Page 2
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Monday, May 13, 1968
Death to lame ducks
The Calendar Committee, appointed by the Chancellor, is now deciding upon the official calendar for 1969-70.
Criticism has been made of the "lame duck" period between the time classes begin in January and until the start of the two week final period a short time later.
The rather ineffective existence of this period of time was under attack even before the two week final period, when it varied from 13 to 20 days, but now it will be between 6 and 13 davs
How much can really be accomplished following a long Christmas break during this time, just before finals?
1. ) Having a four week "lame duck" period of at least four weeks. This would mean that spring semester would last a few weeks longer.
Four alternatives exist to the committee:
2. ) Finals would be over before Christmas vacation begins. Classes would start in mid-August.
3. ) Classes would terminate before vacation and exams begin immediately after. This would involve starting a little earlier and having Christmas vacation the only time to study for exams.
4. ) Retain present lame duck calendar and learn to live with it.
The one now being officially recommended is the third one, with the fourth, leaving things like they are, as the second choice.
This looks like a good improvement, but I would like to suggest an improvement to the improvement. Instead of starting one week early, start two weeks earlier, and toss a week in between the end of Christmas vacation, as a review week, where classes would be held but no tests or papers could occur.
You've still got the problem of the responsible students who will have to spend part of their Christmas vacation gradually,preparing for exams, but the rest of us can cram during the review week, thus making the vacation a vacation instead of a study hall.
If that extra review week sounds a little wasted, compare it to how much studying actually goes on during the present two week final exam period.
Assistant Editorial Editor
John Hill
To send the very best
Rockefeller's wish to use a lottery type of draft system, where at the age 19, each man has the choice to have his name placed in the draft pool for one year either before or after his college education, is one of the best improvements vet.
The main reason that it would be an improvement is that it would take the pressure off; you would know, one way or the other, how your college education would relate to your service obligation.
No doubt, people who are completely opposed to the draft on philosophical reasons will not see this as any improvement; it might appear that you have a choice of whether or not you want to go to college before you die.
Some of the positive bi-products of this system include not having to sweat every hour of every semester with your draft board and the opportunity to go to graduate school.
It is often hard enough now, however, to get a good, career-type job after college when you haven't been in the service, but this would be emphasized when it was time for Your Year to come up, and employers would be even more conscious of this.
This would also take the recently discussed pressure off the faculty in grading students, which could result in their being drafted due to grades.
All in all, it sounds about as good as any idea we have heard to assist a complex, unpopular, and increasing problem of how selective our service should be.
The point about letting graduate students finish up is well taken, especially as phrased by Rockefeller about the campus slogan, "Draft graduate students—care enough to send the very best." John Hill
Assistant Editorial Editor
Horatio on the Bridge
New Paperbacks
The contemporary scene—with one or two exceptions—is the theme of a new batch of paper-backs. A world that seems to be blowing apart surely should be interpreted in the books people read. Here are some of those books.
First is Jonathan Schell'S THE VILLAGE OF BEN SUC (Vintage, $1.65). This one appeared originally in the New Yorker magazine on July 15, 1967, and is a vivid and compelling piece of reporting of the destruction of a South Vietnamese Army by the United States Army. Schell goes on to describe the fate of the 3,500 inhabitants. More than reporting—it may become a powerful bit of propaganda.
Next is John Sparrow's AFTER THE ASSASSINATION: A POSI-
TIVE APPRASIAL OF THE WARREN REPORT (Chilmark/Vintage, $1.25). Imagine. A positive one. Here is a slight volume by a scholar at All Souls College, Oxford University, who concludes from the available evidence that A. Lee Oswald, with no helpers, assassinated the President. The critics of the Warren Report are, in Sparrow's view, "demonologists." Much, that is, like so many people who see a conspiracy in everything.
Plus Che Guevara'sGUERRILLA WARFARE (Vintage, $1.65). In these days of university warfare one almost hates to see this one turned loose, but here it is, kids. The original, The "authorized translation," that is. It has been suggested that all Foreign Service officers should have to read this one.
Letters to the editor
On ASC legislation and the veto power
To the Editor:
First let me identify myself, so you won't have to look at the end of this missive to figure out who is speaking such falderol. My name is Robert Van Cleave and I am the ASC representative from the Law School. Being a second-year law student I have been to this University longer than anyone now serving on the Council, and have "participated" in student politics longer than any ASC representatives. Tuesday night it was I who registered the only dissident voice against the ASC bill which proposes that a veto of the Chancellor, overruled by two-thirds of the All Student Council be submitted to student referendum. Since my remarks on this proposal were repulsed by the Council, here I am to speak what I do now.
First, let me point out that this is probably a superflous motion. The Chancellor has pointed out that he has only used the veto power four times in his eight years, and at these times even the most ardent supporters of the statute would be inclined to agree with his negative vote. Almost certainly at least 1/3 of the Council would agree with him. Also, I do not think the Council as now constituted would pass such a piece of legislation that the Chancellor would annul in the face of the recent progress in student rights. I am writing this Tuesday night (while the matter is fresh in my mind and while my enthusiasm can push我 farther into the light than I am accustomed to being); I am informed by the process in which we vent our personal spasms that this article will no appear until Monday. It may already be perhaps that the Chancellor has already agreed with this bill, and against me.
I only asked for time Tuesday night. My first, and admittedly over-particular objection, was that this provision flaunts the ASC Statutes. Therein it is provided that a bill must be submitted at a "regular" meeting, to be voted on at the next "regular" meeting to become law. This provision in question was proposed at a "special" meeting Sunday night, and passed two days later. If challenged, the Student Court may hold this provision invalid. This argument may be ridiculous to nonlegal minds, but my point is that if they would just wait until next Tuesday, the provision would be clearly valid.
The procedure designated in this ASC Statute obviously was intended to allow time for consideration. The meeting called Sunday night was called surreptitiously; some members were not notified, many members were not there. The President of the Student Body was not even told of the meeting until Sunday morning, I had notice of the meeting from those who were passing out petitions on the lawn of the Union Friday afternoon, which I do not call "legal notice." The provision in our law contemplated a week's consideration. There was only fifty hours.'
From a totally superficial perusal of the Kansas Statutes, it does not seem that this measure goes against any law. I have not found, nor am I aware of any law which specifically refers to the ASC or to any student group, much less the Chancellor's veto thereover. Yet the policy of the law of our State legally is to constitute the Chancellor of this University as
its head, and responsible for the actions of the University and of its students. He is chosen by the Board of Regents and may be relieved of his duties by that group, not by two-thirds of the Student Council, or of a majority of their "constituents."
Secondly as to this, the policy of the ASC in passing the recent bill on election procedure was to limit the number of times the student was to go to vote. As one of my fellow council members put it, at least part of the purpose of this was to limit two "absurdities" to only one. But yet, we vote here to have further student elections upon the desire of two-thirds of the council. Almost every election we pass upon amendments to our Constitution along with the candidates presented, and the turnout is disgustingly low, and rapidly decreasing. But it again may be argued that a really cogent issue would bring the students out in "droves"—a trite word used often in this setting. But what would such an issue be? Free love, beer on campus, LSD or draft card burning? I am told that the first three may easily be obtained, not far from campus and are not therefore controversial. Further, I am told, that the last of these is entirely constitutional and cannot be punished, and declining in news worthiness anyway.
Finally, the argument is brought up quite directly that if we do not enact such measures, the campus will be picketed, rioting will occur, there will be burnings, the Marines will be called out (not just the National Guard), and some of our administrators will be tacked to a bulletin board in front of Strong Hall by the ASC as a sign of placation. First, let me
say that if there are any burnings, such pyromania directed at the structure of Green Hall will find pleasure in the hearts of some, and wouldn't be a difficult task at all.
However, I do not think such things will occur. I don't think this is the mood of the student body; I don't think the majority of us will allow such things. But primarily, we must recognize that the leaders of the student "Voice" are reasonable men and will not permit flagrant violations of law and order. They have shown that they will !listen to reason, and I hope that they will be listening to this (one man's) reason, although none may call it that.
Robert Van Cleave
Robert Van Cleave Kansas City graduate student
Letters Policy
The University Daily Kansan encourages signed letters to the editor for publication. They should be typed and contain the writer's classification and home town. Letters are subject to conservative editing by the Kansan staff. Libelous statements will not be printed. Send letters to the editorial desk, 112 Flint Hall.
Paul Goodman has been at it again, and Vintage ($1.95) has issued his double volume, PEOPLE OR PERSONNEL and LIKE A CONQUERED PROVINCE. There also are several essays that have not appeared in book form. The wrongness of American society continues to be Goodman's theme, and these books are likely to make him even more the special guru of many in our academy community. Goodman is a critic who is very often right, though one wonders how his ideal world could ever be implemented.
Robert Lekachman'S THE AGE OF KEYNES (Vintage, $2.45) is a work that presents the thinking of the economist who already seems in a historic class with Adam Smith. The author presents both the man himself and his influential economic theory.
Finally there are William M. Hoffman's edited volume, NEW AMERICAN PLAYS, Vol. 2 (Mermaid Dramabooks, $1.95) and Swinburne's SELECTED POETRY AND PROSE (Modern Library hardback, $2.45). The Swinburne volume may be added to previous distinguished poetry anthologies in the Modern Library line. There are eight plays in the drama volume, by names you're not likely to recognize—but oh well, here they are: Rochelle Owens, Venable Herndon, Jean Raymond Maljean, Josef Bush, Ursule Molinaro, James Paul Dey, Tom Eyen and Adrienne Kennedy.
Newsroom—UN 4-3646 Business Office—UN 4-3198
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 a semester, $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
Managing Editor—Gary Murrell Business Manager—Robert Nordyke