Page 2
University Daily Kansan Monday, March 18, 1963
Agreement Unlikely
The 17-nation disarmament conference in Geneva was one year old last week-one more year of talk and no action.
A Soviet negotiator said that if the negotiations continue at their present pace, they could go on for another 10 years-presumably with the same results.
THE PRIMARY stumbling block appears to be inspection. Russia finally decided to accept three inspections, but the United States maintains that three is not enough. The United States wants to go on to discussion of the technical problems and come back to the number of inspections later, but Russia wants to reach agreement on the number of inspections first.
Unlikely though it may seem that the Soviets will change their position on inspection, one question still lingers just over the horizon. What would happen if the Soviets were to accept in full the next United States inspection proposal?
This would take the problem out of the hands of the U.S. negotiators and throw it into Congress. Lake any other treaty, a disarmament agreement must be accepted by Congress before it can be put into effect.
AT FIRST glance it is difficult to see why Congress would have any doubts about accepting a disarmament agreement if adequate arrangements were made. But closer scrutiny reveals a number of side issues, at least one of which could easily come to be a bigger hurdle than inspection agreements.
In the United States the economic repercussions of disarmament feasibly could bring on a downward spiral no less disastrous than that of 1929 and the early 1930's. Drastic cuts in defense spending would mean fewer big defense contracts, which would mean more unemployment, which would mean less money spent on new cars and appliances, which would mean cutbacks in production, which would mean more unemployment—and on and on, spiraling lower with each step toward depression.
What would happen to Wichita if Boeing's defense contracts were cancelled? What would happen in Seattle, where the Boeing plants are much larger than in Wichita? What would happen throughout southern California—an area which draws its lifeblood from electronics and aircraft industries dependent on defense contracts? These are only a few examples of the many cities and areas across the country that would be staggered by large-scale cuts in the defense budget.
CERTAINLY, THE change from a wartime to a peacetime economy COULD be made, but the problems that would be encountered are frightening. Whether our congressmen could find enough courage to accept the challenges presented by these problems instead of choosing to avoid them can hardly be determined now, and hope alone is not very reassuring.
— Dennis Branstiter
University of Nebraska
Republican Blasts Newspaper
By Terry Ostmeyer
An old college issue came back to life two weeks ago when the campus newspaper at the University of Nebraska was charged with bias and inadequacy in presenting political news.
The controversy, concerned mainly with student journalistic rights, was extensively covered by the NU student newspaper, the Daily Nebraskan. The following information was compiled from its news columns.
THE NEBRASKAN reported on March 4 an attack by Ray Simmons, Fremont, Neb., attorney and former state senator, in which he said the Nebraskan in the last five semesters has presented an extremely liberal viewpoint in its news and editorial columns.
Simmons leveled his charges in a 32-page booklet which he issued at a Republican Party meeting, March 2. The booklet contained excerpts from the Nebraskan.
According to the Nebraskan, Simmons said in his report NU students were being "openly and deliberately indoctrinated with political philosophies rejected by the overwhelming majority of Nebraskans of both political parties."
IT SAID the report claimed that Nebraskan political cartoons or articles repeatedly favored
certain controversial issues without presenting the opposite and conservative-viewpoint.
In a telephone interview with the Nebraskan, Simmons was reported to have said the newspaper is supported by state taxes and "has no business taking part in political issues."
He said the Nebraskan uses NU facilities and an advisory staff of faculty members, as well as additional support from the $1 a semester fee the students pay for the paper.
ACCORDING TO the Nebraskan, Simmons said "it is imaterial whether the tax funds go directly into the paper or the money comes from the students."
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
Simmons said in the interview that articles of national origin should not be printed by a tax supported newspaper such as the Nebraskan. "A college news-
"I WISH YOU WOULDN'T READ AHEAD OF THE ASSIGNED CHAPTERS, MR. KINNEY — SOME OF THIS MATERIAL I WOULD JUST AS SOON WE SKIP OVER."
(Continued on page 3)
Daily Hansan UNIVERSITY
Telephone VIking 3-2700 Extension 711, news room Extension 376, business office
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904,
triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
University of Kansas student newspaper
Member Inland Daily Press Association, Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service and University of Kansas 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. Accepts an analysis periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Fred Zimmerman ... Managing Editor
Ben Marshall. Bill Sheldon.
Miller, Art Miller, Margaret Cathee Assistant Managing Editors Scott Payne City Editor Steve Clark Sports Editor Trudy Meserve and
Ben Marshall, Bill Sheldon,
Mike Miller, Art Miller, Margaret
Jackie Stern Co-Society Editors Murrel Bland Photograph Editor
EDITORIAL DES. DE
Demna Murphy  Asst. Editorial Editor
Terry Murphy
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Jack Cannon ... Business Manager;
Jim Stevens, Ass. Business Mgr.;
Kim Young, Researcher;
anne Zabornik, Circulation Mgr.;
Brooks Harrison, Classified Mgr.; Bob
Brooks Harrison, Adv. Mgr.; Charles
Merclandisd Mgr.; Bill Finley,
Merclandisd Mgr.
Sound and Fury
ASC Veep Attacks Kansan Editorials
It has now been nearly a year since I took my place on the All Student Council as the men's representative from the College. During that time I have never felt obliged to write a letter to the Kansan concerning its editorial policy. Indeed, even since assuming the position of Vice-Chairman, it has been my policy not to answer criticism which is unworthy of an answer. Still, even the virtue of self-restraint, if put under enough pressure, tends to yield to the more easy course, that of emotional retaliation. And so. I am doing exactly what Mr. Murphy would have me do. I am writing a letter. What I have to say will not, however, descend to emotionalism; for I am not a journalism major and must therefore deal in facts.
THE EDITORIAL "Change the Name" represents the latest bit of irresponsible editorializing from the Kansan. It is irresponsible not for what it hopefully leads to, i.e., a more representative Council, a more alert legislature. It is irresponsible because it is criticism for its own sake. It offers no alternatives to our problems. I often feel that perhaps it is best that man-made institutions are not perfect, particularly our own All Student Council, for if they were men such as Mr. Murphy would lead such a dull existence. Moreover, the old adage holds that "you have every right to your own opinion, but you have no right to be wrong in the facts." Wrong in the facts is what this editorial is. First, I am a member of the All Student Council who also happens to be a member of a fraternity. I am not "a fraternity representative." We have five of those already, elected last Fall. Next, Turner did not say that "representation should continue on the basis of past voting records." What "Turner" did say, Mr. Murphy, is that given a written constitution which in letter provides as fair a procedure for representation as can be had while we adhere to a system of representation by voters rather than people, the system we now have, such a document should not be arbitrarily rewritten to meet a particular political expedient, such as the ability or inability of voters to get to the polls. Given the premise that our student government is inactive, another statement without factual support, that is no reason to change the larger and lasting constitution for the smaller and transitory expedition. This, as you must know, is not the way things are done in a constitutional democracy. We only amend constitutions, ideally, when the written word does not conform to some human right or does not give fully interplay to some human privilege which we have deemed more vital than adherence to a written word. Our constitution gives every enrolled student an opportunity to vote for two representatives to the Council. Merely because the organized dormitories and fraternal living groups are politically able to encourage or, as you might have it, force their members to vote, and the married and unmarried-unorganized districts have an inherently loosely oriented group, is not a reason to rewrite a constitution which has guided, believe it or not, one of the most active and alert student governments on any college campus. If you intend to base representation on those voting, as we do, then let it be that way. If, on the other hand, we decide that we want representation based on district population, let it be that way. But let us be consistent. What this particular amendment did was to retain our present system of representation while substituting a provision designed to help raise unorganized representation without conforming to the system. The job of getting out the vote belongs rightly to the political parties and candidates, not to the Constitution. As a side note let me mention that I took no part in the Council debate on the political issue of representation here. As I saw my role, I merely and continually reminded the Council that it was a constitution they were handling. Furthermore, I did not vote on the issue. If you bothered to read the minutes, mine was the one abstention.
FINALLY, AND more important than misquotes and unfactual statements, it seems to me that given the shortcomings of our student government, the way to remedy such faults is through informed and reasonable criticism backed by a plausible and constitutional change in the present structure. I have seen no such attempt being made by the Kansan editorial staff. Instead, what we have seen is irresponsible writers demanding responsible legislators. Believe me when I say that we who are concerned with the future of the All Student Council; we who are proud of the record made by People-to-People, The Peace Corps committee, the Campus Chest committee, the Social committee, the Disciplinary committee, the College Bowl committee, the Human Rights committee, the Radio Production Center, the Jayhawker, Statewide Activities, athletic seating, and score of other services; only ask that when one of the many times comes when the All Student Council needs criticism, that it be at least informed and, hopefully, constructive.
Greg Turner
Seattle, Wash., junior
Worth Repeating
Who—aside from certain big children who are found in the natural sciences—still believes that the findings of astronomy, biology, physics or chemistry can teach us anything about the meaning of the world?-Max Weber.
Poetry is a part of you. You don't create it. You listen to it, and you give it form... It is a lonely art that must be self-taught—David McCord.