Page 4 University Daily Kansan, February 24, 1982
Opinion
Study short-sighted
Building a library that will probably not meet the needs of the University of Kansas in 18 years may sound impractical.
But a study, commissioned by the Kansas Legislature, recommends just that.
The Legislature hired a New York accounting firm, Peat, Marwick and Mitchell Co., to study KU's proposed science technology library.
The firm's preliminary study would cut the size of the proposed library by more than half, from 230,000 sq. ft. to 99,000 sq. ft.
According to Allen Wiechert, KU facilities planning director, 99,000 sq. ft. falls far short of the space needed to accommodate the estimated growth of the library by the year 2000.
The proposed $22 million library would house materials now found in the Malott Hall earth science library, the Strong Hall mathematics library, the Murphy Hall music library and the engineering library, currently buried in the Satellite Union.
The Legislature will probably not approve the money for the library this year, but some KU officials are hopeful that the plan will be adopted next year.
KU's original proposal would provide ample study space for students, easy access to the materials and some growing room for the library.
The Peat, Marwick study severely limits the library's potential for expansion and cuts the number of student work stations from about 4,000 to 2,000. It also ignores a state building code that requires that aisles in libraries be wide enough for wheelchairs.
The company will complete the second phase of its study by June 30.
If the Legislature decides to finance the library, it should consider the plan that will best serve the University.
Rather than spending millions of dollars to build a library that will be barely adequate when it is completed, and will be outdated in a few years, the Legislature needs to look to the future.
Cutting corners is not always the cheapest, or the smartest, route.
United States losing sight of U.N.'s international goal
The worth of the United Nations has constantly been questioned since its creation on June 26, 1945. And the United States, the most populous nation in the organization, has been doing much of the criticizing.
American criticism intensifies every few years, but gradually subsides, leaving the United Nations to continue on its same course. However, the latest round has been especially sharp, reflecting the general sentiment that what they see as a democratic organization being manipulated by a majority of non-democratic nations.
Edward Koch, mayor of New York City, home of the United Nations, recently laughed out at the nations of the organization for the hypocrisy of their resolutions on Israel. An article in the Washington Post said the three main goals of the United Nations seemed to be to embarrass the United States, delegitimize Israel and exorcise South Africa.
But most significant is the criticism levied by the U.S. ambassador to the United
CHRIS COBLER
Nations, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick called the United Nations "a dismal show" in which conflicts are "polarized, extended and exacerbated" rather than solved. This criticism comes from a high U.S. official and supposedly reflects government policy.
Kirkpatrick concluded, "It's a very serious problem. That's not the sort of activity we want, in fact, to underwrite. Many states have failed to reach the conclusion. They don't like that the United States pays for the lion's share of U.N. operations and then gets pounded around in the General Assembly by a bloe of nations, each with a population smaller than that of Rhode Island."
When the United Nations was created following World War II, there were only 51 members, giving the United States a much greater degree of control. Now there are 154, each with the same one vote in the General Assembly that the United States has. And the Security Council, the enforcing branch of the United Nations, is responsible because of the veto power of the five permanent members, the United States, the Soviet Union, China, France and Britain.
Consequently, tangible results rarely come out of the U.N. headquarters. Instead, rhetoric is battered about, as each nation tries to protect its own national interests. And increasingly in recent years, these national interests are directly conflicted with U.S. national interests.
Of course, even ardent critics of the United Nations allow that certain U.N. agencies, such as the World Health Organization, the refugee commission and the meteorological service, do good work, but these accomplishments are greatly overshaded by shortcomings. In attaining its main goal, that of helping the United Nations often has failed miserably.
The only war in which the United Nations has intervened is Korea, and that was possible only because Russia had voluntarily left it. Russia has also intervened, such as those in Vietnam, the Middle East.
It's all too easy to point out U.N. shortages in the Middle East, where Martin Becker's book "Is It the United Nations Dead?"
Hungary, Iran, Afghanistan and Poland, the United Nations was powerless to act.
- The United Nations is unable to act conclusively in disputes. No single dispute has been resolved by the United Nations with finality.
- The United Nations does not possess military force adequate to keep the peace. The United Nations is without the necessary force to enforce its resolutions.
- No worldwide decisions are made in the United Nations, except, where to send health information.
- The United Nations cannot act without great-power unanimity.
- The General Assembly has grown so large that it has become unwieldy. Getting the General Assembly to accept reasonable proposals is difficult.
Letters Policy
- The United Nations cannot act with sufficient speed to cope with emergencies.
- The United Nations is paralyzed by its continuing financial crisis.
These and other shortcomings make it easy for American critics to dismiss the United Nations as an idealistic, impractical hope that has outlived its usefulness. But before the United Nations is allowed to die, Americans should more closely examine the ideals of the United Nations and perhaps their own reason for wishing its demise.
The United Nations was established after the second of the great wars by a world fearful of its own power. It was hailed as "last best hope for peace," an international organization promoting cooperation, equality, human rights, social and economic progress and, above all, peace. All nations who embraced these ideals were welcomed.
Javier Perez de Cuellar, U.N. secretary-general, points out that the United Nations is "the only forum for discussing international issues in a way that is relevant to which the United Nations operates, it is prevented from doing more. Nonetheless, the importance of this purpose should not be discounted. Discussion is the first step in solving a problem, and, if nothing else, the United Nations focuses attention on world problems and exerts pressure for peaceful cooperation.
And even though pointing to tangible accomplishments of the United Nations is difficult, the intangibles do exist. Nations attempt to solve their conflicts through discussion rather than force. More interaction leads to greater understanding.
The United Nations at least attempts to overcome national interests and biases and hit upon an international solution. The United States has begun a policy of cooperation, but it also keeps its national interests uppermost. Not coincidentally, the United States has begun to issue disaggregated statements about the worth of the United States in the context of the Third World in the General Assembly.
During the first years of the United Nations, the United States dictated which resolutions would be passed. The power structure of the world has changed so drastically since then that the United States must struggle to gain approval for one of its resolutions.
But before the United States gives up on the United Nations, it should remember that international, not national, solutions are the only foundation for attaining this lofty goal.
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-bleed and not exceed 100 words. They should be 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 staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit or rewrite letters.
Letters to the Editor
Student leaders' manipulations hurt ASK
To the Editor:
During the past year there has been a barrage of criticism directed against the Associate Students of Kansas. Much of the criticism is based solely upon inexcusable ignorance and personal prejudice, but it is not to this criticism which I address myself. It is the more recent attacks, more harmful and destructive in their intent which I feel obligated to refute.
An unsigned editorial in the Feb. 9 University Daily Kanasan said ASK was ineffective and a great waste of student funds. These charges are untrue. ASK is one of the most active and valuable student organizations in Kansas. It is involved with both while group than our own KU Student Senate.
Indeed, it is because of the gross ineffectiveness of the Senate that ASK at KU suffers from internal conflict and organizational difficulties. Critics of ASK should be reminded that it is only at KU that ASK is treated with casual indifference. Student governments at all the other universities in the Regent's system place a great emphasis on and actively participate in them.
In the Feb. 15 University Daily Kansan, David Adkins, student body president, said that it was obvious that KU's delegation to ASK's Legislative Assembly was disorganized and ill-prepared. If this were true it would be largely his fault.
The ASK bylaws and constitution invest Adkins with the authority to select the ASK board member from KU, and he, along with the KU faculty, is an active assistant choose KU's ASK campus director.
The organizational effectiveness of our ASK delegation depends to a great degree on the abilities of the two individuals selected. In turn, their ability to succeed depends upon the commitment of the student body president and the Senate to actively concern themselves with ASK.
Presently, and in the past, student body presidents and the Senate have used the power given them by the ASK bylaws and constitution to undercut, disrupt and essentially blackmail the organization. They have done this and still do so. What is the problem? How can we ask what ASK is and what it has the potential to do.
With the exception of Greg Schnacke, I have yet to see a KU student body president do more than attend legislative assemblies and speak in ignorance about internal difficulties, which, because of their lack of participation, they truly know very little about.
Adkins chose to ignore those members of the ASK delegation who had committed a great deal of time and sincere effort to the organization, and selected a board member with no previous experience in leadership. Ask was the ASK. Ask did our last student body president, Adkins willfully chose a board member not on the merits of his abilities, but because the nominee was a personal friend of his. No attempt was made to seek applications, and no attempt was made to qualify the appointed ASK participants for a board member.
I think this action was totally irresponsible and illustrated a complete lack of concern for the continued viability of ASK. This belief is intensified when I remember that Adkins stood before the last Senate meeting and cooled eloquently about mentioning the fact that ASK at KU, only to turn around in less than a week and slap down the group's efforts.
Many of the delegates who attended the legislative assembly were members of Adkins' own staff. It's funny, but I do not remember them spartanly presenting themselves on any of their presentations presented at the assembly.
The inherent hypocrisy of such wily-washy politics only illustrates that all Adkins is concerned with the truth.
It is simply not true that the KU-ASK delegation is without committed and active volunteers. However, as long as student body presidents use their authority to manipulate and obstruct the group's efforts, the KU organization will never realize the value of its potential.
Student body presidents and student senates do not sit outside Wescoe Hall during finals to get students to write their legislators. They do not encourage students to learn about the legislative
issues and processes which affect their lives. They do not sit at tables during registration seeking participants in their activities. But, for whatever it is worth, ASK does, and will continue to do so. Any student can be a member of ASK, and any student is more than welcome to write letters, work at post card drives, research issues and talk with legislators.
The same cannot be said of the Senate. More than ever, it is a closed organization, open only to a select few, many of whom are only interested in filling up their resumes.
Maria McDougal.
Liberal arts and sciences student senator and former ASK board member
Unified voice needed
To the Editor:
As the new executive director of what David Henry considers a terminally ill creature, I am naturally disappointed by his call for KU's secession from the Associate Students of Kansas, which he considers an act of political mercy killing. However, I find him a more competent winner than a veterinarian. It seems he would protect the family dog when all it needs is a flea collar.
Throughout his column in Feb. 16 University Daily Kansas, Henry never identifies what is really the greatest hindrance to a successful statewide student lobby. Critics are always demanding the disbanding of ASK, but rarely suggest how to improve it. Thus, valuable time is diverted from working on student issues to running around the state putting out fires, Hopefully, Henry's comments will remain a harmless snark.
Faced with declining state support of higher education and the most severe financial aid cutbacks in history, the last thing students need is a long, bitter fight over which lobbying organization looks best on paper. As Lincoln says, it's not change horses in the middle of the stream.
Some facts misstated in Henry's article should be clarified. AKM employs two full-time lobbies and a full-time staff assistant, not a single lobbie. The average number of Dues are less than $18,000 per year, not $17,000.
Henry claimance KU students would be better served by withdrawing from ASK and spending the money for dues on a lobby for KU only, which is also one of their core claims is claim is woefully short of supporting evidence.
Are too few students aware of and interested in ASK at KU? Certainly, and this is the case at every university. But could a KU-only lobby do any better? If Henry has a plan, I'd like to hear it, because I see no reason why improved organizing methods for Henry's KUSL couldn't also be applied to KU-ASK. One thing established by internal reform in 1978, this fall was that ASK uses the student government. I believe that KU's student leaders can organize an effective ASK group. But if not, as Henry suggests, how can they organize an effective KU-only group?
Does ASK 'bite off more than it can chew?' Perhaps. But again, what will prevent KUSL from taking on as many issues—or more—and having fewer resources to deal with them?
what issues would a KU-only group deal with? KU is a member of the state university system, and virtually every education issue, from faculty salaries to graduate fee waivers to tuition, affects the entire system. What helps or hurts KU helps or hurts every other school the same way. But instead of having three-full-time staffers, KUSL would only have one.
Instead of drawing on 80,000 students, constituents and voters, there would be only 25,000. Instead of an office five minutes from the Capitol, it would be nearly an hour away. Instead of having member institutions in districts with representatives on every major committee, there would be no one in charge of delegation, which has no member on either of the important Ways and Means committees.
Certainly there are some issues affecting KU alone. But KU students already have a paid job. I would like to thank you for your help.
Kansas Legislature: the student body president, who sits on the Regents' Student Advisory Committee and who goes unmentioned in Henry's article.
Henry's plan makes as much sense as advocating that the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at KU withdraw from Student Senate to get more of its students involved in student life. But Henry would affect the student voice at KU just as Henry's plan would affect the student voice in Kansas.
What Henry's article didn't tell us is that ASK is responding to the very problems he described. In the last six weeks, we have: published an eight-page newspaper for mass distribution to students, begun a bi-weekly newsletter for senators and student leaders, approved a plan to involve more than 1,000 students in a post card writing campaign to the Legislature, testified three times on ASK issues, met with nearly 50 senators, delivered all memorabilia of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, been unanimously accepted as members of the American College Testing Program's Kansas Council and visited four member campuses, including two functions at KU.
ASK is moving in the right direction. Critics face the choice of helping that or hindering it. They must decide.
Mark Tallman,
ASK executive director
The University Daily KANSAN
Kansan Telephone Numbers
Newsroom--864-4810
Business Office--864-4358
(USPS 5640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday during June and July except Saturday; Sunday and holiday for August and September. Subscription@usps.com. 60463 Subscriptions by mail are $1 for six months or $7 a year in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $4 a year in Carnegie County and $1 for six months, mail through the student activity fee.
Pastmaster: Send changes of address to the University
Dakar Kenyan. Fint Hall, The University of Kansas,
Kansas City, KS 66105.
Editor Business Manager
Vanessa Herron Tate Jessie Jude
Editor Tate Hanley Karen Schlueter
Editor's Editor Karen Schlueter
Campus Editor George Gene
Campus Editor Jon Beebe
Assistant Campus Editors Joe Rebein, Rebeena Canchey
Assignment Editor Steve Robrenau
Associate Sports Editor Gerry Stiproil
Entertainment Editor Carla Beach
Tailors Lia Masson, Sharon Appelbam
Wire Editors Eileen Mary, Tayler Masson
Photo Editor Lia Masson
Staff Photographers Jon Hardesty John Hanbaugh
Job Exhibit Joe Exhibit, Bob Greenman
Tracey Thompson, Mark McDonald
Copy Chief Candy Clarzer, Cindy Clarzer
Columnians Bren Abbott, Daniowers, Chris Coller,
Dan Toricha, Jolyn Walee, Liss Holton,
Ben Boatanger Jane Boatanger, Ben Jones, William Andrew
Editorial Cartoonists J邦 Bartes, John Richardson,
Shaft Artists Jan Bryan, John Keeling, Lorrance Rangani
Staff Artists Warni Kelly, Kebert Harshan, Jon Gun
Retail Sales Manager  Ann Humberroe
National Sales Manager  Howard Shanklin
Campus Sales Manager  Perry Boil
School Sales Manager  Kelsey Simons
Production Manager  Larry Leibengood
Teamleader Manager  John Egno
Representatives  Larry Marmurter
Larry Marmurter, Susan Cookey, Richard Dugan,
Jerr Gremes, Amy Jones, Matthew Langan,
Phillip Lim, Jia Mao, Robert O'Bannon,
Kathryn Myers, Myer B) O'Bannon, Mike Pearl,
Campus Interns  Susan Snyder, Jane Wendertbeck
University of Miami  Susan Snyder, Jane Wendertbeck
Denise A. Popovita, Vera Zakaryan
Sales and Marketing Advisor John Obertan
General Manager and News Advisor Rick Mauzer