4
Wednesday, November 18, 1992
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Homophobes cause stir over military ban on gays
A federal judge's order that the Navy must reinstate a homosexual sailor caused an uproar that increased last week when President-elect Bill Clinton reiterated his plans to lift the military's ban on homosexuals.
Much of the opposition to lifting the ban centers around the argument that openly homosexual members of the military would be disruptive and detrimental to standard military operation.
In the past 10 years, about 14,000 men and women have been kicked out of the military for being homosexual. But many homosexuals remain in the services by keeping their sexual orientation secret.
And these people are not disruptive to the military by the mere fact of their homosexuality. Their orientation only becomes disruptive when homophobic people react to it.
Military officials have argued that lifting the ban on homosexuals will cause a mass exodus of members from the military. But perhaps the military would be a better institution without a concentration of homophobic people.
Clinton was correct in making the following statement:
"I don't think (homosexual) status alone, in the absence of some destructive behavior, should disqualify people."
The military's negative reaction to the lifting of the ban should certainly be taken into consideration. And, as one senior officer suggested, an educational program should be established within the military to educate members about homosexuality.
But the military should not be allowed to continue its 50-year-old policy of discrimination. Clinton should sign an executive order to overturn it, and Congress should amend the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
JUILIE WAASSFON FOR THE EDIFICIOR BOARD ART
JUILIE WAASSFON FOR THE EDIFIER BOARD ART
Kansan Editorial Board:
Dobbie Brodsky, Mark Coatney, David Frankel, Ann Juryck, Jenny Martin, Stephen Martino, David Mitchell, Eric Nelson, Jeff Reynolds, Janet Rorholt, Julie Wasson and Frank Williams
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Leave Khmer Rouge out of peace talks
The main preoccupation of UNTAC (the U.N. peacekeeping operation in Cambodia) has been on the May 1993 elections and in ensuring that an internationally acceptable government is installed in power in Phnom Penh after that.
The Khmer Rouge on the other hand are more interested in the period after the elections, when UNTAC leaves Cambodia and the new government succumbs to unbridled capitalism and corruption and becomes an administration hated by the people.
A Khmer Rouge-ruled Cambodia between 1975-78 was synonymous with horror, and the artisans of the U.N.-brokered peace agreement have to ensure that peace, democracy and development become achievable goals in the country. Clearly, the Paris peace agreements have to be amended to exclude the Khmer Rouge to ensure that the people of Cambodia do not become slaves again.
The Nation Bangkok, Thailand
KANSAN STAFF
ERIC NELSON
Editor
GREG FARMER
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
SCOTT HANNA
Business manager
BILLLEIBENGOOD
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
Ast. Managing ... Almee Brianard
News ... Alexander Blohmhof
Editorial ... Stephen Martino
Campus ... Gayle Ostergård
Sports ... Shelly Solon
Photo ... Justin Krupp
Features ... Cody Holt
Graphics ... Sean Tevs
Business
Campus sales mgr Angela Cleverenger
Regional sales mgr Melletta Tempelz
National sales mgr Brian Wilkes
Co-op sales mgr Amy Stumbo
Production mgrs Brad Bron
Kim Caxton
Marketing director Ashley Lungford
Creative director Valerie Spicher
**Letters** should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Wisconsin should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be **Guest columns** should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The Kausen reserves the right to reedit or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can also use special characters such as `<u>` or `<i>`.
Differences between people should not end friendships
Friendship is a funny thing. Just when you think you know people, they turn around and do something to you that catches you completely off guard. You invest a lot of things in the friendship — time, energy and feelings. You try to be supportive in times of crisis, encouraging in times of opportunity and trustworthy at times in between. And just when those investments should have accumulated and amounted to something, you find that someone has taken a large withdrawal at your expense.
EDITORIAL EDITOR
This idea is what I call the drunkdriver mentality. No matter what you do, there is only one person who matters. If drunks who got behind the wheel of a car realized the potential risks they were to others, fewer people would become tragic victims. This also applies to friendships with others. The decisions you make rarely effect only yourself but untold numbers of others. Words and actions can seem to have virtually no effect, when instead they have far-reaching impact.
For over a year now I thought that I had been working on a good friendship. A friendship with the kind of person that I could hang out with, go drinking with, talk with — a relationship that I thought would amount to a life-long friendship. Over time I thought that I had invested enough to earn this person's respect and trust. But I found out recently that I hadn't.
I was taught that you get out of something what you put into it. I was taught that hard work and determination would pay rewards for the future that couldn't be imagined at the time they were invested. At the same time, friendship is not an absolute science.
It doesn't hurt that the source of my split with my friend was self-serving grounds. It doesn't even hurt that I was used as a front for his own goals. What hurts is the lack of consideration given to the impact of his decision to myself and many other good people. It still amazes me that after everything that people do for others, there are those who only see one person involved in their decisions - them.
STEPHEN MARTINO
You can pay in and pay in and not see any rewards. And the discouraging part is that you look back over time and ask what went wrong.
selves.
And in the end, after looking back,
you have only two choices. Do you
allow yourself to throw the friendship
away and forget things you had spent
so much time building? Or do you
work to improve upon the differences
that have occurred and try to salvage
your investment? Too often we sit back and allow the anger and resentment to fester to the point that the only choice remaining is to lose the friendship. Instead, we should try to salvage what may be left and begin to do those things that will rebuild trust.
So often I listen to people point to others and say, "We used to be friends, but we had a fight and haven't spoken in years." Unfortunately, I see myself at times saying those exact things.
A blind and unguarded ambition is a terrible thing to lose a friendship over. At the same time, so is stubbornness to change and stubbornness to seeing things from a different vantage point. Say and do what you will, but the friendships you make and the ones you keep tell about the person you truly are.
Editorial Editor Stephen Martino is an an-
tolier junior majoring in political science.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Big names out culture clubs in
In the President's Incorporated newsletter for November, the student body president describes the actions of Student Senate pertaining to the financing of organizations here on campus, Garlinghouse states, "Well, Senate killed the lecture-series bill. Certainly there is no question that $15,000 is a lot to spend on any speaker, but let me offer a comparison. This year we have spent almost $8,000 to fund international student organizations. Now I'm not necessarily trying to say that these groups are not worthy of funding. However, these same groups represent exactly 5 percent of the student body."
Brad Garlinghouse has made yet another indirect attack on KU's international community.
isfy the students' true desires. His reasoning fails to address a couple points:
Garlinghouse's column suggests the money has not been used to sat-
1. The international community on campus may be 5 percent, but what percentage of students have an interest in any international culture? Hopefully at 99.9 percent! The other. 1 percent includes the student senators who wonder why the Japanese students won't drink Nestea instead of imported green tea. The culture clubs on campus have a goal to bridge the culture gaps in the United States and destroy the ignorance that dwells in those gaps. True, some clubs have been organized to give some international students a comfort zone of similar peoples to associate with. But the majority of the culture clubs work to promote awareness and understanding among U.S. students.
2. If the student funds total $1.2 million, as Garlinghouse reports, then the international group that totals 5 percent has contributed
$60,000 to this fund. Is $8,000 of that amount too much to ask?
It seems that frustration with financial matters has led you to lash out at the groups that may not interest you. It all comes down to the importance of diversity in a well-rounded education. Should we pay Spike Joe or Magic Johnson thousands of dollars to fill Allen Field House with one-sided, temporary wisdoms, or should we give students the money to create a multitude of organizations that teach the curious about centuries-old customs and traditions of the world?
The awareness groups on campus do a great job of creating awareness for the issues facing us today. Dumping large sums of money on big stars helps random cases only for a temporary period, after which the awareness groups will realize all the other long-term benefits that could have been achieved with that money.
Roy Schmidt Tulsa, Ok., junior
KATE KELLEY
U.S. forces should end outdated restrictions
The military is in the spotlight again this month over two issues that are very much related. A military panel released an opinion that women should not be allowed in combat positions because to do so would cause morale problems and inhibit mission readiness. At the same time, the courts are waiting to hear whether President-elect Bill Clinton will lift the ban on homosexuals in the military.
No doubt a special panel will deliverate and tell us that by allowing homosexuals to stay (they are already there) in the military, they will cause morale problems and inhibit mission readiness.
The same thing would happen today if the military dropped all restrictions on gender and sexual orientation. The bigoted, unprofessional dregs would be replaced by dedicated, qualified professional soldiers who have a desire to work together to create a better unified force.
A four star general said of Clinton's promise to lift the homosexual ban, "Good people will leave the military in droves over this."
Fifty years ago, special military panels were deliberating whether African-Americans and whites could effectively serve side by side in the same units. The morale problems would inhibit military preparedness. Many good soldiers would leave the ranks if forced to eat and sleep in the same quarters as someone of another race. But the constitution said that it was wrong. That was discrimination. That was unconstitutional. The military was forced to integrate, and (surprise, surprise) it worked. If the racial bigots threw down their guns and went home, nobody really missed them.
If all the racist, sexist homophobes exited en masse from the military, would this be a bad thing?
For years, the mission of the U.S. military has been moving away from that of conquering aggressor to that of peace maker/pace keeper. The old caricature of the snake-head biting, mean, lean, killing-machine soldier no longer fits most purposes of the armed forces. The military is now a world of experts in computers, science, diplomacy, humanitarianism and medicine. Most jobs do not really require a 300-pound mountain man who can bench press a steer. And adequate physical fitness has never been limited to heterosexual males.
Tim Allen, star of the sitcom "Home Improvement," always uses his famous pig grunt to poke fun at stereotypical macho-male behavior. He says, "All men are pigs. Grunt like the pigs you are."
These controversies are not going to go away. The military has often been a leading force in integration. They could once again be pioneers and positive role models for our society by dropping the discriminatory restrictions on women and homosexuals. They could show that any individual who has the desire and ability can succeed.
The laughter he incries from both men and women shows that, of course, not all men are pigs. But the tendencies are often there.
Kate Kelley is a Fort Leavenworth junior
morning in English.
501 Bluez
By Moses Smith