Congratulations to those associated with the KU First program of the Kansas University Endowment Association. Earlier this week, the announcement was made at the KU Medical Center of a $15 million gift to the Kansas Cancer Center there.

This wonderful gift was made by the Kansas Masonic Foundation and is one of the three largest financial gifts in the university’s history.

The gift is sure to pay dividends in many ways. Thousands, hopefully millions, of individuals will benefit from the research efforts funded by this contribution.

The gift also caps a tremendously successful fund-raising effort by the KU First campaign headed by Forrest Hoglund. The initial goal of KU First was $500 million, the largest capital campaign in the school’s history. The five-year effort was planned when economic conditions in the United States, and in Kansas, were fairly good, and those associated with the drive were optimistic about its success. However, the 9-11 terrorist attacks occurred only days after the campaign was launched, and economic conditions worsened. Charitable fund raising became much tougher for all those in the fund raising business.

Hoglund, however, did not use economic conditions as an excuse to lessen his efforts to raise the $500 million. He has been a tireless worker, commuting with regularity between his home in Texas and the KU campus, as well as traveling to a steady stream of meetings throughout the country to carry the message of KU First and its importance to the continued excellence of the university. In addition to his busy schedule on behalf of KU, he also is deeply involved in trying to help ease this nation’s growing demand for energy.

Some might expect Hoglund to ease off on his fund-raising efforts now that the $500 million goal has been reached, but almost as soon as the Kansas Masonic Foundation gift was announced, Hoglund said it was time for KU to set its sights on a new goal of $600 million.

Raising money is not an easy task, but the KU Endowment Association enjoys a distinguished record in this important area. In fact, the association is recognized as one of the nation’s more efficient and successful college-related endowments.

Hoglund chairs the drive, and his time and work all are voluntary and unpaid. He has been assisted by an equally dedicated group of KU alumni, also unpaid, who serve as the KU First steering committee. These individuals are fortunate to have the very able assistance of an excellent staff, headed by association president Dale Seuferling.

Again, raising money is not an easy task, but the current KU Endowment Association capital campaign, KU First, has been a magnificent success, and there still is a year to go before it ends. Based on the success of Hoglund and his helpers during the first four years, and considering the economic challenges he faced in achieving this goal, it won’t be surprising to see the transplanted Kansan’s new campaign goal of $600 million reached or even exceeded.

Again, congratulations to the KUEA for reaching and surpassing the KU First target of $500 million.

l
Television and instant worldwide communications have a tremendous impact on many facets of our society, but perhaps none as great as the ringside seat it gives viewers throughout the world to the horrors of war.

Americans can turn on television news channels 24 hours a day and see an up-to-the-minute, often real-time, coverage of killings and acts of terrorism in Iraq.

Reports of American casualties have come far too often and, as these numbers grow, there are increasing demands, protests and demonstrations calling for U.S. troops to be brought home and for President Bush to be voted out of office next November.

The loss of any life is terrible, but in a way, it is surprising there haven’t been more casualties in the Afghanistan and Iraq actions.

Nevertheless, this is just as much of a war as World War II, when the survival of this country was threatened by Germany and Japan. Rather than large land-based armies and vast fleets of submarines and aircraft, the current war is marked by lethal terrorist actions, but the goal is the same: to defeat by any means the United States and what it stands for.

It’s obvious many Americans don’t look upon this “war” as being as serious as previous wars. However, it is, and, unfortunately, there are likely to be additional attacks by the enemy on American targets such as the 9-11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Some might say there is no way a relatively small group of terrorists could topple a mighty nation such as the United States. Granted, they might not end up invading the United States, but they could be successful in causing the American public to be so critical of the use of U.S. forces abroad that people would be elected to high office based on promises to withdraw American forces, reduce or eliminate aid and support to democratic governments abroad. That would give those opposed to freedom an almost open field in which to carry out their efforts to destroy freedom as we know it today.

This is where it is interesting to compare the role of television now to its role in World War II.

How would the present generation of Americans react if they had been shown, 24 hours a day, the terrible loss of lives in battles such as the June 1944 D-day landings in Normandy, France or the Pacific battles on Iwo Jima, Okinawa, etc.? They would have seen thousands of Americans killed within a few hours and witnessed pictures of bloated, dead bodies bobbing in the sea or covered by washed-up sand. They could have seen troops with flame throwers setting opposing troops on fire.

Would there have been the same massive demonstrations and protests we see today over the loss of several hundred lives? If there had been live TV reporting from World War II, would the country have stood behind the armed forces and the politicians in Washington as thousands of Americans were killed? Was the lesser television news coverage during World War II a key to the public’s support for the war?

This can be debated, and maybe the argument can be made that if there had been television in World War I, World War II, Korea and maybe even the Civil War, the wars would have been much shorter because the public could witness their horrors.

On the other hand, what price should Americans be prepared to pay when democracy and freedom are at stake and this nation enters a war to preserve those treasured freedoms?