UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers.
DECEMBER 12,1978
'Do not think'
If you haven't noticed how often the University of Kansas has shown that it doubts your ability to think for yourself, your passive assent to the University's stiffening pattern of suppression has helped tighten the screws on individual freedom at KU.
Increasingly it seems as if the achievement of an outward sheen of harmony and happiness on Mount Oread has been a prime goal of the university administration. There is nothing inherently wrong with the University's presenting a "good image" to the public, the press and the Legislature, but when efforts to achieve such an image trample individuals' rights to be heard, those efforts are dangerous.
Perhaps it would be easier to identify and discuss the apparent fear of individual opinion at the University if one could point a finger at a prime culprit.
ALMOST ANYONE acquainted with the style of the current chancellor, Archie R. Dykes, knows how public relations-oriented he is. Those who praise him usually include at the top of his list of accomplishments the restoration of rest in the University after the troubled administration under Laurence Chalmers.
But this is not to suggest that Dykes would singlehandedly throttle individual expression. Rather, it seems as if Dykes and the rest of the current administration have fostered the sort of atmosphere where apparent unanimity of opinion is highly prized and controversy is shunned simply because of its controversiality.
The Student Senate's heavy-handed attempt to stifle the Student Bar Association is a unfortunate example of how far such an attitude can spread, without direct administrative fiat. That the administration's values can infect students to the point where they are willing to suppress themselves is alarming.
FORTUNATELY, MOST of the University community can express itself most of the time. But the majority—at the University, a conservative majority—seldom has trouble finding means to express itself. It is those views that are unpopular with the majority that run the highest risk of being suppressed. It is those views, however unpopular, which must be guarded by the very majority that rejects those views, or there will be an end to diversity and constructive, progressive criticism.
A disturbing pattern of unwillingness to tolerate controversy and dissent has spread across the University in recent months:
- The administration cancelled, at the last minute, a display of Nazi memorabilia at Spencer Research Library. Although Strong Hall may have been, as it said, operating out of sympathy for the feelings of Jews, the decision apparently was made more from fear of unfavorable publicity. Whatever the motivation to cancel the exhibit, the University missed an ideal chance, in keeping the exhibit open, to publicly demonstrate the University's commitment to academic freedom. Explaining the value of education in both the triumphs and the horrors of the past would have been a far more courageous stand than to try to avoid all controversy.
- STRONG HALL refused to fund the appearance of Jonathon Kozol, a speaker critical of American education, at the student-organized Higher Education Week banquet. Again, the University missed its chance to show the value of opinion contrary to the majority view.
- The Integrated Humanities Program has been squeezed to neardeath by a series of budget and staff cuts and by policy changes that restrict its ability to attract prospective students. This fall, the controversial program has been dragged through a series of public hearings where those professing to protect the rights of supposedly naive students are trying to destroy academic freedom, all in the name of academic freedom. The University administration, rather than kill the program outright because of any real problems or defend its right to exist, seems to prefer to let IHP die quietly—out of the public spotlight.
- THE ADMINISTRATION approved a literature distribution policy that provides considerable latitude in squelching any "out of the ordinary" distribution of literature. The policy seems to stem from some inexplicable idea that students need to be protected from the unpopular—there has been no demonstrated reason why existing anti-litter laws and First Amendment case law can't be used to limit literature distribution that infringes on the rights of others.
- When Mike Harper, student body president, called a press conference to discuss the removal of Phill Kaufman as StudEx chairman, it was held "on the record." Only through pursuit of the facts from "on-the-record" sources was it made known that Kaufman had been given an ultimatum to resign or be fired. Reporters encounter similar frustrations in airing the facts about the University almost every day—such as when FacEx regularly retires behind closed doors to make routine appointments. Who will ever know what the University governance is really discussing behind those doors?
- AND, AS MENTIONED, the Student Senate tried to stop the SBA from circulating a petition by threatening to cut SBA funding.
Fear of controversy, rather than rational grappling with the merits of any given issue, affects a wide range of policy decisions. The administration's decision not to approve litigation services in the first phase of a student-funded legal services program reportedly stems partly from fear that an "outer fringe" of students would abuse such legal services.
Usually when discussion of such an "outer fringe" occurs, administrators and faculty refer to the "late 1960s and early 1970s" as a euphemistic frame for the period when students were outspoken in their criticism. The students of the '70s are seldom taught to search for the reasons why their predecessors reacted so strongly to what they saw as serious wrongs. Instead, they are told simply that the protesters' efforts should be written off as pointless because they led to violence and unrest.
IF STUDENTS aren't taught to appreciate the value of dissent—and if the administration and Student Senate show them, by example, that dissent should be hidden—it is difficult to see how the distressing circle of suppression can be broken.
By maintaining a happy face, whatever the toll in individual freedoms, Dykes and the rest of the administration are pleasing a largely conservative constituency of Regents, legislators, faculty, students, the public and the press. Despite some rumblings of discontent, the inactive majority seems unwilling to speak up for freedom for the minority that already feels oppressed.
Those who actively contribute to suppression of opinion apparently have not learned a basic lesson that has been taught time and time again through history—that limits on freedom eventually backfire.
What those who remain silent fail to realize is that when they are ready to speak up, they may find their voices unmistakable in maniasms they failed to protest earlier.
THE UNIVERSITY'S pattern of suppression is far more troubling than whatever "unpleasant" facts or opinions the administration may be trying to avoid airing to the public. The University should be more trusting in the public and the Legislature, who are smart enough to realize that no public institution is an untrebled paradise.
By trying to promote a too-pure image of the University, the administration—and those who comply unthinkingly with the public relations push—are setting unrealistically high standards of calmness for KU. When widespread dissent does occur—and it probably will, especially if measures to prevent dissent grow more stringent—the public and the University will be woefully unprepared.
The University could use a healthy dose of the criticism of the late '68s and '70s—but it can't afford the violence. Unfortunately, if administrators refuse to learn from the past, they may be doomed to repeat it.
Widely used in Europe, it taxes goods and services at each step from producer to consumer. Each time a firm increases the value of a commodity, a percentage of that value flows to government coffers as tax.
Rep. Al Ullman, D-Ore., chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said last week that he would rescue Social Security from bankruptcy with a new tax. A value added tax.
Social Security defrauds taxpayers
It amounts to nothing more than a national sales tax, every cent of which would be paid by consumers. The most obvious aspect of it, however, is the way it conceals itself from those who pay it.
Besides, the Uliman camp is too late. Congress "rescued" *Social Security* by drastically raising payroll taxes. The higher taxes, which take effect Jan. 1, will reduce some workers' paychecks by as much as 300 percent by 1967.
THE TAX rises from its present 6.0 percent on the first $17,100 earner, a maximum tax of $1,071, to 6.13 percent on the first $22,900 next year, a maximum tax of $4,104. By 1997, the tax rate to 1.75 percent on $42,000, a maximum tax of $16,800.
The law, meanwhile, slows the growth of benefits. The maximum payment as a percentage of the above wage limits declines from 34 percent now to 24 percent in 1987. That shift will allow prices to increase.
But Social Security never was a bargain. It linka a particular tux with particular benefits, neither of which was standard.
But yoked together, it is the most sacred of cows.
Those who expose the fraud of Social Security risk attack as反应aries who, without conscience, would condemn grandmothers and orphans to a life of impunity on a diet of Alpo.
Butlet's go at it anyway.
ON THE TAX side, Social Security will involve a 12.26 percent levy on wages up to a maximum of $22,900 next year. The employer matches the worker's 8.13 percent levy on wages and pays half part of his total wage bill, the employee fools the whole bill.
Rick Alm
The poor pay proportionally more of their income to security than do the wealthy. The benefit side, too, favors the rich, who invest in high-quality investments receives full benefits, but a 65-year worker who earns more than a certain salary, receives less.
There you have a regressive payroll tax.
Low-income workers, moreover, usually begin work and start paying the taxes at 17 or 18, while upper-income taxpayers often finish graduate school before beginning work at 23 or 24. Poorer workers pay more years, and with compound interest, pay substantially more to receive the same benefits.
And the worker must continue to pay Social Security taxes.
UPPER-CLASS taxpayers also tend to receive benefits for more years because of the demographic fact that they live longer. Social Security's biases, then, work against those with the greatest need.
The fraud, however, comes in the idea that Social Security is an individual purchase of insurance. In fact, no relationship exists between payment and benefits—which makes Social Security a good deal for the old.
Older workers receive larger annuities than their investment would have yielded because they didn't pay taxes during all of their working lives and, when they did pay, it was at lower rates.
For young workers it is a raw deal. Workers below the age of, say, 40, will receive less than 3 percent return on their investment and may have no private annuity or deposited in a bank, they would receive a larger check at age 65 than the government now
promises. The situation only gets worse for young workers as the number of retiree workers and the amount of taxes
TO AVOID THE generational revolt, Social Security should be junied. The payroll tax should be rescinded and no more workers should be made eligible for Social Security. We could not, of course, reage on earlier promises to older Americans, but Social Security should be phased out. The burden for funding benefits, which would decrease to nothing over several decades, should be shifted to general taxes.
The rebellion cannot be far off.
For those who insist that the great unwashed are too shortsighted to provide for their futures without a companion, they are often so.
For those under a certain age—again, say, 40—the government should no longer promise them a retirement income, and all their Social Security payments would be refunded. It would henceforth be their responsibility to purchase the wage increase—the payroll tax refund—to purchase a small egg that offers a higher return than Social security.
No one would be without some old-age protection.
THE GOVERNMENT could establish its own retirement plan and fund it by taxing workers who belong to no private fund. Those who do not provide for them should be taxed directly so do their. These taxes would be used to pay their annuities.
An added advantage of reliance on private pension programs should be noted. Social Security does not add to the nation's savings. Private pension funds, on the other hand, channel money into investments that create jobs.
Under that system, the government forces most workers to buy its retirement plan—the one with the regressive tax and unequal benefits. Workers sink 12 percent of their pension plan that will not provide the return a private annuity offers.
Social Security is fraud of the first order and should be ended.
It may be hidden beneath the lights, the wrapping paper and the price tags, but
What is so great about this holiday, if it's all a gimmick? That's really not a difficult question.
Christmas memories offset commercialism
What's so great about Christmas, anwav?
And we can't forget about credit card companies and banks, who probably make as much money as anyone. Remember all those buy-now-pay later plans you've heard about? And the Christmas clubs advertised at banks? Well, they have dues.
CHARITIES EVEN exploit the holiday.
Christmas gifts are sold by the thousands.
And what about all those Sants who ring
the bell at Christmas? It is more
it is more blessed to give than to receive.
Think about it, just for a minute. Christmas is a religious holiday—right? Well, not anymore. What is more representative of an American Christmas in the 1780s—a nativity scene or an altar? It looks long white hair and a beard! It's obvious.
AND WHO GETS in that so-called "Christmas spirit" most of all? Not the kids. They leave Christmas each year with a profit. But department store owners are the morrist celebrants of all. Who's going to miss it this year or in October—a good two months before the holiday? Money. The high point in their year comes the day after Thanksgiving.
But then, everyone makes money from Christmas—except the little guy, of course. Department stores and shopping malls rake in the profits by the barefluff in early winter. But look who else makes big bucks.
Greeting card companies, who have a hand in almost every holiday nowadays, push their wares at a feverish pace each Christmas.
But that's only part of it. Look at Santa Claus himself. No matter how often we tell Virginia there really is a Santa Claus, we know it's a lie. There is no fat man at the North Pole who makes a trip vying for each of these Christmas Eve. How ridiculous.
But still we play along with the gag, telling all of the younger children that they better watch out and not pout and yell at them. "Wonderful would they grow up not trusting anyone."
something still shines—not dimly—that makes all those other points seem rather
Remember how difficult it was when you were a child to sleep on Christmas Eve. And thinking the night would never be over. Listening for sounds on the roof. Or maybe sneaking into the living room in the middle of the night to see whether he'd really been there. And always getting up before dawn.
IT'S NOT ALL a gimmick.
It's easy to see what so many people see in Christmas. Look into a 3-year-old's eyes and you see Christmas trees, Christmas morning, or even in a toddler's eyes when he sees a lit Christmas tree.
REMEMBER THE CHRISTMAS card you got last year, and thinking that someone really did care. And think about that Superman necktie you received and not caring that it wasn't really supposed to be a gag gift. And remember searching for just the right gift because it was important.
Underneath it all, no matter how hidden it is, Christmas is a religious celebration. Remember the church programs and the hymns that greet guests And along with the decorations and the candy, remember singing Christmas carols—not only "Jingle Bells" and "Frosty the Snowman," but "No Night Away in a Manger" and "O Holy Night."
Most of all, remember the smiles. A lot of smiles. It's a magic season.
Sure, Christmas is too commercialized. And a lot of people make a lot of money. But who cares about that? It would be hard to think of something to replace Christmas, Good memories and hopes for a happy future.
Remember being in kindergarten and making handprint in clay as a present for them.
Sure, Christmas is a children's holiday. But it's also a holiday for adults.
Cultists assured rights despite Guyana tragedy
To the editor:
In regard to Alex Seagel's letter to the Dec. 6 Kansas, a few comments are in order from at least one member of "the erstwhile apathetic student body."
Certainly the tragedy in Guyana should cause us all to look with some suspicion toward fanatics of all kinds, including the Islamic extremist group, whose suspicion should not lead to an arbitrary persecution of all faiths existing out of the mainstream of American religious life.
Fortunately, even if the University were to take Mr. Seago's suggestion and exclude the Moines from campus, the courts would almost immediately strike the action down as a direct violation of the "free speech" and "free expression" clauses and of the "equal protection" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Mr. Seago's allegation that Mooney has "little conception of that democratic concept" of free speech suffers not only from redundancy but also from irrelievance. First, redundant freedoms are not to be denied upon failure to pass a test on democratic concents.
It behoves me, i suppose, to declare here that I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Unification Church. My knowledge on that group is quite limited, so I cannot determine if the group can be classified accurately as a "cult."
Whether the Moonsies, College Republicans, KU Sailing Club members or other "cultists" are "psychological fascists" is also a question that I cannot answer, for I am not certain exactly what a "psychological fascist" actually is.
Is a "psychological fasciit" any different from an ordinary, run-of-the-mill fasciit? Perhaps the term applies to psychology majors who hold reactionary political views and who are fond of wearing black shirts. Most likely they believe that someone who believe a little too strong or who preach a little too persistently a doctrine that most of us cannot accept.
It would be very interesting if Mr. Seago were to lurk beneath Wescoe Hall next semester, preaching against the Moines and psychological fascism. He would not have any difficulty finding a spot to set up his booth. Wescoe has lots of room.
In the meantime, perhaps we should all
remember the principle enunciated by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson while dissenting in Ballard v. United States. Jackson wrote, "The price of freedom of man is the curse or the press is that we must put up with, and even pay lay, a good deal of rubbish."
Whether the views of the Mr. Seagau, or those of the Moonies, or those of those who are rubbish in their own view, are honest, is a question for the reader.
James Clinger
James Clinger Lawrence senior
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas daily through Sunday, through Monday through Thursday. Subscription cost per day: Sunday and holidays. Second-day subscription by mail are $15 for six month subscriptions by mail or $30 for six months or $3 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid online.
Editor Steve Frazier
Managing Editor Editorial Editor
Campus Editor Dan Bowerman
Campus Editor Dirk Strelk
Ass. Campus Editors Dirk Strelk
Magazine Editor Melissa Thompson
Sports Editor Leon Unen
Sports Editor Nick Macdonald
Editor Editor Naomi Rader
Photo Editor Richard Lander
Copy Chief Paule Cunner
Make-up Edits Paula Tempel
Make-up Edits Dariar Porter, Dan Tempel
Wire Editors Dam Eam
Linda Finnesse Elaine Holder,
John Witenden
Business Manager
Don Green
Amin, Business Mgr ... Karen Wenderton
Promotional Manager ... Nick Haldy
Promotions Manager ... Nick Haldy
Advertising Manager ... Allen Blair, Tom Whitaker
Advertising Man ... Tom Whitaker
Classified Mgr ... Greg Murger
Classified Mgr ... Ann Hendrika
Classified Mgr ... Ann Hendrika
Photographer ... Bob Hart
Professor ... Steve Folien, Bob Hart
General Manager Advertising Adviser
Rick Mussel Chuck Chowns
}