Page 2
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Friday, May 3, 1968
Rocky is welcome
After months of waiting and an agonizing silence, it finally happened. Rocky will run.
Only 40 days ago, Rockefeller announced he would not actively seek the candidacy, but would be available for a draft.
However, Rockefeller said that he is "deeply disturbed" by the course of events of the last few weeks—growing unrest and anxiety at home, and the signs of disintegration abroad.
Rockefeller is a welcome addition to the Republican race—a race which until now was no contest with Richard Nixon as the undisputed candidate.
Many Republicans who cannot stomach Nixon's hawkish position on Vietnam, his conservative policies, or his personal demeanor will find Rocky an attractive candidate indeed.
What Rocky's decision to run will mean to the Democrats is unknown; but if Rocky wins the nomination, chances are they cannot count
on the mass defection of disgruntled liberal Re-
publicans to vote Democratic in November.
Rocky, as recent Gallup polls show, is perhaps the only Republican who could beat the Democrats in November. But, Rocky might have as much trouble rounding up the party's stalwarts' support in November as Nixon has gaining the support of the electorate.
Judging from the unprecedented developments on the political scene during the last few months (i.e. Johnson's non-candidacy, Humphrey and Kennedy's entrance and McCarthy's surprising support), this year will be an impossible one to outguess.
But, one can safely say the conventions in Miami and Chicago promise excitement, and a real discussion of the issues so vital to Americans today.
— Diane Wengler Editorial Editor
Letters to the editor
On Salsich and military
To the Editor:
An open letter to Dean Heller and Professor Maher—
This letter like the one of Mr. Maher is prompted by the recent discussion concerning the presence of the military on campus in the forms of ROTC and military recruiters. These issues do raise fundamental questions about not only the university as an institution but also the ground upon which this or any other democratic society is built. Specifically these issues concern the freedom of choice, speech and expression of one's own ideas.
Given that the university is devoted to education then as Mr. Maher maintains a student should be free to enter into discussions of all aspects of any issue he chooses to take sides. In a world where education has become most important one cannot and should not remain apolitical to the issues that concern him and his future within society. It is in this capacity and only this capacity that the university as an educational institution should provide the student with the knowledge, desire and opportunity to choose his side of ANY issue.
It does seem to follow from this line of argument that the university is and should be devoted to the free exchange of ideas. However, when we speak of a free exchange of ideas we mean just exactly that, a free exchange of ideas, all ideas regardless of whether they may clash with our own. Any suppression of such ideas would be merely a defeat of the ideals of free choice. It is in this manner that the university does, as Mr. Maher claims, play an important part in helping to maintain an open society where ALL ideas may be openly discussed, questioned and decided upon.
It would also follow that only an open arena where opposing ideas may be expressed can uphold the ideals of freedom and democracy. Now it would seem that any condition which does inhibit the free flow of ALL ideas would be completely stacking the cards in its favor and completely destroying this arena of public discussion. However, not only will it be destroying the chance for opposing views to be presented, it will also be setting a precedent for its own views to be suppressed should another group of more powerful and opposing interests arise. In a political system where so much is legislated and judiciated on the basis of precedent it would seem that such actions on the part of any group would be not only suicidal but also a blatant disregard for the ideals of freedom and democracy.
This it would seem is what is being done by those who are for banning of the military i.e. ROTC and recruiting, on the campus. They are in essence opting for legislation which would destroy
the very freedom for which they are fighting.
If there is to be such a thing as freedom of choice and expression of ideas then it would seem logical to follow that all sides must be recognized and given the chance to express their beliefs and freedom of choice regardless of whether this expression offends the beliefs of another group so long as this expression did not interfere with the freedom of others. If the university is to maintain its position as described above it must keep the arena of public discussion open—encouraging its students to take sides instead of seeking to destroy those ideas which are contrary to it.
If the university or any such organization is given the power to suppress or ban the beliefs of one group merely because they conflict with those of another then that university and that group which opts for such suppression does not deserve to be placed on the same plane with democratic institutions.
For when the free expression of one's beliefs, whether they be anti-draft, anti-war or pro-draft or pro-war, cannot be carried out as set forth in the constitution and Bill of Rights then democracy and freedom mean nothing.
William W. Weaver
St. Louis, Mo., senio
✩ ✩ ✩
To the Editor:
Friday, April 26, 1968's article on Hamilton Salsich's position (?) in this university puzzles me. As far as this student is concerned, it is a teacher's prerogative to pass or fail or grade students accordingly, by their own peculiar systems in their particular subjects. It is nobody's business whether Mr. Salsich passes or fails one of his students on whatever grounds, as long as student and teacher understand each other. It is also nobody's business as to how what is to be taught is taught.
Because conditions exist does not necessarily give those conditions sway over a man's actions and thoughts. He does not have to accept what is. He may, if he wishes, try to change those conditions. This principle applies to all segments of our society, whether I decide I don't like my skirts an inch below my knee cap and decide to hem them up, or whether a teacher decides he doesn't like the way he was taught to teach class and decides to try something new and different, or whether a senator decides he doesn't like a law on the books and decides to try to repeal it. It is every individual's right, if he so chooses to take a public stand on issues meaningful to him, without fear of retribution in the form of being sacked from his job. However, social retribution in the form of disagreement voiced by ones colleagues is a risk everyone
of us runs every time we open our mouths.
The draft and the war are apparently very important to Mr. Salsich, so much so that he has actively taken a stand. Those who disagree with him are, in turn, free to take their stand and act in opposition to him. Orderly dissent is a healthy sign of life in our society. Mr. Salsich's ideas and actions are those characteristic of dissent. He is not a threat to life and limb and mind. He is a fairly sane and educated man, a teacher. He is one man who has spoken out. Where is the danger in hearing him and letting him demonstrate his thoughts through his profession?
His words and actions may, it is true, influence others, and these others may join with him and they may become large enough to constitute a majority of those in power, but this is as things should be. Then and only then can they exert enough power to change existing conditions; then and only then should they be able to have the power to change existing conditions. To the people in power now, the administration, I would ask you one question: Who are you but a group of men, who believe in certain ideas, acted accordingly, built your numbers and your strength and gained the power of the position you have today? Remember, Hamilton Salsich is one of you. Dissent causes change, but change is not always destructive.
And you, Mr. Salsich, are just as fallible as the people of the administration.
As to the letter sent to the Chancellor published in Monday's (April 29) Kansan, it is self-defeating, on both sides to demand certain things one from the other. Why not talk together as educators, instead of students vs. administration.
It is possible, you know, that you could be a little off the track in some instances. Talk with those in power, not at them. Remember, you are one of them.
Trilla Reagor
Bartlesville, Okla., sophomore
Best sellers
MYRA BRECKENRIDGE-
Fiction
Gore Vidal
AIRPORT—Arthur Hailey
VANISHED—Fletcher Knebel
THE TOWER OF BABEL
Morris L. West
TOPAZ—Leon Uris
THE CONFESSIONS OF NAT
TURNER—William Styron
CHRISTY—Catherine Marshall
COUPLES—John Updike
THE PRESIDENT'S PLANE IS
MISSING - Robert J. Sering
ENDLESS NIGHT - Agatha
CHRISTIE THE EXHIBITIONIST-
EXHIBITIONIST
Henry Sutton
"I don't understand what's keeping them. . . . Ho was quite specific when he suggested us coming here!"
Kansan movie review
'Scalp' isn't hairy
Bv Scott Nunlev
If you get your kicks from 90 minutes of Telly Savalas spitting, I've got just the show for you: "The Scalp Hunters."
Of course, I sympathize with Telly—this film has such a bad taste about it that spitting is the least of my impulses. It was sad enough when John Wayne gave up The Old West for the assinine "comedies" that followed "North to Alaska." But to pursue the inantics of Burt Lancaster plodding through the same pattern is truly retched.
It's just possible that Lancaster, left alone, might have been able to produce a one-man comedy with some bite. The disgusted style in which he tells his horse "You ain't never had a good idea!" or his Negro co-star "You could fall in a hogpen and come up vice-president of the hogs!" provides the film's few lively moments.
James Coburn, however, did the Western one-liners with much more spirit in his tepid "Waterhole No. Three."
"The Scalp Hunters" cruelest cut is to aging mistress Shelley Winters. If I choose to remember the successful way in which she threw all that flesh at Michael Caine in "Alfie," the kindest comment I could make about this role is that they spared her as many closeups as possible.
Perhaps you might enjoy trying to identify the origins of the various set pieces that director Sydney Pollack patched together for this epic. The "Great Mud Fight"—dedicated to the American fable that two (or more) grown men can bust the hell out of each other for ten minutes without acquiring more than a sore mandible—we recognize most obviously from "North to Alaska." (See how many more you can isolate for yourself—)
After a fascinating opening of tinted stills photographed to resemble rough sketches, the photography of "The Scalp Hunters" drops completely from Pollack's control. Dull shots plod scintillatingly after one another while the panaramic sweep of that famous unpaired desert lulls your optic fibers. The water-level camerawork of one scene might have been interesting, if inept cutting had not exposed the glass barrier used to protect the equipment.
Even the moral is vapid. Ossie Davis' role as a fugitive slave must have been written with one eye on Stephen Fetchit and another on Ivan Dixon. With all the power of great insight, we learn that any Negro can become A Man if he only breaks enough jaws. Yassuh, boss, I hears ya.
I passed a ten-year-old enthusiast leaving the scene, hearing him remark to his father: "Gaw, Dad, that was a GREAT movie!" Gaw, yes, Dad. Gaw.
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
Assistant Managing Editors
Rich Lovett, John Marshall,
Tim Jones, Monte Mace, Allen Winchester
City Editor
Janet Snyder, Bec Wilson
Assistant City Editors
Editorial Editor
Diane Wengler
Assistant Editorial Editors
John Hill, Don Walker
Sports Editor
Steve Morgan
Assistant Sports Editor
Judy Dague
Photo Editor
Mohamed Behavrav
Feature and Society Editor
Beth Gaedert
Assistant Feature and Society Editor
Jon Vaillandre
Copy Desk Chiefs
Chip Rouse, Charla Jenkins, Crawford
Advertising Manager Roger Myers
National Advertising Manager David Clutter
Classified Advertising Manager David Clutter
Promotion Manager Michael Pretzer
Production Manager Joel Mason
Circulation Manager Charles Goodsell