4A
Opinion
Friday, November 5, 1999
Editorial
Robinson the place for recreation center
Addition would provide maximum benefit
The debate surrounding the building of a new recreation center rages on, bogged down in the details as usual. One more decision has to be made, though, and it
Chancellor Robert Hemenway must decide on the best location for the new recreation facility. One of the options is to build an addition to Robinson Center — in other words, not a new, free-standing building. Building this addition is the best option.
First, some background. The issue of the recreation center was a hot topic during last spring's campaign. Propaganda from both sides of the issue was spread across campus, and a great deal of this information was misleading.
Research on the issue was conducted by the Recreation Task Force, which polled 463 students to find out the feelings about recreation on campus. The numbers could be interpreted to support both sides of the issue. About 78 percent of the students were at least satisfied with the current situation, but 67.4 percent of the students said recreation should be a priority in the future.
After this research was conducted, a proposal for a free-standing building was drawn up by the Recreation Task Force and put on the ballot last spring. The referendum asked
if students would be willing to pay $15 per semester in 2000-01 and $49 per semester in subsequent years, in addition to the current recreation fee of $13. With only 20 percent of students voting, the referendum passed 2817-1238. However, it is non-binding. The fee increase, and in essence the building, must be approved by the chancellor and the Board of Regents.
After the referendum passed, a vocal group continued to express opposition to the $15.5 million building. These students felt that a cheaper, more efficient option was not adequately considered — an addition to Robinson. Opponents of the referendum had been told that an addition to Robinson was not an option. But it is an option and the best choice in terms of location, cost-effectiveness and practicality.
The Recreation Task Force wants the new center to be south of Watkins Memorial Health Center, which is one of the locations that Hemenway is considering. This location would accommodate a free-standing structure and future expansion, which, given the relatively small size of the proposed center, would be required sooner than later (likely impacting student fees again).
The University of Kansas ranks last among Big 12 schools in square footage of recreational facilities. But beware, the free-stand
building may not be what
Then there is cost-effectiveness. Students would get more bang for their buck with an addition to Robinson for obvious reasons. Brand new locker rooms and a second climbing wall would not be necessary. New parking lots, plumbing and sewage would not have to be built or installed. Perhaps student
These ads were misleading. Even if the ref erendum is enacted by building a free-standing building south of Watkins, the University still would have the smallest recreation center in the Big 12, while asking for the third-highest fee. The proposed center would have 88,500 square feet, about half the size of the Kansas State University center. It is possible that Robinson would continue to provide additional space, but it also is possible that the School of Education would take it over once a free-standing building were built.
tees
e v e n
c o u l d
improve some
of the current facilities in exchange for greater access to them. Funds that might have been used for infrastructure costs instead could be used for more recreation space.
As for practicality, we want the recreation center to be built. Anything that will speed this process up while still ensuring quality should be pursued vigorously. The fewer hurdles that have to be jumped, the better, because it will allow the project to proceed. An addition would allow for a recreation facility with increased hours. The addition also could add the features the task force wants.
The only clear disadvantage to a Robinson addition is that it would not be its own building and would not be "the students' recreation center." But with proper planning, all
of the advantages of a free-standing building
carroocen with an addition to Roohson. The fee increase approved by about 3,000 students is extremely high for a center that would be new but still not up to par with other institutions. If students are paying the third highest recreational fee in the Big 12, they should at least have a recreation center in the top 10 in size.
Emily Haverkamp for the editorial board
Perspective
United States should join Bradley's child poverty agenda
A few weeks ago, I got the opportunity, along with about 3,000 Iowaans, to meet Bill Bradley at a Democratic fundraiser.
Bradley, a self-described underdog in the battle for the 2000 Democratic presidential nomination, was definitely the most interesting part of the night, even though current front-runner Al Gore also was present.
Gore did his best to present an outsider, good ol' boy image and even walked in front of the podium Liddy-style. He tried to fire up the crowd with talk about how he had decided to "stay and fight," implying that Bradley gave up when he left the Senate in the early '90s. When he left the stage his campaign staff blasted "Love Train" and then "Ready to Run" by the Dixie Chicks. It was weird.
Bradley, on the other hand, took a dignified, mellow approach to his speech. He spoke eloquently about a return to the principles much of the Democratic Party has left behind and taking a serious look at poverty, race and campaign finance reform.
Much of Bradley's appeal comes from his ability to relate to people. Granted, most people never play basketball in the NBA, but Bradley is definitely no dumb jock. He graduated from Princeton with an impressive academic record and earned a Rhodes scholarship. He served as a Senate intern in the early '60s and was in the gallery when Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
He said that moment, more than any other, shaped his political future. It's not hard to imagine that a basketball player, who played and lived with African-
American athletes all the time, realized the importance of the bill. Watching Strom Thurmond's attempt to kill the bill with a filibuster would make Pat Buchanan blush.
The amazing thing about Bradley is that he puts principles above polling. He is doing what he believes is right, while most of his competition, both Democrats and
Seth Hoffman associate opinion editor opinion@kansasan.com
Republicans,
don't butter
their toast without checking the numbers.
An example of his commitment to principle is his goal to lift the United States' 45 million poor children out of poverty. It's a rare politician who makes impoverished children a major
campaign issue. No matter what you promise them, they can't vote, and they won't contribute much to your campaign, so they're almost universally overlooked.
The second major issue of the Bradley campaign is race. In 1996, in what was supposed to be an endorsement, Newt Gingrich said that Republican vice presidential nominee Jack Kemp had "showered with more African Americans than most Republicans have ever met." Wow. That statement, made in the last presidential race, shows how far race relations have to go. Even Newt Gingrich says that the people we have been electing traditionally haven't been properly dealing with race in the United
States. Race isn't necessarily a good campaign issue, and Bradley probably will have a tough time convincing Southern voters that something does need to be done. But again, he understands that doing what's right isn't always popular.
I'm not sure about Bradley's odds of winning the nomination, and until I saw him, I didn't think he had a chance. I think the same will be true for the rest of the nation. Nationally, Gore leads Bradley in the polls by a safe margin. However, Bradley is leading in New Hampshire, where he has been concentrating his effort and people actually have heard what he has to say. That probably scares Gore, and it should. Gore can see that as more people are introduced to Bill Bradley, the more people jump on the Bradley bandwagon.
In an election in which voters seemed to be fascinated by the glitteratti threatening to enter the race, it might come down to a battle of who has the coolest friends, and Bradley certainly has some. At the event I attended, Bradley brought former basketball player Bill Walton and singer Bruce Hornsby. It was rumored that Michael Jordan would attend, but he didn't show. Al Gore brought a plane load of White guys with concealed weapons.
When it comes right down to it, I hope voters won't choose someone just because he has a lot of famous friends. But if that's what it takes so that American kids don't have to take turns eating, I'm prepared to make a little sacrifice. So should you.
Hoffman is a Lenexa senior in journalism.
Intellectual pursuit only goes so far in academia
"O n Wednesday night, a huge crowd flocked to Green Hall at the University of Kansas to hear a speech by noted
or Kansas to hear a speech by noted molecular biologist Jonathan Wells of the Seattle-based Discovery Institute. Students and professors alike attended the Wells lecture as part of their ongoing intellectual pursuit of knowledge on the subject of the origin of the universe.
In October, the KU academic community was fortunate to hear a lecture by author and Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, who specializes in paleontology and evolutionary biology. Gould offered a compelling case in favor of the evolution theory of the universe's origin and spoke against the Kansas State Board of
spoke against the Kansas Education's decision to deemphasize the teaching of macroevolution.
This time it was Wells' turn to share his scientific perspective, which favors intelligently designed life as opposed to life arising by chance or natural processes, as believed by many evolutionists. The crowd buzzed with excitement as it anticipated the opportunity to hear another scientific viewpoint on this oft-debated and always controversial subject. The evening was one of
Chelsea Bettos opinion editor opinion@kansan.com
respect and intellectual inquiry enjoyed by one and all, as is so often the case in the spirit of open exchange of ideas at the University.
Next month, the discussion of this subject will continue as another professor will address yet a different aspect of the complex origin debate called young-earth creationism."
Unfortunately, the above account is mostly fiction. It's true that both Wells and Gould recently gave lectures at the University, but the circumstances surrounding the lectures are quite different.
Gould's October visit to the University was heavily promoted and well attended. Fliers dotted the campus, local newspapers ran previews announcing the arrival of the Great Gould and some professors offered a bit of a bribe in the form of extra credit to students who attended the lecture. This was an opportunity to learn from an academic giant.
It's true that Gould comes from the Ivy League, is a best-selling writer and is something of a celebrity in academic circles. He has
earned many people's respect, and the University was lucky to play host to someone of his standing.
But let's be honest — there was more to his successful visit than the opportunity to learn. A big part of the reason that Gould was such a sensation was that academics were salvating to hear Gould bash our Board of Education. People were falling all over themselves to have their viewpoints affirmed by someone from the big league. It was an opportunity to once again thumb our collective nose at the Board of Education.
Politics? Not at the University. Close mindness? Never in academia. After all, we're open to many viewpoints, embrace research and academic criticism, and love to engage in conversation, even when we disagree with others. We're all about the pursuit of knowledge.
So then why was Wells received so differently than Gould? After all, Wells earned a doctorate from the University of California-Berkeley and also came to offer some criticism of the board. He even distances himself from those who say the earth is only 10,000 years old.
But the crowd at his speech was estimated to be only 125, consisting primarily of non-students, compared to the 2,000 plus who turned out for Gould. Where was the media attention? Where was the extra credit? Where was the eagerness to learn?
All of that was buried in ideology. Wells has the audacity to actually claim that there is an intelligent design behind this magnificent and intricate creation in which we live. He doesn't believe it just happened or evolved from a random explosion, but at the same time, he doesn't necessarily attribute it to God. He simply says there is something intelligent behind the universe's origins, and he backs his claims with evidence.
I'm sure some of his criticism of neoDarwinian theory isn't too popular with many folks around here. But it deserved a fair hearing. Wells talks about genetic mutation, embryology, fossil records, homology and other juicy scientific stuff. Are we afraid to hear it, lest our anti-creator orthodoxy come crumbling down?
Sure, we're open to ideas. Just don't get too creative or dare to ask too many questions about widely accepted theories. It can get pretty lonely. Just ask Jonathan Wells.
Bettes is a Shawnee graduate student in journalism.
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Julie Wood, Editor
Laura Roddy, Managing editor
Cory Graham, Managing editor
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser
News editors
Chad Bettes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Editorial
Seth Hoffman . . . . . . . . . . . Associate editorial
Carl Kaminski . . . . . . . . . News
Juan H. Heath . . . . . Online
Chris Fickett . . . . . Sports
Brad Hallier . . . . . . . . Associate sports
Nadia Mustafa . . . . Campus
Heather Woodward . . Campus
Steph Brewer . . . Features
Dan Curry . . . . . . . . . . Associate features
Matt Daugherty . . . . Photo
Kristi Elliott . . . Design, graphics
T.J. Johnson . . . Wire
Melody Ard . . Special sections
Brandl Byram, Business manager
Shauntae Blue, Retail sales manager
Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Scott Valler, Technology coordinator
Advertising managers
Becky LaBranch . . . Special sections
Thad Crane . . . Campus
Will Baxter . . . Regional
Jon Schlitt . . . National
Danny Pumpelly . Online sales
Micah Kafitz . . Marketing
Emily Knowles . Production
Jenny Weaver . Production
Matt Thomas . Creative
Kelly Heffernan . Classified
Juliana Moreira . Zone
Chad Hale . Zone
Brad Bolyard. Zone
Amy Miller . Zone
Advertising managers
Feedback Regents should not be elected
Aaron Major's column concerning the composition of the Board of Regents shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of such boards. He contends that successful professionals do not possess the ability to properly manage the state's higher education system. These people are in fact the best people for the job. Educational goals can appropriately be set by people who know what kind of skills businesses need in new employees.
Mr. Major is also concerned
that the capitalist ideas these professionals hold are a detriment to the educational system. The truth is that we live in a capitalist society; therefore, it is obvious that the education system in such a society would reflect the capitalism that exists.
Finally, Mr. Major states: "The state of Kansas could become a pioneer of progressiveness (needed in light of the evolution decision) and have the Board of Regents members elected, not appointed." This argument was not carefully thought through. The evolution decision was made by the elected
Matthew Hendel
St. Louis junior
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
State Board of Education. If the voters of Kansas would elect the people who removed evolution from testing, who says they wouldn't elect similar people to the Board of Regents? Control of the higher education system should stay in control of appointed men and women who have ties to the professional community.
"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing."
— Wernher Von Braun
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.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Strauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Chad Bettes 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.