Opinion
25
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Jodie Chester, Editor
Gerry Doyle, Managing editor
Ryan Koerner, Managing editor
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser
4A
Marc Harrell, Business manager
Jamie Holman, Retail sales manager
Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
Thursday, October 15, 1998
Robert Novak / KANSAN
Editorials
Full inquiry necessary to find truth
The United States House of Representatives was correct in its decision to allow an impeachment inquiry of President Clinton that is broad in scope and not limited to the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
Lewinsky alone, but that measure failed by a vote of 236-198. Representatives voted in favor of the investigation 258-176, with 31 Democrats supporting the open-ended investigation. A similar investigation proposed by House Democrats would have limited the range to matters relating to Lewinsky alone, but that measure failed by a vote of 236-198.
Clinton, therefore, will be the third president in U.S. history to endure an impeachment inquiry, an inquiry the scale of those for Presidents Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Aside from the Lewinsky scandal
The House correctly voted to conduct an open-ended investigation.
Clinton could be accountable for charges related to the Whitewater, travel office and campaign finance scandals.
In addition, public support for the inquiry appears to be scarce. According to a poll from The Associated Press, 51 percent of Americans believe Clinton's misconduct is less serious than Nixon's involvement in Watergate. And in the Senate, a conviction appears unlikely; a two-thirds vote would require the approval of 12 Senate Democrats, even if all Republicans voted to convict.
The extent to which Clinton has misled this nation should revolt every American. His testimony in August confirms he has lied; based on this, a full investigation by the House is certainly justified. The evidence supporting other crimes is equally disturbing. It would be a miscarriage of justice to ignore well-founded suspicions that Clinton's 1996 presidential campaign accepted money from foreign countries or that he participated in the cover-up of a land deal gone bad.
Despite its lack of popularity, this investigation is a necessity. As Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, the inquiry isn't a matter of the polls; it is a matter of doing your duty and doing what is right. And that includes looking at all aspects of this inquiry, not just impeachment.
Chris Borniger for the editorial board
Inquiry opens Clinton Hunting season
Last Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee voted to pursue an impeachment inquiry against the President of the United States. The decision was almost directly along party lines, with most Democrats voting against the resolution. However, those votes do not imply unqualified support for the president.
What the voices mean is that the Democrats do not support the inquiry as it is presently being pursued. Republicans in the House of Representatives asked for, and received, an open-ended inquiry with no time limit. This means the Republican majority in the House has effectively declared open season on Bill Clinton and his personal life.
The Judiciary Committee was right to oppose a time limit on the inquiry. Such a limit would have allowed the president to withhold evidence of wrongdoing until the investigation deadline
The impeachment proceedings should be confined by time and scope.
passed, defeating the purpose of the inquiry. However, the scope of this investigation should have been narrowed before the resolution was passed.
The office of the special prosecutor spent $40 million of the taxpayer's money to arrive at the conclusions contained in the Starr report. An unlimited inquiry will be vastly more expensive. If concrete evidence of impeachable offenses is found, then the additional money will have been well-spent.
But there is more than just money at stake. Our self-respect as a nation is on the line as well. Every day brings fresh evidence from polls and focus groups that the American people do not want
to see this president impeached. More than that, the people are tired of hearing the endless tacky, tawdry, tabloid stories about Bill and Monica and the ever-present Cuban cigar. It seems doubtful that anyone would want to hear about his other indiscretions, inside the Oval Office or not. In fact, a popular comedy show that lampoons the news media has given its continuing coverage of this story the running title of "Make It Stop '98."
This Republican-backed, open-ended impeachment inquiry smacks of a witch-hunt — and a personal, moralistic one at that. For the sake of the nation, Congress must remember that they work for the people who want this whole affair to end. They should act quickly to either impeach the president or move on. This inquiry ought not become a forum to air personal dislikes about the president's personal life.
Jennifer Roush for the editorial board
Kansan staff
News editors
Ann Premer ... Editorial
Tim Harrington ... Associate Editorial
Aaron Marvin ... News
Gwen Olson ... News
Aferon Knopf ... Online
Matt Friedrichs ... Sports
Kevin Wilson ... Associate sports
Marc Sheforgen ... 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
Advertising managers
Stacia Williams ... Assistant retail
Brandi Byran ... Campus
Micah Kafitz ... Regional
Ryan Farmer ... National
Matt York ... Marketing
Stephanie Krause .. Production
Matt Thomas .. Production
Traci Meisenheimer .. Creative
Tenley Lane .. Classified
Sara Cropper .. Zone
Nicole Farrell .. Zone
Jon Schlitt .. Zone
Shannon Curran .. Zone
Matt Lopez .. Zone
Brian Allers .. PR/Intern manager
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
“Without tact you can learn nothing.” — Disraeli
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.
How 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.
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 relied on 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.
Cultural change needed to solve alcohol issues
Perspective
Alcohol has become of greater importance this year in Lawrence. Each school year, there must be something new for students, faculty and community members to
less about. Last year, it was the University selling out to Coke, Nike and Commerce Bank. This year, it is underaged-college student drinking alcohol.
gasp: -- in drinking alcohol.
At least three separate operations are going on.
First, the state is watching local bars very closely.
Seven bars were cited by the Alcoholic Beverage Control agency for serving minors. These businesses must either close for a day or undergo "alcohol-enforcement training" for a
Clay McCuiston opinion@kansan.com
day. Second, the University is surveying students about underage drinking in town to possibly form a task force from the results.
And finally, the Lawrence City Commission is seeking to close all bars located in residential areas at midnight (rather than 2 a.m.).
They all assume if bars are inaccessible, college students will not drink. The problem is the bars making liquor available to otherwise decent students. After all, students cannot be expected to have self-control if a bar is open.
I cannot think of a polite way to phrase my response to this.
These groups have some substance-abuse problems of their own if they seriously think making bars unavailable to underage students will solve anything. These efforts will have no effect except to harm the bars' business. I am not a lobbyist for the liquor trade union, but the stupidity and ineptitude of those carrying out these efforts is unfair to the bars. Students will drink anyway. They will go to a friend's room or find a house party. They are not stupid. They are at the No.8 party school in the nation.
Think about our culture for a moment. What do children learn, from a very young age, about college? Kids learn that the four (or five or six)
but that is not a new problem. We love attacking institutions that do not have a real connection to problems they highlight. Abortion is a good example. There is nothing inherently good or bad about abortion. It is a medical procedure that can be used in different ways - to save lives or as birth control. Those who tear their hair out concerning abortion ignore real problem of people having unprotected sex. It is easy to attack a specific, easy-to-define institution, but much harder to redefine the mores of a culture.
years spent at great "Whatever U" was the best time mom and dad ever had! It was the time they got plastered every night, puked on each other and fell in love. Television broadcasts an endless succession of movies showing university life as an endless bacchanal of booze, sex, loud music and comical professors.
The fuss over alcohol in Lawrence has the same difficulty. It has become obvious that binge drinking among college students is a problem, but no one will suggest students change. Students have laughed off "Just Say No" campaigns since grade school. Closing bars and conducting surveys gives the illusion that state, city and campus leaders are solving something.
Partying and alcohol are what students expect from college. Society has shaped them this way. It is a pervasive notion of late 20th-century civilization that young people have a right to abuse their minds and bodies every night that is at fault. The bars are not to blame. Our collective mindset is.
The alcohol "problem" cannot be fixed overnight. I doubt it can be fixed for several decades. For real change to occur, our culture must shift. Parents and the entertainment industry must change the messages they send. They can not wink when teenagers start drinking heavily in high school. Movies and TV can not glamorize a potentially lethal, toxic substance. Our standards as a nation must be altered.
And if you think that will not happen any time soon, I think you are right. Care to join me for a drink?
McQuiston is an El Dorado sophomore in pre-journalism.
Fall break could alleviate first semester doldrums
The Board of Regents is looking skeptically at the idea of a fall break.
On the front page of the Oct. 5 Kansan, the Regents' position was supported by a
few basic premises. First, the board is trying to get pay increases for University staffers. It feels that the deletion, actually a reappropriation, of school days would harm its political agenda. If parents and taxpayers view the issue as one of students and faculty wanting more time off, then the Kansas Legislature may scorn the break. Also, the regents feel hat students given a two
Tom Winter
opinion@kansan.com
way break, would take more of a break — say three or four days. Phyllis Nolan, a Regents member, was quoted in the article as saying that the break would disrupt the flow of the semester.
First of all, although it may be harmful to the salary agenda, the fall break does not change the number of days that students or faculty have in the semester. The only time it does shorten is the length of finals week. Therefore, the faculty would be getting a raise not for less work, but for the same amount.
Second, the issue of whether students will abuse the privilege and decide that two days are not enough is tangential. It is not the responsibility of the Regents to speculate on student's individual decisions. If I decide to skip class, for any reason, it is both my decision and my responsibility. Also, if professors wish to keep students from fleeing, they can assign homework, give tests or assign papers to be due on the day before the break.
So, should or should there not be a fall break?
Well, I have not done any surveys or taken any polls, but from personal experience I can surmise that the fall break is a good idea. Personally, I consistently perform more poorly in the fall than I do in the spring. Maybe it is because the days get shorter and the general malaise sets in from watching the foliage shrivel and die.
maybe the thunderstorms and cloud cover fill my mind with darkness and rain. Maybe these are the exact reasons why we need to have a fall break. It is difficult enough to contend with the mid-semester blues. After taking a round of midterms, grudgingly and
arduously, the last thing a student wants to do is to go back to class.
The fall semester would be much easier to deal with if students knew that they would be rewarded with a little time off after enduring the first half of the fall semester. In the spring, students are both energized and replenished by spring break. Students look forward to it and often spend much of the beginning of the semester trying to decide where they are going to go and what they are going to do with their break. They also speculate how little school work they are going to do.
True, I have had assignments to be completed on the first day back. Although I have not looked forward to doing them, I still have a whole week to procrastinate and leisurely toil about how I would tackle the work.
With the absence of a fall break, students spend the fall trying to decide how they are going to completely collapse between the semesters.
Thanksgiving break is too little too late. By the time Thanksgiving rolls around, midterms are a distant memory, many rounds of tests have been had in the interim and finals are just around the corner. All of these things are occurring without the alleviation of stress that has compiled throughout the semester.
out the semester.
In some ways, Thanksgiving break does little to alleviate the stress of the fall semester. Because finals follow Thanksgiving by just a few weeks, students do not have much time to relax and take deep breaths. They are too busy worrying about their grades and stressing out about just how difficult those finals will be.
For the past five years, I have taken my own self-subscribed breaks. After the midterm exams are over, I just skip a couple of days of class. I know I am going to pay for it when I get back, but by that point, I just need a couple of days off.
I hope that the Board of Regents considers the students' position on the issue. I know very few students who are against the fall break. I know it may not be a popular political issue, but college is an all-or-nothing job; either you have a week, or several weeks, during which everything is going on or nothing. When you are not doing absolutely everything, sometimes it is better to do absolutely nothing — especially in the middle of the semester.
Winter is an Blue Springs, Mo., senior in journalism and biology.
Correction
In Wednesday's edition of the Kansan, Jack Martin's column "Grave's opposition to STARS plan puzzling," had questions posed by a copy editor published within the
text of the column. The following sentences were not by Martin. "I would like to see the numbers. How much has the dropout rate dropped? How do you know parental
involvement has increased?
What evidence do you have
that says there is little grade
inflation?
"Did he say that in a speech? Where is that coming from?"
V