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.

July 22, 1955 - Image 2

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
Michigan Daily, 1955-07-22

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


TWO

Kim MICRIGAN 1 ATLY

F72mikv Tin-!T 919 *akK

TWOTIlE MICWTGANT 1141KV

I' IITU'V, JULY ZZA*1955

i

Sixty-Fifth Year
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
UNDER AUTHORITY OF BOARD IN CONTROL OF STUDENT PUBLICATIONS
STUDENT PUBLICATIONS BLDG. * ANN ARBOR, MICH. - Phone NO 2-3241
Editorials printed in The Michigan Daily are written by members of The Daily staff
and represent the views of the writers only. This must be noted in all reprints.

"Pretty Good - How Have Things Been Going With You?"

Prof. Sutherland Replies
To Prof .Paton

I I

Patn Replies To Critics

(EDITOR'S NOTE: In the interest of complete
presentation of all viewpoints in the present contro-
versy over faculty rights and responsibilities, The
Daily requested the following communication from'
Prof. William A. Paton, of the Business Administra-
tion School. Prof. Paton is one of the signatories
who protested the report of the Senate Committee
on the Responsibilities of the Faculty to Society.)
The attacks on the' "faculty five" and their
alleged views in recent issues of the Daily
call for a few comments, for the sake of mini-
mizing reader misunderstanding.
In the first place the statements of Dygert,
Shaffer & Company show to an extreme degree
the intemperance and intolerance that is so
frequently encountered by anyone who can't
see eye to eye - 100% - with the campus
"liberals." The "faculty five" constitute a
"vociferous," "reactionary," and "dangerous"
minority. The "totalitarian philosophy is pre-
cisely that which is advanced by the five
professors." Why not have a bit more regard
for reasonableness and accuracy? Are such
statements worthy of "liberal" spokesmen at
this "great intellectual center?" What is your
aim: to blackguard and suppress all who dis-
agree with you? And, if so, doesn't that smack
of totalitarian tactics?
The tolerance is the more marked when
one compares the damning of those who were
not entirely satisfied with the Hawley et al
report 'with the willingness to glorify such
report down to the last line. In other words, the
writers of the report and their supporters are
"intelligent," "perceptive," "democratic;" the
opponents are "illogical," "un-American," "sub-
versive"-- almost beyond recognition as human
beings.
The plain fact is that the faculty is divided
on certain aspects of the broad matter of the
rights and responsibilities of the University
teacher, and I submit that this condition should
not be surprising and should not be regarded
as undesirable. From such data as are available
the two groups appear to be of about equal
strength, numerically, but even a split of this-
character is not necessarily something to be
deplored. The University community is a com-
plex structure, and it is to be expected that
differences of opinion will emerge from time to
time on both specific issues and broad matters
of policy. And the fair assumption is that all of
the 700 - roughly who voted pro or con on the
question of the adoption of the Hawley report
acted in good faith, in accordance with their
personal views.
With respect to the taking of a mail vote, it
may be permissible to note that if the so-called
"liberals" of the faculty actually feel that they
are being intimidated, and hardly dare to speak
up under present conditions, they should all
have welcomed and supported the proposal to
vote by mail, as by this means they could ex-

press their convictions without the slightest
fear of criticism.
Regarding the substance of the controversy,
in the second place, a few clarifying remarks
are in order, as the substance is not fairly indi-
cated by Dygert, Shaffer & Company. The main
issue is this: The Hawley report at certain
points seems to be proposing that a member of
the faculty is a law unto himself, is subject
to no restraint whatever as to opinions and
conduct, and some of us feel that his position
is untenable. One of the attractions of college
teaching, it is true, is the degree of freedom
and independence enjoyed by the instructor;
within broad limits he is his own boss and is
usually secure in his position. On the other
hand, a teaching assignment --like all jobs --
does have requirements. In' addition to the
basic factor of over-all competence there are
the important matters of giving reasonable
satisfaction to the customers (the students and
their parents), cooperating effectively with
colleagues and officials, and contributing to the
welfare.and reputation of the institution. There
is no such thing as an "academic freedom" that
overlooks these commonplace features of our
work. (And it is nothing but mudslinging to
suggest that pointing this out demonstratesj
totalitarian views rather than devotion to the
idea that the individual is of supreme impor-
tance.)
Whether being a communist or being a sup-
porter of the present-day communist line -
and I can't see any substantial difference -
should disqualify one from holding a post at a
state university is no doubt debatable. My own
feeling is that under present conditions - poli-
tical and legal - it would be unwise for the
University of Michigan deliberately to employ
a communist or procommunist in a teaching
capacity. On the other hand I would certainly
hesitate to endorse dismissal of a competent
and well-behaved member of the permanent
staff even if it could be proved to the hilt that
he is a communist or communist sympathizer
-unless circumstances were to develop in which
his views and reputation became a serious
obstacle to his continuing to satisfy the over-all
requirements of his position as outlined above.
A sidelight on the vote is the evidence that
some see in the report a desire to keep alive
the discussion of the cases of two faculty
members whose appointments were terminated
last summer. Some feel that these cases were
considered very fully and conscientiously, in
terms of an' elaborate procedure previously
worked out, by the faculty, and that further
criticism of the officers of the University and of
the Board of Regents in this connection is
unjustified.
-W. A. Paton

T~A

./ Is f
'Ii
I" i
,.

1 =i
'I
1N
I

(EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is
a letter to The Daily by Prof. Gordon
A. Sutherland of the music school,
a member of the Senate Committee
on the Responsibilities of the Faculty
to society. Because of the special
interest in the subject, The Daily is
printing his statement in full along
with a statement from the opposite
point of view elsewhere on this page.)
To the Editor:
Recently you have published dis-
cussions of the fundamental
position taken by Messrs. Boyce,
Coller, Goddard, O'Roke, and Pat-
Report on the Responsibilities of
the Faculty to Society. This is
wholesome. Yet not only their po-
sition but their document itself
merits detailed critical examina-
tion. To avoid overtaxing your
space and your reader's patience
I attempt here no such complete
examination, but cite only a few
illustrative points.
Messrs. Boyce, Coller, Goddard,
O'Roke, and Paton say - literally
or in effect - that the Responsi-
bilities Report:
(1) does not discuss issues it
'should have discussed;
(2) is "evasive"; and "professes"
to defend freedom while actually
seeking to "impose" ideas that
would limit it; d
(3) says that "under certain
circumstances complete candor
should not be required";
(4) puts the privilege of the
individual faculty member above
the welfare of the university;
(5) places the professor beyond
the laws of government and the
restraints of society;
(6) "declares a complete justifi-
cation of the attitude" of Messrs.
Davis, Markert, and Nickerson;
(7) "intends criticism" of the
university administration.
As I see them the facts are
these:
(1) The Report deals not with
the issues Messrs. Boyce, Coller,
Goddard, O'Roke, and Paton con-
cluded in, May it should have
dealt with, but with the issues that
it was instructed the previous Oc-
tober to deal with - "such ques-
tions as these: Does the statement
of the American Association of
Universities reflect the judgment
of the faculty? Does it conflict
at all with the statement adopted
by the American Association of
University Professors? What are
the general (italics mine) obliga-
tions of the factulty in public
behavior? Can there be formulated
an adequate standard relating to
such conduct? Is it desirable to
attempt such formulation?"
(2) To call the Report "evasive,"
to say that it seeks to do one thing
while professing to do another, is
to impugn not the judgment or the
logic but the honesty of its au-
thors.
. (3) The Report does not say that
there are circumstances under
which complete candor should not
be required; what it does do is
repudiate a dubious definition of

the word "candor" and a conclu-
sion based upon this definition.
(Actually it is Messrs. Boyce, Col-
ler, Goddard, O'Roke, and Paton
who advocate varying degrees of
candor; they hold that where its
welfare is involved "the Univer-
sity" may determine whether com-
plete candor is required. And they
prove that they really do accept
this doctrine borrowed from Mac-
hiavelli when, in their statement,
they use the word "rectify" where
candor would call for something
like "jettison."
(4) The Report does not put the
privilege of the individual teacher
above the welfare of the univer-
sity; it holds that the university,
for its own well being, must not
restrict the constitutional liberty
of the individual faculty member.
(In effect, the Report in this con-
nection merely holds that the
health of the University is more
important than its comfort.)
(5) The Report neither means
nor says that the license of the
professor is beyond lawful re-
straints of government and society.
It does say and mean that the
freedom of the professor must be
protected against possible en-
croachment, whether by govern-
ment or by society. (Perhaps
"freedom" is a word broad enough
so that this sentence would be
improved - as it might have been
in debate in the Senate - by the
insertion of a modifier such as
"lawful," constitutional,v or "prop-
er"; but is there any justification
for so misrepresenting our word
"encroachment" as to say that our
"words state that a professor is
not only beyond the laws of, gov-
ernment but beyond the restraints
of society itself?")
(6) Whatever Messrs. Boyce,
Coller, Goddard,rO'Roke, and Pat-
on may imagine about the opinions
of the writers of the Report, it is
hard to excuse their statement
that the Report "declares (sic) a
complete justification of the atti-
tudes" of Messrs. Davis, Markert,
and Nickerson. Indeed, they were
on sounder ground when they com-
plained that the Report ignored
their cases. The Report "declares"
nothing about them. The Respon-
sibilities Committee did not discuss
them. To the best -of my know-
ledge, no one knows the opinions
of all members of the Committee
toward them. And at least one
member of the Committee disap-
proves the attitude that Mr. Davis
seemed to him to manifest, and
would have no part in any effort to
justify it.
(7) The Report did not "intend
criticism" of the university admin-
istration. But this denial is be-
side the point. The point here is
that five faculty members con-
demn a report not because it criti-
cises unwisely or unfairly or inept-
ly or irresponsibility, but because
they "feel" (sic) that it "intends"
(sic) criticism.
--Gordon A. Sutherland

a.

;

- !te ..o ci.
WASHINGTON MERRY-GO-ROUND:
H-Bomb Horrors Loom at Geneva J

CURRENT MOVIES

At the State .. .
LAND OF THE PHARAOHS, with Jack
Hawkins and Joan Collins,
THE MOST distinguished thing about this
movie is that it was written, in part, by
William Faulkner. Not that the story or the
lines are good-it's just that Faulkner is the
only attraction.
. The story, as a matter of fact, is exceed-
ingly slight, and hardly takes up half the time
of the film. It is about Khufu, alias Cheops,
who built Egypt's largest pyramid sometime
around 2900 B.C. It seems, according to Mr.
Faulkner, that this Khufu was afraid of being
stolen out of his tomb, and hired an architect
to devise a way of sealing the tomb for good.
This is accomplished quite effectively, and the
movie ends.
There is more, of course. Khufu has a wife,
a mistress, a son, and a high priest; and his
ardhitect has a son too. And the scheming of
the mistress gives the author plenty of blood
to work with, mostly the pharaoh's. Blood, and
death, and curses - properly Faulknerian
themes all, but somehow the monolithic Mis-
sissippian doesn't do anything with them. They
just lie about amidst the stonemasons and the
stones, and in the end only the pyramid means
much.
Jack Hawkins apears as Khufu, though Mr.
Hawkins seems to care for this affair as much
as Mr. Faulkner does. Throughout reversals of
character, monstrous cruelty and fiery love,
Mr. Hawkins remains imperturbably compla-
cent. His excuse is that he has his eye on the
next world and doesn't give a hang for all
this intrigue, but it's pretty weak.
Joan Collins is Nellifer, Khufu's girl friend
and pretender to his throne during the month
between his death and entombment. Miss Col-
The Dail Staff
Managing Editors' .................., ...... Cal Samra
Jim Dygert
NIGHT EDITORS
Mary Lee Dingier, Marge Piercy, Ernest Theodossin
Dave Rorabacher....................... Sports Editor

lins is about as poor an actress as we have
nowadays, and 'only a. jewel inserted in her
navel saves her role from utter ruin.
Mr. Faulkner will have quite a chore to prove
he doesn't hate Egypt.
-Tom Arp
At Architecture A. . . .
A ROYAL SCANDAL with Tallulah Bank-
head, Anne Baxter, Charles Coburn and
William Eythe.
T his mid-forties attempt at satire is dedicated
to the proposition that poor cinematic
writing and direction can easily be overcome
with a "personality" star, in this instance
Tallulah Bankhead, the dahling Boradway star
whose voice rivals that of Vesuvius in its better
days.
A Royal Scandal is concerned chiefly with
that period of Catherine the Great's career
when a key to the Russian czarina's bedroom
meant the answer to political ascendency.
The subject of a great queen caught in
ridiculous situations is one that has appealed
to many writers (e.g., Shaw's Caesar and Cleo-
patra), and one that an actress like Tallulah,
whose talent is limited but whose eccentricities
are delightful and have kept her a star for
decades, could handle very effectively. But
Tallulah or no Tallulah, the leading lady has
too many difficulties that are not of her own
doing to transcend, and her dynamic, vibrant
personality never succeeds in dominating the
doings.
The late Ernst Lubitch, who conceived of the
film, obviously produced a work which is
nothing like that originally intended. There
are too many innate hardships within the initial
scripting and production that pull apart the
film and give it a non-directional, scattered
appearance: the old Hollywood censor had to
be appeased, and innuendos and puns are no
solution for synthetic bedroom farce; trying to
lampoon too many things on a multi-leveled
comic structure results in chaos, for national-
ism, risque court affairs, revolutions, govern-
mental bureaucracy, social caste systems,
idealism, diplomacy and age-old idiosyncrasies
are too big to bite off the comic apple to
handle effectively in ninety minutes; and the

By DREW PEARSON
GENEVA-Overlooking this lake-
side city where the peace of
the world is being discussed are
the same Alps over which Hanni-
bal brought elephants in what was
then the most modern war ever
fought by man. Foot soldiers, and
since then man in each century
has developed new and more fien-
dish instruments of death pro-
gressing from the crossbow and
cannon to atomic artillery and the
hydrogen bomb.
During the latter part of man's
increased mania for self-destruc-
tion, the tiny Alpine country which
is host to this conference "at the
summit" has managed of neces-
sity to remain out of war. It has
managed because of the grim re-
alization that war meant annihi-
lation.
So perhaps the Big Four meet-
ing here could draw a lesson from
the perfection of weapons since
Hannibal's time and from Switz-
erland's grim determination to
avoid war. If they don't draw it,
other people will do it for them.
For all this week as Eisenhower,
Bulganin, Eden and Faure sat
around the conference table there
have been unseen observers look-
ing over their shoulders.
Those observers are not merely
the young men who will meet
death if war comes and the moth-
ers who brought them into the
world, but also present, peering
over the shoulders of the Big Four,
is another uninvited observer -
the atomic scientist.
Actually, no atomic scientist is
in Geneva specially for these par-j
leys. Though they contrived the
means of wiping out civilization;
no atomic adviser was invited to
sit on any delegation staff. But
in advance of this conference theyI
expressed their ardent plea to
abolish war.

NO DEFENSE
FOR THEY know what few oth-
ers know: that a nuclear war
might set off a chain reaction
which could burn up the atmos-
phere of the entire earth's surface.
They know that cobalt bombs, if
released a hundred miles off the
Pacific coast, would wipe out all
vegetation in a belt 500 miles wide
across the United States. They also
know that Russia has exploded a
dozen or more nuclear weapons.
They know what President Eisen-
hower suppressed last May: that
Russia had exploded a hydrogen
weapon just as powerful as the
Bikini H-device which caused so
much havoc at Bikini.
They also know that Russia has
secret bases near the Franz Josef
Islands inside the Arctic Circle
from which could be launched
guided missiles able to speed over
3,000 miles per hour are now able
to fly between New York and Mos-
cow in two hours. They know that,
against them, there would be ab-
solutely no defense. And they
know that, when their profession
can devise a hydrogen warhead
for these missiles-which they
can't today-then Moscow or New
York can be blown up in toto
merely by pushing a button.
They also know that man, in his
desperate desire to protect himself
and his fiendish desire to kill oth-
ers; already has devised prelimi-
nary plans for stationing rocket
platforms or basesin outer space.
They know that tiny, man-made
stars or satellites officially called
"minimum orbital unmanned sa-
tellites of earth"- or "mouse" for
short-already have been devised
to whirl around the earth's sur-
face at a speed of 17,000 miles per
hour to serve as watchdogs against
guided missiles.
That's how far man has pro-
gressed since Hannibal's time in

devising instruments to extermi-
nate himself.
GROPING FOR PEACE
AS A YOUNG newsman I accom-
panied Frank B. Kellogg, Sec-
retary of State under another Re-
publican President, Calvin Coo-
lidge, to Paris to sign a treaty to
outlaw war. Kellogg, of course, was
ahead of his time. He realized the
horrors of war and negotiated a
treaty to outlaw war, but he lack-
ed two important things necessary
to make his treaty effective: 1.
the bargaining power to make oth-
er countries relinquish their wea-
-pons of war, and, 2. world realiza-
tion that another war meant the
end of the world.
Just before Kellogg came into
office his predecessor, Charles Ev-
ans Hughes, had thrown away
America's chief bargaining power
-battleships. We were then the
world's greatest battleship power
and we junked them for a treaty
which meant great political hay
but lost us the power to force dis-
armament on other nations.
Today we have that power. We
haven't thrown or bartered away
our huge stockpile of atomic bombs
-at least, not yet. And we should
not-any more than neutral Swit-
zerland will take the stipplies of
munitions and food out of her
mountain warehouses until real
world disarmament is within
sight.
Finally, there's the world-wide
realization now - perhaps even
among the Kremlin leaders so bel-
ligerent in the past and so in-
scrutable today, who seem almost
amateurishly groping for peace-
that modern war would mean the
end of mankind. So perhaps the
atomic scientists who, looking over
the Big Four's shoulders here, ur-
ged that we outlaw war aren't so
far off base after all.
(Copyright, 1955, Bell Syndicate, Inc.)

INTERPRETING THE NEWS

By J. M. ROBERTS
Associated Press News Analyst
THERE is a growing and numb-
ing feeling that the Geneva
conference has accomplished about
all that it going to, aside from set-
ting up machinery for long and
probably inconclusive conferences
at lower levels.
There will be a lot of talk at the
end about how the conference has
LETTERS
To the Editor
More 'Facts' .. .
To the Editor:
I, AND increasing numbers of po-
litical researchers believe Lav-
renti Beria to be innocent of "sub-
versive activities" (the term was
never even defined by his prose-
cutors) and believe that anyone
fairly considering the evidence
could not convict him.
Since I am not working this
summer, I am willing to offer my
spare time to present in two edi-
torial leigth articles the basic data
of the Beria case with footnotes.
Let The Daily readers analyze like
I have done and judge for them-
selves.
This case is of even less anti-
quarian interest than the Sobell
case. To appreciate why this is so
is to study the case.
Will Editor Samra and Reader
Livant let their readers have the
facts which I have dug up during
my summer vacation?
-Donald Dorfman
Faculty 'Cogs' . .
To the Editor:
WITHOUT WISHING to enter

permitted the four powers to get
a better understanding of each
other's viewpoints. But that very
understanding is disheartening.
The Russians have practically
refused to talk about reunification
of Germany, and neither side
showed the slightest intention of
compromising on collective se-
curity.
There never was any idea that
these issues would be solved by
the chiefs of state. But their dis-
missal from the agenda in such
cavalier fashion, after the most
importunate appeals from Presi-
dent Eisenhower, shoves them into
a limbo from which the foreign
ministers can hardly be expected
to resurrect them.
The American delegation's im-
pression that the. Russians still
want the conference to be a suc-
'cess depends on what the Russians
will consider success.
SOME observers are beginning to
express the view that the Rus-
sians are getting what they really
want, which is stalemate for the
time being.
With the German question and
collective security proving insol-
uble, there is no reason to feel
that any progress can be made on
disarmament. Bulganin said Rus-
sia had accepted some of the West-
ern proposals, but did not add that
this acceptance was hedged with
unchanging and unacceptable
Russian demands, such as Ameri-
ca's abandonment of her foreign
bases.
The one point still on the agen-
da where some progress might be
possible is that concerning im-
provement of contact between
East and West. In one largely su-
perficial way the conference itself
is a part of that idea, and the ex-
pected lower-level conferences will
pick it up.

'1

DAILY OFFICIAL BULLETIN

4'
,.

The Daily Official Bulletin is an
official publication of the University
of Michigan for which the Michigan
Daily assumes no editorial responsi-
bility. Publication in it is construc-
tive notice to all members of the Uni-
versity. Notices should be sent in
' TYPEWRITTEN form to Room 3553
Administration Building before 2 p.m.
the day preceding publication (be-
for 10 a.m. on Saturday.) Notice of
lectures, concerts and organization
meetings cannot be published oftener
than twice.
FRIDAY, JULY 22, 1955
VOL. LXVI, NO. 22
Notices
Applications for Engineering Research

the faculty is asked in keeping to the
following schedule:
Families with small children (under
8 years of age) - 6:30-8:00 p.m.
Other faculty families - 8:00-9:30
p.m.
This will insure a safe and pleasant
swim for everyone and will permit the
Department of Physical Education for
Women to continue this program.
COMING INTERVIEW:
Gen'l Telephone Co., Muskegon, Mich.,
is looking for two young men for
trainee positions. Immediate applica-
tions are requested and interviews will
be arranged in either Muskegon or
Ann Arbor. The General Telephone
Company services a large part of west-
ern and northern Michigan.
For appointments contact the Bureau
of Appointments, 3528 Admin. Bldg.,

for the doctorate who are planning to
take the August preliminary examina-
tion in Education, August 15, 16 and
17, 1955, must file their names with
the Chairman of Advisers to Graduate
Students, 4019 University High School,
not later than July 22, 1955.
Doctoral Examination for Walter
Stewart Callahan, Bacteriology; thesis:
"The Effect of Memophilus pertussis
and its Labile Toxin on the Physiology
of the Rat Trachea," Friday, July 22,
1566 East Medical Bldg., at 1:00 a.m.
Chairman, D. J. Merchant.
Doctoral Examination for Moe Stan-
ley Wasserman, Chemistry; thesis: "The
Physical and Chemical Composition of
Photoconductive Lead Sulfide Films,"
Friday, July 22, 3003 Chemistry Bldg., at
9:30 a.m. Chairman, L. O. Brockway.

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan