KANSAN Comment
Editor in Chief, Ron Yates
Business Manager, Pam Flayton
Editorial Editor Alan T. Jones
Edition Editor Sandy Zahradnik
News Editor Joanna Wiebe
Sports Editor Bob Kearney
Ad Manager Kathy Sanders
A new wave
Like the wind of change predicted by President Nixon, a wave of asterisks is sweeping the nation and college editors are screaming censorship. You may have noticed the symbols "f**k" in the Kansan.
It seems more and more news sources are using obscenities, mostly, it is believed, for the shock value they add to a hard-felt statement about a hard-felt cause. But why obscenities?
The English language is notably lacking in effective expletives that can express the emotion a speaker feels during a given phrase. Also, in "polite society" a good old "f**k you" certainly get the non-listener's attention.
However, in other parts of our society as anyone who has served in the armed forces can testify, the word is hardly noticed. A barracks bull session years ago revealed the interesting theory that in the Army the "word" even ceases to have meaning. There are many little phrases people add to their sentences for effect. "You know"is commonly heard in campus conversations. In fact it is heard so much that the average listener can repress it easily. So it is with the "word" in the language of an Army sergeant.
The "word" is not going to shock any
veteran. He has heard it more often and more effectively used than any non-veteran can imagine.
In fact, the user of such a word is showing his listener a lack of ability to communicate. No one doubts the mental ability of a tough sergeant who maintains a working vocabulary of five words. If someone says "you know" at the end of a sentence one could easily question whether the speaker knows.
The editor, especially of a university publication, is faced with a unique problem. He wants accuracy in his quotations, but he also wants to maintain the respectability of his paper and maintain its "family-reading" status.
Some go to the point of fighting with University officials by claiming censorship. Others go to the other extreme of cutting all profanities out of quotations. The moderates (i.e., the Kansan) have gone to asterisks. This really doesn't solve anything. It's just as easy to read "**" as it is "uc." But, for the time being, the asterisks seem to satisfy both sides in the quarrel. The source has his word in print and the editor has supposedly kept his "family image."
And just when the whole problem seems solved, Harry Reasoner goes and says "God damn" on television. (ATJ)
Rapping Left
By GUS di ZEREGA
When we attack American imperialism or call, at the very least, for drastic social reorganization, we are often accused of hating our country, of desiring the destruction of the United States.
This misunderstanding comes from a basic misconception held by nearly all Americans: that our country and our government are one. For example, we are told to "serve our country by fighting in Vietnam" when in reality we are to serve our rulers by fighting in Vietnam. Did the American people make the decision to fight there? The last time they were given the opportunity, in 1964, they opted overwhelmingly for peace. How, then, do we serve an America that voted for peace by cooperating with her leaders in fighting their war?
But the war was escalated and the people rallied 'round in support of it. Why? Because "America" was involved, or so we were told. But what is America if she is not her people and their hopes and dreams? And that America desired peace. Over the past few decades a tragic hoax has been perpetrated upon our people. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the government as the servant of the people, and of their duty to overthrow it when it ceases to be so. Today, however, we are told of the duty we owe to our government, to serve it loyally, pay for it, and if necessary die for it. It is the master, we are the servants. If you are a man, for example, you "owe" your government two years of your life.
Not only has the government perverted its original role, it has systematically gone against every principle our country was founded on. Self determination? You have Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, and so many others to refute our rhetoric. At home dishonest politicians, a pseudo-democracy, Watts and Chicago, mass-manipulation, racism, and exploitation give the lie to the government's rhetoric as plainly as the day to day activities of most Christians give the lie to their pious Sunday prayers.
The men who are really hurting our country are those who bow down before the altar of power and kow tow to the lords of destruction who promise ever bigger and better bombs and bullets to "defend freedom." It is these men whom we battle, and it is these men who now dominate the government and our society. If we didn't love our country we wouldn't take the time.
When one of these men cries out that we hate our country I am reminded of Albert Camus' answer to a German friend during World War II while the Nazis appeared triumphant:
"You were satisfied to serve the power of your nation and we dreamed of giving ours her truth. It was enough for you to serve the politics of reality whereas, in our wildest aberrations, we still have a vague conception of the politics of honor, which we recognize today. When I say 'we' I am not speaking of our rulers. But a ruler hardly matters."
Dean Bell explains urban action position
To the Editor:
In your edition of March 4, headlined at the top of page 1, is a story about discussions regarding a new position in the Chancellor's Office. The story gives, in my opinion, some false impressions, even to the point of suggesting that the University might be breaking the law in specifying that a particular applicant for a position be black. I would like to try and make clear what exactly is going on.
1. The University Council for Urban Action is not yet an official part of the structure of the University. As an "ad hoc" committee, it first began to function last August. It requested recognition from the Senate Executive Committee as a "senate committee", but eventually the Senate Executive, the Chancellor's Office and the Council itself realized that some other arrangement should be made. On December 8 the Chancellor's Office was asked to make some official designation of the Council. That designation has not yet been made; the Council is thus still "ad hoc".
2. The Council's work has nevertheless pointed out to a large portion of the University community that a very great deal is going on, both on the campus and between segments of the University and urban groups. What is more, many now realize what can and should be done regarding disadvantaged students — black, white, or whatever. The Council cannot effectively coordinate programs, research and public relations concerned with urban problems.
though it would be vital to effective coordination. The Chancellor's Office itself suggested several months ago that it would probably be necessary to appoint an official to be the coordinator, more than likely someone who would function somewhat as the Assoc. Dean of Faculties for International Programs does for the international involvements of the University. No decision has been made about the title of any such new official.
3. In view of what I have said above, it should be obvious that the University Council for Urban Action is still unofficial, though it has worked hard and effectively all academic year. But also, neither the Chancellor nor any other University official designated the Council as the official "Search" committee for the new position. Provost Surface did ask the Council to collect names of possible candidates, and to find out if the individuals were interested and if they would submit their credentials to the Council or to the Chancellor's Office. Your article sounds as if the Council will make the appointment, and decide upon the candidate. That is emphatically not true. The Chancellor, through the Board of Regents, will make an appointment. The chances are that the Council will submit the names of several likely candidates, when that time comes. Other groups may also submit names to the Chancellor's Office.
4. To say that the Council is considering 40 candidates is highly misleading. We are considering no one at all.In one
way or another something over 30 names have been submitted to the Council, and various individuals on and off the Council have been writing to see if any of the 30-plus individuals are interested at all. If they are, then we-or the appropriate official in the Chancellor's Office—will want to see credentials. Then we shall be "considering" genuine candidates, to come up with several possibilities for the Chancellor. We are a month or so away, I would guess, from actually considering candidates.
5. Your article also misleads about the criteria. The Chancellor and the Board of Regents will make the final decision, as I have said. The Chancellor's Office has not set any criteria. The Council for Urban Action has talked about the sort of person we think should be considered for this position, but we are not empowered to decide upon the criteria. We shall make the best case we can for the names we submit. The Council, or at least those participants who met together twice over one weekend sometime ago felt that the ideal candidate for such a position as this should have experience in urban programs, and preferably in urban programs which might fit into University responsibilities and intentions. Also, in view of the particular crises of our times, both on campuses and in the cities, the Council felt that a candidate should be black. And, to finish the ideal portrait, the Council thought that a candidate or candidates should have credentials, knowledge and
experiences which would fit him into the University community. He might have the opportunity to teach, for instance. The Council is prepared to argue the merits of this ideal candidate, but in no sense are the outlines of the portrait "criteria" set by Chancellor or Council, or anyone else. If the University stipulated that a man must be black to fill a certain position at any level in the University, then it would almost certainly be breaking a host of statutes and legal contracts—just as it would be breaking statutes and legal contracts if it stipulated that a candidate must be white.
6. Finally, I presume that most who are involved with the UDK realize that any new official in the Chancellor's Office would need to be considered by the new Chancellor, and that the sort of official about which we are talking would especially need to know the Chancellor with whom he would work, and vice versa. I would guess that in March and April this aspect of the problem will be settled during the visits of the new Chancellor to the campus.
Thus, I am unofficial secretary for an unofficial Council, unofficially discovering about individuals who might do a good job for the University and the public. It is not so ludicrous a situation as it might sound. Such a position in a president's or chancellor's office is, as your reporter writes, virtually unique. Many people on campus and off must help to define the position and the responsibilities of the person who fills it, and possible candidates must also have their
say. The University is not filling a known position.
Perhaps your news story had to be cut for brevity. I have not been brief. It is not a simple problem.
Aldon D. Bell Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
To the Editor:
I am still very much interested in KU and its general welfare and note with concern the unrest that is sweeping over some of our educational institutions. You have my permission to organize a vigilante committee and dump all agitators in Potter Lake.
During World War I, I was in Hdq. Co., 353 Inf., 89th Div.
Our regiment consisted mostly of Kansas boys which included a number of KU students and graduates. None of us felt like we were abused because we were called to serve our country. My idea on this is, "A country is not worth living in, if it is not worth fighting for."
Charles M. Coats
The Kansas Masonic Home Wichita
Kanan Telephone Numbers
Newsroom—UN-4-3646
Business Office—UN 4-4358
A student serving the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Published at the University of Kansas
of Kansas except holidays and examination periods.
Mall subscription rates: $6 a semester.
For 10 year. Second class postage paid.
Recommendations, accommodations, goods, services and advertisement offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Students are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Residents