Wednesday, December 1, 1999
The University Daily Kansan
Section A • Page 5
Opinion
Feedback
Experience with Kempf was enjoyable, not bad
As an alumnus and past swimmer, I was very troubled with the article "Coach Under Fire." I swam at Kansas from 1986-1989 and was coached by Gary Kempf. As a swimmer, I can honestly say that I enjoyed my experience with the Kansas swim team and was proud to be a Jayhawk. Additionally, I enjoyed the opportunity to work with Gary Kempf and feel privileged to have him as my coach. I feel that your article is in many ways unfair and one-sided.
I transferred to the University of Kansas after attending one year at Virginia Tech University. The primary reason I left Virginia Tech was so that I could participate in a competitive swimming program that would help me be the best that I could be in the sport of swimming. I wanted to be challenged and swim for a more demanding coach.
While at the University of Kansas and being coached by Gary Kempf, I did reach new levels of success. Throughout my career at Kansas, I was able to achieve best times each year, and during my senior year I set a school record, won an event at the Big 8 Championships, qualified for the NCAA championships and attended Olympic Trials. I am thankful to Coach Kempf for helping me to reach this level of success.
At Kansas, I also excelled academically being named Student-Athlete of the Year in 1989. I felt that the discipline that Coach Kempf stressed in the pool carried over to the classroom.
The sport of swimming is challenging. It requires great commitment and is very physically demanding. The article brought up the number of student-athletes who did not complete their eligibility while at Kansas. One must understand that this is not necessarily unusual. Swimmers of all ages stop swimming for many reasons.
Could Coach Kempf have worked with athletes in a different manner? Probably, but it would not be reasonable to assume that every swimmer that quit was due to Gary's coaching style. But if Coach
Kempf were to have changed his coaching style, it could have changed his effectiveness.
Yes, Gary is tough and demands each student-athlete do his or her best, both in the pool and the classroom. The swim program was not for everyone, but students do excel in the environment created by Coach Kempf.
One must understand the profession of coaching swimming before becoming too critical about how many coaches leave the profession. The compensation is not competitive with other career choices. Additionally, the hours are lengthy and awkward. These factors make this career choice very unattractive. It is unlikely that Coach Kempf's management style is the sole reason for each one of his assistants leaving the profession.
I have always felt that Coach Kempf has had a heavy hand in each area of development in regards to the swim team at the University of Kansas. But I have felt that Gary's style of management is also the key to the University of Kansas's swimming success. Yearly, the University of Kansas has had swimmers at the NCAA Division I Championships. This is at a school that has adequate but by no means an exceptional training facility.
Bob Kelly Former KU swimmer
A story that only alumni can tell
For the first time since Emily Hughey's story broke on November 17, the real problem with the controversy surrounding swimming Coach Gary Kempf was stated. On Nov. 23, Brett Watson made a longoverdue call for action in his editorial "Department should help, not drown KU athletes."
Throughout the past days since the story of Coach Kempf's abuse broke, more swimmers are beginning to speak out about their experiences, positive and negative. Maybe the truth about what goes on behind closed doors at Robinson Natatorium will finally be known. The courageous swimmers who have spoken out about the devastating treatment of Gary Kempf do not comprise a minority of KU former swimmers. At the Alumni
Weekend festivities (Oct. 22 and 23) this year, where years of experience was shared through conversation, signs were hung that read "Impeach Kempf" or "Save Our Swimmers." These former swimmers who speak out are not angry swimmers seeking revenge. These are people who only want to make sure that others do not get treated like they did. These people have nothing to gain from this except for making their alma mat a better place.
This is a story that can only be told by the alumni. Current swimmers can not risk the inevitable backlash that would result if they were to speak out negatively. I would never have spoken publicly while I still had to endure Gary's wrath on a daily basis. Fears about speaking negatively about the swim program are not unfounded. For example, when Gary found out that I spoke to recruits about my personal experiences and opinions about swimming at KU, my fifth-year scholarship was threatened
a tactic to keep me silent. Fortunately, I was assured by several university officials that my scholarship was not and could not be in jeopardy.
For my first two years, I was a great recruiter for KU, while I was naive and while I tried to justify the way Gary treated my teammates. Once Gary's wrath was directed at me, my eyes were forced wide open. I should be an avid supporter of KU Swimming and Diving. I swam lifetime best times here; I was an NCAA All-American; I was awarded Athlete of the Year in 1999 — the highest award bestowed upon a KU athlete; I was even appointed captain by Gary for two years. What these honors do not show is that my coach was my obstacle. Sometimes I overcame him. Sometimes I did not.
I will never recommend that a swimmer swim at KU under the direction of Gary Kempf. Because I swam KU, like many others, I will always have to look back and think "What if?" What if I would have swam for a coach who respected me for four years? Maybe I would have swam faster. Maybe I would not have grown to hate the sport that has been such an integral part of my life.
What if KU acted on these serious allegations? Maybe no one, else
Adrienne Turner
Former KU swimmer
would have to leave KU wondering what if.
Taxing rich is a poor idea
Earlier this year, I chastised the Kansan for not delving deep enough into an issue before irresponsibly penning a misguided editorial. The Kansan again published an editorial that clearly depicts a lack of foresight. On November 16, the editorial board alluded to the notion that Donald Trump has set forth a "bold solution" with his tax plan, something Democrats and Republicans could never do. Indeed, the two parties would shy from a proposal such as Trump's; however, they would be hesitant to support such a proposal because it is asinine.
Consider the ramifications of such a proposal. Assuming Bill Gates is worth $68 billion dollars and must pay a 14.25 percent tax on that worth for a total of $9.7 billion. Since Gates' savings and loan account probably has a little less than that in it, he will be forced to sell off stocks. The market will now be flooded with more than 112 million shares of Microsoft stock. Imagine what would happen to the price of Microsoft stock as the supply of it has just been injected with an additional 112 million shares.
Now imagine what would happen to the entire market if all wealthy stockholders did the same. Most stock prices would fall, newer, capital-starved companies fail, and people watch their retirement savings fall through the floor. The alternative scenario will have our wealthiest investors fleeing the United States for tax havens in the Caribbean, which doesn't aid the United States either. If you need further evidence on tax the rich schemes, research what high luxury taxes do to blue collar manufacturers of luxury goods.
Finally, I cannot let the Kansan fault the two parties for not offering an alternative tax scheme. Steve Forbes has offered a flat income tax, free of the exemptions and tax shelters that many of the wealthiest use to lower their effective tax rates well below the 15 percent bracket. 1986 Presidential candidates Dick Luger and Bob
Dornan both proposed consumption taxes that would eliminate the income tax altogether. Sensible isn't always "bold" and "soak the rich" schemes don't often hold their water.
Scott Shumard Sterling, Ill., graduate student'
Many people don't realize the importance of having a boathouse. Not only is it unacceptable to leave more than $200,000 of equipment outside, it isn't fair.
The women's varsity rowing team has been around for a while. Each year we strive to make the NCAA finals. We have yet to succeed. I feel that the lack of a boathouse greatly contributes to this.
The Athletic Department sank $33 million into the football field this year. Granted the changes were needed to help the team become more competitive on the recruiting front, but all that we are asking for is a mere $200,000. That is less than what KU spends on two basketball players a year.
The lack of a boathouse has a huge effect on recruiting. When recruits come and see the lack of facilities, it discourages them to make the decision to come here.
During the season, the boats are stored at the lake and river on a metal rack with no protection from the weather. Most of you may not realize the cost of the these boats. An eight-man boat is anywhere between $17,000 and $30,000. Fours cost between $10,000 and $15,000 and pairs are between $7,000 and $12,000.
We all know that the money is there. They just need to decide that women's rowing deserves it. We were the only team last year that finished in the top 25 schools that didn't have a boathouse. I think that it is essential to have any further development in the sport here at KU.
Beta turkey not abused
Jennifer Van RuyvenVarsity rowing freshman
The Turkey Pull editorial (Nov. 30) was a horrible piece of journalism because it never supported the allegations of "torture" — defined as "extreme mental distress" and
"unbearable physical pain" — with any evidence. In reality, the lucky turkey spends a week in the warm Usher mansion in a large 36 ft. cage, with attentive Betas nurturing it and "protecting" the turkey from beautiful sorority girls. Any reasonable person can see that this does not constitute torture.
Any reasonable turkey would surely prefer to have a few drops of safe, water-based paint on its feathers than to bathe in the squalor of foul seces common in the average corporate turkey farm. In fact, I'm placing my request to be reincarnated as that turkey.
Ironically, the Kansan slandered the Turkey Pull formal by rousing pity for one unharmed turkey. If reducing the suffering of turkeys is the issue, then why no editorial about this past Thanksgiving?
According to PETA, the holiday dinner entailed more than 40 million turkeys on factory farms having their beaks and claws cut off without anesthesia, crammed into single warehouses where disease, smothering, and heart attacks are common. Some don't even have a chance to become dinner because thousands of turkeys die on America's highways — before they even reach the slaughterhouse — because of heat exhaustion, freezing, or accidents during transport
Good editorials are appreciated because they provide sensible conclusions based on evidence. This editorial missed the mark because it assumed what it never proved: that Turkey Pull is "a tradition that tortures a live animal."
Interested in being a human turkey mascot? Please send a 3x5 picture (in costume), tape of gobbling, and essay on "Great Turkey Logicians of the 20th Century."
Jake Carmichael
Mulvane senior
Scott Kaiser
Overland Park senior
Red Lyon Tavern
944.4 Morel 832.82