Page 4
Opinion
University Daily Kansan, March 30, 1983
Lineberry holding back
"Communication problems" seems to be an understatement as far as relations go between Robert Linenberry, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and the KU department of psychology.
Lineberry cited communication problems as the reason behind his firing of Michael Storms, chairman of the department, effective June 30.
Before Storms was fired, after he refused to resign. Lineberry saw a psychology review committee's report whose contents remain speculation. Department officials understood they would be given a copy of the report as objective criticism. They were not. Up to now, Lineberry has been holding back, both on the contents of the report and on the specific reasons for Storms's firing.
Lineberry has said he is concerned about "sensitive" information contained in the report. It may be that he also finds the reasons behind Storms's firing "sensitive." Understandably, personnel matters should be treated with discretion. And there is no question that Lineberry has the authority to fire Storms as well as to withhold the report.
However, the issue here should not be a matter of what Lineberry can do, but of what he should do. In academic institutions, it is of utmost importance that straightforwardness and open discussion be demanded when an individual is dismissed from an academic post.
Michael Storms deserves to know exactly why he was fired, particularly in light of numerous charges that the move was political. And Lineberry should consider carefully the consequences of refusing to allow the psychology department access in some form to its own evaluation.
$15 academic services fee deserves students' loud 'no'
Bv CHARLES LAWHORN
By CHARLES LAWHORN
Guest Columnist
It is time to dismiss the emotional arguments in favor of the $15 academic services fee and see them for what they are — pathetic, rhetorical driven. It is time to speak of facts and reality and let everyone know what is actually happening.
Budget cuts may have hurt KU, but our ivory tower is not crumbling before our very eyes, and the academic reputation of our University is not decorating with increasing speed, as many would like you to believe.
A common trick is being employed by the proponents of the academic services fee: Convince everyone that there is a crisis, and in their ignorance they will go along with whatever you want. This falls in line with the view that some students senators hold, contending that KU students neither care about nor can appreciate how their money is being spent. However, this time you, the student, will have a say, because the issue is to be placed on a referendum ballot. Let's talk intent and good faith. The University Libraries Committee, made up of faculty and students, worked with them openly for several months on its library fee. This fee would be used solely to support library constitutions, upholding what is perhaps the most important measure of an academic institution—the quality of its library. I had a difficult time supporting this fee with all the other increases we were facing, but after considering the intent of the fee, and the good faith demonstrated through communication and publicity, it seemed to be in my best interest.
Now, the other side of the coin. All along, some University administrators had been watching this process, and "poof" on came the proverbial light bulb. Why not just propose a fee for everything we want? So on March 4, they worked on the proposal, and legislation was in the works.
was in the middle of it. During all this time, between the first discussions of a library fee and March 4, not once was student leader approached concerning this $15 academic services fee. In addition, it has been indicated that even if students approved the library fee, the University administration might not feel obligated to see that all of that money makes it into the hands of the library, and that if the Student Senate did not approve the $15 fee administrators might just feel obligated to request that the Board of Regents enact the fee anyway.
The intent of the libraries committee was never to suggest the idea for the administration's (and now also the Student Senate)'s $15 fee, but to help ensure it will be used. Frankenstein is the creation of Frankenstein's monster, sent to prey upon the generosity of unsuspecting students.
What trend has your Student Senate been setting? Well, in 1962 we saw the then student body president and our current student body president both support a 20 percent increase in tuition, knowing full well that not all of those funds would come back to the University. Now, some Student Senate leaders are supporting another $15 fee that has been called a "back door tuition increase" by the Senate's own Finance and Auditing Committee.
and Rentals.
Although this money would come back to the University, students would have no control over how it would be allocated, or in what amounts. When you write your check for tuition, you already are paying for the services that would be
covered by this extra fee - library acquisitions, academic computing and instructional equipment. By absorbing this additional charge, you are essentially paying twice for the same services.
And this fee is not temporary, unless you consider a minimum of three years or six semesters temporary. The administration has insisted that the fee be enacted for this period to conform to the University budget process, because it could not accurately determine the impact of the fee otherwise. Does anyone know the meaning of the word 'malarkey?'
The Student Senate killed a proposed amendment to the petition that would have set the fee for only one year to allow the Legislature to be approached and lobbed, without foolishly committing itself to this fee for three years as requested by the administration. Is this a Student Senate that is establishing an identity and upholding student rights, or one that is merely passing tacit approval over administration proposals when the puppet strings are pulled? Or is the administration just crafty enough to pull this one off?
Instead of tightening our belts another notch and working within the Legislature through ASK and individual efforts to increase KU's funding, the supporters of this academic services fee would rather seek the easy way out (which they see as the only way) and telegraph the Kansas Legislature, the Board of Regents, that we are willing to tolerate if fee increase, and future increases of this type as well, if the future chooses to decrease our funding further.
The University of Kansas is a public institution, not a private college. Should we allow this $15 fee to be forced on us for our own good, just as any number of fees are enacted at private schools for their own good?
Then, too, what are we doing to other schools in Kansas, and the United States for that matter, if we follow through with this fee? Why are so many normally credible individuals behind this dangerous precedent? If I knew the answers to these questions, perhaps I would be as "enlightened" as those who are supporting this highly questionable increase.
At least on this issue students will have a voice through referendum. but beware! Some Student Senate leaders will be caucusing and campaigning, trying to convince you that Frankenstein monster is not really a monster at an inmate an inmate projection of your "best friend."
It is incredible to assume that the Legislature would not pull even more dollars from the University general fund, when the only pattern we have to view is that of the past actions of the Legislature, and those actions have shown that when students pay more money for their education, the state merely reduces the amount of money it appropriates for education.
The argument has been made that this fee would show student support for higher education, and if students are willing to impose this fee upon themselves, it would be an incredible gesture. Yes, folks, it would be incredible.
All of you owe it to yourselves to get out and vote in the referendum, and make it a valid one. As for me, I will vote against this $15 convenience fee. If you examine all the facts and stick to your principles, I have no doubt that you, too, will vote "No."
Charles Lawhorn, Kansas City, Kan., senior, is chairman of the Student Senate Services Committee.
Chancellor's presence requested
Chancellor Budig, old sport, I haven't seen you in awhile. Where you've been hiding? Oh, I know you've been busy, what with the maniacs who pass himself off as legislators while swapping stupid stories up in Topeka, the house cleaning over in Allen Field House and the complaints by some misinformed students that special fees are unfairly gouging them.
With all these annoyances pling up, it's no wonder I haven't chatted with you in a while. I've yet to see you working on a tan on Wescoe Beach between schools, but then the weather has been bad. I can't remember the last time I stood behind you in line at the Kaneland theater even though you were the directory as a Pensi professor, I never bump into you at the Pensi machine over here in Flint Hall.
I missed the wildly witty little chats we used to have at the football games. I thought about giving you a call, but I hear through the grapevine that you're devishily hard to get on the phone, and that it's probable I interest you in an acting Undergraduate for Trivial Affairs.
Then it occurred to me — why not invite the Big C to dinner?
Big C to mummer
I know you are busy; so am I. But you can pick the night, and the time. My roommate, Karen, and I would love to have you.
I know you probably eat out a lot, what with all these appearances you put in at frat dinners and the like. But it seems all your student-related activities take place at organized living groups, like Greek houses and schol halls. And there are a lot of students, like me and Karen, who never get a chance to break bread with the Big Cheese.
You can even bring someone along. If I bet you don't get to see your wife, Gretchen, very often.
so she's welcome. I'm sorry I can't invite the whole family, but we only have four chairs.
Or maybe you'd prefer one of your administrative henchmen to come along, you know, to taste your food first. That would be fine, although I'd wager that neither Deanell Tacha nor David Ambler would be too keen to see me right now.
right now.
And while I'd like to extend an invitation to all
the non-living group students to drop in for drinks. I'm afraid that my student-type budget doesn't allow that kind of entertaining. But if any of you readers want me to pass along a kind of message to them, you can send them or send a note. And you have menu suggestions or a favorite recipe, send 'em in.
Chancellor, I'll even your favorite dish, as long as it's chicken. Students can't afford the prime cuts, if you know what I mean. But I can do about 67 things with a chicken. Trust me. I'll bet you don't know any females who constantly erate the establishment are also good cooks.
We can even have a before-dinner drink, unless you've got a hangup about bending the elbow with the youth of this campus. Maybe you'd worry that you'd leak a few University secrets, like where our tuition money really goes or who really pulls the strings that manipulate the Board of Regents. Not to worry — we promise you off-the-record privileges.
Administrators seem to teach students expect them to turn the water into wine. We'd just like
So whatddya say? The rest of my social calendar awaits your reply. I mean it. You may RSVP to the newsroom anytime this week. I think you know the number.
Letters to the Editor
Visiting prof clarifies comments on Ireland
To the editor.
The published version of your reporter's interview with me on Northern Ireland (March 21 Kansas) is selective and somewhat inaccurate in important details. I would be grateful if you would publish the following corrections and clarifications.
I did not say I was politically inactive; I believe that involvement in politics is particularly important in a situation like Northern Ireland's. I am an active member of the Alliance Party, which holds 12 percent of the seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly and is the only genuinely non-sectarian political party.
I did not say I was a Catholic, but that I came from a Catholic family background. The Catholic Church's insistence on religious segregation in schools is a root cause of our problems.
I did not say, obviously, that Ireland had seen on three sides; were that the case it would be an even more remarkable island than it already is.
visitig professor of urban planning Queen's University, Belfast
Pacifism not passive
Ani Fitzgerald's March 21 article on Weike Van der Velden, the Dotthe Mennonite woman teaching at Bethel College, displayed one crucial flaw in its portrayal of the Mennonite Church. Mennonites are traditionally known for their pacifism, not passivism. Van der Velden's
To the editor:
emphasis on activism clearly contradicts the label of passivism.
Becky Kaufman,
Laurence graduate student
Geology facts confused
To the editor
In response to David Powls's March 24 article, "Kansas geological finds aids mineral research," I would like to clarify several misleading comments. Although the greater part of the article was informative, the reporter failed to present accurate key information.
The following sentence caught my eye as being incorrect: "As the rift began, magma rose from the center of the earth to fill the rift." In actuality, magma or molten rock does not rise from the center of the earth but originates much closer to the earth's surface.
It is unlikely that material would flow 3,600 miles to exit at the earth's surface.
I would also like to comment about the so-called FM current. Has someone discovered a baffling new phenomenon in the realm of physical science? Does this new phenomenon give a new meaning to current events over the past century? FM station, sending out "current" information?
Whenever an author comes across concepts that he does not understand, he has an obligation not to make them up but to consult an expert. It is unjust to misinform the public.
Mark Thomas,
Louisburg junior
Band fine at OSU
To the editor*
Lawrence Tenopir's March 24 letter concerning his aggravation to the KU band and spirit squad was highly unjustified on several points. I agree that the band and spirit squad both have a part in the making of enthusiasm, but at the OSU game, it was not their fault that the crowd was down.
First of all, the KU band was placed at one end of the court and we were placed at the other. This was bad because we could not hear our band over the OSU band. The reason the OSU fans cheered so much was because their band was directly in front of them.
On the matter of the quality of the bands, OSU's band was terrible. They played three songs the entire game. I had to sit through two nights of it and listen to their work and their weak rendition of "Oklahoma."
Our band was as good as always. Even though I could not hear all that well, I knew what was going on. Ron McCurdy and the band play great charts. They have a good sound and real tight harmonies. Anyone who attends home games should know that. I heard nothing like that coming from the OSU band. Their charts were boring and monotonous.
Two more factors led to low enthusiasm. One, the Jayhawk fan attendance was smaller than OSU's, and two, the basketball team lost.
Micah Goldstein,
Prairie Village sophomore
Bob
To the editor:
The University Daily
KANSAN
Editor
Rebecca Chaney
The University Daily Kansas (USPK 650-649) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60045, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday during the summer sessions, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays, and final periods. Second postage mail at Lawrence, Kan. 60044. Subscription by mail made to the county. County and $1 for six memberships by the county. Student subscriptions are $3 a month through the student activity fee. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansas, 118 Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60044.
(REBECCA CAMBIE)
Manager Editor                                                                   Mark Zieman
Editorial Editor                                                                Michael Rothmane.
Campus Editor                                                                  Julien Cay
Assistant Campus Editor                                                         Sharon贝蒂森
Assistant Campus Editors                                                        Sharon Appelbaum-Douglas
Anne Calcush
1
Business Manager
Matthew P. Langan
Matthew P. Tangier
Retail Sales Manager Ann Hornberger
National Sales Manager Susan Cookey
Campus Sales Manager Ped Massing
Production Manager Jenny Jackson
Advertising Adviser John Obersan
General Manager and News Adviser Paul Jesu
1