UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of the editorial staff.
$ ^{4} $ARCH1,1979
Senators play games
The already questionable effectiveness of the Student Senate may be further stymied by infighting over an off-campus housing board.
The board is favored by Margaret Berlin, student body president, who said she would seek Senate approval and set up a seven or eight member
Berlin's efforts are opposed by a group of playschool politicians who say that their coalition, Imagination, holds more seats than Berlin's and that they will try to block establishment of the board. They have, said that the proposed services of the housing board would duplicate those already provided by the Consumer Affairs and residential programs offices.
BUT, THOSE two offices and Steve Ruddick, legal services attorney, have said they favor establishment of the board.
As Fred McEhenie, director of the office of residential programs said, "Off-campus students tend to get isolated. We want to make them feel like they have some way of plugging into what is going on at the University."
Despite the support of these campus organizations, some members of the Senate are vying for power when they
should be trying to provide additional service to students.
In fact, Craig Templeton, Senate administrative assistant, said he perceived the Senate as a divided two-party organization.
The dispute is unnecessary and insensitive.
"What we really have here is a two-party system and I think it's healthy," Templeton said. "The housing board that Margaret wants could meet with some problems."
TEMPLETON AND other student senators, allied against Berlin because she ran for student body president with an opposing coalition, are ignoring their responsibility to the students they supposedly represent.
But Templeton seems to think a balance of power is necessary—Imagination against Porch Step. In other words, the problem asks a pawn on the chessboard.
Berlin was correct when she said,
"We're no longer coalitions, we're all
one Student Senate. They were elected
senators, not as coalition
members."
It's time to stop any seed of division sown over the issue, of an off-campus housing board. Student needs should be met and should not be subjected to political maneuverings.
Nazi collection owner says exhibit valuable
To the editor:
As the owner of the Third Reich Collection which was housed at the Kenneth Spencer Research Library until April of last year, I was able to attend a session. I did not respond to both the supportive resolution of the AAUP and to the well-phrased letter of opposition from Judith Lomberg.
Unfortunately, I must observe that the impulsion to avoid and seal off a chapter of Israel's national socialism is social climate that allowed Adolf Hitler and his NSIDA is come to power in Germany in the 1930s.
This inability to examine, the unwillingness to study . . . in short, the "know-nothing" approach to history has resulted in the circumstance that little knowledge exists with regard to the true origins of the Third Reich amongst the general public.
At a conference in 1941, when asked what the policy was to be toward Jews, gypsies and Slavs in the Ukraine, Hither responded, "We'll treat them like Redskins!"
For example, only the most dedicated researchers are aware of the fact that Adolf Hitler was not much of an original thinker. He believed in the importance of learning from the English (Houston Stewart Chamberlin and Cecil Rhodes) and the concept of genocide from the United States.
"I stand against genocide," said Wiesenthal.
Anyone who doubts that genocide still infects humanity need look no further than the official pictures of the massacre at My Lai for confirmation.
I am both an admirer and supporter of Simon Wiesenthal, who, I am sure, no one can fault as an expert upon the period 1933-1945. Mr. Wiesenthal observed during his last visit to Kansas City that, "the worst possible result would be for future wars like the one that was simply a war between the Jews and some夜vichetic Germans."
George Santayana said it precisely,
Those who do not remember the past, are
contaminated by that past.
Keith Wilson, Jr.
Kansas City, Mo.
Kansas City, Mo
Two sides needed in Nazi exhibition
Many pros and cons have been presented on whether a Nazi exhibit in Spencer
To the editor:
While museum curators could not predict
KANSAN letters
the coming of "Holocaust" on television, the dates for Passover were and still are on the University calendar. N. Christian would be the first person to recognize antisemitic actions during the Easter holidays.
These problems represent the past, but the recent moves by University administrators and faculty suggest that it is a matter of time until an exhibit will take place.
As a university community we should neither "black box" potential knowledge nor should we be misdirected by viewing them as something to present a partial view. We need perspective.
An exhibit of artistic artifacts from the Third Reich regime are symbolic of political forces which generate societal results. Is it asking too much to view the proposed Nazi objects offered by Wilson and then see an exhibit of artifacts which "resulted" from the Nazis' mass murder of Jews, stars, prisoner drawings and underground circles represent resulting artifacts.
A final concern must be addressed in making such exhibitions. In a public television film, "Blood and Culture," the author uses Nazi art exhibit in Wyoming was shown.
During interviews, it was apparent that people enjoyed these works rather than disliking them. An exhibit with artifacts representing political causes and results will allow people to be exposed to the dilemma of such enjoyment.
Assistant professor of architecture and urban design
USPS $50-640 Published at the University of Maryland, May and August through May and Monday through Thursday for $150. Published at the Kernan College on Saturday, Sunday and holiday weekdays. Sesame Street $35 Subscription by mail is $15. Kamau $40 Subscriptions by mail are $15. Kansas $40 Subscriptions by mail are $15. County and $18 for six months or $24 year term. University $15 semester, paid through the student activist arm.
Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansam Flint Hall. The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 68045
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Editor
Barry Massy
Business Manager
Karen Wendertz
Hollywood last week opened a Washington bureau on Capitol Hill that in the months to come will feature your congressman and mine, doing whatever it is they say they do, in living color on the tube.
General Mgr
Rick Musser
After almost 34 years since it was first proposed, the long-awaited television broadcasting system installed in the House of Representatives was finally plugged in. First day news accounts of the day's recordings reported that the reception was clear, but some static over Congress' handling of the broadcast system may eventually cloud
House coverage a one-sided show
supposedly, the rationale behind broadcasting lawmakers' proceedings to the public is that it will afford the public the opportunity to witness democracy at work. And some have reasoned that broadcast of House proceedings might even stimulate the politically disengaged by us to want to become involved in the democratic process.
But the disputes between network broadcasters and congressmen before the installment of the broadcast
To the distray of professional network broadcasters, the House productions are controlled exclusively by the House itself. This means no narrator, no instant analysis, no artistic cutouts, no flattering closures of dozing congressmen, no replays and no wide-angle shots of an empty chamber—as it so often is.
In effect, because the networks have no editorial control, the broadcast amounts to "the house cover itself."
During the formative stages of the House broadcast system, network brass and some members of Congress were involved in the debate over the tools of their trade to cover the debates. Further, they argued that a House-operated system would leave viewers with a feeling of "what you're seeing is what the House wants you to see. This, opponents of the House system argue, isn't important."
However, supporters of an in-House system objected that the networks would concentrate on unflattening shots of members, empty seats and young women in the audience.
"The rule is that the cameras cover the legislative process only." Rep. Charles Rose, D-N.C., said. "A member thumbing with his eyes closed is not part of the legislative fight in the gallery is not part of the legislative process."
Rose was one of three Democrats appointed by House Speaker Thomas O'Neill J. D-Mass, to come up with an acceptable broadcast plan. An earlier test of House broadcasting failed in 1977, and O'Neill had made it clear that he opposed network intervention in House proceedings.
The panel studied broadcasting systems in other legislatures, including Canada's House of Commons, where professional broadcasters were hired to set up and operate the system that was ultimately controlled by the legislature.
At the taxpayers expense, Rosi's panel eventually spent about $44,000 to hire consultants for advice on how to set up and configure the equipment, cameras and other equipment that will record floor proceedings. The actual cost of setting up the system is unknown, but the House will pay its own professional broadcasters almost $278,000 a year to operate the system.
The system's tape machines will also serve another purpose. Members will be allowed to purchase a 30-minute tape, which can be used for training and send them to folks back home for broadcast over the local station. This has led to criticism that the broadcast could lead to grandstanding for purely political purposes and to oppressive opponents at a disadvantage in trying gain public attention.
Rep. John Anderson, R-III, who argued unsuccessfully for a network-controlled House broadcast system, already
has attacked the tapes policy agreed to by Democratic leaders.
In a Feb. 7 letter to O'Neil, Anderson charged that the policy allowed $^{14}$ house-controlled system to become uncontrollable under "unpredictable" expense." In addition, he said it would "distract and prolong our proceedings by encouraging more and longer time in the office."
The cost alone will discourage members from such tactics, he says, and the tapes won't be available to members for at least one day after the session in question, thus reducing their newsworthiness.
"Hot issues don't just l dent to last that long." he said.
It is apparent that Rose has no conception as to what distinguishes a "hut" issue from a "cold" one. One reason is the lack of a "room" in her last longer than a day, contrary to Rose's line of thinking.
Thus, Congressman would indeed be tempted to grandstand a little more in order to play the role of the chief public servant. The opponents of a favorable publicity tapes, the opponents of an incumbent, who is already at a disadvantage, would find the going so easy.
The effect of presenting only that part of the legislative process as described in high school textbooks, or instead of an independent congressman, is damaging to the political psyche. For who can truly be expected to believe what is shown if the congressmen do not present it?
In the early 1970s the French stateman Mirabene observed Congress and noted that, "the peers of America have a duty to honor their voices is harmony only for themselves, and must not vibrate in the ravished ears of an ungrateful and unhappy man."
Now, almost 200 years later, and despite the recent introduction of television, Mirabeau's observation remains unchanged.
Industry threatens Alaskan beauty
Each of the opponents has retrained—the congressional battle over the permanent preservation of 121 million acres of Alaskan wild lands will soon be reimbled.
The controversial Alaska Lands bill,
designated H.R. 39, was reintroduced in
the House two months ago after being stranded
in the ocean as a pro-industry and
commercialization sentiment.
As a result of the impasse, and more importantly, the expiration of a provision in the 1971 Native Claims Act that prevented Alaskan development of wild lands. Presi-
STATE U.
BY T. M. ASLA
Phillip Garcia
ALLOW OVER CAMPUS, THE
TERRIFIED OFFICE
WORKERS WHISFER;
MASKED MANAGER?
lent Carter declared 56 million of the disouted acres as national monuments.
Carter's action granted the area the same protection against commercial as is given to national parks. In addition, Cecil Andrus, secretary of the interior, designated another 50 million acres as industrial or commercial development.
THE BILL, which is almost the same as the one proposed in the past session, has been heard in a subcommittee of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. Debate on the House floor is expected in early April.
Without a doubt, the bill faces an uphill fight. About 2,000 people tested on the bill in the last session and most of those favored the bill. The other group failed to get the bill on the floor for a vote.
A battle of many months-perhaps a year is=expected. To be sure, the battle
comprising more than 24 conservation groups who have banded for the fight.
At stake is one of America's last pure frontiers, which is equal in size to California.
On one side of the front are conservationists, headed by the bill's sponsor Rep. Morris Udall, D-Ariz, Rep. John Seibling, D-Ohrio, Andi and the Alaskan Coalition.
OPPOSING THEM is the ever eager and all too greedy commercialists and industrialists. The mining, timber and, of course, coal are the main sources by rabid support from the entire Alaskan congressional delegation and many Alaskans themselves, who have lived independently and self-sufficiently from the rest of the country. Many Alaskans want to
And then, there is the Naatak River, which has been declared by the United Nations as an International Biome because the water has not been polluted in the least by
But for the industrialists and commercialists, the frontier holds a different view.
There is the Arctic National Wildlife range with its roaring herd of Porcupine caribou, 125,000 strong. There is the Tongass rain forest with its dark mountains and picturequeen jungle. There are the glaciers on the coast of the mountain ranges of the Gates of the Arctic.
THEY EEY the estimated 12 to 49 billion barrels of oil and the 29 to 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. They eye the 130 million tons of coal angl large amounts of 16 df-
levent minerals, which the Department of Defense calls "critical" for security.
The industry lobby says preservation would damage Alaska's economy. But Anchorage, a major employer, the fishing industry, would benefit from preservation. He also said that the tourism industry could be expected to increase if the city tourism brought Alaska $190 million in 1978.
Andrus said the lands could be explored and developed if the need arose.
While the industries conceal that most of the oil, gas and mineral deposits lie outside the proposed preserves, they assert that the "best" are within the preserved areas.
THIS HAS NOT been the first time a choice has had to be made between letting nature, her wild lands and life exist as they do in the past, within her crust to withdraw vast riches.
But it may be one of the last choices of its kind. Many conservationists say this frontier is the last of the great wilderness areas the United States possesses.
The natural resources our lands have provided us during the past 200 years have continued to change.
It is time to demonstrate our gratitude. It is time we put aside the ideology of progress, production and profit and show reverence for a beauty that lies far away. Congress must preserve this part of the beauty of all beauties: nature.
1