4
Thursday, November 20, 1975
University Daily Kansan
COMMENT
Socialism debate
About 2,000 Democrats will meet for three days this week for the National Democratic Issues Convention in Louisville. One of the issues they will discuss will be a proposal for planned socialism for the United States. The meeting will be attended by a biew of Democrats. The conference will presidency, including Morris Udall, Henry Jackson, Birch Bayh, Lloyd Bentsen and Jimmy Carter.
The proposed socialism would replace our present system of corporate capitalism with a planned economy. The plan would include guaranteed jobs for everyone, price controls on most consumer goods, public ownership of major industries and government control of natural resources. It would also allow businesses to expand power, bureaucracy by placing more power, money and decision-making authority in the hands of smaller governmental units across the land.
WHY ARE THE DEMOCRATS looking at this proposal? One possible reason is that the United States is already driving toward socialism, but in a haphazerad manner. Social security and Medicare are two examples of the socialistic measures we live with every day, but there has been no plan to coordinate these programs and others that are being considered by Congress into a coherent overall plan for the economy. The proposal the Democrats will consider would be a step toward providing such a master plan.
Another reason to consider socialism is that the past World War II economic crisis overpopulation to growth canidity as it has in the past. With the recent energy crisis,
moreover, many Americans have realized that natural resources are finite, to be used with restraint.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE PLANNING for use of these resources is in the hands of giant corporations that use the resources for their own benefit, not for the benefit of most Americans. Because they tend to plan for increasing economic growth, not for the conservation of finite resources, they are poor choices to handle this important planning function.
The proposal the Democrats will debate would replace these private corporate giants with publicly owned corporations that would hopefully be more interested in the wise use of resources than in their indiscriminate use for the sake of increased short-term profits.
MAYBE SOCIALISM as envisioned in this proposal is the best thing for America—or maybe it isn't. The important thing is that socialism will ultimately missing the possibility of socialism and is daring to do so before a presidential election.
Will the Democrats have an open, honest discussion of socialism? Or will the presidential hopefuls, each fearful of harming his chances for the presidency, cloud the issue with a smoke screen of ambiguous rhetoric?
We can only hope that they will all rise above their own personal interests and engage in a frank debate of the advantages and disadvantages of socialism. The stakes are too high for any other course of action, because the future of the U.S. economy may hang in the balance. Paula Jolly
Contributing Writer
Liberal conscience gone
By DAVID OLSON Contributing Writer
The U.S. Supreme Court 105 its liberal conscience with the retirement last week of William Orville Douglas.
In his own words, Douglas' theory of government is "that if the mind of man is to be free, his
Since April 17, 1938, when he was appointed to the Court by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Douglas has championed the cause of civil liberties and protection of the individual from big government.
ideas, his beliefs, his ideology,
his philosophy must be placed
beyond the reach of government."
Douglas was a strong proponent of the open ideological marketplace with the free exchange of ideas. He was a defender of the Constitution, especially his absolute protection and absolute protection under the First Amendment. That meant no censorship whatsoever—not political, not moral, not any.
His strong libertarian views weren't shared by the rest of the Court during his long career. His was the only voice to call for
the pure, unchecked freedom of expression envisioned by the founding fathers.
Oliver Wendell Holmes had been regarded as the "great dissenter" during his time on the Supreme Court, but he has been an ardent supporter. During his 38½-year term, Douglas has the author of more than 500 dissenting opinions—often alone. He used the opinions as vehicles for expressing his views, sometimes without regard for his position as associate justice.
Nixon beats Bear to bowl bids
If "Bear" Byrant is powerful enough to pick his own opponent in a post season bowl game, isn't the president of the United States powerful enough to pick his own opener for an international confrontation?
By JOHN HENDEL
Grant Writer
I think so, and this phone call recently found on hypothetical tapes dated late in 1971, half-buried in the seashore beach, seems to justify my position.
"Yeah, this is the 'Duck.'"
"Duck' Nixon?"
"Well, we want to know who we can pair you with in the post season battle this time around.
"You guys did finish pretty high in the AP rankings, and you won the
NATO conference, those big wins in Europe and Japan were real crowd pleasers. That hotly contested game in Korea was good press and you are doing fairly well in Vietnam." (Chuckle).
"Don't mention Vietnam, stupid." "Okay, 'Duck.' But seriously, who do you want to go up against on New Year's Day?"
"We understand that, 'Duck,' and that's why we would suggest someone like Ekvrtv in the Oil Bowl."
"Let me make one thing perfectly clear, I don't want a loss at the end of my season. It would hurt my chances of the alumni renewing my contract next year. I'm trying for another four-year contract, you know."
"No, no, no. I don't want to play Egypt this year, they've got those two
running backs, Lotsafoli and Highgapreses. Those guys could really hurt us and also would hurt him by signing a new, four-year contract."
DOUGHNESS has also on the New Deal Court, using his experience as head of the SEC to fight for regulation of business and corporate finance. It was an early indication of Douglas' intention to protect the interests of both government and business.
"All right, we'll scratch Egypt. But how about a real power-house game, you and that Russian team. Even if you lose that one you wouldn't be able to win," he said, coverage we'd have, we could have it in the Ukraine Bowl and . . .
"Are you nuts or what? I don't want to play the Russians any time, much less when my contract is up for renewal. Anyway the alums won't stand for any game the Russians, win, lose or draw.
"Don't have anyone we can beat or at least withdraw with dignity?"
shoes as the "ardent champion of free speech" on the Court.
"Well, there is this small South American country that is 8 and 2 on
the season, but they haven't played a really easy schedule. You don't want them do you?"
"I'm not going to play Cuba in the Cigar Bair this year! Not after the problem Kennedy had down there in the ninety years those guys are tough."
"Not Cuba, 'Duck,' but Chile. They're having coaching problems and you could beat them with the Watergate hotel tied to your back. We got a huge hit in the back. Santiago; that should make a nice holiday for you and the team."
DOUGLAS 'UNIQUE STYLE always stirred controversy. Straight-laced lambstaked him for his personal life, his four marriages, his articles that appeared in such magazines as Playboy, Avant Garde and Evergreen, and his book on the evolution oforation, alleged to have Las Vegas, gambling connections.
"Oh, any time late in the year should be all right, 'Duck.' "
"Yeah, Pat would like that. Okay,
Chile it is. When can I send my team
in?"
"Fine, we'll see you in Santiago and wish Allende luck. Goodbye."
Douglas became part of the "activist majority" of the Earl Warren Court during the 1950s. Douglas and Associate Justice Hugo Black were the authors of three major dissenting opinions, some of which were later the basis of major opinionists of the Court. Their opinions were often compared to the earlier works of Brands and Holmes. But as with most of his peers, an even stronger libertarian, stronger than Black or anyone else on the Court.
All of this didn't faze Douglas. He had the courage to live his life according to his own beliefs and to understand of what others said about him.
His public service career began in 1936 when Roosevelt vowed to build a new Defense and Exchange Commission (SEC). He soon became commissioner of the SEC, where he fought for reform on Wall Street.
In 1939, Roosevelt nominated him for a seat on the Supreme Court, to fill the vacancy left by the retired Justice Louise McDermott. You know, you know at the time how well Douglas would fill Brandeis'
HIS LBERAL VOICE continued to speak out through the 1980s and into the 1970s when the rest of the Court, under Chief Justice Warren Buren, was growing more conservative.
And then, last new Year's Eve, William O. Douglas and David Baxter his body was paralyzed, but he refused to give up. He spent the spring and summer trying to get the ball back to the bench for the fall term.
"IHAVE BEEN BOTHERED with incessant and demanding pain which depletes my energy to the extent that I have been unable to shoulder my share of the burden." Douglas wrote.
The effects of the stroke finally subdued him. After a valiant struggle, Dallas wrote his resignation, saying he could no longer keep up with the physical demands of the job.
So the wizened, white-haired Douglas, now 77, retired. Early this week he entered a Portrait Museum with his brain rehabilitation. His mind remains active, though, and undoubtedly he will continue his
But what effect will his retirement have on the Supreme Court? Gerald Ford, the man who as House minority leader tried unsuccessfully to have Douglas impeached in his 1960s bid for replacement. It's a safe bet that Ford will choose someone with a much more conservative stance than Douglas.
THE RESULT IS SEEN as gradual rather than dramatic by most Court observers. Douglas' absence will most likely be noticed in close cases, but the case of Supreme Court decision outlawing capital punishment, a 5-4 decision in which Douglas sided with the majority. That decision is expected to be reviewed again soon in a North Carolina court, where more conservative justice in Douglas' place, the vote might swing the other way.
Even if Ford wanted to name a liberal to replace Douglas, it would be impossible. There is no obliteration of the liberal with the stature of Douglas. He will be sorely missed by many Americans.
Readers Respond / Protesters showed responsibility
To the Editor:
I'm not sure that people want to read another letter concerning the Shockley affair, but since the issue is far from settled, perhaps this letter might be of value.
will begin directly by saying that the students who disrupted the speech last week deserve to be rewarded, not punished; in fact, so far they seem to be the only people on this campus who are more important than any faculty responsibility at all in the whole matter. Though the responsibility for the moral education of the students rightfully belongs to the faculty and administration, these latter groups have shamefully hidden from the responsibility behind their behavior. They don't believe in the scientific validity of his theory, but he should have the right to speak ... etc."
These kinds of statements are sinister, or at least, misleading. What if Shockley's theories are scientifically correct? It has often happened in the past that scientists and researchers are summarily rejected at their first airing. But would just his touring the country and speaking of what can only be interpreted as a program of national service in our country? Of course not! No amount of scientific truth can ever change that fact, yet, whenever people talk of Shockley's appearance the moral question is never brought to light.
I repeat, the issue of freedom of speech is a cruel joke when you are fighting the threat of a pogrom of the proportions suggested by Shockley. It has been told that the passengers on the Titanic discussed the dinner menu as the ship itself was
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas weekdays during the academic year except holidays and weekends. Ken. 60045. Subscriptions by mail are $9 a semester or $12 a year in Dogwood. Subscriptions to the county. Student subscriptions are $1.35 a semester, paid through
karner
Dennan Ahlworth
Associate Camp Editor
Debbie Skoll
Camp Young
Associate Camp Editor
Betty Haggelman
Associate Camp Editor
Don Smith
Chief Photographer
David Kyle
Assistant Business Manager - Advertising Manager
Assistant Advertising Manager - Lisa Beckham
Assistant Advertising Manager
Business Manager
going down. Shockley has spread his ideas around; we should have the decency to listen to the other side.
Paul Ceruzzi Lawrence graduate student
Paul Ceruzzi
Will freedom return to the University of Kansas?
Without freedom to examine ideas its individual or groups of members choose to examine, a monarchy, but without the bit of freedom is not possible; freedom for the chosen few is a monarchy; a Nazi Germany, where they burned the books; a dictator may leave and some may stay.
As an entity, a university neither accepts or rejects ideas although individual members are free to do either. A university neither accepts or rejects individual members are free to do either.
The essential role of a university in a free society is to serve as a community for the examination of ideas. For the purpose of this exercise, members must be assured of their right to hear and discuss any and all ideas brought to it. The reasonable idea—the word "good" is inappropriate—affords the reason by which it is exposed to the unreasonable, exposed to the law, falls to or lack of it.
Rights needed
To the Editor:
William M. Merrill Professor of geology
Shockley ideas old
To the Editor:
Much space has been given.
as of late, to the subject of William Shockley and his theory that there is a basis to believe that the white race is superior to all the "lower races." This letter is not an attempt to refute Shockley or to support him; hopefully, it will show that his ideas are nothing new but that they have been reported in port among the "elite" of science and the world for at least a century.
"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to assume," he added. "A californian Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower classes, by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Man is the equal, still superior to the average Man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that when all his liabilities are removed, and he has no financial fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able
We can begin by looking to a letter written by Charles Darwin to W. Graham in 1881. He writes:
So here we have, at the very beginning, the father of evolutionary thought, declaring the superiority of the white race. Continuing down the line, he was one of the most scientist-philosopher of the 19th century held the same views. Thomas Huxley stated:
to compete successfully with his biger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which was supposed to be thoughts or not by bites."
Thus we find two of the most well known evolutionists holding the view of racial supremacy. Is it possible to say then that one who holds the theory of evolution must conclude that one race of man must be superior to another? Probably not. Our notes alone. But let us move further forward in history to look at some more recent views.
In Germany in the early period of Hitler's climb to power there was a policy of racial superiority. Hitler merely called this concept the "Master Race."
An evolutionary an-
thropologist, Sir Arthur Keith,
said, "The German
Fuhrer . . . has consciously
sought to make the practice of
Germany conform to that theory
may react to Hitler morally,
one must concede that he was
certainly a consistent
evolutionist.
In the same article, Sir Arthur makes an observation concerning the Biblical viewpoint in regard to the prevailing condition in Germany: "Christianity makes no distinction of race or color; it seeks to break down all its respect, the hand of Christianity is against that of nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest for which Nature has told through long ages to produce?"
Thus we have concluded that Shockley, in joining these other scientific-philosophers, is only interested in the logical consequence of its logical conclusion. We wish more people would see the inequity between the logical consequence of evolutionary theory and the moral sense of human equality.
Gary Meek
Daniel Goering
1026 Tennessee
KSU student view
Nevertheless, it must be of some comfort to the university community that KU has something in common with Dartmouth and Yale—that being the selective application of the concept of academic freedom so as to appease a small group of those who have no knowledge of the right to decide what ideas others will bear. Such a dubious boner!
It is indeed interesting that George McGovern can address the chamber of commerce in many cities, but William Shockley cannot speculate in the free marketplace of ideas.
To the Editor:
It is our opinion that actions taken by the February First Movement should be deplored by the University community. This University must remain an institution where ideas can be expressed openly despite their controversial nature. Government or student organizations must not decide what is unclean for our ears to hear. To do this is to invite censorship.
Authority lacking To the Editor:
James C. Carper K-State graduate student
If Sochem was holding this meeting in violation of University law, then the University must deal with this illegality, not another student organization. This entire affair requires an authority and an excess of misunderstanding.
Roland DeSoigne
Topeka senlor
Edward DeSoigne
Topeka
Anti-Zionism valid To the Editor:
The main mistake which most Americans make in regard to sizing up this situation arises from their equation of anti-
We have read quite a bit recently about how evil these countries are who voted in the United Nations in favor of the war on Iraq, and like to present the anti-Zionist perspective here, and to clear up some misconceptions which have arisen in the minds of Americans, who so frequently support Israel in terms of black and white.
That so many countries did in fact vote for this resolution, however, suggests that the resolution does represent a valid viewpoint, and the countries voting for the resolution felt obligated to do so for some very good reasons. That the United States wants to give the state power because it has lost its way seems to me both childish and politically unrealistic.
Zionism and anti-Semitism. I am, one, am anti-Zionist but not an anti-Semitic. To be Zionist to believe in a state created entirely to be a homeland for the Jews, to the exclusion of other countries from another country in the world is a homeland solely for one people.
Moreover, and more importantly, to be Zionist is to deny the rights of the Palestinian people who have inhabited Israel for more years and whose state to be Zionist is to oppress these people and to deny their rights. It is as if we created this country to be a haven for white, Anglo-Saxon Protestants (as if it were not so), and to deny the Indian, Chicanos, etc. To be Zionist is to polarize. A Jew from anywhere in the world, so I have read, receives automatic citizenship upon arrival in Israel; a Palestinian, on the other hand, receives governmental representation. I can think of no other name for this than racism.
I fully understand the Jewish need to feel secure, but Zionism is a form of nationalism which they have been accustomed to counterproductive and divisive. I urge everyone to think through these issues and not to become rabidly pro-israel merely for political reasons, always right. Remember, too, that papers like the Kansan give a very distorted view, and writers like David Olson harmfully anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
David Radd
Idaho Falls, Idaho,
graduate student