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.

March 17, 1953 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1953-03-17

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


4

PAGE POUR

THE MICHIGAN DAILY

TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1958

II

Campaign Rules
WITH ALL-CAMPUS elections only two
weeks away, Student Legislature and
residence hall councils are considering a
variety of rules on campaigning. After last
fall's violation of quadrangle rules by $L
member Bob Perry, the question of provid-
ing effective enforcement of electioneering
rules was brought up. SL is expected this
week to consider several plans which would
bring penalties to candidates who commit
infractions similar to those committed by
Perry, although members narrowly voted
down a measure of this type last week.
Before giving enforcement to these
rules, the Legislature should consider the
implications of campaign restrictions on
the election itself. By limiting distribu-
tion of campaign posters and literature,
several houses last fall shut themselves off
from the rest of the campus and made it
difficult for candidates to bring their
campaign to parts of the residence system.
In showing his defiance of the rules, Per-
ry contended that he had to violate regula-
tions in order to make a successful cam-
paign. That Perry was one of the few win-
ning candidates from the men's residence
halls is evidence of some truth to his con-
tention. By limiting campaigning, the quads
hurt their own candidates, and, even worse,
contribute to election apathy resulting in
lower turnouts at the polls.
Although a high percentage of the
campus voted in the fal election, even
more people from the quadrangles might
have cast ballots had the campaign been
carried to them.
Lately, it has been rumored that action
might be taken by the quad government to
prevent any candidate living outside the
dorms from carrying, on a campaign in the
residence halls. Passage of such a rule
would be a serious threat to the campus
election system and could not have any rea-
son behind it beyond pure spite. The house
councils would do well not to consider fur-
ther limitations on residence hall campaign-
ing. In fact, it would be better for the
councils to re-examine existing rules and
make it easier for all candidates to carry
their programs to dorm residents. With un-
fair election rules in'existence, the councils
are giving the appearance of withdrawing
from the campus.
Meanwhile, SL must consider whether
house councils can be trusted to legislate
intelligently before making any of their
rules enforceable by SL. On the basis of
last fall's example, it is doubtful if this
trust would be well-founded. The Legis-
lature should also remember that, in mak-
ing house council rules enforceable on any
candidate, it could find itself in the odd
position of enforcing any discriminatory
rule or petty law the quad councils cared
to pass.
SL would be wiser to leave enforcement of
all projected quad election rules to the in-
dividual houses. If the Legislature should
wish to make campaigning by affiliates or
other non-dorm candidates illegal in resi-
dence halls, then let it make such a rule.
But to be forced to uphold laws which SL
members would never pass themselves would
be an unfortunate precedent to establish.
-Harry Lun
CINEMA
At the Orpheum .. .
THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING EARNEST,
with Michael Redgrave and Joan Greenwood
OSCAR WILDE'S play of this name raised
the comedy of manners to new heights.
This movie version, under Anthony Asquith's
able direction, captures the sparkle and wit
of its original murvelously well.
The plot is, of course, as thoroughly pat-
terned as a minuet; two romances are in-
terlaced and sprinkled with neatly bal-

ancing coincidences. Wilde's brilliant writ-
ing and perfect timing, however, make it
seem unlike any formula one has ever
seen before.
Michael Redgrave, who plays the most
earnest character of all, heads an excellent
cast. The slightly ridiculous upper-class Vic-
torians might easily have been overplayed
and turned into something like a Lytton
Strachey praody, but this cast handles them
with the delicacy they deserve. Joan Green-
wood's husky voice and lengthy eyelashes
are perfect instruments of Vigtorian coquet-
tishness. Her devastation of Redgrave is
perfectly charming and credible.
The dowager mother who comes down
on the lovers like a wolf on the fold is a
wonderful specimen. Imperious and emi-
nently practical, she is the Wife of Bath
of her era. The role of the sheltered niece,
brimming over with enthusiasms lifted
from novels, is equally well done. Her
scenes with a diary have a delicate whim-
sy to keep them from cloying. -
The sets and costumes are on par with
the rest of the movie. Most period-picture
furnishings seem to have been dragged from'
the same musty prop room, or at least from
the same old designer's sketchbook. These,
however, have a graceful quaintness entire-
ly in the spirit of the period. Miss Green-
wood's costume, an ordered profusion of sat-
in and ribbon. is particularly good.
The picture's wit is an exciting change
from the stock lines most musicals and com-
edies today rely on. Its repartee is sustained
without wisecracking; a wonderfully com-
plex and ornate dialogue is built up without

Statehood for Alaska

STATEHOOD FOR HAWAII has safely
passed the House, and chances are that
it will go through the Senate without too
much opposition. But Alaska, which has
previously been considered along with Ha-
waii, is not receiving such a cordial welcome.
'Many arguments have been advanced
against Alaska's claim to ttehood, but
the dominant, though unvoiced, reason
for qpposition seems to be political. Ha-
waii is traditionally Republican and con-
sequently acceptable to the present GOP-
dominated Congress, while Alaska has us-
ually voted Democratic. This appears to
be the underlying reason, because the
actual objections which are raised are
entirely without basis.
The traditional standards for statehood
are: that the territory should accept the
principles of democracy and be politically
mature; that the majority of the electorate
wants statehood; that the proposed State
has sufficient resources to support state
government and its share in the cost of fed-
eral government; and that it has enough of
a population to warrant statehood.
It can be amply demonstrated that Alaska
fulfills all these requirements. Her record in
political maturity stands as high, if not
higher, than established states. She has had
a popularly-elected legislature since 1912.
Forward-looking, Alaska granted suffrage to
women six years before the 20th Amend-
ment. She was also the first to pass legisla-
tion providing for an eight hour day, work-
men's compensation and social security.

The 1940 plebiscite showed that Alaska's
electorate wants statehood.
As to the third prerequisite, it did not
need a Senate investigation to reveal that
Alaska has many valuable resources-iron
ore, coal, copper, lead, zinc, tin, antimony,
mercury and chromite. In addition, she has
a high amount of wood dissolving pulp
which is currently in great demand by Am-
erican industry. And Alaska's hydro-electric
power is potentially vast, awaiting only, fu-
ture development.
Obviously, Alaska satisfies the main re-
quirements. The other objections that are
presented, such as population and distance
from the other states, are negligible. Alaska's
population of 135,000 is larger than those of
10 established states at their admittance
into the Union. Her distance from the near-
est state is not as great as, that of Califor-
nia which when admitted was 1,500 miles
of hostile territory away from American soil
Alaska's inhabitants have a right to
enjoy the privilege of statehood and the
right of citizenship. There is no logical
reason to deny them the opportunity to
take part in national elections and to have
their say in formulating the nation's po-
licies. Nevertheless, her claims are ap-
parently being disregarded because of the
party affiliation which her Congressional
representatives would probably have.
In all fairness, Alaska, along with Hawaii,
should be considered on its respective mer-
its alone, and promptly admitted to state-
hood.
-Arlene Liss

"What Do You Suppose Is Going On In Russia?"
SENATE

ettr4 TO T14E 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 ofthe
editors.

-I

EVALUATION, NOT UKASE:
What a Director Expects
Of a Drama Critic

(EDITOR'S NOTE: Mr. Robertson is director
of the local Arts Theater. The Daily has re-
quested the following article regarding drama
critics.)
By STROWAN ROBERTSON
THIS must not sound like a desperate
effort to shut up the critics. The Daily
drama critics are in no way apt to close
down apy of the numerous theater groups
which flourish in Ann Arbor; it is true,
though, that the producing of plays has lost
some of its pleasure in the face of these
severe young men. I think the editors of
the paper and the sub4cribers, too, begin to
find the letters column cluttered with quar-
rels engendered by drama criticism. I will
not, here, defend myself, or any other
member of the profession, or any person who
will devote himself to the presentation of
plays. We, at the Arts Theater are new to
Ann Arbor; organizations such as the Civic
Theater and the Speech Department have
suffered the criticism of student reviewers
for many years without replying.. Why
should we speak out?, I have been invited
to address the critics.
What is the role of the critic? It is
certainly not that of a back-seat direc-
tor. Is it any more than that of audience
privileged to air an opinion? For every
audience member there is an opinion and
for every opinion there is an alternate
performance. They why should this one
opinion be printed to be read generally?
and who reads it?
Actors read it; audiences read it. To
these two groups the critics owe a respon-
sibility: I think I have not read a review
from the pages of the Michigan Daily
which was not aimed solely at the actors.
And let me here warn all critics that any
actor who lets a review influence his per-
formance is -a fool and he knows it. To
the actor, the critic is and must be a single
member of the audience, a voice to be
heeded no more than that of a doting
mother or any acquaintance in the audience.
The audience, for the actor, is not made up
of individuals: it is a body, and only that
body as a whole will he listen to, telling
him when he is doing well, when he is con-
necting, when he is failing to make a scene
tell. Any other voice is that of temptation.
When the critic addresses and rebukes
an actor, I feel he has learned his theater
from Hollywood. Does he forget that the
actor must step on that stage the next
night, and the next, in the face of a bad
review, and repeat that performance? It
has taken him a long time to arrive at that
performance-he is not going to change
it over night. He is continually creating;
he is not a piece of celluloid. A director's
every effort is to, give the actor security
because it is the actor who must stand out
on the stage and take it. I am angry, then,
when a critic undermines that security. The
actor needs it. His job is hard; he is "on
a high wire fifty feet above the ground with-
out a safety net".
As to the audience, and the responsibil-
ity owed them. The reviewer in this
town has been made to look rather silly.
Clearly he wields no influence. The worst
review we have ever had at the Arts
Theater was for a show which attracted
the largest audience in our history. And
when as a student reviewer ,I slighted the
Student Players, I am sure I only manag-
ed to. disappoint the group. I think there
is not a theater organization in Ann Ar-
bor who cares whether or not it gets
a bad review from the Daily critics be-
cause it obviously does not affect box-

What does the audience expect from a
review? This is not my field. (I presume
that if you, the critics, fail in this respect
your editors will dismiss you just as any
theater management will dismiss the actor
who fails to meet the requirements of his
audience.) But surely the answer is "in-
formation". A large part of your audience
are students and they have or can learn
as much about Shakespeare, Sophocles, or
whom you will from their professors as you
have or can. Their studies, then, will in-
form and the actor will inform-in what
way can you inform them? Perhaps they
would like to be informed whether or not
they would enjoy seeing the play. I cannot
believe any critic is important enough to
discourage a prospective audience on any
grounds other than the prospective audi-
ence' own taste and interest. Do you provide
them with such an opportunity? Or do you
presume to judge for them?
I would like to speak, without their- per-
mission, for all those people in this town
who have been criticized in the Daily drama
column, and suggest what they might ex-
pect from a review. Please, first, clear your
minds of the idea that they are trying to
bamboozle. They are serious people, with
a greater enthusiasm, a greater diligence,
and a greater love for their work than you
will ordinarily find: that girl who walked
across the stage once as a maid gave up
every evening for five weeks, and not in
order to outwit the critics. As for the Arts
Theater, the actors are here in Ann Arbor
because they are given . . . what? The
opportunity to work in theater.
They are sincere. Their interpreta-
tions are sincere efforts to bring a page
to life. Most sincere. And, if you do
not agree with that interpretation? For
every member of the audience, there is an
opinion and for every opinion there is an
alternate performance. The actor's per-
formance is not a whimsy, it is a selection,
a solution. He has found a way which
makes the part live for him. (He must
believe what he is doing.) You don't
agree with that interpretation? All right,
and we hope you will have the opportunity
of seeing many more interpretations for
we are not Walt Disney to go around buy-
ing up alternatives. We welcome com-
parison.
And there are others who help bring the
page to life. It is clear surely that the
Speech Department and the Arts Theater,
in particular, make every effort to encour-
age local play-wrights, translators, com-
posers, choreographers . . . we do not do
much for the designers, but then Student
Players and Gilbert and Sullivan, Civic
Theater and our Children's Theater provide
opportunities. I think these people do not
pretend their work is definitive, but they
help lift the play off the page and rescue
it from the museums, and, yes, from the
classrooms. Do you review these important
people with any regularity? Do you encour-
age? Or do you make everyone who has
ever laid hand to paintbrush regret his
voluntary work. That is, are you depriving
us of enthusiasm? Just because a thing
doesn't come off need not mean that it is
worthless.
In a single generation it is remarkable
to produce one talent, A Shakespeare, a
Moliere; a Betterton, a Bernhard; a Craig
or a Berard, but it is the enthusiasm of the
amateurwhich preserves the art form..If
the least of productions is discouraged by
criticism the probabilities of producing
another Shakespeare are to that extent
lessened.

MATTER OF FACT
By JOSEPH and STEWART ALSOP
!Contnued from Page 1)
It is also Soviet practice, with a new model, to show it the
second time when enough have been produced to be put in use in
organized units. In the existing state of our air defense, the con-
firmed and known appearance of a considerable number of squad-1
rons of these suspected Soviet turbo-prop heavy bombers, would
go pretty far to consternate the Pentagon and paralyze American
policy.
Fortunately heavy bomber production is a pretty slow businessr
at best. It is possible, moreover, that these turbo-prop heavy bombers
are a mirage of the intelligence experts. One must hope that there
has been no such production, or that it has been very, very slow indeed.
-* * * *
YET HOPES, unfortunately, will not solve the problem that now'stares
President Eisenhower in the face. And the problem is complicated, not1
merely by arguable calculations of Soviet strength and American
weakness, not: merely by grave economic danger, but also by a cru-
cially important theoretical argument between the scientific analysts1
and the uniformed airmen.
To introduce this debate, it is necessary to note that the
uniformed airmen are not exactly impartial and impersonal judges
of the Project Lincoln-Summer Study Group findings. In the
first place, although Lincoln was an air force project, the find-1
ings, for reasons still unexplained, were directly presented to the
National Security Council and the White House. Ever since, con-1
sideration of these findings has continued on this highest level,
rather than centering in the Air Staff.
This procedure has been characterized in the Air Force as "the
big erid run." Most Air Force comments on the Project Lincoln-Sum-
mer Study Group findings are at least a bit tinged, in fact, with the
bitterness of a flouted bureaucracy. In addition, air defensive power
has a very serious drawback in the eyes of most of our air generals,
icluding the highest in rank. This drawback can be simply des-
cribed: Air defensive power is not strategic air power.
* * * *
OUTLAYS ON AIR DEFENSE compete for the favor of Congres-
sional appropriators with outlays on strategic air power. The existence
of an effective air defense must suggest the possible ineffectiveness of
strategic air. For these reasons, anyone who has ventured to men-
tion the air defense problem in the arcana of the air staff in recent
months, has generally got a firm, even belligerent answer-"Now we
don't want to cut down on SAC." And this has regularly happened,
even when the inquirer about air defense has never mentioned the
strategic air command except to advocate strengthening it.
Yet even after making due allowance for these professional
deformations of the uniformed airmen, President Eisenhower will
have to weigh the air Generals' more meaningful criticism of the
Project Lincoln-Summer Study Group concept. In effect, unless
all limits on spending are removed, most members of the air staff
would like to give spending priority to the Strategic Air Force
instead of to air defense. "The offense is the best defense," they
say.
The scientists point out in answer that the air Generals are con-
siderably distorting this tried and true military maxim. "The offense
is the best defense" beyond any doubt, when both sides start fair; and
both can assume the offensive at will.
* * * *
THIS IS NOT our situation, however. Instead, in view of our po-
litical system, we have to concede to the enemy the right to strike the
first blow. And so long as the air Generals really mean, "Retaliation
is the best deterrant" instead of "Offense is the best defense," there
are several extremely grave objections to their system of priorities.
In the first place, George F. Kennan and the other members
of the small but generally reliable group of American experts on
Russia have always disputed the claim that American air atomic
power was the main deterrant to Soviet aggression. They have
also argued, instead, that the main deterrent to Soviet aggression
was fear of American industrial power mobilized for war. If the
Soviets gain the capability of decisively knocking out American
industrial power, the balance wil change greatly, even if the
Kremlin still has to fear American air-atomic retaliation.
Second, the Project Lincoln-Summer Study Group scientists forecast
that the Soviets will be able to devastate this country within two years
or a little more. In this context, devasation means achieving an ex-
tent of destruction that will knock America right out of the war.
Even if the airplanes of our strategic air command survive this kind
of devastation, the scientists rather convincingly argue they will not
be able to retaliate very effectively.
Third, and most important of all, it is necessary to remember
an enemy capability can sometimes produce effects almost as ter-
rible as an 'enemy attack. The Project Lincoln-Summer Study
Group findings do not in any -way touch upon Soviet capabilities.
They do not say that the Kremlin will in fact launch a devastating
air attack on this country two years from now. The findings
only concern Soviet capabilities. They only say the Soviets will
be able to launch such an attack.
But this can be quite enough, unhappily. Consider the case of
Britain and Germany in 1935-39. Remember how the menace of Hit-
ler's Luftwaffe paralyzed British policy until Chamberlin at last was

hopelessly cornered, and fought back in sheer despair. Consider also

On Probes ...
To The Editor:
ELDE has given us fair warn-
V ing about the trends of his in-
vestigations in the future. Jenner,
Velde, and McCarthy are not in,
terested in investigating for the
purpose of gaining information for
legislation. They don't have time
for legislation.
Together, this team plans to
investigate the "Voicde of Amer-
ica, the State Department, The
Defense Agencies, the Executive
Department of Government, uni-
versities and colleges, . public
schools, Rhode Scholars, the en-
tertainment field, the U. N., and
others. Although other members
of his committee disagree, Vede
still wants the right to investi-
gate the clergy.
The "team" is failing to really
fight Communism. It must have
galled them when the Daily Work
blamed 3 top ADA leaders, Walter
Ruether, David Dubinsky, and
Wexler, and not McCarthy, Velde,
and Jenner, as the major cause for
the defeat of the Progressive Party
in this country. We become con-
cerned about a neo-facist rise in
Germany. Perhaps we ought to
start worrying about itin this
country, in as much as many of
the same methods are being em-
ployed here. Vede probablya
wants to run fordSenator against
Senator Paul Douglas 1/ years
from now. Which would you rather
have?-Blue Carstenson.
* * *
'Turning Inward' . .
To the Editors:
THE LETTER of Leonard Sand-
weiss certainly was a well-
written and thoughtful work
which deserves much attention and
thought. Many of his points, al-
though a bit nebulous at times,
are extremely well taken, and
it is not my purpose to either de-
nounce or otherwise criticize
them, butperhaps to suggest a
variant viewpoint.
Mr. Sandweiss hints hi the first'
sentence that he is going to talk
about apathy toward activities. He
then enlarges his scope to what
finally turns out to be a cry in
the wilderness against our whole
social order. He decries the lack
of spontaneous rebellion; this
comes after asking us why we
don't join organizations Per-
chance, it seems to me, the two
are complementary; the "apathy"
is a rebellion to both organized
futility and University paternalism
over the student body, which, sup-
posedly, is represented by some of
the multifarious organizations.
More basic and significant, how-
ever, is the allegation of the sub-
stitution of The Love Song of J.
Alfred Prufrock for the Holy Bible.
This is a serious charge. I earnest-
ly believe that there are those
reading the Michigan Daily who
will agree that Mr. Sandweiss has
either lost his perspective or is
in great danger of being grossly
misunderstood when he assigns
the lack of student interest in
activities as the sign of a complete
decadence of society, a loss of any
ability to make decisions.
To decry the "withdrawing"
with a few friends necessarily
denies the living of a peaceful (or
at least an only partially chaotic)
existence free from artificial or-
ganizational ties; as the same Eliot
says, albeit satirically, "Without
these friendships, life, what cauch-
mar!"
True it is, that to some religion
has lost its flavor. Perhaps this
lack of palatablility is derived from
the crowded days of "activity-ism"
during which time to devote to
the contemplation of things more
basic than those offered by most

activities, is lacking. -Robert W.
Carr.I

Academic Freedom ..
To the Editor:
IN THE opening remarks of Rea-
der William Halby's reply to
my letter concerning Academic
Freedom, Mr. Halby asserts that
"We do not want to supress free-
dom of thought in America." This
is indeed a noble-sounding state-
ment. Yet, the rest of his letter is
directly contradictory to the prin-
ciples of Academic Freedom.
My notion of Academic Freedom
is an independence of educators
from the political, economic, and
social pressures of the times. Mr.
Halby seems to feel that our edu-
cators, because of the position
they occupy, should waive not on-
ly their traditional independence,
but some of their Constitutional
Rights as private citizens as well.
I'm afraid I can't agree! Educa-
tors must be free from external
influences in order to objectively
seek and teach the Truth. The
current Congressional Investiga-
tion is stifling freedom of expres-
sion and lowering faculty morale
at Universities throughout the Na-
tion.
Reader Halby further asserts
that, "When a Congressional Com-
mittee asks our cooperation in
measures designed for the com-
mon good," we should cooperate
with them. I have very strong
doubts that the "measures" pre-
scribed by Messrs. McCarthy, Vel-
de and Jenner were designed for
the "common good." I believe that
these Congressmen saw in the
People's legitimate fear of sub-
version in educational institutions
a vehicle for the gain of personal
power. If the inquisitors were re-
ally concerned about the common
good, they would realize that the,
irreparable damage done to our
educational system far outweighs
any benefits that might possibly
be derived from rooting out a
handful of Reds.
Furthermore, the irresponsible
and reckless manner in which
Senator McCarthy and Associates
have conducted the hearings has
proven that they have complete
disregard for the consequences of
their ruthless actions.
We must not allow the fear that
characterizes our age to perman-
ently govern us. The only way to
meet this challenge to Academic
Freedom is withi popular resent-
ment and defiance.
-Arthur Cornfeld
Sixty-Third Year
Edited and managed by students of
the University of Michigan- under the
authority of the Board in Control of
Student Publications.
Editorial Staff
Crawford Young. ...... Managing Editor
Barnes Connable............City Editor
Cal Samrn......... Editorial Director
Zander Holander-----..Feature Editor
Sid Mlaus.....Associate City Editor
Harland Britz.......Associate Editor
Donna Hendeman.....Associate Editor
Ed Whipple.............Sports Editor
John Jenks....e.Associate Sports Editor
Dick Sewell..Associate Sports Editor
Lorraine Butler.....Women's Editor
Mary Jane Mills, Assoc. Women's Editor
Don Campbell .... Chief Photographer
Business Staff
Al Green. ...........Business Manager
Milt-Goetz.....Advertising Manager
Diane Johnston.... .Asoc. Buinss Uv.
Judy Loehnberg......EPinance Manager
Harlean Rankin....Crculation Manager
Telephone 23-24-1
Member of The Associated Press
The Associated Press Is exclusively
entitled to the use for republication of
all news dispatches creditedto it or
otherwise credited to this newpper.
All rights of republication of all other
matters herein are also reserved.
Entered at the Post OMC at Ann
Arbor, Michigan, as second-class mll
matter.

SSubscriptien during regular school
1year: by carrier, $6.00: by mall iTO.

I

l

t

I.
A

,r

Little Man On Campus

by Bibler

" ,44/,~VUIo
it ~ ~/ / is

4

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan