2
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Friday, March 15, 1938
An RFK hat in the ring?
One of the most significant results from the New Hampshire primary is the possible emergence of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy as a candidate for the Democratic nomination.
Johnson's empty victory over Minnesota Sen. Eugene McCarthy clearly shows more of a disillusionment with Johnson than actual support for Johnson.
McCarthy, who campaigned on a platform protesting Vietnam policy, was once considered inconsequential by Democratic leaders. But in New Hampshire, McCarthy was the catch-all candidate for those disillusioned with the war, and/or Johnson's domestic program, and/or those just generally anti-Johnson. The result was startling—the near-final count had Johnson leading McCarthy by less than 4,000 votes.
If the other primary results resemble those in New Hampshire, the Democratic party is in real trouble with the American voter.
With the absence of a unifying candidate, the presidency might well go to Nixon, who is in the undisputed lead at the moment. And unless Rockefeller declares his candidacy March 22, Nixon's nomination is certain.
Thus, there is a real need in the Democratic camp for another candidate, and Sen. Kennedy has recognized this. Kennedy said that as a result of the New Hampshire primary, "I am reassessing my position as to whether I'll run against President Johnson."
Kennedy's candidacy would capture the fancy of many voters who remember his brother and who are impressed by his courage to state his position on Vietnam in opposition to Johnson. The Democratic race promises to be exciting.
Diane Wengler Editorial Editor
Letters to the editor
Deferred rush defended
To the Editor:
Lack of communication and subsequent misunderstanding may become a problem for any group. At best, an undercurrent of dissatisfaction is likely to occur. At worst, incorrect information may become widespread. The Feb. 29 publication of Susan Trottman's letter concerning sophomore deferred rush has given rise to circulation of certain misinformation which, for the benefit of those who are interested, I would like to correct.
- The Dean of Women's Office did not "change the rush system." The Panhellenic Association at KU did.
The results of the questionnaire distributed to all sorority members early in 1967 were not only "made public"; each house was to announce the results and discuss them at length. The statistics, working sheets, and records of discussion and voting have been available since that time for anyone interested enough to make an effort to find out what happened.
$\textcircled{4}$ The "general opinion" of "most sorority girls" was not that they "desired to retain the mid-semester rush." The questionaire showed that 80 per cent of sorority members wanted to change from the status quo, which was the semester deferred rush system.
The primary reason for making the change was to take the rushing process out of the academic school year, both to eliminate pressure and interference throughout semesters and to allow students to have a semester break. Realizing that there will be advantages and disadvantages to any system, the membership felt that this advantage of sophomore deferred rush was strong enough to outweigh the disadvantages.
To summarize briefly, the Panhellenic Association consists of all members of KU's 13 sororities. The governing body of Panhellenic is representational, consisting of seven councils, each being composed of one officer from each sorority and headed by one of these officers. The Association operates within a structured decision-making process which was utilized fully in changing the rush system. The Rush Council, acting on the results of the questionnaires, investigated possibilities for change, made their recommendation to the executive body—the Presidents' Council—who
discussed and accepted the proposal by formal voting procedure.
To suggest, therefore, that the dean of women's office issues "dictates" is ludicrous—or isn't it time women students stop hiding behind that excuse?
Barbara Newsom
Wichita junior
Panhellenic president
- * *
To the Editor:
Your double review of Phyllis Schlafly's latest book in the March 4 issue was an excellent example of how to bring out the best in opposing sides of an argument. I heartily agree with Prof. Laird's condemnation of the unrealistic witch-hunting element in the book, but at the same time I value the appeal for improved defenses as noted in Prof. Burgstahler's review.
But we need to strengthen our anti-missile and shelter defenses for different reasons than Mrs. Schlafly invents. The main threat in starting the war would appear now to come from our own side, inasmuch as we are continually goading Russia and China with our every step-up in action in Vietnam, as we seek to fulfill our "commitments" to our own puppets.
My God, Mrs. Schlafly, who needs Communist conspirators to start a war, given all the insanely gambling military and industrial forces running loose around Washington? Has there ever been a more dangerous combination of reaction and recklessness in the history of the world?
Nowhere, I'd guess, unless in the myopic depths of the minds of that part of the American electorate which has been answering the polls and giving Nixon and Johnson first preference for the Presidency. Even conservative Paul Harvey has seen beyond this stupifying error; he wonders now why we can't find a candidate to give us a real choice on Vietnam. For if we don't get that choice, we will certainly need those shelters.
John Chappell
Instructor in Geography
To the Editor:
After reading the article by Blaine King about the movie, "For Pete's Sake," I felt another angle to the story needed to be told.
I have seen "For Pete's Sake" and consider it to be an excellent movie in all respects. Pete Harper
and his family, to quote King, "found God" at a crusade meeting, but this was only the beginning. Their finding of God involved a personal relationship with the person of Jesus Christ. The movie follows not only Pete's life but those of a young minister, some teen-age kids, and Pete's boss and co-workers in the service station as each one comes to realize what this new power in Pete's life is.
Pete's faith in God and his relationship with Jesus Christ are more than fine words or lofty ideals. This relationship becomes the very center of his life. After Pete's wife dies very suddenly, he feels wronged—both by God and man. He finally turns in desperation to God and finds the peace and reason for living that he lacked in himself.
"For Pete's Sake" is a story of a very human person who comes in contact with the person of Jesus Christ and finds in Him all that is necessary for living. Pete is a person who has problems and troubles but he doesn't ignore them. He puts them in God's hands, and expects an answer—and gets one.
Seeing this movie may mean nothing to you, but it changed my life as I saw a person with trials and troubles solve them with the help of God.
I would strongly recommend seeing "For Pete's Sake" to see how one person meets his problems by taking them to God.
Margaret MacDougall
To the Editor:
Prairie Village sophomore
At Mr. Blaine King's suggestion, I saw "For Pete's Sake." Much to my dismay, it didn't feature "God's own snake-oil salesman, Billy Graham." (There were some oil salesmen in the flick; they ran a service station which was the hangout for a bike gang.) Actually, "For Pete's Sake" is just an entertaining movie about warm, funny, inspiring human beings which carries a message about a peaceful way of living.
You seemed to remember "The Restless Ones" rather well. Unable to put it out of your mind? If you would rather not see "For Pete's Sake" since your mind is already cluttered with "The Restless Ones" at least arrange for a legitimate review by the Daily Kansan staff. Both you and "For Pete's Sake" deserve that much.
Martin Grogan Oberlin senior
"And if elected, I will end the war in Korea...er, Vietnam!"
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 them are regard to color, creed or national origin. Our expresses are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
Managing Editor—Gary Murrell
Business Manager—Robert Nordyke
Member Associated Collegiate Press
REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY National Educational Advertising Services A DIVISION OF READER'S DIGEST SALES & SERVICES, ING. 380 Lexington Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017
Editorial essay
New draft policy should be changed
By Thomas W. McKern Department of Anthropology
Eight months ago, President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed into law the 1967 Selective Service Act, which provides in part for the abolition of draft deferments for most graduate students. Appeals from such interested and influential organizations as the Association of Graduate Schools, Council of Graduate Schools, Association of American Universities, and National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges have gone unheeded, and the effects of the new regulations are soon to be felt.
It is time now to register strong individual disapproval of a short-sighted policy which will threaten American research, decimate the supply of future teachers and administrators, and place upon high education a burden the effects of which cannot for years be abated.
This is an election year; it is a time when no public official can afford to ignore the urgent and rationally-expressed concerns of his constituents. It is a time for bringing to bear the full weight of the American voting power.
It is not a time for picket signs, for marches, for shouted recriminations. It is a time for respectful but forceful expression of rational attitudes. It is a time to take to the typewriter and shape a strong appeal to those who would accept the responsibilities of public office: to remind them of the present critical shortage of M.A. and Ph.D. degree-holders in all fields; to point up the fact that the success of our nation, domestically and in competition with other nations, has had its foundation in a system that encouraged the completion of higher studies and the attainment of advanced degrees, and which permitted the possessors of such education to use their talents and skills in teaching and research.
It is time to remind them that it is through the Graduate Program that we derive the services of the personnel—teachers, scientists, humanists, politicians—we so urgently need; that we cannot sustain the loss of these individuals upon whom we will depend so heavily in future years.
It is time to urge a re-evaluation of American draft policy.