1 2 3
Page 4
Opinion
University Daily Kansan, September 24, 1981
Era of good feelings
"My hope is that after I've been across the street and worked for a while that they'll all feel glad for the wonderful vote they gave me today." So said Sandra Day O'Connor on Monday, after the Senate unanimously confirmed her nomination to the Supreme Court.
O'Connor's appointment, considered a feather in Ronald Reagan's cap, was warmly welcomed by virtually the whole nation. May everyone, not just the senators who voted for her, feel glad about her selection after "a whale."
May O'Connor wear her robes proudly and judge fairly, as she has always done in the past.
May she have the courage to speak her mind on all issues and not be intimidated by forces of the New Right, who tried to make her views on abortion an issue at her confirmation hearings. May she keep an open mind on that and all other matters.
Women deserve a voice on the nation's highest court; may O'Connor provide that voice, reasoned and sensitive.
Finally, may O'Connor's appointment be more than a token gesture on Reagan's part to move minorities into higher government positions. There are plenty of good women, and members of other minorities, where she came from.
Regents education proposals surest route to improvement
When more and more students who could not read, write and compute at a grade-school level began graduating from high school, the public pointed an accusing finger at the teacher.
If students are not competent in basic skills, that means the teachers themselves are not knowledgeable, the public said. Incompetent teachers are the cause of incompetent students.
This is an overly simplified view of a complex problem, but there is some truth to the idea.
One solution to the problem is to revamp the teacher-training program so that only competent
KARI
ELLIOTT
teachers are certified, a plan that seems logical and uncomplicated. The problem is that those involved in teacher education can't agree on what kind of program is best.
The State Board of Education and the Kansas Board of Regents have their own answers to the incompetent-teacher problem. In general, both plans want to stifter teacher education standards.
Several years ago a bachelor of science degree in education was a pud degree. If students couldn't pass the Western Civilization exam, which was required for a liberal arts degree, they transferred into the School of Education and graduated.
Now the standards are changing, making it more difficult to get an education degree.
The Board of Education's plan would require students entering a teacher education program to have a minimum 2.5 GPA and to pass a written examination before admission to the state education schools.
The Regents propose that the 2.5 GPA standard be used for final certification, not as an admission requirement. They recommend that a basic skills exam be given before admission to the school and that a more comprehensive competency exam be given before certification. Also propose that education students participate in a supervised internship for one year.
The recommendations by the Regents are more realistic and fair and would still inure that they were intended to be used.
The board's requirement of a 2.5 GPA at the beginning of the program would penalize students who wanted to take a variety of liberal arts classes their freshman and sophomore years. They may not do well in each course, so their GPA drops.
Also, education students could say that the board's plan discriminates against them. No other school requires a 2.5 GPA. Should they be given a smarter than engineers, accountants or artists?
If the board is so fond of a 2.5 GPA, it should paradeuse the Regents to make a 2.5 requirement for a test.
The Regents plan of requiring a school admission test and a final competency exam is more reasonable than the board's proposal. Other undergraduate programs don't require a major competency exam before students are allowed to enroll.
The School of Education doesn't need a drastic weeding out process at the beginning of students' academic careers. A basic skills test as an entry requirement would be sufficient to indicate which students are not competent to enter a professional school.
The Regents proposal for supervised internships is the best idea. If these are paid internships and if they replace student teaching, then may be the most innovative of the three.
Now, KU student teachers must pay full-time
at what eventually becomes
full-time teacher.
When I was completing my certification requirements, the semester I student taught was a financial hardship. I did not have the time to work at a payable job, nor was it recommended.
And what really hurt was that my supervising teacher at the high school received an honorarium from the University for advising and evaluating me. I could have used that money.
Some problems with the internship program mav kill it before it is started, however.
Could school districts with already tight budgets afford to hire an intern, or would they want to when a fully certified teacher is applying for the position?
Finding internships for prospective math or science teachers would be easy because of current teacher shortages in those areas. The most common internships may have to go to western Canada for a job.
Would these interns be certified? Under Kansas law, there must be a certified teacher for each class. School districts could not afford to have a certified teacher and an intern for the same job.
The Regents proposals for toughening teachers certification standards are steps toward producing competent teachers. Higher GPA's, admission tests and competency exams
Their proposals are the most practical for the School of Education and its students, and they would most likely result in knowledgeable teachers.
Would things be different if . . . ?
What if last November's election had turned out a little differently? After all, just a few hundred electoral votes would have meant a landslide for Jimmy Carter or John Anderson. With a three-way race going on, a lot of interests could have happened that actually didn't.
Usually, we just do the "what if" game the day after the election. People pulling the Carter or Anderson bumper stickers off their cars spent Nov. 5 mumbling, "What if he'd carried California . . ." or, "What if he'd captured just one state . . ."
True, "what iffing" the past does nothing to
True, "what iffing" the past does nothing to
been better or worse? "if whatf it had happened!"
Let's say the American public had forgotten about the economy and the hostages and had decided to keep President Carter. Here's how he stuck up for Sept. 24 in the fifth year of the Carter.
Sept. 24 is Day 691 for the hostages on the ABC evening news. Most of the hostages were released in the spring when the impasse in the negotiations broke during a brief fit of lucidity on the part of the Iranian officials, Iran, however, decided to keep a dozen hostages as collateral until the frozen assets were returned—and until the United States agreed to pay "reparations" to Iran.
The United States, of course, balked at the last demand, and negotiations were severed, possibly for good, after the Jun explosion that left Iran in near-narcasm. In fact, no one has heard from the hostages since July, and some observers doubt that they are still alive.
Adding to Carter's foreign headaches is the Israel situation. Carter's grand plans for Mid-east peace have been sorely tested by Israeli military actions and by Egypt's internal crackdown on dissent. Trying to salvage his one crowning achievement—getting Egypt and Israel to coop
erate at the bargaining table—Carter is off on
the trip. Then he asks, trying to keep the Camp David records alive.
To Carter's delight, a Supreme Court vacancy finally opened up, and he wasted no time in nominating Shirley Hustfelder, whom he had put in the Education Department to await such an event. In April, the Senate belied the troubles the president has had in his second term dealing with Congress.
But the bloom of an economy strangling on its own high interest rates overshadows whatever is happening in the world.
DON
MUNDAY
Anderson became the first president in memory to ascend to the executive office without party support; Republicans of both houses refuse to follow the maverick who bucked the party, and Democrats are wary of affiliating themselves with an independent.
But then, many of the same problems would have faced President Anderson. His worst problem on Sept. 24, 1981, is his endless battle with Congress.
The best example of the Anderson-Congress standoff is his grand plan of taxing gas to fund
Social Security. Both the president and Congress recognize that the Social Security program is sinking fast, but they disagree vehemently on the cure.
Few congressmen, after all, are willing to face next year's election after voting to increase the cost of gas to nearly £2. The president sees the increase as the only source of revenue possible, but economists warn of inflationary catastrophe if gas prices increase to much too fast. The Social Committee hearings—which began shortly after Anderson took office—are still dragging on.
What ' little legislation has emerged from the council is the right to be bidden, adding further to the self-deaffo
And like Carter, President Anderson has been stung by foreign affairs. Iran is scarcely a concern now—the hostages, after all, were released on Inauguration Day—but Anderson's one-support support of Israel was shattered by Israeli raids into Iraq and Lebanon. The president disagrees with Prime Minister Begin's view that threats to Israel are serpent's eggs to be crushed they hatch. Anderson suffered a severe image setback when documents were leaked revealing he secretly hoped Begin would lose this summer's election.
meanwhile, critics from both parties continue to roast Anderson's Cabinet, which is viewed as too cerebral and too aloof by much of the American people. And although Anderson applauded Mr. Obama's Supreme Court, many minorities and women are wary of his restructuring of the budget.
Whether Carter or Reagan or Anderson, the problems to be faced are largely still the same. And almost a year after the election, it seems probably that few things would really be different had someone else been elected. The difference made by the president will come in the long run—but we'll have to wait a while to "what if" those results.
Letters to the Editor
Ramifications of Senate bill yet to come
To the Editor:
The controversial Student Senate budget bill was passed by a 28-9 vote Sept. 16. Some details of the bill were published in the Kanan, but its implications have yet to be seriously considered.
Before continuing, two sets of facts should be recognized. First, the authors of this letter are all graduate student senators and are active, participating members of the Finance and Auditing Committee. The bill in question does not require the process for any student group were present.
The second set of facts deals with how this budget bill was handed in the Senate: 1) the bill was first introduced on the floor of the Senate last spring without notice and without committee review; 2) after introduction, the bill was sent to both the Finance and Auditing and the Student Committees; 3) at that time, that the far-ranging effects of the bill deserved serious consideration; 3) the Finance and Auditing Committee passed the bill on without recommendation in anticipation of the public hearings that the Rights Committee would be holding in the fall; 4) there were no public hearings because of a lapse in the administration of the Rights Committee; 5) the only consideration for the bill was at a meeting called by David Adkins, StudEx chairman and co-author of this budget bill, at which only four committee members were present—needless to say, the bill passed.
We are in complete agreement with the bill's authors that the Senate budgetary process for funding student organizations needs revision. However, we also feel that in this case, "due process" (i.e., an entire committee review) was circumvented in the interest of a quick solution.
We feel that the new budget process will
homogenize rather than streamline funding practices. We seriously doubt that one 28-member committee will fund student groups more fairly than five smaller committees. The bill greatly reduces and places a limit on the opportunity for participation by non-senators. Indeed, by what criteria will StudEx select non-Senate members?
Is this simply alarm paranoia? We think not. In our opinion, the majority of the senators present at the meeting did not carefully consider the bill, but simply placed their blind faith (and votes) in the hands of its authors—the elected leaders of the student body. Our attempt to defeat quorum, and thus delay passage of this bill, was unsuccessful.
In addition, we question the idea that all student organizations should be subjected to the same budget cuts regardless of their makeup or their purposes.
The student body officers have succeeded in fulfilling one of their campaign promises. However, the implications of "selling" problems in the budgetary process by the thoughtless centralization of power and the restriction of student participation have yet to be realized.
Thomas J. Berger
David C. Camatella
Brebeca A. Pyles
Graduate student senato
Brett didn't strike out
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to Cindy Campbell's Sept. 21 editorial concerning George Brett.
First of all, I would like to say that I am a 100 percent, full-fledged George Brett and Kansas City Royals fan. I realize that what I might say in this letter may not be all true, but I do not have the access to sources you do. Mainly, I just want you to know that there is at least one person let*
I, for one, was not "slapped in the face" when I read about the incidents. This does not mean I would be justified, but if a female reporter, or even a male reporter for that matter, started reading about the incident, I was in Brett's shoes, I wouldn't have put up with it either. She's lucky she got what she got.
who can sympathize with Brett for what he has to put up with.
Next, I would like to know just what fans Brett struck out with. It is people like you, if in fact you consider yourself a fan of his, who I'm sure Brett would just as soon not have behind him. If anything, he probably gained more support than he by lost this "unruly public behavior."
The reason Brett takes "out his aggressions on the sports reporters and photographers," as you put it, is not the reason you stated. He does it because he is provoked! You of all people should know how reporters have a way of doing that to a person. And provoke a man with a temper and you are just asking for a close encounter with a fist.
Your reason for his aggressions is that he is having an off year. Surely you don't believe that. You can't expect him to bat in the upper 300s, as you later stated. But now let me state something. Batting anywhere in the 300s ain't shabby, and how many other Royals are having an ex-player year with averages in the 300s, aside from Clint Hurdle, who has been injured most of the season?
Also, Brett doesn't have to live up to any superstar, super-nice-guy image people like you put on him. The man is just the way he is. I'm quite sure he still has an ample supply of fans left over after those "strike outs" occurred, including me.
**WYB powerhouse hm!? Oh, you people matter a story**
**Why Wyb powerhouse hm!? Oh, you people matter a story**
---
Aberdeen, S.D., sophomore
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and 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 the class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kanasan reserves the right to edit or reject letters.
Letters policy
KANSAN
(UPS$ 605-646) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas 60440. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for an six-month or $2 a year in Douglas County and $18 for six months or $3 a year in Killeen County. Mail to: UPS$ 605-646. Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University D凯莱an. Fint Hall, The University of Kansas.
Editor
Scott C. Faunt
Managing Editor
Campaign Editor
Editorial Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Assistant Campus Editor
Assignment Editor
Art Director
Head Copy Chief
Wire Editors
Entertainment Editor
Sports Editor
Associate Sports Editor
Makeup Editors
Copy Chiefs
Retail Sales Manager
Campaign Sales Manager
National Sales Manager
Classification Manager
Production Manager
Team sheets Manager
Staff Artists
Staff Photographer
Retail Sales Representatives
Leslie Ditch, Renée Yorue, Susan Cookey, Diane Pham, Howard Shain昭, Perry Bail, Brad Llang, Wendy Wendorff, Sheron Baden
Campaign Sales Representatives
Mirna Rosa, Lila McMahon, Tracey Campbell, Larry Burmuster
Sales and Marketing Adviser
General Manager and News Advisor
Business Manager
Larry Letlengood
Robert J. Schaad
Tamar Turney
Kathy Brunselm
Ray Purkane
Kate Footall, Gwen George
Cynthia L. Currier
Scott Knotter
Don Mundack
Pam Howard, Vavne Harness
Karen Schuster
Tracee Hamilton
Nicola Higgastrom
Cindy Campbell, Amy Collin
Kathy Malg
Terry Knoebber
John Caldwell
Marcee Jacobson
Laura Pinkett
Ann Hamburger
John Egan
John Keeling
Keegan Meen
Melissa Rader, Jana-Jason, Kelly McCarthy, Beth State,
Leslie Ditch, Renée Yorue, Susan Cookey, Diane Pham, Howard Shain昭, Perry Bail, Brad Llang, Wendy Wendorff, Sheron Baden
Mirna Rosa, Lila McMahon, Tracey Campbell, Larry Burmuster
John Ohrke
Rick Musk