Page 2
University Daily Kansan Monday, March 15, 1965
UDK Under Fire
A movement is under way which, if successful, will undermine freedom of the press on this campus. The persons behind this movement have no such purpose in mind, but their demands, if fully realized, will have just this effect.
The Civil Rights Council has demanded "That the University Daily Kansan no longer accept advertisements from landlords and/or organizations that practice racial discrimination."
The All Student Council, at a special meeting called at the height of the sit-in demonstration, introduced legislation complying with the CRC demand.
The CRC demand and the proposed ASC legislation to be voted on Tuesday night is a violation of the principle of freedom of the press, even though the target is the advertising columns of the Daily Kansan rather than the news columns.
Advertising is a form of free speech. The freedom to advertise is as essential in a free society as is the freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful assembly which was so dramatically illustrated last week.
True restrictions have been placed upon all our freedoms to prevent abuses, but these restrictions have been minimal in order to provide the utmost freedom.
Passage of the ASC legislation controlling the content of advertising in the Daily Kansan will be
A majority of students are discriminated against when the Daily Kansan is forced to deny advertising on the basis of some committee's decision or according to some "approved housing list." The student would be denied the opportunity to read where he may seek accommodations. This amounts to an infringement upon the rights of the majority by a minority.
a denial to advertisers of their freedom of expression and will also be a denial of the public right to know.
If the ASC, under pressure from organizations like the CRC, can successfully dictate the content of the Daily Kansan's advertising columns, it could conceivably dictate the content of the news columns by denying us the right to cover news of organizations who allegedly practice discrimination.
If we are compelled to deny our advertising columns to fraternities and sororites because they have been found to discriminate, we can also be compelled to deny news space to the Interfraternity Council, Greek Week activities, intramural sports, and so on.
We hope that the ASC, sitting in general assembly, will disregard the pressure from the CRC and consider all aspects of the proposed legislation before them.
Gary Noland
Guest Editorial
Dear Sir:
HAVING WRITTEN TO THE UDK LAST WEEK rather severely castigating you for what seemed to me remarkably thoughtless editorializing, I now feel obligated to congratulate you for your editorial commentary of the past two days which seems by contrast quite adequately, and even intensively, well thought out. By way of minor criticism, I would like to point out that Chancellor W. Clarke Wescoe's administration policy statements should be reported as news, not as UDK editorial policy. If they were published as guest editors, they should have been so labeled. Gary Noland's critical analysis of the current administration policy statement was well taken and to the point.
Apparently the CRC demand that is causing the most difficulty, and as far as I can see the only one that cannot be immediately granted as stated, is the one that insists that fraternities and sororites sign a non-discrimination affidavit or disclaimer. The application of most such affidavits being extremely distasteful as well as ludicrous as to their efficacy, I like Chancellor Wescow, would not like to see their further proliferation. Just as it would be distasteful and absurd to require affidavits or disclaimers as a condition of employment for the Chancellor or Deans, so would it be to require them of organizations not under complete and detailed control of the administration as a condition of affiliation with the University.
In order to institute such a policy, it would seem preferable, rather than an affidavit, to make a simple policy statement that unless each fraternity and sorority desegregates to the satisfaction of a committee to be composed of, for example, the Chancellor, the Deans of Students, Men, and Women, five faculty members to be chosen by the Faculty Senate, and five students to be chosen by the ASC and CRC, the offending organization would be deprived of all relationships with the University and all privileges derived therefrom.
PROBABLY A CLAUSE WOULD HAVE TO BE inserted that unless a significant majority, say two-thirds or three-fourths of the organizations, complied with the regulations, the entire Greek system as a recognized institution of the University would have to be abandoned. This both in recognition of the realities of the situation and to preclude the complaint by the organizations that many might choose to accept the sanctions rather than comply, thus gaining an "advantage" in recruiting membership.
Reasonable time limits would have to be established for the initiation of the investigations and again for the imposition of sanctions, but not in terms of "by the end of this decade" as seemed to be the case with the passage of Bill No. 7.
THE BASIC REASONING by which people claim such measures unfair seems to run along the lines that fraternities and sororites are private institutions because they are privately financed, thus giving them the right to freely choose whomever they wish to associate with according to whatever criteria they may choose to apply. I think it can be clearly demonstrated, however, that private financial support is not alone an adequate criterion for determining the private or public nature of the institution.
That the Greek organizations are institutions of the University can be seen by the quantity and nature of their activities and prerogatives, a few of which are cited above and some of which are contributive to the general University community. Their relationship is somewhat similar to that of the trial lawyer to the court; he is neither paid by it nor pays dues to it, nor is he personally a part of the organization of any particular court, but is nonetheless regarded as an officer of the court in which he tries his case and is accorded the special responsibilities and privileges that go with the position. The unfairness of the present situation lies in the fact that Negro and other minority group members of the student population are denied participation in this aspect of University life without regard for any individual qualities or qualifications they may possess.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO CRITICIZE THE amendment to Bill No. 7 with regard to UDK advertising policy proposed by Hugh Taylor, and the position taken by John Suhler, chairman of the Kansan Board with regard to that policy. Mr. Taylor's amendment has the merit of simplicity, but seems to lose much to achieve that merit. It has the effect, however small in scope, of closing the University society off from the rest of the world. The effect of Mr. Taylor's amendment is to say to potential advertisers, "If we haven't actively and affirmatively approved of you, we won't do business with you." I think what is desired is to say, in effect, "If the students to whom you are advertising the sale of this commodity or service are discriminated on the basis of race, creed, or color, we won't do business with you," and I think the best way to say it is to do so simply and directly.
The demonstrations were not held to demand the power to make a general, overall approval of any persons or organizations, but rather to demand the power to make a specific disapproval of a particular practice, ethnic prejudice, which is reprehensible to most of us and damaging to all of us. It would be much easier and simpler to say that we are going to eliminate prejudicial practices in the University community, and, in order to be certain that we do not in any way support such practices, we will confine our contacts and interactions to the University community.
IN TIMES OF HEIGHTENED CONFLICT, THE easiest solution looks most attractive, but it is not always the best solution in the long run. Mr. Suhler has said that the administration of such a policy would be expensive, immoral, and unprofessional. I think he is wrong on each count. The policy would have to be stated to advertisers, which would be simple. Machinery would have to be set up to receive, record, and transmit complaints of violations, which would be simple. And machinery would have to be set up to judge the validity of the complaints, which would be feasible, as I am sure a committee could be found to serve. Eventually, as the practice of non-discrimination becomes accepted, and perhaps somewhat habitual, complaints will presumably decrease in number and the committee could be disbanded, and cases referred to the Student Court.
In the initial phases such a policy would probably be somewhat difficult to administer, and would probably require considerable effort but it would be well to remember that a considerable effort has already been expended to create such a policy. When the policy becomes established, respect for it will almost certainly reduce the number of attempted violations, and ease the problem of administering it considerably.
ADVERTISING GOODS TO THE GENERAL public, then systematically insulting certain would-be customers because of their race or color or religion is not an exercise of freedom of the press, but an abusive practice. Professionalism demands operation within a certain code of ethics, one of the primary canons of which in this case is to safeguard the freedom of the press, which, by the way, can only be done by the exercise thereof.
I submit that to lure people into a situation of embarrassment and insult is not an exercise of freedom of the press, and that to continue to foster and materially support such an abuse is not safeguarding freedom of the press. If such a practice is to be considered an exercise of freedom of the press, the UDK has already suppressed that freedom by not allowing discriminatory phrasing in advertisements and not printing stories involving libelous actions.
Larry Hammond Overland, Mo., senior
KU Civil Rights
Ill-advised demonstrations now seem to have given way to rational discussion on the campus of the University of Kansas in Lawrence. After two days of confusion, more moderate civil rights leadership has ended sit-ins by a small minority of the student body that was disrupting the orderly conduct of university business. And the administration, for its part, has reinstated the 100-odd demonstrators previously suspended.
Thus the road should lie open to an intelligent review of university policy with respect to any alleged racial discrimination that the KU authorities, in fact, have the power to correct. As we see it, the recent student demonstrations at Lawrence raise two main questions. One concerns the way in which they were conducted. The other has to do with certain of the purposes for which they were organized.
Chancellor W. Clarke Wescoe had a standing offer to talk over any grievances the students might want to bring to his attention. Instead, leaders of the campus civil rights council at first chose to present him with a series of demands for immediate action, backed by the threat of mass demonstrations. In effect, Dr. Wescoe refused to move under such duress. And when the demonstrators finally had to be ejected from his office by force, he ordered their suspension. We think the chancellor was right in both courses.
KU has a clear responsibility to its student body, its faculty and the people of the state of Kansas. It could not tolerate incipient mob rule. Experience on other campuses around the country has shown the damage that may ensue when situations of this kind are allowed to get out of hand. The chancellor seems to us to have acted with wisdom and discretion.
To say as much, however, does not dispose of the basic issue raised by the demonstrators. That issue involves alleged discrimination against Negro students. Here, it seems essential to distinguish between what an enlightened university administration may—and may not—reasonably be expected to do.
Several of the demands made upon Dr. Wescoe concerned allegations of racial discrimination in teacher-placement, student-teaching assignments, approved off-campus housing and the student paper's advertising policy. Those are clearly matters within the competence of the administration to influence. Indeed, the chancellor could show that they had already been taken under review for determination of the facts. But evidently the primary grievance advanced by the civil rights council had to do with charges of discriminatory practices on the part of fraternities and sororities.
Here it is particularly necessary to be realistic. Broadly speaking, a purely social organization should possess the right to prescribe any qualifications for membership it desires, no matter how absurd or unjust these may appear. But fraternities and sororities on the campus of a public university, like KU, fall into a special category. Their operation is licensed by the institution. If they exclude candidates solely on grounds of race, therefore, it is assumed that such a practice must be at least tacitly condoned by the university authorities.
Chancellor Wescoe has made it plain that his administration is not in sympathy with any procedure of that kind. There is no reason whatever to doubt his sincerity. Apparently no chapter of a national society on the KU campus today is required by its charter to enforce racial discrimination. And the chancellor on Monday signed an All Student Council bill which further spells out this prohibition.
Nevertheless, the available evidence strongly indicates that Negro students are systematically kept out of white fraternities and sororities, in practice. Probably the key demand made on Dr. Wescoe was to bar from all university functions hereafter any fraternity or sorority held to practice "covert" discrimination.
This strikes us as a proposal to enter a domain that is not susceptible to university regulation, either directly or by delegation. It is one thing to insist, as the university has done, that there be no blanket charter discrimination. It is quite another to try to compel a fraternity or sorority, in substance, to accept any particular Negro candidate or candidates against the will of its existing membership, as a matter of principle. The right of freedom of association at the social level is far too important to every human being, regardless of race, to risk such an infringement.
We, too, hope for a time when the white KU fraternities and sororities will cease to employ back-door discrimination against otherwise eligible Negro colleagues. But that time will not be hastened—it may only be deferred—by demands and demonstrations for administrative action. Here is a place for sound education of the fraternity and sorority students in race relations, so that they will come around of their own volition. Meanwhile, it seems to us, the university can make a positive contribution by continuing to provide the most attractive possible environment for students of all races outside the fraternity-sorority system—and to keep open normal communication with all responsible segments of the student population.
— Reprinted from the Kansas City Star March 11, 1965
DailijIfänsan
111 Flint Hall
UNiversity 4-3646, newsroom
UNiversity 4-3198, business office
University of Kansas student newspaper
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
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Leta Roth and Gary-Noland ... Co-Editorial Editors
I I
T B