Page 2
University Daily Kansan Friday. April 20,1962
1
KU and the Peace Corps
Interest among KU students in the Peace Corps seems to be increasing. This is an encouraging development, and a definite change from the initial reaction among KU students. Last October only eight KU students attended a talk by a Peace Corps field representative.
But since March 1, about five people a day have visited the office of Clark Coan, assistant dean of students, for information about the Peace Corps.
THE POOR initial reaction to the Peace Corps among KU students may be corrected by the current increase in interest. Two KU students have been accepted for the Liberian project of the Peace Corps and another KU student is being sent to a special project in Borneo. Perhaps the Peace Corps examination in the Lawrence Post Office tomorrow will draw more KU students than past ones have.
KU in October of this year, and it should aid in attracting KU students to the Peace Corps. The KU training center will prepare volunteers for the Costa Rican project of the Peace Corps.
A Peace Corps training center will open at
THE PEACE Corps has become a successful and admired organization. Its members have already contributed much to the development of their host countries, and all the nations which have received Peace Corps members have expressed satisfaction with their work.
But the Peace Corps does more than aid in the improvement of underdeveloped nations. It helps Americans to understand the people of these nations and their problems.
The Peace Corps will undoubtedly continue to grow and contribute its efforts to the development of the many nations it operates in. Its success reflects credit on both the United States and its often criticized younger generation.
—William H. Mullins
Juggernaut:
The Warfare State
(Editor's note: This is the turn and last in a series of excerpts from a specimen of the Nation by Fred J. Cook entitled "Juggernaut: The Warfare State.")
This has been a study of power—of the kind of power that has come to dominate the nation and rob the nation's people both of understanding and of choice in the fashioning of their destiny. When President Eisenhower declared in his farewell address that "the military-industrial complex" had developed an influence "felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal Government," he did not exaggerate; he understated the case. This complex has come, in fact, to determine all our policy; to orient the entire nation, not toward peace, but toward war. If we are ever to avoid that war, the overwhelming and insidious power of the military-industrial complex must be smashed...
The nation today has come to a plain fork in the road. The Military juggernaut, hand-in-glove with industry, whooped on by all the arts of propaganda, is high-balling along the highway that leads to ever more authoritarian government—and that holy war, by which we all can prove our manhood, which lies in the offing.
THE OTHER fork of the road turns aside from this catastrophic brink. It leads to reimposition of strong civilian control over the Military; it takes formation of policy out of the hands of the Military and puts it where it belongs, in the hands of elected representatives responsible to the people; it tries to seek out the truth and find solutions to world affairs, not just to adopt the primitive attitude of holding everywhere a rigid line until the right time comes to knock over the other fellow. This second fork in the road offers at least a hope, a prayer; the Military thruway, with its phony blathering of peace through strength, can lead only to mass graves.
If we are to take this second fork and try for peace, we must recognize the demands this choice will make upon us. It will ask more of us in intelligence, in self-restraint, in courage than the deceptively "easy" way of the Military. On this road will be found no sudden, miraculous solutions. We must recognize that we must live with our critical problems and try, by the slow process of negotiation and agreement, to achieve a better world To do this, we must be prepared to go back to the lost moment of hope in 1955; we must be prepared to scuttle the philosophy of Quarles and the Military that safety is to be found in ever more awesome detonations. We must be prepared to make a genuine and all-out effort to ban the bomb and achieve disarmament.
IF WE EVER succeed in this, we must be prepared to face a world of new and harsh problems — a domestic world of economic disruption. Military bases would shut down, war plants would fall idle; millions of workers would lose their
jobs, thousands of businesses would suffer. No one who has any conception, no one who has any faith in the tremendous potential of the American economy believes for a moment that such a crisis need be more than temporary.
We have at home enormous problems clamoring to be met and solved — the elimination of slums, the increasingly critical poverty of our educational plant from grade school to college levels, better care for our aged, better medical and hospital protection for all of us, to name just a few.
We will never solve these problems in a "guns and butter" society, for that society is a propaganda myth and experience says that it becomes, as intended by its sponsors, all guns and no butter. If and when we succeed in turning aside from the road to war, we must be prepared to accept the facts of life—and the cardinal fact will be the need for a federally stimulated economy, for the siphoning of war-industry billions into the pursuits of peace and the rebuilding and refurbishing of the domestic world we live in.
SUCH A solution to the inevitable economic crisis we would face raises, of course, the horrible specter of the Welfare State, against which the propaganda barrages of the military-industrial complex so persistently are aimed. Experience indicates that the leaders of this complex would prefer to run the risk of dying in the ruins of their Warfare State. But would the rest of us?
If the answer to that question is a resounding "No," we have left in our hands, even at this late date, a few important remedies. We can back the Kennedy Administration's effort, as personified by Secretary McNamara, to recapture for democracy civilian control over the Military. We can insist that the Pentagon be stripped of its propaganda apparatus, that it be compelled to stop brainwashing us in radical-Right seminars; we can demand that all military public relations staffs be skeletonized, civilian-staffed and civilian-controlled, limited to their proper function of giving out necessary information. Such steps would deprive our cold-war profiteers of the uniformed front men whom they have used so effectively to promote a national war economy.
The second part of the combine—war corporations like Boeing and Lockheed that gobble up a billion dollars a year apiece, as much as was used to finance the entire federal government in the days of Benjamin Harrison — would still have to be brought under control. Stiff tax laws, paring off the fat of excess profits, might help to dim the enthusiasm of some of these mighty patriots for a war economy. Rigid policing of expense accounts and publicity budgets by federal tax sleuths might keep the industrial half of the complex from so freely using millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, received via war contracts, to brainwash the public
into acceptance of the idea that ever more colossal contracts are essential to our continued existence.
IT TAKES no imagination to envision the howls of anguished protest the mere suggestion of such measures will elicit; but we must have the sense to understand the yammering for the selfish bleat it is — and to understand, too, that the issue at stake is whether we, as a people, really control our government or whether powerful pressure groups control that government. And us.
Only if we can accomplish such reforms, only if we can achieve such a complete change of the national posture, can we really look forward with any hope to achieving the goal of world peace, the only alternative to world extinction. Much will depend, of course, on Khrushchev and the Russians, on whether Khrushchev can control his own "military-industrial complex." In the past, he has shown signs of wishing to do so, and in the past, we have played into the hands of the most militaristic, hard-line Stalinist forces in Russia by running away from every chance of agreement.
WHETHER the tragic deterioration of world affairs that has resulted can now be halted, whether the trend can be reversed, no man can tell; but we, at least, must do our part, as we have not done it in the past. We, at least, must make the effort.
As former President Eisenhower so clearly pointed out, we must find ways to control "the military-industrial complex" with its "insidious penetration" of our minds. As General MacArthur told the Philippine Congress so eloquently, the impractical ideal of yesterday—the goal of world disarmament and world peace—has become the practical imperative of today. We recognize that imperative and work to achieve it, or we perish.
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service. 18 East St. St. New York 22, N.Y. Mail subscription rates: national. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence. Kan., every afternoon during University year except Saturday and Sunday examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
Dailu hansan
Founded 1889, became bweekly 1904,
Telephone Vikir 1912.
Telephone Vikir 3-760.
Extension 711, news room
Extension 776, business office
NEWS DEPARTMENT
NEWS DEFAPARTURE
Ron Gallagher ... Managing Editor
Kelly Smith, Carrie Merryfield, Clay-
 Assistant
Managing Editors; Jeremiah Musi
Editor; Steve Clark, Sports Editor;
Martha Moser, Society Editor
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Bill Mullins  Editorial Editor
Karl Koch, Assistant Editorial Editor.
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT Manager
Charles Lippman, Advertising Manager; Dick Kline, Classified Advertising Manager;
Susanne Ellermeier, Circulation Man-
ter; Richard Neal, National
Advertising Manager; Harley Carpenter, Promotion Manager.
EATON'S FRIDAY CARTOON
"How should I know what it means? I only painted it."
Letters to the Editor
Synonyms For Apathy
Editor
Roget's Pocket Thesaurus cites many synonyms for the word apathy, a few of which are: phlegmatic, inert, supine, languid, comatose or just plain indifferent. If this list of six words does not fulfill the needs of those who wish to expound on the torpidity (that makes seven) of the student body at KU, I suggest that they purchase a copy of this handy little "treasury of synonyms and antonyms" and turn to page 243. The use of these synonyms will probably not cause any confusion in the frequent tirades against impassivity, for the masses are undoubtedly much too apathetic to read them.
Carolyn Callaway
Shawnee Mission sophomore
A Reply to Costich
I admire you for having the courage to print the April 16 "letter to the editor" from Mr. Ken Costich. I think it showed that you have a sense of humor.
Mr. Costich expressed his opinion that to remove the "discriminatory clauses" from those fraternities or sororities who have them would be like taking group A's rights away and giving them to group B. This expression indicates that Mr. Costich is confused. I am sure that no one has suggested that Mr. Costich's group A, those fraternities who discriminate because of race, creed, and color, give up their right to discriminate so that group B, the Negro, may then have the right to discriminate.
Let us assume that Mr. Costich was not confused, but that he only expressed his opinion poorly. Let us also assume that Mr. Costich thinks that to remove the "discriminatory clauses" would be like taking one right from group A and then giving group B another right. Of course we must also assume that group A has the RIGHT to discriminate. If this is what Mr. Costich really meant then I agree with him. Removing the "discriminatory clauses" would take away group A's right to discriminate because of race, creed, and color, and it would give group B the right to be CONSIDERED on the basis of individual merits and personality only.
MR. COSTICH SAID "Then there's equality. That's a good one." I must agree with Mr. Costich. Equality is a good one. In fact, it is such a good one that it ranks at the top of our country's list of priceless values right along with liberty. Liberty can be carried to an extreme where other values, including equality, are injured as in the situation of the "discriminatory clauses." There are limits to how much liberty
society can and should bear. It should be clear that liberty sometimes has to be restricted to protect public order, safety, and equality.
7 F
We have found from experience that in order to promote equality it is sometimes necessary to place limits on liberty. The liberty to create wealth and pass it on to your children is an example. We have a system of inheritance taxes in the United States. One of the purposes of these laws is to break up larger fortunes on the ground that such fortunes passing from parents to children tend to reduce the equality of opportunity among men. It is not always easy to solve the problem when two of the ideas of the Declaration of Independence, liberty and equality, either seem to be in conflict or actually are in conflict. It takes wisdom and usually laws to settle this conflict and to discover where the greater good lies.
MR. COSTICH GOES ON to say "The whole country is caught up in this civil rights insanity, equal to little else in American history." Justly, he should have said, "The whole country should have CAUGHT UP TO CIVIL RIGHTS MANY YEARS AGO, AND IT SHOULD NOW BE NO MORE THAN AMERICAN HISTORY."
Mr. Costich is really selling America short when he considers objecting to fellow Americans being denied their unquestionable rights to work, live, sleep, eat, and walk, merely because of the color of their skins as "uncalled for dogfighting."
Mr. Costich, evidently, does not know that my being a Negro prevents me from being offered certain positions that I qualify for, from being able to purchase certain homes that I may have money to buy, from being able to sleep at certain public hotels and motels that I may be able to pay for, from being able to walk unmolested on sidewalks of certain "upper class" areas of some cities, and from enjoying thousands of other rights including the restrictions that accompany the "discriminatory clauses" here at KU.
About a month ago Chancellor Wescow told me that he did not know how it felt to be a Negro and I told him that it is sheer hell. I did not think about it then, but it must also be sheer hell to be white—to realize that none of your good friends and brothers would have even considered you for membership if it had not been for your "lily white" complexion, and even more "hillish" to bear is the thought that you would not consider your good brothers either if they did not have their "lily white" skins.
George Ragsdale Kansas City, Ks., junior