OPINION
University Daily Kansan, April 30, 1985
Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kansan (USPN 650 640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer Flint Hall. Lawen, Kansan 660 640 daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, halldays and finals periods. Second class postage paid at Lawen, Kansan 660 443 Subscriptions by mail are $1 for six months or one cent per day. Third class postage paid at Lawen, Kansan 660 443 Subscriptions are $1 and are paid through the student activity fee POSTMASTER. Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Staffer Flint Hall. Lawen, Kansan 660 443
MATT DEGALAN
Editor
DJANE LUBER SUSAN WORTMAN Managing Editor Editorial Editor
ROB KARWATH Campus Editor
LYNNE STARK Business Manager
SUSANNE SHAW
DUNCAN CALHOUN MARY BERNICA
Retail Sales National Sales
Manager Manager
SUSANNE SHAW General Manager and News Adviser
DAVID NIXON Campus Sales Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Sales and Marketing Adviser
Light in the tunnel
When helicopters lifted off the roof of the besieged U.S. embassy in Saigon 10 years ago yesterday, most KU students were in elementary school. They were too young, perhaps, to understand the stark images of a panicked city close to collapse, too young to understand the undeniable message that the communist takeover drove home to their elders.
The United States — for whatever reasons — had failed. Conservatives called it a failure of will and an unwillingness to project U.S. military strength to preserve liberty and fight communism. Liberals called it a failure of principle and an unwillingness to recognize a situation where U.S. support was unwanted and ineffective.
The reasons for failure — and indeed U.S. involvement in the war itself — were and are unclear. Only the magnitude of the failure and its aftershocks are easy to pin down.
The years of fighting left 38,000 U.S. soldiers dead and 300,000 wounded. More than 1 million Vietnamese soldiers and citizens died, and the instability that followed left the door open in Cambodia for the coming to power of the Khmer Rouge, a regime that killed nearly 2 million of its own citizens. If the human toll isn't cause enough for remorse, consider that the U.S. government spent $250 billion on the war.
Historically, people in the United States weren't used to failure. Sweeping, righteous concepts like manifest destiny and keeping the world safe for democracy always had guided the nation. On April 29, 1975, the nation first learned the limits of its destiny, its power and, to some extent, its righteousness.
Vietnam's shadow is long and many U.S. leaders have become leery of the dark. Last week Congress wisely rejected President Reagan's request for $14 million in aid to Nicaraguan rebels. Fear of another Vietnam has become a powerful argument in Congress against the use of U.S. military force abroad.
Some, however, refuse to learn from defeat. In Germany between the two world wars, the Nazis insisted that the German army had not lost militarily but had been betrayed by weak-willed politicians
Two weeks ago President Reagan commented on Vietnam: "Well, the truth of the matter is, we did have victory. And, incidentally, could I just say, one complaint I have — we continue to talk about losing that war. We didn't lose that war. We won virtually every engagement."
It is long past time that the nation admit its failures and learn from its mistakes. History has shown the danger of doing otherwise.
Skewing juries
The U.S. Supreme Court will again tackle the question of whether the Constitution allows prosecutors to use their automatic challenges in jury selection to exclude minorities from sitting onuries when the defendant is of the same race.
This is a long-standing controversy over the traditional power of prosecutors and defense lawyers to remove a limited number of people from sitting on a jury without stating any reason.
In the case accepted for review, an all-white jury convicted James Kirkland Batson of burglary.
Four blacks were in the potential jury pool, but all four were removed by the prosecutor.
Batson argued that the prosecutor's exclusion of all blacks deprived him of his Sixth Amendment right to be tried by a fair cross-section of the community.
In 1965 the Supreme Court ruled that such peremptory challenges did not violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection unless prosecutors systematically used that power to exclude minorities.
But in 1975 the Supreme Court said all defendants had a right to trial before "a fair cross-section of the community."
The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld Batson's conviction, saying there was no proof of systematic exclusion of blacks by local prosecutors.
However the issue extends beyond systematic exclusions of minorities. A trial before "a fair cross-section of the community" means one should be able to have people of the same race on the jury that is deciding one's fate.
The traditional use of peremptory challenges by both the defense and prosecution is a proper way for each side to structure a sympathetic jury.
But excluding someone because of his race should not be allowed. It undermines the whole concept of a trial by a jury of one's peers. Letting race be the dictator of the jury system could skew the entire judicial system, and that leaves too much room for bigotry to define justice.
The University Daily Kansan invites individuals and groups to submit guest columns. Columns should be typewritten and double-spaced and should not exceed 625 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. Columns can be mailed or brought to the Kansan office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject columns.
GUEST COLUMNS
LET'S SEE... I'LL JUST MAKE A FEW CUTS HERE...
ELIMINATE A FEW PROGRAMS THERE,
AND WELL HAVE THAT NASTY LITTLE DEFICIT REDUCED IN NO TIME!!
But the court protocol that usually prevails apparently did not apply that night.
Against all of the odds
On that particular evening, the player who had been beaten up was allegedly playing against a team of football players — guys who some would argue have learned teamwork and sportsmanship, if they've learned any thing from their sport.
That's when teammates get involved and suggest that the angry players relax and recall that it's just a game.
I haven't been able to get the vision out of my mind for days.
I overheard the guy telling his story to the KU police officer. Others around the gym that night also talked about what had happened, so it wasn't difficult to put together a video and figure out what had gone on.
The guy was big, certainly capable of holding his own on the basketball court. His attire was what most guys out on the court wear - a t-shirt, shorts and gym shoes. And sweat was running on him. It would on anyone who has been running up and down the floor.
As in any competitive sport, tempers occasionally flare on the basketball court. Someone throws a cheap shot or claims that he never committed a foul, and another player can lose control and retaliate with harsh words or quick punch.
But this guy had blood dripping down his face as well. He'd been beaten up on the basketball court at Robinson Gymnasium.
Instead, what these guys showed was the ugly side of sports, the killer instincts that people talk about in school, that people have of athletes.
When the guys described as football players decided to show their version of team spirit and collectively went after the player
MARGARET
SAFRANEK
Staff Columnist
who had wronged them, it wasn't one guy slugging it out with another.
The odds were stacked even higher against the lone player because of the physical size of those beating him up.
Given such circumstances, I wondered, as many people probably would have, why the wlon player's teammates didn't step in? But I'm not sure most of us would have jumped in to such a situation.
According to reports going around Robinson that night, it was several against one — rarely a fair fight under any circumstances.
Yet even though I also may have
refrained from getting involved
had I been a bystander, the scene I
saw will be with me for my years.
What I saw was more than a victim of considerable physical
abuse The guy talking to the policeman had lost more than just a little blood.
He had lost his pride and his self-respect, something that no one else has a right to take away from another individual.
I've no doubts that there are people who will argue that the guy may have deserved what he got, but I do not agree.
Self-respect, pride and a feeling of self-worth take years to develop. But in an evening, they can be taken away.
That's what the guys did when they threw more than their share of punches and kicked a few too many times.
I have hopes that somehow justice will triumph yet and that somehow those who leaped over the boundaries of basketball court etiquette will realize what they did.
The guy who took to the court one evening for a game of basketball and ended up a victim to remember the incident for years.
He hasn't pressed charges against his attackers, and no one is too interested in talking about the altercation for the record.
But at some future date, when these guys are on their own and some one else takes away a little of their self-respect or they're humiliated before colleagues and friends, the night they took away the same things from someone else may come back to haunt them.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Gay hate justified
I was recently asked by a KU professor, “Why do Christians like you oppose the gays?” I suppose many people have wondered about this. Just what is it that motivates followers of Jesus Christ, people who say they love God and are to love God and one’s neighbor, to be so hostile towards homosexuality?
To the editor:
Believe it or not, much of our motivation is theological. Many gays are trying to radically reinterpret the Bible passages that dey homosexuality in an attempt to justify their sexual practices. Then, to suppress dissent to their revisionist theology, they accuse Christians who oppose them of abusing God's word to justify prejudice.
I think Christians should expose this kind of sophistry, not only for the sake of the gays, but also for the sake of the people they are attempting to buoy. And make no mistake, if I say that they are sophisticata 1:18-32 and 1:40-18:32 and 1:40-18:32 and 1:40-18:32 and 1:40-18:32 and 1:40-18:32 and 1:40-18:32 and 1:40-18:32 and 1:40-18:32 and 1:40-18:32
then state that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality, that person is either 1) lying or 2) has musch for brains.
Concerning the charge that Christians are either "singling out" the gays for criticism at the expense of commentary on other social evils, I can speak only for myself. Over the years, I have had letters published on this page concerning presidential elections, abortion, cults and even sorcery. I don't think the gays have any right to point the finger at me just because they have a persecution complex. After all, they are the ones making the issue of their sexuality (GALA Week, Blue Jeans Day, etc.)
A practice that is becoming increasingly common is for gays to tell Christians how to obey their Bibles. RE: “Your are to love me as I am. You are not allowed to judge my sexual practices because only God exists.” What else do these statements, although not in the same sense that the gays intend. What I mean is this. Which is more loving, to warn someone heading
down a dark road that the bridge at the end is washed out or to wave to them as they go by, assuring them that all is well?
In reference to judgment, I must ask. Is it judgment for an ambassadora to convey his masters's decrees? So then, it is judgment for a Christian to tell the gays that God hates their sin?
Modern man has a funny view of Christianity. He wants Christians to be nambyp宾ibles that will never tell him that he is disobedient to God. But his cannot be Followers of Jesus Christ are called to be salt and light and not mud, and that should never let their protest against organized evil be muted because some professors tell them that they are homophobic.
Finally I call on the gays and all others heading down the broad path of destruction, to turn from their evil ways and to call on the name of Jesus for salvation.
Joe Vusich Lawrence resident
A final word to set record straight
Love of country does not exclude vocal opposition
I know, I know. You don't want to read another one of those end-of-the-year columns where the author takes time out to thank everyone who made his university education worthwhile.
Don't worry because this isn't one of them. But before my allotted space is gone this semester, I would like to ask you how much information questions people, repeatedly ask me.
Number one. No, I am not a communist, a spokesman for the Russians or anything resembling that.
Next to the brutal and cowardly South African white supremist government, it is, in my mind, the worst system on earth.
DOUG
FARAH
There can never be any excuse made for a system that has brought misery and dispair to millions of people. It is repulsive that a system fears change so greatly that it will go to any lengths, including imprisonment, torture and concentration camps, to maintain the status quo.
Staff Columnist
Secondly, I love the United States. While I have lived many years; overseas, I am a U.S. citizen and not ashamed to admit it.
This is the crux of the matter. Many people seem to think that because I disagree with official U.S. government statements, communistic or terribly unpatriotic.
I don't consider myself to be either. But when the United States takes steps in its foreign policy that make it difficult to distinguish between this country and the Soviet Union, I get worried.
President Reagan and Secretary of State George Shulz have consistently called into question the patriotism of the United States in policy, especially in Central America.
The FBI has gone so far as to begin questioning, at the request of the CIA, U.S. citizens who travel to Nicaragua.
In one case they photocoped the contents of a U.S. citizen's address, book and went to the places of employment and residences of the people listed to question them and asked whether they had "terrorist connections."
It is this increasing secrecy deception and intimidation that has many of us worried. But this is also a common defense used in being used on misinformation and lies.
Ultimately, I think, we cannot commit abuses and finance atrocities in another country without wounding our own society.
When lies and deception began to govern U.S. policy in Vietnam, the country became more divided than at any time since the Civil War. The Nixon administration went to absurd lengths to maintain secret, and adult, information about administration seems to be falling into the same pattern.
It is the very openness of this society that sets it apart from many other countries. It is the freedom to argue, discuss and protest without fear or retaliation for other government agencies. That is at the foundation of this society.
We do it because we love this country and think we have the right to voice our opinions on issues that affect our lives and our children's lives.
Those of us who not only protest but fight for the right to protest, do so in a most American and patriotic tradition.
We do it because we think that backing terrorist thugs fighting a legal government is not the way to promote democracy in Nicaragua.
We do it because we are the ones who would be asked to fight and die for a policy that we think is terribly misguided.
And most of we do it because we feel we may be able to change and redirect things we don't like. We think we can make a difference.
Phil Khery, recently retired editorial writer for the Los Angeles Times's editorship is the stiffer drive in nature. Sex is only a weak second.
The Reagan administration seems to be having a hard time keeping its censorship drive in check. Perhaps it is easier to harass and denigrate opponents than rationally defend its Central American policy.
But the urge to sensor must be kept in check if the United States is to keep from emulating the worst aspects of its enemies.
Otherwise we will wake up to find in the mineral words of Pogo. "We were born in a mountain."