4 THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN Monday, October 14, 1968 Opinion forum: voice in future By CLIF CONRAD Student Body President As a very concerned and somewhat informed student at the University of Kansas, I write the following letter in reference to the recently released documents of the Student Faculty Committee on University Governance. Hopefully, its contents will accurately and clearly express not only my own opinions, but also those of many other students at the University. In my opinion, the major difference between the majority and dissenting reports is over the question of to what extent should students be represented in the proposed University Senate structure. Some students contend that the question of KU's social responsibility is also a major difference. This writer assumes that the section of the dissenting report which deals with this question is supplementary to, and not dissenting with, the majority report. This letter addresses itself to the question of to what degree should students participate in the decision-making process. Throughout its deliberations, the committee of 12 only rarely discussed percentages. Yet, there has been considerable emphasis placed upon these percentages, and they have some pertinence. The majority report calls for 15 per cent student representation in the University Senate, 24 per cent in the Senate Council, 33 per cent in the Senate Executive Council and 29 per cent in the standing committees of the University Senate. On Editor's note: In a series of non-partisan forums dedicated to espousing varying positions on the controversial issues of our day, the Kansan publishes another Opinion Forum. This week's author, KU student body president, Clif Conrad, presents his views on the issue of student representation in University governance. The ideas and opinions expressed in this column are representative of the author and not necessarily the Kansan. the other hand, the dissenting report calls for 50 per cent student representation in all these respective bodies. At present, not one student is represented in the "higher" faculty bodies at KU. Regrettably, only at a handful of colleges and universities are students represented in the major faculty governing bodies. Even those few institutions which have incorporated students into the faculty structure have done so with moderation. At the most "progressive" institutions, students are involved to the extent of but one or two per cent. At the very least, these percentages imply the backwardness of student-faculty relations that exist not only at KU, but throughout the United States. Surely there is an urgent need to correct this inherent weakness in the structure. A majority of the students at KU, I believe, are committed to that end. Many of us who support either the majority or minority reports, speak frequently of creating a "community" at KU. Webster defines "community" as "joint ownership." Implicit in that definition, I think, is the idea that all interests should be represented in the decision making process, but that they need not necessarily be equally represented. In other words, there can still be a community, according to this definition, without "equal" representation. In the context of this definition, we will not have a "community" at KU until there is some student representation. The next question becomes one of to what extent should students be initially represented in order to establish a more "viable community" at KU. Deadly guns still sell John Marshall The fat man stood in back of the counter encased in a light blue shirt and worn slacks that were shiny in back. You could tell he probably sat down a lot when he turned around and bent over to pull out the Smith and Wesson .357 magnum. "Nope, all this business about gun control and legislation hasn't hurt my sales a bit. None." Sell many of these magnums?" he was asked. "None." Naturally he probably wouldn't sell many of the magnums because a .357 slug would kill you if it hit you any place besides the arm or leg. Now that leaves chest, abdomen, head, groin and neck. And a .357 slug makes a neat hole about the size of a nickel going in. Coming out is a different story. A large coffee saucer at least. "Now who would want to buy one of these things?" the fat man asked. "You can't hunt with it; you can't hit anything with it that is farther than about 50 yards unless you're Wild Bill Hickok or somebody—so why buy?" The story is, that he can sell it. And he can also sell the Walther PKP (just like special agents for the CIA use), The Biretta (like the one M takes away from James Bond in the beginning of the movie) or even the old derringer that looks a hundred years old. "Even got holsters. Nice small ones that fit inside a coat or something," he said as he lit a cigarette. He flicked the square end with a stubby finger and scattered ashes on the grimy counter. There were so many fingerprints you could hardly read the label—but there it was. "Colt .45 automatic." A slug from that would rip your arm off. Or your head. "Naw, haven't sold one of those for a couple of months," the man said. There were dandruff flakes on his shirt collar. "Don't know what anybody would want with one of those either. If you shot any game with it, why fetch it? You wouldn't be going after much if you hit anything square." But it was there, big and black and oily, and there was a warning in big red letters on the box it was in: "This firearm packed in cosmoline. Before firing remove all protective oils and restrictive encasements." The only warning for a machine which could rip off your arm or leg and is not much good for hunting. He smiled when he saw you staring at the end of the rifle rack. "Yeah, now that was a big attraction a year and a half ago, but sales have really dropped the last few months." It was an M-16. Semiautomatic. "Yep, that's the one," the fat man said proudly. "Only one we got right now. Can't get too many of 'em right now' cause the government wants them." "Guess people stopped buying them when they found out they weren't too good for hunting-not too accurate, and they really tear up something if you hit it square." It was on the rack, silent. Who knows, it might be sold in a day or two. And you think it is about time to go home and watch some of your friends fire a few rounds on the 5:30 news. And you turn around to leave and walk past another glass-top counter on the way out. And through the glass and fingerprints and the oily rag on top you could see them. On some ragged strips of felt under the smudgy glass were eight or nine silver dollars—old ones, polished a little—with holes drilled through them. So they could be used on a chain around your neck you suppose. KANSAN Kansas Telephone Numbers Newroom—UN 4-3648 Business Office—UN 4-4358 A student newspaper serving the University of Kansas, Lawrence. Kane. Kansas. Published at the University of Kansas within the journal *Hiking* and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 a semester. $10 a year. Second class postage paid tousands of dollars in collections, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national background. All students necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents. News Adviser George Richardson Advertising Adviser Mel Adams Managing Editor Monte Mace Business Manager Jack Haney Assistant Managing Editors Pat Crawford Charla Jenkins Alan T. Jones Morgan Winsor Allen Winser City Editor Bob Butler Assistant City Editor Kathy Hall Editorial Editor Alison Steimel Editorial Assistant Richard Lundquist Sports Editor Ron Yates Features and Society Editor "The question is, can he carry Humphrey into the White House?" To be sure, there are quite a number of students at KU who are committed to 50 per cent student representation in all faculty bodies. They contend that _there_ can be no real community without equality. But there are, I think, far greater numbers of students who think that we need not necessarily have equal representation. Among this latter group, I readily number myself. The figure 50 per cent student representation has many different connotations. To many people, 50 per cent student representation connotates stalemate, veto power, and, in essence, "running the University." But experience has shown us that students, very rarely, if ever, side with students, and that faculty rarely do the same, on student-faculty committees. If the issue is one of whether or not students are going to "run the University," I have some doubts as to whether students have the interest and the ability to run the University. Wherever students have run the university, as in Latin America, an inferior educational institution has almost always resulted. Most KU students aren't talking about "running the University." Rather, they want the opportunity to express their concerns, and to help make those decisions which are so vital to their lives. The question now becomes one of what is the necessary student representation in the faculty bodies to insure that the voice of the student will be heard. The degree of student representation called for in the majority report will, I believe, insure that the student voice will be heard. The majority report will help build that "community" that we need to create at KU. Following this train of thought, it perhaps seems inconsistent that I would not favor, at this point, 50 per cent student representation. I do not support 50 per cent student representation, at this point, for three main reasons. First of all, as student-faculty relations, in the major governing bodies, have a very brief and undistinguished history, this whole area is quite experimental. That students are concerned with those decisions surrounding their education, I number myself among the most optimistic. I'm not certain, though, that students will be that interested to make the commitment that 50 per cent entails. Secondly, we need to find the "proper balance" of students to faculty in these respective bodies. In other words, what contributions, like relevance and insight, do students contribute to student-faculty relations. These questions are left unanswered because we have so little experience in this area. Hopefully, the preceding remarks point up the "experimental" nature of the majority report, and in that context, all my remarks need be taken. Lastly, I am initially against 50 per cent student representation because some of those people who favor 50 per cent student representation at this time, have pushed the concept of "community" far in the background, for they are often more concerned with equality than community. I question this alignment of priorities. Instead, I think that first we need a community, and then, if students enthusiastically and responsibly assume their responsibilities, we may eventually have equality. Hopefully, those ideas in the majority report are only a beginning toward building that "community" about which we speak. Its percentages are perhaps minimal, but the majority report is a very progressive proposal. Yes, "for the sake of the University—not just the students, not just the faculty, but the University—we must exercise care." I feel very strongly that the Student Faculty Committee on University Governance has exercised that care. Dr. William Merrill in a recent forum in the Kansas stated that the "responsibility of the University which rests upon the shoulders of the faculty requires that it consider these problems and pertinent recommendations in ways that are quite different from and with results that may differ from those favored by the students, for it is the faculty that will and should be held accountable for errors in judgment." We students disagree with that assessment for we think that it is an archaic definition that needs changing. We think that students should also be sensitive to the needs of the University, and that students "will and should be held (partly) accountable for errors in judgment." The majority report calls for both faculty and students to be responsible to the needs of the University. The time has come for students to have a significant voice in their future.