1011
9321070VA M2NAK 3309T4R
nomenclature
Editorials
Those who express their convictions over U.S. foreign policy, whether it be through marching, picketing, self-immolation, draft card burning, signing petitions or conducting fund drives, are given a generous helping of the newest commodity—instant analysis. If you're with the majority, you're a button-down collar. If you're against the prevailing view, you're a head. All very simple, and also very stupid.
There are many ways of recording a country's history. One of the more entertaining historical panoramas is a recounting of national fads. Marathon dancing in the '30's, the "new look" of the '40's, yo yos and hula hoops in the '50's and skate boards and Beatles in the '60's will all leave their mark as one indication of the national temperament in the 20th century.
Citizens all
THE VALIDITY OR the absurdity of actively expressing an opinion, either pro or con, on the Viet Nam crisis, is not the question.
THE YEAR 1965 marks the development of the newest national fad—separating the beards from the button-down collars in the current wave of protests and counter-protests over U.S. involvement in Viet Nam.
Why do we think it necessary to categorize each person who has an opinion? We seem to have forgotten that we are all individuals and Americans, not necessarily kooks, beards, or button-down collars.
We should be free to express our opinions as citizens, not as members of the right, the left, the upside-down, the in-between, SDS, SPU or what-have-you?
ONE OF THE cornerstones of our constitution and our heritage is each man's right to his own opinion, without fear of persecution.
Public obloquy is persecution as much as unwarranted punishment. It can be routed only by the members of the public.
Express your opinion loud and long, but don't assume that you are a deity who has the right to categorize those who do not share your opinions.
— Karen Lambert
Enlightenment unlimited
There seems to be no question about it—in view of the recent comments and demonstrations, local and national. Yes, I realize now, dear SPU, SDS, XYZ, ABC, 123, etc., that you, alone, see through the glass clearly. The rest of us haven't even found the glass yet.
In all your towering intellect, obvious deep research and inside information, wide experience with the reality of existence, you alone discern the truth. You are right, we must leave Vict Nam—we are fighting for absolutely nothing, and actually, it's only our own little imperialistic, capitalistic fingers that keep the pot boiling.
BWANT TO THANK you for pointing out to all of us that all those long governmental reports, fact-finding missions, studies, CIA briefings, state and defense department briefings, conferences and interviews, which go into the making of U.S. foreign policy, have reached some fouled up conclusions.
And I think we should be especially grateful for your pointing out to us that President Johnson, Secretary of State Rusk, Robert McNamara, Ambassador-at-Large Averell Harriman, Arthur Goldberg, Henry Cabot Lodge, and Maxwell Taylor have been unbelievably stupid. For these silly men have concluded that South Viet Nam is a substantial marker against Communist advancement into all of Asia—that even though the cost for staying is very high, the cost for capitulation is higher.
by Dick Bible.
Even the President has patiently explained the U.S. position, but he is all wet, too, naturally. In his televised August press conference on the draft increase due to the Viet Nam war, Johnson said there were "great stakes in the balance. Most of the non-Communist nations of Asia cannot by themselves and alone, resist the growing might and the grasping ambition of Asian Communism. Our power therefore is a very vital shield. If we are driven from the field in Viet Nam, then no nation can ever again have the same confidence in American promise or in American protection."
SO, GROUP, IN closing, may I say that it is certainly wonderful to know that organizations such as yours are always ready to point the true way, wisely and completely on your own, of course.
In fact, it is all so wonderful that I think maybe you guys should go on up there to Washington, today, and just set all those old statesmen and political scientists right down, slap their hands, stand them in the corner and then show them just where they messed everything up.
— Rosalie Jenkins
LINTLE MARSH ON CAMES
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
kansan
Serving KU for 76 of its 100 Years
UNiversity 4-3646, newsroom
UNiversity 4-3198, business office
Founded 1889
Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York, N.Y. 16022. Mail subscription rates: $4 a semester or $7 a year. Published and second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays and examination periods. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised in the University Daily Kansan are offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin.
EXECUTIVE STAFF
MANAGING EDITOR ... Judy Farrell
BUSINESS MANAGER ... Ed Vaughn
EDITORIAL EDITORS ... Janet Hamilton, Karen Lambert
NEWS AND BUSINESS STAFF
Assistant Managing Editors ... Suzy Black, Susan Hartley
                                  Jane Larson, Jacke Thaver
Circulation Manager ... Mike Robe
Advertising Manager ... Dale Reinecker
City Editor ... Joan McCabe
Classified Manager ... Mike Wertz
Feature Editor ... Mary Dunlap
Merchandising ... John Hons
9 Daily Kansas
Wednesday, December 1, 1965
The People Say
Traffic, war, 'in loco parentis' draw comment
DEAR EDITOR:
Permit me to make a few comments about the recent SUA Current Events Forum on the KU policy of in loco parentis, which you reported in a recent issue of the UDK.
At the Forum, I objected to Mr. Oldfather's proposal that since KU comprises a community, the members of that community ought to make the rules and regulations governing student behavior within the community. May I say that while I still find this proposal unsatisfactory, it does seem to me to be a reasonable one, well worth talking about, and
* *
The editors welcome letters of opinion from all Kansan readers. We reserve the right to edit all letters for style, content and unreasonable length. All letters must be signed. Opinions expressed in letters do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors.
I hope it receives the attention it deserves. But what of the administration view? Is it reasonable? Is it worth talking about? One is led to conclude from the fact that the administration seems unwilling to talk about it that it is not. May I suggest that since the deans of men and women (on whom the main responsibility for carrying out the substitute parent program rests) could not take part in the last panel on this subject, that they set the time and place for a future panel discussion on this issue in which they and opponents of their policies such as Mr. Masters and myself would take part?
IN STATING MY objections to Mr. Oldfather's proposal, I neglected to emphasize the most important one, which I think can be made clear by reminding Mr. Oldfather that he, as well as all of the faculty and administration of KU, is a part of the KU community.
Would he be willing to be bound in his private life by regulations voted on by a majority of that community? I think not. But if one accepts tien to the battle against substitute papa, may I suggest the following slogan (please forgive me Adlai):
All you have to lose is apparent!
(a loco parent, of course.)
Department of Philosophy
Howard Kahane
Students of KU arise.
DEAR EDITOR:
Upon receiving your first KU parking ticket, three words of the first line, although out of context, immediately strike the eye: "Welcome to KU." Welcome? Hmm. Such was my reaction. Such was my reaction after tickets two, three, and four.
THE KU TRAFFIC and parking laws, I am sure, are founded with sound reason. Undoubtedly, they are inhu-
many enforced. Commendations to our efficient security patrol. I only hope that other de inquents who park in completely vacant zones at 3:30 p.m. and 9:30 p.m. are brought to justice. Absolutely no one should be allowed to park in vacant zones at such crucial hours of campus activity! Do not "welcome" the student, but thwart his attempts to park near campus and to gain easy access to library and hospital facilities. I urge that traffic officers be more aggressive and that the word "welcome" be stricken from the KU traffic ticket!
David Burckwalter
Ann Arbor, Mich., senior
DEAR EDITOR:
Re: "The People Say," Daily Kansan, Nov. 19.
I believe Mr. Kellogg has failed to realize that an individual's approval of government policy in Viet Nam is not only evident through enlistment. The very fact that a citizen continues to support the government by means of taxes indicates his approval. It seems to me completely illogical to denounce the government's policy on one hand, and then turn around and provide money necessary for the furthering of that very same policy.
FURTHERMORE. I believe that war cannot be termed "unjust" any more than it can be "sanctified." Because the separate nations of the world exist as sovereign independent states, each has the right to do anything it so desires. Under this nation-state system the qualities "just" and "unjust," "moral" and "immoral," and "right" and "wrong" can not be ascribed to war. War is simply power, and its only justification is victory. It makes no sense to call a war "just" or "unjust" when its only importance is victory.
Raymond Dahlberg
Elmhurst, Ill., sophomore