Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Jodie Chester, *Editor* Marc Harrell, *Business manager*
Gerry Doyle, *Managing editor* Jamie Holman, *Retail sales manager*
Ryan Koerner, *Managing editor* Dan Simon, *Sales and marketing adviser*
Tom Eblen, *General manager*, news adviser Justin Knupp, *Technology coordinator*
Wednesday, November 4, 1998
Tim McCabe/ KANSAN
Editorials
Speed is no longer the only thing drivers have to worry about keeping down; radios, too, now must stay low. The city of Lawrence has plans to impose an ordinance prohibiting drivers from playing loud music on their car stereos. If an officer can hear the music from 50 feet or five car lengths away, offenders could receive a maximum penalty of $500 and imprisonment for six months.
Car stereo ordinance unnecessary; police may enforce it unequally
The noise ordinance is another way for law to infringe upon citizens' lives, and it should not have a place in Lawrence.
Although Marty Kennedy, Lawrence mayor, said he received a number of complaints from residents, vehicle passengers and drivers regarding loud car stereos, citi
If music from a car can be heard from 50 feet away, it would violate the ordinance.
zens should not have to turn their sterees down.
The sound coming from a car radio is brief. The vehicle is moving, and only for a moment does one hear loud music before the car is gone. However, if an officer hears the noise during that brief moment, a driver enjoyings his favorite song could end up writing a hefty check or spending some time in jail.
The ordinance will be too subjective.
The authorities will not have
devices for measuring decibel levels, and the 50-foot distance most likely will be a guess. In effect, there is no official way to determine whether the music is too loud. The absence of a standard more reliable than the officers' discernment leaves potential offenses to be determined on the sole basis of an officer's opinion.
The noise ordinance is an erroneous way of forcing courtesy upon drivers. Instead of punishing drivers for having loud music, Lawrence police jus should remind drivers to keep their music at a low decibel level. And instead of cruising the streets of Lawrence with music blaring from their stereos, drivers should be more conscientious of whom they disturb while driving.
Emily Hughey for the editorial board
Any group that hazes is wrong
There is more than one way to haze a student, and there is more than one community on campus that participates in hazing.
Some athletic teams recently have been accused of violating the hazing rules that traditionally have been associated with the Greek community.
Hazing has no place at the University of Kansas, no matter what form it takes. Any athletic team, varsity or club, that is found guilty of hazing should be dealt the same degree of punishment that would be given to a fraternity or sorority.
Many initiation or celebration rituals that are passed off as "all in good fun" or "bonding the team" are immature, degrading and
Athletes have a role to play in curbing sports-team hazing rituals.
sometimes dangerous.
One form of hazing that is believed to be prevalent on sports teams at Kansas and other Big 12 schools is the "whipping boy" or "whipping girl."
The whipping boy or girl is forced by teammates to submit to embarrassing behaviors, such as wearing an orange construction cone on his or her head at all times. Other hazed athletes are taken to public places, encircled by their teammates and forced to
remove their clothing.
The variety of hazing and its prevalence on different teams may not be as great a problem as it has appeared to be in the greek community, but it should not be overlooked.
There is little, if anything, the athletic department can do to control the actions of club teams, and the University may be hesitant to expose any tasteless actions performed by its varsity athletes.
The responsibility falls, therefore, on the students who are involved with hazing. It is up to the athletes to have the courage to throw out any hazing traditions their team may harbor.
Kansan staff
Ronnie Wachter for the editorial board
Ann Premer ... Editorial
Tim Harrington ... Associate Editorial
Aaron Marvin ... News
Gwen Olson ... News
Aaron Knopf ... Online
Matt Friedrichs ... Sports
Kevin Wilson ... Associate sports
Marc Sheforden ... Campus
Laura Roddy ... Campus
Lindsey Henry ... Features
Bryan Volk ... Associate features
Roger Nomer ... Photo
Corie Waters ... Photo
Angie Kuhn ... Design graphics
Melissa Ngo ... Wire
Sara Anderson ... Special sections
Laura Veazey ... news clerk
News editors
Advertising managers
Advertising managers'
Stacia Williams ... Assistant retail
Brandi Byram ... Campus
Micah Kafitz ... Regional
Ryan Farmer ... National
Matt York ... Marketing
Stephanie Krause ... Production
Matt Thomas ... Production
Traci Meiseheimer ... Creative
Tenley Lane ... Classified
Sara Cropper ... Zone
Nicole Farrell ... Zone
Jon Schittt ... Zone
Shannon Curran ... Zone
Matt Lopez ... Zone
Brian Allers ... PR/Intern manager
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
"Great intellects are skeptical." — Nietzsche
**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.
now to submit letters and guest columns
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.
B A B
All letters and column questions should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stuart-Flin Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Ann Premer (premer@kansan.com) or Tim Harrington (tharrington@kansan.com) at 864-4810. If you have general questions or comments, email the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4810.
Perspective
Loud music law leaves bad vibes with youth
In less than 30 days, the Lawrence City Commission may pass an ordinance that will prohibit people from playing loud music in their cars.
If a driver's stereo can be heard 50 feet away from his or her car, then that person can be fined and jailed. The minimum fine will be $50 and the maximum possible fine will be $500 and up to six months in jail.
Tom Winter
opinion @ kansan.com
In a way, this ordinance confuses me. Why would this particular type of infraction need its own ordinance? Couldn't it simply be regulated by "Dissturing the peace" laws?
The ordinance itself only
The orumance itself only acknowledges loud amplified music emanating from an automobile. That is its only purpose. If you scream out of your car at someone on the sidewalk, it is considered disturbing the peace. If your car itself makes noise because of the condition it is in, that also falls under disturbing the peace.
Why then, is there a need for a specific ordinance to regulate this infraction?
Marty Kennedy, Lawrence mayor, said the reason was to insure the safety of motorists whose ability to hear police and ambulance sirens would be restricted by loud music.
If you are walking down Massachusetts street and you hear the wailings of Black Sabbath from a passing car at a good distance, the driver of that car is violating the ordinance. The driver is violating the ordinance even though you are not driving; that is the stipulation which must be adhered to with the 50 feet parameter.
If you are at a stoplight, though, and the car next to you is playing Garth Brooks so loud that you can't hear yourself think, the driver is not breaking the law — even if you can't hear the approach of coming sirens. Therefore, a car that you are next to, be it at a traffic light or driving side-by-side down the road, could never break the ordinance because the distance is not great enough.
So, you must be either in front of or behind a car, at the distance of 50 feet, or as Dave Corliss, city director of legal services, puts it, five car lengths, to be in the appropriate range where the other driver's music is sufficiently disruptive.
Buses and semis would not fall prey to this ordinance or even a disturbing the peace ordinance, even though you can hear the campus buses approaching at least 100 yards away. They could potentially endanger drivers by makingvens inaudible. But they aren't playing "loud music," at least not typically, and thereforewould not be under the scrutiny of this law.
So what type of music when played loudly carries more than 50 feet? Any music could feasibly carry that distance, but the sound which carries best, in my experience, directly in front of or behind a car is bass.
Kennedy said that he didn't know what the demographics of the offenders would be. But if I were to speculate on the profile of the typical offender, I would guess it would be a young person, possibly 16-20 years old who listens to rap music. How many middle-aged women do you see bumping down the road listening to Ice Cube at full blast?
In fact, I think this is exactly what the ordinance is trying to curtail. The City Commission wants to regulate the sound of bass which vibrates other cars and other drivers. In fact, Kennedy said the complaints the police department had received were voiced against cars which caused other cars to vibrate.
Now let's consider the supposed reason that this must be a law — the safety of other motorists. The only time the musical selections of another driver can be sufficiently heard, or more appropriately, felt, are when you are sitting at a stoplight. I can't remember ever driving down the road and being so disturbed by the sound coming from another vehicle that I couldn't tell if a police car or ambulance was coming.
This law is not being passed because there was an accident involving a civilian and a patroller who collided because of the bass of a third party's stereo. I think it is being passed because there have been complaints from voters who do not want to be disturbed by the thunderous sounds of teen-age angst.
The ordinance is ridiculous and only goes to show how large the generational gap is between Baby Boomers and Generation Xers. I only wish we had a better way to deal with our disagreements than have an older generation pass laws that a younger generation must rebel against.
Winter is a Blue Springs, Mo., senior in biology and journalism.
I support The University Daily Kansan's decision to run an advertisement from the Committee for the Open Debate of the Holocaust (CODOH). However, those of us who know the
Denying the Holocaust is dangerous for society
truth about the Holocaust must respond. That is our responsibility as members of a society that places such a high value on free speech.
To evaluate the claims of the CODOH, I went to the organization's Web site (http://www.codoh.com). Not only does the site propound upon this idea that gas chambers were never used, it puts forth the idea that Hitler wasn't planning the extinction of the Jewish people. The Final Solution was — according to the site
Lucas Neece Guest Columnist
was — according to a phrase invented since his suicide. What were all the Nazi concentration camps for according to CODOHF? It was simply a misuse of power, a utilization of slave labor. Genocide did not occur during World War II.
I've stood in a gas chamber in Auschwitz. I've seen part of the cremates. I spoke with a man who, as a young man, was forced to do hard labor around the camps because he was Polish. His aunt, a nurse in the S.S. Hospitals, tried to call attention to the horrible "experiments" they were performing. She sent out X-rays from the hospitals, evidence of the Nazi crimes against humanity.
I've read the diary of one of the S.S. men in charge of Auschwitz. There is no question in my mind that this atrocity was indeed a planned genocide.
I'm confused about what the CODOH hopes an open debate will bring. Germany has been made stronger by admitting its responsibility for the Holocaust and in seeking to make some sort of
reparation. By accepting the guilt, and seeking forgiveness, rather than attempting to explain things away, they have made progress. Certainly, an "enlightened" understanding of the Holocaust — by CODOH standards — benefits neither those who died nor the survivors and their children. Nobody involved in the Holocaust profits from a debate on the "genocide question."
The only reason that I can come up with for the CODOH to "foster open debate on the Holocaust" is that perhaps, it wants to promote the idea that the Holocaust didn't happen. That's fine. Its members have the right in America to believe whatever they choose. But we have a responsibility to evaluate its claims and speak truth. We must understand the repercussions of denying that the Holocaust occurred. It is my fear that we will forget what genocide looks like and that we, as humanity, will fail again.
Hitler's Germany labeled the Jews, the handicapped and infirm, gays, the elderly, Gypsies, and people from all around Europe who worked to save lives, as obstacles to the perfect society
What did happen to the more than 6 million people who disappeared during World War II? Some died of disease and malnutrition in the concentration camps. Some were shot, and buried in mass graves in the woods. Some were shot and their bodies burned. Some were gassed in vans that fed the carbon monoxide back in. But the majority died in gas chambers, at each of several camps, both in Germany and Poland.
We must remember what genocide looks like.
We must remember what genocide looks like. Do not forget the horror you felt when you first learned what had happened in the concentration camps of Nazi Germany. Feel for the innocent people who die in our world because they are seen as an obstacle in the road to a better society.
Neocre is a Topeka sophomore in German and architecture
Feedback
Hate-crime laws are equality laws
I wish to respond to feedback written by David Burress on Oct. 27, 1998. I appreciated Burress' letter, for it illuminated the reasons why hate crimes are different from other violent crimes. I do want to clear up something that is commonly misunderstood by advocates as well as opponents of hate crime legislation.
Hate crime legislation not only protects minority populations, who are the usual targets of hate-motivated crimes, they also protect majority populations. For example, several states, do, indeed, include "sexual orientation" in their hate crimes legislation (just as KU's university non-discrimination policy includes sexual orientation).
They do not specify gay, lesbian or bisexual. Sexual orientation is an inclusive classification which includes all sexual orientations — gay, lesbian, bisexual and heterosex.
ual. The reason why this legislation will be used to assist lesbians, gays and bisexuals more than heterosexuals is because lesbigay people are much more likely to be harmed by hate-motivated crimes by heterosexuals than vice versa. These are equal opportunity laws not special privileges, even though hatemotivated crimes are not.
Christine Robinson Lawrence graduate student