4A
Friday, October 4, 1996
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Paroled citizens need access to state schools
Closely monitoring the activity of paroled individuals and protecting the safety of students in Kansas undoubtedly are important objectives. To that end, Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall has established a task force to examine campus safety issues. The task force now is considering safety-improvement recommendations from Board of Regents institutions.
Most of the recommendations are thoughtful and appropriate suggestions for improving safety on Kansas campuses. However, the proposal to bar paroled rapists and murderers from enrolling in Kansas colleges and universities for a year after their release date seems to be motivated more by fear than by reason.
Other recommendations from Regents institutions include increasing the number of emergency phones, improving campus lighting and creating a fund for crime-prevention programs. Each of these are reasonable propositions for improving campus safety. On the other hand, a yearlong ban on parolees who wish to enroll in state schools seems ill-considered because education is an inherent, fundamental component of rehabilitation.
Additionally, simply postponing a parolee's attempts to enroll in a Kansas school is unwarranted. Many parolees' efforts to educate themselves are genuine. Moreover, a paroled criminal with ulterior motives for enrolling just as easily could jeopardize students' safety on a college campus without enrolling in classes.
Attacks on students are contemptible, and every effort should be made to protect students' safety. Many of the task force's recommendations work to that end. Ultimately, however, disallowing parolees the opportunity to attend Regents schools cannot be justified.
LEWIS GALLOWAY FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Parking, transportation boards should begin to work together
Past experience suggests the difficulty of a parking and transportation system for more than 25,000 students and faculty at the University. Until now, efforts at coordinating those systems have been hampered by scarce monetary resources and a lack of consensus on solutions.
However, a Student Senate resolution seeking to combine the funds of the parking and transportation boards is a step toward relieving campus transportation woes.
According to a recent resolution passed by the Senate, the University is seeking to expand its parking facilities that would incorporate the bus system and offering a park-and-ride plan. The Senate resolution states that by combining the funds of each board, they "may more effectively meet their common goal."
Ashleigh de la Torre, liberal arts and sciences senator maintains that the resolution "would facilitate any type of plan that would combine the campus transportation system and parking facilities."
De la Torre said the University was having difficulty creating a comprehensive transportation system when the parking board was suggesting that students drive to campus while the transportation board is suggesting that students ride the bus instead. Consequently, the boards are working toward separate ends when a united effort would be more beneficial to the student body.
Although the resolution still must be approved by the Board of Regents and the Legislature, this effort attests to the Senate's commitment to facilitate the creation of a comprehensive campus transportation system beneficial to the University community.
JEREMY LIND FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
AMANDA TRAUGHBER
Editor
CRAIG LANG
Managing editor
MATT HOOD
Associate managing editor for design
KIMBERLY CRABTREE
CHARITY JEFFRIES
News editors
DARCI L. McLAIN
SARA ROSE
Public relations directors
Editors
KAREN GERSHC
Business manager
HEALY SMART
Retail sales manager
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUPP
Technology coordinator
Campus ... Su安娜 Llof
... Jason Strait
... Amy McVay
Editorial ... John Collar
Features ... Nicole Kennedy
Ames Wand
Bill Petulla
Associate sports ... Carlyn Foster
Online editor ... David L. Teksa
Photo ... Rich Devlinw
Graphics ... Mason Mauser
Andy Rohrbach
Special sections ... Amy McVay
Wire ... Debbie Staine
Business Staff
Campus mgr ... Mark Ozdemik
Regional mgr ... Naime Haupt
Assistant Retail mgr ... Dana Contento
National mgr ... Heather Valerier
Professional mgr ... Heather Valerier
Production mgr ... Den Kopoc
Lien Quebboman
Marketing director ... Erte Johnson
Creative director ... Desmond Lavelle
Webmaster ... Nathaniel Washburn
Mass Impact mgr ... Dena Plecito
Internet mgr ... Steve Sanger
Debate Commission made right decision
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Jeff MacNelly/ CHICAGO TRIBUNE
The Commission on Presidential Debates is receiving a lot of flak because of its decision to allow only President Clinton and Bob Dole to appear in the debates. The commission made the right decision, a decision that was criticized by Kansan editorialists on Sept. 26.
The first point that needs to be cleared up is the Commission's supposed biases. The Commission is a non-partisan group that spends $2 million of private money to sponsor the debates. The commission favors neither party. The only bias the commission has is its desire to have the debates.
The Perot issue needs better analysis. The commission has criteria it uses in determining which candidates will participate in the debates. In 1996, Perot does not
If [Perot] is a serious contender, why has his following diminished during the past four years?
meet the criteria. In 1902, he did. Perot's stance in the polls is far lower this time around. If he is a serious contender, why has his following diminished instead of grown during the past four years? The writers try to claim that "disillusioned voters have turned away from the major parties." Really? Well those voters have not chosen Perot as their new leader, that is for sure.
If the media, the Kansan and the editorial writers feel that a true injustice is occurring in this upcoming election, I challenge them to report on the issues and presidential candidates of all of the small parties. The Kansan even could sponsor a debate for
Perot might help to raise a lot of issues. And other third party candidates might possess a lot of other issues. I think it is unfair that the media spends more time badmouthing the debate commission than it spends reporting and informing the public about these third parties that the public wants to hear about. How many readers have heard about the Liberation Party, the New Alliance Party, the Natural Law Party, the Tax Payers Party or the Green Party?
the candidates of all those small parties. I wish you luck, because there are more than 100 presidential candidates.
My message: Not only leave the commission alone, but also remember to thank them for providing the time, energy and money to make the debates possible. Without the commission and their hard work, there would be no debates.
Ryan VanMeter McPherson sophomore
Gays, lesbians wear wedding rings, too
Speaking of being homophobic and ignorant... I am writing in response to Todd Hiatt's Sept. 23 column.
In response to being called a "white-boy faggot," Hiatt pointed out that the name-callers must not have seen his wedding ring, "which signifies government permission to marry." (Like they would care. I would like to point out that it is never acceptable to call someone a "white-boy faggot," even if they happen to be homosexual.)
And for some reason, Hiatt assumes that only heterosexuals wear wedding rings. For various reasons that have nothing to do with their sexual orientation, many homosexual men and women are legally married to a member of the opposite sex. In addition, while they cannot be legally married, many homosexual couples have commitment ceremonies and exchange rings as a symbol of their dedication to each other.
Victoria Mann St. Louis graduate student
Graffiti in Wescoe not xenophobic statement
Rochelle Votaw's Sept. 26 letter to the editor concerning the Chinese/English graffiti on the Wesco Hall blackboard was inappropriate. The Chinese sentences, at least the ones that I saw, were simply elementary-level exercises that ran something along the lines of:
"Are you Chinese?"
If Votaw had been able to read the Chinese sentences, she would have known that the accompanying English sentence, "Are you American?" was simply a direct translation, and not some sort of xenophobic political statement.
"Are you American?"
"Yes, I am."
"Yes, I am."
Dan Drees Hays graduate student
Columnist inaccurate on marriage legislation
As a former intern for the U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee, I worked for the individuals who drafted the Defense of Marriage Act; therefore, I have a firm understanding of this bill, why it was drafted and what it seeks to accomplish. Shannon Tauscher's column on the legislation is wrong. Not only is Tauscher misinformed, but she also is blissfully unaware of several aspects of the bill, including its purpose and history.
Tauscher said the "bill bans the recognition of same-sex marriages for the purpose of spousal benefits." Tauscher is mistaken in her interpretation. The legislation had two purposes, which were not those mentioned by her. The first was to legally define the word marriage for the purpose of federal law only. In the Defense of Marriage Act, marriage is defined as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." The second purpose was to allow the individual states to decide whether to acknowledge the marriage of same-sex partners. This is beneficial because different people in different states have different goals, and what is found to be legal or moral in one state may not be in another.
The full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, in most cases, seeks to make states recognize another state's position on such a matter. If a gay couple were to be married in another state, the full faith and credit clause would require all states to acknowledge such an agreement, regardless of each state's statutes. The Defense of Marriage Act simply would allow each state to define how it sees marriage. Tauscher also should note that Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings be proved." In simple terms, it gives Congress the power to legislate and subvert the full faith and credit clause if it so chooses.
I think it is important for all of us to fully understand legislation before we make hasty generalizations regarding its reasoning or outcome, especially when the bill seeks to clarify the definition of a term and return power to the states.
Lindsay Sander
Edina, Minn., senior
OUT FROM THE CRACKS
BUT I FORGOT WHO
YEAH, 3 PEOPLE CALLED, THEY SOUNDED REALLY IMPORTANT,
THEY
WERE.
Middle ground on abortion exists for some
If you have a strong opinion about abortion, brace yourself. Whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, I am bound to insult you.
That statement will confuse many people because they see abortion as an either-or proposition: You are either pro-life or pro-choice, and there is no in-between position. But after years of trying to come to terms with the issue, I am living between the positions.
During 13 years in Catholic school, I was the only vocally pro-
STAFF COLUMNIST
choice person in
fact, a friend
once told me that
she would pray
for me because
my oldest sister
was going to a
pro-choice rally
in Washington,
D.C. Then my
friend did not
speak to me for
three days.
During my freshman year at the University of Kansas, I was the only pro-life person on my residence hall floor. (I was quiet about it because being pro-life was not politically correct for a feminist.) Now, several years later, I have decided that I was right when I belonged to both movements, but for different reasons.
The Catholic schoolgirl in me has problems with abortion. She still thinks that it is wrong, but her reasons are private. The feminist in me is pro-choice. But both sides refuse to identify with either mainstream group. And both sides of me are disgusted by the propaganda.
I had a lot of contact with the pro-life movement during high school. By watching my classmates, teachers and the news, I began seeing the hypocrisy in the movement. According to an Aug. 25, 1991, article in the Orlando Sentinel Tribune, members of Operation Rescue in Wichita sent small children on Aug. 9, 1991, to stand in the middle of a busy street to stop traffic in front of an abortion clinic. All I wanted to know was: Why, when these people supposedly were for life, were they sending small children into a potentially dangerous situation? It did not make sense then, and it does not make sense today. Add to this the crazy people who were killing doctors, and the term "pro-life" no longer had meaning for me.
However, I have problems with the pro-choice movement, too. The pro-choice movement does not listen to the real issues (although the same could be said for pro-lifers). Pro-choice advocates also seem too quick to dismiss all pro-life supporters as crazy people. Furthermore, while preaching that abortion is OK, many times pro-choice advocates are quick to ignore other options. I once heard a pro-choice woman try to change the mind of a young woman who had decided to keep her baby.
Both groups are quick to dismiss the other side and to ignore the problem. The number of abortions has risen steadily during the past decade, and few people have asked why. And when 12-year-old girls are trying to get abortions, there is a problem.
My sister calls me pro-choice because I do not think it is my place to get involved with someone else's situation. But I do not label myself anything. I have friends who have had abortions, and those were their decisions, I never have been in that situation. Hopefully, I never will be. But I will support friends who are in that situation. That is not pro-choice; that is friendship. And in my world, that is all that matters.
Stacy Nagy is a Topokin Junior in Russian and women's studies.
By Jeremy Patnoi