Page 2
University Daily Kansan Wednesday, Sept. 25, 1963
JFK's Rights Bill
Many attacks already have been leveled against the public accommodations section of President Kennedy's civil rights program, and many more will come before the issue is voted on in Congress. It concerns one of the rights inherent in the American Constitution—the right of private property.
The purpose of this section of the program is to guarantee to all citizens, regardless of race or color, the right to services and goods offered in businesses which are open to the public and deal in some manner with interstate commerce. This would include restaurants, motels, hotels and various other businesses. Thirty states, including Kansas, have enacted accommodations laws.
The authority the President has cited for this action is the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment to the Constitution.
THE FIRST CRY from opposition congressmen was, "It's unconstitutional, it violates the right of private property!" The congressmen, including Sen. Barry Goldwater, were quick to jump but slow to think of the proposal in its full scope and without a narrow view.
There is little doubt that the right of private property was in the minds of men such as Madison, Hamilton and Franklin in 1787 when they began altering the Articles of Confederation, not knowing at the time that they would eventually compose the Constitution and the government of this land.
But several years before, America's architect of freedom, Thomas Jefferson, had scratched "property" from John Locke's, "life, liberty and property" and instead put "life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness" into the Declaration of Independence.
Locke's conception of property as the end of government did not have as much meaning to the men of 1787. They thought of it as important, but only as long as it did not interfere with the social being and welfare of the nation. In fact, Jefferson's main reason in changing Locke's statement was that he believed that even property rights must in the last analysis yield to the imperatives of the common social welfare.
THIS IS THE REASON that the cries of President Kennedy's civil rights opponents sound so narrow. They are looking at private property only, and not considering common social welfare. They are upholding the right of property over the right of any citizen-as a member of the public to receive goods and services offered to the public, regardless of race or color.
A business establishment may indeed be private, but the service is not. President Kennedy, when he introduced his program to Congress, said, "No property owner who holds premises for the purpose of serving at a profit the American public at large can claim any inherent right to exclude a part of it on the basis of race or color."
A property owner who offers his services to the public must accept any member of that public, or he is trampling on the very basis of our system of representative democracy and equal protection under the law. If he turns any person away because of race or color, he has made a mockery of America's claims of equality for all, and blown a gaping hole in the side of our democratic government.
- Philip Magers
In Loco Parentis
The high school graduate who gets a job or marries steps into the occupational stream of adult life unnoticed. But the high school graduate who chooses to continue his formal education steps into the artificial pool of "The University."
The 20-year-old grocery clerk or secretary is considered an adult, and expected to look after his or her own life. But not so the 20-year-old student. It is assumed he still needs looking after.
Universities are "institutions" in a distorted sense of the word which makes of them gatekeepers of the physical, spiritual and intellectual welfare of their inmates.
But what is it about the pursuit of knowledge that makes our society regard the pursuers as children still in need of a parent's guidance? Does the desire to broaden one's reasoning and intellectual capabilities connotate immaturity? Such an argument is hard to uphold, yet it is precisely the basis upon which most universities in the United States operate.
THE THEORY known as "In Loco Parentis," is that one of the prime duties of our academic institutions is to act as a parent to the students, guiding their social lives as well as their intellectual lives. It is the employment of this idea which gives the university the authority to establish and enforce conduct rules for its students.
The university sets up a restrictive code; disciplinary laws are specific; deviates from the path of exemplary conduct, as defined by the rules, are subject to suspension or expulsion from the sacred grounds.
Yet even the administrators admit the hypocrisy of the rules, and the absurdity of the entire idea. In some cases the rules are simply not enforced: "no women may enter a men's residence of any description unless approved chap-
erones are present" . . . "no alcoholic beverages of any sort served" at parties. Sometimes the rules are vague and ineffective: no showing of affection in the residence hall parlors, (but on the front steps?)
Administrators know that one o'clock curfews will not preserve chastity on the campus, that temperance rules will not induce sobriety—in short, that conduct rules will not produce the docile, studious child for which they were intended. Why then, do they insist on having them? To uphold university standards, or for appearance sake only?
IN ANOTHER AREA, many instructors, through their methods of conducting classes, perpetuate the idea of the child-student. Class attendance is required; surprise quizzes are given to force a student to keep up on his work. In other words, the college classroom is being conducted like a slightly advanced high school, where students are cajoled and threatened into absorbing their lessons.
Our theory of education, then, has been reduced to the spoon-feeding of knowledge to supposedly immature individuals. All three factions—the parents, the university and the student body—are responsible for the continuance of this theory. The parents for pressuring the university administration into the duties of parenthood; the university for submitting to the taxpayers' pressures and pampering students, and the students themselves for not advocating loudly enough their cause for equal rights and freedoms with the non-college young adult.
A Word About Policy
But the inertia of the parents and that of the university, in part, is understandable. The tolerance of the students for a situation which stifles their freedom and initiative is not.
— The LSU Daily Reveille
Just for the record, here is a statement of the Kansan's policy concerning matter on the editorial page.
First, only editorials which reflect the views of the editors will be printed in the upper left corner of the page. All other matter appearing on the editorial page are the opinions of the contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the Kan-
san's views.
Editorials to be reprinted from other newspapers are selected because, in the editor's opinion, the reprinted matter is a good statement of a point of view, whether or not we agree.
The Kansan is written and edited by students, and opinions expressed in it are not necessarily reflections of University policy. — The Editors.
"Somehow. This Campaign Just Doesn't Have The Old Zing"
a staffer says
Bare Facts, Figures Of Bulging Beldames
By Carol Lathrop Knupp
And every other Thursday-night-downtown-Lawrence-shopping female in all truthfulness would have to sing back . . we do.
Who wears short shorts?
It's true. It's also distasteful, disgraceful, demoralizing and most unbecoming.
Where was the womanly, female, feminine mind when she got herself into that one? (It must have been quite a task for both mind and body.)
From past observations, most members of the male society would stand up and cheer for any sign of womanhood. Even a breeze-blown skirt would receive a round of admiration . . . and recognition that women are once again women.
cut somewhere . . . why not two yards? But all excuses are unacceptable when it comes all the way down to the very bare facts. And bare facts are unmistakable for anything else.
After looking at the facts, most men of average intelligence can see the figures that go with them. And believe me, they are disappointed in the end result. They no longer see the dream lady of loveliness, but rather they view a broad dame of circumstance.
brief attire of the married Mrs.
Perhaps I can venture that her mind was over-zealous on balancing her husband's income with her output. Something had to be cut somewhere . . . why not two yards of pant material?
MAYBE THE YOUNG, unattached Miss had her mind on letting any man chase her until she catches him. But that doesn't explain the brief attire of the married Mrs.
But no . . . that would be the easy way. Members of the Federation of Femininity are determined to march for their cause and gain their rights. And what better and more comfortable way to march than in short shorts?!
MEANWHILE, MEMBERS of the Federation of Femininity march in protest against the male society to demand their lady-like rights. One can't help but wonder if they aren't flying their banners in the wrong direction.
Dailij Hänsan
111 Flint Hall
111 Flint Hall University of Kansas student newspaper UNiversity 4-3646, newsroom UNiversity 4-3198, business office
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
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 Lawr-
ence, Kansas.
I V t c
t s t s
t r d s o I
] i j j j j j
NEWS DEPARTMENT
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Mike Miller ... Managing Editor
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
RIAL DEPARTMENT Editorial Editor
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Bob Brooks ... Business Manager