Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Ann Premer, *Editor* Jamie Holman, *Business manager*
Gerry Doyle, *Managing editor* Sara Cropper, *Retail sales manager*
Angie Kuhn, *Managing editor* Dan Simon, *Sales and marketing adviser*
Tom Eblen, *General manager, news adviser* Justin Knupp, *Technology coordinator*
Thursday, April 22, 1999
The Chicago Tribune
Editorials
Legislation against hate crimes would restore societal imbalance
Every day, minority groups in this country live in fear. It is a sad fact, but fortunately, there is some protection in existing federal hate crime laws.
Unfortunately, that blanket of protection does not cover people who are persecuted because of their gender, sexual orientation or disability. Also as unfortunate, the law only allows hate-crime prosecution if the victim were exercising a federally protected right, such as voting or attending school.
The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 1999, which is in committees in both houses of Congress, aims to fix these shortcomings. Congress should pass this bill, which President Clinton has promised to sign
The laws would protect minorities who live in fear of persecution motivated by hate.
into law
Some say hate crime legislation is unjust because it singles out certain groups to protect. In truth, however, it only singles out groups that already have been singled out by people bent on their persecution.
When a person who is in one of the protected groups walks down the street, he or she faces an entire class of crime that non-minorities never face. Hate crime legislation.
rather than upsetting the balance of rights, tries to restore rights to those groups that have the balance of an unjust society tipped against them.
But just as important as the actual prosecution of crimes under these laws is the message sent by passing them. The message says the government and the people of the United States have no tolerance for hate-based crime and persecution.
With any luck, new hate crime legislation will make someone think twice before committing another hate-motivated atrocity. Regardless, such laws will breed a more tolerant society.
Nathan Willis for the editorial board
Prosecuting hate leads to quagmire
The federal hate crime legislation now under consideration in Congress is ineffective and should not have any weight in a court of law.
Only a handful of people can and have been prosecuted under this law for several reasons. The first is that it is almost impossible to show an absolute motive. In a murder case, all the prosecution needs to do is show one or more plausible motives. These motives need to be obvious enough that they eliminate reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.
When prosecuting under the hate crime legislation, however, the prosecution needs to show that race was the primary motive. If a crime is not motivated by race but nevertheless is committed against a person of a different ethnic background, it can be prosecuted as a hate crime. This undue prosecution could lead to additional strains between races.
The vague hate crime legislation is unconstitutional and will result in few convictions.
Like it or not, hate is a constitutionally protected right. People are protected by the First Amendment when using racial slurs and becoming members of groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or anti-Semitic organizations. These groups espouse hate, but now, if one of the members is convicted of a crime, he can be prosecuted under the hate crime law just
because he is a member of a constitutionally protected organization.
The hate crime legislation itself also is unconstitutional. The Fifth Amendment says that no one can be tried twice for the same crime, yet that is what the hate crime laws accomplish. If a murder is committed against a minority, the person accused of the murder can be tried under the hate crime law and the murder laws. This is double jeopardy and is unconstitutional.
Hate crime legislation remains broad and vague. With those two combinations, very few people can actually be convicted. Combined with violating constitutional rights and being unconstitutional in and of itself, hate crime legislation should not exist.
Kansan staff
Ryan Koerner ... Editorial
Jeremy Doherty ... Associate editorial
Aaron Marvin ... Neus
Laura Roddy ... Neus
Melissa Ngo ... Neus
Aaron Knopf ... Online
Erin Thompson ... Sports
Marc Sheforgen ... 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
Tara Kelly, dissenting
News editors
Advertising managers
Matt Lopez . . . Special sections
Jennifer Patch . . . Campus
Mieah Kafitz . . . 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 real leader has no need to lead — he is content to point the way.”
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.
-Henry Miller
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 Stufer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Ryan Koerner or Jerome Doherty at 864-4924.
If you have general questions or comments,
e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com)
or call 864-4924.
Media less responsible for deaths than schools
Perspective
I m responsible for the school shootings in Colorado.
At least that's what a friend said as we watched the horrifying event unfold on television
"Me?" I asked with disbelief.
"You," he said and pointed his finger at me. "The media."
A police spokesman on the scene of the shooting also accused journalists.
As reporters shoved cameras and microphones in his face, he said that the media attention given to past shootings made kids more likely to seek glory by blowing people away
Eric Weslander opinion@kansan.com
By this logic, we can blame media for every thing wrong with the world.
For example, media coverage of Hitler and of Rwandan genocide caused Slobodan Milosevic to try to rid Kosovo of Albanians. Oh, and the recent U.S. Embassy bombings weren't caused by political strife but by the fame of past bombers such as Timothy McVeigh.
It sounds silly when put this way.
High school students in other countries have access to U.S. media, but it keeps happening here and not there.
Of course the ruthless killers in Littleton, Colo., got some ideas from media, but ideas come from everywhere. Besides, mere exposure to past killings is not enough to make someone decide to kill.
Owning a gun is not enough to make someone decide to kill, nor is alienation from peers. a
"bad family life," access to violent movies or video games, or even hatred of a group of people.
Instead, it's some combination of these and other elements. And in all recent cases, the high school or junior high school is the place where the elements come together — and explode.
Most importantly, they feel that murder is the best way to resolve their problems. They don't want to talk to the school counselor.
We must teach to the very soul of the American high school experience to find out why. More and more students obviously feel extreme anger and bitterness toward the institutions that are supposed to help them. Their peers and teachers have become enemies.
This could happen anywhere — even a small, peaceful community, especially a small, peaceful community. The schools in small, peaceful communities don't have any security measures. They will soon, or on their administrator are
They will, soon, or their administrators are idiots.
Maybe my friend was right in saying that media coverage was the main cause of these shootings—we'll never know because the cowardly killers took their own lives, too.
But chastising the media won't prevent something like this from happening again, and it sure won't prevent the news crews from rushing to the scene when — God forbid — it does happen again.
There's no way of knowing who will kill or whv. But where is another story.
The place in the community most in need of change is not the local newspaper or television station. It's the high school.
Weslander is a Floyds Knobs, Ind., senior in journalism.
Tobacco lawsuits flippant
Recently, another smoker won another big lawsuit against another big tobacco company. The California woman claimed that the tobacco company should have warned her of
the risks of cigarette smoking. The jury agreed with her and returned a huge verdict, of roughly $51 million. Although the money won't do anything for her inoperable lung cancer, apparently it satisfies her need to hold someone responsible for what happened to her. Unfortunately, she forgot to allocate some of the blame to herself.
Let me make perfectly clear that I'm not taking the side of the tobacco compa-
Robert K. Funk
opinion@kansan.com
nies. I think it's embarrassingly clear that through the years they have suppressed a lot of information about the dangerous effects of nicotine and that they are primarily concerned with making money, despite the harm that their products cause.
My father started smoking heavily in his teens, and he didn't quit until he ended up in an operating room a few years ago. An angioplasty and a healthy attitude have been able to reverse a lot of the damage that was done to him, but many others are not so lucky. In addition, many young people start smoking every day. The recent trend seems to be to blame everything on Big Tobacco. In fact, it has become quite lucrative. But is this honest?
We've always known that smoking excessively is bad for us. Clearly, people in the past weren't privy to the same amount of information that is available to us today, but we've always known
that tobacco is potentially dangerous. Truth be told, tobacco really isn't that bad for you, if you use your head. You can smoke a few cigarettes at the bar, or maybe a cigar now and then, and it's probably not going to hurt you. However, if you don't use your head, things can easily get out of hand. If you choose to smoke three packs a day year after year, you're going to get sick. That shouldn't surprise anyone.
Now, in our litigation-happy society, the smokers are starting to assume the role of victim. They claim that they aren't responsible for their actions, but were merely slaves to their addiction. They pass the responsibility for their choices and actions on to the tobacco companies and their deep pockets.
There's nothing wrong with nailing Big Tobacco. They deserve it.
However, the money should be going to things such as anti-smoking campaigns and educational programs. It should help pay for the tremendous amounts of money that smoking costs our nation in health care every year. It shouldn't be given to these self-made victims. Every time a jury awards a huge verdict, it encourages someone else to file a lawsuit. You can't blame people for jumping on the gravy train. However, we certainly can blame the jurors and legislators who play along. When we're asked to serve as jurors on such cases, we can make smokers take responsibility for their actions. With regards to the lawmakers, we can vote them out of office if they don't hold support legislation that holds smokers responsible for their actions. We have the capability to stop smokers from passing the buck, and its time that we do so.
Funk is a Scott City graduate student in business and law.
Feedback
Circulating gossip violates rights
This letter is addressed to all students regarding recent information that has come to my attention indicating that some students have been involved with circulating personal information about other students which may constitute a violation of University policies.
Before circulating negative information about others, students should be mindful that making false and damaging statements about someone can give rise to personal liability for defaedom.
Such potential liability should cause a responsible student to exercise caution before deciding to circulate by various means, negative information about others.
All students of the University are subject to the provisions of the University's policies on sexual and racial harassment. These policies can be found on pages 24A and 25A of the Spring 1999 Timetable. Those policies prohibit conduct and comments which create an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment. Violations of these policies may result in sanctions and loss of privileges under the terms of
Clothesline Project misrepresented
David A. Ambler Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs
Students who have questions regarding these matters or feel their rights under these policies my have been violated, may contact the University's Equal Opportunity Office, the Dean of Student's Office or the University Ombudsman.
We are writing in response to the article on the Clothesline Project from Thursday, April 15th. We had a few problems.
the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities. The sanctions could include suspension or expulsion, exclusion from University programs and loss of other privileges including the use of e-mail systems.
First, we feel that our language was misrepresented. The article and the photo caption talk about victims of violence. We would like to clarify that the Clothesline Project is T-shirts designed by survivors of violence and by friends and families of victims who have died. This is an important distinction. Survivor denotes power and strength; the power and strength of women and
It is also unfortunate that the article said the Clothesline Project would be shown Thursday, when it was shown Friday.
As much as we appreciate media coverage of the Clothesline Project, we have been made aware of some possible sensitivity issues. We received a complaint from a woman photographed while viewing the display. She was upset that the photographer had not asked her permission.
children who live to tell about their experiences.
Viewing the Clothesline is a very personal and private issue for many people and respect from the media is essential. Regardless of the subject matter, photographers need to realize the importance of asking permission.
We would also like to clarify that the Clothesline Project is not through Emily Taylor Resource Center but is an independent community project. Also, thanks to all participants of the project.
Jennifer McAdam
Kansas City, Mo., senior
Clothesline Project co-coordinator
Jessica Postier
Overland Park junior
Clothesline Project co-coordinator