Page 4
Opinion
University Daily Kansan, July 13, 1983
Betraving student trust
It is indeed sad when peers steal from peers. It has happened before and it will happen again. But it is hoped that it will never happen again with the magnitude of which Steven McMurry stole from the students of the University of Kansas.
During his nine-year tenure, McMurry, former director of KU on Wheels, the University's bus service, had been commended for his capable management. Yet McMurry had embezzled $257,051 over a period of about four years, betraying the trust placed in him by student leaders.
That money basically came out of the pockets of the students who rode the bus. Friday, he was sentenced to eight to 20 years in prison on five counts of theft and was ordered to make restitution to the University for the full amount.
In 1973 through 1982, everything was going through the ceiling — gas prices, groceries and the everyday things for which you never thought twice about shelling out money. So we went up to the window in the Union and wrote the check, maybe wondering, where does all our money go?
In this case, our money went into the pockets of one of our student leaders.
contributing to one of the largest embezzlements of state funds in the history of Kansas.
The time to grumble about justice being served was last September, when McMurray was arrested. Justice has indeed been served, but will we?
Judge Ralph King ruled that McMurry must make restitution to the University.
Who will get that money? And, perhaps more important, will anyone get that money?
McMurry has reported about $70,000 worth of assets he can liquidate. The balance of the sum is supposed to be paid by McMurry upon probation. It may be a while before McMurry can get a job to pay back $187,051. Most likely, it will never happen. In other words, there won't be a sudden surplus of funds in KU on Wheels.
Some students may not even know that they have been robbed. Some have probably graduated and left the University. Perhaps they couldn't care less about a few bucks. That is not the point. They have a part of $200,000 due them, and they deserve to see it. They won't, though.
It's time to get some responsible student leadership at this University.
Justice may be served with new law
It could be a step in the right direction — if those afflicted wisely choose to take that step.
If they do, the lives of some 1,200 convicted murderers could be cut short.
In a 6-3 decision last Wednesday, the Supreme Court made it easier for federal appeals courts to accept — and to reject — last-minute appeals to postpone scheduled executions.
The appeals process has been criticized for its lengthy evaluations of the appeals.
It doesn't seem right to toy with a condemned prisoner's life as if it were a game, waiting until the last minute and then prolonging, or cutting short, his life.
Indeed, the appeals process is absolutely necessary as a part of our judicial system. At the same time, however, there is a great need for consistency and expedition in that process.
The court seemed to realize that fact in making its decision — one that has been long
The issue of capital punishment is a controversial one. And, it has received a great deal of scrutiny since the court reinstated it seven years ago.
In 1976, the Supreme Court determined that capital punishment was not unconstitutional,
and it gave the states the power to use it as a deterrent.
A majority of our states now have capital punishment on the books.
The arguments for and against executions tend to take two very opposing sides:
1) Capital punishment is constitutional, and 2) Cantal punishment is unconstitutional.
Both arguments fall short of the real issue —
WARREN
BRIDGES
that is, if a nation is going to implement a system of judicial deterence, then it needs to be used.
Statistics reveal that while there are about 1,200 men and women on death row, only seven men have been executed since the 1976 decision — four of those died voluntarily.
And, according to the Uniform Crime Report 1980, published by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the five states with the most violent crimes per 100,000 population, New York, Florida, Nevada, California and Maryland, all of which have been investigated and were utilized it only twice in the last seven years.
That says something — that the system needs to be improved.
Imagine if the court would have declared capital punishment unconstitutional back in 1976. The problem would have been solved, no more executions.
So why, when a majority of our states now have capital punishment, is it not being used?
Although the court has not specifically offered an answer to that question, it appears to have made a reasonable effort.
It now remains to be seen whether those given the opportunity to expedite the process choose to do so, for the good of the country, and for the good of the convicted murderers now unsure of their fate, though they have been condemned to die.
Again, the emphasis should now be placed, not on second-guessing the court's decision, but rather in making the most effective system of justice possible — an idea that has been a long time formulating, but may very well be taking shape.
Gum-chewing smokers, rise and be counted
--privacy statutes. But that is best left up to constitutional lawyers to throush out before the court.
By DONALD B. THACKREY United Press International
SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco's recent smog regi-
gation was fine if idea was good.
The city fathers told that employers must provide smoke-free work areas if some of the employees request it. And if an agreement cannot be worked out between smokers and non-smokers, smoking must be banned in the workplace.
What about gum chewing? Dentists have been known to deplore the effects of gum-chewing on dental health. And the snapping and popping and tearing of gum has annoyed numerous co-workers.
All this is fair and healthy and democratic. But it leaves out a lot.
The solution is simple. Segregate chewers and non-chewers.
San Francisco employers, now may have to provide smoking and non-smoking sections in their buildings.
They would have one section for smokers who chew gum, another for smokers who don't, a third section for non-smokers who chew and a fourth for non-smokers who don't.
Of course some later governing body would be sure to have constituents opposed to the smell of garlic. The ordinance could be expanded to weed out garlic users from garlic non-users.
The clicking of false teeth is another habit that can be annoying in an office. As well as whistling off key. And chewing pencils. Extended scratching (unless accompanied by a doctor's certificate blaming the seven-year itch or such medical cause) could also come under fire.
Halitosis and the dreaded BO probably are protected from public segregation by invasion of
It is easy to envision the work space of tomorrow. Each worker will be in his own cubicle somewhat as their bosses are today. What a boost to morale!
Another beneficial byproduct of such an arrangement is the hum of new employment. There would be more work for the carpenters who build interior walls, increased employment for furniture movers, and of course a boom in the construction materials needed for segregated cubicles.
And if in the future the politicians decided that even the unpleasant contact between smoker and non-smoker at the water fountain was detrimental, a multitude of new jobs would be created by plumbers and fountain manufacturers as each caribbean was afforded its own water fountain.
Letters to the Editor
Misleading column on ERA warrants some clarification
To the editor:
Priya Perianayakam's anti-ERA editorial of July 9th resumes a response, especially because her views reflect those of so many women, who, being naive and badly informed about the wide discrepancy between their inherent potential and the actual potential that good old American red, white and blue society will allow them, fail to understand the need for an ERA. First, there's no doubt about it that American women are underpaid for the same services rendered as men. The standard argument that men work harder at their professional jobs and hence deserve better pay usually can be shown to be untrue in actual court cases. The problem is that women have and older guests to contact in their lives and professionally risk process. Add to that, the observation that the Reagan administration has done a great deal to hinder enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, and has even attempted to dispense with many of them.
Perianayakam states, "The proponents of the ERA are screaming about male chauvinism and job discrimination, wanting to create equality for men and women as they say there is in other parts of the world." First of all, this is a case of what I call "sloganism." Sloganism is when you unfairly attribute some term or phrase to women in order to justify your oppressive viewpoint. The term "screaming," used to characterize advocating the pro-ERA viewpoint is a case of sloganism. The second problem with the statement just quoted is that it really isn't true. That is, women in the United States are not interested in comparing their rights with those of women in the Soviet Union or India, at least not unfavorably. That's not the issue at all. The issue is that in the United States of America, women are not subjected to high ideals stated in our Pledge of Allegiance, "with liberty and justice for all." It is justice that is the issue here, not sameness, as Perianayakam seems to believe.
Passage of the ERA would not require us to use unisex bathrooms, or to deny ourselves the pleasure of accepting a pretty bouquet any more than it would require the equal sharing of X chromosomes. Phyllis Schlaffy took advantage of this same misunderstanding when she invented the slogan, 'God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. As a lawyer, she knows what it's like to be an officer; she requires women to serve in the armed forces, but in fairness to men, it might require the development of an equivalent, non-combat service for women, as a substitute.
Even Schlafly admitted that men have much to gain from an ERA, by the way. Divorce laws in this country are one major example of gross unfairness to men. When a couple divorce, in most states in this country, there is practically no limit to the remuneration a husband may pay for his wife. Because couples need, length of marriage, or whether his wife is responsible for the breakup.
Finally, with regard to the claim that the issue of job discrimination is "a" lot of bull, I suggest
that Perianayakam ask her two friends whom she cited as examples of feminine success what they've had to overcome to achieve that success. Ask any woman in the professional world. Make sure you've got a lot of time. As Dr. Percyk Kilbourne recently told Women in Science, it's not always that hard to get the first job, because institutions often have quotas to fill. However, getting promoted or getting tenure can be next to impossible.
The really sad thing about all of this is that the real victims of discrimination aren't just individuals. Society is denying itself many an opportunity to worthy talent, because she can't get the job.
Mary Anderson Sheldon, Mo., graduate student
To the editor:
Support athletics
In response to a paid advertisement, "Our Interdependence: An idea which can transform"
If you must pride yourself in being a "self-conscious failure in the floundering free-enterprise system," would you accept yourself as such and refrain from damning worthy institutions of which you seem to have very little knowledge. Your recent attack on college athletics was unfounded—do you wish to deny a college education to athletes because they are athletes? Consider that a high school athlete works in the same respect as a high school scholar, each seeking financial awards for college where they can fully develop their potential and realize their responsibility in this world. Would you deny a scholarship to learn? Athletics breed discipline and respect for one's body. Athletics have been known to unify both the athlete and the non-athlete in a common interest.
In defense of the "we-golfers-generate-jobs group," the contributions of Tom Watson must be cited. Yearly, Watson holds a charity golf tournament to benefit Children's Mercy Hospital. The annual Kansas Open, held at Alvamar, supports The Villages, a local, non-profit organization that provides permanent homes for abused and neglected children of each end unit to the percent of each unit it tax-deductible). The Evans Scholars program yearly awards outstanding high school caddies from various country clubs with college scholarships.
No group is collectively perfect; however, the potential for improvement should not be denied. A well-educated athlete is aware of the responsibilities that exist in his or her academic achievement make outstanding leaders. Watson stands as an example to follow.
Karen Gustafson Leawood junior
The University Daily KANSAN
The University Jalansky Kannan (153F6 650-646) is published at the University of Kansas. 118 Flm Hall, Lawrence, Kaunda. 6644, daily during the regular school year and Wednesday and Friday during the summer holidays. Subscriptions are paid at Lawrence, Kaunda. 6644. Subscription for mail are $18 for six months or $24 if you do so on your own. Subscription paid through the student activity fee POSTMASK Send address changes to the university mail通道 with the student activity fee POSTMASK Send address changes to the university mail通道 with the student activity fee POSTMASK Send address changes to the university mail通道 with the student activity fee POSTMACK
Editor Janet Murphy
Managing Editor
Editorial Editor
Campaign Editor
Assistant Campus Editor
Makeup Editor
Business Manager
Laurie Samuelson
Justin Abelson
Harry Mallin
Rick Dulley
Ned Stafford
Elizabeth Pennis
Suh Subramanji
Retail/Predation Manager
National/Back-to-School Coordinator
Tasmanized/Campus Manager
Advertising Adviser and General Manager News. Adviser
Bill Maher
Cort Gorman
Jill Bedner
John Oberzan
Mike Kautsch
.