Page 4 University Daily Kansan, October 3, 198$^{th}$
Opinion
Med students too late with library complaint
If you want to dance, you have to pay the fiddler.
Unfortunately, this is not the attitude of students at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City who are disgruntled about their financial situation and want them to help finance their planned new library.
The 1979 Kansas Legislature, which appropriated most of the money for the $5 million library, stipulated that $1 million of the funding be used to replace books, in turn, would be financed by the student fees.
Here is where the med students are rearing up in protest. Backed by the Associated Students of Kansas, a student lobbying organization, they have advocated for alternative to student funding of the library.
It is easy to sympathize with any opposition to student fee increases, but it's difficult to feel compelled to do so.
BILL
MENEZES
fees range from $2.50 a semester for students enrolled in fewer than three summer semester hours at the Allied Health Center, nursing school undergraduates and other special students, to $50 a semester for students in the Med Center's four-year program of basic sciences and clinics. Even taking the higher figure, the answer the library fee would raise resident tuition costs to $40, based on fall 1981 fee rates. This is still less expensive than the Lawrence campus, and that figure includes library privileges. Surely most students here wouldn't mind paying $40 less at enrollment.
ASK and the med students seem to be ignoring this, however. In fact, ASK plans to come up with a resolution opposing the fees at its next Legislative Assembly, according to KU AKS Director Je Evans. ASK's involvement alone poses some interesting questions.
For instance, while ASK is leading the opposition to the fees now, where were they when the appropriation was debated and passed by the Legislature this summer? Evans said ASK was
involved in "some" of the lobbying of the type that would have been needed when the appropriation was debated. John Conard, executive officer of the Kansas Board of Regents, said the decision to use student financing in approving the library was a last-minute compromise on the part of legislators who wanted to reduce appropriations from other areas, such as the Regents educational building fund.
The legislation, then, could not have been the object of large-scale lobbying by ASK to have it changed, or even defeated. But, as Evans said, ASK is involved in the short-term "emergency" lobbying needed in such cases. So where were they? Well, it seems, Evans said, that "one little provision like that can slip through," even with an ASK lobbyist present during the debate.
Tough huck, huh students? They must have just stepped out for a drink of water. Hopefully this organization, which receives a fair share of KU students, won't miss anything that REALLY matters.
While the ASK lobbyist was out taking a nap, or whatever, the Legislature was hammering out its compromise, which basically spelled the spending of student money, or no library. Considering the crowded library conditions that students are in, library's approval—certainly most med students would choose a fee over no new library. That is, most students with common sense would do so.
However, common sense seems to be taking a back seat to stinginess. The library is tentatively scheduled for completion in early 1983. The fees will begin in spring 1981. Therefore, some of the students paying the fee will not be able to use the library. Well, the hell with paying for a building that won't be finished until after you graduate, right?
There wouldn't be any Satellite Union with that kind of attitude. As is standard practice, money was taken from student fees when construction of the Satellite Union began, not when it was completed. Many former KU students who will graduate from the Satellite Union willingly helped pay for it.
This doesn't seem too much to ask of the med students. After all, it's not as if they are paying for nothing. They're getting a much-needed library.
Besides, it's too late if the fiddler's fee is unpopular. He's been booked for months.
Libertarianism offers freedom if fearful will only accept it
Guest Columnist
By KEVIN HELLIKER
What is a libertarian? A libertarian is any person who admits to and lives by the notion that freedom is an either/or matter. You either accept it, or you don't. There is not and cannot be any middle ground between freedom and coercion.
A libertarian knows that he has the right to freedom and the right to pursue his own interests only if he admits and respects that others have the same right. A libertarian knows he cannot claim the right to himself and his property if he themselves know all kinds of others to themselves and their property.
He knows that any individual's right to his own life and all the property he acquires (without aggression) throughout his life are his unconditionally, and that personal and property rights are inseparable, if not identical. More precisely, the guiding moral principle of a libertarian is justice, and that means justice for all and without exception.
As long as you do not violate the person or property of others, you are free to do anything you please—free to profit or lose, prosper or starve.
Is a libertarian an anarchist? No. An anarchist, strictly defined, does not believe in a government. The society he proposes is one in which anything goes and which inevitably degenerate into a chaos where rights are determined by force. a "war of all against all."
A libertarian does believe in government as an institution through which individuals can achieve ends together that they cannot achieve by themselves. In particular, a libertarian government is one that is limited explicitly to the administration of justice. It has police to protect individual and property rights from within, a military to protect those same rights from external threats and any additional personnel needed to facilitate those functions. The libertarian's type of government was almost achieved by the U.S. Constitution. Its funding of a libertarian government is achieved not through taxes but through usage fees. For example, fees are paid
The University Daily KANSAN
(UPS$) 650-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday durand may and July except Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-day subscription is for $13 for six months or $7 a year in Douglas County and $18 for six months or $9 a year on county. Student subscriptions are $7 a semester. Not required.
Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University
Postmaster, First Hall, The University of Kansas,
Kansas City, KS 66010
Phone: (718) 235-6690
Editor Business Manager
Coral Beeler Ekaine Straber
Manager Editor Cynthia Hyghall
Editorial Editor David Lewis
Campus Editor Jady Woodburn
Retail Sales Manager Kevin Koster
National Sales Manager Nancy Clanson
Sales Manager Bessie Light
General Manager and News Advisor Ruth Russell
Khanadra Manager Chuck Chowins
to the courts to decide cases about the honoring of business contracts.
Isn't libertarianism, a system of pure laissez-faire capitalism, outdated in today's complex society? Absolutely not. If one says that the principles of libertarianism are outdated because the people and products to which the principles once were applied are long since gone, one can say that the mathematical principle involved in "two stagecoaches plus two stagecoaches equal four stagecoaches" is outdated because stagecoaches are outdated.
Principles are timeless. No matter how simple
the principle is, we need to be, freedom cannot be outgrown, only abstraction
It is not individualism but its mortal enemy, collectivism, a doctrine that the tribe is supreme and the individual subordinate, that is outdated and grusomely inapplicable to a modern complex society. So many collectivist tyranies have proven that. For verification, compare the closest thing to an existing laissez-faire society, Hong Kong, with the closest thing to an existing purely collectivist society—or what remains of it—PolPot's Cambodia.
But contrary to popular misconception, coercive monopolies can only bar would be competitors by the illegitimate, nonretaliatory use of force through some sort of government regulation that "legally" excludes would be competitors. If the government didn't sanction coercive monopolies, the spiked heel of competition would make short order of them. Remove the government intervention, and you remove the coercive monopolies, period.
Wouldn't a libertarian society produce oppressive monopolies and cutthroat economic inequalities? No and no. To say that a monopoly is a sole supplier of a good or service is a tautology. It does not follow from such a definition that a monopoly is good or evil. But when most people speak of monopolies, they mean coercive monopolies (or, more often, cartels) or cartels, which restrict competition in to sell inferior products at above-market prices.
As for today's "equality," it is attainable only in slavery, only by dragging everyone down to the lowest level, the level of need. In contrast, libertarianism has the effect of elevating everyone to the level of greed. And although inequality is inevitable in freedom and in reality, a libertarian society tends toward a self-regulating equality. That is, in a free society, the man who is lowest on the economic totem pole is those who have little social genius. Those higher receive, in comparison, only a fractional initial monetary payment from those lower.
So why not libertarianism? Why not a completely free society? It seems many people are somewhat terrified at the suggestion of a libertarian society. But would be totally responsible for their own lives.
In addition to recognizing and respecting the rights of others, liberty means that you own nothing to anyone and that no one owes anything to you. Accordingly, liberty demands that you be free from the control of every event of your life. You alone voluntarily choose what you will be—producer or parasite.
Kevin Helliker is a Kansas City, Kan., senior in philosophy and fiction writing.
Redgrave's artistry justifies casting
It was terribly human, Vanessa Redgrave's performance, and hauntingly real, revealing the devastating anguish of a Jewish woman's struggle for survival in the Nazi concentration camp. Auschwitz. Moreover, her performance as Fania Fenelon, the French cabaret singer in CBS's "Playing For Time," gave us all a horrifying glimpse at ourselves and our species.
Ghastly it is then that some would have prevented such a powerful performance, that some deplored the casting of this fine actress, and prevented the cinematary, blind bobble might have trumphed.
Thankfully, the Redgrave controversy, which simmered fiercely, failed in the end to boil over. It began with the selection of Redgrave, an outspoken supporter of the Palestinian state, and that led to the Israeli state, to portray the French Jew in the television production of Fenelon's memoirs.
Jewish organizations and some advertisers soon joined the protest. The director of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League said the selection was in "absibly bad taste." On the ear of the broadcast, protesters picked CBS studios and burned Redrieve in effex.
Fenelon was among the forces opposed to the casting of Redgrave in the starring role, preferring, she said, Jane Fonda or Liza Minnelli.
Acting, though, is an art in creation, it is the art of human imagery, of storytelling with one's
entire being. An actor is one who brings life to an otherwise scripted-bound character. An actor on a stage represents the other, in the form of a character.
Was Sir Laurence Olivier philosophically aligned with Macbeth? Did Warren Beaty and Faye Dunaway practice in their own lives the lawlessness of Bonnie and Clyd?
In the fine tradition of great acting, the best artist so becomes the character that we cannot
AMY HOLLOWELL
distinguish one from the other. The true actor himself, starring in the shoes of another, totally strangely in the shoes of another.
Redgrave did this as Fania Fenelon, just as she has done as Julia, as Isadora, as Jean Brodie. She delivered her performance as a Jewish woman caught in the German perverseness with conviction, compassion and kindness. With love, passion, anguish, envy, hunger in her voice, fear on her visage.
She lent her entire being to the performance. Redgrave and her fellow actresses shaved their heads to portray the Jewish women, whose heads were shaved by the Nazis. She cut her lips and wore them with needles to reproduce the battered singer's appearance. She gave it everything she had.
Although not a singer by profession, she drew on her past musical training for "Playing For Time." As a member of the women's orchestra formed to entertain the Nazi murderers, she helped his life die, by the conductor, Alma Rose (Jane Alexander), to above all, please her captors.
Her finest musical moment is not with the orchestra, however. Upon the liberation of the camp, Fenelon answers a British soldier's request for a song for the troops with a craggy yet powerful, feeble yet moving rendition of the "Marsellaise". She sings with the strength of a Frenchwoman who lives in France. Frenchwoman praising her beloved France, of a Jew triumphing over the Nazi racists.
But Fenelon didn't like nationalism or racism or their labels. At one point in the film she urged her fellow prisoners to forget the labels because "we are all of the same species."
If these were her own words, why has the author/singer now forgotten that we are all human? That a human being is a human being? That a woman is a woman? That an actress is an actress? And particularly, that a gifted actress is a gifted actress?
This in fact is what "Playing For Time" stresses, that the artist must be the artist, even in the most dehumanizing spot. Rose emphasizes this to Fetenel, telling her that "there is life or death in this camp—there is room for nothing. In this place you must only be an artist."
Vanessa Redgrave, actress extraordinaire,
didn't have to be told.
Letters to the Editor
Tampon disease transmission seems illogical
To the editor:
After reading "Tampon-borne illness deadly if not treated" (Kansan, Sept. 24), I wondered whether Rose Simmons had ever even seen a Rely tampon. She stated in her article that the bacteria "are transmitted to the tampon by the fingers." Rely tampons are completely enclosed in plastic applicators. Before and during insertion, it is practically impossible for the bacteria to travel through the tampon. Simmons doesn't question the materials with which the tampons are made but implies that the blame lies with the user rather than the manufacturer.
After leaving us frightened and feeling guilty, Simmons offers no alternatives to tampon use. What about natural sponges? Women have been using tampons for years, and they, Incidentally, are inserted with the fingers.
Denise Dupont
Lawrence sophomore
Marijuana
To the editor:
In a Sept. 12 letter to the Kanas, Pat Flanagan commented on decriminalization and legalization laws concerning marjana. His argument was that the issue was a question of how much money could be saved by loosening existing pot laws. I believe money should be left out of the argument. In the long run, money has nothing to do with people. People's emotions and well-being have everything to do with people in legal run. In my opinion, depe can larn person.
Marjiana has been used by man for centuries. It can be a useful drug in some societies. Our society has become more complex than any in history. The complications of today need to be dealt with and understood. The use of marjiana can hamper the process of understanding our world. When people don't deal properly with their surroundings, which have become the
entire world, they lose touch with reality and,
with the passing of time, they can go crazy.
Going crazy should be an issue to consider when
talking about marijuana laws.
People may be able to survive very well by using pot once a month or so. It is probably fine for them to do so. But laws permitting this may cause problems for part of the population. Some people are not equipped to handle a drug such as marijuana. It is these people we need to watch out for. In conclusion, dope can be harmful to everyone in society.
Steve Sandfort
Lawrence freshman
Tutheeditor:
Kevin Helliker, in his letter to the editor, said he believed "Jesus of Nazareth was a highly intelligent, reflective and philosophical man" whose life Helliker hated "to see reduced to a campus sideshow." I agree with Helliker, but I find it very inconsistent that so many students attended a college in the city's teacher, and in the same breath, den him as Saviur, as Helliker did in closing his letter.
Did Jesus claim to be the Savior of mankind? Quite obviously, he did. He was crucified for making this very statement. By not accepting it, Helliker ultimately is assuming that Jesus was a liar, or perhaps crazy. But can a man be both a good moral teacher and a liar? No-a liar would be neither good nor moral. Well, he was crazy, yet sincerе-therefore good? No again; if we measure sincerе as goodness, aren't we then having faith in faith?
True salvation
This deceptive Christology of Jesus as a good moral teacher is not only intellectually bankrupt, but also totally void of any biblical integrity. Call Jesus an outright liar. Call him a banana brain or fall on your knees and call him Lord, but do not call him a good moral teacher, because he has not left that option open to us. This stands completely opposed to Helliker and
many others who are under the faltering persuasion that, given enough good examples and enough time, man can pull him up by his own bootstraps. The Bible, on the other hand, declares, "Cursed is the man who trusts in mankind and makes flesh his strength."
No, Jesus did not come to set a good example. He said, "I came that they might have life . . . I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by Me." On several occasions Jesus explained that he was the Messiah, the expected Redeemer, and that he came to die. "My blood will be shed on behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."
When seeking truth, let us examine all things carefully. But if we make the fatal mistake of excluding the incarnation of God in Christ Jesus, we will deny the very enlightenment we desire. Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of history, and his life is on record for anyone to investigate. I myself once stood oopsed to him as a skeptic, and I could not understand why reasonable God, and he will stand up to reason. I challenge anyone who honestly wants to know the facts to look at the historical record of Christ.
Chuck Vanasse
Overland Park senior
Letters Policy
Letters must be signed and must include the writer's address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include the writer's class and home town or faculty or staff position.