2
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Wednesday, October 25, 1967
The Hill With It by john hill
The University Primer
This is the Freshman.
See him be confused by college.
He had definite reasons for coming to KU.
He wanted the advantages of a large university.
Like having top professors as his teachers.
He saw a real professor once.
One of his graduate student instructors pointed him out.
From a distance.
He also expected to meet a cross section of different people all his different classes.
Welcome to your college within a college.
This is the Professor Traditionally,he is absent-minded. Modern professors are not like that They have forgotten all about it.
This is the Graduate Student.
He is a student.
He is also an instructor.
This is not unlike the Twilight Zone.
People wonder what he carries in his briefcase.
Wonder, wonder, wonder.
Only his umbrella knows for sure.
This is the Big Man on Campus. He is very modest and unassuming. You can always tell the BMOC. He is the only one every semester that doesn't need a sack to carry all his books and supplies from the bookstore. He uses his hat.
This is the Campus Cop. That is not to be confused with the Keystone Kops. Most of the time.
This is Potter Lake.
It is nighttime.
Heh, heh, heh . . .
This is the Hippie.
He wears sandals and has a mustache or a beard.
Like all hippies.
He has dropped out of the System.
And into another.
This is the Freshman Chick.
See her walk past the steps of Green Hall.
All the Law Students see her walk past.
Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.
They like to watch the Freshman Chicks walk past.
Law Students are dirty old men.
Every eye is on her every move.
She knows it.
This is the ninth time she has walked past Green Hall
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY kansan
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. 68044. All goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without necessary color, seed 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,
Paul Haney, Gary Murrell, Rich Lovett
City Editor ... John Marshall
Edorial Editors ... Betsy Wright, Allan Northcutt
Associate Editorial Editor ... John Hill
Snorts Editors ... Chip Rouse, Don Steffens
Wire Editor ... Don Walker
Assistant City Editor ... Charla Jenkins
Promoted or ... Dale Pippet
Dale Advertising Manager
National Advertising Manager ... Beverly Heath
Promot on Manager ... Dave Holt
Cereal on Manager ... Warren Massey
Classified Manager ... Lyle Duer
Production Manager ... Joel Khaassen
Member Associated Collegiate Press
Petition, flag, SAGE, peace
Letters to the editor
To the Editor:
I would like to bring to the attention of the student body an attempt to present the issue of Vietnam before KU, its alumni and area residents. Students from many fields and varied political beliefs are circulating a petition which in essence requests that the administration stop the bombing of North Vietnam, thereby facilitating peace negotiations.
If you believe that you can not win over a human being by killing him; if you believe that American is fallacious in attempting to export to the other side of the world that which we can not "export" to our citizenry; if you believe that William Fulbright, Arthur Schlesinger, Mark Hatfield, Thurston Morton, Bob Kennedy, and George Romney are responsible Americans who have cogently pointed out to a closed-minded administration that they are sadly misguided in our Vietnam policy, then I urge you to add your name to this petition.
It has been my belief for some time that many students are not in agreement with Mr. Johnson's policy in Vietnam and yet are reluctant to associate with what they sometimes refer to as "freaks." This petition offers them the opportunity to make an elementary commitment against the war and with a growing and diverse cross-section of the student body.
You need not be "left" or "right". Republican or Democrat, "frek" or "straight"; rather only a human being with empathy for other human beings who, through no fault of their own, are undergoing an experience that is unique for its savagery. There is a table set up in the Union, how about it?
Bill Hansen Shawnee Mission senior
To the Editor:
I, too, was disturbed by the same Confederate flag that bothered Professor Masinton, and others. Only moreso and in fewer words—because I am connected with that fraternity.
However, the emblem of whatever-the-viewer-wants-to - read-into-it soon disappeared. The huge flag was only temporarily hung for a newspaper picture with the pledge class that had spirited it way during a walk-out visit to the Southern Methodist University campus in Dallas.
I hope the flag has since gone southward to its owners, else the pledges might have some trouble with a grand larceny rap.
To the Editor:
In reference to Mr. Masinten's editorial of Oct. 23 ("Sing a Song of Freedom"), the men of the fraternity involved in the flag-hanging activities feel that a few points need to be brought out in clarification of the motivation behind the incident.
The removal of the flag from the possession of another fraternity (at SMU), which, incidentally, displays the flag at every home football game, was indeed a typical "prank" done with "innocent high spirits." Such activities are, and we hope always will be, a part of the tradition of fraternity and college life. The flag has since been returned to the owners and in our eyes the incident is over.
However, the purpose of this letter is to dispel any inferences that we now subscribe to the ideals for which this flag once stood, or that we flew the flag with any attitude of "dissent and subversion."
The flying of the flag was obviously a mere boasting of what was perhaps a somewhat dubious achievement; nothing more was intended. We agree with Mr. Masinton that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy involved in the arbitrary decisions as to who is to be persecuted for expressing their views.
It was concluded that since, as Mr. Masinton points out, the Confederacy is dead and the flag involved no longer has its original meaning, it would be harmless to display the flag just long enough to take a few pictures. Obviously this was not the case.
However, we somewhat resent the parallel drawn between our obviously innocent prank and the burning of draft cards, an activity which is not a fraternity tradition. Contrary to what was expressed in the editorial, a considerable amount of thought was given to the question of whether or not to fly the flag at all.
We can only remind those who took offense at our actions that we do also fly the American flag seven days a week, and that we do indeed stand behind the principles which it symbolizes.
The Men of Phi Kappa Psi
In an article in its October 20th issue, the Daily Kansan reported that the Student Association of Graduates in English (SAGE), in co-operation with the Department of English, is asking the University for higher salaries for the Assistant Instructors in the freshman-sophomore English program. The article correctly stated that SAGE is asking for higher salaries, a remission of fees, and payment on a tax-free basis.
The article is misleading, however, in that it represents the salary difference between KU and the Big Eight average as only $50. This figure represents three semester hours of teaching—the annual difference being around $200. This means that KU assistant instructors are being paid significantly less than A.I.'s at such schools as Nebraska and Missouri.
To the Editor:
KU has shown that it can compete athletically. Let it also show that it can compete academically.
David F. Holden, chairman,
SAGE
To the Editor:
Being a "peace person," and also an American citizen, I have to speak out against some of the basic attitudes and assumptions underlying the editorial entitled "The Peace People" in the Oct. 19 issue of the Kansan.
First of all, I wonder why "disent" has become such a dirty word in our political vocabulary. Surely no one would question the fact that one of the basic principles that our country was founded on is the principle of freedom of opinion, and freedom of speech. Why is it that when some Americans use this freedom other Americans are shocked? As Senator J. William Fulbright said so eloquently in his book "The Arrogance of Power," "to criticize one's country is to do it a service and pay it a compliment. It is a
service because it may spur the country to do better than it is doing, it is a compliment because it evidences a belief that the country can do better than it is doing."
Are the Communists of North Vietnam really so encouraged by the dissent in the United States? It would seem to me that if anything, they would be discouraged by the fact that even though the dissent is growing and becoming louder, the major policy-makers of our country don't seem to be listening.
Dean Rusk said just a few weeks ago that no matter how much dissent is expressed by the people he intends to continue the policy of the United States as it stands. This is a rather questionable manifestation of the democratic process.
Many of the people who advocate the continuation of the United States bombing policy support their argument with the fact that Hanoi has not tried to negotiate for peace during the various cease fires we have had. Two things are overlooked in this seemingly logical argument. The first is that while we have stopped our bombing, we have used the time to replenish our supply of arms and munitions for a continuation of war. This seems less than sincere on our part. The second point is that North Vietnam has never said that it would stop fighting if we would stop bombing. North Vietnam has continually affirmed that it will never stop fighting until we withdraw completely.
It seems that just thinking about withdrawing from Vietnam gives a lot of people "withdrawal symptoms." I question whether it would really be so terrible. The author of the article declares that "things would never be the same in Vietnam." If we pulled out, this is quite true—there would be no more bombing, no more homes and crops destroyed, no more napalm. A major assumption on the part of those who support our present policy is that a Communist government would be a hardship for the people of South Vietnam.
Peace in Vietnam is idealistic, yet realistic. However, a peaceful settlement will be possible only if we in America take a good, hard look at the past and present history of Vietnam, and re-evaluate our policy accordingly. Perhaps this re-evaluation will involve controversy. In that case, I would infinitely prefer dissent over unquestioning support of existing policies.
If one takes a good look at the history of Vietnam, one sees that the majority of Vietnamese people have been oppressed for years by foreign regimes. When Ho Chi Minh finally succeeded in freeing his country from France's exploitation, one of the first things he did was redistribute the land to the people. Then when South Vietnam was separated from North Vietnam in 1954, we supported Diem, who was not a Communist, but was a dictator in the worst sense of the word. Diem not only took the land away from most of the people, but he also killed many of the traditional village chieftains, setting up his own henchmen. It seems logical to believe that if Ho Chi Minh were to again be the leader of a united Vietnam, that he would work for the people's benefit as he did before Vietnam was divided.
Ginny Dow
Omaha, Nebr., junior