WEDNESDAY APRIL 30, 2009
4A = THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
ONE DINER FRI DAILY KANSAS #64
OPINION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2003
TALKTOUS
Kristi Henderson editor
864-4854 or khendarson@kansan.com
--managing editors
864 4854 jcefont.com/kmean.com and
jhmn.com
Leah Shaffer
readers' representative
864-4810 or lahaffer@kansan.com
Amanda Sears and Lindsay Hanson opinion editors 864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson
Eric Keltting
business manager
864-4358 or adsales.kansan.com
Sarah Jantz
retail sales manager
864-4358 or adsale@kansan.com
Malecol Gibson
general manager and news adviser
864-7667 or mailbison@kansan.com
Matt Fisher sales and marketing adviser 864-7666 or mfisher@kanan.com
Free for All
Call 864-0500
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com
Hey, I'm pro-life, too, but that whole display in front of Wescoc was just too much. It shouldn't be allowed on campus and it shouldn't be allowed in our society. If anything, that was obscenity.
My friend and I were trying to decide whether or not to go to class this morning, so we decided to flip a coin. Heads, we don't go; tails, we skip.
I'm staring at 15 packages of Marshmallow Peeps. In each package are three crates. In each crate reside five Peeps. That's 210 total Peeps. Divide 210 Peeps by four dudes, and that's 52.5 Peeps per dude.
of the ruling lies in the Court's supposed concern to protect us from intimidation, while simultaneously giving a ruling that would give way to the intimidation of exercising our expressive freedom.
I'm watching VH-1's / Love the Eighties television show. I was born in 1981, and that's the year they're covering today. If I'm not in there as one of the most memorable events of 1981, I'm gonna be pissed.
图
I was just wondering how bad it really sounds when I say my Peeps are hard.
Just hoping everyone is watching Lucy Camden's wedding on Seventh Heaven It's a good one.
图
Lucy Camden has a mad case of postcoitus bliss.
If we're going to have an 18-percent tuition increase, I'd better see twice as many chocolate doughnuts at the Union on Mondays or else.
I'm sitting in the Melrose Court apartments right now and I'm looking out the window and I can see the Phi Delt house and there are a bunch of Phi Delts out playing Frisbee, and I'm wondering — why aren't they inside watching Lucy Camden's wedding on *Saventh Heaven*? I mean, seriously.
of the ruling lies in the Court's supposed concern to protect us from intimidation, while simultaneously giving a ruling that would give way to the intimidation of exercising our expressive freedom.
My boobs are itchy. If I scratch them, is that sexy or weird?
Introducing the Midwest Metal Mullet ake, the Scorpion, the Bitchin' Vixen and the Hello Cleveland.
Did I just enter a time warp, or did the Real World/Road Rules Battle of the Sexes just start over?
简
I would just like the parking department guy to know that I definitely outsmarted you and beat you back to my car, so screw you, KU Parking!
癌
There's 24-cent hamburgers at McDonald's on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, so everyone needs to get down there and get some.
A couple of weeks ago, cocaine was the silent drug. Today, chlamydia is the silent epidemic. You guys really have to get better headline writers.
图
NAGLE'S VIEW
Joseph M. Nagle for The University Daily Kansan
PERSPECTIVE
Court ruling threatens free speech
GUEST COMMENTARY
Question: Which form of expression is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?
A) Desecrating a religious artifact, such as the Star of David.
B) Burning an effigy of the president.
B) Burning an effigy of the president.
C) Ripping a photo of Osama bin Laden to shreds.
Ben McCarthy opinion@kansan.com
D) All of the above.
The correct answer is "D." They all exemplify symbols being used as a means of free expression. According to the Constitution, that constitutes a level of protection from the government.
Recently, the Supreme Court made its ruling in Virginia v. Black, deciding to uphold a 50-year-old Virginia law banning cross burning. At a time when students here at the University of Kansas use symbols to express unpopular sentiments concerning the war in Iraq, there appears to be little concern with how this ruling might threaten expression through unpopular symbols.
Pioneering communication theorist Kenneth Burke defined Homo sapiens as symbol-using animals. Symbols are based on an ever-evolving social agreement, not resemblance or cause, and therefore are arbitrary in nature. Every act of communication — talking, walking and flying a flag — is both speech and conduct. The Supreme Court's past interpretations of the First Amendment seem to agree with Burke's position. They have extended protections beyond
"speech" to include expression or "expressive conduct" that is associated with a political attitude.
The Court's ruling does little to reduce methods of intimidation, while signaling willingness by the nine justices to ban symbols to which they object. The irony
A cross burning is clearly an example of conduct that can be interpreted as having political attitude. Often, the burning cross is a ceremonial symbol used in festivities conjured up by bigots covered in white sheets.
The Court ruled against expression calculated to inflict injury and cause disturbance. Expression with the intent to communicate unlawful violence has also not received protection from the Court.
How much longer will Americans enjoy the freedom to express dissent with this Court's attitude toward the First Amendment? Whether it is burning a cross, carrying an anti-war protest sign or burning a flag, these symbols of expression (and dissent from popular opinion) are threatened by the Court's recent ruling.
Justice Clarence Thomas, an African American who was born and raised in Georgia, argued that intimidation and terrorizing was the only communication present in the burning cross. Thomas' passion is understandable, but his ruling in the case contradicts earlier rulings that he and the court have made. In 1992, he joined the Court in invalidating the St. Paul cross-burning ordinance in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul. Three years later, he joined the Court majority in allowing the Ku Klux Klan to place a cross in a public square during Christmas season, acknowledging that an Ohio law made the square a "public forum" for the expression of citizens' opinions.
This highly unpopular form of communication allowed a group of people to express a powerful message. This decision carries a number of differing interpretations for the global community. Whether it is desecrating a religious artifact, burning an effigy of the president or burning a photo of Osama bin Laden, all of these examples of symbolic speech deserve equal constitutional protection. We must protect freedom of expression for those we despise or else we cannot protect it at all.
McCarthy is a Lenexa graduate student.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Anti-Roy backlash 'shall pass'
Reactions to Roy's decision to leave have been running the gamut of emotion.
There are those who wish him well and thank him for the memories of his 15 years. There are those whose anger has caused them to lash out. These outbursts have taken many forms, from wearing certain T-shirts to chalking obscene messages in opposition to Roy on campus to ranting in the Free for All. While these may not be the classiest of moves, we should refrain from being overly critical of those who feel the need to express frustration.
After all, this is the biggest blow to the University that most of us have witnessed. Collective feelings of resentment are as valid as any other reaction. The University of Kansas is, after all, a university that revolves around basketball. It hardly seems appropriate to condemn in harsh terms those who have hurt feelings after this.
That said, let's be happy the worst is behind us. We have a new coach. It is still KU basketball, after all, and this, too, shall pass.
Matt Pirotte for the editorial board
PERSPECTIVE
Individuals' actions toward world problems a must
People today have little sense of duty to others. As someone who gathers political research over the phone, I tend to relearn this lesson on a daily basis.
COMMENTARY
Many don't even bother to let me explain the topic of the academic research before hanging up. I've been screamed at, mocked, cursed at and even had one woman tell me that the University of Kansas should be burned.
Matthew Dunavan opinion@kansan.com
But it doesn't end with phone calls. The mentality of "I don't know you, so it's OK not to be nice to you" is prevalent even here at the University. Who here can honestly say that they've never seen people standing in the middle of a crosswalk on campus, talking to each other and not moving? I've seen them do it while vehicular traffic waited for them to finish their conversation.
The real issue is the nature of the obligation that we owe one other, as a moral
duty. The people who insult me on the phone and who stop to talk in crosswalks must believe that we owe one another very little. But surely this is not the case.
All over the world, people are starving to death. People are dying because they lack medical care and shelter. Right now, we have the power to ease and, in some cases, prevent the suffering of people all over the world. Charitable organizations donate resources.
people and time to help solve the problems of the world.
Is helping people in this way simply a good thing we are not obligated to do? No. Distance is an irrelevant factor. If they were 10 feet from you, you'd say it was an obligation. If they were 1,000 feet away, you'd say the same thing. Distance does not make something less of an obligation; it only makes it harder to fulfill your duty. That's what charitable organizations are for. They extend the reach of every human on the planet to reach every other human without much difficulty.
If we can prevent suffering without giving up something more morally significant than the suffering we could
We all must do more. That some people do not pitch in is just as irrelevant as distance. You would still regard it as an obligation to help someone next door if others could do it just as easily.
stop, we are obliged to do it. This seems to be a relatively uncontroversial moral precept for most, but what would it mean for the way we live? Stop and think about it.
Every dollar you spend on a beer is a dollar that didn't provide someone with food. Every dollar for a new CD or piece of clothing would have given a young child the needed medical care to prevent a common childhood illness that kills him.
Can we ever totally end suffering? No. The real issue is whether we can ease it. The answer is a decided "yes." Not to do so is a grave moral wrong.
I won't plead with people to be charitable. I demand that we live up to our obligations as humans to rectify the wrongs of this world.
0
Dunavan is a Topeka senior in political science and philosophy.
2