I c e L n b v i I
OPINION
The University Daily KANSAN
University Daily Kansan, February 24, 1984
Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kannan (USPS 600-440) is published at the University of Kansas. *18 Stuaffer First Hall, Lawrence, Kan.* 60044, daily through Monday and year and Thursday and during the summer session, excluding Sundays and holidays. Mail resume to University of Kansas. Kan 60044 Subscription fee is $15 for six months or $27 in Douglas County and $18 for six months in Portland. You may send through the student activity fee. POSTMASTER: address changes to the University Daily Kannan. *18 Stuaffer First Hall, Lawrence, Kan.*
DOUG CUNNINGHAM
DON KNOX
Managing Editor
SARA KEMPIN
Editorial Editor
JEFF TAYLOR ANDREW HARTLEY
Campus Editor News Editor
>AIN_1234
DAVE WANAMAKER
Business Manager
General Manager and News Adviser
CORT GORMAN
Retail Sales Manager
National Sales Manager
JANCE PHILIPS
Campus Sales Manager
DUNCAN CALHUHN
Classified Manager
JOHN OBERZAN Sales and Marketing Advise
No justification
Secretary of State George Shultz announced this week that President Reagan was planning to bypass Congress to give more military aid to El Salvador to beef up the Salvadoran armed forces before elections there next month.
He made the announcement Tuesday while testifying before the Senate Budget Committee in hearings concerning foreign aid appropriations for fiscal year 1984.
Once again, the Reagan administration has proposed a military solution to an event that does not justify such extreme concern.
The action is not backed up by support from Congress or the American public, many of whom want the administration to deny aid to El Salvador until right-wing terrorism and other official human rights violations there are substantially quelled.
Since Reagan took office three years ago he has consistently pushed ahead with his "go for broke" military policies in El Salvador.
The law that the administration is using to justify its actions allows the president to send military equipment from American units directly to another army "during an emergency."
But want is different from need.
In the case of beefing up the military supplies in El Salvador, Shultz says the need is present because the administration is "concerned that the Salvadoran armed services will run out of key materials in the next few months."
The army there would be afraid to move vigorously to protect the elections if the "emergency" equipment were not sent, he said.
Because the elections are only one month away and the Salvadoran armed forces do indeed have enough equipment to last several months, it is obvious that the proposal to send "emergency" funds is a case of want — not need.
The administration must stop ignoring the opinions of Congress and the American people. In an election year especially, the president would do well to listen more to public opinion.
Age is not the problem
The recent push by the Kansas Legislature to raise the drinking age for 3.2 percent beer is a slap in the face of Kansas' young adults.
If passed by both House and Senate and signed by Gov. John Carlin, the increase will go into effect July 1.
This week, the House Federal and State Affairs Committee approved raising the drinking age for 3.2 percent beer in Kansas from 18 to 19.
Most legislators support the recommendation because they think it will help prevent loss of life at the hands of drunk drivers.
But the proposal is only a partial solution to the problem. The recommendation only serves to insult people who society and government have determined to be fully responsible for their actions.
drinking and driving. Adults must realize that drinking even one beer before getting behind the wheel is enough to kill someone.
Raising the drinking age won't change people's attitudes toward
Tougher drunk driving laws, thorough enforcement and stiffer sentences are sorely needed to instill a strong sense of responsibility in people of all ages who consume alcohol.
It is unjust to punish all 18-year-olds, legally recognized as adults, for being incapable of being responsible drinkers, simply because some people in the same age group abuse that responsibility.
Obviously, raising the age of when a person can legally drink is a way to reduce deaths from drunk driving. But this logic steps on the rights of every responsible person who falls in the path of an arbitrary drinking age whether it be 18, 19, 21 or more.
Pushing deficit down
This year Americans will probably buy $100 billion more goods and services from abroad than they sell.
As a result, the United States will soon become a net debtor for the first time since World War I, owing more to foreigners than they wee us.
Should we care? In theory, no. As economic textbooks point out, international financial flows are self-correcting in the long run.
Only by reducing the demand for dollars can America tame its monumental trade deficit. And only by reducing the Treasury's insatiable appetite for borrowing funds to cover the Federal deficit are we likely to reduce the demand for dollars.
clouds worldwide economic growth.
Is there a remedy? Yes: for the government to reduce the domestic budget deficit.
But in practice, yes. Such big trade deficits are a symptom of serious economic mismanagement and a source of political tension that
It's a good reason to drive down the deficit that the Reagan administration keeps pushing up.
The New York Times
The University Daily Kansas welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-space and should not exceed 300 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 faculty or staff position. The Kansan also invites individual students to apply to speak guest columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kansas office, 111 Staffier-Fulford Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
LETTERS POLICY
Candidate Forum
Apathy
It Just Doesn't Matter
Apathy — It Just Doesn't Matter. That's our name, and that our motto.
And that pretty much sums up our feelings about the student government at the university of Kansas.
Student government here has become a big poke and anybody who thinks needs to listen.
and then eighn out of 70 students will tell you the same thing.
Building a McDonald's in the Kansas Union became the big issue.
Obviously we agree more lighting on campus is important. It's not even something that needs to be argued about. Student leaders should show a little common sense.
If that's the most important thing that student government has to concern itself with, then we should consider scrapping student government altogether.
The last time we checked, an issue had two sides and we didn't actually see a lot of people buying them.
If the students want something (i.e. more lighting on campus) then, the student govern- ment may do it.
Today the Kansan is running columns written by candidates for student body president and vice president. The students will outline their campaign platform for the election Wednesday and Thursday. The Kansan will profile the candidates.
consider the "lighting on campus" issue. Is it really an issue?
The way we see it, student government should not decide policy in the first place. Student government should simply be an informational and administrative group.
Its role is to find out and confirm what the students want and then get the job done.
In our opinion, any coalition that makes
Bob Swain presidential candidate
Robb Murphy vice-presidential
price-presidential candidate
promises to enact a program without first consulting the students, is out of line.
Nobody ever asked us what we wanted student government to do, and it's a sure bet.
What really makes us sick, are the attitudes of so many people who run for student senator. Many run, it seems, just because they have a space to fill on their resume.
believe it or not, we do have a few positive ideas. First we want to change the role of the children.
We would like to see interaction between students and student leaders in the form of question and answer sessions, informational literature, occasional polls, and most of all just meetings with senators circulate among their constituents and get to know them on a personal level.
Right now the bulk of a student senator's workload, if you can call it that, takes place in the morning.
The meetings should provide an atmosphere where students feel comfortable attending and voicing their opinions, and student senators participate in the other long, boring, impersonal Senate meeting.
We propose more time spent listening to constituents and less time spent expressing opinions.
We would like to see Senate meetings reorganized and run in a less formal, less boring, and inevitably more productive atmosphere.
We would propose to the student body and administration some kind of incentive plan, possibly one that would give the senators a tuition rebate for doing their jobs well.
Of course, our opinion isn't worth more than anyone else and these proposals would come from the same source.
Finally we think that if most student senators do get off their lazy butts and work, then they will be able to make a difference.
The other is using any and all means available to us to get as many students involved in government as possible, even if it means irritating a few people.
As for our personal attitudes toward the position of student body president and vice president, we think we have two primary duties.
The first is administrative — that is working with senators and acting upon the ideas and outcomes of the session.
If we can get a response out of people by
meeting them or even by making them
laugh, then we'll do.
Our platform comes down to basically one issue: We can either show a little common sense, change a few things and get people confused, or just scrap student government altogether.
Costume Party
Whatever the students decide is fine with us,
just as long as it's a clear decision one way or
the other. We're just tired of halfhearted
student government.
Carla Vogel: Last week, for a couple of days, I felt strange. I found myself stepping onto a game floor with a dead cat.
I saw myself making promises, not knowing whether I would follow through if I lost the election. I saw myself seeing people as votes, relating only with empty words, and I saw myself stop listening, my mind too occupied with scheming
It became a win-lose situation. At the peak of my confusion, I turned off the noise, took two jumps back and hopped on the board, knowing that by compromising my values for a short-term goal, I would be better.
It is in times such as these that I find myself becoming disillusioned with Student Senate as a whole. I find myself feeling frustrated, angry and at times even cynical.
In imagining Senate's place in the University, I picture a wheel where each individual spoke meets collectively in the center, to work together as one. Now I see no center, but the potential is there.
To tap this potential we do not necessarily have to begin by revamping the Senate structure as a whole, but we can begin by examining the way Senate runs its meetings.
Structure and organization are necessary, but when our ideas and feelings become repressed in the process it seems to be counterproductive and it gets in the way of accomplishing our goals.
All it does in the long run is perpetuate stagnation and miscommunication. It closes doors to new ideas, restricting those that can grow.
Dennis Highberger
Carla Vogel presidential candidate
vice-presidential candidate
In facing the issues and problems ahead we must start relating directly to each other and not through a set of rules. Let's put down our shovels and buckets and step out of the sandbox.
There are other ways of relating to one another but it takes listening to each other, trusting each other and working together. It takes questioning and willingness to change and experiment.
Dennis Highberger: "The ultimate and most important revolutionary aspiration is to see man from a new perspective."
Revolution is too strong a word for our goals for the student government at KU, but our motives are clear.
The Chegavaara wrote that, before he was killed for helping the people of Bolivia take control over their lives. His revolution was political, but it was fired by an insurgent called Abu Sayed, who to people's lives a sense of worth and meaning.
I realize that sounds vague and idealistic, but if our actions are not guided by such ideals, how can those actions be good, and how can they have meaning?
Would you prefer to have someone practical and efficient doing something you don't like, or to have someone who may or may not be competent trying to do something you think is good? Think about
As I sat down to write tonight, my first words were hard words, angry words. I was reacting to a lot of things that have been said and done during the campaign by our fellow candidates.
I found myself responding angrily to their criticisms and cutting them down in return. Reading a column I wrote during the last election, I realized how far I had strapped from my ideas — I was acting on a desire to do good, but from a desire with a fear of a desire. Those are vastly different motivations.
My goal is not to win this election, but to try to make the world and this University a better place. We can't do that by playing politics or by paying attention to what I'm treating each other with love, trust and respect.
When a system of doing things gets in the way of our ideals, it is the system that must go, not our ideals. We can change the world, but only if we remain true to ourselves.
So what does this mean in terms of the Student Senate? We want to change the way the Senate runs its meetings. We want to get rid of the rules it uses now, which most people in the Senate don't seem to understand well — to get people to step out and participate in roles and deal with each other as human beings.
I can't guarantee that anything more will be accomplished, but I can guarantee that the people involved will feel less intimidated, alienated and abused. I call that process, wouldn't you?
One of our fellow candidates will probably accuse us of not being concrete, and I'm well aware that this article will do little to dispel that image.
However, this is a rare opportunity to talk about ideas a little too complex and abstract to be conveyed in a news article, and I didn't want to pass it up.
If you want to know how we feel about the issues’ read the newspaper articles, check the bulletin.
This semester, like last semester, as always, the costume Party invites you to join us as we work to be better.
Starting Over
Our names are Loren Busby and Paul Buskirk. We're running for student body president and vice president under the coalition name of Starting Over.
However, during our recent visits with students, both individually and in groups, we have become painfully aware that only a minute portion of the student body even knows where the Senate office is, let alone ever has visited it.
The Student Senate was first established in 1969. It was originally designed to be a service organization — a coordinating office where students can register for college and provide services for their fellow KU students.
With even this simple fact, we can conclude for ourselves that the Student Senate's original purpose — that it serve all KU students — is that somewhere has failed to failtion that original goal.
The past styles of student leadership must change to re-establish the primary purpose of
But why should you, as a student, cast your vote for us as members of Starting Over
We want that purpose to return to KU student government. The Senate should be providing a fundamental service to the student body or it has no reason to exist. We think that the Senate can serve the University of Kansas once again, but it cannot do so unless changes occur.
None of the candidates in this election think that the old style of Senate leadership can or will continue. All three groups, including our own, believe that enormous changes must
There are two main reasons why we think can offer ourselves to KU students as the best
Loren Busbv
presidential vice-president
candidate candidate
Paul Buskirk
choice of candidates : First, we offer specific and concrete projects which we will pursue in office.
Second, we have the experience and the background necessary to complete these steps. We are ready.
We do have concrete ideas. Our first objective is the Senate office itself. In a period of one month you, as a student, will see some distinct changes in that office.
If the Senate is to serve students, it should provide the atmosphere and the personnel required to do so. If you walk into the Senate office requesting information or assistance, you should expect to either receive it from someone who has received to the office that could serve you better.
If that doesn't occur, then the Senate office has failed you. Under our guidance, the Senate office has failed you.
Our second objective is that of campus lighting. The issue has been verbally tortured long enough. It's time we took some action or shut up.
The Senate has a large amount of money in its special projects account which, by law, can earn no interest. If it isn't working for students in the bank, put it on the workstores, on the hills, along the pathways and any place else where there is inadequate lighting on this
The Senate can't finance adequate lighting by itself, but $20.000 to $30.000 is a healthy start.
Our third large objective is simple: We want to be the actual representatives of the students. You won't see us just at election time. We'll be out listening to and talking with students in organizations, in living groups and on the sidewalks.
The second main reason we think we can represent you better than our opposition is because we have extensive experience in serving the University.
Loren has served five terms as a student senator, be chairman of the Senate Finance and Auditing Committee for three years, and has been chairman of or served on eight other large boards and committees in University governance during his time at KU.
Paul has served three terms as a senator; he was chairman of the reorganized Transportation Board after the bus scandal a year earlier. Paul has served on boards and committees during his time here.
The road ahead of Senate is not an easy one. To return Senate to its original path as a service organization will require extensive change; and it must be reableisable change. We're no strangers to the University and its policies. We know how to get things done.
The Senate can serve KU once again. We want to help reach that goal, because we think the Senate is the best place.
We're Starting Over. Where we offer you concrete ideas and projects, our opposition
Where we offer you the product of our past experience and the willingness we have shown in serving KU students over the past five years, our onboarding offers you nothing.
On Wednesday and Thursday the choice will be yours. Please vote.