Opinion
The University Daily Kansan
Laura Roddy, Editor Shauntae Blue, Business manager Sarah Hale, Managing editor Brad Bolyard, Retail sales manager Kristi Elliott, Managing editor Matt Fisher, Sales and marketing adviser Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser Scott Valler, Technology coordinator
Tuesday, March 7, 2000
Chan Lowe / TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES
Editorials
Vandalism effects no change; time for civil, structured protests
The animosity that festers between students and the parking department at the University of Kansas is nothing short of legendary.
However, these sentiments should be channelled into some form of organized protest such as fliers, letters of complaint, discussions with administrators or even sit-ins, instead of unproductive and criminal vandalism.
The most recent student response to the parking department — a spattering of vandalism evoking images of violence — makes it quite obvious that this old feud, consisting of
Students expend a great deal of energy on the futile act of hating parking department
the exchange insults and hate mail,
is achieving nothing.
Most of the time, parking officials just are doing their jobs. We always despise the cops who pull us to the side of the road to give us speeding tickets. Most regrettably, students expend a great deal of energy in the futile act of hating the parking department.
The time and effort it took for a few students to decorate buildings with obscenities last week could have been much more effectively spent in organizing people and coordinating a list of valid complaints against the parking department. Legitimate student activism can have a substantial influence on campus issues, such as the recent Jaybowl controversy when students organized and saved the lanes.
Perhaps if the parking department were approached with civility and organization, it would be more apt to take the first step toward ameliorating this old feud.
Ben Shockey for the editorial board
Financial aid should be need-based
When making decisions about who should receive financial aid, particularly in the form of grants or scholarships, a university is confronted with a difficult decision. Should the money go to the most academically qualified applicant regardless of financial need, or should a student's economic circumstances play a part in that decision? It seems that in the vast majority of cases, the University of Kansas has chosen to ignore financial need in favor of academic merit. Perhaps it is time to consider swinging the pendulum back in the other direction.
Certainly no one would argue that a certain level of academic achievement should be demanded from all applicants for financial aid. But among students with comparable academic records, a consideration of financial need should be an
The role of a public university should be to give opportunity to both rich and poor students
important factor. While it is true that there is a vast amount of money available to students on a need-only basis, most of that money comes in the form of loans from the federal government. But no matter how good the interest rate, these are still loans that must be repaid.
The issue is whether the University should, when deciding who receives scholarship money that need not be repaid, look into the financial circumstances of its applicants. Of the 11 different types of scholarships available at the University, only one takes financial
need into consideration. The reason this is so important is that as a public university, our role should not be to compete with Harvard or Princeton in terms of how many National Merit scholars we can attract, but rather to provide a college education that, while still demanding a high level of academic achievement, is affordable for a much larger number of students.
The key is balance between merit and need. It strikes many people as somewhere between unfair and absurd for a student whose parents earn $200,000 per year to receive a full scholarship just because he or she scored well on the PSAT.
It seems clear that if the University is to remain true to its original mission, a more balanced approach to financial aid would make the job far easier.
Kansan staff
Tom Broderick for the editorial board
Seth Hoffman . . . Editorial
Nadia Mustafa . . . Editorial
Melody Ard . . . News/Special sections
Chris Fickett . . . News
Julie Wood . . . News
Juan H. Heath . Online
Mike Miller . Sports
Matt James . Associate sports
Katie Hollar . Campus
Nathan Willis . Campus
Heather Woodward . Features
Chris Borniger . Associate features
T.J. Johnson . Photo imaging
Christina Neff . Photo
Jason Pearce . Design, graphics
Clay McCuistion . Wire
News editors
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
"Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society."
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
Guest columns: Should be double-
spaced typed with fewer than 700 words
The writer must be willing to be photo-
coped for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be e-mailed to opinion@kansan.com or submitted to the Kansan news room, 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 B64-4924.
If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (apioni@kansan.com) or call 864-4924
Perspective
Different pant fashions reveal cultural contrasts
and to think, I used to joke about straight-leg pants.
For years, I haven't donned anything less than too-long-for-me boot-cut pants. Imagine the jolt upon stepping off the plane in Madrid, Spain — the land of tapered legs and short short inseams
I was talking with Chico and Joaquin, my Sevillian friends, about why everyone knows I'm American when I walk down the street. I have dark brown hair, brown eyes, mediumtoned skin and, if I don't
At first, like a snobby, American girl, I laughed out loud. Now that I am fully surrounded by all colors of denim cut to fit the human body and hide almost nothing, I am the one getting laughed at.
Emily
Hughey
columnist
opinion@kansan.com
smile, you can't tell that I wore braces for four years. (Aside: Few Europeans have straight teeth.)
Still, when Chico and Joaquin met me, they knew I was American before I opened my mouth. They both pointed down.
"Pantalones de campaña," Chico said, smiling.
"Bell bottoms?" I thought, "Hasn't he ever heard of 'boy slouch flare?' And the two of them, in the tight, ankle-length Levis everyone wears in Spain. They're not even dark wash." Sure, most of my pants touch the ground standing, are wider than my hips at the bottom and slouch a little lower on my waist, but the pants here creep up to show socks, are so tight that you can see underwear lines and they zip practically all the way up to your clavicles.
We're just different. The Spaniards stare at me in my baggy bell bottoms, clunky hiking shoes and T-shirt as I walk among them — a tailored-pants, shiny-leather-shoed, wool-jacket-wearing bunch — because I look different. In my widest-leg jeans, I no doubt look like an American clown girl.
Which is worse? I don't know, but after our discussion, I started paying more attention to clothing. I started wondering why people looked twice at my pant legs and why I had to restrain laughter at the sight of tight red denim. Finally, I came to a quasi-conclusion, the only one I believe can exist.
Now I see why my mom smiled wistfully when I brought home a new pair of jeans and told me stories about when she was my age. She knew the biggest trick that American marketers have played on Generation X. They used "flare-leg" and "boot-cut" as euphemisms for "bell bottoms" so that we would all believe what our parents wore in the '70s wasn't the same as the Diesels, Silvers and Abercrombies of today.
Still, none of it fazes me. Although I'm in Spain, I am American and, though I'm respectful and attentive to the greater aspects of the Spanish culture, I don't intend to change myself. The last thing I want to turn into is one of those American pseudo-Spaniards like the guy named Michael who introduces himself as Miguel and wears tapered-leg jeans in a tragic effort to blend in.
I'll immerse myself in other things. And who knows? In the three months I have left here, maybe I can bring this country to its senses and get them in some wider-leg digs.
Hughey is an Overland Park junior in journalism and Spanish. She is studying in Seville, Spain, this semester.
Professional athletes' use of drugs seems stupid
Just as sports seemed to be at an all-time high with the Cinderella story, the St. Louis Rams winning the Super Bowl and Tiger Woods' charge to win 11 tournaments in a row, along comes something to ground the hype and disgrace professional sports — the same thing that has taken the lives of countless people every year.
I am of course talking about drugs. However, the message is not getting across that these illegal substances can only hurt a person in the long run.
A few weeks ago, Kansas City Chiefs' kick returner Tamarick Vanover and exChief Bam Morris were linked to a federal drug investigation, and according to a report in The New York Times, 12 NBA players tested positive for marijuana use during training camp last fall.
Amit S.
Parekh
guest columnist
opinion@kansan.com
I don't quite understand what these people were thinking. First of all, how did two Chiefs players get linked to an investigation that extends to Mexico?
Even though Vanover's and Morris' actions may seem surprising, there is one to top their idiotic moves. This was the first year the NBA tested for marijuana use. The 12 NBA players who tested positive for drug use knew they were going to be tested months in advance, but they decided to try to beat the system.
Although neither player has been charged, they are known to have associated with people who have been charged. With all the money these guys are making and the high-profile positions they are in, you would think they would try to keep their activities in line so that they wouldn't attract unwanted attention.
Why do athletes take drugs when they are
risking so much? The media always is focused on them, and they are required to take periodic drug tests. There is no way to beat the system. No matter what power they have, or the amount of resources at their fingertips, they are going to be caught, but they don't seem to realize this.
Basically, the stupidity of these athletes, along with the ridiculous actions of hundreds of others who are doing the same thing, is damaging the future as kids in junior high and high school are perceiving that it is not only good, but 'cool', to use drugs.
To many people, it may seem that these are isolated cases that have no effect on the future. They are wrong. These athletes are in the limelight. Kids view them as role models and strive to be like them. If these athletes are taking drugs, there is a chance that kids will follow in their footsteps.
I'm not sure what can be done to stop the number of athletes using drugs. It seems almost impossible to stop such a large number of professionals from using illegal substances, but it is hoped that they will realize the damage they are causing and stop the destruction of our future.
Unless professional sports organizations do something to stop these unfortunate actions, the number of drug cases in sports is going to escalate because the domino effect has begun. The percentage of basketball players who will test positive in the future will increase from its present ratio of one in about every 36 players to who knows how much.
In reality, it is probably too idealistic to ask the players to stop using drugs, but they should at least not be stupid enough to get caught. The best-case scenario now is for Vanover and Morris to be found not guilty and for the 12 NBA players to be re-tested, with the results being negative. As doubtful as that seems, I have hope for the future.
Parekh is an Overland Park freshman in business.
Feedback
Confederate flag is expressive freedom
While I sympathize with Allan Davis and his hatred for the Confederate flag, evidenced in his March 3 column, it should be pointed out that the First Amendment was created to protect the expression of 'unpopular' opinion, not just majority opinion. The assertion that "Germany has the right idea" about banning frowned-upon political organizations and arresting people for expressing their opinions flies in the face of everything the First Amendment stands for. Barring private individuals from displaying the Confederate flag would be a severe violation of their rights.
I, too. frown when I see Confederate license plates and the like. However, we all need keep in mind that free express-
Carrie Johnson Oklahoma City, Okla., junior
As Voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Confederate flag ban would restrict speech
sion is what this country is all about, regardless of whether we like the views expressed.
Mr. Davis might also note that Germany used to have ideas about how to deal with Jewish people, or gypsies or others who might critique the Nazi regime.
In Allan Davis' March 3 column about the Confederate flag, he notes that "Germany has the right idea about how to deal with the shameful past. I bans neo-Nazi organizations and arrest [sic] people."
It would ban their assembly and slaughter them.
Before advocating a restriction on the freedom of speech or assembly, always ask yourself a couple of questions:
1) If there were a sudden turn of political tides and my opinions became unpopular, would I be willing to suffer the same punishment? (Remember we were corraling Japanese in this country during WWII.)
2) Would you rather that evil people meet and plot in public, or would you rather arrest a few, drive the rest underground and create martyrs?
Freedom of speech is not there to support popular opinions.
Chris Wiswell 1997 graduate in history and philosophy former president, KU Liberarians