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.