THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VOL. 101 NO. 54
THE STUDENT NEWSPAPER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS
NBAS STATE HISTORICAL
CITYE
PEKA: KS A6A12
--want to be sensitive to that. We also want to encourage students to act responsibly."
ADVERTISING: 864-4358
NEWS:864-4810
Condom machines will be on campus
By Jennifer Schultz
Kansan staff writer
Condoms will be available in KU residence hall vending machines next semester. David Amber, vice chancellor for student affairs, said last night at a Student Senate meeting.
The condoms will be sold in existing machines and should be in place by the beginning of the semester. The cost of the condoms has not been determined, Ambler said.
He said mechanical adjustments to the machines and orders for the condions would also be made before the end of this sensu-
The condoms will be removed from the vending machines during the summer because mostly minors will live in the residence halls. Amber said. The University's campus had several camps during the summer.
The Office of Student Affairs has been considering including the condoms in residence hall bathrooms for years. Ambler said
"No one is doing this lightly."
Ambier said the decision to make condoms available in residence halls was made informally by instructors in the last several weeks.
Mike Schreiner, student body president, said he thought that Amber chose to make the announcement at the Senate meeting because Senate played a vocal role in the issue.
Last year Senate passed a resolution stating it wanted condonds to be distributed on campus and asked KU to study a condom vending machine program used at the University of Minnesota.
"Student Senate has been presuring the administration to do it for quite a while. "Scheurer said, "I am confident our authority to do anything about it."
Schreiner said Ambler told him of the decision in a letter sent to him Nov 1. According to Schreiner, Ambler said in the letter that he determine distributing the condoms if the sending machines
Senate opposes engineering fee
By Jennifer Schultz
Kansan staff writer
Student Senate passed a resolution last night stating that Student Senate adamantly opposes a proposal that would charge engineering students a $15-a credit hour fee.
The resolution also requests that the School of Engineering consult and include engineering students and Senate in making decisions affecting students.
The fee was proposed by the deans of engineering at the University of Kansas, Kansas State University and Wichita State University. The proposal, designed to help schools cover the cost of equipment used in engineering courses, will be presented to the Regents in November.
Mike Schreiner, student body president, said the resolution would be sent to the Board of Regents.
David Surford, engineering senator, said, "If engineering equipment costs are going up, then raise our tuition gradually. But one school will always cost more to operate than others. Students should be able to choose their careers by interest and not what they can pay."
But Carl Locke, dean of engineering, said the fee was necessary to finance needed equipment.
"One of things I think (senators) ought to be sure about that they are representing the engineering studies."
Locke said 40 percent of the engineering schools in the nation charged engineers a special fee to maintain, operate and replace laboratory equipment.
Schreiner said this was not the first time a restricted fee had been imposed on students.
Dean sees no alternative to fee
By Amy Zamierowski
Kansan staff writer
Although student senators are opposed to an equipment fee, the dean of engineering sees no alternative to retain the quality of the School of Engineering.
"Without a substantial increase in funding to the school, we are going to degrade the quality of education," said Carl Locke, dean of engineering. "At this point, engineering equipment is not being funded by the state. We have been given $4 million, private sources," such as an uncertain source.
Locke said the fee was needed to repair and replace existing lab equipment, including com-
Locke said that although engineering senators passed a referendum against the fee, they did not propose other ways to guarantee the use of equipment and education in the school.
David Suroff, engineering senator, said the
senators needed to defeat the fec before they began working to find a solution to benefit them.
Suroff said a concern was that a fee in one school could set a precedent and create a sense of community.
Locke said, "The fees may spread, but they may be needed. While students may think they are paying a lot for their tuition, it is lower than many schools."
Brian Culliss, president of Engineering Student Council, said he opposed the fee because it would apply only to engineering students, and instructed that freshmen would be freshmen away from the engineering field.
Shaun Nicholson, co-president of an engineering fraternity, Tau Beta Pi, said he supported the fee because he saw the need to keep his students in touch if other means to finance the movements
legislators threatened to cut KU appropriations.
"I am one of the few students who support the es." he said.
Pat Warren, Student Senate Executive Committee chairperson, said it was possible that in 1984-85 the Legislature would have reduced KU's budget the amount the University raised through the fee.
some changes," he said.
Schreiner also said the proposed engineering fee did not meet the Regents requirement to explore all other possibilities of financing before imposing restricted fees.
He said one of those options would be for the 'money' for the School of
amierowski contributed in-
rediction House
re would face difficult
were a number of legislated reservations about the issue.
I'll list of lotness for Joan
there are some question
the minds of some people,
will be answered as we get
said disappointment and from the 1990 session, in oral issues went unresolved make legislators more cooperate with the new addition.
aid the Democratic party
neft from a Democratic
venat the state Legislature
mend Kansas' U.S. congress-
isas to be approved Reitas
to be approved the nate and governor.
will lose one congressional result of the 1980 census. ins were targeting Rep. D-2nd District, one of orcatic congressman from or elimination because Slatmore vulnerable to be than Rep. Dan Glickman, strict Slattery and Glick process. That process of reapportionment made fair by having a governor and enhanced a Democratic House."
er said a Democratic House live a limited effect on the ing process because of geo-1 and demographical rea-
and three logical new districts western Kansas, the area Sedgwick County and the and Johnson County. The strict importance would have to be out of the 2nd and 5th dis-
oing to be a fight," she said.
selection coverage pages 3,5
after loss
kept at the mansion for work around for a time. n grew up on a farm near in northwest Kansas.
a said Hayden declined to news conference until x1 week
or within a few days he'll to talk," the press secre-
said that Hayden spent with his family.