Page 2
University Daily Kansan Wednesday, Jan. 11, 1961
Let the People Say
HAS THERE EVER BEEN A PROBLEM IN the history of mankind with as many complexities and ramifications as is presented by the current fight for the equality of human rights? Though the problem has been with the United States since this country's founding, it was at first a sectional problem. Then it spread up from the South, down from the North, and out from the East until it became of major concern in Lawrence, Kansas.
Now it is. There has been and is discrimination in Lawrence which affects University students. Now all are effected. Whether it is a Lawrence merchant, a home-owner or a student, each person has had the issue stand before him. He can either back away and ignore it, or face it and determine some course of action.
In the past, it was possible to be rational and aloof. It was always happening in Little Rock or Mobile or Atlanta—not here—we had no problem here. We did, of course, but it was not an overt problem.
THE ALL STUDENT COUNCIL HAD THE issue squarely in front of it last night in the form of a resolution to be voted on and it backed away a few paces to reflect and consider. Several members said they personally did not want to act without deliberation. Others expressed bitter disappointment over the Council's failure to act on the issue.
The resolution was tabled—a measure which pigeonholes it until the next meeting. It was a moderately strong proposal, first presented in October. Apparently this course will be taken at each future meeting to escape decision.
Was this cowardly? Irresponsible? Or an example of the Council's ineptitude? Certainly not. It was a reflection of the magnitude of the dilemma. How could it be expected that the group could solve the problem when others,
more directly concerned, have been searching for the answer for over 100 years?
THE ASC WAS SEEKING, AS THE REPresentative student government of the University, to set forth the school's position. This is the organization's purpose and obligation. However, this is a precedent-setting issue. Though representative of the student body, the ASC is not qualified to speak for 10.012 individuals on an issue that involves sentiments as personal as one's fundamental beliefs.
But something must be done. The resolution has been submitted, discussed, referred to committees, discussed again and tabled. The Council must take some action for this is a case when inaction booms forth louder than any forward step.
It is for this reason that the Daily Kansan believes the Council should not be empowered to act on the issue. The issue should be taken out of the Council's hands until it is assured by some indication of either the approval or rejection of the resolution by a majority of those concerned—the student body.
THIS COULD BE DONE BY A REFERENDum. It would require that 20 per cent of the students sign a petition for a referendum to be submitted to the Council.The Council must then set a voting date within seven days of receipt of the petition.
The Daily Kansan recommends that this action be initiated by the ASC at its next meeting on Feb. 7. In no way would this be a usurpation of responsibility or power vested in the Council. It would be a solution to the first step in the dilemma: What is the position of the University student body? The will of the majority, voiced by a referendum, would give the Council the directions it has failed to take before.
OTHERWISE, THE WEIGHT OF DECISION will grow heavier until the ASC is finally forced into a decision that speaks for the personal principles and philosophies of the representatives rather than those they represent.
The Editors
Lousy Logic
We have waited in vain for five days for the Lawrence Journal-World to print the second half of their January 6 lead editorial.
It was impossible for us to believe that the newspaper would print such a compilation of half truths and distortions without further amplification.
But now it is evident that the editorial is going to be allowed to stand on its own merits—which leaves it in a very shaky position. So we will explore the editorial and attempt to glean some semblance of reason and purpose for its existence.
First the paper says "...a goodly number of the wild hare activities fostered by the students are the products of the imagination of out-of-state students."
THEN THE PAPER QUALIFIES THIS profound observation by saying there "is nothing wrong with out-of-state students."
Then it qualifies the qualification by stating that "most of them" are valuable additions to the campus and show proper conduct.
Next, with nothing more than the premise that not all out-of-state students are living up to the Journal-World's accepted code of ethics (whatever they are), it points out "how often the most troublesome student malcontents hail from such states as New York, New Jersey," etc.
At least it professes to point this out. How often do they hail from other states? We always assumed an accusation required some documentation. Where is the second half of that editorial showing readers some fads?
Of course this perverted line of reasoning was carried to its absurd conclusion. We find it worked something like this:
1. "Wild-hare antics" at colleges are bad.
2. Some anties are fostered by out-of-state students.
3. Therefore out-of-state students are bad.
From this one "immediately gets the impression that home-bred youngsters are a little less" bad.
THIS IS A REVELATION IN THINKING. Imagine what one can do to in-state students with this line of reasoning. Take a hypothetical case.
1. Kansans read about a Kansas boy who murdered his parents.
2. The boy was a student at KU.
This is easy to counter. One third of the Hilltoppers in the current Jayhawker, who are designated such by the annual for outstanding service to the University, are out-of-state students.
3. Therefore, one can figure that home-bred youngsters at KU are a little less restrained in their manners than out-of-state students.
The only attempt at giving the editorial some meaning was by pointing out that KU students are Rhodes scholars.
LET'S FACE FACTS. FOR EVERY Accomplishment by a home-bred youngster we can cite one by an "outlander." For every so-called "wild hare" activity involving an out-of-stater we can cite one involving a Kansas youth.
Is it the activities of the Civil Rights Council?—headed incidentally, by Kansas students. Was it the trip to Cuba taken by some KU students over Christmas who wanted to see for themselves what was going on there?
So what is it the Journal-World is talking about?
The point of the editorial escapes us, chiefly because there was none. It must have been in the second half that wasn't published.
The Journal-World must have been attempting to criticize the activities of some students. If so, it failed. It did not have the courage nor honesty to be specific.
Ray Miller
EATON
EU DAILY EANSAN-PB1
"Think we should toss it up to him?"
Sound and Fury
By Edward Lopatin NYC graduate student
The ASC resolution, which appeared in your paper Jan. 9, pointed out that public places should obey public laws and ethics. However, private places (such as country clubs, brotherhoods and fraternities) are not in the public domain and therefore, "cannot be mandated by sheer force." These private places, however, should be made to see the "ethical light" through an educative process the resolution continued.
I AM CONFUSED BY ALL THIS, AND THE CONFUSION is due to the words "public" and "private" and their ethical implications. I would like to know what the ASC means by "public." Is "public" that word marked on the store owner's license and nothing more? If this is all "public" means then there is no question of ethics involved.
Is "public" rather a word we devise in framing laws in order that certain of our ethical compulsions shall be realized? "Public" may mean more than this, but this is all it need mean in this discussion, for we are here concerned with ethical considerations, unless I have terribly misinterpreted the resolution.
SINCE THE ASC SAYS "WE BELIEVE THAT PERSONS and merchants open to the public operate in the public domain, and can be justifiably enforced to obey public laws and ethics," I take it it is talking about the latter "public." In that case, what is the difference, ethically speaking, between the tavern owner and, say, the brotherhood when it comes to refusing service because of race?
What, ASC, will you say when the tavern owner says that he doesn't want to serve people with white skin and the brotherhood says that it does not want to admit people with white skin? Will you say, "You, tavern owner, beware of 'sheer force' since you are operating a public business; and you, brotherhood, don't have to worry as much as he does, since yours is a private affair?"
Since this is mainly a question of ethics and not, strictly speaking, law, for all law does not have appreciable ethical implications, then the tavern owner has no less right to refuse service than the brotherhood. The tavern owner simply does not want to serve certain people for the same reason that the Brotherhood doesn't want to admit them. There is no ethical difference here—it still amounts to a refusal of some service on racial grounds.
THE POINT OF ALL THIS IS THIS: SINCE YOUR ARGUMENT, ASC, is based on ethical considerations, which you have indicated, and if you are to be consistent, then I cannot see why you do not endorse the same measures for fighting prejudice to be applied to all bodies which make refusals of service on racial grounds. This would naturally include all those bodies which you have called "private." I am assuming, of course, that you do not like bodies which discriminate in this way and will do what you can to eliminate the practice.
Daily Hansan UNIVERSITY
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1004, triweekly 1098, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone Viking 3-2700
Extension 711, news room
Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press.
Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East St 50, New York 22,
N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates:
$3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays and examination periods. Entered as second-class matter Sept.
17, 1910, at Lawrence, Kan., post office under act of March 3, 1879.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
... Managing Editor
John Peterson and Bill Blundell ... Co-Editorial Editors