Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY Kansan
Published daily since 1912.
Lindsey Henry, Editor Andrea Albright, Managing editor Tom Eben, General manager, news adviser
Sarah Scherwinki, Business manager Brian Pagle, Retail sales manager Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser Justin Knup, Technology coordinator
Tuesday, December 9, 1997
DAILY KENT STATER
Examining
Better communication is key to the Kansan Board's decisions
Many within the University community disagreed when on Nov. 24th, the Kansan Board decided to fire Spencer Duncan, the editor of "The University Daily Kansan." In making that decision, the Kansan Board opened itself to an examination of how well it discharged its responsibility to represent the views of the University and the students it serves.
Three journalism faculty members, the editor of the "Kansan," the business manager of the "Kansan," and a Student Senate representative comprise the Kansan Board.
Duncan was the subject of the meeting and the Student Senate representative was not present, so that left the three faculty members, Duncan and the business manger as the only members who voted when the decision to fire Duncan was made.
The Kansan Constitution states that the editor of the "Kansan" acts at the "the pleasure" of the Kansan Board. These four members fired Duncan because they were "displeased" with some of the editorial desicions he made, specifically concerning headlines that were deemed
offensive to the University community. But what University community or journalistic standards do the board members really represent?
Three of the five board members who made the decision to fire Spencer were faculty members, none under the age 49. The majority of "Kansan" readers are students in their 20s. Yes, headlines like "Blow Me" are in bad taste, but they are less offensive to college kids than then they are to the much smaller, over 40 years old contingent of "Kansan" readers.
Perhaps if the board had operated under its three student, three faculty composition, they would have decided that Duncan's mistakes were not necessarily grounds for termination. If the board had asked the student body, or better yet a large amount of the "Kansan" staff, they would have found many positive and professional aspects of Duncan's performance as an editor, and may have thought twice about the decision.
The manner in which the Karsan Board acted was not only stodgy, it was precipitous. Duncan had no
prior warning that his mistakes were so fatal. Although it is good that the Kansan Board, in the past, has taken a very hands-off approach when governing the "Kansan," a little more communication between the "Kansan" and the board might help the board to understand the goals of the "Kansan" and surely would help the editor understand the expectations of the board. In this case, a bit more contact could have made Duncan's termination avoidable, or at least better justified.
The Kansan board needs to ask itself whether its decision accurately represents the University community of readers, both students and adults. The board did not have a good line of communication with the "Kansan" before, and now that they've found themselves in a legal — perhaps First Ammendment — crack, the communication has ceased completely. If the board doesn't seek some sort of dialogue with the students it represents, it will being doing the University a disservice both educationally and journalistically.
Elizabeth Musser for the editorial board
Thanks for reading, now get involved
On behalf of the entire "Kansan" staff, we would like to thank you, the reader, for taking the time to peruse our paper.
We'd also like to thank those of you who participated in the discussions that took place on this editorial page. It was our intention to get more student voices into the paper.
While that was not accomplished in every case, there has been good dialogue on a number of issues facing our student community. It needs to continue.
Each semester the "Kansan" staff renews itself. New people are assigned to new positions and the paper quickly develops its own unique attitude and outlook about campus events.
As always, it is journalism students who are in the management position at the "Kansan."
Where you can get involved is on the opinion page. Write letters to the editor and guest columns. Apply to be on
the editorial board. It is in these ways that the "Kansan" will become what its masthead proclaims: "The Student Newspaper of the University of Kansas."
Jason Strait and Bradley Brooks Editorial page editors
Kansan staff
Bradley Brooks ... Editorial
Jason Strait ... Editorial
Jodie Chester ... Neus
Jen Smith ... Neus
Adam Darby ... Neus
Charity Jeffries ... Online
Kristie Blasi ... Sports
Tommy Gallagher ... Assocate Sports
Dave Morantz ... Campus
Eric Weslander ... Campus
Ashleigh Roberts ... Features
Steve Puppe ... Photo
Bryan Volk ... Design, graphics
Mitt Lucas ... Illustrations
Mark McMaster ... Wire
Ann Marchand ... Special sections
Lachel Rhoades ... Neus clerk
News editors
Advertising managers
Matt Fisher . Assistant retail
Michael Soifer . Campus
Colleen Eager . Regional
Anthony Migliazzo . National
Jeff Auslander . Marketing
Chris Hagirian . Internet
Brian LeFevre . Production
Jen Wallace . Production
Dustin Skidgel . Promotions
Tyler Cook . Creative
Annette Hoover . Public relations
Rachel O'Neill . Classified
Jaime Mann . Assistant classified
Marc Harrell . Senior account executive
Scott Swedlund . Senior account executive
"Will the wind ever remember the names it has blown in the past?"
Broaden your mind:
How to submit letters and guest columns
Jimi Hendrix
Letterers: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and home-town if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
Guest columns Should be double-
spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stuaffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Bradley Brooks (brooks@kansan.com) or Jason Strait (istraht@kansan.com) at 864-4810. If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4810.
Daisy Hill voting site, earmuffs face dilemma
My friend Franklin Brunch was depressed.
Raving
"Why is it," he moaned, "that the Student Senate has to be such a pathetic pack of politicos? They con-
Clay McCuistion
I was sitting in Frank's residence hall room, as he took long sips from a glass of what I thought was probably vegetable juice.
"I don't know," I said. Why should you care?"
"I'm the chairman for the petition drive to establish a Daisy Hill earmuff-pickup site," he said.
opinion@kansap.com
"Earmuff pickup site?" "Of course! Think of all.
the kU students whose ears are freezing — and perhaps being permanently damaged — by winter weather. There are your usual ear-muff-pickup sites at Wescoe Beach and on, but one is really needed close to the residence balls."
"You mean the Student Senate rejected such a useful hill?"
Frank sighed and drank more vegetable juice. "Yes. The earmuff bill has had a long and troubled history in the senate," he explained. "A large group of senators think students should buy their own earmuffs."
"Exactly. We've told them over and over that the average poverty-strenken college student can't afford decent earnuphs, but they feel that earnuphs are a privilege, not a right."
"But the cost of earmuffs these days!"
"Shows what elitists most senators are, I guess."
"The first year we proposed it — the 1995-96 school year — it was shot down by J. Quentin Crispin afanasieff IV, whose dad just happens to own the largest earmuff factory in the state. We proposed it again last year, but someone misspelled 'earmuffs' on the bill. Because no one could figure out what 'earkuffs' were, it was rejected again."
"We come to this year, then. What happened?"
"Why?"
"We started a petition drive, hoping that students would see the necessity of providing toasty-warm ear protection to those less fortunate. We collected the required thousand signatures, but the subcommittee on earmuff regulation threw out half of the petitions."
"Well, the student response hadn't been what we expected, so the petition committee made up a lot of signatures before we turned the forms in. Apparently the subcommittee didn't think that Frank M. Stein or Donald Trump attended school here."
Frank nodded and poured himself another glass of vegetable juice. I noticed a paper bag was wrapped around the bottle he used. "It was difficult," he agreed. "But we were given an extra few days and found the additional signatures. The subcommittee approved the forms, and it went on the Senate as a whole."
"That must have been a hard blow."
"What happened?"
"No one could have predicted it, Clay. A group of animal liberationists accidentally stormed into the meeting—they'd been heading to the bowling alley—and managed to convince the group that earmuffs were a cruel use of the polyester beetle, which only lives in the tropical rainforests."
I raised my eyebrows. "I thought polyester was synthetic." Isaid.
"That's only the cheap polyester," Frank said. "The high-quality stuff used in earmuffs come from the polyester beetle. The Student Senate seized on the idea right away, of course, because they like to be environmentally correct. After a couple of minutes of debate, the bill was rejected for another year."
I patted Frank on the shoulder. "Tough break. But at least you weren't advocating the bill for a Daisy Hill polling site."
Frank's face brightened. "That's right," he said. "At least someone has it worse than I do."
McCuistion is an El Dorado freshman in journalism.
Feedback
Student body vice president responds
Furthermore, the article states, "Walden says he will object to the bill if it's brought up in StudEx. He said he thinks it's the job of the elections commission to make the changes regarding polling sites." This "Kansan" story clearly depicts my intentions and reasoning for ruling the Daisy Hill petition out of order. As those who followed Wednesday night's meeting can attest, I acted reasonably (and well within Student Senate Rules and Regulations and Robert's Rules of Order) in pursuing my interpretation that Student Senate should not hear issues concerning the Elections Commission.
In a letter to the editor appearing in the Dec. 5 issue of the "University Daily Kansan," former senator Erika Nutt, accuses me, as student body vice president, of "admitting to this entire University that [I] am opposed to the issue of a Daisy Hill polling site in [the Dec.] issue of the Kansan." I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Ms. Nutt's claims.
If Nutt had read my position in the Dec. 3 issue of the Kansan, she would realize that I have never been in opposition to a polling site on Daisy Hill. In fact, I am quoted as saying, "I'm not against a polling site on Daisy Hill, but I believe that the method being used here is improper."
Some have claimed that I acted improperly by not referring the Daisy Hill polling site petition to committees. To that, I respond that, upon receiving confirmation from the Elections Commission that the petition's signatures were valid, I immediately e-mailed and met with Seth Hoffman (the senator responsible for collecting the signatures). At that time, I advised Hoffman (orally and in writing) to allow me to refer the petition to standing committees rather than StudEx. Additionally, I expressed to Hoffman my interpretation of Senate Rules and Regulations and informed Hoffman that I would deem this petition as out of order. It was my hope that Senate would uphold that ruling, thus sending the petition to Student Referendum.
Finally, I am extremely disappointed with the manner in which
Mike Walden
The challenge for the University is to create an environment where people of color and other cultures feel comfortable enough, accepted enough and respected enough to work. The University's current demographics may reflect a perception that this University is not such an environment.
Good for animals good for humans
Mike Cuenca Assistant professor of journalism
I stated that the mono-cultural demographics of this region often result in a lack of experience with people of other enninicities, cultures, etc. The challenge, consequently, for many people in this region is to accept different peoples as intellectual equals; peoples who are potentially as gifted, as capable, as worthy of teaching, managing and leading at this University as are the people of the mainstream culture.
Mike Walden student body vice president
Simply hiring more minority people is not enough. All people — whether minority or white male — must be guaranteed an equal opportunity to excel here. They must be guaranteed that they can be themselves, that they will not be forced to conform to the mainstream's cultural expectations in order to succeed. In other words, even if they don't conform to the mainstream culture's stereotype of success (white, male, coat and tie) they will be guaranteed the right to maintain their personal identity and still expect to be equally judged for recognition, promotion and leadership based on their intellect, character, performance and productivity.
I want to clarify the comments I made to your reporter, concerning the diversity of the faculty of KU. Portions of my comments, which affect the context of my statement, were omitted from the published story.
Recently, in column against animal rights activism, Clay
Clarifying comments on diversity issue
my views, clearly on current public record, have been entirely distorted. It is my hope that both the "Kansan" and Ms. Nutt acknowledge the errors in Nutt's letter.
McCuistion described a world in which humans and other animals are in competition. However, situations in which the interests of humans and animals are at odds with one another are extremely uncommon, if they exist at all.
Using his own example, one can make the case that what's good for animals is also good for humans. McCuiusion, a diabetic, claims that theuse and killing of animals in research lead to the discovery of insulin and an effective treatment for diabetes. However, McCuiusion's assertion that researchers were left with a choice to either kill animals or to let humans suffer and die - is up for debate.
Studies using animals unnecessarily replicated what was already shown to be true through human studies. Animal experiments diverted attention from actual mechanisms of the disease and lead to skepticism about the safety and effectiveness of insulin therapy in humans. Arguably, the use of animals actually delayed effective treatment for diabetes.
(Bliss, 1862) makes it clear that McCuision and millions of other diabetics owe their lives not to animal experiments, but rather to research with humans. Before 1900, human case studies and autopsy reports had already elucidated the link between diabetes and insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, the "islets of Langerhans."
At best, animal studies contributed very little to our understanding of diabetes. However, human studies continue to lead the way in treatment and prevention of diabetes, recently pointing to the consumption of dairy products as a cause of childhood diabetes. This discovery would not have occurred through animal experimentation.
Many scientists oppose animal research because they believe it is detrimental to human health. It's time we abandon needless experiments on animals and shift our resources to prevention and human research.
The Discovery of Insulin (Bliss, 1982) makes it clear that
Michael Schmitt Harrisonburg, Va., graduate student