One Long Year For Chancellor
It was a long year for the man in the bowtie, who always seemed to be able to muster that kid-in-the-candy-store smile, no matter how grave the situation.
One year ago, almost to the day, E. Laurence Chalmers Jr., chancellor of the University of Kansas, embarked on the unfinished odyssey that has tested his mettle on more than one occasion, in a year so plagued with crises that one almost could believe that the sunlight of each new day had spawned a clutch of harpies to do battle with the forces of rationality.
It is unfair to evaluate this man on the basis of one year's performance. The ultimate value of any man can only be determined when the nature of his position and the expectations for that position have had time to run their course and finally converge. Then that man's greatness can be considered.
Author Elbert Hubbard says of greatness: "The man who is anybody and who does anything is surely going to be criticized, vilified, and misunderstood. This is a part of the penalty for greatness, and every great man understands it; and understands, too, that it is no proof of greatness. The final proof of greatness lies in being able to endure contumely without resentment."
Surely Larry Chalmers has been criticized.
The criticism, some of it just, some only for the lack of another figure to flay, has seemingly left the psychologist from Princeton, who has an acclaimed admiration for the young, untouched.
Larry Chalmers has made his mistakes, but these are the price of his mortality. In his finest moments, he has brought crowds of sophisticated students and faculty to their feet in approbation, much in the same tenor as the adulation given to movie greats or charismatic politicians. He possesses the "machismo" that gives latin men their particular quixotic approach to life.
To fill the role of captain of such a vessel as this university, and weather the tempests that it has known (not particular to it alone), a man must be a romantic at one moment and a pragmatist at the next. Larry Chalmers is both.
Hard times lie ahead for the university and its mentor.
As Hubbard said, if a man can endure criticism without resentment, he is in fact a great man.
LETTERS
If Larry Chalmers resents his critics and their slings, he hides it well.
Tom Slaughter
No Silence on Athletics
To the editor:
The Great "Don't Rock The Boat" Theory:
As the authors of the Student Senate resolution that "raised the hackles of sports-minded" Bob Womack (Thursday's Kansan), we must express astonishment at both the logic and information that Mr. Womack attempted to use in interpreting our resolution for the benefit of the Kansan readers.
To begin with, the Senate has a total projected student activity fee fund of about $400,000, and received over $600,000 in requests. This fact should leave little question that the athletic department was not the only group to receive cuts in requests
The athletic department has an annual income of over $1,000,000, of which the $181,000 represents around 17%. In other words, almost 50% of student activity fee money has been automatically handed over to the Athletic Association to use as it sees fit. A cut of $48,400 would mean a four percent reduction in their budget, which we fail to see as seriously jeopardizing an organization which can build an addition to Allen Field House and house students in Jayhawk Towers.
For information's sake, we feel it is significant to point out that activity fees were frozen by the Board of Regents before the Finance and Auditing Committee's report was submitted to the Senate, not after. The rationale for the regents' decision would seem to show their fear of students having control over their own money (activity fees are not state funds in any normal use of the term). That is their position to defend. The Student Senate does not feel it is in the best interest of the student body to allow pressure from one corporation to determine where half of the students' fee money goes.
In response to Womack's assertion that our resolution "tells the (athletic) department that coaches should not have control over their team," we must say that such editorializing is a gross and fallacious misinterpretation of both the literal and intended meaning of the resolution. The resolution merely requested a report on the Goldberg case and on general policies of team scholarship. If Womack is an avid sports fan, he realizes that Section 1.4 of the Rules and Regulations of the Big Eight Conference states that the Athletic Association must be under institutional control. The resolution does question a coach's right to exercise illegal control over his team members. The Student Code of Rights, Privileges, and Responsibilities sets ground rules of both student responsibilities and rights. This document serves as an institutional policy. Our intention in requesting a report is to determine if the Athletic Association will, in fact, abide by institutional control.
If a judgment made by the judicial system of the University is allowed to be negated by giving control of the law to employees of a semi-private corporation, then the University has lost all right to use the terms justice and truth.
We are also confused on another point. If it is misdirected in Womack's view to assert independence in the name of more relevant activities because "(they) can only backfire," then it is asserted that the only good use of student funds is one that is allowed by the regents, not one that allows the most equitable use of resources available. We categorically reject this view.
In closing, to ask how more than a million dollars of students' money was used during the last five years does not seem to be unreasonable—especially when in the past the director of the Athletic Association stated to the Finance and Auditing Committee of the Student Senate that the Association's books did not show exactly where student money was spent.
To expect the Athletic Association to follow Big Eight Conference rules and institutional regulations does not seem to be unreasonable.
It is, however, ludicrous to expect students to give $12 apiece per semester to a group and then to expect student silence when that group refuses to willingly cooperate with their University. Students should not be silent, and we, as their representatives, will not be.
Frank Zilm, St. Louis senior; Brad Smoot, Sterling junior; George Laughead, Dodge City senior
To the editor:
$$
* * *
$$
I am astonished at the naivete of Bob Womack, who bemoans the proposed allocation cut to the athletic corporation. If Womack had investigated the situation, perhaps he would not have made so many fallacious and misleading statements.
I do not challenge the fact that athletics is probably the primary interest that many alumni have in this university, nor am I at this time challenging the value of athletics in general. However, after three and one half months of constant investigation and deliberation on this question, there is no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that athletics at the University of Kansas do not need $180,000.
In a time of financial problems throughout the University it's ridiculous to allocate money when it is not needed to carry on a program, and I am afraid that in this case, the students of KU have lost about $50,000.00.
R. L. Bailey, Aatchison senior and co-chairman, Student Senate Finance and Auditing Committee
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
An All-American college newspaper
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newsroom—UN 4-4810 Business Office—UN 4-4358
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscriptions to 86 a semester, $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. All goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.