KANSAN COMMENT Goldberg: Another Side
BY DON BAKER
Kansan Assistant Sports Editor
The much-publicized Sam Goldberg case is "back" in the courtroom and one can only hope those who decide the fate of the case are better informed than the average guy on the street.
To say that the facts have been distorted is a gross understatement. Few people are aware of the situation leading up to the case and the resulting publicity makes one wonder if the case has already been tried through the press. To go further, one can only wonder if this wasn't Mr. Goldberg's objective from the beginning.
Additionally, Goldberg and his sympathizers have blown the facts out of context and have made Goldberg a political figure rather than simply a deprived athlete.
It appears that the Senate has used the case to exploit its grievances against the Athletic Department and the distribution of student activity fees. Some members of the Senate have charged the University and Athletic Director Wade Stinson with violating Big Eight and NCAA rules concerning institutional control in revoking athletic scholarships.
But the truth of the matter is that Goldberg's scholarship was not revoked. Instead, it was simply not renewed. The distinction between the two is obvious.
Goldberg's scholarship, which was signed by Goldberg himself, was on a semester basis subject to the athletic department's decision for renewal each semester. For numerous reasons, including his failure to report to some practices and meetings, the department, through track coach Bob Timmons' recommendation, decided not to renew his scholarship.
Accordingly, Goldberg was dismissed from the team prior to the NCAA meet held last June in Des Moines. Again, neither Timmons nor the athletic department violated any NCAA or Big Eight rules in not letting Goldberg participate in the meet.
Goldberg has said that he was not notified in advance that his actions, if continued, would lead to his dismissal from the squad. But it is difficult to imagine any athlete not recognizing the fact that, if for no other reason, not going to practice might
jeopardize his standing on the team. It should be pointed out, though, that in Goldberg's case, the least of his actions was missing practice.
The next thing Goldberg sympathizers say is that the athletic department violated the University Judiciary Board's order to reinstate Goldberg to the team for the NCAA meet.
But in this matter, too, the truth has been distorted. In truth, only three members of the Judiciary Board were present for that hearing and consequently had no power to order Goldberg reinstated, or anything else for that matter. That fact was known and discussed by both parties before the hearing, yet Goldberg immediately exploited the "ruling" by charging the athletic department with failure to comply.
This does raise one question concerning the athletic department. Why did it even bother going to the hearing to begin with and why is it now appealing the decision? In actuality, it is to the full Judiciary Board for the first time.
Goldberg chose to further distort the facts by claiming to every member of the press he could get his hands on that his dismissal from the team was strictly political in nature.
Goldberg claimed that Timmons had heard a rumor to the effect that he was planning to stage a personal protest demonstration against the Cambodian invasion and the Kent State killings at the Des Moines meet and was, as a result, removed from the team. But the actual reasons given by Timmons ranged from failure to attend practice to instances of "temper tantrums" on Goldberg's part and made no mention of his political beliefs or intentions.
The fact of the matter is that Sam Goldberg has no facts on which to base his allegations that the KU Athletic Department unfairly took his scholarship away from him and removed him from the track team.
Regardless of the outcome of the judicial proceedings, Sam Goldberg will not participate in track for KU again this year. Why? It's simple. While Sam was busy last spring doing everything imaginable to get himself excused from the team, he apparently neglected his classroom obligations and is now scholastically ineligible to participate on the team.
The Voice of the Masses?
Casting reasonable compromise to the wind, the Student Senate Executive Committee has endorsed an "activity fee strike," urging students not to pay their fees next semester in response to the Board of Regents' action on a budget submitted to them by the Student Senate.
Relatively limited changes were made in the proposed budget. Those adjustments included a reduction in the appropriation for the Black Student Union, an appropriation to fully fund the Engineering Exposition to be held, a small allotment to the KU Rifle Club and the deletion of a $10,000 allocation to Catalyst.
Before the budget was submitted to the Regents, the chancellor had struck a proposed $1,000 appropriation for the Oread Daily, and had restored the huge cut administered to the athletic department by the Senate.
At the time StudEx urged students to refuse to pay fees next semester, it listed as goals either full control of activity fee money or student determination to abolish the fee.
It is not unreasonable to expect that students should have control over the allocation of their activity fees.
But several of the appropriations of the Student Senate very likely do not have the support StudEx assumes they do when it takes the liberty in its call for the strike of saying, "The Student Senate Executive Committee, on behalf of the students of the University of Kansas, refuses to comply with the regents' decision on the 1970-71 budget."
Has StudEx been given the authority by the student body to make such a statement?
Who will be harmed if there are no student activity fees? Certainly not the regents or the legislators, who base their reaction to higher education on such statements as that made by StudEx.
There are indications that the activity fee may be headed for oblivion anyway, but until student organizations find the means of raising money, they will continue to depend upon the funds supplied by the fee.
It is rather ludicrous to think that this recommendation could accomplish anything except to remove from school those who should refuse to pay their fees.
There are probably many students who fully support the regents' actions in appropriating sufficient money for the Engineering Exposition to be held again this year.
StudEx scored the regents for their trimming or elimination of funds for "those things to which they cannot relate."
But there are many students who cannot in good conscience "relate" to such organizations as Catalyst.
Rather than adopting a policy of mature attempts at conciliation, negotiation, and positive action, StudEx is advocating a solution akin to a small child's holding his breath until he gets what he wants.
It is to be hoped that students realize that only they and their activities, which represent a wide spectrum of action and interest, will be damaged if there are no fees to finance these activities.
—Bob Womack
Griff & the Unicorn
BY SOKO10FF
"An come on, lady. How did you know I was a US security marshal?"
Ren Strikes Out
"Copyright 1970. University Daily Kansan"
State Sen. Ren Shultz has just about struck out on the political diamond. From what he first said in Manhattan, Shultz has passed judgment on a human life.
Shultz first gained public attention following the investigation of the disruption of the 1969 ROTC review. He was the chairman of the committee which subpoenaed William Balfour, then dean of student affairs, to release the names of the students involved.
The tragic death of Rick Dowdell last summer spurred feelings of distrust on the KU campus and throughout Lawrence. Lawrence lost something when Dowdell was shot by a Lawrence police officer. It lost a human life. Lawrence High lost one of its alumni. The Dowdell family lost one of its members and the University of Kansas lost one of its students.
The committee, however, denied Shultz the right to release the names. Shultz explained that he wanted to do that because the people had a right to know who was disrupting the educational processes at KU.
But last summer, KU lost two of its students. Nick Rice was also shot and killed on the streets of Lawrence. Much was lost when he died, too. Kansas City lost one of its residents. The Baptist hospital where he worked lost one of its assistants. Rice's mother and father lost their son.
If Shultz' desire had been fulfilled, a promise to the students involved would have been violated. Those who were given the private hearings were given the word of KU officials that their names would not be made known to the public. They were disciplined according to the degree of their involvement in the disruption.
"This apparent disregard by Sen. Shultz for the life of a fellow human being breaks all the rules of responsibility." Rome said.
But Shultz' plea gained him a firm footing in the public's eye. For some time after, most of the news that came out of Lawrence involved KU and Ren Shultz.
Rome summed up what this election should be about when he said, "It is time we speak about building, not tearing down . . . to speak of pulling ourselves together, not tearing ourselves apart."
If Sen. Shultz were killed in the streets of Lawrence, I shudder at the thought about what people would say about his death.
Shultz was critical of the role Chancellor Chalmers played at KU. He even criticized the top administrator of KU for not joining in the standing ovations for President Nixon at the Landon Lecture in Manhattan. Chalmers said that he did stand and applauded the President.
Richard Rome, the democratic candidate for lieutenant governor and the man who is running against Shultz, said that he was appalled by the remarks made by his opponent.
Clyde Reed, publisher of the Parsons Sun, characterized the whole idea of Sen. Shultz and his comments about Rick Dowdell's death when, in a widely publicized editorial, he said, "Who is this man with the knowledge or station to define the value of human life and summarily conclude that nothing will be lost or missed if an individual's life is snuffed out?"
Mr. Reed went on to suggest that Sen. Shultz should withdraw his name from the Republican ballot.
—Charlie Cape
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN An All-American college newspaper
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except for two occasions, one in May and one in a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without any restrictions may be made on behalf of the university, necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
NEWS STAFF
News Adviser... Del Brinkman
Editor ... Monroe Dodd
Assistant Editor ... Cass Peterson
Campus Editor ... Tom Slaughter
News Editors ... Galen Bland,
Ann Moritz, Robin Stewart, Mary Jo Thunn, Allan Walker
Sports Editor ... Joe Bullard
Editorial Writers ... Charlie Cape, Bob Womack
Women's Editor ... Carolyn Bowers
Arts and Reviews Editor ... Marilyn McMullen
Assistant Campus Editor ... Jeff Goudle
Assistant Sports Editor ... Don Baker
Makeup Editors ... Ted lillf, Craig Parker
Secretary ... Vicki Phillips
Photographers ... Jim Hoffman, Greg Sorber, Mike Radencich, Steve Fritz
Business Adviser Mel Adams
Business Manager Mike Banks
Advertising Manager John Lagos
Assistant Business Manager Jim Higgins
Assistant Advertising Manager Ron Carter
National Advertising Manager Richard Simmons
Classified Advertising Manager Shilah Blank
Circulation Manager Todd Smith
Promotional Manager David Hack