4
Tuesday, February 9.1993
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Pending bill can make voter registration easy
The Motor-Voter Bill will be coming up before Congress again this session. This bill enables citizens to register to vote where they receive driver's licenses. It was passed last session but was vetoed by then-President George Bush. Hopefully, Congress will pass it, and it will become law with President Bill Clinton's signature.
Registering to vote should be one of the simplest activities in life. The Constitution guarantees the right to vote to every U.S. citizen over the age of 18 regardless of sex, race or creed. Registration, although necessary, should not be a prohibitive procedure.
The Motor-Voter Bill is meant to alleviate some of the hassle of registration. It merely expands the number of registration sites. Citizens will just have one less place to visit if they register while receiving their driver's licenses.
The bill also contains provisions for registering at employment agencies, welfare offices and other social service agencies. This portion of the bill is not mentioned frequently.Many feel that these are not appropriate sites for registration.
Registration at various government offices will not require additional expenditures. With computer technology, costs will remain the same.
It is our hope President Clinton will follow through on his campaign promise of seeing the Motor-Voter Bill become law. The bill will make registration less burdensome for many citizens.
JOLINDA MATHEWS FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Captain's ban gives seat back to the students
Many students who have purchased sports tickets arrive at their first basketball game at Allen Field House to find that the only available seats are somewhere in Anschutz Sports Pavilion. They must sit where the athletic department tells them to because they hold student tickets. I imagine many were quite surprised to find out that "Captain Jayhawk," who consistently sits in the middle of a prime student section, is not even a student (Kansan 1-27-93). Why does the department bother to set aside these seats for students and not bother to enforce their seating policies? I realize that the crowd enjoys seeing Mr. Zielinski fly through the air with the greatest of ease during the 'hey' chant, but those of us sitting in the rafters view the ban of Captain Jayhawk, no as a travesty, but as another student seat returned to the students.
Greg Hockenberger Topeka sophomore
Correct speech is praiseworthy not mandatory
Andrew Gilman's Feb. 1 column on sexist language brings to mind an anecdote about a conversation between Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas.
After reading an editorial on women and cigarettes, Stein asked her companion, "Should women be permitted to smoke in public?"
"Permitted by whom?" Toklas replied.
Gilman's article raises this same question.
Few would challenge the call to "become informed" about sexist language; most rational people value fairness, especially in communications.
But Gilman's assertion that "this can be done by ensuring action is taken when language is used the wrong way" invokes the specter of Orwellian "political correctness" that has haunted this campus for a while now.
Our school and our society have a long-standing tradition of free and open exchange of ideas. Perhaps we are foolish to believe that when two opposing ideas are weighed equally, the one with the most merit (in this case anti-sexism) will win out. But without access to opposing views, we'll never discover where we may be in error.
However intolerant we choose to be, our own freedom depends on our tolerance of others. Let's try to avoid using discriminatory language, but let's try to avoid policing others to ensure that they live up to our standards.
Choosing non-discriminatory speech is praiseworthy, but only if it is an individual choice. Otherwise it's just lip service.
Bryan Whitehead Kansas City, Kan. graduate student
Don't dismiss military as solution to unrest
It seems that with the new semester we have rung in a new year, president, and a new group of Kansan columnists. Recently, staff columnist Marvin McNett published an article condemning the United States for constantly using military action on international problems when it does not work.
The analogy that the problems (weeds) are just mowed over temporarily with military might while the roots of these problems are just left to grow back. "Oh, how simple," would be someone's first thought, "let's go for the root of these problems, what a great idea." But, of course, the root must be removed non-militarily. After all, according to this recent article, "Experience shows us that a military oslaught has never worked to solve a problem." In order to justify this theology we have to first look at some of the international problems of this century. In Vietnam or the Bay of Pigs, military action accomplished little. However, in World War II, the Libyan air strikes, the Falklands crisis, the Gulf War, and in Somalia it is clear that military action has proven its utility.
GUEST COLUMNIST
First, it has to be recognized that international action, political or military, is more complex than just focusing on the root of a problem. Just identifying the root of a problem poses a complex problem in an interdependent world. Ask 20 people, let alone nations, what the root of a particular conflict is, and you will likely get 20 different explanations. What you are left with, then, is the comparably easier job of finding problems of
importance. Clearly, Nazi aggression in World War II, Libyan-sponsored terrorism in the 1980s, recent Iraqi aggression, and the starving in Somalia are problems. The roots are, again, more vague. But even if a root is unmaniponly pinpointed, little can be done that would support the ridiculous assumption that military action has never worked to solve a problem. Unfortunately, McNett fails to give us any alternate (non-military) avenues in getting to the root of these problems, not to mention tell us what the roots might be.
WILLIAM GIST
International policy has to be determined by what is in the best interest of our country and allies, not by whether an undefinable root is going to be attacked. Historically, it is evident that military action has been successful in pursuing national interests. In World War II, Hitler could be pinpointed as one of the roots of genocide and European destruction. Allied military forces remedied the problem. Hitler was removed and Europe was a much more stable continent for the first time in history. In the mid-80s, terrorism against the U.S. was out of control. Since most of
it was Libyan-sponsored, air strikes were ordered. The result: little international terrorism directed toward the U.S. since the bombing. In the Persian Gulf, Iraq's army was devastated, effectively turning back naked aggression and protecting the world's oil supply. It could be argued that the root was Saddam Hussein, and he's still there to grow. Or was the root really Saddam's military power? If so, the root is uprooted. This is a case in point of the futility of defining a root in an international problem. Finally, in Somalia, only military action is of real use. You do not squelch 14 warring factions that act like terrorists by sending over a secretary of state. By disarming these warlords, peace can now be pursued and people can be fed. If McNett looked back at history he would realize that enemies (as in Somalia) do not pursue peace when one side can bully its way to fully achieve its self interests.
To quote Matt Smith and Keith Campbell in a recent letter to the Kansan, "The opinion page should not be story time." If you look at historical facts, military accomplishments, and the futility of diplomacy with iron fisted dictators, it is clear that U.S. military intervention works and is the only option in many cases. For one to decide on the utility of force by whether an (undefinable) root is attacked is ludicrous. International problems are to be dealt with in a manner that satisfies U.S. and world interests and provides a chance for progress.
William Gist is a Leawood junior majoring in political science.
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Servicepersons should be asked about gays first
President Bill Clinton, intent on admitting homosexuals to the U.S. military services, went through the motions of inviting the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the White House to discuss the matter.
the military, say they will respect the wishes of the new commander in chief.
With the White House, the upper strata of the military and Congress getting involved in the issue, the one group that should have a say in whether homosexuals should continue to be barred appears to have been overlooked.
into the closest contact with gays if they are admitted.
The Joint Chiefs, though they oppose admitting homosexuals into
Members of the military are the people most competent to determine if homosexuals in their ranks would undermine morale.
That group is the combined members of the military—particularly the enlisted men and noncommissioned officers who would come
Voting machines should be set up at all U.S. military bases and mail-in ballots should be supplied to all personnel on detached duty for a vote by all members on this issue.
Daily Times Farmington, N.M. Jan 26
Homosexuals in military deserve their equal rights
Grown men have declared to our new president, "If you don't play by our rules, we won't play." The military has discriminated against a variety of people for as long as they had existed. First it was African Americans, then women and now homosexuals. People want to see a Congress that represents the people of our nation fairly, but not a military. Why?
Homosexuals, like women and African Americans, are citizens of this nation and deserve the choice to serve in the armed forces.
They sent the African Americans to the front of the front, and body bags came home full of young men with dark skin. Women are not allowed to serve in combat. Homosexuals should not be allowed to serve at all. There seems to be a common thread here.
There is concern that homosexuals would use their power to sexually harass their subordinates. Based on the past actions of heterosexual males in positions of power over women, it is not surprising that they would assume this behavior would occur in homosexuals as well. However, there are laws against this behavior for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
It is time to start accepting that no matter what your sex, race or sexual orientation, you deserve the same chance as anyone else to live your life as you see fit, as long as you are not imposing your feelings or beliefs on others.
There is a certain irony in hearing Colin Penny, an African American, speaking out against the integration of an oppressed people. Where would our Joint Chief of Staff be if the military had never allowed African Americans to serve in positions of power over whites? Has he used his position to force himself on the women who work under him? It is doubtful, yet he does not want to allow homosexuals to have the same choice that he, as a citizen of this nation, has enjoyed.
Homosexuals do not desire every person they meet, any more than heterosexuals do. They are as mature as heterosexual individuals.
There was a time when it was believed that African-American men would rape every white woman they met. This myth has been slow in dying. I hope the myth about homosexuals can be put to rest more quickly.
Many homosexuals serve in the military in silence. Some states are attempting to pass laws making it legal to discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation. When reading American history, one can find numerous examples of prejudice. This nation was based on the freedom to worship any god we choose, and the Constitution states that all men are created equal. Now we have people trying to tell us that if we do not have sex the way they do, we are not entitled to the same rights as everyone else.
Bigotry is motivated by fear. People have justified their bigotry for years in the name of their children, their women and their God. It's not it to overcome fear of those who are different?
Lisa Coomilit is a Lawrence graduate student majoring in journalism.
KANSAN STAFF
GREG FARMER
Editor
GAYLE OSTERBERG
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
HILL SKEET, Technology coord
STAFF COLUMNIST
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
News Managing ... Justin Knupp
Aass News ... Monique Guelain
... David Mitchell
Editorial ... Stephen Martino
Campus ... KC Trauer
Sports ... David Mitchell
Photo ... Max Bowlen
Festivals ... Lynne McAdobe
Graphics ... Don Schauer
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr. Brad Broun
Regional sales mgr. Wade Baxter
National sales mgr. Jennifer Pierer
Co-op sales mgr. Ahesh Hessel
Production mgr. Amy Stumbo
Marketing manager. Angela Clevenger
Creative director Holly Parry
Guest director Lisa Clevenger
Art Director Dave Habeger
STEVE PERRY
Business manager
MELISSA TERLIP
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
**Writers' 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 must include class and homework, or faculty or staff position.**
**Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be**
**the Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters, grant documents and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Stuart First Hall.**
Mystery Strip
by David Rosenfield