4A
Thursday, February 16, 1995
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
THE ISSUE: RUTGERS' EMBATTLED PRESIDENT
Misconstrued 'racist' remark should not be taken literally
Rutgers University President Francis Lawrence has been unjustly labeled a racist. And in spite of a large number of students calling for his resignation, the university's administration has held fast in its support of Lawrence and will not ask him to step down.
Lawrence's remark made last November to his faculty was twisted out of context and sparked a great deal of tension and protest. The statement that has Rutgers students clamoring for his dismissal is:
"Do we assess in the same way at Rutgers that we would in an open-admissions county college? Do we assess — let's look at the SATs. The average SAT for African Americans is 750. Do we set standards in the future so that we don't admit anybody with the national test? Or do we deal with a disadvantaged population that doesn't have that genetic hereditary background to have a higher average?"
Lawrence did not intend to
Administrators should be applauded for their support of Rutgers' President Francis Lawrence.
give the impression that he thought minority students were less capable to do well on standardized tests. Nor was he trying to say that genetic and hereditary factors determine ability.
Rather, he was making the point that standardized tests are biased against minority students, and these tests should not be used to exclude such "disadvantaged" students.
The fact that Lawrence was speaking extemporaneously should make him less accountable for his remark, not more.
Based on his record for helping and promoting minority students and faculty, it is obvious that what Lawrence said was in no way meant to degrade the minority students at Rutgers University. The administration made the right decision to stand by him.
AMY TRAINER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD.
THE ISSUE: PARKING PERMIT THEFTS
Parking Department needs system to curb hangtag thefts
The Parking Department can ticket you for parking illegally, but it can't do anything to protect you from having your hang-tag permit stolen.
This semester about 18 hangtags were stolen. These will probably never be recovered.
The department does not do random checks to find out if a tag is in the right car. This means that those who have stolen tags will not be punished, as long as they park legally with their stolen tag.
Granted random checks take extra time and may not catch the thieves, but it would be worth a try.
The department should continue to ticket people who park illegally,but it should also develop a random tag check system.
For example, the department could develop a list of stolen tag numbers and periodically check cars for these numbers.
At the very least the department could check
License plate number and make of car should be registered with permits to prevent future thefts.
the tags of cars that were being ticketed. Every tag should have the car's make and license plate registered to the tag. If these didn't match, the department could check the stolen tags list.
Some say that there would be a problem if people changed cars or bought a new car. This would not happen frequently enough to not justify random checks. If someone bought a new car, he or she could simply register it with the department.
Another dispute is that people could no longer share tags with their friends. But this isn't a legal procedure anyway.
Obviously, this system has its faults, and the department needs to find a way to correct them.
HEATHER LAWRENZ FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Robert Tapley / KANSAN
The Democrats must find and remake their identity
As I attempt to prepare myself for the "Newt World Order" one thought keeps running through my head: Where is the Democratic Party? Has anyone seen it? It seems to have gone AWOL. Bill Clinton certainly doesn't know where the hell it is. For me the most disturbing part of the State of the Union Address was the Republicans' response afterward. I was forced to agree with the argument that much of the president's speech sounded like the Republican Contract on America, or is that the Contract with America? The truth is that for the last decade, the Democratic Party has been searching for its identity. Does anyone remember Michael Dukakis and his insistence that that his campaign was about competence and not ideology. Well, we all know how successful his campaign was, don't we.
In one of his more famous speeches John F. Kennedy articulated a philosophy, an ideology that is sorely lacking in today's Democratic Party. "For of those to whom much is given much is required. And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us, recording whether in our brief span of service we fulfilled our responsibilities to the state, our success or failure, in whatever office we hold, will be measured by the answers to four questions: First were we truly men of courage ... Second, were we truly men of judgment ... Third, were we truly men of
integrity ... Finally, were we truly men of dedication?" These qualities are sorely lacking in the present administration. However, one person does not define the party. In truth, I have seen few Democrats who could satisfy the criteria set forth by JFK.
STAFF COLUMNIST
Democratic Party remake itself? First the Democrats must make a concerted effort to win back their traditional constituency. Historically, the Democrats have been the party of the working class. Traditionally, the Democrats have been the party of the working class and the champion of the poor. If the Democratic Party is to have any chance of stemming the tide of neo-fascism in America, it must once again proudly affirm its role as the party of and for the people. It must proudly reclaim the identity that made the Democratic Party a source of hope for those without hope.
So how does the
The Democratic Party must rejoice in its rich history. It must remember that it was the party that stood up to fear during the Depression and World War II. It must refocus on the remnants of Camelot and the stalled efforts of the great society. It disturbs
me that rather than trying to help the poor, Bill Clinton chooses to blame them. For President Clinton, whose military credentials are dubious at best, the war on poverty is no longer a battle against the enemies of rapacious capitalism and greed, instead it is a merciless attack on the noncombatants who most need our help.
As part of its future, the Democratic Party must continue to reach out to the marginal elements of society. The Republicans claim to be a Christian, family-oriented party, yet they seem to have forgotten the call of Jesus to feed the poor. The Republicans choose to neglect the Christian spirit of charity. This spirit of charity, which the Democratic Party holds, seems to have been lost since the so-called "Reagan Revolution." This is the philosophy to which the Democratic Party must return.
The Democratic Party used to be a party of courage, judgment, integrity and dedication. Now our president is known as "Slick Willie." Despite all his efforts to the contrary, the fact remains that Bill Clinton is a politician, not a leader. What the Democratic Party needs is a visionary like Robert Kennedy, who was eulogized by his brother Ted Kennedy with words from George Bernard Shaw: "You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were and I say, 'Why not?'
Nicolas Shump is a Lawrence senior in comparative literature.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Animals should not be used for testing
The Kansan article about animal research touted what animal researchers hope the public would believe. Why didn't Luisa Flores interview people who realize animal research is outdated and deplorable?
I've taken a behind-the-scenes tour of the Animal Care Unit in Mallot Hall with a former animal care taker in that department. It's not a pretty sight. The beagles I saw exhibited repetitious behavior consistent with psychoses. The dogs were constantly barking, repetitiously jumping and running in circles in small rooms. The beagles tracked through the dog feces and urine that was left on the cement floors.
These KU research dogs never romp along central campus and never know the joys of running
The University community must call for an end to animal research. Many nonprofit health organizations, corporations and cosmetic companies are ending or no longer supporting animal experimentation. Computer modeling systems and animal cadavers are readily available to students and researchers. Veterinarians and doctors can employ student interns to work and learn beside them.
The Kansan article, "Man's best friends," portrayed animal research as educational and pleasant for the animals involved. People should be aware of the true nature of animal research.
Go to the Animal Care Unit in Malot, ask for a behind-the-scenes tour and see what happens. Some KU researchers don't want the public to know what really goes on in an animal research facility.
The majority of animals are poisoned, maimed, abused and eventually killed. They are kept in small isolated cages and deprived of natural and necessary social interactions.Furthermore, many of the experiments have no foreseeable application to human welfare. The Animal Welfare Act is rarely enforced, and animals usually receive no anesthetic.
Animals used for research are innocent, helpless victims who feel pain and need affection. Keeping them in small metal cages and removing them to experiment on them is no way to treat your best friends.
Animal research abuses mistreats and even kills
KANSAN STAFF
through fields or reveling in the praise of a human companion. They spend their lives enduring the prodiding and poking of KU scientists pursuing career aspirations.
Kathryn Wlese Lawrence resident
Chris Foster
Lawrence graduate student
JENNIFER PERRIER
Business manager
MARK MASTRO
Retail sales manager
CATHERINE ELLSWORTH
Technology coordinator
Chris Foster
Without government, we could finally put all those big, imposing buildings to good use, tearing out the interior and setting up little dividers. We could fill them with hundreds of temps hired out at exploitatively low wages to do telemarketing or data entry. We wouldn't even have to worry about doing the renovations right or having the building collapse, since there would be no one to enforce the building codes or any court of law in which to be sued.
Instead of hiding behind the government, why don't people just pull themselves up by their bootstraps like I did? (Well, OK, my rich parents bought me the boots, and my grandmother left me the bootstraps in her will, and I got a government loan to go to school and learn how to pull them up, and then I hired some kid at $4.25 an hour to pull them up for me, but the principle's the same...）
Anyway, if everyone pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, there would be no need for government, and we'd be free to live life to the fullest instead of being stifled by a big, bloated government that hasn't done a bit of good, except for the sanitation, education, public order, irrigation, roads, defense, public health...
OK, I admit that the government has done wonders for sanitation, education, public order, irrigation, roads, defense, public health, the arts and earth and space exploration. But apart from all of that, what has the government ever done for us?
STEPHEN MARTINO
Editor
DENISE NEIL
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Michael Paul is a Lawrence graduate student in political science.
The Republican-led Congress is following a policy of downsizing government, cutting wasteful programs and getting the government off people's backs. This policy, however, falls short of what America needs right now. Therefore, I propose that this policy be carried to its logical conclusion by doing away with government at all levels: federal, state and local. Heck, we could even do away with Student Senate.
Business Staff
Campus mgr ...Beth Pole
Regional mgr ...Chris Branaman
National mgr ..Shelly Falevits
Coop mgr ..Kelly Connelys
Special Sections mgr ..Brgg Bloomquist
Production mgr ..JJ Cook
...Kim Hyman
Marketing director ..Mindy Blum
Promotions director ..Justin Frosolose
Creative director ..Dan Gier
Classified mgr ..Liesa Kulseth
Republicans are right: Let's do away with all government
Come on, it's not as if the absence of a business-regulating government would put us at the mercy of monopolies who would charge us out the nose for products
and services, knowing that we'd have to nav or do without.
Nor would children work 18 hours a day in factories and mines from the age of 8. We wouldn't be without a right to form unions to protect workers, and there wouldn't be mouse droppings or dead rats in our sausage.
Face it, we just don't need government. Any necessary function, institution or organization could be left to the market, which we all know is the most humane, thoughtful, caring entity on the face of the earth and will make sure that everything necessary and useful to society will be provided for. You know, "What's good for business is good for the country," the invisible hand and that sort of thing.
And it would be daffy to think that without government, we'd have rampant crime in the streets, which, I might add, would have potholes as deep as the Grand Canyon.
It would also be silly to think that our natural resources would be squandered and our public lands reduced to little more than giant lumberwards.
And it's not like we'd have Jim Crow laws and other forms of discrimination or any of that sort of unsavory activity. That's just the liberals thwarting free-enterprise and our right to free association.
Editors
News...Carlos Tojada
Planning...Mark Martin
Editorial...Matt Gowen
Associate Editorial...Heather Gowen
Campus...David Wilson
Colleen McCain
Sports...Gerry Fey
Associate Sports...Ashley Miller
Photo...Jarrett Lane
Features...Nathan Oleon
Design...Brian James
Freelance...Susan White
MIXED MEDIA
By Jack Ohman