Opinion
Kansan
Published daily since 1912
Julie Wood, Editor
Laura Roddy, Managing editor
Cory Graham, Managing editor
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser
Brandt Byram, Business manager
Shauntea Blue, Retail sales manager
Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Scott Vallier, Technology coordinator
Thursday, October 7, 1999
Jamie Patterson / KANSAN
Editorials
Organizers of homecoming parade correct in banning obscene float
Stephenson Scholarship Hall's float entry in the Homecoming Day parade last week was deemed inappropriate by parade officials, so Stephenson was not allowed to participate in the parade. This was a correct decision.
Isley Unruh, Sedgwick sophomore and the float's designer, said that Student Union Activities' decision to not allow the float into the parade amounted to censorship and discrimination against non-greek floats. The University of Kansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union came to Stephenson's defense, saying that the University should not be allowed to ban floats.
What Unruh did not tell reporters or members of KU ACLU was that he misled SUA officials about the float design and that he planned to appear in the parade dressed as a bong.
Unruh knew the rules that governed
SUA was correct to censor the Stephenson Hall float from last week's parade
homecoming floats, which said that organizers must submit a detailed drawing of a proposed float, that the driver's view must not be obstructed and that the homecoming chairman reserved the right to disqualify floats deemed to be in poor taste. Unruh signed a document stating that he and his group would comply with these rules.
Stacy Chain, Derby senior and SUA special events coordinator, said that if the residents of Stephenson had been honest about their float, an effort would have been made to accommodate their desire not to conform. She said that
although the paper-mache fist flipping off the crowd still would have been deemed obscene and inappropriate, the entire float would not have been rejected.
SUA was within its rights to forbid the float from appearing because it was obscure in its final form. Parents should not have to fear taking their children to a homecoming parade; and the children of the Hilltop Child Development Center should not be forced to miss it because of the misguided actions of an immature few.
SUA also was justified in banning the float because Stephenon homecoming organizers repeatedly lied to Chain and other SUA officials about what they intended to do with the float. If the members of Stephenon want to use the protection of the First Amendment, let them do so after having told the truth.
Jennifer Roush for the editorial board
Stopping parade float stops expression
The Stephenson Hall float was a political statement. The First Amendment expressly forbids suppressing free speech. No Student Union Activities regulation should go against this basic principle. One of the few times the law allows for expression to be censored is for a compelling interest. One person's opinion of "poor taste" is not a compelling interest. Not everyone may like what the people who made the float used as symbols or how they chose to express their views, but that does not give the majority license to restrain the minority.
By removing the Stephenson Hall float from the Homecoming parade, SUA didn't allow you, parade watchers, to make your own decision. They decided what you should see. Even if you agree with the decision that the float was in poor taste, you weren't allowed to decide for
Float should have been allowed so that viewers could decide whether it was offensive
yourselves. By not allowing the float, SUA didn't let the issues it raised be debated.
It is interesting to note that the Alpha Tau Omega fraternity and Delta Gamma sorority float was a depiction of the Jayhawk throwing a dart at the Southern Methodist University mustang's rear end. If SUA was being so careful not to offend, why wasn't this float also banned? Silly, you and I might say, but some people could have been offended by this, too, especially if there were children watching.
parade is still censorship. It is like allowing anyone to wear whatever shirt they want — as long as it is black.
The fact that SUA has pre-existing rules that participants must sign that state they must agree to allow themselves to be censored to participate in the parade only makes it worse. SUA has institutionalized this censorship and makes people agree to give up their rights to expression even before being allowed in the parade.
While the editorial board has every right to agree with SUA, I think that its decision flies in the face of the First Amendment. For a group that is allowed to freely express its views, it is dishearening that a majority of its members would so quickly agree with the censorship of others.
"Allowing" a modified float into the
Kansan staff
Julie Wood, Kansan editor, dissenting
Chad Bettes . . . . .
News editors
Advertising managers
Becky LaBranch . . .Special sections
Thad Crane . . .Campus
Will Baxter . . .Regional
Jon Schlitt . . .National
Danny Pumpley . . .Online sales
Micah Kaftiz . . .Marketing
Emily Knowles . . .Production
Jenny Weaver . . .Production
Matt Thomas . . .Creative
Kelly Heffernan . . Classified
Juliana Moreira . . Zone
Chad Hale . . Zone
Brad Bolyard . . Zone
Amy Miller . . Zone
Broaden your mind: Today's quote
"Freedom is that instant between when someone tells you to do something and when you decide how to respond." —Jeffery Borenstein
How to submit letters and guest columns
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 hometown if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
Guest columns: Should be double-
space typed with fewer than 700 words.
The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stuuffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Chad Bettes or Seith Hoffman at 864-4924.
If you have general questions or comments, e-mail the page staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924.
Perspective
Members of the ACLU should seal the issue shut
You may have read in the past weeks about the ongoing discussion about the University seal between the ACLU and the University of Kansas. A few weeks ago, the KU chapter of the ACLU sent a letter to Chancellor Robert Hemenway. In this letter, members requested an explanation of the seal
in relationship to the separation of church and state. Following this, Hemenway responded to the ACLU by saying, "I will not hesitate to defend fully the continued use of the seal."
Unfortunately, this was not enough for the ACLU, Kevin Sivits, president of KU ACLU, said in last Tuesday's Kansas that the decision for further action was in the hands of the Kansas-Western Missouri affiliate of the group. I as
Robert
Reddigi
guest columnist
opinion@kansan.com
the campus liaison for the Student Advisory Council, represent the students of St. Lawrence Catholic Campus Center to the greater University community. We feel that the ACLU is making a mountain out of a mole hill. In a past issue of the Kansan, Buddy Lloyd, media director for the KU ACLU, said the seal seemed problematic.
Our question is, how is this so? If the seal has been around for this long with millions of people attending this University, how can it be causing problems? Have people not been able to study at night thinking about the seal? Or have they squirmed at the sight of the seal on their diplomas?
At St. Lawrence we see a need for protecting our civil liberties, but we do not see the seal
as an infraction against any of them. People may say this is because of our obvious religious ties to Moses and the scripture passage on the seal, but we also can look at this from an academic side. The quote literally says, "I see this great vision; the tree which is not consumed." There is no reference to God. This can be taken, in the context of a seal for a university, as the burning of knowledge that inflames our minds but does not destroy it.
Knowledge only makes our minds better, just as Christians, Jews and Muslims think that God made Moses better as a prophet. The picture of Moses before the burning bush also is an acceptable use of a religious figure. First of all, use of religious figures was never banned by the First Amendment, only the establishment of religion by the government.
This in no way is religious establishment by the University. The University makes no claim about the religious implications of the picture. This is a scene with which most people at the University are familiar. Moses, kneeling before the burning bush, is a symbol to the students at the University. We should all be attentive to our studies, giving it the proper time and attention it deserves.
We ask the Kansas-Western Missouri affiliate of the ACLU to pursue this matter only as far as debating the issue. Do not pursue it further, such as taking it to court. It would be a waste of money, time and effort that could be better used to fight for rights that are being denied. Where no harm is being done, no further action is needed.
Reddig is a Kansas City, Mo., senior in chemistry, math and microbiology. He is the campus liaison of the Student Advisory Council for St. Lawrence Catholic Campus Center.
A revelation: only defense for Moses seal is nostalgia
The University of Kansas community has an opportunity, a chance to do what's right. It's an excellent, visible occasion to be progressive, to make our environment more hospitable to everyone, and it's really not a difficult change.
We have the opportunity to change the University seal. The only thing stopping us is nostalgia.
The University seal features Moses kneeling before the burning bush, and the Biblical quote (translated from Latin), "I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt," (Exodus 3:3). This scene is intended to convey revelation — the discovery of knowledge. Obviously, this is a very appropriate theme for a university. The historical context of this scene is significant, because it
Brian
Bartelt
guest columnist
option @ kansan.com
cites a major legend from the Old Testament. Thus, it is well established and has meaning for a large portion of the population.
Unfortunately, it is unavoidably religious, and for that, appropriateness cannot compensate. The seal, with its Biblical theme, makes those of religions outside the Judeo-Christian tradition uncomfortable. That alone constitutes religious harassment. But legal issues aside, it's simply not right to make classmates, professors and friends of other religions feel out of place.
If you think that its not a big deal, if you think that it's silly for people to be offended by this issue, I ask you to consider this: imagine for a moment that you're a new student at the University. You just graduated from your private, Catholic high school, and you're excited to start your time at the University. As you pick up your copy of the timetable, you notice
a strange little symbol in the corner. You peer closer to examine it. You see a picture of Carl Sagan standing in the shower, washing his armpit. Around the picture are the words, "As I stood in the shower, it occurred to me that God does not exist."
Ignoring the fact that it's a dumb idea for a seal, how would that you make you feel? Thematically, it's the same as the current seal. It's about revelation (though a bit more overt, I admit). But if the official symbol of the University proclaimed that God did not exist, would that make you feel uncomfortable? If you don't like that example, consider this: what if the picture was of Buddhda sitting under a tree achieving enlightenment? Again, the theme is revelation, but would you think it was odd? Would you wonder if you were enrolling at the wrong place?
I propose that a committee of artists, historians, students, alumni and administrators be formed for the purpose of designing and selecting a new seal, within the bounds of one simple guideline — preserve the theme of revelation, but design it using secular material. Existing representations of the seal need not be banished to the archives or replaced immediately
However, I propose that the change should be implemented on record and in all publications (such as the timetable, diplomas and the University Web site) in time to welcome our first students enrolling in the new millennium, by the fall semester of the year 2000.
I urge the University to act on this plan, and I urge the students, faculty, alumni and administration to support the change. It won't be a difficult transition, and the change won't negatively affect anyone. The only real obstacle to overcome is nostalgia. It won't hurt at all, I promise. The change is a simple one, but one that will make the University a better, friendlier place.
Bartelt is a West Des Moines, Iowa, junior in film studies. He is a founding member of the Templine Revolution.
Feedback
Solicitors shouldn't be allowed in front of residence halls
I have a question to address to the chancellor and the other officials of this campus. I work in a residence hall and there were some solicitors in front of this hall asking students to fill out credit card applications and they would get a free T-shirt for their trouble. My question is why are these solicitors allowed to solicit the residents of these halls whose residents have no choice as to whether they can walk by them? On campus they have a choice as to whether they choose to walk by them or not. At my home I have the same choice. The students that live in the Halls have no choice. They
have to walk by these people to return to their rooms and go to eat. On campus the solicitors have certain areas that they are allowed to solicit in, why aren't there any such rules for the residence halls? Why not have a rule not allowing soliciting 50 feet in front of residence halls. I understand that the front of residence halls is considered public property so they can get away with it. Is it right that they be allowed to solicit residents like this? After all the residents have no choice in the matter, they have to go home and the solicitors are right in the way.
Robin Halbert
Custodial Crew Leader
Department of Student Housing
9