THE MAROOVolume 77, Number 32 The Chicago Maroon Monday, February 3, 1969Temporary Suspensions Given to 61By Caroline HeckSixty-one students sitting in the adminis¬tration building are suspended until thedisciplinary committee resolves chargesbrought against them for participating in a“disruptive demonstration.”Dean of students Charles O’Connell an¬nounced this action Sunday afternoon in astatement that noted that all of the sus¬pended students had ‘‘failed to appear be¬fore the University disciplinary committeeafter having been summoned to appear.”The suspensions were announced to stu¬dents at the administration building duringa mass meeting of students there. Theirinitial response was one of indifference,with remarks such as “We don’t recognize the suspensions any more than we recog¬nize the disciplinary committee,” and “It’sjust a move to threaten us.”Sources high in the administration statedthat the decision to suspend students wastaken “to see if the University’s own dis¬ciplinary procedures could be used to dealwith this problem.” It was also taken asthe most desirable of three alternatives theUniversity faced — to do nothing, to takethis action, or to call in the police.In a statement issued to students set forhearings, Dallin H. Oaks, professor at thelaw school and chairman of the dis¬ciplinary committee, stated that his com¬mittee believes that “no student namesshould be released by the committee asbeing involved in disciplinary proceedings until the individual student has met brieflywith the committee ... and has requesteda public hearing.”This statement also indicated that thedecision was arrived at unanimously bythe disciplinary committee.The following is the complete text ofdean of students Charles O'Connell on thesuspensions:I have received the first report of the Universitydisciplinary committee, chaired by Mr. Dallin H. Oaks.The committee has reached final determinations onthe merits of the charges in the cases of two studentswho have appeared before it. In both cases the com¬mittee has recommended that no disciplinary action betaken. Other students, in whose cases hearings on themerits have been started, have been granted continu¬ances.The committee also submitted an interim action, unan¬imously deciding and recommending that, until theircases are resolved by the University Disciplinary Com¬mittee, sixty-one persons be suspended, effective imme¬diately. This action, the report states, was taken becauseof the failure of these sixty-one persons to discontinue a disruptive demonstration after having been notified thattheir conduct was disruptive and after having beenasked to cease that conduct. Furthermore, the reportstates, "each of these students failed to appear beforethe University disciplinary committee after having beensummoned to appear before this Committee."The sixty-one persons are now being notified of theirsuspensions.The Committee's report indicates that the students areto be suspended until their cases are resolved by theUniversity disciplinary committee on the students' indi¬vidual applications.Throughout the period ot their suspension, these per¬sons are not entitled to any of the rights and privilegesof University of Chicago students.The procedures under which the University dis¬ciplinary committee operates provide for an appeal ofits judgments to the dean of students.The University Disciplinary Committee is continuingits meetings; open hearings are held whenever a studentrequests it. Members of the committee are: Mr DallinH Oaks, Chairman; Dr Louis Cohen, Dr AlexanderGottschalk, Mr Gwin Kolb, Mr Arthur Mann, Mr Antho¬ny Turkevich, Mr Peter Vandervoort, Mr Karl Weint-raub, and Mr Lennard Wharton.There are four on-voting student observers sittingwith the committee.Charles O'ConnellDean of StudentsDebates Rage in AdBy Wendy GlocknerThe demand for equal power in facultyappointments is being seriously questionedby ad building demonstrators; proposals torestate the demand and then concentrateon reaching out to the rest of the Univer¬sity by setting up classes in Cobb Hall arebeing considered.The demonstrators are divided into threemajor groups: The Radical Students fora Democratic Society (SDS) who proposethat the student power demand is irrele¬vant to larger university and communityissues; moderatesj who believe that stu¬dent power is still an important issue andwish to retain the demand; and the Pro¬gressive Labor group (a very small frac¬tion) that states that “student power cannever change the fundamental nature ofthe University.. .which serves only the rul¬ing class.”Participation in the sit-in, which beganThursday noon in response to the firing of Marlene Dixon, assistant professor of soci¬ology and human developement, has de¬creased from an initial 400 students toabout 175.Although heated debate over droppingthe student power demand has been goingon all weekend, the two-thirds majorityneeded to drop it has not been reached.Many of the demonstrators meeting Sun¬day wanted to restate the demand. “Ourdemand doesn’t speak to the power struc¬ture. Power is in the hands of the trustees,not the faculty,” said one student againstthe demand. Other objections to the stu¬dent power question are its impractabilitybecause of the University’s diffuse deci¬sion-making processes and its unimpor¬tance in the light of the political nature ofthe university.Students in favor of keeping the demandmaintain “it might be a good idea to ac¬cept what you came in here to do and stopfucking around with revolution.”Howie Schemes!DISRUPTIVE SLEEP: Demonstrator rests in Ad bldg David TravisCHARLES O'CONNELLAn Uncool AdministratorBuildingBesides setting up “liberation” classes inCobb Hall, demonstrators are consideringopening a school for students in Hyde ParkHigh according to them, which may closedown this week because of a strike.Students in the building have set up atight security system, admitting only Chi¬cago students, their guests, and facultywho sign the New University Conferencedocument. Only the student and movementpress is permitted above the first floon Inorder to prevent any cause for a policebust, the sit-in steering committee has an¬nounced that “No dope will be permitted inthe building and anyone with dope will beexcluded.”Dixon Has No ObjectionsTo Discussing Her CaseMarlene Dixon has announced in a lettero the Maroon that she has no objection to“the public intellectual criticism and eval¬uation” of any aspect of her work.The letter, made public over the week¬end, charged that the Maroon’s editorialFriday had incorrectly reported that MrsDixon did not want the editorial called“the kind of devastating intellectualanalysis that resulted in the sociology de¬partment’s decision” not be brought outinto the open. ..“The scholarly enterprise is a public en¬terprise, and no scholar should fear opendiscussion of his or her work” she wrote.Chairman of the sociology departmentMorris Janowitz, when asked whether thedepartment was considering bringing thefull details of its decision out into the opensaid he had no official comment.Roger Black, editor of the Maroon, said“We certainly did not mean to imply, asdid some of the more artless members ofthe establishment press, that Mrs Dixonagreed with the sociology department’sanalysis of her work. The editorial urgedthat Mrs Dixon make clear her stand onbringing out all the department’s reasonsfor not rehiring her. I, for one, hope thefacts are made public, so that students andothers can assess for themselves what partpolitical biases played in the decision.”The following is the text of Mrs Dixon’sletter to the Maroon.Upon two occassions, Maroon editorials nave impliedthat I did not give written permission to have my case discussed because I in some way feared intellectual crit-icizm, that it was my private desire that "... the kindof devastating intellectual analysis that resulted in thesociology department's decision not be brught out intothe open." (Emphasis added Maroon, Jan 31, 1969.) Howmuch better it would be if people asked me why I doand do not take certain actions, rather than dependingupon reports from other members of the sociology de¬partment.Let me at least, if somewhat belately make my reasonsclear. I did not give written permission to have my casediscussed for the following reasons: (1) the request itselfwas most irregular, and ’l did not consider that therequest was made of the details (most especially detailsconcerning the issues raised by faculty and students)would not have had been discussed under any circum¬stances.May I once again point out that the two faculties ofhuman development and sociology were opposed in theirrecommendations, and that the final decision was madeby the administration.I have no objection to the public intellectual criticizmand evaluation of any aspect of my work, since I haveevery intention of publishing all of my research andtheoretical writing. The schooarly enterprise is a publicenterprise, and no scholar should fear open discussion ofhis or her work.It has been my feeling all along that the request forwritten permission was an attempt to use my personalsituation as an excuse for not addressing the real issuesthat the students and the faculty have raised.Since I have been so often misquoted on this point,let me say again that I disagree with the sociology de¬partment's evaluation of my total professional per¬formance in teaching and research and that I agreewith human development's recommendation.Let me also make the following doubly clear. I am aresearcher-teacher, and I have every intention of pub¬lishing my work. What I do not want to do is put myknowledge and skill to work for those who rule thiscountry: I want my knowledge and skill to work forthose who want to be free.Marlene D. DixonAssistant Professor of Sociologyand Human DevelopmentLate Monday night, the Maroon receivedthe following response from D Gale John¬son, dean of the social sciences division.Mrs Dixon has invited 'public intellectual criticismand evaluation of any aspect of my work." I believe Itwould be helpful If anyone who choses to makes sucha public evaluation will also submit a copy of it, assoon as possible to the Gray committee.D Gale JohnsonEDITORIALThe SuspensionsThe suspension of the 61 students calls to question the alter¬native actions the administration is considering to end the sit-in.The action they have chosen for the present is to try to use theUniversity’s own disciplinary processes. They could not have satstill without the demonstrators more quickly escalating their de¬mands and taking other buildings to increase their power base.And they have chosen not to call the police.The sit-in must end, and it must end in a way that leaves thisUniversity standing. This disciplinary action will not end the sit-in,but, on principle, it has to be tried.There are several other alternatives. The University can callin the police and drag out the students. Knowing Chicago potterattitudes toward students and their attitude toward the police,a great deal of violence would result. The violence, and the reactionof students and faculty to it would very nearly destroy the Uni¬versity.The University can take out an injunction against the students.Assuming that students might ignore it, this could be as unwisea tactic as calling in the police, since once an injunction has beenThe sit-in must end, and itmust end in a way that leavesthis University standing!disobeyed, it can be taken out of the hands of the University andthe police can come in even without the University’s consent toarrest students for contempt of court.Or the students can leave the building voluntarily. Obviouslythey are not going to unless certain concessions are made by theUniversity. Looking at the problem tactically, it should be recog¬nized that Marlene Dixon must be rehired if the sit-in is to endpeaceably. Amnesty must be granted. This does not mean thatEdward Levi should get up and proclaim amnesty. The disciplinarycommittee can do it very quietly. “Amnesty” does not have tomean the crumbling of the University’s authority unless the Uni¬versity is stubborn enough to declare that it would in advance.At this point, both sides appear to be taking intractible posi¬tions. The least concessions that the students will accept are morethan the University is willing :o give. Without exaggerating thegravity of the present situation, however, it is obvious that theexistance of the University could very well be in question now. Tfiefaculty does not want to grant direct student power over facultyappointments. They believe very firmly that conceeding that de¬mand would bring a pollution of academic quality. But they have,personally, more at stake in that future than the students. Theyshould realize that they will also have to conceed more to preventthe ultimate violent confrontation.As for the demand for equal student power in faculty appoint¬ments, probably everyone realizes that this demand was formulatedin a collossal ignorance of the system. The demonstrators areevenly split on whether the demand should be thrown out. Ifsuspended sentences were granted by the disciplinary committee,and if the Gray committee recommended that Marlene Dixon berehired, the sit-in would end.Finally, once the sit-in is over, the only thing that can preventanother one is real, viable discussion. The issue of amnesty, theprecedent set by granting, is not particulary relevent; we havealready had one sit-in with amnesty and one without, and neitherhave prevented the present one from taking place. If, after thissit-in, people retire to discussions of sit-in created issues, such asamnesty, or of Liberal Arts Conference slogans, and forget aboutthe issues that caused the sit-in, then we can all be sure that therewill be more sit-ins, and one of those future sit-ins will destroy thisUniversity, if the present situation does not. Meetings Held on StudentAmnesty and ParticipationBy Con HitchcockAt a meeting of the four student advisorycouncils of the collegiate divisions heldSunday afternoon in Reynolds Club, aseries of recommendations to the Univer¬sity administration was adopted.The proposals included suggestions forstudent committees to interview prospec¬tive faculty and review cases of facultymembers up for reappointment. It washoped- that the student committees willserve a parallel function to that of the fac¬ulty committees, and possess a similarrecommendatory power.Other proposals included the obtaining ofstudent opinion on teachers’ ability to be¬come a part of the faculty members’record, and placing heavier emphasis onteaching.If faculty and student committees differon recommendations concerning faculty, itwas suggested that they meet and attempta common proposal. Also included in thestatement was a proposal to suggest areasof study, research, etc. which students de¬sired.Another recommendation was for a mo¬ratorium of classes on Monday and Tues¬day of this week.Two proposals saying that the disciplinesproceedings be suspended until re-con¬stituted in light of due process and studentparticipation, and that the Gray Com¬mittee report be abided by were postponedfor discussion until Monday. A motion alsopassed to state the rationale for a morato¬rium on Monday and not to incorporate itinto this statement. This was done in lightof the urgency of passing a recommenda¬tion for a moratorium as soon as possible.Every proposal passed unanimously. By Mitch BobkinA plea for amnesty for the students sit¬ting in the administration building was ap¬proved by a mass meeting of more than700 concerned students and faculty inQuantrell auditorium on Saturday.The meeting, called by ad hoc concernedstudent committee and dean of the collegeWayne C Booth, passed by a clear major¬ity the resolution for amnesty but did nothave time to add any qualifications oramendments to the proposal.Before discussion of amnesty, studentsmet with faculty to discuss the issues. Thepurpose of the meeting according to its or¬ganizers was to stimulate the kind of“meaningful discussion” that had beenlacking on campus prior to the sit-in.Among those faculty members at the dis¬cussions were John Hope Franklin, chair¬man of the history department; MiltonFriedman, Russel distinguished professorof economics; Wayne C Booth, dean of thecollege; Soia Mentschikoff, professor in thelaw school; Gerhard Meyer, professor ofeconomics in the college; and Mark Ashin,professor and associate chairman of theEnglish department.Reports were given on the decisionsreached in each individual discussion at amass meeting held afterwards. Among themany proposals passed by specific dis¬cussions are the following:• The disciplinary committee’s oper¬ation should be suspended until the sit-in isover.• Cancelling of all classes for this week.• The rehiring of Marlene Dixon.• The calling of a meeting by PresidentLevi to discuss a way of getting a studentvoice on faculty committees.• 50-50 student-faculty representation onall committees including those concerningreappointment. iTHE DILEMMA Two quotes illustrating the nature ofthe current crises.'The University cannot negotiate withsomeone holding a gun at its head/—Edward Levy'There can be no free discussionexcept between equals/-Howie MachtingerTHE MAROONWith this issue, the Maroon begins publishing five times a week andwe will continue this publishing schedule for the duration of the currentcrises.All persons wishing to get any information into the Maroon, contactthe member of the news board who would cover your material. The calendarwill begin publishing on Tuesday and will list all events for the comingday.Display advertising will be printed daily, but the classified will onlyappear on Tuesday and Friday. The offices of the Maroon editorial staffwill be open for business from 8:30 am until 2:00 am every day and anyonewishing any information on the current situation should call the office atextensions 3260 and 3269.Editor: Roger BlackBusiness Manager: Jerry LevyNews Editor: Caroline HeckManaging Editor: John RechtPhotography Editor: David TravisDay Editor: Mitch BabkinNight Editor: Sue LethNews Board:Ad Building: Wendy GlocknerFaculty: Sylvia PiechockaUndergraduate Students: Chris FraulaGraduate Students: Reb CooleyAdministration: Richard Parouteud > .Disciplinary Committee: Leslie StraussAd Building Bureau: Wendy Glockner (bureauchief), Jim Haefemeyer, Chris Lyan, BruceNerten, Paula Suwcxyk, Leonard Zax.News Staff: Marv Bittner, Dabby Dobish, CanHitchcock, C.D. Jaco, Blair Kilpartrick. Photography Staff: Phil Lathrep, Paul Stelter,Howie Schamest, Steve Aoki.Production Staff: Mitch Bobkin, Robin Kauf¬man, Leslie Strauss, Robert Swift.Contributing Editors: John Welch, Michael Sor-kin, Jessica Siegel, John Moscow, RobertHardman, Barbara Hurst, David Aiken.Sunshine Girl: Jeanne WiklerFounded in 1892. Pub¬lished by University ofChicago students dally dur¬ing revolutions, on Tues¬days and Fridays through¬out the regular schoolyear and intermittentlythroughout the summer,except during examinationperiods. Offices in Rooms103, 304, and 305 <i. Ida Noyes Halt,, 1312 E.59tn St., Chicago, III. 60637. Phone Midway3-0800, Ext. 3269. Distributed on campus and inthe Hyde Park neighborhood free of charge.Subscriptions by mail $7 per year. Non-profitpostage paid at Chicago, III. Subscribers toCollege Press Service. I2/The Chicago Maroon/February 3, 1969 , » \ ' \Demonstrators Deny DalysStudents sitting in the Administrationbuilding have denied the charge by CharlesDaly, vice-president for development andpublic affairs, that they released to thepress the letter of resignation that Dalysent to President Edward Levi.Daly, after hearing that the letter hadbeen anonymously leaked to the Sun-Times' columnist Irv Kupcinet among others Fri¬day morning, went to the ad building andasked the demonstrators if he could in¬spect his office.The sitters-in allowed Daly to enter, butafter he checked his office they refused topermit nim to enter President Levi’s office.office.Daly left angrily, and spoke to reporters.By Leslie StraussSubstantial student protest to the proce¬dures followed by the disciplinary com¬mittee have led to some alterations in itsfurther operation.The disciplinary committee as it nowstands was appointed by the committee ofthe council of the University senate onJanuary 29, in reaffirmation of the Univer¬sity policy that “disruptive acts which gobeyond legitimate means of commu¬nication or persuasion are prohibited andthat any student who engages in such anact be subjected to appropriate dis¬ciplinary action,” in the words of the com¬mittee of the council.The disciplinary committee is chaired byDallin Oaks of the law school. Other mem¬bers of the committee are: Dr Louis Co¬hen, department of medicine; Dr Alexan¬der Gottschalk, department of radiology;Gwin Kolb, chairman, department of Eng¬lish; Arthus Mann, department of history;Anthony Turkevich, department of chem¬istry; Peter Vandervoort, department ofastronomy; Karl Weiritraub, department ofhistory; and Lennard Wharton, departmentof chemistry. Four student observers werealso appointed to the committee; JohnBremner ’69; Mark Gilford 71; Bertha Jo-sephson '69; and Mary Sue Leighton ’69;Gilford and Miss Josephson later resignedin protest to the methods of the committee,and were replaced by Jonathon Dean 70,and Michael Denneny, graduate student.The purpose of the disciplinary com¬mittee is to recommend to the dean of stu¬dents what action be taken in each specificcase where a student has been summonedto appear before it. The committee canrecommend that no disciplinary action betaken, or it can recommend specific penal¬ties. Oaks said, “We are not here to deter¬mine whether students are guilty or notguilty. We are here to recommend dis¬cipline or no discipline.”In a meeting at 12:30 p.m. Friday morethan 150 members of the law school and itsfaculty signed a petition objecting to theproceedings of the disciplinary committeebecause of the lack of due process of law*n its hearings. Specifically, the petition'stated that the committee denied “theright to effective counsel” and “the righti° a public hearing,” that “the safeguards01 an adversary proceeding were not[present’,’ “the right to an individual deter¬mination on the facts of the case was abr¬idged, since the committee was meeting inan atmosphere that was not conducive to a.reasoned determination,” and “the range0 sanctions available to the committeeAas never stated in violation of fundamen¬tal notions of fairness.”This petition and a sit-in Friday at theaw school by more than 120 law students,he Chicken-Shit Brigade, and other stu-ents protesting the denial of public hear¬ings made closed hearings virtually impos¬sible. Because the committee is concernedd »°ut the fundamental fairness of theseP oceedings,” Oaks said, “we will begin°P *n hearings for those students who sot ruest, admitting that we took a wrongmrn and we should start public hearings.”n ^e eight cases heard so far, two stu-ents have been exempted from any dis-ciphnary action, one because he was a ra- Some reported the impression that thevice-president was not allowed to enter thepresident’s office because students hadbroken in and rifled the files, as the Chi¬cago Tribune had erroneously reported.Spokesmen for the demonstrators saidSaturday that the resignation had nothingto do with their demands. They suspectedthat someone in the administration hadleaked the letters as a trick.Daly was a staff assistant to PresidentJohn Kennedy, and was one of the four-man congressional liason team.The following is the text of a statementDaly released Saturday:Unfortunately, some of the students and others occupy¬ing The University of Chicago's Administration Buildingsaw fit to pick the lock on my office door yesterday, anddio announcer reporting for WHPJS. at thetime he was summoned. This particularcase raised the question “is any studentwho was present in the ad building at anytime subject to discipline? In other words,is mere presence disruptive activity?” Thequestion was not answered by the com¬mittee.Other hearings have resulted in contin¬uations, which will be heard at 9, 10, and11 am Monday, and 9 am Tuesday inclassroom I of the law school. In none ofthe cases was the continuation granted foras long as was requested. These hearingswill also be open to interested observers, ifthe students being tried ask for such proce¬dure.At the last hearing on Saturday, it wasmentioned that the only students havinghearings are those who came to Eckhart inanswer to their summons. If other studentsgo to Eckhart in response to their sum¬mons, they will be scheduled for hearings.The question was then raised: “Since thisis the last person who came in answer fothe summonses thus far, are any othercases going to be heard? Does the com¬mittee have the power to make decisionsin the cases of students who did not an¬swer their summons and are therefore notpresent? The question was ruled out of or¬der. Oaks answered the committee doeshave the ability to act once they have re¬ceived a summons.Court InjunctionsCould Clear BJdgThe administration has decided that a“last resort” way to end the sit-in atthe administration building would be theserving of a court injunction against thosestudents occupying the building.Sources in the administration empha¬sized that the serving of such an injunctionis only one of several options open atpresent.Groundwork has been laid for court ac¬tion if such action is deemed necessary inthe future.Albert E Jenner, Jr, of the Chicago lawfirm Raymond, Mayer, Jenner and Block,told a Maroon reporter Sunday that he hadbeen consulted by the University with re¬spect to injunction proceedings againstthose at the sit-in.“We then prepared ourselves to proceedin those appropriate legal measures in theevent the University should request us,”Jenner said. He added however, that theUniversity had told him “injunction pro¬ceedings are a possibility only as a lastresort.”According to Jenner, injunction proceed¬ings would involve resorting to a court ofequity, which can restore property to itsrightful owner in cases that cannot be han¬dled by common law courts.A court of equity, Jenner said, “has thepower to order people tc leave the build¬ing.” He added that students who did notobey an injunction served them “can beheld in contempt of court,” and a warrantcould be issued for police to clear demon¬strators from the building. to spend the night there. Although on Friday morningthere was no evidence of forced entry into my desk,apparently someone obtained a copy of "the following let¬ter which I had handed to Edward Levi on January 23,1969:Mr Edward H Levi, PresidentThe University of ChicagoDear Edward:As you may know, I have been quite unhappy sincethat ugly night in Los Angeles last June.The best hope for me to snap out of this mood is toget involved in work that is more action-oriented thanany available to me here, so I plan to leave at theearliest date acceptable to you but not later than March15, 1969.I believe you sense my great 'respect for this place. Ileave not because of anything unsatisfactory here butbecause my best chances to recover certain losses ofspirit are elsewhere if anywhere.I am proud to have been a member of the University,and to have served if in what I like to think was asignificant way.There is no man alive for whom I have higher regardor greater affection than I have for you.Sincerely, Charles U DalyI regret that this presonal correspondence has beenmade public, Dy means of anonymous phone calls tonewspapers and others, particularly since President Levi— upon receipt of the letter — had asked me to stay onduty until the end of the academic year and I hadagreed to do so.More imoortant, I regret the harm that those occupyingthe building are doing not only to this remarkable Uni¬versity but also to themselves and all others in everyacademic community. ChargesHowie SchamestCHARLES DALYResigning AdministratorFebruary 3, 1969/The Chicago Maroon/3A good crycleanses the soulAfter all is shed anddone, your soul may besaved but your contactsneed help They need Len-sine. Lensine is the one con¬tact lens solution for com¬plete contact care... preparing,cleansing, and soaking.There was a time when youneeded two or more different lenssolutions to properly prepare andmaintain your contacts No moreLensine, from The Murine Com¬pany, makes caring for contactlenses as convenient as wearingthem.Just a drop or two of Lensinecoats and lubricates your lens.This allows the lens to float morefreely in the eye, reducing tearfulirritation. Why? Because Lensine is a compatible, ‘‘isotonic" solu¬tion, very much like your eye’s nat¬ural fluids.Cleaning your contacts withLensine retards the build-up offoreign deposits on the lenses.And soaking your contacts in Len¬sine between wearing periods as¬sures you of proper lens hygiene.You get a free soaking-storagecase with individual lens compart¬ments on the bottom of every bot¬tle of Lensine.It has been demonstrated theimproper storage between wear- ings permits thegrowth of bacteria onthe lenses This is asure cause of eye ir¬ritation and in somecases can endangeryour vision. Bacteria can¬not grow in Lensine be¬cause it's sterile, self-sanitiz¬ing, and antiseptic.Lensine ... the soulution forcomplete contact lens care Madeby the Murine Company, Incnot yourcontactsi i I J > ’’ < MiJ) ! : . Uv r. >*■■ti.nn in t ii i >■■■■! in * ■ ■ ■Students Demand Due ProcessThe 5 billion dollar corporationyou probably never heard of.——-i ’ ’ .Ad BuildingContinued from Page OneChicago plain-clothes police appear to beinfiltrating the ad building. Sunday morn¬ing several plain-clothes national guards¬men entered the ad building, off duty, “tolook around.” The student security guardallowed them above the first floor, es¬corted. Several unmarked police cars havealso been seen within a two block radius ofthe^fiHJtnWmg./megQaljlbeeh^ little communication be¬ tween faculty and demonstrators. Friday astudent negotiating committee wished todiscuss several issues Friday with WayneBooth, dean of the college, but changedtheir minds when they* learned that Booth“was not authorized to negotiate with themon behalf of the University.” The Graycommittee visited the ad building Fridayto “listen to the full range of views.. .andbe fully accessible to students.” One dem¬onstrator’s response to them was: “Ourposition can be stated briefly: rehire Mar¬lene Dixon, rehire her now, rehire her insociology and in human developement.”Few hassles have occurred during theweekend. Friday morning several studentsbecame excited when Charles U Daly, vice president for developement and publicaffairs, asked to enter the ad building tosee if rumors that his desk had been touch¬ed was true. He was allowed to go to thefifth floor only on condition that he make astatement to the press when he returned.The students refused to grant his requestto inspect the president’s office.Saturday morning a small fire wasstarted in the men’s john on the fourthfloor, but it was extinguished quickly.Demonstrators have attempted to set upseveral daily educational seminars in thebuilding. They have included “Women inAcademia”, led by wife of Jesse Lemisch,Naomi Weinstein, and “Anti-communism and the History Profession” conducted byStuaghton Lynd and Jesse Lemisch. A film rof Columbia demonstration was shown inCobb, and a blues band dance was hpinFriday night.Apparently students have not broken into 'any offices other than those initiallyopened Thursday. Offices of Edward Levipresident of the University, CharlesO’Connell, dean of students, Michael Claf-fey, assistant vice president of devel-opement and public affairs, and WilliamCannon, vice presidents for programs andprojects, are still locked. The demonstra¬tors planned to allow access to the lockedbursar’s office through a side door whenthe office opens Monday."UNIVERSITYOF CHICAGO\ ^Archives yYou may even live in one of our telephonecompany areas. We operate in 33 states.So here we are, 5 billion dollars strong,growing all over the place, and looking forengineers and scientists to grow with us.Why don’t you think us over with yourPlacement Director?Incidentally, we are known in the com¬munications field as General Telephone &Electronics.Pssst. Pass it on.Playtex invents the first-day tampon(We took the inside outto show you how different it is.)Outside: it’s softer and silky (not cardboardy).Inside: it’s so extra absorbent... it even protects onyour first day. Your worst day!In every lab test against the old cardboardy kind...the Playtex tampon was always more absorbent.Actually 45% more absorbent on the averagethan the leading regular tampon.Because it’s different. Actually adjusts to you.It flowers out. Fluffs out. Designed to protect everyinside inch of you. So the chance of a mishapis almost zero! _ rWhy live’ill the past? li pUffe*tampons Funny how big you can get and stillremain virtually anonymous.Somehow we’ve managed to do it.We’re a group of over 60 companies,making everything from microwave integratedcircuits to color television. And we rank num¬ber 9 in the top 500 corporations in the nation.Pretty hot stuff for a nobody.But though you may not recognize ourname, maybe the name Sylvania rings a bell.It’s one of our companies.Equal opportunity employer.4/The Chicago Maroon/February 3, 1969