Page 4
Opinion
University Daily Kansan, November 19, 1980
Rebound with excuses
Rosa Smith, mother of KU basketball
player Rick Voss, said it best.
"They should get to the top man in all situations like this across the country," she said, "not necessarily just Coach Owens, but every coach in the country."
"The people in charge, the coaches, should explain the details and tell people if there would be some kind of violation."
Smith was right. It would be unfair to assume automatically that Ross, Darnell Valentine and Tony Guy, the three players who used assistant coach Lafayette Norwood's credit card number to make long distance phone calls to friends and relatives, were aware of the possible consequences of their actions. Complete knowledge of the NCAA rulebook is not their responsibility.
But it would not be unfair to expect Owens, Norwood and athletic director Bob
Marcum to know about those rules and the consequences of violations. It also would not be unfair to expect the coaches and the department to be intelligent and vigilant enough to prevent such violations or, at least, repeated abuses.
But that evidently was not the case. Regardless of Owens' and Marcum's claims that immediate steps were taken for repayment in accordance with NCAA rules, the violations showed up in two nonconsecutive months. How many months does it take a bill payer of even moderate awareness to figure out that someone is making unauthorized calls on his credit card?
Not very many, reason answers—unless the 'calls were made with the knowledge of the coaches or the department. Smith isn't the only one who is wondering about that question.
Zealots of moral majority threaten freedom's remnants
By MICHAEL GEBERT
Guest Columnist
I remember seeing Jerry Falwell, host of TV's "Old Time Gospel Hour" and leader of the moral majority—the people who believe federal judges should be required to take an anti-abortion oath—on a news program during the Republican convention. He was telling a reporter that he did not believe a liberal could be a true Christian. Ignoring the apocalyptic implications of that remark, I would suggest, in writing, that he objected to Mr. Falwell's veneration: Jesus Christ. This wise and compassionate man (and, quite possibly, God) was nothing if not liberal toward his fellow men. True, he opposed sexual freedom, divorce and even civil disobedience ("Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's"); although he died for his beliefs. But—and I use quotes as freely as my opponents—he said that no man can judge a woman without a court of law last yet be judged," "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"), opposed war ("Blessed are the peacemakers") and his reply to Simon the Zealot; and continually reminded us of our duty to the fortunate.
Every couple of days the Kansan brings us another letter from a religious zealot of some persuasion. For the most part, these letters consist of some extreme Christian attacking some extreme liberal on abortion, homosexuality or some other subject of diminishing interest. I have managed to become indifferent to the shrill rantings of the socially overcrowded Christmas have come my apprehension, because they actually pose a threat to those remnants of the land of freedom. I feel someone ought to remind them of a few pertinent facts.
Are not concern for personal freedom according to one's conscience or civil liberties opposition to militarism and concern for the armed the ideals, if not the reality, of liberalism?
I am not speaking of abortion. The crux of the abortion issue is not whether we may kill a child—of course we must not—but whether a child does or we believe it is, but there are those who disagree.
Jesus does condemn sexual deviation, but he more strongly condemns those who set themselves up above their fellow sinners. The Old Testament, of course, encourages homophobia, but as it is the product of a tribe distressed by any sexual activity that does not lead to propagation, such imperatives should not form modern, post-zero-population-law law.
As for the ideals of conservatism, I find them nowhere in the Bible. Jesus calls for personal, not public, regulation of personal activity. And, you know, it wasn't a rule that those who turned his temple into a marketplace.
But, of course, misinterpretation of Jesus' words in the solera right of every act. What we mean by solera is the period in which Jesus
Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. We are not, please note, a Christian nation. We are, at most, a nation predominantly of Christians, although the diversity within Christianity, along with the large numbers of Jews, Muslims and atheists, should deter us from incorporating Christianity into our laws. Most Christian sects, however, do not respect the necessity of the separation of church and state. They'd love you to join their church; they will not force you.
Certain native-born fundamentalist sects, however, having never been on the receiving end of repression, fail to see the evil in it. Because of this, we get little things like the standard "In God We Trust" on money (which is just redolent with irony), the phrase "under God" in that pledge of conformity our children mumble every morning, and, until recently, an equally unconcerned group of Christian will probably soon return. The Methodists, among others, oppose this because it relieves parents of the duty of religious education while replacing it with merely rote memorization.
We are told that every democracy eventually becomes a tyranny. Our wise, great and sorely missed forefathers did their best to structurally forestall fascism, but they could not have predicted microwave surveillance techniques. Nor can they stop a free people bent on enslaving themselves. Our forefathers ensured that we had never taken an active role in free opposition to the current government, continually expanding suffrage, and until 1861, a volunteer army.
It will still be hard for any faction to change us into a totalitarian state, and the reason is that we are an agnostic nation, endlessly questioning our motives, re-evaluating our decisions, accusing ourselves of immorality. Even our goal—democracy everywhere—is suspect. We feel guilty about World War II and positively ashamed of Vietnam, and of course we should. But my point is that we are the only ones who would be. As long as we presume that there are only subjective goods, we can question our motives enough to keep them on the right track.
But if we became officially a Christian nation, as some want us to be, we would have a goal: the spreading of Christianity to every corner of the earth. Anything toward that aim would be right. It would not be colonization, but salvation! That's what the South used to say they did for the slaves. And, of course, we would need to see that Christian ideals were inculcated at home as well. We would need it more education, to see that every family consisted of a stern husband, a loving, obedient wife and 2.3 dutiful children. Devians would have to be re-educated.
Look how closely this resembles the Soviet state. Simply insert the word "Marx" for "Christ" and so forth. And, of course, the Soviet state bears as little resemblance to the teachings of Karl Marx as Christian America does to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Gebert is a Wichita sophomore in radio, television and film.
The University Daily KANSAN
(USPS 658-4400) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Tuesday and Thursday during June and July except at Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas and can be sent to any address in the United States or the $2 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the student activity fee. Postmaster: Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansas Flint Hall. The University of Kansas
Editor Business Manager
Carol Beer Wolf Elaine Strahler
Managing Editor Cynthia Hughes
Editorial Editor David Lewis
Campus Editor Judy Woodburn
Associate Campus Editor Kerry Woodburn
Associate Campus Editors Ken Woolmur
Assistant Campus Editors Don Munday, Mark Spencer, Clody Whidcote
Sports Editors Gene Myers
Associate Sports Editor Kevith Milla
Entertainment Editor Ellen Iwamoto, Lestie Feagle, Bob Schad
Makeup Editors Ellen Iwamoto, Lestie Feagle, Bob Schad
Wire Editors Tom Tedesch, Loch Winkham
Crayo Chair Gail Eggers, Shilen Inoode, Tami Turney
Chief Photographer Chris Todd
Photo Desk Assistant Jason Haug
Shift Photographers Ben Bigler, Ken Coman, Scot Hooker,
Columnsist Amy Holloway, Drew Torres, Robert Poole
Amy Holloway, Drew Torres, Robert Poole
Scott Fauss, Fred Markham, Susan Scheinemaker, Blake Gunpecky
Editorial Cartoonist Joe Bartos
Staff Artist Michael Wunsch, Bret Bolton, John Re Richardson, Leah Newman
Staff Writers Kevin Kotter
Retail Sales Manager Kevin Kotter
National Sales Manager Nancy Gainson
Carpass Sales Manager Berly Light
Classified Manager Tracy Coon
Advertising Makeup Manager Jane Woodnell
Staff Artist Judy Selden
Photographer Brian Waskins
Mark Manageer Barb Spohrer
General Manager and News Advisor Rachael Muster
Kansan Adviser Chuck Cownie
Constitutional changes not for the better
The U.S. Constitution has always seemed a static, if not stagnant, document, although the ERA is struggling under the weight of unanticipated changes (1971, the 29th Amendment lowered the voting age.
In the American consciousness, the document—at once both a governmental instruction sheet and a guarantee of individual rights and freedoms—is not something to trifle with. It reaps its permanence and symbolic value from durability and broad application.
Then there's Article Five.
This necessary vent for change vaguely describes the process for amending, and even rewriting, the national charter. The nation's conservative movement, expected to gain more ground in 1982, has seized on it as a reason to seek more American rights. The conservatives seek to turn back the clock.
Most recently, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Ultah declared his support for an amendment
SCOTT FAUST
Some forms of the balanced-budget amendment are simplistically brief, but most are mathematical and verbose. The term is often used to describe the result in inflexible monetary and fiscal policy, increased
Another that has received much state support and public attention in recent years requires a new plan.
Other proposed right-wing amendments, which, unlike the Equal Rights Amendment, do not guarantee any rights, but promote their denial, include one that requires the death penalty and one that allows prayer to become a part of public school and one that forbids busing to.
outlawing affirmative action programs. And in these days of a Republican Senate, his is no idle threat. In January, Hatch will become the chairman of both the Senate Labor Committee and the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution.
Another near-sighted amendment with an increased chance of being sent to the states for approval is the anti-abortion amendment. Those who believe human life begins with conception wish to impose their will on an entire nation. If their amendment succeeds, one of the main results will be countless tragedies from unsafe, illegal abortions.
Strapped with tunnel vision, Hatch has said he opposes affirmative action programs, which work to overcome the entrenched errors of America's past, because they "show preference of one race over another, and that just isn't right."
unemployment and only limited relief from inflation,
The second method—one never attempted—requires that two-thirds of the state legislatures call for a convention for the "proposing of amendments." Any proposals approved by the convention would then have to be ratified as they are under the first method.
But behind the particulars of all these amendments erasing decades of social progress lies a common fervor that evokes memories of the pointless 18th Amendment Prohibition movement. Today's amendment supporters want to change the country in a way that can't be reversed by the "whims" of a liberal Congress. They want things written in stone.
The first method Article Five provides, the only one that has been used, is the proposal of amendments by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, followed by ratification by the legislatures or conventions of three-fourths of the states.
Such a constitutional convention would create massive chaos. Article Five provides no rules for its operation, and items such as representation, votes needed to approve a measure and financing would have to be arranged—somehow, by someone.
In spite of those roadblocks, Article Five's ambiguity does not eliminate the terrifying prospect of a constitutional convention in the hands of the prayer-in-the-school faction.
The Constitution makes no mention of limitations on a convention. Congress would have no power over the delegates, and the states could be sent a laundry list of reactionary amendments. The Bill of Rights could even be fair game.
The last time such a convention was held, Philadelphia was the host city. That meeting's stated purpose was the alteration of the Articles of Confederation.
In 1787, the result was revolutionary. Next time, who knows where we'll end up.
Letters to the Editor
To the editor:
Kansan errs, politically inconsistent
On behalf of all Kansan readers, I would like to extend my dearest thanks for continuing the steady stream of trash that we have grown accustomed to. The editorial, "It's Agan's turn now," is a compilation of error, inconsistency and vindictiveness.
Concerning error, the statement that the Congress is "still held by a Democratic majority" is, of course, untrue. The Republicans now control the Senate and have made large gains in the House. My confidential source, curiously enough, is the front page of the same edition of your paper. Error is common enough, though.
But the greatest failing of the fault-riddled editorial is the narrow vindictiveness of your theme. Carter, who just lost his job, had the graciousness to ask for unity and cooperation to make Reagan's administration a fruitful one. Perhaps your writers can take a lesson from Carter about detachment from the issue and about placing the affairs of this country above disappointment. Instead of giving us insightful vision, you defend a president by making an election process which you believe has failed you. However, despite this faulted system you disparage, the majority has shown a clear preference you must acknowledge. Reagan won by a count larger than your endorse and the president whom you belatedly defend.
Your paper's inconsistency is much more annoying. Suddenly, after chastising Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan while supporting John Anderson, your paper has flip-flopped. Your paper's support for Anderson is nonexistent in print. You didn't even mention his name. Some things are better left unsaid, I suppose.
Please, next time give a word or two to unity
Seriously, we must look upon your statement, "Carter's term has been a blend of idealism in foreign affairs and realism in economic matters," with skepticism. The past administration has been no blend of anything. It has been a confusion of short-term, inconsistent, incoherent policies. Carter's idealistic foreign policy is, in reality, a mess that has allowed our country to experience long and through the mud periodically. Concerning those realistic economics, here's realism: high unemployment, stagnant productivity, high interest rates, drowning industries and the highest inflation of the century. That's realism; that's the Carter record, and there's no denying it.
Cary DuBois
Instead of mentioning Anderson, your paper has defended Carter. After what you have said about Carter, how do you expect to be believe this blooney? Carter's administration has been a huge failure. All of the accomplishments you listed, except Camp David, were started by Republican administrations. When Carter took office, these were well in the works.
Cary Dubois
Lawrence senior
and cooperation with the president-elect. After all, the long process of the election is over, and it may be best if you would act as if you realize it.
To the editor:
Death wish
I did not vote for Ronald Reagan. I did not want him for our next president, but I was still very taken aback by Roland Garner, as quoted in Scott Faur's column, "I hope he dies soon."
My God. Obviously, Garner either does not take his own statements seriously or, more plausibly, he takes a grade school child's attitude toward death and also toward death. I would ask Garner if he has experienced the death of someone close to him. I believe that if he had, he could not have made that statement. But not at all. Read the obituaries for a week, Garner. People frequently are living into their 80s and 90s. Being the future president of the United States surely does not make Reagan less of a person, less deserving of life.
Who are those voters, Garner? Perhaps I did not choose Reagan. Perhaps you did not, but like it or not, the majority of the American people who voted did. The fact is, majority rules, and because this system is the fairest yet devised, is hoped that the minority will accept the decision the majority instead of making rush decisions hoping that the winning candidate dies.
Perhaps because my own father's death is still so recent, I could be seen as taking this statement too seriously. But even more than the statement, I ask the reader to look at Garner's underlying attitude," "Bush will make an adequate president," he said. Bush had the same chance as Reagan in the primaries, but he was soundly defeated. Given the choice between Carter, Reagan and Anderson, the voters chose Reagan.
Many people have expressed fear because of Reagan's future presidency. Sometimes Reagan does scare me, but people like Garner scare me even more. I thought college students were supposed to be thinking people. Imagine what the nonthinkers must be like.
As for his use of the word "fascist," I suggest Garner find a good dictionary, look up that term, then try to substantiate it with facts, not emotions.
Politics and Christianity To the editor;
Clare Cross-Schmalbeck Lawrence junior
The reason politics and religion often are not discussed in the same breath is that people often believe their rights have been infringed upon. They feel toward judy Dwayne's column of Nov. 4.
Neither Howard, Campus Crusade for Christ nor anyone else has the right to criticize a person for his political beliefs. When Howard says "Christians are free from political labeling because they share a common identity in which there are no political affiliation between them and representatives, hypocrites, because the majority of them are baptized Christians.
This nation's Constitution is based more on Christian beliefs than any other writing of its nature. Our freedoms of speech, press and, of course, religion, are guaranteed to all people by a system of government that relies heavily on political parties and freedom of choice. As citizens of this nation, it is our right and responsibility to choose a president in the way we know it, because we believe that I, or someone else, am wrong because I think Democrats will help this country more than Republicans, or vice versa, is not correct in his thinking.
noward's statement that 'as far as Christians are concerned, prayer—and not political participation—is the primary means of change in America is theoretically correct but very distinguished.'
I agree with Howard that Christ should not be divided by politics. But abolishing political parties is not the answer. Choosing a political party and sticking with it is no sin, and I present the fact that Howard makes many of us feel this way. Party choice is a freedom granted to us, and not one American should feel ashamed to say he is a Democrat or Republican.
We don't vote for a man solely because of his political party anyway. We vote for him because he believes in what the party believes. We choose Democrats because they tend to be liberal, or we choose Republicans because they tend to be conservative. This is a privilege, and anybody who thinks this is wrong is terribly misguided.
If politics were not involved in any way in the choosing of our president, the only man for the job would be Jesus Christ, but, unfortunately, we did not bless by爱护 him on the ballot. Alvin A. Reid
Kirkwood, Mo., junior
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 phone number. Letters should be filleted with the University, the letter should include the writer's class and home town or faculty or staff position.