Page 4
Opinion
University Daily Kansan, December 2, 1980
Fines should be paid
The University of Kansas intends to collect some $230,000 in outstanding parking and library fines. And based on a policy that would withhold paychecks if faculty and students didn't pay up, the Kansas Board of Regents isn't fooling around.
One cannot feel sorry for the ticket-crazy KU Parking Service, which has been known to issue tickets for harmless parking violations during the wee hours of the morning and during pouring down rain.
Yet the faculty, students and staff must pay up. A policy—even if ridiculously enforced at times—is still a policy. And we must abide by it.
If students don't pay up, the University can easily prevent them from enrolling. However, no such safeguard exists for the faculty and staff. Apparently the faculty and staff have taken advantage of this.
There may be legal complications in withholding paychecks, but that shouldn't be the main concern. It's sad that faculty members and the staff have not cooperated with the University's policies. The unpaid fines reflect poorly on the University's integrity.
It's ridiculous that the Board of Regents has had to lower itself to capture the fines in such a juvenile manner. The faculty and staff has in part brought this would-be policy on themslves.
Birthday comes and goes; life continues with changes
This wind whistling just outside my window, sighing with patient urgency, is scattering autumn with the fallen leaves and gathering together, slowly but steadily, winter and its
With the season goes the semester, vanishing now quickly, like the last grains speeding through an hour glass, and so goes, too, the year, about to disappear as we at last skip around the decade's end. The next time it happens much so much earlier as it was a last, drawing close one ear rather than bursting open another.
So it's almost gone now, not simply this year,
this semester, this season, but the times, the era,
the years that were for many of us synonymous
AMY HOLLOWELL
with coming of age. We wound our way through the traumas and delights of youth and the tumultuous years that that were the 1870s, only to find ourselves on now the threshold of the 86s, of adulthood.
Yesterday, it should be here noted, was my twenty-second birthday, all at once my last birthday of the 70s and of college, and the first one after 21, that final milestone, and the first one, depending on perspective, of the 80s. Thus, it is from a new year's issue forth, finding myself, as I do, in a new situation in the endless progression of situations we call life.
From here, it's easy to look back and safely say what was. It's all very clear, from that May afternoon at Kent State in 1970 to that Tuesday, barely weeks ago, when the swelling tide of American conservation came crashing in from the nation. Such are reflections on things past.
These were years that, perhaps gone, are not forgotten, and whose mark we, as their products, will bear forever. "We" are actually not "we" at all; instead, "we" are each very much a single, sometimes vain, more than a little self-centered, "me". These "me's", or rather "we", are the outputs of what Tom Wolfe christened "The Me Decade."
It was television and jogging suits and health food from the very beginning. It was finding
yourself, independence and looking good that counted in the 70s, and we ate it up as fast as we ate our Captain Crunch and Pop Tarts.
Fop Tartts. Definitely a key to what those years were all about. Mom at work, breakfast was simply a Fop Tart and a toaster away. In this picture, you can see how to go it alone and how to do it with ease and speed.
Speed. Cocaine. White wine on ice. Marijuana. LSD and Peyote, the mind highs of the 60s, were, although not obsolete, being replaced in the 70s by the physical highs of cocaine and speed. It was up, up, with me, me, me, no matter how many bucks, bucks, bucks it took.
Matter over mind were the by-words. "The 'if it feels good, do it' attitude was a carry-over, but more lived by the philosophy in the 70s than ever before. The beautiful people, with their flashy hair and big eyes, were devastated by the devastated psyches, ruled, zooming us ever deeper into a slew of materialism.
So now we here are, at the end of 1890, at the end of a paradoxical decade, in which the outward pleasures of a people turned inward were paramount. So now here we are, stepping into a new decade, a new era, new times with a potentially new perspective.
We've got a new president with old ideas that the conservatives call new because the new ideas of the old Liberals have been around for awhile. We may, in fact, have seen the last of liberalism as we have known it. We may, in fact, be witnessing the demise of progressive vision.
But we have also recently witnessed an amazing wonder; we have seen Saturn and its braided rings and lakes of liquid nitrogen, seeing what human eyes have never before seen.
Predictions flow with less ease than reflections. What is crystal clear hindight is foggy foresight, particularly from a perch merely a few steps up life's mast, hardly a prime look for look-out.
What's clear, however, what the howling wind itself reminds me is, that while today may have been crisp and sunny, tomorrow will be frigid and gray, and the next day will be warmer and then some; tomorrow there have bids and the bids will soon have blossoms and the grass will come back green and wet.
Yesterday will be another birthday, another era will be about to begin or end, or another decade or century, another semester or season or year will be winding down, only to be followed shortly by the green and wet grass coming back again, just as before.
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 affiliated with the university, he or she should make the writer's class and home town or faculty or staff position. The Kansan reserves the right to edit letters for publication.
KANSAN
(USPS $856,046) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the university library. Subscriptions by mail are $14 for six months or $2 a year in Douglas County and $14 for six months or $6 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the student activity fee. Subscriptions change of address to the University Daily Kansas, Flint Hall, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 65046
Editor Business Manager
Carel Belle Welf Elaine Strahler
Managing Editor Cynail Highes
Editorial Editor David Lewis
Campus Editor Judy Woodburn
Associate Campus Editor Judy Woodburn
Associate Campus Editors Don Munday, Mark Spencer, Cindy Whichtone
Sports Editor Patti Armel
Associate Sports Editor Patti Armel
Entertainment Editor Kevin Mills
Make Up Editors Rob Schuland
Write Editors Tom Toddach, Lois Wickman
Copy Chiefs Elen Iwamoto, Leslie Fangler, Tampmy Turner
Copy Chiefs Gail Eggers, Ellen Iwamoto, Tampmy Turner
Chief Photographer Robert Dee, Anastasian
Staff Photographer Sue Klauss
Columnists Amy Hollowell, Ted Lichtel, Bill Menesee, Brett Compole
Editorial Cartoonist Scott Fauk, Fred Markham, Susan Scheinmacher, Blake Couplety
Artist Artists Joe Barton
Staff Writers Michael Wunach, Bret Bolton, John Richardson, Laura Newman
Dan Torchia, Shawn McKay
Retail Sales Manager Kevin Koster
National Sales Manager Nandy Koster
Campus Sales Manager Barb Light
Classified Manager Tracy Coo
Advertising Makeup Manager Jane Sandler
Staff Artist Jude Sandler
Staff Photographer Brian Walton
Templates Manager Brian Walton
General Manager and News Advisor Rick Munse
Kansas Advisor Chuck Chowkin
Wires get crossed on phone story
Letters to the Editor
To the editor
freedom of the press is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. I have always believed in this right and will continue to believe in it. But when the Kansan starts to take advantage of this right, I start to believe something is wrong. I am referring to Tom Gress' Nov. 14 article concerning the KU men's basketball team. Gress is obviously trying to make headlines by starting a scandal.
The article alleges that "at least three players on the KU men's basketball team violated NCAA rules by making long-distance phone calls with an assistant coach's credit card last season." It appears that Grissel did not get any attention from the officials and that his only bit of evidence was assistant教练 Lafayette Norwood's phone bill of Jan. 27, 1980.
Several calls were made by Ricky Ross and two other players to friends and relatives with the credit card. These calls were circled on the phone bill by Norwood, who told the athletic department not to pay them. In the article Gress states, "It is not known whether Ross paid for the circled calls," yet he alleges that the calls violated NCAA rules.
I am shocked that the Kansan can not at least give the KU basketball team the benefit of the doubt when the team's integrity is at stake.
So serious were the accusations that they have caused Ricky Ross to leave the basketball team. As reported by your paper, the rumors were that the Kansan and the "reports would make it impossible to walk on campus without feeling like a fool." Tom Baumann
Being the school newspaper, I thought that the Kanan would support KU athletics, but I guess I was wrong. Gress, I hope you are proud of your article because you have succeeded in making headlines at the cost of a fine basketball player.
Libertarian hogwash
To the editor:
In my last letter to the editor on Oct. 20, I tried to show the errors of Kevin Hilker's guest editorial in which he expounded on the alleged benefits of a "Liberarian society." Although written toulou in cheek, I addressed myself to issues, gave examples, and clearly illustrated how illogical Hilker's views and those of the Libertarians are in general.
In his reply of Nov. 14, Helliker launched a personal attack on me. He left all my points and examples unanswered, he totally distorted my position, and he put words into my mouth that I neither said nor even implied. But I do not blame Helliker for using these tactics. What else could he have done? It is a difficult task even for a good debater and excellent writer to try and defend a totally illogical position.
I shall answer Hilkerk once more. But this will be the last time, no matter how irrelevant or absurd a reply he may come up with the next time around. If indeed he wishes to carry the issues with him, I shall be happy to discuss the issues with him at any time, privately or in public.
In my letter I pointed out, for instance, that a libertarian society (in which the economic functions of government would be reduced exclusively to the protection of property) could, by definition, not provide schooling for the children of the poor, incomes for those unemployed without any fault of their own (such as thousands of employees of the factories or jobs of robbers) blacks with employers who wish to discriminate against them.
I also mentioned that a monopolist who, for instance, would be in control of the only feasible source of water for a town could charge an exorbitant price for this necessity
of life in what. Helliker describes as the Libertarians' "completely responsible society, one in which only the inexhaustible water (the water-drinkers, I guess) would suffer."
Obviously, Helliker could not address himself to any of these issues, for Libertarianism has no sensible answers to such social problems. What he did say was that my "remarkable display of 'social consciousness' was nothing short of a plea for socialism." If advocacy of free schooling for our children, of unemployment compensation for those unemployed without any fault of their own, of racial equality, and of social control of monopolies makes one a socialist, so be it. In any case, I would prefer the company of "socialists" as President-elect Reagan or Senator Goldwater, who also proclaim to believe in those things (although I must admit that I am not all that sure about their stand on racial equality).
If all people and agencies pursuing the study of the Soviet system and Soviet society are also socialist, then I must have all kinds of "socialist" bedfellows, among them the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in Washington, Radio Liberty in Munich, the U.S. Army Institute for Advanced Russian Studies in Garmisch—all of them "socialist" comrades of mine!? I fear that at this pace, the socialists will have taken over all of the United States before Helliker's Libertarians get beyond their 1 percent at the polls.
Beyond that, Helliker then tells the reader that my obviously socialist position also "explains his other field of interest—Soviet studies."
Helliker also asserts that I and people of my persuasion are the ones who back laws against "victimless crimes" (laws which the Libertarians apparently want to see see) and calls them unaware as to believe that it is the liberals, and not the conservatives, who oppose legalization of marjuana or prostitution? And as to his statement that "Shaffer would seem to believe that if suicide were decriminalized, then everyone (himself included in some cases) would thus writen." Such vicious utter nonsense surely does not even merit a reply.
One more point: Helliker gives an example of two men walking through a forest in a snow storm, and one of them deciding that he would rather be carried. He then explains that in a Libertarian society the second man would be considered "a man who might very well freeze, starve, or whatever—but then it was his choice." But in a "socially conscious" society, so he says, the government would hold a "gun to the second man's head, saying 'Carry him.' "All I can say to this is that Helliker's understanding of the environment is inadequate; and his example of the two men in the forest does not address itself to the relevant issue at all.
The question is not what should be done if one of the two men doesn't want to continue walking. The question is: what should be done if he can't, if he breaks a leg and is unable to take another step, if he is too sick, too old, too feeble to continue the journey, or if he lost his way. But he can walk. And the correct answer is so obvious: of course he should be "left to freeze, starve, or whatever." Any good Libertarian can tell you that.
Harry G. Shaffer Professor economics and Soviet and East European Studies
To the editor:
Language abused
The Kanans regularly receives letters from people in favor of women's rights. I respect the opinions thus espoused. However, one offense that is becoming ever more frequent
is intolerable. Women now find it necessary to
manage the English language.
Co
The spelling "wimmin" is a non-word. Though I am unfamiliar with the feminist milieu, the new spelling is obviously an avoidance of a subordinate status. The word bears qualities the word are debatable and hardly justify violence to the language.
repre yearl
An article, written earlier this fall by Susan Schoenmaker, argues that language conspires against women (or wimmin, as ma' Kettle might have called them). I see her point and note that usage is slow to reflect change in the relationship of the sexes. This is proper, as consensus of opinion about such important issues also is slow to change. Language, especially modern English, is based upon the consensus of its speakers.
KC coun coun ever tryi
Wi imp is ve
By the time of inception of the feminine title, Ms., it corresponded roughly to the pronunciation accorded—women of unknown marital status. No information is lost through this change, except a little snippet of personal information (marital status) that is no one's business anyway.
I certainly don't begrudge women a change in status. I only ask that they respect the cultural heritage carried forward by the metaphor and structure of language. Don't call history your teacher. I shouldn't reminded crudeness. I don't think hercules should be changed to Hiccuels.
To me, the features suggested by wombman are high praise. Such a word, like the English of Chaucer's time, is descriptive, organic and unpretentious. It seems to me, women might try living up to their descriptions, rather than trash the very thing that glorifies them.
Christopher Hamill
Colby senior
To the editor:
Concert overlooked
Since there have been on articles in the Kansan concerning William Warfield's magnificent concert on Nov. 17, we must sadly admit that your paper made no effort to the KEYN.
This oversight is even more unfortunate when one realizes the inherent news value of such a concert. Certainly Warfield does not lack prominence, for he is renowned worldwide for his performances in "Porgy and Bess" and the musical "Showboat."
His great baritone voice ranks him with some of the best vocalists this country has ever produced. To hear William Warfield singing “Ol Man River” is akin to hearing the “Hallelujah Chorus” sung by the Morman Tabernacle Chair, reading Heningham’s first novel, or watching Bobby bell cook up a slab of ribs.
What about proximity, you say? For proximity you have the University Theatre, and for significance you have Warfield's position as Langston Hughes Visiting Professor of Voice. The fact that the proceeds of the concert go to the Music Scholarship Fund also is no trifle matter. Simply stated, William Warfield's concert was news.
As you can see, there is really no reason whatsoever that the Kansan should not have reported on Warfield's consummate musical talents.
We will admit that improving your mind through culture is not as easy as watching Tic Tac Dough or throwing darts, but nevertheless we make it a point to take in a notable cultural experience, such as Warfield's concert, when time and inclination permit. Unfortunately, it seems that this time, at least for the Kansan, Tic Tac Dough won out over culture, or to put it more succinctly, you bought the farm.
Mark Zieman
Wichita sophomore
Craig Nauta
Overland Park, sophomore