OPINION
University Daily Kansan, March 29 1985
Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kansan (USP$ 68-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer Fint Hall, Lawen, Kan $6405, daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer session, excluding Saturday. Sunday, holidays and final periods Second-class postage paid at Lawen, Kan $6404. Subscriptions by mail are $14 for six months or $12 for a student $27 in Douglas County and $18 for six months or $13 for a student $28 in Douglas County. BACKMASTER Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Stauffer Fint Hall, Lawen, Kan $6405
MATT DEGALAN Editor
DIANE LUBER SUSAN WORTMAN
Managing Editor Editorial Editor
ROB KARWATH Campus Editor
LYNNE STARK Business Manager
DUNCAN CALHOUN MARY BERNICA
Retail Sales National Sales
Manager Manager
General Manager and News Adviser
DAVID NIXON Campus Sales Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Sales and Marketing Adviser
Speaking out
51
If the 2,500 people in Hoch Auditorium expected Louis Farrakhan to lash out at whites and Jews last night, they left sorely disappointed. The controversial black separatist leader instead made an eloquent, forceful plea for mutual respect between blacks and whites and urged blacks to use economic power and education to raise themselves from poverty and oppression.
poetry of peace," he said. But it hasn't always been that way.
In the 1984 presidential campaign, Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, drew sharp criticism for comments that many viewed as anti-Semitic. He also was criticized for his threats against Milton Coleman, the Washington Post reporter who reported Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" remark.
Last night he defended the threats, saying that blacks needed a way to deal with traitors and stool pigeons.
For the most part, however, Farrakhan spoke of what blacks and whites could do to get along and of what blacks needed to do to gain power and improve their lot in society
needed to do gain power and imply But Farrakhan didn't go through the evening without making a few powerful charges. His target, as the case so often has been, was the press.
He claimed the press had misquoted him and wrongly labeled him as anti-Semitic.
labeled him as an asshole.
It's true that the press has misunderstood Farrakhan, and that some of his quotes may have been taken out of context. But he can't blame the press for all of his troubles. Speaking to a predominantly white audience, he wisely tempered his comments last night.
compliments last night.
In the past, however, he has often used rhetoric laced with race hatred and anti-Semitism. He says he doesn't hate Jews and doesn't admire Hitler, but he has on many occasions shown poor judgment and a willingness to summon dangerous emotions to inspire supporters.
His criticism of Coleman strikes at the heart of the issue. When Coleman reported Jackson's remarks, he was fulfilling his obligation to inform society, not betraying his race. Farrakhan said he supported a free press, yet it seems he would have black reporters hide the truth when it reflects poorly on black leaders.
In several parts of his address, Farrakhan implied strongly that being black was the primary definition of a black person. One's occupation and religious affiliation matter less, and one owes loyalty first to other blacks.
The assumption is understandable in light of the history of mistreatment of blacks in this country, which Farrakhan retold ably. But racial pride is only one dimension of the self-respect he called for - a self-respect that commands the respect of others.
Wishing on stars
People around the world are anxiously watching as events get under way in Geneva, and the superpowers sit down to negotiate an arms control treaty. The talks are evidence of a general warming of relations between the United States and Soviet Union.
Everyone watching has in common an instinctive desire for world peace and personal safety. Soviet Jews, however, have much more at stake in the current U.S.-U.S.S.R. rapprochement process than just an intangible sense of security.
Now the picture for Jews who want to emigrate is bleak. In the first two months of this year only 149 managed to obtain exit visas. Last year only 908 got out of the country. Compared to the 51,300 who emigrated in 1979, the situation is reprehensible.
It's not supposed to be that way. In July 1979, the Final Accord was signed at the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Commonly called the Helsinki Agreement, the Soviet Union endorsed such principles as the free movement of people, ideas and publications in exchange for Western technology and a commitment to the "inviolability" of borders in Eastern Europe.
In effect, the Soviet government was then and still is using human beings as "bargaining chips" with the West in much the same way the Reagan administration uses MX missiles or space weaponry technology to advance its policy.
One Soviet Jew seeking an exit visa aptly described his situation when he said, "We think of ourselves as currency that the Soviet government is keeping to be spent at sometime in the future . . . Nobody asks currency whether it wants to be spent or not, or how."
When other incidents of Soviet behavior — the downing of two unarmed Korean passenger airliners, the shooting of an unarmed, uniformed American serviceman, the mistreatment of Nobel laureate Andre Sakharov, to name but a few — are juxtaposed to the Soviet persecution of its Jewish population, one cannot fail to recognize the Soviet system's inherent disregard for the value of human life.
matter that is regarded as the adversary conditions that the U.S. arms negotiators face in Geneva. While they talk, Soviet Jews hope and wait . . . and dream.
Longwind deserves better
at the beginning of this semester one of my professors, while explaining that his grading system was partially based on attendance, uttered the following:
"I assume that absence cannot be considered a positive contribution to the class, although in some cases, could conceivably be the case."
It loses quite a bit without his acerbic delivery, but I thought it was so funny that I wrote it down in my notes.
As the semester wears on and classroom habits get worse, it occurs to me that the absence of some students probably would be a positive contribution. You've seen a few of them too, no doubt. To refresh your memory, let's do a port of a day in your life on campus. We'll start by visiting the final minutes of your 9:30 a.m. class.
Your professor is a fascinating lecturer. A kindly, white-bearded type, he is eminent in his field and looks the part. At 10:15 a.m., he is just winding into the best part of his lecture. He has begun by laying out the necessary background information, developed his topic and presented his analysis and examples and is now about to bring it all to a masterful conclusion. Pearls of wisdom are about to be bestowed.
"We'll pick it up there next time," the professor yells above the desk. "The assignment for next week is chapter 16. Did everybody hear that?"
Your attention is riveted, but some of the other students seem to have a certain restlessness about them. First one, then several more, check their watches. From the back of the room comes the sound of pencils clicking and notebooks being shut. By 10:18 there is a rising tide of shuffling feet and zipping backpacks.
Your next class is taught by Professor Longwind. We'll drop in a mid-class slump. Professor Longwind's lecture is less than
HARRY CROCKETT
"God, I can't believe he said that to you after you told him you couldn't go out. I mean, let's be real."
"I know, I really wanted to go out with him, but I already told Tracy and Cindy I go to Gammons with them. Oh, you should see the guy Jill ended up here I could not believe it! I'm so sure."
This conversation started as soon as class did, and it shows no sign of slowing down. If that's not enough distraction, how about the guy two seats over? He's reading the Kansas. He's not using the old iPad, but he's still using the notebook play, either. He's holding it in front of his face like a solar reflector, rattling the pages for all to see and hear.
I can think of some good words to describe these types. Disrespectful, rude and obnoxious are three that immediately come to mind. Professor Longwind may be boring, but he deserves better.
There are people who deal with classes they find boring by simply not showing up. Others put in an appearance but sit through every class like stones, utterly unresponsive. I question the motives of these types; but their behavior is likely to make them a people who broadcast their boredom by bothering everyone else in the class.
In your 1:30 p.m. class, you encounter the most obovious character of all. A lot of students don't like this class because it's right after lunch, it's too hot in the room. The teacher interferes with a good nap.
That doesn't bother this fellow, though. He comes to class, sits looking increasingly bored for half an hour, so then gets up and walks out.
What could this nincompoop be thinking of? The next time he packs up to leave, his beleaguered professor ought to stop him and give him a choice, right there in front of the class: Either sit down and endure or don't bother to come back.
The first time you saw this happen you charitably concluded that he had suddenly felt sick or remembered something important. After all, these things do seem to be more difficult when he seen him do it half a dozen times, and it's obvious that he figures this is an acceptable way to behave.
Which one would you rather see him do?
Looking for legal bargain
In the high-priced world of the nation's Capitol, lawyer Joseph Califano had no qualms about billing the U.S. Postal Board of Governors $500,000 last year for part-time legal advice.
And lawyer Leonard Garment, who represented Richard Nixon during Watergate, didn't blink an eye when a judge ordered taxmasters might end up paying for
Califano said his bill for work, which included handling rate cases and other complicated issues, was less than half what he would charge a private corporation.
has billed the independent agency $2 million since 1980.
IUDI HASSON
United Press International
"Even with those enormous numbers, we don't make money
his work representing Attorney General Edwin Meese when he was investigated by a special prosecutor.
In the last two years alone, government agencies forked over $50 million to private lawyers hired to represent federal agencies according to an exhaustive survey by The National Law Journal.
But while Congress grapples with reducing the deficit and considers restricting student loans, freezing Social Security benefits and attacking military pensions, perhaps it should take a look at the $10 trillion dollars the government spends each year on Washington lawyers.
For instance, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. spent $34 million in legal fees during the last two years. The Federal Home Loan Bank Board spent $6.4 million and the Transportation Department paid out $1.2 million for lawyers.
Although 17,000 lawyers are on the government's payroll, dozens of government agencies hire outside help for everything from litigation to dealing with labor problems. And they pay dearly for it.
The Postal Board of Governors employs Califano, a prominent Washington lawyer whose firm
In the last two years alone, government agencies forked over $50 million to private lawyers hired to represent federal agencies on a host of different jobs, according to an exhaustive survey by The National Law Journal.
representing the Postal Service," Califano said.
Although these numbers are not big-ticket items compared to Reagan's proposed $313 billion defense budget, they certainly make a dent in the federal treasury.
In calling for outside help, federal agencies say private lawyers are needed to do a job that their own staffs can't do.
And no regulations govern the use of outside legal help; nothing limits the amount of money that can be spent; and few specific policies govern the use of private lawyers.
Congress, in fact, is considering legislation to restrict the amount awarded to lawyers under 140 federal laws. The laws allow the winners of certain kinds of lawsuits, primarily civil rights cases
to collect their fees from the loser
annually the federal government
But the Reagan administration is taking a get-tough attitude on restricting the amount of money awarded under those laws, seeking a $75-an-hour limit, a far cry from the $250 an hour that Garment has charged Meese.
A special three-judge court now is considering Garment's request, under the Ethics in Government Act, to pay the bill, which includes the cost of a platoon of lawyers and aides and the time he spent talking to reporters about the case.
Although the average U.S. citizen might hire a lawyer to draw up a will, buy a house or get a divorce, the amount of money involved in the government's legal bills is beyond even the comprehension of most people.
So perhaps it is time to ask what the public is getting when the government hires outside help?
In a number of cases, federal agencies turned to powerful law firms to handle problems with labor unions.
The Postal Service paid $300,000 to a San Francisco law firm to represent management during last year's postal labor negotiations.
And the Transportation Department paid out $648,000 to a Philadelphia law firm to deal with the air controllers strike.
The Legal Services Corp., which is supposed to provide legal help to poor people, spent $164.45 fighting staff efforts to unionize.
With ample evidence that the federal government has been writing blank checks to high-priced law firms, it seems long overdue for Congress to take a hard look at the government's legal bills.
Mousey type is still riding N.Y. subway
Right after Bernhard Goetz shot four young men on a New York subway train, many people expressed disapproval because they feared that his example would touch off a wave of vigilant justice.
Ordinary citizens would soon but whipping out blazing pistols every time a surly youth looked at them the wrong way. Bullets would whistle at the innocent, the bodies of the innocent, as well as the obnoxious, would fill the aisles.
The train was crowded, but in a few moments she noticed four young
So, what's happened? For that answer, I offered the recent experience of a woman named Merrie Star, who lives in New York.
At the other extreme were the many who thought that what Goetia did was wonderful because it would have long-range social benefits. From now on, thugs who ride the subway would think twice before menacing decent people because they meet meek soul might blow holes in them.
About 7 p.m. Wednesday., Star boarded a train for a ride from Brooklyn to lower Manhattan.
MIKE ROYKO
Syndicated Columnist
people—two females and two males about 17 years of age.
It was a live, black rat.
"They were carrying it by the tail And they were amusing themselves by swinging it toward people, right its faces and frightening them. Star said."
They were hard to overlook be cause one of them was carrying a object that was unusual, even on a New York subway.
"They were moving around the car with the thing, thrusting it at people and they were turning what they were doing into a sick game.
"They'd all go up to different people and taunt them. They'd ask them if they wanted to see the rat, if they wanted to pet it.
"What they would do is crowd together, the four of them. Then they would separate, and nobody knew which one of them had the rat. But one of them would have it hidden under his or her coat.
"Then the one with the rat would pull it out and drop it on somebody's lap or shoulder," she said.
"Some people were screaming and pulling up their legs. Then the four of them would catch it and start their sick game over again.
They dropped a live rat on people. "It was terrible. I've been riding the subways for a long time, but it was the most terrible thing I've seen so far.
"It wasn't like some teenage prank. It was sadistic. They were horrifying people, and they were enjoying it.
"But the most amazing thing about the whole situation was the way people reacted. They just sat there. Nobody did anything."
"At one point, I said something. I sort of yelled: 'This isn't right. Why are we taking this?'
"But nobody responded. It was as if everybody on the train was thinking the train, and let them leave him, and maybe they'll go away and leave us alone."
"I could see that people were even trying to avoid eye contact with them. They'd look away. Somebody was waving a live rat near them, and they were pretending it wasn't happening.
"Some people got off when the train stopped. I don't know if they got off because it was their stop or because they wanted to escape."
"They finally moved into the next car, and I don't know what happened after that. The train got to my stop, and I got off. I assume they weren't arrested or anything like that because I didn't see anything in the newspapers," she said.
What does this one incident tell us? For starters, it tells us that the New York subways are not loaded with Bernard Goetzes, just waiting for an excuse to say: "Make my day."
Had there been a Goetz-type on that train, I assume that he would have responded to a live rat being dangled under his nose. No jury was in place until the man plumed, "I aimed at the rat. The kid happened to be standing behind it.
Star's experience also tells us that Goetz's quick trigger finger didn't make much of an impression on New York's considerable moren population. Anybody who drops a live rat in the lap of a stranger has to have an abiding faith in the timidity of his fellow man.
So, while New Yorkers still debate the right and wrong of the Goetz case, life on the subway returns to normal.