OPINION
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2004
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
www.kansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD
NCAA verdicts too lenient for Mizzou's violations
Ahh, the Missouri men's basketball team. The squad that nearly every Jayhawk loves to hate. Last week, the NCAA passed down its final verdict regarding several violations leveled against the Tigers in 2003. The punishment: Three years of probation, a one year ban on off-campus recruiting and elimination of one scholarship for the current year and two in 2006-2007. Lenient is the least judgmental way to describe the NCAA's treatment of the team.
At the start, the investigation pinned 17 violations to Missouri, ranging from paying its players to improper visits and contact with prospects. The infamous Ricky Clemons was the main source of the team's misery, first for being found guilty of beating his ex-girlfriend, and then for saying he received money from his coaches. His comments launched the investigation.
The NCAA verified the Tigers' guilt with its verdict, but it also said something about the severity of the transgressions. Why give the rare penalty of restricting the Tigers to recruiting only on campus, instead of the better-known ban on post-season play?
Thomas Yeager, chairman of the NCAA infractions committee, said the off-campus recruiting ban would send a message without punishing current student athletes on the team. Where was this logic when the committee banned
Baylor from postseason play a year ago? If the Bears can be put on ban when no one from the time of violation is still part of the team or coaching staff, the same should apply to a Missouri squad that still has several players and coaches on the roster and payroll from the time of violation.
The committee said they found no evidence — other than Clemons' testimony — to support the violation that coaches paid their players. If Clemons' word was good enough to launch an investigation, which found many violations, it's good enough to attest that coaches were slipping greenbacks to their players in the locker room.
Secondly, the elimination of the one scholarship this year is almost less than a slap on the hand. The Tigers planned to discard the scholarship anyway. Why go through the formality of taking it away?
The NCAA was far too gentle with Missouri for the number of violations that occurred. Giving the team a rare, yet minimal, punishment does little except raise questions about the organization's reasoning. At the very least, it raises investigation and inquiry questions; at the very worst, it reeks of favoritism.
Please understand, we do not think the Tigers will come close to being chosen for postseason play. But we are giving them the benefit of the doubt, hence our grievance with the NCAA.
Call 864-0500
Free for All
Free for All callers have 20 seconds to speak about any topic they wish. Kansan editors reserve the right to omit comments. Slanderous and obscene statements will not be printed. Phone numbers of all incoming calls are recorded.
the really hot ResNet guy will come back and fix my computer again? I'd really appreciate it.
I would just like to say that I understand everybody's upset that Bush won or Kerry lost. I just wanted to say that people don't take enough time to realize that we do have students on campus who are in the military that are fighting for someone greater. So, you can take time to recognize those soldiers and devil dogs, that's great.
So I'm standing in front of Wescoe with a psychotic Bible-beater and surprise, surprise, he has a George Bush bumper sticker.
Does anyone else have a problem with the bus driver taking his open-book driving test while he's driving the bus?
So there's this girl on our floor who has way too much time on her hands. She keeps printing off signs about John Kerry, but the election's over and I feel bad for her because she has nothing better to do.
instead of leaving the situation whenever exes shows up, you just pretend they aren't there. Don't acknowledge their presence if they are at the party. If they come up to you with a mutual friend, don't make eye contact. It's as if they never existed.
instead of leaving the situation whenever exes shows up, you just pretend they aren't there. Don't acknowledge their presence if they are at the party. If they come up to you with a mutual friend, don't make eye contact. It's as if they never existed.
You know, at gas stations, it says, "No shirt,
no shoes, no service?" I always wanted
someone to go in there without pants and
see if they would serve them. If someone
would please do that, please call and tell me
what happens. Thank you very much, I love
you all!
--instead of leaving the situation whenever exes shows up, you just pretend they aren't there. Don't acknowledge their presence if they are at the party. If they come up to you with a mutual friend, don't make eye contact. It's as if they never existed.
Why is Santa Claus so jolly? Because he knows where all the naughty girls live.
Somebody please send me a virus, so that
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
I just want to say that I'm really full right now, but I'm still going to eat because food is so darn good.
TALK TO US
Henry C. Jackson
editor
4810 or hljackson@kanaxan.com
Donovan Attkinson and Andrew Vaupel
managing editors
864-4810 or datikson@kansan.com and
avail@kwaien.com
Anna Clovis and Samia Khan opinion editors 864-4924 or opinion@kansan.com
Justin Roberts business manager 864-4358 or advertising@tansan.com
Jennifer Weaver
sales and marketing adviser
864-7686 or weaver@kaman.com
864-4810 or hjackson@kansan.com
Malcolm Gibson
general manager and news adviser
876-7867 or mgjbison@kanan.com
Stephanie Graham
retail sales manager
884-4368 or advertising@tansan.com
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
EDITION
Laura Rose Barr, Ty Beaver, Ryan Good, Anne Gregory, Jack Henry Rhodes, Kately Hollowell, Nate Kailin, Jay Kimmel, Stephanie Lovett, Taylor Prios, Noel Rasor, Ryan Scarrow, John Tran, Annie Wattmer and Michelle Wood
The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length, or reject all submissions. Letters to the editor should be no longer than 200 words and guest columns should not exceed 650 words. To submit a letter to the editor or a column, e-mail the document to opinion@kansan.com with your name, home town, year in school or position and phone number.
For any questions, call Anne Clovis or Saman Khatri at 864-8924 or e-mail at opinion@kansan.com. General questions should be directed to the editor at editor@kansan.com.
The Kansan welcomes letters to the editors and guest columns submitted by students, faculty and alumni
Maximum Length: 650 word limit
Include: Author's name
Class, hometown (student)
Position (faculty member)
Also: The Kansan will not print guest columnists that attack another columnist.
LETTER GUIDELINES
**Maximum Length:**
200 word limit
**Includes:** Author's name and telephone number
Class, hometown (student)
Position (faculty member)
GUEST COLUMN GUIDELINES
SUBMIT TO
E-mail:
opinionov@kansen.com
Hard coor:
Kansan newroom
111 Stuaffer-Flint
BEELER'S VIEW
Note Beeler/KRT CAMPUS
Morals not defined by Christianity
The election is over. It was the longest campaign this country has ever seen, practically four years in the making. But has anything been resolved? Does it really seem possible that this one day will solve the great divide that separates this nation?
AMERICA AT A CROSSROADS
The fact is we are still at a crossroads and there are national discussions that must take place. Morality must be the first topic.
Twenty-two percent of voters cited moral issues as the most important voting topic. These supposedly include marriage, family, reproductive choice and bio-ethics. My question is who decided these were the only moral issues in the election?
Does an issue become a moral issue only because a Christian leader says it is a question of morality?
These are not the only moral issues I saw in the election. The war in Iraq and the right to health care were also moral questions. These two subjects deal directly with life and death.
We can not define our nation's morals on Christianity alone. This country is supposed to be the protector of religious freedom and therefore encourage a national discussion on our population's morality.
We divide each other by throwing around terms like pro-life in respect to only abortion. I may support the women's right to choose but I am still pro-life.
BLAKE SWENSON opinion@kansan.com
The fact is we are still at a crossroads and there are national discussions that must take place.
I disagree with the war for a multitude of reasons, but most importantly because it is literally government-sanctioned killing. This war has led to the death of real people with histories, futures, families and homes.
Our invasion of Iraq has led to death totals of more than 1,100 American soldiers and 15,000 Iraqi civilians. How can someone call themselves pro-life and support a policy that leads directly to the end of life?
What about health care? We live in the most affluent country in the world and you are telling me we can not afford health care for all our citizens.
The most important role of government is to protect its citizens. I don't know when in history this protection was limited to military security, but protecting our nation's well-being is just as important.
We all sign an implicit social contract upon our birth in this nation. I accept the social contract wholeheartedly.
I have great faith in humanity and government because of this binding contract. Government was created to fight for equality, social justice and protect the collective interests of the citizens of the republic.
What is the role of our government in morality and how do we define morality in an age when population growth is so great? This is the first in a series of articles I will write talking about the crossroads America has reached.
I have asked a lot of questions because I want to see some response. Write letters to the editor or a guest column and let's start the dialogue here on campus.
Both sides have a lot of assumptions about one another, but what is the truth? This is what we must learn to better the world.
Swenson is a Topeka senior in political science. He works for the Kansas Democratic Party.
Be mature when dealing with an ex
It's one of those crazy Saturday nights. There was a football game at the stadium so traffic was hectic and it took 30 minutes to get anywhere.
Well, Schuyler and I go to a party at a friend's house to hang out, drink, chill and all that. It was a wonderful party, great music, fun mix of people; I was having the time of my life. Then I see him, a boy who I had an on-again, off-again emotionally intense fling with, which led to my current level of distrust for boys. I am suddenly befuddled, not understanding what to do. I hadn't seen him in a while and was unsure of how to act. Crap.
STEPHEN MOLES
opinton@kansan.com
SEX 101
So there are basically three ways you can deal with your ex in public: Avoid, ignore or accept. All have their pros and cons, so let's get into it.
Avoid: This is the technique which consists of putting your effort into making sure you are never in the same place as exes. This consists of avoiding their usual hangouts, mutual friends, possibly common parties or, if they do show up, leaving.
Pros: Never seeing them means no conflict.
Cons: They still control your life. You end up putting a lot of energy into just staying away from them. And where they go ends up limiting how social you can be.
Ignore: Similar to avoid, except
So there are basically three ways you can deal with your ex-in public: avoid, ignore or accept. They all have their pros and cons, so let's get into it.
Pros: It's intimidating to be completely ignored. If you use this technique you will usually have the power over the level of communication in the relationship.
You can be civil, engage them in conversation and treat them as if they were alive. This doesn't mean you have to be best buds with them, or even like them, but accept the fact that they will be around in one way or another.
Cons: You look like you're in eight grade. It's not mature and your friends will think you're a big baby.
As for how I acted within the situation? I took the accept approach. It's the most mature and seemed appropriate. I went and talked to the jerk and actually had a decent time.
Accept: Well, unfortunately, whether you like it or not, they were part of your life and will be around. (The University isn't that large of a place.)
Of course, while sitting next to him on the porch, I realized that I still liked him. But I'm going to leave this tidbit of information that I got from about.com, because I think it's relevant: "As a general rule seeing a person you were once intimate with in an intimate situation with another person hurts. It hurts like heck."
Dealing with an ex sucks. Use your judgment, be smart and most of all, if you still like them, make sure they don't know it.
Moles is a Lawrence junior in sociology.
值
1
---