Opinion
Page 4 University Daily Kansan, April 20, 1982
Sentencing of players raises many questions
As a Kansan columnist, some people tend to think I have an inside scoop on everything that happens around campus. I laugh and shake my hands. You'll still ask me about all the current campus issues.
The questions I have been hearing recently, however, have been the most disturbing of the semester. Again and again, students have been asking me about the KU football players could possibly be on a team that played the game day since the three players were sentenced two weeks ago someone has asked: "Is that all that is"
CHRIS COBLER
go to happen to them? Why hasn't the Kansas
written nouns about it?"
The answer to the first question is, unfortunately, yes. The players, Broderick Thompson, Renwick Atkins and Cedric Alexander, were convicted March 11 and sentenced to extended periods of probation April 5. Head football coach Don Fambough announced the players would be allowed to remain on the team and would be eligible to play in the fall.
College athletics have been beset by so many scandals in recent times that many people reacted indifferently to this local scandal. Like these people, the Kansan's initial reaction was one of mild outrage followed by resigned acceptance.
However, not everyone took the news so complacently. The students I talked to expected some type of retribution. Fambrouch's explanation for letting the three remain on the team seemed like a clear case of double standards.
in his prepared statement the day of the sentencing. Farnham said, "I have given you three hours" and then he continued.
three young men deserve a second chance to complete their education at the University of Texas.
How benevolently generous, we are supposed to think. Coach is willing to forgive these poor, misguided athletes who made one paltry indiscretion.
Perhaps Fambrough was thinking of the best interests of the players, but the result is still hard to swallow for the non-athlete students who don't hold such a privileged position within the University. These students can't help but think that if they had been convicted of stealing more than $8000 worth or property, they would have received more than a slap on the wrist.
But even more insulting to these students, struggling to afford college, is that the University may still be paying the room, board, tuition and books for these athletes. It is not so difficult to believe that average students would have suffered more for such actions.
Indeed, the punishment for these athletes should be even more severe because they are representatives of the University and, as such, their actions have brought dishonor to the University. Apparently, the thinking is that by being allowed to play, the athletes will bring more honor to the University by helping to take the team to another bowl game.
Which brings us to the question of just how important an athletic program is to a University. Are standards thrown out the window when it comes to athletes who can help produce a winning team? When you also consider the previous question, what kind of recruiting, it makes you wonder whether the football program has lost sight of its standards.
It may be time the University administration took steps to ensure that the football coaches are thinking of more than victories on the field. Their decisions off the field already have lost the support of many students, who, hard as it is to remember, are still the heart of any athletic program.
Loquacious ape may make talking to animals a reality
Koko is learning sign language, although she is not daff. She's a gorilla.
To put it in her own words, she is a "fine animal gorilla."
Stanford University doctoral candidate Francine Patterson is teaching Koko language in a study of animal intelligence and awareness. In studies of language using chimpanzees, researchers have successfully taught them signs for objects such as a carrot ("cup"), but linguists have debated whether the animals were really using language.
A conclusion to that debate would be dif- ficient in linguists do not agree on what language is.
So far, though, Koko has learned 375 signs,
enough words to be able to score in the low
JoLYNNE WALZ
Besides simply naming things, Koko expresses abstract ideas such as “bad,” “worried.”
normal range for a young child on a standard intelligence test. She could have scored higher, but certain answers that were right for a gorilla were wrong for a child. For instance, when asked which was better shelter in a house or a tree, Koko sighed "Tree."
One time when she saw a horse with a bit in its mouth, Koko signed "Horse aid." When she took the photo, she said,
At other times she cussed the researchers out when she was upset, using the word "damn" liberally. She also bites when she doesn'tzet her way.
While she was being difficult, she also armed that manipulating words alters truth. In the course of the game,
the first of the first occasions Patterson caught her lying was when Koko, who was left alone with research assistant Kate Mann, jumped onto a kitchen sink and broke it.
When Patterson returned, Koko tried to lay the blame elsewhere, signing, "Kate there but me."
Using abstract expressions and lying are two possible elements of true language. Another is the ability to discuss future and past events. Supposedly, animals have only dim recollections of the past, and no thoughts of the future.
However, Koko remembers the past and discusses it with Fatterson, who Koko calls
"Bite." Koko said.
Koko bit Patterson once, although at the time she refused to admit the bite was anything more than a scratch. Several days later, she then asked Koko, "What did you do to Penny?"
Bite, Koko said.
"You admit it." Patterson said.
"Sorry bite scratch. Wrong bite."
Letters Policy
"Because mad."
"Don't know."
Like other children, Koko had a hard time remembering why she had thrown the temprantrum, although she remembered lying about it.
Besides the past, Koko also anticipates things that will happen in the future.
Properly trained, the possessors of those profitable paws might have learned to sign like Koko when Patterson asked her “Where do gorillas go when they die?”
One day Patterson told her they could go for a walk outside later if the weather was still fine. Hours later, when Patterson returned, she found that the sun was shining and gathered her toys to go out.
Early experiments with teaching language to animals such as horses and pigs were later found to be hoaxes. Often, the animals were able to answer simple questions by responsible to answer simple questions by responding to minute subconscious cues from their perform when their masters were not present.
Hans the Wonder Horse supposedly knew how to count. As it pawed its hoof in answer to mathematical questions—one, two, three—the owner would tense slightly until the horse reached the correct number. Hans stopped stomping when its owner relaxed.
"Comfortable hole, Quiet. Goodby," Koko answered.
It would be interesting to see if other gorillas could be taught as much language as Koko has learned, to verify whether Kokie is a fluke or really a "Pine animal gorilla."
While searching for more and more agricultural land and living space, people have been destroying the gorilla's range land, reducing their numbers. Despite their diminishing population, though, they are hunted extensively by poachers, largely because there is a profitable black market in stuffed and mounted souvenir gorilla paws.
Koko's responses, however, are too complex to dismiss as simple subconscious cues by
But bollias are difficult to obtain for research because they are an endangered species.
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.
Letters to the Editor
Schlafly's defenders prompt
To the Editor:
This is one of, undoubtedly, many responses to the remarks from David Whalen and Robert Heschmeyer in their April 14 endorsement, and miscellaneous comments related to, Phyllis Schlaffly's scheduled appearance at the University of Kansas.
Unfortunately for the authors, their call for common sense and good taste is a mockery in the face of their own brand of "paranoid McCarthyism," demonstrated by their labeling of the women's movement as "merely a handful of leftists, Marxists and other misfits."
Considering the above-mentioned display of rationality and intelligence, I would be interested to learn Whalen's and Hessmerye's views on some other subordinate and (probably humane) arguments; society: hippies, homosexuals, Hispanics, liberals and advocates of gun control, to name a few.
By the way, if their observations have inspired anyone to consider joining the John Birchers (or any other serious organization devoted to saving all civilization and culture from destruction at the hands of militants and misfits), they will surely be able to provide you with the necessary application forms.
In my opinion, Schiflay is a mency and a shrew (yes, Dave and Bob, it difficult to resist
Becky Domermuth Lawrence graduate student
Becky Domermuth,
Rational consideration
To the Editor:
In response to the letters in the April 14 Kansan, we can see that David Whalen and Robert Huschmeier can easily be identified as part of the "calm and rational people, not given all support of the women's rights, since they classify all supporters of the women's rights as 'lefthists, Marxists and misfeit.'
We don't mind that student funds are being used to bring Phyllis Schlarly here. Her presence will cause a lot of people to examine the issues with which she is concerned and to form opinions about her. If we give her certain arguments which will no doubt, be made for and against the ERA as a result of her visit.
We have no wish to restrict Schlafly's freedom of speech—we hope she has no wish to restrict the freedoms we would like to enjoy, such as equal pay for equal work, we have faith that the people who hear her speak will form opinions and be taught not on the scare tactics used by some people.
Julie Arenes,
Topeka graduate student
Kasey Ward,
Norwich senior
Societv in sad state
In response to a letter written by David Whalen and Robert Heschmeyer, I would like to say that it's a sad state of society, when in a country supposedly founded upon the principles of freedom and equality for all (I say supposedly, because we only give lip service to those ideals), women who demand equal rights under the law are labeled "Marist" and "radical."
To the Editor:
as art as "rights," including the "right" to be right drafted, Congress has always had the right to draft women, if it so deemed it necessary to the best interests of the United States. So why do the authors of the letter think that the ERA would suddenly make women eligible to be drafted? This is just another misconception about the ERA, which Phyllis Schlafly is hoping the
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be
or injured by the United States or by any state
account of it."
I demand equal rights under the law, and so do many other women, and the men who care about them, and I do not consider myself a Marxist, or a radical—mere a human being.
The Equal Rights Amendment reads as follows:
American public will believe, in order to undermine its ratification.
To speak of the "rights" American women have today, in comparison with the rights given to American males, is to speak of: making less money in the same job, even while doing the same work. To say that men are harassed at work; abusive relationships with males (which, fortunately, the public is finally becoming aware of, and speaking out against, but not nearly enough); and the barrier of night (how many of you males look outside, see that you have to leave your room because you would have to walk and be alone?).
Get the point? Luckily for the authors of that letter, all Americans are given the right of free speech, even if they don't know what they are talking about
Just remember folklies: "A man of fidelity is not intimidated by a woman of equality."
Sandra ward, secretary in the department of Slavic languages and literature
To the Editor:
Blatantly sexist
On April 14, a letter was published that not only condemned the ERA but also the entire mass of people who support it. The authors of this letter were David Whalen and Robert Hessmeyer. In my five years at the University of Kansas, I have rarely seen a letter so blatantly sexist, let alone expressing such a lack of tolerance for another view.
in speaking of paranoid McCarthyism in reference to the ERA type of mentality. Whalen and Heschmeyer do an excellent job of exposing their paranodia and irrational fear. Categorizing ERA supporters into "a handful of leftists, Marxists and non-Marxists," the author describes civilization and culture" is not only a prime example of sensationalism but also a gross and unfounded generalization.
The supporters of the ERA are trying to create a better world, and although everyone doesn't agree with the methods employed to achieve this, we can hardly doubt their sincerity. As far as the type of person who is attracted to ERA views, I am willing to bet that the diversity is staggering, the total sum of whom definitely comprise more than a handful.
As for using the draft as an emotional stair, just let me state that military service is not necessarily a right but a social responsibility of all citizens, male or female. The exclusion of women from drafts (during draft times) is one of the most sexist acts our country has ever held responsible for.
Women, of course, do not even register now, a fact the ARA would probably change. I fail to see what is so fragile about a woman that makes her incapable of military service.
What is so inherent a quality in women that it makes equality among the sexes impossible? What deserves special protection (exclusion from legal obligations or denial of rights)?
I refuse to accept this motherhood sentimentality, chivalrous garbage, etc. Women are people first and sex is not necessarily a matter of wants to go to war, but for men, it is not a choice.
Aside from the emotional ploys and the sensationalism of this flimsy plea for "sanity," I must recognize that the anti-ERA stand is probably the most popular. We cannot let the popular view persuade us without questioning that view.
Slavery was once such a view, steeped in tradition and social acceptance, yet few would agree that such limitations placed on people are humane. Let us view each change (or attempt to change) as something separate from mom and apple pie. Even they can improve.
Christopher Budd Lawrence senior
To the Editor:
Money-making scheme
Now, however, that the policy has established that profit is the sole objective of Endowment Association investments and morality is of primary importance. We seek some ways to take advantage of this policy.
A couple of years ago, I was active in the efforts to convince the Kansas University Endowment Association that it shouldn't be investing our money in corporations that deal with the racist South African regime. In checking up on the issue currently, I'm surprised and am amazed at the Endowment Association's yet adamantly defending its indispensable
One good way for the Endowment Association to make money is to invest in an airplane, which would be used to fly marijuana from Mexico. There is, of course, a very good market for marijuana in Lawrence, and the profits to be made are enormous.
I am actually much more serious than it might seem. The fraternity and sorority residents commonly drink beer, with the proceeds from the sale of beer going to a philanthropic cause.
Analogously, the fraternity and sorority residents, along with the other students, can get high on marijuana, with the proceeds from the college going to the benefit of the University of Kansas.
Many people will express concern for the legal problems that might arise, but these problems can be taken care of easily. All we need to do is to get a lawyer attorney himself with plenty of free marijuana.
Mark Cline, 1140 Louisiana
The University Daily KANSAN
USS 6458 (published at the University of Kansas daily August through Monday and Thursday during June and July except Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas or by B&M or by a year outside the county. Student subscription is a B&M semester, paid to the student activity fee. Postmatter. Send addresses of address to the University Daily Kansan, Fint Hall. The University of Kansas
Editor Business Manager
Vanessa Hieron Nateela Judge
Managing Editor Treese Hamilton
Editorial Editor Karan Schlueter
L营韶 Editor Gene George
Associate Campus Editor Jason George
Annotator Campus Editors Jae Hebein, Rebecca Channey
Assistant Editor Tiankun Han
Sports Editor Rugger Higgitt
Assess Sports Editor Rugger Higgitt
Entertainment Editor Cronish Ben
Makeup Editor Lia Maantho, Lilia Dairk, Sharon Appelbaum
Photo Editor Elaine Nurmey, Teresa Herdan, Lauren Maantho
Photo Editor Ben Bigler
Retail Sales Manager Ann Hornerblush
Campus Sales Manager Perry Seal
Sales and Marketing Agent John Oberman
Management and Marketing Agent