Page 4
Opinion
University Daily Kansan, April 15, 1983
Walesa standing firm
Once again, there is disturbing news from Poland.
This time, we learn that former Solidarity leader Lech Walesa was dragged from his home by armed police while his children screamed in fright. Walesa was wanted for interrogation about clandestine meetings with leaders of the now-banned union.
After five hours during which, Walesa said, he refused to answer all questions, he was allowed to return home. Without wasting any time, the Polish government released a statement through PAP news agency implying that Walesa had cooperated with his interrogators, thereby attempting to discredit him in any further dealings with underground Solidarity leaders.
In itself, this wasn't an especially frightening bulletin. There was no repeat of Wales's internment under martial law for 11 months — the man
was returned unharmed before the day ended.
But, lest we outside the sad state of Poland be lulled, there was more news concerning the government's renewed mobilization against Solidarity from southwest Poland. Here, in the copper mining community of Lubin, 10 Solidarity "terrorists" were rounded up and arrested. Only 10 this time, but they totaled an unquestionable warning against others who would flout the Communist ban on Solidarity.
It takes unfinching courage to stand for freedom in the face of such warnings. No wonder the Polish government goes to such lengths as it has since December 1981 to discredit Wales, whose invincible dignity symbolizes to all the world such courage.
No wonder, too, that Walesa cried out to witnesses to "tell the whole world" as he was marched from his home.
Lech, we hear you.
Time to impeach Pookie
laws College politics have reached the ridiculous,
Tuesday night, "Pookie Bear" won enough write-in votes to serve as one of two vice presidents of McColum Hall. a body of 872 students.
But when the laughter dies down, the silence of the teddy bear may speak louder than any protest his handful of campaign supporters could have organized.
Calling Cookie's triumph "a joke with a message." Juan Giraldo, Topeka junior and one of the bear's supporters, said the intent of the write-in campaign was a political statement about the hall's government.
Several other write-in campaigns for the office were staged, but Pookie overshadowed them with 52 votes.
more than the 46 needed for a write-in candidate to be considered valid.
Mike Hutchins, Winfield senior and vote tabulated, said the bear's election was "sad because it reflected the apathy of the residents of McCollum."
But 52 people overcame apathy long enough to stand in line and write in Pookie.
By electing the bear and essentially eliminating one of the vicepresidential offices, residents have told hall government something about their evaluation of the job in the past.
Now maybe those same people will care enough to stage an "Impeach Pookie" campaign and then direct their efforts toward electing a student who would take the initiative to do what they think a vice president should do.
Bill flouts consumer safety law
BY MAXWELL GLEN AND CODY SHEARER
Field Newspaper Syndicate
WASHINGTON — When the 98th Congress retires next year and pundits hold their annual "Worst Piece of Legislation Contest," we'll be ready with a nominee: the Uniform Product Lability Act. It would exempt makers of handguns or weapons, labeled goods from expensive injury laws.
Introduced by Sen. Robert Kasten, R-Wis, who is not a lawyer, the legislature represents all an out assault on judicial dress traditionally available to consumers. Unfortunately, the measure stands a strong chance of passing through Congress by the end of the year.
To hear business tell the story, of course, the Kasten bill is a long-overdue play for clarity. Since the mid-1970s, manufacturers claim, a burgeoning caseload of product liability suits has left many companies in doubt as to just what is the law from state to state.
Product liability reform guru Victor Schwartz, who heads an alliance of 150 businesses and trade associations backing the bill, says that industry wants a uniform federal law to define for state courts the conditions which a manufacturer is liable for stemming from product use — usually cars, trucks and pharmaceuticals. Simple enough right?
Wrong. By Kasten's reckoning, the "uniform" code would effectively rewrite liability standards that have long protected consumers and kept careless companies on their toes. It would relieve manufacturers of "strict" responsibility for design defects and failure to warn consumers while burdening plaintiffs with a long list of standards that must be proven before they recover damages. Every state would feel this flouting of case law.
For example, if a car owner in New Jersey wished to recover damages for a collapsed car roof, under present law he or she would only have to prove that the roof had failed to perform "as reasonably expected," or that the design's risks outweighed its benefits. Kasten's uniform code, however, would require the plaintiff to prove that the manufacturer knew or should have known about the danger — a much more difficult and expensive legal proposition and, ironically, by the current law standards, irrelevant.
*State courts will either have a monster on
Meanwhile, Mary Ann Smith, an American University tort law expert, said the code would simply impose chaos on state courts while offering little guidance on how to interpret it.
their hands, or they'll interpret it in terms that they already know — the old law." Smith said.
Indeed, Smith contends that the body of product liability law is already predictable and, although it has grown quickly in recent years, reliable. That it differs from state to state is natural and not necessarily all that bad business) you dislike keeping lawyers in business).
Ironically, possible federal godfathering of state court authority has led the Reagan administration to withhold outright support for Kasten's code. Although the White House could throw in its weight when the bill gets another Commerce Committee hearing later this
month, the chance is that it will stay on the sidelines.
Yet, as it looks now, Congress won't need a push from Reagan to make life easier for producers, jeopardizing in the process the health and safety of consumers. Given that during the 1970s disabling accidents out-distanced lawsuits to 20,1 a bill such as Kasten's would only reduce manufacturers' incentive for making safe and useful products. More consumers will be injured; fewer of those injured could recover damages.
In the end, the pro-business bill may only drive customers away.
Letters to the Editor
News of KU athletics disturbs New England alum
To the editor:
Vernon is a long way from Kansas, but bad news travels fast. Our University and athletic department have been making the wrong kind of headlines here in New England. Things are really pretty had when the first thing people ask me about my home is a question about the status of the athletic department and its integrity. Granted there are still many questions that remain unanswered. Hopefully, the truth will stop the rumors.
Springtime is still to come here in the northland, but a breath of fresh air came my way recently. In case some of you missed it, the women's swim team and CBS Sports provided us all with something to be proud of. The women swim teams (or their fine finish at the NCAA swim meet).
Maybe we've been taking women's sports for granted at KU. At this point in time, it would seem that we would be better off if we used our football than the other than our football and basketball programs.
In my opinion, it's about time for the athletic department to take a long look at what's right and what's wrong. (The NCAA is helping with that.) Winning and losing are part of athletics, but recruiting violations and firing coaches aren't. I'm sure the women's swim team would provide a good example of how to do things right! It's up to the administration to make sure the rest of the department gets the message. Is anybody out there listening? Does anybody care? I, for one, do and I'm sure there are others like myself who are enrolled in the NCAA or for a permanent black eye to all the students and alumn of one of the finest institutions in America.
Marc A. Fitzgerald Montpelier, Vt.
Budget priorities clear
Two articles on the front page of the April 7
To the editor:
Kansan reflect an embarrassing misplacement of priorities at the University of Kansas. One described the predicament of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, which is woefully short of funds to finance basic educational necessities, such as introductory math and English, while the other article unveiled the awesome budget of our athletic department, which has just experienced the largest increase in the last four years.
David Rogers
Wichita junior
Anyone reading that front page must have been struck by the outrageous injustice those two articles revealed. The athletic department now enjoys a budget of more than $5.1 million, while the English department can't scrape $48,000 together for the employment of graduate assistants to teach remedial English and other courses, some of them experts in their field, to teach English 600 and English 101 or else cut the number of sections. Well, frankly, that stinks!
This University must reassess its budget priorities and realize that education is infinitely more important than a losing football team. Why can't the athletic budget cough up $48,000 to the English department and $63,000 to the math department? The administrators cannot envision the damage they might cause by such priorities. A solid education is vital: athletes are secondary.
Story upsets ex-mayor
To the editor:
I was surprised by the front page story and the large headline about myself in the April 6 Kansan story reporting the city election results.
Was this a last-minute attempt to balance coverage? I noticed that the Kansan had featured the six candidates, whose names were provided in an individual stories during the previous weeks.
Unfortunately, in this story, many of the facts
were not accurate. It was not my last City Commission meeting, and I won't be signing the minutes of the meeting until after they are approved. I'm not 33 or an architect. The 1863 house is 120, not 100, years old. The reporter's editorial remarks are, of course, his own.
The article might have compared the vote tallies with other write-in candidates in the past. I feel that the nearly 1,500 votes I received when my name was not on the ballot is evidence of very loyal support throughout the community.
Why did the article refer to the male candidates by their last names in the headlines, and to me by my first? Certainly the Kansan is free to report on what I wore and when I came out of the restroom, but why place it at the beginning of the story?
It takes courage to put one's name in front of the voters, particularly when the chances for success are reduced. During my term in office I worked hard to broaden the choices for electors by changing situations. I feel good about ending my first term in office on that same positive note.
Marci Francisco Former Mayor
To the editor:
Magna Charta botched
The exhibit was simply not set up to accommodate the vast crowds that showed up and braved the cold Sunday weather. Surely, those who had been hardened should have realized that Sunday would attract the largest crowd. People like myself, who came from out-of-town, and those having to work
The Magna Charta was quite a coup for the University. It is too bad it was mismanaged. What I thought was going to be a pleasant afternoon turned out to be a teeth-clenching ordeal. The shame of it all was that it did not have to be that way.
Bob
I am curious why it was it set up the way it was. The areas for huckstering goods created both sewer and traffic jams as the sign in the unlit building, the unlimited inventions many people from seeing the document.
during the week comprised the majority of people standing in line.
The display was fine for browsing through, but after waiting 2% hours in the cold and almost getting the door shut in my face, the exhibit lost interest. I took a photo of the cold and cold to care about the rest of the exhibit.
The Magna Charta should have been the only article on display Sunday. People could look at it and move on. I doubt that most of the people who saw the Magna Carta knew or remembered enough Latin to stand there and read it. It was also in a script familiar only to someone with a background in paleography. People wanted to see the Magna Carta and to be able to tell stories, not just about its original or limiting viewing time would have insured that more people would have seen it. Let's face it, it is a simple, unadored document in an unfamiliar language and script. How long could it take for the average person to look at it? Most people are not medievalists like me.
My question is why so little time was allowed for viewing on Sunday? Three hours was not long for the only weekend day. Couldn't it have been scheduled earlier? If not, then why bother with the rest of the exhibit? It was insanity to think that in three hours everyone was going to be able to look at the entire exhibit to his heart's content. Three suggestions come to mind that would have made for a more enjoyable day: have the Magna Charta displayed by itself or have the Magna Charta displayed as the first item (most people probably would have skipped the rest of the exhibit); move the concession stands out of the way; and limit viewing time.
My final complaint is with the staff. Why wait until 5:30 to tell people they may not get in? Several librarians came out and looked at the crowd. Why did they wait until the last minute to tell the 200 or so people behind me that they would not get in? In fact, if the crowd had been docile and unquestioning, I would not have gotten in. I am angry, and I got in. What about all those people behind me who waited just as long? Sunday was a debacle.
Cynthia Shively
Topeka graduate student
Alternatives ignored
To the editor:
How about Matt Bartel? Hopefully his April 1 column invoked concern even among the most
I've always assumed that our effort to maintain a credible strategic capability was meant to deter potential aggressors from barbaric acts. I never imagined it would lead us toward barbarism, as Bartel suggests. Also, thanks to the point of view Bartel I've been exposed to in my life — "noble servitude" (Hmm...I wonder if it is possible to be both noble and servile. How about
ignoble servitude $ ^{4)} $ is what we fear rather than the many atrocities associated with a nefarious central authority.
Yes, the horrific spectre of nuclear pineapples falling from the sky is frightening, and, as Bartel has asserted, "We must allow ourselves to be ruled by reason." But Bartel seems to be ruled by fear, as is evident by his mention of cannibalism. Sure, he was trying to make a point, but such alarmist tactics indicate either a pathetic hysteria or a confusion of the issue. They do not demonstrate reason and responsible concern. (The philosophical question, "What is freedom worth?" should not be confused with the moral question, "How does it contribute with the race?" which is the issue at hand. The two are independent — our beliefs about freedom, either individually or collectively, may have little bearing on whether or not a murderous nuclear war occurs.)
One could expand on the cannibalism bit: Would it be better to have a choice whether to raise your children for table fare, or would it be better for the "proper authorities" to make this decision? Of course, the question is ridiculous. But the amount of consideration that it merits should vary directly with the consideration given to Barfelt's thoughts on the worth of freedom.
Are there choices other than "barbarian freedom" and "noble servitude"? I believe that several alternatives exist. Arms negotiations, followed by equitable reductions, are a viable alternative. However, we must first convince Ivan that we will not accept the continuation of an ever-expanding Soviet military-industrial complex, that we will not cower with fear, and that we will, at all costs, defend our liberty even if we are undecided on this last point. This may not necessitate a retreat from Soviet relations that we show, as a group, a determined, united and unyielding commitment to that which we value, and the resolution to match their ruthlessness, when necessary, with a fearless appearance of our own. Barrel's stance is thus counterproductive, if not dangerous, as it undermines the very foundation necessary for any such arms negotiations.
Tom Phillips
Lawrence junior
The University Daily KANSAN
The University Daily Kannan (USPS 600-460) is published at the University of Kannan, 118 First Hall, Kannan, Karnataka. It is available on Thursday and Monday and Thursday during the summer seminars, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays, and weekends. Subscription fees are $25 for Kannan 46044. Subscriptions by mail are $13 for six months or $2 per year in Douglas County and $18 for six months or $4 per year in Dudley County. All subscription fees are $3 a semester fee that student activity fee. PASTMaster® send address changes to the University of Kannan.
Editor Rebecca Chaney
Business Manager Matthew D. Langan
Advertising Advisor John Oberman
General Manager and News Advisor Paul Jesse