Page 2
University Daily Kansas Thursday, April 30, 195
Trend to Material Education Decried
Universities in China, according to A. Doak Barnett, Institute of World Affairs field staff lecturer on campus this week, are turning toward increased emphasis on the technical aspect of higher education. For instance, more than half of the freshmen last year enrolled in an engineering sequence alone, with many others pursuing specialized scientific fields.
Mr. Barnett is an expert on China and Chinese affairs and has a good grasp of the situation there. His comment leads us to some speculation on the progress and direction of our own educational system.
There are two principal reasons for the sudden switch in the Chinese philosophy of education which has a 4,000 year tradition of scholarship. For one, they undoubtedly feel that in the technical field they are at
best second-rate compared to America's superlative scientific standards.
But more important, the almost complete abandonment of the liberal arts curriculum stems from the fact that the Communist regime is wary and fearful of intelligent citizenship.
The primary purpose of higher education still is intellectual training, intellectual growth by which the mind acquires an ever increasing understanding of reality on all levels, political, social, economic, and above all, the rational level. In a totalitarian state, it appears judicious to avoid this objective.
The sensitive educator sees the same trend in our own system, promoted here because of our curious obsession for the material. The explosive progress of science has dimmed our vision to the necessity of developing
right-thinking persons to properly utilize this progress.
Chancellor Murphy said recently that the "University must provide intellectual elbow room for it will become a trade school unless thinkers are developed instead of students who take in facts one day and regurgitate them the next."
The Chinese realize the dangerous propensity of an enlightened populace and prefer to subvert the natural dignity of man and transform him into a machine subservient to the state.
In an enlightened democracy, our concept should be to elevate this dignity by a broadened use of the instrument of liberal education and its subsequent end product, right reason. —Chuck Zuegner
Bricker Amendment Could Delay American Decisions
The right of executives to make agreements with other nations would be abridged in a Constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. John W. Bricker (R.-Ohio).
The amendment would be dangerous if passed since it would subject to the uncertainties of Congressional politics such critical issues as NATO, mutual-security agreements, UN, and the Korean negotiations.
The bill is unlikely to be passed, even though it is endorsed by 63 senators and the American Bar association, because the American people aren't apt to approve such an amendment.
Essentially, Sen. Bricker's plan may be a good one—to limit the power of the President in making "executive agreements." At present there is a fear among many old government officials that government is becoming a sham—that the real power is in the hands of only the executive branch.
It's a fine thing to be able to entrust decisions to the chief executive, but with the United States becoming increasingly powerful in world government all this power in the hands of one man might become too powerful for most people can see good sense in Sen. Brickner's argument.
The next shudder comes in trying to imagine when a committee would get anything done in a hurry—like being war, or framing a quick treaty.
But when the senator proposes a legislative committee to handle foreign affairs, one's first impulse is a shudder of absolute horror—to think that a Congressional committee would be capable of making up its collective mind on anything.
As to the amendment itself, the first section is entirely unnecessary. It provides that "a provision of a treaty which denies or abridges any right enumerated in the Constitution shall not be of any force or effect."
The Supreme Court already has provided that treaties cannot set aside the Constitution. As further protection, the Senate can block ratification of such a treaty, and Congress can pass laws to limit or abolish the effects of any such treaty.
Section 2 of the amendment says, "No treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate rights of U.S. citizens enumerated in the Constitution, or any other matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the U.S."
This provision, the experts say, would keep the United States from participating in international bodies and would make such things as international control of atomic energy impossible.
After a treaty has been negotiated and ratified by two-thirds of Congress—which is no easy thing to accomplish—the amendment provides that it "shall become effective. . . only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by Congress."
Comments
Miss Safety of 1952 is on crutches these days with a broken ankle she broke recently while skiing.
Everyone is certainly happy to see that the new science building is still standing after the recent windy weather.
This triple trip of each treaty through the Senate, then back through both houses, would be a great waste of time. And of course, there is no assurance that after such a trip the bill would even faintly resemble its original form.
Section 4 says executive agreements cannot be made except as Congress authorizes them. This not only would swamp Congress with extra work, but would make executive responsibilities almost impossible to discharge.
The solution to too many executive agreements seems to lie not in a legal handcuffing of the executive, but ideally in a greater discrimination by the voters in choosing a good executive.
-Mary Betz
The five-year program was designed to increase industrialism and production, thereby increasing the
The Russian land reform system, originally designed to break up the power of the aristocratic landlord system, has degenerated to the point where farm workers live in virtual enslavement. Abundant crops do the farmer no good—the state hauls off all the surplus.
Malenkov Must Soothe Russians
Georgi Malenkov, the new head of the vast Russian empire, will be discovering soon that he will have to put his own house in order before he can lead the Soviet Union to further victories in the war against "capitalistic imperialism."
Internal difficulties probably will be one of the new ruler's biggest headaches, if not the biggest. The USSR has gobbled up thousands of new miles of territory since the end of World War II. Production has increased, the army has expanded, the workers are "enjoying" their greatest era of prosperity. But the Soviet has overlooked the fact that the ruthless Russian government has stirred up the wrath of thousands of its people.
material wealth of the Russian people. The Kremlin leaders have succeeded in boosting production levels. But the people don't benefit from the increase—the products are poured into military channels.
Premier Malenkov should take into account one very important statistical fact before he plots the new policies of the Soviet Union. Only one-half of the 200 million people of Russia are Great Russians. Fifty million Ukrainians and White Russians are located in the south and west. A substantial Baltic population exists in the northwest. Turks and Mongols live in the east.
All of these people have their own cultures and traditions. Many have suffered under the ever-expanding movement of communism. Millions have been sent to Siberian slave labor camps. Thus, these naturally discontented individuals are an excellent source for a rebellion.
In the satellite nations, in central Asia and Siberia, the Kremlin rulers have exploited, not developed, the people and their natural resources. Trade has been conducted
in such a way as to benefit the high-ranking Communist. The people are shoved aside. They don't have an opportunity to improve the standard of living since the Kremlin leaders take the sources of wealth away from them.
Under Stalin, the Red empire spread out all over the globe and brought thousands of new people and square miles into its grip. These movements were accompanied by bitterness among the peoples of the conquered lands.
The Poles have hated the Russians for centuries. The Czechs have intense pride in their spirit of independence. The Balkan people have been jealous of their individuality for years.
It all boils down to the fact that Malenkov and his leaders have a first class headache to cure if they hope to defeat the capitalistic system. These Red bosses can't afford to neglect the home front population while they are striving to spread the Communist doctrine through the world. If they do, the days of 1917 may be revived.
-Chuck Morelock
Senatorial opponents of coastal state ownership of the tidelands are protesting a bill which would give the states title to the offshore areas within their historic state boundaries.
Let's give the land to the states. Advocates of national control have been hollering two years that the states are trying to rob them. In actuality, they robbed the states to get the land in the first place.
Harold Ickes, former Secretary of the Interior, was the original culprit. He wrote a series of articles in 1551 claiming the tidallands never did belong to the states. Advocates of state ownership were labeled convivors and he insisted Sam Rayburn, then speaker of the House, rammed the Walter bill—a similar earlier bill—through the House.
This earlier bill was vetoed by ex-President Truman. If the present bill can get through the Senate, it stands a good chance of being signed by President Eisenhower, who has voiced approval of the solution it offers.
As for Ickes' charge of the states having no rightful claim to the submerged lands, Justice Gray ruled in 1894 that the "new states admitted to the Union since the adoption of the Constitution have the same rights as the original states in the tidewaters and the lands under them." A second to this ruling was given by Chief Justice Hughes in 1912.
But a century and a half of tradition didn't stop the present Supreme court from reversing the accepted standards. In one of a series of decisions, Justice Black explained that the claims of the federal government transcended those of a mere property owner.
It just shows you that the guardians of our rights believe in government of the people, but government by the government and government for the government.
The offshore lands extend into the ocean 100 to 200 miles before dropping to great depths. They contain 15 billion barrels of oil. Surveys show that the land beyond the state's historic boundaries contains four times as much as that area, known as the marginal belt, being argued over in the Senate.
Evidently that 197 miles isn't enough for some of the boys. They're greedy.
Of course, Texas and Florida are trying to encroach on this by claiming $10^{\frac{1}{2}}$ miles instead of three, but the joker here is that the historic boundaries of these two states extend that far.
Both sides offer good reasons for having ALL the land, but we're not going to concern ourselves with reasons. It's the principle of the thing we're interested in. Let's give the coastal states back the land within their historic boundaries.
Bob Nold
Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $4.50 a year (add $1 a semester if in Lawrence). Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University holidays and Sundays, and even on weekends. University holiday cards are periods. Entered second class matter Sept. 17, 1910, at Lawrence, Kan., Post Office under act of March 3, 1879.
MY FAMILY TREE IS ONE OF
this COUNTRY'S VERY
CHARTER OAKS...
EVER IN A SPROTT YEAR
I ONCE WON A SET OF
WHITE WALL TIRES FROM
THE DALMATIAN
CLUB OF AMERICA,
AVE ... RIBBONS GAUGE
MY GYPSY FOREBEARS RAN WITH
THE ROMANIES...THEN THE AGES...
KNOWED AS THE PLUM PUDDIN'
DOG...THE FIRE HOUSE DOG...WITH-
OUT US THE CHICAGO FIRE
WOULD BE UNSUNG!