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


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.

November 25, 1953 - Image 4

Resource type:
Michigan Daily, 1953-11-25

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




A Senior !
IN WINNING what seemed a hopeless cause,
Milo Radulovich gained a significant
victory not only for himself but also for
anyone who might have been the victim of
similar unjust action had his case gone un-
challenged by the press and the public.
When first announced, the charges
against Radulovich seemed an impossible
extension of security regulations, but the
Air Force blandly answered condemna-
tions of its procedure with a report of ad-
ditional information in secret files which
supposedly proved the accusation against
the young reservist.
Still the Air Force contention that the
files could not be made public was inex-
cusable and raises serious questions on the
administration of the case now that Radul-
ovich has been cleared as a security risk.
The question of what the file contained re-
mains unanswered, but investigation should
be demanded as to how the files could be
so damning at one point and of no conse-
quence now.
Talbott's announcement casts a new light
on Defense Secretary Wilson's statement of
a month ago which maintained that in
doubtful cases the decision must be in favor
of the nation rather than the' individual.
Under Air Force criteria "close and contin-
uing association" with alleged subversives
(in this case Radulovich's father and sister)
could cause such doubt. In deciding against
Radulovich the Selfridge review board must
have used a different interpretation of this
criterion that Talbott did. In reversing the
original ruling, Talbott tacitly admitted that
the Selfridge decision showed either this
inconsistency of interpretation, a lack' of
thorough study of the case or prejudice of
one or more of the three-man board. A re-
view and clear definition of security criteria
and Wilson's pronouncement remains neces-
sary to insure protection to other reservists
and government employees who might have
similar accusations levied against them.
Although the case leaves serious ques-
tions unanswered, we strongly commend
Talbott's decision. It confirms the im-
portant right of an individual to protest
arbitrary government action and have a
fair hearing. Equally important, it demon-
strates that the government will reverse
unfair decisions and will not sacrifice an
individual to avoid admitting a breach of
We congratulate Radulovich, his lawyer
and the many people who became inter-
ested in the case for affirming this right to
protest and for not surrendering to the un-
just charges.
-The Senior Editors: Harry
Lunn, Eric Vetter, Virginia
Voss, Mike Wolff, Alice B.
Silver, Diane Decker and
Helene Simon
At Hill Auditorium ..*
dePaur's Infantry Chorus, Leonard de-
Paur, conductor.
AFTER a somewhat uneven beginning, this
program improved steadily and became
quite exciting during the second half. The
chorus then sang with great spontaneity and
rhythmic drive, the voices blended superbly
(earlier, one or two individual voices had
tended to predominate somewhat too much),
and the dynamic range was something won-

derful to hear. It may be that the men feel
more at ease singing spirituals, calypso
songs, and songs like Frank Loesser's "Roger
Young" than they do in works such as the
motet by Bach which appeared before the
intermission. If this really the case, they
might do well to sing proportionally more
of the lighter compositions which they do so
well. After all, the most intelligent perform-
er is the one who recognizes hisown lim-
The program began with Four Melodies
of the Middle Ages, arranged by Ivan
Langstroth, and continued with a rather
unfortunate arrangement of Brahms' Lul-
laby. This is one of those works, which,
to sound fresh, should be performed exact-
ly as they were composed. A new work,
Triumvirate by Ulysses Kay, two move-
mentsof which were performed, left me
with somewhat mixed feelings, and I pre-
fer to withhold comment on it. Katalsky's
"God is with Us," with its montonous
chant, was one of the most effective things
on the program.
After the intermission, the chorus had
the complete attention of the audience in
its performance of the various folk songs.
The calypso song, Good Evening, Mrs. Flan-
agan, was a light-hearted and amusing tour
de force, and the arrangement by Mr. dePaur
of Swing Low, Sweet Chariot was tasteful
and really quite moving in its simplicity. The
other numbers were just as effective. Credit
must be given to the soloists, who sang con-
. - - ._ . 1

Why Students Think-.
Answer to a Satirist

' 0L1


r .;ti
t :r
' ' ac

l1$$ l I}f_

fettep.4 TO THE EDITOR
The Daily welcomes communications from its readers on mhatters 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

WHILE browsing through big city newspa-
pers, one often comes across an intrigu-
ing tidbit such as that written by distin-
guished satirist Robert C. Ruark and appear-
ing in, yesterday's Detroit Free Press.
Mr. Ruark's comments, developed un-
der the headline "Who Said Students.
Think!'" are especially provoking to those
students who imagine themselves with
some intelligence In fact, this addition
to Mr. Ruark's syndicated items is so in-
spirational that it merits repetition (in
part, at least) purely through its absurdity.
He begins by claiming, "I was thinking"
(and after recalling the Rome and Trieste
riots, he continues), "that higher education
has provided an excuse for more extraneous
nonsense than any other form of social sta-
"Some sort of madness afflicts the ad-
vanced student, leading him to violent dem-
onstrations on matters about which he
knows little, if anything.
"I suppose it is all part of growing up,
but it seems to me that studenthood should
be put on a kind of probationary basis,
in which noisy thought outside of the
three R's should be mandatorily forbidden
until graduation.
"Students should be allowed to congregate
only at pep meetings and athletic events,.
for their own protection.
"As part of the college discipline, students
should be made to write, 100 times daily, in
all languages including Sanskrit: 'I will not

confuse myself with adults, and will try hard
not to think on the same plane with my
elders. This especially includes politics.'"
Mr. Ruark goes on to relate his own college
experience which was limited, so he solemn-
ly declares, to the pursuit of happiness, coeds
and corn whisky, and reading only the
sports page. According to Mr. Ruark, most
of those who lived thusly grew up to suc-
ceed while "the long-skulls, who wrote es-
says for the campus paper, mostly wound up
as minor clerks and press agents."
With due regard for his satiric reputa-
tion and engaging style, one can still safe-
ly assume that Mr. Ruark is going a little
too far. Not being satisfied with Congres-
sional committees telling us that we don't
know what to think, Mr. Ruark has offered
the humble observation that we don't know
how to think. Could he be generalizing on
his own experience?
Mr. Ruark may have forgotten that THE
purpose of a university or college is to teach
humanity how to think. If and when this
is no longer the purpose of higher educa-
tion, then we might as well lock the doors
of Angell Hall and take to writing syndicated
Besides noting this inevitable result of
Mr. Ruark's viewpoint becoming widespread,
the only effective answer to his remarks is
a reiteration of the classic retort made by
the immortal contract bridge strategist who
said, after his partner had bid seven no-
trump, "I'll pass."
-Jim Dygert

)I r1 r"V uWA( ' P54-. -

A Defense -
1Tn the Editor:


SL and Service Projects

chosen to go in the direction of perform-
ing mere service projects that are in no way
valuable to the student body as a whole and
once again has turned away from its more
meaningful tasks.
Wednesday night SL appointed a student
representative to the board which governs
activities of dysphasia victims. Naturally
such a board, under control of the Univer-
sity speech clinic, serves a very worthy pur-
But it is not a purpose that is within the
proper realm of student government activ-
SL's Human Relations committee started
working on service projects-dinners, par-
ties and such-in behalf of dysphasia victims
last year. Appointment of a student repre-
sentative to the governing board is appar-
ently the culmination, but not the end, of
the original project.
Yet no SL member can give a valid reason
why SL should take up its time with these
services when its fundamental tasks are
left undone.
A student government is supposed to
spend its time representing student opinion

to the University and working to have this
opinion acted upon; it is supposed to act
as the students' leader and to educate the
generally uninformed students toward a
realization of its potential on campus. Yet
SL has recently almost completely ignored
these primary functions and has spent its
potentially valuable time on projects far
better handled by other organizations.
Many students have anxiously awaited re-
sults of each SL election hoping to see a
trend away from meaningless service proj-
ects, but so far these students have been
disappointed. Each new Legislature con-
tinues to deal itself the very card that will
eventually make student government a total-
ly meaningless term.
Hopefully, however, some students are still
awaiting the policy expected to be drawn up
in the near future by the newly-elected SL
cabinet. Clearly, if the new cabinet wants SL
to continue as a major campus organization
with a real reason for existence, it must re-
verse the present trend and point out to
members that the vast but neglected area
of policy-making is a student government's
proper function.
-Dorothy Myers

WASHINGTON -- It was Secretary of the Treasury Humphrey him-
self who leaked the story to newsmen that the Eisenhower Admin-
istration would slash the budget by another $6,000,000,000 next year
-most of it out of the armed services.
The identity of the news leak in this case is important. For it
took only a few minutes for Humphrey's identity to become known
a couple of miles down Constitution Avenue and across the Poto-
mac River at the Pentagon, where it caused that labyrinth of
offices-the largest in the world-to seethe with activity.
A few hours later, the activity had its effect. Secretary of the"
Treasury Humphrey hedged just a little on his leak. He did not hedge
on the $6,000,000,000 cut. But he did tell newsmen two things: 1. that
the military would not be cut at the expense of national safety; but 2.
since the military spend about 75 per cent of the budget, they will have
to bear that proportionate share of the cut.I
Actually, the above jockeying between the Treasury and the Pen-
tagon merely brings to the surface a debate that has been going on
backstage for weeks. It also puts in direct opposition to each other
two of the ablest and biggest businessmen in the Eisenhower cabinet.
Humphrey, who demands the military cut, was a president
and director of 30 different corporations comprising the Mark
Hanna Co., founded by the famed GOP boss who elected President
McKinley. He is the cabinet member Ike listens to most.
Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson, who opposes him, was
head of the world's largest corporation, General Motors. He too is
close to the President, but not as close as Humphrey.
THE BACKSTAGE battle between these two nen 'and their subor-
dinates actually got down to brass knuckles at a meeting of the
National Security Council about six weeks ago, at which the military
men brought in their "new look" for the armed services.
This "new look," supposed to permit sizable budget cuts, in reality
did no such thing, and Secretary Humphrey quite rightly scoffed at it.
"All you've done is put some chromium plate on your bumper,"
he chided. "You've got the, same old model shined up a little bit,
but how are we going to fight atomic wars with the same old car
plus as chromium bumper?"
What teed off Humphrey was the fact that the military chiefs
had merely split military spending three ways with no regard to mili-
tary need or strategy. The Navy took its usual share, regardless of the
fact that all its ships can just about be put out of commission by a
single A-bomb. The Army took its usual share, regardless of the du-
bious value of foot-soldiers. And the Air Force took its usual share--
despite the fact that air is becoming more and more important to
atomic warfare. As a sop, the Air Force was given seven more wings
to keep it happy.

io Le rar
THE LETTER of Prof. W. R. Dix-
on has settled the dispute over
the alleged proposal by the School
of Education and the State Advis-
ory Committee to increase the re-
quired number of education cred-
it hours for Certificate candidates.
It is clear, however, that the issue
between "classical" and "progres-
sive viewpoints is far from re-
solved; nor will it be in the brief
life given it in this column.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to
take sides. I may say, therefore,
that I uphold the "classical" stan-
dard and the tradition which it is
considered to represent. Although
Miss Myers was in some important
factual error, as Prof. Dixon
pointed out, her thesis, in my opin-
ion, is correct.
Miss Green, attacking the edi-
torial of 10 November, has madea
number of disgraceful comments.
Green says: "The need for educa-
tion is not a need for knowledge
in Mathematics, Sciences, Litera-
ture, and the Arts as such, but
rather a need for the development
of a 'whole' individual." That is
the most vividly anticultural re-
mark it has been my horror to read
in a very long time. What person
is "whole" whose life is not in-
formed by the studies mentioned
above, whether the ideas espoused
be classical, medieval, Renais-
sance or modern? Even the adher-
ents to the heresy of method have
seldom ventured such a ridiculous
observation on the concerns of
education. Nor has John Dewey
himself been so utterly mistaken.
Green says further: "Modern
Education produces students that
think for themselves because their
teachers give them the opportu-
nity to investigate, discover, and
be independent." This statement,
like the phrase "whole individual,
is one whose irritating vagueness
is characteristic of much current
writing (and thereforethinking)
on the subject at hand. But far
worse, it imputes to education oth-
er than modern a restraint on the
opportunities cited. And if mathe-
matics, sciences, literature and the
arts are not, per se, important,
then the opportunities would seen
little short of irrelevant For what
is there to investigate in order thai
the individual may be made
"whole" if these areas of study are
categorically denied their intrin-
sic value or if they are scorned a.
a merely academic phase of educa-
This should be sufficient to in-
dicate a regrettable trend. For it
was clear to me, while I was at-
tending the University, that mans
students were drifting toward a
tacit acceptance of Green's posi-
tion, while the more aggressive
were outspokenly defiant of tradi-
tion and the necessity for incul-
cating and preserving the ideals
of the European culture of which
Americans are a transplanted bul
integral part.
-Allan Hanna
Camp Ruckner, Ala.

tional government, can the "inno-
cence and legitamacy of such ac-
tivities once more, in time, become
established. It must be recognized
that the vindication of the right
to inquire and to act can be had
only with the public's sanction.
For these reasons, a legally in-
nocent individual, sincerely seek-
ing to protect individual rights
may well hesitate before he re-
fuses to cooperate. The individual
may well have the desire to coop-
erate not because the committee
is right but because it is mistaken.
Herb Mills, Grad.
Matthews in Focus . .
To the Editor:

THE announcement in The Daily
some days ago concerning an
Academic Freedom Essay Contest
and Testimonial Dinner for- J. B.
Matthews in New York should, in
my estimation,: be brought into
proper focus.
The Rev. Mr. Matthews, lately
an associate with McCarthy, was
not always in the business of har-
rying Communists, Socialists and
assorted liberals. Back in the thir-
ties he worked for a pacifict or-
ganization called the Fellowship
of Reconciliation, resigning after
a poll of the membership had em-
phatically rejected his proposal
that the F.O.R., while maintaining
its opposition to international
wars, recognize the validity of the
"class war."
His true traveling clothes were
disclosed later when, as an active
leader in organizing the "united
front against facism and war," he
shifted with the party line ("that
Fascism is no longer a threat")
when Stalin signed the nonag-
gression pact with Hitler in Aug.
of 1939. Concurrently with this,
Matthews was thrown out of the
Socialist Party for playing foot-
sey with the Communists.
During this time and the early
war years he was the "Red Dean of
Protestants" in the U.S. and, ac-
cording to some of his contempo-
raries, he became terribly disillu-
sioned when his fellow ministers
failed to join with him in support-
ing the "Eastern Democracies" in
their "class struggle" for power.
In 1949 a new and cleansed J.
B. helped Allen Zoll (National
Council for American Education)
write the pamphlet, "How Red
is the National Council of
Churches?" In it he smeared such
organizations as the American Civ-
il Liberties Union, The Committee
on Militarism in Education, and
the Fellowship of Reconciliation;
Gerald L. K. Smith has distributed
thousands of reprints of this pam-
phlet under the label of his Chris-
tian Nationalist..Crusade.
Now Allen Zoll, with the help
of J.B., is favoring us with "Red-
Ucators at Harvard," which pur-
ports to reveal Communist connecd
tions among 76 members of the.
Harvard faculty and names James
B. Conant, Gordon W. Allport,
and P. A. Sorokin: Prof. Sbrokin,
a sociologist, was jailed by the Bol-
sheviks in his native Russia and
escaped from Communism with a
price on his head.
It is my hope that the above
facts will deter any U of M stu-
dents from thinking that J. B.
Matthews is seriously interested in
freedoms of any kind. I ask that
you beware of writing any serious
essays on real academic freedom
to the Matthews Testimonial Din-
ner Essay Contest lest you be
caught in J.B.'s web and your
statements be used against you in
his forthcoming article, "Commu-
nist Infiltration Among Students
in American Colleges."
-Luther H Buchele




WASHINGTON - The Eisenhower admin-
istration, it begins to seem, has a re-
markable propensity for putting its worst
foot forward. However one adds up the pluses
and minuses in the Harry Dexter White busi-
ness, it is generally agreed that Attorney
General Brownell weakdned his case by badly
overstating it to begin with. In other and
graver matters, the Administration case has
been badly understated-or not stated at all.
The queer thing is that the Administra-
tion has a perfectly good foot to put for-
ward. Because of the furor over the White
business, no one paid much attention to
President Eisenhower's recent trip to
Canada. Yet the Eisenhower trip was an
outcome of a courageous Administration
This is the decision to embark on a serious
continental defense program. Present plans
call for spending some $20,000,000,000 over a
four to five year period on defense against
nuclear attack, the peak to be reached in
1956. Intimate Canadian collaboration is a
prerequisite of this program, and the fact
that the President himself went to Canada
to discuss this matter suggests the import-
ance attached to the program.
Present plans do not go the whole way
with the recommendations of the now-fa-
mous Lincoln Study. For one thing, these
plans envisage a slower start. But perfectly
sound arguments can be advanced for a
relatively slow start. And the $20,000,000,000
program-if it is not skimped in the end-
represents an entirely serious attempt to
deal with the terrible danger of Soviet atom-
ic and hydrogen attack.
Why, then, has the Administration's
decision to make a serious effort in this
field not been announced, with a flourish
of trumpets? For there is plenty of evi-
dence that this is just what the country
wants to see-a really effective Adminis-
tration program for dealing with the dan-
gers that confront the nation.

able" expenditure for continental defense
would be about half a billion dollars. Wil-
son was actually talking about the extra
amount to be allocated to this purpose im-
mediately. But he left a widespread impres-
sion that the Administration planned to
spend no more than this obviously inade-
quate sum to protect the country against
nuclear attack. Again, why?
Part of the answer can be found in the
history of the basic policy papers-known
as NSC-162-of which the continental de-
fense program is an outgrowth. This his-
tory starts with "Operation Solarium," as
it is known in high official circles. Opera-
tion Solarium began with a dispute in the
White House sun room about the relative
priorities which should be accorded to a
"sound" economy (lower taxes and a bal-
anced budget) and to national security.
This discussion led to a series of task force
studies of the problem, which culminated at
length in an historic and rather heated
meeting of the nation's highest policy-mak-
ing body, the National Security Council, last
Oct. 6. Over the strong objections of Budget
Director Joseph Dodge, chief protagonist of
a balanced budget at all cost, the National
Security Council approved NSC-162.
NSC-162 concludes that the danger to the
United States is absolute-it is a threat to
actual national survival. Therefore nation-
al security must be accorded absolute priori-
ty. This courageous decision reflects the col-
lective judgment of the highest officials in
the Administration. It is unquestionably a
decision of which the vast majority of the
American people would strongly approve,
if the facts on which it is based were clearly
explained to them.
Instead of explaining these facts, how-
ever, most Administration officials seem to
be busy shoving them under the rug, mean-
whole fuming furiously about "leaks." One
reason probably is that many high Ad-
ministration officials, while agreeing with
NSC-162 in their heads (because they are
patriots, and intelligent men) still agfee
with Dodge in their hearts. This is natural

ECRETARY HUMPHREY can be forceful without pounding the
table or losing his temper. He made it clear to the military chiefs "The President's Stand"

that the United States couldn't build atomic weapons on one hand
and continue conventional weapons on the other. We couldn't afford.
both, Humphrey emphasized.
Since Humphrey is close to Ike, he did more than lecture the
military. He also talked to the President, induced him to order the
military to cut. They are now supposed to be cutting, but so far
haven't come up with a single, solitary countersuggestion.
That was why the Secretary of the Treasury decided to force the
Pentagon's hand, made them tear their hair over his leak that the
budget must be cut another $6,000,000,000.
Since then, not only Secretary of Defense Wilson, but some GOP
politicos plus diplomatic and economic advisers are in a lather.
Theoretically they agree with Humphrey that the budget must be bal-
anced. But here are some of the factors they're considering on the oth-
er side:
1. With the domestic economy already looking a bit sour, this is
a poor time to cut government orders further. With steel production,
automobiles and farm equipment off, and credit restricted, economic
advisers would prefer to increase defense orders rather than cut them.
2. With Eisenhower ready to sit down opposite Premier Joseph
Laniel at Bermuda next month and demand a big French army,
diplomatic advisers don't think this is a good time for the U.S.A. to
cut back on its own military budget.
3. Vice-President Nixon has been barnstorming through the Far
East urging Japan, the Philippines and French Indo-China to arm,
which makes it diplomatically difficult for us to do just the opposite
here at home.
4. The Democrats have already made political capital of the
heavy defense cuts and are eager to make more. In fact, endanger-
ing the national security is a tailor-made issue for them right now.
All of which puts the Eisenhower cabinet in about the toughest
predicament it's faced so far. The resultant debate is a lot more im-
portant than spy headlines, for on its outcome will depend the security
of the nation and to some extent the recession or prosperity of the
coming year.
MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM DEAN, who spent three years in a Korean
prison camp, relived some of his wartime experiences in Washing-
ton the other day.
General Dean was the honor guest at a special preview of the new
movie, "Cease Fire." Shot in Korea, the cast is composed of nothing
but genuine G.I.s, and is the story of a single "minor" patrol action
during the closing days of the Korean War.
C r- e+. 4- - . r7o. [rvt_ tosa non" h pn -m

To the Editor:


THE AUTHORS of the editorial
entitled "The President' s
Stand" that appeared in the Daily
(Nov. 22) have allowed their com-
mendable moral indignation to be-
fog their understanding of the real
problem in regard to the coming
Congressional investigation. They
fail to recognize: (1) that the pub-
lic supports such investigations
precisely because it feels that it is
in its "best interests" to do so;
(2) that there are "'un-American'
ideas and activities" which the
public has a right to protect itself
against; (3) that the public will
continue to support such investi-
gations until it is convinced that
there is not a sufficient danger
from communism to warrant them;
(4) that only by "cooperation," by
talking about and justifying one's
actions, that is, by a public appeal,
is there any hope allaying the sus-
picions of the public toward what
are truly innocent and legal ac-
tivities;r(5) that such investiga-
tions are a "court" in the sense
that public suspicions are either
seemingly vindicated or demon-
strated to be without foundation;
and (6) that there is no possibility
of the University or President
Hatcher combating these suspi-
cions, these "unreliable whims of
public opinion," except by this
"cooperation" of students and fac-
I may be mistaken but it
seems to me that the fundamental
error that leads to such illusions
as the two authors express stems
from the tendency to consider the
"stand" to be taken as a black or
white affair. Cooperation is equat-
ed to an implicit approval of the


Sixty-Fourth Year
Edited and managed by students of
the University of Michigan under the
authority Pa the Board in Control of
Student Publications.


Editorial Staff
Harry Lunn........... Managing Editor
Eric 'Vetter .......... .. ....City Editor
Virginia Voss........Editorial Director
Mike Wolf.......Associate City Editor
Alice B. Silver.. Assoc. Editorial Director
Diane Decker........Associate Editor
Helene Simon........Associate Editor
Ivan Kaye.............Sports Editor
Paul Greenberg. ,... Assoc. Sports Editor
Marilyn Campbell.......Women's Editor
Kathy Zeisler....Assoc. women's Editor
Don Campbell.......Head Photographer
/ Business Staff
Thomas Treeger ...Business Manager
William Kaufman Advertising Manager
Harlean Hankin ...Assoc. Business Mgr.
William Seiden.......Finance Manager
James Sharp. Circulation Manager
Telephone NO 23-24-1

Back to Top

© 2021 Regents of the University of Michigan