Page 2
University Daily Kansan Tuesday, May 19, 1964
Peaceful Existence
SPU Freedom
Friday was a peaceful day. The sun was warm, a soft wind, strange for Kansas, was blowing and the weekend was ahead.
Friday afternoon, the "Chancellor's Review" was held of KU's three ROTC units.
To the right of the reviewing stand, a line of students, small in number, but large in ideals stood with picket signs.
The Student Peace Union (SPU) was picketing the ROTC review.
Essentially their appeal is ban ROTC. The only good military force is one that is non-existent.
It was a peaceful day for a peaceful demonstration.
In South Viet Nam, it's the time of the rainy season. Our "advisors" go to class and instruct the soldiers of Viet Nam. Their object is slightly different however. They are teaching the art of fighting and how to kill or be killed. The title of the course is "Modern Guerrilla Warfare. 1964."
Basically the course is not new. It's being taught in Armed Forces Bases around the world. The theme of the course is survival.
Repugnant, isn't it? To think of teaching civilized man how to kill. And for what?
To protect the idea of our democracy that has been paid for many times over by the lives of our forefathers, and by members of the military today? Let's not get sentimental.
To keep the right of freedom inherent so that we can picket without fear of arrest? That's ridiculous.
We're not protecting anything by teaching men how to kill. That never accomplishes anything. It just helps to keep the status quo. We should instead, teach civilized man how to carry picket signs, and how to promote his ideals of peace the world over. The military is a waste of time and money.
Mothers and wives have cried in privacy, publicly, and in freedom because of our war-mongering. I imagine they can say it wasn't worth it. Or can they?
I salute the SPU! Ban the American flag!
World-wide peace is the important thing.
Especially since we haven't been working to protect what peace we do possess.
May mothers and wives never shed another tear. Our freedom isn't worth it. Thank you Mr. McNamara. Friday was a peaceful day.
-Jim Langford
The People Say
Defends SPU
Certain letter to you have made it necessary for me to defend the SPU.
The accusations are that the goals of SPU cannot be realized and that if they were to be realized, they would lead to national danger.
The issues at hand are these. Does the state have more right to exist than the individual, or, is the reverse true? And, can nuclear weapons, in the final analysis, protect the lives and property of the people in the state?
In the current world military arrangement it is ridiculous to think that, in event of war, there will be any life left which the state can protect. It is at this point that the current productions of nuclear weapons for "defensive" reasons have really outlived their purpose.
Now, whether the SPU can change this situation or not does not matter. In the same manner, just because an individual does not have the power to appeal to the Law to protect his rights, it does not mean that he does not have them.
Specifically then, the state does not have the right to engage in military programs which in their very nature have the capacity to
destroy all life in the belligerent countries in case of disagreement.
The SPU, then, is composed of individuals who realize that the individual$_{s}$ in the state, separately, or, in the aggregate, have the right to life which is being threatened. They must point out the folly of these well-meaning programs which would do the reverse of what they set out to do.
Individuals could quite legally sue the state for such warlike activities, but, then, there is no court that has yet fully realized that states are ridiculous and selfish. Hopefully, states will become obsolete and be replaced by one supreme state—the people of the world.
Walter S. Bgoya Tanganyika junior
Review Sickening
To a disinterested observer, the military review Friday afternoon took on the appearance of fine young bodies being inspected to make sure they were good enough to do battle, or, if you wish, some high-grade meat being inspected before slaughter. In any case, it is directly in the centuries-old and half-civilized tradition of regarding groups of men as war machines, waiting to be ordered to do the dirty work of those heads of state
who cannot adapt their thinking and action to the present, but who continue to think and act in terms of the past.
To one who has caught the vision of a more free society even than that visualized by the Constitution-makers, and who thinks that men can overcome their barbaric traditions and live in self-respect, the review was a rather sickening reminder that there is a tremendous amount of work to be done to realize this goal.
There are better paths through future history than the military one to the goal of free, individually-oriented society, paths that involve less pain for humanity, and that have more relevance to the goal. But these alternative paths will never be used if the leaders of governments do not begin shaking themselves out of this centuries-old rut of militarism and individual oppression. Since the men of government in this country are still influenced at least a little bit by public opinion, it is this country that has the capacity to take the first step. And, however ineffective their methods may be, that is what the SPU was really trying to do Friday—to influence public opinion away from tradition and toward reasonable action.
Kent Andrews Abilene freshman
"Precisely, General——In This Space Age. It's Not Enough To Be Able To Destroy Only One Planet"
Dailij Mhhsan
111 Flint Hall
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York 22, N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays, University holidays, and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas
BOOK REVIEWS
THE ORDEAL OF POWER, by Emmet John Hughes (Dell, 75 cents).
This is the book that has caused so much controversy because Emmet John Hughes, who wrote speeches for Eisenhower, gives an inside view of the Eisenhower administration that is scarcely the view of a court partisan. For that reason it will be talked about for some time.
There have, as a matter of fact, been official and semi-official contradictions of some of the Hughes commentaries. Nixon, especially, gets his lumps: Hughes obviously has no love for the vicepresident. Sherman Adams is treated in harsh words. His ultimate view of Eisenhower, though he liked and respected him, is that Eisenhower failed to live up to his potential or his promise.
Yet he also comments on the man who succeeded Eisenhower, who had failed (or had not tried), as Eisenhower had failed, to stop the onrushing McCarthy. It is likely that Hughes, in his picture of Eisenhower, is neither as good as the Democrats paint him nor as bad as the Republicans say.
Constitution Commission Favors Short Ballot
By Roy Miller
When the Douglas County voter attempts to exercise his voting privilege in August and November, he will be confronted with the names of candidates running for more than 25 state, county and congressional offices.
And, it is because of this profusion of choice that the increasing trend is toward the short ballot, especially at the state level, where the long ballot also obstructs effective administration.
In view of such a lengthy ballot—which in November will include three proposed constitutional amendments—it's no wonder that many voters leave the polls in a perplexed frame of mind.
THE SECOND COMMISSION on Revision of the Kansas Constitution proposed that "In state elections only the governor, the lieutenant governor and the attorney general be popularly chosen instead of nine state officers as now."
The commission notes that the proposal does not "go as far toward the so-called short ballot as recent studies and recent trends in our state constitutions agree to advise . . "
Only the governor remains popularly elected in the constitutions of Alaska, Hawaii, New Jersey, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
BEHIND THIS MOVEMENT toward the short ballot, there is an effort to make the governor the chief executive in reality as well as in name.
"The executive department of most states is splintered, with administrative powers divided among elected officials at all levels of government and specialized, independent boards and agencies.
Frances Sanford Nelson wrote in "Constitutional Change in Kansas:"
"Too often the governor finds that the role he plays is that of observer rather than that of chief executive, and the people, as they view this maze of executive activity, are seldom able to decide whom to hold responsible for successes or failures in administration."
WILLIAM H. CAPE, associate professor of political science, commented on this multiple executive in "Constitutional Revision in Kansas" by stating:
The fact that a multiple executive is common in most states reflects the early day distrust of a single executive.
"The fact that those executive officers are elected indicates that they are to enjoy a degree of independence from the chief executive
"Because several state officials are elected, it means that they may feel a greater responsibility directly to the voters rather than to the chief executive.
"The indirect' loyalty of the constitutional officers to the governor would take on additional significance if the minority party should consistently win one or more of the 'cabinet' positions."
THE SECOND COMMISSION on Revision of the Constitution proposed joint election of the governor and lieutenant governor and pointed to the national system and the constitutions of a few other states.
"This provision should serve to avoid the confusion resulting when the two top officials are of differing partisan beliefs—a confusion compounded should the problem of succession arise in mid-term," the commission stated in its report.
The duties of the lieutenant governor would be defined by statute, but he would remain as presiding officer of the Senate.
A majority of the commission preferred to leave the attorney general an elective position.
"The example of the national government is in point," the commission stated. "The chief executive, it is said, needs a thorough cooperation from the attorney general's office."
IN ADDITION TO cutting the number of elective state officials, the commission proposed an amendment on the executive article which would lengthen terms from two to four years.
The commission cited a majority of states' constitutions providing for four-year terms.
"The Council of State Governments, the National Municipal League and other groups dedicated to improving government back the four-year term on the ground that a shorter time does not allow a fair test of the chief executive's policies and programs," the commission's report stated.
"While the short ballot is aimed to fix responsibility upon the governor somewhat more than in the past, and so to make more effective the voter's task of assessing the responsibility, yet our concern is also to guard against the possible abuse of executive power.
"ACCORDINGLY, three safeguards are contemplated:
- Popular election of attorney general.
- A state comptroller general to be chosen by, and responsible to, the Legislature.
- A bar against two successive gubernatorial terms.
The commission would make election of state officers in midpresidential-term elections "in order to stress more largely the state issues as such."