---
Page 2
University Daily Kansan Thursday, April 19, 1962
Equal Opportunity
After a good deal of theoretical speaking about rights and discrimination, the Kennedy administration has taken a tough step forward in eliminating discrimination.
The president's committee on equal employment opportunity banned two firms from being awarded further government business until they correct questionable racial policies. Similar action is reportedly being considered against other companies.
Very early in the present administration, Kennedy set in motion an executive order requiring no job bias by government contractors. The recent action by the committee stemming from this order is the most concrete step taken so far.
THE COMPLAINTS against the two companies indicated reasonable doubt of compliance with Kennedy's equal opportunity order. The complaint against one of the companies was that it discriminated against Negroes in promotions, paid Negroes systematically less than white employees, and maintained segregated washrooms and other employee facilities.
The action against the two companies should have a far reaching effect. Kennedy's executive order appeared to be one of those theoretical things that politicians are prone to use, but hesitate to put in force.
It's probable that many companies using discriminatory practices shrugged the order off as one of these things. They realized it represented a threat to their established methods of management, but continued with their system, not quite believing the axe would really fall.
BUT IT HAS. The banning of these two firms from government business will conceivably start other companies with questionable racial policies toward complying with the executive order.
Government contracts are often the difference between life and death for a business. They represent a powerful lever the government can use toward preventing unfair racial practices. It's only just that the government should use this lever toward promoting equal opportunity in employment.
Juggernaut:
—Karl Koch
The Warfare State
(Editor's note: This is the fourth in a series of excerpts from a special edition. The剧本 by Fred J. Cook entitled "Juggernaut." The Warfare State.)
These outside political pressures seemed, for a time, in danger of forcing agreement at Geneva. By September, 1959, seventeen treaty articles had been accepted by both sides. Khrushchev, at the urging of Macmillan, made what seemed like an all-important concession. For the first time, in negotiations for a control proposal not linked to disarmament, he agreed to veto-free, on-site inspections by mixed national-foreign teams on a quota basis. In view of the long-held Russian conviction of the danger inherent in such inspections without disarmament, this overture by Khrushchev seemed again highly indicative of a real desire to put an end to the nuclear race that menaces all mankind.
There remained, of course, areas of disagreement still to be settled. One of the most important of these dealt with the number of inspections that would be permitted each year. Russia wanted to limit these inspections to ten; the U.S. wanted 100. But a compromise on such an issue seemed highly feasible; with Khrushchev's abandonment of the veto, eventual agreement seemed for the first time positively likely.
THE AMERICANS, however, were still putting up a stiff fight. On November 25, 1959, scientists from Great Britain, the United States and the USSR reconvened at Geneva. The Americans were still arguing that the originally proposed Geneva test system wasn't sufficiently fool-proof scientifically; the Russians contended that it was and that, anyway, it could be made better. The British took a stance half-way between the two major antagonists, agreeing with the Americans that the controls originally proposed were not perhaps as good as the scientists had thought, but agreeing with the Russians that the system could certainly be made better, eliminating any real chance of cheating.
This action of the British in almost throwing their weight on the Russian side made things rough. It began to look, indeed, as if we might have to accept an agreement; but this was a tragedy that we had foreseen and against which we had guarded. We had a hole card, and now we played it. It was a real blockbuster—Dr. Edward Teller's so-called "big hole" theory.
At Teller's suggestion, the RAND Corporation (a government-subsidized "think" agency) had concluded, after a special study, that nuclear explosions could be concealed if they were conducted underground in a hole large enough to "contain" the blast. The AEC released these findings to the press on December 21, 1959, and The New York Times promptly concluded that this method of muffling nuclear explosions would "make the international test-detection program virtually useless."
A LITTLE sober-minded analysis soon revealed, however, that the Teller "big hole" idea, though theoretically valid, was in all practical aspects little more than an imposing fraud. Its absurdity was thrown into high relief by experts like Professor Jay Orear of Cornell. He estimated that a hole large enough to muffle a relatively small 100-kiloton explosion would require a cavity 800 feet in diameter—big enough to contain a dozen Rockefeller Center skyscrapers. Such an excavation would require the removal of some "25 million tons" of rock, and one can appreciate the enormity of this task when one realizes that the entire anthracite production of the nation in 1959 was only 20 million tons—and that this required the labors of some 21,000 persons.
The RAND brain-trusters apparently had realized this difficulty and had endeavored to get around it by suggesting that the hole could be made by flushing out a salt dome. But even this system would require the removal of some "20 million tons" of salt—and the entire salt production in the United States in 1959 was a mere 5 million. Even RAND admitted that its salt-hole flushing process would require from two to four years of labor and cost $40 million—all for just one hole in the ground to hide one small-scale atomic explosion. In the light of such realities, the fantasy of the "big hole" theory, which had become our new roadblock to a nuclear-test agreement, becomes obvious.
AT LEAST, it was obvious to both the British and the Russian scientists at Geneva. The Russians, though they at first denounced the whole idea, finally conceded the validity of Dr. Teller's "big hole"
theory, as theory, but they argued that the whole attempt, from any practical standpoint, was ridiculous. The British agreed. The Soviets bluntly accused the Americans of bad faith, and the U.S. delegation, in self-righteous indignation at such an unjust imputation, announced abruptly that it was winding up its part in the conference on December 19 and going home.
Both the British and the Russians protested, Sir William Penney, of the British delegation, pleaded with the Americans not to leave just when "the technical matters show signs of coming together." But the Americans wouldn't listen; they were walking out. Also, they said, they wouldn't have any part of issuing a joint report on the conference with the British and the Russians; they were going to prepare their own separate report.
This infuriated the members of the other two delegations, especially the Russians. Dr. Federov, head of the Soviet contingent, declared: "I consider the action of the U.S. unprecedented. . . I think such action is aimed at undermining our deliberations because, just as soon as some partial agreement came into sight, just as soon as we got to that agreement, immediately the U.S. delegation took steps to ruin it."
During the heated argument, one U.S. delegate affronted the judgment of the other scientists by making the fantastic assertion that it would be perfectly possible to muffle and conceal an explosion of the awesome magnitude of "1.8 million tons" of TNT. Since this would be eighteen times the size of the 100-kilton blast requiring a hole that would swallow a dozen Rockefeller Center skyscrapers. Federov would seem to have had sanity on his side when he snapped that the Americans were "on the brink of absurdity." On this acrimonious note, the conference broke up and the Americans went home.
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912 Telephone VIkong 3-2700
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.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Telephone VIKING 5-2700 Extension 711. news room
Managing Editor
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Bill Mullins ... Editorial Editor
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Charles Martinache ... Business Manager
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
"I UNDERSTAND THE FOOTBALL TEAM VOTED HER THE BEST
"FASS RECEIVER' OF THE SEASON."
LETTERS to the editor
A Reply to Costich
Editor:
Being one of the "noise-making moralists" commonly known as a CRC member, may I comment on the letter written by Ken Costich in Monday's UDK.
In the past year or so, we have seen Lawrence barber shops and boarding houses being integrated. The Civil Rights Council was given credit for a "holy" doing. People are watching this group. Some are laughing. Why Ken? Is it because you were not directly affected? We are funny, strange, queer and unusual. We are trying to perform another glorious deed!
So you want to examine that old "bugaboo," the minority. You claim to be a part of it. You are a member of the Caucasian race. Your religion is Christian Scientist. Now let me ask you two questions? Is the Caucasian race a minority race at KU? Are you a Christian Scientist by choice, or because this is the Caucasian Church?
KEN YOUVE been a little misinformed. KU's Civil Rights Council is not working with the whole world population. We are dealing merely with a small segment of it. In this segment, your race isn't in the minority. And if your religion is, it is only by choice.
Let us not stop with race and religion in examining the minority. Why don't you take a real survey in examining the human being in order to determine majority and minority. Here are a few questions to start the survey:
1. How many people on KU's campus have black, brown, blond, red, gray, or blue hair?
2. How many students ride the bus, drive cars, or walk to school?
3. What color shoes do the majority of the people wear?
4. What color eyes do the majority of the people have?
5. What cigarette is most commonly smoked?
When you have finished these questions I have some more to add to the survey list, before we decide to make all the brown-eyed coeds Alphas, the redheads Eetas and Kent smokers Gammas, etc.
You mentioned Orwell and Marx. In my Western Civilization class we also discussed Alexis de Tocqueville. Are you familiar with this great man? I forgot to mention it, but you can entitle your survey "Tyranny of the Majority."
THEN THERE'S equality. Mr. Costich everyone is aware of the fact that there are physical, economic and mental differences among individuals. Not only do these exist in different races, they appear within intimate social
groups. So what? Differences exist at birth. Nothing can be done about that. But, why should we invent more inequalities?
Do you think it is funny for human beings to run around in the cold looking for a place to stay, but rejected because of the color of their skin? Have you ever been hungry and refused a place to eat? Has your hair grown for weeks, because no one would cut it?
So what if the CRC and the NAACP resemble one another. The Methodist, Baptist and Protestant Church resemble each other also.
You left me with the impression that you have a better chance getting membership in the "Japanese war brides of the Daughters of the American Revolution," than Phi Beta Kappa!
Barbara Rice Kansas City senior
Action's P-T-P Stand Criticized Editor;
In Friday's Kansan, members of Action were quoted as saying the People-to-People organization had strayed from its first objective, which they felt was good. The changes were grounds for comments by various persons who attacked People-to-People.
If any individual or group was genuinely concerned about changes in an organization which had good aims, what would be the best way to correct the situation? By attempting to destroy the organization, along with its admitted good aims? I prefer to think that working from the inside would be better. Thus one could attempt to get his ideas made a part of the organization's program and in this way improve it.
ACTION decries disaffiliation with the NSA, even though the NSA is liberal and KU is more conservative, because according to Action leaders, conservatives could still express their views within the organization.
In summary, they say we should work within the NSA if we feel it is wrong, but we should attack People-to-People if weaknesses are seen in it. This suggests to me an inconsistent outlook.
instead of attending a meeting for the purpose of explaining the People-to-People application sheet and other materials to the flight members. Action leaders spent Thursday night holding their own meeting to attack the program before it was explained. Does this indicate a sincere desire to strengthen weaknesses, correct wrongs, and avoid misunderstanding? In my opinion it does not.
Allan W. Wicker Independence junior