Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona on November 4, 1969 · Page 14
Get access to this page with a Free Trial
Click to view larger version

A Publisher Extra Newspaper

Arizona Republic from Phoenix, Arizona · Page 14

Phoenix, Arizona
Issue Date:
Tuesday, November 4, 1969
Page 14
Start Free Trial

Page 14 article text (OCR)

CITY fa Mt a$m tfith A iforl that you sty, fat I tiill fafen] to the hath your rtyht tt sty it „ . . Voltdte >THE ARIZONAREHJBLIC Ship Of Fools Tuesday, Nov. 4, 1969 Page 7 The People Speak Greater Parent Participation Seen Need Of Public Schools Editor, The Arizona Republic: In the Oct. 23 issue of The Republic Dr. Weldon P. Shofstall, superintendent of public instruction, was quoted as saying in an address to the Association for Childhood Educational International that, "Many educators mistakenly feel that parents should not actively disagree with public school policies regarding morality, economics, patriotism, our form of government, etc., since they feel these are professional matters about which parents know nothing. This false idea is creating the most serious educational problem in our state." I appreciate what I believe Dr. Shofstall was trying to do, and that was to encourage citizens of the community to become more involved in the affairs of their local school districts, and to urge educators to more effectively involve people in the' community in these matters. However, if Dr. Shofstall is quoted correctly by the paper, I would disagree with his statement. It is undoubtedly true that educators and school boards have too frequently Too Much Theft If Paul Mclnery is convicted of murder it will have to be a great miscarriage of justice. Mr. Mclnery was defending his own property. '. The boys were stealing from him. What difference does it make what was being stolen? Justice of the Peace Charles Coppock says that gasoline is less than 40 cents a gallon, so why kill? Does that mean that if the boys were stealing a $5,000 car or boat that then killing would be justified? Where does he draw the line? THE LAW clearly defines stealing. The Ten Commandments contain "Thou shalt not steal." What is a citizen cup- posed to do when someone comes onto his property and removes something that belongs to him, regardless of what it is? ; Thank God for Crime Stop. I know it has helped, but we still have a long way to go. Every day the police department receives complaints of theft that they will never be able to do anything about. There is just too much stealing - going on. PEOPLE SAY it is unnecessary to kill. Let me just ask one thing. What would you do if it were your property? You work hard to get the things you want and someone that doesn't want to work comes along and steals it from you. Think about it. W. HOLM Unfair Practice Being an avid golf enthusiast, I and many others in the Valley are concerned with the latest announcement that annual golf memberships at the muncipal courses may be abandoned, except to those over 62 years of age. It is the opinion of many I have talked to that this is an unfair practice to taxpayers of Phoenix. Very shortly our courses will be invaded with winter visitors, mostly in the over-62 category who take out the memberships and play four to five times a week. It is my feeling if these visitors have the financial means to come to our city each winter, they should be able to pay the full amount for greens fees. Once they do arrive, the courses are so congested that it is difficult for the residents to get on without an hour or more wait. Those of us who live here year round and pay taxes should be offered some privileges that tourists should not have. I have been a resident of Phoenix the past 12 years and have greatly enjoyed having an annual membership the past three. I and hundreds of others do not qualify for the over-62 category and certainly will suffer if they are denied us in the future. By increasing the green fees from $2 to $2.50 and maintaining memberships to all Phoenix residents, regardless of age, it seems to me this could bring in the additional revenue needed to meet rising costs. JO ANN RODE Police Thanked In this day and age one hears many derogatory remarks about our police officers, Well, this is for those who make therm On Oct. 28 at 3 a.m., being awake, I heard what sounded like a well-locked door being forced open. I called the Mesa police and it seemed I ha<J barely left the phone when the ppMce responded to nothing more serious than a heavy object falling upon a metal table. I felt grateful it was nothing more serious where these men may have encountered trouble. My thanks to the Mesa police. F.E.PA2EY, Mesa failed to sufficiently involve the citizenry in the affairs of the schools, but not, I believe, because of a desire to exclude them, but either because of a failure on the part of the schools to communicate to and with the community properly, or because of community apathy. IN MY SEVEN YEARS as a member of the Mesa School Board I have become quite familiar with our district and have met many teachers, administrators, and school board members throughout the state and quite a large number of school people throughout the nation at national meetings, etc. I know of none who is not concerned about the same things that Dr. Shofstall is concerned about, which is the lack of communication between the general public and their schools. I don't believe I have ever been to a meeting of educators where this subject was not discussed either in seminars, workshops, speeches, etc. Educators are aware of the problem and are trying to do a better job. I personally do not know of'any educators who have expressed an opinion such as stated by Dr. Shofstall. I suppose there are some, but when Dr. Shof- .stall states that "many educators-mistakenly feel . , . "I think that this is completely wrong, does a great injustice to the education profession, creates a false impression to the public, and certainly would tend to increase the "credibility gap" and thus do a great disservice to our school districts. I think that such a statement coming from a man in his position is indeed unfortunate. If he really believes this, I believe he is certainly out of touch with the great majority of the educators he is supposed to lead and represent in this state. IF HE DOES NOT believe what he said, he should be more careful in how he,states things. If he has been misquoted by the: newspapers, I apologize for my criticism. Again, I believe that he and I and most educators would agree that we need more and better and constructive parent participation in our public schools. Such negative statements as Dr. Shofstall has made will not foster this kind of participation. JOHN K. KERR M.D., Mesa 'Smashing' View I shall if, in the future, you publish letters such as Darwin Aycock's on Mondays or Tuesdays only. Coming at the end of a hard week, such a letter is just about enough to cause a professional economist to lose hold and start screaming and smashing things. Aycock goes on at some length to show that employment has actually increased with tiie increases in the minimum wage. Of course, that's not the whole of the question: the true point is, .what would have happened had there not been a legal minimum? - And the answer to that is, undeniably, that there;would have been even more employment. To prove this by statistics is not, easy: a modicum of economic sophistication is required to see it. And the higher unemployment among the young men of the minority groups Aycock blames on differences in education. That, certainly, is a basis of the problem, but it is also true that the difficulty has been exacerbated and made operative through the restrictions placed on employers by the minimum wage. Without the minimum wage, it would be worthwhile to hire these men, even if they are relatively poorly skilled. To make everyone's educational opportunities equal is difficult, perhaps impossible. Getting rid of the minimum wage laws is not. These things should be so evident that — well, when Aycock writes to inform us that the Edsel is the consumer's dream come true, please save it for Monday. LOUIS C. GASPER, Ph.D., Department of Economics, University of Arizona, Tucson Fair Swap David Hiliiard, Black Panther biggie, advocates a prisoner swap with North Vietnam; Black Panthers for our boys. I'll go along with that. Send them 10 for one (which should be about right) and throw in Eldridge Cleaver as a bonus. They deserve each other. BILL CULLEY, Buckeye Question How can anyone criticize the appointment of Judge Haynsworth to the U.S. Supreme Court and yet condone the presence there of William 0. Douglas? HERBERT H. DAHNKE Senator Murphy Would Deny Legal Services To The Poor By FRANK MANKIEWICZ and TOM BRADEN V7ASHINGTON - The House of Representatives will shortly face up to one of the basic questions asked by the Nixon administration: Is the rule of law to prevail in America, or are we to become a country in which grievances must be fought out in the streets? At issue is an amendment to the Economic Opportunity Act, sponsored by Sen. George Murphy of California, which has passed the Senate. The Murphy amendment would permit state governors to veto all or any part of OEO's legal services to the poor. And many governors, led by Ronald Reagan-of California, are waiting — consciously or riot — to tell the poor that the radical vision of America is correct, that our system of justice is for those who can afford it. * * * IN THE MORE than four years which the poverty program's legal services have been available, 1,800 OEO lawyers —most of them from the top of their law school classes and serving at personal financial sacrifice — have represented 600,000 clients in a variety of legal matters. These include ordinary domestic matters — divorce and bankruptcy, for example — which the poor cannot ordinarily afford, but they also include establishing legal rights which are elementary and available in theory to all. For example, they have permitted migrant farm workers to enforce state sanitation standards, including requirements for toilets and wash facilities in the field. They have attacked the illegal use by large growers of wet-backs and other illegal immigrants — knowingly hired and hidden by the very growers who support Senator Murphy and his amendment. In some California counties, 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the total farm labor force is illegal. The penalty for illegal entry is deportation, but the deported often return at once, and there is no penalty against the growers for concealing them, a practice in which many indulge, thereby adding about $8 million annually to the state's welfare bill. THE DEPARTMENT of Labor estimates that between 200,000 and 300,000 Mexican farm workers enter the country illegally each year, many of them transported by "labor contractors" who work closely with the growers. These illegal entrants are a prime source of narcotics. In behalf of the class of people — almost all poor — sprayed by pesticides in the field, the OEO lawyers are seeking an order from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare outlawing the use of DDT. It is backed by scientific studies on animals. They have protested the use of compulsory lie-detector tests to determine paternity — one of a number of intimi: dating procedures used in California to keep Mexican-Americans from assistance available to others. All of this — and most of it is vigorous representation against what citizens of ordinary means would consider outrageous persecution — will go by the board if the Murphy amendment becomes law. It cannot help but raise the question as to whether Americans want law and order for everybody or only for those who can afford it. * * * THE BATTLE over the Murphy amendment has the dominant political and economic structure of many states — chiefly those with large agricultural interests — on one side and the American Bar Assn. on the other. Murphy and his allies, so quick to cite the ABA in other matters, choose now to ignore the association's strong support for the Legal Services Program and its specific opposition to his amendment. Murphy makes his main argument on what he sees as the incongruity of government-paid attorneys suing governments, both state and local. But there is ample precedent: the federal government frequently goes to court to make a state obey a federal law, and states and cities regularly oppose federal decrees and orders in antitrust and other fields. After all, Murphy's opponents will argue, if law and order is unavailable to the poor, where else but to government can they turn? <I Sure Cunh Clean Up With This! 9 President Raises His Voice Against Vietnam War Critics By JAMES RESTON New York Times Service NEW YORK — In the first nine months of his administration, President Nixon has emphasized compromise, moderation and unity in the nation, but last night he drew the line against his Vietnam critics. He asserted that he had a plan that "would end the war and serve the cause of peace — not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world." His is "the right way," he insisted, and he appealed to the "silent majority" of the nation to support him and his plan. "Let us be united for peace," he said. "Let us also be united against defeat. Because let us understand — North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States. Only Americans can do that." So after the long debate on the war, the President has made his decision. He has been faithful to his promise not to be influenced by the peacemarchers. He supported the views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He assumed that the "majority" of the American people were with him in his plan, that it was not only right but would succeed, if only he could get visible support at home. In short, the President has done on Vietnam precisely what he opposed on other policies since he came to the White House. He has raised his voice and accepted the challenge of confrontation on the most emotional issue before the nation.- When Nixon announced last month, shortly before the national peace moratorium that he was going to make a major policy speech on Vietnam, it was widely assumed that he intended to announce not only another major troop withdrawal from South Vietnam, but that he would propose a cease - fire, with reciprocal action by the enemy and international supervision, or even without commitments by Hanoi and the Vietcong, if necessary. Even the American peace negotiators in Paris thought he would suggest a cease - fire, and French officials, who have been in close touch with the North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front negotiators at the Paris peace talks, thought there was a chance of a peace settlement under certain conditions. These were the following: Hanoi and the National Liberation Front would agree to a peace dividing Vietnam into two independent nations, provided the United States would commit itself to withdraw all U.S. combat troops within two years and would agree to the formation of an interim government, in- cluding members of the NLF and repre- | sentatives of the various political organizations in South Vietnam, but not President Nguyen Van Thieu and Vice President Neuyen Cgo Ky. Private talks to discuss these points could be arranged between the United States and representatives of the NLF but not with the Thieu-Ky government in Saigon. Hanoi and the NLF, on this basis, would not only agree to such a division of the country at the 17th parallel, but would agree to elections run by the interim government in Saigon and supervised and guaranteed by the United States, the Soviet Union, and China. It is understood that this possible compromise was put before Nixon by the French foreign minister, Maurice Schuman, when he was in Washington last month. But there was nothing in President Nixon's speech last night to suggest that he was interested in this kind of compromise. He did indicate that he had a plan to recall "all" combat infantry units, though he set no timetable, but the main burden of his speech was that he was still backing the Saigon government. The reprecussions of the President's speech are likely to be more visible at home than abroad In recent days, public opinion polls have indicated that the majority of the American-people were opposed to the antiwar demonstrators. Also reports from Saigon in the last few days have insisted that the war was going well for the United States. The President " seemed to base his speech on the accuracy of these two points. He referred to his Vietnam opponents as a "vocal minority" trying to "prevail over reason." And if this minority had its will, he insisted, the United States might not only suffer defeat and humiliation, but would have "no. future as a free society." This, in more decorous terms, is the . theme that Vice President Agnew has, been following: That the administration is "right," that its policies are leading to- peace and stability, and that the critics are wrong and are threatening not only stability but democracy in the United' States. Nixon's proposition was that the American People "must persist in our search for peace through a negotiated settlement if possible, or through continued implementation of our plan for Vietnamization if necessary." He described this as "a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in , accordance with our program, as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom." Soliloquy by Hugo I SET CRITICIZED FOR 5LASTIN& PEACE-MARCHERS HERE AND , CAMPUS DISSIDENTS ITHEFE-TOMORROW \VLL PROBABLY BE JCWTICKED FOR. K RIPPINS SOMEONE ELSE;.. ...ITS SO DIFFICULT FOR A, VICE PRESlDEh TO. KNOW,.. ...WHO TO INSULT NEXT? • The Real Issue Over Laos By RICHARD WILSON WASHINGTON—For some weeks the White House has been disturbed by the extent and nature of information congressional investigators have learned about American supported operations in Laos. The concern is not that Congress or committees of Congress shall be kept in the dark on how American technicians and money have kept a clandestine army in the field against the Communists in Laos, but over the advantage to the enemy if such information became public accidentally or by design. In fact, however, probably the least of the consequences that would flow if the senatorial challenge to American policy in Laos should be sustained. The issue is whether or not the President of the United States can carry on such operations without' explicit congressional approval. If he cannot, the whole structure of American policy in the past 20 years in supporting governments against Communist takeover will collapse for lack of public support. Following the appearance of CIA Director Richard Helms before Sen. Stuart Symington's subcommittee in the Senate, it was charged by Sen. J. William Fulbright that the United States is spending $150 million annually to support and transport a clandestine army of 36,000 in Laos. Senator Fulbright de* scribed this activity as "most unusual and irregular, if not unconstitutional." * * * SENATOR FULBRIGHT is quite right about one thing. Neither Congress nor the American public has been frankly informed of the nature of American support for Laotian forces in fighting the Pathet Lao insurgency and the North Vietnamese incursion. Secretary of State William Rogers put on an air of injured innocence In saying that he thought Congress was familiar with what the United States has been doing there. He said "operations" in Laos were begun by the Kennedy ad. ministration and continued by both the Johnson and Nixon administrations. However, as late as two weeks ago when Laotian Premier Souvanna Phou-' ma was in Washington he dissembled with elaborate Asiatic grace and patience in making it appear that American combat troops in Laos were nonexistent and American battlefield support negligible. "The largest foreign contingent in Laos is French," Souvanna Phouma blandly replied to questions on the number of American personnel there. He admitted that some American personnel was necessary to service American equipment. Throughout the whole public discussion on American involvement in Laos frankness has been the main American casualty. If we have lost few men we have lost a great deal of the truth. * * * THIS IS UNFORTUNATE because the' Nixon administration will now be compelled to defend and carry on the policy in Laos in a growing atmosphere of criticism and distrust, His policy is based not only on the withdrawal of all foreign forces from South Vietnam but from Laos and Cambodia as well. Without training, support and direction the clandestine army in Laos would have no hope, of ejecting the North Vietnamese and probably would be unable to put down the Pathet Lao, A Vietnam cease-fire or settlement could rapidly collapse it the Communists remained in position in Laos and Cambodia ready for quick strikes once American ground forces had been totally withdrawn. The challenge to Nixon's policy in Laos, therefore, is as vital as the challenge to his policy in Vietnam, if, under congressional and. public pressure, the Kennedy-Johiison-Nixon policy in Laos were abandoned the United States may as well give up any thought of influencing the course of events in all of Southeast Asia,,

Get full access with a Free Trial

Start Free Trial

What members have found on this page