Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Spencer Duncan, Editor Sarah Scherwinski, Business manager Lindsey Henry, Managing editor Brian Pagel, Retail sales manager Andrea Albright, Managing editor Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
Tuesday, November 11, 1997
Cowor / DAILY KENT STATER
Examining
Protesters' civil rights attacked just as they were by police officers
The nominations are up for grossest violation of civil rights caught on tape. And the winner is the California police (again) for rubbing pepper spray into the eyes of several peaceful logging protesters in Eureka, Calif.
The officers abused their power and instead of defending liberty, infringed upon it.
The protesters were demonstrating against logging in area redwood forests. They peacefully assembled outside of Rep. Frank Rigg's office. When they refused officers' demands to disperse, the officers violently pulled back the protesters heads and put pepper spray into their eyes.
within three feet of someone's face.
According to the spray's manufacturer, Defense Technology Corp. of America, the spray should not be used
The police officers not only misused the pepper spray, endangering the protesters' health, they violated the protesters' First Ammendment rights. The First Ammendment guarantees the rights to speak freely and to peacefully assemble and/or petition the government. The law was created to protect the above rights, not to infringe upon them.
Whether the protesters' views were mainstream is irrelevant. As long as they remained peaceful, their rights were protected by the Constitution. That is one of the points of the Constitution — to guarantee every citizen a voice, regardless if it is consistent with popular opinion
not find fault with the officers for their actions. Betty Capps, a local restaurant owner, said, "The protesters are a pain in the butt." But the protesters were exercising their first amendment rights. Does Betty Capps think ensuring such freedom for all, including herself, is a pain in the butt?
Many people in the Eureka area did
When the law is abused, as it clearly was in California, we must stand up and defend the freedom such abuses try to usurp.
Thomas Paine once said, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must ... undergo the fatigue of supporting it." If we want freedom for ourselves, we must guarentee it for others.
Nick Zaller for the editorial board
Puffin' on the hay,the NBA way
NBA action — its FAN-tasyland. How else can the lack of marijuana policy be explained? The National Basketball Association currently has no policy, penalty or punishment concerning its players and their consumption of the illegal drug. Even worse. "The New York Times" recently reported that nearly 70 percent of NBA players use marijuana.
This is simply further proof that these people making big money for their contribution of entertainment to society have removed themselves from normal societal constraints. If these players want to live a life in the clouds, who really cares? After all, they already live a life that millions dream of living.
Therein lies the problem. These stars are the role models to people all over the world. As impractical as this may be, it
cannot be denied. The average American can probably name more sports figures than political or historical figures, so why shouldn't these athletes be held up to the same scrutiny the rest of society faces?
In the average workplace, a failed drug test is almost automatic grounds for being fired. To get into the CIA, one must even pass a lie detector test in which a standard question is "Have you ever used marijuana?" The CIA is probably not the best place for the average NBA athlete to apply after retirement, but the clash of standards is evident.
abuse policy so that an athlete testing positive for marijuana use or arrested for possession of marijuana would face a "strict" five-game suspension. The "Free Press" reported that the players' union feels this suggestion is "too harsh" and that it imposes stricter penalties on NBA players than "people in society" receive.
What's worse is that it seems that no improvements are in the NBA's future. According to the "Detroit Free Press," NBA Commissioner David Stern has suggested modifying the substance-
These players, who presumably live outside of "society," only face drug tests if extreme problems arise and even then only if granted permission by an arbitrator.
The NBA drug policy has not changed in 14 years. Perhaps it is time that NBA players, even the 21 year-olds with $100 million-plus contracts, music albums, movie roles and action figures are brought down to earth. They are high enough already.
Kansan staff
Cody Simms for the editorial board
Bradley Brooks ... Editorial
Jason Strait ... Editorial
Jodie Chester ... News
Jen Smith ... News
Adam Darby ... News
Charity Jeffries ... Online
Kristie Blasi ... Sports
Tommy Gallagher ... Associate Sports
Dave Morantz ... Campus
Eric Weslander ... Campus
Ashleigh Roberts ... Features
Steve Puppe ... Photo
Bryan Volk ... Design, graphics
Mitch Lucas ... Illustrations
Mark McMaster ... Wire
Ann Marchand ... Special sections
Lcachelle Rhoades ... News clerk
News editors
Advertising managers
Advertising
Matt Fisher ... Assistant retail
Michael Sofer ... Campus
Colleen Eager ... Regional
Anthony Migliazzo ... National
Jeff Auslander ... Marketing
Chris Haghrian ... 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 Swedund ... Senior account executive
Broaden your mind:
“Technology ... the knack of so arranging the world that we don't have to experience it.”
How to submit letters and guest columns
Letters: 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.
- Max Frisch
**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 Staufer-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 (jstrait@kansan.com) at 864-4810. If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4810.
Freeing au pair nanny is stepping on justice
After some nine months in prison, the 19-year-old girl convicted of killing 8-month-old Matthew Eappen is out of jail. And all England rejoices.
Raving
Andy Rohrback
coimbra@kappa.ac.br
Back in the days when Sam Sheppard was put on trial for killing his wife, justice experts were concerned that media circuses would jeopardize defendants' right to a fair trial. They thought —justifiably — that sensational media coverage of trials would make it more difficult to prove a defendant's innocence.
o Louise is free.
Louise Woodward was an au pair, a live-in nanny hired by the Eappen family to care for Matthew and his 3-year-old brother. On Feb.4, she violently shook Matthew and slammed his head against a hard surface, according to prosecutors' evidence. Five days later, Matthew died. A jury of Woodward's peers decided that the evidence proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that Woodward had killed Matthew.
Yesterday, we all learned that media circuses can work either way
Protests raged across England and America, and the "Free Louise Woodward" campaign took off with a vengeance. Media attention focused on the trial judge, and yesterday he overruled the jurors and commuted Woodward's sentence from second-degree murder to involuntary manslaughter, sentencing her to time served and setting her free.
So Louise is free. But Matthew isn't, and neither is the rest of his family. Matthew won't get his injuries commuted, and his parents won't get their baby back. Louise is on her way back to Elton, England, to a crowd of 20,000 adoring fans. She'll take a few days off, then sign a book deal, maybe a TV movie. In a few years, she'll be hosting a newsmagazine on CNN.
I won't argue with the judge's decision to reduce Woodward's conviction from second-degree murder to involuntary manslaughter, although to me, manslaughter is the appropriate verdict. It's the sentence. How is nine months in prison — with continuous and intense public sympathy — a just punishment for killing a child?
and is not likely to be changed. Louise Woodward shook an 8-month-old child and banged his head against the bathroom floor. For that, she spent as much time in prison as you or I spend in Lawrence every year. Nine months.
"I believe that the circumstances in which the defendant acted were characterized by confusion, inexperience, frustration, immaturity and some anger, but not malice (in the legal sense)," the judge wrote in a 16-page statement he released upon commuting the verdict.
Let's start by realizing that for writing a bad check for more than $500, I can get up to five years in prison. Are we saying, then, that a child's life is worth less than $500? I can sure write a bad check without malice. I can do it out of immaturity or confusion, certainly. But I can spend up to five years in jail.
"I'm sure she had plenty of time to think about it, and she's come around," people say. "Nine months? I'm sure she's sorry for what she did."
In Massachusetts, where Woodward was tried, the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter is 20 years, but there is no minimum. The state recommends at least 3 1/3 years in prison. Woodward got less than one-fourth of that.
Woodward's own statements prove otherwise. "I maintain what I said at my last sentencing, that I'm innocent," Woodward said. Yet she isn't about to challenge this ruling, which still states that she killed Matthew. It's not whether she did it that's important to her. What matters to Louise Woodward is whether or not she gets out of jail free. And she did.
So Louise is free. Good for her. Not so for the rest of America, who watched the testimony and evidence which convinced a jury she killed a baby. Not so for that jury, which saw its time, effort and thought thrown away by a judge who acted on public opinion and not on the facts of the case.
So Louise is free. She spent a total of nine months in prison for killing a baby boy, and she'll return to her home country to a welcome similar to that given the Beatles.
So Louise is free — from prison. She will never be free from the fact that she killed a helpless child. And this country will never be free from the topsy-turvy justice we all watched unfold.
Think about this: Louise Woodward killed a baby. That fact was established in court
Rohrback is an Andover junior in journalism.
Burton
Tidwell
opinion@kansan.com
possibility of returning. Like many students, I had my future reasonably planned, and my destination was to go as far as I could in my chosen vocation. I knew that I probably would have to change localities and positions as I tried to find my niche — while dealing with my own penchant for being the best I could. But, I also thought that I would ply my trade until retirement or death. Wrong.
Your parents may have told you that your college days would be the best years of your life. I'm not sure that I ever told my son that, and I'm certainly not sure that I believe it. But what I do remember was my youthful enthusiasm and anticipation for life to come after college — and how much I looked forward to the challenges ahead. Now, here I go again.
The 'old man' on campus passes on a little advice
At a time in my life when I should be enjoying the benefits of 25 years of hard work out in the real world, here I am back at my alma mater as a
Putting things into proper perspective, let me share a few details about life in the good old days around 1970. Times were turbulent on campus: they bombed the Kansas Union my freshman year. (Fortunately for me, that year I was safely south of the border as a student at the University of Oklahoma.) The Vietnam War was inescapable. Young men with school deferments trudged around campus with the omnipresent fear of the draft. In fact, I can well remember simply refusing to keep up on current events to hide in my own little world.
student. Normal college students aren't supposed to know about or be concerned with something called a mid-life crisis. But don't blink: Time passes more quickly than you could ever imagine. You, too, could one day find yourself labeled a non-traditional student.
When I graduated from the University of Kansas in 1973, the last thing I was interested in was the
7
We thought we lived in the space age. After all, the summer after I graduated
The non-traditional student is nothing new, but it is definitely on the increase. I have heard of studies which show that college graduates now may expect to change careers several times between graduation and retirement. Life and technology are changing at an ever-increasing rate. Few individuals can look forward to finding a niche and riding it out for the remainder of their lives. Even the very face of education surely will change dramatically in the next century. As far as that goes, next semester I won't even be driving to Lawrence several times a week to sit in a classroom. Instead, I'll be logging on from my computer.
I know most of you would prefer not to get advice from your parents or their contemporaries. However, if you have read this far, you can indulge me when I offer a few morsels of wisdom: Keep your eyes and minds open in the years ahead and be ready to make big adjustments. Don't think it won't happen to you, or you'll be blind-sided into bitter reality. One more thing: Good luck from the old man — make that "new kid" — on campus.
from high school, Neil Armstrong walked on the moon while we sat at home and watched with amazement. Computers? Merely something for high-tech science types. The PC was nowhere to be seen. I remember a friend spending an exorbitant amount of money — $100— on one of the first pocket calculators. We did our high school chemistry assignments with a now obsolete device called a slide rule. Remember the typewriter? If you were lucky, you actually had one that plugged in.
Fast forward to 1997. I'm back in school, adjusting to a new routine and finding myself old enough to be a parent of most of my fellow students and colleagues on "The University Daily Kansan." But the good part is that I am finding that my aging brain is capable of absorbing new skills, and I think I have become one of the kids.
I
Tidwell is a Marion graduate student in journalism. He received his bachelor of music in organ in 1973.