UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers.
IHP end regrettable
Last fall the director of the Integrated Humanities Program, which was beset by budget cutbacks and declining enrollment, charged that "the University administration has tried to make the program invisible."
His effort was wasted. The administration has now made the program non-existent.
That action came recently with the approval by Robert Cobb, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, of nine recommendations that will end the program as it exists now and institute in its place a sequence of four humanities courses.
A HUMANITIES Committee would administer all humanities offerings, including the four IHP courses. That committee would comprise at least seven faculty members and student representatives.
Although Dennis Quinn, IHP director, has been told that he will be eligible to serve on the committee, it is clear that the once popular IHP program at KU is dead. And that is disturbing, for not only will KU students be denied the opportunity to enroll in a program that many found appealing, but the liquidation of the program once again casts significant doubt on the University's commitment to true academic freedom.
OF COURSE, the University's dubious record in that field is familiar to most students. The Jonathan Kozol lecture and Nazi exhibit controversies most recently have indicated the administration's predilection for bludgeoning contrary opinion into submission.
THE FOUR COURSES will still be available, of course, but under committee guidance the courses obviously will not be the same as the current IHP program. A measure of the finality of the program's demisie lies in the instructions to Quinn to give up his keys to the IHP office. In the tangled world of academia, an order to relinquish your keys is the equivalent of the executioner's sentence.
There clearly was pressure from several groups to eliminate HP. The most publicized of those groups was led by a Unitarian minister and adopted the ironic name of Committee for Academic and Religious Liberty.
Henning's magic illusion; views on TM delusion
The unfortunate part of the decision to dismantle the IHP program is that there is no apparent reason for the action except to defuse the criticism directed toward the program. And burying a program because it is controversial lies a long way from the principles of academic freedom that a university is designed to maintain.
But controversy is no crime, and as long as there is student demand for a program and the program meets the standards of quality set by a university, that program should be available to students.
According to a special report in a spring published by Maharishi European Research University, we are "really" required to teach much more than Henning would have us think.
To the editor:
I find it most interesting that Doug Heming's slight of hand is now being used to evangelize for transcendental meditation, and it seems he has something amiss with his trickery. In fact, after reading Rhonda Holman's article I learned that Heming has something on his sleeve.
Henning also states in Holman's article that TM is merely "a simple, mental technique to expand consciousness . . . there's really nothing to believe at all, except that by using your mind, your body can have deep rest."
The first rabbit Henning pulls out of his hat is the statement, "There's nothing religious about it (TM)." Aside from his hat, he has been quick to draw down on boundaries in the mind," that court was "filled with an incredible sense of wonder," and that mediation will enable an individual to "discover his inner self" (all of which he describes himself as being) seems to be unaware that a federal court has ruled that within the establishment clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, TM is indeed religious in nature and has recently been in a federal Court of Appeals.
The report asserts that due to the
"Maharishi Effect" (the "raising of world consciousness") as the number of mediators "approaches" 1 percent of the world's population), the nations of the earth need no longer fear one another because all threats are out by the "vibrations" of TM practitioners.
The Maharishi himself declared all nations "in invincible" on Oct 13, 1797. I doubt that even magic can explain the various wars in Africa, Indochina, the Middle East, and so on, though it might fare better with the TM "Siddi" program, which bestows powers to institutions such classic sorcerer's powers as levitation, human strength, and invisibility.
Henning informs his audience, "What I'm doing up here is illusion." I couldn't agree with him more. The headline described his own experience in the magic of his own definition of magic is only appropriate. Magic . . . "a process of misdirecting people's attention and creating optical illusions." Certainly one thing can be said for Henning; he preaches what he practices.
Bob Anthony Lawrence senior
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
(USPS 600-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and June. Thursdays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Kansas State University, Dayton, Ohio. Seconddays from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., Kansas State University, Dayton, Ohio.
*are $15 for six months or $2 a year in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $3 a year activity county.* Students substitution are $2 a semester, during the student activity county.
and changes of address to the University Daily Kaman, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas, Lawrence. K6045
Managing Edito
Direk Steimel
Editor Barry Massey
Editorial Editor
John Whitesides
Mary Hoenk
Pam Manson
Business Manage $ ^{1} $
Karen Wenderott
Direk Steinem
Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Install Sales Manager
Management Assistant
Associate Adminstrator
Assistant Consultant Advertising Manager
Kitty McMahon
Associate Client Specialist
Advertising Adviser
Chuck Chowlin
General Manager Rick Musser
Women's protest fuels Iranian strife
The best one can do is to call it terrible timing.
On March 7, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini declared that the proper dress code for a Moslem woman was the hijab—a code that entails covering a woman's hair, arms and legs and hiding her zinaat, or enticing parts.
Khomeini could not have chosen worse timing for his declaration, and it was a definite slap to women who had fought to throw off the oppression of the shah before
The next day, March 8, some 15,000 women lined the streets of Tehran to commemorate International Women's Day. But the women were not dressed in the traditional Moslem chador, which covers a woman from头到 toe. Instead, in a tremendous display of outrage and courage, women pressed in peas and other Western attire.
Many of the women gathered there that day were women who had worn the chador as a sign of protest against the shah's regime. With but Khomeini's return after 15 years of exile, they had once again thrown off those cloaks of degradation—assuming the government, as it had been by the shah during his period of modernization.
"I'll never put on a scarf. No man—not the shah, not Khomineh, and not anyone else will dress me as he pleases. The women of Iran have been unveiled for three generations and we will fight anyone who bars our way."
"ILL.NEVER a veil a .I'll never wear a chudor" shouted Farazh Nairch, a lawyer who had been on trial.
However, they soon found that the
revolution had brought a strict Modern ethical code that the syllabist and a group of non-syllabists must obey.
IT IS THAT code that is causing the largest opposition to Khomeini since his return and which insures a continuation of civil strife in a nation which had—despite the tyranny involved—enjoyed a loosening of moral codes.
Now the women pose a threat to Khomini as they become more active in their defiance to his decrees. It is not just the return to the chadors, however, that has upset Iranian women activists. The ayatollah also has said that he disapproves the 'Palestinian Act of 1975, which grants Moslem women the right divorce in court and protects them against arbitrary rejection or polygamy by the husbands.
THE FACT that it took until 1975 to enact such a law seems nearly inconceivable to many Iranians, and for Khomeini to reject it seems unbearable.
Kleinmeier's comments that coed education, introduced in Iran only a few years ago, had led to many turnovers many of Iran's schools into centers of prostitution, is another cause for outrage by them.
Most hotels and restaurants have already conformed with a prohibition on alcoholic beverages. X-rated movies are rarely shown, while most television shows are no longer broadcast.
that are drawing opposition from more than just women.
The results of such strict dictates seem sure to alienate even more people in the months to come. There is already an outrage that the family of a woman and man convicted of adultery to 80 and 40 lashes. And another decision which resulted in the execution of four men convicted of raping an 16-year-old student and having sex with the victim also has drawn outrage.
BUT WHAT is particularly surprising to many in the Western world, and particularly alarming to many women in Iran, is that these changes were not expected by many Iranian women who welcomed the religious government of Khomeini with open arms. But in Khomeini the day before International Women's day was also a surprise to many.
"We fought for freedom with the men," one woman said. "None of us knew freedom without them."
"KHOMEIEN KNOWS that this is why he got rid of the shah and he is now talking a different tune from what he used to say in Paris. He has betrayed our trust."
Another woman, Simin Daneshvan, a novelist, journalist and Tehran University lecturer, said, "They say our moral character is because we wear clothes that get tired of being tired of people who cannot tolerate another way of life or another point of view.
Kohmeini has dissipated and the outlook for a loosening of tensions in Iran seems as dim as ever. In fact, the tension between the anti-Western Kohmeini supporters and the antiWestern Kohmeini supporters Western clothing as well as non-Moslem thinking are sure to come into conflict again.
The arrival of American feminist Kate Millet for Women's Day, and her forced departure soon after, is just one example of the opposition that Khominei and his supporters will likely exert to pro-Western, and particularly Western feminist, activities in Iran.
The chador has been thrown back on the women of Iran. To be able to throw it off, however, will take the combined effort of many more Iranian women along with other disatisfied factions—primarily left-wing groups.
Indeed, much of the trust that was given
ALTHOUGH THE people of Iran have escaped the political tyranny of the Shah, many of them—particularly the women—find themselves trapped by a religious tyranny that seeks to lower them to a level that they cannot and should not, accept.
However, with the weight that the chadors exert on the tired backs of Iranians, the latter seems the most likely—and the more in line with a nation that has been oppressed for years.
Iranians, therefore, are caught in a dilemma. To wear the chador of the ayatollah's dictates on their backs is a degradation that is unbarable to many. Yet Iran is so embracing these measures upheaval that could leave Iran in a further state of disarray and unknown leadership.
We can only hope that the more likely and promising alternative does not become the default.
Iranian revolt upsets power balance
During the first three months of 1979, startling, historic and sometimes disruptive events have taken place within the interior of Iraq. They included the Vietnam staged invasions; China and the United States exchanged ambassadors, advisers and allies; and Egav and Israel have agreed to peace.
But the event that had the most immediate and extensive effect on the international community was the recent revolution in Iran.
The 12-month revolt has made foreign policy-makers of the United States and those of the Middle East more aware of Iran's vital role in the world community, and made them reconsider their emphasis in dealing with each other.
STATE U.
Although Egypt and Israel would have agreed to peace eventually, they took note of
Since the crumbling of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi's regime in January, worldwide oil prices have increased and the supply has decreased. More importantly, it brought major changes in the already tenuous Middle East.
BY T. M. ASLA
the turmilu in Iran and hastened to agree to sign a peace treaty. But in the opposite vein, the Arab nations, most significantly, oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Jordan, have grown stern with Egypt, cautious with the United States and more sketical of Israel.
BUT THESE immediate changes, for the United States, are not as important as the long-term consequences: the shifting of the balance of power in the Middle East.
With the fall of the shah's regime was the coming to power of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Shiite Moslem leader who was the spiritual force behind the
And with Khomeini has come the rejection by Iran of the West- its economic system, its lifestyle and U.S. involvement in Iran and the Middle East.
Furthermore, the Khomeini government has slashed ties with Israel while at the same time recognizing the movement of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This act just increases the growing conflict between Israel and other Arab nations in the turning "upside down" of the strategic balance in the Middle East.
ALTOUGH Khomeini has vowed to keep Iran free from either U.S. or Soviet ties, the threat of Russian intervention, however remote, still looms. Iran's vulnerability and continued instability has created an air of unease among its allies, and more specifically, Egypt and Israel.
Indeed there has been a weakening of the strength and security of Western countryside.
No longer is Iran the vanguard for the
Israel and other Arab nations remain to provide protection of the West's interest in the Middle East's strategic position and her territorial interests. Communist domination in the region.
West near the Persian Gulf. No longer does the United States have the luxury of monitoring the Russian border and thus Soviet nuclear activity. No longer is Iran willing to tolerate the pro-Soviet sentiment that exists in her neighbors—Pakistan and Afghanistan.
But there is little cohesion between Israel, besides Egypt, and her other Arab neighbors.
The United States had offered to establish a military presence in Saudi Arabia but the US opposed it.
THIS IS unstable, of course, because to the south of Egypt and Saudi Arabia lie pro-Soviet Ethiopia, Somalia, South Yemen and further into Africa, Angola.
All of this turmoil and conflict has centered around oil—the West's desire for it, and the willingness of the former Shah to provide the energy.
The people of Iran revolted because the shah, from oil profits, propelled his country into a modern age with rapid expansion and development, leaving many Iranian less and himself more. And to meet this end, the shah suppressed the masses. He paid the price.
So, too. has the United States.
**IRAN WAS the No. 2 exporter on w...**
But the revolt caused shortages and price increases on the world market. According to data provided by Iranian media, it could reach $1 a gallon. And talk of rationing gasoline and no weekend service has surfaced. The price of oil world is from $3 to $7 a barrel more than the OPEC price of $13.48. This is "percent above" the OPEC limit of $14.54.
Moreover, there exists strong anti-American sentiment in Iran, and now, in other Arab nations as a result of the recent peace efforts by President Carter.
We must ask ourselves if we are willing to conserve energy and make sacrifices to meet not only our interests, but also the interests of world stability.
Perhaps the Iranian revolution should make Americans evaluate their priorities.
WILL WE begin to reconsider our constant request for satisfying our economic wants, not needs? Can we expand our economy by investing in the public sector to include more than an economic interest?
Of course, the same must be asked of the Middle East countries. It seems we must be prepared to take much criticism and confront Mr. Trump in the United States for the rise to power of the shah and are resful. They are right in their reaction, but can Iran and other Middle East countries afford to waggle their influence in defiance at Uncle Sam much longer?
What is at stake for the United States, then, is our ability to obtain energy to continue to function effectively, thus eventually preserving our ethic of how life changes. Such changes, such as the Iranian revolution, place that freedom a little more in jeopardy.
Letters Policy
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 affirmed, they should include the writer's class and home or town faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.