Sweeping Reform
The last word on... YAF yak
To the Editor:
We know that putting out a daily paper is a difficult task, and that time is precious. However, we do feel that more time and work should have gone into the editorial of Thursday, March 2, which was entitled "YAF: 135 Years Too Late." We hope that this letter may help to clear away some of the fogginess left by the editorial.
THE REPORTS FOLLOWING the "Sadler Report" are not well known, existing, as far as we know, in only two places: the London Museum and the Library of Congress. Rarmpart College, a small Colorado college, has them on microfilm. While it is easy to see how historians have neglected them, it is not easy to see why you object to our making them known when we learned of them.
Since the attitudes many persons hold about laissez-faire are based on what is known about a time when there was little government control, consideration of the accuracy of the "Sadler Report" is very relevant to the current controversy over whether a free, mixed, or socialist economy is best. KU-YAF wishes all facts to be known.
The "Sadler Report" is a survey of working conditions in English factories during the industrial revolution. Many erroneously consider it to be an accurate description of conditions of that period. Thus many persons have a distorted view of early capitalistic practices.
KU-YAF has taken further action to help KU students get the facts. We have presented a proposal to the Western Civilization department that part of the second report be put into the reading program along with the "Sadler Report." The department is currently considering this proposal. Also, we have offered to donate a microfilm copy of the second report to Watson Library. This would cost us about $300.
Factually, the editorial betrays its hasty composition. There is the part, for example, that says "that some socialistic Members of Parliament thought the 1832 child labor laws to be rather lax." But in 1832 there were no socialists in Parliament. Also, the Tory Party, which represented the crown and authoritarianism, proposed their legislation not so much to help children as to hurt Whigs and curry working class favor.
THE MORE PROGRESSIVE WHIGS opposed the bill as unwarranted, unnecessary, and harmful, which it was. Furthermore, Sadler himself was among the most reactionary of Tories, opposing, for example, Catholic emancipation.
Also inaccurate is the statement saying that "government circa 1832 had deprived the young Britons of a living and, consequently, deprived all those capitalists from capitalizing on such cheap and expendable labor." True, it did deprive the children of a chance to work, but the rest is wrong. The capitalists were not hurt; cheap Irish labor filled the gap left by the children. Those worst hit were the British working class.
When the editorial implys that KU-YAK considers the nineteenth century the "Really Good Old Days." the editorial is absolutely wrong. Our point was that capitalism was responsible for the radical improvement in the living standards of the nineteenth century.
We are sure that we do not have to remind you that accuracy is your journalistic responsibility to the KU student whose fees pay for the UDK.
Sincerely,
Rock Chalk rivalry
Elizabeth Riggs, Chairman KU Young Americans for Freedom
To the Editors:
I found this year's Rock Chalk production extremely entertaining, but it didn't compare with the entertainment derived from your editorial pages of the last two days. It is unfortunate that the great institution (I'm kidding) of Rock Chalk Revue has degenerated to this ridiculous bickering. Name Withheld and Miss Petering had a perfect right to initiate the whole thing; Mr. Abrams and Miss Engles had an equally perfect right to rebut. Unfortunately, however, suddenly everyone is an authority; of course, yesterday's authorities couldn't even agree upon their authorized facts, which may tend to cast some doubt upon the validity of said facts, but no matter—everyone write down the real rules (as dictated by own personal opinion and/or involvement and/or interest) and send the list to the U.D.K. That way, you'll see your name in print (just as I'm going to see
mine at the end of this journalistic masterpiece); if, however, you prefer to be effective, why not send your letters to the KU-Y instead—chances are they'll do some good.
The point is, the entire situation seems to have gotten out of hand. Fun may be fun, but it seems that good, clean fun (and good, clean skits, too. Tom Moore?) no longer exist. Everyone who was involved in the production (winners included) seem to have developed a complete new set of neuroses, and most of us had enough to keep us happy already.
We concede, the Delta Chi's concede, and every other group participating in the show (winners included) concede that we lost — squarely, at any rate; whether fairly, is irrelevant. Life persists.
Sincerely,
C. J. Pollara
Oberlin Senior
Our sports fans
Kongratulations, Kansas Klods!
In winning the Big Eight basketball title, you have shown how really undeserving this university is in having that honor. The actions of the student body do not justly denote a champion. Two well-coached teams came into Allen Field House to play basketball Monday night. Unfortunately, the students did not come to watch it.
Instead, they beced Colorado, the referees, and everything in general. They threw paper on the floor of the gym, completely disregarding the fact that five of the ten players
were our own. It became such a problem that a technical foul was threatened against the crowd, not the team.
When people think of Kansas, they think of KU. For this reason, I am very glad that the basketball team, and not the student body, is representing our university at and away from home. A vital part of any sport is of course sportsmanship. Without this factor, it becomes little more than a free-for-all. We could all take a lesson from Coach Ted Owens and his team for their conduct. These fellows have put a lot of time and effort into producing a championship
team. It is too bad that the student body must take some of the savor out of their victory by acting in a cheap and irresponsible manner.
Mike Lewis El Dorado Senior
REPLACEMENT
HOLLYWOOD — (UPI) — Joanna Barnes has replaced Joanna Moore in "The War Wagon," allowing Miss Moore to star in "Moonshot."
2
Daily Kansan
editorial page
Friday, March 10. 1:67
UDK Movie Review: Fahrenheit 451
Not a great movie but a good one
How do you make an interesting movie about burning books? If you are a talented director, such as Francois Truffaut, and if you have the acting talents of Oskar Werner and Julie Christie at your command, there is a chance it can be done.
"FAHRENHEIT 451" is a bold attempt. If the excitement does not quite occur—though the audience continually feels the tension and waits, expecting the spark—where is the fault?
Certainly not in director Truffaut's cinematography. Here is the color and camerawork that Antonioni did not quite deliver in "Blow-Up." Yet "Blow-Up" expressed a world that was not only monstrously possible, but real. While "Fahrenheit 451" creates an equally repulsive world, it is too one-dimensional to be quite alive.
Perhaps Ray Bradbury's novel is the villain. His hero, Montag, is a "fireman" in a society where books may be flammable but where the citizens are kept carefully segy. Montag is more of a man than his fellows. Book-reader Clarisse sets him forever in opposition to his vegetable utopia; wife, job, law must all be left behind Montag.
BRADBURY MADE of this an interesting science-fiction novel, though by no means his finest. Truffault in turn creates a good motion picture, though by no means a great one.
In 1967, as censorable laws fall steadily and Bennett Cerf mass-produces inexpensive books, the threat of book-banning seems scarcely more serious than a proposal to ban air. Here is "Fahrenheit 451's" major hurdle, to create in the audience an anxiety which it does not harbor.
The movie is only half successful at this point. Warm performances by Werner and Christie prevent the picture from lagging. Haunting scenes of "salamander" firetrucks and people who are books will, perhaps, linger with surprising tenacity. But emotionally the audience fails at the hurdle itself.
Truffaut, Werner, and Christie were willing to make "Fahrenheit 451" a trial of their artistry. So far as evoking reality of fantasy stuff, they have succeeded. "Science-fiction" has too long been the province of Mothra and Tohoscope. If an idea of the depth of "1984" had been the basis of their trial, perhaps no hurdle could have encumbered them.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY kansan Serving KU for 72 of its 101 Years
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 Services in East 50 St. New York. N.Y. 10022.
Mail subscription rates: $5 a semester or $9 a year. Published and second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the week 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.