Page 2
University Daily Kansan
Friday, Oct. 19, 1962
The Middle Man
Nearly lost in the Lodge-Kennedy fuss in the Massachusetts senatorial battle is the professional representative of modern intellectualism with an equally historic name. This man is the independent candidate H. Stuart Hughes, Harvard faculty member.
Candidate Hughes is running on a program which sympathizes with many peace movements and goes the complete route in believing that the United Nations remains the principal weapon against world strife.
HE HAS CHARGED into the campaign with no personal hopes of even challenging either of his opponents in total ballots. The main interest of Prof. Hughes is an intellectual scuffle which will broaden the minds of the cultural-minded Bay Staters. The issues which are being aired by Prof. Hughes are not those which are normally considered in such a campaign. They are instead ones which a growing and aggressive segment of the electorate wishes to have debated.
The empirical position that the United States is not the most powerful nation in the world is being forwarded by Prof. Hughes. He feels that the Soviet Union has surpassed this nation in the last five years and that the path which must be followed is one of regression. The contention here is that the U.S. should narrow its scope of interest and concede many of the world trouble spots to the Russians.
ANOTHER AREA in which Prof. Hughes presents an unusual but, again, widely spreading part of society is that of religion. He admits and
strongly supports his being an agnostic. He states that there are millions of agnostics across the nation and that some of the pseudo-fronts pictured by many political candidates to offer a favorable public image are false and unfaithful to the voters.
Although Prof. Hughes is representing many causes which might not be considered universally accepted to elect him to Washington's most exclusive club, the people who are aiding him in his campaign are almost totally drawn from the intellectual collegiates. A door-pounding brigade of bearded and enthusiastic helpers beat the bushes in all corners of the state last summer to accumulate more than the required quota of registered voters signing nomination papers which would allow the Hughes candidacy in the general election.
IT IS THIS SPROUTING GROUP of society which has raised the banner for Hughes as its Moses to lead it from its coffee house habitation.
The scholarly professor not only looks the part of the rising young intellectual but has the necessary background (being the grandson of the late Chief Justice Charles Evan Hughes), represents one of the most controversial educational centers, has married a native French woman, and is opposing two men who might be considered to be campaigning on issues which are without those actually considered in a political tussle of such impact by appealing more to emotions than practicality.
Bill Sheldon
Murphy Criticized Editor:
...Letters ...
I am hardly writing this letter because Terry Murphy's editorial "Greeks Allow CRC?" , has "excited" me. Because Mr. Murphy's argument is as old as the discriminatory clause issue itself, and because its weakness has been pointed out as often as the argument has been considered, I have debated whether or not to take time to restate the weakness. However, as chairman of the CRC, I am compelled to once more present the fallacy lest any person less familiar with the issue be misled by Mr. Murphy's logic.
IN CRITICIZING an article such as "Greeks Allow CRC", one is tempted to shred the writing paragraph by paragraph; but realizing his criticism will generally be more effective if one larger attack is made, the critic must decipher the major contention and be satisfied to strike at it.
Mr. Murphy contends that the
University has no right to require the removal of discriminatory clauses from fraternity constitutions because fraternities are not financially dependent on the state or the college and because they have built their houses with private funds. However, the University has already clearly decided that fraternities do lie within its jurisdiction and it has placed regulations on them. The University has prohibited the consumption or possession of alcoholic beverages on the premise of any fraternity house. If it has the right to do this, it has the right to require the removal of discriminatory clauses.
The misunderstanding of an issue is seldom so well brought out as by a bad analogy. An analogy from Mr. Murphy's article supports this content. Mr. Murphy has suggested that the Chancellor might with equal authority prohibit students from belonging to a certain church if that church should decide to discriminate against members of minority
groups. But wherein lies the similarity of a church and a fraternity? Do churches now yield to University prohibition regulations? Does the University set a time limit on church co-educational gatherings? And what is required of the church as substitute for a housemother?
SEVERAL ALTERNATIVES now confront Mr. Murphy. The first alternative is to show an inherent difference in the proposed ruling on discriminatory clauses and the present ruling on the use of alcoholic beverages in fraternities. I do not believe he can do this. Secondly, he may drop his argument that the University has no right to rule against discriminatory clauses. I do not believe he will do this. Thirdly, he may use his article "Greeks Allow CRC?" as the first in a sequel of editorials lambasting University rulings on such things as the use of alcoholic beverages, closing hours, or party time limits.
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
" HERE IT IS ALMOST THE END OF THE TERM AND YOU HAVEN'T BEEN TARDY OR OBSEN— YOU HAVE DONE THE ASSIGNED HOME-WORK AND YOUR PAPERS HAVE BEEN HAI 3D IN ON TIME! — TELL ME, HAS THE DRAFT BOARD BEEN BUGGIN' YOU ABOUT GRAPES AGAIN ?"
If Mr. Murphy decides in favor of such a sequel, we will still disagree; but I will concede that he is at least serious in the stand he has taken. But until I see the second article in his sequel, I shall continue to suspect that Mr. Murphy himself is more concerned about making a little noise than defending some ideals.
Don Warner Topeka senior
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became bweekley 1904,
triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone VIking 3-2700
Extension 711, news room
Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 Street, New York, United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University park expections, holidays and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Scott Patterson, Managing Editor
Richard Bonnet, Dennis Finke, Zeke
Wigglesworth, and Bill Mullins, Assistant Managing Editors; Mike Miller, City Editor; Steve Clark, Spor Editor; Margaret Burridge, Socr Editor.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Clayton Keller and Co-Editorial Editors
Bill Sheldon
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Charity Manager
Jack Cannon, Advertising Manager;
Doug Farmer, Circulation Manager;
Gene Spalding, National Advertising Manager;
Foodbank, City Advertising Manager; Dan Mills, Promotion Manager.
"Sorry, we don't accept KU credit cards."
COMMENT
The Lansing Question
Sometime last spring, Mary Eileen Chandler perpetrated what might be called an unusual action—she got pregnant while serving a prison term at the State Women's Farm in Lansing.
As a result of this somewhat formidable feat, Mrs. Chandler has become the object of a big political stink in Kansas.
DALE SAFFELS, the Democratic candidate in this year's Kansas gubernatorial race, assumed—with remarkable insight—that there is hanky-panky going on in the state's penal institutions.
Saffels (obviously restraining himself) made this statement:
Sarfeis (obviously restraining himself) made this statement: "This is one of the rankest examples of corrupt administration I have ever witnessed."
The political ramifications of the Chandler stink are up to the Republicans and Saffels to fight out—but if we can believe the charges and counter charges which have been in print, the prisons in this state are dens of iniquity.
CHARLES McATEE, the state parole attorney, reminded Saffels that a Democrat was the state penal director last spring.
The cats up at Lansing, for example, were sent there to be "penalized" for various and sundry crimes they have committed against man and society. In view of the subject under discussion, some of them seem to be going through a new type of "punishment."
IF THE NEWS stories continue, there might be a rush to get into prison Kansas prisons will become overcrowded from the onrush of souls who want to be "penalized" in a place like Lansing.
A term in a Kansas prison would become a status symbol. How could you knock it? Free food, free shelter and clothing, a sense of security, lots of time to study, and the other things which go to make up a good life. It would be too penal to be true.
These stories might make some people think we should stop sending murderers, con artists, bank robbers and the other garden variety of crooks to Lansing. We might as well keep them home where they can carry on just the same but where it won't cost the state so much money, people will reason.
VE
The sooner Kansas politicians realize this, the sooner something of value can be done to help the penal system itself, the inmates, and the state as a whole.
COME, COME, FELLAHS! There is more wrong with the Kansas penal system than the sex life of its prisoners.
—Zeke Wigglesworth
Worth Repeating
The non-conformist sees what is right and has the courage to speak up. Then he must realize he has to take the consequences. -Edwin Wilson