Here we go again—
Another stupid blunder
There are times, in brief moments of depressed reflection, when I feel like my typewriter is jinxed. Whenever I sit down before it, the letters "AWS" or "student rights" seem to leap onto the paper.
SUCH WAS my mood Tuesday night. It's time for an editorial on the beauty of spring or the condition of campus sidewalks, I told myself. I should have suspected impending doom when the thermometer dropped spring to a frosty level. Yup, the INCREDIBLY stupid blundering of the old AWS Senate Tuesday just forces me to take machine in hand and discourse again. It's difficult to be rational and calm about such a situation. One would think that the Senate had learned a few lessons this year: (1) women on campus do not consider them to be oracular clairvoyants; (2) these same women do not consider Senate to be representative in structure or membership; and (3) said women are getting damned mad about such stunts as were pulled Tuesday.
If the old Senate members did not like some of the rules passed by the convention, that's their constitutional perogative. They can change the rules. But they should have legitimate, pragmatic reasons for doing so.
IF THEY doubt the wisdom of having no closing for second-semester sophomores, they should have called in sponsoring delegates from the convention or interested, informed persons to present the pros and cons of the issue. Many people have relevant information to justify or condemn the various rules. To have an informed, sensible hearing on the convention, the old Senate should have issued a call for such information. They didn't.
This secrecy-shrouded blunder was compounded when the new Senate members, elected shortly after the convention, were not invited to participate in the hearing. It is ironical that the new Senate was discussing new methods of communication among campus women at the same time the old Senate was sealing off the old communication channels.
I would agree with the convention delegate who said in yesterday's Kansan that secrecy might have been desirable in intermediate stages of decision-if a proper and complete hearing were being held.
BUT I CANNOT conceive of any rationale to justify secrecy concerning decisions on the regulations. The political science education of these women apparently has been incomplete. They caught Plato, Machiavelli and Rousseau, but missed out on Bentley, Dewey and Cole.
These decisions should be disclosed immediately. Senate should be forced to take full and personal responsibility for any decisions they make. The Council on Student Affairs, an administrative and student body, should not be held responsible for a purely student action.
FINALLY, I would like to say that I have the utmost personal respect for Miss Ann Peterson, outgoing AWS president. And I simply cannot believe that she really feels, as was ascribed to her by yesterday's Kansan, that Senate is not obligated to inform the women of its decisions. It is even more improbable to me that such an intelligent woman would believe that Senate members understand aspects of women's problems not readily recognized by women students.
Women students do realize their problems in this community. And close to the top of that list of problems has been the AWS Senate.
Jacke Thayer
The people say...
'You're wrong AGAIN!'
To the Editor:
In regards to your most recent blunder entitled "Where were Woodruff, Alderson?," you stated "Their responsibilities as administrators extend to keeping free lines of communication with students. It's time both deans accept responsibility already taken by the provost and dean of women." Naturally, I assume that you feel neither have attempted lines of communication, nor, as you stated, have they "shown willingness to work for constructive change." I actively dispute your statements.
TONIGHT (Tuesday), after scrutinizing your editorial page for its normal, unintentional humor, my fraternity brothers (Kappa Sigma) and myself enjoyed the pleasure of having Dean Woodruff and his wife, and Dean
Alderson join us for dinner. The next two hours proved to be most informative; as we chatted with these two men about the work they have been doing towards "constructive change" at the University of Kansas, I discovered how really wrong you are in your views. By no means did either dean approach us with the attitude that they must prove to us that administrators are really "good guys;" they were not conducting a popularity contest, though they did earn our respect. In fact, willingness would be an understatement to describe the open answers we received to our probes into this world of "constructive change" apparently unknown by the U.D.K.
During our discussion with Dean Alderson, those vague topics of student parking, women's
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY kansan For 76 Years, KU's Official Student Newspaper
KANSAN TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Newsroom—UN 4-3646 —— Business Office—UN 4-3198
The opinions expressed in the editorial column are those of the students whose names are signed to them. Guest editorial views are not necessarily the editor's. Any opinions expressed in the Daily Kansan are not necessarily those of The University of Kansas Administration or the State Board of Regents.
The Daily Kansan, student newspaper at The University of Kansas, is represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East St. 50 St., New York, N.Y. 10028. They are published every six year. Published and second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan., every two weeks except Saturday and Sundays. University holidays and examination periods foundations, goods, services and employment advertised in the University Daily Kansan are offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin.
EXECUTIVE STAFF
Managing Editor ... Fred Frailey
Business Manager ... Dale Reinecker
Editorial Editors ... Jacke Thaver, Justin Beck
NEWS AND BUSINESS STAFFS
Assistant Managing Editors ... E. C. Bailweig, Rosalle Jenkins
Karen Lambert, Nancy Scott and Robert Stevens
Sports Editor ... Steve Russell Merchandising ... Linda Simpson
Photo Editor ... Bill Stephens Promotion Manager ... Gary Wright
Circulation Manager .. Jan Parkinson Wire Editor ... Joan McCabe
closing hours, student marches and rallies for various causes, faculty deficiencies and proficiencies, the problems of a huge college of liberal arts and sciences, and other problems such as discipline and "improvement of various rules," came sharply into focus. By no means did he bow down to us and say "you are right," nor did he merely admit that such problems exist. Dean Alderson openly and seriously discussed various solutions, possibilities, and considerations that pertained to our questions. He explained from the administration's standpoint the solutions they have enacted in the past and offered a few of the solutions they are considering for present problems.
MY DEAR Madame Editor, I only wish you could have joined us for dinner tonight and the following two hour discussion. We were able to talk to these two men on a level of communication of open minds unexcelled by any forum or seminar I have ever attended at the University of Kansas. And I am sure from your article that I could never convince you of the work Dean Anderson and Dean Woodruff are doing for the future "constructive change" of this university.
Madame, I offer you an open invitation to our fraternity house whenever you might wish to visit. Who knows, perhaps you can return to your flaming typewriter and pound out the real story of these two men's work!
-William C. Mauk Overland Park junior
2 Daily Kansan editorial page Thursday, April 21, 1966
"There's Getting To Be A Lot Of Dangerous Talk About The Public Interest
Viewpoint Ban the slingshot or 'Solly, Cholley!'
(Editor's Note: The protestors have got the right idea at Colorado State College, Greeley. They put a little humor into their work. Sorry, but we just can't resist reprinting this gem from the CSC Mirror.)
Last week a member of the "Student Committee for World Peace" smuggled into a banquet of the "Arnold Air Society" a box of fortune cookies which were consequently served to the attendants at the banquet, many of whom were top "brass." The cookies contained leftist witticisms such as "Ski Viet Nam," "Lemmings are silly, Dinosaurs are extinct." "Peace or Pieces," "Help, I'm a prisoner in the Pentagon," and "Ban the Slingshot."
AS A reaction to this the "Brass" of Arnold Air appeared at Student Council meeting Tuesday night and officially protested the fortune cookie incident. The Arnold Air representative said, "The fortune cookie incident was a reflection on the campus, Arnold Air Society and the Air Force. We don't want this campus to turn into a UCLA or a CU." he continued.
Later on in the Student Council meeting a councilman moved that the "Student Committee for World Peace's" charter be revoked. The motion was defeated nine to three. Council did not take action but suggested to the Arnold Air representatives that they file a complaint with the student Judicial Board, which they agreed to do.
WHEN CONFRONTED later, one councilman who voted to have the SCWP charter revoked stated that he justified his vote "because SCWP does not represent the feelings of Student Council." He also supported his vote on the grounds that "organizations on campus who demonstrate should not be chartered." He also felt that "individuals who dissent shouldn't have to form chartered organizations to do it."
Another Council member voted against the SCWP because "he didn't like three of the members of that organization."
All of the reasons given by the above councilmen are absurd.
FIRST: Since when do all campus organizations have to reflect the "feelings" of Student Council? Not even the Supreme Court of the United States reserves powers like that to itself.
Second: The individual who thought that "organizations on campus who demonstrate should not be chartered" himself belongs to "Young Americans For Freedom" who have themselves participated in no less than six national demonstrations.
Third: The right of dissenting individuals to organize and publicly present their opinion is guaranteed by the Constitution.
IT SEEMS to us that the Arnold Air Society and the individuals on Council who voted against the SCWP show a decided lack of humor.
The majority of Council members are to be commended for their objective and realistic approach to the "fortune cookie incident" which should never have been taken to Council anyway.