Page 4 Opinion University Daily Kansan, March 9: 1983 Law and order returns It doesn't seem too long ago that this nation, and even this campus, were feverish with the unrest and violence of the 1960s and 1970s. Those were the days when it didn't seem safe to walk the streets and politicians campaigned on law-and-order platforms. It was only later that we discovered that some of the "law-and-order" organizations — such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation — were almost as bad as the criminals. We found out that the FBI, under the late and legendary J. Edgar Hoover, investigated and even harassed antiwar and civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr. And in the backlash of public outcry that followed, new restraints were placed on the ability of the government to monitor private citizens. Earlier this week, the Justice Department announced new guidelines that would expand the FBI's ability to conduct surveillance on Americans, even if they had committed no crime. Under the new rules, a person's advocacy of criminal activity is enough to have the FBI peeping into his back yard and listening to his phone conversations. The bureau had to have "reasonable suspicion" of a crime before surveillance could take place under the old rules adopted in 1976. The new rules, not subject to congressional approval, might be interpreted as a response to some increased threat of domestic violence. But there has been no such threat. Not only does the rule change seem unnecessary, but worse, it makes American citizens subject to investigation simply because they might be contemplating a criminal act. And if the FBI can investigate people simply for what they might think or consider, then who among us is completely innocent? And who will decide? Division of sexes not answer to resident director problem In junior high school, we had separate physical education classes for boys and girls. We girls played volleyball and the boys played baseball. A decision to combine the two classes came as a big surprise us because it acknowledged that our students could work together in the same environment. Now, 1, a college student, am astonished to find myself in a situation that implies males and females in close contact with each other cannot be separated. What is the last week the office of residential programs JEANNE FOY announced scholarship halls would no longer be allowed to pick resident directors of the opposite No doubt ORP thinks the decision is in the best interest of the halls. The recent engagement of a resident director, who has since resigned to, a scholarship hall resident, along with other incidents, might have formed some of the basis for this decision. Directors for halls with residents of the opposite sex are told strongly that they are not to date or become romantically involved with any residents. This rule has not always been followed The track record of directors of the opposite sex is far from perfect, but situations in which the director is of the same sex as the residents does not always work out perfectly either. But the subject of romantic liaisons between resident directors and hall residents is more touchy than a situation in which the director is simply incompetent. In addition, having a resident director of the same sex does not guarantee that no romantic relationships within the hall will occur. It happens. Resident directors cannot be screened according to their sexual preferences and likelihood of succumbing to temptation. ORP probably thinks that at this time, considering past cases, the risk of hiring directors of the opposite sex who will ignore the no-dating rule is too high to take any chances Yet scholarship halls are supposedly self-governing. Surely hall residents should be able to decide who, regardless of sex, is best for their hall. Grace Pearson, a men's hall, has a female director and everything seems to have worked out quite well. If a scholarship hall has had bad experiences with directors of the opposite sex, the residents themselves know best whether they want to take that route again. Joyce Cliff, assistant director of the office of residential programs, said the new rule would not affect the hiring of qualified resident directors. This is certainly not true. Each hall has its own personality. Some want a director who will be a strong leader, others want one who will act only when problems arise. Qualified people apply for the post of resident director, but my hall, for one, has trouble finding a director who fits our specifications. A resident of my hall, who is helping to choose the final resident director candidates, chose a man before she found out about the new rule. The director was forced to begin with, has been narrowed even more. The office of residential programs should have given scholarship hall residents more credit. We are supposed to make most of our own decisions. Granted, we make mistakes, but living with and learning from mistakes is part of the growing process we all must go through. University squeezing students A proposal for a $15 special fee came before the Student Senate Finance and Auditing Committee Monday night. The administration, in the form of Deannell Tacha, vice chancellor for academic affairs, tacitly pushed the committee to reject which would go to a myriad of worldwide areas that are not scholarly classified as library acquisitions, academic computing and instructional equipment. KU administrators are finally trying to capitalize on their long-standing "love me, love you" sentiment. The finance committee will meet again tomorrow night to vote on the proposal, which would raise between $500,000 and $600,000. Tacha the fee would contain a sunset clause of three. If this proposed fee seems to have slipped suddenly on the scene, that's because it has. Tacha said that such a fee had been considered perhaps since January but that the first mention of it had been made to "student leaders" Friday. Loren Bosen, chairman of the finance committee at the university, first mentioned it in first mentioned the fee; the figure was set at $10. It rose to $15 after Tacha "did some figuring." Tacha did not guarantee, however, that the administration would not ignore the Senate vote, whatever that might be, and send the fee to the Board of Regents for consideration in April. She said, not surprisingly, that Chancellor Gene A. Budig would reserve comment on the issue until the Senate had considered it. And Tacha didn't know yet if she was entitled to a attitude toward the fee. Would it be grateful, or would it assume further funding would follow? Finally, Tacha downplayed the importance of a student referendum on the subject. If her of the administration's attitude, the students are in a lot of trouble. Tsaa said that, given the number of students that voted in the last election, the Student Senate was a more representative body than the student body itself. Read that over again. New figures it out. A ray of hope is breaking through this bureaucratic gloom, however. The Senate is finally lining up behind a referendum that would allow the students to judge this fee. And the TRACEE HAMILTON referendum has the support of a wide range of senators, some of whom have previously opposed any such idea. But, given the administration's awesome capacity for optimistic thinking combined with the Senate's student-politic naivete, there is still a danger that these two idealistic groups will be driven to unilateral action; students foot the bill, just this once, the Legislature will pick up the tab from here. This, mind you, is the Legislature that has concocted such imaginative and open-minded proposals as an added tuition tag for foreign students and a competency test to discourage high school seniors from entering college at all. The state's higher education department has a sneering indifference to state education. This is the Legislature that, in three years, will pay "thanks for paying; we'll take over now!" This, instead, is a Legislature that will continue to bleed the turnip until it is not only dry but also dead. The University has suffered, though not silently, under Gov. John Carlin's budget cut of last summer. And the Legislature, knives schools when further cuts are mentioned. There is more at stake here than an extra 51% out of your pocket at enrollment time — and remember, a 20-percent tuition increase, a $2-activity fee increase, a $1.50 special fee for Robinson Center and God knows what else, will greet students in the fall. The entire definition of a state university, and what we as students should expect from it, is also under fire. A proposal to institute a $5 library fee was on the committee's slate before the $15 fee fell onto the agenda with a tith that clearly alarmed some senators. That a $5 fee, should the $15 fee be passed, would most likely be passed, given the 'lesser-of-two-eviis' frame of mind that seems to be prevalent. Proponents of the $15 fee say that, if the student doesn't pick up the check on this one, the University will suffer. That might be true. But when the administration has the utter ternity to say that, in addition to a 20-percent increase in tuition, students should fork over an extra $15 fee, allow, perhaps, it time for the University to slip, audacious and cruel that might sound. If facilities decline, enrollment, as well as KU's prestige in the academic world, also will decline. Perhaps then, faced with less money coming into the till and an eroding national reputation, the administration will see the light and the Legislature will act. But don't count on it. Letters to the Editor Higher foreign student fee bad idea To the editor. The public school system was once challenged; Why should people with no children be taxed to educate the children of others? It was wisely ruled that the benefits of educating each new generation accrued to all in society. Sadly, this wisdom ends at the edge of each district and at state and national borders. Our Board of Regents is considering adding a higher foreign student fee to the present two levels, resident and non-resident. Would the Board of Regents please consider instead adopting one universal fee level for students from any state or nation that reciprocates? To generate the same funds as present, all KU students would pay $633 a semester, if all states reciprocate. That means a Kansas resident student pays an extra $183 to attend a state school, but saves $653 a semester if he chooses an out-of-state school that may have a superior program in his specialty. If half the states didn't reciprocate, we could continue to charge their students the same exorbient fee they would extort from a student from Kansas, and our universal fee would be subsidized and drop to only 8540 a semester. But this is not just an economic matter. We desperately need more American students who have studied abroad and more Russians, Chinese, Africans and South Americans, etc., who have studied here. In large numbers, their inter-cultural understanding can provide the trait that prevents serious future world conflicts. Kansas can become the first and leading state to really act on the belief that the benefits of a common education are worthwhile. Impossible? Naive? That was said of any new idea, including public education, before it was tried. John Richard Schrock. Students would leave be the county The report in the Kansan, Feb. 21 about raising What an idea! Foreign students would have liked to think that KU, by maintaining a moderate fee-policy, was making a worthwhile and commendable contribution to the socioeconomic development of those areas of the world community that don't have as much opportunity for university education as the United States. It is pertinent to observe that hardly any public university has a different fee system for foreign students. By raising the fees, KU authorities mean they do not need foreign students more because many of them will leave for other universities similar in quality with lesser fees. fees for foreign students was surprising indeed. The Board of Regents feels that it is more profitable to support U.S. residents rather than foreign students. Bob To the editor. Let us therefore hope the University administration and Senate will oppose this fee rise or else in a few years, there may be less than 100 foreign students at KU. WHAT A DRAG! THIS IS THE FOURTH YEAR IN A ROW THAT IM STAYING HOME OVER SPRING BREAK. Paschal Baylon Odidika Nigeria freshman Letters Policy The University Daily The University Daily Kansas welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and should not exceed 500 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 Kansas reserves the right to edit or reject letters. The University Daily KANSAN The University Daily Kansan (USPK 60-640) is published at the University of Kansas. 118 Flint Editor Bahena Channa Management Editor Rebecca Chanty Editorial Editor Mark Zieman Editor Editor Michael Robinson Editor Editor Colleen Cacy Associate Campus Editor Catton Heban Assistant Campus Editor Sharon Appelbaum, Doug Cunningham Assistant Campus Editor Anne Calovell Art Director Huddy Morgue Sports Editor Jan Bountie Entertainment Editor Ann Lovry Makeup Editors Mike Adela, Denna Miles, Jane Murgo Wire Editors Steve Craink, Brian Levinson, Becky Roberts Photo Printers Delta Blaine, George Roger Head Copy Chief Paul Rosent Copy Chiefs Debbie Don Knox Columnists Jon Barney, Matt Harten, John Foy Tracee Hamilton, Diane Lahrmall, Kate Duffy, Jeanne Fay Tracee Hamilton, Diane Lahrmall, Ron Maronment, Matt Scholson Sports Writers Bob Lader, Dave McQueen, Gin Stripple Staff Writers Kiana Aacu, Julien Heather, Vince Hearn, Darrell Vicki Witt Staff Writers Brian Bartling, Daniel Green Business Manager Matthew P. Langan Retail Sales Manager Matthew P. Langan Ann Hordeurbeck National Sales Manager Susan Cookey Campus Sales Manager Peat Messing Production Manager Jessica Jamison Advertising Artist/Photographer Barb May Tourism Manager Kusha Kimberly Classified Manager Laurie Simmons Campus Representative John Foran, Andrea Duncan, Lila Cloe, Sports Representative John Crawford, Patricia Poelling Retail Sales Representative Adrian Marvillier, Mark Grevey, Mark Schultle Mark Meurs, Dave Vanmanner, William Maher, Jeff Beaver, Mitchell McCoy, Matt McCoy Susan Owalt, Cort German, Diane Miller Advertising Adviser John Oberman General Manager and News Adviser 1