Opinion
Page 4 University Daily Kansan, September 15, 1961
Courtroom v. classroom
Last week's court decision in the damage suit filed against Emporia State University proved that, for better or worse, university administrators cannot escape the coils of our legal system.
Former economics professor Rodney Mitchell, who claimed four Emporia State administrators harassed him into quitting his job three years ago, won a $415,000 judgment from a U.S. District Court. His is a case that both defense and prosecuting attorneys predicted would set an important precedent for others who were contemplating legal action against universities.
In increasing numbers, students and faculty members across the country are turning to the courts to settle their disputes with universities.
The significant point is that there are quite a few of these "others."
At KU's Lawrence campus and Medical Center alone, there are 75 lawsuits or federal agency investigations underway. Vickie Thomas, general counsel for the University, estimates that the legal case load at KU has increased 100 percent in the past two years, and the University has requested that the Legislature hire another counsel for fiscal year 1982.
It's nice that students and teachers feel safe in voicing charges of mistreatment and discrimination and in attempting to win compensation, but it's a shame to think
the spotlight at our universities may be shifting from the classroom to the courtroom.
It is commonly accepted that ours is becoming an increasingly litigious society. When problems arise between individuals or groups, more and more often the solution seized upon is to sue. Now, this trend is being extended to college campuses.
Whatever the specific reasons for the increase in litigation involving universities, the fact remains that such actions are bound to disrupt campuses, not to mention contribute to the problems of an already-clogged court system. Drawn-out legal battles cost a university in time, money and morale, and can come to overshadow many other issues of importance on a campus.
This is not to say that all litigation should be forbidden or even discouraged. There will always be some difficult cases that are complicated by university politics and cannot be solved through internal channels. But it would be a grave mistake for everyone dissatisfied with the workings of a university system to jump on the litigation bandwagon before he has exhausted other means of negotiation. Although that might be a welcome turn of events for our aspiring lawyers, it would have few positive ramifications for the rest of us.
Not everything conservative attributable to Moral Majority
Two words, and I've probably just lost half my audience.
Moral Majority
But that's OK. For that half of the audience, those two words are enough; those readers already know all about the Moral Majority and moral members are trying to legislate morality.
It is to other readers that I write. Readers who, whether they admire or vehemently oppose the organization, can free themselves of such mindsets for a few minutes.
We have been inundated with press coverage of the Rev. Jerry Failwell and his Moral Majority
REBECCA
CHANEY
Actually, these students had no idea whether Bibbett had anything to do with the Moral Mishap.
for nearly a year now. As a result, Falwell is many to be the guru of the so-called New Right.
Perhaps this explains why I heard at least 10 students, as they discussed last week's travel of traveling evangelist Brother Jed Smock, declare not to take any more of this "Moral maturity" stuff.
But the words "Moral Majority" have become free and easy catchwords, used in the newspapers, in the classroom and on the streets to describe people, events and trends that may or may not have anything whatsoever to do with Fallow's controversial organization.
Personally, I have little love for the tactics of a Jed Smock or a Jerry Failwell. But I find it difficult to swallow careless use of words by people who too lazy to find out what they are talking about.
Serious criticism must be leveled at the press for perpetuating, even initiating, the use of the words "Moral Majority" as a synonym for virtually anything conservative or fundamentalist, particularly that which is unappealing.
I recall one vivid example found in a summer issue of Newsweek magazine, which detailed the
Rev. Tim LaHaye's battle against pornography, LaHaye, who said he considered Michelangelo's mute statement of David pornography, was executed and part of "the New-Right, Moral-majority psychiatry."
Yet, as anyone who has ever heard of LaHaye knows, the man has been saying the same things for 10 years, long before the start of the Moral Majority or the New Right. In fact, he has criticized members of the newer organization for not going far enough.
In being so careless with its words, the press is promoting the very kind of stereotypes and generalizations it has traditionally committed itself to breaking down.
A few facts might benefit all of us before we open our mouths or use our typewriters to discuss the issue.
- The Moral Majority is not an inform term for conservative and/or religious people. There is only one Moral Majority and it is incorporated; either one is a member or one is not.
- The Moral Majority is not the first, or even the largest, politically active religious organization. There are at least 150 organizations, including political caucuses sponsored by the United Presbytery, the Roman Catholic Church, the National Council of Churches, the Lutheran Church of America, the Southern Baptist Association, etc.
- The Moral Majority is not a new religious denomination. It is interdenominational, its primary objectives being political rather than religious.
- Phyllus Schlaffy is neither a member of the Rev. Falvella's flock, nor is she a product of extremist Pentecostal churches. She is Roman Catholic.
- Finally, the National Coalition for Better Television, which recently threatened a nationwide boycott of products advertised during television or radio programs deemed "unsuitable," is not led by Falwell or the Moral Majority. Its founder is one Donald B. Wildminton, who has been a leader of the federation for Decency, and who mines even fewer words than Falwell in discussing narcophagy.
- Consider:
- The Moral Majority is not a single-use pressure group although it obviously does endure.
Best wishes for a more informed opinion on a very hot issue.
Senate bill would limit student input
Last week, yet another Student Senate skirmish began—this time over the passage of a bill that would create a new budget committee. And parties on both sides of the issue had agreed to a plenary committee warfare, by calling clandestine committee meetings and sitting on legislation.
Usually when student senators get this riled up over their problems, most students ignore them and assume they'll go away (the problems, not the politicians).
But this time, students can't afford to ignore Student Senate's machinations.
Tomorrow the 68 members of Student Senate will meet to decide on a bill that would drastically change its method of allocating grants and fees. That change might not be for the better.
As it stands, the bill would whittle the number of students who allocate that money to about 30—ten student senators, 10 non-senators and eight committee chairmen.
Bren Abbott, student body vice president and the principal author of the bill, says the change would make the budgeting process faster, more efficient and more equitable. A single committee of dedicated, experienced students would do a better job than the disjointed group of committees that now perform the task, he says.
As the bill stands, it is not at all clear that it would help the process as much as its authors hope. But the bill almost certainly would hurt, by limiting the number and the variety of students who have a hand in allocating student fees.
Proponents of the bill say students who aren't senators don't care much about the budget process anyway. "This may sound callous," said one proponent, "but I doubt that they'll even get 10 applications for the committee."
He's right, that statement sounds callous. And he was missing an important point. Without the budget change, fewer than 10 nonsenators may have helped allocate funds. But if the bill passes, it will be impossible for more than 10 to get involved.
Authors of the bill say it would cure a host of ills.
For example, they contend the bill would improve attendance, which in the past has sometimes dropped to three committee members as budget hearings drag on, night
after night. But the proposed system is not guaranteed to solve that problem.
In fact, when only 30 people are called upon to do the work that now is done by eight committees, the work load will almost surely increase. And when some members are forced to choose between budgeting and studying, studying may win.
To speed up the process, the budget committee also may have to limit the time that groups have to present their budget requests. For example, if a hearing involves hearings, but this seems unlikely. Even
VANESSA
HERRON
Student Senate cannot change the number of hours in an evening.
The authors also contend the change would stop students from "padding" committees, or loading committees with like-minded people to promote a special interest.
But it seems more likely that this practice would still exist after the bill's passage. In fact, the bill might even encourage it. Anyone could ask a group of people—say nine or 10 acquaintances or a pledge class—to join a group just long enough to elect him chairman.
This has happened before, and it will happen again. But now the new "chairman" will not only hold the reins of a committee, he also will control a seat on the budget committee. And his hill does not eliminate budget "committee paddles," it merely gives them added incentive.
Abbott pointed out another of the bill's problems. As it stands, the student administration—the president, vice president and treasury secretary—non-senators serve on the budget committee.
It is only fair to mention that Abbott plans to suggest tomorrow that a senate committee appoint the budget committee, rather than StudEx and the student body officers.
But even in its amended form, the bill favors insiders, those who know when and
how to apply, and those who know committee members who can pay their way.
Many students, including those who are non-traditional, minority and transfer students, seem disadvantaged at the outset. And any student who is too late to submit an application in their yearly committee selection would be out of luck—and out of that part of the budget process.
The changes the proposed bill would make could have undesirable side effects, but the authors of the measure were right in trying to improve the system.
Currently, the budget process is imperfect. The policies of the eight committees that allocate funds are inconsistent. Committee members often skip important meetings. And the entire process is often cumbersome and disorganized.
But Senate can alleviate these problems without creating a select and exclusive board of trustees.
For example, last year Senate moved its elections from February to November, thus giving the committees extra time to complete their budget hearings.
Now, the committees can stretch the budget process from January to March before submitting budgets to Senate for approval. Meetings can be shorter and farther apart, and committee members do not have to skip meetings to survive as students.
Groups and committee members also complain that budget hearings are long and rambling. To remedy that, Abbott has suggested that groups provide more complete information about their goals and needs on their funding applications. Consequently, the committees don't have to waste time asking obvious questions.
By correcting individual problems, Senate can make its budget process more efficient. So surely, it can stop short of scrapping the present system.
When Senate meets tomorrow, it should weigh carefully the possible good, and the probable harm, that the proposed budget committee could do. It will have to choose between increasing its efficiency and maintaining student participation.
This latest Student Senate skirmish is more important than most. We can only hope that the members of Senate realize that fact before they vote.
The University Daily
KANSAN
(USPS 5650-4) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Tuesday and Thursday June 17, 2013. (USPS 5650-4) Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas June 17, 2013. (USPS 5650-4) Boundary mailing by mail are $1 for six months or $2 a year. (USPS 5650-4) A $2 year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $3 a semester, paid through the student activity fee. (USPS 5650-4) Changes of address to the University Daily Kansas FintH. Hall. The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 56504
Editor          Business Manager
Larry C. Faust     Scott Lefebergood
Managing Editor   Robert J. Schad
Campus Editor    Tammy Tierney
Editorial Editor  Tammie Brunell
Associate Campus Editor  Ray Fermanke
Associate Campus Editor Kate Pound, Gene George
Assignment Editors Cymiland L. Curry
Art Faculty      Don Hooker
Head Copy Chief    Don Munday
Wire Editors    Paul Howard, Vanessa Harve
Entertainment Editor  Karen Schluster
Sports Editor    Trace Hamilton
Associate Sports Editor Ren Haggitton
Makeup Editors Cindy Campbell, Amy Collins
Copy Chef        Jane Bryant, Kady Mag
Retail Sales Manager Terry Kneebell
Campus Sales Manager Jody Calebwell
National Sales Manager Marcee Jacobson
Classified Manager Laura Menesee
Production Manager Ann Horbergene
Teamtests Manager John Rean
Staff Photographer John Keeling
Retail Sales Representatives Gey Hawk
Retail Sales Representatives Melissa Rader, Kelly McCarthy, Reba Smith
Lettle Ditch, Renee Youreau, Susan Cookey, Diane Thompson, Barb Bodin
Howard Shalimak, Perry Ben, Brad Lang, Jane Wendertch, Sharon Bodin
Marina Kobe, Li McMahon, Tracey Campbell, Larry Burnmaster
Sales and Marketing Adviser John Ograsen
General Manager and News Advisor
Letters to the Editor
Reagan's immigration plan 'inadequate'
To the Editor:
David Henry's recent cartoon editorial and its accompanying cartoon (Sept. 1) dealt with one of the most crucial problems facing America: the influx of millions of immigrants, both legal and illegal.
Henry correctly pointed out that immigrants put an added strain on a nation already overburdened with unemployment, dwindling natural resources and population growth. The U.S. population is now growing by 1.6 million per year, not including immigration. Add an estimated 650,000 legal and one million illegal immigrants per year, and the total comes to 3.25 million new people each year. That's another Chicago and Philadelphia every four years!
Those immigrants already here are contributing greatly to this growth as well. Sen. Alan K. Simpson, member of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, estimates that 80 percent of the babies born in Los Angeles county hospitals this year will be the offspring of a taxpayer, cost of course, the paid by the taxpayers, as they receive wages (see). And the problem will get worse in the future.
The problem of immigration is becoming such an important concern that the Reagan administration has become the first administration since World War II to propose some sort of immigration plan, although it deals only with illegal Mexican immigration.
Unfortunately, this program is totally inadequate and will be ineffective if initiated.
The president's plan involves four proposals: 1) amnesty for all illegalgers before entered Jan. 1, 1980. They would be required to register as "renewable-termite temporary residents" and 2) a new law requiring fines of up to $1,000 for employers who knowingly hire illegals, 3) a "guest worker" program, allowing 50,000 Mexican laborers into the country per year for two years, after which time they would supposedly be sent back, 4) the hiring of new border guards for the U.S.-Mexican border.
First, as many Hispanic organizations have suggested, few Hispanics will be inclined to register as "renewable-term temporary residents," because do so would mean loss of government aid. Second, aside from the fact that employee ignorance of the law and lack of employers would gladiate the palm fist to avoid paying an illegal alien minimum wage. Third, the "Gastraberber"
program in West Germany proves that such a program does not work; immigrants simply do not willfully leave a secure job to return to an impoverished country. And finally, 256 new border guards (a mere 15 percent increase) is ridiculous when thousands of new personnel are needed to effectively control the almost non-existent border.
What is needed is a totally closed border with Mexico and a severely restricted and selective immigration policy, one that will admit only those who can contribute to our country's advancement.
Granted, the cost of such a program would not appeal to Reagan's budget-cutters. Yet tax payers last year lost an estimated $20 billion for increase in law enforcement, medical care, welfare and other directly attributed to immigration, and the Cuba refugees debacle cost the nation $473 million.
The cost of an effective immigration program pales in comparison to what unchecked imputations will cost, not only in monetary terms, but also in terms of a safe, secure and prosperous country.
David Canaday Salina senlor