UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editorials represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of only the writers.
OCTOBER 13,1978
Death to death penalty
The gallows in Kansas have been still since 1965, as they should remain.
Not since June of that year, when James Douglas Latham and George Ronald York were hanged for the murder of an Oakley, Kan., man, has capital punishment been used in the state.
But as election day approaches, there is a growing howl among Kansas politicians in support of capital punishment. From all indications, a death penalty bill will again appear before the Kansas Legislature, perhaps with even more frenzied support than last session.
A bill that would have reinstated the death penalty passed the House last spring, but fortunately was tabled in the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs.
NO MATTER the outcry in support of capital punishment, it is infen­
defensible and intolerable. There can be no justification for society to take a
person's life—even in the name of justice or whatever excuse is given.
Capital punishment is wrong. It is wrong in all forms—hanging, electrocution or the gas chamber. There can be no exceptions. An execution of any kind is "cruel and unusual punishment," despite the Supreme Court's ruling.
Moreover, it has been documented
that the exercise of capital punishment is inequitable, that blacks more often than whites are given the death penalty. All other things being equal, a black faces a greater likelihood of a death penalty. Is this the justice of a "vilified" society?
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, no matter what its supporters argue, does not act as a deterrent to crime. And there is no documentation that proves otherwise. Most prisoners agree that when a crime is being committed, little thought is given to punishment.
"The death penalty is not going to stop crime, it's not going to curb crime," a convicted murderer said in an interview last spring at the Kansas State Penitentiary in Lansing. "It might even increase murders."
But if for no other reason, capital punishment is wrong because it is morally objectionable. No one, however righteous he perceives himself, has the right to condemn another to death.
The death penalty is wrong—wrong for Kansas and the rest of the states. But today there seems to be a growing lust for the return of the gallows, and it will take courage and leadership by our politicians to stop this insanity.
In the name of mankind's reason and humanity, capital punishment must not be allowed to return.
Ocelot's feminist views overlooked in letter
In response to Jess D. Paul's letter of Oct. 11, I would like to point out that the information Ocelot, a former prostitute, and response to questions asked by KU students.
To the editor
Student money paid for the advertising that let them know Oecelot would be on campus. I agree that some of the questions were tasteless. However, neither the Commission on the Status of Women nor Oecelot was responsible for the nature of the question in the coursework in the future, we control who may ask questions and what questions may be asked?
Paul seemed to miss the political and feminist statements that Ocelot made—but
She also articulated the need to change a system that socialized women to be passive.
For instance, Ocelot advocated support and unity for women, saying that prostitution, as a thought-out choice of men, was the most humiliating crimes. It is their right to make that choice.
She was talking about some basic changes that are needed in the power structure-warehouse model.
"Men are basically evil." Océol said.
'And the men who are in places of power in the system (like judges and law enforcement officers) want to keep us down. They say they have nothing against 'the girls.''
Commission on the Status of Women does not advocate prostitution. However, it does advocate freedom of choice, including the freedom to dispense information. Ocelot spoke on behalf of COVOTE (Call Off Your Votes) for the decriminalization of prostitution.
The women's movement is enhanced by "a program of this nature." Occey says that a happy prostitute is not a feminist and a prostitute who becomes a feminist gets out. A prostitute who means that women feminism can teach women respect for themselves and for their bodies.
Occlet did not change my mind about the implications of women selling their bodies. But I identify with her anger at a society that uses women for profit and not the math how buy their services.
The spirited debate and heightened awareness that came out of that forum were not well received.
Kelly Lyne Lawrence junior
Lifestyle information is Commission goal
I would like to take issue with Jess Paul's
Letter to the Editor:
comments on both the Ocelot lecture and Commission on the Status of Women. First, an integral part of the Commission's goals is to ensure that every child has the choice of their choices, including lifestyle choices.
Prostitution is one of those lifestyles. Ocelot's presentation made clear the necessity for informing women about this lifestyle. Many women go into prostitution because they believe that men mentioned that many women believe that their pimps will protect them and that they will make lots of money in prostitution. Had these misconceptions been dispelled through a presentation such as Ocelot's, women might have chosen another lifestyle.
Second, those things considered by some as tasteless are the realities of others. You suggest that we not have programs on minority oppression simply because it is "tasteless." Should we ignore all things which are considered which are considered by some as tasteless?
First she stated that a prostitute can be a feminist, but she won't remain that way very long. She was an assistant to the business. In discussing a prostitute's relationship to her pimp, she brought up one of the most fundamental assumptions—that is, a woman's relationship to a man.
Granted, the word feminism itself did not appear frequently in the presentation. More important, however, is the concept of what which underlined most of what Ocelot said.
A prostitute's life, like that of many women in our society, revolves around a man. In fact, a woman's status in society is usually determined in relation to the man she is involved with. Finally, in response to the request of a client for a prostitute do"? Occel respond, "They get married and decide to turn the same trick for the rest of their life."
Implicit in everything Ocelot said, were issues central to the feminist movement. If you came to see a prostitute, that may be all you saw.
Although some marriages may not contain the qualities of "turning a trick," many
Cindy Treaster Lawrence senior
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 affiliated with the University, the letter should be written in the home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.
Letters Policy
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
ERA extension, passage necessary
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to cutorce, by appropriate legislature, the provisions of section 1.
The battle to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment took a new turn last week when the U.S. Senate gave final congressional approval to ratify part of the amendment's ratification deadline.
It was a welcome move for an increasingly beleaguered ERA movement, which has seen its momentum erode in the past decade and amended to the states in 1972. After an early flood of ratifications, the amendment has foundered three short of the 38 states required to make the amendment law. But the amendment's supporters now hope
Those supporters have showed a steadily increasing ability to play the political game, and that ability will undoubtedly come in handy during the battle for the final three rounds of the election. The National Organization of Women against states that have not ratified the amendment
is working to perfection in cities such as india, china, which rely heavily on convention trade.
OFFICIALS FROM those cities have pressured local legislatures to ratify the amendment so they again can reap the convention dollars. The amendment appears to have a solid chance in Illinois this year.
Other states that apparently are close to ratifying are Florida—again, boycott pressure in Miami Beach and Orlando—and, though policies are allummy, North Carolina.
Foes of the ratification extension appeared to view the issue as some sort of football game, maintaining that because the regulation should be overtime, the regulation play there should be no overtime.
However, equal rights isn't a game, and the amendment is a needed one.
Although several laws and recent court decisions prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, business for the most part has been able to skirt those restrictions through
an array of widely varying state and local regulations.
EVEN THOSE COURT decisions construed by ERA opponents as providing equal rights for women, thus making the ERA a redundant measure, are not as forceful and clear-cut as they contend. The Frontiero v. Richardson Supreme Court ruling states that all sex classifications in our laws are "inherently suspect" was by no means implied to be legal; the court members clearly considered sex classification to be suspect, and since that decision the court repeatedly has refused to clarify the "suspect" category.
The ERA would not be dependent on the shifting whisms of a constantly changing Supreme Court and could speed the process of correcting laws that are discriminatory, thus providing the women's movement the impetus it needs in its battle for equal rights. The 19th Amendment was able to directly abolish those archaic laws that denied women the vote, so could a 27th Amendment unequivocally condemn all sex discrimination.
OF COURSE, all the amendments in the world are useless without the weight of public opinion behind them. The 14th Amendment gave ample evidence of that. Its equal protection clause was already used to ensure that it was ready to accept its provisions. If the ERA is to have
any meaning it will have to be supported by not only government but the people as well.
Passage of the amendment will not have an earth-shattering effect, as Sen. Jacob Javits, D-N.Y., predicted after the Senate had voted on the ERA extension. It will not immediately correct all wage discrimination and harassment in social relationships. For that matter, it will not produce unixen bathrooms and female guerrilla fighters, either. It will, of course, need court tests to probe its all possible ramifications.
NEVERTHELESS, in an economy that is increasingly absorbing a growing number of women in the work force, the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment would be much more than a gesture. It would be an expression of a national commitment to the ideal of equal rights and responsibilities between sexes. It would provide a solid and sound basis for the elimination of sex discrimination. In the initial flurry of court tests subside, it would speed the prosecution of discrimination cases.
The ERA could possibly be an aid in changing human attitudes, which is still the major obstacle to women's rights. Whether it would stand in the U.S. Constitution as a guarantee of equal rights for all, and as such it should be ratified no matter how long it might take.
ERA a lost cause and only a symbol
The U.S. Senate capitulated to pressure politics last week and approved an unprecedented 39-month extension of the Equal Rights Amendment. And, to further confound ERA's opponents, it voted to deny states the right to rescind ratification.
The Senate's action was another sordid chapter in what has become a pitched battle between opponents and proponents of an amendment that was once hailed as the culmination of a 150-year struggle for women's rights.
The original seven-year limit given for ratification would have expired next March, but supporters, facing certain defeat, wrangled the extension. With the deck now stacked in their favor, they seem prepared to march to victory.
THE AMENDMENT breezed through Congress in 1972 and has been approved by 35 states, but only one—Indiana in January—has voted to amend it. Then, four state hands have voted to rescind. A court will determine whether the Senate has passed the amendment, but they show erosion of support for ERA.
But, ratification or not, they can't win.
That's not to say the cause of women's rights is not a just one. It is. A majority of Americans recognize that. The cause of women being killed requires that a law be enacted. Apathy is a lost cause.
ERA backers know, however, that passage will come only after bitter fights in the 15 remaining states, most of which oppose the amendment because it represents another incursion by the mediads in Washington.
The extension may provide time to chance the vote in non-ratifying states—and a chance for three more years of bickering and polarization. Anti-ERA forces have vowed to oppose ratification tooth and nail, prepared to scuit it out, reason be damned.
POWER POLITICS will only alienate support for the substantive issue involved, by presenting it in a way that is not.
Rattification, then, will be achieved only through heavy-heated political pressure, such as the economic boycott of the non-religious organization by the National Organization of Women.
Rick Alm
the women's movement must show itself as unyielding, conscriptorial and overly
The backlash will cost them dearly.
And for what are the leaders of the women's movement risking their power, prestige and support? For an amendment to provisions already part of the Constitution.
For a symbolic victory that could turn out
bollow.
The legal machinery for women's rights exists. In 1971, the Supreme Court, in the 20th century, invalidated an Idaho law that gave men preference over women as administrators of estates on the grounds that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
Then in the 1973 case of Frontiero v. Richardson, the court expanded the 14th Amendment by declaring "classifications based on sex, like classifications based on race, alienage or national origin, are inherently suspect."
THE RULINGS made sex discrimination as legally odious as race discrimination. The 14th Amendment was potent enough to admit women to the New York Yankees.
but supporters of the ERA entail that that's not enough, that the ERA would do more.
The ERA is no magic wand that, once passed over all discriminatory laws, will make them the more force than the 14th Cases must be litigated; laws repeated. Each law that offends the proposed 27th amendment—or, right now, the 14th—must have its day in the light.
Ultimately, the same federal judges must decide the same issues. If the ERA were passed, the courts still would determine what sex-based distinctions are valid. The
proponents admit this to their pooh-pooh
their opponents' talk of unisease bathrooms
and the lack of sanitary facilities.
WHAT WILL HELP women more than the ERA is a consensus in favor of their rights. That was the crucial factor in winning black rights. Wide support will weigh heavy on courts and legislatures, where equal rights activists must carry the flight.
Litigation could be a long, costly process. And there are no guarantees. The 14th Circuit Court has ruled that express purpose of granting blacks equal rights, but only in 1964 did the Supreme Court breathe any life into it with the assistance in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education.
Women won't be asked to wait that long. The courts have already established the
legal framework. Since the legal situation remains unchanged by the ERA, its passage is not worth squandering the resources of the women's movement.
But ERA has become a symbol; debates have passed beyond reason, for both supporters and detractors. Defeat will be unbeable for either side. The end of the struggle, no matter what the outcome, will be devisiveness.
The American person, if the polls read them accurately, now solidly support women's rights. But women's leaders seek to draw the battle lines over ERA. Fighting to the bitter end can only foster resentment, and women's rights movement support it needs.
Only by giving up ERA can women preserve support for what must be provided.
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 paid at Lawrence, Kansas 60041. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $2 per year. Airmail is $8 for six months. Student subscription are $2 a semester, paid through the student activity fee.
Managing Editor Jerry Sass
Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editor
Associate Campus Editors
Sports Editor
Associate Sports Editor
Manager Editor
Associate Magazine Editor
Copy Chief
Wire Editors
Wire Editors
Photographers
Stuff Writers
Business Manager
Associate Business Manager
Promotion Manager
Advertising Manager
National Advertising Manager
Classifieds Manager
Teacherhead Manager
Photographer
Artist
General Manager
Steve Frazier
Editorial Editor
Barry Mae
Dan Bowerman
Brian Seltie
Direk Steinem, John Mason
Nick Dunne
Mollis Thorpeon
Kendy Oland
Laurie Daniel, Carol Hunter, Pamela Sheerlander
Pam Earley, Diane Parker, Pam Keey, Linda Finlund, Canyu Rohler
Direk Stelmil, John Whitesdale
Bruece Brown, John Granny
Bob Beer, Tom Hammastack, John Tharp, Bruce Welts
Karen Wendrott
Jen McIlroy
Nick Hakey
Jeff Klons
George Watson
Ladle Chandler
Anthony Vincein
Vincent Cotes
Steve Follom, Li Hotchkis
Advertising Advisor
Chuck Chapman