OPINION
The University Daily
KANSAN
November 9, 1983 Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kamsan (USPK 60/640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer Finst Hall Lawrence, Kan. 60055, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during summer sessions. Subscription prices are $15 for six months or $25 for six years. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $2 a year in Douglas County and $18 for six months or $3 for a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $1 a semester through the student access program FOSTMASTER. Send materials to USPK, 2015, Mailbox #C1301.
MARK ZIEMAN Editor
DOUG CUNNINGHAM STEVE CUSKICH
Managing Editor Editorial Author
DAVE WANMAKER
Retail Sales
Mark Mears
National Sales
Sales
DON KNOX
Campus Editor
ANN HORNBERGER Business Manager
PAUL JESS General Manager and News Adviser
LYNNE STARK Campus Sales Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Advertising Adviser
Capitol bombing
A bomb went off in the Capitol building in Washington Monday night. No one was killed. Only some historic paintings, decorative woodwork and furniture were damaged.
Violence of any kind is an unpleasant subject, but political violence is probably the most unpleasant of all, at least in a democracy. The United States has a proud tradition of letting the ballot box settle most disputes; during an election, the public speculates on whether the incumbents will win and on what changes may be made by challengers. One does not hear of military takeovers or coups d'etat. The bombing of the Capitol serves as a reminder that we are removed — but perhaps not by too great a margin — from anarchy and death as factors in government.
Do those guilty of the bombing have any reasonable excuse for their destructive deed? One may as well ask whether the end justifies the means. An anonymous person who called the Capitol switchboard six minutes before the bomb went off reportedly said that the act was a
response to U.S. military actions in Grenada and Lebanon.
The caller's statement shows the uselessness of political violence. What do the mad bombers seek? Perhaps they want the government to withdraw U.S. troops from overseas assignments. Perhaps they want the Marines stationed in Beirut to wave as trucks full of bombs destroy U.S. installations.
The bombing is such an uncalled-for act that any of a number of intentions, serious or foolish, can be attributed to the bombers. Fortunately the U.S. political tradition is such to discount wanton violence; the Capitol has withstood invasions by Redcoats and shootings of presidents.
Of course, security measures in Washington will be increased. Such a reaction by congressmen is to be expected, and indeed may help prevent similar destruction in the future. The bombers will temporarily succeed in causing fright. They will not succeed in effecting change in policy. That's for the voters to do.
A despicable action
This week's cross burning on the lawn of a black family's home in Kansas City, Kan., may be just somebody's idea of a prank. Or worse. It may hark back to the days when the Ku Klux Klan regularly performed such "feats of bravery" to harass and frighten their black, Catholic and Jewish victims whom they accused of daring to try and become a part of their country.
At this point police have no clues to the identity of the person who decided that burning a cross in the yard of a black woman with three children was probably the best way to communicate with her. If the message was, "Get out, you don't belong here," then he or she is in for quite a surprise.
have just made her some new friends.
Not only will the Kansas City, Kan., resident probably not move out of her home where she has lived since April, but the incident may
The victim's immediate neighbors might be in that category. Several expressed their shock and horror — and surprise at the cross burning. Their neighbor had not offended anyone as far as they could see and this was the first such racially motivated act of hatred on their block of Hispanic, white and Vietnamese families.
Unfortunately, the message that blacks still do not have a free hand at picking their neighborhood did get home to the victim, who was reminded once again by the crude action that discrimination does exist outside of the South. Yes, right here in the Midwest.
We hope that with the assistance of her neighbors, she stands her ground and stays.
Investing in the future
The many reports lamenting the decline of the nation's schools have generated a lot of talk and a lot of writing, but not much action.
ARCO has invited the nation's 16,000 high schools to apply for 200 grants of $3,000 each to develop programs. Next fall it will hand out grants of up to $200,000 to 20 schools to put the ideas into practice.
so we're glad to see the Atlantic Richfield Co. spending $1.7 million to entice high school principals to implement some of the proposals of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The foundation's recommendations have a familiar ring: more academic courses, fewer electives, higher pay for teachers.
ARCO, like all businesses, stands to benefit from a well-educated labor pool. Investing in better high schools will be cheaper, in the long run, than spending millions to teach basic skills to its workers.
Chicago Sun-Times
LETTERS POLICY
The University Daily Kanans welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and should not exceed 300 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include his class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kanan also invites individuals to send a sample column. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kanan office, 111 Stauffair-Flint Hall. The Kanan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
A DEAD SOLDIER BY ANY OTHER NAME...
The Grenada debate continues
U.S. invasion was illegal
WASHINGTON — The invasion of Grenada is history. Our forces performed well in action. The Grenadian government, which we had good reason to dislike, has been overthrown. Those Americans who desired to leave — about half — have been evacuated. The American soldiers who are dead or maimed as a result of the action are also being brought home.
Now it remains for the American people to answer the question that should have been answered. Was it right thing to do? Was it the right thing to do?
Clearly if the evacuation of Americans was the only purpose
EDWARD MARKEY
If the invasion of Grenada was meant to improve the position of the United States in the world
Democratic Representative from Massachusetts ___
of the invasion, it was justified.
But there was a second, more questionable purpose for the invasion: to overthrow the government of Grenada and install an American dictator liking. There are some very good reasons why we should not have done this.
First, it is against the law. The charters of the Organization of American States and the United Nations, which we have signed and which are legally binding, explicitly proclaim that by state in the affairs of another, especially by military means.
Some make light of international law. This is not only a rather un-American attitude, it is very unwise as well. The international system depends on the rule of law in order to ensure that all who have a climate of lawfulness prevails in the world.
today, it was a tragic mistake.
The image of the world’s most powerful nation is hardly imminent. It has already been one of the world’s biggest nations.
We have also raised grave doubts among our allies as to whether we will act cautiously and in close consultation with them in a crisis. While Grenada is part of the British Commonwealth, Great Britain was not allowed to invade and to invade had been given, at which point the Prime Minister's advice was ignored.
There is a perception in the world that the Reagan administration resorts to force when diplomatic skill would better suit U.S. objectives. This will be reinforced by the invasion. And the spectre of American interventionism will be revived in Latin America, to the benefit of anti-Americanism.
We have to wonder if we have not given a new signal to the world community regarding the rules we are going to play by. Does the Soviet Union now have the preferential of invading any country that has American or Western-bloc advisers, or any country whose government is disliked by its neighbors?
If our cause, which ultimately is the cause of Western civilization, is to prevail in the world, we must be calm, sure and wise in our international relations. We must behave according to our values, not the Soviets' — even when we would rather do otherwise. For the test of a nation's adherence to its principles comes not in the easy cases, but the hard ones.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass has represented the Massachusetts 7th Congressional District for seven years and is affiliated by United Press International.
Reagan took right action
WASHINGTON — Be assured that history will record President Reagan took the correct course of action when he dispatched U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to Grenada.
The lives of 1,000 Americans were in jeopardy.
Fear gripped citizens of the island, who — in the wake of the execution of the country's leaders — had been threatened with instant death if they walked their own streets. Thugs, taking instructions from abroad, ruled the island.
Neighboring nations teared that the Communist cloak of oppression suffocating Grenada
PHILIP CRANE
Republican Representative from Illinois
would soon be wrapped about their own shores to smother freedom.
Did the people of the United States elect a president who would freeze from fear that he might antagonize enemies, or did they elect a president who would move swiftly to protect fellow Americans and thus prevent another seizure of US citizens as hostages? The bitter memory still so fresh? I'm positive they sought one who would lead with purpose, strength and determination.
We certainly did not elect a president to play the role of a latter-century Chamberlain curtseying to the bullying tactics of Moscow. Rather, we wanted one who would stand up and be counted, one who would move to block further aggression.
Those who contend that President Reagan's action was unprecedented and unconstitutional have short memories.
were ordered into battle in Vietnam, and a decade before that our soldiers fought in Korea. On neither occasion did the United War—nor did he seek—a declaration of war from Congress.
And for those who would shrug off that evidence, let them leaf back almost two centuries into U.S. history. One who took part in drafting the U.S. constitution, most recently ordered the fleet to the Barbary Coast without seeking a declaration of war from Congress.
As President Reagan reported on his Grenada decision, he "had no choice but to act strongly and decisively."
The swiftness of that decision saved American lives, with American servicemen receiving the thanks of Grenadians for restoring order in the face of anarchy, which prevailed on their island. It informed our Caribbean allies, and put our enemies on notice, that the United States will use the power God provided to protect smaller nations that seek our help.
Unlike the Soviet Union, this country does not lust for a colonial empire. Already, our troops are being withdrawn and control of Grenada is being restored. The Governor Sir Paul Scoon. It is now up to Grenada to rebuild its democratic institutions.
If the United States is guilty of anything, it is the attempt to restore freedom an inter-religious society in the eyes of the Communist world.
Rep. Philip Crane, B-III., has represented the Illinois 12th Congressional District for 14 years. The column was provided by United Press International.
'Hair' article was immature sensationalism
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
To the Editor:
As a member of one of the technical crews for "Hair," I feel obliged to respond to Fridays's "staff" article, "First Act of Hair"article. I believe the article was nothing more than immature sensationalism
First, the director and the cast have made every effort to downplay the inclusion of the disbing in "Hair." The matter was strictly a voluntary one; no cast member was coerced into participating. I feel the need for an extra good taste, and I have yet to run into anyone who feels differently.
The fact that the entire article deals with only this particular scene displays a lack of responsibility on the part of the "staff." Theatrical and journalistic protocol usually fails at the morning after an opening night be a review of the production This article neither criticized nor commended any element of the show — not even the scene being discussed. What is the point of writing an article that in essence says: “There’s a nude scene in this show, but nobody really noticed it.””
Your article also may have created an unfortunate anticipation in our audiences. Your "staff" surely is aware of the public's tendency to oversensationalize artistic efforts such as this one. After reading your article, some audience members will undoubtedly come to the show for one reason only: to see the "living painting." The sensitive, powerful ideas and issues we have strived so hard to communicate will be lost in a shallow and superficial evaluation of the physical only.
The issue of nudity deserves to be addressed, I agree; but it must be addressed in more direct proportion to its place in the show (a mere 30 seconds). I feel that our show as a whole deserves more attention as a
Allison Wood
To the editor:
Alison Wood
Overland Park sophomore
It's about time
serious piece of theatre that i rapidly regaining its political significance.
President Reagan's efforts in Grenada are anything but clumsy. As a matter of fact, the unfolding events in Grenada prove the irrationality of her statement. Harris owes an apology to this great country and especially to those U.S. servicemen who valiantly died defending freedom and liberty.
Kiesa Harris’ article “This Should Be Reagan’s Last Picture” should have been titled “This Should Be My Last Article.” What throne of judgment does she sit upon to make the statement that “Reagan has disgraced this nation by his clumsy efforts to play policeman?”
The statement that "the United States should relax and let parts of the world settle their own affairs" is hogwash. The Carter administration showed us the danger of that kind of thinking. Just what did Harris think all those Cubans and Soviets were doing in Grenada? Surely she doesn't believe they were innocent of manipulating Grenadian internal affairs.
To be sure, President Reagan's "policeman" policy effectively speaks for itself. I wholeheartedly support the effort. It's about time that the people of this country showed the world that we still support freedom and liberty. Alfred J. Graham
1
Diablo, Republic of Panama sophomore
---