KANSAN Comment
Editor-in-Chief Ron Yates
Editorial Editor
News Editor
Edition Editor
Sports Editor
Alan T. Jones
Joanna Wiebe
Robert Entkrjen
Robert Kearney
Flashbacks
Friday's attempted bombing of the KU Military Science Building was an event that shocked a great number of people. While the bombing of a building has become something of a semi-common occurrence on campuses across the country, no one thought it would happen at good old KU.
But, it did happen, and aside from the relatively minor damages caused, it could have two important repercussions, one of them rather far-reaching.
While none of the investigating organizations will divulge the extent and direction of its investigation, one can safely guess it will begin with those associated with the new left and the black student movements on campus.
At this point, the investigators don't know who did the bombing; however because of their previous actions, these are probably the people who are being investigated first.
The investigation probably began with the most recently-militant groups, but by the time it ends, if the guilty person is not apprehended, the investigation could end in a lengthy probe into the entire new-left movement (if it can be called that), a probe that could end in the police persecution of a number of innocent people who, at one time or other, have been associated with the new left.
More far-reaching than the actual investigation of the bombing is the effect it could have on the Kansas Legislature.
A bill is now before the Kansas House of Representatives that provides for expulsion of any student at a public-funded institution who fails to obey the lawful order of a peace officer during a demonstration. A similar bill before the Senate was tabled and is being rewritten to include faculty and other state employees.
Action is expected on the House bill this week. If someone wanted this bill passed, his timing with a bomb couldn't have been better.
The bomber, while endangering human life, has also created a situation which could cause a legislative panic, which, in turn, could cause passage of these two bills. He has done more to bring further control over future student demonstrations than he has to further whatever may have caused him to throw the bombs in the first place. (ATJ)
Off the Walls
"George Sand smoked marijuana cigars"
"Rock Chalk Chicken Hawk"
"J. Hill slept here"
"These walls and stalls will soon be out in paperback"
"Hubert Humphrey are two of the nicest people I ever met."
"Adam and Eve were consenting adults"
"Robert Heinlein doesn't groh"
"Lady Godiva wore a fall"
Is this the voice of dissent?
Letters
Students vs. Legislature
To the Editor:
Various members of the Kansas State Legislature are now hard at work attempting to duplicate the bill passed by the Wisconsin Legislature that makes expulsion from state-supported schools mandatory for any student or faculty member guilty of civil disobedience. The necessity for such a law is doubtful and the purpose is highly questionable.
To begin with, there are an ample number of state local laws dealing with a wide range of offenses and their prescribed punishment. Furthermore, there has never been any serious sign of unwillingness of Kansas law enforcement agencies to enforce these laws, either against students or any other Kansas residents. Students receive no special protection from the laws. In fact, they are subject to even more restrictions. Some of them have an enforced curfew and more of them can't even vote. Why is it that they should be punished twice for the same crime; once by the courts and once more through mandatory expulsion from their college or university?
Perhaps it's because students, being somewhat naive, fail to perceive the wisdom of maintaining the status quo here in the best of all possible worlds, and must be pressured into letting well enough alone.
We are not bold enough, however, to claim that this is what the Kansas legislators have in mind. We are merely speculating about methods. But let's turn to the justification for such a bill.
If we were in a position to make laws and wished to suppress dissent without seeming to infringe on civil liberties, how best could we do it? Hmmmmm ... Well, we could make penalties for any offense, be it misdemeanor or felony, twice as heavy and hope that it would intimidate the target population enough so that they wouldn't dare attempt anything that might lead to a change in the present system. The rest we could leave to eager law enforcement officers. In fact, we could even decree that disobedience of any order (lawful, of course) from a law enforcement officer would also merit double punishment. That ought to keep those students in their place!
Justification for bills that single out student "criminals" for double punishment is given on the grounds that the student voluntarily attends the college or university and that his education is paid for in part by the state. The student is "privileged" to attend a state-sponsored educational institution and should be happy to place himself under the paternalistic care of the college administration, the Board of Regents, and the State Legislature.
"Privileged" is a sadly misused term. It is not used to define the state of multitudes of other recipients of state aid-users of state recreation areas, parks, highways, workman's compensation and agricultural program beneficiaries, and on down the list. If some of these recipients are said to be receiving state aid because it is necessary in their occupation or employment, then the same may be said of the student. He is receiving partial subsidy for training he will later apply in his occupation. If other recipients pay taxes, then so do many students. A large number pay earnings tax and income tax on the money they earn over the year. Others pay property tax on their vehicles. Yet students, and not other recipients, are singled out to pay a double penalty for any offense they are convicted of.
These "offenses" could conceivably range all the way down to "creating a disturbance" (noisy party) or "drunk and disorderly" (struggling home after a long session at one of the local students'-favorite-beverage dispensaries). It's all up to the local law officers.
However, we wonder if perhaps special attention might be focused on students who don't "know their place" in the university or college of their choice.
If you enjoy special attention and fell secure in the paternal hands of the state legislature, you may ignore the message and use this piece of paper for whatever pressing need it best fits. If you feel, on the other hand, that such a proposed bill is not in the best interest of students, the educational system, or justice, we urge you to write to or talk with the Kansas State Legislature representatives from your district and your U.S. Senators and House Representatives.
James Schleske
Valley Stream, N.Y., Senior
To the Editor:
We write to express our concern with four bills now in the Kansas Legislature and Senate. These bills not only threaten the rights of Kansas students and faculty members, but also attempt to make Kansas universities and colleges part of the state's judicial system.
The bills I refer to are House Bills No. 1144, 1022 and Senate Bills 83 and one recently introduced by Senator Charles Hinchey.
House Bill 1144, presently in the Federal and State Affairs Committee, was introduced by Representative Slocombe and advocates that "any student regularly enrolled at any institution of higher education, which receives all or any part of its financial support from public
funds of the state of Kansas, who shall, while participating in any demonstration or disturbance, fail or refuse to obey the lawful order of any police or peace officer, shall immediately be dismissed or expelled."
The Senate version of this bill uses this same wording except that it extends its consideration to faculty members.
According to this bill if faculty members participate in a demonstration or disturbance and refuse to obey the order of a police officer, they thereby, "forfeit all right," to continued faculty membership and, "shall be immediately removed from service and dismissed . . ."
The two other bills, House Bill 1022 and Senator Hinchey's bill, take a different approach to protestors. Both these bills advocate the forfeiture of the protestor's scholarship. Hinchey's bill calls for an automatic forfeiture if the student recipient disbeys a police order or is, "convicted of participating in a campus riot." Section 12 of the House bill lists seven lines of activities including, "refusal to serve in the armed forces," and, "lewd, lascivious, immoral or indecent behavior," as causes for cancellation, at the Regents discretion, of the unused portion of the scholarship.
Upon closer examination, two of these bills are seen as forms of racism. We would venture it true that most black students are able to attend state colleges and universities due to some form of financial aid. It is a fact evidenced by many campuses tha black students suffer more grievances in the educational system than whites, and that they often have to demonstrate until these grievances are redressed. The Senate and House bills which demand punishment by loss of scholarship in effect then, punish the students who have the most grievances and are most dependent on financial aid. Experience shows that these students are black.
Finally, these bills are direct attacks on the basic premise of the Constitution that judicial power is vested in the courts
Rob Kasper
Overland Park, Junior
Bill Cutler
St. Louis, Mo., Senior
Kanan Telephone Numbers
Newroom - UN-4-3640
Bustingford - UN-4-3558
A student newspaper serving the University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.
Pursued 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 semester: $7 a semester.
$6044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin.
 necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.