OPINION
University Daily Kansan, May 2, 1985
Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kanman (USP$ 620.00) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer Flint Hall Lawn. Kanman 60445; daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer session excluding Saturday, Sunday赔钱 and final periods in a postage payd at Lawman. Kanman 60444 Subscription by mail are $1 for six months or $2 a year for postage pai
MATT DEGALAN
Editor
DIANE LUBER SUSAN WORTMAN Managing Editor Editorial Editor
ROB KARWATH Campus Editor
LYNNE STARK Business Manager
SUSANNE SHAW General Manager and News Adviser
DUNCAN CALHOUN MARY BERNICA
Retail Sales National Sales
Manager Manager
DAVID NIXON Campus Sales Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Sales and Marketing Adviser
Who will teach
Many students who will graduate in May never had a professor during their time of learning at the University of Kansas who didn't have white skin.
There are 80 blacks, Hispanics, Asians, South Pacific islanders and American Indians out of 1,102 full-time faculty members at KU. That sets the odds of having a non-white professor at about 14 to one.
White women - a minority only in an academic sense fare somewhat better, posting 6-1 odds of showing in the classroom.
But the fact remains, three out of every four professors at KU are white men. Naturally, there is nothing inherently wrong with white male professors. But diversity and balance are sadly lacking.
are ready learning. Racial equality is a concept that most students probably believe in passively, without ever having seen it in practice. Nearly nine out of every 10 KU students are white. It's far too easy to pass through the University without ever really knowing the other tenth.
Minority professors bring unique perspectives and experiences to the University. Although they are here to teach, their presence also works indirectly against racial and sexual discrimination.
Affirmative action statistics show that the percentage of minority faculty at KU has improved slowly over the past decade. Affirmative action officials say that the administration strives to recruit minority faculty but is hindered by a slow turnover among professors.
Hiring efforts also run into competition among universities for the limited pool of qualified women and minority applicants who survive varying degrees of tacit and blatant discrimination from the time they enroll in kindergarten.
The administration should be commended for working diligently to hire quality women and minority professors and speed up the progress. They should push even harder.
Students should be aware of the special opportunities offered by minority faculty - and fellow students - and take an active approach toward racial equality.
OK. so show us
Kansas Attorney General Robert Stephan, once thought to be the likely Republican gubernatorial candidate in 1986, is now facing what may be his Waterloo.
His troubles stem from a sexual harassment suit filed in 1982 against Stephan and two members of his staff. Although an out-of-court settlement was reached in March, the controversy surrounding Stephan has only intensified.
The controversy focuses primarily on the nature of the settlement and the size of the legal fees that state taxpayers are going to have to pay. To date, no one knows the nature or terms of the settlement, reportedly at the request of the former secretary. This just will not do.
First. The taxpayers have more than a passing interest in the matter: They have already paid out $15,000 in legal costs plus the salaries of at least four assistant attorneys general while they worked on the case for more than a year. Additional lawyers also spent a year working on the case, so they will have to be paid at some point.
Second. Kansans have the right to expect that Stephan is of sound moral character — after all, he is the top law enforcement officer in the state. His is not an appointed office like those found at the federal level — he is directly responsible to the voters for who he is and what he does while in office.
Stephan adamantly maintains his innocence. As our neighbors in Missouri would reply: Fine, show us. Let us see the terms of the settlement. The secretary who filed the suit recently said that she still likes Stephan and thinks he is a good man — fine, then show us that.
Last. As a party leader Stephan owes his fellow Republicans, and voters in general, a full disclosure of the details so that they can select the best individual to represent the party in next year's election.
As is always the case in situations like this, silence does nothing but feed the flames of rumor, gossip and lies. Hence, only his detractors' aims are advanced. Sooner or later, whether he likes it or not, Stephan will have to come forward and either clear his name or admit to his mistakes if he is to salvage his political career. Time is not on his side.
LETTERS POLICY
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten and double-spaced and should not exceed 300 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include his class and hometown, or faculty or staff position. The Kansan also invites interested groups to submit columns. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansan office, 111 Stauffer-Flunt Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
Protests ignore lessons from Vietnam
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Two events have impressed the importance of this fact on me. One of the events is the uproar on U.S. campuses over such topics as world peace. Nicaragua and apartheid in South Africa; the other event is the 10th anniversary of U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.
The fall of Saigon in 1975 is one of the early memories I have of news events. I especially remember seeing news footage of Vietnamese people trying to leave their own country as U.S. forces evacuated.
I remember wondering what would happen to the people who had been taken hostage.
U. S. conduct in Vietnam was disgusting in many regards. However, after the U.S. withdrawal, the conduct of the Viet Cong proved to be even worse. Thus, those Vietnamese people who were trying to leave their native country in 1975 probably wound up in 're-education camps'
Anti-war protesters had the view that the United States was wrong in Vietnam and the Viet Cong was right. Two slogans used by the protesters reveal their outlook: "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids you kill today?" and "Ho, Ho, Ho Minh!"
de facto concentration camps — or in boats. Incredible as it might seem, the United States does not have
and death on the high seas preferable to their likely fate at home.
I have an idea of the fate of those Vietnamese people I saw on television 10 years ago. However, I wonder where all those protestors of the Vietnam era are today. They spoke out when the United States devastated Vietnam — though we
VINCE HESS Staff Columnist
people in South Africa know something that U.S. protesters who are so fervidly speaking for those people do not understand how the organizers have considered that possibility.
should keep in mind that Vietnamese people took refuge in boats only after the Viet Cong takeover. However, those protesters, who spoke so closely to our side, are people who have not staged widespread demonstrations for the boat people.
Nowadays the glamour subject for protesters is South Africa and its apartheid system. I oppose racial discrimination as much as anyone else; however, I also support freedom of self-determination. Black workers in South Africa have been forced to undergo a violent investment; evidently they consider the presence of U.S. companies a good thing. Maybe the oppressed
I also wonder how many of the anti-apartheid protesters also have participated in peace marches or in pro-Sandinista demonstrations. One of the themes of the peace marches has been that President Reagan is a warmonger, whereas the Soviet leadership wants peace despite U.S. intransigence. Indeed, according to the peace marshers, Soviet leadership has changed from the old days of repression and gulags.
As for the Sandinistas, the facts about their regime of repression and terror are readily available. Some protesters might point out, however, that the Sandinistas are not all that much worse than former Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza.
Unfortunately for this view, the new Kremlin boss, Mikhail Gorbachev, gained promotion after having been a top agriculture official. Did Gorbachev become top dog because of his successes in promoting good harvests — or because of his adherence to Marxist-Leninist ideology? The Soviets are still complaining about bad harvests.
That might be so, regardless, we should consider the principle suggested by former Sen. J. William
Fulbright, D-Airk. Fulbright said that the United States should not interfere in the internal policies of another nation, no matter how reprehensible those policies might be. However, the United States should act when other nation seeks to export its reprehensible policies.
The Sandinistas have made no secret of their desire for revolution in the Soviet Cuban style to occur throughout Central America. The Viet Cong had similar ambitions for Southeast Asia. When the United States abandoned the area, the fighting grew worse — and the odyssey of the boat people began.
Evidently the protester crowd has not recognized some of the events that have occurred in the past decade. The United States is not perfect, but neither is it the Great Depression. I am sorry to Ayatollah Khomeini, an internationally recognized authority on repressive government.
The protester crowd likes to shout about its moral superiority and about "power to the people." The protester crowd has yet to recognize that its moral superiority is a farce and that U.S. withdrawal into an isolationist stance will not result in power to the people. The 40th anniversary of V.E Day on May 8 should remind us of that.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Naive protesters
To the editor:
I have been observing the recent campus protests against South Africa with a mixture of emotions ranging from cynicism to sadness and anger; cynicism at the naive and hypocritical ways in which people react toward a country 8,000 miles away that they have never visited and can never hope to understand a problem that has plagued U.S. schools, hospitals and sadness and anger because a beautiful country is slowly being destroyed, and I am only too aware of the misery and suffering that faces the people of South Africa, white and black, in the years to come.
Only an insane person can argue in support of apartheid. But the problems surrounding South Africa are far more complex than simple separation of races. Perhaps the only legitimate argument I can offer in defense of South Africa is that not one person should be able enough to point a finger at South Africa and say, "Look at us. This is how it should be done."
Even the United States, with its emphasis on human rights, does not have the exclusive privilege of imposing its views on other countries. Racial inequality is a very recent part of U.S. history, and the extermination of the American Indian ranks as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of man.
There is not one country in Africa that has a true democracy with equal rights for all its people. Most black Africans — except in South Africa — are starving, and white imperialism has been replaced by ruthless tribal warfare. The fact remains that black South Africans have the highest standard of living and health care in Africa.
Please don't mistake this letter as being in support of the South African policy of aparthief. As a white ex-South African, now a U.S. citizen, I have a far greater hatred and contempt for the system that forced me to give up my native country than any of the protesters. But I have plenty of content left for the people who are now "fashionably" outraged against a country that is not an enemy.
Your short sighted viewpoint is not the answer for South Africa. One oppressive dictatorship will only be replaced by another far worse one. You need only to look as far as far as Vietnam today to realize that.
When the last white person has finally been killed or driven out of South Africa as the world demands, will you still be lying down in Strong Hall to protest the hell that inevitably befall the blacks who are left behind?
The demonstrators who feel no debt to the past can easily reject this argument, but the world has yet to accept the United States and its people as the final judge of morality. In any event, it is unfair and misleading to judge a small African country solely by the high-minded, self-righteous ideals of the United States.
Richard MacDonald Leawood senior
Chalk up another
A small article, shoved in the back to page A 4 in the April 24 edition of the Kansas City Star, quietly announced another victory for President Ronald Reagan and another
To the editor:
defeat for young America It named to head the Labor Department
Considering this information along with all the other things Reagan would like to do, how many of you would like to recant?
Brock made it clear that he would support Reagan's labor policies, including Reagan's call for the elimination of Job Corps and a $2.50 an hour minimum wage for workers 16-19 years old.
Reagan's wishes to cut student aid for college, eliminate the Department of Education and Job Corps, which helps many youths find jobs, and create a lower minimum wage make evident Reagan's indifference toward the nation's youth, especially the underprivileged children. Reagan's president's attitude toward the group of voting-age citizens who recorded the highest percentage of votes for him in last year's elections.
Reality presses
While we live daily with the knowledge that this is not the best of all possible worlds, the reality of our situation sometimes comes into focus with special clarity. Last Thursday was one of those times.
Making an unscheduled and unusual public appearance at the spring meeting of the University Senate, Cancellor Gene A. Budig read a letter, subsequently published in the Kansan and distributed to the faculty, in which he disassociated himself from the resolution on South African divestment recently passed by the University Council.
To the editor
Because the chancellor presumably from time to time disagree with actions of the council and yet does not find disavowal of them necessary on those occasions, there is no reason for him to make any particular case. In my view, it is not far to seek. pressure exerted by the KU Enrollment Association.
I am reminded of a cartoon that once appeared in these pages and outlined the KU administrative hierarchy at the top was the Jayhawk Investment Company. It will be rerenew with KUEA at the top.
The degree of pressure exerted on the chancellor perhaps may be gauged from the relative amount of space given in his letter to the council and to KUEA. Members of the Executive Committee of KUEA were praised as "honorable human beings"; students and faculty who favor divestment received no such ludicrous enthusts.
It has been an instructive time from which we all should learn No one doubts that KU derives great benefits from the Endowment Association — it is too bad they must come at such a cost.
Elizabeth C. Banks
associate professor of classics
Political purpose
To the editor:
It's great that the chancellor has dispelled any confusion that might have existed concerning his position on divestment. Clearly, his support for divestment would constitute using his position for political positions, while his opposition to divestment does not. Thanks, Chancellor Budg. Now I understand perfectly.
Richard M. Kershenbaum systems supervisor, academic computing service