4
Thursday, September 6, 1973
University Daily Kansan
Tenure Debate
The decision Tuesday to withhold reports of the four committees studying faculty tenure was a grave mistake. The faculty and the student body will continue to debate the debate and to add their voices to the discussion.
There is no clear-cut answer to the question of whether tenure should be continued or discontinued. Nevertheless, the tenure question remains the most important campus debate currently under way.
Concern has been voiced that the University is becoming "tenured in." If true, the University could face a situation in which the hiring of new faculty members would be impossible because older, although perhaps less talented, professors beld all available positions.
On the other hand, tenure is needed to help maintain academic freedom and job security for professors. Without such freedom and security, faculty members would conduct, and be able to keep their jobs by impressing administrators, and ignoring their classroom duties.
Historically, the idea of tenure has played an important role in America. Today, such prestigious groups as the American University professors still take strong stands in favor of tenure. Others, notably administrators, are equally strong in opposing it.
Both sides offer the argument that if tenure were abolished or continued, unionization would result.
Thus, tenure is an important issue. It is vital to the livelihood of faculty members. It is vital to the quality of education students receive. It is vital to the taxpayers who support the University.
Why have only slightly more than one open palm been allowed to voice opinions?
Tenure is a question of University-wide importance and deserves consideration by the University, not by an elitist group.
Leaders on both sides of the tenure debate have expressed concern that the faculty and students have not been given adequate input into the committee hearings.
The traditional argument for secrecy—that open discussion would invade someone's privacy—is not valid.
Why, then, has a "Top Secret" stamp been impressed on the committee reports? Why was the study started in the summer, while most students and faculty members were away?
The release for publication of the committee reports would be the first step toward allowing full University input.
Eric Meyer
Nixon Foreign Policy Judged Self-Serving
By MARILYN BERGER The Washington Post
WASHINGTON-The Nixon foreign policy and Henry Kissinger, its chief architect, have been extolled for having made a lasting contribution to the peace of the world. To many experienced practitioners of the diplomatic art, it is no such thing.
Administration officials hail the opening of China and the detente with the Soviet Union as their crowning achievement. To others, the policy did no more than seize on an idea in international affairs whose time had come.
According to this view, which is supported by U.S. Intelligence assessments, in 1968 and 1989 the Soviet Union urgently required help to build up the country. Only the United States had the necessary continental-size economy, could provide the necessary resources. Moscow and Peking were engaged in a fierce ideological struggle that threatened to break into military confrontation and each capital was forced to Washington to balance off the other.
"Now," says one critic, "Nixon and Kissinger have created a false ideology about a turnaround in world history that themselves have wrought. This is myself."
Worse, critics suggest, the President and his national security adviser did it in a way to elevate their own stature as successful strategists at the expense of relationships with clients. They also put a premium on secrecy, a passion which in the domestic sphere gave us Watergate.
The Nixon administration, for its own reasons of prestige and to get a handle on Vietnam, tried to
The price paid for surprise summary in damage to relations with Japan, the most powerful American ally in Asia, and with the democracies of Western Europe, has still not been calculated. Critics fear it is staggering.
In Tokyo the United States must cope with a Japanese suspicion that, to Washington, relations with China have become more tense. Japan has been the recent suspension of soybean exports to Japan only under this administration's inattentiveness to Japanese sensibilities. In Paris, Bonne, Rome and London—and Otto Wittmann, the former chief of the United States is dealing over their heads.
The Nixinger policy has had an enormous blind spot, critics feel, in failing to recognize that international economics has been a field of economic stress. Economics has little interested Kissinger.
Finally, there is the toll taken on the American Foreign Service establishment. Kissinger is widely respected in Foggy Borough and has been a great supporter with a grasp for much of the substance, if not always the style, of policy. But with Kissinger acting like a one-man-band and often disregarding the State Department, they have been leaving the career service.
Much of Kisinger's first press conference as Secretary of State-designate amounted to an indirect answer to his question. The president of the United States never would abandon its allies and now he is promising a more open foreign policy—a promise ironically reminiscent of President Nixon's own administration in 1969, for a more open administration.
The Senate permitting, Kissinger is now in a position to make amends, both to America's allies and to America's own diplomats. His has been a virtuoso performance in many ways, but virtuosos are solists.
At the State Department, Kissinger will have to rear and deal with the kind of skepticism being expressed by his critics both in and out of office. Now it is his task—that he prove to them that what he has done has laid foundation for further accomplishments.
Special to the Washington 49ers
The writer served as a special assistant to President Johnson and is a former ambassador to Turkey.
Troop Cuts Need More Thought
Bv ROBERT KOMER
WASHINGTON—In the mounting debate over whether we should bring troops home from Europe, one is struck by the simplistic nature of many arguments advanced on the issue. The prospect is that a little odd that most proposals call for withdrawing such nice round numbers—a 50 per cent cut of 150,000 or a 100,000 cut, or half of all our troops overseas—a nice round cut.
One wonders by what means the critics arrived at the conclusion that the proper number of U.S. troops in Europe should be a residual 200,000 or 150,000.
Many counterarguments troted out by those defending the conventional wisdom that a strong European security remains of great importance to us does not make the present troop level or force structure sacrosanct, as described in Secretary James R. Schlesinger knowledge.
It is hardly plausible that cutting even a single soldier now would start us down the road to undermining NATO. Nor does it seem likely that modest cuts in U.S. forces would end up with Europe Finlandized. How then would the material cuts might triple our effort to get mutual East-West cuts is rather more convincing, especially after SALT I.
Although some degy mutual balanced force reduction as simply an administration of a method of degy
The Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor, but asks that letters be typewritten, double-spaced and no longer than 800 words. All letters are to be typed according to space limitations and the editor's judgment, and must be signed. KU students must provide their name, year in school and homebase; faculty must provide their name and position; must provide their name and address.
letters policy
House that it is Congress that now has the whin hand on such issues.
Contributions to The Other Page, a proposed new bivewley Kansan offering, are strongly desired. The Other Page is intended as a compendium of information on better ways to do things and to get things done—a page of alternatives, if you will. Information submitted in writing should generally follow the preceding "butterfly pattern" set forth in the text; exceeding 500 words in length will be considered for The Other Page. Art work is welcomed.
Surely, if defense of Western Europe has seemed of sufficient import to our own security to keep our troops there since the end of World War II, the public is entitled to more informed discussion of why we should now bring so many home.
Paradoxically, the clamor for withdrawing them is rising at the very time that the advent of nuclear parity makes a difference. The latter divergent even more important than before.
If the real aim is to deter conflict from breaking out in the first place, so that we aren't confronted with awesome nuclear weapons, NATO conventional shield makes sense.
Here it is essential to note that our 4-1-3 divisions in Europe serve as much more than a triplane or hostages to ensure a U.S. response. They hold a key sector of the NATO defense line astirde the shortest high speed avenues of attack by which a Warsaw aircraft could save the NATO forces, much as the Germans did against the Allies in 1940.
rely on Moscow's good will for reciprocation.
But why worry in a period of accommodation rather than confrontation when attack comes so remote? Well, if the Soviets cut their forces too, we would worry about the effect of force reduction makes sense. It does seem imprudent to cut our own forces first, and to
Let's turn over the record and ask, why pull troops out of Europe? Is it because troops lead to, rather than deter, war? This hasn't been the case in Europe for 28 years, and it's hard to see the NATO forces having much capability to attack anyone. Or is it the Vietnam backlash, and weariness with the U.S. policeman, that leads some to feel that America should disengage from Southeast Asia, we should disengage from Europe too?
The more serious critics hinge their arguments on the issues of cost and burden sharing. Why should the United States spend $17 billion annually on NATO, when our allies spend proportionally less? These facts get the facts straight, too.
In the first place, we don't spend $17 billion on troops in Europe. We spend about $4 billion. The rest is to maintain all the active general purpose forces earmarked for Europe and the Atlantic sea lines in the United States must come to NATO's help.
But many if not most of those forces are also maintained to cope with one major and one minor conflict in either Europe or America, what general purpose forces are all about.
In any event, pulling every man out of Europe wouldn't save $17 billion. In fact.
unless we demobilized them, it wouldn't save us much at all. Even after the devastations of the war, it would be most worthiest to maintain a troop where dawn at home rather than in Europe. If so, then the real argument should be over how we can most safely cut the overall defense budget.
Finally, if the real reason for cutting back our forces is to save on our defense budget, why cut in Europe first? To me, this goes to the heart of what should be the strategic focus of the United States' largest Brookings Institute budget review calls the concept of "forward defense."
Isn't it wise to keep many of our active forces deployed forward in Europe (or Asia), if this costs little more than to keep the same forces stationed back here? The answer is yes, but with a bit of padding, but wed buy more in terms of deterrence and initial defense, where it counts most.
Therefore, why not keep substantial forces in Europe and instead make military budget cuts if necessary at home? or If, we must cut troops abroad, why not cut Asian deployments before those in Europe? Except for the defense of Japan.
Kent State 'Whitewashing' Attacked
New Book Prods Government to Re-Open Inquiry
"The Truth About Kent State: A Challenge to the American Conscience" (Farrar, Straus and Giroux; $10 hardcover; $3.50 paperback; illustrated)
By ROBERT KIRSCH (C) The Los Angeles Times 1972
If you ask me what I came to in this
here I will answer you: "I will
hire to live out long."
—Emile Zola
The Zola of the Kent State shootings is Peter Davies, whose tireless efforts in raising awareness about the demand for a reopening of a Justice Department investigation has helped to bring the announcement by Atly. Gen. Richard theson that a new inquiry will be
He did not, of course, do it alone. Relatives and fellow students of the victims have been urging the Justice Department to investigate and jury to investigate suppressed evidences.
The Watergate hearings have opened some of the workings of the Justice Department under John Mitchell to scrutiny. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the dismissal of damage suits brought against the governor of Ohio and
National Guard officers and enlisted men by the parents of three of the four students killed in the fusillade on May 4, 1970. San Birch Bayh, D-Dad, has revealed that a free-ance photographer named Terry Norman, known to be armed and possibly hostage, used his camera to have fired his weapon before the volley by guardsmen.
Davies has devoted three years to his own investigation, the results of which are now published in a cognent and impressive book, done with his husband and wife, and sociology and the United Method Church. "The Truth about Kent State: A Challenge to the American Conscience." The book makes an impressive case based on interviews from 70 extraordinary photographs that show
—Some guardians whirl around and
—touch the at students on a pre-
granted surface.
—Certain guardmen shot deliberately at predetermined targets, not randomly into them.
—A coverup based on fabrication was contrived.
Former Presidential aide John Ehrlich-
man had written to Arthur Krause, father of Allison Beth Krause, one of the victims, that there would be no whitewash in the Kent State investigation. The results of an Ohio grand jury investigation, which did not call many crucial witnesses, proved to be just that. The myth that the student violence had provoked the attack was reinforced by testimony from the Justice Department would convey a grand jury was dashed. Although some subordinates in the department favored action, the senior officials elected to close the case.
Davies, a 32-year-old insurance executive who takes his responsibilities as a citizen seriously, had prepared and presented to the department a private report, entitled "Appeal for Justice," part of which has been incorporated into this book.
"Appeal for Justice" aroused some attention; it produced editorials in the press, it was entered in the Congressional Record. But Davies' efforts for two years were largely ignored by officials. Finally, on July 24, 1971, a department spokesman, under prodding by reporters, said, "Officials in the press should not be indicted (in the 'appeal') contained nothing new." Implied was the typical effort to make him appear a pest.
There is every hope that the reopened inquiry into Kent State will produce results. Yet, the most recent records have not overtaken the narrative recorded here. And most of the gripping and convincing part of the body involved must capture the moment-b-moment events.
When one reads the book, however, one begins to appreciate that Davies, far from being a crank, is a careful, lucid writer, unwilling to distort facts for rhetorical purposes. It is exactly what he appears to be: a man with a conscience and a hunger for justice.
“There is,” Davies has said, “no end to this book, because the struggle for justice in a free society never ends. If the American people had recognized from the beginning that the shooting of unarmed civilians and the killing of combat-equipped troops was wrong, the Justice Department would have responded to the political will of the majority.
Davies contends, and testimony and pictures bear out, that a group of guardmen had decided among themselves to "get the bastards" who had been taunting them. When they turned in unison and opened fire on targets 200 feet and more away from them.
"Instead, the killings were generally condemned. Whether this book will inspire you to ask the questions about Kent State that we have been asking for three years, or will it tell us all but of one thing there an can be no doubt. Our quest for justice will continue."
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas daily examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 for examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $4 at Lawrence, Kan. 66444. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to students in Kansas. National origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas at the Lawrence, Kan.
Can $116 a Month Feed 4 People? American Housewives Say Yes
NEWS STAFF
News adviser .. Susanne Shaw
News Editor .. Solana Beach News Editor Bob Simmon Campus Editor Chok Porter Editorial Editor Joe Macrae Sports Editor Gary Anselman Sports Editor Hall Raiter, Mike Ferguson News Editors Jim Kernden, Antif Meyer News Editors Bob McCarthie, Zimmerman, Review Editors Marie Cook, Zimmerman, Wire Editors Margie Cooli Associate Campus Editor John Pike Associate Campus Editor Kathleen Lindoch Assistant Sport Features Editor Brian Marshall Assistant Sport Features Brian Gibson Photo Editor Brian Adbon Photographers Al Swatton, Mare May Makeup Editor Bob Marcote, Joe Zanatta Cartoonists Steve Carpenter, Dave Skookop
Business Adviser   Mel Adami  Ligert Ullberg
Business Adviser   Mel Adami  Ligert Ullberg
National Advertising Manager  Datte Rennel
Classified Advertising Manager  David Bunke
Assistant Advertising Manager  Tumi Tharp
Assistant Advertising Manager  Tumi Tharp
WASHINGTON-About a month ago, I went shopping with two home economists from the local welfare agency to find out what jobs there were recently on what public assistance provides.
In my report, I said it didn't seem possible to me. We shopping from a list one of the economists had drawn up—a list without obvious frills or junk—and wound up overspending by nearly nine per cent because of recent price increases.
At that rate, a family of four would have to spend about $12 per month instead of the $116 the local welfare system provides in combination of cash grants and food stamps.
By William Raspberry (C) The Washington Post 1973
I didn't see any way short of a miracle to cut $10 out of the shopping list Muri Yager (the home economist) had drawn up and still afford proper nutrition.
Since then, the mail has been full of miracles. It turns out to be almost easy to feed four people on $116 a month, according to several people who read my report. Some of them say they do a good deal better than that.
"Those poor mistreated people get only $116" writes one miracle worker from Indamapalli. "What baloney! I only get $100 for that." The worker over-sometimes as much as $30.
"Your Mrs. Yager must have had some great meals planned for welfare recipients. Bacon? Who can buy bacon nowadays?" And oranges? Tomatoes are in season and they are a great source of vitamin C. I haven't had a fresh orange in two years.
Several readers got the impression that Mrs. Yager's expenditures of $41.79 for a trip to Las Vegas were outdated, budget of better than $160. The $41.79 was inflated by the once-a-month purchase of stapes; lettovers would reduce subsequent expenses within the total monthly budget of $116.
*My family drinks dry milk mixed with
milk; we have been using TVP (soybean)
in the cooking.*
Even so, a lot of people say that the local welfare budget is quite reasonable.
A "white middle-class housewife" from Chevy Chase, Md., says she rarely spends time with her family.
four (the welfare fund allows about $2
about $1 a day per person and often less
$3 for the day)
"I rarely make a list of a week's menus. I买 what it on sale, usually. Bacon and fresh fruit are luxuries. My husband does not eat meat." After all, they drink juice. Now and then, we have an egg."
A number of readers questioned Mrs. Yager's choice of beef neckbones as a money-stretcher. A reader from Davis, Calif., observes that "these so-called cheap cuts of meat such as neckbones do not amount to any real benefit" and that he meal you get and how much bone. Hamburger is a much better buy for my money."
Perhaps the best money-manager of all those who wrote is the woman from Salt Lake City who said she feeds her family of five for $125 a month—and that (cost
Said another: "Your article made my blood boil. Welfare families eat neckbones. Why the devil don't those investigators try eating and feeling themselves to say abolish neckbones until to the White House with the rest of the garbage!"
includes toilet paper, paper towels, dry cat
foots of soap and detergent and even
soap scum.
"It does not include bacon, beef, except a very occasional pound of ground beef for meatloaf, or any ready-made or instant flour dough."
She said that before moving to Salt Lake City two years ago, her family "lived in Cleveland, where on $10 per month for four of us, we did a lot more entertaining and ate beef liver, chicken, ground beef and chuck roasts."
A greenbelt, Md., says much of the problem lies in "the myths that nutritionists promulgate"—among them that everyone needs three meals a day, that each meal consists of three balanced days of balanced diet by having balanced days or weeks, he says), or that meat is a necessity.
Some readers offered only contempt for welfare recipients. Others offered advice: "First, don't make up menus and then buy them." "What's on sale and then make up menus."
"A family of four could easily avoid the physical manifestations of malnutrition on
half of the budget you worked with," said the Greenbelt man.
He didn't say how. Perhaps by eating miracles for dinner.
Reader Responds Bike Riders
To the Editor:
I amn't it wonderful that we now have all the camber cuts on campus so that it is easier for the bicycle riders to get their bikes on the sidewalks without having to lift them up or step into the ramps, it is much easier to get one's bicycle as close to the building as possible and save walking few extra steps. And the audacity of those pedestrians who dare to ride as if they were meant for going on foot! One knows that they are really bicycle paths.
One can only hope that his or her medical insurance will cover bicycle-pedestrian
Sammie Messick Lawrence Senior