Page 2
University Daily Kansan Friday, Dec. 15, 1961
17
A Day of Courage
World crises have a way of losing importance as time passes, or perhaps they have a way of losing importance because a new generation is more concerned with issues today.
Whatever the reason, Dec. 7, last Thursday, was ignored by many KU students. It was ignored to the extent that a random sample taken by this writer found that only six of 32 persons questioned were aware that Dec. 7, 1941, was the day the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor.
FEW COMMEMORATIVE SERVICES are held now, but not long ago, Dec. 7 was designated by many Americans as a time for soul-searching, and, yes, prayer.
Veteran's organizations a few years ago were invited to join with the armed forces to recognize those men and women who died that day. Maybe various organizations are still invited to join in these services, but not many of them do. If they do join, no one knows about it.
Today there is still the solemn service on the deck of the U.S.S. Arizona, or rather, the part of the deck that is above water.
IT IS A QUIET, SAD SERVICE. The harbor is strangely hushed. Then at precisely the moment the Japanese airplanes began bombarding the slumbering Pacific fleet, 7:55 a.m., the ceremony begins. Officials march quietly to the Arizona. At 8 a.m., a bugle sounds and the American flag is raised on the stark remains of the ship.
A prayer follows, then taps sound, recalling to memory the relative calm of the previous night and the hell of the following day.
Rifles fire a salute to those who went down with the Arizona, then wreaths are placed before her mast.
BUT PEARL HARBOR was bombed 20 years ago, and this ceremony took place last week. Why bring it up now?
Why bring up anything that happened 20 years ago, or 10 years ago or even five years ago? Does what happened then and has been recorded in history have meaning now?
These events in history serve a purpose that is more than purely academic.
EATON'S FRIDAY CARTOON
It is good that we can look back into history to see how we have survived other crises. Looking back 20 years to that infamous day, and looking back one week to a commemorative service can and should give Americans hope during the troubled times to come.
Carrie Merryfield
Letters on World Crisis Day
Answer to Myers
Editor:
The following letter is in regard to a statement by Kenneth Myers, chairman of the American Legion Post No. 174 on Wednesday, Dec. 13, 1961.
In protest of the World Crisis Day arranged by the University of Kansas Mr. Myers stated that Alexander Fomin was invited to KU "to present the propaganda of the enemy to thousands of young Americans." First I would like to bring to Mr. Myer's attention that any speech, idea, article, book, or whatever may be studied for the sake of scientific inquiry as well as for the sake of finding a new belief. Mr. Fomin was invited to KU to answer questions about Russia — not to brainwash students or change their beliefs over to Communism. Secondly, I would chance to say that many of these "young people"—college students—are as capable of making intelligent decisions as are many of the would-be adults in our society.
THE STUDENTS at the University of Kansas have enrolled in an institution of higher learning for the purpose of receiving an education—not to strengthen ignorance. Education is the very thing upon which the progress of mankind is based. No problem of scientific inquiry has ever been solved or ever will be solved by hiding facts. Ignorance and false beliefs are the seeds of stagnation and decay.
Mr. Myers seems to think that all we as Americans must do is realize that we are "at war with the Communists." I think almost anyone who can read or hear is aware of this fact. If we condemn Russia or any other country simply because we are at war with them it depresses me to think of our future. This type of thinking would not bother me coming from a child but coming from an adult it alarms me. I wonder if Mr. Myers actually realizes all of the advantages which Democracy has over Communism. I wonder if Mr. Myers understands the real and complete reasons why we are "at war" with Russia. Judging from his attitude toward inquiry and the pursuit of reason and knowledge I doubt very seriously if he has penetrated the matter to the necessary degree.
A CRISIS EXISTS. If we simply, as Mr. Myers suggests, realize that we are at war with Russia then there is only one way out of this crisis. THIS IS BY WAR! The students of the University of Kansas are aware of the potential danger of a war in the present nuclear age. Perhaps this is too optimistic for Mr. Myers, but we students have enough faith in Americans, democracy, and education to believe that this crisis can be solved in an intelligent, adult, and peaceful manner. For this reason the World Crisis Day has been set aside. It is not our intention or our belief that we can solve the entire problem in this one day but we do believe that in this day we can gain some insights into the problem and we do hope that it will at least be a step in the right direction.
Edwin L. Eubank
Pratt senior
* * *
On Liberal Hypocrisy Editor;
I find it impossible to take Mr. Steve Baratz's "objective" criticism seriously. For the CRC (an organization for the promotion of liberalism) or its past president to claim objectivity towards YAF is absurd.
IS IT NOT HYPOCRITICAL of Mr. Baratz to claim regret that our planned demonstration for Senator Barry Goldwater would have been politically embarrassing for a "distinguished" (why?) Governor? Indeed, if it is wrong to politically reject a politician, elections would seem to be criminal. I noticed no expressions of remorse for our distinguished Chancellor when 76 Negroes marched on his office with the obvious intent of embarrassing him. Did Mr. Baratz not think that the sitins, also a violation of property rights (the individual's best insurance of self-determination), would be embarrassing for those who sat-in?
I SUBMIT TO MR. BARATZ that if my charges against some of the "most valued members of the government" (the adjectives are his) and a "distinguished professor emeritus" (I concede him a distinguished wit) are as prepositores as he suggests, they should be easily refuted, and ask him why he chose merely to dismiss them as "irresponsible and reckless?"
Finally, I would suggest to Mr. Baratz that he would be wise to refrain from further endorsements of YAF members, for they might prove less an asset than a kiss of death.
Marick Payton Lawrence junior
Thunder rolls again on the horizon—this time from the direction of Wichita. We are told once more that we should, in the name of freedom, prevent a man from voicing an opinion, and that to do so is essential. But this paradox raises a question: what kind of freedom is
Fomin and Freedom of Speech Editor:
it that cannot bear exposure to another viewpoint?
I HAD THOUGHT that freedom aimed specifically at the rights of the minority, the unorthodox, and even those whose views are diametrically opposed to our own to express their views. If this is so, then it would appear to include Mr. Fomin and anyone else who has something to say.
It is true that Mr. Fomin represents a nation dedicated to a set of beliefs we cannot accept. That this nation's philosophy seeks our collapse is equally true. And it is also true that his government is using all the means at hand to hasten our "inevitable" defeat.
In spite of all this, it would do violence to freedom of speech to deny even such a one as Mr. Fomin an opportunity to express his views and the views of his government. And such a denial would cast a rather dubious tinge upon ourselves.
ARE WE REALLY SO FEEBLE that we must be guarded from every ill wind? Is our mental ability so limited that a brief exposure to another point of view will shatter us? Are we incapable of withstanding the challenge of ideas different from our own? If this is the case, we had better give up! Let's lie down and await our doom, for it is inevitable. Let us freely hand ourselves to our enemy and avoid an unnecessary struggle, because we will lose anyway. Let us at least abolish higher education, because it has failed to develop independent thinkers.
But if this is not the case, let's welcome the opportunity to hear the other side, regardless of how untenable its views may be. We need the challenge to strengthen our own beliefs, for without challenge they will wither and die. The man who has never known temptation has no right to boast of his virtue. Neither does the nation whose citizens are guarded from all unorthodox views have the right to boast of its intellectual strength.
WE WOULD NOT, as Mr. Myers has hinted, allow a man to walk through our campus spreading typhoid. But Mr. Myers should also bear in mind that we do inject typhoid germs into our bodies in order to build up a defense against the disease. We also need an occasional inoculation of ideas — foreign ideas, untenable and unacceptable ideas—in order that our own may remain sound.
The wisdom of our system is that it thrives on differences of opinion. Our willingness to hear the other man out, to discuss our differences,
and to meet ideas with ideas is the root of our strength. In this we need not fear Mr. Fomin. We need only remember that he represents a government which lives in constant fear of ideas, a government which must shield its citizens from every change in the wind and which must maintain its orthodoxy behind concrete and barbed wire. It is our ideas, not Mr. Fomin's, which inspire fear, and it is we, not they, who deal from a position of strength.
IF WE TREASURE our freedom, then, we must let even Mr. Fomin express his views. If we dare not, if we fear his ideas, let us at least be logical and silence everyone whose ideas do not coincide with our own. Let's silence the fascists or the socialists, or both, the Johnny Birchers or the ACLU. Let's have a grand pogrom, a huge auto-de-fur, and de-pure ourselves of everyone who is different: the Catholic, the Jew, the Lutheran or Presbyterian, the Negro and the Indian. And while we are at it let's include the agnostic and the atheist, or perhaps the theist. Let's include the guy next door and the girl down the hall whom we don't like. Let's do away with everyone who might "contaminate" us with his presence, and while we are busy doing away with one another let's continue to wave over our heads the banner of freedom!
John R. Swanson
Baldwin senior
* * *
Disappointed in Chancellor
Editor:
We, as students of the University of Kansas, were disappointed in Chancellor Wescoe's conduct toward Alexander Fomin, both at the convocation and at the summation meeting of the World Crisis Day yesterday. We understand that the Chancellor was under pressure from certain groups. However, we feel that as the invited representative of a world power, Fomin commanded more respect than he received. In our opinion, Chancellor Wescoe show-
(Editor's Note: James E. Gunn, administrative assistant to the Chancellor for University relations, made the following statement this morning in regard to the chancellor's remarks at the convocation yesterday:
"The comments the chancellor made to the convocation were given to Mr. Fomin before the convocation. He read them and indicated that he understood."
ed on these two occasions a neglect of the basic courtesies usually extended to an invited guest.
AT THE CONVOCATION, we found Chancellor Wescoe's tone unnecessarily antagonistic; in particular, we feel that his concluding comment, "It could not have happened there," was superfluous. Surely everyone in attendance realizes the greater degree of political freedom enjoyed under our system of government. Also, on neither occasion did the Chancellor make an effort to publicly thank Mr. Femin on behalf of the University.
However, Chancellor Wescoe was not alone. In his opening statement, the Chancellor said the students were assembled "to listen to an exposition of two foreign policies." Arthur Schlesinger, who was invited to the World Crisis Day to present the foreign policy of the U.S., chose rather to devote his speech to a attack on Fomin's remarks. Although we disagree completely with the ideals and system of government represented by Mr. Fomin, we believe that if this were to have been a debate, Mr. Fomin should have been informed of this, and given a chance for rebuttal.
Sincerely,
Judith Laidig
Chatham, N.J. sophomore
Marsha Kav Hoag
Pleasanton junior
Nance Ann Coombe
Kansas City, Mo. senior
Annaloy Nickum
Kansas City, Kan. junior
• • • •
Chancellor Criticized
Editor:
After spending a stimulating and provocative day attending Crisis Day discussions and speeches, I can find only one decidedly unfavorable item which I feel compelled to bring out despite the general success of the project. Chancellor Wescoe has seen fit to make certain remarks at the convocation which do not seem appropriate to the supposed objective climate of the University. Such remarks as, "Now we will hear our side of the question," and "This could never happen there," show his undue willingness to compromise with such extremist elements as the American Legion Post in Wichita. These remarks were also insulting to our guest, Mr. Fomin, who was invited here. I would call upon the student body to recognize this show of lack of judgment and I would call upon the Chancellor, also, to recognize his error at least to himself if not publicly.
Glen Gish
Harper graduate student