4
Wednesday, January 29,1975
University Daily Kansan
KANSAN Editorials, columns and letters published on this page reflect only the opinions of the writers.
Faculty not lazy
Dear Governor Bennett:
I want to congratulate you on the fine job you've done so far as governor. I was glad to see that you restored the cuts in KU's budget. I particularly liked the part of your budget message about giving greater attention to increasing teaching loads at the University.
As you said in your budget message, increased teaching loads would increase "the opportunity for the highest minds in our state."
Thanks for the opportunity.
Just between you and me, sir,
some professors at this University
have been taking it awfully easy. I'll
only write about professors I have
studied under because some
professors might work harder, and
I suppose it's possible that some are
even more indolent.
First of all, I want to warn you that some teachers here might try to say that the 10 per cent salary increase included in the budget didn't even keep up with last year's 12 per cent salary increase. I think that's why that we all have to make sacrifices—like the more austere inaugural ball you were stuck with.
This may be hard to believe, but I know one professor who takes off an hour for lunch every day. Why, I can eat a sandwich in half that time. This professor probably would try to justify this wasteful practice by explaining that he teaches I to do his duties with his dudes as a department head, adviser to students and member of various committees.
Shoot, if this professor would quit doing that silly research, he'd have
time for teaching another class or two. These teachers try to tell everybody that research is necessary to keep current in their fields, but you and I know how stillness goes over with the voters.
Another professor I know took a sabbatical leave a few years back. And instead of doing something worthwhile during the leave, he worked as a substitute teacher teaching that time was thrown away by this guy. Shameful!
One of the other lazy teachers I have known taught you a few years back when you were studying at KU. This fellow is only teaching 11 classes, guiding some people's directed studies, serving on Universities and academies. I have learned from informed sources that this guy took off a Sunday last month instead of grading papers.
Of course, this is just a cursory observation, Governor, but I'll bet if the truth were known, there were several professors who spent Christmas Day and New Year's Day at home with their families. Some people wore ties, but these softies don't realize, the way you and I do, that such frivolity is merely a waste of taxpayers' money.
After all, if these professors want a salary increase, they'll have to justify it. No more foolin' around, right, sir? No more Mr. Nice Guy. Did he attend your inaugural ball while ill with influenza, these academicians can quit working only 55-60 hours a week. Sincerely,
Craig Stock
"YOU MEAN UNTIL CONGRESS ACTS, WE HAVE TO SING-
'YOU DESERVE A BIG NOTHING TODAY?' "
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
An All-American college newspaper
Kansas Telephone Numbers
Newsroom--864-4810
Advertising--864-4358
Circulation--864-3048
Published at the University of Kansas weekdays during the academic year except holidays and excused on weekends. Lawrence, Kn 66035. Subscriptions by mail are #897-315-8250 or www.lawrence.edu. $1.35 a semester, paid through the student activity fee.
Accommodations, goods services and employment of the student in a school is a prerequisite for graft membership. The graft must be principally those of the Student Foundation for the Rehabilitation of Students (SRE).
Editor
John Pike
Associate Editor Campus Editor
Craig Stock Dennis Elworthy
Associate Campus Editor Carl Young
Assistant Campus Editors Alan Kleinfeld Ken Leemer
Chief Photographer George Miller II Manager Entertainment Editor Kathy Piekett Associate Sports Editor News Editors Am Gardner, Tom Billiam Copy Chiefs Debbie Gumo, Roy Cheverson Bunny Miller Smith, Kathy Piekett Wire Editors Steve Fry, Tom Billiam Contributing Writers John Brooks, Stephen Bauer Photographers Rod Millman, Barbara O'Brien, Austin Schaffer Business Manager Dave Reeves Advertising Manager Assistant Business Manager Deborah Arbonesi Carolyn Howe Classified Advertising Manager Stewart Brownback National Advertising Manager Gall Johnson Assistant Classified Manager Dou Loughneil Assistant Manager Mike Holland Photographer News Advisor Business Advisor
News Adviser Business Adviser
Susanne Shaw Mel Adams
Two years ago, President Richard M. Nixon announced that an agreement had been reached that meant peace to South Vietnam and honor to America. Today, there is no peace in Vietnam. What little hope there is for America will vanish, too, if the Nguyen Van Thi government of South Vietnam collapses.
Thieu blocks Viet peace
that also provided for the with-drawal of the remaining 23,000 American troops in Vietnam and 1,650 all American prisoners of war.
BY STEVEN LEWIS Contributing Writer
Just two years ago this week, North and South Vietnam, the United States and the Viet Cong signed a cease-fire agreement
Fighting intensified this month as Viet Cong and North Vietnam teams troops overran a provincial capital 75 miles north of Saigon, threatened a second capital and scored gains in the southernmost area of South Vietnam, the Mekong Delta.
KANSAN analysis
The United States and North Vietnam agreed not to meddle in the affairs of South Vietnam, and President Thieu agreed to seek political rapport with the Viet Cong.
AMERICAN TROOPS left Vietnam, and our POWs were released, but little else changed. Since the cease-fire, about 100,000 Vietnamese have lost their side. Each side has accused the other of committing the agreement. U.S. military observers estimate that 30,000 additional North Vietnamese troops have illegally infiltrated the South since the cease-fire. The United States has continued to supply Thien with arms and military advisers.
THE FORD ADMINISTRATION has responded to the growing crisis in Vietnam by accusing Hanoi of flagrantly violating the 1973 agreement and by warning Hanoi that it must accept the "full consequences" of its violations.
President Gerald R. Forsd's warning to Hanoi had a hollow ring to it because of the 1973 law by which Combat activity of any sort in North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. In other words, President Ford would have to get congressional permission before sending military forces to bail out Theun.
NEITHER CONGRESS nor the public American is likely to be receptive to the thought of U.S. withdrawal from Asia. In fact, Congress cut in half former President Nixon's request last year for military aid to Saigon. The new Congress is dependent than the former one.
Most competent observers think the Thieu government isn't in any immediate danger of being threatened, range prospects appear dim.
NORTH VIETNAMESE and
Viet Cong forces in the South
now total about 300,000.
In addition, a new 400-mile, allweather supply road allows
Hands to move men and supplies
Meanwhile, Thieu's forces are being strangled by lack of fuel and ammunition. As a result, they are attempting to capture those nations that most vital to the South Vietnamese economy.
in record time to within 80 miles of Saigon.
So far, the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong have been content with pecking away at Thieu's defenses. Indications are, however, that anti-Thieu forces in the South now are sufficient for a successful all-out offensive.
IT ALL BOILS down to this:
The United States can increase
Henry, regarding Vielam, people know modulated incursion, blanket containment and peripheral clearance for our saturation bombing . . .
May I suggest that we simply call it, 'Expeditionary strip-mining'?
so if we're to sell the American people again on saturation bombing, we need a new, new name.
I like it, I like it!
its efforts to prop up the Thieu regime or let the regime die a natural death.
An important lesson of American involvement in Vietnam is that American democracy cannot be exported to another country. Thieu has long been an embarrassment to those Americans who justified our Vietnam intervention on what we were insuring "democracy" for the South Vietnamese.
THEUW WOLECTION as South Vietnam's first president in 1967 with only 35 per cent of the country eliminated his two opponents and ran unopposed for re-election. Thieu has extended the number of terms he can legally hold to 40, but for his third term in October
Thieu has banned a number of political parties and jailed many political opponents. Thieu says there are 35,000 in his prisons; some American journalists and South Vietnamese civilians say the number is closer to 200,000.
THE VIET CONG have made it clear that Thieu cannot be a part of any coalition government. For this reason, Thieu withdrew from all negotiations with the Viet Cong 10 months ago.
Tieu's only hope hinges on increased American military aid. But denate has lessened its campaign against "Communist-dominated" Indo-China. So, after two years of "peace with honor," reality is finally overwhelming the army created by those three words.
Congress' access to TV needed
By GLENN MEYER
Kenson Staff Reporter
"Presidential Television," a book by Newton N. Minow, John Bartlow Martin and Lee M. Mitchell, describes the president's enormous power of access to the media.
President Ford has had almost no trouble getting all the television time he has wanted for his economic and energy policies, and House Speaker Carl Albert recently requested live television time to reply to President Ford's economic proposals, the three major jobs wouldn't give him any time.
"PRESIDENTIAL television means the ability to appear simultaneously on all national radio and television networks at prime, large-audience evening hours, virtually whenever and however the president wishes. It means he builds in distance before a potential audience of 60 million people, or delivering light banter on the country's most popular entertainment programs . . . A president, as Senator Fulbright has noted, can 'command a national audience to hear his views on controversial matters at prime time, on short notice, on Saturday morning chooses and at no expense to the federal government or his party."
THE ALMOST unlimited access to the media the president has is a threat, not likely. In 2013, he also to the system of checks and balances set up by the Constitution, Presidential
some of their most important legislative sessions.
television is probably far more dangerous to the power of Congress than to the power of the Supreme Court. The Court's great prestige and nonpartisan nature defend its power against attacks from the president. Congress, on the other hand, is
The networks, on the other hand, have consistently denied Congressional groups a right of reply to all presidential broadcasts except the State of the Union message. Seen George
If Congress is to retain a strong public voice, it must get more access to the media, especially television.
extremely partisan and has no comparable prestige.
When the Constitution was established, Congress was thought to be more powerful than the president, because it would not pressure the people than did the president. In part because of the advent of broadcasting, especially television, the president now has more access than the president in the past. Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon have effectively used broadcasting to explain major executive decisions to the people. In so doing, each has become aware that Congress can duplicate.
OF COURSE, CONGRESS hasn't been trying too hard. Although individual congressmen use the media to further their own re-election campaigns, the House and the Senate in session have never been charged with anything, though, as "Presidential Television" says, NBC and ABC have offered them time to present Congressional views in exchange for the right to cover
McGovern, D.S. Dak., 13 other senators and the Amendment to End the War Committee tried in vain to get television time to reply to an ABC, NBC and CBS hour-long broadcast in which Richard Nixon criticized the activities of the McGovern administration (727) 872 Black Congressmen, members of the Black Caucus, tried without success to get television time to respond to Nixon.
If Congress is to retain a
probably get televised coverage of important sessions anytime it asked for it.
Individual Congressmen are involved in an access problem of another kind. According to Ben H. Bagidkan, writing for "Columbia Journalism Review."
"There are few Washington correspondents to ask individual members pertinent questions the voters back home in 1970. In Palm Nader Congress Project calculated that of the nation's 1,750 daily papers, 72 per cent have, no Washington correspondents or stringers (a part-time representative of a news organization who is stationed out of town or abroad). The same is true of 96 per cent of TV stations and 89 per cent of radio stations."
The House and Senate each maintain their own video, film, and audio tape production
Bagdikian says that many newspapers and radio and television stations can afford more press coverage in Washington than they have.
strong public voice, it must get more access to the media, especially television. Because no one person can really speak for Congress, the only way to get the necessary television experience is through most important sessions to be televised. Congress, unlike opposition political parties and special interest groups, could
studies. Congressman often use these studies, at ridiculously low rates, to produce monthly or weekly reports for use on radio or television. The production, an art form, characteristically portrays the Congressman being interviewed by an aide posing as a journalist, in a bogus office that has an impossible view of Capitol Hill. Such productions are presented as news shots by many selected stations around the country.
Worse yet, the studios also make campaign tapes and films for incumbents at taxpayers' expense. Bagdikian says:
"WITH CONGRESSIONAL studios collecting only nominal costs and providing free staff services, it isn't difficult to see why it is so hard to defeat an incumbent. The size of this advantage wasn't lost on one employee of Western New Jersey that told the New York City Bar Association's committee on ethics, 'A challenger needs $2,000 just to get even with me.'"
Bagdikian says that many newspapers and radio and television stations can afford more press coverage in Washington than they have. For those that are unable to afford even one full-time job, he suggests the Nader News Service, a recent outbreak of the Nader Congress Project, provides Congressional coverage for less than the cost of one comic strip feature.
MOST MEMBERS OF Congress don't have to answer pertinent questions at home, and most continue to manage the engagement using the cooperation of the media. It is quite possible that many Congressmen become so well-enriched in their offices there is no media presence to keep a eye on them.
Readers respond
To the Editor:
If you lived next door to two police detectives and your house was robbed, would you make a survey of all the men on the force, noting the number of minorities and even considering candidates outside the force before making your decision of who to arrest? Would you crime? Would you expect the force to survey them all again before "asking" someone to take the case, and then consult them all a third time if you decided to detail two men? I hardly think so, but you would expect that you would apprehend the man who seems to appeal to Jerry Williams and Muriel Paul.
Are they such devoted students of Edward Bassett and Ralph Christofferen that this device is but an ill-conceived invention? Are they the classroom? Are they the special interest of a dissatisfied or
Complaints should be dismissed
envious applicant? Or have they just become enamored of their new-found capacity of mayhem making?
I wonder what right they have, really, to jeopardize all of the University's federal funding for the sake of reopening the search to fill a position that's already adequately filled? For that's what will happen if the capable men already employed are "fired" or removed from the campus, dumped up charge. Contrary to a widely-belief belief, universities exist for the benefit of students, not administrators, or even professors or staff members.
Students are what Williams and Paul profess to be. Yet when the University responded quickly to a vacancy in its administration, and to ensure beyond the campus to fill that position adequately in order to get on with the business of educating
students, Williams and Paul filed complaints and threatened suit!
It sometimes seems to me that this is a very cholecic and very foolish university, and I've never had a disproportionate number have a disproportionate number
Are they attacking the men?
Are they attacking a system that responds quickly? How much fairer can a search be than one that fills its position well? It'll not sound to me as serious, or even as if they know what they are doing. Your article ("Plaintiffs hold to charges," Thursday, Jan. 23, Kansan) stated that the University reconsidered the applicants after the decision was made to split the position. The other applicants have some better candidates. Are they the other applicants complaining of unfair treatment? No.
To the Editor:
Brad Bradley
Lawrence Sophomore
I was enrolled as a student
Ticket biases
of choleric and foolish students. I trust they are ready to be held accountable for the possible result of their action. However, I hope that even HEW will show better judgment than Williams and that the complaint will be summarily dismissed.
In Thursday's Lawrence Journal-World, an article appeared concerning the inability of the KU Parking and Traffic Board to collect traffic fines. The article stated that student responses withheld for approval, but the University has no leverage to make errant faculty members pay.
during the spring 1974 semester and got a couple of traffic tickets. I didn't pay the tickets because the University had unpaid fines, but unpaid fines in the past until I wanted to re-enroll or get a copy of my transcript. In December, I received a letter from the business office stating that my account would be turned over to me two weeks later if I paid the fines within two weeks. I paid the fines.
Why can't unpaid faculty fines be turned over to a collection agency as well? It would seem that turning over the accounts to a collection agency would be sufficient leverage to make faculty fees less discriminatory. Members had to pay their fines, too, perhaps students would feel less discriminated against.
Sammie Messick
Sammie Messick
Student Records Clerk
School of Journalism