OPINION
University Daily Kansan, January 31, 1985
Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kansan (USPS) 609-640 is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stlaffer-Flint Hall. Lawn, Kanze 609-645 daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final periods. Second-class payment帖住 Lawn, Kanze 60044 Subscription by mail are $15 for six months or and $18 for six months or the year end the county. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid online and address changes to the University Daily Kansan. 118 Stlaffer-Flint Hall. Lawn, Kanze 60045
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
SUSANNE SHAW
General Manager and News Adviser
DAVID NIXON Campus Sales Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Sales and Marketing Adviser
The true test
Last week, Chancellor Gene A. Budig accepted a proposal to establish a fact-finding team to investigate complaints that the University of Kansas did not follow federal guidelines for asbestos removal.
The chancellor is to be commended for his prompt response to a potentially dangerous situation.
The complaints originated with the removal of an asbestos-laden, obsolete boiler from the KU power plant. Asbestos is fireproofing material suspected of causing cancer.
By moving quickly to investigate the situation and open the necessary records, the University has demonstrated that it cares about the health and safety of its employees.
The investigative team needs to determine not only who was affected, if indeed the guidelines were not followed, but also how the lapse in safety precautions occurred in the first place.
The true test of the University administration's commitment to its employees will be its response to the findings.
If Budig moves with the same speed and interest to carry out the team's recommendations as he did to the initiation of the investigation, he will have passed with flying colors.
Oliver Jaywalkers
Darkness turns KU's beautifully landscaped campus into a shadowy and scary place. The carefully placed and manicured trees and shrubs that add to its beauty by day become attractive hiding places for muggers and thieves at night.
During last fall's campaign for student body president and vice president, William Easley and Jeff Polack led a group of students, armed with flashlights, across the campus at night to demonstrate the need for improved campus safety programs.
They called for better campus lighting, a later-running bus service, an escort service and more blue phones.
The very next night, while Easley, Polack and other candidates weighed whether the state or the students should pick up the tab for these improvements, another group of students in Oliver Hall decided that they could do something immediately to make the campus safer. And all it would cost was their time.
At the suggestion of Doug Hensley and Stacy Spellman, two Oliver resident assistants, about 30 men formed the Jawwalker escort service for Oliver residents.
Now, with one telephone call, Oliver residents can arrange to be escorted safely along the campus' dimly lit paths.
Easley and Polack were right to make campus safety an issue in last semester's campaign for student body president. Now that they are in office they should live up to their promises and push for improvements. But while they pursue changes through lengthy political negotiations, it is encouraging and commendable that a group of students took the initiative to protect fellow students.
What is unfortunate is that so few Oliver residents seem to be taking advantage of the service. An initiator of the service said some might be unwilling to wait for a Jaywalker to arrive or were apprehensive about walking home with someone they did not know. If a dangerous situation arises that the presence of a Jaywalker could have prevented, the exuses will appear foolish compared to the damage done.
What is even more unfortunate is that students cannot safely traverse their campus, day or night, and that Jaywalker services are needed at all.
Building our walls on solid grounds
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
During the last presidential race, several issues were added to the list of proverbial ones. Military spending and the economy are always topics of debate. But issues such as abortion and prayer in school dragged the church-state relationship into the spotlight.
In Nebraska, a church-sponsored school began receiving national attention when the state tried to close the school for not being certified. When they refused to place their children in县城 schools, the school children were arrested, forcing the mothers and children to flee the state.
The Supreme Court's 1947 decision in Everson v. Board of Education said that the Establishment Clause prohibits any separation between church and state.
Between the presidential race and cases like the one in Nebraska, the current relationship between church and state is being re-examined.
Many people think that the court's decision was made with total disregard for the history and spirit of the
Establishment Clause, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
By looking back in time, we can find many arguments against the "wall of separation" as we know it today.
For example, one of Congress' first acts was to create the chaplain system so that it could start each group in the player. That system still exists today.
Another example is that most of the states at the time of the ratification of the Constitution had specific religious requirements for voting and holding public offices. Some had specific Christian denominational requirements.
Many of the original colonists were fleeing from the state Anglican church in England and did not want Congress to be able to establish a national church. Therefore, in the Bill of Rights, we find the Establishment Clause, which left the power to
determine church-state relationships in the jurisdiction of the states.
This interpretation of the Establishment Clause, which had prevailed since the addition of the
BRIAN WAGNEP
Staff Columnist
Bill of Rights to the Constitution, was overturned in 1947 when Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinion in the Everson case. He set forth two new principles in his opinion. First, he extended the Establishment Clause to the states, without providing any justification. This became a major source of criticism of the majority of the court endorsed it. Secondly, he reinterpreted the Establishment Clause, prohibiting states to aid any religion.
Black took the phrase "wall of separation" from one of Thomas Jefferson's personal letters, not any legal U.S. document. While he was president, Jefferson asked Congress
to allocate money to build a Catholic church and support a priest. He obviously had a different view of the church-state relationship than that found in the legal precedent recently established.
The Alabama Prayer Case now before the Supreme Court may reverse the precedence that Black established. Originally, the case overturned Alabama law for voluntary school prayer, but, on an appeal, the verdict was reversed by Federal Judge W. Breavard Hand. Hand, saying that he was sworn in to uphold the Constitution and not Supreme Court precedents, went against Black's majority opinion.
This will give the court a chance to re-examine its earlier decision, for as Hand said, the legal system has erected a "wall of wall" around the Establishment Clause, thwarting its original purpose.
If we are to remain the free nation and the free people that our forefathers meant us to be, we must realize the fallability of the court and its precedent regarding the wall of freedom between the Constitution and not build walls of separation because we fear religious oppression.
A new and towering man in arms talks
When John Tower, the ambitious vest-pocket Texan, announced he would not seek another Senate term, he stunned the political world.
And when Tower said he would return to his native state and resume his career as a professor after more than 20 years away from the job — nobody really believed him. And no one should have.
After all, an achiever does not surrender willingly the power he has amassed.
On his departure at noon on Jan. 3. Tower was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and chairman of the Senate Republican Policy Committee. By any standard, he had reached the top.
It didn't take President Reagan and Secretary of State Shultz long to
And in all fairness to him, Tower never closed any doors to a future in public life. In fact, when questioned about how to open himself and available at all times.
take advantage of such a person. They never let him get to the campus.
In a surprise appointment, Reagan named Tower as one of the negotiators for for an arms control
STEVE GERSTEL
United Press International
agreement with the Soviet Union — putting him in charge of working out an agreement on strategic weapons.
Maybe the biggest surprise was that Tower had never figured in speculation, at least publicly, for a negatif's job. But there is no question that he has all the qualifications.
The Soviets will find Tower a tough, fessy negotiator, perhaps as knowledgeable as anyone about the military and strategic strengths of
the United States as well as the Soviet Union.
Tower is a card-carrying conservative, a longtime friend of the military and, like any true "hawk," he does not trust the Soviets.
Yet, Tower's main strength may not be as one of the principal negotiators of an arms control agreement, but in selling the pact to the Senate if a settlement is reached and accepted by the administration.
it the Senate's unwillingness to ratify SALT II that forced the withdrawal of that agreement with the Soviet Union. The rejection of any new agreement required repudiation by Reagan administration — always a possibility.
The selling of an agreement to the Senate is the area where Tower may give Reagan the most help, although the brunt of that task will fall on Reagan himself and his legendary powers of persuasion.
Senate — more than enough to swimp a close vote — who are increasingly skeptical of Reagan, the foreign policies he is pursuing and the people he has named to top posts.
But there are conservatives in the
Although Tower is far more pragmatic than members of this wing, assurances from him possibly will have a greater impact with them than those from Reagan and certainly far more than those from Shultz or chief negotiator Max Kampelman.
There is no question that Tower would like to serve as secretary of state, should Shultz decide to step down. Nor would Tower turn down secretary of defense or an ambassadorship, perhaps to West Germany.
A stint as an arms control negotiator, especially if it results in a ratified treaty, can only enhance Tower's stature and keep him in the limelight as long as Reagan is in the White House and perhaps beyond.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Library story errs
The Jan. 28 issue of the University Daily Kanan carried an inaccurate account of the meeting of the New Science Library Building Committee on Jan. 25. It stated that the committee had made a decision on the site of the new science library. I would like to make three points.
To the editor:
First, the committee is not empowered to make that decision, but it ultimately will make a recommendation to the University administration. Second, the Robert Kobee, executive vice chancellor, who appointed the committee.
Finally, the committee did evince interest in the location of the first phase of the new science library immediately behind, but apart from, Hoch Auditorium.
Second, the committee has not completed its deliberations on the site and has made no recommendations on the site.
This arrangement would provide the University with two attractive options for the location of Phase II some years hence either an aircraft carrier or a ship if possible to prove be feasible, or an addition on the south side of the first phase.
Responses to response
NSI Building Committee
It would also initially spare the elm tree.
Jim Ranz
Few letters to the editor have been as bitter or irrational as Pam Richardson's response (Jan. 29, University Daily Kansan) to the Pro-Life rally sponsored by New Life and Richardson. Her first child, Richardson suggests that this same "choice" should be extended to all pregnant women.
To the editor:
Jan Mauk, who gave her life to save that of her child, is labeled "suicidal" and called a "deprived human." If that is so, can I sign up.
Hilfer's Germany was a product of a mentality like that of Richardson — someone has the power to decide who has a right to live and die. I don't think individuals should have that kind of power, but she does not agree. Defending abortion could do that to your thinking.
too? I'll gladly be called deprived to defend the equal rights of unborn babies.
To the editor:
Prairie Village graduate student
in the Jan. 29, University Daily Kansan, reader Pam Richardson writes in favor of freedom of choice concerning abortion. I would like to point out that any of us who do not wish to have children have the freedom to choose between (two alternatives): 1) abstaining from sex; 2) using birth control properly and being willing to accept the consequences of our actions in the rare event of contraception failure.
Freedom of choice has never meant the freedom to take another
As for Jan and Robert Mauk's choice, they were forced to choose between risking Jan's life (for her death was not certain) and killing a human being (abortion is always fatal). The sanctity of human life dictated that they not kill their baby. No one would argue that the Mauk children are worse off without their mother, but they do have the gift of life, which transcends even the most awful plight encountered.
person's life. Because our humanistic society promoted in its members an increasing unwillingness to take responsibility for actions, we are increasingly willing to accept spurious arguments for taking man life. The situation will only be alleviated when we choose to spurn responsibility and return to the absolute standards found in the Judeo-Catholic ethic so obviously intended by the founders of our country.
M. Clay Belcher assistant professor of architectural engineering
Cave man mentality To the editor:
His sexist overtones are subtle but reflective of the source much of his reasoning. It is as if he gets the point but really doesn't get the point at all.
I have been waiting for the first student response to the recent Ann Landers survey, and it comes from no less than the assistant editorial editor. Sounds as if Dan Howell had a bit of difficulty interpreting the implications of the column.
A couple of examples? He says, "... and part of loving your woman is caring what it means" True, caring is central in the sharing of sexual interaction but "Your soundly touching voice as you care is changing the oil" or "Hey, Jude, you were made to go out and get her," and all that. But make it something besides a contest of wills" Right again, a contest of wills is simply another way of saying that there are going to be a lot of power conflicts in the relationship. That is not unusual
in male-female relationships, but was man really "made to go out and get her"" Sounds a bit reminiscent of the cave man mental.
I think the point made in the AmT Landers survey is fairly clear. It is not that women do not enjoy sexual intercourse. But after a long and steady diet of just that in the form of wham-bam quickies, with little tenderness, sensual touching, caressing and emotional sharing, women would choose the latter over the former as they would benefit from the male investment in doing heroic deeds with his gentials to, at on and for women, rather than with, but it is obvious that intercourse alone is not enough.
It is hard for lots of men to hear that what they do is either incorrect or not nearly enough. And for men who have discovered that the mixture of both intercourse and sensuality is a joyful interaction, mutual need meeting has some chance of occurring
Dennis M. Dailey
professor of social welfare