UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers.
OCTOBER 17,1978
Accept Med changes
A dangerous and unfounded fear about the future of the Wichita branch of the University of Kansas Medical Center simmers among some Wichita physicians.
During testimony before a legislative interim committee on medical education, the physicians said they feared the possible effects of proposed changes in the branch school which were made by Chancellor Archie R. Dykes last month.
Dykes had recommended to the interim committee that the Wichita branch be reorganized and expanded. He proposed creating a foundation to supervise residency medical programs, increasing the number of full-time faculty members, establishing community care clinics and finding a permanent home for the branch.
ALTHOUGH DYKE'S report on the Wichita branch was approved by the Kansas Board of Regents, it must face the legislature in January. Any objections to the proposals, especially from Wichita physicians, could damage the recommendation's chances of approval.
However, those objections offered during the committee meeting smacked of petty resistance to outside influences and change.
One physician, Richard Cummings,
president of the Sedgwick County
Medical Society, said, "The plans, directions and orders all seem to come down from Lawrence and Kansas City, and the branch seems to be changing from a community medical school into a large university, closed-staff type of medical school."
ANOTHER WICHITA physician, Warren Meyer, president of the Kansas Medical Society, said Dykes' proposals were developed without advice from the Wichita medical community. He said the proposals provided for too much domination of the branch by Lawrence and Kansas city.
But lost in the shuffle was any mention of the Wichita branch's purpose-to train medical students, not to serve the interests of community physicians.
Although some Wichita physicians have made valuable contributions to the branch as part-time faculty for residency programs, some now seem to be more concerned about their own interests than about the quality of education at the branch school.
Dykes' proposals are aimed at improving the branch so more students will have an opportunity to get a better medical education.
What is more important to physicians in Kansas, better medical education opportunities or their own welfare?
Political future of blacks dependent on youth vote
N. Y. Times Feature
By EDDIEN. WILLIAMS N.Y.Times Feature
WASHINGTON - The political future of America is in the hands of black youth.
It is about time we let this fact sink in and begin to take a critical look at how steady those hands are. This assessment is necessary despite the plight of 18- to 34-year-olds who are plagued by rising unemployment and declining expectations.
What we see is not reassuring. Black youth have the worst voter participation rate among all racial groups in community and in the nation as a whole. What makes this situation both frightening and challenging today is that black youth are more likely to be less resilient in the political process.
As 23 percent of the total black voting-age population, 18 to 24-year-olds should want to use the political process to reduce their unemployment rate and to help develop policies and programs that will shape their lives and livelihoods in the future.
AND, TOO, they should want to help increase black political prospects in the 1978 elections. These elections are critical for blacks for several reasons:
1) They offer an opportunity for us to represent the black vote in 1970 war of an accord.
2) They provide an opportunity for blacks to take maximum advantage of their considerable political potential in several states, including Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, North and South Carolina, where close races are expected in the November elections;
3) Aggressive voter participation will help to assure the election of black candidates;
4) The 1978 elections will signal the beginning of the process of gearing up for the nuclear crisis.
Clearly, there is an urgent need to increase black voter participation across the board. But there is an even greater need to make sure that black voters know what makes the lack of participation of black youth so conspicuous and troubling that it represents the waste of vast poten- tial resources. The black vote is short, the black youth vote is muscle-bound, and we have failed to do anything about it.
THERE ARE 3.4 million black youths between the ages of 18 and 24. In 1976, only 38 percent of them were registered and only 26 percent actually voted. This is significantly lower than the voter participation rate of whites, since most of the percent were registered and 49 percent voted.
Yet another reason for singing out black youth is the fact that among eligible black voters, 25 and older, 54 to 73 percent were registered in 1976 and 48 to 65 percent injured. That our youth are not pulling their performance weight is the understatement of the year.
An examination of the black youth vote yields some disturbing regional variations. In the South, where 18- to 24-year-olds are more likely to vote, there were all blacks in this age group) and where voter participation drives have been most intense, only 37 percent were registered in 1976 and only 26 percent voted. What this data suggests is that, who voted, these did not vote. What a waste!
VOTER PARTICIPATION by black youth was highest in the north central states, where there are 872,000 eligible 18- to 24-year-olds who were registered and 32 percent voted in 1976.
In the Northeast, 37 percent of black youth were registered and 28 percent went to the polls, and in the West, where black youth represent only 9 percent of the national total, registration was 40 percent and turnout was 22 percent.
The 823,000 eligible youth voters in these two regions contributed only 214,000 votes in
We insist that our welfare mothers, our sharecroppers, our two-job holders, our poor and our infirm find the time to register and to vote. Isn't it about time we insist that our youth pay their dues? This is the least we can do to help assure our political future.
The point, we hope, is well made and well taken.
Eddie N. Williams is president of the Joint Center for Political Studies, a private non-profit and non-partisan organization that provides information and non-partisan distance and information for the nation's black and other minority elected officials. He is the founder and executor, the Joint Center's monthly publication.
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday through Thursday during June and July except Saturday, and Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage at Lawrence, Kansas 60443. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months. Subscription fee is $25. For all other locations. County student subscriptions are a $2 amender, passed through the student activity fee.
Editor
Steve Fratier
Management Editor
Jerry Park
Managing Editor
Berry Park
Editor/Editor
Dawen Rowaner
Associate Campus Editor
Autistate Campus Editors
Sport Editor
Direkt Steimel, Pan Mannman
Associate Sports Editor
Nancy Dremern
Manager Sports Editor
Business Manager Don Green
Associate Business Manager
Business Manager
Assoc. Manager
Promotion Manager
Marketing Manager
Advertising Manager
Marketing Manager
Classified Manager
Management Officer
Classified Manager
Karen Wenderson
Bain Capital Management
Nick Hardy
Bain Capital Management
Jeff Kious
Bain Capital Management
Lettie Chandler
Bain Capital Management
Carter said fighting inflation created hard choices. It will mean reneging on promises for some badly needed social services, making spending less than we demand from government.
Some people will wince at the price. The greatest difficulty in curtailing inflation is that, after a while, people begin to prefer the sickness to the cure. Or to prefer remaining drunk to drying out, to return to the earlier metamorph.
Inflation operates on everyone's income in the same way a tax does. It reduces the purchasing power of the dollar, cutting the standard of living. It is abduct to cut statutory taxes that people can see when they are earning their full income an increase in the hidden tax of inflation.
General Manager Rick Musser
exceed 840 billion. The compromise tax cut injects $13.7 billion more into an economy that has faced more than a decade of rapidly rising prices.
Advertising Advisor Chuek Chowins
What they fail to realize is that once the cure has taken effect, it is possible to have both economic growth and stable prices. It is also possible that we need a new medicine: reducing the budget deficit.
Inflation hangover cure is painful
The Senate has made its appeal with a $29.3 billion cut and the House of Representatives has approved a $16.3 billion cut. A conference committee, after Carter threatened to veto a cut that was in favor of the tax cut and sent it to the White House.
President Jimmy Carter might not approve of the analogy, but the effects of inflation are like those of liquor. The effect would come early; the unpleasant came late.
The initial spirit of money into the economy, like the first few drinks, has a buoyant effect. Everyone has more money and is happy to spend it quickly as the supply of money increases.
Congress, with the president's approval,
Sunday put the finishing touch on a $18.7
billion tax cut. A tax cut this close to
the record would have little effect for
in votes by incumbents of both parties.
The hangover comes when prices catch up. Consumers' dollars buy less; costs rise for businesses; frustrated workers become more aggressive to increase just to keep pace with price rises.
But when you take action against infection, the firm must first find the cause—a fraud after finds workers with jobs, money tighter and interest rates rising. Only hard-do the good effects of the law.
CARTER, A TEETOTALER not up for re-election, has lately flashed of understanding the nature of the cure. Congress, with an eye on the election, has
But, with inflation approaching an annual rate of 10 percent, Carter should veto any tax cut, despite the nationwide clamor for reduced taxes.
The problem is getting through the painful cure without asking for another
BUT IT'S ABOUT time a president faded inflation. The tax cut, without any accompanying spending cut, will worsen a budgetary deficit that already threatens to
Carter has vetoed Congress' $10.2 million public works bill. He has rejected a
A veto won't make him popular. The tax-crazy people who answer the Gallops and the Ropers will be angry; senators and representatives who have to campaign this fall will attempt to override the veto; and business will be disgruntled, too.
Rick Alm
Carter, by signing the tax-cut bill,
makes a mockery of his veto of the public
works measure. A consistent policy
against inflation demands the courage of a
defense authorization that contained a $2 billion nuclear aircraft carrier. He has won approval for a 5.5 percent on rises to federal workers—and no raise for top management.
SPENDING VETOES, then, are only part of the cure for inflation—the easier part, in fact. On reducing the deficit, the president has done a good job as politician's weakness for the popular tax cut.
"Each bit of additional spending always looks small and unimportant against the total federal budget," Carter said in his veto message to Congress for the public benefit. "It is one of many other way in each case is always great, but both Congress and the executive branch must recognize that there is no one, single act which will control the budget."
Controlling inflation begins with controlling the federal budget—or, more exactly, controlling deficit spending. When the federal budget is made up, it receives, it manufactures money to pay the difference. Deficit spending increases the national currency, which in turn causes prices to rise.
'Safe' nuclear energy a contradiction
To the editor:
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN letters
In the October 9 edition of the Kansas, several letters to the editor were printed under the headline, "Nuclear power is not nuclear power," and the headline were misleading. One of the writers stated that fear of nuclear power is rooted in ignorance. Unfortunately the writer himself does not show much understanding of the object in his letter, nor does his counterpart.
The first writer states, "Nuclear power is clean power." He then points out a long list of materials that nuclear power does not produce. However, that in and of itself does not constitute clean power. The pollution given off by nuclear power plants cannot be eliminated. It is certainly more deadly than any of the pollutants produced by other power plants.
The pollution given off from nuclear facilities of every kind is low-level radiation and radioactive wastes. Again and again these radiation by-products have been shown to cause cancer and genetic damage. Since the effects are not immediately recognizable, many people choose not to confront the realities of these dangers. This continues to be a major challenge as continues to be emitted, unnecessary deaths continue to be assured, and most people continue not to be heed the warnings of the scientific community.
The same writer states, "it is impossible for a saboteur to cause a major accident" at a nuclear plant. Further, he says he believes that it would have only the same effects of an explosion on the ground, simply shutting down the electricity. The similarity of a coal or gas fired plant's burning or exploding following a saboteur's attack is minimal when compared with a nuclear plant. Undergoing radiation after an attack, the unquestioning faith exhibited in the belief that such an attack is impossible is sad indeed. The writer should be happy that he is content in his certainty that such an incident is imminent and should all people trust what they are told?
In stating that nuclear energy will "help clean up our environment," the writer obviously ignores the question of the radioactive wastes produced by nuclear
power. There are no known answers for permanent storage of these wastes. They will be deadly for at least 250,000 years. This is roughly 5,000 times the period of time considered to be recorded history by humans.
The possibility of the safe containment of these wastes from our environment for even a fraction of that time is poor at best. This is a direct threat to the environment of this planet and can hardly be considered an aid in cleaning it. The question of the hazards of energy resources addressed by the General Accounting Office of the federal government, the President's Council on Environmental Quality, the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the U.S. Geological Survey. None of these groups has found any answers it considers suitable. The fears express in the document — waste — are inevitable by-product of nuclear power — could hardly be considered based in ignorance.
A second writer states that nuclear energy is not even likely to be among the most hazardous contributions made to society by technology and industry. Plutonium, uranium, and it is certainly one of the most deadly materials produced by humans. A particle of plutonium the size of a pollen grain, if inhaled, will assure the eventual existence of cancer. If the production of tons of this material, which requires isolation for periods of time incomprehensible to most, is not harbored then what is?
Further, this writer points out that if we are toate our "innovitable list for more and more energy". This is probably true. However the concept of inevitable lust for more and more is quite obscure. It is something aware of the limits of our planet and are willing to change. Therefore the use of the word inevitable is wrong because we
are capable of changing our desires, and
they are capable of imposing that people are not
willing to change themselves.
Finally, both writers hold that the people of this country do not in fact oppose nuclear energy. One reason for this condition is that the people have been and continue to be lied to about nuclear energy, and that spread by the government, the nuclear industry and others with vested interests in nuclear power. Not always have these fabrications been made so that persons involved could reap greater profits—although that is not to say it has not been
Many times however, misleading statements have been made to the public by no fault other than ignorance on the part of the industry itself. This was particularly true when "atomic energy" was first introduced in the United States. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the American people must find the truth from sources other than those tied directly to the nuclear industry, because they continue to mislead them. Once the threats of nuclear energy are made known to all, the people have to realize their voices and halt nuclear energy.
Bill Beems Lawrence senior
To the editor:
Nuclear contractors disregard regulations
The column by John Whitesides about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Oct. 5 Kansan should be of special interest to all residents of Lawrence.
Mr. Whitesides discussed the current dispute over Daniel International's compliance with safety regulations in the construction of a nuclear plant at Fulton, Mo. A worker claims that the company has used procedures which failed to meet
construction regulations and which could pose a danger to public safety when the building is under construction.
Lawrence residents should be concerned because Daniel International also is constructing a nuclear power plant at the university, which requires only a cursory examination of the NRC Status Report—published monthly and available at Malott Library—to see the continual disregard for construction and regular regulations at the Burlington site by Daniel.
The specific regulations violated, although important by themselves, are less significant than the prime contractor's laws and regulations generally and for the safety of the public.
The NRC defends nuclear power plants by saying that the safety of the plants is virtually guaranteed by the regulations which contractors must obey.
This argument is intenable if, as in the Fulton case, the NRC is denied access to the plants in order to ensure compliance with the law. Thus, it must be effective, regulations must be followed.
Rhonda Fawcett
First year law student
Letters Policy
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not exceed 500 words. They should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is african or asian, he/she should include the writer's class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.