2
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Tuesday, December 12, 1967
Bucking the System is out
The present appeal to knock the Establishment, after so many months, now seems somewhat contradictory.
This appeal to buck the proverbial System began with the hippies' cry to "drop out," but has been picked up by many aspects of the very Society being scorned.
One example of this would be the recent Paul Newman movie about the rebellious chain-gang convict, "Cool Hand Luke," because of its billing as the story about "the man the System couldn't break."
But the successful appeal today is that he fought the existing authority.
The recent popularity of old W. C. Fields movies has been attributed by an Associated Press writer to Fields' parody and humorous victories over Society.
In any other year, ads for such a movie would have played up a dozen other aspects of the movie, such as the hero's cleverness, courage, or legendary nature.
Never before has protesting the Establishment been so common, nor so commonly accepted as the usual course of events. Protesting one aspect of Society will usually encounter anti-protest protestors, and so on.
The very use of the terms "the Establishment," "the System," or "Society" are popular
in this context because their use is supposed to indicate that the user knows what's going on, or that he's really with it, man.
If this trend continues, we hope that future generations will not attend Sunday school to find that Moses bucked the Establishment, or that Satan dropped out of the System.
At any rate, no matter how long this attitude remains popular, it has now been around so long that it contradicts itself.
The contradiction lies in what is actually under attack by the use of the term "Establishment."
It is not so much the nine-to-five job, nor the suburbs, nor the rules, rituals, and assumed hypocrisy of this existence that is the focus of this rejection; it is the attitude behind it all.
Yet the highly scorned Establishment's attitude has now evolved to the point where it includes a large degree of self-criticism.
But since Society has now accepted, embraced and is busy exploiting its own criticism, the new appeals to "buck the System" are quite contradictory.
This newest aspect of the Establishment deserves to be bucked.
Associate Editorial Editor
John Hill
"General, We May Have To Reclassify You"
Letters to the Editor
ASC opinion, dress code, sex quote, 'pot' laws
To the Editor:
On behalf of the ASC Social Committee, I would like to take this opportunity to explain our views and procedures concerning the revision of the open house policy.
The need for more privacy in the residence halls was brought to our attention last spring by a group from the Association of University Residence Halls (AURH). This fall, when a number of open houses were requested by various residence halls, we then formed a temporary procedure for handling the matter.
Since we were very much interested in considering all sides of the issue, representatives from each living group that requested an open house were invited to discuss the procedures and attitudes within their living group with our committee. We advised them on any matters which seemed questionable; however, for the most part they were permitted to handle procedures according to their own living group situation.
We would like to make it clear at this time that the ASC Social Committee has not turned down one residence hall's request for an informal open house. We would hesitate to call this conservative action, nor would we regard it as being unwilling to permit open houses for living groups. Rather, we recognize the need for different groups to experiment before any proposal can substantially be submitted. Too, the Committee has felt that each of these requests have been handled in a realistic and mature manner. We would, however, not only feel it a necessity, but also an obligation to the entire program to turn down a request if a number of problems were present within a particular living group.
One area of concern which we do not feel is in proper perspective is the effort to rush this proposal through as many legal channels as fast as possible. Few of these anxious people have realized the far-reaching consequences of such a policy change. Nor have they stopped to realize that their aim, which is to give the residents of various living groups, a chance to socialize on a
more informal basis, is presently being satisfied by the ASC Social Committee.
This is not to be misunderstood as an effort to delay the issue. On the contrary, it is an effort to promote research and discussion on the part of all interested campus organizations. I extend at this time an invitation for any interested party to come before our committee and discuss the issue.
Earp Houge, Chairman ASC Social Committee
\* \* \*
To the Editor:
Although executed with good intentions to be sure, Hashinger's appeal to change the dress code seems to still be missing the point. The fact that the dean of women's office's rejection "for failure to define 'casual clothes'" was not accompanied by a definition of "campus clothes" demonstrates clearly the complete lack of logical interaction or democratic process existing between KU students and their administrators, even in such superfluous issues as that of "what to wear to dinner" in dormitories.
the ludicrous complexity involved in the endless red tape of deciding "what we may be allowed to do" is once again demonstrating that the efforts of students, restricting them selves to attacking problems symptomatically instead of directly, only prove ineffective and meaningless. The plea should not be "what may we wear?", but rather, "why do we have to ask you what we can wear?"
The type of restrictions that continue to be imposed upon men and women in the supposed pursuit of "higher education" is appalling. More disturbing, however, is the resignation with which the students continue to accept the unfair and unnecessary situation.
Carolyn Cogswell
Topeka senior
* *
To the Editor:
I wish to comment upon a rather surprising and revealing quote attributed to Mr. Braun of the Campus Crusade for Christ (Kansan, Dec. 6, p. 1). Mr.
Braun's statement that "there's 'not a whole lot left' in marriage without sex" would seem to imply a logical contradiction with his general position on the interpersonal value of non-marital sex.
Dennis J. Nauman
This quote indicates clearly that the most important element of marriage is sex, and that other advantages and disadvantages are relatively peripheral.
If these "total person acts" of sex are the major bonds within marriage they must then also be prepent in non-marital relationships insofar as all of the nonsexual factors amount to "not a whole lot." On the same basis that one would conclude from the quote that the marriage without sex will likely fail, one must also infer that the non-marital relationship omitting sex should face the same difficulties.
In responding to criticism, has Braun accidentally let the truth about sex and marriage (and therefore about sex and non-marriage) slip out?
Lawrence graduate student
\* \* \*
To the Editor:
I wish to thank your paper for providing the campus with a beautiful paradigm of modern liberal thinking. I am speaking in reference to the editorial of Nov. 29 entitled "Revision of marijuana laws."
The article reminded me of Bertrand Russell's quip that if the American government passed a resolution to execute every liberal in the United States, the liberals would petition for right of appeal. Thus observe the "realistic solution" that is offered to the Fed's narcotic laws: "First offenders, especially the young, should be turned over to health and school authorities, not courts."
Offenders to what?—No answer. Why should we assume that smoking marijuana is criminal?—No answer. Who should do the turning over?—No answer. Why should they be turned over to health and school authorities?—No answer.
What would these alleged authorities do, try to convert the young "addict" to Presbyterian-
ism or switch him to peanut butter;—no answer. Such roggysweet thinking is of the very type that helps to make possible such a circus of idiosias as the largest industrial complex in the world governed by a state whose moral ideal is mass cannibalism, an army of conscripted slaves fighting for somebody else's "freedom," or for that matter the recent compromise between John Lindsay and a certain liberal Democrat in New York over a "progressive" proposal to outlaw topless waitresses.
They too reached a "realistic" compromise. Now all formerly topless waitresses in New York must wear pasties. It is just this sort of "Charley Brownish" pasty mentality that Miss Wengler does such a fine job of expressing for your paper.
But what is more important is the display of logical acumen that Miss Wengler offers in her answer to the debate over smoking "pot." Basically her solution consists of a report on how she "feels" about the problem. She seems to assume that a report on her current emotional state will serve as an absolute, not to be questioned. Dear Miss Wengler, no one gives a damn about how you feel in respect to marijuana.
The question is, where did you or anyone else get the right to tell another person whether he or she can or can not smoke marijuana (or take anything else if they so choose)? If it "seems silly" to you "to condone another intoxicant," then don't condone it, but don't claim the right to decide whether some one who has smoked something you don't condone should be thrown in chains or "turned over to health or school authorities."
If you don't have the right, then one hundred million people of the same Kaness Dry League mentality don't have the right. If you do, then please tell us how you came by it. But in all fairness, don't tell us that you "feel" you have the right—we don't buy it.
Thomas T. Thomas
1515 Engel. Lawrenc
Newsroom—UN 4-3646----Business. Office—UN 4-3198
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY kansan
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. Kau 66044 Accredited goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without prior color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
Managing Editor-Dan Austin Business Manager-John Lee
Assistant Managing Editors ... Will Hardesty, Jerry Klein,
City Editor ... Paul Hancy, Gary Murrell Rich Lovett
Editorial Editors ... John Marshall
Associate Editorial Editor ..Betsy Wright, Alan Northcut
Sports Editors ... John Hill
Wire Editor ... Chip Rouse, Rich Lundmus
Assistant City Editor ... Don Walker
Photo Editor ... Charla Jenkins
Advertising Manager ... John Casady
National Advertising Manager ..Beverly Haid
Promotion Manager ..Dave Holt
Circulation Manager ..Warren Massey
Classified Manager ..John Duer
Production Manager ..Jud Klapman
Member Associated Collegiate Press
REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY
National Educational Advertising Services
A DIVISION OF
READER'S DIGEST SALES & SERVICES, INC.
360 Lexington Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017