The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 55, No. 10, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 16, 1967 Page: 2 of 16
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Texas Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Portal to Texas History by the Rice University Woodson Research Center.
- Highlighting
- Highlighting On/Off
- Color:
- Adjust Image
- Rotate Left
- Rotate Right
- Brightness, Contrast, etc. (Experimental)
- Cropping Tool
- Download Sizes
- Preview all sizes/dimensions or...
- Download Thumbnail
- Download Small
- Download Medium
- Download Large
- High Resolution Files
- IIIF Image JSON
- IIIF Image URL
- Accessibility
- View Extracted Text
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
'China uber Alles?'
By BILL SCHNITT
Thresher Editorial Staff
The following is written in reply to Professor George Williams' letter
in last week's Thresher, defending U.S. policy in Vietnam.
There are many Americans today who support the Viet-
nam War, though grudgingly and with serious misgivings
about the whole rationale of our involvement. Had we not be-
come enmeshed in that Asian chaos, thflK.now realize, our own
national security would not have beeiT^eroded measurably—
nor would the outbreak of World War III have been hastened
appreciably. It is with agonizing precision that they weigh the
ambiguous consequences of withdrawal, against an ever-escalat-
ing toll of human suffering. But they tell us we must perse-
vere: to "uncommit" oneself hastily—despite the questionable
basis of the policy—is to invite the enemy to challenge our
commitments in other, more vital spheres.
Indeed, the argument is a very compelling one, and not to
be trifled with. But professor Williams does not fall into this
category of "pro-war" thinking: he believes not only that we
should STAY in Vietnam, but that we were RIGHT in the
initial assumptions which brought us there.
Quest For Lebensraum
He admits that South Vietnam "was split into a dozen
warring factions, and was to collapse"; that the army "was
on a steep and disastrous downslope of defeat and defection";
and that the Victcong "controlled most of the population." Yet
Professor Williams would brand us as "immoral'' had we dis-
entangled ourselves at that time. For had we not intervened
massively to save South Vietnam, China's quest for Lebens-
raum would have gone unchecked, and Communist tyranny
would have imperiled the whole of Asia.
Anschluss with India, a key Chinese objective, was im-
minent: indeed, Professor Williams conjures up the terrifying
spectre of Bombay besieged by Mao's goose-stepping Wehr-
macht. And the creation of what he calls the "Indonesia-China
Axis" (!) boded further ill for the Free World.
Happily, though, there were no Munichs. American power
deflected the Chinese Drang nach Westen (und Suden), and
the Indonesian Duce—Sukarno—was replaced by a leader more
amenable to the West. Thus, according to Professor Williams,
President Johnson's Asian policy has been not only effectual,
but it lias averted "national death" as well.
Yet this explanation deserves more careful scrutiny, as
it seems to defy both facts and reason. For example: when
China faced an acute food shortage in the early 1960's, why did
sin- PURCHASE wheat from the West? If her intent had really
been aggressive and expansionist, wouldn't it have been more
plausible to absorb neighboring food producers such as Thai-
land—particularly since the American force in Southeast Asia
at that time was a mere token of advisers ?
Colossal Headache
And then there is the India Question. Does Professor Wil-
liams sincerely believe that China had covetous designs on In-
dia? Hasn't Mao sufficient troubles without worrying about
masses of hungry Indians? Would ANY strategic advantage
justify the colossal headache of occupying India? Indeed, the
mind boggles at the proposition.
In Indonesia and Africa, there is no doubt but that China
suffered serious setbacks. In this connection, the significant
fact was not the psychological impact of America's presence
in Vietnam; rather, it was the ABSENCE of overt American
influence in these two arenas.
The case of Indonesia is instructive. There, the State De-
partment had written off its policy as hopeless, when events
unforseen transfigured bitter failure into sudden triumph.
Moreover, Professor Williams should be reminded that
India and Indonesia—though allegedly "saved" by the Ameri-
can sacrifice in Vietnam—condemn the bombing of North Viet-
nam. It is the prospects of a widening war that alarm them,
not Communist belligerence.
Gathering Storm
Admittedly, China today is dangerously paranoid. But even
paranoids have real enemies, and our bombing at their borders
has done little to assuage their suspicions. And all too often
we have mistaken their rhetoric, which surpasses "Mein Kampf"
in vehemence, for serious intention.
In fact, the evidence suggests that from China we can ex-
pect more of a blustering wind than a gathering storm. Yet
American efforts to "contain" China and to avert the outbreak
of World War III in Asia—as though it vfere World War II in
Europe—may well hasten the eruption of that conflict.
editorial
the rice thresher
dc4aofo & t&e need cAeut^e
A It-. DARRELL HANCOCK PHIL GARON
f I 1 Editor Associate Editor
rice JERRY MANHEIM
• •* Business Manager
Dennis Iiahler Managing Editor William Schnilt ....Contributing Editor
Charles Szalkowski .. News Editor liari Watkins Contributing Editor
Sue MeNair Copy Editor Jim Denney Contributing Editor
Mike Brown Religion Editor
Jack Murray ...Sports Editor Joe Graves Calendar Editor
Richard Sawyer Graphics Editor Jerry Serwer Ad Manager
Fine Arts: Gordon Braden, Ron Brown, Clint Goodson, Ralph Burdick,
George Bright.
Spoils: Larry Turner, Bob Thompson, Ronnie White, Mary Beth Martin,
Rachel Adams.
Reporters: Troxel Ballon, Ken Carpenter, Clark Chamberlain, Jerry Evans,
.limmye France, Jon Glazier, Lee Horstman, Barry Kaplan (non-resident meta-
physician), Laura Kaplan, Karolyn Kendrick, Bonnie Lindberg, Bobbie Lynds,
Terry O'Rourke, Eddie Phillips, Duane Riddle, Karen Sagstetter, Debbie Theo-
dore, Buddie Trotter, Vivian Vahlberg, Mark Williamson (computer consult-
ant.!, Chuck Young (Oracle).
Copy Readers: Susan Ammerman, Christi Oliver, JoAnn Weinberg.
Graphics: Peter Jordan, Troxel Ballon, Bill Blanton, Timmy Leong, Jackie
Wright.
Business Staff: Jim Levering, John McBride.
The Rice Thresher, official student newspaper at Rice University, is pub-
lished weekly on Thursday except during holidays and examination periods by
the students of Rice University, Houston, Texas 77001. Phone JA 8-4141, ext.
221. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the writers and are not
necessarily those of Rice University, its adminstrators or officials.
The conservative majority of the Houston
school board is a public disgrace. It controls the
body charged with shaping the educational sys-
tem of a modern city, while its own members
have apparently failed fully to enter the twen-
tieth century. In an age when few concerns are as
vital as destroying racially-oriented conceptions
of human worth, the majority has knowingly
attempted to preserve the dual system of schools
that perpetuated old racial patterns. Faced with
complaints about everything from food bidding
practices to the quality of certain instructional
programs, it has deliberately resisted attempts
to make objective studies to define the problems.
Faced with the growth of technical-industrial
plants near Houston, it has ignored pleas to
build secondary plants adequate to prepare stu-
dents for the newly created jobs. And, sadly,
the list of absurdities could be lengthened and
lengthened.
Members of the Rice community should not
fail to vote in the H.I.S.D. board elections this
Saturday to try one more time to break the
hold of this short-sighted group on the future of
Houston.
Position five—J. W. McCuHough, conservative
board president, is defending his seat against
four other candidates, the best of whom is Jim
Ferguson, a 44 year old liberal and member
of the National Teacher Corps, an organization
which the Houston School Board voted not to
use. Although he has no campaign funds and
therefore almost no chance at all of winning,
he is the one candidate in the entire race willing
to call the "neighborhood schools—busing" dis-
pute a pseudo-issue. He alone points out that
all the busing done in Houston has been by
the conservative majority in order to maintain
segregated schools.
Position six—Liberal Mrs. Charles E. White
is defending against Dr. Ed Franklin, a former
basketball coach who sees the most serious
problem facing the Houston Independent School
District as "the election of board members on
November 18." Mrs. White's record is sound
and merits her re-election.
Position seven—Mrs. H. W. Cullen, the con-
servative incumbent, defends against five other
candidates, of whom Dr. George Oser is the best
qualified. This is the race that could swing the
balance of the board. Dr. Oser would be a per-
ceptive and intelligent addition to the group, a
man able to discern real problems beneath sur-
face issues.
The draft: attempt at evaluation
The following assessment of the im-
pact of the new Selective Service Act
and the President's Executive Order
of June 30 on colleges and universities
has been prepared by the Commission
on Federal Relations of the American
Council on Education. Washington,
D.C.
The Council notes that "We are not
sure that there has been a full realiza-
tion of the situation in the academic
community, the country as a whole,
or indeed the Congress at large. . .
Obviously the decisions reached will
lie of tremendous importance not only
to the graduate and professional
schools, but also to the entire nation."
The following are excerpts .from the
report:
BASIC FACTS:
0 As has already been re-
ported, undergraduate students
are, with certain limitations as
to age and normal progress, as-
sured II-S deferments.
0 At the end of the current
academic year, all II-S defer-
ments will end for those re-
ceiving their baccalaureate de-
grees, those completing their
first year of graduate study,
and those receiving their ad-
vanced degrees. At the moment
the only exception to this gen-
eral rule is for those engaged
in the study of medicine, den-
tistry, veterinary medicine, os-
teopahty, and optometry.
# In trying to analyze the
situation, we are making a per-
haps unwarranted assumption
that Selective Service must
produce for the armed forces
next year between 200,000 and
300,000 men—roughly the num-
ber drafted this year.
0 Both the statute and the
regulations require that the
oldest among those eligible
for induction be drafted first.
Thus it must be assumed that
under the current conditions
virtually all men described
above will be inducted unless
they are overage or physically
disqualified, or have previous-
ly served in the armed forces.
IMPACT ON GRADUATE
AND PROFESSION-
AL SCHOOLS:
It would appear that unless
changes are ,made by amending
either the statute or the regu-
lations, enrollment in the first
two years of graduate and pro-
fessional schools next fall will
be limited to women, veterans,
men physically disqualified and
those over the age of 25. Obvi-
ously this will have impact on
the supply of teaching and re-
search assistants, faculty as-
signments, and budgetary allo-
cations. Men described above
not inducted by the beginning
of the next college year might
enroll for further study, but
they would be subject to call
at any time during the college
year without any real prospect
of deferment to finish the year.
IMPACT ON THE ARMED
FORCES:
It would appear that for a
12-month period beginning in
July, 1968, between half and
two-thirds of all men inducted
by Selective Service will -be
college graduates or will have
pursued their studies beyond
the baccalaureate degree. As a
result, a majority of those in-
ducted will be considerably
older than the age-group most
desired by the armed services.
ALTERNATE POSSIBILI- ments.
TIES:
% The statute provides that,
on the advice of the National
Security Council, fields of study
in addition to medicine may be
identified as eligible for defer-
ment on the grounds that they
are necessary to the mainte-
nance of the national health,
safety, or interest. There is no
indication as yet whether Se-
lective Service will exercise
this authority. If it does, it
might define such fields nar-
rowly (i.e., specialized areas
within particular fields) or
broadly (i.e., the natural sci-
ences and engineering).
0 Under the existing stat-
ute and Executive Order, the
Department of Defense could
request Selective Service to
produce a given ratio (i.e., 4-1)
of 19-year-old men to older
men. The rule of drafting old-
est first would still apply for
both groups. For the older
group the order of induction
would be based on year of
birth, with, for example, those
born in January, 1949, being
called first, followed by those
born in February, March, April,
etc.
0 The Congress has indi-
cated a willingness to hold
prompt hearings if the Presi-
dent proposes legislation to in-
stitute a random selection sys-
tem. If such a system were
adopted, a prime age group ^
would be designated, probably
age 19. Those who had passed
age 19 without military service,
and were no longer entitled to
deferment would be treated as
if they were 19 and placed in
the pool with the actual 19-
year-olds.
This would result in a pool of
available men of such size that
(assuming a 200,000-300,000
need) approximately one out
of every four in the pool would
be inducted. Put another way,
25% of eligible 19-year-olds
not enrolled in college and 25%
of the older men (mostly col-
lege graduates) would probably
be called. While all those pass-
ed over would still be subject
to call in subsequent years, the
likelihood of their induction
would decline each year as a
new group reached the age of
19 or lost their II-S defer-
Imagination or reality?
the rice thresher, november 16, 1967—page 2
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Hancock, Darrell. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 55, No. 10, Ed. 1 Thursday, November 16, 1967, newspaper, November 16, 1967; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245014/m1/2/?q=%22%22~1: accessed July 5, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.