4
Thursday, January 14: 1993
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Boycotting Colorado won't kill amendment
It was supposed to be an open-and-shut case.Every preelection poll indicated that Colorado voters would easily reject Amendment 2 to the state constitution. This amendment prohibits state, county and local governments from protecting homosexuals from discrimination. It also repeals existing gay rights ordinances.
Ironically, the economic repercussions of a boycott would not be felt by most supporters of Amendment 2. Denver, Boulder and Aspen, all major tourist centers, would be hardest hit by boycotts. However, voter returns showed that all three cities decidedly defeated the amendment. Each of the cities also had a gay-rights ordinance in effect prior to the election.
However, the measure passed with 53 percent of the voters' support. A last-minute media campaign sponsored by Colorado for Family Values, a right-wing political organization, convinced voters that if Amendment 2 did not pass, homosexuals could receive preferred status and special rights in matters of employment and housing.
Accordingly, a boycott would be a misguided, ineffective effort. Not only could a boycott bring economic hardship to active opponents of the amendment, but a boycott also could actually increase voter support for Amendment 2.
Nationally, gay-rights activists proposed a boycott of the state of Colorado until the amendment is repealed. Numerous celebrities and political organizations have urged Americans to show their opposition to the amendment by boycotting the state. Though a boycott appears to be a noble political statement, such action is actually a useless, if not counterproductive, gesture
The reaction to the amendment was both immediate and far-reaching. Denver officials vowed to have the amendment overturned, and hearings began this week to determine whether the amendment puts homosexuals in danger of immediate and irreparable injuries.
The threat of boycotts has not caused Coloradans to rethink their positions, but has actually caused voters to become more adamant in their beliefs. A January 3 Denver Post poll revealed that 94 percent of voters would not change their votes if given the chance. Furthermore, 43 percent of voters declared that the threat of boycott has made them less inclined to support the push to repeal Amendment 2.
Punishing the entire state for the opinion of little more than half its voters is unreasonable. Instead of lashing out at all of Colorado, organizations would be better served by working with opponents of the amendment to overturn the measure. By working to rectify the situation rather than shunning the state of Colorado, groups would be more likely to see Amendment 2 overturned.
COLLEEN McCAIN FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Alumni who ignored Acacia now are on fraternity's case
Few people left on campus remember the Acacia of years past. In 1987, a close-kut group of students who were unsatisfied with other choices applied for an Acacia charter.
Since its opening, Acacia has had a low active membership and a small economic base. As an executive board member from 1989 to 1990, I can remember many attempts to receive alumni or national chapter support, but there was no response. Now Acacia is gone, and everyone still is trying to collect. The Corporation Board had done nothing to help our chapter. The national fraternity
thinks of the Kansas chapter only as an economic endeavor, not as a social and educational entity. There are no fraternities that exist on campus without help from their alumni, their Corporation Board, or their national fraternity.
Acacia has endured hard times and unfounded rumors, but this is not what I remember. When I think of the years I've spent at KU, think of the great times I've spent with the University Council, the Corporation Board and national chapter all turned their backs on Acacia.
Matthew Aln Senior, Overland Park
KANSAN STAFF
GREG FARMER
Editor
STEVE PERRY Business manager
GAYLE OSTERBERG
Maratina editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
TOMERLEN
MELISS A TERLIP
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
ID & K/K/D LD/K/DD
Editors Business Staff
Acet Managing... Justie Knupje Campus sales mgr. Brad Beaden
Ace News... Monique Gubelain Regional Sales mgr. Wake Baster
David Mitchell National sales mgr. Jennifer Pender
Editorial Stephen Martineo Co-op sales mgr. Aahley Hesset
Campus KC Tracer Production mgr. Ashley Stumbo
Sports David Mitchell Ashley Laughong
Media Matthews Marketing director Angela Connolly
Features Lynne McAdobe Creative director Holly Perry
Graphics Dian Schauer Classified mgr. Jill Tommy
**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 include classmates and hometowns, or faculty or staff positions.
**Guest columns** should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be
The Kauai receives the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kauai newsroom, 111 Standiford Pill Hall.
Way too short wasn't it!!!
Braun's election victory sours amid harassment allegations
It may be true that Kgosie Matthews is an arrogant jerk. He's been widely reported to be one. But even a jerk should have the right to confront his accusers.
If you follow politics, you probably know that Matthews was Carol Moseley Braun's campaign manager. Now, they appear to be significant others, or some such things.
Matthews also has achieved prominence by being the target of accusations that he sexually harassed two of three women who worked in Braun's campaign.
This became big news because Braun is a senator as a direct result of the most notorious case of alleged sexual harassment of our time: the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill controversy.
When Sen. Al Dixon, D-III, voted to confirm Thomas for the Supreme Court, women became furious with him, and the unknown Braun jumped into the race. She was beneficiary of all that female fury, and the rest is history.
The only problem with this story is that while it reeks of irony, it reckens of mischief.
Now Braun has a campaign manager/boyfriend who is accused of sexual harassment. Just like Clarence Thomas.
What a yuck. That's known as irony.
And those of us in the news business love the ironic story.
COLUMNIST
As I said in the beginning, it is part of our legal system that the accuse be
permitted to confront his accusers
If you want to sue someone, you can tell the lawyer: "Yes, file the suit, I want to get every dollar he has. But by the way, keep my name out of it."
If you go to the police and say you want to sign a complaint against someone for a criminal act, you can't say: "Arrest him, but I don't want to get involved."
But in journalism, the rules are different. Actually, there are no binding rules. The rules are whatever an editor says they are.
And in the case of Kgosie Matthews,
he stands accused of sexual harassment by__by who? Damned if I know.
Two or three women whose names have never appeared in any newspaper or on any radio or TV station.
It doesn't work that way, and it shouldn't. At least it doesn't in the world of law.
Their allegations have been printed and broadcast, although not in any true detail. They say that he tried to date them. When they turned him down, he treated them coldly or rudely or something.
None said that he groped, pinched,
goosed, or tried to best an unwanted kiss. He didn't chase them around a desk or leap out from behind a water cooler in a state of nudity. Or if he did, they haven't said so.
The reason their names have not appeared in these stories is that the reporters who listened to them agreed to their demand that they not be identified in any way. Those were the terms of their deal for telling their stories.
Now, there are sometimes valid reasons why a news source's name is protected.
Someone once tipped me off that the crime syndicate had taken over a private golf club. I checked it out, did the story and put the club out of business. Had I used the source's name, he would have slept with the fishes.
Government whistle blowers sometimes tell reporters about government corruption. If their names are used, they can be exposed to professional or even physical danger.
Most news organizations don't use the names of rape victims. That's because many people still wrongly believe that rape is a sex crime, rather than a crime of violence, and the victim is stigmatized.
But in the case of Matthews, we're not talking about rape. If it was rape, the women should have gone to the cops, which they haven't done.
Do they fear for their lives if they're identified? If so, again they should be talking to cops, not reporters.
No, what we have here is a one-way street. They get to tell their story, with few specifics, and Matthews is muddied up in the press with headlines about "sexual harassment."
They remain anonymous.
Much of the mud that hits Matthews splatters Braun. So she has to go before the cameras, face a barrage of questions from reporters and try to defend herself and Matthews.
But the people who should really be embarrassed are those who work in my trade.
I haven't seen any of the accusers sitting in front of the cameras and answering questions.
Why should they answer questions?
Because fairness demands it. If they are going to accuse a person of something that opens him to public contempt, they should be required to step up right and provide specifics.
Just tossing out the phrase "sexual harassment" shouldn't be, and isn't enough. And the media can't hide behind the excuse that they will print the facts — or some of the — and let the public decide if these women should or shouldn't be believed. The public hasn't been given a chance to make up its mind because it hasn't heard one word directly from these women. All it has to go on is a reporter's sketcher version of what these nameless people say. That's not enough.
I'm sure Kgosie Matthews is embarrassed by these stories. And so is Braun.
Mike Royko is a syndicated columnist with the Chicago Tribune.
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Iran-Contra truthbetter left unknown
On television, a commentator said that irragate reminds him of the old saying. "There are three sides to every controversy: one side and the other side and the truth."
Enough already.
We've heard two of the three for six
years. We've heard they don't
actually know what the third is.
It's over. It's time to admit it and go on.
Special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh has spent millions and millions of our tax dollars — up to $65 million — sources close to the investigation saw.
He has uttered what seems to be an equal amount of words for publication, although 65 million words may be conservative.
He has dragged witness after witness in front of television cameras.
And what does Walsh have to show for it? Absolutely nothing.
Earlier convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter were overturned on appeal.
The U.S. attorney general's office has said there is no reason to pursue the matter. The evidence is not there.
Still Walsh goes on, now reduced to charging that certain officials lied to Congress.
President Bush pardoned Caspar Weinberger and five others for whatever they did, if anything.
Now protected from the prosecutor's wrath. Weinberger says Walsh was trying to coerce false testimony from him in an effort to get to President Reagan.
But Walsh isn't giving up and has promised to go after President Bush. Who in the world does he think he is?
501 Bluez
Meridian (Miss.) Star Jan. 4, 1993
LOOK IT'S SURPOSED TO BE A
SURPRISE IF YOU WOULD BE QUIET!
by Moses Smith