Page 2
University Daily Kansan
Tuesday, May 1, 1962
Economic Illiteracy
The proposal of the committee for Economic Development (CED) for teaching economics in grade and high schools is allied with a task force report last fall on what should and could be taught.
The CED, a nonprofit organization of 200 businessmen and scholars, paid for the task force study, which concluded that we are a nation of economic illiterates. It outlined the (minimum understanding of economics essential to good citizenship and attainable by high school students."
THE CED now has suggested ways to achieve this understanding. It emphasized that economics must be taught in high school in order to reach the greatest percentage of the population. It scored the lack of qualified persons to teach economics and to train economics teachers.
The CED program is an appeal for a voluntary change in our education system. The CED research and policy committee wrote:
"The complexity of our economic affairs grows with our institutions. Businesses are bigger, so
are labor unions, so are our local, state and federal governments. All of these institutions require economic decision making, and in a democracy all of us, to a large extent, must be our own economists.
"OUR PERSONAL lives, no less than our public ones, require economic decisions. Resources, be they money, or time, or any of the other scarce things of life, must be allocated — and reasoned allocation of resources is the essential subject of economics."
"What is needed," the task force observed, "is an understanding of a few essential concepts and a few economic institutions (such as the market place, supply and demand, the corporation, labor unions, profits, wages and the like), plus an understanding of how these fit together in the functioning of our economy."
The CED report states that it would be "tragic .. to graduate still another generation of Americans without the basic analytical tools of economic reasoning."
(An editorial in the March 22 Milwaukee Journal)
More On Dormitories
Editor:
In answer to Carolyn Kunz' letter printed in the Kansan of April 26, I would like to further explain the views of the CRC on residence hall discrimination.
... Letters ...
I was one of the five girls who spoke with Dean Emily Taylor on this subject some time ago. Two of the other girls were Negro residents of Corbin Hall. In our conversation with Dean Taylor we discussed a great many of the points contained in the above-mentioned letter.
Separation on the basis of race has indeed caused definite feelings of discrimination among many KU women, both white and Negro, many of whom live in the residence halls. (I know of several particular instances in Corbin, where it was specified that there are "no hard feelings." Perhaps there are no "hard feelings"—but there is a great deal of pain.) The knowledge that one ethnic group is distinguished from another is in itself painful to a great many people—especially to those who are in the minority.
WHEREAS elsewhere on campus there is little distinction made between Negro and white students, within women's halls, this distinction is made — indicating once again that Negro and white girls, simply by virtue of their race, would be confronted with insurmountable obstacles. While Negro girls do use the same university and hall facilities as white girls, they are separated; this readily becomes very obvious and meaningful to most concerned girls.
THE CRC FEELS that all girls should be placed together in residence halls, irrespective of race — as they are in scholarship halls and as are all men in residence halls. What problems might be encountered could then be overcome as are all other problems encountered by students — including roommate problems. The university cannot logically continue to discriminate on the basis of race in this particular issue while standing by its known policy of abolishing discrimination.
A common fallacy in discussions of racial problems today is the belief that "Negro women are happy in their own groups." Negro women, like all other women, enjoy being with their friends—of whatever race these friends may be. In women's residence hall living, the separation of Negro girls causes a lack of close acquaintanceship between Negro and white girls. Because the Negro girls live together, their friendship with white girls, especially in the freshman halls, is decidedly delayed. Thus, their friends are primarily Negro. The reasons for this are immediately discernible and need not be discussed further.
Girls can at any time change roommates — it is never necessary to wait until semester break. If an insurmountable problem were encountered, girls could separate — they cannot be forced to continue to room together. However, it is my personal feeling that girls would be able to adjust to a situation of this sort just as they must to many other situations. College women are mature enough to overcome racial prejudice and to learn to accept individuals as persons, not as representatives of a race. I believe we should be given an opportunity to demonstrate this maturity in our residence hall living.
Marsha L. Dutton Colby sophomore
* * *
From A Peace Marcher
Editor:
Sure, I carried a sign that said: "Love your neighbor: Isn't Russia a neighbor?" And sure, I'll admit it's illogical. But don't give Russia's propaganda machine credit for inspiring me to such heights of "treason," as you would want to call it.
Instead, blame it on the institution upon whose doctrines our republic was founded. Blame it on the Christian church. "Love your neighbor," I will admit, is illogical. But accepting that as a premise, Russia is just as logically our neighbor as Pontius Pilot was Jesus Christ's neighbor.
Perhaps America is not Christian. If it isn't, I wish we would quit fooling ourselves about protecting "Christian" ideals when we test nuclear weapons. And I wish we would quit making such a religious issue when a Catholic is running for president. Let's be courageous and admit it: we are not Christian, and God (who ever he is) is not on our side.
BUT I AM not yet ready to conclusively condemn America to "hell." If it weren't for our freedom, such as it is, I couldn't be writing this. And I marched with my sign under the assumption that our freedom was based upon respect for another person's integrity, and upon the equality of all men (without discrimination). On the whole, Americans (who like to be called "Christians") do respect people, provided those people show proper respect in return (which is discrimination).
AND SO you argue from this
American-type "Christian" standpoint that since Russia does not provide proper respect in return, we have the right to punish them—may, we have the duty to engage corrective punishment. You say this is how we must show our love. (But isn't it really hate?)
Ah—beautiful Christian paradox!
I say we can show our love with "unilateral initiatives" (a nice way of saying we ought to give in a little), and you say we can show our love by keeping the arms race spiraling. Surely we both can't be right. I sometimes wonder if either of us are.
Phil Rhoads
Overland Park freshman
Protest * March * Perused
Protest March Praised
Edition
While we must justify our apathy by acknowledging that Mr. Charles McReynolds and his group of marchers did not in fact effect their wish to prevent the resumption of atmospheric nuclear testing by their register of protest on April 24, we must nevertheless congratulate him for reminding us of our individual responsibilities for the actions of our government. So long as we claim to be a democracy, a government ostensibly "of the people, by the people, and for the people," we each as individuals have not only the right but also the responsibility to take a part in the governing of our country.
GRANTED, one person alone can accomplish little action, but on an issue of such great moral significance as that of nuclear armament, no person should fail to take a stand and to make such efforts to effect his moral judgments as he deems necessary and possible. Although our country, ruled as it is by the wishes of the majority, does not provide an immediate answer to the needs and wishes of the minority, the fact of a moral opinion being a minority view does not absolve its holders from taking such measures as are provided by legal avenues and are commensurate with their capabilities to attempt to make their beliefs the beliefs of the majority.
Annette Ruder Graduate Student
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper Founded 1898, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912
Telephone VIking 3-2700 Extension 711, news room Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York 22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
By Bill Charles
"Judgment at Nuremberg". produced and directed by Stanley Kramer. At the Varsity.
Stanley Kramer is the latest recipient of the Irving Thalberg Memorial Award, given by the film industry in recognition of continued outstanding achievement in motion pictures. No Hollywood producer now active is more deserving of the award, and few previous winners have been responsible for the number of quality films as has Kramer. His pictures, generally, are not technical masterpieces; the Kramer style is not of the variety which influences or changes the technique of future films. Nevertheless, Kramer is a director of the first rank, on a par with the John Hustons and George Stevenses.
BUT KRAMER the producer almost always overshadows Kramer the director. He chooses good material and films it with definite social consciousness. He has something to say, and he says it, which makes him rather unique in Hollywood. The most frequent criticism brought against him is that he too often becomes commercial through contrived happy endings, thus reducing his films to mere pap. "Judgment at Nuremberg" is not
one of these films. It may very well be the best thing Kramer has done.
The film tells the story of the trial of four German jurists accused of permitting and condoning Nazi atrocities. It ends with the curious conclusion that, although individuals are responsible for their acts, guilt for those acts must also be borne by the civilization which harbored them.
AS THE DEFENSE attorney, Maximilian Schell is brilliant, and Montgomery Clift is so skillful with a small part that he nearly steals the show. Richard Widmark and Burt Lancaster should have been better in their roles as prosecutor and defendant, respectively. The film is directed and edited smoothly, producing powerful effects without obvious manipulation.
1961 was a good year for motion pictures. We had "The Hustler," "West Side Story," and "Judgment at Nuremberg" among other good ones. One cannot help but feel a sense of frustration over having to choose one of these three as the best," when in the past that title has been given to such drivel as "Gigi" and "Ben-Hur." Is this an indication that the average quality of American films is rising? One hopes so.
THE LIBERAL PAPERS, edited and with introduction by James Roosevelt. Doubleday Anchor, $1.25.
Thanks to the Republican party and certain key newspaper pundits, "The Liberal Papers" are getting good publicity. It would need these special propagandists, because the papers make for incredibly dull reading.
They are scarcely the "Blue Book" of American liberalism, despite the contentions by some experts of the far right. And it is difficult to see just why folks are so riled up about these articles, which deal largely with matters of war and peace.
Apparently one cannot suggest any more that recognition of China or admission of China to the United Nations might be possible. Nor can one advocate disengagement in western Europe. These are matters advocated by the naive gentlemen who put together this paperback original.
And naive they are. What especially annoys one about "The Liberal Papers" is the Candide-like assumption that all the U.S. need do is quit testing nuclear materials, announce we are pulling out of Europe, recognize Red China, and the Communist world will cease and desist all anti-U.S. activity. This is the theme throughout. Perhaps these gentlemen know what they are talking about. It is troubling to reflect that some people suggest that we must choose between them and Welch and General Walker.—CMP