4
Wedneaday, August 27, 1975
University Daily Kansan
What is a resident?
You are a resident of the place in which you live. That sounds logical, doesn't it? Well, not to the University of Kansas.
After living in Lawrence for three years, attending KU for eight semesters, obtaining a Kansas driver's license and automobile registration, paying taxes and voting here, I have considered this my home. In the eyes of the University, however, I am still legally a non-resident.
Like many other out-of-state students, I suffered through enrollment after enrollment with a lump in my throat and tears in my eyes as I signed $100 tuition
During this enrollment, however, I made the mistake of applying for instute tuition. I completed an application form and stood in line at the residence table. When I finally reached the front with a sigh of relief, I was told that I would have to have it notarized at enrollment control. After receiving three wrong sets of directions, I finally found enrollment control, where I waited for 20 minutes to have it notarized.
The fun had just begun. I sat in line in the sweltering 100-degree heat for 45 minutes more, waiting to have my application examined. By the time I reached the front of the line, I'd begun to wonder if it was really worth $400.
When at last my application was examined, I was informed that my chances of qualifying for in-state tuition were slim.
Dejected, I walked away and sat down, as far away from Station 10 as possible, reading the inevitable check that I had to hand over that check for $703.
As I sat there, I began rereading the regulations regarding in-state tuition and suddenly I became very irritated.
One of the regulations stated that if a woman married a man who was a Kansas resident, she qualified for in-state tuition.
I was infuriated at the thought that I could have a Kansas driver's license, register my car, pay taxes and vote in Kansas, yet still fail to be considered a resident, whereas a woman who did none of these things but married a Kansas resident was considered a resident.
The implications of this regulation are even more infurating. It seems to presuppose that once a woman marries, she is her husband's property and will automatically live where he chooses to live.
The idea of marriage doesn't seem so horrible when I consider that I could have saved $3,200 if I had married a Kansas resident my freshman year.
After fuming about this regulation for some time, I read on. I was bothered by the vagueness of the section regarding self-sufficiency. This supposedly is the main criterion for determining whether a student qualifies for in-state tuition.
The regulations give, at best, a vague definition of what self-sufficiency is and what sources of revenue a student can use to support himself and still quality.
I think the regulations regarding residency are greatly in need of rewriting and clarification. In some cases, such as the highly discriminatory women, I think the regulations need to be abolished entirely.
It's hard to swallow the fact that you don't really live where you've thought you lived for three years, but rules are rules. All you can do is continue moving forward and not let the lump in your throat and the balance in your bankbook. Jain Penner
Contributing Writer
Mary McGrory
Nixon TV appeal overrated
No camera, however, could enhance the printed version of Richard Nixon grandly forgiving other men for short-comings created by his own declared virtues.
For instance, he would not, he says, dream of faulting Lyndon Johnson for having generated only 32 million pieces of paper, as against Nixon's grand total of 42 million.
WASHINGTON—For the hopelessly hooked, Richard Nixon's 186-page deposition in the lawsuit over his papers and tapes is a tremendous high, the biggest since the tapes. Better, the court says. But oath—not that it makes all that much difference.
Nor would he criticize for a moment previous presidents who did not—as he says he did—
But David Frost must study them with a sinking heart. He's signed up the former president for a series of television interviews, and if this is what he is in for, may may out for chronic larynitis.
There is, of course, an audience out there. Some people in this country have learned to tolerate the rubbed the wrong way and they will gather around the television set, hacksles rising in anticipation. The deposition of the late Richard O'Neill first glimpse of the emperor in exile, alternately testy and effusive, unselfconsciously comparing himself to Woodrow Wilson, and the Theodore Roosevelt.
What David Frost is going to get--if these pages are indicative—is yards and yards of China, of Richard Nixon the speechwriter, of Richard Nixon the confidentiality freak, of Bill Clinton. He will be never told anything that was told to him in taped confidence. Betty Ford has set a different standard.
write their own speeches. He egregiously adds that their ghosts probably did better than they could have done—a failure, in mind, dunning, preposterous twist on a chilious premise.
He is unique, this most grating figure in American public life. Who else would nobilly insist on taking responsibility for his speech in those same speeches, while declaring that all he knows about the Watergate cover-up is what "several people have written"? Who else would denounce the definition of demurrowing?
This does not prevent him, however, from declaring that of the 42 million papers, he generated, less than one per cent are "Watergate-related" — having forgotten it, as seems, the fact that he has reviewed only 200,000 of the contested documents.
David Frost possibly could have better luck than William Dobrovri, the chief questioner at the San Clemente Coast Hospital, where he have set Nixon's teeth on edge, he not sharing the former president's passion for privacy. Dobrovri, in fact, played a portion of a milk-fund tape at a Washington cocktail party in 1973, and Rex Kerni reminded him of it at the first possible moment.
"Most of the tapes are not as audible as the one you played at that cocktail party," he said. Dobrovir, faced with a vertable tomb of confidence when he brought his children to Nixon's attention the reminiscences of faithful former aides, Daniel P. Moyhan and William Safire, who have published their inside stories.
issues they described are "no longer lively," which still can't be said about his full knowledge of Watergate.
Besides, he has a higher duty toward future presidents. They would get the cheapest kind of advice, he declares, if the adviser is popular or "stupid" counsel might be divided later. Nixon, who hounded the Berrigans, tried to muzzle the peacemaker, but Elisberg to jail, said he would be interfering with "freedom of
Nixon hastily retreats to a contention that of course they knew hardly a fraction of what he knew and in any case the
The tapes were made, nonetheless, for "historical significance," although history will have to wait until Nixon, Mrs. Nixon and their two daughters sift through 860 reels lasting five hours spite, to decide what isn't private, in order to avoid damaging or damaging to some witless confidant.
David Frost will be lucky if Nixon does not use the show to pass the hat. He is asked about the papers Jilson Nixon
Eisenhower reportedly has taken from the lode as a former Saturday Evening Post editor. They were letters from school children, and they activate Nixon's sense of grievance.
"No adequate allowance was provided for responding to the over two million letters I received since August 9," he whmns.
It is all vintage Nintendo. And what if it destroys the market for his television show and his film? It was inflated anyway,
(C) 1975 Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.
The time was ripe
Plants taken in their prime
I've recently come to the conclusion that corner houses are unlucky for people who live in them. It's unlucky for people who steal them.
When I moved into my home for the summer, I was really happy that it was on the corner. I immediately realized that I could set some of my plants on the porch, and they wouldn't be blocked from the sun's rays by the shadows of other houses
Within a couple of days the porch was embellished with an assortment of plants—wandering Jews,Swedish ivy, a yucca tree and little orange and apple trees.
Within a couple of weeks there was only an anemic-looking sheffiera.
There was also an anemic-looking schefflera.
Soon after the decorating took place, my Jews had wandered into a store and reason this seemed natural to their return. Then I noticed that
I put the rest of the plants except the puny schieferlai indors. It was kind of skinny and only had two leaves. I
The policeman to whom I later talked didn't think that yucca trees liked to ride horses, as assumed all three were stolen.
the yucca tree was gone, I read nothing in "The Secret Lives of Plants" that would lead me to wonder what plants had a tendency to wander.
Ian Kenneth Louden
Staff Writer
Then I noticed my bicycle also was gone.
Published at the University of Kansas weekly journal, *The Biology Journal*, for academic perioditions. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence Square and/or $1 in Semester or $1 a year in Douglas County and $1 a year in Springfield. Subscriptions are $1.35 a semester, paid through the University of Kansas.
Double Gump Car Young
Associate Campus Editor John Johnson,
Assistant Campus Editors John Johnson,
Chief Photographer David Cronswain
Staff Photographer George Milner
Sports Editor Yael Aboulkhail
Entertainment Editor Allen Rapport
Copy Chiefs Gary Borg, John Hockey
Contributing Writers Ward Harvacky, Patti Jolly,
News Editors Stewart Brun, Mike Fitzgerald,
Wire Editors Karen Krebhel,
Wire Editors
letters policy
The Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor, but asks that letters be typewritten, double-spaced and no longer than 300 words. All letters are addressed to the editor, according to space limitations and the editor's judgment, and must be signed. KU students must provide their name, year in school and homecom; faculty must provide their name and position; must provide their name and address.
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newsroom--864-4810
Business Office--864-4358
Editor
Dennis Ellsworth
Associate Editor Campus Editor
Debbie Gump Ca13
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Editor
Dennis Ellsworth
Business Manager
Assistant Business Manager Advertising Manager
 Assistant Job Kielder
 Assistant Manager Roy Partis
Classified Advertising Manager Linda Schmidt
Classified Advertising Bury Cherry
Assistant Classified
Debbie Service Manager
National Advertising Manager Mark Winters
Promotion Director Dennis Spencer
Promotion Director Jennifer Murphy
urged no one would take it. I was right.
Meanwhile, the summer continued. The shefflera grew four new leaves. It was watered. It was fertilized. It was repotted. It was big and beautiful.
Only my prized trees were left. I took no chances. Anticipating wandering drunks
It was stolen.
Later, I noticed that other people on the block left their houseplants outside. I blamed the loss of the plants on the bicycle and I put the apple and oranges outside again. The weather outside didn't seem to agree with the ivy, and I left it indoors.
during country club week, I started to bring the trees indoors at night.
Wednesday night I forgot.
The pride of my gardening and the pride of fruits of my garden, the trees, were stolen. What (explains deleted) could he do?
The lives of my apple trees flashed before me. I remembered taking four little seeds from a soft iodine apple, grabbing them and placing dessert at a residence hall. I remembered waiting two months for little sprouts to come up. I remembered all the foundoogle who said it was great and grown apple trees the way I did.
Well, I hope my plants are in good hands. If the person who stole my apple trees is reading, please note: Give them the
At least no one took the orange trees. However, they were only three inches high. The apple trees ranged from 6 to 12 feet tall. That is what happens when you mix apples and oranges.
Too bad I hadn't remembered to bring the trees inside that night.
maximum amount of direct sun.
Give them fertilizer every two weeks. Give them one gallon of mineralarily distilled or rain) a day.
Give them back to me.
The art of judicial construction is a marvelous business. A certain skill in hocus-pocus is required to transform "that shall not" into "thou may," but this was the
The key sentence in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a long one, and it requires plain English that plain men can understand. The title is captioned "Equal Employment Opportunity," and the sentence
"It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with
WASHINGTON—Felix Cohen once defined the science of jurisprudence as "a special branch of the science of transientential nonsense." He argued that opinion rendered not long ago by a federal judge in Ohio. The judge ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1864, which forbids discrimination by reason of didn't really forbid discrimination by reason of race.
James Kilpatrick
Whites must step to rear
very skill displayed by Judge Thomas D. Lambros in the matter of Howard Haber, post employee. His opinion, rendered on June 30, recently began to create concretization here.
"FRANKLY, I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE 'THAT CLOSE TO AN AGREEMENT'"
This provision, which did not apply to federal agencies under the 1964 act, was extended to federal agencies in 1972.
It turns out, according to Judge Lambros, that in fixing a policy of nondiscrimination, Congress truly intended to discriminate. The words, "any individual," do not mean "any individual." They mean "some individuals." The requirement that all employees must have equal opportunity is being Orwell's "Animal Farm." Some are more equal than others.
respect to his compensation,
terms, conditions, or privileges
of employment, because of such
individual's race, color,
religion, sex, or national
origin."
The judge cited Supreme Court rulings in the Duke Power Company case in 1971 and the McDoennell Douglas case in 1973. He read these opinions to Mr. Trump, who must "buckle to a racial minority." The objective of the Civil Rights Act is to remove barriers that have operated in the past "to favor an identifiable group of white employes."
Judge Lambros ordered summary judgment against him. "Members of the white race may not seek relief for racial discrimination under TITLE VII," said the court. "This violation, the plaintiff, Yet the discrimination these statutory provisions were designed to eliminate was aimed at racial minorities."
Howard Haber's race is Caucasian. His color is white. He applied for assignment with the Postal Service as a customer services representative. The job, he complains, went to a "less qualified black woman," and he had been discriminated against because of his race or color, he sought redress through the usual channels. These failing, he went to court.
But the question of reverse discrimination was not before the Supreme Court in the cases cited. The possibility never was briefed or argued. The high court did not hold that Title VII applied to nonwhites only. In McDonnell Douglas, Justice Powell wrote that a Title VII complainant must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination, and state that "the plaintiff" by showing "that he belongs to a racial minority." But Powell never said this was the only way it could be done.
Judge Labros said his decision in the Ohio case "does not mean that white persons in the state are discriminated against because of their race." But they will have to rely on "the statutes, constitutions provisions."
One is minded to ask, what statutes? What provisions? The Civil Rights Act of 1964, as extended, is the statute prohibiting racial discrimination in employment. So as not to infringe on the act is predicated not on the Fourteenth but on the basic Fifth Amendment. We are talking of process of law.
Cases of reverse discrimination are cropping up frequently now, as employers find themselves compelled to meet thinly disguised racial bias in the firm's formative action." The situation is especially acute in colleges and universities; where notices almost literally are posted: No whites need apply. Surely the law should apply evenhandedly across all colleges. Lambros ruling leaves the goddess of justice squiring from one eye only.
(C) 1975 Washington Star Syndicate, Inc.