4
Thursday, November 2. 1989 / University Dally Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN Alcohol awareness needs more year-round attention
Everyone probably has heard the jokes about alcohol awareness campaigns
The standard lines, although slightly varied on occasion, are,
"Yeah, I'm aware of alcohol, and I like it a lot." Or, "I'm especially aware of alcohol on weekends."
But it is not so funny that each year about 8,000 young people die in alcohol related auto crashes, according to the Kansas Alcohol Safety Action Project.
And it is also not so funny that drunk driving has become the No. 1 cause of death for people between the ages of 16 and 24.
This week is Alcohol Awareness Week at the University of Kansas. The theme, "No thanks, I'm driving," is an attempt to recognize that people do have options. No one has to drive drunk, yet people do.
After all, it is no secret that college students consume alcohol. And it is probably also no secret that some people will always drink too much.
But it shouldn't be a secret that there is such a thing as a responsible drinker.
A responsible drinker won't threaten his own life, nor will a responsible drinker pose a danger to anyone else.
A responsible drinker knows his limits, but more importantly, a responsible drinker knows not to drive when that limit has been reached.
This week's activities on campus will include individualized programs in the various organized living groups and campuswide programs such as films, lectures and other forms of education. People on campus will have a chance to learn almost everything there is to know about alcohol and its effects.
But when this week is over, after the publicity gimmicks and reminders are hidden in the closets waiting for next year, the real task begins.
Alcohol awareness is not a seasonal thing. People die in drunk driving accidents every day. By the same token, when this week is over, we can't forget to be aware of the danger that drunk driving can bring.
Drunk driving is a big deal: Statistics tell us that much. But "No thanks, I'm driving," is an even bigger deal. Saying it and meaning it could save your life.
Tiffany Harness for the editorial board
Drug war needs to return to 'zero tolerance' policy
Looks like some rules aren't as easy to enforce as the big boys.might have thought.
When the U.S. government instituted the "zero tolerance" policy, critics cried, "It'll never work."
The critics were right.
The zero tolerance policy began in March 1988. Under it, anyone caught with even the most minuscule amount of drugs on a shin would be in big trouble.
But now, the zero tolerance policy has become a "little bit of tolerance" policy.
It seems that the government now will tolerate certain amounts of drugs. If someone is caught traveling with an ounce of marijuana, or a gram of cocaine, or 500 micrograms of LSD, that person walks away with a fine and a slapped hand. He can keep his car or boat.
Basically, the government is backing down from the policy after facing the outrage of people who were angry that three high-profile ships had been seized under the zero tolerance policy: the Atlantis II, owned by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution of Massachusetts, the Ark Royal, a $2.5 million yacht, and the Monkey Business, on which Gary Hart and Donna Rice had set sail.
So, the government can't crack down on high-scale drug abusers. It can only raid clubs houses in run-down neighborhoods. Apparently, the rich people with drug problems must not contribute to the overall drug problem.
We need a zero tolerance policy if the job is going to get done. The rich, as well as the poor, should be forced to give up what they have if they're caught using even the slightest amount of an illegal substance.
Besides, who is to say that the small amount wasn't a very large amount before it was used up during a party on the rich man's yacht?
David Stewart for the editorial board
News staff
David Stewart ... Editor
Ric Brack ... Managing editor
Daniel Nieml ... News editor
Candy Niemmann ... Planning editor
Susan Del ... Editorial editor
Jennifer Corse ... Campus editor
Elaine Sung ... Sports editor
Laura Husar ... Photo editor
Catherine Winner ... Art/Features editor
Tom Elena ... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Linda Prokop...Business manager
Debra Martin...Local advertising sales director
Jerre Medford...National/regional sales director
Jill Lowe...Marketing director
Tami Rank...Production manager
Carrie Slankinka...Assistant production manager
Margaret Townsend...Co-op manager
Erlb Hughes...Creative director
Fritz Doo...Classified manager
Jeff Meesey...Tearsheets manager
Jeanne Hines...Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and less than 200 words and must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University of Kansas, please include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Halt, Letters, columns and cartoons are the opinion of the writer or cartoonist and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daily Kansan. Editorials, which appear in the left-hand column, are the opinion of the Kansan editorial board.
The University Daily Kansas (USP5 650-40) is published at the University of Kansas, 119 Stairway Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 6045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods, and during the summer session. Second-class postage is paid in Lawrence, Kan. 6044. Annual subscriptions by mail are $50. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
**subscription**
*Professor: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118
Staffer-Fluff, Lawrence, Hawken, K6045.*
Reasoning supports creativity
In an Oct. 26 guest column, Mark Hansen expressed his distaste for the disciplines of mathematics and logic, as well as their supposedly ruinous influence on human thought and behavior. As evidence for this, he relates his quest to gain an education despite the University's cruel requirements that he should endanger his otherwise unfettered mind with the shackles of these dread subjects. He has higher interests: English and film. He champions creativity as grander, more human than rationality.
There are certainly those who would respond to Hansen by reversing his argument, pointing out that without mathematics and the sciences, human beings would still be living outside and eating bugs and weeds. Hansen's opponents maintain that rationality defines humanness more than creativity. Both of these positions are short-sighted in the extreme. Our humanness seems to be characterized by a drive to express (creativity), as well as a desire to understand (rationality).
At the close of the column, he states that "...mathematics and logic are gravity itself, and without them, anything is possible." It is clear that he means that rationality prevents creativity. I propose that thinking is a process that combines both creativity and rationality. The role of creativity is to give birth to ideas; the role of rationality is to mold these according to a combination of judgment and individual taste. Neither step alone produces beautiful or useful ideas consistently. When an artist reviews his or her work in progress, the process of evaluating the work is rational, if only on a subconscious level. He or she must ask if the work meets the goals for the piece, and why or why not. When a mathematician is seeking to solve a problem, the process of searching for ideas involves creativity. Prute rationality alone cannot create mathematical works.
Hansen notes that logic is "... a dangerous subject to require because it cranks out uniformity." From the context, one can infer that he means more than just the fact that all correct test answers in a logic class will be nearly identical. He is implying that rationality somehow suppresses our individuality. On the contrary, I think that a lack of rationality encourages uniformity. For a common example, consider the power of peer influence in dictating social behavior. In this manner, we are all
John Beacom
Guest columnist
taught how to behave like men or women, how to behave in our relationships, how to feel about ourselves, our bodies, etc. If one examines these pre-made decisions in the light of reason, one can see that they reflect nearly everything/but what the individual really wants. To ignore the possibility of making rational decisions for oneself is to become homogenized.
One could also argue that a lack of creativity encourages uniformity. Certainly this is so. But creativity alone cannot withstand the pressure to conform. One must be able to use reason to analyze the motives of the self and others in order to become free. A synthesis of these emphases on rationality and creativity leads to the obvious notion that thinking, which uses both, is necessary for gaining the freedom of the individual.
Principally, because it is a difficult subject and from the prejudice arising from this, mathematics has a bad reputation. Many children, especially females, are encouraged to dislike mathematics at an early age. It has become part of our culture to disdain mathematics. The number of graduates per year in mathematics is decreasing. This is unfortunate, for it places one of the cornerstones of human achievement behind a veil of suspicion, which worsens the problem. Yet a knowledge of mathematics and science is necessary to understand the workings of the modern world, as well as the ways of nature.
The discipline of mathematics can be thought of as the result of thousands of years of humans laboring to understand. By condemning mathematics, Hansen condemns rationality and thus a fundamental part of being human. Contrary to his opinion, the use of reason neither discourages creativity nor individualism. He is right to stress the importance of creativity. However, he fails to see that humans want both to understand and to express. ▶ John Beescom is a Lenexa senior majoring in mathematics and physics.
Flag statute avoids real issue
"Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists
— is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." — George Orwell.
If the vote on the flag amendment in the U.S. Senate had fallen under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission, it would have to be labeled consumer fraud.
First the prevailing side took care to protect its political flank by approving a statute making it illegal to desecrate a flag. Anybody past American History 101 should be able to recognize that vote as a sham. At least since Marbury vs. Madison, an act of Congress cannot override a constitutional ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court. Besides, there already is a law against desecrating the flag, and it didn't keep the Supreme Court from legalizing the practice. This new statute has less to do with protecting the flag than with protecting the senators who proposed it.
Having gone on record in favor of the flag, however uselessly, senators could then vote with impunity against the constitutional amendment. When their vote on the amendment is challenged, they now can point to the "law" against flag-burning that they supported earlier. The public need not be told that the new law isn't likely to prevent anybody from burning the flag, that it surely will be declared unconstitutional if ever challenged and that the whole process has been essentially fraudulent. The grizzled old hunter advised the young novice who had just bagged his limit of ducks by blazing away at the sitting variety: "No need to go into detail."
那些 senators who voted for the statute and against the constitutional amendment can now go into patriotic raptures, claiming to have supported the flag and the Constitution — on the grounds that a constitutional amendment would have undermined the Bill of Rights and its guarantee of freedom of speech. But wouldn't the statute also undermine freedom of speech? No, because the statute is worthless, although the senators who supported it are not likely to say so directly; that would be unspeakably honest. That's not how the (shell) game is played. One has to admire the sheer nerve of the politicians who have pulled off this trick. They've managed to defend the flag, the First Amendment and their careers all with one strategy. Nothing is lost save honor.
The nerviest tactic of all in this triumph of chutpah has been to accuse supporters of the flag amendment of acting out of purely political motives. Why did the president back this amendment? "I would have to be naive," said Dale Bumpers, a Democratic senator from Arkansas who is anything but, "if I didn't think his motives have a political basis." Beautiful. Is there any rational explanation for Bumper's course on this issue except politics? I would have to be naive if I didn't think he was politically motivated. The senator's accusation
Paul
Greenberg
Svindicated columnist
The desensitization of U.S. politics proceeds rapidly, along with the deterioration of the language. Naturally. The two go hand in hand, or rather clumsy paw in clumsy paw. First the desecration of a symbol is presented as a demonstration of sensitivity and patriotism: How noble of us to stand aside while the U.S. flag is trampled/ burned/torn. This is supposed to show how much we love that for which it stands.
There may be good motives for such deviousness. For instance, a sincere if unfathomable belief that the First Amendment will be irreparably harmed if Americans aren't allowed to incinerate their own flag Or a calculated decision that the best way to protect the First Amendment is to pass a worthless statute, which will appease the poor, dumb public till it calms down and there is no longer any danger of the Constitution being amended. Not only is such a strategy devious, but it is proving effective. A case could be made, to paraphrase H. L. Mencken, that nobody ever failed to be re-elected by underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
But there is one thing that this strategy is not: It is not candid. It is not forthright or direct. It is political in the worst, i.e., commonly accepted, meaning of the term: tricky. How fitting that it should be capped by accusing the other side of playing politics. That makes this strategy one devious whole.
It is only us primitives, who still think symbols have some connection with reality, the way words once did with thought, who can't see that this species of emotional masochism is really a deeper patriotism. "We live by symbols," a justice of a different Supreme Court once proclaimed, and we die by their neglect. The law is a great teacher, and it can teach not only civilization but barbarism — not only respect for symbols but contempt for them.
Now, in the latest twist of *Peacemakers*, those who would restore legal protection to the flag in the only practical, meaningful, straightforward way possible — through a constitutional amendment — are accused of acting out of sneaky political motives. Well, should that surprise? If symbols can be abused with impunity, why not reality?
against George Bush says less about the president than it does about his own, devious strategy.
▶ Paul Greenberg is the editorial page editor of he Pine Bluff (Art.). Commercial.
LETTERS to the EDITOR
Oread cleanup successful
On Oct. 21, the Oread Neighborhood Association held its annual fall cleanup. We wish to thank Joe's Bakery and Rudy's Pizza for contributing food for our volunteers. Their treats were a fitting reward for a solid morning's work in alleyes and on the planter at 12th and Mississippi.
Finally, thanks to our volunteers who contributed a Saturday morning to making the neighborhood a better, cleaner place to live.
We also wish to thank Lonnie's Bait and Tackle and Auto Recycling for picking up large metal items, and Patricia Marvin, Lawrence recycling coordinator, for suggesting that we contact Lonnie's. This is the first time we have used recycling in our cleanup. We hope that next year, as more people learn about it, more will take advantage of the opportunity to recycle. Many thanks to Lonnie's for being willing to break new ground.
Lance Hake President, Oread Neighborhood Association
Math vital to education
Upon reading Mark Hansen's guest column Oct. 28, I found it difficult to fathom someone with this view on education actually being a college student, much less a guest columnist in the Kansan.
Let me begin, Mark, by correcting one of your grammatical errors. At the end of the ninth paragraph of your column, you ended a sentence with a preposition. That was definitely a no-no.
Yes, math class, where everything seemed to have a purpose. My view of math was that if I learned it, I could someday understand how the real world worked.
You went to great lengths to rehash your academic career. Allow me to say that my memoirs of grade school were qite different from yours. Often, I actually looked forward to being dismissed from English class. The 45 minutes of diagramming sentences, using proper punctuation and worrying about quotation marks seemed to last an eternity. Oh, how I learned for math class.
Many a great mind, possibly even Plato, who you seem to think would sympathize with you, has proclaimed mathematics "the universal language." In fact, only a small portion of the world speaks English. Mathematics, on the other hand, is used everywhere.
Clearly, without mathematics, many of the things that you and other people take for -granted would not be possible. The buildings in which we live, the food that we eat and the clothes that we wear are made by applying mathematics. Mr. Hansen, if food, clothing and shelter are not in the "real world," I obviously don't know what the real world is. It should also be clear to you that the video recorder that you use in your film major would not exist. In addition to this, the word processor that you use to butcher the English language would not be a reality. In fact, without math, you could look forward to freezing your — off this winter for lack of electricity and natural gas.
I would also like to take this opportunity to address your complaint about Math 101 having no instructor. Practically speaking, there is a very simple explanation: Why should my tuition and that of others be spent on unnecessary instructors? By unnecessary, I mean instructors who spend their time teaching you, Mr. Hansen, things that you could and should have learned in high school. Your expecting a Math 101 instructor is analogous to my 'I'm an illiterate engineer, you know' expecting college professors to teach me to spell and read. It is not KU's job to compensate for your educational deficiencies. When I was a freshman, I was required to take English I and II. Similarly, you, as an English and film major, should be required to take Calculus I.
I have heard on occasion that a liberal arts degree, if nothing else, should give a person an open mind. If it is a liberal arts degree you are pursuing, you, Mr.Hansen, should never graduate (math requirements aside, of course).
Mark Allen
Liberal senior