Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 18, 1968)
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN Editorials Commentary Page 2 Monday, March 18, 1968 Conference traumas The outcome of the World in Revolution might suggest for some shelving the program for next year and admittedly the conference did have more than its share of traumas. The conference should not be scrapped, how ever, for several good reasons. Attendance always seems to be the basic cri teria for evaluating a successful program and some of the speakers especially those appearing in the morning faced sparse audiences. This would suggest that next year speakers are arranged at times which do not conflict with class schedules of 90 per cent of the campus, since the University balked at canceling classes for any speaker except Sen. Ribicoff. Also the Nebraska Theatre was a bad location for speakers since any location within two blocks of a living residence (except bars) will never entice the average student's attendance. The cancellation of Sen. Ribicoff one day be fore his scheduled speech can not be blamed on anyone although his absence left a gaping bole in the conference. It is interesting though that Ribicoff's absence did not deter hundreds of faculty and students from attending Rep. Conyer's speech, which turned out to be the best received address. Perhaps the topics for future conferences should be more differentiated to avoid repetition. For example two speakers spoke on education two different aspects, yes but students usually attended one or the other but not both speakers. Although Ribicoff's speech was never heard, he also was to have spoken about the same general area as Francis Fisher. The greatest accomplishment of the World in Revolution was that the entire conference was or ganized and staged strictly by students and prob ably for the first time Nebraska Union menbers and Student Senate worked closely together for the same program. Neither of the groups individually could have planned the conference as effectively and this type of union should be encouraged for future speakers programs. Since students have demonstrated that they are capable of inventing new and imaginative ideas for speakers programs perhaps the Faculty Senate Convocations Committee, which hasn't had an or iginal idea or impressive speaker for years, should be disbanned and their reponsibilities transferred to student groups. Cheryl Tritt No war debts Editor's noted: Mr. Durand, a frequent contri butor, is an Instructor in the department of Romance Languages. Along with the "Crepe Suzette", the "Follies Bergeres" and Jean-Paul-Claude-Belmondo-Killy, every time I have engaged in a typical American cocktail repartee about France, the "touchy" ques tion of the war debts kept gliding over my gin-andr tonic. I think that it is about time for me to say that the demands of those who clamour for repayment of war debts can only be jusitifed by their com plete ignorance of the facts. The London Agreement of 1953, to which the United States was a party, decided to defer a solu tion of the question of German reparations in view of the division of Germany, and In order not to hinder the "German Miracle", and attempt to prove that the economic machinery of the capitalist "free" world was more effective than the socialist "system". As a result, the Moratorium proclaimed in 1931 by President Hoover was still on for all practical purposes and as long as it has not been lifted. None of the debtor countries, including France, can be called on to repay their outstanding World War I debts. (This was acknowledged by Mr. Jo seph Bowman, Assistant secretary to the treasury, in a letter published by the Congressional Record of December 7th, 1967, and defying the position of the U.S. government.) As for the debts of the second World War, and contrary to the beliefs of millions of Americans, France has been repaying them ahead of schedule and owes only a small part of the 300 million dollars which will not fall due till 1970. It is essential that Americans should know that Frenchman whether he approves of De Gaulle or opposes him, is bound to dismiss claims for immediate repayment of World War I debts as out. rageous until Germany resumes paying the due reparations for both wars, far in excess of France's debts! Americans who want to understand the feelings of the French about the war debts have to consider the following facts: The late entrance of the United States in the First and Second World Wars (the later caused by a German declaration of war, and known to have occurred against the will of a great ma jority of Americans) has always been resented by a nation who declared war on Germany in order to fulfill her committment to Poland). The terrible bombing of civilian populations and the complete destruction of French Industry and railroads by American bombers. The experimentation of Napalm over t h e city of Royan, In southern France, where a handful of German soldiers awaited capitu lation and which resulted in the death of more than five thousand French Civilians. The bloody and destructive "race" for Ber lin (which was eventually lost, since the Red Army entered first in the capital of the Reich). All those facts have left quite a resentment among those who have loved the "obliteration" f France. After the war: The pressure put on France to restore her colonial power In Indochina, against the will of the majority of the French population; the sup port given the French government In Us crush of the Algerian revolution! the rebuilding of Ger many's conventional military power, now su perior to any western European country's. All those facts have created what may very well be called "anti-Americanism" In France. Bernard J. Durand Ta -MMh ar r J SI t iyi ft 1 A Y) $olJq To BE Joseph Alsop If we should lose the war Washington In the pre vailing fog of gloom and un certainty, there are only two things that can be said with perfect certainty about the war in Vietnam. The first is bleakly simple: There is in fact no com fortable, easy halfway house between defeat and victory. No one who has studied North Vietnamese policy, la bored to read the captured documents and followed on the spot the development of Hanoi's war plans, tactics and strategy believes for one moment that such a halfway house exists today, or will exist in the future. The well intentioned people who offer theoretical blueprints for such halfway houses are as ignor ant of the realities as the people who used to peddle the view that Josef Stalin was really a nice guy at heart. The North Vietnamese lead ers are men with tenacity and courage that seem all the more admirable In the pres ent climate in Washington. They are also men endowed with the most steely ruthless ness. In February they ex pended their troops at a rate of more than 10,000 men a week and in the week of March 2-9, they were still ex pending troops so lavisly that their losses exceeded 6,700 men and this is without counting their wounded ! Take as their population base the 16.5 million people of North Vietnam, plus the 5 million plus or minus under Viet Cong control in the South. Make the appropriate conversion and you find that the Hanoi leaders are in fact accepting losses which, if ac cepted by the United States, would run from 60,000 to 100, 000 men a week in killed-ln-action alone. They are accepting these quite unprecedented rates of loss ten times as high as the average in the recent past because they are go ing for broke. They are go ing for broke trying to win the war in a short time because they know they can not stand the strain of a greatly prolonged war. And they are ready to make such appalling sacrifices because they want to get their grip on South Vietnam. To 3t their grip on South Vietnam at cheaper cost, the Hanoi leaders might well ac cept one or another of the crazier halfway house solu tions that have been proposed in this country. But if tnat is ever permitted to happen, Saigon will be ruled from Hanoi in a very short space of time. All the millions of Vietna mese who have put their faith in the United States will suf fer cruelly for this misplaced faith. The United States will also have experienced i t s first defeat in war since this republic was established. And that leads to the second cer tainty in the present situa tion, which is also bleak and simple: Feeble, needless acceptance of defeat in Vietnam will poi son American political life for a generation or more. The circumstances that pro cede the terrible McCarthy time were downright trivial compared to the hedious cir cumstances that will confront this country after acceptance of deefat in Vietnam. The re sulting outcry about "stabs in the back," the search for scapegoats and the accusa tions of disloyalty and worse can in truth be expected to make the McCarthy-t i m e seem downright cozy in retro spect. Considering how obvious this ought to be, one i3 all but driven to conclude that the American left has gone collectively insane. As any one should be able to see, there is already acute danger of the most frightening sort of a turn to the right in this country. The extreme pos tures of the Negro racists and the trouble in the cities are quite enough to provoke such a rightward turn. The President's riot com mission was no more than realistic when It warned of the possibility of American apartheid. The risk, God knows, will be hard enough to circumvent, and that prob lem will be hard enough to solve without the added poi sons that are sure to be en gendered by the first defeat in war in American history. Add these other poisons to the present mix, and the Ameri can future hardly bears con templation! Without regard to the wis dom or unwisdom of past de cisions, there is therefore only one safe course to take. That course is to make the needed effort to win the war. Win. ning does not mean crushing North Vietnam, and It does not demand the measures proposed by men like Gen. Curtis Le May. Winning means no more than forcing the Hanoi leaders to call home their troops and to ceas : threatening their neigh bors in Laos and South Viet nam. As any rational man should be able to see from the loss rates and population figures cited above, the Hanoi lead ers cannot imaginably sus tain the kind of effort they are now making for a very long time. If you go for broke and fail, the failure leaves you broken. Hence, there is nothing hopeless in the present situation; but be cause of the American advo cates of defeat at any price, there is a profound danger for the American future. Drug controversy continues an Washington (CPS) Under Administration nroposal now being consiuerea Dy con gress, a student who loans his roommate a pep pill to stay awake during finals will be a federal criminal subject to 10 years in prison and a $15, 000 fine. The bill, which embodies proposals made by President Johnson in his State of the Union and crime messages would make possession of "hallucinogenic drugs (includ ing LSD) and other depres sant and stimulant drugs" a misdemeanor and "illegal manufacture and traffic" and "possession for sale" of such drugs a felony. The House Subcommittee on Public ncalth and Welfare completed bearings on the bill in early March. Although the subcommittee had not yet scheduled action on the bill, it is almost certain to be passed, possibly in an even stronger form. AU but one of the subcommittee members have said they favor the bill. It may face slightly rougher going In the Senate. At a series of hearings this week members of the Senate Ju venile Delinquency Subcom mittee appeared sympathetic to arguments that laws for possession of drugs, especial ly marijuana, are unenforce able and that the penalties ought to be lessened or com pletely eliminated. At one point Senator Thom as Dodd (D-Conn.), chairman of the subcommittee, said, "I have always had doubts" about the severity of mari juana laws, which are much tougher than those proposed for LSD, even though LSD is generally acknowledged to be a much more dangerous drug. And Sen. Edward M. Ken nedy (D-Mass.) questioned how effective the gov ernment's "education pro gram" on drugs could be when the laws on Marijuana and LSD are so inequitable. Dr, Jatae Goddard, com. missloner of the Food and Drug Administration, de scribed an extensive "educa tion program" in drugs being run by his department. Ken nedy responded, "I think we need more study before we can develop an effective edu cational program. LSD is 1000 times more dangerous than marijuana, yet we have a lesser penalty for It. In light of those Inequities, do you think young people will pay any attention to an educa tional program?" I don't believe they will." replied Goddard, who has of ten expressed doubts about penalties for the possession of marijuana. Two educators who appeared before the subcom mittee argues that the pres ent laws against marijuana are unenforceable. Dean Helen Nowlis, direc tor of the drug education project of the National Asso ciation of Student Personnel Administrators, told the com mittee that criminal penalties for possession of marijuana should be removed. She said, however, that she was against legalization of marijuana un til more research could be done on It. She agreed with Kennedy that the legal inequities make it difficult to convince people not to use Marijuana. "I wish," she told the subcom mittee, "every one of you had to face thoughtful young peo ple who may or may not use marijuana and who ask you to justify such penalties and at the same time explain why a bill regulating merely the mail-order sale of guns, who do kill and maim more peo ple both accidentally and in tentionally, than all drugs put together, cannot get to first base: or why alcohol, which ruins the lives of countless millions and has been demon strated to be associated with many crimes of violence, is widely advertised and pro moted and freely available to all adults." She also expressed the fears of many deans and adminis trators about the tactics used by law enforcement officials In cases such as the police raid on the State University of New York at Stony Brook: "The great majority of stu dents, teachers, and adminis trators find many widely used enforcement techniques both repulsive and destructive. Un dercover agents, Informers, Invasion of privacy, tapped telephones arc an anomoly In a situation where we are desperately trying to substi tute Inner controls for outside control, to foster Individual and group responsibility, to encourage mature behavior by expecting mature behav ior." (Although many deans have expressed these fears, the major national education as soclations, such as the Ameri can Council on Education, apparently plan no action on Daily Nebraska! Uardi Vol. Si, No. m Second-Haa maUee paid at Unroll. Men. TELEPHONES Editor 47J-85M, Km 471WM, rHumea itl-WH. Subacrlution rata ere M per Kmfr er f lor Ik Beade-ml yoar. nmllahed Monday. Mnndtii, Thnraday and Friday daring the aehool ver ncrpt rturfn vacation and am portnde by the atndente ( th tlnlverrlty Of Nbrili enrter the turtedlrtinB of th Faculty SnocommlttM on Student Pnhllcattona. puhHratlona ahull he free from eennornhlp by th ftiibenmmltle or any prmn ouuride th Unlveralty. Member of tti NebraakM ara reaponalbl fair what too eaoaelo be printed. Member Aanoclaiad Colleilat Preaa, National Educational AdvrUalni Sarvtea. KDITORIAL (WAFF ..Editor Cheryl Trlfti Manafln icdlfor Jar Toddi Nei tailor Ed loenmrlet rtlehf Nrwa Editor J. I, Srhmiiiii Editorial PM AwHutant Jim Wafnewrt Aaaletenl Nlthi New F.illtnr Wilbur Oentryi Spuria IWitor Oom KautmaPI Aaalatanl gporta Editor Bonnie nonneaui Newa Aaaiatant Lynn Ptareki SUM Wrtton- Jim Evinaer Dam Martin. Ham Cordon, Jan Parti, .loan mn"uiint,b. Janet Mmweil, Aroiv Cunninanam. Jim fader, Mnoic Pokorny, PhvlMa Arikiaenn, Kenl Corkaon, llrent Skinner, John Dvorak. Senior Copy fetllnr l.vnn OotterhalM Copy Edltora- Belay renlmor. Uav Flllpl, Jan laeya, Molly Muirell, Chrletle Aohwartrkonfi Photographer Mlk Hayman and Dan lldaly, . MmipJKfWt VTAPI Bualnna Manaier titonn rrlendt: Production Manager Charll Kanbiri Ra. tlonal Ad Manaaer Ueta Macho i Bookkeeper and elaaallled ad ntanaaar Oarr Hnlllnnaworthi Btnlnem Maeretary Jan Boatman) Nubacrlpllon Manaatr ' 4T w 1 1 ill. r. V in i.ookt luuiy uraiui. tom auaugoiatt i the drug bill.) Dr. Dana L. Farnsworth, director of the Harvard Uni versity health service, told the subcommittee bluntly, "The present laws against possession of marijuana are so severe they're not being enforced. But the subcommittee heard conflicting testimony from two government officials who appeared before it. Harry Giordano, commis sioner of the Bureau of Nar cotics told the subcommittee that, If penalties for mari juana were eliminated, sellers of the drug would "escape justice," He said 70 per cent of federal marijuana arrests were for sales and tbut many of those for possession were tersons "In possession oi arge quantities of marijuana, clearly destined for the mar ket." Food and Drug Commis sloner James Goddard told the subcommittee that he "re spected the judgment" of en forcement officers such as Giordano, although he had earlier questioned the sever ity of marijuana penalties. This disagreement led Dodd to say at the end of the hear ings that "We must resolve the conflicting judgments of educators and law enforce ment officials before we en act any new legislation on drug abuse." Thus, it is possible that several senators, including both Kennedy brothers and possibly even Dodd, who is generally regarded as a con servative, will speak out against the severity of the laws against possession of marijuana and LSD. Dodd's subcommittee may even de cide to report out a bill to lessen the penalties for pos session. But such a bill Is not likely to get very far. Nor is the Administration's LSD bill likely to be stopped In the Senate. Few members of Con gress are likely to vote for lower drug penalties In an election year, Wayne Kreusclier Elections 1968: The prospects for an exciting ASUN election this year look rather slim. After last year's election-fiasco this might be preferable. Last year's election was probably the most ex citing in the school's history. In many ways it was also the most tragic. The excitement and tragedy in the spring of 1967 were both a result of the ASUN election split between Ron Pfeifer and Dick Schulze. Together they presented a perfect team for student leader, ship. It made little difference who held what office. But in opposing each other they stirred a tur moil on campus which is still felt today. Their split resulted in the election of one of the school's poor est Student Senates (or Councils) and the aliena tion of many of the University's best leaders from student government. Originally Pfeifer and Schulze were running to gether along with Gene Pokorny. Schulze was the presidential candidate, Pfeifer was the first vice presidential candidate and Pokorny, second vice presidential candidate. People still disagree on why they split. Here I won't even attempt to fully answer this question. (Frankly I have always thought the split was so unfortunate that I have never understood how it happened.) Leaving Pokorny out of the picture, I will say that outside forces mostly backward seniors in flated by their own importance and in many cases unfamiliar with student government seemed re sponsible for initiating the unwise decisions that led to the split. Basically Pfeifer and Schulze differed little on ideology, student goals or their concepts of student government. They are both liberals, highly Intel iigent, romantics (maybe to a different degree) and good representatives of the modern University Individual. Perhaps Schulze proved the best poli tician. However, they did split and a needless fight ensued which in many cases divided living units and made good friends enemies. Campaign march es almost became brawls. A once friendly campus was filled with curses, threats, lies and false ac cusations. Two green papers were printed. Threat ening letters were sent. There was excitement. But along with the excitement came the trag edy. When Pfeifer left PSA, the party also lost most of its experienced or competent senatorial candi. dates. PSA filled the empty positons with many candidates which had earlier been rejected. Schulze who truly once promised to lead the school's greatest student government for a while came under the conflicting influences of reaction ary, status quo Greeks and super-Independents ea ger to control student government. This strange combination was sure to provide little benefit for anyone. Pfeifer, on the other hand, led a group of cru sading underdogs. Mostly juniors and other under classmen they resented the treatment Pfeifer had gotten from the seniors. Pfeifer like McCarthy in the Democratic Party- represented a fight against the corrupt, wornout establishment. It was never as much a fight against Schulze as it was against Schulze's supporters. Like Schulze himself, the leading Pfeifer supporters tended to be liber al, intelligent youths. They naturally followed Pfelf. er who remained honest to their attitudes. In the end it all b e c a m e rather confusing. Schulze always an excellent candidate won but few of the people elected with him approached his stature. Pfeifer a candidate with great potential lost. With Pfeifer all of the other potentially good senators with only a few exceptions also lost. The split was needless. Pfeifer, most of his supporters and Schulze should have obviously been elected together. The split provided much excitement, but per haps a less exciting election this year will turn out better. Roger Stark Racism conflicts with liberty "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice " Racism in the defense of liberty is a direct con tradictlon of principles. Nowhere and at no time can liberty prevail if persons of a certain racial group are all classified and categorized collective, ly. No person can believe In man's basic freedoms and rights and still believe that one race is better than another, or that all Individuals of one race are the same. Former governor Wallace is advocating a to. talitarian form of government not a frer society of Indpendent people. He is advocating that not only the country, but more Important, Individual lives, be controlled by the white, politically af. fluent Americans. ' As I meet more and more people who are going to support Wallace, I find It Ironic that these same persons are usually violently opposed to so clallsm. They obviously have a direct contradiction In thinking, for there is no difference between con. slderlng all persons of a certain race collectively and considering all citizens of a certain country collectively. Although there Is no excuse for racial violence there is a reason for it that is the direct result of prejudice and bigotry. Just as social welfare is not going to change these attitudes and opinions, neith er is the adovcatlng of the annihilation of a cer ..n .v ft.oup tu moke that group more docile and obedient. v It is interesting that the vicious irony which exists when the white person is prejudiced toward a minority group, which leads to certain lndivi duals of that group rebelling against the white per. son, who in turn finds greater conviction for his prejudice. It is the responsibility of the bigoted white, not of the rebelling minority individual, and not of the state, to abolish his prejudiced attitudes and end this irrational and destructive cycle. Just as the white supremist has no virtue like wise the black supremist has none. The beliefs of both persons can be equaled, for they both advo cate the dominance of all Individuals by one cer tain group or race.
