2
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Monday, December 18, 1967
Protest-a child's view
I was watching a speaker criticising the Marines' recruiting table at the Union the other day.
The Marines were set up only about 20 feet from the protesting display, where a speaker stood on a small table and spoke to a crowd of the interested, the irritated and the curious.
Right in the middle of it all, about halfway between the two tables, next to his young mother, stood a little boy.
I looked at the little boy, who must have been about four or five years old, as he watched the people and the confusion, all the time holding a candy bar.
Then I looked over at the crowd that was listening to the speaker, which was composed of a large number of long-hairs and radical appearing students, as well as the button-downs and V-necks.
I was struck by the fact that the little boy was now growing up in a world where protests, dissent and open controversy of this nature were the order of the day.
I'm 20 years old, and I'm still not completely used to it. This has all begun in just the last few years. But the little boy was beginning his life
When hippies, long-hair, protests, and this open forum of dissent first began, I can still remember what my initial reactions were, and will always able to.
during this time.
The five-year-old boy in the middle of the crowd who held onto his candy bar and occasionally looked up at his mother would not be able to remember when all this was not commonplace.
It made me feel old, and gave me a sharp sense of how one generation's viewpoints flow into another.
I'm not used to seeing it from the other side.
But then I looked back at the little boy in the middle of the milling crowd of concerned but costumed people, and smiled as I realized that perhaps I could save my philosophical insights, since the little boy would form his own when the time was right.
At the moment, he held nothing in awe, oblivious to any contrasts between his childhood environment and mine.
He was busy concentrating on getting the wrapper off his candy bar.
—John Hill
Associate Editorial Editor
Letters
Math and the GPA
Most math, physics and chemistry courses emphasize the importance of significant figures, yet our own grading system fails to take them into consideration.
We receive 3 points for an A, 2 for a B, 1 for a C, 0 for a D, or —1 for an F, but our grade point average is calculated with two non-significant figures. For example, the 3 and 6 are insignificant in a GPA of 1.36. Since most courses are graded so that more C's are given than any other grade, perhaps some twenty or more percentage points will lie between the highest and lowest assigned C. All of the students within those twenty or more percentage points, however, will receive exactly 1 point in that course. When that much variance can occur within one grade, calculating a GPA to the nearest one-hundredth of a point can not be warranted.
If, however, grades were assigned in something like a 12 point system our GPA would have more significance. In a 12 point system an A could be worth 12, A—worth 11, B+ worth 10, B worth 9, B—worth 8, etc.
Many students complain because they just missed a B or an A, while others were lucky to have just queued into a certain grade. Unfortunately borderline cases often cause hard feelings between students and faculty, thus a more accurate grading system seems worth investigating.
In a 12 point system a GPA of 10.1 would contain one less insignificant figure while maintaining an accuracy three times as great as the three point system. Whenever some of the pressures and emotions can be eliminated from a grading system, a step has been taken in which the faculty can provide, and the student pursue, a better education.
David Briery, Topeka senior
Letters to the Editor
Abrams fired without hearing, reader says
To the Editor:
Common sense and good judgment tell me not to write this letter. Conscience dictates that I must. Later, if necessary, I can surely excuse any error in judgment as human fallibility. I doubt that I could so easily buy off my conscience.
I have from the beginning been deeply committed to the very issues and objectives which have recently led to the dismissal of Prof. Norman Abrams from the faculty of the design department. But I have remained relatively aloof from the events of the past few days. For this I apologize—to Mr. Abrams, to the rest of the minority in the department who share his views, and most of all to our students who had a right to expect more of me for it is they who ultimately will be the big losers.
A letter by Chancellor Wescoe in the Dec. 15 issue of the Kansan prompted me to own up to my responsibilities. In it he said "A university, we agree, is a place dedicated to the promotion of a better understanding of thought
through unfettered access to differing ideas. This University has always been prideful that it operates within this tradition." Noble principle! But one which seems not to be embraced by the design department.
Prof. Abrams has scored the apparent lack of a guiding philosophy in the design department. If, in $3\frac{1}{2}$ years on the staff, I have been able to detect any evidence of such a philosophy I would have to describe it as a basic resistance to change and a denial of the possibility that the junior members of the faculty might have something of value to offer towards the growth and direction of the department.
At least 220 art students (signers of a petition supporting Abrams) and several faculty members, including myself, feel that he has made valuable contributions to the University both in and out of the classroom. It is significant to note that the student petition was submitted directly to Dean Heller and that the signers do fear reprisals. Even if such fears are groundless, these
students view it as a distinct possibility and that is what is important here. Even I am painfully aware of my vulnerability to the various pressures which could conceivably be applied as reprisal for making this public statement. That such beliefs should be so prevalent is some indication of the current atmosphere in the department, an atmosphere not altogether conducive to the learning process or to the free exchange of ideas.
The methods employed by the design department promotion committee are also worthy of
Let it be clearly understood that in principle Prof. Abrams does not stand alone among the design department faculty in his criticisms of the department—others among us share many of his beliefs, if not his methods. He is outspoken, sometimes blunt, and not always tactful. He is devastatingly truthful but I have never known him to be intentionally insulting. It is the exercise of these incriminating personality traits which, in my opinion, has led to his dismissal.
comment here. I am appalled that so many "responsible" members of the faculty could treat an action as important as the firing of a fellow teacher in so cursory a manner, i.e. notification of dismissal by letter and the denial so far of an opportunity to face the committee and defend his position.
I reject the proposition that any
faculty member, even one not having tenure, may be summarily discharged without the right to a hearing. I would hope that the more enlightened members of the administration, the faculty, and the student body agree in principle.
Fritz Reiber Assistant Professor, Department of Design
Newsroom----UN 4-3646 ---- Business Office----UN 4-3198
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 a semester, $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence. Kan 60044 individual and employment advertised offered to a students without regard to color, creed, national origin. Options expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY National Educational Advertising Services
A DIVISION OF
READER'S DIGEST SALES & SERVICES, INC.
380 Lexington Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017