UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials Unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of APRIL 27,1979 Solve default problem One of the more unfortunate legacies of the student population in this country has been the extremely high default rate on student loans from the government. But recent figures indicate that the government is succeeding to some degree in whittling down those high rates. In one year, according to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the default rate on Guaranteed Student Loans has been lowered from 14 percent to 10 percent. For that achievement, HEW should be congratulated. And it looks as if there could be more improvement in the future. A standard billing system has been established to replace the scattered index cards that once contained tax records for inmates are now offered to officials who can convince defendants to settle. BUT THERE are still problems with the sister loan program, the National Direct Student Loan Program, which has default rates as high as 50 percent in some schools. The responsibility for collecting those loans now rests with the colleges themselves, and the government has not seemed inclined to take the initiative to do something about the default rate. And that is unfortunate, for the higher the default rate, the less money is available for badly needed student loans. And continued high default rates will threaten a program that is sorely needed for many who could not receive an education without a loan. ONE POSSIBLE solution, however, has been suggested by Joseph Califano, secretary of HEW. Califano recommended that the two large loan programs be merged with several smaller ones, allowing the government to assume all collection responsibilities. With that step, and a renewed emphasis on collection by HEW, the government might restore some much-needed integrity to the student loan program and in turn maintain a program that is vital to many college students. The goal of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence was to guarantee to all citizens the right to life, liberty and property. Studies conclude racism still rampant But two reports released recently by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and the Southern Regional Council indicate that the Founding Father's ideas haven't quite worked out, particularly as far as blacks are concerned. The reason is racism. "If there were a commitment to the objectives set forth in the Fair Housing Act, the picture now confronting us as a nation is that we are in the midst of a very substantial and a very material way." FLEMMING CALLED housing discrimination a reflection of racism and added, "Let's not fool ourselves. We still care, with this basic problem in our nation." "The government does not come into the court of public opinion with clean hands," Chairman Arthur S. Flemming said as the commission issued its 335 page report. Eleven years after the passage of the Fair Housing Act, discrimination still is widespread in the selling and renting of houses in this country, the Commission said recently. And even Uncle Sam is a part of this sickening act. The Veterans Administration and the Farmers' Home Administration were among the federal agencies singled out in the report for discriminatory practices. The FHA was criticized as not being thorough in its handling of complaints. "Often it investigates only part of the complaint," the study said. Further, agency officials consider compliance reviews a waste of time, and, the study said, of '3,028 reviews conducted in fiscal year 1975, no instances of noncompliance were reported. It reported similar results in succeeding years. Crawford given unfair trial by press To the editor: I am writing in response to the "article" appearing in the April 17 Kausan concerning an investigation of charges made by two graduate students about the ethical conduct of Michael Crawford, professor of anthropology. Instead of investigating and reporting the events that have actually occurred, the reporter, Bill Riggins, chose merely to repeat the allegations made by Elizabeth Murray and Crawford's denial. This gives the impression that the issue is "just a case of (Murray)'s word against Dr. Crawford," but it also shows how by other members of the field crew working in Belizn in 1976 and the outcome of previous hearings on this matter. As a member of the Belize field team, I am obligated to make several points that the article fails to mention concerning our policies for obtaining consent from volunteers. We are instructed to use a single cell test results. All of the researchers who came into contact with the study participants made every effort to explain the purpose and procedure of the study. Individuals were not coerced or misled in any way. I might add that Murray's job involved getting students to visit the actual data collection site, so that she never actually observed the actions of Crawford or any members of the field team toward the study participants. The other graduate student mentioned in your article, Mackenzie Pompeki, was never in Belize at anytime. Any of the seven members of the Belize field team can and have substantiated these facts. In addition, the Advisory Committee reviewed our procedure for obtaining informed consent in the field and found it adequate. During this review, Murray was a voting member of the committee, although he hardly be called an unbiased reviewer. The allegations made by Murray and Sempolis have been reviewed by an anthropology department grievance committee, with Dean Horowitz representing the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, by (former) Dean Snyder, and by (former) Vice Chancellor Argersinger. In each case, the results of the review were wrongdoing. The results of this review process are publicly available; yet your reporter made no attempt to consult them. Until this time, I have not made any public statement about the charges against the University grievance teams were sufficient to set the record straight. Apparently unwilling to admit that they were wrong, the University grievance teams discredit Crawford's professional conduct. Finally, the headline in the Kansas AAPP plans ethics inquiry) tittle to accept responsibility. agreed to investigate the charges made by the two students, and has not independently launched an investigation of Crawford's case. The Crawford should be found not guilty by University grievance heartbags, but is then subjected to an unfair trial by press in the case. It is my sincere hope that Kansan reporters will in the future check their sources before publishing such distorted and potentially damaging hearsay. Pamela J. Byard Lawrence graduate student Nuclear newcomer exaggerates report To the editor: In its April 13 issue the Kansan quoted Fred Halstead as saying that the people of Harrisburg, Pa., "received an amount of money from the state for their entire bodies 24 hours a day for the duration of the crisis." Such a gross exaggeration as that only serves to demonstrate how unfriendly the people are. Evidently he got his information from the newspapers, which often printed numerical estimates of the exposure around the plant and compared it to common X-rays. Such comparisons can be misleading to those who do not understand the units involved, but, in a little about the subject myself, at least I can look up the terms to see what they mean. The reports gave the radiation in units of exposure. Exposure is a measure of the total charge of the ions produced in an element of dry air by the passage of radiation photons. The common unit is the Roentgen. One Roentgen = $3.8\times 10^{-12}$ coulombs per kilogram of dry air. Now notice that nowhere in the definition is there a reference to time. Exposure is a measure of the total exposure, not the rate of exposure. Thus when the radiation was measured, it was meant what that the total exposure was amenable, not that the intensity was the same. What that amounts to is that the people were exposed, during the duration of the crisis, to radiation equivalent to about three short X-ray examinations. In fact, I recall that the total exposure was given to be about 30 million radians per year from natural sources such as the sun. I have no objection to people being concerned about excessive radiation exposure. Robert Johnson Goddard junior McCarthyism lives in anti-nuke protests In retrospect, it seems a shame that the nuclear activists will hurt obseriences at a time when they are more likely to obviously understands the subject, and listen so attentively to someone like Halstead who doesn't know anything more than what John Doe could read in the local newspaper. To the editor: Who said witch hunts are a thing of the past? McCarthyism isn't dead; it has just found a new evil to save America from nuclear power. but I hate to see irrational fears develop from such absurd exaggerations. Have you noticed as I have that most propensities of atomic energy speak calmly, quietly, and they constantly refer to facts and figures, while on the other side of the coin, most opponents of atomic energy rang their fists and how about how thousands upon thousands will die? Now every person from Los Angeles to New York will be pointing at the Three Mile Island accident and calling for the permanent abandonment of all nuclear power plants in the United States, probably the United States. Few if any will look at the facts. Fact 1: No one was killed; in fact, no one was injured. Fact 2: Only two people (workers at the plant) received exposure to amounts of radiation above the maximum allowed for a worker. If they will suffer any harmful side effects. Fact 3: There was no serious possibility of a "China Syndrome" type mellown. The facts are there for anyone to see. The verdict is in. the Age of oil is passing, whether the American people will admit it to themselves or not. America needs viable energy alternatives for the future. Nuclear power is a clean, efficient and safe energy source. Nuclear energy has a better safety record than coal, oil, natural gas and most other energy sources. Thousands upon thousands have died, and will die, in automobile accidents, but no one has suggested that we ban cars from the face of the earth. The future is risky. Anyway we go will be costly. Coal will take the lives of many miners and its pollution will take the breath from many other people. Solar energy may be used to power these plants underdeveloped right now, and if we put all our hope in it, we could be left out in the cold with a lot of hopeful plans still on the drawing boards. Nuclear power is no panacea can always be improved upon. An we should learn from the Three Mile Island incident. Beware of your decision people. No one source of energy is the answer, and if we toss one aside too quickly, your children may pay dearly for that decision. Letters Policy David Eland Hoxie freshmar The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not exceed 500 words. They should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is after publication, the letter should include the writer's home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication. "There is evidence from a variety of sources that most projects financed by Farmers Home Administration—homes owned by local government, aggregated by race," the commission report said. THE SOUTHERN Regionn Council, a civil rights research group, found in a study of boards and commissions that hold decision making powers in 10 southern states that 60 percent had no blacks and 50 percent had no women. The study, "The Segregated Governments of the South," examined the boards and commissions whose members are appointed to hold real, not advisory, regulatory powers. The report said that in the nearly 15 years since the passage of the Voting Rights Act, 2,000 blacks had been elected to public office in the South. But it said that they made up 30 percent of all publicly elected officials in a region where 20 percent of the population was black. "As in the past, it remains a southern fact of life that the color of skin and gender tell more about who is exercising the decision-making powers in southern government than factors," Steve Suitts, the council's executive director and author of the report, said. THE REPORT examined boards and commissions as of Jan. 1 in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and at universities. It did not mention the regulatory power or the governing boards of colleges and universities, which Suits said were more likely to be segregated because Alabama got the gold star for the state with the worst record on black appointments. In Alabama blacks are members on two of 15 boards. In Mississippi, where blacks are nearly 40 percent of the state's population, only six board members were black. Sixty percent of the boards surveyed had no black members. the schools had a history of segregation. The findings of both reports confirm what a lot of blacks generally have known all along. And it is good to see that the findings are now a part of the public record. But until the agencies charged with enforcing fair housing standards are forced to get their acts together, and until more blacks are allowed to participate in policymaking boards and committees, the long-term effects of the law are alive and well in America will inevitably remain true. Founding Fathers note withstanding. Bv JAN T. GROSS N. V. Times Service Defense of human rights a necessity Wouldn't it be less naive, and more in keeping with the tradition of popular sovereignty, to think of our interests abroad in our open university foundations of our political system? NEW HAVEN, Conn.—The issue of human rights, when applied to U.S. foreign policy, cuts across two motifs deriving from the nation's Protestant heritage: the notion that moral duty should guide men in their actions, and the notion that men should be practical in their actions. In foreign policy, we also must search for an effective blend between idealism and pragmatism. For while pure idealism offers no convenient guideline for the conduct of international relations, pure pragmatism is no solution either, as it tends to erode the Few Americans seem to doubt that the cause of human rights is worthy of whole-hearted support, but many doubt whether it is practical to become its champion. WE TABLE IT as a sign of navare or cunning when we invoke ideals while discussing foreign affairs and as a sign of wisdom and shredness when we argue for realpolitik. But how are we to pass judgment on the purported realism of a realpolitik if our national interests are not derived from principles of the Constitution? Political commentators seem to have identified a contradiction between two deadly cherished principles of the American ethos, and the commentators, together with the public, are disturbed and uneasy. Would one not jeopardize interests if one sought to question them? In other words, no easier step, what are the practical consequences of taking a moral stand in a real world? BUT ONE may try to consider the question from a different angle—that the Carter administration's open commitment to the defense of human rights allows, for the first time in American history, the development of a firm foundation for our foreign policy. What are they derived from instead—some theory of history espoused by a secretary of state, a foreign policy adviser or a chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? What this difference in vocabulary reveals is of fundamental importance, because it demonstrates that U.S. national interests, as they are put forth and pursued by foreign policy makers, are not logically derived from the principles of democracy. Observe the strangely split mentality we always exhibited when dealing with internal affairs on one hand and foreign policy matters on the other. We were unrelied on. When our politicians spoke about internal politics, we heard references to principles of democracy or the Constitution; when they spoke about foreign policy, we heard mostly about American interests. IT MAY BE that internal and foreign policies are related and that the actions of a democratic state in one domain have a bearing on how it fares in the other. Just as we must think about difficulties or practical implementation of ideals, so we must also ensure that the documentation not derived from a firm and well-defined commitment to our ideas will have no merit because its consequences for the preservation of liberty cannot be ascer- WE HAVE committed so many spectacular blunders in the conduct of foreign affairs that it is foolish to think that we know what we are talking about when we use such concepts as "balance of power" or "tactical vs. 'strategic' concerns." These cannot suggest that we have a grasp of practically, but what if face is what is practical? unavoidable values that underlie democratic institutions. As we became fascinated by our growth, we became infatuated with power. Consequently, we were able to see only institutional power holders abroad—that is, governments and the military—as partners to deal with in foreign relations. We completely forget about societies, we were deaf and blind to processes of social change, we relegated social forces to dusty shelves of the academy and social movements to the subject of "political intelligence." IN DEALING with non-democratic regimes, which is when human rights bear most on foreign policy, we must shift the focus of foreign policy from governments to societies, for it is within the societies, rather than their governments, that there are forces of emancipation and democratization that we must identify and assist. Among other things, we could get in touch with groups such as Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and the Worker and Citizen movement in India to then gain visibility and strengthen in their own countries. We could press for cultural and sci-技 education in India, independent thinkers in, say Latin America. We can do this while remaining true to the values of political freedom written into our Constitution. And it will be in our best interest to do so, for unless these social forces prevail peacefully, for unless future is uncertain. We have no more urgent interests abroad than defending the principles by which we live at home. The defense of human rights is our only sensible realpolitik. Jan T. Gross is assistant professor of sociology at Yale. THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN (USP$ 600-400) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and summer. Second-class pageage paid at Lawrence, Kansas 69045. Subscription by mail are $15 for six months or $2 a year in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $3 a year county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the student activity fee. Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansan, Flint Hall. The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 60045 A Peacemaker award winner Kansan Telephone Numbers Newroom-864-4810 Business Office-864-4328 Managing Editor Editor Barry Massy Editorial Editor Director DiSEeim Lee John Whittaker Mary Hoenke Fern Manson Carol Hunter, Robert Bever Handy Olson Dana Dawner Mary Thornbrough, Sandy Hord Nancy Harvey John Tharp Linda Fineston, Piaua Sutherland, Leigh Cushman Cydi Hughs, Barb Koong, Caroline Lankin Caby Ruble Mary Ernst, Philip Gareca, Veron Smith, Josh Kelley Lor Linorembek, Deb Riechmann Bill Frinka, Trish Lewis, Karin Kunny, Chris Todd Dan Martin Jayne Schell, Janet Mason Business Manager Karen Wendzrott Retail Sales Manager Rob Altman National Advertising Manager Bret Miller Classified Advertising Manager Kirk McDouglas Assistant Classified Advertising Manager Duncan Burns Advertising Management Manager David Hitt Staff Artist Dahlia Cavanos Staff Photographer Grunt King Parent Manager Dr. Depp Sales Representatives Allen Blair, Paul Koell, Jane Knott, Brenda Paxton, Cindy Reynolds, Jennifer Smith General Manager Advertising Advisor Rick Musker Chuck Chowns