4
Tuesday, February 14, 1978
University Daily Kansan
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Comment
Unaged editorials represent the opinion of the Kanan editorial staff. Staged columns represent the views of only the writers.
KUAC must answer
The University of Kansas Athletic Corporation controversy has escalated, perhaps even gotten out of control. But the issues are there, and they must be aired.
On the one hand are those who vehemently, even viciously, oppose Clyde Walker, KU athletic director. Strip away the personality points and the argument is clear: Walker simply won't let students in on important, million-dollar KUAC decisions.
The other side is equally vehement, although somewhat more subdued. The KUAC side is that student politicians, as well as the Kansan, do not understand the complexities inherent in the dealings of a private corporation—precisely what KUAC is.
BOTH SIDES have merit. But the amount of merit, it appears, is not equal. Consider the contentions of both sides for a moment and decide for yourself which ones are most applicable to the dispute.
First, the side led by Steve Leben, fiery outgoing student body president: Putting the matter bluntly, Leben wants Walker fired. Leben accuses Walker of gross intuitivity toward students in the way he uses KUAC, particularly KUAC governance.
In fairness to Walker, incidentally, Leben has placed personal advertisements in the Kansan that oppose Walker. The ads, to be gracious about them, are cheap shots that only hinder Leben's arguments.
But the broader debate about KUAC must not be judged by Leben's methods. His statements must stand, or fall, on their own merits. And those statements simply have not been adequately refuted by KUAC thus far.
THE PRIVATE response from KUAC—whose officials are unwilling to make public statements on the controversy—is easy enough to decipher. The officials say that they are part of a corporation and that KUAC business is not necessarily students' business.
The job is a big one. Walker has done what he was hired to do, namely, to put KU athletics in the black on its annual budgets.
Don't dismiss that argument out of hand. It deserves careful consideration, more than a knee-jerk political reaction. It must be respected; a man's job has been called into question.
But it still is puzzling why KUAC hasn't been willing, or able, to defend itself.
KUAC, spearheaded by Walker, is and is not part of the University. It transcends the students of the University, it transcends the Student Senate and, surprisingly, it even transcends the alumni traditionally associated with its innermost dealings.
Frankly, KUAC is answerable to no one but Chancellor Archie R. Dykes. And Dykes' role in KUAC is murky.
Dykes' role is important because only he has supervisory authority over Walker. The top man in any business must take the credit, or blame, for all actions of his subordinates.
The gut issue centers on whether Walker made an effort to inform others in advance about the problems connected with renovations of Memorial Stadium. The problems are by now familiar: Because of insurance claims against players with renovated contractors, the traditional Kansas Relays and May graduation in the stadium aren't possible.
The "inside" sources—usually reliable sometimes unreliable—are split on when Dykes and Walker knew about the renovation problems and precisely what their knowledge was. These sources are not connected with it must be Student Senate.
ONE VERSION is that Dykes either learned about the renovation problems when he read about them in the press or that he heard about them at breakfast one fateful December morning. He worked as a pancake bakerliked with Walker and pancake bakerliked with Washington, KU women's athletics director. Then, and only then, did he learn about the renovation problems.
The other version of the story—also from usually reliable sources—is that Dykes knew about the commencement and Relays difficulties, even impossibilities, as early as July 1977 and that he didn't speak up.
July 197 and may be missed.
The facts do not sort themselves out easily. Men and women of integrity, with differing viewpoints, do not agree.
BUT LEBEN, whatever his failings as student body president, has done KU students a service. He has called attention to the seething cauldron of politics run by Clyde Walker and, it should be noted, a number of devoted subordinates.
Keep in mind that Walker was hired to do a specific job. So far, in the opinion of the chancellor, he has done it. He is still KU athletic director.
athletics must clear that Walker's power must be clearly defined. It must be spelled out explicitly. It must be supervised by committee with oversight power.
The Student Senate during the last year toyed with investigating at least one such committee, a curtain of deliberate malice. The Senate never got around to making the study.
have got
IF WALKER is expected to make money for the program, as we infer he is expected to do, so be it. Put the University on record as favoring sound business management—above all—in KUAC.
Remember, those who oppose that argument have stooped to Nixonian levels to get their position across. But also remember: According to all available evidence, and not all the evidence is in yet, the Walker opposes it, illegitimate, greovries. Serious grievances.
Complaints have echoed not only from Leben, but also from past student body presidents—the most conservative among them—as well as from student KUAC executive board members. Those complaints are a matter of openness, a matter of telling the truth in time for students to have a say in decisions that affect them.
AGAIN, GIVING KUAC its say, sound business management dictates that it isn't the students' right to question athletic operations. Try questioning whether the right exists—a storm of private criticism will rapidly descend.
Perhaps that's the critical word—private. KUAC simply hasn't been willing to defend itself or publicly refute Leben's charges. It is willing to do so privately. If KUAC really thinks it has a case, let it bring out in the open.
after all, students pay money for tickets to help support KUAC. The Walker-Leben personality conflict is entirely irrelevant. The salient factor ultimately must be whether students, who help finance KUAC, have a voice in what it does.
Look what's happened to the Kansas Board of Regents.
Politics spur Regents changes
In one short year, five members of the Board of Regents have been replaced, all of them University of Kansas State and two graduates of Kansas State University and two KU alumni have been appointed by Gov. Robert F. Bennett.
Ideally it shouldn't make a bit of difference whether a Regent is an alumnus from KU or KS-State or Emporia State, or k longer as the Regent is qualified, interested and able. It is hoped that this ideal is met there, therefore, there is no need to even ponder the recent changes in the Board of Regents.
So what?
At the beginning of last year, six Regents were KU alumni. One was from K-State, one from Wichita State and the ninth Regent from an out-of-state school.
BUT LAST winter, substantial political pressure was put on Bennett, who is responsible for all Regents appointments, to do something about KU's so-called dominance over the department. The changes that have been made this last year are any indication, that political pressure has been effective.
Now the tally stands at four Regents from K-State, three from KU, one from WI and one from WA; it also signifies significant shift in representation that will mean almost nothing in altering the Regents' policy making but more importantly in bringing to reduce the number of KU alumni on the Board of Regents and, at the same time, to increase the number of alumni from other schools, specifically K-State.
Political pressure initially arose last year when State Sen. Donn Everett, R-Manhattan, introduced a bill in the Kansas Senate that would have required only a single member
from any one Regents institution to be on the board.
Steven Stingley Editorial writer
EVERETT'S BILL was killed in a Senate committee, but the committee voted to write a resolution asking the governor to consider where a prospective Regent went to college.
At the same time Everett's bill was being discussed in the Senate committee. Bennett was feeling threatened from citizens who agreed with Everett that KU dominated the Board of Regents, a source who asked to hold the Kansas last spring.
Kansas mascotsiph. Bennett also thought, the source said, that he needed
more political support in western Kansas.
STUART AND Wunsch had made it known they were available for reappointment.
Just after the death of Everett's bill, Bennett refused to reappoint two KU alumni and instead named two K-State students. He denied charges that he didn't reappoint the two KU graduates, Jesse Sturm and Paul Wheeler, that they were associated with KU.
"I felt inclined to appoint two K-Staters to accompany they are good men in the office and I think they will bring credit to the Board of Regents," Bennett said at a meeting after he made the appointments.
It is difficult to pimpoint any certain political motives underlining the recent Regents
appointments. It can only be hoped that Regents are chosen for their respective merits and not because they live in western Kansas or because they graduated from KU or K-State.
Just because a person lives in a certain area or graduated from a certain college does not make him better qualified to deal with the important educational issues of this state.
ALSO, THERE is no reason to suspect Regents of being biased in favor of the school from which they graduated.
Last year, Everett, in introducing his bill, asserted that KU seemed to fare better at budget time than the other Regents institutions because of KU's dominance of the board.
Budget statistics,however disagree.
Data collected from fiscal years 1970 through 1977 show
that there is very little discrepancy between the Regents' two largest universities, KU and K-State, in percentage budget increases. Over the eight-year period, percentage budget increases were more than those for KU for four years—fiscal years 1970, 1972, 1974 and 1977.
These figures indicate that school bias in activities of the Board of Regents is hardly rampant.
but because KU alumni have outnumbered alumni from other state schools on the board in the past is no reason that political pressure should encourage the governor to begin making appointments based on something other than merit.
The color of one's tie should not take precedence over one's qualifications for the task.
Keep theory of creation out of classroom
Discussion about the theory of evolution vs. the theory of creation is a familiar and necessarily frustrating undertaking. Despite the familiarity of the topic, to take part in such a debate requires an abstract mind more developed than the average grade school student is likely to possess.
State Rep. Anita Niles, D-Lebo, is a sixth grade teacher who apparently thinks otherwise. Niles introduced a resolution in the Kansas House last week that would encourage Kansas elementary schools to develop the theory of creation to their classes as an alternative theory to evolution, which is currently part of the science curriculum.
Niles said that when she was teaching
"ITS STILT stricly up to the teacher, but you feel a little more secure if you have something printed in front of you." Niles last week.
The resolution would not be binding on all science teachers—only those who, like Niles, feel uncomfortable teaching only the evolution theory. The resolution that Nites wrote instructs the state Board of Education to provide every school district with a list of science textbooks that present both theories.
Pat Allen Editorial writer
science she never mentioned creation unless a student asked a question. If the Kansas Legislature adopted the resolution, Niles said, she and other teachers will feel free to include it on their lesson plan, and they would simultaneously with Darwin's theory.
More than a few things are inherently wrong with this resolution. Although the Christian version of creation would be likely to be the most frequently taught theory of creation, other beliefs—Native Americans' and Buddhists' to name two—have their own stance to the story of creation whose their stories would have to be presented if any Native Americans or Buddhists were in the case.
CHANCES ARE, however, most science teachers would know little non-Christian teachings and would therefore feel uncomfortable mentioning
Niles argued that the theory of creation
can be presented separate from any religion. It is a disputable claim.
Niles said she was sponsoring the resolution because children heard one thing in Sunday school classes and something different in school. If both theories were presented in an unbiased manner, Niles said, children from religious backgrounds could easily reconcile the two.
"I suppose those from religious homes would say, 'This reinforces what I've heard and the fossil evidence shows that the world is very old.'" Niles said.
BESIDES THE questionable business of reinforcing religious training, are science teachers qualified to present their version of the creation? Niles said she had an extensive religious background. But other teachers may not have had any, and the resolution will leave it all up to the teacher. The confirmation is bound to enlarge from this spooled procedure doesn't seem worth the effort.
Because the theory of creation is hardly scientific, should it really be introduced in the science curriculum? To study the Bible as literature in English classes. This
seems to be a more acceptable way of introducing a book that, if considered nothing else, is undoubtedly universal
Niles' resolution is at the committee stage now. She said that if the committee's workload was light, a hearing on the resolution would be scheduled.
GARY HAWORTH, director of elementary education for the Lawrence School Board, said that nothing in the school board policy was contrary to the resolution. But he thought the call would be if it were not another association of teachers' rights.
Haworth used the hypothetical example of a Christian Science teacher who happened to be uncomfortable with presenting health information because she believed that if the students' minds were healthy, their bodies also would be.
heard, that he must teach different beliefs about everything," Haworth said.
Parents should not have to worry about how the public school teacher is adding to a story the children had been enrolled in Sunday School classes to learn. And par- sons should not be expected their children to the theory of creation also should not have to worry.
By EARL RAVENAL
N.Y. Times Features
Self-restraint required after SALT
WASHINGTON—Salt II, the current round of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, will neither solve our strategic problems nor end the weapons race. We should support it. The United States cannot do it. Our choice is not between deals with the Russians and weapons expansion; we might get both. The real choice is between a new kind of arms competition and a new kind of arms competition against the counterforce race.
Lately, the chances for SALT II have improved. From leaks, and counterleaks, we know how it is shaping up. We are starting to find limits a bit lower than the Vladoviskot agreement on most categories of nuclear warheads and delivery systems; (2) a three-billion-dollar contract American cruise missiles and Soviet heavy missiles; and (3) a statement of principles for a SALT III, mentioning nuclear strategic weapons that have been avoided in this round.
strategic force, our fixed, land-based missiles (Minutemen), when soon become vulnerable to the enemy strike by Storm missiles.
SOME SAY that SALT II—with its specific limit of 308 Soviet missiles, the kind will be held to be accurate 10 powerful, accurate
But SALT will not restore strategic stability because it will not sufficiently reduce the incentives on both sides of the conflict in certain circumstances. The trouble is that a significant part of our
warheads, within a more general limit of 800 MIRVed, or multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, land-based missiles - will secure aircraft against them, again, as in the late 1960s, the balance of theerror is becoming delicate.
wrong about this crucial matter of incentives. The hawks imply that the moment the Russians reach some critical ratio of "superiority," they will cash their paper advantage into the Russian economy. But the Russians have other things on their minds; they must consider the probable destruction to themselves
Our hawks and doves are both
against the possible gains through war.
THE DOVES still talk about "overkill," as if each side would wage a nuclear war by unleashing its arsenal in a single spasm against the cities of the other, and, some say, the sheer craziness of this deters each side from starting a nuclear war. But methodical craziness is the essence of the strategic problem—missiles are more likely to be killed. We can conceive of an acute crisis in which an edgy or embattled enemy might launch a nuclear strike, if he had the technical ability to disarm a large part of his opponent's forces, or the theorist's nightmare, but it is driving the next round of the weapons race.
What will happen when it becomes clear that SALT doesn't make the Russians' counterforce capability neutral? Will we be forced as President Carter put it, to build the military segment, particularly those that provide more megats, better counterforce and less vulnerability?
ALL THREE of those objectives would be met by the MX intercontinental ballistic
missile at a cost of more than $50 billion for 300 missiles. Mobile or with multiple bases, it would carry up to 14 200 kbites in a week and 1000 yards of their targets. That kind of accuracy could finally realize Sen. Barry Goldwater's vision of lobbing a nukke right into the men's room with a bullet-in-silo busting it, also would make the MX a highly unnerving first-strike counterforce weapon. In a crisis against the Islamic State toward filling their nuclear missiles first.
Earl Ravensal was a division officer in systems analysis in the office of the secretary of state. He served on the institute for Policy Studies.
We are at a strategic crossroads: Either we make our land-based missiles mobile, or (as I would encourage over the next five or 10 years when they become vulnerable to Soviet improvements. Giving up our fixed land-based missiles and their adversary's incentive to strike in a crisis, and a doctrine of first-use of nuclear weapons would remove our own incentive to escalate war. Moves self-restraint are desperately necessary.
A Pacemaker award winner
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newsroom-864-4810
Business Office-864-4358
Published at the University of Kansas daily August 19, 2015 by The Daily Journal and Jody except Saturday. Sunday and holly Monday. Subscriptions by mail are $1 each or $18 for a year in the county. Student subscriptions are $30 each or $45 for a year in the county. *Student subscriptions are a year inside the county.*
Editor Barbara Rosewicz
Barbara Rosewicz
Managing Editor Editorial Editor
Jerry Sasa John Mueller
Managing Editor
John Carley
Campus Editors
Barry Massey
Associate Editors
Campus Editors
Deb Miller, Leon Urrish
Sports Editor
Wilbert Braun
Photo Editor
Wilbert Braun
Pam Hey
Associate Entertainment Editor
Pam Hey
Makeup Editors
Mary Mitchell, David Aelford
Carol Lumann, David Aelford
Jane Pipeer,
Editorial Writers
Linda Claire, Clay Stuart,
John Mitchell, Tamar Thomber,
Photographers
Bhanu Chou, Peer Stuart,
Staff Writers
Liam Ward, John Watson
Jason Benton
Business Manager
Petrals Thornion
Assistant Business Manager Karen Thompson
Advertising Manager Dawn Hedges
Promotional Managers Katy Lowley
National Advertising Manager Kathy Levinger
Associate Management Manager Lanne Dawson
Assistant Manager
Publisher News Advisor
David Dary Rick Muster
Advertising Adviser
Mel Adams