Page 2
University Daily Kansan Friday. March 16. 1956
Letter-Writers Disagree With Daily Kansan Editorials
(Editor's note: Because of the unusual interest created by recent editorials printed on this page, we are devoting the entire page to letters directed to the writers of those editorials. However, it was necessary to delete parts of some of the letters because of their length. We hope that those parts deleted will not detract from the viewpoint of the letter-writer. Otherwise, none of the letters were changed nor altered in any form. We are presenting them without comment by the editorial staff of The Daily Kansan.)
On Fraternities
Editor:
I express my deepest sympathy that I have been further convinced of the extreme incompetence and misrepresentation of facts which are currently typical of your recent series of "anti-editorials."
Your argument which appeared in the March 12 issue of the University Daily Kansas, was, in my opinion, a nonjournalistic attack on something about which you evidently do not have adequate knowledge to express your editorial opinions.
You surely have been instructed in the journalism school that before an editor publicly criticizes the actions of others, he should be fully aware of the facts. After ascertaining the facts he should compare them in logical order to make clear the central point of his article. I am convinced that you took neither of those steps in your futile attempt to explain to your readers why all college fraternities are destined to failure.
Your views are contaminated with gross generalizations and fallacious reasoning. Have you made sure that all college fraternities are "having to outlaw traditions inherent in each group"? Are you firmly convinced that such action, if it were applicable to all colleges and universities, "is the fate of the fraternity today?" You have not convinced me that these statements are true—but I do accept the possibility that they might be your own personal opinion.
It is your privilege to state your own personal opinion if it does not directly impose upon the integrities of your readers. Do you realize that the Daily Kansan is not solely for the purpose of informing the students and faculty of the campus news? It is also a public relations medium to the alumni and the potential Kansas University student who, incidentally, happens to be at this time, the "pimply-faced kid...commonly called 'High School Harry.'" Have you taken into consideration the reaction of the alumni and, of far more importance, the reaction of the high school students who read your personal ridicule of them?
Your editorial's content is smudged with decentralization and fragmented thinking. You did not labor on one point but several. Furthermore, the very title of the article, "Fraternities Lose Basis For Existence," even though possibly not written by you, is the shocking proof of your naivety of the subject.
Lastly, it is an injustice to the profession of journalism, which is the backbone of the American way of life, that such billious emotional discharge was subjected to the readers of an American publication.
I suggest that you read the article entitled "Greeks Show Outstanding Work," by Dick Walt, which appeared on the same editorial page in the same issue of The Kansas in which your editorial appeared. It seems that the fraternal organizations on this campus have disingenuously added the inevitable abyss of total failure (which, according to your prophetic prediction, will be a reality in 1970).
William E. Miller
Lawrence senior
On Algeria
Editor:
In The University Daily Kansan of February 23, 1956 Mr. Eiji Tonomura wrote an article under the
title, "Future of A Free Algeria Looks Dark." At the close of his article, I found my name quoted against a statement that I had made before him.
Since that time I have felt myself under a sort of obligation to state my position personally concerning this question.
For some time past I have noticed that the problems of Algeria in particular and North Africa and the Middle East in general are occupying the headlines of many newspapers in this country.
The accumulated evidence that the question really has enough people interested further stimulated me to say my word. Hence this letter is not just a reply to Mr. Tonomura's article, but an over-all review and statement of opinion.
To start from Algeria, I would like to sum up the situation in the following words:
The people of Algeria are Berbers and Arabs; both are Moslems and their culture is common to the whole of North Africa and the Middle East. Between France and Algeria there is nothing in common. The only relationship between them is that once upon a time France felt stronger than the people of North Africa.
The history of France in North Africa does not revive any pleasant memories in the minds of the native population. It is a nightmare of exploitation and terror from which the people are just awakening.
North Africa specially experienced a series of colonial plots and bargains among the colonial powers with complete disregard to any moral code or civilized values. And by that most shortsighted policy (in view of the world troubles today) the colonial powers are associated in the minds of the people with the worst horrors.
Now France claims that it spent money and established projects to develop North Africa. But the facts are that native North Africa did not develop and let us ask how many schools, hospitals and industries are there in Algeria for the native.
I mention this because I believe that trying to answer the question of North Africa or any of the colonial questions while neglecting the history of imperialism is not only misleading, but disastrous.
On the other hand, France never tried or cared to develop the natives at all. Any good derived by any native was but incidental to, or inevitable, for the good of the French project in North Africa which was undertaken for the welfare of the people as its main purpose.
I did not mean by France the French colonists. This is a different story. The French colonists can be a part of North Africa and on this basis only they can stay there. They are welcome to stay as honest and loyal North Africans and they are welcome to cooperate with the Arabs and the Berbers to build a new and independent nation—but only on the basis of equality.
France has ultimately to get out of North Africa whether she likes it or not, whether she sheds more skin than we did, like the British did from India.
Whether the French colonists will accept that in time or not is a decisive question, because they have to choose between justice and disaster. It seems to me that the solution on this basis is not impossible. When I talked to some of my friends, among them a good looking French colonist on this campus, I found that we are in thorough agreement. She expressed to me her faith in equality between the colonists and the natives as a basis of stable coexistence.
Yes, I said that, but I also said that it is not fighting in which we pride ourselves. We are not fighting to satisfy pride. We only fight when we have to face an inevitable choice between liberty and peace. We certainly like to have them both, but when we have to choose, our decision will always be for freedom.
Somebody once said that "those who sacrifice their freedom for peace don't deserve freedom and will never have peace." This statement certainly illustrates our position. We are certainly peaceful but not at the cost of our freedom.
Now I come to my quotation in Mr. Tonomura's article, "We are proud of our fighting in North Africa."
Now may I add a few words about the role of Cairo in the struggle since I am from Cairo and the quotation is mine.
The magazines of this week and for some time past have attributed to Cairo an effective participation in the Algerian people's fight for freedom. The thing which I would like to correct is, what they call "troubles in North Africa," we call "the struggle of a free people to get their rights to handle their own affairs."
We are participating only on this basis and we are expecting all the free people everywhere to help.
When we wait for the free people to fulfill their obligations toward the cause of freedom and get no response we certainly feel disappointed. And when we find the free people who are supposed to live up to their ideals and obligations and to do their best to fight for freedom, helping the other side on no justified basis and on no criteria, we become highly disturbed.
It is then the logical conclusion to find Cairo as an integral part of the Arab world which extends from the Atlantic to the borders of Iran. It is the logical conclusion to find Cairo as an advocate of the cause of freedom and to have the active headquarters of the free leaders of free Algeria there.
I intentionally pointed to the role of different centers because of the widely spread illusion regarding the rivalry and division among the Middle Eastern countries.
I want to add, however, that Cairo is not the only center for the struggle; there are Damascus, Beirut, Bagdad, Riad and Aman. Furthermore, it might be quite significant to claim as de facto that every center in the Middle East is participating somehow in this struggle for freedom and it is still hoped that every other center in the free world will join hands with the people of Middle East.
I admit the existence of some difference of views at the governmental level. Probably the reason for that is obvious in such a sensitive area with plenty of contradictory foreign policies, plans and plots.
But I deny any differences in the views and attitudes of the people on any basic question. I claim that the people of the area form one integrated body. I like to say that viewing this area on this basis is the only way to understand its problems.
1. The only way to see the Middle East affairs and to find an explanation to the events happening there is to see the Middle Eastern countries as an integrated whole and to see the people of the area as one people.
I lived in this area (outside Egypt) for four years, touring around every significant center and talking to the people. I had never before imagined how a large group of people of this size could hold each of the same views and the same attitudes and think of the same solutions.
I may sum up my points as follows:
2. The people of this area can't forget their experience with imperialism, their glorious past, and their great potentialities, and on this basis they assume responsibility in defending their ideals not only in their lands, but also beyond their borders everywhere. They may be furthermore the function in divisive by geographical boundaries. This question can be logically dealt with only on a consistent basis everywhere.
1. The colonial powers are in their last stages whether they admit it or not. They are going to leave and it is just a matter of time.
3. In North Africa and at any other place where colonial powers are still blocking progress towards freedom, it is our assumed responsibility to force them to change their methods and policy and to stop restricting the freedom of the people. To attain this end it is preferable to use peaceful methods. However, if freedom could not be attained with peace, then it is freedom first.
The future for Algeria and other colonies is not dark; it is as clear as it could possibly be. It is for the good of the free people of the world to take part now in their struggle and to lessen the pangs of the birth of freedom for the native peoples of the colonies. Otherwise the resulting confusion might prove disastrous for all of us.
Mohamed I. Kazem.
Mohamed I. Kazem,
Cairo graduate studen
The Jayhawker
Editor:
Recently, there has been space devoted in The Daily Kansan to articles concerning publicity given Greek and Independent organizations. It seems there are varied ideas along this line, but most of the articles have been biased in their opinion.
Personally I feel the Greeks have their advantages and for this reason I am one. However, I feel that I can see both sides of the issue because of my associations.
Therefore, I would like to outline my position. I am and have been associated with athletics since coming to KU. Also I lived as an Independent for a year and a half before joining a Greek organization.
The Greek organizations are very strong at KU, perhaps stronger than any school in the mid-west. Thus Independent organizations are in minority and will probably continue this way.
My answer to the problem is this: The Independent organizations are in minority, however, they should be given the distinction and respect they deserve.
Therefore, we must accept the fact that Greeks will have more pictures in the Jayhawker, more people in prominent positions on the campus, and more functions and general news than Independents.
But it provokes me to no end to see the Independents being discriminated against and referred too by childish names such as "Barbs." On the other hand terms such as "Freddy Frat Rat" are not the finest of compliments to the Greeks either.
Perhaps some plan could be worked out whereby the Independents would receive publicity by ratifying proportion to that given the Greeks.
Since there are 45 Greek organization on the hill (including professional fraternities) and 30 Independent organizations, perhaps this ratio could be set at three to two. At any rate whatever the answer is to the problem it is high time that we as students act as adults, and view this problem with an open mind.
We are all students of a great institution and should treat each other as such regardless of the fact that some are Greeks and others International as an individual, not by the organization to which he belongs.
Harry Solter, Johnson junior
Johnson junior
Jayhawker-More
Editor:
The editorial in the March 14th issue of the University Daily Kansas has stimulated much thought for all who took time to analyze the unfair and even misrepresentative information about Hank Wittenberg and Jim Miller. I think the article was quite amusing but I also think it would be more appropriate to base such editorials on facts.
First, if Mr. Flanagan has ever had any association with the Jayhawker, he would know that no person is included in the publication if he or she is not so deserving. This means both Greeks and Independents.
the "Who's Who" which was quiffed appropriately awarded.
Does Mr. Flanagan know that Jim Miller was well known as an Independent even before he became associated with the Greeks last year? And as this statement calling the Jayhawker a "personal scrapbook for Jim Miller," and Hank Wittenberg his public identity, I think he will find that none of those pictures are individuals of Miller except for
Second, Mr. Flanagan criticized Hank Wittenberg for failing to include Independents in the group and pretty pictures to a great enough degree, but in the first issue the Greeks had 50 pictures to the Independents' 72 pics.
In the second issue, the Greeks out-numbered the Independents' picture by only 6 pictures. Also, every picture turned in by the Independents that was of usable physical quality was printed.
My question is, do those pictures turned in by the Independents which were included possess any such unique qualities that even they should be included?
Third, Mr. Flanagan criticized the 10 Greek staff heads. If the Independents would show more active interest in things and would make it known that they would want to take these responsible jobs, they would certainly have then if the individual is canable.
I think not! However, I do appreciate Mr. Flanagan's consideration in recognizing the fact that the better organized Greeks would naturally have more group pictures.
I'm sure the persons who make the appointments for staff heads are aware of the fact that a job worth doing is worth doing well. If those dissatisfied Independents are going to continue to sit back and wait for the Jayhawker to search them out, I'm afraid they have a long wait ahead of them.
I would challenge Mr. Flanagan to show me any Independents who have been bigger "wheels" than the Greeks, and I would challenge Mr. Flanagan to show me any of the above mentioned remarks of his where he was rightly justified.
If he feels it is his duty to make such destructive criticism of those most capable people such as Haag Wittenberg and Jim Miller, not to mention all those others Mr. Flanagan does not like, I fel that he should at least use a little more discretion.
Fourth, I was quite amused at the way Mr. Flanagan wittingly twisted the words of Wittenberg's notice of picture "deadline."
Perhaps Mr. Flanagan would like to make an application for Jayhawk editor for the coming year, then we could all see what a great job Hank and all the other members of the Jayhawk staff have done in the two current issues of the book.
Jim Miller has also been accused of being a "joiner" and not a "doer." If there is anyone on this campus who might have been in Miller's place in doing so much for this school and its activities, that person would have been the "target for the above mentioned "editorial."
Actually, the notice clearly stated that pictures must be turned in on time so that the pictures could be sent to the engravers. Also, does Mr. Flanagan realize that pages cost the Greeks $85 each and that Independents are entitled to the same privileges if they are willing to shape or meet the expense.
For a "joiner," Miller has certainly devoted a lot of time to work, even to the extent of out-shining the vigorous "doers."
I, personally, hold high regard for Mr. Wittenberg's desire to publish on schedule and feel that his work is of great importance to his dependents was quite considerate.
Rick Kastner Salina sophomore
As far as my editorial in the March 14 Daily Kansan is concerned, my comments were my own, but they were based on FACIS, and not as Rick Kastner intimates, on fiction
Some of the Greeks have taken the editorial as an affront to their organizations. The editorial was not meant to be anti-Greek.
Editor:
A Reply
I believe that these organizations have a definite and worthwhile pose.
My criticism was directed at the Jayhawk and its current methods of operation, so to reiterate, was based on FACTS which can prove. Leo W. Laughan
Chicago senior
right, Nelson Buckus, tourn