OPINION
University Daily Kansan, January 28, 1985
Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kanman (USP5) 600-640 is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer Flint Hall. Lawen. Kanman 6045, daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer session, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holiday and final periods. Second class postage paid at Lawen. Kanman 6044. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or a county and $18 for six months or a year outside the county. Student subscriptions at the Lawen County and $18 for six months or a year outside the county. Address changes to the University Daily Kanman 118 StauFFER Flint Hall. Lawen. Kanman 6045.
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
No winners
In fashion befitting an old soldier, Ariel Sharon last week lost the battle but won the war.
The former Israeli defense minister lost his $50 million libel suit against Time Inc, but may have recouped his political fortunes after a trial that ruled Time had printed false and defamatory information.
Time won the suit when a six-member jury in U.S. District Court in New York ruled Thursday that the news magazine did not print the disputed story knowing that it was false. To win a libel suit, a public figure must show that information was false, defamatory and published with knowledge of falsity.
The Time story, printed in February 1983, accused Sharon of plotting with Lebanese Phalangist militiamen in the September 1982 raid against Palestinian refugee camps that left about 700 people dead.
In the trial, Time admitted that the information was false but said its reporters had acted in good faith and had thought the information was accurate. The jury concurred, and Time won the case.
But in the eyes of some observers, and doubtless in the public's eyes as well, the ruling damages Time's credibility and vindicates Sharon, who was forced to resign as defense minister in the aftermath of the massacre.
Sharon leaves New York without $50 million, but he does have the satisfaction of clearing his name.
Time dodges the bullet of an an enormous settlement but will long be remembered for printing inaccurate and damaging information.
In its statement, the jury said, "We found that certain employees, particularly correspondent David Halevy, acted negligently and carelessly in reporting and verifying the information which ultimately found its way into the published paragraph of interest in this case."
The real impact of the trial was not lost on journalism's experts. Ben Bagdikian, former Washington Post editor and now a professor of journalism at the University of California at Berkeley, noted who really came out ahead in the trial.
"Time, I think, is hurt by it because it's been proven that Time ran a seriously inaccurate factual account, and its procedures — which were exposed at the trial — are not considered good procedures by good news organizations," he said.
It's difficult for a public figure to win a libel case. The law is designed that way to give the press a margin of error in reporting controversial information about public figures. This margin of error is vital for a free press to operate effectively.
But even in winning, the media loses. It loses credibility, and it loses the public's trust. That is the price Time must pay.
GUEST COLUMNS
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.
Over Christmas break I got to do what many of you did — go home. Since home is La Paz, Bolivia, the chances to return have been few and far between since I began studying here.
Democracy is a questionable answer
Besides the joy of being with family and friends, the three weeks provided a chance to get caught up on South America's new demographics. South America's new demographies.
The news is not good. Bolivia is facing all of the multiple problems that Latin American countries saddled with foreign debts, corruption, cocaine trafficking and a dwindling export market are facing.
When I left Bolivia in 1891, the country was governed by a band of thugs openly participating in the international cocaine market. Paramilitary troops, trained by former Nazis and paid with cocaine money, terrorized the population and stifled dissent.
The answer to the country's problems seemed obvious to most of us who value a free press, respect for human life and social justice.
deal with the deepening economic and social crises and to allow people to participate in determining their own future.
When the military had discredited itself and there was no money left in the national treasury, the generals decided to turn the government back over to civilians.
A return to democracy, we felt, was the only way for the country to
DOUG
FARAH
Staff Columnist
Amid much fanfare and many high hopes, Hernan Siles Zuazo took over the presidency in 1892.
But things didn't go as expected. While unprecedented union and political freedoms were granted, the economic situation took a nose dive.
Inflation is now running at about 3,000 percent, people must stand in line to buy almost all of the most
basic products, and the black market is flourishing.
My first few conversations with friends and relatives left me baffled and angry. Several were openly hoping for a military coup. In the upcoming election, others planned to vote for a right-wing general who governed the country with an iron hand from 1971-1978.
"But what about the unprecedented freedoms?" I asked. There is freedom of the press, the right to free assembly, the right to strike.
The reply was that one could not eat freedom of the press, and that the country's leaders had abused its liberty, creating social chaos.
The military era, with few freedoms but food on the table, is beginning to look like the Golden Age to many people.
Disillusioning? Yes. Hard to figure out? Not really. The longer I observed the ravages of inflation, the noticeable increase in poverty and
the breakdown in the social fabric of the country, the more I understood
From my vantage point outside the situation, it is easy to see that the country is now paying for the foreign debt accumulated by the military.
It is easy to see that the civilian government inherited a bankrupt nation where cocaine kings have carved out niches of power that they will not relinquish without a bloody struggle.
It is easy to see that it will take years, maybe decades, for the country to recover from 18 years of military mismanagement. And it is easy to see that the military would be just as ill-equipped to deal with the current problems as the civilians are.
But that does not put food on the table nor buys shoes for the kids.
All I'm trying to say is that there choices, only difficult choices to be made.
Certainly it is worth fighting to keep the freedoms now enjoyed in the countries returning to democracy, because it undeniable to mean little if people can't eat.
KU parking there must be a better way
A professor of mine once observed that there were three things in life one could not escape: death, taxes and University Parking Services. Sooner or later at the university of Kansas one is bound to run afoul of Parking Services. The underlying problem is that too many cars scramble for too few spaces.
Although the vehicle parking program, better known to most as "Parking Patrol", remains the bane of many students, staff and faculty alike, the term Parking Services is not a misnomer.
Parking personnel provide such services as snow removal for parking lots, jumps-starts in winter and unlocking cars for people who
Question :
have locked themselves out. Parking permit prices even decreased this year and are scheduled to go down again next year.
Now, not only must they buy their permits like everyone else, but Parking Services also requires them to reaffirm their medical status each time they want to renew their permit. According to Parking Services, that means "1) completing a form available at Watkins Memorial Hospital; and 2) submitting a statement from their family physician or obtaining an evaluation from a physician at Watkins Hospital. The request form must be signed by a physician at Watkins Hospital and should then be returned by the student to Parking Services."
All that is to be commended.
However, much room for improvement exists, and certain changes can and should be made.
Take handicapped parking as an example. Those who require special access to campus because of a temporary or permanent handicap or health problem should not be charged for a parking space permit. In order to obtain access to the University, they often possess no alternative but to park on campus.
Even then, Parking Services assigns them to a specific lot — they aren't free to park where they need to.
Isn't that convenient, especially on crutches?
To say that the myriad of codes, infractions, violation classifications, appeal procedures and multicolored parking zones are confusing is an understatement. There are more than 15 different types of parking permits issued just on the Lawrence campus.
A check with the KU equivalent of Parking Services at other Board of Regent's schools and peer institutions found that many will replace flat tires if the owner has a spare, deliver up to two gallons of gasoline if the car has run out and provide a free tow to the nearest service station if the operator experiences mechanical difficult-
ties. And all free of charge, except that students must pay for the gas brought to them. And like KU, the students jump-starts and lock-out services.
Parking Services at KU could theoretically provide all of these services and get away from the Parking Patrol image. They could improve the University's image in terms of both visitors and students.
They could, but they haven't
In fiscal year 1984, Parking Services issued 76,844 parking tickets according to Don Kearns, director of Parking Services. Parking Services is almost self-supporting, thanks to a large number of donations that are often in $7.50 amounts.
What's interesting about the $1 million budget of Parking Services is that it actually takes in more than it uses. In fiscal 84, for example, it took in almost $799,000 while its operating expenses came
to around $715,000, a disparity of almost $84,000. The surplus balance carried forward from past years to 1983 was $429,201. The Parking Service has to turn this money back over to the state, but it could get the money if it needs it.
Clearly, Parking Services could use this surplus to expand its services beyond the present level. One would at least think that the cars incurred would be allowed to gather interest here. Such is not the case.
Since the state takes the excess revenue anyway, a partial solution might be for Parking Services to merge with the KU Police Department. This way expenses are reduced instead of being financed with parking fines, meter fees, and parking permits.
But until they find a better way, just beware of little white jeeps with blue stripes.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Where credit's due
To the editor:
A Nov. 15, 1984, letter to the editor, "The truth about terrorism class" requires a response. Written by Felix Moos, professor of anthropology, and Maynard Shelly, professor of psychology, the letter was signed by 21 students from their course Violence, History and Terrorism in the Modern World.
The letter read in part, "Recently, the Communist Party of America seems to have been responsible for distributing leaflets about our course on Violence and Terrorism in the Modern World. If so, we would like to thank them for one thing in spite of the inaccuracies in their leaflets: pointing to terrorism as an important problem to be understood."
But the Communist Party of America could not have rendered this valuable service without the assistance of Moos and Shelly. After all it was they who organized their students in teams of make-believe terrorists and counter-terrorists. The students were so organized that one group dreamed up running a machine (offered to him) while riding a moped. Such profound scientific contributions must be left to the "experts" who have a proper contempt for the "... sidewalk vendors of simplifications."
And could the Communist Party of America conceive of just how to pretend to sabotage the nuclear
reactor at the University of Kansas? No, only those sufficiently educated by sophisticated social scientists could inquire in such speculation.
As a matter of fact, the Communist Party of America could not even be credited with the valuable leaflet for which the students and professors of Anthropology 571 are so grateful. This is because the Communist Party of America does not even exist except in the imagination of certain academic cretins and those who believe them. I, on the other hand, have never hidden the fact that I was the author of the leaflet in question.
What could be more simple-minded and anti-scientific than these allegations? This is why I was concerned about Anthropology 571 in the first place. Voltaire said it best when he said, "Those who can make us believe in absurdities can make us commit astragacies."
In a KANU interview with Mary Erickson on Dec. 10, 1984, Moos and Shelly made other curious allegations. One asserted that Mary Erickson was carrying out "...a kind of terrorism . . ." by interviewing them about Anthropology 571.
One professor also asserted that the distribution of leaflets on campus is a "form of terrorism as practiced." Apparently Shelly and Moos are above criticism or even examination. Now we know!
David Huet-Vaughn Leawood, senior
In favor of a forum
It is time to clarify how we, as students, want our money spent. As it has been discussed, and at times argued, it is apparent that a great portion of this college is concerned with the financing of Gay and Lesbian Services of Kansas. As Steve Cohen, a professor of accepting homosexuals, for that would be denying that this facet of our society exists.
To the editor:
But on the other hand, his suggesting that homosexuals "be tolerated" tends to imply a certain ignorance of this situation. Homosexuality is not a disease nor does it make one human inferior to another.
Ruth Lichwartd seems as obliquous to an objective view As imber, and I suppose, because of their respective positions, this is to be applauded. The concession is to be applauded, but their motives may be a bit more suspect.
After a joint statement aimed at easing tensions was issued, the basic conflict is still as clear as ever. In addition, a new dimension seems to have appeared. These two leaders and their followers seem not to be following a course of reparation but of separation.
I sincerely think that this is not wholly their fault but is mostly due to the inability of the Student Elections
Committee to deal with this issue in a mature and prudent manner. From this vantage point, it appears that instead of representing the campus community as a whole, they were more concerned with not rocking the boat.
As Thom Davidson expressed, he does not know what Imber is trying to prove, and as long as Davidson maintains such a closed-minded attitude, he never will know. Hence we find ourselves in the same position as before only with less understanding.
For this reason, I propose that these two leaders call for a student forum in which the students and faculty of this University can speak their opinions.
At the very least, this forum would allow for a broader, more representative base of opinion. It would also show how many of us are truly concerned with this issue. Ultimately it could lead to a better understanding for those on both sides of the conflict. It is time to move away from this heterosexual-homosexual conflict and toward deciding what should be allowed for minority or majority groups that provide serious and essential services to a portion of the campus community.
Mistakes No. 3 and 4
Eric Krehemker Leawood, junior
To the editor:
Last Friday, the Reagan administration made its third and fourth large mistakes in dealing with Nicaragua. The course of these errors illustrates at once the greatest weakness of a position and the greatest weakness of the current system of international law.
Some time ago, Nicaragua complained that we had mined its harbors, supported its neighbors in harboring revolution against it and committed other acts of aggression. It then brought a complaint against us in the International Court of Justice.
Nicaragua states that its ratification of the U.N. charter placed it under the court's jurisdiction and, even if this were not true, consented to the court's jurisdiction for its suit against us. Here, we made our first mistake.
The second mistake occurred a few months ago when the World Court declared, over our objection, that it indeed did have jurisdiction of the case. At this point, we should have been eager to submit our case to the court.
Nicaragua was stuck. It had unequivocally declared itself bound by the court's determination. We should have taken that invitation to assert our claims against Nicaragua and we would not so vital to our national interests that we could not have afforded to lose on some points.
The third error occurred last Friday, when the State Department announced that we would ignore the court's judgment and that we might withdraw from the court altogether if the court dared to proceed.
The fourth error was to allow one of those ubiquitous, anonymous senior officials to be quoted as saying that we simply won't talk to the Nicaraguaans again until they are scared to death of the rebels.
If I were to behave this contemp-
tually toward the courts of the State
of Kansas and an opposing litigant, I
would deserve the many years I
would spend in prison for it. The
United States, however, as a great
power, can get away with this kind of
behavior.
But I think we should be asking ourselves how long we will be able to get away with it. How long will our economy sustain the kind of military expenditures necessary to live on the edge of the law? How long will we be able to survive without the law we are treating with contempt?
Ian Johnson
Lawrence graduate student