Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Ann Premer, Manu
Gerry Doyle, Managing editor
Angle Kuhn, Managing editor
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser
Jamie Holman, Business manager
Sara Cropper, Retail sales manager
Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Justn Knapp, Technology coordinator
4A
Tuesday, May 4, 1999
Clay McCuistion / KANSAN
Editorials
Emporia State 'compromise' falls short of anti-discrimination goal
Emporia State University's recent decision to keep sexual orientation out of its equal-opportunity policy is unfortunate. Although the effort to include a companion statement that supports the ideal of tolerance shows some effort, it falls embarrassingly short in giving true protection to groups that might feel discriminated against.
Emporia State trumpeted it's decision as a compromise that offered some measure of protection to gays and lesbians while avoiding the precarious legal aspects of non-discrimination policy. Hiding behind legal reasoning fails to explain why more than 200 colleges and universities, including the University of Kansas, include sexual orientation
The inclusion of a statement about sexual orientation doesn't provide full protection.
in their nondiscrimination clauses. One cannot reasonably believe that Emporia State is privy to some unique information regarding discrimination statutes.
Emporia State,with President Kay Schallenkamp leading the charge, has claimed that the lack of state and federal laws protecting gays and lesbians leaves them no choice but to change their policy.
At the very least, this argument shows that Emporia State is unwilling to set a precedent for nondiscrim-
ination. Fearful of legal repercussions, Emporia State is unwilling in its policy to protect its gay and lesbian students against discrimination. Regardless, Emporia State would not be on the vanguard of a trend that includes numerous schools.
The mere addition of a companion statement means that Emporia State is against discrimination but not enough to stick its collective neck out for it. By offering a compromise on this issue, ESU has only managed to compromise its own position as a tolerant university.
KU students should be glad that they attend a school committed to nondiscrimination but should be ashamed at an institution just down the road that clearly is not.
Jeff Engstrom for the editorial board
Helmets, stop signs keys to safety
Now that the sun finally has returned, more and more people can be seen riding bicycles. Though it may be inconvenient at times, it is important that cyclists make an effort to be safe.
One thing many cyclists forget is that bicycles are held to the same laws as automobiles. This includes stopping at stop signs and riding on the right side of the road.
A bicycle running a stop sign can put a pedestrian and the cyclist at risk for injury. Basically, cyclists should remember to not only watch for cars, but pedestrians as well. Pedestrians have the right of way at a crosswalk before a bicycle, so cyclists need to remember to stop and let pedestrians cross.
Bicyclists should do their part to prevent pedestrian and rider accidents.
Another way to help prevent serious injuries is to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. According to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, only 38 percent of adult bike riders wear a helmet. Ninety-seven percent of the cyclists killed in accidents in 1997 were not wearing helmets, and 70 to 80 percent of the fatal injuries were head traumas. The statistics don't lie — a helmet is a must to ensure safety.
As is often the case, vanity gets in the way of helmet wearing. Most
people never will get in a bicycle accident, so many might think it unnecessary to wear a helmet. But, if a cyclist is in an accident, they will be glad they wore that helmet.
More than 900 deaths a year are caused by bicycles, with more than two-thirds of those deaths happening to people older than 16. Just as it is a must to wear a seatbelt in a car, it should become a necessity to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle.
People should encourage their friends to purchase helmets and wear them. It would be a real tragedy for anyone on campus to be injured or killed when it could have been prevented by something as simple as a helmet.
Emilv Haverkamp for the editorial board
Kansan staff
Ryan Koerner ... Editorial
Jeremy Doherty ... Associate editorial
Aaron Marvin ... News
Laura Roddy ... News
Melissa Ngo ... News
Aaron Knopf ... Online
Erin Thompson ... Sports
Marc Sheforden ... Associate sports
Chris Fickett ... Campus
Sarah Hale ... Campus
T.R. Miller ... Features
Steph Brewer ... Associate features
Augustus Anthony Piazza ... Photo
Chris Dye ... Design, graphics
Carl Kaminski ... Wire
Carolyn Mollett ... Special sections
Laura Veazey ... News clerk
News editors
Advertising managers
Matt Lopez . Special sections
Jennifer Patch . Campus
Micah Kaffitz . Regional
Jon Schlitt . National
Tyler Cook . Marketing
Shannon Curran . PR/Intern manager
Christa Estep . Production
Steven Prince . Production
Chris Corley . Creative
Jason Hannah . Classified
Corinne Buffmire . Zone
Shauntae Blue . Zone
Brandi Byram . Zone
Brian Allers . Zone
Justin Allen . Zone
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
“The most important thing in illness is never to lose heart.” — V. I. Lenin
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 home-town 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 photographed for
the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staufer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Ryan Koerner or Jeremy Doherty at 864-4924.
If you have general questions or comments,
e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com)
or call 864-4924.
The last few weeks haven't been good for the soul.
From the bombings in Kosovo to the shootings in Littleton, Colo., little is happening to
Recent tragedies show twisted morals of U.S.
Perspective
assure us of the intrinsic goodness of humanity or the worth of life. On one hand, we react in terror and shock as innocent high schoolers are massacred, and on the other, we attempt to crush a country full of innocent people.
Clay McCuistion opinion @ kansan.com
It's time for our priorities to change. In the wake of both of these tragedies, few people have moved beyond simplistic, cut-and-dried explanations. It's impossible for us to believe that there is anything dramatically wrong.
Simplicity rules. Violent video games made the two teenagers in Littleton kill 13 people. Cut off violent video games and the Internet where kids' minds are warped, and the problem is solved. Yeah right.
Such a culture, perpetuated in a school atmosphere, can be toxic for sensitive kids. Everyone I have spoken to since the Littleton incident has known someone similar to the gunmen. That is, kids who have difficulty dealing with a world that seems to have no place for them.
However, we can't forget Kosovo. There, our country shows again its twisted moral fiber. We want to save people from becoming refugees, so we bomb. People flee anyway. We continue to bomb, the original objective rapidly fading into the distance. The only message left: We can push around countries we don't like, because we're the United States, and we control NATO.
What about the life lessons that are taught every day? Our culture reveres shallowness. Good looks, prowess in athletic events and nice clothes should be the least of anyone's concerns. But intelligence, self-examination and extraordinary class achievement are ridiculed.
It is a worthwhile cause to prevent genocide.
Yeah. right.
But is the U.S. doing that? Or are we merely using it as an excuse to continue a mission that hasn't gone as planned? If saving innocent lives is our business, we should use all the resources at our disposal, rescue those in danger, and end it.
Instead we continue bombing, continue driving refugees out of Kosovo to starve, continue following a policy that only Bill Clinton knows and won't tell anyone else.
If it sounds as if I'm peeved by these events, it's because I am.
I am sick of people treating human life as if it has no worth and then acting shocked when others die. I'm sick of a culture that condemns gunmen in Colorado but glorifies a pointless war that is hurting thousands upon thousands
It's time to start.
Somewhere along the line, people stopped believing in the concept of "live and let live." Perhaps they never believed it.
It's time to start respecting other people no matter if they act differently than you, wear different clothes than you, or have less weapons than you. It applies to all sides. Sure, people could have treated the Littleton gunmen better. But those two should have treated everyone else better. Sure, it's wrong for the U.S. to pursue fogy military strategy. But it's wrong for the Serbs to kill their neighbors.
I'm talking about everyone. I'm talking about love. It's a corny word, a silly concept. The kind of word people snicker at when used in situations like this. We can't giggle at it any more.
Love is one of the few answers to these problems. If we can love enough, we can help to prevent situations like Littleton. If we can love enough, we can help to prevent genocide. Only, that is, if we care for others and don't let selfishness and pride blind us.
The nation is searching for simple answers. Love is not a simple answer. Love is difficult to apply in all situations. It's hard to live by. It's difficult not to judge. It's difficult to keep the soul from scabbing over.
But we must do our best.
McCuistion is an El Dorado sophomore in pre-journalism.
Opposition to rec center devalues student opinion
Joe Walberg
Guest columnist
expensive and in that far off never-never land called West Campus. The proposal lost by roughly 70 percent. The Recreation Task Force knew about the previous defeat but looked into a center again to see if there was a more appealing way.
I really caught me off guard when I read that Nunemaker Senator J. D. Jenkins was trying to recall the student decision to finance a new recreation center. Student
Jenkins told the Kansan that people didn't know what they were voting for.
Apparently so, because the recreation center received more than 2800 votes, more yes votes than the other two referendums on the ballot April 14 and 15.
Senators don't usually stand in direct opposition to student opinion, especially when the vote is 2.27:1 in favor of something. But Jenkins' petition assumes that students are too dumb to hold their own opinions, and when they do, the opinions don't count.
I voted for the recreation center, and I found the proposal to be the most detailed referendum that I've ever read and certainly more detailed than the other two proposals. I read about the incremental fees program, about everything that would be inside, and lots of other stuff.
The wording was so detailed that I was surprised that it didn't even suggest a name for the facility.
Jenkins told the Kansan that people were misled about what they were voting for.
Actually, I already have an idea for the name. Ask me. I'll tell you.
Jenkins and the Delta Force vanguard cite a referendum a few years ago that proposed a major recreation center that was extravagant, and
If we assume that all voters were well informed, then we probably make a huge mistake about democratic voting in general not just about recreation centers. But if people wanted a balanced view, they could have just typed "recreation center" into the search engine at the Kansan Web Site and read more than 200 articles about the subject. Or, even better yet, they would have stopped by a Wescoe couch and asked a member of Delta Force about why they were against the new center.
---
It boils down to this: Delta Force was founded on the belief that student input was not the focus of Student Government. Preaching that voter turnout was a product of a political machine rather than best intentions, Delta Force, Jenkins's coalition, was the champion of student interest.
But I don't think that the chancellor will. The guy who sits next to me in sociology puts it this way: even if the petition collects 2000 signatures, it would still be more than 800 signatures short of the 2800-plus students saying yes to the recreation center. My sociology buddy thinks that Jenkins is trying to mislead the chancellor by claiming the Recreation Task Force misled students. And this from a guy who only attends lectures to count the "um's" said by the professor (clastime record: 238. That's more than four UPM's).
Three years later, Delta Force is starting to succeed at goals of increasing voter turnout and making it easier for student petitions like the recreation center to become referendums. The problem is that it doesn't like the fruits of their success, because it turns out that some — or most — people disagree with Delta Force about this issue.
Walberg is an Shawnee sophomore in communication studies and political science.
Actually, there are people that say the Delta Force propaganda was more prevalent and more misleading than Recreation Task Force information. So why then, if all interested people had ready and eager access to intense dissenting opinion, did it win by a larger margin than the president and vice president-elect and have more total people vote about the recreation center than about the presidential/vice presidential ticket? The unofficial result packet released by Student Senate showed that more people voted about recreation than about any other issue
Jenkins's position, according to Monday's Kansan, said that there wasn't enough voter turnout to make the vote legitimate.
then we would say the same for citywide busing, hate crime legislation, all senator seats and theoretically everything that senate did or will do next year.
Furthermore, more people voted this year than in the past five years, so it should be more indicative of student sentiment than most of the KU community has ever seen.
Feedback
Jenkins believes that if he gets 2000 petition signers, he can convince the chancellor to oppose the proposal.
Evaluation quote causes confusion
was quoted as saying that the faculty were "so jaded on that (open student evaluations) that it's not going to happen."
In the April 20 University Daily Kansan, Korb Maxwell, student body president-elect.
I am confused. If Maxwell means that the faculty continue to stand on principle
and uphold academic integrity, then he and I are in total accord. If not, then I am clueless as to his meaning.
Elizabeth C. Banks associate professor of classics