'age 2
University Daily Kansan Tuesday, Feb. 13. 1987
The Powers Spy Case
The United States late last week exchanged Col. Rudolph Abel of the Russian intelligence service for U2 pilot Francis Gary Powers.
Powers, a civilian at the time, was downed over Russia on a high flying photographic mission. He spent 21 months in prison until his release last week on a Berlin bridge.
United States officials maintained at the time nat Powers' U2 crashed because of engine trouble which brought him in range of Soviet guns. They said Russia had no anti-aircraft weapon which could have reached Powers at the altitude he insisted he was flying, 68,000 feet.
U2S HAD BEEN making flights over Russia or four years before Powers was downed. In his trial, he testified that he was "struck down by something."
On the other hand, Russia claimed the capture of Powers as evidence of their military capability and the United States' role as a spying imperialistic power.
It is pointless to pretend that espionage is anything other than a necessary function of the national government in this era of tension and cold war. And in regard to this, a valuable lesson can be learned from the Powers incident, if it has not already been learned. That is, an individual in Powers position should be given explicit instructions in what to do in case of capture. This will prevent the embarrassment of the United States because of official statements contradicting statements by captured agents.
MEMBERS OF the national administration are showing progress toward this end. Three members of the Armed Services committee have said they believed the committee would like to talk to Powers.
Sen. Howard W. Cannon, D-Nev., said he would like to talk to Powers about the type of indoctrination he received to prepare for the possibility that he would be captured.
He said he felt Powers went beyond the "name, rank and serial number" information which armed forces personnel are instructed to give the enemy if captured." He said he wants "to explore somewhat the background that was given these people if taken prisoner."
Sen. Cannon has hit the essence of the Powers problem, even though the Armed Services committee may not be the best vehicle to investigate the incident.
HE IMPLIES perhaps that Powers is at fault. It must be remembered, however, that Powers, after his capture, was isolated from any communication with the United States. He was strictly alone, and evidently had to play the interrogation game strictly by ear.
This points out even more the need for detailed instructions beforehand. The Powers incident can be a valuable lesson if the blame is not all shifted on Powers, but upon the men who hire, fire, and instruct the agents of the United States.
—Karl Koch
XAF Poll Criticized
It seems to me that the Daily Kansan by giving undue prominence to the activities of the YAF as given this group an exaggerated idea of their importance, leading them to imagine that they have been appointed by the Kansas State Senate to investigate the political leanings of the faculty.
It is high time that someone clarified a few basic points in this matter. The Kansan should be careful not to repeat such blanket cearsay indictments of faculty members as the YAF members have made, since in so doing you may be hurting the individual reputations of members of the faculty. There are as many shades of political opinion represented in the Political Science Department as there are individual professors and instructors in it. The YAF has no valid way of determining precisely what the political view of each individual professor is. Nor does this organization have any right to "investigate" our opinions.
I. FOR ONE, shall refuse to submit to any kind of poll or pulse-saking by our young radicals, but corelally invite them to attend and of my classes to acquaint themselves with what I teach in the classroom. However, one thing must be made perfectly clear: It is not the proper function of a student organization to conduct investigations of their processors and publicly pass judgment on them which might impugn their reputations. Only the administration of the University has any right to pass judgment on its academic personnel or to establish criteria to be applied in employment policies.
Were the principle that the students can pass judgment on their professors to be allowed to stand, what would prevent the D and F
students from hounding these professors who gave them low grades out of the university or blackmailing them into giving out higher grades.
WHILE I MARVEL at the impudence of Marik Payton and Charles Mellwaine in making the allegations they have repeated in public I would not advocate that they be deprived of the right to state their opinions. This would be contrary to the American principle of freedom of speech and conscience. But freedom of speech carries with it some obligations. The obligation to speak and act responsibly in public. The obligation not to malign others in blanket character assassinations. The obligation not to impugn or publicly speculate about the moral or intellectual integrity of your fellow man.
Worth Repeating
Only when you have positive proof are you in a position to make public statements about the political sympathies of other people or their honesty as teachers in the classroom. The editor of a responsible newspaper should be equally aware of these principles and be careful about publishing unresponsible statements by irresponsible publicity seekers.
IT IS HIGH TIME that a sense of balance be restored and our YAF members be given no more publicity than they deserve on the basis of their numbers. The YAF does not run this university. The Chancellor, the administration, and the faculty do that. They do not need and have not asked the YAF's assistance in determining the integrity and qualifications of our professors and instructors. If the Kansas State Senate wishes to investigate the university it will surely call on persons other than Marick Payton and Charles McIlwaine to do so.
Perhaps it is time that someone
I had a sobering lesson in the stultification of students recently. I asked a literature class I was teaching to read a background book and do a critical commentary. Paper after paper proved to be little more than a summary. With some exasperation I asked why this happened when I had specifically asked for critical impressions.
"It was safer that way," students said. "It's what we thought you wanted; it's what other instructors usually want."—David Boreoff
Klaus H. Fringsheim Instructor of political science
started to investigate the integrity and qualifications of members of the YAF to be proper students in the university. There are university regulations which can be applied to students whose conduct is contrary to the best interests of the university. Most students at KU have come here to learn and study rather than to undermine public confidence in the faculty and the administration. Most students feel that this is their university and their faculty which seeks to serve them to the best of their abilities. It seems a pity that we hear so seldom from the majority in the pages of the Daily Kansas while we hear in such great detail about the activities of an insignificant minority group like the YAF.
While the kind of controversy stirred up in this case is perhaps a healthy sign and at least shows that some students are concerned with political issues, everyone concerned should try to contain charges and claims within the bounds of responsible provable statements and be careful not to create impressions which may be unjust to individuals or groups or the University as a whole.
DailuYiansan
Telephone VIking 3-2700 Extension 711, news room Extension 376, business office
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded. Became biweekly, 1904,
then bi-monthly, 1916.
Member Island Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Services, NY, New York. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the university holidays. University holiday and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
NEWS DAILY
Ron Gallagher  Managing Editor,
Kelly Smith  Carrie Marmie  Clau,
Maryne Scott  Payne  Assistant
Managing Editor; Jerry Mush, City
Editor; Steve Clark  Sports Editor;
Martha Moser  Society Editor.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
EDITIONAL DEPARTMENT
Bill Maitland
Bill Maitland, Assistant Editor
Karl Kaye, Assistant Editorial Editor
USINESS DEPARTMENT
From the Magazine Rack
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Charles Martinache - Business Manager
Julia Smith - Advertising Manager
James Berry - Advertising Manager
Susanne Eilemeier, Circulation Manager;
Bonnie McCullough, National Advertising Manager.
Faith and Non-Belief
With supreme illogic some may even call themselves "agnostics," not realizing that the agnostic's thesis is a logical impossibility. Philosophically viewed, the position of the so-called "agnostic" contains internal contradictions which cannot be reconciled. It is philosophically impossible to be a "tentative" Eeliever. To wait for "evidence" is to deny faith. To speak of the "proofs" of the existence of a Deity is to deny Him. An act of Faith cannot rest on evidence and proof. Psychologically this is a typical adolescent compromise. It should never be viewed as a valid philosophical position.
Yet I have known well and have loved many "agnostic" scientists. These have fallen into one of several categories, of which I can give here only a few examples. For some among them, their philosophical compromise was the expression of their devotion to some well-loved and devout parents. Their "agnosticism" was their tribute to these parents and to their own happy and devout childhood. No one could quarrel with the spirit which this expresses; but the next category is less winning. They wanted to be accepted among a believing elite, while allowing themselves to doubt "just a gentleman's bit," but not too much. Their timid doubting was reminiscent of the "Gentleman's C" in the Harvard of Lowell's day. A third group wanted to be accepted among the ranks of scientists, while at the same time keeping one foot on base in the socially proper ranks of the Faithful. Still another "agnostic" scientist was superstitiously afraid to admit his atheism even to himself. This self-styled agnostic is an atheist with his tail between his legs. For these varied human reasons, all three groups of "agnostics" hid from acknowledging that in their secret hearts they were atheists.
What role then should the university play in this struggle? Should it support the prevalent assumption that faith is not only more difficult than doubt, but also spiritually superior? Or should it support the more difficult and humbler challenge of doubt and skepticism? Should it take its stand on the side of believing, which regards evidence as superfluous, and even views the unrelenting search for evidence as sacrilege? (For after all, he who demands evidence is "ipso facto" a doubter and without faith, whether or not he has the courage and consistency to admit it.) Or should the university defend the scholar's right and duty always to seek that approximate evidence which leads to approximate truths? Where in short should our universities stand, if they are to promote clearer thinking, greater spiritual courage, and a fuller maturity? Who in America if not the university will fight for that freedom of mind and spirit and conscience which includes "Unfaith," since this is the hardest challenge of all? Is it not on this frontier of freedom that our universities should be fighting?
But in reality where do our American universities stand on these issues? Do they even accept
all religions as equal, one to another? Above all do they grant the same status to non-believers?
ANY STUDENT of comparative religious philosophies knows that with respect to theology there are only two philosophic positions which are in basic opposition. One is the position of the man who holds that knowledge of Ultimate Truth can come only through an act of faith; i.e. by direct revelations which are divine in origin. The other position is that of the man who does not even contemplate the abstraction which is sometimes called "Ultimate Truth." He expects only that as the outcome of long and arduous search he will slowly accumulate approximate evidence which at best will reach closer approximations to reality. With humility he accepts this limitation as inevitable. For this man there is only one phenomenological world; and his knowledge of it depends upon slow increments of evidence. The other man divides his world into two parts. One is to be grasped by divine revelation and authoritarian dictator the other is to be apprehended through a slow search for imperfect and partial evidence. The philosophical positions of both men may be honest, but they are irreconcilable.
No intellectually and philosophically mature scholar will ever be seriously concerned about doctrinal or ritualistic variables among believers. He will however, be uncompromising in his defense of the rights of other men to other forms in which to express their believing, and equally determined in his defense of the right of other men not to believe at all. In any true democracy the authoritarian imposition of Unfaith or of Faith is equally indmissable; because both are steps towards a party-line mentality. That this is more than an abstract issue becomes clear when we consider how closely the separation of church and state depends upon the meticulous separation of faith from education.
SO AS TO AVOID any possibility of a misunderstanding, let me sat at once that this does not mean that in a democracy churches should not be free to educate their adherents in their respective histories and in their own tenets and rituals. A democracy must defend this, even including that indoctrination of impressionable children which occurs in Sunday School. A democracy must defend this as long as each church shows respect and tolerance not only for those who teach their children other religious forms, but also for those who maintain that man may achieve equal spiritual heights and may make at least equal cultural advances through doubt and skepticism. Both positions must be respected in a democracy; and both must be zealously defended in a university.
(This the third in a series of articles from an article by Lawrence S. Kubic, "Faith, Culture, and the American University, in the Oct. 28, 1961, Harvard Alumni Bulletin).
At the Movies
"Tunes of Glory:" with Alec Guinness and John Mills. Directed by Ronald Neame. At the Varsity.
Lawrence has had to wait much too long to see "Tunes of Glory," but it was well worth the wait. Alice Guinness and John Mills give performances that should rate as top-notch in anybody's book. The film is a "must" for all who enjoy fine acting.
JAMES KENNAWAYS screenplay is excellent, although his plot is not entirely original. "Tunes of Glory" concerns the clash of two men who have quite different personalities and backgrounds. That they happen to be Scotch military officers is incidental, but this does provide a fresh and interesting background. Kennaway establishes his characters quickly, then dissects them, bit-by-bit, with detached precision. He has created two roles
which call for skilled interpreters. Mills and Guinness are just that.
which role is the better — Mills' Colonel or Guinness' Major — is difficult to judge. The Colonel is a "spit and polish" officer, Oxford educated, with a family tradition of military prestige behind him. He feels great pressure to uphold that proud tradition, pressure which proves too much for him.
THE MAJOR is a soldier's soldier who has risen to be C.O. only to be replaced by, in his opinion, "a wae bit of a man." Determined to regain his command, he taunts and ridicules until the new Colonel finally breaks. But the Major destroys himself as well as the Colonel.
What Mills and Guinness do with these characters has to be seen to be believed. Together they present a brief but expert course in The Fine Art of Film Acting.