4 University Daily Kansan / Friday, March 6, 1992 OPINION Senate circus rolls on Predictability seems fashionable these days in Washington. When the Senate approved Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court last October despite serious, detailed allegations of sexual harassment made against him, it confirmed what many Americans already feared about the "good old boys" institution. It came as little surprise that a high-ranking Republican senator attempted to explain Anita Hill's charges by reading from "The Exorcist." Or that the Senate Judiciary Committee opted to turn the Thomas-Hill investigation into a bumbling circus rather than look at clear-cut guidelines established by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Both parties showed us they were more in touch with smear tactics and snivelling politics than women's issues. Little has changed in the aftermath of the Thomas-Hill debacle. Thomas has proven to be just as conservative as, if not more than, civil rights activists expected; his voting record is identical to Antonin Scalia's, the most conservative member of the Court. And after trying its hand at the issue of sexual harassment, the Senate has decided to stomp on even higher ground- First Amendment rights. Although the leak of Hill's allegations to the press failed to block Thomas' confirmation, President Bush and the Senate say they are determined to find out where it came from. Their motives, they claim, are Vanessa Fuhrmans Managing editor to protect future nominees from unsubstantiated charges. And what better method than to subpoena the reporters who broke the story. Never mind that Senate members and special counsel Peter Fleming are sure the leak came from aides in one or several senators' offices. Never mind that Tim Phelps of Newsday and Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio announced before testifying in a closed-door meeting with Fleming that they would not divulge their sources, even if found in contempt. And never mind that those leading the investigation would rather seriously damage the First Amendment rights of reporters than examine the questionable activities of senators and their staff members. In perhaps its most predictable move of all, the Senate seems to be telling us it prefers to stick its head in the sand than to find out the truth. Let's hope the Senate and Fleming use some sort of precedent this time instead of relying on ranting, raving and pointless interrogation as a means toward the truth. An obvious choice would be Branzburg vs. Hayes, the 1972 Supreme Court decision that established guidelines for when it is appropriate to order a journalist to reveal confidential sources. Although the Court ruled 5-4 that reporters must honor summons and answer grand juries' questions, it formulated a three-part test that judges have used since to determine whether reporters have the privilege of confidentiality. According to the test, the government must show that the journalist(s) have information "clearly relevant to a specific probable violation of law," that the information cannot be obtained by "alternative means less destructive of First Amendment rights" and that there is "a compelling and overriding interest in the information" to issue a subpoena to a journalist. Fleming only has to examine the Senate that appointed him for an alternative avenue to the source of the leak. And subpenaption senators and their aides would dismiss any obligation Totenberg or Phelps had to reveal their sources. Of course, that is assuming Fleming will reroute his investigation on a more logical path toward the truth. Vanessa Fuhrmans is an Oskaloosa senior majoring in Germanic languages and literature and journalism. Maybe it's time for a little unpredictability on Capitol Hill. THE UNIVERSITYDAILY KANSAN Abortion legislation is right Kansas House approves bill that is a compromise of views; now it is the Senate's turn The Kansas House recently made the right decision in passing a bill that would keep abortion legal in Kansas even if Roe vs. Wade were overturned. It is now up to the Senate to do the same. The bill should be passed because it offers an answer to the emotionally charged issue of abortion and clarifies existing state law. The main points of the bill allow a woman to have an abortion up to the time that the fetus could live outside the womb. The bill also states that a woman younger than 16 must receive counseling before having an abortion and be accompanied by an adult during counseling. Penalties would be imposed on people who try to block access to abortion clinics. 11 passing this bill, the Legislature would show a realization that deciding whether to have an abortion can be a difficult decision at best. This bill would allow a woman to rely on her own values and the aspects of her situation to make her own decision. The bill also acknowledges the horrifying consequences, such as unsanitary abortions, that would occur if abortion were made illegal. Both pro-choice and anti-abortion groups may not be completely satisfied with the bill, but they should recognize that the bill is working to make a compromise between the polarization groups. The groups, however, should be proud that their efforts helped to shape this bill. It shows that input, if voiced loudly enough, does make a difference to the Legislature. If the groups want to continue to publicize their views, they should do so in a positive way with initiatives such as information campaigns and education programs. Both groups should avoid bashing one another. Abortion has long been an issue that has torn apart Kansas. It is time to put aside name-calling and shock tactics. It is time to accept this bill and work together to educate individuals about their rights and choices so that they make the right decisions for themselves. Demands on Israel are just Amy Francis for the editorial board Construction of Israel's Jewish settlements hampers Middle East peace efforts President Bush made the right decision last week when he placed demands on Israel before guaranteeing a $10 billion loan Since 1967, the United States has consistently opposed Israel's practice of building settlements on occupied territories, but Bush's decision put this opposition into practice. According to Article 49 of the fourth Geneva Convention, building settlements on occupied territories is a violation of international law. The United States has opposed Israel's building of Jewish settlements on the Gaza Strip and the West Bank on those grounds as well as on grounds that the practice is an obstacle to peace. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been an obstacle in recent Middle East peace talks. Israel's continued building of settlements will do nothing but exacerbate tensions between Israel and the Palestinians. And that, in turn, will make achieving peace in the Middle East much more difficult. Opponents of the conditions placed on Israel have argued that Israel needs the loans to accommodate the recent influx of Soviet Jews and loans for that purpose are in no way related to the settlements. But placing conditions on loans, especially substantial ones, is not an uncommon practice, and the demands on Israel are not unreasonable Although some critics argue that Bush's decision is based on election-year politics, it is the right decision to make. It is time for Israel to realize that it is not exempt from international law. Julie Wasson for the editorial board The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Ind., on student loans: There's half of a good idea on education floating around in Washington — which is 50 percent better than most ideas originating in the nation's capital. Under the Self-Reliance Loan program being sponsored in the U.S. Senate by Bill Bradley, college students could borrow up to $30,000 to finance their education. Repayments of the loans — not to exceed seven percent of annual income — would be deducted by the Internal Revenue Service from the recipients' earnings after they graduate. If a loan isn't paid off in 25 years, the remainder would be forgiven. A college education is so important today — and becoming ever more important — that government should be involved in trying to see whether it is possible have a shot at college if they want it. The problem traditionally has been the high number of recipients who don't pay back the loans. Collecting the repayments from recipients' paychecks (at jobs made possible by the loan-financed education) can take care of that non-repayment problem. The flaw in the proposal is that the loans would be made available to anyone, regardless of family income. What's the point of not setting some income guidelines? There will be a limited pool of money. Why use it to finance the education of people whose families can afford to pay the cost? In the end, that just means less money in the pool for those who actually need it. National perspectives The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, on foreign aid: Congress hasn't passed a foreign aid bill since 1985. A continuing resolution supporting about $14.3 billion in aid expires at the end of this month. The Bush administration has a hard sell ahead for $620 million in new Soviet aid — dollars to buy friends that the nation once spent trillions to keep as enemies. Opponents of the IMF increase have included Congress' only socialist and some of its staunchest conservatives. Lacking leadership from the White House, Republicans have ganged up on Democrats, again threatening to make them politically if they support foreign aid in an election season. That attitude could also deflate an attempt to bolster the lending capacity of the International Monetary Fund - essential if the IMF is to help the 15 former Soviet republics move to free markets. For all its faults, the IMF has played a clear, positive role in the postwar world, a force for stability and growth. As long as rich-poor divisions exist among the world's nations, the need will continue. An IMF contribution is really an investment in a more secure world, and it should be treated as such. It does not raise the budget deficit; it yields interest payments that enhance revenues Sarasota, Flia., Herald-Tribune on charitable organizations; Only one thing can do more harm to a charitable organization's credibility than reports of lavish spending and extraordinarily administratively bad behavior. Another way when those excesses are uncovered. As a result of negative reports concerning the United Way's national leadership, local United Way operations are withholding or may consider withholding their annual dues to the national organization. These are drastic steps which, unfortunately, draw more attention to the organization's on-ground efforts. But they are necessary steps toward the United Way's retaining credibility where it counts— among people in communities where the contributions are made and 99 percent of them are spent. It's important for the local organizations to take a stand and challenge the national organization. They must put their long-term interests and credibility first. Donors will be more inclined to maintain their faith in the local United Way programs if the organizations take every step needed to make it clear that unnecessary spending will not be tolerated at any level. San Francisco Chronicle on Korean negotiations; New impediments proposed by North Korea in negotiations with Seoul on an agreement to keep the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons raise serious doubts about establishing a firm timetable for mutual nuclear inspections. More critically, the obstacles give rise to suspicions that Pyongyang is buying time to build Officials of the two nations meeting on the border at Panmunjom are now at odds over just when the preliminary and first regular inspections of each other's nuclear and military facilities may be held. It is widely speculated that North Korea may be close to producing a nuclear bomb. The threat of North Korea's weapons capability could seriously alter the power equilibrium in the northwest Pacific. A North Korean nuclear program is ominous enough to mandate immediate and full international inspections of all its installations, above and below the ground. A barb to candidates and their campaign managers who already are letting the ads for the presidential race turn nasty. Monroe, Wies., *Evening Times* on presidential campaigning: Both Republican and Democratic hopefuls are resorting to personal attacks on their opponents rather than addressing the issues that disturb and hurt the country. Votes of citizens at primaries so far suggest marked discontent with the economy. This and other big concerns deserve the candidates' attention. An expert in communications says factual inaccuracies will increase as the ads become more negative. It's unfortunate that we are headed down this path at a time when we so urgently need and seek enlightened solutions. KANSAN STAFF TIFFANYHARNESS Editor VANESSA FUHRMANS Managing editor TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser Editors Editors News Mike Andrews Editorial Beth Randolph Planning Lara Gold Planning Eric Gorski/Rockefeller Sports Eric Nelson Photo Julie Jacobson Features Debbie Myers Graphics Aimee Brainard/Jae Meesey JENNIFER CLAXTON Business manager JAY STEINER Retail sales manager JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser Campus sales mgr ..Bill Leibengoad Regional sales mgr ..Rich Harbargar National sales mgr ..C Scott Hannah Co-op sales mgr ..Ame Johnson Production mgrs ..Kim Wallace Marketing director ..Lisa Keeler Marketing director ..Kim Claxton Creative director ..Leon Crawford Classified mgr ..Kp Chin Business Staff Letters should be typed, double spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. writers affiliated with the University of Kansas by David Rosenfield Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed. The Kanaan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kanaan newsroom, 111 Staffer-Fintl Hall. Stick IN THIS NEW COMIC STRIP, THE CHARACTERS WILL BE BLOBS OF INK, SMEARED ACROSS THE PAPER! (THIS WILL SIMPLIFY THE DRAWING PROCESS IMMEASURABLY) CH, NO! GREAT IDEA, MUH? SPLOTCH SO, WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD? by Daniel R. GEE, I DON'T WHY DID THE CROSS THE AND, OF COURSE, INSTEAD OF PLAIN ENGLISH, I'M GOING TO WRITE THE DIALOGUE IN ANCIENT SUMERIAN PICTOGRAPHS SO THE JOKES WILL BE MORE UNIVERSALLY ACCESSIBLE... YOU NEED TO GET A LIFE, MY FRIEND HAVE A SAFE BREAK?