4
Wednesday, February 13, 1974
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN
Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the vetters.
This year's race for the top jobs in the Student Senate has slightly more appeal than last year's one man sprint for the tape, but only slightly more. It should offer all the excitement of a tortoise race.
Election Lacks Oomph
The real question, however, is whether anybody really cares.
Some speculate that John Beinser and Todd Hunter, who got a head start by announcing their candidacies early in December, will easily outdistance later-starting Edd Rolafs and Kelly Scott. He says that Rolls and Scott will win a one lose one. But nobody really knows.
After all, both tickets have based their campaigns on platforms of essentially the same planks. Vote for either ticket, and you'll be voting for people who have deplored the current enrollment procedure, urged elimination of the foreign language requirement, mandated training in medical advising, criticized the Security and Parking Department and supported more money for women's athletics.
And of course there are the standard promises of returning more power to the students, making the Student Senate less a joke and fighting that bane of campus politics, apathy.
And apathy once more will be confirmed as the response of most University of Kansas students to the election today and tomorrow. The election gives every indication it will be the flasco that last year's was.
Consider the parallels. As election day drew near last March, the Student Senate struggled through its last meeting with barely half the elected representatives in attendance.
Last week, the current Student Senate recessed twice to raise a quorum of half its membership so it could conclude the year's business. It also elected to the battle cry of defeating apathy in student government.
As election day drew near last March, a Kansan reporter surveyed the electorate and found that only 35 per cent of those polled professed concern about the outcome. Then a mere 14.4 per cent of the student body, 2,536 students, bothered to vote.
(That total was down 35 per cent from the vote in 1871.) 85 per cent from the vote in 1871.
Last week, Kansan reporters surveyed the electorate and found that only 37 per cent of those polled knew Rolfs was a candidate for student body president and that 26 per cent knew Beisner was his
There's no reason why it should be any higher. The issues last year, as voters interviewed at the polls defined them, were apathy in the Student Senate and the allocation of the student activity fee. Candidates can promise some influence on those topics, but those topics don't especially grab the imagination.
opponent. That seems to indicate that he is least as low as it was a year ago.
This year's candidates have at least come up with some more interesting issues. But the trouble with inveighing against things like the enrollment process, the foreign student population and Security and Parking is that the Student Senate can't do anything about those things.
And the reason for that rests in the senate's essential silliness. The senate can't act for lack of a quorum, and it can't get a quorum because new senators quickly find out about the purposelessness of senate meetings and their interminable delays.
Then there is the petty bickering that erupts periodically. In this campaign, there first were accusations by one candidate that supporters of the other candidate had pulled a petty maneuver in the senate to block legislation essential to his campaign.
Then came some bickering about whether Brother Richard Paxson was in love and charity with his neighbor, Brother Richard Lauter, when Lauter accused Paxson of positional threats and Paxson accused Lauter of treacherously switching political loyalties.
What it all boils down to is that there isn't much in this election for most student voters, unless they want to indicate in a poll what priorities the Student Senate should give to academics, campus affairs, political affairs and internal senate matters, whatever those are.
For the winning candidates, however, there is much more. At the recommendation of the current president, the senate has recommended that the new senate give its officers hefty salary increases.
On top of that, there's the possibility that senate officers and a few other senators will have a chance to get academic credit for the proposed proposal. The proposal was made by a committee of which Hunter was chairman.)
So the spoils are worth the race, however purposeless the race might be for everyone else.
Bob Simison
By STEPHEN S. ROSENFELD
Ta Tau Feng
WASHINGTON-The word from Henry Kissinger, passed by a journalist friend, is that the secretary of state faces an interior challenge of "crisis" dimensions from Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger in making foreign policy. This is juicy Washington stuff. It's indicative of where we are in the world, too.
The interesting question it raises—and this is already a matter of lively concern in the whole foreign affairs community—is whether President Nixon is hinting that the United States, while hoping to cooperate and improve relations with the Russians, has the resources to make its way in the world without cooperating with them. There are those general lines, which are front and back of the same policy, but there is a vital nuance all the same. Europeans are especially sensitive to it.
The intriguing thing is that, by a friend's account, Kissinger, an international celebrity coming off a Nobel Prize in Vietnam and a huge personal triumph in the face of accusations of authority is threatened by a truly obscure bureaucrat who is a homebody to boot.
The Washington Post
r Russians, one notes, have been quick to pick this up. They have begun zeroning in on Schlesinger by name, most recently for his suggestion that, if NATO is weak, the Soviets could "bring political pressure to bear against Western Europe," Kissinger, who has said the same more delicately, still gets the kid-glove treatment in Moscow.
Partly it may be that Schlesinger is a more substantial figure than any that Kissinger has previously dealt with in the national security apparatus. Mervin Laird, the only other man worth counting, concentrated on withdrawing from Vietnam and paid relatively little heed to the first attack by North Korea and retaliation and renown; the Peking and Moscow breakthroughs, and the Vietnam negotiations.
Schlesinger, though he has been barely half a year in the Pentagon, arrived with a formidable substantive knowledge of what is emerging as the "big" national security
Intellectuals Subtly Tug for Power
THE UNABRANDOMLY
KANSAN
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
at the University of Kansas for the duration of examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $8 a month, $16 a year, 600 second district payment bursars, $1.25 a semester, 600 third district payment bursars, $1.25 a semester paid in student activity fee. **Price:** $1.25 a semester advertised offered to all students without registration. **Price** not yet announced; those of the institution are not necessary of the time.
Kissinger vs. Schlesinger
NEWS STAFF
News Adviser ... Susanne Shaw
**New York, N.Y.** Statsman Snow
Editor
Associate Editors
Campus Editor
Future Feature Editor
Reviewers Editor
Copy McFerren, Chickotter, Mike Rickey
Copy McFerren, Chickotter, Mike Rickey
John Hitter, Kathy Toussik, Elaine Zimmerman
Wr Editors
Elaine Zimmerman
Jill Willis
Manager, Investor, Merchant, MEA, and
Business Manager
Advertising Director
Diana Scholz
Classified Adv. Mgmt. Manager
Brice Regester
Classified Adv. Mgmt. Manager
David Albright
Assistant Advertising Manager
David Albright
BUSINESS STAFF
Unbuckling Driver's Right
Mmber Associatd Collgia Pressss
Mmber Associatd Collgia Pressss
By WILLIAM RASPBERRY
The Washington Post
There are some decisions I'd just as soon make for myself. Among them is the one that occasions this commentary: the use of auto safety belts.
WASHINGTON- If I had to choose between Big Brother watching me and Big Mother watching over me, I guess I'd go for Mom. But not by a landslide.
The D.C. city council held hearings to help it decide whether to enact a regulation making seatbelt use mandatory, with nonuse punishable by law.
THE VERY IDEA struck me as silly when I first heard about it. Now, after I have seen some of the testimony favoring mandatory buckling, it still strikes me that way—no less so because it is born of genuine concern for public health and safety.
Without bothering with my mental reservations on the statistics they throw about, let me conceive the major claims the proponents make: that seatbelt saves lives, that car accidents have been fatal in any event, they believe a number and serious of bodily injuries.
Most American motorists, I suspect, believe the statistics. And because they believe them, most would probably support legislation that makes it mandatory for manufacturers to provide safety belts in new cars.
NOR AM I I TAKEN In by her disanalogous analogies, her illogical logic and her tortured conclusions. One Big Mother's helper—John W. Garratt of the Cornell Aeronautical Lab in Buffalo-has sloughed off arguments based on personal freedom with the rejigger that speed limits, traffic signals and highway dividers
BUT MOST AMERICAN motorists don't want to use the belts, or at any rate, don't use the brakes.
That doesn't prove that most American motorists are either suicidal or stupid. It may mean only that they take their statistics with a grain of salt.
It isn't Big Mother's statistics that bother me so much; it's her oppressive concern, not for the public welfare, which is her duty, but for me personally.
also constitute infringements on personal freedom.
Well, whether Garrett can or not, you and I can see the difference between laws that protect us from the actions or inactions of others and laws that protect us from our own actions. The latter is mandatory for you to keep your brakes in good working order, not because you might hurt yourself but because you might hurt me. The same with traffic laws and antipollution laws and mandatory inoculations. I don't know if you could choke on your filch or catch your typhoon.
"PERSONS INJURED or killed needlessly through failure to wear belts impose a burden on society in many ways. At the accident scene, police, fire department and ambulance personnel are needed, making them unavailable for other duties. In addition, additional accidents, endangering them and others as they travel to the scene."
What is the danger to the public if you decide to take a chance on killing (instead of merely maiming) yourself in the event involved in an accident? Again, Garrett:
Right. And I suppose Garrett would
OKAY, I MUST not totally unreasonable. I will NOTMARTY belt in airplanes, both because they make me feel safer and more secure than being through the cabin in the event of some sudden maneuver. I won't protest if you make me strap my children in before I take them driving. (incidentally, how come I have been much bell about bettles school buses?)
support mandatory wearing of galanes on the logic that failure to wear them could lead to cold, wet feet, to pneumonia, to tie-up hospital rooms and the pre-emption of patients in emergencies, not available for other duties. Not to mention that your sudden sneeze might start an orderly, leading him to drop a food tray, thus creating a slippery mess in which an emergency診察 practitioner could take a fatal skid. And you know how badly we need general practitioners.
"I'll bless the bureaucrats for giving me the information that helps me to know that safety belts increase my safety. After that, please leave it to me whether I leave my vehicle or not," the motorcycle helmet in the chest or my head in the oven. It simply isn't their business.
issue of the second Nixon term—strategic arms. Previously Kissinger monopolized this issue with his intellectual, bureaucratic and publications rattle dazze. As a former defense intellectual at Rand O'Connor with experience in the CIA, TSA. Schlesinger break the monopoly.
N . rever, he arrived at the Pentagon just as doubts were escalating across the p.ical spectrum about the enduring value and visibility of some of the first-trimester refugees in the war with Kissinger: the Vietnam agreement, SALT I and Soviet-American detente. These doubts may yet be eased but, until they are, it is only to be expected that a certain amount of the loose deference available in this town will be shared with Kissinger to the more somber Schlesinger.
Kissinger represents the idea that the nations that count can be brought into a certain stable relationship, a "structure of peace." This is the sense in which Schlesinger calls Kissinger a "diplomatist," defined by Webster as "one
who is dexterous, tactful, or artful in meeting situations without arousing antagonism. The Midest affords plenty of scope still for a "diplomatist." But the sag of deterence and the messiness of the energy crisis, which lends itself poorly to flashy tactics, requires a secret diplomacy, make the going somewhat rough for Kissinger these days.
work of both men is struck much more by their likenesses than their differences. Both are tough-minded intellectuals long fascinated with the uses of power. In manner, Kissinger is smooth, Schesinger a bit rougher. Whether this will make a difference in respect to Congress, where Schesinger has a responsibility (until he receives Schesinger of gaining approval for a large budget), will be especially important to see as a need to me misleading to imagine that Kissinger is the sophisticated and Sschlering the boor, or to suspect that either is more than momentarily the captive of pique.
By contrast, Schlesinger has spent much of his career, in and out of government, thinking about the size and shape of the country. He also has possessed in the world; how to project that politically to foreigners and how to win support for it—in terms of budget and in terms of a will to use it—from the American people. In his first year, the first time the United States has lost its clear strategic and political predominance and there is wide read nervousness and confusion about where the country goes from here, Schlesinger's hour may have
In fact, anyone who looks at the public
There is a natural high-low approach in foreign affairs. One man holds the carrot, the other the stick. In this case, it's not easy to believe that men can say whether there is personal tension them. I would say just that there is a professional tension which is not only unavoidable but essential. Mr Nixon and his colleague at the Clinton administration talented men in the government's service.
"NO GENERAL, YOU CAN'T FIRE YOUR NEW MISSILES. THAT'S NOT AN ATTACK, THAT'S PLAIN,OLD-FASHIONED DECY."
Griff and the Unicorn
Kansas Ponders Campaign Reform
This is the fourth of a seven-part series on the 1974 session of the Kansas Legislature by State Sen. Paul Hess, R-Wichita. Hess is a law student at the University of Kansas.
by Sokoloff
A Governmental Ethics Commission will also be established if Senate Bill 689 is passed. The commission would receive complaints and conduct confidential investigations. If investigation warranted, a hearing would be required within 30 days of the commencement of the commission to subpoena witnesses and to administer oaths, and any refusal would be
Campaign reform legislation is being considered by the 1974 session. Two bills would provide for stricter reporting of contributions and better-defined conflict-of-interest rules.
Recent events have forced attention on reform reforms and I am glad to see the progress.
Senate Bill 689 was reported out of the Judiciary Committee, and will be debated on the Senate floor soon. The major provisions are conflict of interest and the establishment of a Government Ethics Commission.
Senate Bill 689 states that no legislator can be monetarily interested in any contract with the state while a legislator or within one year after expiration of his term. The governor must have a state agency, other than the legislature, must file disclosure within 10 days of the contract. Disclosures will be filed with the legislative body of which he is a member of the Senate. Failure of disclosure, misrepresentation or falsification is a misdemeanor.
ALSO, LEGISLATORS are barred from participating by voting or other action in committee or on the floor of either house when he has a personal interest.
As a student, my resources are extremely limited, so I have been fortunate not to have any conflict of interest. However, most people have a special interest because of their profession. I think it is almost unavoidable. The real problem is when a public position is abused for personal or professional gain.
declared in contempt of District Court in Shawnee County.
The bill would provide each political party with rights to legal counsel; calling and examining witnesses; introduction of evidence; hearing opposing witnesses and public hearings.
The Senate last week passed an extensive campaign financing bill, Senate Bill 656. The bill states that not later than ten days after becoming a candidate, every candidate shall appoint a treasurer or establish a committee with a treasurer.
ANY FINDINGS by the commission would be reported to the respective body (legislative, executive etc.) and the attorney general, or county or district attorney, who will then enforce or disqualify any member depending upon the findings of the commission.
Lobbyists, according to the bill, would be required to register every year with the Secretary of State and pay a $10 registration fee. Lobbyists would also list computations of all expenditures and list individually all those who compensate each lobbyist.
ALL ACCOUNTS must be detailed. All expenditures made and contributions received must be recorded not more than $1,000 in building a contribution or making an expenditure.
No contribution received by a candidate or political committee shall be used for personal tunds of the candidate, his political party, or members of the political committee.
Four reports must be filed: (1) annually on January 31 for the preceding calendar year, (2) on the fifteenth day preceding an election, (3) on the fifth day preceding an election, and (4) on the thirtieth day following an election. These reports require documentation of all claims and amounts, proceeds from sale of items, all expenditures and debts owed.
Residual funds must be turned into the Governmental Ethics Commission and divided equally among state political party committees. An independent candidate may remain amounts to the State Treasurer to be depicted in the general fund.
Reduced Marijuana Penalty Elicits Little Change in Use
BY FIRST IAGE The Los Angeles Times
By PHILIP HAGER
The Los Angeles Times
PORTLAND, Ore.—Last October, the most lenient prison possession in the state's Salem jail was handed over to Stetson.
Under a law enacted with little controversy by the legislature, persons found with up to one ounce of marijuana—enough for 20 cigarettes—couldn't be found guilty of a crime but only a "violation,"—something like a traffic offense.
They could be punished with nothing more than a 100 fine. They couldn't be jailored, nor would they be sent to prison.
Stiff criminal penalties remained in effect in possession of large amounts or possesses (pursuant to)
By most authoritative accounts, the new law has produced little change in the pattern of illegal drug use in the state. Law enforcement officials said that in some respects it had made their task simpler and more efficient.
"We've got a lot of calls from parents whose sons and daughters are telling them there's practically no law against smoking there," said Sgt. Robert Skippe of the
Critics of the law believe it was enacted in haste and without sufficient consideration of either the potential dangers of marijuana or the impact of removing the criminal penalties.
NONTHELLESS, some narcotics officers expressed uneasiness about the long-range effects of the law. And a citizens' group organized an initiative campaign to repeal the measure.
Multnomah County sheriff's vice section. "It's tough for the parents to argue with their kids when wise people—the legislators—acted as they did."
A group called the Committee Against Liberal Drug Laws will begin circulating initiative petitions next month, seeking to restore criminal penalties for marijuana
LAW ENFORCEMENT authorities say they have detected no significant increase in the supply of marijuana, or other illegal drugs, that can be attributed to the new law.
"We have no evidence more marijuana is being used, said Michael T. Bailey, a spokesman for the state's lawsuit attorney." But realistically we can't help but believe that, with all the publicity of the new law, people who were afraid to use it before are less afraid now. I suppose people who are less afraid now.
Bailey said he had "no great philosophical agreement" with the law but conceded it had "administrative and fiscal benefits."
Under the law, offenders are cited rather than arrested and booked. The streamlined procedure saves time and expense. Offenders, facing only a minor penalty, are more inclined to plead guilty rather than demand a trial.
"So far it's been quite successful," Bailey said. "The police by and large are happy with it—they don't have to spend half a shift booking a suspect and writing a report. The judges are pleased with it because it saves court time. And our office is pleased with it because we can concentrate more on serious crimes."