4
Monday, October 30, 1972
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN comment
materials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the omissions of the writers.
Compromise Not a Farce
Although it smacks of bilious political opportunism, Nixon's latest peace breakthrough is no farcical campaign trick. Nixon has not merely made an election move in a non-existing demand, nor has Hanoi come begging the invincible United States for mercy. The nine points, from what we know of them, are neither victory nor defeat for either side. We need to understand the importance of realistic and sincere compromise and are marked throughout by major concessions on both sides.
The NLF's ten-point plan of 1969 had demanded, as a precondition to peace, an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of American forces from Vietnam and the surrounding areas. Nixon, in his eight-point plan of 1969, refused such unilateral declaration to U.S. withdrawals but contingent upon reciprocal, internationally supervised North Vietnamese withdrawals and that such withdrawals should be stretched out during a period of twelve months.
In the compromise nine-point plan, the U.S. withdrawal is more precipitous than Nixon would have liked, but it is not the completely unconditional withdrawal demanded by the Deuc Tho's plan calls for the United States to withdraw completely in 60 days, contingent only upon the release of U.S. prisoners. In place of reciprocal North Vietnamese withdrawal, the United States had been as assured as surrey, Hanoi's pledge to an internationally supervised in-place cease-fire.
The in-place cease-fire is central to the whole compromise. Unlike unilateral withdrawal, an in-place cease-fire assures the United States that the cease-fire can be placed in place by another cease-fire does not force the North Vietnamese to surrender territory they occupy. Also, an in-place cease-fire is consistent with Hanoi's 1969 demand that, "the question of Vietnamese armed forces in South Vietnam shall be resolved by the Vietnamese parties among themselves."
Unlike reciprocal withdrawals, an inplace cease-fire does not force Hanoi to desert its contention that the war is a military fight primarily by indigenous forces.
The United States has made other concessions to Hanoi's propaganda lines. One innocuous point of the original ten points has been transported to the compromise plan. The United States has agreed "to respect the Vietnamese
people's fundamental national rights, i.e., independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity," the first point of Hanoi's 1969 plan.
The United States also has agreed to the essence of Hanoi's demands for reparations and for eventual reunification of Vietnam.
In return, Hanoi has consented to leave the political future of South Vietnam temporarily unresolved. In the precondition to a cease-fire, that a three-part coalition government would be installed in Saigon. This government, as Hanoi structures it, would give Hanoi complete control of South Vietnam.
In the new nine-point plan, Saigon's control of South Vietnam is left temporarily intact, but Saigon agree's to cooperate with an administrative structure called the National Council Reconciliation and Concord.
This administrative structure, which would make decisions on the principle of unanimity rule and would be responsible for disposing of the problem of the North Vietnamese troops left in South Vietnam by the in-pace cease-fire, for drawing up a new constitution for South Vietnam and for conducting the elec- tion of the government. Like the in-place cease-fire, the conduct of this Council of Reconciliation would be subject to international supervision.
According to Kissinger, Hanoi's decision to leave the political settlement temporarily unresolved was the breakthrough which made the nine-point compromise a first step in Hanoi's part was the first concession either side had made since Nixon's eight-point plan and the NLP's ten-point plan were introduced in 1969. Kissinger is right. But that is not to say that an equally workable compromise with the long age—had one side or the other been willing to make the initial concession.
For example, if Nixon was not so obsessed with strong-arm politics, he might have triggered the same reaction as his campaign against Hanoi an in-place cease-fire in 1969.
Those who say that the bombing, the mining and the prospect of four more years have forced Hanoi to the bargaining table probably are right. But it may be just as true that the last four years of this war have been fought for the sake of Richard Nixon's childish pride, had the United States been willing to make the first move, this war could have been over long ago.
—Robert Ward
- WITH THIBU. ALL IT TAKES IS A LITTLE REASONING...'
No Support for Nixon's Policy
Garry Wills
President Nikon tussles in men's patriotic duty to praise him more, the worse he looks. He won't back down until law, say, that when any President makes "a hard decision, the so-called opinion leaders can be counted upon to behind him, regardless of party."
The more discerning you are, the less questioning you should be in your adulation. Professors, for instance, "have the educational importance of great decisions, and the necessity to stand by the President when he makes a terribly difficult, potentially unpopular decision." The opinion gets out and shill for him when he something that looks imprudent.
Now Nixon whines that the press did not praise him for his agonizing decision to mine the harbor. There was precious evidence of a conspiracy called opinion leaders of the country . . . " He was gloating, to
POW relatives, that he now proved his critics wrong on this decision. There was widespread concern about Moscow summit meeting would be called off of because the mines. (Nixon admits he risked that—which is what made the White House move in 1982 when those fears have been proved groundless, having achieved both his mining and his summit conference, Nixon thinks for even some credit for being right.)
I give him no credit at all. He perpetrated the myth that the way to get results from the Communist countries is to "stand up to them." That was the apology he gave on missiles in Cuba. He risked everything to show how tough he was, and Khrushchev had the
magnanimity to back off. (It's good one leader kept his senses.)
But the longer-term result of Cuba was further undermining of Khrushchev's position in Russia, and a cocky rash attitude in the Kennedy administration that helped take us into Vietnam.
The trouble with the "stand up to them" school of diplomacy is that two can play it, and they can do it. Khrushchev could say, looking Vietnam, that it is necessary to stand up to the Americans if they are to get results from us. Look "soft" in Cuba, and the enemy U.S.) will think it can move right into Asia and take over.
We shall not know for some time whether Nixon's wild act strengthened the hand of cold
war types in Russia. It certainly helped keep the war alive (a bad result was itself) in itself and to burrow into this war in the first place.
Rash acts can be even more dangerous when they "succeed" than when they fail. They encourage us to further arms along the same course. A good example is the purge of Diem, who acquires arms and enters even more deeply into the Vietnam war. Or what the military called our "success" in surviving the Tet attack, or turning back this spring's offense. All these gave the war a hard edge, and that puts opportunities to kill. That kind of success is just what thoughtful men should condemn: Nixon is "succeeding" Vietnam to death.
(C) 1972, Universal Press Syndicate
James J. Kilpatrick
Tax Credit Un-Constitutional?
If the only true purpose of a federal tax credit plan is to preserve the Catholic parochial proposal on the proposal here and now. The plan won approval from the House Ways and Means Committee on October 3, but in the House it was adopted and died on the cutting-room floor.
As a general proposition, courts will not look at the motive of a legislative body in passing a particular bill. But in the case of any grant or grant and nonsectarian subsides, the courts have plunged straight to the religious issue. The Constitution says that Congress shall make no law "respecting" an establishment of religion; a wall of separation has been erected on that word "respecting".
That wall, in all its essential characteristics, has to be preserved. The Constitution
commands it; it tradition supports it; it the people overwhelmingly attest their conviction on this score. Our nation is badly enough divided on the politics of race; we cannot afford the further dissension that would flow from the politics of religion.
There is this also to be said on the matter of saving the Catholic schools: Money alone is not the problem. If the parochial schools could be kept alive and healthy the Roman church itself has money in abundance. The problems are far more complex. Parochial schools have been closing in recent years at the rate of 40 percent, a variety of reasons unrelated to their operating budgets.
Suppose, for a moment, that we put aside all First Amendment questions. Can a valid public purpose be found to support the
tax credit plan? I believe the answer is, yes. Wholly apart from its indirect benefit to Catholic education, the plan has merit on two counts—one pragmatic, the other philosophical.
If those 5.1 million children abruptly were transferred to public schools, local taxpayers would goarn at the additional burden. Whatever else they may do, the private and parochial schools take a significant load off the public school systems.
The philosophical argument seems to me stronger. One of the
great strengths of a free society lies in its diversity. Unlike the Soviet Union, we are not locked into a system of state monopoly—not so far. Within constitutional limits, we ought to promote competition, and competition, and variety; and we ought to apply with special force, it seems to me, in the matter of the education of our children.
What are the constitutional limits? On October 2, a three-judge federal court in New York handed down an excellent opinion defining the issues in terms of a "bribery case." By a 2-1 vote, the court upheld the tax credit plan. Said District Murray J. Gurfein, speaking for the majority: "The benefit of the parochial schools, if any, is so remote as not to involve them in church school." In the court's view, a tax credit to a Catholic family (or to a Protestant family,
for that matter) simply is not a law "respecting" an establishment of religion.
On October 10, to be sure, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar Ohio law by an 8- vote, without even hearing argument, but the New York and Ohio statutes may contain significant breaches. In any event, Judge Garfunk's opinion makes sense to me.
From the very beginning of the Republic, no constitutional objection has been found to the tax exemptions granted churches on public lands. The tax exemptions are proper, surely the tax credits—benefiting parents of children in all non-public schools—would appear to do no violence to First Amendment principles. The bill ought to be worked and passed, when a new Congress convenes next year.
(C) The Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
Readers Respond
Vietnam ... Exams... White Lies
True Culprit
Jonathan Jordan Lawrence first-year law student
To the Editor:
Jonathan Jordan
An editorial in the Kansan written by Eric Kramer attempts to place the blame for the War in Vietnam on the proper culprit. Mr. Kramer blames virtually everyone except the true villain.
The War in Vietnam will continue until North Vietnam is defeated or decides to abstain from engaging in imperialist adventures against its neighbors. The War in Vietnam is the most moral war in the history of the United States. The United States must be prepared to utilize its resources not for conquest, glory or false pride, but to preserve the freedom of a small foreign nation.
All blame for the War in Vietnam must rest on North Vietnam. North Vietnam insists it is responsible. The Vietnamese troops now occupy 60 per cent of Laos, 80 per cent of Cambodia and a good portion of South Vietnam. North Vietnam is not right to attack its neighbors.
Manipulation
To the Editor:
It is true that he is a man with an overexaggerated sense of history, and it must also be true that he has been overriding obsession. He must not be a one-term president; that is a disgrace he cannot abide. His entire administration—indeed, he has aimed toward that goal.
If current news reports are to be believed, the Vietnam war is indeed true, then Mr. Nixon can rightly take his place among the great manipulators in the anti-Western campaign coupled with a healthy (?) dose of callousness, willing deceit and brought him to the pinnacle.
And now he has delivered his masterstroke. The possibility of
The bitter Nixon of 1960 and 1962, the party hero of the 1966 campaigns, the showman of the 1970s, the governor of the China and Russia trips, the wielder of mass destruction, the mentor of Watergate—all these men were chosen to the Nixon who conveniently arranged to have the longest and most brutal war of our history before he was up for re-election.
it being a coincidence is too fantastic to be believed.
If the American people can face all of his machinations, behind the-scenes shuffling and brazen egi-tipping and accept themselves as more years of him that they apparently are going to get.
James E. Tomayko History Graduate Student Char勒尔, Pa.
Witch Hunt?
He there! It seems as if a William F. Buckley Jr., incarnate in a Kansas reader respondee, has struck with the humor of Having "insightfully" pointed out the "witch hunt" nature of a recent editorial condemning Candidate Kay, she went on to graciously inform the reader that her intelligence was insulted.
To the Editor:
Be that as it may, her reasoning that the exaggeration of a disease is a triviality and that its incorporation in an anti-Kay commentary "is an avoidance of disease" is completely unmounded.
obvious point of the editorial was that Kay was deliberately lying about the nature of a previous illness in order to elicit a sympathetic response which might carry over until November 7.
The (what I thought to be)
In answer to this interpretation she might rebut, "But a little white lie is not about to rip society to shreds and wreak violence of unimaginable horror upon this country."
Yes, I would reply. But the cumulative effect of the little white lie has brought to our attention the vulnerability of Vietnam, the LBD creditability, and, in general, a sense of alienation to the people of our republic (as a result of the breakup of their respective publications previously alluded to).
What does the conservative philosophy have to say in regard to my reply?
Undercover Operations of McGovern
WASHINGTON — President Nixon's aides, responding to charges that a Republican sabotage squad had damaged the Democratic campaign, claimed it had pulled similar dirty tricks.
It was also Sheridan who uncovered the fact that soybean tycoon Dwayne Andreas, who contributed $25,000 of the money used to finance the Watergate caper, had received a valuable bank charter from the Nixon administration.
We have just concluded an intensive investigation of George McGovern's undercover operations. We found one crack Water Sheridan, who was hired to find out the extent of the Republican espionage and sabotage. He also investigated some of the Democrats for Nixon nominated McGovern's suspicion that she had usually voted for Republican candidates in the past.
the backgrounds of such Nixon cronies as Bebe Rebozo, Elmer Bobst and Clement Stone. The Democratic researchers also purchased word information about the
A separate research crew, headed by Ted Van Dyk, dug into
Jack Anderson
--information on just about every delegate. These individual files were assembled in a computer data bank, although McGovern had denounced the use of computers to keep tabs on people and against the "pervasive power of computer data banks."
Van Dyk's volunteers confined their efforts, however, strictly to research. They did no inquiries about newspapers and examining public documents. When they came up with facts that might embarrass the President, they tried to find information with reporters.
President's personal finances.
They checked, too, whether big
Republican contributors had
received any antitrust set-
tlements, price increases or other
federal favors.
Before the Democratic convention, we also learned, McGovern compiled personal
The computer instantly divulged, for example, that Raul Castro, a Tucson, Ariz., delegate, was pledged to Sen. Ed Muskie, but preferred Sen. Hubert Humphrey, or that James M.
But McGovern has refused to
We have obtained a confidential printout of the computerized profiles prepared by McGavin's staff under the guidance of a button, campaign aides could determine any delegate's name, address, telephone number, spouse, age, sex, race, education, occupation, religion and military service—not to mention their feelings, personal "interests" and stand on the issues.
Computerized Profiles
It is assumed by students and teachers alike that one goes to school to learn. Rarely does anyone ask, "to learn what?" A recent sociology midterm made it obvious to me that one of my students had never taught him. We wants students to know how best to play the "exam game."
During the primaries,
McGovern used the fun-loving political prankster Dick Tuck to play a few harmless tricks on Democratic rival Ed Muskie.
Those who attended a Muskie party in New Hampshire for example, had sticker pasted to the bottoms of their coffee cups after they had drained the coffee.
In sum, we found that McGovern's undercover operation doesn't compare to the systematic sabotage, wiresapping and espionage conducted by Nelson's campaign aides.
To the Editor:
Fitzgerald, a Hartford, Conn. banker, disagreed with McGovern on economic policy; or that Christine Sarcone, an 18-year-old student, was a strong musketeer delegate; or that Martin D. Dubin, a DeKalb, 11l., college teacher was interested in deep discussions of America's world role; or that Victor Miller, a teacher was active in the American Legion and "opposes GM (George McGovern)'s position on Vietnam"; or that Vermont' former governor Philip Hoff was interviewed in N.I.V. Navy veteran who is gepresident.
Exam Game
The object of the game is for students to con the teacher. According to this professor, after at least 15 years of school we should all have learned by now what it means to "fill-in the-blank" questions is not a good strategy for winning points.
Instead, "You should at least write in a complete sentence, when you are teaching the teacher into believing that you know what you're talking about." Is it a sin to admit ignorance? It is not. You can admit and gain points than to honestly admit you don't know and are perhaps ready to learn.
—Vietnam Showdown Communist cadres in South
allow his supporters to engage in sabotage against the President. Even Tuck's practical jokes, which have been a bane to Nixon throughout his public life, have been ruled out.
with the President hobbooned with wealthy Democrats for Nixon at John Connell's ranch in Texas, Tuck wanted to drive up in an armored truck followed by a lioness in armor and limestone plates. Tuck thought this would be a clever way to dramatize that money for the Watergate affair had been raised in Texas and laundered through a Mexico City bank account. But McGonivera said no and Tock was obliged to give up his trunk pranks for the 1972 season.
To make the really high scores it is also advisable to memorize the conclusions reached in class about controversial issues. It is not hard to remember that after class lest a student come to doubt or unlearn the truths reached in class. After all, if it was reached in the professor's class, it must be right. Aren't some of the head opinions corrected as valid as any other evidence in reaching legitimate conclusions?
We quoted from secret intelligence reports several weeks ago that the cadres had been advised of the possibility of a coup against the government and were instructed to get ready for the political struggle.
Vietnam, apparently, are all set to shift from military to political tactics.
Their aim during the cease-fire will be to gain control of the governmental machinery from Saison down to the village level.
Although President Nixon wouldn't go so far as to grant the Communists equal authority with him, he said he agreed that the Communists should have an equal voice in arranging and supervising an election. He also conceded that the Communists should be free to run for office.
Copyright, 1972,
by United Feature Syndicate, Inc
Clearly, the Communists intend to use their dedicated and disciplined cadres to see that the bombs they turn out favorably for them.
At the time of this statement, Connally was being questioned about the Watergate bugging. Admittedly, Kay isn't explicitly mentioned in this quotation, but he did mention of moral right that Kay would use to justify his "little white lie" in regard to his philo history.
Whether in Topeka or Washington, can we stand for four more years of this????!!!!
I suspect that what students are expected to learn in this class represents the expectations in too many others. When students fulfill these expectations by playing games, I conclude that the conclusions defined by their teachers, are assisting in their own intellectual demise.
Kenneth D. Stone
Omaha freshman
Robert Stahl Shawnee Mission Junior
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
America's Pacemaking college newspaper
Newroom—UN 4-6810
Business Office—UN 4-6358
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the economic year except holidays and examination papers. Mid mail subscription must be a毖季, $10 year. Second class paper paid at Lawrence, KS, 60044. Academic rate is $15 per letter. Admission may be required to color, to paint or national art. Obligations expressed and assured once those of the University of Kansas or the state Board of Regents.
NEWS STAFF
NEWSSTAFF
News Advisor... Susanne Shaw
Scott Spreier
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Adviser... Mel Adams
Business Manager
Business Manager Business Adviser New Australia Dale Pispergerderv