Page 2
University Daily Kansan Wednesday, Nov. 20, 1963
Casting Stones
This year is the year for the sex scandal. First there was Christine Keeler and her good buddy Mandy Rice-Davies. These two nearly upset staid old England's government and gathered headlines all over the world.
Close on their heels followed rumors about ladies of the night in California's legislature. And last week the press was full of innuendos about Elly Rometsch and Bobby Baker, secretary to the Senate majority leader.
The desire of men for women is a basic one, and will and has been satisfied no matter what moral strictures are put in the way. If fulfillment cannot be found in marriage, it will be pursued outside it.
It doesn't take much observation to see that moral standards are changing today. No longer is sex discussed only behind closed doors. The
frequency of pre-marital sexual relations is increasing. And the number of extra-marital affairs is going up.
Whether or not this is a good trend can only be determined by the individuals involved. But it is extraordinarily hypocritical that the same people who have a little sex on the side are the same ones who take such sanctimonious glee in revelations about others' morals.
If one believes that sex should be confined to marriage, he should sincerely stick to that concept both publicly and privately. Similarly, if one has a freer idea of sexual mores, he should urge that sex be treated openly and realistically. By no means should sexual indiscretions be revealed only to evoke mock horror, especially when those most horrified often condone free morals in their own lives.
The Daily Californian
Clean House
The People Say..
Editor:
Maybe I'm just one more tired, retired and bitter politician. Maybe I'm just another naive, idealistic, radical who placed his feet on "restricted ground" and then cried because he got his toes burned. Or, maybe I'm just an ex-politician who has acquired a guilt complex from "playing the role" for too long. In any case, I find it difficult to keep my food down when I think of the filth and corruption that goes on behind the backs of about 10,000 students on our campus.
A few weeks ago, a fine, interested KU student wrote a letter to the UDK criticizing the "all-wet Student Liaison Committee." This upstanding young student pleaded that "Thompson and Company be brought back to earth" before they soared to the heights of one of the campus power cliques. I am actually very apologetic—our little eight-man committee didn't intend to frighten the "gods"—we just naturally assumed that no one with a lightning bolt in his hand would be afraid of a small group of idealistic students.
There simply aren't enough words in the English language to sufficiently describe my hindsight view of the campus political situation. Suffice it to say that when I'm told in effect that I may have the chairmanship of the Student Liaison Committee if my House will support a particular candidate for the student body presidency, even my naive mind
suspects "foul play." Then, like most would-be politicians, my new question became, "Does my end justify my means?" I, unfortunately, answered the question "yes" and supported said candidate partially in hopes of "cleaning up" campus politics with my new position. I owe the entire student body an apology for that decision. My idealistic end was entirely un-achievable—thus, my means are entirely un-justifiable.
This letter is not aimed at either political party since they are realistically identical in habit. It is not aimed at any single politician or official in student government; these persons are given their authority by a student body vote. It is not, in fact, aimed at those students who, Mr. King says "do not want to vote." It is simply my opinion that until a large number of students wake up and stop voting the way the "gods" (directly or indirectly) ask them to vote, KU will continue to have the power cliques in politics. Until the prate is taken out of party voting and the campaign once more becomes an important thing to prospective candidates, our possibilities of getting "the best man for the job" are going to decrease rather than increase.
Jim Thompson Hugoton senior
On Botched
Editor:
Although I disagree with Blaine King on certain specific points, I
want to compliment him for his excellent editorial, "Botched Job," which ran in yesterday's Kansan. I also want to add some comments of my own.
Gene Gaines and myself were the candidates who withdrew from the race in the Unmarried-Unorganized district. We withdrew even though we both wanted to run and to win. Gaines withdrew because of political pressure. I withdrew because I felt that the race was not fair as a result of Gaine's withdrawal. I value my integrity more than I do a seat on the ASC, although this could not be said of some other people I know.
There were some unusual developments on election night. An interesting series of events preceded the withdrawals:
1) The living district ballots were counted starting with that district which had the least number of valid votes cast and proceeding in such a manner that the district whose votes were being counted had more votes cast than the preceding district, (instead of being counted in the traditional manner from District 10 through District 1); 2) The ballots from the Unmarried-Unorganized district were not even counted according to the forementioned manner, but were counted last; 3) The ballots were sorted and put in stacks by the IBM machine according to candidate first-preferenced, as usual, but word leaked out of the counting room before the ballots were individually counted that there were so many write-in ballots cast that Gaines was an obvious winner; 4) Certain people whose political astuteness has never been questioned, but whose political honesty has never been granted, told Mr. Gaines to withdraw or else heavy political pressures would be brought against him and his supporters; 5) Mr. Gaines decided to withdraw.
"Boss, Do You Want To See Government Get Ahead Of Private Enterprise?"
When Mr. Gaines withdrew, I made the decision to withdraw from the race myself, for—as far as I was concerned—there could no longer be any honest election in our district.
I was glad to see two international students, Vinay Kothari and Walter Bgoya, gain seats on the ASC. I think they will both represent the varied interests of their living district well. Neither of these candidates was connected with the political actions which caused Mr. Gaines to withdraw, so no one should suspect them of involvement in the incendiary activity which has caused a stench to permeate the district. Vinay and Walter will be assets to the ASC, and will counteract certain negative elements which will be present there.
Charles A. Marvin Lawrence senior
Dailij Hansan
111 Flint Hall
University of Kansas student newspaper Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16. 1912.
UUniversity 4-3646, newsroom
UUniversity 4-3198, business office
Peace Corps Fights With Shovels, Hope
In 1958 a book called "The Ugly American" came out lambasting the U.S. foreign aid program and its cocktail circuit of ambassadors.
The hero of the book, if it had one, was a burly engineer who lived with the people and made do with what he had.
He could have imported gadgets from the United States to make his job easier, but he believed that only things that people did for themselves would change their behavior. He made his know-how fit the people, rather than trying to raise the people to the standards of his technology.
FIVE MONTHS BEFORE John Kennedy was elected President, a Wisconsin Democratic representative who must have read "The Ugly American" pushed through Congress a $10,000 study on the feasibility of a Peace Corps.
Kennedy carried the ball from there. By March, 1961, Kennedy's brother-in-law, Robert Sargent Shriver Jr., found himself head of the newly created corps and off on a month's tour of eight nations to feel out world opinion.
The skeptics said it would never work. They ha-haed, slapped their thighs and waged money that those "soft kids" and "starry-eyed idealists" would be home within the month.
NOW THE first volunteers have come home. The countries in which they served do not want replacements. They want reinforcements—a high tribute to the volunteers and to what has been termed one of the Kennedy administration's most successful programs.
For once, Americans marched off to make the world sate 1or democracy with shovels instead of guns.
By the end of 1961 Shriver had $30 million and 700 volunteers in 13 countries. Thousands more were being trained.
They were themselves, just plain folks from Kansas, Kokomo or Kalamazoo. And people loved them for it.
This idea of waging peace instead of war was in a sense historic. It had never been tried before and the long-range effects will not be realized for years. As Peace Corps host countries continue raising their living standards and achieving understanding and friends through Peace Corps efforts, the real value of the program can be assessed at least partially. When former Peace Corps volunteers equipped with education, language and people-to-people understanding of the culture of many areas of the world begin seeping into the U.S. foreign service and State Department, the change may be found in U.S. foreign policy.
Few of these stories tell of the dysentery, the boredom, the difficulties that were "depressingly ordinary," as one volunteer described the physical difficulties.
A volunteer in the Philippines said the real frustration is the challenge of raising the students beyond the level of memorization and repetition of English phrases.
FOR THE MOST part, volunteers have acted as teachers, teachers' aides, community-development workers, nurses, engineers, surveyors, geologists, and health workers.
And while it is almost a century too early for history to judge the Peace Corps, the volunteers have proved themselves able evaluators of the program.
[ ] [ ]
They say Peace Corps stories are "too glamorous, too glowing, too pat."
But the history of the corps has not been all good deeds and gratitude. When the first volunteers made their initial contacts on foreign soil, they were regarded with distrust and suspicion.
Of actual progress, a volunteer says that the secret of success in the Peace Corps is not to expect too much.
They were not like the wealthy capitalists who drove around in big cars, chewed cigars and exploited poor Juan in the next village.
"AMERICANS ARE brought up to expect the most and the best, and to be disappointed if they don't get it," a volunteer in Ayuthaya, Thailand, said.
THE VOLUNTEERS' end-of-service reports are filled with numerous incidents relating how they helped the people learn to sew, or fix a jeep, or feed an infant a bottle of water, rather than just breast milk.
Making the student think correctly is the real challenge for the schools, he said.
They were not like the occasional tourists in bermuda shorts and sun glasses who sometimes spent hours photographing Juan's poor pregnant wife and her eight children from every possible angle.
They were not the usual military men with uniform, weapon and traditional chocolate bar to give to the "street-urchins."
Of course there were incidents like Marjorie Michelmore's wayward postcard which criticized Nigeria and precipitated Margery's resignation in 1961. Some of the volunteers quit. Some of them were indiscreet. Some became pregnant.
FOR THE FIRST time, the world had a chance to work shoulder to shoulder with a number of Americans who were neither moneyed nor military. And it liked it.
But, in most instances, the simplicity, sincerity and devotion to duty and high ideals have won volunteers respect in every country which has participated in the Peace Corps program. And, more important, the volunteers earned the highest compliment of all. They are called "friend."
— Rose Ellen Osborne