2
KAMPER KANSAN
Friday, July 19, 1968
Fight vs. vote argued
The statement "If you're old enough to fight, you're old enough to vote" is over-used, over-emphasized, and over-rated. It is almost the only argument given from those who are for the voting age being lowered. That, and "It will increase the electorate by 10 million."
To sum up the opposite argument, 18-year-olds are not ready to vote. They haven't the knowledge, experience or maturity of those who are 21.
Someone who is 18 has the physical ability to shoulder a gun and march as many miles as an adult. But the mental and emotional stability is not the same. Even the Army recognizes this, and new recruits are never given positions of decision.
President Johnson said in his message for lowering the voting age, "... time has affected the wisdom and the right of these decisions. ... Time, too, has already affirmed the wisdom and justice of our continuing efforts."
From the time someone is born in the United States of America he enjoys his rights of liberty. He should be willing to physically protect those liberties be he 18, 21, or 45.
Time is exactly what is needed. Time to learn, time to experience, time to experiment.
time to taste. At 18 one has just left the shelter of his home and the instructions of his family. If he were to vote then, his vote would be written for the candidate and terms heard at home.
It is the college students who are exposed to the radicals and speakers for the New Left, the New Right, Nazism, and other extremes. The reason is simply because these students haven't their own concrete ideas yet. Their minds are open for suggestions. They are listening and waiting for something that sounds good.
Too often they are overcome with the idea of being on their own and in order to prove they are mature, their decisions are hasty and to the extreme. Too often their opinions change. Too often they are swayed.
Maturity doesn't appear all of a sudden at 21. But it can be gained and approached through those three years after one is on his own and exposed to the bare facts of life in the world around him.
Granted, some 18-year-olds are ready to vote. Some who are 21 aren't. It is impossible to have each voter take a test on maturity. Why not be safe and keep the voting age at 21? That would be better than the majority of those 10 million voting irrationally.
—Heather McNeil
'Bird of youth' should fly to polls
Does killing for your country make you an adult? Or does legally being able to go out on a binge and drink as much beer as you are physically able make you mature? Or is it on the big night of graduation that you suddenly turn, overnight, from child to man?
Affirmative answers to these questions seem to be the basis for the side that wishes the voting age be lowered to 18. They feel the popular, if rusty saying, "If you are old enough to die for your country you are old enough to vote." should be upheld.
What people cannot understand is that growing up is a slow process. When young people graduate from high school they are essentially on their own for the first time in their lives, especially when they go off to college and to jobs. This is the first time they are able to get their own ideas about things and are able to influence themselves instead of having others influence them.
During the time between 18 and 21, young people are learning and forming their own opinions, and at 21 they are ready to voice those opinions as their own, not just as words someone else has told them all their lives.
Another argument for lowering the age limit is the fact that people are better educated today at 18 than previous generations have ever been. Therefore, since they know more, young people should be allowed to vote at an earlier age than were their parents. What isn't brought to light is that there is much more to learn today than previously, so proportionately the same amount of learning is being accomplished.
Besides, if the younger generation knows so much about everything at 18, then just think how much they are going to be able to learn in three years since their minds are able to consume so much more than any minds in previous generations.
In some courts, 18-year-olds are treated as adults and are given adult pusillments, but does this mean that because a person has the mind to commit a crime terrible enough to have come before a court when just 18, that this mind is capable of voting for people to run the lives and beings of others?
In the Jewish religion a boy is officially declared an adult at the age of 12. Yet certainly he is not able to sensibly vote at this age. He may be an adult in the official record but he is still just a young boy, continually learning.
In this same way, when a young person graduates from high school, or can legally drink beer, or has to go to fight for his country, he is in the stage where society says he is an adult. But in his own mind, is he an adult? Has he learned how to make decisions for himself and be able to act on them maturely? Or must he have time before he can logically re-arrange things in his mind and come up with what he thinks about things? This is the question that the 18-year-old must decide and face up to today.
—Maureen Downey
kamper kansan
The opinions expressed in the editorial columns are those of the editorial staff of the newspaper. Guest editorial views are not necessarily those of the editorial staff. Any opinions expressed in the Kamper Kansan are not necessarily those of the Midwestern Music and Art Camp or the University of Kansas
Rees Roderek, Sue Bunge, Janet Wysocki, Pat Ashford, Patricia Baser, Beth Cherry, Janet Domowitz, Chris Hass, Demity Herber, Ann Nore, Emily Rudin, Mary Scott, Howard Stephan, Steven Walker and Joe Weinie
The Kamer Kansan, camp newspaper at the Midwestern Music and Art Camp in Chicago. It is open on Fridays. It is written by members of the Journalism Division of the Camp.
Accommodations, goods, and employment offered in the Kamper Kanan are offered to students without regard to color, creed, or national origin.
Executive Staff
Photography Bill Seymour
Adviser Robert Stevens
Editor in Chief Dan Shirey
News Editor Nan Dunker
Editorial Editor Janet Migdow
Feature Editor Mary Hanks
Sports Editor Chuck Stokes
Photo Editor Bill Jeffries
Bees Boderick, Sue Burge, Janet Wysocki Pat Abbord
Adolescent adult-no vote
The adolescent adult. The world has many of them today. The men and women who just never grew up.
Many teenagers are more mature than their elders. So when it comes to the question of lowering the voting age to 18, the pros seem to have a sound basis for argument. Many people also feel that if the sons of America serve their country and give their lives in combat, they should have a voice in the government.
And is not the 18-year-old today more mature than his father was at his age? Yes, society has matured the child and formed him to become a part of the adult world faster than ever before.
With a nation of half the population under 25, it seems only logical that the voting age should be arranged so the half under 25 has as much to say as the other half. These are a few of the pro arguments.
The other side of the picture is a strong one too, though it seems the arguments for the cons are not quite so numerous. Though many of the 18-year-olds of today are mature beyond their years, the majority, it seems, are not ready to take on the responsibility of voting.
Many of the young people supporting presidential candidates have no idea what the convictions of that candidate are. A majority of these young people
are just entering college and are for the first time finding out that life is not what it seemed from their sheltered high school years. They will learn too soon that the yellow brick road is not quite so yellow.
After viewing the unrest in our nation, and seeing the
average 18-year-old barely knows himself, the contention that the lowering of the voting age would be a mistake seems agreeable. If the voting age is lowered, I can say I will not take advantage of that privilege.
-Kelly Slaughter
To drip or not to drip
Once upon a time in the far off land of the Midwestern Music and Art Camp, there lived some 2100 campers who walked around campus with chapped hands. This outbreak of chapped hands was due to the fact that there weren't any paper towels in the dormitory washrooms.
Cases of chapped hands prevented music people from practicing their instruments because of a tightening of the fingers; journalism campers were unable to type; art students were unable to create their masterpieces; and so on down the line it went.
True to human form, the band campers had very lax memories. They forgot to carry towels with them every time they wanted to wash and DRY their hands. Up and down the halls they ran, arms extended, water dripping to the floor.
Methods of drying their hands had to be invented. Campers took to walking around with wet wets and thighs because shorts are as
good as any towel, aren't they? Groups of campers seemed to be doing tribal dances while waving and shaking their hands above their heads.
The situation grew so bad that the campers started to complain. They wanted paper towels in their washrooms.
As a result of the complaints, some checking was done and it was found out that no provisions had been made by the camp administration to supply the washrooms with paper towels.
There is only one week left in camp. It is not likely there will be paper towels supplied before the time we leave, but next year . . .
Wouldn't it be nice if as a going away present from the 1968 campers provisions were made with housing by the camp administration to supply washrooms with paper towels? Or at least a good hand cream?
— Janet Wysocki
Sirs:
Letters to the editor
I would like to write this letter in response to the letter written in the July 12, 1968, issue of the Kamper Kansan. Although I can agree with some of the ideas presented, I would like to refute the logic and some of the demands made by the 50 campers who signed it.
First of all, in reference to the smoking incident in Murphy Hall, I would like to say, of course teenagers are living, thinking people but legally they are minors until they are 18.
What this means in essence is that the University of Kansas could be arrested for contributing to the delinquency of a minor if they allowed teens to smoke in Murphy Hall. Technically it also means a teenager could be arrested for even having possession of cigarettes because by law they are not allowed to buy them.
Secondly, the logic the 50 signers used to justify smoking in the building was not very reasonable. They said, "Anyone who has been in Murphy has surely noticed the many ashtrays sitting in the halls, and we are sure that these ashtrays are meant to be used by people. Are campers not people?"
This could be true in some cases but it must be remembered that for 9 months out of twelve, college students are the people who use these ashtrays and the majority of college students are over 18. The majority of campers are not over 18 and are therefore not the people intended to use the ashtrays.
The signers went on to say in their letter, "We certainly have enough sense to know when to go to bed." Maybe those who signed the letter know when to go to bed, but again it must be realized that there are some campers who by their previous actions have proved they can't be trusted with a can of shaving cream, let alone to be trusted as to when they should go to bed.
I do not intend to disagree with every point made in the letter but I do feel that to present a logical criticism one must give a logical reason for change and also offer an alternate plan that would work more effectively. I think the 50 campers who signed the letter failed to take this into consideration.
Jerry Brown, Music Division