Opinion
The University Daily Kansan
Laura Roddy, Editor
Sarah Hale, Managing editor
Kristi Elliott, Managing editor
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser
Shauntie Blue, Business manager
Brad Bolyard, Retail sales manager
Matt Fisher, Sales and marketing adviser
Scott Valler, Technology coordinator
Monday, April 17,2000
Wayne Stayskal / TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
Editorials
Students should be allowed to pick roommates, regardless of genders
The concept of coed residence halls has been taken to a whole new level. Now at Haverford College in Pennsylvania, students of opposite sexes will be allowed to live in the same room.
Mixed-gender groups of three students will be allowed to share a two-bedroom residence hall unit. The policy arose partly in response to the requests of gav students.
The implementation of this policy is one that is too long in coming at other schools, and Haverford College should be viewed as an example to follow. Allowing members of the opposite sex to live together makes sense for a number of reasons.
First, students should be allowed
Coed residence hall rooms would be more comfortable for couples, gay students
to live with whom they feel most comfortable sharing a living space. As long as students are adults, roommate decisions should be left to them. It's not a university's job to play a parent in this situation.
Also, for gay students, being forced to live with someone of the same sex may be extremely uncomfortable. These students should have the right to live with someone of the opposite sex if that is with whom they feel the most at ease
living.
Another group that is expected to take advantage of the new housing policy is romantic couples. This greatly will take the strain off of roommates who have been forced to endure the presence of their roommates' significant others. Now, if a couple wants to live together, it doesn't have to be at the expense of an unwilling third party.
Overall, this rule is just the next step in providing the most comfortable housing for everyone. Old ideas of what is morally correct will die hard, but other universities should follow suit and implement a housing rule that will benefit everyone.
Heather Herrman for the editorial board
Campaign promises to be remembered
Congratulations to Ben Walker and Marlon Marshall on their victories in the student body presidential and vice presidential races in Thursday's Student Senate elections. Despite their claims of an "unfair media," we wish them well in their terms next year. That said, the work of politicians does not end at politics. Now they must make good on their promises as candidates.
During this campaign cycle, there was much talk about the alleged ineffectiveness of Senate. This talk turned into action on the campaign trail as four coalitions campaigned instead of the usual two. Students are fed up with Senate, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the tepid polling numbers seen last Thursday — 14.9 percent of the student body does not exactly show a
The election results are in; Walker, Marshall should focus on changing Senate next year
mandate for Walker and Marshall's platform. What it clearly shows is a mandate for change in the way Senate operates. Perhaps Walker's and Marshall's biggest legacies as president and vice president will be shown in the voting numbers for next year's elections.
To make Senate more important in the lives of everyday students, Marshall and Walker must work tirelessly for the reachable goals. Perhaps they feel strongly about the Tuition Bill of Rights. It's a great goal, but let's not get carried away. Students want results, and the
side-splitting titled "Marshall Plan" is your best bet for an attainable goal. Little projects that resonate with students is what is needed. It should not be forgotten that students have a representative for Topeka: That's what Ben Walker did this year as Student Legislative Awareness Board legislative director.
Marshall and Walker shouldn't pattern themselves on recent student leaders. Their influence is apparent in the general contempt students show for their elected body. Instead, they should choose to be trailblazers who get things done. In doing so, their legacies may live on through increased voter turnout and widespread support for an institution that can do so much more for the student body.
Jeff Engstrom for the editorial board
Kansan staff
News editors
Seth Hoffman . . . . . . Editorial
Nadia Mustafa . . . . . Editorial
Melody Ard . . . . . News/Special sections
Chris Fickett . . . . . News
Julle Wood . . . . . News
Juan H. Heath . . . Online
Mike Miller . . . Sports
Matt James . . . Associates sports
Katie Hollar . . Campus
Nathan Willis . Campus
Heather Woodward . Features
Chris Borniger . Joyplay
T.J. Johnson . Photo imaging
Christina Neff . Photo
Jason Pearce . Design, graphics
Clay McCuistion . Wire
Advertising managers
Becky LaBranch ... Special sections
Krista Lindemann ... Campus
Ryan Riggin ... Regional
Jason Hannah ... National
Will Baxter ... Online sales
Patrick Rupe ... Online creative
Seth Schwimmer ... Marketing
Jenny Weaver ... Creative layout
Matt Thomas ... Assistant creative
Kenna Crone ... Assistant creative
Trent Guyer ... Classfiles
Jon Schitt ... Zone
Thad Crane ... Zone
Cecily Curran ... Zone
Christy Davies ... Zone
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
"I have learned from an early age to abjure the use of meat, and the time will come when men such as I will look upon the murder of animals as they now look upon the murder of men."
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and hometown if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
How to submit letters and guest columns
murder of men." — Leonardo da Vinci
All letters and guest columns should be e-mailed to opinion@kansan.com or submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Nadia Mustafa or Seth Hoffman at 864-4924.
**Guest columns:** Should be double-spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff [anipin@kansascol.com] or call 864-4924
Perspective
[opinianonkansan.com] or call 804-4Y24
Media, U.S. miss point in coverage of Elian case
As "news" coverage of Elian Gonzalez begins to wane with the boy's probable return home, I wonder: What have we learned from the deluge of publicity?
Perhaps it all just was twisted entertainment
that we soon will forget, turning our attention to the next major media orgy.
What we should come away with is utter disgust. We should be troubled by the way the media and the protesters have fed off each other to serve up made-to-order media junk funk or "news" information with all the intellectual value of a Jerry Springer show. Without the media, the protesters didn't have a chance to keep Elian here. Without the protesters, the media didn't
Phil
Caution
columnist
opinioning@ansan.com
have a story. But symbiotically, the protesters and the media created a self-perpetuating story that soon was being told largely because of the sheer absurdity of it all.
If you thought the coverage has been mind numbing back in Kansas, you see it in the nation's capital. It has been a demoralizing daily display that proved that our heralded free press sometimes is no more helpful at arriving at the truth than the press controlled by Fidel Castro.
In its rush to scoop each of the latest plays of that horrific game, the U.S. media proved themselves corralled by a herd mentality. And the herd consistently trampled on the fundamental truth of the boy's plight — the 40-year-old rift between Cuba and the United States that owes its continuation to attitudes much more childish than Elian himself.
But very few of us have picked up on that truth of the Elian ordeal. In a way, Al Gore did when he proposed that both father and son Gonzalez be allowed to stay in the United States. Like the handful of frenzel protesters, Gore basically was saying that life in Cuba wasn't life at all. Only life in the United States was worth living.
Maybe he has a point. Just look at all those people risking their lives to get here! Look at how poor everyone else is! And we have the oldest democracy in the world!
No. We validated a fledgling hatred of gringos with the Bay of Pigs incident. We reinforced the hatred by cutting off Cuba's life blood — sugar revenues. And, when the Soviets became the main buyer of Cuban sugar, we entrenched the hatred by stubbornly backing Cuba into the communist corner.
Those are the arguments all way. But Cubans do not live in the United States.
Those are the arguments anyway.
Did the U.S. government learn from that experience? Did we step back and reconsider the almighty importance that we place on property? Did it occur to us that human dignity might have a justifiable place alongside the legality of land titles?
For at least a decade, nobody has mistaken Cuba for where the "pinkos" store their ICBMs, or for where those choppers in Red Dawn came from. Yet Cuba still is treated as if it were a threat to U.S. security. Why?
Cubans living the United States gave up their rights to influence Cuba's destiny when they left the country. At one point, we had good reason to take a hostile stance toward Cuba. But how did we get to that point? We maddled in the matters of a sovereign nation. Wealthy gringos were going to the beautiful island in droves to live the high life cheaply. To ensure their properties' protection, Americans supported the brutal dictator Batista and like-minded elites. Had Castro just continued protecting American property, the Elian scenario wouldn't have happened. But instead, Castrove gave Cuba back to Cubans. His revolution succeeded on that promise because enough Cubans thought their country no longer was theirs.
Neither the press nor the government seriously confronted this simple question, if at all, despite the months of constant TV coverage and dreams of newsprint. Maybe that's because there is no answer to the question. But even if there were, it wouldn't have made for the dramatic "news" that Elian gave us.
Americans do. And gringos do not make decisions for Cuba. Cubans do that. That is the fundamental lesson to be learned from Elian. U.S. citizens have no business deciding matters for Cuba. Despite decades of U.S. policy to the contrary, and despite what the very vocal group of Cuban expatriates would have us believe, Cuba is a sovereign nation. And we should let it be one.
Cauthon is a North Richland Hills, Texas, graduate student in journalism. He is an intern at the Washington, D.C., bureau of the Houston Chronicle this semester.
Feedback
Clothes don't make the man or woman
After reading the article on the front page of the Jayplay section of the April 13 Kansan, I got the impression that you must have money and nice clothes to be somebody around here. It was four guys bragging about their wealth and designer clothes.
Personally, I think that they are all dumbasses for spending thousands of dollars in a year just on clothes. That's just plain ridiculous! Spend it on something useful, like gas or food. Some of us are not so fortunate to be able to buy a new wardrobe every week. I am perfectly happy being a jeans and t-shirt guy, and girls don't think less of me because of it. Don't get me wrong. People should make themselves presentable and appealing to the opposite sex. I have nice clothes too – even a couple Polo shirts – but they last me several years. Those guys will probably wear those clothes once. They will go out of style in a month, and they will go buy new in-style clothes.
Clothes are just material things, something society values too much today. If clothes make you happy, then that's your thing. But after all, isn't it what's on the inside that counts?
Scott Boeh
Wathena freshman
Seattle protest was originally nonviolent
I am writing in response to Phil Cauthon's April 13 column on the Seattle protests, as there are two factual errors with the following statement found near the beginning of his column: "About 30,000 protesters broke windows, spray painted cars and generally wrought enough havoc to elicit tear gas and billy clubs from police."
First, all accounts of the situation agree that of the 50,000 protesters in Seattle, a very small number (probably less than 10) acted violently. The vast majority of violence was carried out by the police against nonviolent protesters
I hope this has clarified a severe misconception that people have about the events that took place in Seattle.
and bystanders.
Aaron Major Deerfield, N.H., senior
Second, Cauton has history backwards. The little violence that protesters engaged in took place after the police starting shooting, clubbing and gassing the crowd, not the other way around, as Cauton contends.
All Mexican workers not unskilled laborers
In reference to the April 7 column called "Migrant workers boost economy, quality of life," by Cassio Furtado, I just wanted to let you know that I do not agree with some of his commentaries. I feel those commentaries have been done in a light manner.
Cassio states that "Unskilled Mexican workers come to work in low paying jobs, and this helps the U.S. economy simply because it allows Americans to have higher-paying jobs." There are two misconceptions in this paragraph.
The first one is to classify Mexican workers as unskilled. If they were unskilled, they would not be hired; there is too much money in a project to risk it for a few dollars. I just want to let you know that some Mexicans who work in the construction industry have high school educations, and some of them have a baccalaureate in civil engineering. Some of them are graduate school teachers, chemical engineers, etc.
The second misconception is that the low wages paid to illegal workers are not the cause of the higher-paying jobs for Americans. It is caused by a healthy economy that involves much more than immigrants. I would say that the American economy is so healthy that it can support immigrants.
Alejandro Parra-Briones graduate student in engineering
Flag burning issue is age-old, important
This is in reference to an April 4 editorial concerning the flag burning amendment.
First of all, the editorial calls the members of Congress 'incorrigible patriots.' Incorrigible means "set in bad habits." How can the desire to protect the symbol of our country be a bad habit? This bill resulted in a 65-35 Senate vote. The House had already voted 305-124, and 49 states have petitioned Congress.
Bill of Rights authors James Madison and Thomas Jefferson both denounced flag burning. Five Supreme Courts during the last century have ruled in favor of flag burning laws.
According to a Washington Times article, 80 percent of the country is in favor of this act. How is that "wrong-headed?" To reduce this argument to scattered burnings and the nation's nylon supply is a slap in the face to every American who has, does or will wear the uniform. Like most pundits arguing against this matter, I doubt if most have bothered to spend time serving this country rather than demanding the opposite.
This bill is not trying to force people to love the flag; you either do or don't. This bill is trying to prevent a minority from forcing us to accept flag burning. This is not a presidential year wedge issue. This issue is as old as the country.
Red O'Laughlin, IV graduate student in political science
6