Page 4
University Daily Kansan, September 25, 1980
Opinion
The Kansas Board of Regents wants an extra month to consider changing its banner policy. In the meantime, the display of banners at University public events still will be a no-no.
KU wants blue ribbon
The KU Blue Ribbon Committee on Freedom of Speech has recommended that the Regents change the wording of the policy. The banner policy, as it is now, has been used to prohibit banners from being displayed at University public events—and it certainly has generated plenty of controversy.
The Blue Ribbon committee recommended that the policy say, "Freedom of political expression on the campus should be protected subject only to the rights of the University to maintain order, assure the safety of individuals and protect property and the continuity of the educational process."
On a few occasions, protesters displaying banners have been carted off to jail. Ugly confrontations between students and the KU police have marred Commencement the last two years.
The Blue Ribbon committee's recommendations will go to the Council of Presidents, the chief administrators of the state's universities. COPS then will make some kind of recommendation to the Regents Legislative, By-Laws and Policy Committee.
The Blue Ribbon report leaves little room for criticism, and the Regents realize that most of the University is united against the current banner policy.
Acting Chancellor Del Shankel has gone on the record as saying the banner policy needs to be changed, and E. Bernard Franklin, chairman of the Board of Regents, has said the policy needs serious discussion.
The Blue Ribbon report represents four months of hard work by faculty members and students. The committee's report needs prompt attention especially because people have been arrested because of the banner policy.
The Regents are entitled to a month's extra time to scrutinize the Blue Ribbon Committee's recommendations. Yet the Board should not delay the matter any further. The vague banner policy has been a problem for too long.
Spelling, editing blunders hurt integrity of Kansan
To the editor:
I can't take it anymore. Day after day, I open the Kansan, hoping to find in it some semblance of a major college newspaper. Day after day, I open the Kansan, hoping to sample of the load that KU journalism has to offer.
I tell myself that the editors and reporters are under pressure, with classes to attend and tests to study for, as well as deadlines to meet. I tell myself that anyone can make a grammatical error or misspeel a word occasionally. However, you must know 18 Kansan, well, I just can't take it anymore.
The front page hit me with two blatant errors, errors that anyone fancying himself or herself an editor should never have allowed to go to print. The would “doues” (as with the champagne referred to in the caption) was spelled “duces”. Common phonetic usage would seem to make that an obvious mistake. As if this weren't flagrant enough, in a headline on the same page,
lawn* as in 'gunsmoke. Don't they make journalism students take English anymore?
The back page of the paper gave me "hord" instead of "horde" and "anti-climatic" instead of "anti-climactic". In addition, the Royals had "four stole bases" in last night's game. What happened to these pages? The pages was scarcely better, and the editorial cartoons never warrant passing comment.
Colin C. Gage
Student funds support the Kansan, and rightly so. Students write and edit the Kansan, and that, too, is as it should be. But let us not forget that when people other than students read the Kansan, the impression that the paper makes can lead to many conclusions about the education provided at the Kansan. It can be taken as typical, one can hardly be faulted for concluding that someone, somewhere along the line, has not been doing the job.
Lawrence graduate student
An endorsement
The Student Senate's recent inability to attain a quorum underpins a growing problem at KU-apathy. To help conquer this problem, students should elect representatives that truly represent the entire student body. Apathy begins in the freshman class.
Because KU is a school comprised of students of many different interests and backgrounds, we feel that its student representatives ought to reflect this. Accordingly, we wish to endorse the Imagine Action Coalition for freshman class officers.
Appropriately, at the head of the Imagine Action Coalition is Dave Morrison, an independent. Morrison, an Eagle Scout, is a dedicated, hard-working student who really cares about the future of student government at KU. His three years of service in student council
To the editor:
and expertise in government will be quite an asset to the ticket.
In the Imagine Action vice-presidential slot is prep All-American Frank A. Seurer, who, in addition to being a gifted athlete, gives direction off the field as well.
Keith Culter, recently elected secretary-
treasurer of his pledge class, is a relative newcomer to the political scene, and represents the Greek community.
Roundout out the Imagine Action Coalition is Missy Taylor, secretary, another independent. Active in debate, student council, the student newspaper and president of her city-wide youth group, Taylor is the kind of person who can get the job done.
If elected, they have promised to do their best to represent the interests of the entire freshman class along with maintaining a friendly, open atmosphere conducive to student participation.
Excellent tickets like this one are rare and indeed vital to breaking the cycle of apathy: You have no chance to get vaccinated cohesive coalition the chance it deserves to represent the entire freshman class at KU.
Dan Pishny
Wichita freshman
Preachers galore
To the editor:
This Monday morning was much like any other. I had just finished my morning classes and was heading home to have lunch. Shortly after passing Wescoe Beach, I noticed the crowd on the lawn in front of Flint Hall. Had Jed Smok returned? No, he had been replaced by another puerveur of the Word of God. Oh well nothing else, and let her talk - freedom of speech you know.
Let's talk about freedom of speech. I do not begrudge the religious zealots their right to preach, but I do wonder what the situation would be like if these people had the power to stand on the lawn of Flint Hall and air my views on drugs or -married-sex? I doubt it.
Looking back on the noble achievements of the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem witch trials and the temperance movement (still a powerful force in this part of the country), I have no doubt that many of "the Reborn" who open proclaim the Love of God" would have我 stripped of many of my freedoms. These people believe in one liberty; the freedom to obey God's Word.
The preachers have the right to preach, but that doesn't mean you have to listen. You can argue with them, but that is futile. You won't change their minds. You can laugh at them, but that's pretty pathetic entertainment. The most effective weapon you have is your absence. If the preachers don't have an audience, perhaps they will go a way. The next time you see one of these religious zealots, exercise your freedom to walk on by.
Henry May
Henry May Thermopolis, Wyo., senior
The University Daily KANSAN
(USPS 689-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Thursday during June and July except at Saturday, Sunday and holidays. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas 68585. Mail are hll for six months or $7 a year. To receive a copy of the $8 a year coupon, contact the university at (312) 764-8400 or visit the student activity fee. Postmaster: Send changes address to the University Duly弘昆, Flint Hall. The University of Kansas
Editor Career Ruler Managing Editor Editorial Editor Campus Editor Associate Campus Editor Assistant Campus Editors Sports Editor Associate Sports Editor Entertainment Editor Market Manager Wire Editors Real Estate Manager National Sales Manager Campus Sales Manager Claudien Manager Advertising Makeup Manager Staff Artist Staff Photographer Tearneets Manager General Manager and News Adviser General Manager and News Adviser Cynthia Hughes David Lewis Judy Woodburn Jeff Serven Mark Spencer, Don Munday, Cindy Whitcorn Mark Spencer, Matti Arnaud Pattii Arnaud Kevin Milla Ellen Iwanato, Bob Schaad, Jennifer Robles Ellen Iwanato, Bob Schaad, Tim Treuholz Kevin Koster Nancy Clauon Bray Light Treuholz Tracey Coon Jane Wendertblom Julie Sister Brian Waskina Hank Spahr Rick Muske Chuck Winners
Hurry! Hurry! We need the edge over the other guy!
Life's merry-go-round spins at fair
When I returned home several weekends ago, I was looking forward to getting away for a while. After all, I was returning to Hutchison—home of the state fair.
Many people may wonder how a person confined to a wheelchair could enjoy such an event as the state fair. After my visit, I began to have doubts myself.
If you haven't been to a fair while riding in a wheelchair, then you simply haven't lived. When my family arrived at the fair, we had to shell out about $10 just to enter the gate.
The adventure had just begun.
I had to be pushed about a mile just to get to the entrance. Fairground officials don't seem to believe in sidewalls. Gravel and dirt are less expensive and bummier.
By the time we made it to the paved midway, I felt as if I had already been on the world's largest roller coaster. And the ride was only beginning.
"Oh boy," I thought to myself. "It's time for a cool, refreshing drink."
For what seemed days of traveling all over the fairgrounds viewing exhibits and displays, we finally approached a concession stand.
I have difficulty drinking, so I use a straw to help slip down the drink.
"We need a straw for him," my sister told the waiter.
the
tely eny
clay raq no
the dan jor
200 bys, erre
ay iy toi
irais, tsn
nsby
by
"Sorry man," the waiter said. "We don't carry straws."
My sister said something to the effect that we could take care of the problem. I knew what was coming. She would try to pour the drink into my mouth. My sister should have known better.
I knew I should have refused, for the drink would soon be flying all over the fairgrounds.
FRED MARKHAM
because I would choke. But being so thirsty, I couldn't refuse. I took the risk. Sure enough, I started choking. It was be as if Mount St. Helens had to be警觉, it attracted about as much attention as he was.
Now it was time for us to try our luck at a few games. We walked up to some game where the object is to pitch a basketball into a net. My team won several times, but only last several half dollars.
The fair workers felt sorry for me and handed me a large stuffed animal. I quickly turned down the offer.
looking. I have always felt uneasy when I heard she offered me only because 'I am handicapped.'
Then the children wanted a spin on the fair's rides. This is where I quickly stepped aside. I was never enjoyed amusement ride. This is one of them. I'm going on most of them when I was at a tender age.
"This ride is much too dangerous for hand-
cuffs," the workers told me "why. Why don't you try to climb."
Well, one can ride the merry-go-round just so many times until he gets sick of it. The more enjoyable part of the fair for me has always been watching the people. People are by far the most interesting creatures to observe. And especially at an event such as a fair.
They come from all corners of life and do the funniest things when they don't notice they are there.
By the time we made it home, my brother-in-law had blisters from pushing me about 15 miles. And I had a blister on my body for riding 15 miles.
By the time the children had run out of tickets, we all were ready to make the long walk, *er* in.
To say the least, we all came back with empty pockets and tired bodies. But you can bet that by the time the next fair rolls around, we will be foolish enough to go again.
Presidential hopefuls use debates as stage
Independent candidate John Anderson garnered a little more credibility for himself. Republican Ronald Reagan avoided social blunders and further tempered his image as a conservative. Playoffs, he laying out of the "Republican Playoffs," lost no blood from his thick political skin.
The generate left unanswered the question of how useful the forums are if all the candidate is required to do is recall his rehearsed answers to panel members' questions.
The League of Women Voters' Sunday night at the Debates gave the three major presidential candidates a chance they ordinarily would not have had to strengthen their campaigns.
Neither Anderson nor Reagan revealed any new plans to solve the nation's problems. The
forum did provide an opportunity for some voters to consider Anderson's and Reagan's proposals for the first time side-by-side. For that reason, the candidates would do voters a favor by debating at least two more times, with Carter on stage beside them.
Viewers of the debate should not try to determine who won. There could be no losers when each candidate was coached as thoroughly as they were before the debate. The only valid measure of the debate was the judging by a group of forensics experts that included the Kansas director of desserts Denny Parson. The game scored Anderson a arrow winner.
But the matter of hearing the candidates merely repeat what they have said on the campaign trail still remains an obstacle to an open debate. Perhaps the candidates should be asked hypothetical questions that would require instantaneous responses. What would candidate Anderson do if he were president and to whom would he respond as President Reagan do if the Iraqis MIG'ed the hostages? What will President Carter do if Alaska votes to secede from the union?
Decide on the union.
This would enable the voters to witness the
--candidates' minds in action. This format would allow candidates to plan that the candidates may have planned.
As the debates are now, a pristine media image of the candidate is conveyed on the screen. Reagan has "Power Politics" and inerness black mothers baking apples and visiting their local free market businessmen in the afterworks.
Anderson has a vision of a "Realistic America" with determined bureaucrats doggedly searching for the right answers to problems.
Both of these images were conveyed Sunday night, and their result was Debaters 2, Viewers 0. In this sense, the debate was a one-hour advertisement for both candidates.
Carter's no-show decision means that he lost an opportunity to again flaunt his factual recall ability, something he has been doing in "town meetings." To appear at the debate would have crossed his strategy of belittling Anderson and of trying to put Reagan in circumstances in which his brain would revert to a Neanderthalian stage.
It would be to Carter's advantage to appear with Reagan in as many debates as possible. The percentage of Reagan bumbleballs would only increase with each debate.
He could refute most, if not all, of Anderson's major propositions with a barrage of facts. Anderson's 50-cent a gallon gasoline tax could be said to be unnecessary after a series of gasoline usage figures were given by Carter, and the results were most of what Anderson favors regarding taxes.
After all, if President Gerald Ford could say in debate in 1976 that Poland is an autonomous nation, who knows what Ronald Reagan might save?
Carter's "meek, humble Jimmy" image also would be restored after the president's outcrawl
1
By now, it should be clear to the League that its debates are being exploited by the candidates for their political gain. The debates' purpose of informing the public results in redundancies of the candidate for the League should seriously consider dropping the debates or drastically changing their format.