Opinion
University Daily Kansan, February 18, 1983
Helping to pay the price
The great University of Kansas Libraries, like the mounds of snow on campus during the last few warm days, are slowly and surely dwindling away.
But, unlike the mounds of snow, the library system, without assistance, is not likely to appear again in its current powerful form.
David Katzman, library committee chairman, says that if the libraries manage to stay within 95 percent of their budget this year — as they had to last year — the system would be forced to cancel 4,114 subscriptions and purchase 8,277 fewer books.
That, of course, providing it still receives $200,000 in grants from the Kansas University Endowment Association. If not, an additional 2,000 serials and 4,000 books will be lost.
budgets of Regents universities. And probably not the Endowment Association, which has already given generously to the cause.
The students
Who, then, will save the University of Kansas Libraries?
As an alternative source of money, the University Senate Libraries Committee has come up with an excellent idea: they are asking the Student Senate to consider a voluntary student fee to help pay for acquisitions.
Voluntarily — that word is important — students can stop the erosion that is weakening their most important resource. No longer must we hang our heads and consider the matter out of our hands. No longer must we live with restrictions we did not make, nor rely on the actions of those who chose to remain inactive.
Sure, it may be an uncalled-for burden, and it will be costly. But education is priceless.
Crime increase in U.S. cities must be met with resistance
"Underdog" had just ended. Summer vacation was just about over. I walked outside to take a ride on my new bike (the fruit of my summer's labor). As I stepped out the back door, I noticed that something was amiss. The garage door was open — it shouldn't have been. When I got to the garage itself, my heart broke — my bike was gone.
It was green, had a banana seat, and it was gone. It cost $30. I was 8 years old, and it had taken me two months to save $30. It had taken
MATT SCHOFIELD
the length of the "Bullwinkle Show" and
"Underdog" for me to lose it.
A kid from across the street told me he had seen it being stolen. I thanked him.
For some reason, the gods had decided it was me that I learned life was tough. The lesson has been to accept whatever comes.
Since I've been a victim, the knowledge that at any time some nameless, felacity, thoughtless creature could invade my life has probably made me a bit paranoid. But I don't think I'm real.
For the past couple of days, ABC has been doing a series of reports on the crime rate in America.
It's up.
One out of four Americans has been the victim of a break-in, car theft, or some other kind of theft. One out of eight Americans knows someone who has been murdered.
As a reaction, we've moved up and out. We live in the country and commute to the city. We live
For a decade we have recolored from the growing crime and violence that has swept our country.
But from somewhere out there — perhaps a lone voice started it — came a cry. It was speaking about quality, as opposed to quantity. He laughed and laughed again. It was speaking about fistfight back.
Despite what we have been programmed to learn in the self-serving 1970s, we have the power to fight crime and win. We don't have to run. Standing around, voicing the rights of "me" won't change things. Screaming "I won't take it!" is an insult to everyone who can once again work there, is a charge
Fighting back does not mean retreating to the countryside when we would prefer to live uptown; it does not mean living higher and in more residential building; it does not mean staying off the streets.
It means taking to the streets, showing a united front. It means understanding the importance of others, and not just as they reflect their own needs, someone and being someone others will trust.
If we shy from such programs, we can expect to fall further into the abyss of being a victim. At worst, we may be forced to
In the end, this bolts down to who will take responsibility for what happens to us. Do we continue to allow criminals to shape our patterns or do we turn them over? If the government will make the problem go away?
Or do we decide to take full responsibility for you and make a conscious effort to stop others.
Letters to the Editor
All KU blacks not apathetic
To the editor.
In reference to the column concerning apathy among black-American students, we, the brothers of Phi Beta Sigma fraternity, would like to commend Alvin Reid for his interesting article. Despite Reid's erroneous analysis pertaining to the lethargic attitudes of black students, his desire to make us aware of the affairs which threaten both our sense of unity and our pursuit of academic success should be acknowledged.
It is our belief that most black students, like their white counterparts, are displaying a lack of interest in many campus activities. Unlike the period of the late '60s, many students are preoccupied with their financial and academic problems, rather than actively attempting to eliminate new obstacles which have stained student progress.
After tabulating the result of our campus poll, we have also come to the conclusion that most black students are tired of the weekly parties and they would like to participate in something else. We will be working with campus organizations which seek to improve the quality of student activities.
Although Reid's article is very informative, we do not entirely share his view on the subject
Actually, attendance at most functions sponsored by black organizations has declined since last semester. If black students enjoy listening to the pulsating beat of Grant Master Flash to the extent of neglecting to partake in the basic social practices and social parties? From this standpoint, it is clear to see that Reid has either overlooked or disregarded that fact.
of black student apathy. In one paragraph, Reid states that black students as a group would "rather relax and listen to the mindless dracle of Grand Master Flash than take an interest in music," but is true, how can he explain the low attendance at a fraternity party held several weeks ago?
Taking into consideration Reid's motive for writing the article, we must forgive any inaccurate generalizations. Besides, he had the courage and will to make his opinion known and the wisdom to challenge black students to take a stand. For this reason, we are happy to respond to his editorial and we hope that a new climate of unity will be a result of the efforts by the black campus community and the Black Pan Hellenic Council.
Phi Beta Sigma fraternity. Zeta Omicron chapter
1983
Rule curbs improper searches
By JOHN SHATTUCK
United Press International
WASHINGTON — The hallmark of a police state is a government free to intrude on private lives without restraint. In America the government does not have such freedom, thanks to the courts.
That amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." It is enforced primarily by a rule prohibiting the fruits of an illegal search from being used as evidence in a criminal
The exclusionary rule is a favorite target of law-and-order rhetoricians who argue that it is a mere technicality that allows hords of criminals to escape punishment. In fact, it is neither a technicality nor a curb on effective law enforcement.
The exclusionary rule was first announced by the Supreme Court in 1914 as the only effective method of enforcing the Fourth Amendment. It works. Every day thousands of law enforcement officials all over the country must stop and ask for assistance, because it is sufficient for a search warrant. Is it reasonable to conduct a search? Will the search stand up in court?
In recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Criminal Law, Stephen
Sachs, Maryland attorney general, observed,
"Exclusion from evidence is almost certainly
the only effective deterrent in the vast majority
of unconstitutional intrusions."
Contriary to popular belief, the exclusionary rule does not lead to the release of hordes of criminals to prey upon society. A recent study carried out by the comptroller general of the United States shows that the rule rarely frees federal criminal suspects.
Of the the 2,804 cases surveyed, only 0.4 percent were declined by federal prosecutors because of Fourth Amendment search and seizure problems. Evidence was excluded at trial in only 1.3 percent of the cases. And more than 50 percent of the few defendants whose suppression motions were granted in whole or in part were nonetheless convicted.
The rule has not been responsible for the freeing of guilty offenders. But it has been largely responsible for vastly upgrading the standards and performances of federal agents and local and state police throughout the country.
In spite of the exclusionary rule's overwhelming success, it is a favorite scapegant of politicians blindly searching for a crime control program. This myia is now reflected in bills before the U.S. Senate to eliminate the rule outright, or to allow consideration of the extent
of police misconduct in deciding whether the evidence could be used.
The Reagan administration favors legislation that would require federal courts to admit illegally seized evidence "if the search or seizure was undertaken in a reasonable, good faith belief that it was in conformity with the Fourth Amendment".
If this were adopted, the motives of every police officer in the country in making a search would be open to question in court — an inquiry into the police and the private citizen to shoulder.
Civil liberties advocates are not alone in opposing any weakening of the exclusive rule. They are joined by many law enforcement officials and the American Bar Association.
The exclusionary rule is the only real deterrent we have against acts of official laziness. If it goes, we are all potential victims of illegal searches of our homes, our automobiles, our offices and our persons. We will be sacrificing one of our most basic rights — the right to privacy — and receiving little or nothing in return.
John Shattuck, 39, is a Yale Law School graduate and former clerk to U.S. District Judge Edward Welfeld in New York. Since 1971, he has served on the board of Liberty Lions Union national legislative office.
Exclusionary rule has no value
United Press International
Bv WILLIAM FRENCH SMITH
WASHINGTON — The exclusionary rule is a dangerous impediment to effective law enforcement. It costs society a great deal and gives it very little, if anything, in return. The time has to admit that the exclusionary rule is a waste of money modified so that its worst abuses are eliminated.
The exclusionary rule requires that evidence, no matter how relevant, for any crime, no matter how heinous, cannot be used to prosecute the criminal it was seized from if the seizure is later found to be illegal — no matter how close the question of its legality was, no matter how innocently the seizure was made and no matter how much effort is making the seizure was subsequently disliccled.
It is a relatively recent invention of the Supreme Court, first applied to the federal
Letters Policy
The University Daily Kansan 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 Kansan reserves the right to edit or reject letters.
government in 1914, and not applied to the states until 1961. It is not used by any other country in the world and, indeed, at least three countries, France and Spain, have adopted it. The rule and concluded they would not adopt it.
But the Supreme Court has itself candidly acknowledged in recent years that the costs of the rule often exceed whatever benefits it may have. Moreover, the court has, with one exception in a 1949 dissent, never cited any objective evidence to support the deterrence theory.
The sole reason given in support of the rule is that excluding illegally obtained evidence is somehow necessary to deter police officers from violating the Fourth Amendment.
Still more chilling was the report's finding that "to a substantial degree, individuals released because of search and seizure problems were those with serious criminal records who appeared to continue to be involved in crime after their release."
Bob
No such evidence exists. Indeed, the rule has been applied in instances where it could not possibly have acted as a deterrent — such as when the police officer did not know that his search was illegal or, even more incredibly, that he had actually approved the search beforehand.
Attorney General William French Smith, 65, was a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher before his 1981 death. He was also a member of Reagan. He is a long-time Reagan associate.
I think it is clear that the exclusionary rule must be revised so that it protects society more
A recent report from the National Institute of Justice "found a major impact of the exclusionary rule on state prosecutions" in California. For example, about one in three felony drug arrests were not prosecuted because of the exclusionary rule.
Thus, the benefits of the rule are nebulous at best. Its costs, on the other hand, are very real.
The guilty go free, the courts are kept from the truth while being burdened with the constant resolution of arcane legal technicalities, the police are discouraged from apprehending criminals, and the public loses respect for the law.
The University Daily
KANSAN
Editor Rebecca Chaney
The University Daily Kaman (USP$ 60-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Plint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60045, daily during the regular school year and Monday and Thursday from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Subscriptions are paid at Lawrence, Kan. 60044. Subscription by mail are $10 for six months or $22 in Douglas. Subscription by email are $10 for six months. Amounts paid through the student activity fee (*POSTMASTER*) lend address changes to the college office.
Managing Editor
Editorial Editor
Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Assistant Campus Editors
Assignment Editor
Sports Editor
Entertainment Editor
Mike Edwards, Dawn Miles, Jamie Murphy
Wife Editor
Steve Cuckick, Brian Levinson, Bob童伯
Head Coach/Chelf
Copy Chief
Columbia
Jon Barrett, Mart Baret, John Hower,
Kate Dellay, Jamey Fry, Jan Gunn,
Tracee Hamilton, Dan Parelman, Harry Malin,
Boen Menninger, Mc Siefold, Bruce Schreiner
Rebecca Chaney
Mark Zieman
Michael Robinson
Catherine Jacob
Catherine Jacob
Sharon Appelbaum, Dud Cunningham
Anne Calvine
Jamie Boeller
Ann Lowry
Mike Ardis, Dawn Miles, Jamie Murphy
Steve Cuckick, Brian Levinson, Bob童伯
Larry George, Dolbates Paul Jeavourt
Debbie Baer, Don Knox
Jon Barrett, Mart Baret, John Hower,
Kate Dellay, Jamey Fry, Jan Gunn,
Tracee Hamilton, Dan Parelman, Harry Malin,
Boen Menninger, Mc Siefold, Bruce Schreener
Retail Sales Manager
National Sales Manager
Campus Sales Manager
Production Manager
Advertising Artist/Photographer
Tearless Manager
Classified Manager
Laurie Simmonson
Campus Representatives
Lynne Stark Jancee Phillips
Advertising Advisor
General Manager and News Adviser
Ann Hornerbinger
Susan Cookey
Cai Meiang
Jesny Jackson
Harb May
Kou Kuchia
Laurie Simmonson
John Fora, Andrea Duncan Lina Clowe
Lynne Stark Jancee Phillips
John Oberman
Paul Hobbs