4
Thursday, February 3. 1972
University Daily Kansan
Garry Wills
KANSAN comment
Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
Docking's Office Writes
Mr. Mike Moffet Associate Editor
Dear Mr. Moffet:
As a former student newspaper writer, appreciate the present and the future. Be responsible responsibility you have to fill 12 inches of space on the editorial page.
But these pressures and demands are no excuse for blatantaccuracies.
You have a right to provide your readers with fair comment and criticism; but you also have the power to comment and criticism on facts. To do otherwise only perpetuate the mistrust and disgust many newspaper readers, television stars and listeners have of the media today.
Your editorial of January 19,
"Two Per Cent Concern," is in
response to the fact that you
offers your readers a disservie.
To be more specific, I call your
attention to these errors which
result in an inaccurate
result.
1. You state: "Although Dana does not have his number one priority in the state is education, he has never on any occasion demonstrated a capacity for that."
Consistently, since Governor
Docking took office in 1967,
education has been the number
one priority of the Docking
administration. And this
statement is supported by
statistics.
Each year, the largest portion of his recommended budget has been allocated to education, research and libraries. More than 60 percent of his revenue fund (which the individual taxpayer contributes to through sales and income taxes) expenditures in the category are allocated to this category. More than 40 per cent of all funds is allocated to education, research and libraries—with the next largest appropriation being over half a cent of the overall buildup.
The Governor's recommendations included $75.1 million from the state general fund. The increase of 60.1 per cent over the
amount spent in fiscal year 1967 before he assumed office.
The average increase during the years of the Docking Administration has been more than eight per cent.
The Governor's recommendations for fiscal year 1973 totaled approximately $103 million from all general use sources because of the 63.1 percent the amount of money spent in fiscal year 1967.
The commitments made by the Docking administration to higher education have led to an increase in the knowledge that while state appropriated (general use) funds grew 63 per cent in the five year period, the university enrollments grew only 20 per cent. These figures can be viewed in the state budget division of Kansas.
To support the University of Kansas, Governor Docking recommended a budget that provided an overall increase in the amount over the amount Governor Docking recommended for fiscal year 1972; and for fiscal year 1972 included a supplemental budget $807,508 over the amount provided by the legislature last year.
2. "Over two and a half million dollars is recommended for salary increases to be awarded on a merit basis at an average of $15,000 per year; staff at the state colleges and universities. However, such raises are not to be awarded to faculty members who primarily do research and those that work for the extension services." 4. "our editorial proclamation that we pay cent increase for faculty members in research and extension."
To say Governor Docking has not maintained education as a top priority is to ignore the facts.
I am not sure where you could have received this kind of inaccurate information, but I remember the day when Journal-World, whose reporter bothered to check his statistics. Ralph Gage's article in the Journal-World of January 18 addressed budget for extension and research.
Governor Docking recom
mended a 4.4 per cent blanket increase for research and extension. The Governor did not dictate how the funds should be used but much of the increase should be used for research or how much of the increase should be used to faculty salary increases. The purpose of this study is to discern the discretion of the individual schools to determine the faculty salary increases in extension and research and the amount of funding needed for each school. Therefore, it is conceivable that the 4.4 per cent blanket increase could be adjusted to provide more than a per cent faculty salary increase within extension and research.
The Governor did not reschedule an increase for those doing research or working in extension divisions, as your editorial erroneously states.
Regarding the recommended five per cent increase for salaries, you pointed out the president Nixon's economic program.
If so my statistics are correct, as they are, and yours are wrong, as they are, it would appear to me that your conclusion that higher education is concern for higher education "simply does not exist" is faulty.
I would be willing to present these statistics to the public and let them judge Governor Clinton concern for higher education.
Your mistakes are an example of what can happen when a conclusion is based upon error.
conclusion is based upon error. I am sure you expect better reporting and editorializing in the newspaper, but you deserve your readers expect and rightly deserve better than what you see in your January 19th editorial.
I realize the state budget and state finances are extremely understated. I understand. If at any time you have questions concerning the Docking administration or state health department, do not hesitate to contact me.
—James C. Shaffer Press Secretary to Governor Docking
Looking at the Letter
I would like to point out a few more of those complexities.
As Mr. Shaffer notes, 'state budgets and difficult to understand' and complex and difficult to understand.
Said the governor: "I recommend $117,230 for the Geological Survey and $76,183 for the general research program contained in the budget of the University of Colorado at Denver. I will restore the state support for these programs to the level I previously recommended."
Shaffer states that Governor Docking recommended a "4.4 per cent blanket increase for research and extension." This statement is in one regard misleading and in the governor's own statements printed in the "Governor's Budget Report for 1973."
What this means then is this: In 1971 the governor recommended increases in the funding of research of one per cent over the same period; and in 1980 a recommendation and in fact decreased the appropriation. So in 1972 the governor comes back and asks for the same thing he asked for last year, which now means a 4.4 per cent decrease, because of the legislature's trimming.
Technically, then, Shafter is correct. There will be a four per cent increase over existing appropriations. But as the governor himself said, he is only restating the recommendation he made last year, which amounted to one per cent over the previous year.
On the issue of the extension services, Shaffer's statement is simply false. Quoting again for the governor's report: "restorations are recommended for the law enforcement Training Center and Firemanship Training programs at the University of Kansas. In the event of an emergency, the current year level of support is recommended to be maintained..."
The money to be appropriated to the Law
Enforcement Training Center and the Firemiship Training Center will provide salary increases for a total of three persons whose jobs are funded out of general use funds. The training will be employed in the extension division of the University. Exclusive then of increases in salaries for those three people and increases in operating expenses for those two divisions of the extension service, funding for extension jobs will remain exactly the same as last year.
In the first place, percentages matched against percentages mean little or nothing. For instance, we don't know what sort of cost increases a four per cent increase in enrollment nets. But it is easy to see that if we allow that five per cent of that increase of per cent per year was gobbled up by inflation (the estimate), we have cut the increase to three per cent, which we then must match to a four per cent increase in enrollment.
Elsewhere in the letter, Shaffer quotes some more statistics as evidence of the governor's concern for higher education. He cites an eight per cent per year increase in educational budgeting during the Docking period, and states that over that same period of time per cent has increased 20 per cent, or four per cent per year.
So as you can see, Shaffer was quite right when he said budgets are very complicated matters. I think he was also right when he said the public will be able to judge the governor's concern for higher education when they read his letter.
And of course these figures are only matched to enrollment increases. They disregard such things as new programs, new books, new lab equipment, etc. etc.
Mike Moffet Associate Editor
My Lai Secrecy Revealed
Seymour Hersh is the man who brought My Lai to the light, despite massive Army efforts to keep the assaultive mound. Now he is performing those defensive Army efforts to bring those defensive Army efforts to light in two long New York articles.
He has done this by acquiring and studying the transcripts (32 whole books) of evidence given secretly at the Army investigated its own
This effort is the more valuable one because it shows how routine was the pattern that produced and excused the My Lai slaughter. Indeed, the killing was occasioned by that routine. Once the attackers found the fight for nothing else, they laboured to produce an impression of fighting for its own sake. This means, at the outset, quantifiable things destroyed, bodies to be counted. Then—when statistics show an embarrassingly high number of people killed and low number of weapons recovered—it means not only that some of the grenades in butkers, but going into villages and bunkers. Provided, of course, this is too difficult.
The primary aim of the raid on Son
My village was to clear out the settlement called My Lai. But when our men's approach triggered two booby traps, they told their captain they were going to take the boat to Lai that day. The Colonel was called and agreed that they should go find something less distasteful to do with themselves. Other members of Bravo (machee name) were already finding the macchee district so civilians could to risk fighting soldiers.
This happened not only at My Lai 4 where 347 were killed, according to The Peers Inquiry (more than twice the number of those killed) at the nearby settlement called My Kho.
It was said, after the Kent State shooting of twelve unarmed people, that this was our domestic My Lai. Instead, it seems that MY Khe was our foreign Kent State. The place held about a hundred old men, women, and children who slept in the "Inkville" settlement shipped out to dawn. Brawa's brawn sweaked up on the place, spied on its villagers, set up machine guns.
Herish describes what happened next: "One of the gun crews began to spray bullets into my Kine 4, shooting at the people and their homes. A few GI's later told the Peers commission that a hand grenade had been thrown at them by one of the same smoer shots had been fired. But his shot, and none of the GI's said they had ever actually seen the grenade explosion; they had only 'heard about it.'"
Does that remind you of the elusive "sniper" at Kent State—the hidden man whose gun justified shooting indiscriminately at people in the open, the man high up who was answered by killing students on the ground?
The raid was not a big deal, as Leattenant Calia realized. Going into the villages had produced more equipment, but no captured weapons. (The men did not carry weapons,) so, contrary to frequent practice, it was necessary to mirereport the body count by miresystem. This was done systematically, which, while not checking reports were observed. The first mirereport was further doctored; and even its basis had been tampered with. Later investigation would rely on these, just self-justifying documents, even while witnesses revealed their inadequacy.
The Army would, in effect, excuse the criminals on the basis of the criminal's own evidence. The cover-up began at the site, and continued through the line of papers upward through "channels" of newspapers quite literally, that when helicopters were dispatched to fly low, checking reports of indiscriminate killing, "Leutcnant Thomas Willingham, the leader of the company's first platoon, with his men to cover the slaughtered civilians at My Kee with straw."
Copyright, 1972 Universal Press Syndicate
James J. Kilpatrick
Columnist Attacks Kunstler
PITTSBURGH—We touch gloves. It is expected of antagonists before they come out fighting, a teaspoon of harmony to cool approaching discord. For some talk on small talk, not speaking of Buckley, not mentioning Judge Hoffman, keeping a
careful distance; and so the debate begins.
This is our third match. We met at Vanderbilt, two or three years ago; we tangled later on at Oklahoma. Now it is Pittsburgh, but we can still do the auditorium in this corner William Kunstler, lawyer,
defender of the poor, counsel to
the Movement; and on your right,
the Southern journalist;
over service and self-esteem.
Whig: me.
Resolved, that decisions of the Warren Court have tended to protect criminals at the expense
"Faith! An' have you no decency, lad? Tie them like this before the killin' ... for 'tis a Holy War we're fightin'"
Bv Sokoloff
Griff and the Unicorn
of law-abiding citizens and of society in general."
The affirmative goes first in the sawdust affairs, and the rule is to paw twice at the question before seeking a hold. Thus a small tribute to Kunstler is to make a lawyer. The adjective is "communal" Kunstler knows it. Then a suggestion that lawyer and newspaperman, disagree though they may on particular opinions, share a respect for the law itself. They must attack it. To tackling Miranda v. Arizona, "I love the law." Twenty minutes later it is Kunstler's turn.
"I hate the law," he begins, and he tracks his leonine head around the balconies, cold-eyed, a twin battery of five-inch guns. He drops the words as heavily as shells: "I hate the law."
"Copyright 1972, David Sokoloff."
Kunstler leaves the question hanging. He recalls what Fidel Castro once said in a great speech: "I thought the law could be used in order to change the system. I found it could not be so used in Cuba, and therefore I would have met Mr. Castro." He pauses; the implications echo. Then he goes on to attack the Court under Warren, and even more coldly, the Court under the Nixon nominees.
"I know the law," says Kunstler. "It is used to oppress those who threaten the ruling class. The judicial decree has replaced the assassin. 1. Remain in state with the law, only because the law is maneuverable. 2. it can be manipulated. But in the future?"
The debate, as it turned out, collapsed in misjudder. In Kunster's view, the Warren Court "did nothing for individual rights," and he have built, in any event, was now be dismantled by the Court under Burger. Those "two new constitutional subservatives" Powell and Rehquist, would complete the job. The Miranda Act made him a prohibited against self-crimination had been further
The monstrous falacy of the Movement's twisted reasoning ought to be exposed. In the name of ending oppression, the Name Left would us use change from a society based on law—to what? To a society of now law? Or to a society of later law? Or to a law itself should be designed, why should we then love the law of Mr. Justice Kunster? Yet a society of now law is no society; it is no society, in general, ruled by bristish bruises.
To love the rule of law is not to minimize its imperfections. These abound. But to suppose the law is imperfect, the social order is to suppose the impossible. We debate this night, he I, and I because there is law that frees, law that restrains. To hate the law is to hate the government. One of the poisoned spring of such hatred, only vtrany can flow.
abridged, the protections of habeas corpus were being destroyed. Kunster's attack was comprehensive, bitter, and hurt.
The particular cases and opinions to one side, it was Kunster's acid view of the law itself that set in motion an uneasy train of thought: "I despise the law; I loathe the law." To judge from a recent article in the Boston Post, it is seen widely shared by Movement lawyers. Their bitterness seeks below the bedrock, beyond the individual judge or the publicized刑
"The System must be changed." That is their first premise. "The System cannot be changed successfully by law." This is because the system goes the syllogistic conclusion, the System must be changed by other than lawful means. Kunstler does not advocate bloody revolution, as such; he offers no alternative either.
Copyright 1972 Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
America's Pacemaking college newspaper
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newsroom--UN 4-4810
Business Office----UN 4-4358
Published and at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscriptees to KU6044, KU6044-1, KU6044-2, KU6044-3, KU6044-4, Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily intended as an endorsement of the university.
NEWS STAFF
News Adviser . . . Del Brinkman
Editor      New York Times    Date: 10/29/14
Chip Cows
Hannah Moore
Scott Spearmer
Campus Editor
News Editor
Joey Kraner
Jewel Scott
Eric Kraner, Jewel Scott
Joyce Kraner, Mon Kling
Sally Carton, Joyce Kraner
Bob Simpson
Harper Jeffrey
Assistant Sports Editor
Feature Editor
Bartar Sporkit
Editorial Writer
William Ramsay
Nancy Ramsay
Joyce Dunbar
Dick Ray, John Goodkirk
Hervé Rentier
Photographers
Ed Lallo, Rit Netter,
Greg Sorber, Tom Thirso
Tong Tushai
Office Manager
Tong Tushai
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Adviser . . Mel Adams
Business Manager
Associate Business Manager
Advertising Manager
International Advertising Manager
National Advertising Manager
Global Advertising Manager
Promotional Advertising Manager
Promotional Advertising Manager
Dave Murray
Domain Manager