Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Lindsay Henry, Editor Marc Harrell, Business manager Dave Morante, Managing editor Colleen Eager, Retail sales manager Kristie Blasi, Managing editor Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser Tom Eblen, General manager, news advisor Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
4A
Friday, Feb. 20, 1998
PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS
Editorials
Lobby Day success was no accident participants deserve our respect
Wednesday's KU Student Lobby Days was a smashing success. This success was no accident: The Student Legislative Awareness Board logged hundreds of hours in research, planning and meetings with lawmakers in a well-organized effort to win state dollars for students.
Seven KU students participated in Wednesday's events;
Samanatha Bowman, Wichita senior, is the legislative director for Student Senate. Bowman coordinated meetings with lawmakers and committees and generally kept things running at the state house. Although she seldom uses the spotlight, Bowman is a tireless advocate of students at the University.
Tom Moore, Lawrence senior, is
the issues and research coordinator for SLAB. He met with lawmakers, learned about the proposals, and trained students in presenting the board's talking points, which he wrote. Moore also posted the talking points on the Student Senate listserv so that all senators and other students who subscribe could access the information.
Scott Sullivan, student body president, gave testimony to a House appropriations subcommittee in support of the 2-for-1 technology fee, a one-time $5 million technology grant, new need-based grants for in-state students and funding for the new Dole Institute.
Korb Maxwell, Overland Park
junior, Alexis Stevens, Wichita
junior, and Nicole Skalla, Salina sophomore, are also coordinators for SLAB who met with legislators to discuss higher education.
Business Senator Scott Merchant was the only non-SLAB member to attend the KU Lobby Day. With all the talk in Student Senate about representing student concerns and how Senate should be fighting for student issues, it's nice to know that at least one person does more than merely talk the talk.
All of these students deserve more than just a Pat on the Back: They deserve our respect for making KU Lobby Day a successful step toward progress.
Andy Obermueller for the editorial board
Liftvan service needs a new vehicle
The Liftman service needs a new vehicle. The service, which gives more than 160 rides a week to disabled students, has only one usable vehicle. The service usually uses a 1995 ADA-equipped Ford Windstar. But when that vehicle is in need of repair, the service must use its 1989 Ford Econoline bus. The bus can accommodate a wheelchair, but the wheelchair restraints are pre-ADA standards and not helpful in securing wheelchair-bound students.
For students in wheelchairs, unsecure transportation is not only uncomfortable but also frightening. In addition, the aging bus has problems with acceleration, which only heightens the discomfort of its riders.
The liften service is invaluable to disabled students. The students get
The antiquated equipment should be replaced to better serve disabled KU students
rides from home and between classes. But even a short ride in the Liftvan bus is utter agony for its riders.
The state owns both of the Liftvan vehicles, and the service is financed by Student Senate through KU on Wheels. Scott Kaiser, coordinator of KU on Wheels, said he had looked at two possible solutions:
of the Liftvan service. This would give the service two vans to use and the bus could be eliminated. Using two vans would less wear on each.
The second option would be to use the Liftvan's budget, about $45,000 each year, to contract with the Douglas County Area Transportation to provide the rides for about $5 each ride. The Liftvan service operates 40 weeks a year, bringing the cost of a year of service to about $32,000, which would save about $13,000.
First, KU on Wheels and the Provost's office could split the cost of a new van, about $30,000, and add that vehicle to the University's motorpool for the use
Either option is feasible, and no matter which is the solution, one should be taken immediately. Our disabled students deserve better than a rattletrap old bus that starts off their day with discomfort.
Andy Obermueller for the editorial board
Kansan staff
Paul Eakins ... Editorial
Andy Obermueller ... Editorial
Andrea Albright ... News
Jodie Chester ... News
Julie King ... News
Charity Jeffries ... Online
Eric Westlander ... Sports
Harley Rattiff ... 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
Lachelle Roades ... Neurs clerk
News editors
Kristi Bisel  *Assistant retail, PR*
Leigh Bottiger  *Campus*
Brett Clifton  *Regional*
Nicole Lauderdale  *National*
Matt Fisher  *Marketing*
Chris Haghriian  *Internet*
Brian Allers  *Production*
Asnley Bonner  *Production*
Andee Tomlin  *Promotions*
Dan Kim  *Creative*
Rachal O'Neill  *Classified*
Tyler Cook  *Zone*
Steve Grant.  *Zone*
Jamie Holman  *Zone*
Brian LeFevre  *Zone*
Matt York  *Zone*
Advertising managers
"Anyone nit-picking enough to write a letter of correction to the editor doubtless deserves the error that provoked it." —Alvin Toffler
How to submit letters and guest columns
Letterers: 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 home-town 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 Andy Obermuerwit (andyo@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
Oh, the shame of it children prefer Oprah
Last year, the Chicago Tribune polled Chicago school children, to ask whom they would most enjoy being for a day. Coming in first place, of course was a
notable Chicago celebity, a celebrity whom all of America, if not all of the world reveres.
Michael Jordan, right? Wrong
Jeremy Chrysler
opinionokansan.com
Only 5 percent of Chicago schoolchildren would choose to be His Airness. A whopping 38 percent, however, opt instead for that plastic surgeon's dream patient, Oprah Winfrey.
These kids would rather
sit on a cushy couch every day championing vegetarian chill and Garth Brooks biographies than be one of the world's greatest-ever athletes. While it is admittedly encouraging to see that sports heroes aren't the only objects of adolescent wonder, I wonder if Oprah is really the right replacement.
I may take some heat for this, but what's so good about Oprah? Well, there's that Angel Network thing, where she uses her bully pulpit to bilk small change out of middle-class citizens to, in turn, give the money to people who "need" it. Ostensibly, this is noble. It's nice to see that someone's finally taking care of the little people. Noble, indeed, until you realizes that Oprah personally is raking in about $250 million a year. That's a billion quarters, 500 million loads of laundry, or full KU scholarships for 25,000 students. You could feed 500 people with what she spends on makeup for the day's show. What's worse: if she didn't pay people to count her money, she would never know how much she had. When Oprah scrapes by on a couple million dollars a year and gives away the rest, then
and only then can she even talk about any angel network.
My worry is that she might win the Texas cattlemen's lawsuit and begin to realize how powerful she really is. What could happen then is worse than anything I can imagine: She might run for president.
If Oprah can pull a majority from a bunch of Chicago school kids who could choose Michael Jordan or Bill Murray, then she'd have no problem pulling an even larger majority from the illiterate American voting public. There are just not enough intelligent people in America to prevent it. She's already got a great campaign slogan: "Oprah's On, 2000!" What more could she need?
Think about it.
Disenfranchised and neglected middle-class housewives would flock to the polls like they were anti-beef rallies. Skinhead militiamen would organize assassination attempts. Government officials would organize cover-ups. Rush Limbaugh would explode; and the subsequent cloud would block all sunlight on earth for two weeks.
Perhaps I'm being a bit melodramatic. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad — it's just that talk-show hosts don't have the best of luck as politicians. Jerry Springer, a potential running mate, was the mayor of Cincinnati until he made the mistake of writing a check to a prostitute. Who knows what dark, nefarious deeds are lurking under that giant haircut.
All of this pales in comparison to Oprah's worst deed: interviewing Hanson live in front of an audience of teenage girls. There were enough screams and blushes there to fill Seventeen magazine for 20 years — and I had to watch.
If Oprah does run for president, please don't vote for her, she might give cabinet positions to the Spice Girls.
Jeremy Chrysler is a Topeka junior in business and engineering.
Feedback
Field house editorial failed to use logic
Ameshia Tubbs' editorial was one of the worst exercises in logic that I have ever seen. First, Tubbs cannot decide who should've been offended by the incident. At one point Tubbs said the sign demeaned the referee and later she says that depleting the disabled as an officiator was offensive. I did not know that the two groups, referees and the disabled, viewed each other in such negative terms.
Second, is offending a minority of fans and viewers disrupting the game? This is absurd. If this definition of disrupting the game were consistently applied—and if it is true that, in Tubbs' words, the fan's sign was no different than culturally bashing Native Americans with sports teams names such as the Redskins—then fans wearing these teams' apparel would be disrupting the game if anyone who is offended by this sees them. Additionally, what would happen if Kansas had to play, say, the Florida State Seminoles, in the NCAA tournament? Would this game be disrupting the game? Furthermore, according to Tubbs' logic, anything deemed offensive by a minority of fans, or even a majority, or worse, one usher, could be labeled as disruptive to the game.
Will the athletic department send these game-disrupters home, or will they give them ponchos with which to cover themselves?
John Stanford Clinton, Miss., graduate student
Columnist right on minority rights
I just wanted to express my appreciation for Donato Fhunsu's column in Tuesday's University Daily Kansan. Unfortunately it seems as though most KU students do not concern themselves with the struggles of our multicultural society. Fhunsu points out the incredibly diverse ancestry that makes up this nation, and that at one time or another your ancestors may have been the target of injustice. I agree with Fhunsu that it is ridiculous to expect everyone in America to call themselves simply Americans. We have denied many of our citizens their basic inalienable rights for more than a century. Do we really need to deny them
How long must we wait until "E Pluribus Unum" rings true? The answer lies in our hands. Jackie Robinson once said, "Not one American is free until every American is free."
Summer M. Schippers
Hoxie junior
Destroying fan's sign unconstitutional
of their culture, heritage and ancestry also? It is important for us to acknowledge our friends' and neighbors' differences and to celebrate them. But in the same breath we also must realize that we are all part of one human race and that our actions can affect many.
I have to agree 100 percent with what Andy Obermüller wrote about the Allen Field House sign ripping and how it violated that guy's First Amendment rights.
If the University is violating a right, should we all just watch? I think not! As you may know, I support the Bill of Rights. I wonder how many people know what that is.
I wonder how many KU students would be on each side of this issue? It would be interesting to know.
Sure it's "the rules," but what if rules are unconstitutional?
Jeff Goodman Stilwell, sophomore
Removal of fan's sign was censorship
It's distressing when student journalists argue that government ought to be able to ban speech it doesn't like. That's the position The Kansan took in its editorial congratulating a field house usher who ripped up a student's sign that read, "I'm blind. I'm deaf. I wanna be a ref."
The same First Amendment that protects the Kansan's right to editorialize also protects the right of fans to express opinions at basketball games played at state-owned Allen Field House.
While the field house is not a public forum for all messages, it is a forum dedicated to staging basketball games for fans who clearly have the right to express themselves.
They scream traditional cheers such as, "We're going to beat the hell out of you, you, you-you
you." They serenade Cory Carr when the Texas Tech player's three-pointer fails to touch the rim with the sing-song chant "Aliiiiir Baaaaal, Aliiiiir Baaaalall." They roar their approval when Raef breaks away for a jam. They "booooooooooo" when Norm Stewart storms up and down the sidelines. And they "Puuuuuuuuugh" when the junior center from Omaha blocks a shot.
Some fans carry signs that express thoughts. "Beware of the Phon" or "FREE Lester Earl."
Should ushers confiscate Roy's suit coat the next time he arrives for a game?
Question: When a red-faced Coach Roy ripped off his coat and flung it into the crowd after the fourth person foul was called on Raef LaFrentz, which of the following represented the message he was conveying: 1. He was demonstrating to his wife, Wanda, his displeasure with the job she did pressing his jacket, or, 2. He was questioning the eyesight of the official who saw the "ghost" foul committed by his star player that sent him to the bench?
The Athletic Department can and should control expression that interferes with the game or the right of other fans to enjoy it. They can confiscate whistles and air horns that interrupt play. They can remove large banners that make it impossible for fans seated behind them to see. They can eject fans who express displeasure by throwing objects on the floor and endangering players. They can even remove banners containing obscenities that other fans should not be forced to see as a cost of attending the game.
And some even express opinions about the officiating, perhaps best exemplified by the two syllable cheer that begins with bull and ends with excrement. The student sign about refs that was confiscated was less vulgar than the B.S. cheer — and far less demonstrative than coach Roy Williams' actions in Boulder on Monday night.
But the First Amendment does not allow government to pick and choose between signs, allowing only the speech they agree with, banning the messages they oppose. Athletic Department officials justify their behavior with the word "sportsmanship." There is another word that better describes their actions: Censorship.
Ted Frederickson Professor of journalism