. Student Legislature now has a mandate to' lead a movement for liberalization of the Committee. Ob- taining the two non-voting student repre- sentatives was a beginning, but it is also necessary that both students be allowed to vote. In time, a student majority on the committee is essential. Many individual faculty members have expressed their concern over the recent re- strictive drift in Lecture Committee policy. It is now time for them to organize and crystallize their collective opposition through the Faculty Senate and other faculty groups. The Administration should realize both the damaging effect of the publicity on such decisions, and the dangers inherent in allowing curtailment of academic free- dom. It is time for a thorough review of the Committee policies. A constructive first step would be the appointment to the Committee of a faculty member devoted to academic freedom to fill the seat now vacant. Meanwhile, Lecture Committee members should pause and reflect on the absurd and untenable approach they have taken in *their task. There is nothing in the by- laws to block a speaker merely because he or she is associated with an organization which is questionable; therefore these per- sons should at the very least be allowed to speak in a debate situation, where their views are subject to the pull and strain of competent inquiry. Here we would witness the very essence of that quality which is "in spirit and expression worthy of the University." --Crawford Young Barnes Connable Cal Samra Zander Hollander Sid Klaus Harland Britz Donna Hendleman A PATTERN IN banning speakers on this campus is rapidly taking shape. With each new action, this pattern becomes a lit- tle more formal, a little harder to accept. And the news of each successive ban is dull- er. Conceivably, the power to react at all will eventually become impossible, and ac- tion which is at present obnoxious will be taken as routine. I recall that it was easy to be right- eously angry back in the spring of 1950, when a Communist named Herbert Phil- lips was denied the right to take part in a campus debate. 'Nearly everyone was more liberal then-at least it seems so, looking back on it from the distance of two years. It was more a game than a matter of morals, perhaps, to join in protesting the Lecture Committee, claim- ing that our rights as intelligent students were being abridged by not being allow- ed to hear a strange point of view. The fight contained an element of sincere en- thusiasm; we knew we were right, and had no qualms about telling others how we felt. We even thought, evidently a lit- tle naively, that those others would lis- ten to us, see the sense in our arguments, and concede the point to us. After all, our staff of heroes, from Jefferson on, seemed wholly adequate. There was some of this enthusiasm left, though it was not nearly so concentrated, when the Lecture Committee banned Abner Greene and Arthur McPhaul early in March of this year. Around The Daily our outlook had been infected to a certain extent with the prevailing national purpose: that there actually was such a thing as a Communist; that he was not simply a human being with ideas which were repugnant to us, but was a malignant individual motivated by a system of doctrine which had as its goal our dis- comfort, or destruction; that such a person deeserved only to be silenced, then purged, by whatever means at our command. We found it more proper to complain that these two men were not admitted Communists, and therefore did not come under the same rules as those applied before. Again we thought we were right. These men deserved to be silenced even less than Phillips; they were not, at least, avowed Communists, whatever doubts we might have about their backgrounds. They might deliver a lot of foolishness (one did, a few days later), but they should be allowed to speak. Other arguments, such as the ir responsibility of the sponsor groups involv- ed, despite a measure of validity, had little bearing on the question of banning the speakers. Suspicion had been entered as a criterion, and with it, the definition of free speech on the University campus went into a new phase. * * * ALL THIS WAS said in March. All the ar- guments in which we had placed so much faith a few years before were polished off and issued once more, but they failed to ring so clear and true. The Un-American Activities Committee had arrived in Detroit, and with the very volume of its illogic, suc- ceeding in making some of its viewpoints seem logical. Civil liberties, once a strong- hold to be defended easily against the bad men, had come to have a connotation of il- legality, principles employed to take swipes at the constitution and proper citizens. With the news on Saturday that the Lecture Committee had banned another proposed speaker, this time because she was a member of a reputedly subversive group, it was much harder to get heartily incensed, though by this action the the- ory of 'restriction became definitely more serious. The pattern was closing in tight- er, and we were being forced to admit that its progress seemed inexorable. I tried to write an editorial that night, dispassion- ately outlining the reasons why 'I thought the ruling to be unjustified, but after working for several hours, I realized that repetition had succeeded in dulling my re- action. The situation today seems to be this: pub- lic support of civil liberties on this campus -the freedom of speech, at any rate-is beund to prove ineffectual in the long run. I have heard complaints that The Daily is spending too much space on this matter, that people are tired of reading about it. Perhaps the complaints are justified; I had always thought that civil liberties were not so much things to be agitated for as main- tained, but the public temper appears to have changed. Instead of leaving me with an active interest in fighting against the theory and actions of the Lecture Commit- tee, its repeated outrages against a doctrine of free speech has produced only an abiding disgust. -Chuck Elliott IT DOTH NOT follow that the suppressing of discussion with too much severity should be a remedy of troubles; for the des- pising of them many times checks them best, and the going about to stop them but makes a wonder long-lived. -Sir Francis Bacon WHAT IS MODESTY but hypocritical hu- mility, by means of which, in a world swelling with envy, a man seeks to obtain X/etteP' TO THE EDITOR The Daily welcomes communications from its readers on matters of general interest, and will publish all letters which are signed by the writer and in good taste. Letters exceeding 300 words in length, defamatory or libelous letters, and letters which for any reason are not in good taste will be condensed, edited or withheld from publication at the discretion of the editors. SDA Protest.. .. To the Editor: HE Students For Democratic Action agreed last week to sponsor the genocide debate, now refusedcampus facilities because of the banning of one participant. We wanted this debate because we believe that only the free give- and-take of argument and unre- strained study can lead to intelli- gent political conviction and un- derstanding. We felt that the proposed debate would spolight the fradulent misrepresentation and insincere duplicity of the well-publicized charges of planed Negro genocide. We refused, however, to prejudge for others the exaggeration and sheer falsehoods in these argu- ments. Therefore we invited cap- able representatives of both points of view to a meeting which we are convinced would be in the best spirit of the function of a univer- sity. This banning was unexpected and dismaying in itsimplications. It means that no alleged Com- munist may speak here on any political subject. The Lecture Committee decision contains much tortured reasoning. A political argument offered by Mrs. Shore is banned, but the same point of view defended by Mr. Simmons is acceptable to the Committee. The spiral of bannings began with such international Commun- ist functionaries as Gerhardt Eis- ler. Now a religious group and a liberal political club are refused a debate because one of the four personalities is an alleged subver- sive. It is a tragic and dangerous spiral, and no end is in sight as more causes and more personali- ties are labelled as subversive. Agreement or disagreement on genocide is not the issue. As the MSC newspaper put it, the vital controversy is whether or not "a state university can allow itself to become the instrument of poli- tically-inspired control over stu- dent access to conflicting ideas." The responsibility and authority assumed by the Lecture Committee is too unfair and extensive for toleration at a university. Their decisions have become an unfor- tunate distortion of vague and dangerous wording in the Regents directive. Things have not gone well here at Michigan. But we still have a chance. The campus must unite now to appeal to the Board of Regents to clarify their directive or modify it. The Lecture Commit- tee must not continue to hide be- hind a distorted interpretation of "subversive" and "advocacy of modification of the government by violence" to extend its bannings to any political idea shared by Communists. If these interpretations are not reversed the only outcome of this cuddled controversy will be a muzzled campus. -Ted Friedman, for the SDA Exec. Comm. # F, , Public Scorn. . . . To the Editor: IT WAS ORIGINALLY my inten- tion, as a satiric device, to write this letter in the style of the samples of English I shall present- ly hold up to public scorn. Several attempts have convinced me I am not capable of it. My pen shrinks from the task; the paper ing of rain-making, "This recent discovery can be of great value or it can be disabused by man as he desires, he concluded." In a letter to the editor from Al Moore: "Is not, Mr. Jaffe, religion par- taken by the greater majority of the students on this campus?" Let us rest a moment before I present the crowning achievement of May 15th's Daily. It is the con- cluding paragraph of a review of the book "They Went to College." The review itself is not bad, though I thought the statistic about col- lege graduates being younger as a group than non-college graduates called for some explanation. But the paragraph: "One thing more needs to be re- emphasized. Mr. Havemann states early in the first chapter that this is not the kind of study that tells you whether college has caused such things as higher incomes, marriage rates, politicaliopinions, or all of the rest. But it will not tell you if college is the reason for their being like this." Now there, I suggest, lies a sen- timent which cannot be re-empha- sized enough! --Ralph A. Raimi EDI~TOR'S NOTE: The "crowning achievement" is the work of a myo- pic proofreader-irregardless, an end to such disabuse can hardly be re- emphasized enough. * * * Appreciation . .. To the Editor: WHEN I SEE the tanks sitting on the diag, I realize how wonderful the limestone siding is on Angell Hall. When I see the Armed Forces marching down State Street, I am overjoyed at the thought of the happy, halcyon days-when we had spring riots. When I see the tanks sitting on the diag, the tuition increase seems so small. When I see the Airmed Forces marching docwn State Street, Then I can appreciate the front page picture in the Daily of GeneralI MacArthur looking so much like General DeGaulle. -Carl Klaus MATTER OF FACT By JOSEPH and STEWART ALSOP WASHINGTON-James P. McGranery, the Pennsylvania judge the President has chosen to clean out corruption in the government, will probably be confirmed as Attorney General of the United States shortly after these words are printed. There is still time to ntoe, however, that this event is likely to turn out to be another jolly joke on the American people. The peculiarities of the McGranery record have not yet been publicized because the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Commit- tee. Sen. Pat McCarran, carefully closed the hearings when the more curious evidence was being given. Sen. McCarran seems to have a fellow feeling for the Attorney General-nominate, which perhaps derives from their common friendship for Pan American Airways. The oddest testimony, now released on motion of the Judiciary Committee minority was given by the young Turk Democratic lead- er of Philadelphia, Richardson Dilworth. Dilworth and McGranery, admittedly, are old-time political enemies. Yet Dilworth's testimony was buttressed by an elaborate apparatus of photostats and court records. And it cannot be lightly dismissed, since the main facts are not disputed. In brief, in the summer of 1939, when King George and Queen Elizabeth of England were due to visit this country, an Irish revolu- tionary, Sean Russell, came here with the avowed intention of assas- sinating them. He was promptly picked up by the F.B.I. The Clan Na Gael, an extremist Irish group, thereupon persuaded McGranery, then a Democratic member of Congress, to try to get Russell released. And at McGranery's request, President Roosevelt allowed Russell to leave the country after $5,000 bail had been posted. This $5,000, raised with great difficulty from rich members of the Clan Na Gael, was deposited with McGranery as surety against Russell's bail bond. Part of the money was transmitted to McGranery by James McGarrity, a Philadelphia chieftan of the Clan Na Gael. The rest was handed to MGranery direct by a Clan Na Gael officer, James Brislane. Russell left the country, and in 1941, the Clan Na Gael began to ask for its money back.. By 1944, although there was no proof of Russell's whereabouts, his bail bond was dismissed. This removed the only pretext for McGranery's holding the $5,000 of surety money, and the Clan Na Gael grew more insistent on being repaid. No less than seven lawyers applied, at different times, to Mc- Granery. One of them, Thomas M. J. Vizard, testified that in 1945 McGranery offered him a deal, whereby he would give the Clan Na Gael half the money and keep half himself-thus, in effect, acknow- ledging the Clan's claim. Meanwhile, McGranery had first been ap- pointed to a high Justice Department post, and then, in 1946, had been named a District Court Judge. Possibly because no one likes to sue a Federal Judge, none of the lawyers perssed the Clan Na Gael claim until the Clan retained Dilworth. Dilworth brought suit against McGranery on the Clan's behalf in 1948. Despite his offer to Vizard, McGranery now alleged that the $5,000 he was holding was really the property of the Clan's Philadel- phia chieftan, McGarrity. McGarrity had died in 1940. McGranery had never made any attempt to acknowledge his supposed debt of $5,0 to McGarrity's estate. McGranery's signed receipts to the Clan Na Gael were entered in evidence. Hence the court ordered McGranery to repay the $5,000 to the Clan Na Gael, less about $1,200 of expenses he claimed to have incurred in obtaining Russell's release. In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dil- worth characterized the whole business as a "shabby" attempt at "misappropriation." McGranery hardly attempted to answer Dil- worth, except to point out that Dilworth was a member of Ameri- cans for Democratic Action. This greatly outraged Sen. McCarran and several of his colleagues who then denounced Dilworth as a probable subversive. In a-ddition to Dilworth, Thomas McBride, one of the most respec- ted leaders of the Philadelphia bar, also appeared against McGranery. McBride testified that McGranery was a legal ignoramus, totally lacking in judicial temperament. As evidence, he offered the enor- mous number of reversals of McGranery's judicial decisions by the Federal Circuit Court. Among the McGranery errors cited, were such really fantastic rulings as the denial of the right of counsel to a de- fendant in a criminal case, and a charge to a jury grossly confusing the nature of "reasonable doubt." Evidence was also offered that after the Clan Na Gael case, McGranery sought to use his judicial power to revenge himself on Dilworth, through one of Dilworth's clients. Peculiarly enough, the minority members of the Senate Ju- diciary Committee who are opposing McGranery's confirmation have subordinated these really shocking charges that McGran- ery tried to misappropriate funds and is a legal incompetent. These Republican Senators voice their loudest dissatisfaction with Mc- Granery's comments on President Truman's steel seizure, and with his explanation of his role in the "Amerasia" prosecution while he was in the Justice Department. The explanation of McGranery, both as Federal Judge and as Attorney General-nominate, is simple enough. When Sen. and Mrs. Truman first came to Washington, Rep. and Mrs. McGranery were good neighbors to them. In short, McGranery is another Truman crony. He is also a man of considerable surface charm. But whatever the rights and wrongs of the Dilworth and McBride testimony, the evidence certainly does not suggest McGranery can be counted on for the great clean-up of the Federal government, which he has said will be "as easy as pie." (Copyright, 1$52, New 'F'ork Herald Tribune, Inc.)t °a ( / ) A N g__CURRENTMOVIs ;i. A At The Michigan . . BELLES ON THEIR TOES, with Jean- ne Craine and Myrna Loy. T HIS SEQUEL to "Cheaper by the Dozen" seems to have been made primarily to give Jeanne Craine and two very similar young ladies a chance to have 1910-type romances. Their suitors range from a rac- coon coat in a red Stutz roadster to a su- perbly clean-cut young doctor. 'Even Myrna Loy, as the recently widowed mother who is also a lady engineer, has a wealthy Edward Arnold to keep her from becoming too tedi- ously domestic. After a moneyed ogre of an aunt tries unsuccessfully to steal a couple of the choicer children so they can have "ad- vantages," the family's problems are re- duced to simple ones of money. None of the children are sent into sweatshops, of course. Rags and poverty are avoided simply by trusting in Providence, which pays off handsomely in this case. Apart from the heroines above, the rest of the family does little more than march single file through doorways, a process that makes them seem like a gross instead of a mere dozen. Even after two hours it's almost impossible to distinguish one attractive ju- venile froni another. The anecdotal nature of this material, though it provides some fairly funny scenes, does not make for a very well integrated movie. One has the uncomfortable feeling At The Orpheum . .. MIRACLE IN MILAN, with Francesco Golisano. T HIS "most honored picture of the year (1951)" does not quite measure up to its reputation. After establishing a good num- ber of symbolic characters and situations, and constructing a basically sound plot, it fails to take full advantage of them. With such potentially dramatic elements to work with it seems that the picture might have been transformed into a lesson in charity, or love, or some similar higher quality of human nature. Instead the pri- mary aim appears to be to mage the char- acters representations of people we might know. Although there is nothing wrong with a study in character as such, when it is built around this type of fantasy it doesn't seem to materialize. The story begins well enough, with an old lady discovering a baby in her cabbage patch. Her death, followed by a singularly pathetic funeral, sends the boy to an or- phanage; upon his release he takes up the life of a tramp-a big-hearted gener- ous tramp with ideals about happiness and the nobility of man. He builds a rea- sonably livable camp for the hoboes, who discover oil on the land and arouse they interest of the grasping businessman who owns it. His attempts to evict them lead to flights of incredible miracles, culminat- ed by their escape on broomsticks to a fin- er. hannier land shave the clonds "where DAILY OFFICIAL BULLETIN I (Continued from Page 2) Spring Concert by University of Mich- igan Choir, Maynard Klein, Conductor, 8:30 p.m., Wed., May 21, in Hill Audi- torium, with Norma Heyde, soprano, and Arlene Solienberger, contralto, as soloists. The concert will open with the Michigan Singers presenting works by Tomas Luis de victoria, DiLasso, and Gabrielli; the Women's Choir will fol- low with Debussey's The Blessed Damo- zel, after which the Michigan Singers will return with Brahms' Fest-und Ge- denkspruche. The Men's Choir will sing 1Healey WilIan's The Agincourt Song, with Donald van Every and Robert Kerns, soloists, and Robert Elmore's The Prodigal Son, with James Fudge, John Wiles, Russell Christopher featur- ed. The Michigan Singers will close the concert with Neue Liebeslieder by Brahms. The public will be admitted without charge. Exhibitions Rackham Galleries: 1st Michigan Re- gional Art Exhibition, auspices Exten- sion Service. Museum of Art, College of Architecture and Design. Daily 10 a.m. to 10 p.m., through May 31. The public is invited. Events Today Senior Table Carving. A table is now available in the Union Taproom for America, movie and election of officers for Fal semester. All members are urg- ed to come. International Meeting at 7:30 p.m. in the Ann Arbor Room of the League, in charge of the International commit- tee of SL. All presidents of internation- al clubs are invited and others interest- ed are urged to attend. square Dance Group meets at Lane Hall, 7:15 p.m. All students welcome. S. R. A. Council meets at Lane Hall, 5:15 p.m. Coming Events Armed Forces Communications Asso- ciation. May meeting, 8 p.m., Thurs., May 22, 1041 Randall Laboratory. Prof. H. R. Crane will describe the principles of operation of the synchroton follow- ed by a visit to the Synchroton Labora- tory. Undergraduate Botany Club. Last meeting of the year, Wed., May21, 7:30 p.m., at Dr. Clover's house, 1522 Hill St. Mr. Fred Case will speak and show slides, Wesleyan Guild. Matin service, 7:30 a.m., Wed. In the chapel. Do-Drop-In for tea and chatter, 4 to 5:30 p.m., Wed. in the lounge. Cabinet meeting, 8:30 p.m., Wed. in the lounge. Sixty-Second Year Edited and managed by students of the University of Michigan under the authority of the Board in Control of Student Publications. Editorial Staff Chuck Elliott ........Managing Editor Bob Keith .. ....... City Editor Leonard Greer baum, Editorial Director Vern Emerson ..........Feature Editor Ron Watts .............Associate Editor Bob Vaughn ..........Associate Editor Ted Papes .........Sports Editor George Flint ....Associate Sports Editor Jim Parker .....Associate Sports Editor Jan James ............ Women's Editor Jo Ketelhut. Associate Women's Editor Esress Stafj Bob Miller ...........Bustnews Manager Gene Kuthy, Assoc. Business Manager Charles Cuson ....Advertising Manager Milt Goetz........Circulation Manager .4 4.