4
Wednesday. February 5,1975
University Dally Kansan
Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
A modest invitation
This is an invitation to state representatives or senators to not return to the University of Kansas later this semester when two X-rated films will be shown in the Kansas Union.
Senators Chuck Wilson, D-Jetmore, and Edward Reilly Jr., R-Leavenworth, who were responsible for cancellation of the "Ertic Film Festival" and "The Tale" should stay home Jones" than attempt to protect the morals of the University's students, faculty and administrators.
This semester's movies, "The Last Tango in Paris" and "A Clockwork Orange," are within the realm of the First Amendment's protection based on the present constitutional standards of obscurity as defined by the United States Supreme Court. It is reasonable to believe that neither of these movies qualifies for the current constitutional definition of obscurity according to decisions in Miller v. California (June 1973) and more recently in Jenkins v. Georgia (June 1974).
While I worked in Idaho last summer I followed with great interest the unsuccessful effort of the Idaho Falls city council to get an obscurity conviction of a theater owner who had been showing Last Tango in that community. Despite the efforts of a Mormon judge to get the conviction, American Liberties Union lawyers convinced the jury that Last Tango merited a sentencing protection because it didn't fit the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity as a work, taken as a whole, not having serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
It is ludicrous to think that Mike Davis, University of Kansas general counsel, would ever take a state senator, or anyone else, to court to
contest an obscurity issue. But it is probable that a Kansas court would be unable to rule either Last Tango or "A Clockwork Orange" as obscene material lacking First Amendment protection.
The Miller decision not only refined the constitutional definition of obscenity but also held that local community standards would prevail in determining what is obscene. In the Jenkins case, the justices held that even community standards are reasonable when it reversed the condition of a theater owner who had shown "Carnal Knowledge."
The community standards of Jetmore or Leavenworth, or any other community in Kansas, shouldn't be applied to the University of Kansas or Lawrence in general. The moral standards of those communities shouldn't be applied to a college town that shows skin-flicks every weekend or to a major university that offers numerous courses in the study of human sexual behavior.
We have come a long way since 1959. In that year there was a Kansas State Board of Review that was responsible for censoring any movies that might be considered "suggestive and obscene."
The crux of this issue isn't a matter of whose community standards should prevail or what definition of obscenity should be used. Rather it is that University of Kansas students, faculty and administrators should be allowed to decide for themselves what is immoral or obscene. That is a right that shouldn't be violated by censorship boards or state senators. No one will be forced to attend these movies or even read the reviews. Stay home senators, stay home.
Stephen Buser
I've heard that the only constant thing in life is change. I can accept that. What I can't accept is change for the sake of change.
Conservatism illuminated
By TOM BILLAM Contributing Writer
In the Feb. 1 issue of the National Observer there is a story concerning a new type of streetlight, high-pressure sodium-vapor streetlights. Hailed as crime deterrents and energy savers, these high-intensity lights are loathed by
the people of one Chicago neighborhood in which the lights have been installed.
Herbert Henryson, a nuclear engineer who lives in that neighborhood, said about the mercury vapor light that the mercury-vapor lighting on Harper, which we had before December, was totally adequate for our needs. We're not for crime, for mugging or harming others. We are appropriate, and we're against the notion that what's bigger is always and necessarily better." I couldn't agree more with Herbert Henryson's advice to be given more consideration than novelty.
Many people and governments (encephalitic giants that
they are) operate on the principle of "more is better." Although this may be true of a few words, it doesn't do the job in the long run.
IN ECONOMICS there is a law of diminishing returns, which says that beyond a certain point profit per unit will decrease. A fourth piece of pie isn't nearly as pleasurable as the piece you ate first, and most often will cause discomfort.
To the residents of Harper street in Chicago, the new type of streetlight is the fourth piece of pie.
THE NEW LIGHTS are twice as bright as the old ones, and the Harper street residents are among the new lights of the new lights were installed the neighbors turned out and barricaded the streets with their cars, physically blocking installation of any
At the risk of being called a reactionary old duda-duddy, I'm sure I would agree I have done the same thing.
When streetlights are so bright people in their bedrooms can read by streetlight, the lights constitute an invasion of privacy. So the residents of Harper went directly to City Hall to stop the installation. Their aldermen drafted an ordinance to keep the lights out of the neighborhood.
While the ordinance lay
are stimulated by the light to grow in their dormant periods, making them susceptible to air pollution and damage from air pollution.
Several biologists have been making studies of the lights' history on flora and fauna. One, for example, is the conclusion that young trees
It is true the new type of light, at identical levels of brightness, uses just more than half as much electricity as the old mercury-vapor lamp. Thus they are more economical.
But on Harper Street 175-74
mercury-vapor lamps were
replaced with 150-watt sodium-
vapor lamps. Why weren't 75- or
100-watt lamps installed,
maintaining the same level of
brightness? The electric costs could have been one fourth as much as before.
Who knows how much they may have to spend for dimmers for the neighborhood lights?
Chicago spent $8 million for 82,500 of the lights to brighten up the city.
In disguish, Henryson said,
"We don't want the lights, we
don't want the lights, but I don't
think we've got a prayer in
getting rid of them."
Governmental paternalism has won the first round.
Readers respond
RvJEROME LLOYD
Oil war talk hair-raising
To the Editor:
BY JEROMELLOYD There has been a great deal of interest in the circular circles about the possibility of American armed intervention in the Middle East if the Arabs don't reduce oil prices. There is surely an alternative to this course. It would be much more difficult such action would almost surely be dangerous, and in the long run, without value.
This is in regard to the article which appeared in the Jan. 22 Kansan concerning the war. The articles appear in the article "Apparently the purpose of the
There is, after all, incomparably more want in the Arab countries than there is here. The Arabs have been the dominant language of English French and the Americans for generations.
The United States couldn't help but appear exploitive to some people. Not only would deten beangered, but
most likely life in the United States would be disrupted by demonstrations and even by guerrilla activity.
There are several good reasons armed intervention in the Middle East would probably
prove futile. According to some experts, the United States is about to run out of a number of islands in the Pacific, and the American reserves of gold, silver and mercury will be depleted by 1800. And the United States, according to some analysts, is unable to maintain its reserves of tin, tungsten,
Refusal to bargain thoughtfully now could lead the United States to slow or surden extinction. Even at best, America will one day risk facing South American tungsten and tin cartels, an African gold cartel, or whatever cartels it would have around the world. It obviously would not take many such cartels, on the beaks of the Organization of Petroleum
nickel and aluminum. In other words, it is probable that the United States soon will have to sacrifice our nations of the currently poor nations around the world simply to survive—and now is certainly not the ideal time to risk the imminent depletion of valuable trade relations.
Exporting Countries, to damage the United States gravely, perhaps mortally.
IN THE FINAL analysis, it is surely the country's overall strength that counts on a contemporary basis. It should be obvious, national strength implies such factors as a powerful industrial base, a healthy agricultural output and the ability to come up with innovative products that people in other countries find indispensable.
At this point, it might be an excellent idea for American officials to offer other countries. The United States, so far, is wealthy enough to dredge up a few of the islands that are obliged to accept a somewhat lower standard of living as a result.
National strength simply doesn't imply great comfort and ease for the bulk of a country's citizens—at least not in this world. Perhaps those who shriek loudest for armed insurgents and those who degree, from the tinsel and glitter of this illusion.
THE ISSUE THAT MUST be faced—and soon—is whether the United States should trade wisely or seek, by force, what countries want to do and justice. If the latter course is chosen, the outcome could well be the destruction of valuable future trade relations and the establishment of violent harassment and domestic chaos as American nation years to come. But if the United States offers something in return for needed resources, even at great expense, it might begin to develop responsible ties, just as it begins the trek across a long, shaky bridge into a restless but liveable futre.
Kansan told to address real issues
article was not to give information about the discrimination complaint, but rather to attempt to discredit my character. I shall not attack you because of your failure or dispute your claims in terms of my supposed activities before coming to KU. I will, however, make a general statement about my disappointment in what I previously believed was true, and about the issues in contention.
IT IS UNFORTUNATE that you have chosen to personalize the disputes which I and my co-complaint have identified. As we have stated many times before, this is not a personal vendetta against anyone on the bench, but an effort, furthermore, to convince many Bassett that Edward Bassett, former dean of the School of Journalism and now associate vice chancellor for academic affairs, is not somehow linked to the article and its authors by the complaint affected by the complaint to HEW.
I WOULD NOT ask that you reveal your so-called sources because, respect the right of privacy in court, however, that persons who make claims and or allegations against someone or something you have written themselves for rebuttal, to be need of self-evaluation.
Finally, let me clarify one matter concerning the Baker University complaints. Your statement that Baker has been accused of torturing the police practices is incorrect. As a matter of fact the office for Civil Rights office has released its definitive report. I contend formation of this point you contact this office.
I will not debate with you my character, but I will challenge you to address yourself to the authorities and stand or fall on their merits.
Kansas City, Kau, Seni
Editor's note: The Kansas
story in question correctly
reported that Baker University
was cleared in the case by the
HEW in an HEW statement that
no evidence of discrimination
was made. The case has also
correctly reported that the
Coalition of Minority Students,
led by Williams, then asked for
a review of the HEW ruling, and
that the review is still being
conducted by the Kansas City
regional office of HEW.
Abortion
Jerry Williams
To the Editor:
If I had to choose at what point a person's life begins, it's scientific daylight, (only God calls a person "person" cal' birth day); I would choose
the moment of conception. It is then that a person's genetic individuality is cast. The decision to create or not to create comes before the moment of creation. After that the decision is whether to destroy or not to destroy.
I feel that it must be the "cuddlinginess" of the baby that makes me think that only makes infanticide so aberrant. The person before delivery is hidden from view, and that explains "out of sight is out of mind."
Perhaps science will someday be able to designate the exact day of conception and birthdays of animals, as this might supply the tangleable anchor for those who cannot think or feel except concretely. Although these thoughts were not originally intended," they originate in my guts.
Ron Zec
Lawrence Graduate Student
Game smoke To the Editor:
To the Editor:
The people who smoke at basketball games in Allen Field House are detracting from my enjoyment of the events. It is clear to me that the vast majority of smokers doesn't obey the request of the announcer at the events to smoke
only under the stands in the walkways. The patidUR graze that hacks over the arena at the game's end witnesses that fact.
Each time I have asked a smoker near me to refrain, I have been obliged; for that I am grateful. In addition, I suspect that a number of smokers don't know they are violating field house rules. The announcement game—games usually during one of many uproars—and is unheard by many. Why is this anouncement not made more often and more conspicuously?
I hope this letter will prompt a reaction that will help clean up the air at the field house.
THE RESPONSIBILITY for abating the pollution of the air in the field house is threefold: (1) We non-smokers who are bothered by the smoking must let our feelings be known to the athletic department and to the smokers who sit near us. (2) The smokers must be greater responsibility and announce the smoking policy more often—and, if possible, enforce the rule. (3) The smokers themselves must obey the rules and show courtesy to others by smoking only under the stands in the walkways.
Phil Miller
Lawrence Law Student
But President Ford's recent nomination of Edward Hirsch Levi for attorney general should be an important step in the department's prestige.
Levi will polish Justice
By PAT WATKINS
It looks as if Levi will get Senate confirmation without much trouble. There have been
John Mitchell's recent conviction for obstructing justice while attorney general hurt the reputation of the Justice Department. The Saturday murder at Lehigh Valley Hospital either and the department has been unable to clean up its image under a Nixon man.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Kansas Telephone Numbers
Newroom--684-4810
Advertising--684-4358
Circulation--684-3048
Published at the University of Kansas weekdays
on Sunday and Monday. Public online during
periods. Second-class postal paid at
Lawrence, Kans. 60045. Subscriptions by mail are $8
plus $1.25. A壹元券, paid through the student activity
$1.35 a semester.
Editor
Associate Editor John F. Cainn Campus Editor
Craig Stock黛恩 Delinrich Worthen Business Manager
Business Manager Advertising Manager Assistant Business Manager Deborah BowerDavid Howe
Assistment opportunities, goods, services and employment are offered to students pursuing a baccalaureate in arts or trade or in law or business. The Student Services Center is located on the third floor of the Student Services Building.
The requests came from the Liberty Lobby, which is a conservative group, the U.S. Labor Party and Frederika Chamler, who is president of the Charity Property Owners Association:
only three requests to testify against him in his confirmation hearings.
His confirmation hearings,
before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, started last
Monday.
Opposition to his appointment surfaced from conservatives and Republicans soon after his nomination. They opposed him, but was once associated with the Lawyer's Guild, which was suspected of Communist leanings, and because he is not an outspoken Republican. Sen. John Tower, R-Tampa, has been in the "sewer of the New Deal politics" to come up with Levi.
THE NATIONAL Observer has labeled him a "nominal Democrat." But Levi isn't officially affiliated with either party.
During the last few weeks the conservative opposition to his government overwhelmed support by the American Bar Association and because Levi has spent the last four months obeying senators personally.
Though Levi isn't partisan, he isn't a stranger in Washington. He is the special assistant to the attorney general and the first assistant in the antitrust division. The unattended law was specialized in antitrust law.
FOR THE LAST six years he has been the president of the university of Chicago, for 12 years in the office. He will be dean of the law school there.
Francis Allen, dean of the University of Michigan law school, has said, "he is a man of wisdom and skill in human relations."
Some librarians have objected to Levi's nomination because of a jury wiretap project he supervised in 1954 and 1955. But the wiretapping was for judicial research with the consent of all, and it has been used, and the tapes weren't used to incriminate the murders.
ALSO, LEVI ADMITTED at his hearing that the project had been a mistake. His liberal arguments seem to have believed him.
But some students at his university have a different image of Levi. The Chicago Reader, an underground weekly newspaper with several staff members, is the University of Chicago, said he ran the university like an "Imperial Presidency" and
classified him as a "classically conservative libertarian," who was too strict and inadvisory into any administrative post.
AFTER THE TEAPOT Dome scandal, President Calvin Coolidge appointed Harlan Fiske Stone, a noted educator in his time, as attorney general to the Justice Department of the Justice Department.
Some senators are comparing Ford's nomination of Levi to Stone's appointment. It isn't clear why the president was as tarnished by the Watergate scandal as it was by the Teapot Dome affair. But Washington is in a mire of political agendas and misuse of government agencies and to put a strong, non-political professor at the head of the department should restore the public's confidence in it.
DURING THE campus disorders at the University of Chicago in 1969, Levi expelled 34 students who were others for their part in the protests. Levi came under sharp criticism for that but he maintained that he wouldn't let them leave. He rallied to elevate him for political dissent.
The senators who support him believe he will also keep the Justice Department out of the political arena.