Bugs and busts
The recently passed Federal Narcotic Law which allows police to enter and search homes of suspected drug dealers without warning has confused many people.
Among the confused, unfortunately, are those whose moral outrage cannot extend beyond the drug-using community to see that this type of almost-groundless search is abominable no matter what the suspected crime.
While it is easier to empathize with the suspected pot dealer than with the suspected organized-crime leader, it remains a fact that in neither case is the individual a criminal; in both cases he is as innocent as you or I—until proven guilty. The new "no knock" law lets police break into a home if a magistrate can be convinced that the suspect is likely to destroy evidence, which, in effect, opens every door.
The outrage over the "no knock" provision which already applied in 28 states by state statute has been negligible. Big Brotherism is not frightening to what we might call the Silent Majority. Not because the what we might call Silent Majority is sinless, but rather because their particular sins do not happen to be on the snooping list of Big Brother.
An editorial in the Kansas State Collegian says, "When 'no knock' is coupled with regulated wiretapping, authorities will have two formidable weapons with which to fight organized crime."
"Fears that regulated wiretapping would plunge us into a police state have not materialized. First reports, if accurate, indicate that the device has been used with discretion."
There can really be no such thing as discretion when the homes of private individuals are being penetrated on mere suspicion or without warning or when no proof exists or when no charge is filed or when J. Edgar is up tight.
Furthermore, there is little if any evidence
to show that a "no knock" searching system would be useful.
Columnist Carl T. Rowan says that in 28 states which have had the provision, it has been "of no consequence in halting the drug traffic." Likewise, it's effect on organized crime would be negligible.
When the K-State editorialist assures us that there is no danger of America becoming a police state, one must hurriedly ask what we should call our non-police state where police have free access to homes?
The problem is a perplexing one, which bothered Robert Kennedy a great deal and one which, I hope, bothers Attorney General John Mitchell. Mitchell recently announced that curbs had been put on wiretapping, but, as columnist Rowan points out, "He says nothing about the number of electronic devices the FBI planted under the guise of protecting 'national security.' The latter category obviously is the crucial one since Mitchell has claimed that he has the personal power to bug student groups and any other domestic organization which he considers dangerous."
Having an indiscriminate man such as Mitchell claiming such power is alarming, but when that power is distributed freely to police and narcotics officers across the country, the effect is more than alarming. There remains nothing to prevent a magistrate from giving police permission to enter any home without knocking.
Do you have to have something to hide to detest the federal government's making your home its home? No. The accost of the home of anyone is an accost on the liberty of everyone.
Liberty, an over-used word, is an underused commodity. If it is taken away in the pretense of protection, we have destroyed the village in order to save it.
—Mike Shearer
'Hurry, hurry, hurry!'
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
An All-American college newspaper
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newsroom—UN 4-3464 Business Office—UN 4-4358
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 a semester, $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to all students without regard to color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.
Member Associated Collegiate Press
REPRESENTED FOR NATIONAL ADVERTISING BY National Educational Advertising Services A DIVISION OF READER'S DIGEST SALES & SERVICES, INC. '360 Lexington Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017
Goo?
WASHINGTON (UPI) -President Nixon, news conference:
"With regard to Vietnam, we are watching that situation
closely, particularly with regard to inflation. The inflation—I mean we were talking about inflation. I mean infiltration."
hearing voices—
In defense of Fort Hays
To the editor:
Regarding Mike Shearer's "Alphabet Soup" of Dec. 10, I can understand why he disapproves of the Fort Hays Kansas State College questionnaire. From his description of it, I do not care for it very much either.
But I do think that some of his statements were rather extreme and probably were not indicative of his actual beliefs. For example, his statement that "it was only fair that creeps should have a place of their own" certainly sounds as though he is labeling the student population of Fort Hays as "creeps." Perhaps Mr. Shearer knows more about Fort Hays than I, but I think that his blanket condemnation is rather unjust.
I trust that he really does not believe that those attending Fort Hays are "creeps," but I cannot derive my trust from his writing. My trust is based only on the
opinion that one who has risen to the responsible position of Editorial Page Editor of the UDK could not hold such an obviously unfair belief.
Also, Mr. Shearer seems to indicate that he believes to be "dead" those people who are refined, thoughtful, neat, well-groomed, orthodox, well-adjusted, and without problems of alcohol, drugs, or homosexuality. Can he really mean this? Surely, a man in Mr. Shearer's position must know a few people who hold these attributes, and yet are not considered by Mr. Shearer to be "dead," whatever that adjective means in his context.
Thus, it is easier to believe that Mr. Shearer has been somewhat careless about conveying what he thinks than it is to believe that he really thinks what his writing would indicate. I know that he must be very busy turning out the large amount of copy that appears
under his by-line. However, I hope that in the future he will be able to find the time to reflect more carefully on his writing before it is converted into newsprint.
Kent Dannen
St. Joseph, Mo.,
Special Student
* *
To the editor:
The Feb. 10, 1970 UDK carried in the Alphabet Soup column a protest stated in such a tone as to indicate disapproval that "the creeps should have a place of their own"—as the author put it.
I do not care to take a side, but there are some matters of fact I would like to present regarding criteria for judgment and without giving off vibrations of righteous indignation.
1. A person is not a creep for having his own clique preference.
Griff & the Unicorn
Griff & the Unicorn, Copyright, 1970,
University Daily Kansan.
2. The criteria for determining a creep, as presented in the article, is as faulty as the criteria for admissibility to Fort Hays Kansas State College, ergo, a creep is refined, thoughtful, neat, well-groomed, orthodox, well-adjusted (admittedly nebulous), and probably has no problems with alcohol, drugs or homosexuality.
3. Many administrations, of which Fort Hays Kansas State College is probably exemplary of, are simply paranoid and feel quite justified in refusing people they don't understand yet (admittedly unfair as that may be).
On page ten of the same issue of the UDK was an ad by the Equitable Life Insurance Co. with the legend, "Hair. It's not the style that counts, it's what's under it." Human beings of any degree of intelligence should be allowed to be scared if they feel scared. If we are going to pretend to be "just" and "human" instead of protesting injustice and inhumanity, we should cure the victim of its faults.
Lee Drong
Lawrence freshman
**\*\*\***
To the editor
I would like to bring to your attention an article that appeared in a January, 1970, issue of the Wall Street Journal concerning birth control clinics on University campuses. (I'm sorry I can't send you a copy; our papers were thrown out before I cut it out.)
The article mentions a number of college campuses that have set up facilities as part of the infirmary and regular care to the university co-ed. The latest case was at Berkeley, where the Oakland Planned Parenthood had to make some sort of arrangements, for there were so many students, the clinic couldn't handle the other clients. I especially point to this situation, for it is exactly what has happened to the Lawrence Planned Parenthood clinic.
The clinic has had to close because we can't get the volunteers to man the clinic, just for the one night it is open, but the patient load, almost all co-eds, demands we be open at least twice a week.
It seems to me that the University should provide for its own, but when approached, shy away from facing the fact girls want pills. I can think of no better way to get birth control facilities on the campus than to have the paper look into the facts and report in the paper, I think you would find it a very interesting series.
I think it interesting that while typing this letter I've been interrupted by one phone call, a college girl asking where, since the clinic is closed, can she go and TALK with a doctor concerning some type of contraception. Wisely, she didn't want to go to the county health department and just be given some pills without any medical supervision. I think it's a sorry state for both the University and Lawrence.
If I can answer any questions or furnish names for further questioning, I'd be more than happy to.
Mrs. James A. Sherman 1734 Illinois