AD-HOC

The Hot Seat

By: Jane Swartz

It’s 1969, and the board of the University of Michigan is dealing with an ongoing crisis involving the government’s use of Napalm research in the university’s facilities. A new chemical weapon has emerged: “Better Napalm.” Consistent with its naming, Better Napalm does everything Napalm does, just better. A leak in its containment has caused the water in Ann Arbor to become polluted, this pollution specifically affecting lower income areas. No deaths are yet known, nor are the effects of Better Napalm, but the city has been placed under a state of emergency by the mayor, Wendell E. Hulcher.

The immediate issue at hand is clear. How could they prevent the spread of Better Napalm throughout all of Ann Arbor, and contaminating the city’s water? And how would they help the near 10,000 citizens living in affected areas? Some board members wanted to stop research immediately, while others suggested to begin research on possible biological effects of Better Napalm, as drinking normal Napalm causes almost immediate death. Others were more involved in an investigation directed towards the cause of the leak, especially since foul play is suspected. 

Those under watchful eyes were Bill Ayers, a student activist, and Geoffrey Norman, the vice president of research at the plant. The two were both linked to being at the research facility around the time of the leak. Ayers was placed there due to an unnamed source of Wesley Fishel, who reported to have seen someone with a similar appearance to Ayers on the grounds. Norman, who presented immediate support behind stopping research of both Napalms and beginning an investigation of the leak, was deposed by the research president, Robert Elderfield, although the latter offered no comment as to why. All three were placed into an inquisition by the committee, a fast-paced questioning session followed by a vote on whether or not to remove the person from the room. None were convicted. 

Other members who were suspected were the chair of police administration Arthur F. Brandstatter, and Robert Briggs, a University regent. Both were involved in sending arms to South Vietnamese forces to support those fighting. As Brandstatter stated, he never supplied any illegal arms, instead using his own personal connections with the Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, to send arms to those fighting for South Vietnam. In addition to his link with Brandstatter, Briggs raised suspicions involving the press. He was reported to have attempted to bribe South Vietnamese forces for a statement, and when they refused the money, he gave misinformation to the press. Similar to the preceding pair, Briggs and Brandstatter were questioned in an inquisition, and were allowed to stay in the room.

Marshall Sahlins was put in the hot seat as well for his loud, anti-war protests. Over the course of the committee, the professor of Anthropology had committed several “treasonous” actions, accused by Fishel. He had organized a “die-in,” a protest that involved participants lying down in front of a building to prevent anyone from going inside. Sahlin also abused his power as a professor to make a political statement, raising concerns from most present. While strictly anti-war, he had reported students in his department with GPAs of 0.0, making them eligible for the draft, calling it an “equal chance to go and die.” Following Sahlin’s inquisition, the committee voted. In a decision of 11-0, Sahlin was removed from the room.

Release The Students

By: Allison Gerth

The AD-HOC committee could be considered a slower-moving room in terms of its debate, which could be attributed to the fact that the delegates were not allowed to research their committee nor their characters. Currently, the US is at war with Communist North Vietnam. All of the protestors were arrested after their peaceful strike which happened to be in a contested area, even though they held land permits. These staff members and students are debating whether to modify the current land permit system for protesting and whether they should release the protestors or not. 

While dealing with the war between the United States and Communist North Vietnam, the people in the AD-HOC committee were voting on directives. Some directives failed and others passed, but no matter how it ended, there was always debate, including the voices of all three parties — pro-war, anti-war, and unbiased members.

After some debate, a directive sponsored by Robert Briggs was introduced. Briggs claimed that the proposed directive “would allow equality in our decisions involving students.” While some of the members were in support of  Briggs’ directive, it failed in the end. Some members were in favor of finding a compromise, but other members were too headstrong to change their viewpoints. The International Press Corps wishes AD-HOC the best in resolving the issues throughout the rest of their committee sessions.

AD-HOC? More like War Talk

By: Amita Gowda

The ADHOC crisis committee started off their first session with a heated debate on if and how Muhammad Ali should speak at the university as an anti-war protestor. The main issue among the board was violence regarding whether or not the police should get involved. One delegate argued that there should be police to make sure no violence occurs. Another advisor rebutted, stating that the presence of the police force might provoke a violent response anyways.

Nevertheless, this morning, it was revealed that there were still protests among the actual event and on concerns about  not having a valid permit to hold the event. The next big issue was whether the protesting students should be arrested or not. In the middle, a few delegates backtracked leading to the start of a  new directive. Directive “Permit 1.0” stated all pro- and anti-war protests should automatically be permitted to happen. After speaking to Adam Ross (the sponsor for this directive) he revealed by sponsoring this directive, his intention was to encourage more pro-war protestors to speak out. Despite his intentions, most delegates were focused more on the long term consequences over the benefits leading the directive  to eventually be rejected with a vote of 5-10.

The next unmoderated caucus brought forth the previous issue of debating if they should mass arrest the protestors. After a few extensions and a crisis, the focus of the committee shifted to a heated debate of the inaccuracy of Hayden’s article (an editor for the Michigan Daily). Fortunately, debate continued, this time over how unrealistic the process of getting a permit is.