4
Friday, February 11, 1994
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Doctor should practice repay U.S. for education
The State Board of Healing Arts made a poor decision last week when it voted to postpone determining the status of Yolanda Huet-Vaughn's medical license.
There should be no question that Huet-Vaughn be allowed to practice medicine while she waits for the army to decide what course it may take in her case. Revoking her license would only waste the time and money put into her medical education, which could be used to provide the health care that is desperately needed by poverty-stricken Americans.
The only question remaining is how she should pay for the education she was given by the military, free of charge, and then refused to use in the Persian Gulf War.
Young doctors across the country still are paying off loans that got them through medical school. Others who have been trained through military programs are serving their time as medical personnel in the armed services. It is only fair that Huet-Vaughn be required to pay for the education that she agreed to use in service of the military and is allowing her to make a living as a doctor.
Since she refused to serve her country when it called upon her to fulfill her contract, the tax dollars used to make Huet-Vaughn a doctor should be put to use in community service. She should be required to offer free medical assistance to state programs to complete the contract she made when she signed her name on the dotted line.
DONELLA HEARNE FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Partial military policy in Bosnia unproductive
On Sunday, United Nations Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali sent a letter to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization requesting permission to start air strikes against the military targets around Sarajevo that are attacking civilian targets. Unfortunately, limited air strikes are not the answer to the problems in former Yugoslavia.
The United Nations either should commit to full military support or none at all.
The humanitarian purposes of air strikes are protecting U.N. peacekeepers, opening an air strip for humanitarian flights, and relieving Canadian troops that protect Muslim onclaves. The reasons for the air strikes are admirable. However, the strikes could result in NATO pilots being shot down and taken hostage or causing attacks on British, Canadian and other U.N. forces that are already on the ground serving in aid operations.
Boutros-Ghali's letter represents a further step in incrementalist military policies of the United Nations that also was used in Somalia. Incrementalism has serious weaknesses that should be realized. First, by slowly escalating our military purpose and presence in Bosnia, we are endangering our soldiers of attack. Second, the military commitment is limited to cover specific purposes. The limited military commitment can increase the chance of casualties to Western troops.
Our involvement in Yugoslavia is a tricky business. The conflicts are a continuation of cultural and ethnic strife that can't be completely resolved by the United Nations. Somalia and Vietnam have taught us that partial military involvement solves nothing.
KANSAN STAFF
BEN GROVE. Editor
LISA COSMILLO, Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Systems coordinator
JUSTIN GARBERG Business manager
JENNIFER BLOWEY Retail sales manager
Editors
Aasst Managing Editor ... Dan England
Assistant to the editor ... J.R. Clairborne
News ... Kristi Fogler, Katie Greenwald
... Todd Seifert
Editortal ... Colleen McCain
... Nathan Olson
Campus ... Jess DeHaven
Sports ... David Dorsey
Photo ... Doug Hesse
Features ... Sara Bennett
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr ...Jason Eberly
Regional sales mgr ...Troy Tarwater
National & Coop sales mgr ...Robin King
Special Sections mgr ..Shelly McConnell
Production mgr ..Laura Guth
Gretchen Koonterloehlnch
Marketing director ..Shannon Reilly
Creative director ..John Carlton
Classified mgr ..Kelly Connelys
Teareases mgr ..Wing Chan
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 Texas at Austin should use a standard font.
Guest teachers should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kauai reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kauai newsroom, 111 Stuaffer-Flint Hall.
Congressional term limits offer easy answers to big problem
Just when we thought we could take a break from the silliness, the issue of the 1990s — congressional term limits — rears its ugly head again.
Not content with their own right to vote for or against whomever they wish, the proponents of the measures want to take away your right to cast your vote freely. All across America, people are fed up with their representatives in Congress and intend to see to it that they all lose their jobs.
I'll admit that the idea of Bob Dole working at a Burger King somewhere holds a certain appeal for me. But if it happens, I'd like to see it come about as a result of a popular uprising against his wrong-headed policies, not through the elimination of his right to represent the people of Kansas in Congress.
Conservative columnist George F. Will now promotes the cause vigorously. He's a popular spokesperson for the term-limits crusade because he's the only one who doesn't talk as if he's set slightly askew on his mounts. The raison d'etre (reason for being) for the term-limits movement, according to Mr. Will and others, is
that the incumbent members of Congress are an elite class of patricians who have grown out of touch with the lunch box crowd back home and need to be replaced.
Fine, one might say; just vote against them. But no, this is impossible, according to term-limits proponents, because the incumbents have so many advantages that their underfunded, underpublicized rivals have no chance of winning no matter how hard they try or how many times they come back for more (this is the Buffalo Bills theory of politics).
This is a great argument. The only problem is that it's not true. Our Canadian friends proved that by de-electing nearly every member of the formerly-ruling Progressive Conservative party in their recent Parliamentary elections. They weren't forced to vote against their members of Parliament by some law, they just went ahead and did it.
People yearn for simple solutions to complex problems. Limiting terms of elected officials is a simple concept. But the sad reality is that, in many situations, the solution is invariably more complex than the problem.
Campaign finance reform is a way to make the race fairer for congressional challengers without forcing the voters to give up a representative with whom they may be satisfied. But it's complicated. It hasn't been worked out yet. Ross Perot can't put it on a flip chart. Factor in the average MTV attention span, and it's easy to see why this term-limits populism is spreading like wildfire.
There's another motive that many of these people have, one which Mr. Will and his conservative colleagues rarely mention. The American people consistently and overwhelmingly elect Democrats to represent them in
Congress. Republicans haven't controlled the House of Representatives since 1954. The GOP has not been successful in persuading the voters that their party should be given the responsibility of guiding the legislative branch, so they want to use this restriction to come in through the back door.
We live in a country with a serious aversion to elections. We consider it a good year if half of the eligible population votes. But an informed, activist population that educates itself about the candidates and votes in both the general election and the primaries would obviate the need for term limit proposals; incumbents would no longer have a free ride. That's the solution.
But alas, that's too difficult. It would require going beyond the sound bites and bumper stickers and into a serious discussion of the issues and candidates. Better just to vote *Yes* on a term limit initiative so we don't have to worry about it anymore.
Paul Henry is a Tacome, Wash., graduate student in journalism.
Fraternity 'brother' finds a home
The phone rang last week, jolting me out of my late night doze. Who would be calling me at this hour?
COLUMNIST
Of course, it was Brian, my freshman brother from Colorado State University. He usually calls at this hour, and I figured he just wanted to chat. So I began to tell him to call back, needed my sleep. Only I couldn't because I started to yawn.
That's when he hit me with the news.
I sat there, dazed. I could tell my
He had pledged a fraternity — a new chapter of Delta Tau Delta.
That woke me up. Oh no, not my baby brother! My liberal, non-conformist and intelligent brother. He had just joined a conservative organization that forces its members to be just like everyone else and promotes smashing a beer can against a forehead as the cultural highlight of college.
At least that was my opinion of fraternity houses. Too many of my friends had pledged to a house their first year and struggled academically. And many of my girlfriends had sobbed on my shoulder after they had learned they were just another notch on the bedpost of a fraternity guy they were dating.
I felt betrayed and worried — even a little jealous. After all, I'm the only one Brian is supposed to call "brother."
Brian, his voice shaking, said, "Um, you're not mad are you?"
brother was nervously waiting on the other end for my reaction. And yet, I could say nothing. A vision of my brother wearing letters across his chest, calling a party a "function" and his fellow members "brothers" had stolen my words.
"I didn't have any place to belong to," he said. "You know that."
I sputtered out, "Well, no, I'm not. Just a little...confused, that's all. Why did you do it?"
That's true. Two weeks ago, I wrote about Brian missing his hometown friends, and how I really didn't any-
more. I still didn't know why he did and I didn't. Brian gave me a clue with his next line.
"You had marching band — instant friends. You got along with everyone in your residence hall — more friends. And you could always go home — comfort. I don't have any of that."
Of course, I recently had thought a lot about Brian. But because he was always so able to talk to people, more so than I ever was, I just assumed it would work out.
That's when it hit me. He said he would never miss our dog, and yet in his last few phone calls he talked about wanting a dog so bad. He talked about how he wished a dog could look into his eyes and just know something was wrong.
All the little things about home that we never think about until we leave were breaking his heart.
He said he wouldn't miss Mom or Dad, and yet he talked about wishing he had a home-cooked meal and someone to brag to in person about his grades.
I felt so guilty. I was caught up in my own life. I then asked if he was still depressed. I should have called more...
"No, no, I'm fine. I'm going to the house. Everyone is pretty cool there. I can talk to people there."
I found my heart swelling with relief. My baby brother was going to be OK
What? Was I actually relieved because he had joined a fraternity?
I've since changed my mind about fraternity houses. How many freshman like Brian who felt swallowed up by a big university have been uplifted by pledging a house? Probably more than I'll ever understand.
So if Brian does come home wearing letters, I guess I'll just groan and tease him on the outside. But inside, I'll be smiling.
I know the house will take care of him. I have accepted those members as his guardian while I'm away.
Just as long as I'm the only one he calls "brother."
Yes. He had found a place. Everyone needs a place where they can go. Where they feel like someone would care if they dropped off the world. It those places, and so I didn't miss it. I didn't realize how important it is.
Dan England is a Lenexa senior In Journalism.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
What is wrong with Dole's blunness? What is wrong with his honesty? Henry is right. Bob Dole pulls no punches. He lets people know exactly how he feels about them. One of the most detested things about politicians is how they often act like they are pleasing everyone by talking from both sides of their mouths (humm, sounds like someone living in the White House). Dole does not do this. His sternness and
Paul Henry's blind observations of Senator Dole are immature. His childish article was entertaining only because of its idiocy.
focused intensity may be hated by many liberals, but it should be respected. It is a shame Clinton's shady dealings with Whitewater were revealed so closely to the loss of the president's mother, but it would be irresponsible for Dole to blow this situation off. Bob Dole is not a cold hearted, mean person. Those who know him and have worked with him have found Dole to be incredibly hard working, friendly and hilarious. I guess Henry would rather have a handsome, politically correct, smooth-talking draft dodger in the office, but Bob Dole, like it or not, will be president in 1996.
One more thing, Henry. You made references to the television three
Dole's frank intensity respected by supporters
times in your article. Maybe if you could pull yourself off the couch, away from the TV and do some actual research, you would realize how great a man Bob Dole is. Your mellow dramatic [sic] "fear" for the senator's soul and ridiculous call for an apology is [sic] almost as lame as your entire writing style. Think before you write.
Ed Connealy Leawood junior
Council is exclusionary unreasonable in thinking
Perhaps Professors Srinivasan and Linkuel need to be reminded that faculty status has not always been a prerequisite for being granted permission to speak at University Council (UDK Feb. 3, p.l.: "Consensual relations conflicts discussed"). If that were the case, then a Regent, a member of the State Legislature, a member of Congress who expressed an interest in speaking to the body should not have been granted the privilege. Surely Council may accord speaking privileges to whomever it wishes. Things are getting totally out of control in the current governance: a task force recommendation is rewritten, a SenEx member is unilaterally replaced by SenEx, a presiding officer makes an improper exclusionary ruling. One can only wonder, what will be next?
Associate Professor of Classics