4
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Friday, October 18, 1968
October 29 meeting
Voice 'invitation'
Despite the closed-door policy of the University Senate, Voice is "inviting" all students to the Oct. 29 Senate meeting.
Senate rules state that: "Meetings of the Senate shall be closed except by unanimous consent of the members present."
Voice members said that the students should be able to hear the faculty discussion on the majority and minority reports and the Senate Code since it directly affects them. Also members said that Voice "hopes students turn out for the Senate meeting and support the minority report."
The proposed Senate Code is still being discussed by both the ASC and the Senate Council. Clif Conrad, student body president, said the code probably wouldn't be ready for the University Senate's deliberations until mid-November.
All meetings of the ASC are open to both student and faculty. No vote of the members is necessary to admit anyone to the meetings.
But the Oct. 29 meeting of the Senate will, at the most, hear only a report of how the All Student Council and the University Senate Council are progressing on the reports and the Code; the Senate itself will not discuss at length or vote on the matter.
It would seem logical that the present University Senate regular meetings should also be open.
The Senate Code of the proposed University Senate, composed of both faculty and students, stipulates that the meetings will be open unless two-thirds of the Senate members present vote to close the meeting.
However, the Oct. 29 meeting will be of the present Senate, not the proposed one, and its members will probably not even discuss the question of University governance as it pertains to student representation.
Voice tentatively proposed that if the students are not admitted to the meeting they should gather and discuss the meaning of this closed-door policy.
Perhaps the line is rather thin, but students are not admitted to the Senate meeting and gather to discuss, their discussion will, of necessity, be not the issue of exclusion from a meeting directly concerning them, but merely the exclusion from a meeting.
For some, this alone is reasonable grounds for discussion—and perhaps protest.
But it seems self-defeating at this point to argue over something that in the near future might conceivably be changed.
Alison Steimel
Editorial Editor
HHH on the offensive
Planted atop the platform, he talks about '48 and the Democratic underdog, Harry Truman.
He tells the familiar story of a Truman, written off by political analysts, who fought a gutsy battle that landed him in the White House.
And then he tells of a complacent Tom Dewey, the GOP candidate who became as fat as the lead he held in the polls.
He reminiscences about the proverbial "give 'em hell Harry," and how "give 'em hell Harry" used to say he never really gave 'em hell at all—he just gave 'em the truth—and they thought it was hell.
And then he swings into the attack, chiding Nixon as "Richard the chickenhearted" and labeling "Sheriff Wallace" and his running mate as the "bombsv twins."
It's protocol for a Democratic presidential candidate to give Harry Truman a political pat on the back while in his home town. But now, when Hubert Humphrey likens himself to Harry Truman, you get the feeling the comparison will not stop at the city limits of Kansas City.
America loves an underdog. And the vice president is playing the role for what it's worth.
Humphrey, too, is set in the stance of a fighter- and America, too, loves a fighter. Whether
the vice president is merely shadow boxing or piling up points with his combination punches, it is difficult to determine. But the real irony is that Humphrey is now on the offensive.
And the political world is again turning upside down.
Humphrey—the man who supposedly had the albatross of the administration around his neck—is defending nothing. He's attacking. He's attacking the Wallace myths; he's attacking the Nixon evasiveness; he's attacking the unfinished business in this country.
The politics of joy has taken a back seat to the politics of grim determination.
And the crowds are responding.
The black man applauds with his hands held a little higher above his head; the union member waves his sign a little more enthusiastically. And if the heckler is there—he no longer heckles.
Will a nation saturated with dissention and violence cater to the image of a plugging fighter a la Truman tradition, or will it warm to the soothing, healing image of Nixon?
The vice president is right on one count, his campaign has turned the corner.
But has it come in time? Richard Lundquist
Richard Lundquist
Assistant Editorial Editor
THE MINIMALIST JOURNAL
128 right reserved 1994
All rights reserved
'Hang on, Hubert!'
Letter to the Editor
VP misrepresented
To the Editor:
In the interests of truth, I would like to address myself to the misrepresented and slanted story on vice president Humphrey's visit to Kansas City which appeared as the lead article in Tuesday's Kansan.
Miss Diebolt's account of Humphrey's visit was purported by the Kansan to be a news story. My first reaction was that it should have appeared on the editorial page as pro-Republican propaganda.
I simply cannot believe the reporter's "objective" statement that "from the expression on the vice president's face, it appeared that even he didn't care," (about his campaign), is a factual report of the events of his arrival. If she desires to interpret Humphrey's smile as being a symbol that he doesn't care, that is her prerogative; however, I would suggest that she have enough consideration for the readers of the Kansas to label her article as an editorial, not a news story.
Further, a brief comment on the validity of the story. The reporter states that "approximately 100 young people" greeted Humphrey at the hotel.
using present myself at the Hote Muehlebach, I find it difficult to understand how the crowd could have been reported at only 100, for both sides of the street in front of the hotel were completely filled with people, as was the lobby of the hotel itself. Furthermore, only a casual glance at the crowd would show that many of those present were not "young people."
I must express my disappointment that the Kansan could not provide fair and factual coverage of an event as important as a presidential campaign, and also express my hope that in the future the editors of the Kansan will place only articles which give factual accounts of the news on the news page.
Sincerely,
Donald Crook
Wichita junior
All for Milk
LOS ANGELES (UPI) — It required more than 51 tons of grass, hay, grain and water a year to supply one dairy cow producing 14,000 pounds of milk during that period, according to the United Dairymen's Association.
Paperbacks
In these days of the paperback the quality (but relatively inexpensive) hardback line of Modern Library goes on and on, demonstrating its value in attractive and sturdy bindings. Here are four new ones with that well-known imprint:
BASIC WRITING OF NIETZ-SCHE, edited by Walter Kaufmann (Modern Library Giants, $4.95)—A huge thing that includes "The Birth of Tragedy," "Beyond Good and Evil," "On the Genealogy of Morals," "The Case of Wagner" and "Ecce Homo." Kaufmann, a distinguished scholar, did the translation and the editing and provides commentaries.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN: A BIOGRAPHY, by Benjamin P. Thomas (Modern Library Giants, $3.95)—This is probably the best of the one-volume Lincoln biographies, and it leans much less on legend and myth than the famous Carl Sandburg biography. The story is a complete one, from boyhood days in Kentucky and Illinois to the tragedy and majesty of the presidency and the Civil War. Seldom do touches of the historical novel intrude themselves. This is the Lincoln you should read.
A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and HONEY FOR THE BEARS, by Anthony Burgess (Modern
SELECTED STORIES OF ROALD DAHL (Modern Library, $2.45)—Short stories from the volumes "Someone Like You" and "Kiss, Kiss." The stories are suspenseful, funny and satirical.
KANSAN
Library, $2.45) - Two novels by a well-known contemporary British writer. In the first the reader sees a future society presented in satirical form. In the second the story is that of an English antique shop owner and his wife selling dresses on the Russian black market.
Kansas,
published at the University of Kansas
during the academic year except
holidays and examination periods.
Mall subscription rates: $6 a semester,
$10 a year. Secondary postage paid
monthly. 66% taxes. Goods, services and employment
advertised offered to all students without
regard to color, creed or national
successfully those of the University of
Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
Kansan Telephone Numbers Newsroom—UN 4-3646 Business Office—UN 4-3258
A student newspaper serving the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
News Adviser George Richardson
Advertising Adviser Mel Adams
Managing Editor Monte Mace
Business Manager Jack Haney
'For Love of Ivy' too sweet
Kansan Movie Review
Bv SCOTT NUNLEY
It's never easy to criticize a "sweet" film. If you just want an easy evening, see Sidney Poitier's "For Love of Ivy"—but don't expect much.
The positive qualities of this film lie in its short story and screenplay background. Imaginatively, if sentimentally, conceived as fiction by Mr. Poitier and unpretentiously translated for the screen by Robert Aurthur, "For Love of Ivy" begins life with charming ease.
Technically, too, the color photography and editing are generally-not always-interesting in "For Love of Ivy."
Of course, so-called Established Hollywood Filmmakers no longer hesitate to learn the more exciting techniques rapidly from the better foreign and experimental crowd. Almost all films run in America today are "technical" successes—even network television, for example, is almost always much more mature in technique than in content. (Hopefully, cinema critics can now unsaddle their long-burdened hobbyhorse of acclaiming merely mechanical adequacies.)
The problem with "Ivy" lies basically in the acting and directing itself. Neither exciting nor mature, this necessary execution of the film is certainly below today's par.
You may recall Abbey Lincoln's sensitive performance opposite Ivan Dixon in the extremely fine film "Nothing But a man." If so, "For Love of Ivy" is going to be a disappointment. Director
Daniel Mann never allows Miss Lincoln the freedom to feel before his cameras.
At one point, as Ivy Moore, she cries out that everyone is always pushing her, pulling her, controlling her movements, making her decisions for her. It is exactly this lack of individual freedom, of basic character power in Miss Lincoln's role that undermines "For Love of Ivy" at its most delicate spot—at the heart of its sentiment and romance, at sweet Ivy herself.
good for lapses aside, "For Love of Ivy" raises nagging questions in its moderate-Negro content. Poitier, of course, is now famous for his easy pictures of racial harmony a la "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner."
But this vacuum is comforting compared to the inept overacting of supporting stars, Beau Bridges and Nan Martin. They display no ability to live subtly on the screen. Bridges' tame hippie-son is good for laughs only at Bridges' expense
And "Ivy" too is guaranteed not to upset any white liberals in the audience. But there are hints that Poitier might really have had something to say; in his gambling den, for example, he takes only white money, refusing to fleece any of "the Blood."
If Sidney Poitier, with his sensitivity to writing and acting, ever decides to cut loose and tell the unsweetened version of Black life in White America, American audiences might finally receive the really meaningful movie that "For Love of Ivy" is not.