4
Wednesday, April 25, 1973
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN
Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
Funding Proposal
In the debate about how and to whom the Student Senate should allocate the student activity fee, discussion has centered on an issue that has been heatedly debated during the last week of school. The senate has discussed whether funds should be allocated to school councils.
School councils comprise the student policy makers within a school. Each council would receive funds on a proportional basis under an allotment proposal. The idea of giving funds back to each school for the students to allocate for their needs is not new. The idea might appropriately be called "KU activity fee revenue sharing."
It seems reasonable that if students expect to gain a greater voice in policy making within their schools, then students within a given school should have authority to fund funds to groups in the school.
Furthermore, it is just as reasonable to expect that students involved in policy making, be given access to the school library while programs within their school.
Just a few years ago students fought to gain control of the activity fee. As that control was passed from the administration to the Student Senate it was intended that activity should be used more wisely by students.
But that has not been the case. Funds have been misused. If not spent illegally, they have been inappropriated for use by small interest groups whose concerns have not necessarily been in the best interests of the University community.
A petition now circulating on campus, which asks the senate to consider all aspects of its allocation process, states that "student activity fees should be used to fund university-wide organizations that benefit the entire University community." In a time of austere budgets every activity fee taxpayer probably agrees.
And what is a better solution than
to share part of activity fee revenues
to students through his or
her school records.
School councils have been designed to support the concept of student input and student voting privileges. Few other universities allow the substantial input allowed at KU. It is time that students take full advantage of their powers. And it is also time for schools to allocate some of its dollars to school councils for reallocation to priority needs within their schools.
A political scientist would tell us that governmental power rests not only in the authority to legislate, but also in the authority to tax and allocate funds. So long as the Student Senate keeps centralized control of all activity fee funds, no progress will have been made. The Student Senate will be acting no differently than the central administration did when it controlled the activity fee.
For some who remember "51-49 or bust," in reference to student representation on policy making committees, the issue of allowing for a broader base of funding representation will not die. So long as students deserve a voice in their affairs, and are the majority at this university, adequate funding of school councils and other universitywide programs will be an issue that many will not compromise.
Someday, student representation will reach the appropriate 50 per cent level. Sone day, students will know that verbal battles for student power were not "hot air," but rather were aimed at bettering the student experience. Students can expect such miracles when greater input in allocation procedures is allowed, and when the activity fee "shares the wealth."
—R. E. Duncan
Federal Library Aid Not Needed
James J. Kilpatrick
WASHINGTON—A considerable effort is being mounted on Capitol Hill in support of continued direct federal aid to libraries. President Nixon has recommended that such aid be stopped at the end of this fiscal year, and the librarians understandably are upset. Dearly loved by everyone love libraries—and I love 'em all—Nixon's position is soundly based and merits support.
"The association speaks with precision," says McCarthy, "when it says the public's right to know is at stake."
After all, people go to libraries to read magazines, newspapers and other sources of information,
The liberal position in support of library aid was eloquently defended-perhaps over-defened-in a recent article by the author. Washington Post, McCarthy is a topnotch prost stylist and an able exponent of the liberal view, but in common with many of his colleagues he tends to weep easy. In place of pieces he weeps about 10 gallons.
Because of Nixon's proposal, he writes, libraries "are now on the endangered species list." He is part of a group that May 8 by the American Library Association, when libraries across the country will dim their lights by act of accusing Nixon of threatening them on the public's right to know."
and Nixon's goal is nothing less than "the smoothering of information." McCarthy, the former President chortling with pleasure at the closing of libraries that spend money on research critical of political policies.
"Can any other way of silencing critics be more effective than closing down libraries?" he asks.
Horsefeathers! The current program of federal aid to libraries, like the recently halted program for rural water and sewer systems, provides one more case history of Big Government come down with a bad case of bloat. It all started with a request for funding Act of 1968, in Eisenhower's day, a modest little $7.5 million program to aid in providing library facilities in communities on the ground. It seemed a happy idea.
One trouble with happy ideas is that in Congress they get to be illiarous ideas. In 1964 the university public libraries under the Library Services and Construction Act. The next year brought further expansion, in the form of federal aid to elementary schools. But still another act provided $5,000 grants for college and university libraries. The program now has swollen to $140 million a year.
Congress had paused back in 1965 to consider a threshold question: Does Congress have power, under the Constitution, to appointe judges to libraries? It may be that South Carolina's Strom Thurmond and Iowa's H. R. Grosgain raised the question—the they are about the only legal authority they have voices crying in the wilderness. The answer, in my own strict-constructionist view, is no: Libraries, desirable as they are, even easier than they are, are responsible for the federal government.
is where principle often gets put. On the merits, it is nonsense to argue that termination of the $140 million aid will "close down libraries," or "smoother information" on the public's heauses. Heaven to Bety, McCarthy! Dry your eyes!
Put principle to one side, which
About $54 million now is allocated for aid to public libraries. The sum represents roughly five per cent of their budgets. If an institution must have a large part of its cut, it can't be much of an institution. And what is wrong with replacing the five per cent
through local appropriations or local fund drives? Must we walk forever on federal crutches?
Under Nixon's proposed Better Schools Act, intended to replace categorical grants with broad revenue sharing, school libraries will have available the same potential aid they have enjoyed in years. They will have to complex their local governing bodies, but so what? They won't get "smothered."
Up the lights, you librarians! You can live without Big Daddy, if you try.
(C) 1973 Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
Martha Lays It on the Line
By JERRY ESSLINGER
"Well, Martha, that's understandable. I did have the phones taken out of the apartment some time ago, you know."
Kansan Staff Writer
The Mitchells, John and Martha, are having a domestic discussion in the privacy of their Washington apartment. This transcription of their conversation was made possible by the use of yet undetected electronic devices:
"John dear, what are we going to do. Nobody calls us any more and it's been two weeks since we got married." A Washington social function."
"Now Martha, you know how whimsical Washingtoniana are."
"I know that. But last night Walter Crankle and the rest of his liberal crones said something I wanted in Washington anytime."
"But we used to socialize with the most influential people in Washington. John honey."
"I just don't know what we're going to do! I really don't!"
"That just might have been the cause of our current unpopularity, dear."
"Martha! Just stifle yourself for a while! Will ya?"
"Oh, John. You're beginning to sound just like my favorite TV star, Archie Bumper."
"That's Bunker—as in Hill, dear."
"Well, one of those runnymes, ring-around-the-collar reporters even said you might have to testilicate in front of you, but they will jury! You mean you don't have executive's privilege anymore?"
"WE MAY HAVE STUMBLED ONTO SOMETHING"
"Testify, testify! No, I don't have executive privilege anymore but I have taken many privileges with executives."
"Have you been impounded, too?"
"Dammit woman, shaddup on I'l impound you!"
"Don't get angry at me John. You know how I hate to see your little owls ouilver like that."
"Jowls, bowels . . . (mutter)
..."
"Now John, you better be nice to me. I can always go somewhere and call the AP."
“Fat chance of that dear, I got in touch with my friends at ITT last week. They've got a device now that's programed to make the line go dead whenever your voice comes over it.”
"ITT? Don't you mean AT & T?"
"There's really little difference, dear. I know what I'm saving."
"Maybe so, John. But do you know what you're going to say to those nasty little big-nosed senators?"
"Don't worry, I'll take care of that."
"Oh 'my goodness, I just thought of something!" What if have to, uh, testify to a great jury or in front of Conness?"
"That's grand jury. And the only testifying you'd do would be to a certain damn investigating committee."
"You mean I don't have any executive's privilege?"
"That's executive dammit! No! Why should you? You haven't even been a secretary yet."
"John, that sounds to me like discrimination against us members of the weaker sex. What if I wanted to testify?"
"Now, Martha. A wife just doesn't testify against her husband."
"Does it make a difference if they're divorced?"
"Martha! Are you trying to tell me something?"
Readers Respond
New Election,Freedom,George Washington Defended
Not Logical
To the Editor:
The University Judiciary's handling of the disputed senior class presidential election has left much to be desired. All judicial systems are criticized for not being prepared for an exception. However, tardiness should not be equated with inaptness. "Better late than never" still holds true in judicial arbitration. In fact, that cliche seems to be the guiding light of the most likely case, if water over the dam.
In a recent letter to the editor, Bruce Keplinger made a respectable but rather flawed effort at showing why the judiciary's decision was wrong. First, Keplinger attacked the individual rather than the decision. A judicial decision also requires that the judge must stand as precedent for the future.
In this case, the judicialary's decision is not only quite fair but also a logical necessity. The Supreme Court has already established this same precedent in their university elections. Misspelled names on re-elections dramatically bring about re-elections.
Keplinger's argument also is flawed by two logical fallacies. From a rather vague statement, "I asked you what the error were notified of the error when they were handed the ball," the reader is supposed to assume that the error was quickly caught and corrected by word of mouth.
This was not the case. The error wasn't caught until at least two hours after the polls were opened, and poll workers were not informed of it until, in some cases, several hours after that. In fact, when I voted at the Kappa House on 7:30 p.m. Wednesday, I received a correction of the error at all. From this example, I wonder how many other people didn't receive any instructions.
is a rather pathetic one. Kepingler states that the SOS coalition didn't show well. That conclusion is based more on opinion and wishful thinking than anything else. SOS's vice president, Mark O'Neill, is based on the new presidential election, SOS may emerge as not only showing quite well, but by capturing the more influential spots. There is no evidence now nor was there then that supports the ludicrous statement that Murfir "would have been spelled correctly" but he has been spelled correctly". In fact since the original results were not released, no valid conclusions can be drawn of any kind.
Keplinger's second logical flaw
Finally, Keplinger attempts to promote inexperience at the top of his curriculum by credentials stand on their own merit. The just thing for Keplinger to do is to refrain from his college course and take a course in logic.
Tom Pitney
Lawrence Junior
Not Unfair
presidential candidate was successful and it is not possible to estimate the effect that the spelling error had on Murfur's campaign. It was frequent for coalitions to be split, as was the case in the 1972 senior race in which the president and vice president from one coalition the treasurer and secretary from the opposition were successful.
To the Editor:
We totally disagree with the letter's conclusion that "the just want for Murfur to do is to withdraw." The election was unfair, and simply in the interest of fairness it should be repeated. We have served on the Board of Classmates with Dave Murfur this past year, and we are entirely qualified for the position of senior class president. We would like to see him have an equal opportunity on the ballot.
Susie Fowler
Susie Fowler Secretary
Shawne Mission
Skip Kaltenbeuser
Skip Kaltenbeuser
Shawne Mission
Susie Fowler
Debbee Rutenberg
Junior Class Vice President
Des Plaines, Il.
Neil Shortidge
Senior Class Treasurer
Chicago, Ill.
Free Speech
To the Editor:
As I'm sure we all know by now, the Gideons have recently gotten into the already saturated world of academic libraries to all KU students. I'm not writing this letter to condemn the beliefs of the Gideons, but to express concern about the way in which they and many other college professors can convert every so-called sinner and misused soul on campus.
I am not opposed to free speech. As Rosemary Taylor stated in last Thursday's editorial section, "The University has been and should be characterized by freedom to pass out literature." This freedom stops, however, when it infringes
on the privacy and rights of others. All too often in my stay at this university, I have had individuals persistently calling me on the phone, coming to my door or condemning me when my actions did not accord with their moral values.
As this movement continues to grow more active, we should question the motivation behind the actions of these people. Is it because we are forced into the constraining moral values that they hold? Do they wish to unify thinking characteristic of the Middle Ages or of the Middle Ages? This doesn't appear to be free speech to me.
If your faith is as strong as you claim, it should speak for itself. I feel that everyone should be free to practice whatever religion he or she feels most comfortable in. You should also be free to the next person should also be free to practice his belief without harassment.
And please, no phone calls. OK?
Darrell Newberry Wichita Senior
Not Funny
I would like to respond to a point in a story by Alan Hurlbur in the April 18 Kansas concerning legends surrounding Paul Revere's ride. Hurlbur made a rather childish comment that Washington's crossing of the Delaware River is surrounded by legendary figures and historical history" and is not as patriotic as is commonly said.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Hurubut has done a great disservice to American History and George Washington by improper mocking one of the most famous figures of the American Revolution.
This may seem like a minor point, but I feel it is indicative of the poor attitude the Kansas has toward the American bicentennial.
It may indeed be—as Hur休ur wrote—that Revere's ride has improved with age. But this is in no way true of Washington's own leaders and carrying his crossing of the Delaware. The event is well documented and was praised loudly in Washington's own book. Yet the old folklore had a chance to spread falsehoods about the event.
Hurbit writes something about "good soul-swirling patriotic stories" being scarse, suggest that before he randomly start thrashing about, he look a George Washington on his shoulder as if crossing of the Delaware. I am considerable disturbed when I see such
I am a trustee of the foundation that administers the site where Washington crossed the Delaware, and this week I will be traveling to Washington Crossing with my family and the award ceremonies of the foundation's essay and scholarship contests.
magnificent events slurred and mocked.
If your writer wishes to analyze Washington's crossing, I invite him to take a look at any of numerous authoritative sources that describe something about the event. For he quite obviously doesn't.
Roy E. Clevenger
Roy E. Clevenger Leavenworth Sophomore
I wish to extend my apology to the Afghan students for my claim that they took part in the International Festival. It was the Pakistani students I wished to name in my letter (April 24).
Wrong Group To the Editor:
Ralphael Goldman
Tel Aviv Graduate Student
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
News Advisor . Suanne Shaw
Editor . Joe Nearman
Business Adviser . Mel Adams
Business Manager . Carol Dirks
Griff and the Unicorn
By Sokoloff