Opinion
The University Daily Kansan
Laura Roddy, Editor
Sarah Hale, Managing editor
Kristi Elliott, Managing editor
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser
4A
Shaunte Blue, Business manager
Brad Bolyard, Retail sales manager
Matt Fisher, Sales and marketing adviser
Scott Vallier, Technology coordinator
Thursday, March 30, 2000
Editorials
Timing of bus route removal puts students with leases in bad spot
The transportation board's decision to eliminate the West Sixth Street bus route, although it creates opportunities for some students, is unfair to others because of its timing. Students who signed their leases with Boardwalk Apartments before the the board decided to cut the route did so expecting to be able to take advantage of the West Sixth Street bus route. Now they may be faced with a lack of transportation.
In the future, the board should return to its old method of making route deletions in the fall, and route additions in the spring.
Transportation board's decision to cut West Sixth Street unfair to residents of Boardwalk
The other option students living at Boardwalk have is to take the Crestline bus route. However, to do this, students must first cross four lanes of traffic — an inconvenience that students who signed a lease with Boardwalk had not anticipated.
As a trade-off, the transportation board added a route at Iowa and
31st streets. This gives students the much-needed opportunity to reach stores such as Wal-Mart and Super Target. The route also will service Jefferson Commons, where a number of students reside. However, despite the fact that financial concerns may make the board's decision to cut the Boardwalk route legitimate, the board should have made the decision earlier, before students signed leases with Boardwalk. At least this way, they would have known that the West Sixth Street bus route would be unavailable.
Heather Herrman for the editorial board
Evolution speech should be welcomed
On April 7, Phillip Johnson, a professor of law from the University of California at Berkeley, will deliver a public lecture about evolution at the University of Kansas. Johnson is known for his books in which he uses an attorney's reasoning to scrutinize scientists' logic in defining Darwin's evolutionary ideas.
While certain measures have been taken at the University to reaffirm the institution's encouragement of science education in Kansas, it is good that University officials decided to allow this lecture to take place on campus.
ture of take care. Recently, at a few universities across the nation, individuals expressing unpopular opinions have been shut down. We should be thankful for the chance to gain
Anti-Darwin campus speaker represents free speech practice at University of Kansas
access to opinions, whether in agreement or dissenting, in the form of educated guest speakers on campus.
The attention brought upon this state through national and international media last year after the Kansas State Board of Education's decision to de-emphasize the teaching of evolution in public schools has been the impetus for much discussion, anger and frustration. It's obvious that both extremes in opinion stem from serious emotional and professional commitment.
Last semester, the Hall Center for Humanities brought professor Stephen J. Gould to campus for a lecture, in which Gould hit upon his ideas about evolution and its vitality in the learning place. But as fair is fair, certain contingencies on campus and in Lawrence think that a subject of this matter, weight and controversy warrants further debate and broader exposure of both sides. That's exactly what will happen at Budig Hall next month.
Regardless of our opinion about the teaching of evolution, we must remember that this lecture will represent the fact that the University welcomes the practice of free speech.
Kansan staff
Matt Dunehoo for the editorial board
Seth Hoffman . . . . .
News editors
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 . . Classifieds
Jon Schitt . . . Zone
Thad Crane . . Zone
Cecily Curran . . Zone
Christy Davies . . Zone
Advertising managers
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
"Once we assuage our conscience by calling something a 'necessary evil,' it begins to look more and more necessary and less and less evil." — Sydney J. Harris
How to submit letters and guest columns
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.
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.
A letter to and guest columns should be e-mailed to opinion@kansan.com or submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffair-Flint Holl. 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.
If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924
Perspective
Group has great name, but the joke is on you
The new Resume Builders coalition is a group that many serious voters in the Student Senate election might not even begin to consider. Its logo, a grinning jackrabbit wielding a frothy mug of beer, is the personification of what seems to be a cartoon coalition. Its platform includes making beer available at football games. Coalition members admit they're in it only for the laughs, and they have expressed little or no regard for the functional value of Senate. In fact, it's become the central theme of their campaign.
The Resume Builders strike me as being the same people who raised cheers in grade school by promising a soda machine in every hallway. In high school elections, they were the guys who found write-in votes really funny if they weren't running for office themselves.
I like this coalition. First of all, I like the name. The Resume Builders is the best party name since the 1800s when the Whigs and the know-nothings were top dogs
Luke Wetzel columnist opinion at kamai.com
ot the day. I suppose the name Reform Party also makes me laugh, but that's another story.
The Resume Builders' name cuts to the heart of people's suspicions about politicians. Every time I ran for any kind of office, even in high school, I found myself questioning my motives. I have to admit that sometimes one of the big draws was just the idea of having a title. The name Resume Builders is a humorous and somewhat taunting response to the question "Why not get it out in the open?" You might not like this kind of honesty, but you at least have to respect it.
second. I like their attitudes. Presidential candidate Luke Atkinson's smiling mug in the March 10 issue of the Kansan made me aware of what the national presidential election is missing: fun. Any attempt by Al Gore or George W. Bush to crack a joke or appear relaxed only further illustrates
After being subjected to media coverage of the national election, I came to realize and appreciate that the University of Kansas doesn't have such a problem. Humor still can exist at this level. In fact, college may be the last level at which humor and fun are important parts of campaigning. Where else is voter cynicism flipped around into a humorous campaign slogan? And where else except college can political groups raise more money from keg parties than from shady foreign investors?
their robotic demeanors. Since they clinched their parties' nominations, it seems as if they don't even try to be funny anymore, at least intentionally.
Although all of the coalitions appear to be honest and laid-back, the Resume Builders are without a doubt the champions of this approach. Even though I'm laughing at what they're doing, I don't completely agree with it. If their campaign really is just mocking Senate, the premise of the joke seems to be that Senate is unproductive and self-serving. As a voter, this is not something I'm entirely comfortable with.
My direct experience with Senate is limited to having attended a few University Affairs committee meetings, but the people involved always struck me as being hardworking and genuinely concerned with what they're doing. Not all of the legislation they oversee has earthshaking ramifications, but that doesn't qualify them as worthless. If the Resume Builders hope to turn their grinning frog of a coalition into a political prince, they should try and prove that they can incorporate humor into the campaign without debasing the offices they're running for.
Whatever happens, this year's election promises to be an exciting one. A couple of experienced coalfires combined with two new ones should offer students a variety of strategies and candidates. The Resume Builders will be able to look back at this year and reminisce about how their fledgling coalition sought to bring a humorous revolution to Senate. What will be even more memorable is if they can actually pull it off.
Wetzel is a Westwood freshman in English and journalism.
Aid forms poor grounds for battle in war on drugs
should be a rallying call fitions of higher learning.
Question No.28 on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid form is another horrifying example of how the "War on Drugs" adversely harms our society and helps bully cell for students at all instim
the newly added question asks if students have ever "been convicted of any illegal drug offense." The simple act of answering this question could cause a student to become ineligible for financial aid during part of or the entire 2000-2001 academic year. This is the manifestation of Section 483, Subsection 'F' of the Higher Education Act of 1998 that states the following: Students will lose their aid eligibility for one year for a first-time drug possession conviction;
Matt H.
Gregg
guest columnist
ogonin@san.com
Even though the opportunity of an organized boycott of this question has come and gone, there is mounting opposition to this provision across the nation, and reform movements already are in motion. Organizations including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Women Policy Studies, United States Students'
drug possession conviction;
two years for a second conviction; and indefinitely for a third conviction. If convicted of selling drugs, students lose their eligibility for two years for a single conviction and indefinitely for a second conviction.
contraction to what was printed in the Kansan on March 8, the U.S. Department of Education has stated that it would allow colleges to distribute funds to students who did not answer the question, but the department would be sending notices to these students warning that they must alert the department if they had been convicted of drug-related offences. This could mean the potential loss of aid or the risk of penalties associated with lying on FAFSA forms.
Association, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and other groups have formed the Coalition for HEA Reform to support the repeal of this provision. These groups have become aware of the discriminatory and negative effects this policy will have.
ey will have.
Once implemented, the provision will have a racially discriminatory effect because drug enforcement is focused heavily on minority communities. African Americans are 12 percent of the population and 13 percent of drug users, but represent 55 percent of drug convictions and more than 70 percent of incarcerations, according to a 1995 study by the Sentencing Project, an independent group for criminal justice policy analysis, data and program information based in Washington, D.C.
This provision is class-discriminatory as well because it will affect only low to moderate-income students who qualify for financial aid. Moreover, the provision includes a clause that would allow students once again to become eligible for aid after completing a rehabilitation program, which includes two unannounced drug tests. This also class-discriminatory because rehabilitation programs mainly are available to those who have the money to pay for them. People can steal, rape and even kill, and still be eligible to receive federal financial aid, if they have completed a sentence, been released and admitted to school.
Reform desperately is needed not only for students who now receive financial aid, but also for future students who will seek aid. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, a D-Massachusetts, has submitted to Congress a bill that would repeal the Higher Education Act's drug provision. Support is needed to pass it. Please contact your representatives and urge them to support this. You also can sign a petition online at http://www.RaiseYourVoice.com, and can get involved in the reform movement by getting more information at http://www.u-net.org, the movement's home.
It's time to let our government know that denying a person the right to education by adding this extra penalty to existing penalties is not effective.
Gregg is a Newton senior in industrial design.
Feedback
Banning guns hurts law-abiding citizens
I'm writing in response to the March 28 editorial on the issue of gun control and the idea that banning handguns would eliminate gun crimes. Since the editorial cites the tragic shooting of a 6-year-old girl in support of trigger locks on all guns, let us interject a needed dose of reality into this debate.
First, the little boy who killed Kayla Rolland lived in a crack house. Second, his father was in prison, his mother a junkie. Third, the boy's uncle, a career felon, left a loaded (stolen) pistol lying
around the crack house. And fourth, it would take two hands to count the felonies committed by the "residents" of this crack house, child abuse being only one.
aduse being only inadvisable It's a cruel insult to the intelligence of the American people (and to little Kayla's memory) to suggest that a drug-abusing felon would take time away from his crack dealing to check that his trigger lock was properly secured. Gun-controllers and gun-banners never have been able to deal with one fundamental reality, and to avoid doing so, they constantly engage in scare tactics and extremist rhetoric to obscure their indefensible
position.
In short, criminals don't obey the law! If guns were banned, does anyone really think that criminals would turn theirs in too? The only people who would be harmed would be law-abiding citizens who would comply with the law. Demonizing the National Rifle Association and responsible gun owners like myself will not save lives — only strict enforcement of existing laws can do that.
John H. McCool
Evansville, Ind., graduate student in history