Campus Forum
Protesting the protestors
To the Editor:
A short time ago at Catholic University in Washington a theology professor was fired for his liberal views, with no warning given, nor any reason. Student and faculty protests over the dismissal were wide-spread and even threatened to close the University. It is interesting to note that student and faculty members who led the protest urged one another to appear well-dressed and "moderate" in their demeanor. Father Curran himself exhorted the protestors to conduct themselves in a "dignified" manner. It is also interesting to note that the protestors won their point; Father Curran was reinstated and even promoted.
I WONDERED in this connection what might the efforts be on the wide-spread dissent over the situation in Vietnam if this principle were to be applied. The films I saw on the recent protest marches in New York and other cities seemed to indicate that they (the marches) were not only against the Vietnam situation, but kind of general rebellion against everything America seems to symbolize in the eyes of the protestors, i.e., the Johnson administration, the crass, materialistic society in which we live (as I suppose they would put it), and the bourgeoisie in general.
Many of the protestors were dressed rather bizarrely, they appeared to behave in a rather unusual manner, to put it mildly, and they seemed to couple the cause of peace in Vietnam with various other private movements of their own, such as the legalization of LSD and marijuana. And, as I say, they seemed to be protesting against the status quo in general. Conversations which I have held with advocates of our retreat from Vietnam reinforce this impression. Protestors appear generally to belong to what I suppose could be most charitably referred to as the exotic element in our society; artists and would-be artists, writers and friends of writers, most of the members of the avant-garde. It is, of course, not an accident that this is true. Incidentally, that segment of the population which suports our Vietnam policy seems generally to be comprised of the business world and wageearners, with the academics maintaining an uneasy truce between the two forces.
BUT MY POINT IS THIS: if the advocates
of our retreat from Vietnam were to meet the enemy on its own terms, were, specifically, to conduct themselves in a "moderate" and "dignified" manner, were to eschew such radical activities as flag-burning and draft-card burning (activities which only antagonize the opposition and make conversation all the more impossible), were to refrain from promiscuously identifying this cause with any other private idiosyncracy or delusion they might cherish, were to dress with some respect for convention, they might be granted a more attentive reception and a more effective public forum. I do not suppose that all the dissent to the war is ill-founded and psychologically reactionary. But even in the attitudes of those politicians who oppose the war, such as Senator Fulbright, one senses a kind of chilly disassociation with "the beards," as Senator Kennedy calls them.
How one dresses, the minor aspects of his appearance, are fairly negligible matters, and one must not judge by these criteria. But the point is, many people do judge by these criteria, and if one is genuinely sincere in his opposition to the war, he should be willing to at least temporarily sacrifice such personal, superficial attitudes and others like them, to the general good of the cause.
I SUPPOSE Mr. Ted Berrigan and his poet-friends who visited the campus a few weeks ago would consider this a prostitution of the self, a falsifying of one's personal integrity. But prostitution implies the violation of a very vital and sacred part of the self, an irredeemable surrender to evil. And I doubt that dignified deportment and moderation in dress could ever be construed as that. It is not prostitution, it is something which politicians seem to find very necessary; compromise; the conceding of a fairly minor point in order to gain a major one.
To one genuinely dismayed at the course of events in Vietnam and opposed to our role there, one thing is important; the cessation of the bombing in order that a peaceful settlement might be effected. And I am forced to conclude, most regrettable, that much of the protest over the war is not impelled by this motive, by charity, or by any other such praiseworthy attitude, but simply by a desire to show off.
Carleton Champagne Lawrence, Kas.
Photographers revisited
To the Editor:
I fail to see the point in the editorial in Tuesday's UDK. If a person doesn't believe in the war in Vietnam, that's his business. If he wants some publicity he goes to a silent vigil. If a newsman takes his picture he gets the publicity that he is wanting. If the photographer is a policeman, acting on his own, he screams that
this is becoming a police state as if his birth rights had just been taken away from him.
SO WHAT if he had his picture taken! He wanted someone to take notice, didn't he? Suppose—just for the sake of the argument—the policeman was working in an official capacity and not on his own. He wasn't invading someone's privacy. This was a public
demonstration. Any picture that a person wants to take with a camera without trespassing on private property is his business and right. It doesn't make it wrong if he is a policeman. What might make it wrong would be if it were used for blackmail or intimidation.
Serving KU for 77 of its 101 Years
KANSAN TELEPHONE NUMBERS
Newsroom—UN 4-3646 Business Office—UN 4-3198
The Daily Kansan, student newspaper at The University of Kansas, is represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York, N.Y. 10022
Mail subscription rates: $5 a semester or $3 a year. Published annual second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University except Saturdays and Sundays. University holidays and examination periods Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised in the University Daily Kansan are offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin
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.
EXECUTIVE STAFF
I fail to see how this taking of pictures classifies as intimidation. It seems to me to be about the best way that the police can make a record of an incident without "interfering with someone's rights" or intimidating him. Lawrence has a fine police department and the men on it are doing their best to see that everyone's rights are protected. I think it's about time we stood behind our police department and the job they are doing.
EXECUTIVE STAFF
Managing Editor ... Joan McCabe
Business Manager ... Tony Chop
Editorial Editors ... Dan Austin, Barb Phillips
James B. Harmon
Background Story
Assistant Managing Editors Gay Murrell, Steve Russell
Linda Sleffel, Robert Stevens
City Editor Will Hardesty Advertising Manager Ken Hickerson
Wire Editor Betsy Wright Nat's Adv. Manager Howard Pankratz
Sports Editor Mike Walker Photoshop Manager John Lee
Feature Editor Jacki Campbell Circulation Manager Donny Lee
Photo Editor Earl Hihl classification D. Judg Godrey
Asst. City Editor Carol D. Bonis Merchandising Manager Steve Dennil
Executive Reporters Eric Morgenthaler, Jay Faust, Jack Harrison
Palatin, Ill., graduate student
FACULTY ADVISERS: Business: Prof. Mel Adams; News: Malcolm Applegate;
Editorial: Prof. Calder Pickett
More than half of Great Antigua, southernmost island in the Bahamas, has been set aside as a refuge for flamingos.
2
Daily Kansan
editorial page Friday, May 12, 1967
UDK Movie Review: Oh Dad, Poor Dad
More than enough of a Winters' tale
By SCOTT NUNLEY
"Oh-Dad, Poor Dad" was a funny play and is a lively motion picture. Rosalind Russell is marvelously menacing, and Robert Morse is occasionally hilarious.
The film has two difficulties, however: first, someone decided it could only be a comedy, with dull "messages" surgically removed; second, someone decided that more Jonathan Winters is better than a little Jonathan Winters.
Much of Robert Morse's role, however, becomes almost meaningless in the movie version. Leaping from a fine performance as Madame's emasculated son, Morse is left to explain his more tragic rebellion and passion in a film that will accept only broad comedy as an answer. Ringing up Winters and skipping past these points leaves "Oh Dad, Poor Dad" in water up to its toes.
Director Richard Quine hands the audience both problems with every other scene. Arthur Kopit's play was never naively concerned with a middle-aged Modesty Blaise. Somewhere (not very deep) beneath Madame Rosepetal's shocking exterior, there was a bit of every All American M-O-M. Quine interrupts the film for slapstick at each point the satire might have begun to bite.
Unfortunately Jonathan Winters wears thin. Frequently his ghostly asides to the audience are gems—but too often they are like the worst of the dialogue from Woody Allen's funny "What's Up, Tiger Lily?" These comments ring of bored guests trying to liven home movies with wit. They are strained even from Jonathan Winters.
Once begun on this gimmick, Director Quine seems unable to exercise control. It would have been better, at the risk of losing a few guffaws, to have played the film "straight" with no narration. Punctured by this barrage of asides, "Oh Dad, Poor Dad" cannot establish moods of suspense or eroticism at those moments when the play depends upon such an atmosphere.
Hugh Griffith, as the goatish Commodore, alone is worth the admission. With an admirable gusto, Griffith leers and pants his way through the entire movie. The trace of seriousness with which Griffith is allowed to enliven his role helps to balance the basic fantasy of the plot.
Rosalind Russell's flair for theatricalism is legend. She opens the film with one of the funniest scenes in recent comedy. With
Presidential toss-out
ST. LOUIS — (UFI)—President William Howard Taft tossed out the first ball in the Philadelphia-Washington baseball opener on April 14, 1910, starting a practice that has continued since.
The Sporting News, published here, says pitcher Walter Johnson caught the ball. In the game,
Johnson tossed a one-hitter, a freak double by Frank (Home Run) Baker. Baker's routine fly to the outfield dropped for a hit when outfielder Doc Gessler stepped back to make the catch and stumbled over a spectator in the overflow crowd.