4A the university daily kansan
opinion
monday, October 6, 2003
perspective
Letters serve as a powerful 'weapon' for change
Editor's note: The following is a piece, "Cap Flaps," that was broadcast on Kansas Public Radio program on Sept. 27, 2003.
Has something ticked you off enough to consider writing a letter to the editor of The University Daily Kansan? If so, don't stifle that urge. Go with it. You may end up making a little bit of history.
That's precisely what happened on September 26, 1944, 59 years ago right about now, when an irritated freshman penned a letter complaining about KU's infamous cap rule. His name was Art Brooks. The object of his annoyance was a longstanding KU tradition that required first-year male undergraduates to wear a beanie.
Freshmen caps had been a custom at college campuses across the country since about 1900. They seem to have made their first appearance at KU in 1905. Supposedly, the required wearing of these beanies was a means of instilling school and class spirit. But practically, they were a visual marker. They set freshmen apart from everyone else, and identified them as an outgroup.
group.
And woe be to those freshmen who failed to follow the rule. They could suffer several humiliating consequences. These included a severe paddling, an involuntary dip in Potter Lake, or being tossed repeatedly into the air from huge canvass blankets. Members of campus leadership organizations such as the K—Club—a group of KU lettermen from all sports—served as the enforcers.
In this day and age, it's hard to believe that university administrators tolerated this situation. But they did. Occasionally, complaints about this form of class warfare caused the cap rule to be suspended. But given that it offered license to the latent violence in most of us, the requirement always managed to resurrect itself. It was the KU tradition that would not die.
Which brings us to September 1944, and Art Brooks' letter to the editor. Brooks was no ordinary freshman. And 1944, of course, was no ordinary time. World War II was still raging in Europe and Asia. Brooks was a veteran.
"What the hell is going on here?," he thundered in the UDK after learning that George K. Dick, head of the K-Club, intended to revive the cap rule for the 1944-45 academic year. "We are here to learn to take our place in the world, to be able to prevent another war, and not to have a riproaring good time." Brooks went on write about his friends overseas who were fighting and dying while all this frivolity was taking place at KU. "In the face of this," Brooks concluded, "I for one do not care to indulge in stupid pranks such as the wearing of a hat on certain days."
The other 40 or so World War II veterans enrolled as freshmen rallied around Brooks. They too had no intention of submitting to this practice let alone the consequences for non-compliance. Dick quickly withdrew his edict — at least part way — and declared that veterans would be exempt from the cap rule. But this hasty retreat was the beginning of the end. The Great Cap Flap of 1944 was a turning point. Thanks to Brooks and his fellow veterans, the cap rule was finally on the way out for good. When the war was over, returning veterans on the GI Bill flooded the KU campus, meaning more and more freshmen could ignore the cap rule with impunity. In April 1948, the All-Student Council abolished the practice forever.
forever.
It all started with one person willing to take a stand. There's no reason why similar results can't happen now. That's one way history is made. So, today, tomorrow, next week, next month — whenever you see some idocy that needs to be eliminated — turn on your word processor. Crank out that letter to the editor.
Henry Fortunato is project director of This Week in KU History, an e-history of the University of Kansas accessible at kuhistory.com. He received an master's degree in American history from KU in May 2003.
Think of it as your own weapon of mass...instruction.
beeler's view
Racist accusations miss point
perspective
GUEST COMMENTARY
Matthew Pirotte
opinion@hansan.com
This media circus surrounding Rush Limbaugh is hardly surprising given the state of race relations in America today. For those of you who haven't been following the news, the conservative talk radio host said the following on an ESPN pregame show regarding Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb:
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well."
Rush was opining that McNabb was not as good a player as some might suggest and his success might be more accurately attributed to the quarterback's teammates.
teammates.
Limbaugh scarcely drew a breath before someone got outraged and branded him a racist. In reality, to suggest such a matter based on this comment is ludicrous, offensive and dangerous.
Rush's "crime" was the criticism of an African-American man. Further, he suggested this man was receiving undue support just for being black. At no point did he make any statement regarding how McNabb's status as an AfricanAmerican affected his worth or performance and therefore his comment cannot be construed as racist in any rational manner.
Limbaugh is addressing, or more properly falling victim to, a vastly larger social issue; the hypersensitivity of American minorities. This hypersensitivity is as counterproductive as it is undeniable.
Race is still a cause for much animosity and social strain in America. Yet, instead of being able to air their opinions on this fact, those races not considered "underrepresented" or "oppressed" enough are strictly forbidden from discussing race except in the most conciliatory and apologetic terms.
McNabb. I confess ignorance on the relative merits of NFL quarterbacks, but he is exactly correct in his suggestion that structures exist in artificially prop up minorities. Affirmative action? Racial quotas? "Critical masses?" What are these but societal constructs aimed at the advancement of certain minorities that are not offered to other groups considered unworthy of special treatment?
Rush might be dead wrong about
But what happens when these structures are criticized? Accusations of racism come flying in en masse. Simply put, criticism of high-profile minorities and attacks on preferential treatment of minorities are taboo in America (oday. Such criticism can never be undertaken without an immediate accusation of bigotry. If we are to work toward a utopia in which people do not see color, we should all be free to discuss race and its implications without fear of attacks on our characters.
If, here at the closing of this piece, you find yourself accusing the author himself of being a racist, read it again. You really missed the point.
Pirotte is a Joplin, Mo., senior in history and a Kansan editorial board member.
perspective
Current drinking age not the answer
In light of the fact that I turned 21 this week, I have been thinking about why this magic number seems to hold so much value to young Americans today. Of course, it centers on one fact: drinking alcohol is now legal. No more sneaking around or using fake IDs. Now when you enter a bar, club or restaurant, drinking illegally is no longer a concern. The phenomenon surrounding the legal drinking age is an undercurrent of today's American youth culture. It is ever-present in social situations and always on people's minds, whether it is worrying about getting caught underage, risking a black mark on one's record or waiting for the day that drinking in public will not be such a problem.
COMMENTARY
since a prisoner in 1984, all states passed the Minimum Drinking Age Act for fear of losing federal highway funding. The United States has the highest drinking age in the world. It is also one of the most strictly enforced drinking laws. Because of this, drinking underage is an act that, for many, is not merely rebellious, but also potentially harmful to one's future. A minor-in-possession charge can result in not getting a job or gaining acceptance to some schools. But usually, the risk of being caught is one the majority of underage drinkers are willing to take. It is similar to other situations where forced abstinence is not working. Rather than trying to crack down on minors, officials must look to
Sara Zalar
opinion@kansan.com
alternative means of reducing the injuries and fatalities caused by drinking. Education and moderation are two alternatives.
While it is apparent drinking alcohol has much more stigma in American society than in other various countries, a study compiled at State University of New York indicates exactly why. One reason is its unavailability, in theory, to people under 21, therefore increasing the desire to obtain it. Another reason: even in groups of legal drinking age, there is pressure to drink to fit in and be on the same level as others. In other countries, particularly in Europe, this stigma does not exist because alcohol is much more ingrained into the culture, rather than set aside as a substance of power and control. People grow up with the moderate use of alcohol as a part of their daily lives and see it as no more special than the food they eat.
is socially unacceptable in many of these countries, drinking for the purpose of getting drunk is not common. When it does happen, it is generally frowned upon. Drinking is a purely social and cultural activity, and there is no pressure either to drink or not to drink or any problems associated with either extreme. Even in most of these countries, where the legal age is either 16 or 18, underage drinking is not the crime it is in America, because families, rather than the government, place most limitations on drinking alcohol and many other activities.
Remove the stigma, and many of the problems associated with alcohol will dissipate. Minors make up 25 percent of all alcohol consumption in the United States. Perhaps drinking loses its appeal after the novelty of rebellion is removed. The problems of alcoholism and binge drinking still occur however, because for many people those habits are formed in the early stages of alcohol consumption. In order to combat these issues, rather than pushing an abstinenceonly program, addressing the problems head on is the solution. Educating people on the true nature of alcohol and its effects is a far more efficient way of reducing the number of crimes and tragedies that result from alcohol abuse.
Also, because irresponsible drinking
Zafar is a Wichita junior in history
talk to us
Michelle Burhenn editor
864-4854 or mburhenn@kansan.com
Lindsay Hanson and Leah Shaffer
864-4854 or ihanson@kansan.com and
lshaffer@kansan.com
Louise Stauffer and Stephen Shupe
Louise Stauffer and Stephen Shuper
opinion editors
864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
Amber Agee
business manager
864-4958 or adductor@kansan.com
864-4358 or adddirector@kansan.com
Taylor Thode
retail sales manager
864-4358 or adsales.kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
864-7667 or mgilbon@kansan.com
Matt Fisher
sales and marketing adviser
864-7666 or mfisher@kansan.com
Call 864-0500
For more comments, go to www.kansan.com
Free for All
free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
To your commentators: What the hell are you thinking? Do you think before you write or do the words just spew from your fingers like gravy? Sweet, sweet loving, good Lord on high, what is going on?
It is a total turn off to put a cigarette behind your ear. You better stop doing that. You know who you are.
To my snobby roommate: The earth revolves around the sun, not you.
-
图
Damn, I wish I had some candy corn.
I am prn- life for slugs.
Screw Halloween, folks. It is T minus 84 days until Christmas.
-
My backpack is secretly a slinky in disguise.
1
61