4
Wednesday, February 15, 1978
University Daily Kansan
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN-
Comment
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kannan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers
Today probably won't matter much to most University students. Classes, bars, friends and snow—nothing out of the ordinary.
university.
For a small minority of students, however, voting in the student elections will provide a momentary diversion from the routine. If recent trends provide any clue to the turnout at the polls, the number of voters will be minimal indeed.
will be immutable because it doesn't have to be that way. This year, as in years past, marked choices exist among candidates.
among clerics, sounding the usual call to get out of the vote, it might be wise to reflect on the role of student government at KU. That role is now so hazy—s marked by uncertainty and fuzziness on the part of current student politicians—it hard will do to blindly urge certainty and clarity in carefully considering candidates.
THE LAST year has been a travesty for the Student Senate. Steve Leben, as student body president, has been accessible to constituents and brutally honest about campus issues. Unfortunately, he has been far more concerned than his predecessor sometimes to the point of antagonizing even those who agree with his views but not his methods.
The Senate has been plagued by internal
dissension. Not all of it, by any means, is traceable to Leben. But the Senate's inhouse bickering has been far too pronounced, and that's partly the student body president's fault.
But under the best possible leadership, from the highest to the lowest levels of power, the University's student government is still a baffling creature. It defies explanation that student politicians so often concentrate on changing their organizations' bylaws, rules and regulations, yet so seldom concern themselves with effecting positive results for those they serve.
NOR IS the University alone in having serious doubts about the value of student participation in campus politics. University of Texas students, for example, are voting today on whether to alter or outrightly abolish their Students' Association.
And would such an abolition be so radical at KU? If few students want to run for office or, once elected, take their duties seriously, why not?
The Kansan does not formally endorse candidates in student elections. It does, however, believe that not all candidates are created equal. If you agree and think that student government has a future, prove it at the polls.
Election year is definitely here when Congress and the president start talking about giving away more money.
Aid plans ignore student needs
President Jimmy Carter has proposed a three-part plan to give more money to college students. The Republicans in Congress want the plan to give more money to parents of college students. What the politicians should have done was give more money to college students faced by college students we are unveiling our plans.
CARTER'S PLAN has three points. The first part is an expansion of the Basic Educational Opportunity Grant program that would extend eligibility for the grants to some students from families that have differences between $15,000 and $23,000.
The second point is an extension of the subsidy on some student loans. Currently, students who have made $25,000 or less can apply to have the interest on their loans paid by the government and are eligible for graduation. Under the Carter plan, students whose families
The proposal in Congress was one backed by the Republicans and was passed with students at $250 credit on their income tax. Tax credits are subtracted from the actual tax bill. The actual tax bills would be $250 lighter.
make up to $47,000 a year can be considered for the subsidy.
The third part of Carter's proposal would put more money in the school system which provides on-campus jobs for selected students. The jobs are financed through a combination of federal and state funding.
The plans set forth by the president and Congress raise questions about whether the authors of either plan checked on college campuses to see what students needed to know. The University of Kansas administrators, neither plan hits the mark.
DAVID AMBLER, vice chancellor for student affairs, has said that Carter's plan would be too complicated to run and would require a more comprehensive the program's benefits could not outweigh.
"I feel the tax cut proposal would not put more money into
the associate director of the office of student financial aid, Jeff Weinberg, is not delighted with either scheme. Of the tax-credit plan, he said he did not know what the tax relief would be on his tax that students' parents pay would help the students themselves.
In fact, though the Malotl construction job is an experiment conducted by the state architect's office. For this job, a single company is being awarded for all the work. In construction, the tids for general electrical, mechanical work usually are submitted separately to the contractor. The subcontractor will be responsible for subcontracting the other work and handling the entire project.
Students at the University of Kansas are accustomed to the sight of construction on campus. The construction of the seven-story addition to Maltol Hall probably will hold no special interest for post.
The lowest bid for the Malott addition was submitted last week by B.B. Anderson Construction Co., Topeka, KU's office of facilities and planning will review the general contractor's package. If KU recommends acceptance, the state building agency will accept Actual construction can be expected to start 30 days after the contract is signed.
Malott construction contract experimental
THE CHANGE in construction procedure coincides with a bill pending in the Kansas House of Representatives' Ways and Means Committee. The bill recently has faced considerable opposition. The point of the bill, explained
CHANGE ORDERS are common once construction has been started, according
Pat Allen Editorial writer
oy state Rep. Fred Weaver, D-Baxter Springs, is to appoint a single figure of authority for state construction projects. The intention is to give the general contractor more control with the hope that things will run more smoothly and with less contusion than state construction projects have been managed in the past.
the hands of college students," Weinberg said. "They're still going to have problems.
Much of the bill's criticism has come from State Rep. Darrell Webb, D-Wichita. Webb, by occupation a pipe filter and welder, opposes the bill because, he said, it would not increase taxes, and that increase eventually would be charged to Kansas taxpayers.
Webb said last week that general contractors tacked on an extra 10 percent to the total package when the contractors themselves collected the bids. In addition to the increase for "administrative fees," which would not otherwise be charged, the general contractors also are likely to profit from change orders.
"In some cases the parents won't have any more money given to them; they'll just be paying less. The plan would give broad tax relief, and that's about it."
to Webb. But in this case they will coat twice as much after the subcontractor has figured in his usual 20 to 30 percent cut of the bill. He will have included an identical proof for himself.
The single bid concept was introduced to the Ways and Means Committee last year when construction problem had been identified. The University of Kansas Medical Center were being discussed. The presentation was a bit of salesmanship on the contractors' part,
ACCORDING TO Weaver, after listening to testimony the committee is undecided about the merits of a single contract.
WORK ON MALOTI is expected to be completed for the fall semester. Although Webb said he was not familiar with the Malotti contract, he added that most construction problems stemmed from problems with the subcontractor.
WEINBERG would prefer Carter's plan to the two, but he criticized between the two, but he also criticized the Carter plan. What disturbs him most, he said, is the pressure of the student for loan loans.
Webb said that because most of the state's lawsuits were filed against the taxpayers, he would have limited effectiveness in getting the job completed on time. In other words, Kansas taxpayers wouldn't be paying for the single contract.
He said the committee also was con-
sistering extending the responsibilities of an associate state architect, who would oversee construction projects from design to completion. Weaver said that using the associate architect in such a manner probably would be a more effective way to coordinate state construction work than a single contract would be.
Even if the bill fails in committee, work on Malot presumably will continue under the single contract. Progress on the work and the finished result can serve as a basis for judgment by the Board, or even reconsider the single contract option.
But a proposal to dispense tax breaks to all parents of college students seems motivated more by politics than by altruism. Throwing more families money, regardless of whether they live in a campus or an intergrated win elections. But it is only distantly related to helping struggling students go to school.
The idea of financial aid at KU or anywhere is to help students attend school who could not attend without help. A secondary purpose is to help make the four years easier on parents' and students' pocketbooks.
"IF IHAD a choice," he said, "I would put more money into work-study. That's where we have a very limited amount of money to work with. The Carter plan would put at least some little amount of money into work-study."
AT THE MOMENT, taxpayers would do well to absorb the apparently higher cost for Malott's construction—so long as the experiment does not become standard procedure for all state construction. True, the low bid for the project was $5.75 million—about $1 million less than the state's estimate. But if that $5.75 million is to include the cost it seems that almost $1 million more could have been saved if the work had not been scheduled to be done under a single contract.
"But some people think that anybody from a family making less than $47,000 would get a subsidized loan," he said. Actually, the family's income must be satisfied at least when the family has to spend before a decision on subsidies can be made.
He emphasized that the family income level does not automatically quality or afford a student for a loan OFFERED
If he were calling the shots, Weinberg also would try to increase the size of the grants in order to get more programs because the programs now are trying to give too many students too little
He added that he would like to see the money that would go to expanding the subsidies used to help families. Students often complain about the "hole" in financial aid. That hole is the family income level that is too low or too high to much toward college expenses but also too high to quality the student for many financial aid programs. Weinberg would like something done to plug the hole.
Mallot will be a good example of single contract construction, but such an exorbitant use of taxpayers' money cannot justifiably be repeated.
Weinberg said the program for subsidies would have almost no effect on KU.
Flying off with fanciful programs to expand one program, subsiding more of another and showing some improvement in preparation. The ones who know what works best are the college-level financial aid officials. They should have access to say about a new federal plaid office after the fact.
"Over 99 percent of the students on loans here would not be affected one way or another," he said.
money. This idea is in line with Carter's proposal.
ANWAR AND GOUATH
To the editor:
I am somewhat confused by the analysis of the two students writing (Kansan, Feb 9, 2013; Nakano, Retort') about the periodic table of elements in reference to th Institute for Creation Studies. I might well discontinue use of the periodic table because it is
Sarcasm muddles issues
Federal job projects aren't practical
By JOHN A. GARRATY
BY JOHN A. GARRATT
N.Y. Times Features
Presumably this means that the government will have to provide jobs for an indeterminate number of potential workers who cannot find them in private industry.
This policy is justified by its proponents on the grounds that it is humane and in the public interest. Instead of supporting the unemployed in their idleness, we must provide them with educational practice, the state should make it possible for them to earn their keep.
President Jimmy Carter has at last endorsed a modified version of the much-discussed Humphrey-Hawkins full-employment agreement receives Congressional approval, will commit the government to reducing unemployment and percent of the work force by 1981.
OPPONENTS OF this approach to the unemployment problem tend to discount the stimulation it would provide. They argue that it would be inflationary and prohibitively expensive, but indeed it is practical and however, about the practical difficulties.
The work would be useful to society, the argument runs, and would have a potent multiplier effect on the economy. Those employees would be financially motivated and financially from being purposefully employed. The heartening effect of New Deal employment programs and the boost that Nazi public works gave to the German economy is that they are advanced to demonstrate the benefits of job-creation programs.
can usefully perform is another matter. The political institutions of free-enterprise economies are not designed to employ a large part of employment of masses of labor. Choosing socially valuable projects is not beyond their capacities, but fitting the people who need work into the kinds of projects provide is not so simple.
The state can put unemployed people on its payroll easily enough; finding tasks that they
Even in the regimented yet rootless world of modern mechanized industry, labor is not an unspecialized force like steam or electricity or an industrial plug that can energize one machine or another according to need. Unemployed assembly-line workers do not ordinarily make adequate bricklayers nor are laid off bricklayers likely to be capable or willing ditch diggers.
THE NEW DEAL arts, theater and writers' projects prove that it is not impossible to
create jobs for particular types of skills. But those projects employed only a relative handful of specialized people, and those, so to speak, "outside" the basic economy.
Under ordinary circumstances, make-work projects are based upon a superficially plausible but incorrect assumption: Because those to be employed want to
Setting up comprehensive make-work programs with the previous occupations of the unemployed would be next to impossible and adversely in the public interest; after all, that interest may well have caused those workers to lose their jobs. For the government to build steel mills and automobile factories the steel and automobile workers had been laid off would be economic nonsense, the practical difficulties aside.
work, any work that is honest and decently paid will suffice.
In practice, this has usually meant projects that require large numbers of unskilled workers in a common denominator approach based on the assumption—also plausible but incorrect—that anyone who can handle an "unskilled job" will
He and many others whose social views were formed during the New Deal years seemed to forget that in those days the alternative to publicworks employment for most of
BUT PUTTING aside the face that many unskilled jobs require more physical strength than the average unemployed factory worker can muster, under modern conditions work programs of this sort would be valuable. I am not obviously not the intention of people like Hubert H. Humphrey.
KANSAN Letters
PUTTING ASIDE the reluctance and, in many cases, the inability of the unemployed to handle such tasks, there is often a contradiction between the objective of creating labor-
The spectacle of Work Projects Administration officials distributing snow shovels to guard and ragged men was a lesson learned in 1930's because the men had no other source of income. In the 1970's the idle are less gaug and ragged and are uninjured unless threatened with the loss of available public assistance.
the jobless was either begging or starvation. To offer pick-and-shovel, leaf-raking or -to meet food demand, the news-apple-picking jobs to people without any means of support is one thing, but quite another when the jobless can get employment insurance or welfare.
Traditionally, road-building and road repair were the main modes of building but roads are no longer built with shovels and wheelbarrows, putting aside this time the world needs more roads.
intensive projects and projects that are socially useful.
somehow analogous to evolutionary doctrine, which the L.C.R. has condemned.
Modern industrial societies apparently need less unskilled labor than is available, a fact that goes far toward explaining the structural unemployment that all of them are experiencing.
And what the world does need—more housing, for instance—would require large amounts of labor in materials already in great demand. The risk is that programs large enough to the extent that members of the unemployed would push price levels still higher.
It is chiefly because fiscal and monetary stimulants actually do seem to produce 'unacquainted' changes in unemployment problem exists.
The idea of the government stepping in to put the unemployed to work was practical and one that obfuscates the central problem of the incompatibility of full employment and stable income.
John A. Garraty, professor of history at Columbia University, is author of the book "Unemployment in History."
After all, if big public-works projects could reduce unemployment without harmful inflationary side effects, then the benefits would be monetary and fiscal policies would then be able to accomplish the same objective without the risks and inefficiencies involved in state-statered business ventures.
While I cannot speak for the I.C.R. I, agree with many of its scientific viewpoints and, as far as I can tell, it is in no manner operable on the periodic table of the elements; let the gentleman rest assured.
The debate, of course, is "creation versus evolution." Sarcastic references to non-relevant analogies, like the tale of how humans issue, distort perceptions and generate apathy. This is an important issue. Surely the gentlemen can do better for the scientific" viewpoint than hide behind humorous hyperbole.
Let me for a moment clarify the creatistian viewpoint. According to the Institution for Creation Research: "The creatistian viewpoint need fewer secondary assumptions, because it explains more simply the huge gaps in the fossil record, the improbability of chance spontaneous generation and the inexorable second law of thermodynamics. All else depends on the system with fewer secondary assumptions is more likely correct."
Evolutionary philosophy, as is well known, now has literally hundreds of secondary assertions to support Darwin's original proposition. Not any of them, however, can explain the inability of another animal on Earth to count to 10.
the gentleman write in closing: "We rest our case!" I think it is well they might. As they say going, "Know the
Mark Buchanan
truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32). The defense never rests!
Kansas City, Kan., junior
To the editor:
Your editoral of Feb. 9, 1978,
endorsing the proposal to
legalize the use of Laetrie in
Kansas, contains at least two
assertions with which I cannot
arree.
Keep Laetrile off med market
The first is that LaTeile is harmless. I have read of a number of cases in which people, usually small children, have died of cyanide poisoning after accidentally taking LaTeile. These cases have been cited as evidence that LaTeile was illegal. Legalization of LaTeile can only increase the potential for such tragedies.
Second, and more importantly, the editorial assumes doctors somehow will be able to restrain their patients from admittedly, unless chemical if this is so, then why legalize it?
The reality is that if a patient demands, it, it will be prescribed, it will be treated in Topeka, again while Laetrile was still illegal. Think that legalization of the treatment would massive abuse of it is ludicrous.
By all scientific evidence to date, Laetrile is utterly worthless as a cancer cure. The study of the relatively recently emerged from the quack-cure, patent-medicine era. The legalization of Laetrile would be a step forward for Kansas and the nation.
James J. Murray Lawrence senior
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas daily Alumnae News, www.ku.edu/alumni/news; June and July issue Saturday, September 10 and Sunday, September 11. Subscriptions by mail are $5 am/mor or $15 afternoon. Subscriptions by email are $8 am/day. A outside door is the county. Student subscriptions are paid directly to the student.
Editor
Barbara Rosewicz
Business Manager Patricia Thornton
Publisher
David Dary