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 coordinator
Tom Ebien, General manager, news adviser Justin Knupp, Technology coordinator
Friday, October 9, 1998
Robert Novak / KANSAN
Editorials
ACLU was deserving of funds approved by KU Student Senate
Much ado has been made lately about the cause of free speech and other civil rights and liberties at the University of Kansas. The most visible demonstration of this was two weeks ago when abortion protesters set up controversial visual displays around campus. They were welcomed by the University.
Other organizations dedicated to civil rights have not fared so well. On Sept. 16, the KU chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union was denied funding by Student Senate. Their appropriations bill died in committee on the grounds that the ACLU is a partisan organization.
On Oct. 1, the bill was reintroduced and passed committee. It went before the full Senate on Wednesday, and was passed.
Senate allocated $307 to the ACLU last night at the meeting.
The charge of partisanship was false. The ACLU never endorsed or campaigned for political candidates on the national or local level in its near 80-year history.
The ACLU regularly takes cases and defends people who are unpopular with the political mainstream.
It is a sensible requirement that Student Senate has a responsibility to make sure that doesn't finance partisan activities.
The KU chapter of the ACLU does not fit the definition of a partisan organization. So Senate made it
right choice when it voted to finance the ACLU.
KU ACLU mission statement: "The purpose of the University of Kansas Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (herein, the Chapter) shall be to maintain and advance civil liberties, including the freedom of association, assembly, press, privacy, petition, religion and speech, and the rights to franchise, to due process of the law and to equal protection of the law for all people in affiliation of the University, through all legitimate and appropriate means. The Chapter shall also strive to promote dialogue on civil liberties issues on the University of Kansas campus and in Lawrence. The Chapter's objectives shall be sought wholly without political partisanship."
Jennifer Roush for the editorial board
Computer ownership not fair mandate
The administration should not make computer ownership mandatory for all students. Recently, the idea of creating a policy requiring all students to have access to a computer at their residence was brought to the attention of the Provost Shulenburger. This idea could have several negative repercussions and should not be implemented.
This idea is useless without a plan to assist students who cannot afford their own computers. The most likely reason for students to not own computers is because they cannot afford them. They recognize the need, they just do not have the money.
Making students own a computer is only an idea now but could be policy later.
These students use the computer labs available on campus. If the University requires all students to have a computer when they arrive, will the University no longer feel obligated to provide computer labs? If this idea were to become a policy, computer labs may no longer be kept as well equipped as they have been. Computer labs allow many students to get by without owning a computer.
The real losers to a program mandating computer ownership would
be off-campus students and, more specifically, those who live alone or only have one roommate. Also students who already are broke and need to take out large loans or scramble for scholarships would be harmed greatly by such a policy.
This is not a University policy yet, but it has potential to become so. This idea could work if funding is found to help offset the price of computers for all students. Other universities already have teamed up with corporate sponsors to help implement the programs.
Until a workable plan for requiring computers comes forth, the current idea does not best serve students.
Kansan staff
Leonard West for the editorial board
News editors
Ann Premer ... Editorial
Tim Harrington ... Associate Editorial
Aaron Marvin ... News
Gwen Olson ... News
Aaron Knapf ... 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
Advertising managers
Stacia Williams ... Assistant retail
Brandl Byram ... Campus
Micah Kaftiz ... 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 Schitt .. Zone
Shannon Curran .. Zone
Matt Lopez .. Zone
Brian Allers .. PR/Intern manager
Breaden your mind: Today's quote
"It takes all sorts of people to make a world." — Douglas Jerrold
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.
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.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stuafer-Flint 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.
Consider a different view before criticizing someone
Perspective
Meredith Toenjes
opinion@ansan.com
How many of you know that this Sunday, Oct. 11 is National Coming Out Day? Now, if you're saying to yourself right now "Why should I care?" Well, frankly
maybe you shouldn't. After all, if you truly care for less than 10 people, or if the people you care about all are chosen carefully by you primarily for their heterosexuality, then this may not affect you at all. At least not at this point in your life.
However, if you ever start any new relationships, it may affect you later. Maybe you'll marry someone who is close to a gay person. If you have kids, maybe they'll become close to a gay person, or maybe they will
be gay themselves. You could choose to cut these people out of your life, or tell them that you'll only accept them the way you want them to be. I choose to believe that most of you won't do that, and so I'll write the rest of this column on that assumption.
I'll bet that many of you are thinking things such as, "If they'd just keep it to themselves, there wouldn't be any problems," or "I don't go around talking about what I do in bed." Some of the gay people out there might be thinking. "Of it not anyone else's business what I do in my own home."
Well, here's my answer to the heterosexuals out there who may have thought these things: I don't go around talking about what I do in bed either. If I say, "My girlfriend and I..." and your mind automatically tries to picture two women having sex, and the rest of my sentence is, "...we went to go to the Renaissance Festival on Sunday but it was raining too hard." I'm not going around talking about what I do in bed.
So, here's my challenge to you. Try to go about your everyday life without mentioning to anyone anything that is related to your romantic/sexual partner. If you're single, then don't talk about anything that relates to sex or romance for you personally. Don't tell anyone about some cute person you saw or someone who asked you out.
All I said was that my significant other is a woman. If that is talking about sex, then *Touched* by *An Angel* and every other show on TV needs parental warnings for graphic sexual content.
If asked to make a comment on the looks or attractiveness of someone of the opposite sex, try to avoid the subject without being too obvious. Make a very generic reply if pressed. For those with partners, avoid pronouns, like he or she. Don't ever mention a name unless it's a unisex name like Chris or Jamie. If you're in love and deliriously happy, tell no one. Keep it to yourself on the assumption that your boss will fire you, your friends will abandon you, your parents will disown you and your siblings will be disgusted. Instead of imagining a big wedding with all your friends and family in attendance, imagine years explaining why you still have a roommate at 30 or 40. Try this for a week. If that's too long, then at least try it for a day. You may find a serious conversational hole with people you never would consider discussing sex with.
For the gay doubtest, I'll leave you with a story. In high school, a marginal hanger-on to my group of friends made a comment about how he thought all queens should be sent to concentration camps. I was scared, I'd not had good experiences with coming out at school, but I looked at him and quietly said, "I don't want to be in a concentration camp."
I'd nearly forgotten the whole exchange until about four years ago during a political science class at a community college. This man came up to me during a break and said how glad he was to see a familiar face. I didn't really recognize him as that boy, but he told me a few weeks into the semester how that day changed his life. He immediately asked a mutual friend what I'd meant, and she said, "Meredith's gay." The adult he became told me that was the day he started thinking about all that his dad and others had taught him about hating gay people. And if I hadn't come out to him that day, he might have gone on spouting the same hateful garbage.
This man is married and has two sons. His mother-in-law is a lesbian and his openness to the subject is one of the first connections he made with the woman who is now his wife. He plans on teaching his sons to respect people based on their personal actions and not to judge anyone because he or she may be different from you. He even has requested my input for the day his sons ask about grandma and her girlfriend. And if one of his sons turns out to be gay? They can feel safe in the knowledge that their dad loves them and just wants them to be a good person and to be happy.
If that's not worth the risk, nothing is.
Teenjens is a Kansas City, Kan., senior in history and psychology.
Incumbents don't look promising for re-election
This November's races are shaping up much like they always do: social conservatives with bank and bravado vs.
Jonathan
Huskey
opinion@kansan.com
slightly less conservative Democrats. This time we'll concentrate on the House races and specifically the republican incumbents.
rine Kansas delegation to the House has a combined personality score equal to that of a rice cake and shares many similarities. Rice cakes are bland, stumped and a bad solution to weighty problems. No one up for re-election deserves to be voted into office (with the exception of Jerry Moran)
1st District, Jerry Moran. The only one of the three who knows what it means to be a freshman in Congress. One must not draw attention to oneself. You never hear anything from Moran, which is better than the embarrassment that is Jim Moran. Moran spent most of his time dealing with unprovocative issues relating to the rail and farming industries. Moran will win and probably should. He is respected and is a smart choice for a district that hasn't voted for a democrat since the invention of cheese.
Here's a short introduction to our House leaders.
2nd District, Jim Ryun: Ryun graduated from the I-Won't-Take-a-Stand-on-a-Tough-Issue-But-So-What-I'm-Famous School of Public Policy. Ryun likes to talk about his family (and they are cute aren't they?) more than his record and with good reason, because it's spotty at best. His major issue, surprise, is taxes. Basically, Ryun doesn't like 'em, and he wants to reduce about every tax there is and, with it, government spending. Like most politicians, Ryun wants to reduce the size of government except when it involves the big money grabbers like the over-financed military and transportation system.
The rest of the Kansas delegation likens themselves to the Mob Squad. Duck and cover, these guys are out to hollow the government with Bible bullets.
Talk of smaller government is lost on Ryun when it threatens his district. To hear the pride in his voice when he speaks of the money he brought to the district roads and military operations is nothing short of exasperating when he turns around and begins to attack other government spending. Ryun's legs are strong but his mind is, well
... not fit to be in a position of power. He refers to his Kansas roots and running career way too much to be taken seriously.
He sponsored legislation to take 50 percent of AmeriCorps funding and give it to a totally unrelated program for veterans. Not to say that the veterans' programs don't deserve more, but AmeriCorps seems to be working well for both the participant and the areas serviced. Tiahrt's actions show his contempt for government, even when it is helpful. Tiahrt kind of looks like a TV doctor, and I guess he wanted to play it out when he proscribed an amendment to take away all monies from any health program that gives away hypodermic needles to drug addicts.
Thrid District, Vince Snowbarger: His agenda is full of the same ridiculous pushbutton politics that social conservatives have copyrighted throughout the country. Of course he wants to do away with the National Endowment of the Arts and most other vestiges of governmental support of culture. Yes, how honorable of Mr. Snowbarger to support emotional and polarizing initiatives like a flag-burning amendment and prayer in school legislation. Way to get after the important stuff Vince.
Our final House contestant doesn't fall far from the same rotten tree. He is the 4th District's two-term representative, Todd Tlairt. He's more telegenic, but this doesn't begin to tell of the wonderful civic nature of Tlairt.
He, like most Republicans, gets nervous when discussion of campaign finance arises, so Vince decided to head off the issue with a bill of his own. His solution: a punitive bill that mandates jail time for those who violate campaign laws. While this idea gets points for being openly partisan, (no doubt Vince was thinking about the vice president when he proposed this bill) it is canceled out by another piece of Snowbarger legislation that removes the limit on how much a person can give to a campaign. Campaign finance reform is an important issue but one that Vince wants to keep as status quo instead of implementing meaningful reform. You can't blame Snowbarger; it is in his interest to do away with spending limits and to further corrupt a failed system.
Reactionary to say the least, Tiahrt's legislation would do wonders for the spread of AIDS and exemplify his misunderstanding of addiction.
Next time we'll look at the incumbent challengers.
Huskey is a Salina senior in political science.