God bless the ASC
Last night the All Student Council proved what a farce student government really is. A bill was brought before the Council which would have made the ASC a smaller, more intensive, more deliberative and more effective body. The measure, which needed a two-thirds majority to be brought before the student body, was voted down 23-8.
It is singularly noteworthy that the issue, which was that the students should decide the role of student government, was skirted entirely by the debate which took place.
INSTEAD, A CIRCUS, possibly bigger than Barnum and Bailey's best efforts, was performed in its entirety on the Council floor.
The Council has proved to be a training ground for potential CYR's and CYD's who have no conception of student welfare or student government. It has proved to be an organization to which members are elected by political chicanery, trained in the art and the method of political chicanery, and told how to vote by political chicanery. It is run by the most streamlined methods of political doublethink ever seen on the KU campus.
There are in any group, exceptions to the rule, and the student body may wholeheartedly thank Al Martin, student body president, and Jim Prager, Council chairman, for being just such exceptions.
BY INTRODUCING such a bill, designed to rectify some of the ASC's basic structural faults, Martin and Prager have shown that they, at least, understand the meaning of student government and the role which it must play in university life.
The problem was founded in the basic lack of communication between Council members. Personal gripes and disappointments were aired and few valid questions were raised.
The proposed number of representatives provided the biggest obstacle to passage. The suggested number of 14 would include representatives from each of the schools and the four class officers.
IMMEDIATELY THERE AROSE from the assembled multitude a great clamor. Who will represent the Greeks, who will represent the independents, and don't forget the sophomore class, which, in the words of one Council member, would not be adequately represented by the juniors and seniors who would be elected to the smaller council.
We submit that the main concern is not the unmarried-unorganized student,not the sorority student,not the freshman student,but the KU student,and the student body as a whole.
With a smaller Council, members would be in a position to meet with the Administration more effectively, deliberate more informally and to greater purpose, and, in essence, more adequately represent the wishes of the KU student body.
IN DEFEATING this constitutional amendment, those members who voted against it have shown their main purpose in being on the All Student Council is to perpetuate themselves in office and not to represent their constituents.
The All Student Council has cut its own throat.
Barbara Phillips and Dan Austin
U.S. boot to Chiang?
(Editor's Note: The letter below appears on this page unsigned. It is a copy of $ \mathbf{o} $ letter sent to Dean Rusk, Secretary of State, explaining the political viewpoint of certain Formosan students attending KU. The reason that the letter carries no name is because its authors fear violent reprisal from other Tiawanese who support Chiang Kai - shek's National Chinese Republic.
Later this semester, a series of articles by Daily Kansan reporters Eric Morgenthaler and Dan Austin will hopefully explain to the reader some of the background and some of the current incidents in this Formosan-Tiawanese conflict.)
Honorable Dean Rusk
Secretary of State
State Department
Washington D.C.
Dear Mr. Dean Paul
Dear Mr. Dean Rusk:
We listened to your speech which was telecast on Feb. 9th with great concern. Since the U.S. policy towards China and Formosa affects our mother-land so much, we Formosan students would like to clarify our positions and standpoints in this issue.
As a matter of fact, 10 million original Formosan people have been the victims of Cold War. We have denounced Chiang Kaishek's regime all the time, either with silent eyesights at home or with desperate assertion of justice abroad. Under a brutal, corrupt, and alen ruling of a family-oriented dictatorship, the name of "Free China" is not only absurd but also a serious deceit to the twentieth century. It is absolutely not "free" nor a legitimate part of China according to the International Law. Therefore, representing the tears, passions, and voices of Formosan people in these past dark years, we the only Formosans who can freely express our idea here, sincerely make our statement and ask you some questions;
Chiang is US 'Tool'
As long as the government of Chiang Kai-shek and his son,
Chiang Chin-kuo, which evidently cannot last for 24 hours without the aid from outside, is supported by the commitment of government of this democratic country, who should hold the primary responsibility for the miserable fate of Formosan people? Obviously, Chiang Kai-shek has been functioning as a bargaining tool against Peking, but who does pay the price of this policy? Is to sacrifice for this policy our duty?, or something exactly imposed on us by force completely without the consents of the people? You said that U.S. cannot change its policy towards China because it cannot sacrifice the 12 million people living on Formosa. Is it truly for the good of people of Formosa? If the U.S. policy means to continue to support Chiang Kai-shek representing China, it may be true for only the illegal interests of a minority of privileged elements in the Chiang Kai-shek's clique. How do you think about the remaining 10 million native Formosan people whose future and rights have been totally denied? Have not them already been sacrificed? The fact indicates that all the people living on Formosa including those oppressed native Formosans and many liberal Chinese, are strongly dissatisfied with and suffering from the maintenance of status quo. The severe deprivation of fundamental human rights, secret police, concentration camps, and tortures, by the name of anti-Communism merely increase the effects of Communist propaganda and confirm its accusations. Please let us know whether the administration of this government realizes the seriousness of this reality. Really, we wonder whether the non-recognition of China can be a right cause to keep on the supporting of Chiang Kai-shek.
Formosa for Formosans
To recognize China or not is up to the decision of your government. Nevertheless, the issue of China and the solution of Formosan problem should be definitely separated. We think that Formosa should no more be used to prevent China from the acquisition of her status. It is a fact that there is only one China no matter whether its government is worthy to be recognized or not. Formosa belongs to Formosans. We refuse to be utilized as an "Artificial China" or "Created China" in this ridiculous political myth.
We call for your and your government's attention to the will of Formosan people on the basis of principle of national self-determination. Our people's proper interests have been too long ignored. Risking to be the friend of the enemy of people is risking to lose the hearts of the people. For the long-term interest of the U.S.; the feeling of the Formosan people in its reaction to the immoral power politics should be scrititized.
US should split
Finally, we do believe that if the U.S. government is truly searching for alternatives out of its China dilemma and wanting to provide for a free and democratic society in Formosa in accordance with the principles that traditionally underlie the foundation of this country, it must immediately stop allying itself with a well-known tyranny falsey named as Chinese government, headed by an old man of inability who has been driven out from China by the Chinese people 18 years ago. This government is founded on no Chinese territory at all besides two tiny so called off-shore islands, Quemoy and Matzu, where the lives of Formosan youth are coercively sacrificed on the alter of an ugly political drama of this century.
Excuse us for bothering you so much. The love for our nation urges us to write this letter. Your answer would be highly appreciated.
A group of Formosan students at KU
Daily Kansan editorial page Wednesday, February 22, 1967
UDK review— Tolkien lives!
By SCOTT NUNLEY
Editor's note - This is the first of a two-part review on the works of J. R. R. Tolkien, author of "The Hobbit," "The Lord of the Rings" and "The Tolkien Reader."
Hobbitism is becoming an increasingly popular movement on college campuses everywhere, and the Kansan would like to introduce its readers to Tolkien and his books, or for those fortunate enough to have some acquaintance with Frodo and friends already, to renew an old friendship.
This first part will deal with the newest book "The Tolkien Reader," and set the stage for the concluding part, a review of "The Lord of the Rings."
Old Tom Bombadil was a merry fellow:
bright blue his jacket was and his boots were yellow. green were his girdle and his breeches all of leather; he wore in his tall hat a swan-wing feather.
"The Adventures of Tom Bombadil"
The fantasy of J. R. R. Tolkien, like the singing of old Tom Bombadil, charms the ears and minds of all who listen. On many American campuses, Tolkien novels have assumed the momentary popularity of a fad. "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings" are above fads; they will be the fantasy classic of the century.
The latest volume to appear in the Tolkien canon is Ballantine's paperback "The Tolkien Reader." Here are collected two essays (one on Tolkein and one by Tolkein), two stories, a short drama, and poetry. The 16 poems, collected as "The Adventures of Tom Bombadil," will not earn Tolkein a rest in Westminster; but they sing lightly and evoke the world of the earlier novels.
THE LONGEST PIECE in the "Reader," the story "Farmer Giles of Ham," adds a lovable uncourtly hero and an unlovable courtly dragon to the annals of children's literature. Adults will find "Farmer Giles" sprightly, comic, and a bit satiric.
Tolkien's fantasy world was first introduced to the readers of Britain in "The Hobbit" (1937)—an era prior to man's recorded history with a geography and history of its own. Here in "Middle Earth" live creatures now virtually vanished; elves of noble stature and "bright eyes." stocky dwarves with streaks of greed and stubbornness, men new to the scheme of things, and furry-footed hobbits who live in comfortable burrows.
Tolkein begins to draw his stories from the ancient "Red Book of Westmarch" at the interlude between two great wars. Most hobbits remain within their Shire, having forgotten the previous war and never dreaming of a second. They cultivate tastes for food, tobacco, and poetry and seem extremely reasonable people.
THE HOBBIT WORLD, however, is an artificial Eden silently guarded by a race of human kings. When Bilbo Baggins ventures to recover a golden treasure, he experiences the real world beyond the Shire. Faced with hardship and evil, small Bilbo develops depths of edurance and courage he never suspected.
The author who recounts the history of Middle Earth is almost as remarkable as his creations. J. R. R. Tolkien was first respected for his scholarship, particularly in Old and Middle English literature and language. The combination of this scholarly training with fine talent for prose fantasy is a unique gift that Tolkien readers receive generously.
The vision of the Tolkien novels is vast, capable of enclosing new ages and lands. Tolkien's setting is particular and believable, his characters rich and alive, his prose simple and swift. Behind the narratives lie themes of universal weight, the presence of evil, the need for courage, the danger of hate and the strength of love.
Tolkien has succeeded in creating an era that lives in its own right, but that also exists as an analog to the present. The condition of the contemporary world is not alien to that of Middle Earth. The questions remain: can I hide? how can I know evil? is it worthwhile if I act? These questions have been answered in all ages; but when men forget the old lessons, Tolkien says, they must be asked again.
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. Students receive a $400 postage paid at Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays. University holidays and examination periods Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised in the University 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
Managing Editor
Business Editors
Editorial Editors
Joan McCabe
Dan Austin, Barb Phillips