Campus politics goes the old way
KU's second student election under the 1969 Senate Code proved, unhappily, that this campus is not dissimilar to the outside world when politicians have their day. The campaign just finished seemed to be a fairly accurate replica of the state and nation prototype—filled with backbiting, false claims and grandstanding—that our generation purportedly detests.
Events before the March 17-18 balloting saw one ticket wreak some publicity-seeking havoc on the delicate arrangements for the proposed humanities building. David Miller's contention, that the students were getting a raw deal in not being able to decide for themselves whether they should be assessed $7.50 more per semester, had a great deal of merit. But the fact remained that the Student Senate, in deciding the issue itself, took what it thought to be the only possible route in voting for the fee increase Feb.18.
The administration had presented a choice to the Senate; either take action that night, or face the possibility of the question's becoming moot when federal funds were withdrawn. Believing that there was no time for a referendum before the Board of Regents' last meeting, the Senate voted.
Yet Miller (who did not bother to speak up the night of the vote) termed the Senate's dealing with the affair "irresponsible." And in the subsequent hooplah over getting a referendum on the March 17-18 ballot, he tried to take full advantage of the voter's pocketbook reaction, leaving reason to the winds. It wasn't important that the students had little information on the complex issue; there had to be a referendum March 17-18 and no other time, period. Besides, Miller seemed to be saying, that's the way bond issues in states and communities are decided every year: by less than the full populace (usually less than half, as it would have been at the election here) and by poorly informed voters at that.
On that basis, KU is on a par with, say, Kansas City, Mo., when it rejected school bond issues last year. Can we do no better?
Another ticket cried long and bitterly over the mud that would be slung at it in the campaign's final week. The campus waited for the first glob to fly but none did—publicly at least. Peter George and Sharon Baucom were obviously hoping for some sort of protective reaction from the voters, yet no real need for sympathy surfaced. Perhaps they would have been smarter to have waited until the accusations were made, then pleaded for help. Once they were truly oppressed, a nice sideshow could have begun.
And, in proposing the end of all academic requirements and grades and "all other unnecessary restrictions on the freedom of students to learn, and the faculty to teach," were George and Baucom becoming somewhat reminiscent of the junior high school politicos who promised that Coca-Cola would flow from the water fountains if they were elected?
The Ebert-Thomas ticket, too, was not immune to creating a disturbance that was rather irrelevant to the election itself. Its charge that moneys allocated to graduate students' salaries were skimmed off and placed in a "slush fund" (Ah, shades of a hundred state and national
campaigns!) are at least questionable. The administration, the Board of Regents, and the College deny the allegation; it is their word against the Alliance's. So far, Ebert has done nothing to prove that the sub rosa fund exists.
What did the Alliance's revelation-timed to appear the day before election—say about the party's leadership qualities? Nothing. It only demonstrated that the Alliance had a better group of muckrakers than the others. The charge is interesting, and should by all means be investigated. Yet Ebert's use of it as a campaign tactic was deplorable. Like the other two candidates, he was apparently hoping the voters' emotions would lead them where their brains might not have gone.
As back-room deals are the bane of democracy in legislative bodies, so are gut-appealing publicity stabs in the electoral process. Both are widespread on political levels higher than the University. KU's elected and would-be representatives have fallen easy prey to both temptations.
Naivety says that such corrupt practices, overt and covert, don't exist here. Idealism says that they shouldn't. An ideal—in this case, the calm recognition and study of the issues and the capabilities of each candidate—isn't necessarily impossible to achieve. There is no better area, supposedly, for realizing an honorable goal than the university. Reality dictates that many ideas (for example, some of the ISP's) are nearly impossible at KU. For that, the administration is blamed.
Yet students, who have the capacity and the will to effect their ideals in the campaigning process, haven't improved on their elders in terms of old-fashioned, irrational actions and responses when they ask for votes.
Until they do, the spirit of the Senate Code with all the hopes it inspired for a new, effective and intelligent voice—the students'will have failed.
—Monroe Dodd
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
An All-American college newspaper
Kansan Telephone Numbers Newsroom—UN 4-3646 Business Office—UN 4-4358
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Class postage paid at Lawrence, kan. 86044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered on campus or from other origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Adviser . . . Mel Adams
Business Manager Jerry Bottenfield
Assistant Business Manager Mike Banks
Advertising Managers Larry Cates, Joanne Bos
National Advertising Manager Oscar Bassisson
Shelley Management Jim Huggins
Promotion Manager Jim Huggins
Service Manager John Lagios
NEWS STAFF
NEWS STAFF
News Adviser ... James W. Murray
Managing Editor ... James W. Murray
Campus Editor ... Ken Peterson
Editorial Editors ... Ted Hill
News Editor ... Joe Naa, Monroe Dodd, Mike Rieke
News Editor ... Donna Shrader
Sports Editors ... Bruce Carnahan, Steve Shriver
Designer ... Charlie Cape, Geoffrey
Wire Editor ... Kc Cummins
Women's Page Editors ... Linda Loyd, Carolyn Bowers
Administrative Campus Editors ... Vicki Phillips, Nila Walker
Assistant News Editors ... Cass Sexson, Robin Stewart
Photographers ... Ron Bishop, Bruce Bernstein.
Member Associated Collegiate Press
Griff & the Unicorn
$ \textcircled{c} $ David Sokoloff 1970
'Come to think of it, the strike had its pleasant aspects.'
hearing voices-
To the editor:
The recent disgraceful action of the Board of Regents in singling out and failing to promote Professors Velvel and Litto constitutes a terrible threat to the entire KU community.
The action of the Regents amounts to an attempt on their part to repress the expression of political views which they find not to their taste. It amounts to a vicious form of political suppression of academic freedom and free speech.
It seems to me that we in the KU community must unite, and raise our voices against this violation of our rights; otherwise we invite the Regents to pick off (and punish), one by one, those on campus who politically disagree with the prevailing doctrine.
If we fail to protest this attack by the Regents (which after all is not only a direct attack on Velvel and Litto, but also an indirect attack on all of us), then we will have no one to blame but ourselves if later we come under direct attack.
Howard Kahane Assistant Professor of Philosophy
To the editor:
I am one of those captive consumers who, because of early classes and breakfast skipping, must appease my hunger with rolls and coffee in the Hawk's Nest. (The Union Cafeteria breakfast line closes at 8:30.) Every day, when I must hunt pennies to pay this increased price, I cannot but wonder why the Union must charge a more than $100% gross profit.
Recently the Hawk's Nest increased the price of sweet rolls to 18c from a price of 15c each. Since that time, it has come to my attention that the Union pays Drake's Bakery only $7\frac{1}{2}$ c each for these rolls. Glazed doughnuts, for which the Union charges 10c, are purchased for $4\frac{1}{2}$ c each.
Carol M. Weber
Olathe graduate student
P. S. By the way, who asked for Checkerboard Farms Fried Chicken (Two Crispy, Crunchy Backs for 25c), anyhow?
$$
** * * *
$$
To the editor:
To the Street People:
One of your misinformed, and I hope self-appointed, street people has once again attacked a defenseless structure in our society.
This exponent of the street culture took his stinging brush in hand, slung a bucket of bloodshed-red paint over his shoulder and out maneuvered Dyche alditorium. He left the stain of victory over a defenseless object when he so courageously spelled out, "Street People: Judy Collins is our culture. Make her free."
Once again the malleable university is the brunt of a one dimensional misguided attack. The University is absorbing the criticism that should be directed against a less vulnerable and less disguised target—in this case Miss Collins herself.
I am sure the SUA and the University would rejoice at the opportunity to have Judy Collins appear free of charge. Unfortunately this demagogue is no more a part of the street culture than is Andy Williams. You are being used. She sings for profit, a trait not characteristic of street people. At $3.50 a ticket, Miss Collins rides in a golden coach upon the streets in which you walk. Are you sure she is your culture?
But if it is her music that is part of your culture, and you still want to hear Miss Collins free, you are invited to sit in the street outside of my apartment, and I will turn up my stereo.
Don Hunter Abilene graduate student