Page 2
University Daily Kansan Monday, Oct. 5, 1964
Citizens' Rights
Travel Ban Dangerous
"ONLY WHEN THEIR TRAVEL may be regarded as being in the best interest of the United States."
That is a State Department ruling which faces every U.S. citizen seeking a passport for travel to Cuba. Before Cuba, the State Department had erected a similar wall against travel to China, and, before that, to Russia.
The government's ban on travel to certain foreign countries is a situation that carries grave implications both for the Constitutional rights of every American citizen and for the proper role of the administrative branch of our government.
THE TRAVEL BAN raises several questions. Do Americans have the right to travel as they please? Can the State Department decide who may and who may not travel abroad? Is such travel an instrument of foreign policy, and if so, should the State Department decide what is "in the best interests of the United States?"
Historically, Americans have had the right to travel as they pleased. A passport was needed only for identification and entry into a few foreign countries, not for re-entry into their own country. During the crises and Red secares of the 40's and 50's, the State Department took the position that travel was not a right to be exercised at the discretion of citizens, but a privilege to be granted at the discretion of the government.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT repeatedly has ruled that such limitations on travel were un-Constitutional.
Writing a concurring opinion in the 1964 case of Apheker vs. Secretary of State, Mr. Justice Douglas said:
"Freedom of movement is the very essence of our free society, setting us apart. Like the right of assembly and the right of association, it often makes all other rights meaningful — knowing, studying, arguing, exploring, conversing, observing and even thinking. Once the right to travel is curtailed, all other rights suffer, just as when curfew or home detention is placed on a person."
AN ADMINISTRATIVE RULING that "it is not in the best interests of the United States" does not silence freedom of speech or of the press. Nor should it suppress the American people's right to travel.
The implications of the State Department's actions are serious. The department has taken upon itself the responsibility and authority of deciding what is lawful or permissible in an area where it has violated the Constitution and where it has no vested authority to do so.
FOLLOWING THE EXAMPLE of the State Department, other administrative departments could extend their fias into areas where they have no legitimate authority to act. Imagine the Treasury Department deciding that spending money abroad is not in the best national interest!
One other implication presents itself. If travel abroad is denied to people whose conduct is not in the national interest, then it may be assumed that all Americans who do travel overseas are traveling only in the best interest of the U.S. Lord help us if this is true!
THE GOVERNMENT, including the State Department, should be a tool of the people. It would appear that the people, as "instruments of policy," are now the tools of their government.
Federal vs. Local Rule
Editor's Note: This article is one in a collection of articles on the 1964 Presidential election.
States' rights or, more simply federal government vs. state and local authority, has become a major issue in the 1964 Presidential campaign.
THE PHILOSOPHIES of the two candidates are highly divergent on this issue. In short, Sen. Barry Goldwater opposes the expanding role of the federal government; President Johnson favors it.
An exponent of the theory that those least governed are best governed,Mr.Goldwater provides opposition, though sometimes fuzzily, to the present power of the federal government and the Supreme Court. Indeed it is on this issue that much of his present popularity rests.
President Johnson, however, has played down the issue, preferring instead to emphasize the positive influence of federal and Supreme Court action in diverse areas of the nation's life. He has made it clear that the increased activities of the government in such fields as health and education, welfare and the anti-poverty campaign are aimed at wider social justice. Two weeks ago the President said:
"We must care about the rights of our fellow man as we care about rights of our own."
SEN. HUBERT H. Humphrey, vice-presidential candidate, last week derided Mr. Goldwater's view of freedom as the "freedom to remain uneducated or ignorant, the freedom to be sick, the freedom to stay unemployed, the freedom to be hungry."
Both President Johnson and Humphrey have long records in the Senate of voting for measures which have expanded the
role of the federal government. Under the President's influence the Civil Rights Bill, the anti-poverty program, and medical care for the aged legislation have been passed by one or both houses of Congress.
Sen. Goldwater, on the other hand, has waged a vigorous campaign, pointing to what he feels are the dangers in an expanding federal bureaucracy.
"I fear Washington and centralized government more than I do Moscow," he said in a speech in 1960.
IN MONTGOMERY, ALA., he drew almost a minute of enthusiastic applause when he suggested the "return to the state of functions that have been taken from them by the federal bureaucracy."
During his tenure in the Senate, Goldwater has voted consistently against measures that would have made the federal government more active in such areas as education, welfare medical care for the aged and private business.
HOWEVER, THE SENATOR has not told the voters exactly what he would do to reduce federal authority. In his opening
He has accused President Johnson of holding "unholy power," and he has told voters, "You have a power-mad government in Washington today."
He warned recently: "Vote to continue this present administration in power and you will have voted to end the federal system with its checks and balances. You will have voted instead a form of federal tyranny. . . . Do you want your children to live in a collectivized ant heap or in the open spaces of freedom. . . .?"
campaign speech in Prescott, Ariz., he told his audience:
"We must proceed with care in our task of cutting the government down to size. Honesty requires that we honor the commitment government has made to all areas of the economy..."
Recent Supreme Court decisions on school prayer and reapportionment of state legislatures have come under Goldwater's guns. The decisions, he said, would produce "a socialized republic, or a centrally controlled republic."
"We do not want oppressive powers in the hands of the executive branch, or the Supreme Court. . . . We do want proper powers restored to the Congress and to the State. We do want the proper balance between all branches and all levels."
DEMOCRATS acknowledge that there is disgruntlement among many voters with the increased activity of the federal government in areas of social welfare and with recent court decisions.
However, social welfare programs, and hence President Johnson command support from those who will be helped by recent legislation and Supreme Court action.
It is undeniable that Sen. Goldwater's attitudes have attracted a good number of sympathetic voters.
THE BASIC QUESTION in this election may well be: "Where the issues of court and federal vs. state and local authority is concerned, are there enough disgruntled voters to outweigh those who believe they have a stake in measures Mr. Goldwater has characterized as interference with individual initiative by a "welfare state?"
— Rick Mabbutt
Selling Point
Hans Rosenhaupt, national director of the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, recently wrote to the Ohio State University student newspaper that "... it is not impossible, in fact probable, that the public image of OSU has failed to attract large numbers of students with great intellectual promise as does by contrast the magnificent honors program of the University of Kansas."
WHAT IS IT THAT MAKES the KU honors program so magnificent," and how does it attract these intellectually promising students?
The program for gifted students in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences began in September 1955 with 30 freshmen. This fall 120 freshmen were invited to participate, with approximately an equal number in the sophomore, junior and senior classes in the program.
The KU emphasis on entering freshmen broke with the traditionally departmental-upperclass honors programs of other universities. The great differentiation of the freshman class and the enthusiasm of the prospective college students were important considerations in emphasizing the underclassman.
COLLEGE FRESHMEN INVITED to become honors students include Summerfield, Watkins and National Merit Scholars and others whose high school records or placement test scores promise outstanding college achievement. Students add themselves to the list through high college grades or by winning research grants.
FRESHMEN ARE URGED to enroll in honors sections of English and western civilization, as well as those of the introductory courses of most of the College departments. Sophomores continue in the honors sections, while juniors and seniors, most of whom remain in the College, participate in departmental honors courses and upperclass seminars.
These honors courses, besides having more senior instructors emphasize analysis, theoretical understanding, discussion and experimentation. Through association with better qualified teachers and students of his own caliber, the honors student may be stimulated to academic competition and intellectual identification with the group.
HONORS STUDENTS BENEFIT from special privileges besides the honors courses; deans, administrators and professors in their fields of interest for advisers; stack permits for the library; waiving of requirements and course prerequisites.
Programs relating to the honors program should be mentioned: Summer honors institutes offer the high school graduate an introduction to college with courses in English, biology, philosophy and political science. Summer language institutes provide a summer abroad of foreign language study. Undergraduate research grants, financed by the Carnegie Corporation, the National Science Foundation and the Kansas Heart Association, give small stipends to students who participate in the research projects of faculty members. Scholarship funds endowed by alumni furnish recognition and financial help.
Two publications of the honors program extend and publicize its programs and objectives. The "Honors Program Communications" are monthly bulletins edited by an honors student and sent to all on-campus students and to area high school seniors eligible for the honors program.
"SEARCH" IS AN ANNUAL MAGAZINE collecting outstanding articles usually written by holders of undergraduate research grants. The Salina Journal once stated editorially the magazine does more for KU's reputation than any amount of alumni publications.
The KU honors program, thus grounded in an intellectual philosophy, endowed by corporations and alumni and publicized by its own publications, has created what is being recognized as a "college within a college" whose standards challenge those of any other liberal arts college in the nation.
And, by attracting superior students, by improving the general academic atmosphere and by advancing the reputation of the school, the KU honors program is making perhaps the greatest single contribution to the evolving excellence of the university.
Margaret Hughes
Dailij Hansan
111 Flint Hall
UNiversity 4-3648, newsroom UNiversity 4-3198, business office
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, trivweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912 Associated Collegiate Pre-
Founded 1865, became weekly 1904, trineweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press.
Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York
22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates:
$3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon
during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University
holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Roy Miller Managing Editor
Don Black, Leta Cathcart, Bob Jones, Greg Swartz, Assistant Managing Editors; Linda Ellis, Feature-Society Editor; Russ Corbitt, Sports Editor;
Steve Williams, Photo Editor.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT Jim Langford and Rick Mabbutt
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Co-Editorial Editors
Bob Phinney ... Business Manager
John Pepper, Advertising Manager; Dick Flood, National Advertising Manager; John Suhler, Classified Advertising Manager; Tom Fisher,
Promotion Manager; Nancy Holland, Circulation Manager; Gary Grazda,
Merchandising Manager.