On a holiday When is one man allowed to obstruct another man's business? Is it when the business is a monopoly? How about an illegal business? Or, a business operated on a racially discriminating basis? When can a man decide another's business is illegal or immoral? A business in Lawrence was obstructed this week. It was obstructed by a group of people whose leaders had decided the business was run on an immoral-i.e., racial-basis. The issue was a relatively simple one. The obstructors said a woman was fired because of her race. The businessman said she had been demoted and, not accepting the demotion, had resigned. Two other persons resigned with her. The moralists took issue with the dismissal, whether it was voluntary or not, and demonstrated, closing the business for a time and they finally had to be evicted from the premises by police. According to reports in the press, the group seemed to have little basis for its demonstration save that of a disgruntled former employe, hardly the logical foundation for a protest that has reached the statehouse in Topeka. However, judging from subsequent action in Topeka, there was a firmer basis for the action. It seems the business in question had been under investigation by the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights before the demonstration. A conciliatory conference was held Tuesday by the commission. Both sides in the dispute were heard and the commission decided against the business. Two recommendations were issued but the business refused to comply and court action could be in the offing, coupled with more demonstrations. The decision of the commission and the reaction of the business tend to solidify and justify the action taken by the Perhaps the major fault lies at the state level. The necessity for a demonstration could have been avoided if the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights had more authority than a simple advisory capacity. For the commission to get any results it must wade through miles of red tape, wasting time and usually solving nothing. demonstrators in the beginning, at least morally. The question remains—how much did the leaders know before the fact? And, even if they knew enough to justify their actions, were their actions justified? If the commission had the authority to enforce its recommendations, the need for demonstrations similar to the one last Sunday in Lawrence, would be greatly lessened. (ATJ) Kansan Telephone Numbers Newsroom—UN 4-3646 Business Office—UN 4-4358 Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $ a semester, $10 a year. Second-order mailing fees: $2 per item. Inquiries, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents. Executive Staff Editor-in-Chief Ron Yates Business Manager Pam Flaton Edition Editors Steve Haynes, Robert Enterkin Jr., Don Westerhaus, Marla Babcock, Sandy Zahradnik News Editor Johanna Wiles Assistant News Editor Tom Weinberg Editorial Editor Alan T. Jones Editorial Writers Alison Steimel, Judi K Dielboff Sports Editor Bob Kearney Sports Editor Jay Thomas Feature and Society Editor Marilyn Petterson Assistant Feature and Society Editor Susan Brimacombe Photo and Graphics Editor Linda McCreeger Arts and Reviews Editor Bob Butler Copy Chiefs Ruth Rademacher, Judy Dague, Linda Larson Donna Schrader, John Gillie Editorial Manager Kathy Sanders National Advertising John Rheinfrank Promotional Advertising Jerry Bottenfeld Promotional Advertising Patty Murphy Circulation Todd Smith Assistant Business Manager Gary O'Neal Member Associated Collegiate Press REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY National Educational Advertising Services A DIVISION OF READER'S DIGEST SALES & SERVICES, INC. 360 Lexington Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017 'Heah now! Y'all want those commies to find out we'ah not perfect?' Readers' write To the Editor: This is a letter concerning events which happened at the recent high school basketball tournament. Imagine yourself in this situation. You know that a sporting event is going to take place and make reservations at a motel three weeks in advance and receive written confirmation of the reservations. When you arrive at the motel for your room you are told that you can't have a room because you are here to see your team participate in the event. This is what happened at a motel this last week at a motel here in Lawrence. In one specific case three persons made reservations for a party of three for three nights at the Virginia Inn Motel and received written confirmation of their reservations. Upon arriving at the motel early on Thursday to get their room they were told that they couldn't have one, written confirmation or not, because they were high schoolers here to see the tournament. Fortunately they were able to find a room elsewhere, but many others in the same situation didn't. What is the purpose of making a reservation if the motel isn't going to honor it? What happens when a person travels a long distance with a confirmed reservation in hand and arrives finding no room waiting and all the other places filled. I consider this a dishonest act of misrepresentation. If a motel is going to discriminate against a certain group of people, they should do so at the time of the making of a reservation instead of confirming it, letting people travel a long distance expecting a place to stay, only to find that they have been LIED to. At least they would have a chance to find a room elsewhere. When a person makes a reservation well in advance and it is confirmed, he should be able to expect the motel to keep its part of the agreement. Not only does such an event give the motel involved a bad name but it also reflects on Lawrence and the University. People aren't going to stay in Lawrence if its businesses don't keep their agreements. I won't ever go to the Virginia Inn because of their false agreements and treatment of their customers, and I feel people should know so they will not be caught in the same situation. Floyd Biggs Lawrence junior To the Editor: I was one of the people who sat inside the Holiday Inn restaurant to protest against racism, and I enjoyed reading about it in your paper. One thing though is not quite right. You said the dead mouse was found by a student. That is sort of right. I am a student in 3rd grade, Deerfield School. When I found the mouse I was reading a book in the corner. It sat on it and thats how I found the mouse. Sincerely, Jennifer Wright To the Editor: We had hoped that the establishment of the new University Senate would add some significance to campus politics. In the past, campus politics has appeared to have no issues. This is no longer true. However, the ISP-ACT coalition platform, in our view, consists of issues that are mostly irrelevant and often ludicrous. While we personally agree that the Vietnamese war is immoral and the draft unjust, we cannot see what such issues have to do with the administration of the University of Kansas. What purpose is served by making KU the only school in the Big 8 with a foreign policy? We also find it hard to believe that Huey Newton will be released from the Los Angeles County Jail on the basis of resolution of the KU Student Senate. What platform planks there are on the ISP-ACT program that do relate to the University also seem to widely miss the mark for responsible student government. For instance, protesting the Mississippi Street tunnel before it was built may have been effective, but now it is futile. It seems to us that those students interested in running for office this spring should remember that this is a University Senate, not the U.S. Senate. James A. Reaves Daniel T. Dana To the Editor: Last Saturday night I was watching a film in the Ballroom of the Kansas Union when a group of Negroes accompanied by one white boy began to pelt the audience with wood coat-hangers. The showing of the film was temporarily halted. Large metal furnishings were also hurled from the balcony. Had these larger objects hit anyone, severe injury or even death might have resulted. The campus police ignored the situation. I observed only one policeman that came to the scene, and he just looked around and left. Later, I followed the gang that was responsible for the mass assault as they went down the stairs into the main lobby. There was a group of about eight campus police doing their best to stay out of the way of students in the building. I pointed the guilty parties out to the campus police. One of the policemen said "thank you" in a low nervous voice and turned away so he wouldn't have to look at them. Why wasn't an arrest made? After making a personal investigation I discovered that the campus police were armed only with revolvers. Hardly the type of weapon a policeman should use in apprehending a thug in a crowded situation. Why were the campus police not provided with night sticks, mace, or cattle prods? It seems there was incompetence as well as cowardice. Richard A. Rogers Graduate student in Anthropology