4A
Thursday, September 12, 1996
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
University needs to pair students with mentors
It happens every fall. About 80 sophomores apply for the University Scholars program with the hope of being one of 20 students selected, who also receive a scholarship. The University of Kansas should expand this program and create other opportunities for outstanding students.
Students must have a 3.8 grade point average, obtain three letters of recommendation and complete an essay to apply. Accepted students are paired with a University professor for the next five semesters. The faculty member serves as a mentor.
Kelly Huffman, Bellevue, Neb., junior and University Scholar, said that a student was paired with either a mentor who had similar academic interests or one who could broaden the student's interests.
The University needs more programs in which a student can be paired with a professor.
The University Scholars program seems to be a program that could benefit the student body if expanded. But, with only 20 students selected, what happens to the students who are rejected?
Carol Prentice, assistant to the provost, said there were funds for only 20 students, but aspiring students who had similar goals could seek other scholarships.
The University needs to realize that good programs such as the University Scholars program are being shortchanged because of a lack of money. Perhaps the University could recognize the need to start another mentor program.
Programs such as University Scholars provide students a chance to interact with professors in a way other students can't. This program can help solve students' advising problems because professors have a chance to get to know the student and can offer pertinent advice for future endeavors.
DOUG WEINSTEIN FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Anti-discrimination bill killed; gay-rights movement suffers
The Congress' decision to kill a bill banning workplace discrimination against homosexuals represents a step backward in a progressive society.
The bill would have worked against occurrences of discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace, barring employers from using sexual orientation as an excuse for firing, hiring, promoting or compensating employees. In 41 states, laws allow gays to be fired for being homosexual. The bill would have struck against those discriminatory laws.
Though President Clinton has said the decision should not be a cause for discrimination or gay bashing, the bill's defeat inevitably will legitimize those activities and attitudes. To say the least, it is disturbing that such overt institutionalized discrimination could be endorsed in a nation where differences offer the diversity that makes it strong.
General consensus agrees that discrimination on the basis of gender or race is harmful and wrongs society, resulting in the civil rights acts of the 1960s.
How can anyone ignore this precedent and discriminate according to sexual orientation? Opposition to this ban on discrimination probably came from a belief that homosexuality is immoral.
It is not one's obligation or right to judge the lifestyles of another and force one's values upon another, preventing them from earning a living without fear of hostility
If society degenerated to this state, the reign of majority power would be absolute. The philosophy of the Constitution embodies protection for the rights of minorities against oppression by the majority. Congress' decision to kill this bill erodes those protections. Let us be thankful and praise proponents of the ban for trying to lead this nation in an ethical direction, toward humanity, and condemn those who approved this injustice.
THE KANSAN EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
AMANDA TRAUGBBER
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
campus ... Susanna Lóel
... Jason Strait
... Amy McVey
Editorial ... John Collar
Nicec Kenney
Features ... Adam Ward
Sports ... Bill Petula
Associate sports ... Carlyn Foster
On-line editor ... David L. Teskia
Photo ... Rich Drevink
Graphics ... Nicholas Moser
Andy Rohrbeck
Special sections ... Amy McVey
Wire ... Debbie Staine
KAREN GERSCH
Business manager
HEALY SMART
Retail sales manager
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUPP
Technology coordinator
Business Staff
Campus mgr ... Mark Ozmek
Regional mgr ... Dennis Haupt
Assistant Retail mgr ... Dana Centore
Marketing manager ... Heather Valler
Special Sections mgr ... Heather Valler
Production mgr ... Dan Kopee
MARKETING director ... Lisa Gareen
Marketing director ... Johnson
Creative director ... Desmond Lavelle
Classified mgr ... Shelly Wachter
Jeff MacNelly / CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Representation comes only with casting ballot
I keep replaying an argument I had with a friend.
We made the mistake of breaking a cardinal rule of friendship: Never discuss politics.
Actually, that is not entirely true. We were not discussing politics, although they did play into the conversation. We were discussing government.
It all began rather innocently. As we were driving down 23rd Street, my friend and I began to discuss the coming presidential election. He voiced his disgust with the candidates, something everyone seems to be doing these days.
And then he dropped his bomb shell.
"I'm not going to vote," he said.
"I'm not going to vote," he said. This statement should not have surprised me. However, it did infuriate me. He didn't vote in the last election and has spent every second since then complaining about the President Clinton and Congress.
I then hit him with a barrage of questions, growing more angry as we went.
"You don't want to vote for Clinton or Dole because you don't agree with either of them about the issues, right?"
"Yes."
Yes.
"Have you researched the views of any other candidates to see if you agree with them more?"
"No. What's the point? I don't agree with any of them."
"How do you know that if you haven't checked?"
"Are you at least going to vote for someone to represent you in Congress?"
STAFF
COLUMNIST
Why should I? What have my sen-
"They've done lots of things."
"No, they haven't."
"Have you ever told them what you want done?"
"No."
"Have you written a letter to tell them what you want them to do?" "No."
any phone calls to talk with them about the issues that are important to you?
"Have you made
"No."
No. "How do you expect them to know what you want unless you tell them? It is your responsibility to take action on the issues that are important to you. You need to tell them how you want them to vote on a bill. Even if they don't do what you want, at least you have made your opinion known."
Our founding fathers built this country around the idea of a representative government. If you don't vote, you won't be represented. It is that simple.
way did this conversation make me so angry? First, he is promoting the stereotype of Generation X, that everyone our age is a slacker. If there is any part of his being that cares about his future, then not voting is lazy.
The conversation came to an abrupt halt because we realized that we were not going to influence each other.
Second, if my friend does not vote in the election because he does not agree with any of the candidates, he makes the votes of those who do
cast a ballot more meaningful. According to the Federal Election Commission, only 55.9 percent of eligible voters cast a vote in the 1992 presidential election. Furthermore, George Bush lost to Bill Clinton by six million votes — not that many by modern standards. If more people had cared enough to make a choice, the outcome of the election could have been different, changing the course of history.
Third, voting takes about five minutes. What is five minutes when the outcome affects your future?
Deanna Engel is a Liberal senior in Journalism.
And finally, it is important to vote because it is one of the ways you can make your voice heard. Part of the reason the '92 election was so interesting was because it was the first time in recent history when there was a strong third party candidate, Ross Perot. He received 18.9 percent of the popular vote. Why? Because people were discouraged with the Democrats and the Republicans. Some people voted for Ross Perot not because they agreed with his views on the issues but because they were protesting the popular parties.
So what? As a result, members of Congress proposed and passed legislation that otherwise might have stalled in committee because they realized they had to do something to keep the American people happy.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Allow Hector Clark back into classroom
As a 1996 graduate in chemical engineering from the University of Kansas, I am always interested in news of University proceedings. Recently, I returned to Lawrence. My mother had clipped a *Laurence Journal-World* article for me headlined, "Upset KU professor feeling squeezed." Reading this article reminded me of the controversy between Hector Clark, associate professor of mechanical engineering, and the administration.
student and recent graduate, I think that I can offer a useful perspective on this issue. First, allow me to assure you that I do not hold one party right and the other wrong. I truly do not know who is at fault in this situation.
I was fortunate enough to take Clark's science of materials course last semester and can state from firsthand observation that he is a fine teacher. He made a potentially dry subject interesting and relevant. It is true that in his class he distributed information relating to his grievances with the administration, but this hardly interrupted his excellent teaching.
It is my sincere hope that administrators value student input on all matters, particularly those concerning faculty. As a successful
I do not know the validity of Clark's assertions, but in my opinion, the administration would fare
better by discussing its problems with the professor in an open, honest, public manner rather than by trying to silence him with a teaching ban and a gag rule. I concede that Clark has been frivolous with his faculty grievances, but I deeply question any infringement on a person's right to be heard.
Finally, even if the University insists on conducting its business privately, I strongly encourage the administration to do everything in its power to return Clark to teaching. It is not only he who is suffering as a result of this conflict — his students are missing a valuable educational opportunity.
Mark C. Stover Lawrence resident
Clinton, Dole both qualified to run nation
The success of an opinion column can be measured in several ways, one being the extent that it stimulates intelligent questions from its readers. I am pleased to say that my previous two columns have done just that, as the question on every reader's mind is, "Jeff, when are you going to write something meaningful?"
While I would like to start with this column, I feel it would be futile as my credibility for the rest of my
STAFF COLUMNIST
undergraduate career has been shot because of the picture accompanying my articles. Realistically, how can I expect to be taken seriously with a face that has "smart-ass" written all over it.
For this reason,
I have chosen the
1996 presidential
race as this
week's topic.
While some
might argue the issue is one of little meaning, I label this article as such only because I have no practical insights to offer.
If you are still reading at this point, obviously you either a) skipped the previous paragraph, thus missing my admission of ignorance on the subject or b) enjoy listening to the ravings of one with no practical insights to offer.
Those who answered "b" can stop reading now as your vote is already committed to Ross Perot. This article is for those who, such as myself, have little interest in politics, but feel an uncontrollable urge to vote because of MTV's Rock the Vote campaign.
While I understand the extreme importance of a presidential election, it seems nearly impossible to gather enough unbiased information to make a rational decision. I've tried to follow the issues, controversies and campaign promises. But it seems that for every statement, there is a rebuttal; for every claim, a counterclaim; and for every city, town, or school district, a woman who has slept with Bill Clinton.
You may wonder, what does Bill Clinton's sex life have to do with this column or the election in general? Nothing. However, I believe the issue of overall character, especially honesty, is the most important in this campaign primarily because it is one of the few differences between the candidates.
With the exception of several issues, the conservative Dole and the "New Democrat" (conservative) Clinton share many of the same basic beliefs and goals for the presidency. While they differ on some admittedly major issues, the gap between these two candidates is continually shrinking.
Similarly, both candidates seem equally up to the task of assuming the nation's highest position. Assessments of Clinton's presidency vary greatly. One student in my politics class believes Clinton to be the best president since Franklin Roosevelt. Surely few would claim his term has been a tragedy for the country. And while Dole never has been president, he obviously must have a great deal of political knowledge to have risen to such a high and respected position in the Senate.
Both Clinton and Dole are capable of running this country. It certainly is relevant to ask if Clinton really can reform the welfare system or if Dole really can balance the budget and simultaneously lower taxes. But a more important question is, can we trust them to keep their promises past November?
Jeff Mudrick is a Topeka sophomore in psychology.
OUT FROM THE CRACKS
By Jeremy Patnoi