Page 2
University Daily Kansan
Friday, April 16, 1965
State Killing
Early Wednesday morning, the hired killer for the state walked out of a dingy warehouse at the Kansas Penitentiary at Lansing.
The unidentified hangman was paid an undisclosed amount of money for springing the trap on Richard Hickock, 31, and Perry Smith, 36, convicted for the 1960 slaying of the four members of the Herbert Clutter family near Garden City.
THE HANGMAN IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE of the state. He is paid by the job. The secrecy surrounding the hangman who does our killing for us indicates that we take no pride in killing under our capital punishment laws.
With all legal appeals seemingly exhausted, Hickock and Smith faced the gallows for the fifth and final time since the brutal slaying five years ago of a Kansas farmer, his wife, and two children.
The condemned killers had little to say before they took their last steps up to the gallow.
"I DON'T HAVE ANY HARD FEELING. You're sending me to a better place," Hickock said.
"I think it's a hell of a thing that a life has to be taken in this manner. I think capital punishment is legally and morally wrong," were Smith's last words before the noose was adjusted.
As we learn more about man and ourselves, we begin to see and understand the depths to which some men fall, and the depths from which some men never rise. Hickock and Smith appeared to have received little from society except relief from the miserable lives they lived.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IS SLOWLY being abolished. Only nine states have done away with it, but capital punishment is an annual debate in state legislatures.
While Kansas resorted this week to the barbarous act of killing, we are reminded of a day two thousand years ago when society condemned and crucified one of the famous men of all time—a man who preached brotherhood, understanding and forgiveness.
How well have we learned the words He died for.
Architects Blast Fraser Design
Editor:
"In order to exist, man must rebel, but rebellion must respect the limits that it discovers in itself — limits where minds meet and, in meeting, begin to exist."
Albert Camus
With the present limited facts at our disposal, it is very difficult to critique the design of "New" Fraser with projecting many personal interpretations into the design. Personally we are not concerned with an evaluation of the applied styles. We feel that there is a more basic tenet which should be discussed; but again we can only refer to a few photographs, descriptions and statements.
When "Old" Fraser was erected the main purpose and idea was not to erect an "image." It became an image as time passed in the same way that someone is not born a leader but develops into one. There must have been many reasons why this came about, possibly because of the fact that it is one of the oldest buildings on campus and a certain significance and attachment is placed upon those activities that were related to it. Then too, it is reinforced by its dominating position on the hill and its general massing in relationship to the whole of the University's structures. But even with all of this "domination" Fraser still held a certain "immediacy."
Everyone seems to be assuming that "New" Fraser will be the new "image" of the University and certain conditions seem to indicate that this might happen. We are referring to the re-use of the sentiment-loaded name and the close proximity of the new structure to the present position of the old. But we strongly question whether the superficial application of forms, materials, colors, etc., will ever possess the potential of extending the old image or of establishing a new one.
If so, what does this image convey? Does the University communicate with and integrate itself into society in exactly the same way in which "New" Fraser appears to dwarf and brow-beat any building which dares to enter its presence? Does it reject previous tradition and context in the way that the existing spatial context has been negated and ignored? Does the University reject hierarchial order in the way that "New" Fraser disrupts the hierarchial order existing on the present campus? It has been mentioned how much larger the various elements of the new structure are when compared to the old. Does bigger imply better?
At the moment the visual effect of the campus when viewed from a distance is that of a continuum of structures. Within this context
"Old" Fraser has the ability to be an identification mark, a significant part of a larger whole. In approaching we constantly perceive fragments of the whole which when assembled by our comprehension gives us a sense of direction and enable us to know when we have arrived; not when we encounter the control booths but when we are ushered into the immediate presence of "Old" Fraser.
New Fraser, we believe, will not be able to do this. Its shear bulk and height in that particular position will eliminate the ability to be a significant part of the whole. We feel that this can be put to a test by placing a model of the proposed structure on the model of the total campus as a rough guide to its final effect.
If this is so then we question the present direction being taken in the campus development. If the University must provide for increasing numbers and new needs can the existing attitude towards the making of a building and the relating to its context be continued?
Winston Churchill, in his memorable speech about the rebuilding of the Houses of Parliament, said that we shape our buildings and they in turn shape us. If this is the case what will our "shape" be? We are deeply concerned.
Respectfully,
M. N. Epstein,
Visiting instructor.
Dear Sir:
Architecture
Instructor, architecture
1 am gravely concerned about the unfortunate cultural statement due to be made by the "new" Fraser; and I wish to go on record as one of the many who oppose such gross insensitivity. I am equally disappointed with the hap-hazard approach to reporting sometimes displayed by the U.D.K., and would like to draw your attention to the statements attributed to me in the March 30th issue.
Although I refute the form and some of the specifics of the interview, I most emphatically confirm the intention and general nature of those remarks. In fact, I sense that the seriousness of the Fraser situation requires further definition, and that the cry of protest must be adequately reinforced.
I have long awaited the day when the University of Kansas, following the precedent set by many other outstanding universities and colleges, would produce an educational building worthy of national attention. Today, in a state of deep shock and disbelief, I fear that the day has arrived.
Architectural publications the world over could review this monument to bureaucratic superficiality with justifiable anger and depreciation.
All architects, including myself, share at least a portion of the blame for the many atrocities that have been committed in the name of architecture. Just as the deplorable plight of the American negro can be traced, in part, to the complacency, myopia and timidity of a "well-meaning" white majority, the innocuous and notso-innocuous man-made environment can rightfully be attributed to the complacent, myopic and disastrously timid architectural profession. With the long-range interests of the University and the people of Kansas in mind, many qualified persons will find themselves compelled to protest (unless I have a strangely distorted faith in human nature), and I sincerely hope that their remarks are given the careful attention that they deserve.
In the interim, I would challenge those persons directly responsible for the new version of Fraser to defend their solution in terms of the usual criteria which have been taught in every architectural school in the country for many long years. I am certain that many bewildered design students at KU would appreciate an explanation of this refugee from a Monopoly set (with roof, not without, as quoted in the U.D.K.) relative to structural and functional integrity, scale, proportion, site relationship, and most important of all, design concept.
Anyone who criticizes this building because of its "contemporary lines" is simply devoid of any knowledge about the directions of contemporary architecture. If the rationalization that "it will be accepted in time" is brought forward, we can dismiss this as being totally meaningless. After all, one learns to accept bloodshed and devastation when faced with the agonies of a prolonged war, but does this make war desirable?
The problems inherent in the design of a building financed to a large extent by outside money, distorted by the whims and prejudices of a great many people, tempered by construction, structural and mechanical requirements, and predestined as a symbol of a great university are manifold and challenging. I would venture a guess that this building was never "designed," rather the various parts were assembled and someone was given the insidious task of providing a falseface.
Unfortunately, it's the wrong season for Halloween.
Robert Guenter
Assistant professor
Architecture
Mushrooming Cloud
BOOK REVIEWS
VERY FUNNY, CHARLIE BROWN, by Charles M. Schulz (Crest, 35 cents)—A comic book for adults of all ages. What can one say, except to let you know that if you read "Peanuts" you'll probably enjoy this collection of cartoons, seventh in a series.
NINE COACHES WAITING, by Mary Stewart (Crest, 60 cents); SEANCE ON A WET AFTERNOON, by Mark McShane (Crest, 40 cents); BRIDE OF PENDORRIC, by Victoria Holt (Crest, 60 cents).
There's always a market for suspense novels, and here are three good ones. "Bride of Pendorrric" has all the excitement of "Rebecca" or "Jamaica Inn," a young bride, the Cornish coast, a mysterious husband, a long tradition of brides who had died mysteriously young. "Seance on a Wet Afternoon" is the sensationally successful movie—the original of it, that is—involving a nutty medium, her husband, and a ghastly kidnaping. This one is a truly authentic chiller. "Nine Coaches Waiting" gives us another damsel in distress, with a mysterious chateau, dark secrets of the Valmy family, romantic and Gothic doings.
CONQUISTADORS IN NORTH AMERICAN HISTORY, by Paul Horgan (Premier, 60 cents).
Few contemporary historians rival Paul Horgan, who can write a history that has the sweep of fiction ("Great River") or a novel that has the authenticity of scholarship ("A Distant Trumpet"). In "Conquistadors" he gives the reader an exciting story of the Spanish explorers and conquerors of 400 years ago, including the men of Coronado who came into Kansas.
The Caribbean, Mexico and the Southwest are all treated, and Horgan attempts to compress 200 years of exploration and role that followed the first voyage of Columbus. Though the book is relatively slight it succeeds in giving a good description of the conquests, particularly for the lay reader.
* * *
THE DOLPHIN GUIDE TO HAWAII, by Patrick D. Hazard (Dolphin, 95 cents)—A young professor of American civilization offers a delightful tour of the 50th state. There is nothing staid or traveloguish about this. The photography is excellent and so are the maps, but the best thing is the bright text, by a man who enjoys the appearance words make on paper. He gives us, for example, "A Week of Luaus (if you can stand it)." He talks about places to stay, tells us history, and treats each of the islands.
* * *
EHRLICH'S BLACKSTONE, by J. W. Ehrlich (Capricorn, $2.95). If any name is synonymous with the word "law" it's the name of Blackstone. This volume was compiled by a trial lawyer, J. W. Ehrlich, who had taken the original Blackstone, edited it carefully, and brought it up to date. Much has been eliminated, including obsolete phraseology, to make this a volume for the modern student.
Dailiifhänsan
111 Flint Hall
UNiversity 4-3646, newsroom UNiversity 4-3198, business office University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912. University of Kansas student newspaper.
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, trinewky 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
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Leta Roth and Gary Noland ... Co-Editorial Editors