4
Tuesday, November 8, 1977
University Daily Kansan
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Comment
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansas editorial staff. Signed columns represent only the views of the writers.
Students win battle
The removal of the requirement that foreign students have health insurance before enrolling at the University of Kansas was a welcome return to fairness and reason.
The insurance requirement, authorized in March by the Board of Regents at KU's request, was inexcusably discriminatory. There never has been such a requirement for American citizens.
That the requirement was rescinded is a small victory for students' rights. But the fact that the requirement was requested in the first place and the manner in which it was instituted are reason for concern.
David Ambler, vice chancellor for student affairs, said he thought the requirement had been made in good faith, with the welfare of students as the motivation for requesting the authorization from the Regents.
HOWEVER, THE health insurance requirement seems to be more an administrative attempt to avoid problems and ignore individuals' rights than a show of care. It never has been demonstrated
how a biased blanket policy was preferable to dealing with students' health care cost problems as they arose.
Nor was there wide discussion or dissemination of the decision to mandate insurance as the decision was being made. One would think that at least the administration would have made every attempt to get the opinion of foreign students before instituting such a policy, but members of KU's International Club say such was not the case.
Perhaps if those who wanted the requirement would have sought opinions they would have been forced to realize earlier that the plan was discriminatory, and thus avoided first instituting and then rescinding it in the same semester. But it is also students' responsibility to their own wellbeing to take an interest in issues that affect them and to make their opinions known whether they are sought or not.
The health insurance requirement was a mistake. Let's hope that KU administrators and students learn something from it.
CIA compromised universities
By RICHARD M.
STEPHENSON
more information they had received coverly funded grants, the CIA has said that the source may not have been known to the recipients and that "most" of the research undertaken by our projects designed to study "materials and methods useful in altering human behavior" (against which serious charges have been made and reported), but "only far less controversial investigations into aspects of human behavior and its consequences" (against names of persons and organizations are deleted on any documents requested by those informed.
Student praises Spencer library
AS ONE who some 20 years
Disclaimers of one sort or another already have been made by some colleges and universities and some individuals engaged in research projects.
The rules are not only reasonable, but essential; in view of the library's holdings, they are required to take staff members are a tribute to their profession. Those who value the contents of a library such as Spencer will not only receive a benefit, but also aplaid their efforts.
NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J.—In August, amd. Stainns Turner, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified before a congressional committee that the CIA had covertly sponsored research conducted by some 80 institutions, including 44 colleges and universities reported and continues to occasion concern and speculation as to who and what was involved.
To the editor:
I have had the privilege of doing research in Spencer on a daily basis since August, and based on that, can assure you that the criticism is unfounded. The entrance is lust that.
"Spencer Library uninviting, too difficult, critics say," reads the headline. The specific complaints seem to be: The entrance is so cold as to be uncomfortable; that are enforced and staff members are unresponsive to patrons.
The article on Spencer Library in your Nov. 3 edition cannot go unanswered.
N. Y. Times Features
I have received nothing but eager assistance, voluntarily given, from all the staff with whom he had the pleasure of working.
Robert W. Kaszer
Lawrence graduate student
My point was this: I felt that there was the possibility that I
Thursday night I was given the opportunity to air my views on an issue under consideration by the Student Senate. Despite not having senators in which an attempt was made to block me from speaking and in which my question to an opposing speaker was suppressed, after I had been recognized until the speaker's time had expired, I was informed I had adequate hearing from a respectful audience. I was particularly impressed by the number of senators who afterwards took the time to personally convey their appreciation for my take on an issue, the results of which did not support my position.
Booklet biased on birth control To the editor:
KANSAN
Letters
was being forced to pay for the distribution of extremist propaganda. I had been assured by my student senator that she had been informed about this situation, which was being considered for funding from the mandatory student activity fee and that they simply distributed unbiased information. I accepted that the university would be by their office. Examining the one pamphlet set out for distribution, I found that it did a professional job in providing necessary and reliable information systematically, it also contained Communist propaganda that assured the reader the United States was intentionally and systematically starving to the people of the "third world."
Certainly this constitutes only a small part of an otherwise factual booklet and the fact that this group chose to complete their booklet into the United States does not prove that they necessarily have a radical political philosophy, but it caused me to question whether they are capable of disseminate is truly unbiased. They advertise, using student funds, for political discussion groups. Will these discussions be determined conclusively? Will they bring to campus provide a rational, objective look at controversial issues such as abortion, homosexual grade school sex education indeed have a political ax to grind, social causes to further.
I believe it is a legitimate use of student funds to have discussions of controversial issues, but the issues should be insisted on to insure that discussions are not used for propagandizing, the discussions should be sponsored by unprejudiced groups. People have a right to believe anything they see or hear, and people seminate anything protected by the constitution. They can put out left-wing, right-wing,
radical women's liberation,
reactionary male chauvinist,
pro-or-con-gun control, abortion,
business, combustion, ERSA,
instrumentalism or religious propaganda,
outright lies if they so desire
But let them pay for it themselves. Don't force me to pay them to do it. Whether one agrees with a group's political position, I think most reasonable people would agree that a group which uses its resources and benefits causes not should be funded by mandatory fees from the general student population.
Bob Jennings
Lawrence sonice
Lawrence senior
Death design
Many students and faculty members have made unflattering remarks about the new Spencer Museum of Art. They have compared it unfavorably to a mausoleum. Undeniably, it does resemble an overgrown mausoleum.
fits art museum
To the editor:
However, these complainers have forgotten a basic premise of design: form follows function.
If one passes to think for a moment, one would realize that the functions of a mausoleum must be identical. Both contain dead relics that few of us actually care to visit. Only those with an interest in the morbid make a habit of visiting these edifices.
The design of the art museum is a refreshing display of art collections. The architects involved shouldn't be condemned; rather, they should be commended for their brilliant in-
Marshall Fleitman Overland Park junior
ROTC women trained to kill
Brent Baxter
Regarding your Nov. 2 article about women ROTC cadets: I'm not sure this is what the early feminists had in mind. It's a great relief on my mind, though, to know that women can be trained just as well as men to kill other human beings.
ago received through my university such funds, I, too, have said that I did not know of the CIA funding, that the research was entirely undirected by this source and that the results were unclassified and freely circulated. My knowledge of the funding and expressed shock that it might have engaged unknowingly in CIA-sponsored research.
I first learned of CIA involvement in my research through reporters who telephoned me at my home . . .
CIA-sponsored research, although there is some persistence in my being able to give assurance in the case of the university and my professional integrity, the hope is that I will be there. It has implications more serious than implied by disclaimers and the knowledge that "most" of the research was not controversial," if not innocuous.
To the editor:
I first learned of CIA involvement in my research through alert and knowledgeable reporters who telephoned me at my home to inquire about it. Being the last to know the best and least an affront, it was compounded by the realization that I was victimized by an agency of my government in a manner I can only deplore and resent.
I HAVE BEEN placed on the defensive and put into question, not by my actions, but by an act of omission. I ostensibly legitimate and
Emporia sophomore
respected granting organization as a "cover" (the agency's word) for its own purposes. In the same way, my university has been compromised and, by extension, my profession.
But even those considerations are secondary to more serious concerns.
My research involved extended, personal interviews of refugees from the Hungarian Revolution of 1866. Since I did not know any subjects of my research did not know, or so I assume. Thus, I was caused to violate a cardinal principle of research by unwittingly misrepresenting myself in my respondents. They were right to know and to grant or refuse an interview as they saw fit.
Still more serious was the real or potential violation of the respondents' anonymity and the confidentiality governing an interview situation. The interviews in which I participated were coded by number to ensure anonymity.
HOWEVER, SINCE they were part of a large study involving a wide range of other data, it was necessary to have a list of names at one center in order to collate the various studies. I do not know whether the information access to these files or, if they did, to what use might they put the information. I do know now
that without my intent or knowledge the subjects of my research were placed in varying degrees of potential jeopardy. Because some of the people interviewed played sensitive roles in the Hungarian uprising, or mentioned it in Hungary, this possible violence fidence cannot be taken lightly.
Furthermore, since respondents frequently discussed personal feelings and experiences, they were exposed to the stigma of being that at least might be embarrassing, particularly since they would likely settle in the vicinity and there is a substantial and long-standing concern near the site of the research.
NO DOUBT other studies secretly funded by the CIA bear these same or similar burdens. The existence of funds were deliberately misled as to their source, and the nature of the research was professionally legitimate, where there and it cannot be ignored.
of their research, and the public at large all have a stake in the matter. Suspicion and distrust can only hamper and finally destroy legitimate and useful study. When they are directed away from government, the consequences are even more serious.
Scholars, the human subjects
Deliberate deception and misrepresentation are legally proscribed and morally condemned in most civilized human relationships. Where they are not, only overriding concern or urgent necessity may permit them, and misrepresentation is made to such a assurance that such is the case.
None of these conditions obtained in the situation described here and very likely in most others.
One can only hope that congressional investigations now under way will result in legislative or other controls that will give assurance that this does not happen again.
Richard M. Stephenson is professor of sociology at Douglas College of Rutgers University.
Improve Watson by writing officiale
Watson Library is a disgrace to the University of Kansas. It is unsafe, understaffed and underfinanced.
KU has requested money to improve Watson library. The Kansas urges students to write their homebound legislators and advocates for the rights of the public.
Bennett and legislators can be reached at the state capitol building, Topeka. The names of hometown senators and representatives are available at the reference desk in Watson. Student support for an improved library is essential.
Humphrey career moving, brilliant
Last week, Hubert Humphrey returned to Washington, a short time after learning that his cancer of the pelvis was inoperable. He was told he would be the longest, loudest ovation in the institution's history.
President Jimmy Carter called the 66-year-old Humphrey the nation's No.1 Democrat. His 21 years on the Senate, a vice presidential seat in 1964 and a close bid for the 1968 presidency add stamina, persistence and political devotion to his lists of accomplishments.
Though critics have dubbed Humphrey emotional, unstable, wry and, most of all, a good looser, history reveals a man who won't be forgotten, either for his handful of major accomplishments or for his love for politics and politicians.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newroom----684-4810
Business Office----684-4358
Managing Editor
Jim Cobb
Editorial Editor
Steve Frazier
Business Manager
Judy Lohr
Publisher
David Dary
News Advisor
Rick Musser
Advertising Advisor
Mel Adams
A Pacemaker award winner
Published at the University of Kansas daily August 15, 2018. Subscriptions are $35 for June and July except Saturday, Sunday and midnight. Subscribers are $45 for June and July except Saturday, Sunday and midnight. Subscriptions by mail are a $3er or $1R. Subscriptions by phone are a $4er or $1R. A year outside the county. Student subscriptions are a $25 fee. No resale or trade.
Editor
Jerry Sebl
Managing Editor
Jim Cobb
Editorial Editor
Steve Frazier
HUMPHEY BEGAN his most influential political thrust, one for civil rights, in the early 1940s. As mayor of Minneapolis, Humphrey fought a battle against anti-Semitism in the community and told the people to pick up a mirror and look at its own dirty face.
His views at the time, instilled by the rights and wrongs of what his parents had told him, the roots of what was to be a 15-year battle to pass a civil rights act.
In July of 1948, Humphrey risked his own political future by pleasing with the Democratic National Convention to place its faith "in the fatherhood of man under the fatherhood of God."
He was persistent, however, and in the spring of 1949, he became the first member of the Senate (a seat he won in 1949) to hire a black professional staff member and to take a black into a senator's private dining room at the university where he served. He rights candidate," and in doing so he lost any chance of support for the presidency from Southern and conservative Democrats.
He was met with strong opposition from segregationist leaders like Strom Thurmond and Robert Blyth.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS situation was ripe for change when Humphrey introduced suggestions to the administration's plan in 1964. Humphrey was a prominent Civil Rights Act through. After 82 days of debate,
Rick
Thaemert
Editorial Writer
it passed and became the first legislative breakthrough for blacks.
Humphrey, known for riding several horses at once in Congress, had begun another crusade in the 1960s.
In 1963, with the support of President Kennedy, Humphrey was appeased with the passage of the "Arms Control and Disarmament Agency." In light of the recent SALT negotiations, Humphrey views in 1969 seem ahead of their time as the war remains a threat for disarmament talks that continue today.
Although President Eisenhower was willing to pursue the concept, support died and Humphrey, according to one senator, was "alone—all alone—on the issue. No one else really gave a damn about disarmament or technical studies for detection systems of nuclear testing."
EARLIER IN his career, Humphrey recognized another problem—famine in Asia. He pleaded with members of the Truman administration to stop wheat to starving people in India and Pakistan.
In 1982, he suggested a "fOOD for Peace" plan, to improve foreign relations and aid famine-striken areas. His plan was proposed and accepted in 1954, and expanded in 1959.
By 1964, American food was reaching 100 million people in 85 nations. The nutrition of 40 million children overseas was being improved in school lunch and preschool feeding programs.
Humphrey's offspring program still is growing in 1977. George McGovern called Humphrey 'the congressional father of the Food for Peace program.'
Simultaneously, Humphrey had been working on a plan to send young American volunteers overseas for education and economic development programs.
Although the idea wasn't new in 1960 when Humphrey introduced the "Youth Peace Corps" idea, it was backed by studies and optimism, qualities not common to earlier plans.
The proposed bill met lukewarm response from the Eisenhower administration, but President-elect Kennedy placed it on high priority. It passed in 1961. Since then, it has grown from its initial authorization of 500 men and women to over 20,000.
Despite his contributions, Humphrey is shrouded in a vague, Cinderella-political image. Winning the big one always has evaded him, leaving him somewhat of a senatorial figure. He is not well-known and relatively impotent; educated and ambitious as a politician, but not presidential material.
IN 1960, WHILE trying to boost support for Humphrey against Kennedy, a reporter traveling with Humphrey wrote, "It was pitiful. They all liked Humphrey. But there was no excitement or enthusiasm for him. He would have lunch with local party officials and come up with something, but when the local party guys came out, they'd say, 'He's a great guy, but he can't win.'"
In 1988, he lost the presidency to Richard Nixon by only 7 per cent of the popular vote. A win for Humphrey perhaps would have changed the face of the administration-mistrust in the government.
Now, comparing Humphrey to Nixon seems bathetic.
In fact, Humphrey's moral character never was in question. His stability was, however. He practiced fervently the art of flip-flipping, a political vice still infesting candidates.
And cry he did, many times, according to several accounts. Political defeats, world situations and moving speeches brought Humphrey to tears many times, and his emotional involvement sometimes clouded his better judgement.
HUMPHEYRE'S EMOTIONAL STATUS, too,
was questionable in light of a presidency. Of
Humphrey while he was Vice president,
President Lindsey Johnson said, "he gets a lot of
emotion into his work." . Hubert can cry pretty
good over something."
After getting inspired by the Pentecostal-powerful Joseph McCarthy in the 50s, Humphrey later proposed an absurd bill that made being a Communist a felony. Although it passed, as many irrational things did during the witchhunt, it later was scaffolded at and disused of.
Although there were always those who lacked faith and accordance with Humphrey, there were few who harbored contempt for him. His actions, no matter how distasteful, radiated love and compassion for the human race. He was, without question, an extreme optimist.
Few people doubted Humphrey's experience and knowledge, either.
MORE RECENTLY, as the Senate's deputy
foreign policy matters.
In short, his scope is unlimited, and his presence in the Senate is a reassuring asset, but it doesn't stop him from watching or a senatorial encyclopedia. Young congressman learn from him, old congressmen confer with him. Last week's ovation was a contribution to Philippe's impolyval contribution to the Senate.
Conversely, his courageous return, despite impending death, is a testimony to an American ideal, not a politician. Hubert Humphrey is a man who never gives up, a man who never abandons those things he loves, a man who gives until he can give no more.