Opinion
Kansan
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
Published daily since 1912
Lindsey Henry, Editor
Dave Morantz, Managing Editor
Kristie Blasi, Managing Editor
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser
Marc Harrell, Business manager
Colleen Eagle, Retail sales manager
Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Justin Knapp, Technology coordinator
Thursday, April 9, 1998
Tina Connolly / KANSAN
Editorials
Minority student unity, activism benefit everyone at University
The presence of minority protest and activism could not be ignored this semester. The groups that have been involved should be proud of their efforts and should continue to be active.
For three nights minority and nonminority students protested what they believed to be a racist skit on March 12, 13 and 14 at the Rock Chalk Revue at the Lied Center. Minority students filled the room at the March 18 Student Senate meeting to support a bill that would create three minority Senate seats. Last week, hundreds of students turned out at Wescoe Beach
for a rally supporting affirmative action.
All of these things are positive for minority students and for the University of Kansas as a whole.
These events have caused new alliances to be formed between minority groups such as Black Student Union, Hispanic American Latino Organization, Native American Student Association, Asian American Student Union and Queers and Allies.
These groups are now working together to fight the injustices that face all of them as minorities. Because
of the efforts by these groups, students all over campus are talking about issues of race, identity, and sexuality. That is insurance and pressure.
That is progress and progress is always needed if change is to occur
We encourage these minority groups that have been participating in changing the ideas and broadening the horizons of KU students to continue their efforts. We encourage those that have not yet been involved to take part in these activities as well.
It is important to continue the fight for equality and minority unity, which will in turn positively affect everyone on campus
Shyra Darris for the editorial board
Feedback
Kansan article falsely identified Bangladesh
Bangladesh is a part of India. This is what appeared in The University Daily Kansan in its March 9 issue. The article that contains this information was on International Women's Day. The article disgraced international students, especially Bangladeshi students, on campus.
I have been studying in the School of Journalism since Fall 1997. So far I have gathered that the mantras of journalists are: "Get your facts right"; "If your mother says she loves you, check it"; "Spell the names right." We lose 50 points from our reporting assignment if we spell a name wrong, because it is a fact error. In this instance it is not the case of misspelling a name, it is the case of making a country's existence questionable.
On March 9, I went to the Kansan newsroom and very politely asked one of the editors to publish a correction about a mistake. But the nonchallent response spoke volumes. I could see that it would not get done, and I
was right. I was advised to write a letter by Malcolm Gibson, assistant professor of journalism.
I hope no one would say that I am overreacting. The report questioned the sovereignty of an independent nation. It is a very serious mistake. I know that most KU students grew up in small towns. Their knowledge of the outside world is very limited, let alone their knowledge of diplomatic issues. But that should not be an excuse for students of journalism. It is not necessary that they have to be omniscient, but if someone draws their attention to a mistake they must take it into account. For the readers of the *Kansan*, let me explain what Bangladesh really is. It is an independent country which was liberated from Pakistan in 1971. For the last 28 years, my country has been on the world map.
We were liberated from Pakistan because the West Pakistani rulers wanted us to abandon our language, Bangla. The founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, said, "Urdu and only Urdu will be the state language of Pakistan." This declaration came when he was addressing the students of Dhaka University at a graduation ceremony. The students cried "no" in unison. In spite of a series of repressive measures we never said "Yes." Eventually, they resorted to violence on March 25, 1971. We gave resistance and after nine months of battle we won our victory on Dec. 16, 1971. During our liberation war we had India by our side. India helped us during our time of need with all its resources.
Literally, Bangladesh means country of Bangla language. The slogan which inspired us during our liberation war was Joi Bangla, or long live Bangla language. Three million people died for the cause of our language. I don't know how many nations on earth have made such a huge sacrifice for their languages. International media portray Bangladesh in a negative light. From their portrayal one might think that Bangladesh has a monopoly of disasters, but we have a very precious thing. We have freedom to speak in our own language, which we acquired at a high cost. What else do we need?
Kansan staff
Bangladesh graduate student in journalism
Anium Aziz
Paul Eakins ... Editorial
Ann Premer ... Editorial
Andrea Albright ... News
Jodie Chester ... News
Julie King ... News
Charity Jeffries ... Online
Eric Weslander ... Sports
Harley Rattifl ... Associate sports
Ryan Koerner ... Campus
Mike Perryman ... Campus
Bryan Volk ... Features
Tim Harrington ... Associate features
Steve Puppe ... Photo
Angie Kuhn ... Design, graphics
Mitch Lucas ... Illustrations
Corrie Moore ... Wire
Gwen Olson ... Special sections
Lachel Rheades ... News clerk
News editors
Advertising managers
Kristi Bisel . *Assistant retail, PR*
Leigh Bottiger . Campus
Brett Clifton . Regional
Nicole Lauderdale . National
Matt Fisher . Marketing
Chris Haghirian . Internet
Brian Allers . Production
Ashley Bonner . Production
Andee Tomlin . Promotions
Dan Kim . Creative
Rachel O'Neill . Classified
Tyler Cook . Zone
Steve Grant. Zone
Jamie Holman . Zone
Brian LeFevre . Zone
Matt York . Zone
"Every man loves what he is good at."
How to submit letters and guest columns
Thomas Shadwell
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and hometown if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
Guest columns: Should be double-
spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staufer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Paul Eakins (eakins@kansan.com) or Ann Premer (aprerem@kansan.com) at 864-4810. If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4810.
Perspective
Affirmative action ignores real problems
Our university's debate on racial preferences, ignited by Rep. Anthony Powell's bill in the Kansas Legislature banning them, is in dire need of some fresh anal-
sis. There are two questions that need to be answered before students and other citizens form an opinion on the legislation at hand. First, is a policy correcting for discrimination necessary? And second, is preferential treatment the best policy for solving the problem?
Andrew Marino opinion@kansan.com
Whenever disparities between racial groups occur in test scores, income, or other categories, the knee-ierk reaction is to
blame it on discrimination but then cite no evidence. For the most part, this has been the extent of the one-sided campus debate.
That is, however, a simplistic explanation. I'm not claiming that instances of racism do not occur and cause serious damage to individuals' lives — because they do. For these unfortunate cases, we have anti-discrimination law, as a remedy.
However, other factors account for a large chunk of the gaps we see in statistics that measure group achievement. Congressional Budget Office Director June Neill found that when factors like age, schooling, geographic region, and test scores are accounted for, black incomes are virtually equal to that of whites. African Americans are disproportionately young — younger people tend to earn less — and live in the South, where incomes are lower. In other words, racial discrimination is not a primary cause of lower African-American income. Personal choice, demographic trends, and education play a much larger role.
If racism were the main causal factor in the statistical gaps used to justify affirmative action, it indeed would be difficult to explain why the group most harmed by the policy is not Whites but Asians, who tend to have higher grade-point averages and standardized test scores.
Action." But that point leads to the second question, which is whether preferential treatment is the best way to solve the problem. Serious questions have been raised as to whether Affirmative Action is a good thing for African-American students.
There are people who will say, "Aha! Now we've got him! The minority disadvantage in education is exactly why we need Affirmative
Economist Walter Williams points out that African-American students at the University of California at Berkeley had an average SAT score of 952, while the rest of the students averaged about 1200. The result was tragic: 70 percent of African-American students failed to graduate. As a result of their preferential treatment during admission, they were set up for failure. Their horrendous education at the primary and secondary level is the true culprit, not discrimination.
Affirmative action policies are good for universities because then administrators, elites, and political activists can talk about diversity (as if the only component of diversity was skin color). I doubt few would disagree, however, that the interests of the students must come first. We must also consider the costs to our nation as a whole. Preferential treatment does irreparable damage to race relations because Whites, who feel they are being discriminated against, are pitted against minorities, who are directly or indirectly not held to the same standards of excellence. They must wonder if they got the job or received admission to the school because of the color of their skin or their talent and hard work. By conflicting with the nation's goal of colorblindness, preferences remind us all of our differences rather than our unity as people in the American nation. If minority enrollment is down in California schools after Proposition 209 (a law similar to the one proposed here in Kansas), then we should find out the real reasons as to why and not just blame it on racial discrimination.
Preferential treatment is simply an artificial mechanism used to cover up a deeper problem. The longer these policies are in place, the more entrenched they become, making it increasingly difficult to remember that the underlying problems lay within the African-American community and the American education system.
Marino is a Prairie Village freshman in political science.
Feedback
Affirmative action no longer needed
I don't understand the whole affirmative action idea. When it was first introduced, there was a need for it but not now. It seems that many people are using affirmative action as a crutch to get what they want more easily. Is it moral for someone to be given something because of who they are, or to get what you earn?
I believe there was an African-American man named Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. that once said we should be judged by the content of our character rather than the color of our skin. I believe this is true, and most minorities do also. Therefore, there shouldn't be any affirmative action or quotas to fill. It would be humiliating and degrading to know that the only reason you got accepted for a job, college or scholarship was because you had a particular skin tone. And on the other side, it's devastating not to get into a dream college for the reason that they could no longer accept persons of your sex and color because they had to leave room for quotas.
Many people think not having affirmative action is racist, the fact is that affirmative action is a racist act and shouldn't be used any more. The solution: no names, race, sex or religion on applications. Only numbers and credentials should be given and may the best person earn the position.
Erik Roesh
Leawood freshman
Alternative spring break article bad
As members of the Center for Community Outreach's Alternative Spring Break trip, we found the April 1 article, "Spring break program was no vacation" to be poorly conceived.
The article highlighted the unsatisfactory experience of one alternative Spring break participant. A site leader pointed out that it was the only complaint of the 48 people in the program. Others reported having very positive trips. Why, then, did one person's
story become the focus of the article?
We had an excellent trip to El Paso, Texas. We accepted rearranged schedules and misguided directions as natural. Doing community service, which the trips are designed to foster, is all about being willingly inconvenienced by the needs of others and the untidy, sometimes unpleasant process of learning the truth about oneself. We and the vast majority of participants benefited from the experience and commend co-coordinators Chris Hess and Jeff LaCroix and advising professor Glen White for facilitating it. We believe it is one of the most important and relevant-to-life programs at the University of Kansas. It is unfortunate that the regrettable experience of one person unfairly set the tone for a report of the program.
Megan Hope
Garden City graduate student
Rachel Soide
Tulsa, Okla., freshman
Carrie Wolf
Chicago graduate student
Truth behind editor's resignation hidden
It really comes as no surprise to me that we as The University Daily Kansan readers are given little information into the wheelings and dealings of the latest Kansan scandals. I am of course referring to the sudden and surprising dismissal of the Opinion page coeditor Andy Obermueller. I am reminded immensely of the cover-up which occurred last semester in the dismissal of then-editor Spencer Duncan What seems to be taking place here is complete and utter trampling of a fellow student's rights. We are given many reasons for Obermueller's resignation but few facts. Apparently, those elusive items would cloud the issue too much. About the only concrete reason for Obermueller's dismissal is the vague notion that he had somehow been associating with political events outside of his job. Despite what our legal system would like to have you believe, it is impossible for any person to maintain
Let us then turn to what we are told in the Kansan. What exactly does the Kansan mean when it reports that Obermuelter was taking inventory of the Delta Force campaign materials? Is this to imply that he was carrying a little clipboard and recording the number of each item he saw or is it perhaps that he was idylic learning through materials which were laying around as he waited for Matt Caldwell to answer the door? I would place my money on the second option. Caldwell is quoted as saying "Everyone at the house has a horrible relationship with Andy. I feel his resignation is a good thing." This kind of language seems to indicate that there has not been good blood between these two, and turns the issue into one of a personal vendetta against Obermuelter. I am struck with a sort of kindergartenish I don't-like you-so I'm-going-to-tell-the-Kansan-on-you attitude coming from Caldwell, and an I don't-like you-so-I-am-going-to-fire-you-unless my-resign style attitude from the Kansan. This seems more of an excuse for the Kansan to remove a person who might have been seen as a troublesome individual than a true issue of whether Obermuelter has broken any rules.
a completely unbiased viewpoint of anything. Even disciplined subjectivity is an ideal far beyond most people's reach. It is bitterly ironic that the section of the paper from which Obermueller was released was the Opinion section. Apparently, one must remain unbiased while possessing an opinion. Or maybe they need to have the Kansan give them their opinion.
There may be more facts in this case which would lead me to agree that it was appropriate to dismiss Obermüller, but as with the incident involving Duncan, we simply are not getting any facts on which to judge. Ultimately, it appears that this is merely a clash of personalities and a flaunting of power by the gods we know as the Kansan. I'll thank the Kansan to print this and leave me with my opinion unattainted.
David Christensen
Topeka junior
.