UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers.
OCTOBER 20,1978
Apathy plagues Senate
Responsible student government at the University of Kansas may be on its last legs if a recent meeting sets the trend.
The Student Senate this week had to make a last minute dash to get enough members of its executive committee present for a quorum.
Poor attendance at Senate standing committee meetings has been a tradition that continues this semester. But this most recent failure to get a quorum was alarming because the executive committee is made up of all committee chairmen—the elite of the organization.
If the Senate cannot get its executive committee members to attend a meeting, how can it expect the rest of the senators or the student body to be anything but apathetic about student government?
WITH THIS in mind, perhaps KU should go the route of the University of Wisconsin in electing their student representatives. At Wisconsin students elected the majority of their student legislators on a "tail and shovel" platform that openly advocated student apathy.
At the University of Texas at Austin, the students went a step further last spring and abolished the student government. Although the vote was close, it was interesting that only about 5,000 out of 40,000 students at the school voted in the election. Since then,
student government has been reinstituted.
The Wisconsin and Texas solutions are not in the best interests of KU students, but they do pose a question about the necessity of the Senate.
Especially in acting as a voice for the student body, the Senate has shown that it is a valuable force in the University. This fall the Senate has prompted administration action by calling for a pre-enrollment system to replace the archaic system KU now uses.
Most KU students probably do not know or care who their representatives in the Senate is. And voter turnout in last spring's election hit a record low with only 2,025 of the 23,770 eligible voters casting ballots.
THE KU on Wheels bus system is another example of the value of student government at the University.
ALTHOUGH IT is not as bad as Wisconsin or Texas, apathy about student government appears to be growing, and the Senate needs to get involved.
But, before they begin taking any bows, senators need to realize that they are still not succeeding in their basic role as student representatives if they do not participate in the Senate.
Senators and the students they represent need to realize that student government merits increased interest and support, before all the power reverts to the administration.
The votes aren't in, but by this time next month, Jim Jefries probably will have a chance.
Jeffries' campaign tactic is its own worst enemy
And his opponent, Democrat U.S. Rep. Martha Kays is fighting back, just as she
At any rate, Jeffries, the Republican nominee for Kansas' 2nd district seat in the House of Representatives, is setting a good example of how to run a bad campaign.
Jeffries' tactics, if they accomplish anything, will only serve the purpose of Keys, who is seeking a third term in office. The company takes cheap shots against her won't work.
Example: In 1974, when Keys first campaigned for the seat vacated by Bill Roy, she ran on a slogan designed to show voters that she understood their problems. Her campaign reasoned that "she shops where you shop." Four years later, she was taken that slogan and used it in radio and television advertisements to attack Keys.
PICURE A barbershop quartet singing,
"Martha Doesn't Shop Here Anymore."
That's become a theme song for Jeffries, an
Atchison businessman.
She's right, of course, but Keys should expect tough fighters for her seat by now—she also faced tough competition two years ago, and they have roared Roas Freeman by fewer than 6,000 votes.
But Democrat representatives from traditionally Republican Kansas never have
It is no wonder that Keys is fighting back. "I'm rather appalled," she said. "It doesn't seem like the substance of a congressional campaign."
in the 176 Congressional election, U.S. Rept. Keith Sebelius R-1st District, won by nearly 90,000 votes, U.S. Rep. Larry Winn, R3rd District, won by more than 70,000 votes, U.S. Rep. Kyle Riggs R3rd District, won by more than 44,000 votes. The lane exception in the Kansas congressional
races was in the 4th district, where incumbent Republican Garner Shriver was elected.
IN THE '78 campaign, however, Keys appears to be '78 almost. Jeffries appears to be '78 being more.
A Topeka Capital poll in early September indicated that the challenger just might unsuspect Keys. According to a news release, the district, Jeffries led the race by 7 percent at the end of August. He had 48 percent and Keys had 41 percent. Eleven voters said voters said they would help how to vote.
But Keks seems to have turned the race around. More recent polls, taken for the Kansas City Star and Topeka television station WB1W, have indicated Kies is the
Even the Capital, in a poll last weekend, said the race had turned around. The Teopaka paper now indicates that Kays has a 12 point lead. The incumbent has 49 percent of the poll's voters, compared with fewer than 7 percent of the electors to the number of voters who haven't decided who to vote for has increased to 14 percent.
BOTH CANDIDATES probably are using the cliche, "the only poll that counts is the one in November," but undoubtedly they're also paying close attention to public opinion
With less than three weeks remaining before the Nov. 7 election, the people working on Jim Jeffries' campaign probably are scared. They should be.
If Jiffries loses the race he won't have to look very far to find out why.
KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday through Friday. **$10.95** **Auction:** $10.95. **24 Hours:** 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. **Sale:** A year in Kansas County, $10 for each month in Kansas County and $10 for each month in Missouri. **Available via**: www.unk.edu/admission, ksuschool.com.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
The bill, as passed, seems harmless enough. It declares the goal of the federal government to reduce unemployment to 4 percent and inflation to 3 percent by 1983, but provides no programs to achieve those goals.
Managing Editor Steve Frazier Editorial Editor Barry Massey
Campus Editor Dan Beverman
Associate Campus Editor Dan Beverman
Assistant Campus Editors Dick Steinem, Pam Manon
Ballet Editor Nancy Dressler
Associate Sports Editor Nancy Dressler
Magazine Editor Mary-Anne Olivar
Associate Magazine Editor Mary-Anne Olivar
Podcast Editor Handy Loon
Copy Chiefs Laurie Daniel, Carol Murray, Paul Murray
Make-up Editors Pam Keey, Hunter Murray, Mary Thornburgh
Editorial Writers Rick Alm, Allen Holster
Photographers Bruce Jude, Trish Wendle, Alzek Wendle
Editorial Cartoonist Bob Beer, Tom Hamstack, Dave Miller
Staff Artists Linda Word, Milton Gray
Business Manager Don Green
Associate Business Manager Karen Wenderoff
Associate Business Manager Ned Hatley
Promotion Manager Mel Smith, Allen Blair, Tom Whittaker
Assistant Promotion Managers Mel Smith, Allen Blair, Tom Whittaker
National Advertising Manager Ginger Munger
National Advertising Manager Ginger Munger
Assistant Classifieds Manager Ann Hendricke
Photographer Steve Foham, Liz Hotchkiss
Artists Steve Foham, Liz Hotchkiss
General Manager Advertising Advisor
General Manager Advertising Advisor
Among the loose ends that Congress tied up in its marsathon session Sunday was a striped-down version of the Humphrey-Hawkins "full employment" bill.
THEY PREFERRED to trust the economy to the unproved hand of government rather than the anarchy of free enterprise. And, the bill's supporters say, the 7 million people in the United States now looking for work—more than have been out in the past year—have depression—provide adequate testimony to the need for such sweeping legislation.
The Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1977, as the Humphrey-Hawkins bill is properly called, was the misguided product of the good intentions of the late Sen. Hubert Humphrey, D-Minn, and Rep. Augustus Hawkins, D-Calf.
The bill, however, reflects the mischievous tendency of those in government to grasp at quick but vague solutions to problems they have failed to investigate.
Humphrey-Hawkins a poor solution
Taken in perspective, the employment situation for the past 30 years is far from bleak. The U.S. economy has more than kept pace with the sport in population.
ALL WOULD have been absorbed except for the two other trends that increased pressure in the job market: the decline of farm employment; the economic-enhancement of women.
IF IT WEREN'T for these two factors, the United States would now be facing a labor crisis.
more than 17 million jobs—jobs in addition to those required by population growth,
The non-agricultural sector of the economy was forced to find jobs for 4.6 million workers who left U.S. farms between 1947 and 1977. These and many other workers moved to jobs in the cities as the nation became more urban.
The Humphrey-Hawkins bill has great appeal for those who regard massive cuts to federal spending.
The infux of women had even greater impact. In 19th-century 38 percent of U.S. women were employed, and 42 percent the increased labor force participation rate of women required the forerunner to work.
The combined impact of agricultural decline and working women, then, required
But the authors of the Humphrey-Hawkins bill won't be appeased. But what will they do if the target unemployment and inflation rates are not achieved in 1983?
Perhaps they'll shrug and say they tried. Government jobs for all seems a more likely answer, however. After all, the government assumed responsibility for the economy.
High employment and low inflation are not things the government can guarantee without using costly, unpopular and unproductive means, such as becoming employer of the last resort or instituting wage and price controls.
The labor force increased by 37 million people between 1947 and 1977 and more than doubled from 20,000 to 60,000.
There was the post-World War II "Baby Boom" that, in the mid-to-late-Sixties, produced a bulge of new job seekers, most of them young and inexperienced.
Here again, government promises what it cannot deliver...
The gains in employment were achieved in the face of extreme demographic pressures that, without the unprecedented economic growth of the past 30 years, would have swamped the economy and left many millions more unemployed.
Rick Alm
The Humphrey-Hawkins bill, at best, is an idle premise; at worst, a terrible imposition on the Constitution. In his mischief Congress loosed with this seemingly innocuous bill could be
A society with good sense would junk it.
AT CURRENT or forseable levels,
IT cannot be considered a crisis worthy of Humphrey-Hawkins. In fact, the U.S.
will be under a crisis years has,
on the whole, been phenomenal.
unavoidable adjunct to the free enterprise system and look to government for assistance.
Unemployment is, of course, a personal tragedy for those out of work. However, some of the sting has been taken out of it with unemployment insurance.
the ones who think so deserve all the those an ambitious government can manipulate.
But look again. Ninety million people are at work--more than ever before. Unemployment has been inching down toward 5 percent for most of the year. Is that the picture of a situation so grave that only the gentlemen in Washington can save us?
You have been found for 30 million people. Not only are there 33 percent more people, but they are paying higher taxes.
income has increased dramatically and average hours worked has declined.
Death penalty is logical consequence
To the editor:
I'd like to respond to the editorial of Oct. 13 entitled, "Death to the death penalty." At the top of the column a note indicated that unsigned editorials represented the opinion of the editorial staff. The strong wording of this editorial implied that the staff was responsible for the publication or for the record, was the case? If so, who was for, and who was against?
A second question gets closer to the heart of this issue. How many of the staff are married with responsibility for a family? You may scaff at my question, and the attitude expressed in your editorial suggests that you will; but when your children stand around me or mother at the hand of a murderer the matter becomes far more real and personal.
Contraint to the notion presented in the editorial, reinstatement of the death penalty is not just a "growing howl" or "lust" being echoed by the politicians in this election year. It is a growing opinion of those who have the most to lose. It is a result of a growing realization that as persons we have a need for justice that goes beyond what is being given currently in our courts. You misrepresent the source of this issue.
And it is a question of justice—justice for the victims of crime. Dodge the problem if you want, but you will have to ignore a very difficult situation. You express its respect for the victims, for the murdered person and their family? There are those who advocate payment to the family as a compensation by the government or as a liability to be bought and sold? I don't think so.
The editorial goes on to advocate an even more dangerous idea. It defines capital punishment, "the punishment," labels it "wrong," and denies that the government is justified in using the death penalty. Although you avoided saying it, what you are really claiming is that our government has no right to execute its citizens. In essence you are saying the government has no right or authority to do what it has every right and authorization of authority in this way is not wise.
Lastly, no discussion of punishment
should leave out logic and realistic consequences of a crime. A very undesirable result of permissiveness is the elimination of these consequences for the criminal. The essence of learning by discipline involves facing the consequence of a crime, including capital punishment a logical and reasonable consequence for murder? I don't think so.
It is my considered opinion that capital punishment is right, and not just a condemning judgment. I consider "Death to death penalty" a narrow and editorial. It misrepresents and ignores basic facts. It lacks integrity in its substantation.
The inference of racism indicts the implementation of capital punishment and not the concept itself, and is therefore irrelevant. The reason why a convicted murderer as an expert on the ability of capital punishment to deter murder. I don't call that integrity. Nothing could be more judgmental and condemning than your editorial which attacks advocates of capital punishment as judgemental and condemnable.
It is a weak-minded statement because it tries to make up for a serious lack of self-esteem and authority, which our society so desperately needs, by substituting a thin veneer of self-righteous humanism. I don't buy it, and neither should your readers.
Philip R. Keller
EDITION'S NOTE: The editorial staff was unanimous in its decision to oppose capital punishment. In addition, all of the staff members are unmarried.
To the editor:
Capital punishment is a sad necessity
At most any time, but especially during an election year, certain issues arise which
regrettably, cannot be discussed, but only whacked about between paddles of morality and emotion. Among these issues are the rights, the economy and capital punishment.
I must admit that it had been quite a while since I pondered the morality, to say nothing of the legality, of the death penalty. I thank you for presenting your opinion on the subject, because it is an issue that concerns all of us as voting members of a democratic society. For each of us holds stock in our government, we can affect changes in that government necessary to accept or rescind capital punishment.
I oppose your view of capital punishment, and I'll tell you why. What I am going to try to convey to you will require that you show me the difference between you. You might momentarily divorce yourself from the notion 'no one, however righteous he perceives himself, has the right to condemn another to death,' and "there can be no justification for society to take a person's
Granted, man is a noble creature—holy to most—and the belief that only God, whatever we conceive him to be, can justitially take a human life is an infallible principle. We are all great many religions. But believe it or not, regardless of why the Pilgrims came, our society is not grounded upon firm religious doctrine. If it were, there would be no need for a religion, for a religion, for a religion, nor any attempt to create one, thank God. We are not required by law to tite or even have a religious faith at all, although I think most everyone does. I know that I am not a believer in different fathas, and some practice none at all, we must have a set of rules which, for the sake of argument, transcends all faith. After all, if everyone followed my faith everywhere, I would be. No where else does however, and so people are murdered, raped and kidnapped.
We exist in our society by a sort of mutual invitation, or "social contract," as any Western Civilization student can tell us. We establish and empower a government to protect our "lives, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," and in return we agree to live
within a set of rules—not religious rules, but social rules—our rules.
It is important that these rules be adhered to or the system fails to function efficiently. If we break a rule, we know exactly what punishment to expect, and as the violation grows in severity so in direct proportion does the punishment.
It is no one man who condemns another to death for a capital crime, it is our society—you and me, and everyone who lives in Kansas, or the United States. And society does indeed possess the justification to take revenge on those who have knowingly violated his social contract.
As for your remarks that blacks face uneven odds of receiving the death penalty, it is an observation, irrelevant to the issue, which speaks no so much of the inequities of our system of capital punishment as it does of the absurdities of our society as a whole.
I hope you can see, through the open mind you have kept throughout this delivery, that I am not a mad crusader for the cause of ridding our state or country of murderers. I am not a mad crusader for the cause of murderer. I am a very concerned individual, aware of the responsibility each of us carries as a member of society, not that of killing capital offenders, but primarily that of believing that such crimes are excessive, horrid and unconscionable.
And those who couldn't read this with an open mind. I trust that you won't condemn to death my point of view, but rather see it through the same understanding and forgiving eyes with which you view Charles Manson.
Scott Gyllenborg Prairie Village senior