Page 2
University Daily Kansan Tuesday, May 25.19
System Discrimination
The Civil Rights Council has published an exhaustive report on the subject of covert and overt discrimination practiced by fraternities and sororities on the basis of race, creed or national origin.
The report is validated and quite comprehensive. Evidence is given by members of fraternities and sororites who feel that their particular group has been guilty of discrimination because of race or creed. It is obvious that the fraternal system discriminates during each rush period. This point is not in question. A fraternity is based on the selective choice of prospective members, based on similar motives and interests.
The rigid wall barring members of minority race or religion from selection into this society, however, is very wrong. It violates the ideals of brotherhood and love upon which the fraternity system is based. Many fraternity members, up to this time, have ignored the problem, saying that their national organization would take action or that they were helpless in preventing such discrimination.
HOWEVER, MANY ARE BEGINNING to understand that the existence of the fraternity system is being severely challenged because of their refusal or inability to grapple with a moral problem. Much of the blame has been laid at the feet of the alumni of the various fraternities and sororities. In part, the blame is valid. In some part, at least, fraternity and sorority policies are governed by another generation, raised by different standards and governed by different ideas. It must also be pointed out that the local chapters of fraternities and sororites draw a great deal of their effectiveness from the local alumni chapter. Many alumni are broad-minded and conscious of the racial discriminatory practices which hamper collegiate chapters. Some of them, however, are not. Some of them misunderstand sincere concern for radical immaturity.
Although some of the blame must be shared by the alumni, much of it must be shouldered by the fraternity and sorority members. An apathetic approach has choked effective action to right a
moral wrong. Many have refused to see it as a moral problem. Others have been too unconcerned even to think about it.
The principle of administrative action, although it has been used on other campuses, puts the emphasis in the wrong area. It seems unfortunate and paradoxical that the only way that the fraternities and sororities will live up to their ideals is for the Chancellor to enforce those ideals. It is not the Chancellor's duty to force the fraternity system to coordinate its actions with its ideals.
It is the duty of the members of the fraternity system to realize the problem and rectify the situation. This does not mean that a fraternity or a sorority should pledge a Negro simply to pacify the civil rights group. It does mean that the members should realize the essential human dignity of every man and base their selection upon that, and that only.
THE FRATERNAL SYSTEM speaks a great deal about being an integral society. They exist as a group who chose each other because they wanted to live together, because they wanted much the same things. But they also exist within a much larger and much more complex society, which is demanding a right they cannot refuse to grant.
Not only is the fraternal system denying the minority the opportunity of being a fraternity or sorority member, but it is denying itself the opportunity to broaden its own perspective and range. They are denying themselves the talent and intelligence of many people.
Fraternities and sororites have long been intellectual and social leaders in the college community. They are seriously lacking in this area. The problem is a complex one. It cannot be solved in six months, but it must be solved.
There are obviously fraternity and sorority members who are sincerely concerned about the problem. This is evidenced in the CRC report affidavits given by fraternity and sorority members. Let us hope that the rest of the members will develop the same conviction and courage that their brothers or sisters have.
— Leta Roth
The People Say..
Dear Sir:
THE RECENT DISCUSSIONS on campus on the problem of the Palestine refugees have shown hardly any attempt to take established historical facts and processes into account. Instead, some cases and facts are singled out and presented as "proof" of some kind of assertion. Ruth Adam's letter to the UDK is the latest example of this kind of argumentation; She quotes an 18-year-old high school boy in a refugee camp in the Gaza strip saying: "The Egyptians are doing all kinds of propaganda against Israel, but the refugees are tired, they do not want to hear."
In 1964 I traveled in some Arab countries for more than 3 months. Most of this time I spent in or near refugee camps, talking continually with Palestine refugees I can assure Ruth Adam that I have never met one refugee who expressed ideas which would even slightly resemble those expressed by the boy she quoted. On the contrary: what terrified me was the hatred I experienced every time when young Palestine refugees talked about their future war against Israel and the day when they would drive all Jews and Zionists into the sea. I saw 8-year-old boys in a refugee camp near Jericho (Jordan) who had to learn how to handle a gun and not to miss the paper Jew which they were using for target practice. In short: If there is any segment of any population in the world that is not tired of talking about Israel all the time, then it is exactly Palestine refugees. The quotation of an extremely atypical case, therefore, is at least misleading.
In the discussion of the question of the Palestine refugees two aspects should be distinguished: 1) how the problem came about and 2) what are the possible solutions? The historical responsibility for the existence of the refugee problem lies primarily with the Arab leaders and only secondarily with the Israelis. Although this question is very important in the Arab-Israeli propaganda war, the identification of historical responsibility does not help those Arab refugees who, under truly humiliating conditions, are still forced to live in camps. A solution of this problem, however, seems to be farther away today than 17 years ago.
According to the Arab states only one solution is possible: Repatriation of the refugees to Palestine. The Arab leaders, however, have continually declared that the refugees would never return to a Zionist Palestine, but only to an Arab one. Since Israel cannot agree to its self-solution it regards, understandably enough, this "solution" as out of the question.
"... Repatriation of all, or even a large number of refugees, by Israel is no longer possible ... Surrounded by nations which insist on exercising rights of belligerency against her, it would be suicidal for Israel to admit a large group of immigrants whose whole indoctrination for the past 10 years has been one of hatred for the Jewish state. To do so would be to establish a fifth column inside the country."
Senator Hubert H. Humphrey gave a report on a Study Mission in the Middle East (55th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1957, p. 5):
An integration of the Palestine refugees into the present "guest countries" on the other hand, does not come into question for the Arab States. Aside from the historical and legal title of the Palestine refugees, runs the argument, a settlement of refugees in the border states of Israel would not be possible for economic reasons. This is true for the already overpopulated Egypt but not for other Arab states. Syria, for example, according to a technical summary of the UNRWA, could integrate all refugees living there, if only the necessary tasks of development would be undertaken. Projects of development which had been tackled in Syria and Egypt with the support of the UN, however, were obstructed by the governments of these states (see the "Johnston — Plan" for the utilization of the Jordan water).
Political changes in Europe and
Asia have, after the war, led to enormous shiftings of populations. The number of the people concerned in West Germany, Finland, Australia, East Europe, India, Pakistan, Korea and Indo-China amounts to more than 40 million. All these population problems were solved with comparative ease. The disproportionately smaller Arab refugee problem, however, remains unsolved primarily because of the attitude of Arab leaders. The intrinsigence of Arab states leads to the conclusion that these governments are not really interested in a solution of the refugee problem but want to keep old sores open for political reasons. The continuing existence of the refugee problem always allows the Arab governments recourse to the compassion of the world public for the purpose of propaganda against Israel. At the same time, the dissatisfaction of the refugees is fostered by keeping them in low social status. Thus, they remain an easily ready object of nationalistic manipulation.
Sincerely,
Volker Meja,
Frankfurt, Germany,
graduate student
Dear Editor:
RADIO KUOK'S "HOOT N' Holler" show, which regularly appeared on Wednesday nights at 6:05 p.m. for the past semester, has indeed been an enjoyable success. Since many of the performers who helped make it a success were not mentioned in the UDK article May 19, they should be credited here. The following perfomers have actively supported the show; John Baker, Christy Banks, George Barisas, Phil Bayles, Rama Beims, Jim Hale, Jerry Hammons, Jack Kninkett, Marty Knight, Eric Litsev, Jim McAuley, Bonnie Bell, Tim Messer, Sam Ontges, Penny Pelz, Jay Roulier, Brant Ruggles, Susan Schmidt, Niel Smith, and Dave Vargas.
Dorothy May
Producer
KUOK "Hoot 'n' Holler"
"Now How Do We Change Men-On-Horseback In The Middle Of The Stream?"
Short Memory
The Student Peace Union pickedet the ROTC Chancellor's review Friday afternoon. It was not unexpected that they should do this; they announced their intentions several weeks prior to the review.
The SPU was not violating any rule by their demonstration. They were quiet and orderly. They had every right to be where they were; but they, and those who sympathize with them, have neglected to remember where they got that right.
Not only have they forgotten where they got the right of free demonstration, but they forgot who and by which forces they are allowed to keep that right.
Whether the SPU was picketing the U.S. policy in Viet Nam or the military in general is uncertain. From their past policies, I think it is safe to assume that they were picketing the military in general.
Picket lines were not the order of the day in 1861, nor in 1916. In both cases military action was necessary to preserve the rights of the individual, and the rights of MINORITY groups.
A look into history can tell one how absurd their philosophy is. It was not by picket lines that the American colonists threw the British out of the United States. It was through belief in a principle—a principle which required directed military action to preserve.
In 1941 dictators to both sides of the United States threatened to conquer the world. Had the U.S. not been ready to put force behind their words the SPU would be sitting, cooling their heels, in a concentration camp somewhere. That is what dictators do to minority groups.
I am not saying that the SPU is incorrect in their charges that the U.S. has bungled the job in Viet Nam, but the place to picket this flop is at Congress—where such policies are made. The military does not make the policies—the legislators do.
The military is an occupation which has held dignity and honor in the United States since before it began. In fact, if the military had not been ready to stand behind colonial philosophers the United States would not be here today—and the SPU would not be freely allowed to march.
— Bobbie Bartelt
DailiYränsan
111 Flint Hall
111 Finch Hall
UNiversity 4-3646, newsroom
UNiversity 4-3198, business office
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1898, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 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. Accommodations, goods, services, and employment advertised in the University Daily Kansan are offered to all students without regard to color, creed, or national origin.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Leta Roth and Gary Noland Co-Editorial Editors
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Don Black ... Managing Editor
Bobbie Bartelt, Clare Casey, Marshall Caskey, Fred Frailey, Assistant Managing Editors; Judy Farrell, City Editor; Karen Lambert, Feature-Society Editor; Glen Phillips, Sports Editor; Janet Chartier, Telegraph Editor; Harry Krause, Picture Editor.
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Tom Fisher Business Manager
Nancy Holland, Advertising Manager; Ed Vaughn, National Advertising Manager; Dale Reinecker, Classified Advertising Manager; Russ Calkins, Merchandising Manager; Bob Monk, Promotion Manager; Gary Grazda, Circulation Manager.