4
大
Thursday, September 3, 1992
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
University must define boundaries for faculty
Universities nationwide are moving to adopt consistent policies to govern faculty/student relationships. For example, at the University
of Minnesota, even if a faculty/student relationship is based on mutual consent - should the student later issue a charge of sexual harassment - it would not be considered a justifiable defense.
Since February, the School of Law at the University of Kansas deems such relationships unacceptable, unless the relationship existed before the student entered the school. Unfortunately all the other departments at KU do not have similar policies or cautionary notices.
Restrictions on such relationships are not designed to turn humans into asexual beings, but rather to restrain the degree of power that comes with professional positions. Students never should be put in a position where a professor can unfairly influence their grades, recommendations or academic standing.
The power disparity between teachers and students is great. Given the crucial role of mentor and advisor faculty members play, it seems obvious that the introduction of a sexual component is inappropriate.
The crucial question is whether faculty/student relationships are acceptable. A sexual act should never help or hurt a student's grade. Likewise, an instructor should not have to worry about negative evaluations or damaging slurs for refusing a sexual advance by a student.
We can be honest about the need for this ethical code of conduct within the academic community. If violations occur, the victim should neither suffer from nor question the need to document the incident through the proper grievance procedures.
The University community must recognize that these types of relationships have no place in the academic arena. If this happens the number of cases that expose the damaging results to individuals and the University will significantly decrease.
THE EDITORIAL BOARD
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Kansan approaches issue of abortion in fair manner
In an age when The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, and USA Today are all contributors to Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider, the Kansan is to be commended for attempting balance in regard to the abortion issue. I say this particularly after their coverage of the rallies held this summer in which the report for the pro-life rally was on Page 7 as compared to the smaller counter rally being on the first page.
There is one important addition that I would make to the editorial on pro-life feminists, which is to mention that the strong vein of American feminists who do not support abortion includes the likes of Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Mary Wollstonecraft of Great Britain.
In the same area, KU Students for Life is putting together a lecture by a pro-life feminist later this fall to exemplify once again the strong voices in the pro-life feminist movement. I only hope the Kansan will continue its recent efforts for fair and balanced reporting as this issue promises to be pivotal in the coming election.
PatriciaE.Trausch
KANSAN STAFF
ERIC NELSON
Editor
SCOTT HANNA
Business manager
GREG FARMER
Managing editor
BILL LEIBENGOOD
Retail sales manager
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing advice
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
Editors
Asst. Managing ... Alimee Brallan
News ... Alexander Bloemhoff
Editorial ... Stephen Martino
Campus ... Gayle Osterberg
Sports ... Shelly Solon
Photo ... Justin Knupp
Features ... Cody Holt
Graphics ... Sean Tevls / Michael Ries
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr    Angela Cleverman
Regional Sales mgr    Melissa Terali
National sales mgr    Brian Wilkes
Co-op sales mgr    Amy Stumbo
Production mgr    Bradron Ciarlo
Marketing director    Ashley Langford
Creative director    Michael Classified mgr    Judith Standley
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 Texas at Austin are required to include a URL.
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staunfer Fint Hall.
The Kansan reserves the right to reprint or edit letters and columnists. The writer will be photographed.
Hollywood's troubled teenagers mirror trials of America's youth
Drew Barrymore, America's favorite teenage alcoholic and recovering drug addict, announced her engagement to her 23-year old live in this week.
Ahh, there's nothing like young love to turn the stomach.
Because her parents and Hollywood gave her little choice, Drew grew up a lot faster than most kids. But before you begin to think that this is yet another let's-all-cry-for-Drew sob story, it is not. This is a story of pathetic parenting.
After Drew charmed America in "E.T., she began a disastrous downward spiral. At age nine she began to drink. She smoked pot at 10. At 12 she moved on to cocaine. She says her parents were unaware of her nasty little hobbies. What, did no one ever think to ask, "Drew, what exactly are you spending your four-figure allowance on?"
The child was so lost she turned to David Crosby for help. David Crosby? Now that Drew is back with her own TV series everything is supposed to be just great. Her absence mother was
DAVID MITCHELL
so overjoyed at the news of her wayward daughter's impending nuptials she decided to disfigure her body.
"The best thing I can give Drew," she said, "is adding a tattoo somewhere on my body with her name on it."
That's the best thing, you can give her? How about giving her a real mom? Someone should have given her a swift kick in the butt when she was snorting cake in the sixth grade.
If George Bush is really serious about family values, he could make the Barrymores his poster family.
And if you aren't sick of hearing
about arrested, chemically dependent, out of work, embattled child stars — you should be. All three of the "Different Strokes" brats have been in court for one thing or another. Dana Plato sold one to *Playboy* for bail money. I think we could have all done without that, Heff.
Adam Rich was adorable on "Eight is Enough." These days the only camera Adam gets in front of is the one the police use to shoot mug shots.
The problems of these famous teens is just a reflection of the multitude of problems young people face.
The bottom line is, kids are like anything else. You get out of them what you put in. Though I do not think family values is a legitimate campaign issue, education certainly is. Four years ago, Bush said he wanted to be the education president. I hope we all learned from that pledge.
Less than 10 years ago, American children starting school had an average vocabulary of 4,000 words. That average has since been cut in half. In the Kansan reference library there is a dictionary which contains 600,000
entries. With 2,000 words out of 600,000, these children can not even understand the most basic instructions.
American children are being cared. and it is not the fault of the teachers. Parents are not preparing children for school. And politicians are unwilling to spend money on the things that are truly important.
Meanwhile, teachers must deal with kids who have no communication skills. And it takes the most dedicated of people to enter the education field. In this state, first year teachers can expect to make about $20,000.
But at least Mrs. Barrymore can still honor Drew by having her name inked across her backside. Come to think of it, I think I'll give back the car my parents gave me as an early graduation present. After all, if my mom really loved me and my siblings, she'd ease up on worrying, caring and nurturing us and just print our names on her butt.
Associate editorial editor David Mitchell is a DeSoto major senior in journalism.
Quayle's biased critics should stop and listen
As with all political campaigns, this year's presidential campaign has gotten ugly. However, unlike the past, personal attacks have extended beyond the candidates to include running mates, wives and even their children. This ridiculous trend has created feelings of either utter disgust with our political system or a sense of tabloid fanaticism with the lives of the people in the spotlight.
STAFF COLUMNIST
The big loser in the battle of the sleaze is Dan Quayle. OK, so he may be a little unsure of what he's doing every now and then. And he may be more inclined to spend a day on the golf course instead of in Vietnam, but the media needs to lighten up. If people would stop making jokes and listen, they would realize that many of the things Quayle says make sense.
First of all, let's clear up the "potatoe issue" once and for all. It wasn't his fault! He was reading off a card some
DAVID FRANKEL
one else wrote.
And the infamous "Murphy Brown"
Quayle's claim that the show promotes single parent families and is an example of a society gone awry may be a little far fetched, but he does have a point. It has become clear that Americans either do not place as much importance on traditional family values as we used to or we have simply forgotten about them. Norman Rockwell and "Leave it to Beaver" may be outdated, but harking back to
the days when family life was pure and simple is not a bad idea.
On the same note, many people wonder why Quayle thinks he has a right to preach family values and say what is right or wrong. The answer is simple; we all have a right to express our beliefs and opinions. It just so happens that Dan Quayle is in the spotlight. And his traditional beliefs in the church, little league, and the family are not in concurrence with media liberals.
But these ideals are shared by many people in this nation, and critics need to remember that attacks on Quayle's stance on these issues not only ostracize the candidate, but also a large sector of our society. To make clear how utter stupid this whole Quayle bashing thing has become, we need look no further than the Emmy Awards. This program is intended to honor excellence in the television industry. Instead, viewers were
afforded the luxury of listening to such "average Americans" as Kirstie Alley and Candice Bergen air their political beliefs. Was this necessary? Don't we already know that these people do not subscribe to conservative beliefs? It seems to me that people like this are doing the same thing they accuse Quayle of; taking cheap shots at someone who has beliefs different from their own.
Whether you agree with Dan Quayle or think his ideas are foolish is irrelevant. As a political candidate, it is his right and obligation to inform the American people of his views on the issues.
If you do not subscribe to them, do not vote for him. But stop all of this Quailie bashing and let him speak his mind without having to wonder where the next one liner will come from.
David Frankel is a St. Louis senior major ing political science.
Grace
WELL, ROCKY. AS I WAS EXPLAINING TO GRACE BEFORE YOU SO POLITEK BUTTED IN, THIS TOWN IS THE FAST FOOD DINING MECCA OF THE MIDWEST.
by David Rosenfield