4
Tuesday, October 5, 1971
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN comment
Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
Making the Unfair Fair
Once again the policy-making bodies of this University have become bogged down in a question of what to host from student activity fee funds.
This year the group attempting to gain fee money, and also university recognition, is the Gay Liberation Front. And once again an old, well-worn reason has been used by the group that would refuse the front money
The majority of the student body,
it's said do not want their money to
be put into a bank account.
That line of reasoning has been heard in one form or another for at least three years. Last year, it was applied to the athletic department case, on the assumption that those who did not purchase season tickets to athletic events would not particularly care to have their money go to keep ticket prices down. But a recently raised cry frequently raised when the Black Student Union became a center of controversy and was engaging in what many thought were questionable activities.
As Chancellor E. Laurence Chalmers Jr, says, the question of allocation of student activity fee money is a "judgment matter."
But who is to be the judge? Who is to weigh the needs and relative importance of each group against others? How can we devise an equitable fund distribution.
Certainly not the chancellor. He has his own blasses and is affected to a degree by outside pressures so that he would not be capable of such a decision, when the same could be said of the Student Senate or even the student body.
Who then? The answer is no one; no one because the activity fee system is inherently unfair and no amount of juggling of funds from one group to another will change that fact.
So the struggle to balance an imbalanced system continues. Time wasted in endless, futile disarray. Other matters are postponed or forgotten entirely
To make an unfair system fair is manifestly impossible except by completely abolishing it and that is precisely what this University should do. Not immediately of course. Give the organizations money funding year or so to make other plans. But after that period of grace abolish all student activity fees. Let each student pick what activities he wishes to engage in and then pay whatever is necessary.
The road to abolish the fee system may be long and difficult. Many organizations will feel their existence threatened. Some may not exist in the end, everyone, including the organizations, will be better off.
Dick Hay
Letters to the editor should be typewritten, double-spaced and should not exceed 500 words. All letters are subject to editing and condensation, according to space limitations and the editor's judgment. Students must provide their name and position; faculty and staff must provide their name and position; others must provide their name and address.
Letters Policy
SALIBURY, RHODESIA-
You might have expected, if you had been visiting in Rhodesia to see the world, that news from Washington would have inspired at least a little dancing in the streets. Forty-six male students danced to hell with the sanctions on chrome; and these were, after all, very nearly the first kind of rhodesian has heard in six years.
Rhodesian Reaction To Washington Action
THE IRONY IS THIS:
Rhodiosa no longer has chrome for sale. Sanctions or, no her, total production already is committed unless there is change.
James J. Kilpatrick
ALL THIS CHEERFUL news arrived as Salisbury's jacaranda tree burst into a crediable flower. In the little park across from Parliament House, the soft spring wind lifted the leaves of the fountains and upon the fountains. Blacks and whites alike sunned themselves with peace. It was a nice place to be.
Neither could a visitor detect much jubilation at reports of a prospective accord between the British and people have been through this too many times before. Repeatedly, talks between London and Salisbury have come close to the time. Every time, they have missed
Yet of dancing there was none. A considerable irony, for one thing, appeared in the matter of the Soviet Union's general agreement, the finest metallurgical chrome on earth. Before the madness began in the early 1980s, it had hypocritical resolutions. Rhodesia was the principal supplier of chromite to the United States; and chromite is vital to our defense. The sanctions set in, had to buy our chrome—attwo twice the price from the Soviet Union. It was the senators who vowed 80 for Byrd amendment proposed to restore some small degree of sanity—in brief, to permit the senators to purchasehes from Rhodesia.
Moreover, the Senate's action came hard, the beats of someомuch liberal Democrats long negotiations between London and Salisbury might be needed.
This time, however, it appears that settlement truly is closer than ever. London, it is said, has
agreed explicitity to acknowledge Rhodesia's absolute independence and sovereignty The government must provision for external veto by Westminster over Rhodesia's constitution or its cabinet, but the UK and the 5 million Africans reportedly would be guaranteed by two more states. The constitutional rights would gain new judicial protection, and a solemn treaty would embody Rhodesia's ownaint resist regressive amendments
THE STUMBLING BLOCK,
one is told, remains in the British
town of Jerusalem toward African majority rule, but
even here a compromise is close.
This is described as a true
conflict between Britain and the
least that Rhodesia's Ian Smith
and Britain's Edward
to take to their parliaments.
Maybe it will work. The negotiations under Britain's Britain has been friendly all the way. New side has advanced ultimatums. The tipoff will come if an agreement is reached. Britain's Foreign Minister Douglas Home will go to Tokyo on Friday to plane until full agreement has been reached and privately approved at the highest level in office.
BOTH SIDES WANT THE nightly endured. On the surface, and for the short haul, Rhodesia faces a crisis in its Rhodesia faces staggering problems over the next decade in her shortage of foreign exchange earnings. Rhodesia has a growing population. Since independence in 1965, Rhodesia has gained women; and she has gained men. In 1990, blacks. Something has to give.
Rhodesia's story, in the field of foreign affairs, is and of vast importance for a country cupped with larger problems. Yet in terms of the U.N., and of South Africa, Rhodesia is in the southern Africa—and in the very human terms of Rhodesia's hopeful future. Its merits are sympathetic review. I myself am headed for Brazil, leaving the jacaranda forest to make it return to the matter soon.
(C) 1971 The Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
Ecology poster number one
Billy Jack: Reviewer's Defense
By BARBARA SCHMIDT Kansan Reviews Editor
Recently I wrote a review of 'Billy Jack.' It incurred a great deal of criticism. Four letters were printed in the Kanast last year, and I read the review and myself. I would like to answer their authors.
Readers Respond
Gay Funds Stir Controversy
To the Editor:
Why is this University's strongest support and most widely recognized symbol of membership of the Libr Front, an organization which accuses the university of curtailment of its role in the Finance Committee "cowardly" because it tries to maintain good relations with the university.
In allocating these funds, the Student Senate is stating that the role of the organization and its goals. Somehow I cannot see why the majority of students, if they were in an organization, would support the action of a lawyer like William Kunster. When Mr. Kunster and Black Obama supported the action of Attica inmates and actually encouraged them to continue their demands of legal amnesty, look what happened.
Sheryl Wright Prairie Village, freshmar
★ ★
To the Editor
As a student senator who was opposed to the allocation of student funds to the Lawrence Compiled to voice my compelled to voice my displeasure with the action of the Student Senate It is also my duty to represent respect to the Front since my constituents in the School of Engineering and my fellow right to know what that position is.
During the two weeks
preceding the Senate meeting · 29 September, I spoke with some 200 students on this campus (I am one of them) and a random sample) and found only a bare majority who favored recognition of the Front and only one who favored funding of the front. I asked the Chancellor. Taking this into consideration, I developed my position on the issue and tried to avoid the emotional arguments of those with whom I spoke.
I would favor recognition of the Front if scientific evidence could be produced which proves or refutes that homosexuality is a normal (disregarding the fact that many of us have been raised to believe that homosexuality is a normal behavior. Under no circumstances could I condone criminal prosecution of any person for homosexual acts, for, in my opinion, any wrongdoing or it is an indication of a form of illness. People should not be discriminated against in either case and should be provided in the second case.
I do not believe that money should be appropriated from student funds for the Front's case for two reasons. First, I do not believe that a majority of the students will pay this allocation; I know that my constituents do not favor it by an overwhelming margin. Second, the money is to be used for a purpose which will not bring gay liberation or gay liberation among the student body of this university and will be
used, if I am not mistaken, in part to help defray the travel and lodging expenses of Mr. Kunstler, a student of the University and lodging expenses has been frowned upon by the Student Senate in the past; why should an accountant have to pay?
One objection which I have to the form of the allocation is that it does not appear to be a line of priorities. The money can be used for just about anything which is not against the policies of the State of Kansas. States where inmates were raised within the Senate are entitled to the allocation of any funds without a specific delineation of the uses for these funds. Could it be that money should not be allocated without specific guidelines, the Senate has once agreed upon when it was convenient to do so?
I am reluctant to make the following assertions because of my respect for many of the students. My role it is supposed to play in governing this university. I do not believe that the Student Senate of Kansas is representative of the student body and challenge anybody to conduct a complete poll of the students to prove otherwise. Nor am I willing to stick to my willing to stick by its own guidelines when some of its more influential members find it advantageous to overlook these
In closing, I can only say that I am deeply disappointed in the action of the Student Senate
which appropriated $600 for the Lawrence Gay Liberation Front.
Greenville, Texas Senior
To the Editor
The Gay Liberation Front has demanded recognition and funding.
Why does a sexual ethnic group require such political and financial attention?
The University of Kansas has had its name and reputation destroyed and mutated beyond belief the last decade. Often times these distortions were due chiefly to the actions of students in representative groups on this campus.
The freshman enrollment continues to drop appreciably at Kansas where our friends up-cheer by buying a phenomenal increase.
I call upon the Student Body to stand up for its responsibility and determine the true feeling concerning the Gay Liberation's cause.
Could this be due to the political atmosphere at Kansas?
To the Editor
William A. Anderson Kansas City Senior
★
We feel its just wonderful that we approved it $900 gram and the Gay Lib Front. We always felt cheated when we were paying for it.
I believe it is so
can rest more peacefully in the
school, and sexual and ideological group, or
off campus, is taking advantage of us, or rather, our
school.
We would like to extend congratulations to the Student Senate for their reunion, cultural and educational, "unemotional" farsighed, reasonable, and sound decisions in the mist of chaos. We should also wish that position would be blinded in the effort to conform to popular acceptance of humanitarian values on our Senior Campus, our School ability to keep their feet on the ground, their heads on their shoulder, and their hearts in their hand.
We do feel, however, that we should point out a few of the other campus organizations which have, to date, had to yield to the arrogant and authoritarian rule of the administration. We ask those organizations to consider the following organizations for allocations.
1. Heterosexual Liberation
Front
2. Asexual Liberation Front
3. Left Handers Liberation
Front
4. People for Preservation of Rats and Rodents
5. Peoples' Popular Perverts for Liberty
6. Popular Peeping Tom Society
7. Restroom Wall Writers of
8. National Brothers for Body Form
8. National Brothers for Body Exposure
9. Midnight - Surfaces 6
In conclusion, we are thoroughly disappointed that the S.S. failed to make allocations to the team and were unable to see "Billy Jack."
9. Midnight Cowboys of America
10. Manglers and Stranglers Limited
We are certain that the Senate will make appropriate handouts to these organizations. Keep up the wood work guys.
THOMAS J. KEARNEY: Do you know what the word "libel" means? I suggest you look it up. If I were not a student working at an art school, you could find yourself on the wrong end of a libel suit faster than you could say "Geee Wallace." Bigry is a serious charge. Mr. Kearney, especially you have nothung to base it on.
—Alan Moser, Shawnee Mission
Graduate Student
Carl Munger, Larned,
Junior
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW
KANSAN
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
America's Pacemaking college newspaper
Kansai Telephone Numbers
Newsroom-UN 4-4810
Business Office--UN 4-4358
News Adviser
Editor
Business Adviser
Business Manager
Del Brinkmar
David Barte
Mel Adam
Carol Young
By Sokoloff
Griff and the Unicorn
Did you bother to read my review a second time? Not once did I mention my views on Indians' rights and problems. Do you know why? Because 'Billy Jack' didn't either. We see people being inhuman discriminatory but only a few of them are Indians. The Freedom School is not an Indian school, it is merely a progressive school that happens to be on a reservation and that happens to have some Indian students. By far the majority of students in the movie are not Indians, and the people with roles of any size at all (except Martin and Billy Jack) are Indians (them are blonde, the improvisation leaders, the deputy's daughter and Jean).
As for showing us "the indigines and inequalities suffered by the American Indian," *Billy Jack* fails again. All we see are local redrechts of Indians. We never freedom School. We never the poverty in which many Indians must live; we are never given a look at the lack of opportunity available to them; we are not enduring infringement upon the Indian's customs and lifestyle.
'Coovright 1971. David Sokoloff.
As a matter of fact, the only time we see THE INDIAN is in the snake ritual sequence. It's a fine and interesting sequence by itself, but what does it do for the movie?
ABOUT BILLY JACK. Did you see that he is only a half-breed? The makers of the movie didn't see fit to make him a full-blooded Heim. He's the hero, but he's not gone by he's 'nartally' vialled.
You say that I called the American Indian "a village idiot" and a "peon." That is pure blindness on your part. If you'll listen to me, I'll review, you'll find that "village idiot" refers to anyone without a brain in his head; "peon" refers to the kids at the Freedom Fund; "village idiot" refers to the Indians. As for my authority to use the terms, I did so as a critic—one who gives opinions based on facts. You may disagree with my opinions, but when you say sure your facts are correct.
BION BEEBE: Do you honestly believe that critics who disagree with popular opinion should not be read? Do you read reviews only to fortify your own opinions?
I know that there may be only a handful of people on this campus who agree with me on "Billy Jack." I knew the minute I left
the Hircestl Theatre that the review I would write would cause extreme dissatisfaction. Consequently, I spent hours contorting myself in my review before I sat down at the typewriter. "Billy Jack" arouses passions, one way or the other, I knew well full that if I were to oppose popular opinion, I would have the popular opinion opposing me. A critic has a duty to his readers: to be as fair and complete as possible. But more importantly, a critic has a duty to himself: to be faithful to his opinions for publication without failing in both respects.
SUELE ELLEN VEST; No, Miss Vest, I did not miss the point of the movie. Haveren knows the truth about the attack, that we all caught it. Yes, we probably would imprison Billy Jack if the same thing happened here; yes, we would go right on with it. And we hidous acts against our brothers.
Since I neglected to stress this adequately in my review, I hereby apologize.
KIEHL, RATHBUN: I answer your charges last because I agree with you. Kansan reviews are, more often than not, not bad. But fear are the primary reasons. We are students, not Judith Christs, Brooks Akinsons and Pauline Kaels. Most students spend only one semester reviewing reviews, so a love of entertainment to offer their readers. This makes for neither an authoritative nor a self-confident critic. If you find Kansan reviewers boring or just ignorant, it's because we build them challenged to be anything else.
Furthermore, I thank you for at least granting me the right to express my opinions in public. Your fellow complainants seem that the constitutional guarantee allows us to include the right to fair comment and criticism when it conflicts with their opinions.
You say my "Billy Jack" review lacked specific criticisms. Again, you're right. I felt that any more condemnation on my part would only be piling insult on insult. If you think I make it a habit to avoid defending criticism, I will not. My past "Billy Jack" was a special movie, and I think I made my point.
FINALLY, LET ME SHOUT it from the top of Fraser: Thank God people are finally taking care to reviews seriously enough to react.
I don't particularly care if people agree or disagree with the other reviewers and myself, but I know that being known as the "campus bigot") The important thing is that our reviews make you, the reader, think. It seems that after years of heading the *least-read* website, they arrived With that in mind, I relish the recent controversy.