4 Tuesday, April 11, 1972 University Daily Kansan Garry Wills KANSAN comment Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers. A Long Way Baby I recently attended the Intercollegiate Association of Women Student's convention and was amazed at the change of attitudes of women students as represented by that group. At last year's convention those of us from the University of Kansas found ourselves in the ridiculous position of being regarded by others as somewhat radical when what we are told we moderately liberal. Our qualifications as near-radicals seemed to be based on the fact that KU women did not have to obey curfew regulations, some of our residence halls had unlimited visitation, and instead of an Association of Women Students our organization had the ominous title of the Commission on the Status of Women. Convention people were just beginning to talk about birth control clinics, and child care centers were hardly mentioned. At this year's convention there was little discussion about curfews and visitation but there was much said about child care centers and what had gone beyond the planning stage and were already in existence. Dinner time discussions often centered on political strategy needed to get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified by state legislatures. For the first time representatives from groups such as the National Womens Political Caucus were soliciting support from the women of IAWS. It seemed to me that the national organization and the organizations on the various campuses were no longer the emancipated girls' clubs they used to be; they had finally grown up. The women at that convention were serious about the ideas they had for their campuses and it sounded as if they were making their campuses serious about them. However, I doubt that people outside on campus communities will ever be fully aware of that seriousness. In Chicago, where the convention took place, the press was more concerned about reporting what we were wearing and the fact that we did not pay attention to the speech presented and discussed. The press adequately reflected the bias that a woman looks like is more important than what she is thinking. An editorial writer in Chicago went into more detail about what Gloria Steinem was wearing during her speech than about what she had said. As far as I know the speeches of none were covered, the speakers included Congresswoman Martha W. Griffiths, who sponsored the recently passed Equal Rights Amendment in the House; Virginia Allan, who was appointed to the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State last month by President Nixon, and Brigadier General Jeanne M. Holm, first woman general in the Air Force. It is unfortunate that the speeches were not reported if for no reason on than it is interesting. It is also unfortunate that the convention was covered in the manner it was; I think that it would have been better honored without any coverage instead of the kind it did get. The coverage by the Chicago press would make readers believe that the convention had been a trivial affair, but for those who attended it was a good and even exciting experience. KU can be proud that it has a few women from this campus that helped make it conventions the center of its activity, it was most notably the three officers, Casey Eike, national president; Grace Ellen Rice, executive director, and Dean Emily Taylor, national adviser. Thank you, ladies; you helped us come a long way. Readers Respond Reform Traffic Debate Continues To the Editor: I view the current activities of the campus Traffic and Security department and the upward surrogate influence of distress. From the issues and discussion presented in the book, certain salen facts emerge. Second, the University community is concerned with the traffic and parking policies of the Parking Board. headed by Mr. Malinowsky. The amount of time expended enforcing underside the parking regulations made to the parking area be made to improve security at the expense of this parking ticket pogrom? $39,480 parking tickets one considers that the City of Lawrence, with myrid parking meters and special parking personnel, issued only 30,522 more. First, the University community does not feel the central campus area is safe at all. To address this main reasons for this fear: woefully inadequate lighting and parking facilities, which are the result of lack of fire safety and the seeming insensitivity of the Traffic and Security Office to desires for adequate patrols to ensure the incidence of crime in this area. Third, and perhaps most disturbing, is the low opinion of the capabilities of the campus officers held by the University. One of my students 1 was a police officer before entering the University. but I am appalled at the petty activities of the campus officers while they bit silently ignore a serious and expanding crime problem. The low opinion is that we are too pointless harassments most members of the University community have undergone at one time or another; my own negative contacts, I am sure. Time again repeated time and time again throughout our community. There is a need for basic and major reform and improvement on campus. The lighting must be improved, the expanded as soon as possible. There must be a realignment of priorities within the Traffic and Security Office to address the community for increased patrol, including foot patrols. Parking regulations must be made more equitable, parking fees may be increased, finally, we can all petition the University to raise the salaries of the Traffic and Security Officer to a meager amount. Only when the pay and working conditions are made more attractive, will the Office be able to attract more intelligent highly motivated personnel. Kevin L. Neuer Lawrence Junior Defense Mr. Lama did an excellent job of commenting on extracts of my letter of March 31 in the April 10 letter to Mr. Rakul, and certainly puts a different light on To the Editor: the entire problem when you consider only part of the facts consider only part of the facts. I am more concerned, then I look towards the end of the letter that indicates there will be a "new scheme for ripping off students, faculty, and visitors" through, I guess, the use of parking meters. If we are ripping off it, is it hoped that by giving everyone several choices—purchase zone permits, use meters, use gate operated doors, or have the majority will not park illegally. Revenue from tickets, as far as I am concerned, should be decreased to a bare minimum, including student, faculty, and visitors should not be receiving tickets. I assure you that the reason for parking restrictions is not to keep students very busy, but be very much in favor of the revenue from tickets eventually going into some other income account. At one University that I work at, it was given to the student loan fund. Unfortunately, at this time, the entire plan referred to in the March 31 UDR has not been reviewed. I would wish to comment will wait for the full plan and will have spent more than one evening over a glass of beer working out an alternate schedule of objections to change; but, does this mean, then, that we stop research and experimentation to improve existing operations? If you either me with your complaints. H. Robert Malinowsky Chairman, Parking and Traffic Board Of Politics And an Ethereal War The President asked, in his State of the Union address, that we rise above politics—way up there, where the president myself breathes纯新 nonpardon air. The speech soured so far above politics that it could hardly spot that little disturbance shrunk to pin-stake size. We must admit, as a subordinate clause: "As our involvement in the war in Vietnam comes to an end, . . ." It is nice to be so serene about a legacy of killing that while Nixon 'defunes' the war issue. But we can'let him get away with it. The most persuasive argument for Nixon's election in 1968 was that he had a better chance to end the war than any Democrat, who would be bound by his own party's engagements there. I know people who voted for Nixon solely on those grounds. And right up to his inauguration there seemed a chance that he would run as Democrat war, and [see] free to end it. But he soon made it his war, extending it geographically and raising the level of our political expectations there. His "secret plan" for ending the war yielded to a plan for sustaining it through proxies, dragging it out while reducing its "profile." He still killed, but inconspicuous. Nixon into a new election without having kept his campaign promise from the start, but that didn't have just found a way to keep it alive without disturbing the voters too much. His apologists say Democrats have no right to complain. They began the war, and escalated it. Nixon has descaled, and "wound down." But this partisan answer, by hired hands who are not above politics, misses the point. Nixon had the whole tragic history of his campaign, he came to office. He had a country reputation, but a rare opportunity to lead that country out and teach it new lessons in reality. He deliberately chose, instead, to drift with the old arguments and "bail out." the effort by four more years of death and destruction. He found new ways to sustain the war, rather than end it. It is the most guilty of all our leaders. He should have known better. He did not have to be a canvette to this war. But he embraced his chains, and kept them shackled around this country. Those who voted for him to end the war have been cheated even more than those who cast votes for Johnson in 1964. We should all know better, now; and not be willing to accept implication by killing by voting for the principal killer. We have none of the excesses of Germans who claimed they did not know what was going on. We do know that there were more refugees all had enough time on Vietnam: Fake innocence is out of place. Anyone who would re-elect Nixon now is approving a war waged for too many years and for too long. He has sacrificed enough Asians to the elusive ghost of American "presidency." To vote again for Nixon is to be knowingly implied into the war, all those wives for a war criminal become war criminals themselves. Copyright, 1972, Universal Press Syndicate James J. Kilpatrick Political Odd Couple Emerges WASHINGTON-With the returns from Wisconsin, the Democratic Party now qualifies for disaster relief. A race that began in mild confusion has become a shamles instead. Who are the party's two leading candidates in terms of their demonstrated power at the polls? They are George Stanley McGovern, a senator from South Carolina, and Brian Sanders, a governor of Alabama. They constitute the oldest couple ever linked by political fate. Together the two Georges claimed more than half the vote in Wisconsin's Democratic primary. For McGovern it was a victory in fact, for Wallace a victory in principle. It was no victory at all for anyone else. He and his candidates all finished last. The two leading gladiators have almost nothing in common. McGovern is the farbest left of them, with a dee-dee decorous, soft-spoken, professional in manner. He is a product of the upper Midwest. He started out in life to become a minister. He is an excellent racial issues. His principal campaign plank calls for whacking the defense budget by 40 per cent. Wallace, by contrast, patrols a political turf in the far reaches of right field. He is short, aggressive, feisty as a bantam cock. He evokes Menken's description of the man who could stir sitting down. He is of the Deep South, a country judge. He came to fame as the segregationist States Righter who stood in the school house door. He is all hawk, with talons showing. Yet, remarkably, the two By Sokoloff Griff and the Unicorn Georges have much in common. They both are vehicles this spring, however diverse, for the manifestation of a bottled-up protest that is struggling to break out. In some almost mystical ways, they fully realized, they identify with large elements of the disenchanted, the alienated, the people who stand on the outside looking in. Whatever "the Establishment" may be, they oppose it. In vastly different ways, they are both radicals. They share this in common also: they realize the realistic chance of winning the party nomination in July or of defeating Richard Nixon in November. McGoven's prospects, to be sure, are better than those of Wallace. Politically speaking, he has a respectability and a party record that Wallace cannot claim. When was the last time Wallace led an independent nominee of the Democratic Party? It is hard to recall. Four years ago, Wallace was leading his own independent party and winning five States in the process. He is a kind of Democrat on probation. A lot of people numbering perhaps 20 per cent blacks, would not look kindly on his nomination. "Copyright 1972, David Sokoloff." Yet McGovern's appeal, within the party, is entirely to its most liberal elements. He offers little A feeling grows that we are moving blindly toward some fundamental realignment. I cannot see its shape or its dimensions. We may be headed for a multi-party system of government in an effort to maintain, Meanwhile, we of the press will stagger on to Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Maryland, pursuing a bunch of losers. We have no place else to go. that moderates and centrists could latch on to. Quite a number of conservative Democrats are still alive; McGovern would be able to vote in these elections it may be recalled, went through this experience in reverse eight years ago; their conservative candidate was a good and decent and delightful leader but liberals the McGovern would be the Democrats' Goldwater. It makes no sense. Nothing in party politics this spring makes sense. The one Democrat who made it is John Cannon of Texas; he is not even running. Three others might make it a horse race: Hubert Humphrey, Edmund Burke and John F. Kennedy. Humphrey is hurting (second in Florida, with 18.6 per cent, third in Wisconsin, with barely 21). Muskie is close to collapse in Wisconsin. Jackson is out of it. Copyright, 1972 The Washington Star Syndicate, Inc. Letters Policy Letters to the editor should be typewritten, double-spaced and should not exceed 500 words. All letters are subject to editing and condensation, according to space limitations and the editor's judgment. Students must have their names clearly printed down; faculty and staff must provide their name and position; others must provide their name and address. THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN America's Pacemaking college newspaper Kansan Telephone Numbers Newsroom—UN 4-4810 Business Office—UN 4-4358 Publication in the University of Kansas daily during the semester year, senior business and management students must complete a course (or courses) offered by the university to be eligible for publication in all materials without regard to subject. Course or course name must be submitted online by midterm. Experiments expressed in this course may not be published in any form except as permitted by the University of Kansas. NEWS STAFF News Adviser . . . Del Brinkman Editor Chip Crews Associate Editor Campaign Editor Spencer Spear Copy Chief Rita Haugh, Eric Carranza Accounting Editor Joyce Carlson, Robbie Bunny Sports Editor Bob Munson Featured Sports Editor Featured Editor Featured Editor Tom Slatinger, Mary Ward Wire Editor Tom Lee, Jack Goodick Review Editor Dick Kay, Goodick Profile Editor Ed Lahner, Katie Neer Office Manager Greg Sorber, Toni Thromb Office Manager Todd Rusch BUSINESS STAFF Business Manager Business Adviser . Mel Adams Business Manager Advertising Manager Advertising Manager Advertising Manager National Advertising Manager National Advertising Manager Promotional Advertising Manager Promotional Advertising Manager Dave Morrison Dave Morrison David Morrison Member Associated Collegiate Press REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY National Educational Advertising Services A DIVISION OF READER'S DIRECT SERVICES, INC. 360 Lexington Ave. New York, N.Y. 10017