Page 2
University Daily Kansan Friday, March 26, 1965
Quack, Quack!
Duck-napping entered the realm of a very dangerous sport last night as the residence halls fought for possession of each other's quackers. AURH became alarmed and collected all of the ducks.
Nasty comments about the intelligence of those involved in duck-napping have been made. The more intellectual among us seem to feel that messing around with ducks is below their sophisticated dignity. In short, they think it's a bunch of tripe. After all, they say, it doesn't further the educational realm of college life. This attitude is snobbish.
Duck-napping is certainly not any worse than a chariot race. In fact, I think it would be more fun. Of course duck-napping is trivial. It's supposed to be. It's not going to shape our young
impressionable minds with profound and serious thoughts, but it is a great way to spend an evening if you don't want to study.
I DO THINK some people took the sport a little too seriously last night. It is kind of bad when a housemother gets sprayed with shaving cream. That's going a bit far.
I cannot understand the idea that college students continually have to have some great and noble cause in order to be valid students. Ducknapping, goldfish swallowing and flagpole sitting have a valid place in college life. Being an optimist, I can't see that the world situation is so bad that students can't have some fun without long-nosed intellectuals morbidly forecasting our doom as thinking persons.
— Leta Roth
The People Say..
Editor:
AFTER HAVING READ THE varied opinions expressed in The People Say with reference to the recent CRC demonstrations, it seems to me that there are some widely held misconceptions which ought to be dispelled. In attempting to do this I regret that I do not have the skill to couch my thoughts in the subtle and satirical phraseology which has characterized many of your recent letters. I shall have to try, as best I can, to resort to a straightforward presentation of the facts as I see them.
Misconception number one:
"Demonstrations don't accomplish anything; they simply stir up resentment and harden resistance."
The fact is that the purpose of a demonstration is not to solve a problem, but to create a climate favorable to the solution of a problem. This climate can range from outrage at the audacity of the demonstrators to a deep feeling of guilt on the part of those responsible for the conditions causing the demonstration. Actually, the specific reason of a concerned individual is not important. What is important is that he is aware and is concerned that some solution be achieved. Whether for or against, he can no longer ignore the fact that a problem exists, and whether as a businessman he says—"we must solve this problem or I'll go broke," or whether as a Christian liberal he says—"let's solve this problem because it is the right thing to do." doesn't really matter. What is important is that he wants a solution to the problem as much as the person who is carrying a sign or sitting in a hallway.
The proof of the efficacy of this technique is abundant. Would the Civil Rights Act of 1964 be the law of the land if the March on Washington last summer had not so aroused the nation that the lawmakers could not resist the overwhelming tide of public opinion to find some solution to problems which prompted the March?
Would the Congress now be feverishly working a Voting Rights Bill if the Negroes in Selma had not taken to the streets?
Closer to home. Would the UHRC be currently negotiating with the CRC if the sit-in in Strong Hall had not occurred? The answers to these questions, I submit, are abundantly clear.
Misconception number two: "The way to change a person's behavior is to change his mind, his heart, and his ideas; not by legislation, executive order, picket signs, demonstrations, etc."
The fact is, the way to change a person's attitude is to change his behavior in such a manner that a change of attitude may result. To illustrate this I cite the example of the desegregation of the Armed Forces of the United States. Prior to the President's order to completely integrate the Armed Forces, a majority of the members of these forces were convinced that segregation was a good thing, primarily because that was all they had known, and if left alone, probably would have continued this practice indefinitely. Having been ordered to change their behavior, the opportunity to change their attitudes was opened to them as a result of the new contacts with Negroes on an equal basis. When their stereotyped ideas were exposed to the light of truth, in most cases, they disappeared. Today it is an accepted fact that integration of the Armed Forces was a good thing. People's attitudes were changed because their behavior was changed.
Misconception number three:
"The Negro needs to get on the good side of the white people and gain their respect and then the white people will be glad to give them their equal rights."
The fact is that most Negroes couldn't care less whether or not they "get on the good side of white people," and the only respect they want is the respect for the dignity of human rights which they feel is obligatory on the part of every other human being. The Negro in America is a citizen when he is born and thereby entitled to all the rights of citizenship from that instant. Unfortunately, it seems to be the contention of a great many people that the Negro alone must exhibit some special qualities to gain "the respect of the white people," before they are willing to give him what in fact is and has been from the moment of his birth, rightfully his. This is the most repugnant notion in the whole specious structure which has been erected by people like Mr. Sipe to justify their inability to face up to a basically simple truth: That in the year 1965 in the United States of America there is absolutely no justification—no matter how you try to rationalize to the contrary—for the denial of the full participation of the Negro in all areas of American life.
Marvin W. McKnight
Supervisor
Language Laboratorv
"You Know How It Is With American Kids They Drive Before They Start Walking"
Dailij Hänsan
University of Kansas student newspaper
!IUniversity 3-3648. newsroom
UNiversity 4-3198, business office
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904.
trweckley 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912
Member Inland Daily Press Association,
Associated Collegiate Press. Rep-
tition. Mail subscription rates:
18 East 50 St., New York 22, N.Y.
News service: United Press International.
Mail subscription rates: $3 a
Lawrence, Kans., every afternoon during
the University year except Saturdays
and Sundays, University day.
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 na-
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Leta Roth and Gary
Noland Co-Editorial Edit
Deloitte
Noland
Co-Editorial Editors
JESSE DEPARTMENT
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.
Our Baffled Youth
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.
American youth is confused. It cannot get the point of what American life is all about. A tragic example is a lad named Barney, who was haled before the Council of Elders again last week for admonitory lecturing on the American way.
Several years ago Barney was at a state university, majoring happily in football weekend, fraternity science and the philosophy of the convertible coupe. One day the Russians placed a piece of metal in orbit around the earth, and Barney was summoned before the Council of Elders.
"You are letting America down," the elders said. "How do you think this country can survive if you are content to loaf while Russians spin metal through the ionosphere?"
The chastened Barney quit his fraternity, started hissing the football team and grew wan and spooky as he mastered the conjugation of Greek verbs, the melting point of vanadium, the categorical imperative and the far outposts of biochemistry. In no time at all, he was back before the elders.
"Look at yourself," they said. "You are a colorless drone. What this country needs is not a mass of young bookworms, but well-rounded mature citizens who know how to live the well-balanced life. Along with your studies, you must learn how to relax and get more out of living."
Accordingly, when Easter recess came Barney obediently went to Fort Lauderdale and had a wonderful time tearing up the town. That summer he went to the Newport jazz festival and tore up Newport.
"Barney," said the great elder, "you have to understand that these violent outbursts are sick and antisocial. What this country needs is young people who will leave college prepared to fit into society and make a positive constructive contribution.
For a year Barney studied American society and prepared himself to fit in. He bought an Ivy League wardrobe, insured himself heavily and started angling for a job that would allow him to retire at 45 with a comfortable annuity. Whenever politics was discussed, he said that politics was not up his alley, and whenever anybody made a slighting remark about the government he made a note of it in his diary against the possibility that he might someday be interrogated by the FBI.
While free speech was all right in its place, the great elder went on. Mao was distinctly outside the American mainstream. "Stay between Norman Thomas and Barry Goldwater," he advised. "Find something typically American and get committed to it. This country needs a youth that is more vitally committed."
Depressed but still loyal, Barney transferred to the University of California where he grew a beard, began speaking well of Mao Tsetung and agitating for free speech. In six weeks he was back before the council.
Last week, still in his beard, Barney took part in a civil rights sit-in protesting in a generalized way against the theory that people who want to vote ought to be clubbed by the police. His appearance before the elders was more argumentative than usual.
"When we urged you to have the courage to be different," the great elder explained with infinite patience, "we did not mean the courage to be terribly different."
While it was certainly unjust to club persons for wanting to vote, the elders explained, the American way was to rely on the law. By engaging in a sit-in, Barney had violated the law. In its way, sitting-in was as dangerous to American life as the beating of people who wanted to vote and, indeed, the punishment was usually more severe.
"It won't do, Barney," the elders told him. "You're too cautious, too conformist, too security-minded. What America needs is youth with the courage to be different."
For the first time in all his hearings, Barney spoke. "I must be growing up." he said, "for I think I understand. You are saying that sitting-in is just as bad as blowing up Sunday schools."
"Ah," said the great elder with infinite sadness, "when you are truly grown up you will learn not to give such emotional interpretations to the wisdom of your elders." He paused a moment. "Why don't you get committed to something that people don't care about so much?" he suggested.
"That's the kind of commitment this country expects of its youth."
— Reprinted from The Kansas City Star
NC
BOOK REVIEWS
THE REINS OF POWER, by Bernard Schwarz (American Century, $1.75).
Without pretending to do an all-encompassing job on the Constitutional history of the United States, Bernard Schwartz has provided for the Hill and Wang series on American history an illuminating essay. It is a small book, with interesting perceptions.
Schwartz gives somewhat more background on the legalistic backgrounds of the American system and less discussion of developments. To him, English constitutional history is highly important, but not merely because of the platitudinous name of John Locke. Sir Edward Coke, he feels, may be even more significant, for Coke's views were not academic speculation but the law of the land, and as a judge himself he handed down important pronouncements on the law.
Beyond this early phase, which Schwartz calls "Seedtime," the predictable history unfolds—the Revolution, the fight over the Constitution, the decisions of Marshall, the disputes over state rights, the Civil War, the days when Congress was supreme after the war, the early 20th century power of the Supreme Court, the revolution of the thirties, and such recent decisions as Baker v. Carr on legislative apportionment.