Opinion
Page 4 University Daily Kansan, February 16. 1982
Fatal blow to equality
"Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex."
This idea, the first clause of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment, was born in the 1920s and may have died last week in a stuffy office in the Missouri Statehouse.
Last Wednesday the Constitutional Amendments Committee of the Missouri general Assembly blocked the proposed amendment from going to the Missouri Senate floor.
ERA supporters have been concentrating their efforts on six states, including Missouri, trying to convince those state legislatures to ratify the amendment before the June 30 deadline. Missouri was the fourth of the six target states to reject or block ratification.
Three more states are needed to ratify the ERA.
So, barring some political miracle working, the amendment appears to have died, a victim of bad public relations generated by emotional arguments.
In addition to the first clause prohibiting gender discrimination, the ERA contains a clause empowering Congress to pass legislation enforcing the amendment and a
clause stating that the amendment would go into effect two years after the ratification date.
The ERA makes no mention of unisex bathrooms, military service for women, abortion, homosexuality or the destruction of the American family—red-flag issues frequently linked to the amendment by its opponents.
It would allow the United States Supreme Court to view gender classifications as a suspect category. Federal and state governments would have to prove a compelling state interest in order to adopt and enforce laws that discriminate on the basis of gender.
This could have a sweeping effect on laws governing areas including social security benefits, child support and custody, control over community property and protective labor laws.
If, in fact, the ERA is dead, feminist groups may be the only vocal mourners.
The issues that could be affected by the passage of the ERA are not women's issues. They are people's issues.
But ratification of the amendment could have provided constitutional protection for anyone, male or female, suffering from the effects of gender discrimination.
Letters to the Editor 'Know nukes', not 'no nukes'
To the Editor:
Once again, one of the columnists has successfully written a column based on doubt rather than on fact. This letter is in response to Teresa Riordan's column on nuclear power plants.
Just as those cute no-nuke flower children do, Teresa has jumped to the conclusion that Jane Fonda and the movie "The China Syndrome" know all about the safety of nuclear power plants. Instead of fantasy, let's go into the real world.
You also claim that people were numbed by the Three Mile Island accident and that public opinion toward nuclear power is down. I would like to know where you got that false idea.
According to a study conducted by the Rasmussen Commission, the chance of a nuclear power plant fatally injuring you is one in one billion, while the chance of a car killing you is one in one hundred thousand, amounting to fifty thousand deaths per year because of automobiles. I ask Riordan, how many people have died as a result of an accident at a nuclear power plant? Less than those that have died in Ted Kennedy's car.
According to Current Magazine, June 1980, a poll was conducted after the Three Mile Island accident. Of those polled, 21 percent said nuclear power was "very safe," 46 percent it was "safe," and 29 percent it was "safe." Of the reasons for this approval was that the accident caused optimism because no one was hurt.
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.
The University Daily KANSAN
(US$50,650) Published at the University of Kansas in January and June 2014. Visit University of Kansas on June 1 and exept Saturday, Sunday and holiday. Second-class postage paid at Lawnerville, Kansas. Mail to Lawnerville, KS and $$ for each month as a year in Douglas County and $$ for each month as a $3 semester. mail through the student activity fee. Send a semester, pass through the university activity fee. Flint Hall, The University of Kansas, Davan Kansai, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas.
Editor Business Manager
Vanessa Herron Natalie Jaline
Manager Editor Tracey Hamilton
Manage Campus Editor Tracy Hamilton
Campus Editor Gene George
Associate Campus Editor Joe Beben, Reem Burgham
Assignment Editor Steve Robrahn
Sports Editor Hengag Tuner
Entertainment Editor Coral Beach
Makeup Editors Lia Masseira, Marylin Wise
Wire Editors Sharon Appelbain
Wire Editors Edile Marner, Teresa Tieran, Randy
Photo Editor Ben Bagler
Staff Photographers Jon Hardesty, John Makkaman,
Jones Bob Greiman
Tracy Thompson, Mark McDonald
Head Catch Chef Jane Bryant
Copy Chief Cassy Cindy Campbell, George Pollock
Retail Sales Manager Amir Hornberger
National Sales Manager Howard Shanklin
Sales Manager Juan Estes, Bob Greiman
Classified Manager Saradin Bedin
Production Manager Larry Lebengbad
Retail Sales Representatives Barbaum,
Larry Hurmster Snoege Colby, Meg Diagenau, David
Phillip Marchbanka Lil McMahon, Moody Moore,
Kidryn Nyers Robo O'Blany, Mike Pearl
Sales and Marketing Advisor JoJo Obernan
The next question I would like to ask is "What other sources do we have? Of course we have solar, but that still is very expensive and only satisfy one percent of our total energy needs by the year 2000. Maybe coal, but its effects are more disastrous than those of nuclear.
Where are the columns about the dangers from coal use? Why are you busy worrying about something that could happen, while something is happening right now?
In the future I hope Riordan will do a little research on the scientific side instead of the fantasy side. In the future we should read "know knuts" instead of "no knuts."
Marc Kean,
Lenexa freshman
Sales and Marketing Advisor        John O'Connor
General Manager and News Advisor    Rick Musken
To the Editor:
Poor word choice
I understand that space is at a premium when writing headlines. However, substituting "hopefully" for "hopefully" in the F1. column headline would have only cost one additional letter space. "Hopefully" has the additional advantage of being an English word.
Michael Allen.
This Thursday, after an afternoon executive session of the Lawrence City Commission, City Manager Buford Watson Jr. will still have his job.
Letter bad move for Gleason, city
And the political career of City Commissioner Tom Gleason, which is not yet even a millionth of it.
Gleason, for reasons that only he really knows, recently saw fit to seek the resignation of Watson, who has served as Lawrence's city manager since 1970.
In itself, Gleason's quest is morally insignificant. City managers everywhere serve at the pleasure of their respective city governments, and there is little rancor involved. But Gleason's unsavvy method of simply sending a letter to Watson requesting his resignation, without prior warning to or consultation with his fellow city officials, is ammistakable flavor of pure and cynical politicalness.
I find it hard to believe that Gleason was motivated solely by the good and the noble qualities of his character.
represent," as stated in his letter to Watson and in subsequent public pronouncements.
For a lawyer possessing Gleason's reasoning skills and educational background, he can use these skills in
If the interests of Gleason's constituents are best served by giving Watson the sack, there are certainly more and better ways to do it than blatantly attempting a commission end run. Both of Gleason's past allies on the commission, Mayor Marci Francisco and Commissioner Nancy Shontz, have declined to openly join Gleason's rush to judgment.
Then, why did Gleason do it? To properly answer this question, a little background is in order; and the story begins, innocently with the 28-space parking lot at 600 Massachusetts St.
In the election days of April 181, "600 Mass" was a slogan guaranteed to make some candidates win. It's now a seldom-used parking lot, but in the days before
DALE WETZEL
Reaganismes it was the location of a sturdy, unpleasant teque, toy factory owned by one Browne.
The City Commission, using the city's long-term plan for redevelopment as an excuse, wanted that spot for a parking lot. Anderson, who worked at the building wasn't enough, refused to sell, and
the commission (over the protests of then-
Commissioner Francis) had the building
built.
It was a classic "you can't fight City Hall" case.
Candidate Gleason, in his support of Anderson's quest to have the parking-lot issue studied further, brought considerable political risk upon himself.
Large newspaper ads, paid for by the Lawrence Homebuilders Association and the Lawrence Central Labor Council, urged voters to turn thumbs down on Gleason and to remember the unambitement commissioner Bob Schumann and former Lawrence mayor Nancy Ham堡ton.
The election results, however, appeared to portend a new era for Lawrence city government. Schumm, the incumbent, finished dead last in the five-person field; Shontz finished first with 6,044 votes. Gleason won by a narrow margin, leaping second, but settled for third place behind Shontz and Commissioner Barkley Clark, an eight-year commission veteran.
The ads accused Shontz and Gleason of harboring secret prejudices against the city's growth and implied that Lawrence's ex-communist views would disqualify their policies were put into effect.
It was, in the words of one exultant Gleason supporter, 'the election that couldn't be benign.'
Francisco, Gleason and Shontz were often available for public visits in the mayor's city hall office on Tuesday afternoons. Study sessions were begun; "public input" became a commission catchword; and meetings lasted up to five bleary hours as Shontz, Francisco, Gleason, Clark and Binns discussed the issues.
The inauguration of the two new commissioners perpetuated this newfound era of good feeling. Francisco, who until then had been the lone liberal voice crying in the wilderness, was elected mayor and quickly moved to assist the press in its coverage of commission meetings, directing that reporters be provided with the same materials that the commissioners themselves examined during meetings.
Adding to this impression is the letter itself, which gives no real reason for firing Watson other than mind-numbing vagaries ("Your employment continues to be a central source of contention, both of the city commission and among the public.")
It is this backdrop of relative openness and cander that lends a sadly clandestine smell to the room. A large wooden chair, one with a
than discussing his concerns with the commissioners in executive session, or taking the matter up with Watson himself decided to follow a solitary path strewn with personal publicity.
A city manager is a fairly big notch in any commissioner's six-gun, and Gleason gives the decided appearance of wishing to reap the benefits that he saw as Watson's impending departure.
Regardless of what one thinks of Watson himself, he hasn't lasted for almost 12 years as Lawrence's chief administrator by being stupid or easily intimidated. In such a long period of time, in such a diverse community as Lawrence, Watson has undoubtedly accumulated a number of detractors. But Lawrence's treatment the personally affable Watson, has done him great favor. He made Watson into a $1,900-a-year martyr.
Not that Gleason doesn't try to ease the pain he helpfully added that I "would have no problem" with it.
On top of all that, Gleason has given Lawrence's more conservative elements and its business community a rallying cry with the potential potency of "Remember 600 Mask" Lawrence's Tortoise, who got bush waxed. "Lawrence's Tortoise won't get too fooled again, and 1983 isn't far away."
employment and would personally urge all other city commissioners to do likewise." Hhrm. Sounds like the rhetorical equivalent of a car, but you do have a great personality."
And, after the heady, open days of 1881, it's a lamentable future to contemplate.
We as students must begin considering a similar decision about our membership in the Associated Students of Kansas. ASK is a program that says it represents your views with your money.
As with the sick pet, we would do ourselves a favor by dropping our financial support of ASK
Ailing student lobbying group should be put to sleep
The old family pet is breathing its last, facing you with a painful dilemma. You should spend still more money to keep him alive for a few more weeks or should he be put out of his misery once and for all! Usually, after a family trip, you leave Fido or Spot at the vet's for the final time.
ASK was formed as a lobbying organization for the Regent schools and Washburn University.
DAVID HENRY
statehouse in Topeka with a full-time lobbyist and several part-time assistants, while also maintaining salaried campus directors at each university. These seven local directors osten- organize members on each campus, drumming up support for student needs and concerns.
However, if you've read this far, it's a safe bet that you've learned more about ASK in the preceding paragraph than from any information ASK gave you.
To say that ASK keeps a low profile at KU is an understatement; subterranean would be more appropriate.
When the Student Senate decided KU should join ASK four years ago, many people had strong reservations about the move. KU already had its own lobbying organization (the now defunct Concerned Students for Higher Education), they argued. Why do we need to join ASK?
The answer was a resounding chorus: KU needs to become a part of a unified voice of music.
At that time, this writer was one of ASK's strongest supporters. The following two years he supported the group.
Four years have gone like a clock in the night and ASK's current leaders are, say to say, still saying the same things. "Students don't know what they are going to do," the organization can do for them." John
Keightley, KU's ASK campus director, said recently.
Keighley, as were his predecessors, is faced with an ironic situation: representing the needs and concerns of KU students who don't realize they're being represented. What's more, his "constituents" pay almost $17,000 a year in student activity fees for the privilege.
ASK at KU has clearly never earned its keep.
At whom then do we point the accursory friend?
Haplas campus directors? The main AK on KU's Topeka and its staff? Student apathy at KU?
The answer is surprisingly simple. By attempting to be the unified voice for 80,000 Kansas students, ASK bites off far more than it can chew.
Furthermore, ASK's lobbying efforts are greatly overextended. This year, for example, the organization takes a stand on 18 different issues, including the treatment of King's birthday a state holiday to support a 13
percent increase in faculty salaries. From these issues, five are considered "priority issues."
While other more heavily financed organizations lobby for one or two issues in Topeka, ASK takes on five. In so doing, ASK buys a new car but loses the war-year after year after year.
There is, however, an alternative that could provide a stronger voice for KU students at the statehouse. As soon as possible, the Senate should vote to remove KU from ASK and in its place form a new KU lobbying organization. The $17,000 currently going to ASK would now go to the new group, which I'll call KU Students' Lobby.
Instead of representing the varied opinions of every Kansas university, KUSL would reflect the
The possibilities for KUSL's success would be far greater than ASK's. The money would allow KU to hire a full-time lobbyist to work for us in Lawrence, maintaining an office in Lawrence, not Toeka.
viewpoints of KU itself. Critics might call such a plan isolationist; Kansas' schools find their strength only in their unity, they would say. Yet ASK's lack of real strength as the student voice speaks for itself. Anderson's teachers speak for itself. Unity at the expense of effectiveness or direction is weak unity indeed.
Conversely, Kansas' universities would gain rather than lose by adopting this decentralized pricing model. In our own needs and concerns neutered by those of other universities, each school could lobby more confidently.
Such a plan cannot, of course, be completed in the space. Much of the planning responsible web site is not yet complete.
But first the Senate must act with the student body in mind when ASK's funding is reconsidered at next month's budget hearings. They will need to provide as much ASK once and for all. The opportunity for a fee, more effective student lobby should be reason enough for Senate to stop letting sleeping dogs lie.