THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
The University of Kansas—Lawrence Kansas
Beer Rules On Campus Will Vary
82nd Year, No.48
Thursday. November 4. 1971
See Page 7
Kansan Photo by DOUG DELANO
Worry Days. Fall Colors Lure Students Out-of-Doors
Students are making the most of the few warm days left before the snow and cold of winter sets in. Brad Scott, Wichita senior, and Pam Walters, Leawood junior, relax during a break between classes and enjoy the fall colors.
Hunger Still US Problem
Kansan Staff Writer
By JUNE KANTZ
Kapcon Staff Writer
Editor's Note: This is the second in a five-part series of malmournishment and
mortality.
Four years ago, in the CBS documentary "Hunger in America," the American public was informed of the acute hunger situation that existed in this country. For a while it was a national issue, talked about by civic groups and politicians.
After a lapse of four years, however, relatively little had changed. Hunger in the United States has not been eradicated, the unmodality and food stamp programs exist.
John Derrick, head of the Douglas County Social Welfare Department recently said, "I've had it about up to the ears with people who are about to starve to death, although I'm not saying there aren't hungry people in Douglas County."
He cited the recent sale of $14,000 worth
of food stamps in one day through his office as proof that the 300 Douglas County families subscribing to food stamps were not totally without food.
Douglas County nutritionist Oletha Blevins has recommended food stamps for the county instead of free commodity distribution programs. Her reasons were reportedly that with commodities persons in the state, items which are in surplus that week and little else. This afforded none of the essential variety for a diet.
"Maybe a truckload of wheat will come in one week and that's all there'll be, over the staple supplies of flour, dried beans, cornmeal, dried eggs and milk," explained Derrick. "There would hardly ever be fresh fruit or meat."
With food stamps there are few restrictions on what foods may be obtained. For most families, however, food stamps are far from free, and in many
cases are apparently not used to obtain enough of the right foods.
For example, a family of four on the food stamp program would receive a monthly allotment of $106 worth of stamps. The cost would vary from $2 for a family whose income is less than $20 and $60 for a family whose income was less than $250 a month.
Assume a month to be 28 days and that a family of four could not supplement the $106 worth of food stamps with extra money. There have been cases of families with no income at all. In such a case the family would need to sustain themselves on $3.70 a day. This averages out to $1.20 per meal or 30 cents per person per meal.
In the last three years, according to
Derrick, Kansas welfare expenditures
began at 46 percent.
Next Part: A look at what the United States is doing for other hungry countries,
Court Refuses to Order Delay for Nuclear Blast
WASHINGTON (AP)—A federal appeals court Wednesday refused for the second time to halt a five-megaton nuclear explosion on Amritsar island, and enraged troops opposing the blast said they would appeal Thursday to the Supreme Court.
The Court's refusal of a preliminary injunction came a few hours after it was disclosed that President Nixon's top environmental adviser had said the blast, which caused damage to buildings could set off a chain of earthquakes and could tie a tidal wave across the Pacific.
Test Scheduled for Saturday
Blast opponents claimed some government experts recognized a larger risk of earthquake, tidal wave or radioactive atomic Energy Commission would admit.
Lawyers for those seeking the injunction argued that the Atomic Energy Commission not only belittled such hazards but deliberately omitted such adverse views in its public environmental-impact statement.
The AEC announced meanwhile that it had tentatively scheduled the blast for September 1.
At the same time, the AEC made public four government documents previously made available only to attorneys for the case. They also gave the Committee for Nuclear Responsibility. Four other documents had been made public earlier, by court order, and op-ed articles they had appealed also for the release of 10 more documents which were kept secret.
One of the key documents released Wednesday is an environmental assessment by Russell E. Train, chairman of Pressures Council on Environmental Quality.
Train told an undersecretaries' committee of the National Security Council that the huge hasp, code-named "Canninik," could trigger an earthquake by its direct impact on earth faults, or by forcing water into waters and lubricating them.
Train said that earlier, smaller atomic blasts had caused quakes whose force had always been less than the blast itself. If that pattern were dependable, he said, "then there would be no apprehension with regard to the Cannikin event."
"Unfortunately, this is not the case," Train said.
He said recent scientific findings indicated a large earthquake may be made up of a series of smaller quakes, each one setting on the next.
In this theory, Train said, "Once a neck point is broken, sufficient energy may be released."
the stored strain energy is large then the triggered earthquake could be of much greater magnitude than the triggering event.
"The underground explosion could serve as the first domain of the row of dominos"
Train said a big quake in the sparsely
populated Aleutians might not cause much direct damage.
"The real danger from the triggering of a large earthquake by the nuclear explosion is in a tidal wave or tsunami . . . It is not possible at this time to assess quantitatively the probability of a tsunami following the explosion," he said.
Rehnquist Reluctant To Discuss Wiretaps
By BARRY SCHWEID Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP)—William H. Rehnquist implied strongly Wednesday that he would disqualify himself from a Supreme Court confirmation to a seat on the Supreme Court.
Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the nominee defended the Nixon administration's wiretap policies. But he said surveillance should be used only to solve or prevent crime—and not to stifle dissent.
He said the primary purpose of the Bill of Rights was to "put restraints on the person."
Rehquist said that as an assistant attorney general he acted as an adviser on wiretapping and that "if the Justice Department position was indefensible or personally obnoxious to me I would have resigned."
Rehmanz was reluctant at times to give his views of wristwriting, capping an "at-orney-client relationship" with Atty. Gen. N. Mitchell and with President Nixon.
Drawn out by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass, Reinhold mistreated some general observations including that he did not think government bugging, with and without judicial warrants, was "pervasive."
The Nixon administration's policies are up for decision in the Supreme Court, particularly Mitchell's stand that a warrant is not required to wretap groups or individuals he concludes may pose a security threat to the government.
Rehquist did not sit say specifically that he would not sit in such cases. But he said he thinks a justice would be disqualified if he "personally participated in litigation" or he was the role of "advising." He then described his job on wiretapping as "advisory."
Again with some reluctance Rehnquist
gave the committee his general view that wrietapping "is not an appealing type of thing and it is justified only by exigent circumstances."
Rehquist said he had been changed his mind since 1964 when he wrote a letter to a Phoenix newspaper opposing a local or national block equal public accommodations.
He told Sen. Birch Bayh, D-Ind., who raised the question, that he found the ordinance readily accepted by the people in Phoenix and, more important, he had been aware of "the strong concern minorities have for recognition of their rights."
Aked about a 1967 letter and his views on school integration, Rehnquist said his own son had proclaimed from playing football in the Army before joining teams in a Virginia suburban school.
The nominee stressed, the Negroes who attended the school lived in the neighborhood. He said he believed in the concept of neighborhood schools" and "the distance about transporting students great distances" to accomplish desegregation.
Rebiquit criticized the firing on student demonstrators at Kent State in Ohio, calling it a "misguided and unwarranted misuse of force."
Rehqunit's views on these points were drawn out by senators Philip A. Hart, D-Mich, and Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass, critics of many of the policies of the Nixon administration. Rehqunit had a role in formulating the government's position on foreign policy and other sensitive issues as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
As he appeared at the confirmation hearing, he and President Nixon's other nominee for the Supreme Court, Lewis F. Koehler, was qualified by the American Bar Association.
KU Student Presidents Differ on Senate Effectiveness
By RON WOMBLE
and
JAN KESSINGER
Kansan Staff Writers
The Student Senate was formed three years ago with the acceptance of the Senate Code. Drawn up by the All Student Council and Clif Conrad who was student body president at the time the Code was passed in early 1969.
Since that time, student government has experienced both criticism and praise. Controversies have developed over ROTC and its role in the allocation of student activity funds.
The four student body presidents in this period have expressed a wide range of opinions on the effectiveness of student government at the University of Kansas.
Conrad, student body president 1988-69,
was quick that there was no doubt the Senate
Court had approved.
Dave Awbrey
All Student Council (ASC)}, The code was the result of much hard work and the job was one of the most competent done at the University.
One of the biggest improvements, according to Conrad, was the change from representation based on living groups to academic representation.
Conrad also said that faculty participation had been good under the Senate Code. The faculty, according to him, has never backwards to make the thing work."
"The Senate deals more with academic affairs now than ever before," he said. "Academic representation is more desirable."
Conrad sees a major problem for student government in the attitudes of the students to their jobs. He said that student volunteers took their positions too seriously.
Conrad said that most student politicians "were on a big ego trip." He confessed that he suffered from the same problem during his administration, and that student government was "a nice way to mature."
"The student senators need to take the job as a representative of the student body seriously," he said, "but the Student Council, not the focal point of the University."
Problems within the Student Senate are not due so much to the code as they are to apathy, he said. "Structurally the basis (for a good senate) is there."
Dave Awbrey, president 1969-70, holds a much lower opinion of the Senate Code than Conrad. Awbrey did he not see that much of an improvement over the old ASC.
The Senate Code, Awbrey said, was actually "more dangerous" than the AC and it would have been better for Senate is meaningful." Awbrey explained by saying, "The students knew the ASC
was a joke." He said that this was reinforced because the final decision on anything had rested with the chancellor and the Board of Regents.
Awbrey expressed the opinion that the code had not changed the situation much, but that some students thought that the Senate was important now.
The Senate Code not only had failed to solve the ASC's problem of restraint, but it also did not say that the students interested in student government were more sophisticated now. The Senate Code is not more sophisticated now.
Senate officials in the present administration were characterized by Awbrey as "miniature administrators." He said that these people were not as good as the leaders as professionals and were actually the ones who caused because "they think they are important."
Awbrey accused the Senate leadership of failing to look objectively at their positions in student government. This problem, Awbrey said, could stem from the fact that the people in power had been in student government for the last three years.
To Awhrey, one of the chief functions of the Student Senate is to serve an information or a publicity function. He said that issues could be raised in the Senate by knocking up by the media and transmitted to students who are trained to help the students to be aware of problems.
Another suggestion he had for the Senate was to refrain from "allocating money" and to label their actions as an "opinion." He was referring to the process by which the Senate allocated by the Senate. All student activity was by the chancellor and the Board of Regents. By labeling Senate action as "giving an opinion," the Senate would be
Awbrey had several suggestions for the ambiree. He said, "It should make wide use of the camera."
presenting a more truthful picture of the process.
His most dramatic suggestion was to abolish the Senate. He reiterated his charge that the Senate is not meaningful. "It is a good social thing," he said.
Awbrey said that he was in the Senate primarily for entertainment.
Awbrey did say, however, that the Senate is representative of the student body. He said that there was an "unimproved group that certain groups will be funded."
Awburet said that he often voted for abolitions that he did not agree with, but felt they were important.
Athletic department funding was an example that Awbrey used to back his claim. He said that although he was personally opposed to it, he always voted for athletic funds because athletics were popular with the student body.
The Senate "must be representative" he said, "because the students allow it to
Bill Ebert, president 1976-71, was in Idaho this week and could not be reached. In an interview early in October he did say that if he could have done away with the Senate he would have. However, he said that if he came up and doubled that it ever would.
As a replacement for the Senate, Ebert said he favored several all-student convocations during the year. Those students participated would make the decisions.
"There are lots of problems with that for sure," Ebert said. "But things wouldn't be as easy."
Ebert was concerned with the Senate and its connection with the student activity fee. He said that he did not think the Student Senate had the power to allocate money to students, "it didn't want like the typical kick-the-student-senate-in-the-ass, because there are a lot of things it
could do."
A major controversy which came out of Ebert's administration was the allocation to the athletic department. The Senate cut off funds to it and cut the activity fee in half. A referendum ensued and the proposal was defeated.
Ebert criticized student senators who make decisions on matters that they are not well informed on. He conceded that this may not be their fault, considering the vast scope of the matters that come before the Senate.
"They're game playing." he said.
Ebert said he favored abolishment of the activity fee and allowing students to participate.
According to Ebert, the Senate usually seemed more interested in form than substance and that power and personality conflicts evolved.
Ebert was followed in office by David Miller, the current student body president. Miller this week said that the Student body is not representative of the student body.
"It is only representative of those who vote," he said.
One major effort by Miller to make the Senate more representative of the student body, or those who vote, was the recent fee increase charged to students to change chance to vote his signature to the Seventh Amendment.
Miller said he would like to see the Senate changed in one major area. Senate candidates living their living groups, according to Miller, and not by academic groups. He said that senators are more responsive to the people with than an academic constituency.
Regarding the Senate Code, Miller said that it had not solved very much of the problem of bureaucratic red tape. He also found doubt that a solution could be found.
Shortly after his election in April, 1971.
Miller said that student government needed redirection.
"Student government needs to be redirected," he said. "By this I mean it should concern itself primarily with University issues. I don't think the Senate needs or should be a prime political move on campus."
The job of student body president was viewed by Miller as being too closely tied with the Senate. He also said that the president's student body president was not well defined.
"The president has no real power. He is a member of the Student Senate, and he can claim to speak for the student body, but he does not veto power, no control over the funds.
"His is a position you do with as you please. You can make out of it what you want. However, you will be blamed for not understanding the idea does and nobody likes," Miller said.
Bill Ebert