Page 2
University Daily Kansar
Friday. Nov. 9, 1962
KU's Changing Skyline
The day-by day construction at a growing university often escapes the attention of students. Only when the construction is viewed over a period of years does the full extent of the expansion become apparent.
Many alumni who will be on the Hill this weekend for Homecoming will be surprised at KU's tremendous expansion in recent years. The extent of their surprise perhaps can be imagined by today's KU students if they attempt to visualize the campus as late as 1952.
- Malott Hall was under construction, and dirt had just been broken in preparation for construction of Allen Field House.
- Construction was underway on the "new" portion of the Kansas Union (the northern third of the present building).
- Murphy Hall, the engineering building now under construction, and the nuclear reactor center did not exist.
- Lewis, Templin, Hashinger, Joseph R. Pearson, Carruth-O'Leary, and Gertrude Sellards Pearson dormitories did not exist. Instead of the modern Stouffer Place apartments, married students lived in converted World War II barracks along the southern edge of the campus.
It is obvious that KU has undergone vast changes in the last ten years. Ten years ago, travelers approaching KU watched for the twin towers of Fraser Hall. Today, the KU "skyline" is dominated by the eight and ten-story dormitories along Iowa Street.
Ten years ago, the western boundary of the developed portion of the campus was at Marvin Hall. Today, the western boundary has been extended nearly half a mile west, and a completely new "front door" to KU has been created southwest of the original campus.
THESE PHYSICAL changes are tangible proof KU is an expanding institution. But they are only a portion of the story—and not the most important portion.
Any university which can get money from
alumni, friends, and state legislatures can put up impressive new buildings. The test of a university's growth, however, is in what goes on in those buildings and the effect a university has on the students.
Alumni, if they are observant, may sense that the students also have changed. Many of the traditions which KU students looked forward to in the past no longer cause as much excitement.
A number of students have turned their attention to world problems as these problems affect students. Organizations such as the Student Peace Union, Young Americans for Freedom, and Civil Rights Council have risen to vie with campus politics for news space.
THE UNIVERSITY itself has moved to improve academically. It has become more involved in international education through such programs as the Summer Language Institute and the Costa Rica exchange program. It was one of the first universities to encourage superior students from their freshman year, through the honors program. KU continues to grab a big share of research grants.
KU will continue to expand physically. The long-range plan announced last year calls for new buildings, replacements to present inadequate and obsolete buildings, and additions to existing buildings. New dormitories also are planned.
The University also must continue to grow academically. It is not enough to remain at the present level or even to grow at the same rate as in the past. If KU is a leading state-supported University as the publicity brochures claim, it will remain so only if it pays even more attention to the educational processes than in the past.
KU's alumni, for the most part, realize that physical growth is not enough. KU's students are depending on the alumni to lend continued encouragement to the academic growth of the University as well as to the physical growth.
—Clavton Keller
... Letters ...
Kansan Review Criticized Editor:
the review of "Paint Your Wagon" by Rose Ellen Osborne in Monday's Kansan was such a grossly distorted evaluation of the excellent performance, greatly enjoyed by an audience which included many sophisticated theatre-goers, and the review was so offensive to the talented and deserving cast and producers that I request you to print for Kansan readers the enclosed review by a mature and qualified critic.
(Editor's note: The writer enclosed a review from the Lawrence Journal-World, written by John Pozdro, associate professor of organ and theory. The Daily Kansan does not reprint reviews from other newspapers, but readers who are interested will find it in the Journal-World of Nov. 5.)
It is a pity indeed that deserving talent must suffer from bad reviews in the Daily Kansan written by incompetent critics.
I also request that you publish this letter.
Joseph F. Wilkins Professor of Voice
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
*SOMETIMES PROF SNARFS EXAMINATIONS ARE WORDED IN SUCH AWAY AS TO SHOCK A STUDENTS ENTIRE NERVOUS SYSTEM.
Agrees With Ruhe Editor:
He has taken a stand which will be heartily supported by a large portion of the student body. It has been most discouraging to be forced to pay activity fees which support activities in which I am not interested. And, at those activities which do interest me, I must either pay to be admitted or be shown to second class seating, when I am admitted at all.
In the Nov. 7 issue of the Daily Kansan, Dr. Ruhe clearly and concisely presented the case against the present operation of the University Theatre (and, incidentally, other University activities and facilities.)
May other articulate people please follow Dr. Ruhe's lead until some constructive action is taken to end the present policies.
My nomination for the funniest story(s) of the year;
Editor:
These tummy-ticklers on contemporary morality should go over best in "Cuber" and Berlin, respectively.
Tummy-Ticklers
John D. Featherstone
Lawrence senior
* * *
From United Press International: "President Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev were reported to have been high on the list of possible Nobel (peace!) Prize winners."
Robert Bosseau Pittsburgh senior
It Looks This Way
Short Ones
It seems that when the nation goes Democratic, Kansas goes Republican. When the nation goes Republican, Kansas goes Republican.—Arthur C. Miller
It will ever remain incomprehensive that our generation, so great in its achievements of discovery, could be so low spiritually as to give up thinking.—Schweitzer
Future Problems Seen In U.S. Policy on China
With surprising ease, the United States and Nationalist China have won their annual battle to keep Communist China out of the United Nations.
The General Assembly soundly defeated a Soviet resolution calling for the expulsion of Nationalist China and the seating of Communist China.
The margin of this year's vote indicates the issue may have died, from a practical standpoint, and that the only thing which could resurrect it would be a significant change in the status quo—such as China's apparently imminent emergence as a nuclear power.
FORTY-TWO nations voted in favor of the resolution, 56 voted against it, and 12 abstained. (Passage required a two-thirds majority.)
But the vote probably will do little to diminish the amount of emotionalism and debate in this country on the question of U.S. policy toward the two Chinas.
THE ARGUMENT against diplomatic recognition of Red China and its admission to the U.N. was well stated by the late John Foster Dulles when he was Secretary of State:
"Internationally the Chinese Communist regime does not conform to the practices of civilized nations; does not live up to its international obligations; has not been peaceful in the past and gives no evidence of being peaceful in the future. Its foreign policies are hostile to us and our Asian allies. Under these circumstances it would be folly for us to establish relations with the Chinese Communists which would enhance their ability to hurt us and our friends."
Congress, convinced that the majority of the American people agrees with the viewpoint of Dulles, periodically warns the administration against any change of U.S. policy on China.
THE MOST RECENT warning was a unanimous vote in both the House and the Senate in favor of a resolution opposing recognition of China or its admission to the U.N.
But there are some Americans who argue that in its China policy the U.S. has assumed the stance of an ostrich whose head is imbedded in the sand.
Their case, with which the British government is in basic agreement. is this:
FURTHER, THE ARGUMENT goes, our policy is denying us the opportunity to place diplomatic representatives in China. The United Nations cannot deal realistically with such crucial issues as nuclear
Mao Tse-tung and his government are in firm control of the China mainland and its population of nearly 700 million Chinese. Mao is likely to remain in control. Diplomatic recognition of the government would not imply moral approval. Such recognition is in our own interests, since there can be no effective settlement in Asia without China's participation.
testing and disarmament without the participation of representatives of mainland China.
Finally, Communist China moves closer each year to the time when it will have nuclear weapons, making it clear that no East-West nuclear pact will be worth the paper it is written on unless Mao is included.
A wide range of proposals have been made for bringing Communist China into the U.N. Among several impractical proposals is one which calls for membership of both Chinas in the General Assembly with neither on the Security Council.
THIS WILL NOT work for one reason: Under the U.N. Charter, all members of the Security Council—including Nationalist China—must agree on changes in the composition of the council.
Another proposal would give Feking the Chinese seat and turn Formosa over to the Formosans. The island then would be admitted as a new member state. This plan seems appealing, but it has never had significant support in the Assembly.
This leaves only two feasible alternatives: two Chinas in the U.N., with the big one on the Security Council, or one China—Communist China.
A FACULTY MEMBER of San Francisco State College, who recently spent a year's leave of absence studying the China question through intensive interviews with 96 U.N. delegations, concluded that the U.S. "will find it less embarrassing and the world will find it less dangerous" if the U.N. chooses the plan which would put two Chinas in the Assembly, with Communist China on the Security Council.
Both Chinas would thereby be seated without formal action by the Security Council to admit the second one. To do this would not violate any existing rule of procedure, and the lack of an exact precedent for such a move is not a significant barrier.
The most likely method for achieving the "two-Chinas" plan is the newly developed doctrine of successor states. Using this approach, the Assembly would simply declare its willingness to admit both Chinas as two successor states to the original Republic of China.
The difficulties that are bound to arise from keeping this huge country out of the community of nations undoubtedly will grow more perplexing. And it seems very likely, in fact, that the China policy this country is pursuing today will create many of the problems with which the U.S. will be grappling tomorrow.
LACK OF STRONG American leadership, however, is probably an insurmountable obstacle to the adoption of such a plan. It is clear that for a variety of reasons—most of them basically unsound—the U.S. will continue to oppose the admission of the Chinese government to the U.N.
—Fred Zimmerman
Dailyjransan
University of Kaasas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone Viking 3-2700
Telephone VIking 3-2700
Television 711
Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York 22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Scott Payne ... Managing Editor
Richard Bonett, Dennis Farney, Zeke Wigglesworth, and Bill Mullins, Assistant Managing Editors; Mike Miller, City Editor; Ben Marshall, Sports Editor; Margaret Catcart, Society Editor.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Clayton Keller and Bill Sheldon
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Co-Editorial Editors
Charles Martinache Business Manager
Jack Cannon, Advertising Manager; Doug Farmer, Circulation Manager;
Gene Spalding, National Advertising Manager; Bill Woodburn, Classi-
fied Advertising Manager; Dan Meek, Promotion Manager