4
Friday, March 31, 1972
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN comment Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
Applications, Anyone?
For at least the past three semesters, the Kansan has received severe criticism for such bugaboos as faculty domination, chauvinism for the J-School, and 'safe' editors. We have been written to criticism from our readers.
Dedicated critics have maintained that the faculty controls the Kansan, that if faculty members don't have to intervene on every issue, it is only a matter of politeness. It who that lackey "safe" editors who agreed with them were elected.
All of this is absurd, as we have said so many times. However, the Kansan Board, which did and does contain a student majority, responded by taking special care to publicize the fact that any student, regardless of his major, is eligible to be editor of the Kansan. Stories were
run in the paper and applications for the position were made available in the offices of the dean of men and the dean of women.
Yet in these two semesters the efforts failed to attract one editor applicant from outside the School of Journalism.
Realistically, these criticisms of the Kansan will be around as long as the paper itself is. But the important thing now is that it is again time to choose a new staff. The possibility exists for a continuation of what is being produced now or for a radical change in the paper's philosophy. Perhaps, as in the past, the dissidents will suddenly become silent and anonymous. That would be too bad, for now is their chance.
—Chip Crews Editor
*Humannum . . . Acute and chronic LIT-titis accompanied
by severe campaign-chest pains ...
Readers Respond
Campus Cops : Doing a Good Job
To the Editor:
As Chairman of the Parking and Traffic Board, I must take a stand concerning the University of Kansas Traffic and Security Department. The strong words of our colleague Mr. J. Reagan's statements of "The police dole out parking tickets like Green stamps for the most miniscule invented..." and "we should call our campus police, the security department, because insecurity" would not have been used. I am sure, if those persons had done some research into just what department is responsible for
Some other statistic statistics were reported. 19, 28 vehicles were required 832 parking permits sold, $8,207 in parking permits and campus parking permits.
In order to give the entire University Community the security and patrolling protection of campus, 25 days per year, there are 35 policemen, 8 clerks and secretaries, 10 doctors and 5 policemen are designated as follows: 1 director, 1 captain, 3 shift, 1 leavants, 3 shift, 1 dormitory doctor, 1 investigator patrolman and 8 dormitory patrolmen. These 35 persons do all of the University's parking and traffic control, and addition, one of the men is required to drive the University bus when needed, and traffic is paid for out of parking and traffic income which includes traffic fines and income from the sale of firearms, $159,441 income, $82,467 was from faculty-, staff-, and students. No money from state banks is used for parking and traffic.
tickets issued for parking violations of which 11,140 were for non-registration or sticker not held by permit; 895 city park tickets issued; 215 city moving violations issued; 203 accidents investigators; complaints and offenses reported to 88 officers, 1 homicide, 2 raps, 8 burglaries, 220 larcenies over $30, 322 larcenes under $50, 16 firearms, 12 assaults, 1 sex offense, 2 disorderly conduct, 1 suicide attempt, 5 disturbances, 59 fires, 12 missing persons, 17 molestations, 10 assaults, 12 bombs, and 24 bomb scares. It must be stressed that complaints and offenses have to be reported before any can do any kind of investigating.
tried to park legally, then it would be much easier for the Traffic and Security personnel to do their patrolling.
It is unfortunate that some feel that the campus Traffic and Security personnel are out to help them. It has been mentioned that a car in O-zone at 4:00 a. m. with an improper skater was ticketed. In the hour to hour patrolling, isn't it possible that the officer would check cars in O-zone at that hour? If there was a robbery, assault, or the like and that car was involved, we would then have word of where the car was at a parking lot. If the police are patrolling various lots, isn't it part of his duty to check for illegally parked cars as well as on other parking spots and happens? He surely isn't expected to overlook violations just because he happens to be looking for something else. In many cases the illegally parked cars bushy with a person individual who is walking from being able to proceed by the most direct route, resulting in his arrest, closely parked vehicles, a molester, exhibitionist, or what ever may be waiting. If everyone
I assure you that with the present limited staff, the Traffic and Security Department is doing as good a job as can be expected. We are making staffing and financing of other large universities in the U.S., you would be amazed at how we have been able to do as well as we were at our earliest point in the Parking and Traffic Board have spent many hours reviewing or "investigating" the total operation. As a result, there will always be people who everyone will cooperate and give the changes a chance.
—H. Robert Malinowsky Chairman, Parking and Traffic Board
James J. Kilpatrick
Amendment For Women Termed Folly
WASHINGTON—It was late on the afternoon of Wednesday, March 22, when the Equal Rights for Women amendment finally came to a vote in the Senate. Delaware's William Roth happened to be presiding.
"On this vote," he announced, "the yeas are 84, the nays are 8. Two-thirds of the Senators present having voted in favor; the negative, the joint resolution is passed."
Very well. The amendment, by its own terms, will become effective two years after ratification. This would indicate an operative date in the year 1978, as no earlier ventured: By the summer of 1978, the jubilation singing will have died;
The packed galleries broke into happy applause. It took several minutes of gavel-pounding to get things quieted down. After more than 50 years of unrelenting effort, proponents of the ERA have moved on to morning, Hawaii had become the first State to ratify. Half a dozen others since leaved beacon. The ERA may well break the 100-day record set last year in ratification of the 18-year-old vote no army so unresistible, as they say, as an idea whose hour has come.
March 22 of 1972 will be denounced here and there as Black Wednesday; you will be hearing anguished cries for repeal.
The amendment is unmitigated folly. It cannot be compared with the 19th Amendment, which in 1920 guaranteed that women should have an equal right to vote. The legal effect of that amendment was clear, crisp, and incapable of misunderstanding. In the case of the ERA, though thousands of pages of law review articles have been written about it, the legal effects are unclear. Howard H. Harden's Professor Paul Freund, a great institutional scholar, has said that the Equal Rights Amendment "will open a Pandora's box of legal complications," but the hoary allusion paints an inadequate picture.
What we are talking about, in terms of this amendment, is "equality of rights under the law." Such equality henceforth shall not be denied or compromised by any State on account of sex. The phrase has a beautiful bell-like ring. Who could oppose equality of rights under the law? Senator Sam Erwin could—and he
Senator Sam Ervin could—and he had the courageous assistance, at the
last ditch, of Senators Bennett, Buckley, Cotton, Fannin, Goldwater, Hansen and Stennis. Mississippi's James Eastland was paried against the resolution. Time will prove their apprehensions and reservations well found. They perceived that the ERA, as part of the supreme law of the land, would not permit equality by law upon a society that does not want sexual equality in fact.
Take one of the simpler legal complications. Under Social Security, women may retire at 62, men at 65. This distinction must now be obliterated. To date, only about 1% of male retirement age would create serious social and economic consequences, and would play have with the actuarial soundness of the Social Security system. But to raise the age would set off political explosions.
The Senate debate heard much talk of compulsory military service for women. Once the ERA becomes effective, every 18-year-old girl will have to register for the draft. These changes require a separate service under precisely the same terms and conditions now applied to men. This means combat duty; anything less
would be constitutionally impermissible. As Hawaii's Senator Fong uneasily speculated, the privacy laws recorded women, if any, "is uncertain."
Legal complications at the Federal level, by comparison with those involved in State legislation, are much less severe. Amendment overnight will abolish hundreds of protective statutes dealing with inheritance, marriage, child support, and industrial life. Some of these statutes might have been repealed through the normal legislative process. But the effect of the ERA will be to dump them all—rest periods, maternity leave, national limitations, the whole works.
It is futile to object. The rush for ratification is on—Hawaii, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Delleware, Missouri, Arkansas, King Calante. The tide rolls in. But three or four years hence, when the impact of the ERA begins to be felt, a great many women will be finding that this equality is not so beautiful after all.
Copyright, 1972
The Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
Garry Wills
Mr. Fix-It or Mr. Flub-It
Peter Flanigan, who put together the key people in settling ITT's merger difficulties, is to this administration what what Eisenhower or Abe Forta to Eisenhower's or Abe Forta to Johnson's—the Mr. Fix-It.
He is the White House's He is the President millionaire for dealing with millionaires—and he is not particularly good at handling particularly serious problem comes up. I am called in to consult and advise on it, such as the Pentagon bankruptcy, the Treasury fraud, bankship and things of that nature.
The charge, now, is that Mr. Flanigan found a compliant White House Fellow (the Fidelity Award) in a promising promoring company heads and military comers) to give, in no time, the technical excuse to fix his own words, what kind of fix does Mr. Fix-it think proper? And what kind of brokering does the master deal—a dealer relationship" engage in.
While the facts of this particular case undergo current dispute, a more general hint of
Flanigan's code has just appeared, and from a surprising quarter. National Review has published a waspish exchange of letters between Mr. Flanigan and Buckley's editor, William Buckley.
Buckley, an administration man until recently, had given Flanigan a recommendation for the president to one source of Flanigan's power has been his job as chief recruiter of Nixon's staff. But Flanigan let him know that favors are not not observe the Flanigan Code.
'And what is that code? It is, crudely put. It we butter you, you buttered it, buttered it (and buttering), or else. How had Buckley broken the code?' By giving John Ashbrook buckley, and Buckley distinguishes from '(sponsorship)' in primary defiance of the President's resident buckley, after this opposing even this much defiance of the President his brother support in the Senate and that William Buckley went
with his Right-Wing constituency in order to control it, carefully saying the primary challenge is the matter of November desertion.
But that is not enough for Flanigan. As he has boasted in the book, his little band of brothers, at the top" and once admitted to the brothorship, you don't flink on it. Flanigan, as Mr. Klassen said, "One could hardly expect that recommendations from supporters of McCloskey President are likely to receive the same careful consideration given the recommendations from a support him in season and out."
There is the Code of Flanigan in all its blatant, telling us how Nixonites are **re recruited**, and stay in good favor:
1. Support must be total—“in season and out."
2. Thus, any defection at all is total deflection—support for McCloskey is indistinguishable from that for Ashbrook.
3. Appointment comes through
members of the brotherhood to men recognizing the overriding bonds of brotherhood.
4. All others, even the most
the same careful consideration.
(One would think all qualified
maximally careful consideration.
In other words, the prime consideration is not how good you are, but how bound you are—and that's what he bought. Mr. Buckley's crime seems to be, in Flanigan's eyes, that he would not stay bought.
brutal statement of the Code suggests that he did know the rules he was playing by—and that he failed to lose that constituency Buckley was trying to humor and deflect constructive (if critical) support.
Buckley's shocked reply to this
Mr. Flanigan may be learning that the quick-operating favor-trading Mr. Fix-It turns easily. The efficient efficiency, into a Mr. Flub-It. That is one of several things to be decided by the ITT investigation.
Copyright, 1972. Universal Press Syndicate
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN America's Pacemaking college newspaper
NEWSSTAFF
News Adviser ... Del Brinkman
BUSINESS STAFF Business Adviser . . . Mel Adams
Business Manager
By Sokoloff