OPINION
The University Daily KANSAN
September 21, 1983 Page 4
The University Daily KANSAN
Published since 1889 by students of the University of Kansas
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650/640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer Finst Hall, Lawen, Kanaw. 650/640, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer sessions. Subscribes are $1 for six months or $2 for a year. Subscriptions by mail are $1 for six months or $2 a year in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $3 for a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $1 per semester part of the student activity. POSTMASTER! $1 for six months or $3 for a year outside the county.
MARK ZIEMAN
Editor
DOUG CUNNINGHAM STEVE CUSICK
Managing Editor Editorial Author
MICHAEL ROBINSON Campus Editor
ANN HORNBERGER Business Manager
DAVE WANAMAKER MARK MEANS
Retail Sales National Sales
Manager Manager
LYNNE STARK
Campus Sales Manager
JOH OBERZAN
Advertising Adviser
Lawrence has built a road to nowhere.
A dead-end road
PAUL JESS General Manager and News Adviser
But the $150,000 road at the Lawrence Municipal Airport will have a destination — someday. It will lead to the new terminal building at the airport. The terminal hasn't been built yet, but it will be — someday.
Lawrence citizens soundly rejected two bond issues during the 1970s that would have gone toward improvements at the airport.
Recent improvements at the airport have been financed in a different fashion, one that did not use local tax money. Instead, federal money spent at the airport now reaches into the millions of dollars.
The federal money has come from landing fees on airport users across the country, and from similar fees, rather than from general tax dollars.
The city of Lawrence, ever anxious to keep money from being squandered in another city, has generously accepted federal grants for improvements to the airport. Such grants have often required that 10 percent of the total cost of the project be paid for by city money, such as from money the city has in a local airport fund.
Improvements to the municipal airport are worthwhile. But one is bound to wonder whether so many improvements are necessary. And now a road to a non-existent terminal has been built.
The decision to build the terminal has already been made, essentially. Why build a road to nowhere? And why not build the terminal, now that the road is there?
The two previous city votes might not have been a direct rejection of improvements to the airport. Some citizens might have favored improvements, but might not have wanted local tax dollars to pay for them, as at least one city commissioner has pointed out.
The airport also is good for the University, as it makes travel more convenient. Especially for alums on game day. But is that worth the money spent?
The city should take a harder look at its airport expenditures. And so should Lawrence citizens. And then they should decide whether they really want to spend all that money.
Just because the money comes from the federal government doesn't mean we have to spend it. Nor does it mean we have to build roads to nowhere.
Just another politician
The same right-wingers who helped put Ronald Reagan into office in 1980 have every right to be angry at the man. As the Korean airliner incident has shown, he's not the true ideologue he once appeared to be. He is, after all, a political animal who will change with any shift in prevalence political winds.
So the Soviets blow a passenger plane out of the air, and what does he do — bans their airline from the United States and cancels some cultural exchange plans. Moves that
really must leave the Soviets smarting.
Reagan, with a political career marked by tough-sounding rhetoric, was always the guy who was going to stick it to the Russians. He was the one who wouldn't tolerate the belligerent Soviet behavior that led to bloodshed in Afghanistan, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Candidate Reagan would have never let them get away with it.
The moderation was good. It was prudent. But more than that, it was politically expedient for Reagan. He didn't anger American farmers by cutting off grain sales, as President Jimmy Carter did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Reagan kept the support of moderates and others by not scrapping talks in Geneva on missiles in Europe.
But right-wingers like Sen. Jesse Helms are finding out that Ronald Reagan may not really be their man. Although he talks like an ultra-conservative, he's not one of them, but just another politician. And they may go fishing for another candidate in 1984.
Political censorship
A federal judge has ruled that the Justice Department's attempt to classify three Canadian films on nuclear disarmament and acid rain as "political propaganda" is unconstitutional.
The Justice Department has 60 days to appeal the ruling. If it's smart, it will pass.
U. S. District Judge Raul Ramirez of California, who was given national jurisdiction in the case, said the disclaimer unfairly stigmatized the films and identified those who exhibited them as distributors of distorted information on behalf of a foreign government. Under Judge Ramirez's ruling, the films may be seen without disclaimer or restriction.
with the administration's insistence that acid rain was not a problem and that the nuclear freeze movement undermined American security.
The application of a World War II provision to protect American minds from Nazi lies to these rather innocuous Canadian short subjects was unusual, selective, narrowly political and silly — and coincided
—Detroit News
The University Daily Kansan 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 of identity or staff affiliation. The Kansan also invites individuals and groups to submit guest columns. Columns and letters can be mailed or brought to the Kanson office, 111 Staffier-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters and columns.
LETTERS POLICY
Pact won't bring peace
The compromise that President Reagan agreed to sign yesterday may satisfy Congress, but it does little to prevent the death of more American soldiers in Lebanon.
Under the agreement, Reagan can keep U.S. Marines in Lebanon for 18 more months, but he must "limit" their activities already were limited, yet four Americans have died.
Although Reagan appears to have compromised with Con-
grass, U.S. involvement in the conflict continues to deepen. Yesterday, about six "observers" were ordered to the front lines of battle, dressed in combat gear. And Druse gunmen shelled the area surrounding the home of the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, to flee to Israel, to presidential palace of Amin Gemalvel.
Hostilities continue to escalate, and with this compromise, Congress apparently has agreed to watch the blood flow in Lebanon.
The compromise is not without promise. Under the agreement, the president or Congress could withdraw the troops. Reagan won't, but Congress might. Although House Speaker Thomas P. O'Neill has said that Congress supported keeping U.S. Marines in Lebanon, public opinion may change that.
from killing a few more Americans so that the Marines will be withdrawn. The troops should leave Lebanon before more Marines die. They haven't dismantled their unitility, fighting, but they have provided a target. And now they're returning fire.
Almost daily, news stories quote American officials in Lebanon who cheerfully praise the troops and insist that a cease-fire be imposed. In other words, promises and continued violence, the guns have not been silenced.
U. S. officials fail to realize that having 1,200 Marines in Lebanon has not halted hostilities.
The Syrians may end hostilities when they realize that U.S. troops will be in Lebanon until Reagan's term ends. Perhaps then a diplomatic solution can be reached.
The compromise clearly states that the United States seeks the removal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. However, the government pompously declines to decide itself among those nations.
But the Syrian government knows that Reagan or Congress can withdraw troops if conditions worsen. Little exists to stop them
The compromise neither strengthens the U.S. position nor hastens the end of U.S. participation in another country's war.
At least now, under the compromise, the president must tell Congress the activities of the multinational force in Lebanon. The president is expected to keep Congress informed of attempts to reduce that force.
The purpose of the force is to bring unity to Lebanon and political reconciliation to the feuding factions. Becoming part of the conflict will not help the United States in its efforts to bring peace to the Mideast.
Water battle may boil over
A conflict over how to share the dwindling water resources in the state is likely to boil over in the Kansas Legislature in the spring.
Many cities in Kansas are beginning to see water as a precious resource, and those that don't see enough water in their immediate needs are looking to other parts of the state for their future water supply.
Wichita, Newton, McPherson Hutchinson and 11 smaller cities in
south central Kansas have been studying the economic feasibility of building a pipeline 130 miles long to the northwest of Kansas Reservoir in north central Kansas.
Ten of these cities have already applied individually to the state to purchase a total of 115.6 million roundtables, though only 490 mgmt are available.
These cities sit on top of what was once considered the most stable supply of water in the state — the Equus beds. But that supply has been depleted, and the cities have been prohibited from taking any more water from the beds than they now have rights to.
This possible diversion of water from the Kansas River Basin to the Arkansas River Basin has not gone unnoticed by cities in northeastern Kansas.
Lawrence, Topeka, Manhattan and other water users along the Kansas River formed the Kansas River Alliance last year to protect their water rights and to develop and manage river resources in the Kansas River Basin.
The proposed Corbin Reservoir on the Chikakia River south of Wichita would cost at least $250 million, would cover thousands of acres of prime agricultural land and would be a shallow reservoir that would fill with silt and become useless in 30-50 years.
Although the streams and reservoirs in the Kansas River Basin look plentiful to south central cities whose groundwater supplies are now limited, northeastern Kansas depends on precipitation to maintain those sources and is vulnerable to extended drought.
The only alternative now being considered to the $250 million pipeline solves only part of south Texas' water supply, and comes with its own set of problems.
Corbin would only be large enough to serve Wichita. But the smaller cities that would not benefit from the reservoir are depending on Wichita's participation to make the pipeline economically feasible.
But this summer, the Kansas Water Office included the pipeline in its proposed 1983 state water plan that would connect the cities in several cities around the state.
Until this summer, the pipeline was a project considered by only
those south central cities anticipating a future water shortage.
Local government and business leaders are not happy with the plan, and last week Lawrence Mayor David Longhurst, City Manager Buford Watson, Douglas County Commission Chairman Robert Nesbitt and representatives of the handling team of the water law office. John Carlin and the water office urging more study of the state's water problems.
"It is not . . . in the best interests of Lawrence and Douglas County to support a state plan that could eventually cause a shortage of water for communities in the Kansas River Basin." the letters said.
The proposed water plan with revisions, if they are made, will be submitted to the Kansas Water Authority. If the authority approves the plan, it will be submitted to the Kansas Legislature for consideration in the spring. However, the debate in the legislature should be even steamer than usual because of election year politics.
But if the legislators are able to rise above their regional interests, Kansas will at last have the comprehensive water plan it so badly needs — a plan that will require each region, and the state itself, to determine its future based on the resources it now possesses.
Tax funds wasted on freebie
At a time when welfare, food stamps and other props for the poor have been under vigorous challenge, it seems strange that the college expenses of high-income families be underwritten by taxpayers.
Yet that is happening in the nation's public universities, to the detriment of private universities, students and the taxpayers who are paying for our ill-conceived educational policy.
Federal subsidies at public universities are far greater than at private schools. They constitute the last of the great American freebies — way out of line and way out of date.
The deficit per student at public universities tends to be even higher than at private institutions because tuition is so much lower while costs are the same. Students normally pay $1,500 to $2,000 a year for tuition, with the balance coming from the public purse. After four years of undergraduate education, students at public universities have been subsidized to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. But what's important is this: These subsides apply whether the student's family earns $150,000 a year, $15,000 or nothing at all.
Clearly, we are confronted with a severe case of historical lag, in which policies that were developed in one era have survived into another, though they now make little sense. Thirty years ago, state colleges and universities accorded second and third-rate Those who could afford to attend prestigious private schools generally preferred to do so.
That changed, however, when the federal government began pouring
STEPHEN TRACHTENBERG President of the University of Hartford
money into higher education in the later 1960s. In the next two decades, public universities underwent enormous expansion. By the time private schools began to confront the harsh realities of the Reagan years, including sharp reductions in federal loan programs, their public counterparts were well positioned to take advantage of the situation. They now had resources and staff comparable to those underfunded at the same time, their institutions were and are the legacies of a period when those attending public institutions tended to be academically or financially needy.
Public universities are taking advantage of their position in ways that threaten to drain even more tax dollars. As private institutions work harder than ever to attract students, students still flock to the public universities. And administrators of public universities may be found in the lobbies of state legislatures, arguing that their overcrowded buildings justify renovation and new construction.
Finally, the very existence of many private colleges is being threatened by the loss of students to publicly subsidized universities. If many private schools close in the next few years, then the flood of applicants to state schools will become even greater. Many more applicants will be admitted, and the burden will grow even more.
If you earn more money, you move into a higher tax bracket. If you earn more money, you ought to move, where state colleges are concerned, into a higher tuition bracke. You still be getting a share of anybody from the taxpayers public, but its proportions would be fairer.
The time to bring this regressive freebie to an end is right now, before it damages both the public and private schools of higher education beyond repair.
Copyright 1983 the New York Times
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
President not concerned about poor women
To the Editor:
When government seeks to deceive, it often accomplishes its task. And I am talking about the Reagan administration.
I don't want to mince words — I simply don't like the man. And this is largely because of the deception he has from his policies and public rhetoric.
While working in Washington, D.C., this summer, I happened to be in the vicinity of a certain reception for Reagan by the coalition of Republcans. Quite a sight. I had a somewhat difficult time seeing the keynote
speaker as I was blinded by the glimmer of all of the diamonds adorning the women's fingers, wrists and necks. During the same week, I witnessed another group of women matching with Reagan at the White House.
Why do these women like R.R. so much? The answer was not far away; because they've got big bucks.
R. Michael Stineman
I still wonder why poor women aren't in attendance at these functions. Last I hear, all women—regardless of wealth—get to vote for the president of the United States. Why isn't he concerned about
the poor (or even middle class) women in his constituency?
To the Editor:
The massacres
Because their misery was thought to be too much for them, they were relieved from it, simply by killing them.
A year has elapsed since 1,600 men, women and children were massacred in the Palestinian refugee camps of Sabra and Shatalea in Lebanon. The victims were not fighters but miserable refugees
After one year, the situation in Lebanon has not changed too much. Israeli forces are still there. Israeli officials are again hunting at interfering to aid the Phalangist militia, which is now called the Lebanese army.
Those of us who have been watching events in the Mideaest rather closely can still remember the massacres of Dair Yassen, Khan Yuns, Kafr Suha. Kafr Suha is such a pattern of brutal killing invites fear in our hearts.
Alaa El-Deen Afifi President of the Muslim Students Association
4