4
Monday, November 17, 1975
University Daily Kansan
We'll miss Douglas
William O. Douglas' retirement last week from the U.S. Supreme Court is both our loss and his.
For Douglas, a man who, until a year ago, had lived an active life, this final submission to pain must be damaging to his psyche. Until his stroke last Dec. 31, Douglas' speech and action belied his age. Since then, it has been heart-breaking to see him or listen to him because of his physical deterioration.
It's even sadder to consider what his absence from the Court might mean to the United States.
The Warren Court, of which Douglas was a member, made many decisions of far-reaching social impact, such as the
1854 Brown v. Topeka Board of Education school integration case.
Douglas' strong stands for freedom of
censorship and against all forms of
encumbrance with regard to censorship.
The Burger Court, with a conservative replacement for Douglas more than likely, may eventually nullify most of the Warren Court's decisions.
Ward Harkavy
Indeed, the Burger Court is more likely now to seek the lowest common denominator of American life and to pander to it. The days are gone when the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution as expressing the highest aspirations of freedom and equal opportunity for all Americans.
Contributing Writer
U.S. recoil perilous
Those Third World, Arab and Communist countries have sunk to new depths by their passage of a resolution in the United Nations that labeled Zionism "a form of racism and racial discrimination."
Not since the absolute horror of Hitler's "final solution" for the Jews in the Second World War has the specter of anti-Semitism been raised to such heights. Daniel Moynihan, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., was right when he told the General Admiral that "the great evil had loosed upon the world. The abomination of anti-Semitism has been given the appearance of international sanction."
The ominous action by the countries supporting the resolution may be the last straw as far as United States' participation in the U.N. is concerned. Sen. Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz., and other conservatives have called for United States' withdrawal from the U.N.
However, there is as much potential harm in our withdrawal as there is in our withdrawal. This can be manipulated by Third World countries as it is, the U.N. remains the only forum
for the countries of the world. Despite its disappointing past, the U.N. has been successful in averting several international insults notably the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
The U.N. remains the only realistic hope for the future if all nations of the world are to work out their differences peaceably. If the United States were to move, it would lose important contact with the rest of the world in the public forum.
A wiser approach would be to use economic sanctions against the U.N. and those countries that favored the Zionist resolution. The United States currently contributes about 25 per cent of the U.N.'s regular budget. U.N. officials have admitted that even a slight reduction in United States contributions could cause hardship. Let the United States show its displeasure by reducing U.N. contributions and foreign aid to countries supporting this anti-Semitism.
A reaction of moral outrage is proper under the circumstances. But each college bring consequences that the United States and the rest of the world, wouldn't want.
Contributing Writer
David Olson
WEST HADL
IN GEORGE WE TRUST
The idea of freedom of discussion has been with us
A COMMENT ON FREE SPEECH
We are left now, four days later, to wonder about the man and his ideas. We wonder why he now occupies the public stage; we wonder how he too deep in the recesses of our rational thought, we struggle with the notion that William Shockley is listened to more and more, precisely because he presses him and his views.
Hugo Black once offered his opinion of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression: "My view is, without deviation, without exception, without any ifs, buts or whereases, that freedom of speech means that you shall not do something you have the views they have or the views they express or the words they speak or write."
since the Bill of Rights and before. Throughout our history it has been subject to interpretations, yet it survives today, often in explicit forms. You should also know the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct. That document guarantees each student of the University to free discussion while here.
Surely, this right of free discussion belonged to the group of students and faculty at McGraw-Hill School of Medicine Shockley to speak to them. The protesting students who entered the Military Science building classroom in which Ms. Shockley was teaching Thursday clearly were in the wrong when they forced him to leave. Also in the wrong was the University administration, whose role is to invite Shockley was "unwisite"
and which implied that prior approval should have been received before an invitation extended to him to speak here.
The protesting group, so-called the February First Movement, was no more legitimate in its actions than that thought advancement of its cause through suppression of the rights of others. While supposedly representing oppressed students, the group demonstrated it did know how to know about the knowledge so showed it wasn't willing admit it practiced it.
It should be thoroughly understood that the protesters had every right to carry placards and peacefully assemble, as they did on Friday in front of Strong Hall. The same rights they denied to Shockley were theirs to clutch
as they gathered to express their views.
The issue here, then, is not whether the protests were justified or whether protests in general are legal. Rather, the consideration here is that the protesters were suppressed or denied by the protestors. Clearly, they were on Thursday.
A mistake was made by the protesting students, and Shockley and the groups that invited him were the victims. While the protesters obviously were too much, we were at least comprehendable. They feared Shockley's ideas might be accepted without challenge, but in so doing they unintentionally alienated members of the University community to discern truth.
Another error was the stance the administration took
with regard to prior approval of campus visitors. If it was thought that last Thursday was a "bad time" for Shockley to come to the campus, then society's malady should have been addressed. Surly, Shockley's appearance sparked the protest, but it was an instance where the protesters involved should have been put in their places. They had violated the rights of free speech and academic freedom, and it was they who had insisted, and had activities curtailed, not William Shockley.
It is not so important that heavy penalties be levied because they are rather that they and the University administrators come to understand the value of a research department in our marketplace of ideas.
Dennis Ellsworth Editor
Readers Respond / Protesters should be suspended
To the Editor:
Continued exercise of constitutional prerogatives is incumbent upon rational and sane utilization of these guaranteed rights given the individual. Abuse of these rights, e.g.,
freedom of peaceable assembly, cannot be tolerated when such abuse comes at the expense of rights possessed by the Shlockies of this nation—no matter how detestable the latter
may be in espousing invalid views.
Those who can be positively identified as having impinged speech Nov. 13 are guilty under the University Code of Student
ZIONISM RESOLUTION
Rights, Responsibilities, and
Conduct. Sec. C. 1, of offences
against the orderly process of
the University for having
caused intentionally a "sub-
stitution" of (A) teaching,
research, administration,
disciplinary proceedings, or
other University activities, or
(b) other authorized, permitted,
nationally approved activities on
University premises."
The putrescent promulgators of逻辑 antithetical to a university's liberal spirit of free inquiry don't belong here at KU. They deserve better. They are described by C. 1, suspension for classes for two years. Only by swift application of this penalty can KU regain the prestige it will surely lose by tacitly condoning mob irrationality perpetrated or actually rotten reverse reactions.
John R. Mueller Winfield sophomore
Shockley has won
I received a phone call from a friend in a history of philosophy of science class and was invited to the discussion. Before going, I tried to do some research to understand Belonging to a minority (Zionists) that has long been and is currently, under attack by the U.N., I felt as if this man's arguments might some day all minorities. In my own way, I wanted to try to halt him.
The topic of William Shockley has been intense on this campus. Still, as a guest of the division of history and philosophy of science, the man was done a great injustice. The plot was initiated in a small discussion.
My friend and I went to the discussion held in the Military Science Building. It was a wagon filled with professors, graduate students, and other interested people—all Caucasian. There was an app on his phone that Stockley began his discussion with the points he wanted to
To the Editor:
cover. He then played a tape of his talk at Dartmouth in 1969.
These proceedings began to drag on. After 45 minutes (it took more than an hour of discussion), he had said nothing! At this point, exactly what he wanted to happen was clear: the students started coming in.
Shockley turned to Lewis McKinney, associate professor of history, who ran the proceedings, and asked him to write a report on the discussion was about. It was at this point I realized that Shockley's arguments were rarely heard by those who were interested in the topic. Instead, Shockley was forced to leave the campus by those who were emotionally intimidated. This didn't give those who wanted to argue their best interests with scientific fact a chance.
Consequently, I'm sure the news services will pick up the fact that Wushocky, Ph.D., was ushered from the University of Kansas campus to attend a professional protection, after demonstrators demanded his removal. This publicity appears to be what Shockey thrives on and hopes to instigate. At this campus, be succeeded, Those of you who added him have done minorities a great injustice by persecuting the atrocities of Shocky.
Decriminalize pot
Bill Reeves
St. Louis senior
In response to Ward Hararkay's editorial of Nov. 10 entitled "Pot Issue to Stay," *Poll* express a few facts and opinions.
Harkay stated that NORMAL was a "lobby working for legalization of marjana in Kansas." He should have used the term discriminallization. There is a difference between legalization and NORMAL has supported the removal of only criminal penalties, not civil penalties. I make this point on their behalf only to clarify NORMAL's stand. I personally
support legalization of the possession and growth of small amounts for personal use.
In reference to my efforts as a legislator, I did in fact introduce one bill in 1973 to legalize marijuana. The bill was voted down by the party, but didn't surprise me, since at that point, no other state had passed such legislation. Realizing the prematurity of the issue, I set it aside to concentrate on other vital state interests. I have seen the university care and university facility and faculty funding, etc.
It wasn't until this past summer, after six other states had passed various forms of marijuana in testimony and felt the legislature could and should investigate the issue further. Members of Kansas NORMAL and I enlisted six very knowledgeable and well-versed testifiers before the Judicial Committee's hearing on marijuana Oct. 30. After the hearing, the committee voted to draw up a bill to legalize the administration of one ounce by adults.
Harkavky's comment that there has been a "historical reluctance by the Legislature to limit any unnecessary exaggerated.
They have confronted the issue three times in the past five years. In 1970 they took a positive step in reducing possession from a felony to a misdemeanor. In 1982, little was known medically about marijuana, they chose to not recommend my bill for passage. Now in their third confrontation, after conducting a serious hearing, they have voted to draw up a bill legalizing possession. But now the Legislature has done anything BUT refuse to confront the issue.
The last and most important point I wish to make is that, despite Harvayk's opinion that this is one issue whose "time has not come in this period," I of editorial which perpetuates that myth. A comprehensive study soon to be released by Wichita State
University reveals that in fact a majority of Kansans believe marijana possession should be at least decriminalized. For example, the countrymen of Newton, Kan., 68 percent favor legalization.
If the majority will speak up and let their representatives vote, they'll feelings, rather than just assuming there's no chance of passing such legislation, the party could vote accordingly next spring.
State Rep. Mike Glover D-Lawrence
Remarks restated
I was somewhat shocked to read the totally inaccurate article in the Nov. 4 Kansas that was written by Bain Penner and that appeared under the heading "Comment." The only saving grace of the article is that your paper does state, Opinions editorial page, which appears Monday through Thursday) reflect only the view of the writer."
Penner stated that I denounced malpractice insurance for doctors. If she attended the program at the University it would appear that she should have understand what the speakers were saying. None of the speakers, including myself, even intimated that doctors shouldn't be provided with malpractice insurance. I want to know more personally, and the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association are, and always have been, in favor
or physicians being furnished medical malpractice insurance at reasonable rates.
In that same article, Penner stated that in cases of gross or deliberate negligence, the police warranted. This was certainly quite an observation in view of the fact that if the injury was intentional the action would be a crime and no person could be sent to prison.
She also stated: "Why should physicians be plagued by suits for minor, inconsequential errors when other professionals offer them out that other professions are involved in litigation where their members are sued just as are doctors. I would like to also ask if a negligent doctor is also injured as a result of a negligent doctor don't consider their injury or suit to be 'minor or inconsequential.' It is indeed unfortunate that anyone could be liable for the rights of individuals.
Editor's note: The Kansan acknowledges that Michael didn't directly denounce medical malpractice insurance claims and that he Pennor, and regrets the error. It should be understood, however, that the article to which Michaud referred was an editorial; his disagreements with Michaud other points don't mean those statements also were inaccurate.
Gerald L. Michaud, Wichita Kansas Trial Lawyers Assn president
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas weekdays
dinnertime periods. Second-class postage paid at Law-
nernation periods. Second-class postage paid at Law-
nernation or $18 in Douglas County and $10 in
San Bernardino subscriptions or $1.35 a semester, paid through
the university.
Editor
Dennis Killeworth
Associate Editor
Congress Editor
Debbie Goss
Young
Business Manager
Assistant Business Manager
Advertising Manager
Associate Business Manager