4
Friday, February 25, 1972
University Daily Kansan
Garry Wills
KANSAN comment Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
Hashinger Arts
For years people involved with organized University housing have tried to provide students who live in residence halls with something more than just big buildings where a few hundred people sleep and eat. Students who want to attend and as promising as the Residence Center for the Creative Arts which will be housed in Margaret Hashinger Hall next September.
The programing for this hall will be aimed at people who are interested in the creative arts but not necessarily majoring in any of the subjects. The programing for the artist will have access to art studies, practice rooms for dancing, music rooms and whatever else the planning committee is willing to work with, including students and listening administrators, can come up with.
The University has become so large that it cannot offer any more than a few introductory courses to the student who is just interested in the arts. These might titlate his interest but usually do not add much to his ability in that field. Certainly there is need to save professors' time for students who are going to graduate with degrees which are supposed to indicate a certain level of expertise in certain areas but it is
unfortunate that the result has had
no impact on the talent of
nonmajor students with talent
The center will provide a place and some equipment which will aid the creative student in developing his talent. Students will be with others who are enthusiastic enough about the arts and their own potential talents to pay the extra money to live in a hall dedicated to providing a place where creative people can do creative things.
Some may try to discredit the idea for such a hall by saying it is just an administrative plot inspired by finances. If it were merely a bad financial situation that forced such a university then we all should pray that buddha had financial situations since this one fostered such a good idea.
This hall will be an experiment and it may not work, so perhaps those who wonder what will happen if you want to implement agent starts to organize it have legitimate concern. Nevertheless, it is such an exciting idea that it is worth the risk. It is about time that when someone mentions "the arts" in their conversation does not immediately think of Spooner, Murphy or third floor Strong.
-Mary Ward
Staff Column
Big Brother Waits
By John Edward Goodrick
THE DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION of states' rights by the federal government should now become a matter of some concern.
Nothing alarming has happened; no single event stands out to warn states of an increasing central power, yet several events have taken place to act as contributing evidence to the fact of a growing federal strength. Sanctions are the most effective tool for containing federal government. The state that dances to the tune of the fiddler gets to keep funds already promised.
The Federal Highway Beautifications Act is a good act, and like almost everyone else in the nation, I agree with its sense of ecology. But also remember how Kansas came to comply with the federal act. The federal government threatened to withhold $6.8 million in federal sanctions if the state did not pass an anti-billboards law.
The University of Kansas must comply with the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in implementing an affirmative action program to eliminate discrimination in hiring practices. Because more than $50,000 is granted to the University of Kansas in the form of federal assistance, the University has received no losses in losing support. I agree with the majority, again, in support of minorities and the phasing out of discriminatory hiring practices by the University. My question is, what was the lever used to push KU in the right direction—federal sanctions?
The defense department recently came out saying that NROTC is being phased out of several universities which were earlier trying to expel the military organization from their campuses. Without NROTC came the possible threat of a decrease in allotted funds from the Defense Department. This slapping of the hands of the universities could be interpreted as an attempt to stifle dissent.
The good programs that the federal government offers seem to have lulled us into believing that the government will always try to benefit the majority. My concern is that we should also force programs but with the manner in which the federal government enforces such programs. Kansas, now in poor economic condition, is rendered even more susceptible to the federal government's states. The federal government has many strings in Kansas and many strings in Douglas County, including the recently planned Clinton Reservoir. As of now, Kansas is no puppet state, but so many ties exist that it is difficult to imagine what the federal government would do if the threat to stop the flow of currency
There is no cause for alarm, there is no 1984, but at this time recognition of such activities of the federal government is imperative. They financially forced the Highway Beautification Act passed in the Kansas Legislature; let us only hope the next legislation the federal government bestows upon our state is as beautiful as the last.
Readers Respond
Help for Iran
Are we going to stand by and let ourselves remain insulated from the rest of the world? Are we going to stand by and let the U.S. government support atrocities in other countries for pure greed?
To the Editor:
better life for their country, and their government is using American weapons to suppress a terrorist group that has been returned to the people where it belongs so that these atrocities can be stopped. One positive step is an agreement to a telegram to the Prime Minister of Iran (Mr. Moorhead, Tehran, Iran), registering our complaint against him and demanding his regime and demanding that the death sentences be suspended and that legal and medical teams are sent to the prisoners. If he receives enough of these telegrams perhaps he
What about the fascist government of Iran that the U. S. is supporting because it conspires to attack the thousands of political prisoners arrested and jailed under the law. They are tortured mercilessly.
will see that he is not fooling anyone by disgusing what is important to change, at least in some small way. It will happen slowly, but must be happened happily it takes for us to prevail if we enough men to do nothing." Down with him and up with internationalism."
These people are fighting for a
Ann Jochems
Bellvue, Neb., senior
Kendall, Kyle,
Columbia, Mo., senior
Costas Orlandos
Saint Joseph, Seni-
rior
The Wandering Right Wing
Much of the Right Wing, unhappy with Nixon over his China visit, recently found themselves rejoicing over one of its consequences. They liked his criticism of India's part in the Pakistan affair.
Some even talk in the righteous tones of men seeing grand providences of history vindicated. Columnist Russell Kirk, for instance, said that India's retribution goddess, Nenessa, upon its country," he rejoiced that "the American State Department declares forthrightly that the Indian government was the aggressor," and warned us not to make India's chelseas out of the fire."
But what of the East Pakistani who were being slaughtered, or were fleeing to India? We not we to succor them? Kirk was adamant: 'The Bengali refugees in India will be helped by a Storm!' Strange that such arguments were not used earlier by the Right—to say, for instance, that a devastating war is hardy the way to help the South Vietnam? The war's apologists have used possible future slaughterers in the war from North Vietnam, to justify our massively destructive intervention all the way across the Pacific. Yet a
present, very real massacre of Pakistanis should not have been dealt with by India or that evil country would become an aggressor.
What can explain this gloating over Indian mistrust—assuming (as Kirk did) that Nesnesis is catching up with the country at last? Ideological racism has long nurtured a grudge against India, on general grounds. First, India tried to be the conscience of the world, when everybody knows that we are that. Second, it dared to say that the United States has brought us, whereas we know that peace can come from war. (True, India has not perfectly lived up to its pacific ideals; but neither have we lived up to our bellows-like atimes, according to Mr. Kirk's former employer Burry McCarthy, we have lapsed into a "nown' policy".
was a certain bond between Communist and anti-Communist, as between crooks and cops. Both agreed on the rules of the game, on the show-down nature of reality. There was either-or conflict-break-concord on the fact that we faced an either-or choice. We agreed that we had to disagree.
Most important of all, the Indian policy of neutrality challenged the most fundamental tenet of our whole postwar policy—which, simply put, is that "those who are not with us are against them" and so toward Communism meant that where "the Reds" did not predominate, we must. By challenging that assumption, by raising the possibility that there could be a third course, not the simple all-inclusive either-or of our cold war, India drove superpatriots up the wall.
Then a funny thing happened. By not joining us against The Enemy, neutrals became even more our enemies than the Enemy itself. Enormity was better than lukewariness to the Enemy. There
Then along came "neutralists"—symbolized by India-with the ultimate blasphemy, a challenging of the duty to disagree. And, for that damned individual, and for that individual, cannot ever forgive them. So deep is the shock and hatred run that they will embrace an opportunity to humiliate India, even if the motive for that is Nixon's entente with China. An immediate spiteful gale at getting the country into a war (Evil) overcomes the longer-term opposition to a greater foe (Evil itself).
Those whose crime is neutrality toward Communism must be "given the opportunity to fight Communists (i.e., China) profit by the "getting." Do you think I exaggerate? Listen to Mr. Kirk's piette gale at the meeting (even China) humiliating India.
"India is the most ardent advocate of admitting Red China to the comity of nations, as represented by the United States, the Chinese act, in the United Nations by force of arms, we see how New York like a dose of this medicine."
The poor fellow, glloating on a nonexistent victory, on self-contraindictory of obsolete hostilities, is a perfect victim. The wing Wing's loss of contact with reality.
Copyright, 1972, Universal Press Syndicate
James J. Kilpatrick
Conservative's Defection Fizzles
WASHINGTON - The great conservative rebellion against Richard Nixon, launched last summer on a rolling wave of press releases, seems to be stuck on the beach. It is going nowhere
and might as well be abandoned.
I venture that forlorn judgment with some regret. The leaders of this rebellion, identified mostly with Human Events and National Review,
possess some of the best minds on the conservative right. Their bill of particulars is soundly based. In announcing that they had suspended their support of the President, they were fired up on
Griff and the Unicorn
By Sokoloff
In the case at hand, no politicians of the first rank have railed to the rebel flag. Barry Goldwater, for example, has pushed his movement with characteristic violence Ronald Reagan wants no part of it. John Tower of Texas remains aloof. Even Sen. James L. Buckley, whose younger brother Bill is admiral of the battleship, has pointedly and publicly released his own support of Mr. Nixon.
in extremis, my colleagues have turned to John M. Ashbrook of Ohio. He is one of the nicest guys in the House, a principled conservative and a thoroughly decent man. His credentials are impeccable, but his name is unknown.
The conservative rebellion suffers from this defect also, that Mr. Nikon will not stay bad. It is good to speak of good working rebellion, to stay alive, to feed on the raw meat of new resentments. Old complaints, like last Saturday's ham, tend to get chewy and run in the teeth. There is an agreeable villain, had the kindness to stay a villain. And has
A political rebellion, if it expects to get anywhere, needs the motive power of professional politicians; it cannot be fueled by money. It must gasees of intellectual indignation in general proposition, politicians are not intellectuals, nor intellectualists politicians. There are exceptions—Woodrow Anderson, Henry Wallace, Adal Stevenson—but their number is few and their batting average is low.
philosophy only, without the slightest motive of personal political gain. The movement is up in an otherwise dull campaign.
Yet it has fizzled, and it may be instructive to examine the reasons why.
"Copyright 1972, David Sokoloff."
The certain prospect is that Mr. Nixon will win renomination at San Diego. No one will lay a lodge on him. What, then, in November? Bill Buckley writes with a free-flowing pen, but one cannot remain to see him scratching an X-ray beside of Edmund Muskie. Conservatives can stick with Nixon, or they can stay home and sulk. These are their options; everything else is hot air.
But better a poor rebellion than no rebellion at all. In a close race, Nixon will need every vote he can get; and if he is moved to feed our war机器, then some good may come of our growing. Conservatives learn in their cradles—it is the mother's milk of their philosophy—that when you are awfully hungry, you want the bowl of a lot better than none.
A third consideration comes to mind. An incipientrebellion has certain aspects of melodrama, and melodrama offers a kind of money or the money or your life. Belinda's virtue must be surrendered or the mortgage gets foreclosed. My colleagues have no such credible threat (because they leave Nixon, but they keep Alabama? Who would believe it?)
to Bowsworth Field. Richard Nixon is not so cooperative. The President in October made two smashing nominations to the U. S. Supreme Court. He not only nominated Lewis F. Powell Jr. Powell acquist, he got them confirmed and over the oppression of Freed Harris, Birch Bayh, Ted Kennedy and others of their ilk—and in the process he greatly gladden conservative hearts. Not content, the President then vetoed the infamous child development bill, that ripped and rang with the American flag. So who shoots Santa Claus?
Copyright, 1972, Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
America's Pacemaking college newspaper
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and weekends. **B** @ a semester; $10 per class; **C** @ a class payment帖 paid at Lawyers' Inn; 66444. **D** @ all goods, services and employment advertised to all students without those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
NEWS STAFF
News Adviser . . . Del Brinkman
Editor
Associate Editor
Campus Editor
News Editors
Copy Chairs
Assistant Sports Editors
Sports Editors
Associate Sports Editors
Feature Editor
Wire Editors
Margie Editors
Reviewers
Office Managers
New News Manager, New Mailer, New Inkmaster
Chip Crews
Scott Spencer
Rilee Haughey
Erick Kramer, Jawan Seok
Joyce Nerman, Ron King
Sally Cannon, Bob Simpson
Bob Simpson
Barb Simpson
Barb Simpson
Barb Simpson
Tom Sanjay Pandey
Tom Sanjay Pandey
Joyce Dunbar, Nancy Jones
Dale Dunbar, Nancy Jones
Barbara Schmidt
Thomas Thrower
Greg Sorber, Tom Thatcher, Hank Young
Tonda Rush
Steve Saufuf
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Advisor Mal Adams
Business Manager
Assistant Marketing Manager
Advertising Manager
Advertising Manager
Advertising Manager
National Advertising Manager
National Advertising Manager
Promotional Advertising Manager
Promotional Advertising Manager
Career Managers
Carol Young
Ambassador Manager
Norman Meley
Jacob McGivney
Date Pilegrimage
Dave Murray
David Murray