Getting uppity
With insistent and aggressive Sen. Mike Mansfield pushing from every direction, it appears the proposal to lower the voting age to 18 may find its way into existence.
It will either give birth to new freedom through the House's adoption of the Senate legislative amendment or go the longer and more painful route through a Constitutional amendment, requiring this time not only the approval of both houses and the President but also ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The red tape and the long road out of bondage are once again oppressively severe, unnecessarily cumbersome. But one way or the other, the voting age will be lowered some day.
And when given an inch, will those freed slaves again try to take a mile? There are many miles to go.
Perhaps it's premature to start lecturing these new voters, but Julian Bond's remarks about the failure of women seems appropriate. Bond said women had failed to do what the proponents of giving them the vote had said they would do: put sensitivity and compassion into politics. Women, in other words, have not taken a mile for their inch.
Youth, if relegated to their just position, will prove most beneficial to the American political system if they prove to be "uppity niggers."
The freed man who doesn't take aggressive steps toward more freedoms and who is content to assimilate into a less than perfect political system is not even as free as the law will allow him to be.
You can be a "sambo" in any shade.
hearing voices—
To the editor:
I am a student and an employee of the Computer Center. Recently I was notified by an associate director that the Che Guerva banner I have hanging over my desk must be removed because it was an "inappropriate" wall decoration. Other wall decorations at the Computer Center, apparently "appropriate" as no one else was issued any restrictions, include Beatle posters, Paul Newman posters, and various assorted family pictures, abstract art, photographs, etc.
To arbitrarily determine the "appropriateness" of a wall decoration, and to dictate what may be displayed and what may not, is inherently discriminatory. Obviously my decoration was selected for censorship due to its controversial subject matter. In short, the Computer Center is practicing a not very subtle form of political suppression. It is doubtful that I would have been harassed had my wall been graced with the pictorial presence of the likes of Richard Nixon, John Kennedy or Billy Graham.
In a conference with this particular associate director I was told that the censorship was being imposed because of the "political nature" of the banner. Such is the arbitrariness of his action—who is to say what constitutes a "political" display? Another employee (of associate director status or thereabouts) has a picture of a child—presumably his own—on his desk. I think it reasonable to suggest that there is no more dangerous political act—not to mention inhumane—than bringing children into the world that hasn't the ability to take care for
those already born. Any scientist can tell you that the world's exploding population is probably the greatest problem facing man's continued existence. Is this person's display of a child any less political in nature than my banner of Che?
Freedom of expression is a valuable commodity. It is being granted to some people at the Computer Center, denied to others. The value of the commodity diminishes each time someone is subjected to suppression of his views, whether they are "political" or "decorative" in nature.
The possibility exists that I will be fired by the Computer Center for refusing to acquiesce to such suppression. At the moment it is only the person who displays Che whose views are suppressed. If they can arbitrarily suppress my views, they can arbitrarily suppress anyone's. Who wishes to be next?
Eric Wolfe
Wichita, sophomore
To the editor:
having spent the last three days trying to decide amongst ourselves whether or not to use the word "zeitgeist" in the first line of this letter, and not coming to any decision, we have decided to not have a first line at all. The LHSU (Left-Handers Student Union) was conceived of under the influence of acute indigestion, perhaps caused by Ellsworth's roast beef. We reacted to a prevalent attitude in our society, which has allowed too many groups to take themselves too
seriously, too often. This attitude threatens to destroy our institutions by neglecting the factor of unity that threads its way through all mankind. The attitude is one of morbid introspection and social apathy. That factor of unity is brotherhood. Groups are made up of human beings reacting to human beings (that seems to have been forgotten all too often).
People's reactions to our demonstration have taken three forms. First, the largest group seems to have understood what we are now trying to explain. A second group thought we were racists and hated us for it. And a third group, most unfortunately, thought we were attempting "to bring Blacks to their knees," and loved us for it. It is the last two groups that we would now like to address:
- We are not racists. What has been called a parody of the BSU was in reality a parody of the aforementioned attitudes, and, in particular, the demands of the BSU. Most of us support the BSU's ultimate goal of true equality.
- We believe that we reflected the opinion of the majority of KU students. The publicity given the LHSU is indicative of the time-liness of its ideology. Confrontation politics are not needed at KU today as much as they may be at other Universities. The mechanisms are here. Concern, consideration, understanding, and dissemination of information are needed for the most efficient use of these mechanisms.
The LHSU was formed in the spirit of a political cartoon. We foresaw the possibility that some individuals would not appreciate it, but we in no way apologize for our actions. We do hope that this explanation will help everyone realize what our intentions were, and if you didn't get a laugh the first time around, perhaps you can reminisce and get one now.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
An All-American college newspaper
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newroom—UN 4-3646 Business Office—UN 4-4358
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and exam days. Accessed on the University of Kansas postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without restrictions. See the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
Ernie A. Bauer
Ernie A. Bauer
Clay Center senior
Richard Hubbard
KC, M. senior
Charles M. Masner
Anthony junior
Todd Salash
Shawnee Mission senior
Member Associated Collegiate Press
Griff & the Unicorn
BY SOKOLOFF
David Sokoloff 1970
Sorel's News Service
Gall in the saddle
SACRAMENTO—Maureen Reagan, daughter of California Governor Ronald Reagan, recently returned from a USO tour of Vietnam. An advocate of military victory before her visit, she told newsmen that she now favors a negotiated settlement. Reacted her father the Governor: "While I'm partial to my daughter and love her very much, I don't think foreign policy should be decided by USO entertainers."
Alphabet soup and maybe an avocado
By MIKE SHEARER
Editorial Page Editor
No so very long ago in the not so very far off land of Ooze there was this joint, you see.
Now this joint wasn't just any old joint where just any old person could go. This joint had restrictions. It allowed in only people whose appearance satisfied the eye of the joint's personnel. And the personnel only liked closely-cropped or at-least-it-ain't-disgracefully-long hair.
This joint had an upstairs where you (if you looked the part) could play games, and it had a downstairs where you (ditto) could dance, drink and look the part.
The downstairs was quite naturally called Yech Down and the upstairs, equally naturally, was called Yech Up.
The joint belonged to a very merry fellow named Mr. Yech, who must have looked like a bartender in a beer ad or maybe a baseball announcer.
Mr. Yech's biggest problem was that Ooze was just oozing with people who had unclosely-cropped or disgracefully-long hair. Mr. Yech didn't realize that Ooze was a university town of the 1970's and not a rickety-rack-siss-boom-bah college town he had seen in a 1934 Lyda Roberti movie.
Ooze was, to Mr. Yech, a pin point on a monetary battle map, place where decent and fun-loving college kids could be expected to look like decent and fun-loving college kids AND spend money like decent and fun-loving college kids.
Yes, Mr. Yech thought college students looked best when they were either...
1. Clean-Shaven, short-haired, wholesome and generous with their money. . .
Well, one day word got around Ooze that Yech Up and Yech Down had been throwing people out because they didn't meet Mr. Yech's tastes. Mr. Yech didn't seem concerned if word got around, even though the one thing he liked better than decent and fun-loving college kids was their money. He didn't seem concerned because he was hoping college kids were still—at heart at least—like they were back in the 1934 movie, when kids appreciated having a place where they were protected from freaks and noncomformists.
...or...
2. Somewhere else.
So Mr. Yech sat back to watch his cash register receipts.
But at the same time, some students with reasonably short hair began to wonder just what right Mr. Yech had to ask persons with unreasonably long hair to leave his joint. Some students seemed to be concerned with the freedom to nonconform even when they chose to conform.
And so a conflict arose.
Did Mr. Yech find that he could intimidate the college kids of Ooze and intimidate them at a profit?
Did Mr. Yech find his discrimination an asset to his business as he hoped?
Or did Mr. Yech find that college kids didn't swallow goldfish anymore and weren't to ask their long-haired friends to swallow any just to satisfy some old rich man?
(EDITOR'S NOTE: I can't finish this fairy tale just now. Only the students of Ooze can finish it; there ain't any one else who can!)