Page 4
Opinion
University Daily Kansan, December 2, 1982
Added fee may backfire
The University of Kansas library system needs more money to stay afloat — and students may be asked to supply the needed revenue.
Jim Ranz, dean of libraries, said budget cuts and the rising cost of books had put the bite on the system's resources. A $100,000 grant from the Endowment Association helped some, but was not enough when applied to the system's $2 million book budget. That grant may be continued, but so far there has been no confirmation from association officials.
He said that the libraries might lose ground if the state did not budget an additional $200,000.
And that is where the students figure in
The University Senate Library
Committee has begun researching the possibility of increasing their activity fees to include a separate library use fee.
"Once we fall behind, though, we can never catch up." he said.
The library system is a vital part of the University, and its resources must be able to support faculty and student research.
David Katzman, committee chairman, said implementing the fee would be "a reluctant step."
However, the library system is not alone in facing hard times. Students, too, are becoming overburdened.
Administrators need to weigh the benefits of a use fee against the possibility that enacting the fee may mean that there would be fewer users.
This may very well be the hardest column I've ever had to write.
Days of deadlines over for one Kansan veteran
**this is my farewell to the troops, so to speak.**
This is my last semester on the Kansan. This is my last column (well, maybe it is). I was tempted to write a letter to my old classmates to kick around any more." But I will refrain.
I've been on the Kanse for six semesters, which is a period somewhat akin to five to 10 a.m. in the afternoon. I didn't know when it was.
TRACEE HAMILTON
Flint Hall was renovated, glass cases were installed outside the newsroom, and I lived in constant dread that someone would creep behind me, shove me in, lock the door and post a said that. "She made a career of the Kansan" or, "Traces Hamilton, 1800-1982."
I think I've set a Kansan record for longevity, although I can't be sure of that. Even now, it doesn't seem possible that I won't be back. At the end of every semester, nearly everyone on the staff starts screeching. "I'll never come back" is the most common, never, never. "Few mean I look are hooked."
People ask me whether I'll miss it, whether I enjoy being a student again. I know I won't miss the work, the late hours, the angry phone calls. But I will tell a lot of things.
As the semester winds down, I think about what my wonderful life will be like once I don't have the Kansas taking up my time. I'll be able to eat my meals at home and at normal times. I can go to bed early and sleep late. I can study. Now I'm panicking. And remembering.
I cried the day we moved into our spacious, sterile newsroom. The newer staffers couldn't understand why anyone would miss the old gray hole in which we used to work, with its huge glass windows that always made us feel as if we were on display.
Oh, that room had personality. I stood in the raped remains of that room in which I had spent two years of my life. I stared at the old sports desk. I would lay out the sports page on that desk in the evening, eat my supper on it late at night and often roll up my coat and sleep on it until morning, when a classmate or professor would walk me to the soles of my shoes and woke me for class.
I remember the people, certainly. I've worked for six wonderful editors; I've brought some good young writers onto the staff, just as someone brought me on the staff long ago.
But more than anything or anyone else, I think of the readers. I love to spot someone reading my column on campus, a total stranger. I'll approach the person, in the lines at Wescoe or in the Union, and say, "Boy, isn't she terrific? What a great column!" or "God, does that strike you? I can't believe part of me! You see, I fooled you all this semester by putting my nail and wearing glasses after my column photo was taken. I've been incognito all semester).
The other letters range anywhere from thoughtful, incursive argument and discussion to ridiculously insulting pabulum. One reader wrote in to say that because I had made a syntax error (Sorry, dcc., read, paparazzi is a plural word!), I should either work for People magazine or pursue an MRS. degree. I failed entirely to see the connection between faultless grammar and husband-chasing, but I'm sure this fellow had some sort of a point.
My second-favorite reply was to my column on the University's explay from Boybler's list of sexual campus hotbeds. Someone actually believe that that extremely satirical column
But most letters, like most readers, are great. The reward for those of us who have worked on the Kansan, you see, is not the paycheck. Believe me.
I get some wonderful reactions, and most of the people never guess who I am, or do guess and become frightfully embarrassed. My favorite reactions, however, are the letters I've received. I save them all quite faithfully. The nice, complimentary letters always say, "Thank you for the good job." So thanks to all you thousands of people who wrote in — you have excellent taste.
The day after the publication of my column on small-town kids and how difficult it is for them to deal with city kids' stereotypes, a young man came into the newsroom and asked for Tracee Hamilton. I said, "She's not here; who wants her?" which is my patented safe answer, just in case I offended the local chapter of Costa Nostra." I just wanted to tell her thanks. I'm from Medicine Lodge. She said exactly what I would say."
Good writing, as I see it, should tell a story. The writer should talk to the reader. It needs to be entertaining, enlightening and informing. And if you're lucky, every now and then the reader will say, "That's just what I would like to." I hope that of those who have read my column this semester have felt, at least once, that I was talking to you.
I hope I have said something along the way that you've always wanted to say
Naturally, I fessed up and we had a nice chat.
He had naid me a high compliment.
President violating war powers
By SEN. THOMAS EAGLETON New York Times Special Features
WASHINGTON—President Reagan's deployment of U.S. Marines in Lebanon should have rekindled debate about the line between Congress's constitutional power to declare war and the power of the president as commander-in-chief, and on the scope of the War Powers Act.
Having been intimately involved in drafting the War Powers Act, I believe that the president is violating the spirit if not the letter of that law. Equality important, his decision not to comply with certain crucial provisions of the act illustrates the weakness of the act itself.
Most Americans believe that the act reasserted Congress's authority to declare war—a historic reaction to the danger of presidential war-making that was demonstrated by America's involvement in Vietnam without a congressional declaration of war.
The act did originate in that spirit. Legislation that the Senate approved would have reaffirmed Congress's constitutional responsibility to declare war; under that legislation, the president could have committed troops to likely combat situations without prior congressional approval only in carefully specified, emergency situations.
However, compromises with the House over a different bill it approved resulted in congressional surrender and actually turned the Constitution on its head. For the first time, Congress gave the president carte blanche to wage war or move troops into situations where hostilities were imminent for up to 90 days without congressional approval.
The Lebanon situation shows that even the 90-day deadline — to its defenders, the redeeming feature of the act — can be an illusion. The difficulty is that while the legislation does require the president to report to Congress in every case where troops are introduced into a foreign country while equipped for combat, the 90-day limit on the president's unilateral decision applies only when troops have been introduced "in time" where immediate involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances."
That language seems to apply to the sending of Marines to Lebanon. The risk of placing our troops in West Beirut was clearly evident when Reagan dispatched an 800-man contingent on Aug. 25. Subsequent tragic events — the assassination of President-elect Bashar Gemayel, the slaughter of Palestinians in the Shattai and Sabra camps — only intensified the risks associated with the retreat returned by 1,200 personnel Sept. 29. The accidental death of one Marine in a land mine explosion and the injury of four more illustrates the potential jeopardy our troops face.
Moreover, news reports have indicted the possibility that the American troops' mission might be expanded and that the multinational force might be substantially enlarged.
Yet, under the War Powers Act, the administration has been able to avoid the 90-day deadline and proceed unilaterally simply by asserting "there is no intention or expectation that U.S. armed forces will become involved in hostilities."
The administration took the position, during the debate over sending military advisers to El Salvador, in January 2014.
satisfied unless troops have been authorized to "accompany foreign forces into the field on operational missions."
No, Congress did not intend "imminent hostilities" to be viewed so restrictively. A House committee report on the act, for example, defines "hostilities" to include situations where "there is a reasonable expectation that American military personnel will be subject to hostile
The substance of the policy is not the issue. I share the president's view that Middle Eastern peace demands a stable Lebanon and that risks being used to help President Amin Gemayel be government.
Congress undoubtedly would approve the commitment of troops as part of the multinational force. But if the War Powers Act and the lessons of Vietnam stand for anything, they should mean that the president cannot unilaterally commit troops to war in a way organized for an indefinite time. The policy is strengthened, and the Constitution respected, if Congress approves the action.
The Lebanon experience suggests that the act did not succeed in reasserting Congress's authority or in substituting the rule of law for a more flexible relationship between Congress and the executive branch.
Conceived with the noblest of intentions, the act still depends on presidential good will. If a president wants to evade the teeth in the act, he can do so with impunity, for no court will take him to task. A law that relies so much on presidential discretion and willingness to share power cannot be an effective check on executive power.
Sen. Thomas Eagleton, D-Mo., is a member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Sub-
Constitution-amending latest fad in capital
By DICK WEST
United Press International
WASHINGTON—Basically, there are two ways to go about getting things done in this city. One way is to create a new federal department, build it, and it is that needs more
One way is to create a new table to handle whatever it is that needs more
Cramming
handling. The other way is to amend the Constitution.
Cabinet-padding right now is in a bit of a slump. More than 200 years after the dawning of the republic only 13 federal departments are in charge, and President Reagan wants to abolish two of them.
Constitution-amending, by contrast, is on a bit of a roll. Over the years, 38 amendments have been adopted, or twice the number of Cabinet posts now in the table of organization.
Outbreak 26 may strike some citizens as rather a meager total, perceived paucity has not caused harm.
According to a recent count by Common Cause, a self-described "citizens" lobbying organization," there are no fewer than 215 proposed constitutional amendments pending in the House.
If the amendment proposers have their way, says the organization's magazine, "The Constitution will soon have all the permanence and stability of the Dow Jones Index."
The magazine also notes that many of the lawmakers who have introduced their own additions to the Constitution "have simultaneous commitments as co-sponsors for other people's amendments."
"This is a little like working for General Motors and driving a Ford." Common Cause savs.
rept. Robert Lagomarsino, R-Calf, is identified as the current amendment-proposing champion. The magazine reports that he won "the first new amendments in a single day last year."
Next to abortion, school prayer, busing and mandatory balanced budgets, the most popular subject is election reform.
subject to later amendments tinker with terms of office for presidents and members of Congress, "says Common Cause.
"One amendment limiting House membership to 12 years is co-sponsored by Rep. George Brown Jr., D-Calif, who is in his 18th year in the lower chamber."
Another election reform amendment specifies that a presidential candidate have "no more than one" vice president running mate. The effect, Common Cause points out, would be to stamp out "the widespread practice of tag-team candidacy."
A couple of other congressmen with only slightly less seniority have endorsed similar proposals, prompting Common Cause to call out its leaders. The group has called on society, "stop me before I run again!"
However, the magazine picks as its favorite proposal an amendment that falls under the heading of "Constitutional rights." It would limit the Electoral College to voting for pairs of citizens who are born in the United States, putting their names as candidates for the offices of president and vice president.
Such an amendment, says Common Cause
ensures that no American will ever be forced
to pay taxes.
To that extra effort to "secure the blessings of liberty," I can only say, "Hear! Hear!"
Dick West is a columnist for United Press International.
The University Daily
KANSAN
Rita Ramakrishnan (105438 65-64) is published at the University of Kansas, 1118 Pintail Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60043, daily during the regular yeared school and Monday through Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., and is also posted on the course pageaday at Lawrence. Kim 60044 Subscribes by mail are $15 for six months or $29 a year in Louisiana Coastal College, but payment is free for the POSTMARK. Send address changes to the University Daily
Editor
Gene George
General Manager and News Adviser
Advertising Adviser
1
Business Manager
Susan Cooksey
Paul Jens
John Goberant