Page 2 University Daily Kansas Friday Nov. 10, 195
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
"You CAN'T flunk me-I've got a CONTRACT!"
Publick Occurrences BOTH FORREIGN AND DOMESTICK
CAMPUS
Look for a more definitely stated relationship between the Greek women on the Hill and the freshmen. The Panhellenic council's vague ruling of "normal contact" couldn't be more "unnormal."
We doubt that the decisions of fraternities and sororities made in New York will have any effect on the problem in this area.
Look for the AWS to rule on the registration of trophy stealing in the affirmative.
It is our guess that in coming years the Campus Chest committee will not set such a high goal—it wasn't quite reached this year. Indications seem to point to a lowering of the per-person donation from the students to the Chest, or else a lowering of the goal to be reached, judging from the complaints of the many "tight" students.
The ASC rejection of the UVO appropriations might have been a mistake. Indications point to another UVO letter to Chancellor Murphy and a political row in the council.
SPORTS
Hank Greenberg, general manager of the Cleveland Indians, doesn't believe Kansas City is a big league town. Of course we will have to wait and see, but don't be surprised if the Kansas City Athletics draw twice the number of fans as many of the other major league teams draw.
NATIONAL
The Dixon-Yates power issue may be trying Republican prestige. Republican victory looks likely in the controversial game, but if the new Democratic Congress has anything to say about it, private enterprise in the form of Dixon-Yates is in for a blow. If the Dixon-Yates contract is defeated it would get the 84th Congress and the President off to a bad start.
Looks as if "Mr. Sam" Rayburn and IKE will be busy ironing out the treason accusations made by the Republicans against the Democrats during the campaign. We predict the President will "get off Mr. Rayburn's back," and sailing will be smooth on interparty cooperation.
Keep your eye on Gov. Frank J. Lausche of Ohio. It isn't every Democrat who wins five elections in a traditionally Republican state.
An Open Letter to Phog Allen
Dear Mr. Allen:
Happy Birthday, Paul
Yesterday you celebrated your 69th birthday.
Today we say "Thanks for your 37 years of coaching KU basketball teams to glory."
There aren't many who will dispute the statement that you're pretty great. Oh, you have your "buddies" out on the East Coast who say some rather nasty things every now and then. But they say nasty things about most people, so it's to be expected.
One of these days in the not-too-distant future they're going to finish that fieldhouse up here. When they get around to dedicating it there are a lot of people who hope your name will be on it. Count us among them.
With the naming of Malott hall for Deane W. Malott, the board of regents may have indicated they're ready to honor the living as well as the dead. The chairman of the board of regents and the chancellor have rightfully said that it's premature to start talking about naming the new fieldhouse now. But we just want you to know that we're behind the rapidly moving proposal to name the $2,500,000-building for Dr. Forrest C. "Phog" Allen when the time comes to start considering the name.
It's not news now that the University finally broke that long-standing and not quite understandable tradition of naming campus buildings only for persons who are dead.
We're a little late with our birthday salutations. We hope your big birthday present comes. But it'll be late too. We hope it'll be mailed around March of next year.
Oh, by the way, pick up a copy of Monday's Kansan. The sports pages will have a lot more to say about this.
Sincerely,
John Herrington
Kansan Staff
Writer Explains Useof Word' Nigger'
The policy of saying what you think usually winds up with this pathetic little axiom;
"Open your mouth, and you'll get it slapped."
Open you mouth, and you won't get it slapped. Too often truths are squelched and ideas kept silent because there is a constant fear of saying the wrong thing, of offending, of stepping on toes. Effective writing as well as effective speech is too often mitigated, too often rendered meaningless because diplomacy is a key word in any man's society.
The other day I quoted the word "nigger," (taken from Harper's magazine) in a feature story about Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman. The article, at least in the manner I meant to present it, had nothing whatever to do with racial problems or the Negro race. But I've found that I've offended a number of persons on the campus whom I had no intention of offending.
I should have known better. Had I thought twice about its use, I would have omitted the word. Nevertheless, the word is there and will be filed as it was printed.
To those persons whose feelings I have hurt. I am sorry. My own naivete is no excuse for offending anyone.
But what is a writer to do? Where must diplomacy end and writing begin?
I don't think it is fair to ask anyone to weigh
the precise connotation of his words. I don't think it is fair to ask anyone to speak or to write with caution accompanying his every word. When "careful, now, careful," is a requisite of thought perception, there is no real need to think at all.
The only thing I meant to convey in the Gen. Sherman article was a picture of the march from Atlanta to the sea. Trying to present a more vivid picture, I added a quotation from a victim of the march who used the offensive word. The fact is that the victim did say "nigger." He did not say Negro. Whether it is ethical or not, a victim in the age of Negro persecution during the Civil war used the word "nigger." It does not imply a degradation of the Negro race today—or even in Gen. Sherman's time, except from the mouth of a Southern victim.
Caution could have prevented the word from appearing in the Kansan, but caution could not have prevented its coming from the mouth of a Southerner in 1864, who was trampled under the feet of Gen. Sherman's army.
Caution in anything (in a broader sense than one small word in one small article) can be a good thing. But in still a broader sense, why must thoughts dwindle to nothing because they aren't diplomatic enough to be expressed?
Gene Shank
Women's Vote Result of Fight, Fear
For three decades, women have shared an equal privilege with men in obtaining, on their 21st birthday, the legal right to vote in state and national elections. Taken for granted today, this privilege was one earned by a long struggle, and when it was at last established there were many who had deep misgivings.
Agitation for women's suffrage has a long and turbulent history, originating in the 1830's and coupled with the antislavery crusade until the Civil war. After the war it was associated with the Prohibition movement, in which women were active.
Many women attempted to vote under the rights of the 14th amendment, but in 1875 the Supreme Court unanimously held that the amendment did not confer the vote upon them. Only three states (Colorado, Idaho, and Utah) gave the vote to women before 1910, but in that year a progressive era began, and the franchise was extended in other states.
When the 19th amendment was submitted to the states, more than half the women of voting age had suffrage by state law. With President Woodrow Wilson's support, the right was finally established.
Yet there was, in 1920, a widespread contagion of worry, based on the problems which many expected women's suffrage to precipitate. The opposition had been sufficiently strong to block such an amendment for nearly a century, and it is not remarkable therefore that the mutterings of distrust continued, though on a lesser scale.
The predominant fear was that such a tremendous increase in the electorate would throw the vote askew. Anti-prohibitionists feared the strong favor which women had shown toward prohibition.
It is impossible to determine the results of the 19th amendment through election statistics, since men's and women's votes are not registered separately. From figures which show a sublime lack of interest in politics on the part of many women we would agree with "The People's Choice" that their attitude has not yet brought them to full equality with men."
It would appear in retrospect that a minority on both sides of the issue goaded the early debate into a flaming crusade, and that the cooler expressions of current disinterest are only the eventual voice of the majority speaking.
Amy DeYong