Page 2
University Daily Kansan Monday, Oct. 1, 1
The Battle Wages
The dark rooms around the campus are beginning to fill with smoke again. The campus politicos have returned to their traditional haunts and the initial wedge into the serenity of the year has been driven home. All had been generally peaceful until the middle of last week when the heads of Vox and UP beat the bushes and finally came up with a major point of disagreement, in part at least.
Each party is stumbling over its out-sized feet attempting to out-scamper the other in the effort to decentralize voting for campus elections. First one had the idea. Then the other presented it to the All Student Council. Then the party of the first part had a criticism. Then the party of the second part cross-examined with mild invective against the criticism of the party of the first part. Now a neuter, the "typical" student, has been weedled into issuing an opinion. This includes everyone but the administration and it will win in the end so no effort from that corner is required.
THIS NOW TRAMPLED thought of creating more polling places to make the arduous task of student voting as simple as possible represents the first instance of political in-fighting for the year. It is the first ply into the student mind, the first test of the line-up of votes on the ASC, the first head-butting of party big wigs.
The above sareasim may not be necessary but it does help to clear the smoke from the topic. Granted there is a lot more involved in this issue than just the volleyball being played with polling spots. Aside from the peripheral nonsense involved, this is an issue which demands a close scrutiny by the student body. A week from tomorrow when the ASC acts on this amendment
There is little doubt about the outcome of the present amendment. It will be defeated in its present form. Vox Populi has control of the council and unless there is a drastic link missing in its machinery, the action against the present amendment is but a formality. But Vox will then arrange the polling places to best suit its situation and the amendment will then, probably, be passed.
to the Elections Bill it will be dealing with a problem which has a direct bearing on each student and is something which is being considered to benefit the student position.
THE PRINCIPLE DISAGREEMENT between the parties is the possible location of a polling place in one or two of the major dormitories. UP wants such a situation because it would thus make it easier for the independent voter to cast his ballot. This is against the favor of Vox because it always polls a heavy vote in the fraternity and sorority districts and hopes for a meager turnout by the dorm dwellers.
The basic idea involved is an excellent one. Strong Hall as the sole ballot box location is frequently inconvenient. Branching out to the Kansas Union and possibly Murphy Hall would result in a much greater participation come election time. The obvious problems are the necessity of increased policing and the added cost. Neither of these are said to be obstacles, according to the politicos.
Therefore, after the smoke clears and the first round of public harangues is over, the student body will again benefit by an action of a progressive and interested student government.
-Bill Sheldon
Will NFO Help?
The National Farmers Organization (NFO) holding action on livestock was perhaps destined to be largely ineffectual before it began. The farmers wanted a contract for livestock prices, but even had the meat buyers been willing to draw up a contract, a strong central authority to hold the farmers to their part of the bargain would have been lacking. But this strong central authority may be in the making—parts of the recent NFO holding action had the aura of professional organizers about it.
The president of the Kansans for the Right to Work, L. E. Weiss, has charged that the NFO is under the direction of top union bosses and that at least a part of the NFO funds are being provided by the United Auto Workers.
Oren Lee Staley, president of NFO, said "that's an idiotic statement. We cannot legally be
organized and have any connection with any group outside agriculture."
Livestock is one of the few facets of agriculture still outside government control. One cannot blame farmers for fighting to maintain one last bit of independence, but there is some question as to whether a strong special interest organization can provide a better economic situation than the federal government. One thing is certain. An organization strong enough to be effective will not come into being without violence of some sort.
If farmers delegate their marketing power to a central organization they will have to stand pretty much on their own. It's unlikely that the NFO could provide subsidies when and if they are needed, unless the NFO has designs to gain subsidies for itself from Uncle Sam.
Bob Hoyt
THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, by Edith Wharton( Signet Classies, 75 cents). THE HOUSE OF MIRTH, by Edith Wharton (Scribner Library, $1.45).
Like her great teacher, Henry James, Edith Wharton was an expert chronicler of Society. New York was her setting for these novels, the first being her Pulitzer prize-winner of 1920, the second being the novel (1905) which helped to make her famous.
"The Age of Innocence" is the story of a great love that can never be—to put it simply and quickly. Newland Archer is overwhelmed by the Countess Ellen Olenska, but he is committed to the altar, so he, and Ellen, suffer out their lives, but not like an Anna Karenina and a Vronsky. Here is a rich portrait of upper New York society in the seventies.
She obviously knew the world she depicted. Each characterization is as finally detailed as the needle-point her ladies may have worked on. We may laugh today at her unhappy people who are unable to realize themselves because of the folkways of the herd, but this was quite real at the time.
"The House of Mirth" is about Lily Bart, trained by her socially aspiring (but poor) mother to capture a rich husband, unequipped to do anything but just that. Lily has the unique ability to have a man almost snared and then lose him through sheer stupidity. There is no happy ending here. The book is a merciless story in the naturalistic tradition, and compares favorably with the most savage works of Dreiser.-CMP
Founded 1889, became bireweekly 1904,
triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
UNIVERSITY
Daily Hansan
Telephone VIking 3-2700 Extension 711, news room Extension 376, business office
University of Kansas student newspaper
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Services and University Press. 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. Received amination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Scott Payne ... Managing Editor
Richard Bonett, Dennis Farney, Zeke Wigglesworth, and Bill Mullins, Assistant Managing Editors; Mike Miller, City Editor; Steve Clark, Sports Editor; Margaret Catcart, Society Editor.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Clayton Keller and
Bill Sheldon Co-Editorial Editors
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Charles Martinache Business Manager
Dan Meek, Advertising Manager; Doug Farmer, Circulation Manager; Gene Spalding, National Advertising Manager; Bill Woodburn, Classified Advertising Manager; Jack Cannon, Promotion Manager.
"Sir . . . my traffic control station has disappeared."
Letters to the Editor
Right below your article "Sorry, Mr. Lincoln," there was a section entitled "Worth Repeating" (Sept. 25). Its first item ("The important thing is that those who see an injustice do not remain silent—Edwin Wilson") stung, shamed and caused me into writing this letter.
Comment On Comment
Dear Mr. Wigglesworth:
IN YOUR ARTICLE you challenged Governor Ross Barnett on his citizenship. But you probably know his motives and yours better than I do to say what you do.
First to throw up a couple of shields to give me a chance to speak, and to give you a chance to think: I believe that segregation because of race, color, or creed is morally wrong. Secondly, I am a member of a minority group.
My knowledge of the Meredith case consists only of gleanings from newspaper articles which stress the obvious and very probable issue: a Negro is not permitted admission to the University of Mississippi because of race. I believe this is wrong but I also believe it is wrong to judge Gov. Barnett's actions and condemn him, ridicule him, and squeeze him into the bogey-man throne just recently vacated by Gov. Orville Faubus. If he, Gov. Barnett, is fighting for a principle in which he honestly believes, one must admire his courage to stand up against an overwhelming, powerful and fashionable majority. That includes not only the sincere believers in integration, but also the very self-conscious goldfish in Washington prodded by self-righteous, sadistic and selfish world "neighbors"; it includes political hypocrites who support popular issues to get good election results; and finally the crowd: the ones who have never given the issue much thought, the status seeker who recognizes and assimilates the latest fashion in dress, car and thought because everyone is doing it.
If Gov. Barnett is using this case to defend states' rights one must either again admire his courage in supporting an increasingly unpopular issue; or one must call him a fool for not recognizing progress; or one might even whisper surreptitiously about a flush of pink between the lines of his speeches. Perhaps, contrary to much journalistic opinion, he knows exactly
what he is doing. If he is defending states' rights, in my opinion, he has chosen an unlikely point; it is certain to be defeated. But I again repeat my admiration — for that motive. Who is to say a nation does or does not need a strong central government? Where is there conclusive proof that that item makes for a great nation? There have been outstanding leaders with the conscious and proud support of their people: that is what makes an age or a nation great; that is what creates a good memory. Unfortunately, it can also cause a "sit back and twiddle your thumbs" reaction. Perhaps this has happened? We have sat back and willingly accepted a crutch. We, the people of a strong nation; we the people with a proud history; we, the people whose younger generation is taller and stronger and healthier than that of any other nation; we have accepted — willingly — a crutch. It might be a price support of wheat, or it might be a government arbitrator in a labor-management dispute. But they are crutches. Why are they there? They are an admission of our inadequacy growing out of mistrust, greediness, and especially disuse of imagination, initiative, ingenuity, willpower and courage. Have some of these "crutch" powers ever been given to a central government? Or did the people just let it fill in the gaps? If we allow more gaps, will we also lazily allow more government occupancy?
I WONDER how much right I have to say this, for I prefer the comfortable easychair in front of the television, rather than the soapbox, raised and exposed for the convenience of the "rotten egg" association target practice. But just as Gov. Barnett, I also have the privilege and the responsibility of an American to stand up and defend to the best of my ability in what I sincerely believe. Who would dare deny me that right!
Finally, Mr. Wigglesworth, please forgive my presumptuousness for writing upon a subject about which I have so little knowledge, for limitations and lack of detail in content, for lack of coverage of other possibilities, but especially for that old-fashioned note of passion. I admired it so much in your article.
Brigitte Smorodsky Vineland, N. J. Graduate student