Page 2
University Daily Kansan Monday, March 5, 1962
For a Useful Committee
A proposal to establish a committee to bring speakers and films to KU is currently up before the All Student Council. The proposed committee would also have the power to form a speakers' bureau of faculty members and students to aid living groups in obtaining speakers.
The bill to set up the Current Events Committee was introduced at last week's ASC meeting.
The committee is certainly desirable providing a few qualifications can be fulfilled.
IN FAVOR OF the committee is that its members would be appointed by the ASC. Therefore, the committee would represent (indirectly at least) all KU students, since ASC membership is an elective office. By their voting power, the student body as a whole would have a voice in who is brought to the campus.
This is preferable to having groups such as the Civil Rights Council or others invite speakers to KU, since these groups are usually formed around a similarity of interests. The ASC is a divergent group representing all living districts and schools of the University.
An argument advanced against the proposed Current Events Committee is that it is an effort to supplant the now defunct National Student Association's KU organization. NSA backers are afraid that the new committee would hurt chances for an NSA revival at KU.
BUT THE NSA is not organized at KU now, and there is a need for a committee such as the one proposed by the ASC. The Current Events Committee's chances should not be hindered by hopeful ideas of NSA backers about the vague future.
The committee, since it is a part of the ASC, would receive its funds from the students of KU through student fees. Since this money goes through the University, the funds would in actuality be allotted by the University.
There are two ways to look at the significance of this. One is that it is a function of the University to present the various sides of important issues, and it would be only fitting that the University would provide funds for speakers and films about these issues.
However, University funds in this case would perhaps equate with University control. This is the second aspect.
TO MAKE THIS Current Events committee worthwhile, the University administration would need to be resistant to pressure from various groups who would seek to keep controversial speakers from appearing on the KU campus.
Given pressure resistant backing by the University, the committee would be well on its way to success, providing the committee members act rationally and intelligently in inviting speakers to KU.
The attitude of "let's get controversial guys to talk to us" pertains to the above. In the past, the controversy quotient of an individual has sometimes appeared to be the predominant factor in bringing a speaker to KU. The proposed Current Events committee should adopt an attitude of getting someone who "has something to say" if it is to be successful.
SINCE THIS COMMITTEE would represent the whole student body, its responsibility for an intelligent attitude would be greater than that of groups of the past.
Two factors are the keys to this proposed committee fulfilling its purpose: Responsible members within the committee and a pressure resistant administration to back it up.
Given these, the committee could perform a needed service to KU. We recommend the passage of the Currents Events committee bill by the ASC.
—Karl Koch
I do not usually enter into controversies with members of the "Silent Generation" who write letters to the editor and then refuse to scribble their John Hancock on the dotted line, but I feel that "Name Withheld" should become familiar with a few of the facts concerning the program that was held here (Wednesday, February 21, 1982) entitled "Operation Correction."
On Operation Correction
Editor:
Mr. Love stated that he had contacted many individuals in Wichita and no one was able to come but Mr. Myers, and that Mr. Myers was fully capable of "handling" any questions that might come up during the course of the evening (which, incidentally, he was not). Several "leading" citizens of the local community were contacted and they also refused to take part (one staunch citizen stated that he was "getting too old to get involved with those 'bastards' on the hill"), but they recommended Mr. C. W. Tankersley.
SEVERAL MEMBERS of the John Birch Society in Wichita were invited to appear on the panel and promptly refused, some for understandable reasons, and some for reasons perhaps not so understandable. I personally contacted Mr. Fred Koch, Mr. Robert Love and Mr. Leonard Banowetz, and they all informed me that they were unable to attend.
AS FOR THE University, several professors were contacted, but no one could be located who was willing to defend the film "Operation Abolition" in an open debate. In short, "Name Withheld," Mr. Myers and Mr. Tankersley were the only individuals that we could obtain and they came highly re-
In the first place I would like to point out that the committee in charge of the program made every effort to secure the best participants possible, and we feel that we did, considering the limited time and treasury that we had to work with.
ommended by various sponsors of the film "Operation Abduction."
Secondly, our presentation of "Operation Correction" was meant to be purely objective. The sponsors of this program were merely trying to give the student body the opportunity to view both sides of the controversy which has centered around the production "Operation Abolition." The question at hand was not whether or not HUAC should be abolished, but whether or not the film "Operation Abolition" contained gross distortions and exaggerations.
THIRDLY, "Name Withheld" states in the third paragraph of his letter "Either HUAC investigates because its members (who are much closer to the facts than many of us) feel the situation is serious enough that investigation is needed, or it investigates because its members like nice headlines." I feel that "Name Withheld" misunderstands the problem, and I am quite sure that if he has done any serious reading in regard to the issue, or at least had paid attention at the program last Wednesday (providing he attended), he would be aware that the question at hand is not why the committee is investigating, but how the committee is investigating.
Fourthly, "Name Withheld" states in his last sentence "The less publicity the committee gets for the better are its chances for survival." This sentence seems to be contradictory to the tradition of HUAC. I must remind "Name Withheld" that it was HUAC that produced "Operation Abolition" and had it distributed and encouraged its showing throughout the country. This would tend to indicate that HUAC does want publicity. Therefore there are some people that want to make sure that the publicity is as unbiased and as accurate as possible. You must remember that when a film such as "Operation Abolition" is produced the reputations of many individuals are at stake. Anyone who thinks that any committee is infallible because "they are closer to the facts then
any of us" is truly fallible himself.
I would like to remind "Name Withheld" that one of the reasons why our generation is called the "Silent Generation" is the existence of investigating committees that employ questionable methods of procedure. This is also one reason why people, such as you, are afraid to express their opinions without withholding their names.
IT SEEMS that those who constantly criticize the programs conducted by the students at KU are always worrying about our students being "duped." My relations with the students of this institution during the last four years have led me to believe that they are just as capable, if not more capable, of weighing evidence as their critics are. Please, "Name Withheld," do not think that Mr. Myrs' statements "carried no weight" because the students and faculty members felt "hostile" towards him, without considering the possibility that the students and faculty members may have felt "hostile" towards him because his statements "carried no weight," but his accusations did.
Torrington, Conn., senior
Brian O'Heron
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became bweekly 1904,
trweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Dailu Hansan
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
Telephone Vlking 3-2700 Extension 711. news room Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, Inc., New York, NY. 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 Saturday examinations and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Ron Gallagher ... Managing Editor
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Bill Muttins Editorial Editor
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Charles Martiancio .. Business Manager
2 I FIND IT EASIER TO GET DATES NOW THAT I HAVE A CAR. "
Sound and Fury
Last of an Argument
While Faithful Reader's devotion to what he calls "the resolution of our differences" is admirable, I would prefer not to grace the columns of the UDK with such material in future and invite "Faithful Reader" to come to see me in 16 Strong Annex B in the future, where we can indulge in our petty arguments to our heart's content while vacating space in the UDK for more interesting problems.
IN REFERENCE to Faithful Reader's latest blast. I wish only to make a few basic comments clarifying my position. I did not say or mean to imply that YAF members made irresponsible statements to liven up the Kansan. My comment was directed rather to Faithful Reader, who complained it would be a dull world if people acted responsibly. As to the motives of members of the YAF, I would not permit myself a judgment, since I do not know any of these persons even casually. Yet, I do have my theories as to what their motives may be, and I entirely agree with Faithful Reader that entertainment is not one of those motives. I rather suspect that when YAF provides us with entertainment it does so unintentionally—for these young men apparently take themselves quite seriously.
THE REST OF Faithful Reader's latest statement attempts to cite the Chancellor's protest to the Kansas City Star and Prof. Landesman's letter to the Lawrence Journal-World as examples that proof is indeed an elusive quality. While it is not really my business to speak either for Prof. Landesman or for the Chancellor about their differences of opinion with the Star and the Journal-World, I feel strongly that Faithful Reader's attempt to use these cases as "proof" that no "proof" exists is in the nature of a spurious argument. Yes, I was at the "Operation Correction" film and the discussion which followed it. I happen to agree with the Chancellor that no loud booing or hissing was heard, and I was not sitting on the stage, but in the very center of the auditorium. There was some laughter and some show of disrespect for K. Myers' opinions, but to my ears, nary a boo. As for Prof. Landesman, I am more willing to accept his version of what he said than what a reporter may think he heard him say.
In regard to the matter of proof as related to responsible news presentation, I am well aware that "absolute proof" cannot necessarily be found for any contention. Proof thus becomes a relative matter, involving the editor's confidence in the veracity of his reporters, the evaluation of sources, the calculation of probabilities, and the use of verification, research, consultation, tact, and editorial discretion.
I nowhere suggested that the motives of people making statements should be investigated before their statements are published. However proof, credibility and responsibility remain valid criteria for publication in my book. Faithful Reader will probably never understand this until he is repeatedly publicly misquoted or maligned and it begins to hurt his reputation or his livelihood. He may then have a belated awakening to the responsibilities of a free press. I hereby consider the public section of this polemic closed.
instructor of political science
Klaus H. Pringsheim
It is not as if the system required one to be a great scholar, or a good scholar, or even a scholar at all; it only requires that one "produce research," which...means publish papers. Their contents should be in a certain form and they should be documented and if possible accurate—that is all. . . . Jacques Barzun