Senate pace slow but sure
To the editor;
As a member of the Student Senate and after watching the Senate perform over the past few weeks, I could not help but be utterly repulsed by the petty indictment of the Senate offered by Judith K. Diebolt (Kansan, Oct. 24).
"What the Student Senate needs, Mr. Awbrey, is a boss, not a leader." Judy so eloquently concludes after a summation of what she considers to be the Senate's follies and hypocrisies. Disregarding the quality of the leadership in the Senate, I am horrified that Judy wants a boss. Shades of Richard Daley! Bossism and all of its attributes do little to create an atmosphere of justice or progress. In fact, I think and hope the student senate would not tolerate the bossism Judy proposes.
I have always admired Judy's use of the English language. But I am a little horrified at her lack of research,
and by her unsupported conclusions. She labors over the fact that so many of the Senate leadership's goals are in committees (which, Judy, no one promised to abolish), when in fact those committees have some viable plans in the offing. I hope no one expects an apology from the Senate, for instance, because Watkins Hospital has not yet been replaced. Even if we had ambitious Judy's help in studying the possibilities of improving horrendous health facilities, we would still be facing the financial channels and drawbacks which have prevented the hospital from being improved in the past few years.
Even with our "very cooperative Chancellor" and "semicooperative Board of Regents," some things won't be done by lunch time tomorrow. I don't think I realized that until last year when I watched Chancellor Wescoe plead, almost tearfully, with the state finance
committee for enough money to light the damned sidewalks to prevent rape and broken necks.
There is a very tentative plan to add to the health facilities, a plan, which, when fully developed, will be the best contribution that can be made by your hard-working Student Senate. (And some of us do spend hours weekly working on these things, Judy, and our leaders spend more time than is academically feasible for them. Whether they are crazy to devote that much time to something which won't show up on their diploma or whether they are devoted to the goals they have set out to accomplish is beyond me; the fact is they have worked strenuously.)
I am sure, Judy, you know about the Senate's summer project and the thoughtful efforts of some of this year's committees. I hate to remind anyone who has, I am sure, studied history, but our country was not put together by the Constitutional Convention as a whole, but rather by parts of that convention. A committee of that convention drafted the Declaration of Independence. That our founders realized that delegation of specific duties was essential to the outcome of those early days may be one of the reasons that our documents, even with their gross flaws, were considered the most progressive in the world.
Judy, if after this Senate has been given time to act it still gives nothing but lip-service to its idealistic goals of last spring's election, I'll be right there with you, rampaging, cussing and squawking. In the meantime, I am working as best I can and the Senate is working as best it can. You know, don't you, that we are working under a new code and in a new governmental body? Let us get our legs.
In infanthood, the Senate has not been a Christ-child.
M-Day, misquotes, Union site
To the editor:
Walking across campus this past Wednesday morning one could not help noticing the excitement in the air—an almost carnival atmosphere. And that, it seems to me, raises several basic questions concerning the motivation, goals and commitment of the people involved.
To be specific, if anti-war demonstrators want to influence the course of events in this country, i.e., induce President Nixon to end the war, they must deal with political realities, i.e., power and its use, and not engage in quaint vacuous gestures. Sen. Eugene McCarthy attempted to transcend the structure of traditional "political realities" because of principle—he lost and in my opinion, so have we.
A recent Kansan editorial raised the issue of economic boycott. I would like to pursue this idea with the following suggestions. Assume the million or so people involved could be organized and would encourage their friends and families to act with them;
1) Stop buying "necessary luxuries" like beer, cigarettes, records, books, clothes, gas, etc.
2. ) During holidays, don't fly, walk or drive. Stay put.
3. ) Finally, consider our approaching festive occasions from Halloween to the greatest of them all (in the present context the most important)—Xmas, and on to Easter: don't buy! decorations, cards, presents or anything related: don't give presents and refuse to accept them, and tell people why (oh the irony! Xmas instead of Xma$).
If in fact anti-war protestors are committed and if their sentiment is represented by as large a percentage of the population as certain people claim, then I suggest the boycott would be effective. You know President Nixon will hear the business community.
Buffalo, N.Y., graduate student
David Pugh
* *
To the editor:
Many years ago, when I was yet a babe-in-arms, my mother told me, in no uncertain terms:
"Son, if you persist in verbalizing your conceptualizations of societal phenomena your potential peer group may be, because of the quantitative imbalance, unable to consistently separate empirically verifiable elements from hypothetical or accidental variables."
My mother, fount of wisdom that she was, has been proven right: I was misquoted in the Kansan article (Oct. 23) on the fate of the Satellite Union. I believe that the article is generally correct in its recounting of last night's events, but your reporter errs in attributing to me a suggestion that the Student Senate "put pressure" on the administration to underwrite BSU programs. Not only did I not say such a thing, but I disagree with such a suggestion completely.
I did support, and still support, an outlay of $10,000 for BSU activities and programs. I do believe that the University should underwrite some BSU programs. But, I do not visualize the Student Senate as a pressure group, nor do I for one instant entertain the idea that it is the business of the Student Senate to "put pressure" on any person or group of this University.
It is the business of the Student Senate, in conjunction with the Faculty Senate, as an elected body to represent the interests of the total University community and to take action in the name of that community toward the implementation of its plans and programs, so far as they are known. Where such plans and programs are found less than satisfactory, and
where plans and programs are non-existent, we must attempt to formulate new policy that accurately reflects the consensus of the University community.
It is this latter job that is the most difficult. Many considerations must be made in the pursuit of feasible policy, but "pressure" is not one of these.
The United States has 5.6 suicides per 100,000 population, according to the World Health Organization.
Jon Christian Suggs Lawrence graduate student
\star \star \star
To the editor:
In regard to your editorial of Oct. 22, I would like to pose a few questions.
First, is it really too late to hold a student referendum concerning the construction of the Satellite Union? The Board of Regents will be responsible for the final decision (not the Student Senate) and it would probably be reassuring to them and the rest of the administration if it was found that most of the students favor the project.
Secondly, I don't really understand the Student Senate's position on this issue and I wish the members would clarify themselves. Upon first looking at a map of this campus, I wondered why the Student Union was situated opposite the majority of the residence halls. When I saw the Union annex that was proposed, I thought it a good idea. Now the Student Senate wants to spend time deliberating on a site when a delay would be expensive. Moving the site to N-zone parking lot (as Frank Zilm suggested) seems unfeasible for three reasons: 1.) the two sites are hardly more than 100 yards from each other, 2.) it would be very costly to relocate the parking lot, 3.) the parking lot is necessary where
it is; we should have a lot accessible to our University Theatre. I even question Zilm's personal concern with the issue. The Kansan (Oct. 1) quoted him as saying that one solution would be abandonment of the project.
Perhaps if we students on Daisy Hill had any place short of a mile where we could go to recreate, we would find better things to do than organize pantie raids. I sometimes wonder if very many students realize the advantages (or even the purpose that this Satellite Union would serve. But then, my opinion is not what really counts, and that is why I think we should hold a referendum, regardless of what final decision may be made. Let's clear the air!
Jim Eshelman Clinton, Mo., sophomore
Nor has it been Rosemary's Baby. I've still got a little faith that it will be a productive organization.
But if Watkins hasn't been razed by sundown tomorrow, with a glistening new structure built on the site, you won't get any apologies from me.
Mike Shearer Student Senator, Journalism Topeka senior
"Philip" is Marlowe's Whisky.
IT MAKES COURAGE!
"Philip" is Marlowe's Gun.
IT MAKES NOISE!
"Philip" is Marlowe's Friend.
IT MAKES LOVE!
Because of the unusual nature of the title, we suggest you consult your dictionary for the full meaning so that you will not be surprised by the sophisticated subject matter of this film.
THE GAY DECEIVERS HILLCREST #3 All Seats $1.50