Page 2
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Thursday, May 9, 1968
Nelson Rockefeller a protean candidate
In his first major foreign policy address, New York governor and Republican presidential aspirant Nelson Rockefeller, called for a reversal of the "Americanization" of the Vietnam War and the convening of a council of Asian nations to work for economic progress and political stability there.
"Our strategy must reflect the fact that the essential issue is the security of the population rather than control of territory," Gov. Rockefeller said. "To this purpose, military escalation in the North is no answer."
Rockefeller's Vietnam strategy largely mirrors that of the war's most distinguished critic, John Kenneth Galbraith, whose thesis is lucidly and dispassionately couched in his little best-seller entitled, "How To Get Out of Vietnam."
Like Galbraith, Rockefeller believes "we should accept in South Vietnam's political life any group that seeks its objectives through the political process, rather than by wrecking it by force or subversion."
Rockefeller's candidacy thus fills a void for millions of liberal and moderate Republican voters who, unlike the GOP hierarchy, despair of being shackled with Richard Nixon, an apparent hawk in a society increasingly disillusioned with war. Rockefeller's declaration that "I do not believe that this time of renewed hope is a time to stand in silence" was welcomed by voters apprehensive at Nixon's silence on the specifics of his Vietnam solution, a silence defended by Nixon as necessary to facilitate the U.S.-North Vietnamese peace talks scheduled to begin tomorrow in Paris.
Moreover, Rockefeller believes the Vietnam settlement must be achieved in the context of world relations—a context he hopes will include Communist China in close contact and communication with the United States.
Rockefeller's progressive world view certainly is not inconsistent with his record. The governor's competence in handling crucial domestic affairs is unparalleled. In New York State, he has built an enormous state university system, and he has channeled astronomical sums of money into the state's plagued cities for the development and implementation of countermeasures to the urban specters of air and water pollution and traffic congestion.
Rookefeller's administrative sophistication—a concomitant of his thoroughgoing knowledge of domestic problems—coupled with the enlightened and progressive view he has chosen to adopt of America vis-a-vis the communist and third worlds, then, makes him presidential timber without par in the GOP. The delegates at Miami hopefully will see fit to update the GOP ticket accordingly.
— Diane Wengler
Editorial Editor
Don Walker
Assistant Editorial Editor
Letters to the editor:
Of McCarthy and pass-fail
To the Editor:
Mr. Mata's proposal that Senator McCarthy renounce his candidacy in order to unite the peace movement seems ill-considered When Senator McCarthy decided to seek the nomination back in November of 1967, he explained his decision in the following terms: "My hope is that my challenge may alleviate the sense of helplessness and restore to many people a belief in the processes of American politics and American government." At that time, antiwar sentiment was pretty much confined to a few segments of society—students, the press, the clergy, intellectuals, and the civil rights movement. The events since that time—McCarthy's victories in New Hampshire and Wisconsin and President Johnson's decision to withdraw from the presidential race—can leave only the most cynical unimpressed with the ability of a democracy to respond in times of crisis.
This is not to suggest that the success of Senator McCarthy's campaign ever was, or is now, assured simply by his being in the race. Without the active support of thousands of college students around the nation who have been willing to sacrifice everything from grades to long hair, the campaign would not have stood much chance against the power of an incumbent President.
It would scarcely be consistent with the character of Senator McCarthy now to turn his back on those who have worked to help bring his campaign this far and to degrade the concept of democracy by fleeing from the specter of Johnson's ghost.
This is no time for complacency on the part of those who support the cause of peace, but neither must we become so frantic that we lose sight of the value of a reasoned dialogue on the issues which confront the nation today.
Jack Weeks
Chairman,
KU for Alternatives
To the Editor:
I would like to comment on Kris Mazure's letter of May 2 concerning the recently passed limited pass-fail system. The crux of the matter, I think, is to be found in the statements of the letter that:
(1) under the new system, students will say, "Why work harder than anyone else? It doesn't pay"; and (2) under the new system, students will be "just studying enough to get past the fail level in a course."
Learning, I would maintain, is not a four-year competition with rivals; with grades as trophies; rather, it is a life-long search with friends, with depth of understanding and personal productiveness as constant goals. Certainly one learns by "work and intellectual effort"; but I wonder at the mentality by which it is concluded that "work and intellectual effort" extrinsically motivated yield learning of any intrinsic worth.
For those students who would react as in (1) and (2) above to the new system, I see nothing but failure (not an "F," but failure in learning) under the new system. Many, admittedly, at first will be unable to break out of the competition syndrome which is such an integral part of our "Great Society." Such people certainly must be given an adequate opportunity to learn the new way of learning, to learn that there are more relevant reasons for learning than those offered by the "beat your buddy" system. But must we wallow in the muck of false motivation forever, in fear of the transitional problems of a change for the better?
Such schools as St. John's of Annapolis indicate that systems like pass-fail do not preclude excellence; rather, such systems provide an opportunity for more genuine motivation for excellence.
Don H. Faust Syracuse, N.Y., graduate student
★ ★ ★
To the Editor:
Professor Ellison agrees that the issues involved are worth discussing. I wish he had spent more of his letter discussing them, and less space deriding my word usage. I find it amusing that, while lamenting my use of stereotyped categories, he uses the phrase "the contemporary American left," as if it were all of a piece. It is hard
This is a reply to Professor Elilson's response to my letter to Dean Heller which appeared in the Kansan on April 22.
to stay away from that sort of thing, isn't it? We all have our bugaboos.
While Professor Ellison apparently has no objection to my description of the principles to which a University should be devoted, he objects to my assertion that the presence of the military compromises those principles. This objection is based on our differing attitudes toward the nature of military institutions. He objects to my saying that the military is characterized by blind obedience to authority and suppression of free exchange of ideas. I will still maintain that this is generally true of military institutions. It is curious that the person Professor Ellison selects to refute this idea, General Gavin, has been outspoken against U.S. military policy only since his retirement!
All institutions, even the most totalitarian, produce dissenters; this is no argument for their liberal nature. Treatment of those dissenters tells more about the nature of the institution. The military institutions are intolerant of dissent, as can be attested to by many who have been penalized for speaking or acting against the Vietnam War while still in military service. Recently, an officer was officially reprimanded for taking part in a peace demonstration, even though he was off-duty and out of uniform at the time. I wonder if Professor Ellison really means it when he implies that the military does not hinder a free exchange of ideas.
In a society which is increasingly influenced by the military, my plea is to keep the universities as free from this influence as possible.
Michael Maher
Associate professor of zoology
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.
Please limit length to about 250 words.
Record review
'Fever Tree' blends
By Will Hardesty
The best new group since the start of the school year and the best new album since The Doors' first is FEVER TREE by Fever Tree.
This group is fantastic. Their music has something which will appeal to anyone who likes any kind of rock music. Their sound is entirely original.
The first side of the album is quite an experience. The first three songs blend into each other.
"Imitation Situation 1 (Toccata in Fugue)" starts off very Spanish, with castinets and guitars, and changes into "Fanfare for the Common Man" on the organ, then back into a Spanish ballad (guitars and brass but sung in English), and finally cuts suddenly to a feedback tone which fades, builds, and turns into the melody of the second song.
Fever Tree is a group of five tremendous musicians. Their whole album is intriguing because of its sound, its musical complexity, the transitions from one type of music to another, and the number of different sounds.
"Where Do You Go?" gives the first hint of the group's rock capability. This group uses feedback as an accompaniment or to carry the melody with equal case. It sounds more like an organ than the wailing, screeching feedback some groups use.
Each song sounds different from every other, yet they all seem tied together by their mystic, somewhat Oriental or Indian sound.
Fever Tree changes from one sound to another so easily it is amazing. In "Return of the Native"—a beautiful ballad—"Fanfare" opens the song accompanied by flute, bells, cymbals and bass. This sound distills into hard rock with a feedback melody accompanied by harpsichord and tympani and returns to the original form again.
The second band on side two starts out with a Bach two-part ditty on harpsichord which gradually turns into "Day Tripper/We Can Work It Out."
The second side has no electronics. Only the bass is electrified. The rest of the instrumentation is strings, brass, piano, percussion and harpsichord.
This may be one of the first uses of hard rock orchestra. "Day Tripper," obviously a rock number, certainly doesn't fit the "typical" rock sound or instrumentation.
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.
"TRANSIENTS"