UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of the authors.
March 26,1980
Clothes-mindedness
If James Pickert, Kansas Board of Regents nominee from Emporia, his way, theatre groups at Regents schools will be forced to keep their birthday suits in their closets—or at least off campus stages.
Pickert, who is awaiting final approval of his appointment from the full Senate of the Kansas Legislature, told the Senate Select Committee on Appointments earlier this month that he would favor a statewide ban on all nude productions, collegiate or non-collegiate. His response was in reply to a direct question passed to him by one of the lawmakers. He said one could inter that the lawmakers again have mortality-by-legislation on their minds.
nevertheless, the issue is ludicrous dangerous. Nudity, or more precisely, the beauty of the human body, always has been a fundamental source of inspiration in the creative arts, whether it be incorporated in a play or in a piece of sculpture. Perhaps this pending proposal of a statewide ban also should include photographs and replicas of the Venus de Milie, Michelangelo's David and Duchamp's "Nude Descending a Staircase."
Admittedly, the human body also has been exploited in endeavors that have no apparent redeeming value. Portography, including all perversions imaginable, has run ranchy and rampant for many years. But surely no
one can be so close minded as to conderm ALL nudity as pornographic, distasteful or unnecessary.
Pickert said that as a Regent he would have to consider each instance of nudity in stage productions on an individual basis, and yet he also said he favored a statewide ban. That is blatantly a bit of bare-faced double talk. He also is willing to accept theude modeling done in art classes based on models created by adverse public reaction to it and because "it must be an accepted practice." That is naked inconsistency.
Pickert suggests that the general public is offended by nudity on the stage. The obvious, more reasonable alternative to a statewide ban solving that problem is for those persons who are not likely to attend one. They are certainly now to make that choice. No one will force them to go if they don't want to.
But if a ban were implemented, that choice would be eliminated and those persons who wanted to see the play would be forced not to. Banning theatre productions just because they reveal more than usually meets the standards of censorship—a kind that could have serious ramifications.
If a play is too hot for you to handle,
Pickert, stay away from it. But don't
support the stoking of legislative fires
to Fahrenheit 451.
Looking for fun kills thrill of spontaneity
By SUZANNE BRITT JORDAN
New York Times Special Features
RALEIGH, N.C.—Fun is hard to have.
Fun is a rare jewel.
Somewhere along the line people got the modern idea that long was for there on the asking, that people deserved fun, that if you would turn into a salesperson, you would turn into a salesperson. alive) purposely.
When pleasure got to be the main thing,
the fun fief was sure to follow. Everything
was supposed to be fun. If it wasn't fun, then
by Jove, we were going to make it fun.
"Was it fun?!" *runnily* the question that
would be asked, questions like,
what, *was it moral?* *was it kind?*
*was it honest?* *Was it beneficial?* *Was it
honest?* *Was it necessary?* *And why* (
favors) was it selfless?
Just to make sure that everybody knew how much fun we were having, we put happy faces on flanking test papers, dirty refrigerator doors, refrigerator bathroom mirrors,
Think of all the things that got the reputation of being fun. Family outings to be fun, education to be fun, be fun. Education was supposed to be fun. Work was supposed to be fun. Walt Disney was supposed to be fun. Church was supposed to be fun. Staying fit was supposed to be fun.
IF A KID, looking at his very happy parents trailing up to that very happy Disney World, said, "This isn't no fun, ma', his ma's heart sank. She wondered where she was going." What fun family outings to Disney World would be, Golly see, what the matter?
Fun got to be such a big thing that everybody started to look for more and more of it. You could say that was to step up the level of danger or licentiousness or alcohol or drug consumption so that you could be sure that, what, you would manage to have a little fun.
Television commercials brought a lot of fun and loving-folks into the picture. The people in these commercials did lovely work, and the Polaroid snapshots, swishing beer, buying insurance, mopping the floor, bowl, taking pictures could have as much fun as those rough-and-ru
ready guys around the locker room, flickering up their clothes and shaking champagne. The more commercial people watched, the more they wondered when the fur would start in their own lives. It was very scary.
BIG OCCASIONS were supposed to be fun.
Christmas, Thanksgiving and Easter were obviously supposed to be fun. Your wedding day was supposed to be fun. Your wedding night was supposed to be a whole lot of fun. Your honeymoon was supposed to be the best time of your life, going through every big event we ever celebrated, waiting for the fountain to start.
It occurred to me, while I was sitting around waiting for the fun to start, that not much is, and that I should tell you just in case we worried about your fun capacity.
I don't mean to put a dumper on things. I just mean we ought to treat fluenverly. It is a mystery. It cannot be caught like a virus. It cannot be trapped like an animal. You can use it, but the more those years of thinking fun was everywhere by refusing to come to our party. I don't want to blaspheme fun anymore. When fun comes in on little dancing feet, you probably won't be doing anything when you're doing your duty, your job, or when you work. It may even come on a Tuesday.
I REMEMBER one day, long ago, on which I had an especially good time. Parm received her first library drugstore a Saturday morning to buy some candy. We were about 12 years old (fun ages). She got her Bite-O-Money. I got her a $100 reward. Chunky, and a small bag of M&Ms.
We started back to her house. I was going to spend the night. We had the whole day to go shopping and see friends, but it was a long way to Pam's house but every time we got wavy Parm would put her hand over her eyes, scan the horizon like a sailor. Then she would stare at which point the two of us would laugh until we thought we could stay in there all day. Then we would say it again. You should have been there. It was the kind of day and friendship and occasion that made me deeply regretful that I had to grow up.
It was fun
It was fun.
Suzanne Britt Jordan is a writer.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
Kansas Telephone Numbers
Newroom 464-8418
Riverfront 464-8418
UU97540468 Published at the University of the Philippines Daily August through May and December and Thursday December 21, 2018 at 10:00 AM EST. All contributions to the publication are by mail addressed to UU97540468 by registered charity # RR3 for six months or # RR5 for a year in Guam and # HI for six months or # HI for a year in Hawaii. Contributions may be made to the University of the Philippines Daily at the following addresses:
Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kaman, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas,
Lawrence, IA 56904.
Managing Editor Dana Miller
Editor
James Anthony Fitts
Editorial Editor
Brenda Watson
Business Manager Vincent Coultis
Advertising Manager Chuck Chowins
General Manager Rick Musser
KU has its own version of slapstick
The University of Kansas, the Kannao Board of Regents, and the Kansas State University Three Stooges. Moe (the Regents) hirs Curly (KU) on the head, while Larry (the Legislature) gives them both the old one-eyed brother. The Regents something out of an old slapstick comedy.
In this comedy, KU serves as the pigeon who always gets the short end of the deal. The farce reaches its peak when KU officials attempt to get faculty salary increases. If you are a KU official, getting approval of faculty salaries from the Legislature is like taking a bore away from a Doberman pinscher with rabies.
Although the Regents virtually agreed with KU officials this year concerning their agreement, it also increases the comedy taken on new platforms. So Steppen's latest bumble has been the Regents' approval of our new degree program and of our course strongly "and were urged to be" established
as soon as possible." The other program was tabled, but probably will be passed soon. Curly, um, KU, requested the new programs and the Regents obliged.
ESTABLISHING NEW degree programs sounds logical: an institution of higher
COLUMNIST
learning learns to expand its academa capacities. But the priorities of KU, the Regents, and the legislators are hopelessly mixed up.
Only a month ago, a Regents request to raise faculty salaries $9.5 percent was cut from KU officials. KU officials, faculty salary increases were this University's highest priority. But KU officials helplessly watched as the department battled the proposed faculty salary increase.
Now KU and the Regents want their
museums and a laceur of science degree in engineering. Our faculty is totaled up to 186,957. A master of science engineering program, which later will come under approval, will cost an additional $2,200.
faculty members to run these new degree programs. We will approve the programs. By adopting new degree programs and yet not adequately paying its faculty members, KU is cutting cost.
These dollar figures represent only the numbers of students who will receive many other new programs will come up for approval in the near future. The University will need a lot of money to initiate and to build these programs.
DESPITE SEVERAL yearly increases, the buying power of faculty members has increased by 10%. Therefore, approving these new degree programs is not a realistic measure at this time. However, the percentage per cent salary increases before undertaking expansion of the academic series.
THE SALARY increases proposed by KU and the Regents, let alone the watered-down increases, will not offset inflation. Truth is, the higher paying jobs, many already have. Faculty who do stay will have the same salary as students' salaries. And dedication can go only so far.
The Legislature, Regents, and KU are striving for academic excellence by considering legislation that would offer new degrees. This is to be commended. But their actions are coming at the expense faculty members. The Three Stooges must that faculty members establish the worth of an academic program, not vice versa.
TWO PROGRAMS, a master of science degree in historical administration and
If adequate salary increases continue to be ignored, faculty members will leave KU. And then even the Keystone Cups will not repair the damage done by the Three Stooges.
Anderson alluring third party choice
There comes a time in modern presidential campaigns when fringe candidates, political hacks and the media's campaign analysts start talking about "third party candidates." Usually this exercise in speculation comes about the Republican and Democratic frontrunners appear to have the nominations locked up.
The analysts and commentators start chattering about the possibility of an alternative party to add some uncertainty to a political process that, by then, is a foregone conclusion. It's an easy way to get around this problem in special (primary) election reports worth watching, and accordingly, to make them more attractive to advertisers.
Those political operatives about to find themselves out of a job encourage third party candidates. If a candidate will succumb to the rash notion that he can win it all outside the confines of the two major parties. For those political candidates could mean a political job until November.
brenton r.
COLUMNIST schlender
Thanks to our drawn out season of primaries in which political jousting in January determines the outcome of the conventions in July and August, third party candidates win by a clear margin in election year. In 1986 Eugene McCarthy split from the Democratic Party late in the campaign year, and in 1972 George Wallace had his American Independent Party rolling by early summer. 1976 was an exception, but Wallace's decisive sesquaw affairs all the way to the conventions.
AND THIS YEAR we're already hearing rumblings that John Anderson might divorce himself from the Republican Party and run for all the marbles as an independent. Anderson himself stoutly denies such rumors, citing his activities as a leader of the Republicans in Congress, adding that it is too to be making that kind of decision anyway.
ANDERSON IS A compelling candidate, but more importantly, he is a credible one. The term "firing candidate" doesn't fit him in the way that Mr. He draws his support from Republicans and
Perhaps it IS time for Anderson to consider a third party candidacy, especially if he really believes he offers distinctive new solutions to our country's problems. Caterpillar will move exposure from the media, and it would enlist an otherwise dead campaign.
Unfortunately, if we were to believe what the campaign analysts and television producers had said, Ronald Reagan already have the nominations in the bag. It reminds me of a Little League baseball rule that stops a ball from going through a 10-run lead after three innings.
Democrats alike, and often for the same reasons. They are more tolerant of alayts, but to his supporters he is a palatable blend of seemingly incongruous ideologies glued together by his calm and unflappable nature.
Reagan has built a constituency of extremists and disenchanted Republican whoops in the White House, and leadership. Carter draws his musky support from those who can't stomach Ted Kennedy and from the American voters' patriotism. Reagan's support is solid, but contested by minority party. White House in times of "crisis." In other words,
ALTHOUGH THE NOMINATIONS are
nearly sewn up, not under Reagan nor Carter has the broad and unashakable support that guarantees a win in November's general election. And the way voters are talking, the two between Carter and Reagan could history the most paltry voter turnout in history.
Of course any third party candidacy is a chance for you to win, and I agree that Anderson is much more "electable" than he is "nominatable," but that doesn't translate into choice if he chooses to run.
Another concern is where Anderson's votes would come from if he chose to run as a Republican. And the most important into Reagan's solid support. The votes would come from Carter's camp, setting up an electoral split that could do to the election of Obama. And Hubert Humphrey in 1968 that time we got
Nixon, and who knows what we'd get this time.
STILL, THE COMBINATION of 1890 and John Anderson is alluring. Voters are more disenchanted with political parties than ever before, as the primary system transforms traditional political horse trading and conventioneering into televised beauty contests. Here we are four months from the election, where the nominations are already decided.
Anderson certainly is a distinctive kind of candidate who appeals to good judgment and common sense in a time of strident, combative discourse. Anderson's distinctive election in which voters can cast their ballots on the basis of that good judgment and common sense, rather than the individual's
After all, we're electing a president, not a party.
Profs belong in classes, not crises
To the Editor:
In response to all the discussion concerning Norman Forer and Clarence Dillingham's escapades in Iran, I think that KU professors have no right to get involved with their students in such a successful in only drawing media attention to themselves while distracting Americans from the truth that the United States must get tough with Iran. Forer and Dillingham are both experts on this issue and feathered as well for their actions. Their pussyfootin' around with the 'Iranians love for the American people' has only prolonged the hotels' imposition of private citizens they should let their elected representatives handle our foreign affairs.
Forer and Dillingham deserve to lose their December salaries. I think that they were paid well in publicity, with their pictures adorning the front pages of paper magazines. They have been for several weeks. The University of Kansas should be ashamed of the action of these two and their selfish desire for making names for themselves at the expense of KU's or to recruit students and more importantly, at the expense of national security.
A better activity for these two energetic
professors would be to explain to the Iranians in this country that Americans see the hostages, and Jimmy Carter as well, as part of their duty to designate and elected representatives chosen by the people second. They could also explain how we value human life. The Iranians should see that we value the lives of more than all of the Iranians in the world.
However, Americans should realize that something has to be done to re-establish America as a nation concerned about the future of our planet. Many solutions have been proposed and need to be implemented to convince the world that the United States is not a big stick in regard to international crime.
David B. Jones Overland Park senior
To the Editor:
Probe of Iran crisis is only just solution
This letter is in response to a plea made on behalf of the Graves family, whose relative is a bostage in Tehran, Iran, asking for an impartial investigation into the death of his son.
is using the hostage problem for personal political purposes. In order that justice in the country be maintained from political taint in this sensitive political year, I propose that the following procedure should be taken:
Congress should pass a resolution asking each justice of the Supreme Court to write to a university of their choice and ask them to send their written opinion on a commission to investigate every aspect of the Iranian hostage situation. The commission would have the power to subpoena all individuals and papers including those of the Secretary of State since 1900, etc., that could shed light on the subject. The commission alone would have the power to determine which session would be open or closed, and through the investigation would be
In order to insure complete impartiality, Congress would pass a law prohibiting any member of the commission from contacting any member of the commission or their families for the purpose of influencing the work of the commission. A member of the commission would be imposed upon anyone so convicted.
When the commission has written its report, it should specify an exact time and
date when it would be released. The report should be released to the general public at the same time that it is made available to the public by the Secretary of State and the Congress, so that there would be no possibility of distorting the contents of the report or denial or self-seeking interpolation.
Instead of the secrecy that has been employed by the Carter Administration, scholars have based on sound philosophical principles that were proposed by the Jewish philosopher,
This method also agrees with the political principle proposed by Abraham Lincoln when he pointed out that when there is a threat to the nation it should be made by the whole nation and not by a small secretive group. This principle has been proven by the research of the United Nations concerning Korea, the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Nicaragua, and the Shah of Iran. This problem could be resolved if enough people would write to their congressmen and
Joseph Pasnacky former senior student West Virginia University Morgantown, W. Va.
4