OPINION
The University Daily KANSAN
September 27,1983 Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daykan Kumans (USP$ 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer-Finn Hall, Lawrence, KS. K6045, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer sessions, are $15 per student for six months or $2 for four months. 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 paid through the student activity for POSTMASTER. A send-off fee of $10 per student will be charged.
MARK ZIEMAN
Editor
DOUG CUNNINGHAM STEVE CUSICK
Managing Editor Editorial Editor
MICHAEL ROBINSON Campus Editor
DAVE WANMAKER    MARK MEARS
Retail Sales        National Sales
Manager
ANN HORNBERGER Business Manager
PAUL JESS General Manager and News Adviser
JOHN OBERZAN Advertising Adviser
LYNNE STARK Campus Sales Manager
Overlooked asset
Today, on Page 6, the Kansan highlights Haskell Indian Junior College in the first of a series of in-depth interviews on subjects relating to KU students. Haskell greatly deserves the recognition.
One hundred years ago last month, construction began on the first building of Haskell Indian Junior College. It's been a long time since that date. A long time since Jim Thorpe went to school there as a boy, or since James Naismith gave a speech on "The Physical Advantages of Being a Christian," or since Teddy Roosevelt stopped by to shake hands.
Indeed, it's been a long time since Gerald E. Gipp, Haskell president, took command two years ago. In that time, the college has undergone positive change, but it has also fought fierce battles with budget cuts, a slight dip in enrollment and an attack by government officials on Indian education.
But in all this time, or at least since Gipp took over, Haskell has asked relatively little of the people
of Lawrence and the administration, faculty and students of the University of Kansas. Clearly, there have been many problems for Gipp to tackle, several of them, he admits, stemming from lack of communication and organization on the part of Haskell itself.
Yet it perhaps is good that Haskell has not had to ask much for help from Lawrence and KU, for it seems doubtful that it would have gotten such help. Apathy, a lack of understanding, and racism on the part of some Lawrence residents, KU students and KU officials have in many ways kept Haskell and its students isolated from the mainstream of Lawrence life.
No one is saying that it is unsafe for an American Indian to walk the streets in Lawrence, but it is time that the people of Lawrence, supposedly an enlightened university town, make a concerted effort to visit Haskell, learn about the concerns of its students and administrators and work together to make this a two-college town, not one.
A costly investment
The MX missile is a great American boondoggle, and taxpayers are going to pay dearly for it. It'll cost the average family $400 and will rob the nation of 385,000 jobs, according to a study released earlier this week.
All that money and all those jobs for a nuclear missile that'll probably be put on the Pentagon's list of outdated equipment by the time it reaches the silo.
No trouble, though, the Defense Department will have come up with the super-MX by then, at a cost of only a few trillion more.
MX development and procurement alone will cost $27.5 billion, according to the study. The report was done by Employment Research Associates, a consulting firm that specializes in studying the effects of defense spending on the economy.
The cost of the missile will be unevenly borne, the report said. Of the $27.5 billion, more than $24 billion will be spent in just six states. The rest will get only drippings or take a loss on it — 392 of the nation's
450 congressional districts will lose tax money to the project. And 292 of those districts will lose $50 million or more, according to the study.
The project also will take from areas suffering high unemployment and poor economic health, according to the study.
It all adds up to a big price to pay — one the American public can't afford. Besides, the MX won't make us feel more secure. Both the United States and the Soviet Union, ensnared in a wicked web of insecurity, will keep looking for the ultimate weapon. They'll find a more deadly one, leaving the MX as potent as a cap gun by comparison.
Nuclear warheads are already poised to strike all over the world. Missile silos have become as common as grain silos. The MX will make little difference — the world can be blown up 28 times just as well as 50.
The MX money surely could go for something better — education, jobs, health care. Spending it on the missile is merely wasting taxpayers' money.
A loan that paid off
The federal involvement in Chrysler Corporation's comeback ended the other day on a financially happy note for taxpayers. The reward for helping to bail out the auto firm was $311 million.
Chrysler agreed to pay that much to buy back the government's rights, or warrants, to purchase a large chunk of the company's stock. The government acquired the warrants under an agreement three years ago in which the United States provided loan guarantees to the then-ailing company.
Had Chrysler gone under the government would have been stuck with $1.2 billion worth of Chrysler loans it had guaranteed. Fortunately, Chrysler made such a remarkable recovery that its stock is now selling at nearly $30 a share. Not all government loan programs turn out so well.
The warrants allowed the government to buy 14.4 million shares of stock at $13 a share. At the time the agreement was made, Chrysler stock was selling for only $5 a share.
-Evansville (Ind.) Press
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-space 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 Kanana also invites individuals to submit small printed columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansas office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kanana reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
LETTERS POLICY
Debate over the United Nations Having U.N. in United States makes sense
NEW YORK — There are good reasons for Americans to want the United Nations to be located there, and there are good reasons for wanting it to leave.
The question, however, is an essentially frivolous one that really has to do with our basic attitude toward the United Nations and international cooperation, but is framed in a way to divert us from serious discussion of these issues.
ARTHUR R. DAY
Vice Counsellor of the United Nations Association
million in additional costs resulting from the organization's presence.
in strictly financial terms,
playing host to the United Nations is good business. The United Nations, and the diplomatic community it attracts to New York, contributes roughly $700 million annually to the city's economy, far more than the $22
Much more important, however, is that having the preeminent world organization in the United States makes sense, given the role that this country plays in the world.
The United States is not a provincial state absorbed only with its own purposes and limited by narrow horizons of outlook. It is the leading country of the world in every major respect. It is a country with close ties and important interests throughout the world, heavily dependent on conditions and developments outside its borders. At the same time, it is a country with enormous impact on the rest of the world.
It is completely fitting that such a country should accept and exercise the responsibilities of host to the United Nations. It is singularly unfitting that fits of petulance should be permitted to
diminish the seriousness of purpose with which the country addresses its historic role.
It is not what the American people think of themselves; it is not what the American people are.
That the American people take the United Nations seriously and value its activities and potential has, in fact, been reaffirmed by a poll conducted this past summer by the Roper Organization for the United Nations Association of the U.S.A.
By substantial majorities the public wanted the United States to remain active in the United Nations or increase its activity. It declined to accept the isolationist view of the United Nations as an essentially hostile organization and saw it as a body within which worthwhile results could be achieved.
The public called for increased U.N. powers to deal with a number of key issues, such as reducing the danger of superpower confrontation and supporting human rights. It recognized that the United Nations was not doing as good a job as it should, but it also recognized that the United States needed the organization to help deal with situations it could not deal with alone.
As the American people seem to understand, we cannot escape from the world by getting out of the United Nations or by getting the United Nafions out of the United States.
By getting out of the United Nations we would only deny ourselves one important way of dealing with a difficult and dangerous world. By urging the United Nations to only show ourselves as bumpkins unable to sustain the role of the leading country in the world.
The United Nations Association is a nonprofit private group, that supports the United Nations. The United Nations International Press International
U.N. used as propaganda forum for Soviets
For decades, the United Nations has served the Soviets
WASHINGTON — Ambassador Charles Lichenstein spoke for me as well as millions of Americans when he invited the Soviets to up and take the United Nations with them, if that is their desire.
WILLIAM BROOMFIELD
Republican Representative from Michigan
brilliantly as a worldwide propaganda forum — conceived and financed by the United States.
Closing U.N. headquarters in New York would deprive the Sovietis of sanctuary for scores of KGB agents who use the U.N. as their real mission of gathering information and technological intelligence
The citizens of New York City would be spared the countless and costly inconveniences that go
with being hosts, policing and providing for the world organization.
What would we and the world lose in the bargain? Very little, in my opinion.
Since its founding in 1945, the lofty goals of the United Nations have been thoroughly debated while its equally high-minded principles have been just as thoroughly ignored.
Almost immediately, the Soviet Army refused to withdraw from the countries of Eastern Europe, and the Soviet government declined to honor the promises it made at Yalta and moved to expand into Greece and Turkey.
It was the independent resolve of the United States — not the United Nations — that blocked expansion in the Mediterranean.
Since the Korean War, the United Nations has been almost entirely focused on being interested in handling the world's real crises. It has served instead
as a launching pad for anti- American and anti-Israeli attacks and occasionally the ending of international terrorists.
It remained silent while Idi Amin killed 250,000 Ugandans. It blinked at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and closed its eyes altogether to Communist genocide in Cambodia.
For nearly 10 years, it has ignored the tragedy of the people of Cyprus and turned a deaf ear from the conflict between Greece and Turkey
The Security Council could not even muster the gumption to condemn the murder of 269 officers in their board Korean Airlines Flight 007
Cutting the U.N. loose from our shores would force its member states to reassess the worth of this world organization, to redefine its goals, and to come to grips with its future.
They might seriously consider the U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick's suggestion that the
General Assembly split its time between New York and Moscow so that delegates could observe the stratect between the two systems.
If the United Nations is to continue and reclaim its goal of fostering a world system based on common values, it must assume greater responsibility
U. N. spending has risen over 80 percent during the last five years. As a result, the U.S. contribution has increased from $99 million to more than $171 million in 1983.
Whatever decisions those member-states make, Ambassadors Kirkpatrick and Lichenstein have made it clear that the United States will not stand in the way of our principles, demand respect for our leadership, and let the chips fall where they may.
William Broomfield is the ranking Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. He was nominated by United Press International.
'Happy news' not being echoed by Reagan
WASHINGTON — President Reagan may not be reading the headlines lately, but he thinks his appeal to reporters to "focus a bit more on wonderful things that Americans are doing for each other" has taken hold.
"I think there's been a movement in the last few months to show the uplifting side of American life as we our flaws," he told a luncheon on Broadcasters. "Of course, the imperfections need to be brought out;
otherwise, they might never be corrected."
HELEN THOMAS
United Press International
From the White House alone, the news stories have been tinged with threats that there is an escalation of
U. S. military involvement around the world. Almost daily the president has found a way to attack the Soviets for the "brutal" savage
... uncivilized" downing of the Korean airliner.
At the same time, his spokesmen have been busy explaining the flexibility the U.S. forces in Lebanon have to use their firepower.
Such reports have dominated the news. Happy thoughts seem distant even from Reagan's radio addresses and speeches, which are directed toward enemies on the outside and Democratic opponents on the inside.
"One of our great national treasures is the right as Americans to criticize government without fear of reprisal." Reagan said recently. He then went on to tell the story about a bombing that killed 30 people in American traveler that "people in Russia are free to speak just like they are in the United States."
"The difference is that in the United States, they are free after they speak." Reagan said.