4
MAZHAK
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
88RF-F. S. dod70o:yobbsW
Wednesday, October 2-1965
Wednesday, October 2,1968
Changes define issue
The dissenting report-having rid itself of recommendations which potentially could have victimized the entire report-is now a viable plan for restructuring and redirecting University governance.
As it previously stood, the dissenting report suffered from some needless stereotypes. The recommendations dropped from the report attached a radical stigma to the report that may well have jeopardized its chances for acceptance. Certainly they distracted from the total worth of the report.
It is much to the credit of the authors of the report that they saw fit to eliminate these recommendations. Most of the proposals eliminated were primarily superfluous to the purpose of University governance as defined in the report. "The ultimate purpose of University governance should be to direct the social emphasis of the University from compliant parrot to dynamic leader in the restructuring of our presently deficient society, and to redirect the educational emphasis of the University from prestige-oriented research back to a learning-oriented classroom experience."
There now should be little chance for misrepresentation. The remaining proposals squarely meet the purpose of University governance as it is outlined in the report and draw a more succinct line between it and the majority report. The debate can now focus where it should: on student-faculty representation and the University's social responsibility.
The recommendation concerning equal faculty-student representation in the University Senate, Senate Council, and the Senate Executive Council has drawn the most attention and nurtured the largest myths.
While professing equal representation as an ultimate goal in University governance, the argument against implementing such equality has followed the unexplainable line that, presently, "it's too big a step."
It is ludicrous to assume that student representatives would consistently vote as a student block; just as it is ludicrous to assume the same reaction would come from faculty representatives.
The report's first recommendation should further dispel the illusion of demagogic students bent on absolute control of the University's decision-making apparatus. The proposal recommends that faculty members be elected to the University Senate in the same manner as students, i.e., on a constituency basis.
Enactment of this proposal not only would give faculty in toto a more equal voice in University policy; but would also pave the way for better qualified faculty members sitting on the University Senate. The present system-perpetuated by the majority report-allows automatic membership on the University Senate with tenure.
But the area of the dissenting report that is most clearly aimed at the University's ultimate purpose, as defined in the dissenting report, deals with the University's social responsibility. While the majority report recommends the establishment of a committee to study the issue of the social responsibility of the University, the dissenting report goes one step further. It outlines proposals which are sound, reasonable, and totally relevant to the University as an educational institution.
The social responsibility proposals are aimed directly at poverty and racial minorities—that segment of society where education is most needed. If a university concerns itself with the search for truth; if a university is a center of learning and if a university perpetuates understanding; then it is imperative that a university utilize its resources in a manner that best serves those educational ideals. The dissenting report establishes guidelines for instituting these educational ideals.
Chi-Chi, An-An and the Czechs
A month ago I was in, of all places, St. James Park in London, contemplating the fall of the British Empire, the rise of the British Hemline and watching several fellow-students pick lice from each others' hair and beards while dreaming of Albert Camus.
Existentialism not included, the big news of the day was the recent occupation of Czechoslovakia and the love life of two giant panda bears at the London Zoo.
Chi-Chi, the pride of the London Zoo because she is the only female giant panda in captivity outside of China, and An-An, the pride of the Moscow Zoo because he is the only male giant panda in captivity outside of China, were together in London for a second attempt at raising the giant panda population of the world.
This summer, An-An was flown to London. Chi-Chi beat up the Russian several times, but zoo officials now say they have learned that a female panda's violent tantrums are but the first stage of the giant panda mating process. They are now eagerly awaiting the pitter-patter of giant paws.
Richard Lundquist
Editorial Assistant
attempt at raising the giant pandas population Their first attempt was less than inspiring. Either because of An-An's uncool approach or the unfamiliar surroundings in Moscow, Chi-Chi's only response was to beat up her proposed mate several times.
Receiving less attention in London this summer was the "rape of Czechoslovakia," a term heard some 30 years ago around the capital of the empire.
An excellent analysis of the occupation in The Economist that day concluded with the hopeful suggestion that the Soviet response to Alexander Dubek's attempt at liberal communism was the final gasp of death of the Stalinist era. The Kremlin, after witnessing the world's reaction to Czechoslovakia, might realize, at last, that these tactics no longer could be fruitful, and that peaceful diplomacy has to be the key in dealing with the world's problems now that Uncle Joe is gone from Lenin's tomb.
For sure there were angry reactions for about two weeks. Students actually marched on the Soviet embassy and held their weekly American flag-burning festivities there instead of in Grosvner Square.
I suggested this to one of my hairy companions in St. James Park. The only response came in the form of a grunt and an offer to trade his Che Guevera portrait for my KU sweatshirt.
A week later I was back on my beloved Mt. Oread. I found the Kansas response to the occupation of Czechoslovakia was somewhat different.
I found that one of the presidential candidates had gained wide support during my absence because Kansans felt that He wouldn't let those rotten commies get away with something like that—He would drop the Bomb on Prague, He would wipe Hanoi off the map. He was an American.
As for the Economist suggestion, I found responses ranging from a spit to being labeled immediately as a Communist. Sign a non-proliferation treaty? Cultural cooperation? The only way to peace is war!
So, as An-An sits in the London Zoo nursing his black eye, listening to Chi-Chi's love calls floating from the connecting cage, here I am in the heart of America, listening to some fellow-students discussing new ways of dropping out while they pick lice off each other and to other students worshipping The Hawk. I wonder, does the London Zoo have a spare cage?
Ted Bell
THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM
KANSAN
Newsroom—UN 4-3848
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Salaries as a teacher $1500 a year. Second class postgraduate at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students with disabilities or origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents. Managing Editor Monte Mace Business Manager Jack Haney Manager Editing Managers
Pat Crawford
Charla Jenkins
Alan T. Jones
Steve Morgan
Alain Wincenko
Editorial Editor Alison Stemel
City Editor Bob Butler
Letter to the editor
Minority farce
To the Editor
Scene: High School Principal's Office. 9:30 a.m.
Principal: (Dictating a memo) "... and as we return to normal operations once again, it behooves each of us to review the causes which . . .
Secretary: (Entering the office) Sir, there is a group of students gathering on the south side of the front lawn.
Principal: Oh, no. Not again.
Secretary: And Rudolph Hoffman is here to see you.
Principal: Tell him to come back later, I've got to get to the bottom of this.
Secretary: He says he has something to do with it.
Principal: Well, send him in.
Rudy Hoffman: (Entering) Sir, here are our demands.
Principal: Rudy, what's this all about?
Rudy: The strike of the A.S.G.D. Here are our demands (handing the principal a typewritten sheet).
Principal: What is the ASGD?
Rudy: The Association of Students of German Descent. I'm president. Eva Emilhoff is vice president, Segfried Volker is secretary. We have 57 members. We want, as you can see a German cheerleader, more German teachers, and the history of the German immigrants' contribution to America. We'll not return to school until you move on these demands.
Secretary: (interrupting) Sir, I'm sorry. But there's a group of students gathering on the north side of the front lawn.
Principal: Who are they, can you tell?
Secretary: No sir, but Michael O"Toole wants to see you.
Principal: Send him in. (Motioning to Rudy) Sit down, please, Rudy.
Michael: Sir, I represent . . . (principal interrupts)
Principal: Don't tell me. Let me guess. You represent the ASID. The Association of Students of Irish Descent.
Michael: Right, sir. Here are our demands.
Principal: Anything new?
Michael: Just the usual sir, cheerleader, all Irish Union, Irish History. Oh, and we want St. Patrick's Day off. We have 94 members and are growing all the time. You'd better act fast if you want us back in school.
Secretary:Sir, there are groups of students out back of the school and on the lawn right out in front.
Principal: Who's here to see me?
Secretary: Mario Stelletti, Ingrid Johnansen, Andy McAndrews, and Tom Brown.
Principal: Tom Brown?
Secretary: Yes sir.
Principal: Send Tom in. I know who the others are, but . . .
Tom: (entering) Sir, I represent the Association of Brown-eyed Students of this high school, we have the following demands . . .
J. Laurence Day
Hate quotient
There is no mystery to the crowd appeal which George C. Wallace is displaying as he goes around the country pressing his campaign for protest votes. He wows them, no question about it, and he does so because he is one of the most accomplished fakers in the history of American politics.
Gov. Wallace is not a candidate so much as he is an evangelist. He does not have a program, he has a set of prejudices. Nobody really expects him to be President, least of all Gov. Wallace, and so he is free to rant and rave without responsibility. Accordingly, he gives voters a chance to express their own prejudices and animosities without worrying about the responsibility of actually putting such a man into the White House. Obviously, some love it.
He is a primitive man, and he identifies readily with primitive people. He gives them a welcome feeling that public affairs are not so complicated as they often seem; all you have to do is use common sense, his kind of common sense, and everything will come out all right. He tees off on "intellectuals" who look down their noses at people, thereby banning a spark of response in anybody who ever lost an argument. He attacks the news media, an easy target, and so establishes his empathy with all who ever got sore at a newspaper. He catalogues at length all the people he is sick and tired of, including anarchists, liberals, bureaucrats, college kids, Supreme Court justices and politicians; and so many people have at one time or another been fed up with so many others that his obscure resentments translate into an almost joyous mass hysteria of hostility.
A fuming anger directed at the pillars of society has always been a latent strain in American
politics. Particularly in times of stress, people like to blame their troubles on some vague, conspiratorial and gloriously simple enemy, such as Wall Street, or the press, or the bankers, or the trusts, or the rich, or the Communists, or the "Establishment." The Populists, the Greenbackers, the Know-Nothings, Huey Long and George Wallace all found ways to touch this nerve. It is a case of "us" against "them," neither well defined, but as Gov. Wallace keeps saying, "there's more of us than there is of them." He gives frightened folk a sense of solidarity against unseen foes, and offers them a chance to work off their animosities in a defiant act of rebellion.
We do not know how many states Gov. Wallace will carry or how many popular votes he will receive, but the number will be a fair measure, on election day, of the hate quotient of the American people. Hatred is, after all, the sole content of his campaign, the rest is all technique. Gov. Wallace has learned how to arouse hatred, how to use it for votes and crowds and money, but he would not know how, and has not the faintest intention of even trying, to translate it into presidential policies.
His crowds indicate that the hate quotient at this stage of the campaign is fairly high, but we have enough confidence in the American people to believe that in the quiet privacy of the voting booth they will pay attention to something more than the unfocused hostilities that Gov. Wallace evokes. Every voter at that moment will have to decide, not whether to register a protest, but whether to entrust the costody of nuclear weapons, which is to say the custody of civilization, to such a man as George C. Wallace.
Reprinted from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch