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.