4A = THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
OPINION
FRIDAY,FEBRUARY 21,2003
EDITORIAL BOARD
Athletic stipends only help top teams
The proponents of the stipends also fail to acknowledge the benefits that athletes are already receiving. A college education is not cheap. A four-year education at a Division I school can cost up to $120,000. For an underprivileged student, athletics are often his ticket to a college education and a promising career. A scholarship also includes room and board expenses, which typically costs between $4,000 and $10,000 per year depending on the university.
Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns has proposed legislation that would require the University of Nebraska to pay football players a $100 monthly stipend. The legislation comes as a result of accusations that major college athletics programs are exploiting athletes.
Furthermore, the possibility of paying players provides additional competitive advantages to schools with large athletic budgets. Football is typically the most vital money-maker in college athletics. Nebraska, fueled by its football team, has an athletic budget of $39 million per year, while KU's budget is only $23 million. With a $39 million budget, it is no surprise that the call to pay players comes from Husker territory rather than from a state with more modest athletic spending. As Major League Baseball has proven, money wins championships. College sports doesn't need its own version of the New York Yankees.
This argument is based on several fallacies, one being that universities are generating enormous profits from athletic programs without any reciprocation for the student athletes. According to the NCAA, less than 10 percent of college athletics programs are able to generate enough revenue through ticket sales and television to break even on expenses. The remainder of the cost is subsidized by student fees and state aide. Thus the stipends would not come out of profits but rather would be paid by students or state governments.
Paying college athletes is unnecessary and impractical. College athletes are already properly compensated and efforts to pay them merely attempts to further exert the dominance of perennial powerhouses such as Nebraska.
Title IX, which requires equal opportunities for female athletes, provides another barrier for the payment of student athletes If a university were to pay football or men's basketball players (who typically generate the most revenue), they would also be required to pay female athletes. Nebraska has more than 100 football players on its roster. The university would be required to pay female athletes from several unprofitable sports simply to comply with Title IX
Ben Ross for the editorial board
Kristi Henderson
editor
864-4854 or khenderson@kansan.com
TALK TO US
Jenna Goepfart and Justin Henning managing editors
864-4854 or jgoepfert@kansan.com and jhenneng@kansan.com
864-4854 OF KILN
Leah Shaffer
readers' representative
864-4810 or lahffer@kansan.com
Amanda Sears and Lindsey Hanson
editorial opinion
844-927-4342 amanda.com
Eric Kelting business manager 864-4358 or adsales@kansan.com
Sarah Jantz
retail sales manager
864-4358 or adsales.kansan.com
Jennifer Wade for The University Daily Kansan
Defend evolution publicly to avoid mass acceptance of creationist theory
Malcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
864-7567 or mgibson@kansan.com
Matt Fisher
sales and marketing adviser
864-7666 or mfisher@kansan.com
Matt Fisher
REALITY CHECK
PERSPECTIVE
COMMENTARY
Creationists are evolving. "Intelligent design," the contention that life on earth is the intentional product of a higher power rather than the result of naturalistic laws, is one of creationism's latest adaptations.
Rachel Robson opinion@kansan.com
Scientists like me ignore intelligent-design attacks on our work at our peril.
Intelligent-design philosophers argue that evolution fails to account for the intricacy and complexity of living things. They assert that evolutionary biology is blinded by its naturalistic view of the universe: Like all who rely on the scientific method to learn about our world, biologists study material causes and effects, and not supernatural ones. if it weren't for biologists' closed-mindedness, intelligent design fans allege, there would be scads of research supporting their theology. Occam's Razor is the principle in which all other things being equal—the simplest explanation for something is the best. Inverting this axiom, partisans of intelligent design see the lack of scientific support for their position as evidence of a vast conspiracy against them, and not as an indication that evidence to bolster their claims does not, in fact, exist.
There is no physical evidence that life on Earth was consciously designed by God, according to University of Kansas Medical Center biochemist Mark Fisher. He said such a proposition wasn't even scientific.
But plenty of evidence shows that the intelligent design movement was consciously designed by creationists seeking to destroy a science they saw as sinful.
"You can't observe it, and you can't test it," he said.
This strategy, which has been phenomenally successful, was outlined in Barbara Forrest's 2001 essay, "The Wedge at Work: How intelligent design creationism is wedging its way into the cultural and academic mainstream."
lowing a nasty divorce. A dozen years ago, Johnson conceived a strategy that would imbue creationism with an aura of scientific rigor. By convincing the public that there was a scientific debate about humanity's origins, Johnson and his groupies could pretend that evolution failed on rational, rather than religious, grounds. The credulous public would then be likely to approve the teaching of Johnson and company's theology in public schools, which otherwise would be protected by the constitutional separation of church and state.
Intelligent design was the brainchild of Philip Johnson, an attorney who converted to fundamentalist Christianity fol-
In 1999, the intelligent design strategy was successful in helping to convince the Kansas Board of Education to "deemphasize" evolution in its science standards. One election and many jokes at our state's expense later, our board of education was again dominated by pro-science representatives. But after last fall's election, the board is again split evenly between pro- and anti-evolution members. Intelligent design supporters have already lobbied Kansas school board members to support their cause, when science standards are revised again
in two years.
Scientists in Kansas cannot wait two years to begin fighting this inevitable battle. As Johnson noted in an address to a National Religious Broadcasters meeting three years ago, an offensive strategy is much more effective than a defensive one. That's why his intelligent-design assaults on science have worked so well.
"Scientists have been above the fray, because it doesn't get you anywhere," said Steve Shawl, KU physicist.
Shawl entered the fray, in a small way, by adding his name to a list of 225 scientists named "Steve" who support evolution. That list, a mockery of an alleged list of 100 scientists who reject evolution distributed by intelligent-design supporters, was unveiled on the National Center for Science Education Web site Monday.
But scientists have been loathe to pursue an offensive strategy against creationists, or even to vigorously mount a defensive one.
Kansas scientists shouldn't forfeit the fight over evolution to religious zealots. By waiting for a new round of attacks against which we must defend ourselves, that's what we do. Scientists, take a cue from the creationists and develop your offense.
Shawl is correct in thinking that debating creationists about evolution will do little to convince creationists. But it will do a lot to convince the public. Scientists, by staying above the fray and refusing to engage creationists, let creationists win the public debate by default.
If creationists can adapt, so can we.
Robson is a Baldwin City graduate student in pathology at the University of Kansas Medical Center.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
bohl attack unjustified
Joey Berlin's hatchet job on Al Bohl (Kansan, Feb. 20) starts with the phrase "I've never had to deal with Al Bohl" before telling us all what a jerk the guy is. As someone who has actually had an interaction with Dr. Bohl, I found the column bordering on libel.
In my capacity as the coach of KU's Women's Lacrosse Club, I wrote to Bohl earlier this semester regarding an athletic facility problem we were having. Being affiliated with a club sport, I did not expect much to come of my letter (dealing with the gripes of club sports is not in Bohl's job description), but I did want to make my opinion clear. The very same day the letter was dropped off at his office he attempted to reach me by phone. We had a very pleasant conversation, and he directed me to other staff members of the Athletics Department I should speak to. No one could believe that an athletic director would take the time to follow up in person, let alone during the weekend. Some jerk, huh? The fact that I am writing this letter in his
defense, considering that my original letter was from a disgruntled coach who was quite ready to dislike him, should make clear that I think the athletic director is both professional and personable, contrary to Mr. Berlin's assumption of what "everyone says about Bohl."
If Dr. Bohl's secretary gets a thank you card from Joey Berlin for deflecting him away from interviewing Dr. Bohl, I think she should get a second thank you card from her boss.
Ridiculous anti-Americanism
Dave Wiley, women's lacrosse coach
After reading Matthew Dunavan's column "U.S. plan to attack Iraq opposes basic principles of democracy," (Kansan, Feb. 17, 2003), there are a few observations I'd like to make. First, Dunavan says that "only a handful of nations are willing to voice support for a U.S. plan to attack Iraq." I was wondering if he was aware that, according to CNN, a total of 34, yes 34, nations have voiced military or at least
moral support for such a war. True, public opinion in most of those countries is against the United States, but so what. I'm not sure that Dunavan realizes the United States does not bow down to the public opinion of the rest of the world. The United States is a sovereign nation and the people of the United Staes are in overwhelming support of our president.
Dunavan goes on to state that the "supposed difference" between the United States and the axis of evil states is the fact that we are naturally right. "Supposed difference?" Of course the difference is that the United States is right. That kind of anti-Americanism is preposterous. I have a suggestion to Dunavan, go live in Iraq for a couple of years and tell us if you still think there is a moral equivalence between them and us. The United States is not a dictatorship and George W. Bush is not a dictator, no matter how you try to spin it. Dunavan's notion that Bush and Saddam Hussein are one and the same is ludicrous.
Nathan Clark, Kingman sophomore
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.
-
Regarding the imperfect proportions article: from a guy's perspective, I find smaller breasts attractive. They tend to add to the grace of the female body.
图
-
This thanks goes out to the KU students and residents on Indiana and 11th Street who helped me and my two children in my car accident Sunday morning. Thank you very, very much. It was much appreciated.
Assuming you're down with having intimate relations with your clone, would this be an asexual relationship or a homosexual relationship?
When there are five buses stacked up in front of Snow and another one going around the Chi-O fountain, headed for Daisy Hill, and no buses going the opposite direction, you know there's something wrong with the bus schedule.
尿
---
I just want to tell the girl who rolled down the hill in front of the Chi Omega fountain that I'm sorry for her embarrassment.
题
Interesting: protest rallies about sodomy and the upcoming war. Both are good ways to screw someone.
I just watched the MTV preview for Fraternity Life and Sorority Life, and my god does the Greek system inspire arrogance.
-
图
Here's the thing: Lucy and Ricky slept in separate beds. When they got into the same bed, Little Ricky was born. Everyone needs to practice safe sex. Abstinence is the only 100 percent birth control.
-
I was just wondering if anyone thought it was possible for me to sell my roommate on E-bay?
The University Daily Kansar's new slogan should be "Hey, what do you expect? It's free."
Let's crap in the chapter room and make the pledges clean it up. It'll be fun!
图
I can easily drive cross country stoned. I can hardly drive across Lawrence drunk. Yay for anti-marijuana commercials and yay for illegal pot.
SUBMITTING LETTERS AND GUEST COLUMNS
The Kansan welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni.
The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Amanda Sears or Lindsay Hanson at 864-4924 or e-mail at opinion@kansan.com.If you have general questions or comments, email the readers' representative at readersep@kansan.com.
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
Maximum Length:
Maximum Length:
650 word limit
Include:
Author's name
Class, hometown (student)
Position (faculty member)
Also:
The Kansan will not print guest columns that
attack another columnist.
LETTER GUIDELINES
**Maximum Length:**
200 word limit
**Include:**
Author's name
Author's telephone number
Class, hometown (student)
Position (faculty member)
SUBMITTQ
E-mail:
opinion@kansan.com
Hard copy:
Kansan newsroom
111 Stauffer-Flint
2