Page 2
University Daily Kansan Tuesday, Feb. 12, 1963
Admit Wichita University
(Editor's note: This statement represents the opinion of the Kansan editorial editors. On the right is a contrary opinion, that of a special All Student Council committee.)
Wichita University should be taken into the Kansas school system as a full university.
The most meaningful argument against this proposal centers around the presumption that by granting Wichita U. the equivalent status enjoyed by Kansas University and Kansas State University, there would not be enough money to maintain "quality education."
The opponents simplify the issue to, "Selective Quality vs. Mass Mediocrity." They are correct to do so.
BUT THEY MAKE a basic, erroneous assumption. Making Wichita University a full state-supported university—with full title—does not need to lower the quality of education.
The determination of the quality of education in Kansas is in the hands of the state legislators.
Sooner or later, as the Eurich Report points out, university facilities must be operated at Wichita. It is a simple matter of when, not if.
Those who oppose accepting Wichita as a full university have reason to fear that the legislators will not supply the added money to maintain or, as is needed, raise the level of education in Kansas.
BUT FEAR OF legislative recalcitrance is not reason enough to halt needed expansion.
The opponents say they are being practical—realistic. Perhaps, but it is just as practical and realistic to add needed facilities to the state's educational system. At this point, the opponents of full recognition for Wichita maintain they are in complete agreement.
But the reasoning behind their agreement is different. They say that Wichita University should come into the system as a "State Universities Center." Translated to operational plans for the future, "State Universities Center" means mediocrity for the masses.
THIS IS ALL right—at Wichita.
But the students in the Wichita area of the state deserve better than the poor country cousin treatment that a "State Universities Center" plan would afford to them. So do the people of Wichita who have expended more than $10 million to build the facilities.
The people of Wichita ask that in return for a $10 million gift for the use of all state residents, their investment-gift be accepted with full honors and fair priority.
To operate three state universities as they should be will require increased appropriations. This is the problem.
THE PEOPLE WHO worry about not having sufficient appropriations to operate the schools should concentrate their energy on the source of the problem, not a symptom.
"Wichita is the largest single population center in Kansas and at present the city and the commuting area around it include approximately one-fourth of the college-age youth." This is a statement from the Eurich Report. Here is another:
"The University of Wichita requires further financial support if it is to develop adequately to meet the needs of youth in the area in the years ahead."
There it is: the largest concentration of people need financial aid.
THEY DO NOT need to be stuck in a closet labeled "State Universities Center." The name it is called by is not of primary importance. But, in this case, it is indicative of what lies in store in the way of priority in receiving state funds.
The primary task of educating Kansas youth is at stake. Rightfully, Wichita leaders refuse treatment as a poor country cousin.
Wichita offers more than it asks. They do want to educate their youth on the same high plane as the citizens of Lawrence and Manhattan.
The state of Kansas includes the city of Wichita. So should the Kansas school system.
—Terry Murphy
Editor
Capital Punishment
... Letters ...
A bill has been introduced into the Kansas Legislature which proposes to abolish capital punishment. It should not be passed; the arguments supporting the abolition of the death penalty are tenuous, arguing around the twentieth century philosophy that there is no such thing as a bad criminal, only a mentally ill one, a bastard product of society not responsible for his own actions and capable of being rehabilitated, or at worst sitting in a cell for the rest of his life while the State picks up the tab.
Proponents of the abolition of capital punishment such as Mr. Murphy (The Kansan Feb. 4, 1963) tell us that the willful taking of human life is morally wrong whether practiced by the individual or by society. However, the individual and society have the right to protect themselves be it by life imprisonment or capital punishment. Would Mr. Murphy have our policemen throw away their
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
weapons because they may kill a known murderer who tries to "shoot his way out?" Society like the law officer must have a final deterrent.
"ED HAS EATEN HERE FOR TWO YEARS AN' YOUVE NEVER HEARD HMM COMPILEA BOUT STUDENT UNION FOOD!"
WHAT DETERRENT effect does a life imprisonment sentence have on the hardened criminal who is a "two time loser" and would probably receive a life imprisonment sentence whether or not he killed an innocent by-stander in his next crime? What justification is there for feeding and clothing such an individual for the rest of his life? No, capital punishment may not improve society or purge it of the conditions which cause man to commit murder, but neither does life imprisonment. The money spent on "life termers" could better be spent upon the improvement of society through better educational, social, and medical health facilities. It has been argued that life imprisonment allows for the possibility of rehabilitation and it is pointed out that there have been actual rehabilitations made. Undoubtedly there have been some true rehabilitations but how many human beings would not attempt such an achievement if they knew that their alternatives were life imprisonment or death?
Society must concern itself with prevention of the disease, not the cure of the pathogen.
John S. Mandel Washington, D.C., graduate student
UNIVERSITY
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904,
annual pay $325. Uniforms are
required.
Telephone VIking 3-2700
Extension 711, news room
Extension 376, business office
Business once
Member Inland Dalby Business
Association, Associated Collegiate Press,
Represented by National Advertising Service.
18 East 50 St., New York 22. N.Y.
College University, National Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan. every afternoon during the
Saturdays and Sundays. University holiday and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
Third University Unrealistic
(Editor's note: This column was written by student body president Jerry Dickson to express the opinions of a special All Student Council committee.)
During the past few weeks, an investigation of the problem of higher education in the state of Kansas has been made by a special committee of the All Student Council of the University of Kansas. The interest of the committee was centered around the Eurich report and the inclusion of the University of Wichita into the state school system.
The committee concluded that the present needs of Kansas's higher educational system are:
1) An immediate increase in teacher's salaries, as stated in both the Eurich report and the Keller report, and
2) A significant emphasis upon quality research projects essential if the state of Kansas is to attract industry.
BECAUSE KANSAS, LIKE many mid-western states, does not have a well-endowed private college, a good state university must naturally be placed in a position of pre-eminence. However, this pre-eminence is, at present, in jeopardy. This week the Kansas House of Representatives will make the decisions as to how the obligations to higher education in Kansas will be met in the future.
If taxes ARE NOT raised, no doubt education at the University of Kansas will suffer as a result of the admission of WU into the state system as a full university. The Kansas House may bow to the specter of political reprisal and sacrifice a good educational system to the mediocrity of education in mass at the same tax level. The dispute then becomes a question of quality vs. quantity.
Even if taxes are raised (doubtful during the present session), the admission of Wichita University into the state system certainly solves none of the two primary needs of Kansas' higher educational systems cited above. The increased demands on the state budget of an additional physical plant and the burden of another school will certainly not facilitate either the increase of faculty salaries or the obtainment of research funds: with the added cost of another state-supported school, the achievement of these goals will be significantly obstructed.
THE SUPPORTERS OF Wichita University have already denied the judgment of ten of the foremost educators in the country, as contained in the Eurich report. Now the supporters are asking that the state of Kansas incorporate a third FULL UNIVERSITY into its system, entailing unnecessary duplication of money, and effort.
The special committee of the All Student Council concluded that those elements promoting WU's entrance into the state system as a full university are denying reality, and are not willing to devote the necessary resources needed by the state if it is to do an adequate job of educating its young people. Kansas is not an extremely wealthy state; consequently, presuming the admittance of Wichita University, even if taxes are raised, state funds will have to be distributed among three large universities before any thought can be given to teachers' salaries and research.
The Kansas House must acknowledge these facts and be ready to raise taxes if Wichita University is admitted. Assuming the University of Wichita is admitted, the legislature must be ready to define the relationship of WU to the state system and to limit the scope of that school or the University of Kansas will surely not be able to maintain its present high standards.
THE TOPEKA DAILY CAPITAL of Feb. 10 summed up the situation conclusively in an editorial which stated that "the State's final obligation should be to the schools which taxpayers have already established with state funds."
BOOK REVIEWS
AMERICAN HERITAGE, February 1963. $3.95.
Several excellent articles mark this latest copy of American Heritage, but the featured article about long-repressed water colors depicting Spanish torture of the Indians in the 16th century New World may be the best thing in the magazine.
There are eight such sketches, which probably were drawn to illustrate a 1582 French edition of the works of Bartolome de las Casas. The article is by Lewis Hanke of Columbia University. Las Casas was a Dominican friar who fought for 50 years to defend the rights of the Indians during the Spanish conquests. The water colors are violent, grisly, and frankly propagandist in nature.
Another interesting article is Part III in a four-part history of the Mormon Church by New York state historian Carl Carmer. This installment describes the exodus of the Mormons from Illinois to the Great Salt Lake Valley, under the leadership of Brigham Young. A series of 11 paintings by a 19th century Mormon artist, Carl Christian Anton Christensen, is included.
Other articles—“A Man of Conscience,” the story of the Republican leader and newspaper editor, Carl Schurz; “Faces from the Past,” a brief sketch of J. P. Morgan; “Was the Secretary of War a Traitor?”, a reopening of the old argument about John B. Floyd; “America on Ice,” a colorful depiction of skating as a national sport; “Six Minutes That Changed the World,” a description of the Battle of Midway, by Samuel Eliot Morison; “G. Washington Meets a Test,” about a winter mission by a Virginia youth of 21.