Page 4
University Daily Kansan, April 21, 1982
Opinion
Fight Phyllis with logic
Those who went to Phyllis Schlafly's speech last night hoping to hear rational arguments on which to base an opinion about the Equal Rights Amendment probably left feeling a little converted.
It wasn't that Schlaffy bowled the crowd over with the overwhelming logic behind the STOP ERA drive.
By citing the movie "Kramer vs. Kamer" as proof of the dangers of the women's liberation movement, and by saying that the end result of the movement is unhappy mothers, unhappy fathers and unhappy children, Schlafly let out more than enough verbal rope to hang herself.
But as ridiculous as some of Schalfy's statements were, they were no match for the approach taken by many of the ERA's vocal defenders who attended the speech.
Instead of arming themselves with costumes, balloons, signs and slogans, the protesters should have attended the speech armed with facts, figures and well-aimed questions.
Schlaffy deftly danced around the few sensible questions presented to her. But if she had been forced to dance more, she would have undoubtedly tripped up.
Schlaffly thrives on becklers. They make her look like a gracious pink angel as she scolds and invokes everything from
Mother to the American Way to support her position.
But in addition to scolding, Schlafly made at least two strong points that appeal to those who frown on the ERA.
Schlafly aruged that the ERA would require that women be drafted for military service if the draft were reinstated.
Rather than shouting "Stop the Draft!", Schlafly's opponents would have been better off to point out the logic behind military service for women, if, in fact, the amendment would require it.
Schlafly also argued that the ERA would not help working women because sex-neutral laws already govern employment.
There is no rational reason for women to be exempt from the sacrifice that is forced on men in wartime. We are all citizens and should all share in the country's defense.
True. The sex-neutral laws exist. But no one brought up that those laws are not founded on a strong constitutional base.
Judging by last night's speech, Schlaff is right when she says, "One reason we've been winning is the intolerance and discourtesy of our opponents."
Those who support the ERA by shouting slogans and insulting Schlafly are wasting what precious time is left. June 30 is almost here.
British sun rapidly setting on last remnants of empire
By JAN MORRIS
New York Times Special Features
FORT WORTH, Texas—The course of the empire never did run smooth, but the hardest part of the perennial old human adventure is bringing it to a conclusion.
The French endured two terrible wars, in Indochina and Algeria, before they could be rid of their imperial pretensions. The Portuguese had a revolution. The experience of the British, upon whose overseas territories the sun proverbially never set, has generally been more trying than they have been; but the people they have gotten themselves into over the Falkland Islands is a warning to any aspiring imperialist that in the long run, dominion is seldom worth it.
Consider the cost and the embarrassment of the imbroglio. To honor their commitment to 1,000 subjects of the crown, most of them several generations removed from their homeland, the British are spending more on the dispatch of their formidable task force than they have invested in Falkland Island development in several decades.
They stand to suffer applaudings if the mission fails. If it succeeds, they won't know what to do next. And it must be a moot point anyway, whether the unfortunate islanders, or the British navy, the British war of life, really want to find themselves caught in the crossfire of a liberation war.
The affair ridiculously engages a sizable proportion of the entire British navy at a time when Margaret that herself claims the Soviet sea threat is more omnious than ever.
The situation has brought out aspects of Britishness, from machismo to jingoism to plain pomposity, that we were mercifully beginning to forget. It has frighteningly demonstrated that it was not the lack of courage to it, will still fall back upon brute force to pursue what its perceptions be to its own interests.
Of course, there is a quikotic splendor to the operation—spending so much, taking such risks, for the sake of a principle and a loyalty (and a potential oil field). Lord Palmerston himself, the son of Robert Palmer, never sent out his gunboats with such punch or panache, or for that matter in such numbers.
The Argentines were clearly wrong to invade the islands; the Falklanders deserve better. The British were right, perhaps, for a call to honor after many long years of humnum. It probably won't become a shooting war, but it might. And if does not, there will be a historical rage of a sort that involves a punishment or grandolous excession of imperial pride and grandeur, a generation or two after its time.
if it or not, it is anomalous that in the 1900s falkland Islands should be British.
It really does not make much sense. The British themselves半分 recognize the fact or they would not have spent the past 14 years with the Argentines about the future of the islands.
But their premise has evidently been that whatever arrangements are reached, British sovereignty must be upheld. They should have the power to mitigate that British sovereignty was expendable.
Their true duty to the Falklanders was not to encourage them in their romantic but impracticable allegiance, but to prepare them gently, but firmly, for inevitable change. The British government had created a settlement in Britain, if they preferred it to Argentine rule or some sort of joint control.
The islanders certainly have been acclimatized to the idea that the Falklands could not remain attached forever to a European off-shore state 8,000 miles away, with no permanent rights or duties in the far-flung reaches of the South Atlantic.
The British have no such permanent rights or duties, indeed, anywhere away from home—for there are disturbing parallels still elsewhere in the old British Empire.
In Ulster, too, loyalists seek to resist history and geography, and there, too, the British accommodate the anachronism, partly out of duty, partly out of pride.
One day the fleet may have to rescue Gibraltar, the Falkland Island of Spain, or Hong Kong, the Port Stanley of China. There is even a faint ironic echo of the predicament in my own country, Wales, so close to London, where after 700 years of crown rule, English settlers increasingly find their holiday homes burned down by intransigent Welsh nationalists.
For the truth is that when an empire loses its power or its conviction, its remaining possessions generally become a burden and sometimes a danger. They may be useful for a time as currency earners, as naval bases, as prop to the national self-esteem, in but the end of which they become like those bare sheep run islands on the other side of the world, a perfect nuisance.
There is only one way to stop the crowds of an old empire coming home to roost: Make a clean break of it, forget about the gunboats and the distant fights, wipe away those tears of glory, and dress up and Queen Victoria, make it clear to every woman, friend or foet, that the sun really has set.
In the meantime, well, even we Welsh patrons are only human. Good luck to you, Broad Sword
Jan Morris is author of "Pax Britannica," a trilogy about the British Empire.
Well-known lecturers often avoid KU
For playwright Edward Albee, school simply opens the door to a lifetime of learning.
School, Albe said at a lecture last week,
 teaches you how to teach yourself after you get out
of school.
That door to life-long learning opens not just with the routine of university life, but also with lecturers like Albe, who bring their expertise in university and teach students new ways to learn.
But at KU, lecturers of Albee's caliber come few and far between.
At least they come fewer and farther between than, say, our neighbor up the river, KIKU.
This academic year, our Wildcat counterparts will have had the opportunity to hear Sir Harold Wilson, former British prime minister; John Block, secretary of agriculture; Sen. Mark Hatfield, R-Ore; Rahad Naler, deputy governor; and Dr. Richard Tagen papers fame; Aaron Copland, American composer; and Jonathan Miller, director of public television's Shakespeare series.
These are, of course, not all of the national officials. Instead, we chose K-State this year, but they are the most visible.
In contrast, KU students will have had the opportunity to hear Phyllis Schlafly, anti-feminist; Melvin Calvin, Nobel-Prize winning scholar; Paul Ehrlich, environmentalist; and
Of course these lists of lecturers don't reflect departmental lecturers for either school, but KU still seems lacking—especially in governmental and political speakers.
The difference in the number of nationally known speakers at these two Regents schools is difficult to understand, particularly because schools' speaker series budgets are close in size.
KU's lecture series' budgets are a bit more difficult to figure out, because the Endowment Association won't release figures for the two series it finances. But at the most conservative estimate, KU's main lecture series have a combined budget of about $33,000.
KU has five main lecture series: SUA
Forums, the University Lecture Series, the
KU Museum, and the KU Library.
KState's three main lecture series budgets come to about $37,500.
the J.A. Vickers Sr. Memorial Lecture Series and the Humanities Lecture Series.
Perhaps KU has trouble attracting nationally known lecturers because of its limited budget—Schalfay is costing SUA $3,000 plus expenses; Henry Kissinger would cost more than $10,000.
But given the speakers that K-State is attracting with a similar budget, it seems far more likely that the speaker programs are because of the way they are administered.
Three of these programs, the Spencer Series, the Vickers Series and the University Series,
TERESA
RIORDAN
are administered by Jim Scaly, administrative assistant to the chancellor.
Scally was appointed chairman of the University Lecture Committee about five years ago.
Apparently no formal committee votes on the choice of lecturers. Scally chooses from suggestions that come unsolicited from faculty, alumni, students and the community.
Scaly's choices are then approved by the administration, presumably the chancellor.
Under this system, some years KU doesn't get speakers for the Spencer or Vickers series, or even the TPC.
For instance, KU has not had a Vickers speaker for the past two years. And the Spencer Series went for four years, from 1976-80, without a speaker.
Whether or not these series have speakers depends, it seems, on how actively Scry learns.
The Vickers Series and the Spencer Series both have "at least $5,000 annually." When the money isn't used it accrues to the next year's budget. Todd Seymour, president of the Endowment Association, declined to say how much was in either account.
If it seems strange that an administrator should be the whole of the University Lecture Hall, and that there are few lecturers.
Scott Dupree, Prairie Village sophomore,
be a oneman speaker selection committee.
Dupree, without the aid of a student committee or any committee, decided how to spend the Forum's $10,500 budget by himself this year. His decisions are subject to the approval of the SUA Board, but Dupree does the research and presents the options.
The only KU lecture series that seems to be drawing a consistently strong and varied group of speakers is the Humanities Lecture Series. Edward Williams, chairman of the faculty committee this year, says the committee has found the greatest benefit from a variety of disciplines in the humanities.
And the committee seems to attract at least one nationally known speaker every year—this
Perhaps this committee is doing well because it has a variety of members and therefore a variety of opinions and suggestions about possible speakers. A committee has a big advantage over an individual in both time and energy.
K-State's speakers are also selected by committee than by a single admission or student.
The K-State Alfred M. Landon Series on Public Issues has a selection committee comprised of the committee chairman, the University president, the Faculty Senate president, the student body president and several other faculty members.
It seems that more time and thought go into a speaker's selections than those at KU.
Selecting speakers, admittedly, is a difficult task. The deficiencies in the present KU speaker series are the fault of the system because of the fault of the people administrating them.
That's why groups like the Student Senate, which, admirably, has been kicking around the idea of financing a new speaker program with its $44,000 in excess funds, should first try to make existing speaker programs more effective.
Although KU can always use more money to attract more speakers, it should be concerned at this point with how it spends the money it has.
Letters to the Editor
Hawkstock intended to help disabled, not to promote bands
To the Editor:
I would like to express my disappointment at the cancellation of Hawkstock this spring. The Interfaternity Council should be reminded of the original purpose of Hawkstock—to raise funds for the disabled, not to promote big-name concert concerts.
It was admirable that they had two relatively successful bands tentatively scheduled, but just because those two bands backed out, does not mean IPC should have canceled the fund-raiser. In past, Hawkstock has raised more than $10,000 for a purchase a motorized van for the disabled.
Lawrence has an abundance of local bands that have contributed to profitable Hawkstocks for the past three years, and there was abatement of the effort should have been abandoned this year.
Awareness Week, IFC should be ashamed of its failure. And they should know that some people purchased Hawkstock tickets last year, not to bring bands, but to contribute to a worthy cause.
It's probably too late to do anything now, but,
especially because last week was Disabilities
Kathy Maag,
St. Joseph, Mo., senior
Unaffordable dream
To the Editor:
Money—the word alone plagues many in this time of Reaganism and budget cuts. The cost of an education plagues many KU students as they begin to plan for the following semester. As it stands now, tuition and fees at the University are $459 per semester, and $459 for Kansas residents each semester. It is a well-known fact that tuition and fees will soar in the future. How much higher can it go?
With federal cuts slashing the Guaranteed Student Loan program and all student grant money being cut to a bare minimum (if any at all), how can a student attend an education?
Is it still the American dream to live in a land of opportunity, attend a higher educational institution and try to make something out of the lives we were given? My answer is yes, but it is becoming next to impossible to afford this dream.
I realize that the Associated Students of Kansas have been promoting a postcard drive around campus encouraging students to write congressmen relaying opinions on Reaganomics and personal effects. I strongly note that idea and also encourage others to activity, participate.
Students around the country cannot accept the already high cost of an education and turn the college experience into a career.
This letter is not political propaganda, but fact. Students have a voice in governmental decisions that affect them. Students have a right to an education. People have a right in our society to choose. We have the right to make our lives into anything we choose to be.
I chose to attend the University of Kansas because of its high quality education. With the price of an education, I question the fairness of our government and its officials.
representative of the people. It is the decision maker for our country. Congress holds the power to decide our futures. It has the power to decide your educational future.
Maxine Ferman, St. Louis junior
How can we place such a high price on education when it is something so essential to our country? After all, how do you think Ronald Reagan set to be president?
KANSAN
(USPS $650 460) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, Sunday and July fourth. Subscription by mail are $13 for six months or £7 a year in Douglas County and $18 for six months or £8 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $13
Postmaster. Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansas, Flint Hall. The University of Kansas.
Editor Business Manager
Vanessa Herron Nate Judeline
Editorial Editor Trew Hamill
Editorial Editor Karen Schuster
Editorial Editor Carmen Schulter
Associate Campus Editor George Gene
Associate Campus Editors Joe Rebein, Rebecca Cyanney
Assistant Campus Editors Joe Rebein, Rebecca Cyanney
Retail Sales Manager Ami Hornwall
National Sales Manager Howard Shalaink
Sales Manager Larry Rodin
Classified Manager Sarabeth Boldin
Teacher/Bleed manager Larry Bleedberg
Sales and Marketing Adviser John Ograner
Sales and Marketing Advisor