4A
Monday, September 9,1996
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Tenure evaluation plan needs support from all
The University Council recently adopted a valuable plan to change the tenure evaluation policy at the University of Kansas. This change allows for identifying and possibly terminating professors who show a history of poor classroom performance.
Unfortunately, this change in policy has created a severe rift. On one side is the University Council and the University Senate Executive Committee, who want to allow departments to establish their own guidelines for evaluations. On the other side, some professors and students think the final document is not specific enough in its goals and definitions.
The rifts between these groups center on tenure protection and allowance for improvement. The document itself states, "Tenure is an important part of academic freedom but does not accord freedom from accountability."
The clearest problem in this situation seems to be a lack of communication between the University Council and the individuals with important concerns that they feel aren't being addressed. However, the proposal has been approved by the council and sent to the Regents for final approval.
Robert Minor, professor of religious studies, voiced concerns about the proposal. "It is clear that this is the beginning of the dismantling of tenure," he said.
It is therefore important for everyone involved to come together and make sure that implementing this policy change is fair. Situations where people argue and fight, then leave feeling they were not listened to belong in grade school, not college.
This policy change is important and necessary in the current academic environment. It makes professors accountable for the quality and quantity of what they teach. It also gives different departments the ability to define what is appropriate teaching behavior and fit it to the requirements of the course work.
"I am completely for getting rid of dead wood, but it needs to be clarified in the document what is meant and how much is meant," Minor said.
H. MARQ CONNER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Students should make effort to vote for depot art display
The Lawrence Arts Commission has set aside $30,000 to place a piece of artwork outside the Union Pacific Depot in North Lawrence.
The Arts Commission selection committee has narrowed 42 art proposals to five, which are on display at the depot.
The renovated depot is serving as the city's Visitors Center and also has meeting rooms. Because many tourists, residents and newcomers will visit the depot, choosing a design that represents the city's spirit is important.
Now the city is giving everyone a chance to conveniently cast a vote and tell the city which piece to display.
To voice opinions, interested students can go to the depot and fill out a public comment form.
depot and will out apply.
The deadline to cast a vote is Sept. 15. The depot is across the street from Johnny's Tavern on Locust Street.
People should take advantage of this opportunity to become involved in "Lawrence's Percent for Arts," which was created to benefit the city, and this vote will help realize that goal.
Let's not waste the opportunity
DOUG WEINSTEIN FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
AMANDA TRAUGHBER Editor
CRAIG LANG Managing editor
MATT HOOD Associate managing editor for design
KIMBERLY CRABTREE
CHARITY CRAFTIES News editors
DARCI L McLAIN
SARA ROSE
Public relations directors
KAREN GERSCH
Business manager
HEALY SMART
Retail sales manager
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUFF
Technology coordinator
Editors
Campus ... Suannna Lóëf
... Jason Strait
... Amy McVey
Editorial ... John Collar
Features ... Nicole Kennedy
Adam Ward
Sports ... Bill Petulia
Online sports ... Carlyn Foster
Online editor ... David L. Teskia
Photo ... Rich Dewkin
Graphics ... Richard Miner
Andy Rohrbach
Special sections ... Amy McVey
Wire ... Debbie Stahl
Shawn Trimble / KANSAN
Business Staff
*musqua mgr*...Mark Ozimak
*Regional mgr*...Dennila Haupt
*Assistant Retail mgr*...Daniela Haupt
*National mgr*...Krista Nye
*Industry mgrs*...Heather Valier
*Production mgrs*...Dan Kopec
*Marketing director*...Lies Quebbeman
*Marketing manager*...Desmond Lavelle
*Cledified mgr*...Shelly Wachter
Park rangers don't often jump at the chance to exercise their jurisdiction in a criminal investigation, but for a case in which more facts may be uncovered during the course of the election, Americans may get an explanation of why park officials are investigating a death that some think is controversial.
First couple's amnesia leaves many questions
I am referring to the death of Vincent Foster, who authorities say committed suicide July 20, 1993, in Fort Marcy Park, Va. Although such a death — Foster was the president's attorney — normally is investigated by the FBI, the Department of the Interior will be running this play. Who is coaching the game, of course, is a major point of contention in Washington.
But the truth is, Foster was perhaps the closest person to the Whitewater investigation, and he is dead.
The paper trail is all that remains for investigators, most notably White House Independent Prosecutor Kenneth Starr, to follow.
The paper trail boils down to this: The Clintons were 50-50 partners in the Whitewater Development Co. with James and Susan McDougal. with James and Susan McDougal. with McDougals owned the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, a key financier of Whitewater. According to The American Spectator, investigators believe that a large loan was made to the McDougals and secured by Hillary Clinton, and this loan was misapplied not just for the bailout of the McDougals' personal overdrafts at their own bank but also as an illegal contribution to Bill Clinton's campaign.
STAFF COLUMNIST
Other allegations of wrongdoing, including misuse of power, have been made. And recently, Susan McDougal was convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud. Her husband's sentencing in the same case has been delayed.
James McDougal aside, I have
a hard time accepting that the Clinton's shouldn't be suiting up in the same uniform Susan McDougal will be wearing for the next two years of her life: prison grays.
So the fact is this: One of the four partners was found guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud, and Susan McDougal didn't have a conspiracy with herself. Her business partners were her husband, the president and the first lady of the United States. The Clintons remain unindicted.
Because partners, by any twist of definition, means people having mutual involvement in an endeavor of some sort, be it tennis, bridge or business. The actual percentage doesn't have to be 50-50. Would 60-40 make anyone less guilty?
The Clinton policy of denial and lack of memory are as much an inoperative statement as the White House canards during Watergate. Presidents, governors, even a county commissioner who is careful about his job, will keep records concerning whom they spoke to
and what the topic was.
On top of that, the Clintons aren't buffoons, as much as I would like to so label them. They doubtlessly are intelligent people — as anyone must be who made about a $100,000 profit on roughly a $1,000 investment in the cattle futures market.
If Bill Clinton has enough brain wattage to be a Rhodes Scholar, then he can jolly well remember whether he unlawfully used his power as governor. Hillary has no more of an excuse than her husband. She was a practicing member of the bar.
Bill Clinton's words, just as so many fallen politicians before him, are polished and perfect. But his actions speak far more loudly than feeling our pain.
Actions equal character, and character is key. We rightfully expect these men and women who run our nation to have enough moral fiber to accept the trust they are given.
that trust does not allow them to go to Washington and vote as they please, but rather, the nature of the trust is that they will distance themselves from the unbecoming conduct and general malfaessance associated with the stereotypical politician.
We gave trust to Dian Rosenkowski and Bob Packwood. They proved unworthy of that trust by their actions and so invalidated their words and their right to office by their deeds.
Andy Obermuell is a Liberal junior in Journalism.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Speed bumps needed along Memorial Drive
About 4:45 p.m. on Sept. 3, I was walking west along Memorial Drive, just south of the Campanile, making my way toward my parked car. As I rounded the curve and was walking on the grass, a white truck came speeding in from the west, jumped the curve and headed directly for me. As the driver came closer, she suddenly pulled her truck back onto the road and stopped. She jumped out,
asked if I was OK, apologized, and said she didn't know what had happened.
I believe that everything happens for a reason. I could have easily been the woman in the white truck. Yes, I've taken some of the curves on Memorial Drive too fast. While I certainly don't condone her driving behavior, how many of us could have been the woman in the white truck? Worse yet, how many of us might have been the innocent pedestrian walking in the grass, thinking that we were safe?
on campus, slow down and pay attention! If you walk on campus, stay on the sidewalk. Finally, to the powers that be, how about placing speed bumps on Memorial Drive? Speed bumps may be the best solution to the chronic speeding problem. This problem some day may have tragic consequences.
Martina M. Thompson
Project coordinator,
Bailey Hall
My message is this: If you drive
When we hear the word welfare, many of us picture Aid to Families with Dependent Children, housing, food and nutrition programs and other public assistance programs that benefit those with low incomes.
But many people do not realize another type of welfare exists that costs taxpayers $5 billion more each year than all of the other welfare programs combined — it is corporate welfare.
Corporate aid avoids the ax while welfare for poor is cut
A July report by the Boston Globe estimated the federal government gives corporations more than $165 billion each year in tax breaks and direct subsidies. A few examples:
STAFF COLUMNIST
In 1995, Walt Disney Co., with profits exceeding $1 billion, received $300,000 from the government coffers to help perfect its fireworks display. McDonalds, hardly a business struggling to remain viable, receives $2 million each year to assist its overseas marketing campaigns. The U.S. Office of Management and Budget reports that tax breaks and loopholes allow corporations to pay taxes equal to only 25 percent of the taxes paid by individuals.
FATE
Compare this with individual recipients of government aid. They must fill out enough paperwork to fill a small building. They must wait for hours to meet with an overloaded caseworker. When they use food stamps to feed their families, they must withstand the rude stares and condescending scanning of their grocery cart contents by other customers. Their cases are reviewed on a regular basis to make certain they are not trying to cheat the government.
Real welfare reform would require the same amount of accountability from the rich as it does the poor. Real welfare reform would not entail dismantling the safety net that many Americans, mostly children, depend upon to survive. Real welfare reform would factor in compassion and caring instead of greed for profit. Something is terribly wrong in our society when we willingly thrust 2.6 million additional people into poverty while continuing to line the pockets of the real welfare abusers who we respectfully refer to as corporations.
There is no test for corporations to meet before they can receive government handouts. There is no time limit on the number of years they can suck money from the system The only requirement for these corporations is that they stay in business to keep receiving our tax dollars.
Shannon Taussier is a Lawrence graduate student in social welfare.
Proponents of these business welfare programs argue that such government investment stimulates the economy and creates jobs. Lack of oversight of these government handouts makes legitimizing these claims impossible. What we can document is the record-breaking profits of recipient corporations. We also can document the havoc that corporate downsizing has wreaked upon hundreds of thousands of Americans in the last couple years.
Democrats and Republicans have been quick to jump on the welfare reform bandwagon this election year. We hear lots of talk about personal responsibility, time limits and benefits and savings to the taxpayers. However, not one of the measures in the recently passed welfare reform bill applies to corporate welfare.
By Shawn Trimble