Opinion
Page 4 University Daily Kansan, April 14, 1982
A call for comment
In spring, the thoughts of young journalists turn lightly to recruitment violations.
Last year, at about this time, area newspapers and newscasts were full of stories about Kansas colleges' violations of NCAA recruitment guidelines.
The stories told of credit card monkey business, almost free houses and big, fat checks. They provided lots of excitement, but very few reliable facts.
This week, the tradition continues. Yesterday, the Kansas City Times printed a report from an unnamed source in the KU athletic department that the National Collegiate Athletic Association was considering an investigation of KU's football program.
Other sources in the story were athletic officials from the University of Missouri and Kansas State University. Those officials said—with halos shining and eyes reverently uplifted—that "there was something wrong" with KU's recruiting practices.
Throughout all this unnamed source quoting and intercollegiate finger-pointing, two parties have remained silent—the NCAA and the University of Kansas.
The NCAA said it traditionally has refused to comment on its investigations of college athletic programs. And the NCAA has little to lose by refusing to comment on the reported KU investigation.
KU, on the other hand, has everything to lose.
On the day the investigation rumors were made public, KU officials dodged reporters' telephone calls, and answered questions with terse refusals to comment.
KU officials are at least partially correct in refusing to comment. It would be foolish for them to make hasty statements.
The phrase "no comment," is not as simple as it sounds. For many, it implies a reluctance to reveal the truth—and an admission of guilt.
But it could be even more foolish for them to say nothing at all.
So far, most people have heard a one-sided account of the possible NCAA investigation of KU. And in the absence of comment from KU officials, we are free to imagine the worst.
When faced with sensitive issues such as this, how wise is it for officials to remain close-mouthed?
No comment.
Letters to the Editor
History department provides good Western Civ teachers
To the Editor:
I am writing this letter in response to the controversy that seems to be brewing concerning the recent budget decision affecting the bailiff billwick—the Western Civilization Program.
Specifically, I would like to offer an alternate viewpoint to Seavers' contention that the recent decision to give the history and philosophy departments a portion of the line items for assistant instructors will somehow adversely affect the caliber of instruction KU students will receive in Western Civilization. To such statements, I must politely say—bunk!
As an assistant instructor in the history department for four years—1974-78 and as one who was hired by the Western Civilization program as an instructor (though I left the job for greener pastures), I feel qualified to be instructed by both the history and Western Civilization departments and, accordingly, on the quality of instruction delivered by such personnel.
Since I have been associated with the history department, dating back to 1974, it has seemed obvious to me that there has been a certain level of interchangeability between the assistant instructors in the history department and those in the Western Civilization department.
Many fine instructors, some of whom are close personal friends of mine, have commenced their graduate studies and worked in either or both departments. I am sure the former students of instructors such as Tom Brown, Steve Janean or Bernie Williams were teachers; most men were teaching history courses or sections of Western Civilization, the University was providing high quality education.
Williams began in the history department, switched to the Western Civilization department and has found a temporary home back in the history department again. Both Brown and Jansen started in the history department and then moved to the Western Civilization department because of them and I were hired by either department, were hired because of their skills and talents and were representative of the selection process of both departments.
I'd like to ask Seaver, if he has some problems with the quality of people hired by the history department as instructors, then why, over the years his department hired so many of the same people? Furthermore, I find it interesting that Seaver is so suspicious of the motives of his employees. He is also likely to enjoy the years (often at his behest), striven to provide the best instruction possible to undergraduates.
Finally, it appears to me that Seaver is doing what is natural when such organizations face budget cuts—i.e., save his own baby from overexposure to the cold winds of economic realities. In a way, I can applaud Seaver's quiotic efforts to do so.
Nevertheless, I resent deeply the implications that the history department would not take seriously its duty to students enrolled in Western Civilization and that the history department would employ substandard instructors to be assigned to teach those sections.
If any of the readers of this letter should care to challenge my position on this issue or cast doubt upon it, I would be a mentor on the matters or as a classroom instructor, then I suggest they review the results of the old system of student feedback that was used to evaluate instructors each semester while I wrote.
P. Scott Corbett,
Templin Hall resident director
ERA a fraud
On April 6, we were appalled to read a letter by a Wichita graduate student, Peter Gray, protesting the appearance of Phyllis Schlafly on our campus April 20.
To the Editor:
We are glad to see our student funds spent on such a worthy, honorable and eminent speaker: Indeed, Student Union Activities has done a great job in preparing the courageous and herodine woman to grace our campus.
and the women's movement in this country." The ERA is one of the biggest frauds and hoaxes in the history of this country. If it ever passed the women in this land would have no rights, if they do not consider being drafted into the armed forces a right.
We certainly agree with Gray that Schifly has been responsible for "the subversion of the ERA
Also, this "women's movement" is not what it claims to be. It does not represent all women. It is merely a handful of leftists, Marxists and other activists determined to destroy all civilization and culture.
We wish to call upon all people in our area who have any degree of common sense, good taste, intelligence and culture to attend Schaffly's lecture and give her an enthusiastic welcome to
Let's help to nail on the lid to ERA's coffin and put an end to this nonsense of "progressive social change" (it should be called "regressive social change").
Let us demonstrate that there are still some serious people living and studying here who are calm, rational and not given to the sort of stuff they want. The porters of the ERA have displayed over the years.
These radicals have had their way long enough. For once, a voice of common sense and sanity will be heard at the University of Kansas in the person of Schlafly.
David Whalen and Robert Heschmeyer Prairie Village seniors
Let Schlafly speak
To the Editor:
I am writing this letter in response to Peter Gray's denunciation of Phyllis Schlafly that appeared on April 6. Gray attempts to explain to the readers that Student Union Activities is doing a "great disservice" to the students of the University of Kansas by providing an intelligent, well-versed and competent woman a forum in which to express her opinion (and the majority opinion of this nation).
Here, here! Well spoken. Peter! No, sir, we will have no views other than our own expressed opinions. We are not interested.
Demonstration is the only intellectual, rational way to handle contrasting opinions. Gray seems to believe. Yes, students, let us act as uneducated, strong-armed goons by removing a knowledgeable professor from KU students displayed last year at Ian Smith's appearance at Kansas State University.
"I would call on all people committed to the concept of equal opportunity . . . to demonstrate . . . and let Phyllis leave Lawrence with a bitter taste in her mouth," Gray wrote. Does the denial or attempted denial of a forum for the airing of a statement with the concept of equal opportunity? I think not.
Having to sit through the endless tirade of jeets that greeted Smith's every attempt to speak was one of the most infuriating situations in which I have ever found myself, not because I agreed with what the man had to say (I did not), because he was never given the opportunity to speak.
I was delighted to discover that John Kenneth Galbraith was a potential speaker possibility at this University, and, although I think his ideas on economics are balderdash, I did not feel compelled to into motion a call to arms for all conservatives to formulate a battle plan that would assure Galbraith the maximum amount of discomfort while he was on campus. If, in fact, he comes to Lawrence to speak, I plan to attend at the university where I work as a national human being, and I would ask all students to show the same consideration to Schlaffy.
To be so myopic in one's thinking as to go to the extent of demonstrating to the level of "bitter taste" is extremely sad to see in a "Witchita" book. But it's a kind of good thing, the remainder of Schaffly's derogators is wrong.
I would display the University of Kansas as a progressive, tolerant school, open to all opinions, rather than a stagnant, repressive university, run by thugglish students who justify their brutish actions by hiding under a false banner marked "progression."
Michael Welsh,
Topeka freshman
U.S. should use Soviet weaknesses
By MARSHALL I. GOLDMAN New York Times Special Features
WELLESLEY, Mass.—Whether Leonid Brezhnev is merely fatigued or near death, it is clear that Soviet leaders have embarked on what may be far-reaching initiatives.
Brezhnev's call for a freeze on placing missiles in Europe, followed immediately by his appeal for better relations with China, may be propaganda or a leader's attempt to take bold initiatives because he realizes little time is left to mark his place in history. It is even more likely that these initiatives also reflect fundamental pressures in the Soviet system itself.
Thus, whether Brezhnev continues or is replaced, President Reagan may be making a mistake if he seems to turn aside Brezhnev's missile proposal. Unbalanced as Brezhnev's initial plan may be, there is good reason to believe that he may have made his offer as a starting point for discussion. Certainly, he would like to end his reign with a reduction of tensions.
But what may be as important as anything else, he and the Politburo may have decided that they had to act to reduce pressures on their European and Chinese fronts because domestic economic circumstances were so desperate. The Russian people would afford to continue their heavy military expenditures, given the need to devote increased resources elsewhere in the Soviet economy.
Breznev, in an unusual comment, reflected this pressure in his missile-freeze speech. Normally, Soviet leaders do not mention cost considerations when talking about military equipment because it is unclear how will we spend, a single ruble more for these purposes than is absolutely necessary."
that Kremilin leaders are facing the most severe monstrous but remote warehouses. Instead of the long-run prospects for fundamental improvement are very bleak.
Whatever the Soviet motive, there is no doubt
Thus, even if the weather improves this year, there still will be fundamental agricultural shortcomings. Breznev himself has just acknowledged that the huge agricultural investment campaign that has taken as much as 27 percent of total investment has been wasted.
Instead of smaller but more numerous grain elevators and barns, the Soviet Union built monstrous but remote warehouses. Instead of farm-to-market roads, it built massive dams and drainage systems. As a result, farmers often are isolated by mud three or four months a year and are unable to move grain off of fields or seed out of regional cereal markets because their supply history why up to 25 percent of the Soviet harvest never finds its way to processing centers.
This basic problem, combined with three successive bad harvests, has forced the country into the hard-currency markets for grain and beef. This harvest year's cost will be at least $8 billion. In addition, the hard-currency expense of Iran in Afghanistan, Poland and Cuba hampers the Soviet Union.
But while needs have increased, the Soviet Union's ability to earn hard currency has diminished at petroleum and gold prices have fallen. This is a serious matter because the Soviet Union earns more than 60 percent of its hard currency from such exports.
The situation in industry is equally depressing. The Soviet Union has had almost no luck in mastering high technology. Computers are a masterpiece of technology in the industry lags far behind the rest of the world's.
Even more surprising, there are no serious problems in heavy industry. The Soviet Union
used to boast how fast its steel production grew. Although it indeed produces more steel than the United States does, it produced less in 1981 than in 1978.
Nor is there much sign of improvement. Steel production in January and February was about 5 percent below the figures for both months last year. In the same period, auto, cement and paper production fell even more. In fact, cereal output declined in dustries, and of course, the grain harvest fell by more than 10 percent last year. Similar dechines in production in the West are called a recession.
The drop in agricultural and industrial output means fewer goods for consumers and lower morale. It has been almost 65 years since the first farm-funded loan has been reinstituted in nearly a dozen cities.
No wonder worker discipline is poor. Money has lost much of its value. Rumors spread about a currency reform that would wipe out deposits in savings banks. Frictions accumulate and generate national tensions and economic instability, when a growing number of riots and even strikes.
In the past, Americans frequently criticized our negotiators because they did not take advantage of Soviet weaknesses. In part, this was due to the fact that we had to how weak the Soviet Union was. Now we know.
Given their problems, Soviet leaders may be prepared to cut back military expenditures and thus make some serious concessions. At the least, Washington should make a counteroffer to Breznev. We may lose a historic opportunity if we ignore this possible opening.
(Marshall I. Goldman, professor of economics at Wellesley College and associate director of the Russian Research Center at Harvard University for the Book-Chronicle bookching, "The Soviet Union in Crisis.")
'Good citizen's' civic responsibility falters
I've been trying to fight City Hall since November. I think City Hall is about to win.
my saga started early last November, when a Lawrence policeman pulled me over for cruising Jayhawk Boulevard at 31 mph in a 20 mph zone at 1:30 a.m.
He refused to yield to my tears and pleading. He wrote me a citation for all 31
Well, I signed my name on the dotted line, but I still didn't think I deserved the ticket.
After all, I was going only 11 miles over the river in the morning, and then over the river again, 20 miles ones—applied after midnight.
Nov. 24 had almost rolled around by the time I realized that my trial date was scheduled at the same time as a class—in which the professor was not sympathetic to the cause of justice and who would have shown me his own actions and had I skipped class for a speeding ticket,
But when I got back, a letter from the court awaited me:
"Dear Ms. Riordan:
Time and Reason also had diluted my anger over the ticket, I was beginning to think that maybe I did deserve it. I guess I was speeding, even though it was just a little bit.
I resolved myself to paying the ticket, so I called Municipal Court to see how much I owed. Twenty-four dollars, I was told. I mailed a check that afternoon.
The next day, I left for Thanksgiving break home. I had home 55 mph all the way with a clear cover.
Enclosed please find the twenty-four dollar ($24.00) check forwarded to our office. The fine for 31/20 on Jayhawk Blvd. is only twelve ($12.00). Please submit the correct amount."
I was delighted. I would have sent off the check right away, but finals were coming up.
TERESA
RJORDAN
And during finals, I tend to put off trivial paying bills and taking care of traffic tickets.
But before I left for Christmas break, I resubmitted the ticket with a $12 check.
When I returned from Christmas break, I found a new letter from the clerk. I thought maybe she had taken to corresponding with me. Wrong.
"Dear Ms. Riordan
Enclosed please find the above ticket and your twelve dollar ($12.00) check. The ticket is now an active bond warrant. The bond amount is twenty dollars ($20.00). The bond money may be satisfied with cash or money order."
Well, I thought it was time I had a chat with the clerk to straighten out the matter. I explained that I had paid the ticket in good faith. I said I would have resubmitted the check earlier had she told me when it had to be in. I said it wasn't very just that I had to pay in time and money for a bureaucratic mistake.
It didn't matter to her that I had won the Good Citizenship Award in third grade, that I was to belong to the Girl Scouts, that I used to volunteer Red Cross swimming lessons.
She didn't care about justice. She said rules were rules and the law was the law. She said laws are rules.
She didn't even care that I had never had a ticket before in my life.
That was January. I hadn't thought about it since. Until last week, when I began to worry that my third-grade teacher would rise from her grave and retract my citizenship award.
I told her that it was a rare day in River I told that I had $20 cash to post bond for an offer to sell my house.
I called Municipal Court and asked what they were going to do to me.
They don't care about Justice, either. We'll probably arrest you, the voice on the phone.
I think that rare day in River City is coming. Soon.
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.
KANSAN
The University Daily
(USPS 500440) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Thursday during June and July abrupt Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid for Lawrence, Kansas on June 1st and July 6th at the county post office. Earning $2 a year out the county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the student activity fee. Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kannan, Funk Hall. The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kannan
Editor Business Manager
Vernon Herron National Journal
Managing Editor Traveled Hamilton
Editorialist Karve Schleierster
Sales and Marketing Advice Susan Ohnan
Executive Manager and News Advisor Bark Musk