OPINION
The University Daily KANSAN
April 10, 1984 Page 4
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily KANSAN
The University Daily Kansas (USP 5064) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer Flint Hall, Lawrence, KS 66205, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer session, excluding holidays. Membership fees are $29 for a six month subscription or $27 a year in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $3 for each outside the county. Student subscriptions are $1 a semester paid through the student account: POSTMASTER - send address changes to the following email addresses: usp@usk.edu
DOUG CUNNINGHAM
Editor DON KNON SARA KEMPIN Managing Editor Editorial Editor
15
JEFF TAYLOR ANDREW HARTLEY
Campus Editor News Editor
DAVE WANAMAKER Business Manager
PAUL JESS
CORT GORMAN JILL MITCHELL
CERT Sales Manager National Sales Manager
General Manager and News Adviser
JANCE PHILIPS  DUNCAN CALIHUO
Campus Sales Manager  Classified Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Sales and Marketing Adviser
Discuss problem
A coalition of campus groups called the Free Speech Movement last week failed to persuade the Student Senate to oust four budget committee members who allegedly discriminated against an organization of gay students.
But the Free Speech Movement's latest battle — to reform the budget committee because of "irregularities, inconsistencies and abuse of civil rights" — deserves more than a casual look from student senators.
Criticism of the Senate's budget process is nothing new. Among other things, the Free Speech Movement alleges that:
- The budget committee deliberates in private, in violation of Student Senate rules, a University of Kansas policy and, possibly, the Kansas Open Meetings Act.
- Members of the committee have appeared before the committee as representatives of student groups requesting money.
- Members of the committee repeatedly ask certain organizations about their political beliefs, religious affiliations and "other questions having nothing to do with
. . the budget procedures as established."
If these three allegations alone are true — and many senators say they are — the Senate has undoubtedly violated the rights of some students.
The Senate, however, has tried to avoid discussion of the allegations.
The Senate's Rights Committee two weeks ago voted 12-4 to reject an amended version of the Free Speech bill. Free Speech Movement leaders, however, succeeded last week in getting the Minority Affairs Committee to send the bill to the entire Senate.
At the least, the allegations deserve investigation, and the budget committee's guidelines are in need of thorough scrutinization.
Past senates have shied from the issue. We're hoping that this Senate will choose discussion over silence.
Treasures amid trash
One man's trash may indeed be another man's treasure.
The Board of Aldermen in St. Louis recently came to that conclusion.
The city officials revised an ordinance that would have prohibited picking through trash containers in residential areas of the city.
But several organizations working with the poor and homeless in St. Louis argued that there were other ways to take care of this problem without denying hundreds of scavengers the opportunity to find treasure amid the trash.
The aidermen were concerned about the litter problem created by those who sifted through the contents of trash containers and then left the remains scattered about.
The groups were successful in
convincing city officials that there are people who rely on others' discards to get by — a far greater concern than a little garbage strewn in an allevway.
Often, discards found on a trash pile can be eaten or used with only minor alterations.
And in the case of aluminum cans, recycling can bring as much as $7 or $8 a day.
Under the new St. Louis ordinance, people can pick through trash containers in residential areas from dawn to dusk.
People who make a mess with the trash and don't clean up are subject to fines of up to $500.
Fortunately, city officials have realized that despite the incredible wealth in this country, there are still people who get by on what their neighbors throw away.
Providing alternative
Thanks to action Thursday by the University Council, KU students are a step closer to being able to get a grade changed if they think they have been treated unfairly by a professor.
If a grade appeals proposal is approved by the University Senate and Chancellor Gene A. Budig later this month, a board will be created that could order grade changes for students when instructors have refused to grant them.
The plan is an improvement on the present system, whereby a student must simply accept his professor's refusal to change a grade without much opportunity for recourse.
A grade now can be changed without an instructor's approval only if he has died, become incapacitated or been found guilty of sexual
Under the new proposal, the board would hear grade complaints only when instructors allegedly had failed to follow the grading policy they decided on at the beginning of the semester.
harassment or academic misconduct.
Students could only make appeals to the board after they had sought grade changes from the course instructors and the chairmen of the departments in which the courses were offered.
Such a policy is narrow enough that it would effectively stifle abuse. The idea is to be praised because a grade appeals board would be an effective way to give students who have legitimate gripes another alternative.
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten on one sheet of paper, double-spaced and should not exceed 200 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, the letter should include his class and home town or institution. The Kansan invites individuals and groups to submit guest columns. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansan office, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
LETTERS POLICY
Lovaltv oaths outdated
A History Lesson:
Back in the 1940s and 1950s, communism was king when it came to provoking fear among politicians and the public. This wave of fear, which was one of several, was known as the Red Scare.
To keep Reds unemployed, people made their own employees signs pieces of paper swearing that they weren't Communists, and that if they became Communists, they'd out
Kansas created an oath in 1949, and passed a law saying that if you worked for the state in any capacity, you had to take it.
Those pieces of paper were called loyalty oaths.
But this is just a history lesson, and history is a dead thing of the past. Times change, stupid laws are taken off of the books, and people here can believe in whatever politics they want.
So imagine my surprise when I saw a loyalty oath among the payroll papers of a friend of mine who was applying for a job as a residence hall desk monitor. Imagine my greater surprise when I realized that I had once unknowingly signed an oath myself.
According to Kansas Statues Annotated 75-4308, all public officers and employees of the state of Kansas have to take the loyalty oath before they can collect a paycheck. (Image by Mark Day) Daily Kansan staff, technically a state employee, I signed an oath about a year ago.
It reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the constitution of the state of Kansas, and faithfully states of ___ so help me God."
Now that I signed the oath, if I were to, say, secret secrets to the Soviet Union, I would be subject to his order. I would sanction sanctions of the state of Kansas.
I probably would lose my job.
MICHAEL ROBINSON
1 say "probably" because I
Michael Kaye, president of the Kansas American Civil Liberties Union and a Washburn University law professor, said that the U.S. Supreme Court had narrowly allowed loyalty oaths that vowed to uphold the Constitution. So it seems that the Kansas oath is legal.
couldn't find any penalty for anyone who sign the oath, then doesn't support the state or federal constitutions or faithfully discharge the duties.
Staff Columnist
"It's the sort of thing that nobody really has the guts to challenge because it's tied to livelihood," Kaye said.
He objects to loyalty oaths for several reasons, one being that they can be used to selectively prosecute people. And inconsistencies in the Kansas oath and its administration seem to bear him out.
Kansas Statutes Annotated 54-102 says that "All oaths shall be administered by laying the right hand upon the Holy Bible, or by the unified right hand."
And anyone who has spent any state money without really taking the oath is in violation of K.S.A. 75-4314 and subject to imprisonment for no less than six months or more than five years.
Nearly everyone that I know simply signed a piece of paper — no Bible, no raised right hand — which means that the oath has been improperly administered to thousands of state employees.
But as Art Griggs, chief attorney for the Kansas Department of Administration, told me, "I don't want a strict constructionists on that point."
That means that not only is the state keeping a bad law on the books, it's only paying attention to the parts of the law that it wants to.
Richard Steffen, assistant comproller for the University, is responsible for keeping track of the loyalty oaths here at KU. Does he have any personal problems with that?
"It's just another piece of paper." Steffen said. "We're here to enforce the law."
Sort of.
The irony of college athletics
It isn't easy to write about college athletics and academics because tempers seem to flare on both sides of the fence.
The athletes say that they are bringing a lot of money to the school. They say say athletic scholarships are one way that a person who normally can't afford college, can attend.
They say that athletic competition is a part of life and shouldn't be ignored.
The academicians, on the other hand, think that athletics often get in the way of the learning experience.
The professors are afraid that
Even those professors who have compromised between the two extremes say that athletes have a lot of power on the University's list of priorities.
HARRY
MALLIN
they are cranking out uneducated but physically perfect human specimens like some sort of genetic sausage factory.
Staff Columnist
The problem I've had with writing
this column is that I agree with both views.
Athletics, especially the high-visibility sports, bring a lot of media attention and money to the school. Students must attend and alumni bring their checkbooks.
Whether the Jayhawks are winning or, as is more often the case recently, losing, they become one of the players when they're on the field.
To the alumni, they become symbols of the University of Kansas. They are "our boys" on the field of battle, fighting for the crimson and blue. They are students, by Saturday, they are University of Kansas.
The same is true with the basketball team. The alumni sit in their expensive box seats and marvel at KU's success with the body-lengthening machines in Parrott Athletic Center.
Once again, the players are elevated to the status of symbol — a KU student by day, a Jayhawk by night.
But a fallacy occurs to me: KU student by day? The training regimen for an athlete here is so demanding that few can excel at both athletes and academics. Prerequisite is the coaches, whose word is ballowed.
The tragedy is that a few student
But I have no pity for the athlete who leaves this school without an offer from the pros and without a chance to enjoy its opportunity for a good education.
I have to respect those athletes who have their names on both a trophy and the honor roll. They are the real champions and deserve twice the admiration they receive on the field.
Released in a world where an impressive resume usually doesn't include total yards rushed or a scoring percentage, the unsuccessful athlete is often greeted with a cold slap in the face.
masters exist who really want to learn, but must first appease the coaches, the fans and the ever-present alumni.
Their professors must take a back seat. They leave the University with the minimum of education. If they aren't picked by the pros, then they are in store for a unique, educational experience.
Neither do I pity professors who compromise their ability to teach after a harsh word from a coach.
The irony of it all is that the last performance on a field of battle by these steroid-ridden cretins is when they accept their diploma at Memorial Stadium.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Judgment wrong
I understand that Michael Beck must write controversial articles like "Little Dogs are Plague on Society" to get recognized in the world of journalism, but hasn't he gone too far?
To the editor:
He said, "Small dogs) add nothing to society; they only take." He has it backwards. They only take it. He adds something to society, but they add true friendship.
They are always happy; they never complain. They never talk about you behind your back. They
love you for who you are; they are good listeners and they give love.
It is hard to find a friend with all of these qualities.
Dogs are good judges of character. Maybe the dogs who frosted, or worse, on Mr. Beck's pants leg were trying to tell him something.
If you don't treat them as friends, why should they treat you any differently? Yes, they are honest, but don't we need more honesty in this world?
Mr. Beck went on to state that psychologists would probably say small dog owners keep their dogs because they need something to
Since I have argued for owning small dogs, Mr. Beck accuses me of being worthless and of having low intelligence. A dog would never be so judgmental toward a person he did not know.
control. Wrong! They own small dogs to have a companion in an uncaring society.
He said, "Dogs have no purpose, no reason for living." Aren't you glad when you were a baby only taking and not giving to society, that society didn't decide you had no purpose or reason for living?
Diane Dougherty Lawrence senior
Raising age for drinking not solution
Anyone who has heard a friend's name along with the phrase "drunken-driving accident" knows that they were in the gut and don't go away.
If nobody dies, we are spared the front-page story of quotes from grieving friends or relatives, the mug shots dug out of old yearbooks and parts of a eulogy where the priest offers a few words of hope for those trying to make sense of a tragedy.
A less disastrous drunken-driving accident may still make the news
MARGARET
SAFRANEK
Staff Columnist
but the seriousness of it tades, and mostly, we only exclaim how the people involved were lucky, that 'someone could have been killed'
Often, those discussions involve the idea of raising the drinking age.
Every now and then, several drunken-driving accidents, or one in which someone was seriously hurt, are reported about the otherwise-injured passengers.
Thought-provoking articles about drunken driving occasionally draw our attention to the subject for a few minutes. But then, called to other things, we get on with life.
Somehow, those in favor of raising the drinking age have determined that there is a magic age at which one acquires responsibility.
Statistics show that raising the drinking age reduces the number of drinking-related automobile accidents.
Those in favor of such legislation say that people are too irresponsible to be drinking at the age of 18 or 19 or sometimes even 20, or that too many young people drink and drive without realizing the consequences.
Thus, an argument could be made for forcing people to wait until they are 21 before welcoming them into the grown-un world of alcohol.
In our maturity, which has usually come with a mixture of age and experience, we realize what others who have gone before have known—young people often do stupid things when they are drinking. One of the most stupid is combining drinking with driving.
Many of us, beyond our 21st birthdays, look back to the years when we consumed liquor illegally or irresponsibly or both and agree that it might not be a bad idea to raise the drinking age.
Whether they are 19 or 53, people who ttp a glass of alcohol to their lips need to know the consequences of drinking.
Drunken-driving accidents may decrease when the drinking age is raised, but responsibility could still be a person deemed old enough to drink.
But although most people acquire some maturity by a certain age, there is no one year that has proved to be that specific point in time.
If people were forced to face consequences for their actions instead of being forced to hold off on them, a certain age, society would fare better.
The drinkers' choices would be clear ahead of time: drink while driving and face the possibility of jail, loss of driver's license or whatever sanctions that tougher laws would call for. Or don't drive.
Strengthening the laws against drunken driving could convince drinkers that they are legally responsible for their irresponsible acts.
If people choose to drink, one person in the group could take responsibility for the driving and drinking, and maligning in alcohol for that evening.
Those giving a party could expect to have people sleeping on the floor for the night so that no one would be home after an evening of drinking.
Other similar arrangements would be made once people started getting used to the idea that one doesn't drink and then drive.
Some people take responsibility for their actions long before they reach a certain age.
Others, years beyond what most would consider a mature age, are still irresponsible.
But it is ludicrous for state legislators to think that one age is more appropriate than another for people to drink.
And although it should be unnecessary for the state to force people to bear responsibility for their actions when they drink, the results would decrease the number of people who feel pain in their gut when they hear the name of a friend and then the words "drunken-driving accident."