Page 2
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Monday, May 6, 1968
Action at last!
The plan to form a 12-member committee to work out ways to give students voting representatives in the University Senate is a welcome sign of constructive action after weeks of haggling.
But it should have been proposed without threats from student activists.
It is, indeed, unfortunate the All-Student Council, supposedly the student governing body, had to be cornered into acting on a plan ultimately to uphold its apparent purpose.
First, we are convinced that Ambrose Saricks, chairman of the Senate executive committee, in his efforts to reorganize what he termed the heretofore ineffective University Senate, is to be commended for envisioning the workable plan that was presented Sunday night.
But we also contend that the lack of earlier consideration of such a move has led to the building up of much animosity among certain minority activist elements. The failure of student governmental processes is apparent in the recent student protest.
One lamentable aspect of the whole situation is that the ASC has been beaten to the draw again. It is too bad other groups such as "Voice" must form to point out to the administration the fact that the ASC either overlooks things or throws them into committees which debate issues but rarely act. Why must the ASC need a
kick in the pants from activist groups to pass resolutions and bills?
Saricks in his Sunday night remarks said there must be a reorganization of the ASC and the Senate if the student voice is to be effective. This is now more evident than ever. If the ASC were concerned with speeding up the processes of government, why didn't it consider the veto bill without having to table it one week? In light of student interest, the bill should have been dealt with immediately.
Chancellor Wescoe has said he has used his veto power in only four instances, and apparently wisely. However, the power remains to render the ASC virtually impotent. For this reason, he should retain his veto only on legal matters, and the ASC should pass the bill which would allow for a referendum on non-legal matters.
The matter of student voice now appears to be in the hands of the 12-man faculty-student committee. The students have given them their trust to work out effective student representation and we trust the Senate will accept the committee's recommendations.
In all honesty, it's only a start and much more will be involved, but the system appears to be changing from within the existing structure—where it should.
— Diane Wengler Editorial Editor
Rockefeller-Hatfield hope for GOP in '68?
When Richard Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960, then-Oregon governor and now-U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield, Nixon's nominator at the convention, shifted his support to Nelson Rockefeller and looked forward to 1964. Hatfield had good reason to be enthusiastic about the convention in San Francisco, for talk had it that he would make a good vice-presidential candidate if Rockefeller headed the ticket. At it was, Hatfield grudingly supported Barry Goldwater and Rockefeller remained silent.
Moderate Republicanism has since regained respectability, and it has no more respected
ened view that America's role in the world must be one of example and not policeman. Rockefeller displayed an awareness of what Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright calls "old myths and new realities."
Hatfield has been a persistent critic of the war since Johnson's step-up began (Hatfield and George Romney were the only dissenters to Johnson's policy at the Republican governors' conference in 1965). The most junior of U.S. senators—he was elected in 1966—Hatfield has remained reticent on most issues—as a neophyte
Nelson Rockefeller
Mark O. Hatfield
members in its ranks than Rockefeller and Hatfield. They would comprise an outstanding ticket for November.
The two men think alike (the difference being that everyone has known for much longer what has been on the outspoken Hatfield's mind). Last Wednesday in Philadelphia, newly declared candidate for the GOP nomination Rockefeller said in his first major foreign policy speech that the "Americanization" of the Vietnam war must be reversed and an Asian council of nations should be convened to work for economic progress and stability in that area. On foreign policy in general, he said, "We must, before the world at large, offer a cause and a challenge more clearly positive than a mere call to anti-communism."
The New York governor's statements could have been made by any one of that small bipartisan group of U.S. senators and representatives, including Hatfield, which hold the enlight-
senator is expected by his colleagues to do. On Vietnam, however, he long has advocated leaving the dispute to the Asians to settle, recognizing that nationalism, not communism, is the strongest force in Asia.
In view of the 1964 debacle, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. has warned, the Republican party must offer the people a suitable candidate in 1968 or begin its demise. The GOP can redeem itself with a Rockefeller-Hatfield ticket.
— Don Walker Assistant Editorial Editor
Both men are progressives in domestic affairs, and New York and Oregon have prospered under their governorships. Rockefeller hopes for a new emphasis on eliminating poverty and creating equal opportunity, and while Hatfield deems Vietnam the paramount issue, he supports the view that America must clean its own house, hopefully focusing some of its Vietnam-diverted economic power to that end.
The other side of American Gothic
Book review
'Why the Draft?'
By Scott Nunlev
The idea of a volunteer Army, of an end to conscription, has begun to intrigue many Americans. Public appeals for a volunteer military have been issued by such conservative leaders as Missouri Congressman Tom Curtis and such liberal policy groups as The Ripon Society.
Now seven political economists, spawned by the University of Virginia, have published their study entitled "Why the Draft? The Case for a Volunteer Army."
In a paperback edition that is more easily read than exciting to read, editor James Miller collects the arguments against conscription. With great care he studies the opposition to a volunteer military and provides point by point replies.
Draftees bear tax burden
1. "A volunteer army would be far too expensive." But these economists reply that the draft itself is a very expensive "hidden" tax—paid for by the $50% loss of earning power of our young draftees. Forcing the voting taxpayer openly to bear the full cost of military decisions would be more equitable and more thought-provoking.
2. "We tried ending the Draft in 1947, but no one volunteered." But we did not follow through with a policy of upgrading military salaries and working conditions to those of contemporary civilian life. Danger in itself has not deterred our own industrial and construction workers, and military experiences in Britain and Canada have shown that such volunteer armies can be operated.
'Only the poor will fight'
3. "Without conscription we will have only the poor boys fighting a rich man's war." Why, with increased pay and other benefits? Our military could become even more selective of volunteer talent than its growing technology has already forced it to become.
4. "America cannot depend on the whims of volunteers to provide for such heavy commitments as Vietnam." Yes, it may be necessary to utilize the swift manpower supply of the draft during time of large-scale war. But our "normal," peacetime military could easily be supplied by volunteers. (Have there really been only six years of heavy fighting since V-J Day?)
5. "A 'mercenary' army would create a powerful military clique in this country, seeking its own ends." The powerful members of our army—the senior officers—have always been career professionals. Under civilian control, this has never created a crisis for America. Moreover, with young men's lives being paid for at an honest rate (instead of being conscripted for free), the tax-paying civilian public would be more concerned than ever to control errant militarism.
A bipartisan proposal
The most exciting feature behind a volunteer army is the bipartisan nature of the proposal.
To the conservative, a volunteer military seems to be a clear return to historical precedents of American tradition. To the liberal, a volunteer military seems to be a step closer to the American goals of individual conscience and choice.
My own enthusiasm over this current Penguin paperback study should be obvious.
If "Why the Draft?" could be widely read and publicly discussed at KU, the current dialogue on a military presence in our university might profitably add another issue to its debate.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY kansan
Newsroom—UN 4-3646Business Office—UN 4-3198
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except for holidays. Unknown. Published a year later. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without restriction or limitation. Unless necessary those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
Managing Editor—Gary Murrell
Business Manager—Robert Nordyke