UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers.
OCTOBER 31,1978
Bureaucracy triumphs
Overregulation is a vile disease common to most governmental bodies, and unfortunately, it has found its way into the University of Kansas.
The University's recent adoption of a formal policy to regulate distribution of literature on campus stands as a fine example of this highly contagious infection.
Its effects are clear—unnecessary rules and regulations. Today there seems to be a policy to control nearly everything, and if one doesn't exist, bureaucrats are quick to establish one.
ENTER KU and its regulations on literature distribution. The reason for the policy?
"There weren't any policies about the sale of literature," Del Shankel, executive vice chancellor, said, "and we thought it would be best to develop a policy that would cover the area."
The University, in other words, decided to create solutions to imaginary problems—problems that could happen, but do not yet exist. It's a classic symptom of overregulation.
In seeking a solution to problems encountered with the sale of several publications at the Kansas Union, such
as the satirical newspaper, City Moon,
the university has created an un-
necessary monster.
THROUGH THE POLICY'S broad, sweeping guidelines, the University has provided itself with superficial reasons to regulate the flow of printed information.
Although the policy states that a publication's content will not be a consideration for approval of distribution, such assurances are often ineffective.
One can assume the University had no intention of overt suppression of the flow of ideas or freedom of expression. Nevertheless, the policy is misguided and far too broad.
No explanation has been given why a laissez-faire approach to literature distribution would not suffice, especially when it apparently had done so for the 112 years of the University's history.
It is, however, a fear of potential hobgoblins that frightened the University to overregulation. It should be recognized as an unfounded fear, and the literature distribution policy corrected.
The selection Oct. 16 of Karal Wojtyla, the 88-year-old archbishop of Krakow, as pope left the world momentarily stunned. He is, after all, a non-Italian chosen to be noose 1522.
Moscow unmoved by choice of pope
For another, he is from Poland, a communist country that has, at least under the ruling party's official Marktogma, dogma, religious religion as the 'opiate of the proletariat'.
Political questions were immediately raised- then dodged.
The 111 cardinals who elected Pope John Paul II, as Wolfgang has chosen to call himself, unanimously disawarded any political intent. And the new pope promptly declared his political neutrality, although he had already been general way to the relief of the oppressed.
The first reaction from Moscow, the Rome of the communist faithful, was wary. Leonid Breznev, Soviet Communist Party boss, responded with a belated and painfully formal call for "friendship and peace between peoples."
BUT FOR THE Soviets, unpleasant news poses not so much a problem as an opportunity. Propagandists need only time to figure out how to twist adversity to add more depth.
And, within the last two weeks, the greater significance of the election of a Polish pope dawned on someone with a typo in his name. The result is Friday's political magazine published Friday said the election rebutted Western charges that he has fallen silent in communist countries.
Of course
How could U.S. magazines miss something so obvious?
"The new head of the Catholic church," the Soviet magazine Novoye Vremya commented in a one-page article. "is from the country. What explains this choice?"
"Some Western observers put forward the
BvRAJU G.C. THOMAS
Benefits of nuclear India debated
N. Y. Times Feature
NEW YORK-The pro-bomb lobby in India won an important victory this summer when it pressured Prime Minister Moraji Desai to withdraw his earlier promise not to test nuclear weapons, even for "peaceful" purposes.
Although subsequently Desal declared that, at least under him, no test, could be conducted, the possibility that his successors will adopt the same position is unlikely. Desal's dilemma is unenviable.
From his moral standpoint, nuclear weapons are undesirable since nuclear destruction would not only be extensive, but it would also affect the lives of future generations through radiation effects. There is also the more specific moral issue of whether a country with impoverished millions should engage in such an economically destructive arms race.
However, Dessai's mental compulsions are rejected by the pro-bomb lobby on two grounds. First, the immorality-of-nuclear-weapons argument is a universal one, applicable with regard to the United States and the Soviet Union, from India's view.
Second, poor nations have as much right to ensure their security as rich nations, even if the economic burden is more severe. Economic growth through nuclear abstinence would be a high political price to pay if India's security and insecurity are at risk in any case, there is some doubt as to whether a nuclear weapons program in India would come only at the cost of development.
INSTEAD OF reducing their stockpiles, the two superpowers are engaged in diversification and multiplication. Proliferation as seen by India is not merely the spread of nuclear weapons among the 'have notes,' but is also the growth of such weaponry in other countries. The proliferation of nuclear weapons are immoral, pointing a finger at India will not solve the issue.
The Indian nuclear energy program is only 10 percent of its defense program. In turn, the total defense program constitutes only 3 percent of the Indian GNP—among the lowest of major countries of the world. Far from affecting economic development, there may be trade-offs in a nuclear program depending reduction in the conventional military program.
THE COSTS of maintaining a million men in uniform could be more disastrous economically than a nuclear program that would have been much less expensive.
Having dismissed the moral case, the need for a nuclear weapons program in India must rest on certain strategic necessities. In this, an initial distinction often is drawn between the threat of military maintenance of the nuclear option, i.e., the threat to produce.
The option under the previous Congress government had served two purposes: to pressure the superpowers into
providing a credible nuclear deterrent against China and to pressure the existing nuclear "haven" toward the reduction of nuclear weapons.
From the strategic standpoint, the Chinese threat is the main issue. More recently, the massive arms accumulation by the oil-rich states of the Middle East have added strength to the oro-bomb lobby in India.
The importance of China in American global strategy, and the past American preference for China's ally Pakistan in its disputes with India, imply that India would have to depend entirely on the credibility of Soviet deterence against China during possible South Asian crises. The Indo-Soviet Treaty resulted in the immediate response to this emerging situation in 1971.
HOWEVER, A doubt remained. What if the Soviet deterrent against China becomes no longer credible? Indeed, to what extent can Soviet support continue to be received on so vital a question without compromising India's political independence? And how did they respond to those questions and the atomic test of May 1974 was a delayed response to the new Sino-American relationship.
Secondly, Moscow may be unwilling to back a nuclear India for fear of escalating a potential Sino-Indian nuclear confrontation to the superpower. It is important that China support a non-nuclear Indian Chinese military intervention against a non-nuclear India as during the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war (when the United States remained aloof). But supporting a disobedient nuclear India against China might invite a more
Nevertheless, Indian possession of nuclear weapons may enhance the Chinese threat and not reduce it. First, possession would not in itself constitute a deterrent against China unless India carried retaliatory strike capability. That is decades away. However, the pro-bomb lobby could argue that a similar situation exists between China and the Soviet Union. Yet Western nations have rarely questioned China's nuclear rationale or protested China's nuclear testing.
ARGUMENTS FOR the bomb are more convincing concerning the Middle East arms build-up. In the long run, India carries the advantage over these states, given its broader resource base and technology. An abundance of pet-doliers may be irrelevant for the purchase of nuclear technology from the East and West without safeguards.
Besides, the possibility exists that if India took the nuclear road, other nuclear powers would reimbold their efforts to prevent further proliferation, thus limiting the club to six nations. It is hard to imagine that another country under the military might of the oil-rich Middle Eastern states.
Raju G.C. Thomas is an assistant professor of political science at Marquette University. He is the author of the book *The Future of Political Thinking*.
The rest of the time the church has had to struggle. Religion's worst days came in the 1930s, when Stalin's iron heel tried to stomp it out by terror. Priests were jailed and killed and churches destroyed; church attendance was dangerous.
THE CHURCH survived the ordeal, but it still fights for a constricted and precarious existence. Priests can hold mass, but not all priests can do so. Four seminaries the Communist Party allows to exist are each limited to 1,000 students, having three applicants for every opening.
regime has been anything but tolerant, except briefly during World War II when the church was granted a reprieve to unify the country.
Rick Alm
Some community churches have been closed; new communities are built without churches. The clergy is forbidden to discuss politics, except in praise of the party. Churches are expected to donate to party causes.
argument that the cardinals allegedly elected a priest who knows by his own experience what socialism and communism mean—and how to struggle against them.
"THEIR EXPLANATION seems to us to be very far from the truth, because as the experience of Pope Paul XII (1698-1699) emphasizes churchism leads the church into a blind alley.
"The very fact of the election of a Polish cardinal to the papal throne is the best resolution of the myth created by Pash XII, a grand church in the social countries."
Yet, despite 60 years of unrepentant hostility, one act, in a non-communist country and unrelated to communism, disbelies forever Pius XII's charge of a silent church.
True, the church exists in Russia. About 30 million Russians—twice the number of card-carrying party members—attend regularly.
SUCH IMPRESSIONS are, to use the magazine's phrase, "very far from the
But churches survive only because six decades of persecution have failed to tear apart the church.
The commentary was designed to create the impression that communism, despite being officially atheistic, has had a benign effect on religion and that the relationship between church and state has been harmonious.
The Communist Party has been an implacable foe of religion since seized power in 1917. Religion, in the official Soviet view, must be eradicated because it serves only as a means for exploiting classes to keep the people obedient and docile.
It forgot that Wotylya, asked in West German last, year whether Marxism could be reconciled with Christianity, said, "This is a curious question. One cannot be a Christian and a materialist; one cannot be a believer and an atheist."
Of course.
The Soviet magazine failed to acknowledge that John Paul II and his 76-year-old colleague Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski have for years journaled with Poland's communist hierarchy to keep the Polish Catholic church alive.
Legal services editorial unfounded
To the editor:
The massehead over the editorial section of your newspaper indicates that unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansas State Journal, which then the Oct. 23 editorial entitled "Student voice shocked" demonstrates that the "staff" is terribly misinformed and ignorant about the facts surrounding the lawsuit against the program and administrative action on it.
In view of the fact that I usually talk to one or more of your reporters almost daily, it seems inexcusable to me that the Kansan would not determine the facts of the situation before accusing the administration of a "blatant and inexcusable" behavior. So I ask you to print the editorial without determining the facts in the case indicates to me a blatant and inexcusable lack of information on the part of your editorial writer.
Delbert M. Shankel Executive vice chancellor
The proposal of prepaid legal services was forwarded to the administration by the president of the student body, who is the official student voice. The proposal was reviewed by the vice chancellor for student affairs, the university general counsel and others in the administration. After consultation with the chancellor, that information was accepted Phase I of the proposal, with only slight modifications, on a trial basis and to make further determinations after Phase I had been in operation for a period of time.
We believe this will enable the Student Senate and the administration to make an informed judgment about the need for the service, the extent of its use, and whether the benefits realized are worth the costs involved.
At no time in these discussions was it indicated to me that a different proposal was under consideration or would be forthcoming from the school. In good faith on a proposal that was presented to us by the official voice of the student body. To have such an action described as "shacking the school" or "shaking the facts of the facts involved seems me to be inexactual.
Delbert M. Shankel
There seems to be a great deal of controversy recently over who is shackling whom with respect to the Legal Services Program, and in hopes that Procontroversy will end.
Students get wish; voice not shackled
I did indeed as student body president submit a proposal for the Legal Services Program to Dr. Shankel, and he acted on the proposal in good faith. The reasons for my submission of a proposal are made clear by his titles or editors, and I have never been asked about my intentions in that regard by any of your reports.
To the editor:
I am surprised that you chose to state
When seeking this office, I listed as one of my priorities the establishment of a Legal Counsel for the firm.
your opinions any way without regard to the facts of the situation. I hope to point out the facts in this case to prevent any further misunderstandings.
At the first meeting of the Board I made it quite clear that I had a commitment to my constituents to establish a Legal Services Program here at KU by January 1997. I felt personally grateful for this personally reviewing the successful programs of other similar institutions.
In order to ensure that the students of this University receive the best of all possible programs, I requested and received a program from the university. I was studying the study of the issue. The study was started in June and completed in August, and it included a synopsis recommendation from an evaluation of all successful legal services firms at universities in the United States.
In August I received multiple requests from Vice Chancellor Ambler for more information on the legal services question related to the completion at that time. On at least three occasions I requested that the Board chairperson provide that information both to me and to Dr. Ambler. As of this date I am aware of my request and to my knowledge neither has Dr. Ambler.
The time period passed, and I received no word from the Board. I again inquired into
the status of the program and was told a proposal would be forthcoming soon. Another two weeks passed and still I heard nothing from the Board. It was at that time that I, in wishing to keep my commitment to the body, submitted my proposal to Dr. Shanklee.
In doing so I felt I had made it clear that this was not the Board's proposal. At the same time I submitted copies of the proposal to Dr Shankel, I also provided a proposal for every Board member, and I gave them to the chairperson of the Board.
I was also interested in one of your articles in which it was stated the "Board" was angered by my proposal. In fact only two of the six Board members were in attack mode when they were formed by other Board members that they were not even notified of the meeting.
It was with great interest that I noted in your article that one Board member stated he had never seen a copy of the proposal. When I inquired of another Board member what the case is, I was told it was because the member never attended the Board's meetings.
I feel my motives were clear in this instance, and, not surprisingly, the Board has just recently acted with remarkable speed in drafting its own proposal. Whether my partner was shocked 'the voice of the students as you have so readily presumed, remains to be seen.
It was at that point that I felt compelled to review the activities of the Board with respect to the goals of the Student Senate and ultimately the goals of the student body. It was at that point that I made my proposal official.
The fact in this case is that the Student Senate and the student body are desirous of legal services, and I most certainly will not be the one to shackle those desires.
Mike Harper
Student body president
- Published at the University of Kansas during August through May and Monday through September 2017. No refunds or returns. All fees are payable to the University of Kansas. Fees vary by location; $25 a month in Canadian Columbia and $15 for New York City
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Editor
Steve Frazier
Managing Editor Jerry Sars
Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Sports Editor
Sports Editor
Associate Sports Editor
Sports Editor
Editorial Editor
Barbara E. Schmidt
Dan Bowerman
Dick Retuelton Pam Munson
Michael O'Reilly
Nancy Dufferley
David H. McGrath
Business Manager
Pet Care
Dan Green
Assistant Business Manager
Ward Woodtill
 Assistant Business Manager
Brett Miller
Karen Words,
Advertising Promoters Managers
National Advertising Managers
National Advertising Managers
Assistant Classifieds Manager
Net Kirau
Nel Smith Radley
Neil Hatcher
Ten Wheatier
Greg Murder
Leah Munzer
Anne Munker
General Manage
Rick Musser
Advertising Advis: Chuck Chowins-