KANSAN Comment
Editor-in-Chief ... Ron Yates
Edition Editor ... Steve Haynes
News Editor ... Joanna Wiebe
Adult Edition Editor ... Adrian T. Kearney
Sports Editor ... Bob Kearney
ROTC, a prerogative
By DON WESTERHAUS Kansan Edition Editor
The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences faculty finally made its decision on the fate of ROTC at KU—and yet, it did not.
The College faculty voted overwhelmingly to continue giving credit to its students enrolled in ROTC programs, but decided to postpone a decision on how much credit to give.
They postponed the proposal to add to the number of hours needed for a degree when a student enrolls in ROTC courses.
However, an amendment was added to the proposal before it was tabled which would also include physical activity courses under the same category.
Perhaps a short evaluation of the situation is needed, in light of this new amendment.
The whole ROTC squabble came to the fore as a result of several student protests at KU last spring. These protests were sparked by nationwide protest concerning the present Selective Service System, based upon opposition to the conflict in Southeast Asia.
Originally, the controversy over including ROTC as a part of KU's curriculum was a direct reflection of student disenchantment with the draft and the Vietnam war. The original cry was that ROTC intruded on "academic freedom." That the presence of the military and military expenditures at KU interfered with the freedom of those who were opposed to the military establishment.
The reasoning behind the controversy has now apparently changed. The question before the College faculty, and ultimately before all undergraduate schools in the University, is whether the ROTC program is relevant to a college degree, and whether or not there is a place for it within the University.
The inclusion of the amendment to the ROTC proposal by the College faculty pertaining to physical activity courses raises a fundamental question: Just what IS relevant to a college degree? Should a University curriculum be designed to prepare the student for a profession once he has completed college, or should it stick strictly to the "three r's?"
Almost every school within the University of Kansas is professional preparation oriented, save the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and its related departments.
If the concept of the University is to be upheld, which seems to be the only logical
conclusion, then the first theory must be adhered to, and professional preparation must be included in the University curriculum.
ROTC must be considered a professional curriculum. It is a preparation for a career as a military officer. It includes courses designed to familiarize future Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps officers with the cutoms, problems and situations which will confront them during their military careers.
The usual reply to a statement of this type usually digresses to a discussion of the relevance and necessity of the military.
In keeping with the concept of academic freedom which seems so prevalent these days, each student who comes to KU should and must be allowed to pursue his own field of interest. No one else has the right to determine it for him.
This argument does not just apply to ROTC. It applies to every field of study.
No matter which area of the field is pursued, the ultimate goal in seeking a degree of this nature is to become proficient in drawing, or painting, or molding, or whatever the specific area of interest may be, so the person will acquire the skill needed to be competent in a related career after graduation.
The same is true of professionally oriented students in engineering, business, journalism, education, music—in any of the other fields of professional study which constitute the largest part of this, or any other University.
If all these other fields of professional study are available to the student, why should other courses of a professional nature such as ROTC not be considered equally as relevant, for thosy who wish to pursue them?
Granted, a curriculum such as ROTC should not be a degree granting course of study. But in the core of hours allotted for electives-those not directed toward a particular major area of study-there certainly must be a place for ROTC electives for those who want them.
If preparation for a professional career is the student's area of academic interest, and possibly his real reason for attending college at all, no matter what that interest might be, then such a field of study is relevant to him and he should be allowed to follow it.
No other person should be allowed to determine that area of opportunity for him. No one has the right to.
Letters to the Editor
To the Editor:
Administration officials at MU, by charging four students with distribution of publications "violating university regulations," seek to protect the public from offensive or dangerous ideas. But to whose standards of propriety should one cater? Adherents of Islam might find Christian teachings quite offensive or dangerous; wide-scale adoption of vegetarian principles might prove disastrous to a hog-farmer. Censorship necessitates arbitrary support of one faction at the expense of others.
Alexander Radishchev, an 18th Century Russian radical, wrote: "The curtain rises, and everyone eagerly watches the performance. If they like it, they applaud; if not, they stamp and hiss. Leave what is stupid to the judgment of public opinion; stupidity will find a thousand censors. The most vigilant police cannot check worthless ideas as well as a disgusted public." Those who further repression of ideas further stagnation of knowledge. They establish precedent to which they may one day be subjected themselves; who'll be the next in line?
Jon Hauxwell Stockton Junior
To the Editor:
We should like to propose a plan that will far out-strip the shabby Upward-bound program that Professor Ketzel was quoted as advocating by the February 19 UDK. We, too, intend to fund our program through depriving students of Kansas Union Bookstore rebates, but we intend to raise bookstore prices 500 per cent, raise several times the measly $22,174 Ketzel would raise, and still give the students their full 9 per cent rebates.
Merits of a coerced charitable contribution program can be readily discerned. Students will get an additional break since under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code there is every likelihood that all forced contribution to this mandatory program could be deducted from income and thus confer tax benefits. Considering this substantial tax savings Ketzel beneficially proposes to confer on each student, one should be careful to save all his rebate slips.
This ill-conceived scheme of forcing students to subsidize disadvantaged students is absurd. It is not based on any concept whatever of ability to pay. Ketzel's program would be a mandatory payment by all students, and the absurd anomaly would result that a poor student, unsubsidized by the government, forced to work his own way through college, and forced to buy required books from the Union must subsidize specially selected disadvantaged students. Perhaps we fail to understand the thoughtful consideration that might possibly have gone into this subsidy program, but we wonder if Ketzel can also squeeze blood from stone.
We realize that being "liberal" is vitally important to every college professor, and we also know that most college professors, like some current college students, have suddenly developed troubled social consciences, but one's avowed liberal idealism gives him no license to play the role of concerned idealistic reformer with other people's money. We therefore suggest that the rebates be returned to the students and that the students be treated in a more mature, less paternalistic manner and be permitted to voluntarily make the decision to contribute to charity instead of being coerced. Let Ketzel soothe his aching social conscience with his own money.
Philip Ridenour
Second Year Law Student
Admire, Kansas
Patricia Ridenour
Second Year Law Student
Peabody, Kansas
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 a semester, $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertise ordered to be mailed not to color, crease or natural origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
I APOLOGIZ
FOR HI-
JACKING
YOUR
AIRPLANE,
SIR.
BUT IM A
STUDENT
AND
WANTED
TO
LEARN
ABOUT
CUBA
FOR
MYSELF.
AND THEY WONT GIVE ME STATE DEPT. PERMISSION BECAUSE I AM A STUDENT AND NOT A JOURNALIST, SO I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO LEARN ABOUT CUBA FOR MYSELF.
AND THE STATE DEPT. SAYS THE ONLY LEGAL WAY I CAN GET TO CUBA IS TO FIRST GO TO MEXICO.
BUT IF I GO
BY WAY OF
MEXICO
WITHOUT
STATE DEPT.
PERMISSION
WHEN I
WANT TO
COME HOME
I WONT
BE LET
BACK INTO
MEXICO.
SO TO COME HOME FROM CUBA I HAVE TO FIRST GO TO MADRID.
SO WHAT
CHOICE
DID I
HAVE BUT
TO HI-JACK
YOUR
AIRPLANE?
AS I
SEE IT
IT'S A
RETURN
TO THE
CONCEPT
OF FREE
TRAVEL.