4A
Opinion
Friday, September 10, 1999
Editorial
Lazer loses individuality with format changes
Loyal audience appreciated a modern rock alternative
the Lazer, 105.9 FM, is changing. Through a slow but sure evolution in the upcoming weeks, the Lazer we've come to know and respect will lose its current identity and its modern rock format will include more Top 40 songs.
This should cause serious and vocal protests by University students, who according to a KJHK poll, listen to the Lazer more than any other station.
You need to know, as informed Lawrence residents, several things. The Lazer, a business like any other in town, is susceptible to the pressures placed upon it by a business marketplace continuously mainstreaming and downsizing. At the same time, Lawrence is a college town with a strong base of ever-disappearing local businesses. The independent approach of many small businesses have helped shape the identity of the town.
But in 1988 when the Lazer was bought by the Zimmer Group, a group of radio investors out of Cape Girardeau, Mo., the future of the station became uncertain, at least to Lazer employees and listeners.
Commercial radio stations want to make as much money as they can. Money comes from advertising, which increases with a broader listener base. Sadly, sometimes that involves changing a station's identity, something the Lazer traditionally had worked hard to attain and proud display.
In *Radio and Records*, a trade publication that translates "station identity" into numbers, Lawrence is lumped into the Kansas City radio market, the 30th largest in the country. As of May, *Radio and Records* placed the Lazer in the alternative category (a demographic aimed at males 18-24) and ranked it 10 among all stations in the Kansas City market.
Bands like Everclear claim Lawrence as their second home and not without reason, as 105.9 was first in line to play those groups
— a key break for a band shooting for greatness. And as recently as last year, Rolling Stone magazine voted the Lazer as one of the ten stations in the country that don't suck. You even can turn to the Arbitron ratings, the industry standard for listserving polling, and see proof of the Lazer's success.
Further, a survey taken at last year's Dave Matthews Band concert in Kansas City revealed that on the way to the show, the majority of those polled were listening to none other than 105.9.
These figures, along with KJHK surveys, signal that KLZR is doing fine and doesn't need a major overhaul.
Recently, Zimmer Group brought in program director Chad Elliot to implement format changes. In a recent interview with the Kansan, Elliot said, "We're evolving it to serve Lawrence better." When asked about the move toward mainstream radio play, Elliot stated reassuringly that he and
the station weren't concerned with competition from Top 40 radio stations in Kansas City and that his company was committed to the community.
Confusing.
Here's the short and long of it.
Here's the shot and long of it. The Zimmer Group wants the Lazer to be the most profitable station it can be. But the modern rock format excludes a large potential listenership, according to extensive company polling. Apparently, modern rock is simply not the best way to accomplish profit goals, leading to the inclusion of Top 40.
This change is unfortunate. It reflects the trend in commercial radio in which familiarity (or conformity) means greater listenership, which in turn means more advertising dollars. General manager Hank Booth is confident that this change will allow the Lazer to reach a wider audience, especially in Lawrence, through enhanced community visibility.
It's clear that commercial radio is a business, where the bottom line is about market share and revenue rather than idealism and individuality. As consumers, students should make their opinions known about the change and let the Lazer know the format change is not welcomed. Hopefully, the tables will turn and they'll listen to their loyal customer base.
Matthew Dunehoo for the editorial board
Perspective
Holy Moses! Will our University be labeled a parochial school?
T the University of Kansas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union has been busy lately.
Yesterday, the KU ACLU delivered a letter to the chancellor asking him to explain why the University's seal uses a seemingly religious symbol. Next Wednesday, they'll be handing out chalk on Wesco Beach to draw attention to the recent controversy about chalk scribbling on campus sidewalks.
According to Buddy Lloyd, media
director for the KU ACLU, the group's small inquiry about the University seal could become part of a much bigger national push to keep church and state separate. How could this happen?
It seems that somehow this summer, Kansas got itself tangled up in a nasty church vs. state
Seth
Hoffman
associate
opinion editor
 opinion @ tarsan.com
battle. While I was busy fishing at a lake in South Dakota (literally — I wasn't recruiting Christians), the Kansas Board of Education created a plan to put our state back on the w
Let's face it, we were all tired of the Toto jokes, so the BOE took it upon itself to give us another claim to fame and invite some serious scrutiny about evolution in education. Whoops.
Now it seems the Kansas City-based Kansas ACLU office has taken an interest in the University seal's depic
tion of Moses in front of the burning bush. Even more ominously, there are rumblings from national legal organizations as well.
"That's not a religious symbol. It's a symbol of the quest for knowledge," you might say. But according to the national ACLU and the Coalition for Separation of Church and State, you'd be wrong. And while that might not mean a lot to you or me, the 10th Circuit Court agrees. It seems that the police department in Albuquerque, New Mexico, had a similar Bible-quoting slogan, also in Latin, that was deemed unlawful by the court and subsequently removed.
FYI, for you folks keeping score at home, Kansas is also in the 10th circuit. That means if big-time ACLU lawyers take this to court, KU likely will lose.
Unfortunately, most of the nation doesn't make the distinction between the Kansas Board of Education and the University of Kansas. Most people, maybe even the smart folks at the Kansas ACLU, think that somehow the two are linked. So if they can strike a blow to the University, they can strike a blow to the Board of Education.
This puts the University in a difficult situation, because if this case gets nationwide attention and the University chooses to defend its seal, the University will be strangely allied with the BOE as an organization that mixes church and state.
Chancellor Hemenway has done an admirable job denouncing the board's decision and reaffirming the University's commitment to science. Unfortunately, that commitment hasn't been covered by the nation$^{1}$
media, and, if the ACLU brings the seal case to court, he's in a tight spot.
If he defends the seal, the University risks being grouped with the Board of Education. If he lets it go, the University loses a big part of its heritage. That's why he gets the big bucks.
What does it mean for the University if the seal is ruled illegal? Well, not too much. Basically it would have to be removed from campus stationery, business cards, and, most unfortunately, the big plaque in front of Budig. But on the upside, the "smart" card you are carrying in your pocket will technically be deemed unlawful. (That will be a sweet day, and a great time to rethink the whole idea.)
If the seal is changed, don't get mad at the ACLU. Sure, it may seem that group members are a bunch of rabble-rousers who spoil our fun. But all they want to do is run the seal up the constitutional flagpole to see if anyone will salute.
If you need to place blame somewhere, blame it on the part of the First Amendment that says that government can't establish a religion. If you want, you also could blame it on the Board of Education. I bet you never thought voting for the BOE mattered. Boy. were you wrong.
I really like the University seal. Since I was a Catholic school kid, being able to read the motto on the seal somehow justified that Latin class I had to take. But if it gets sacrificed for a greater cause, and somehow the Board of Education learns a lesson from all this, that's all right with me.
Hoffman is a Lenexa senior in journalism.
United States should not be afraid of ideas
It's been nearly 30 years since Engel vs. Vitale, the landmark 1962 Supreme Court case that outlawed prayer in America's public schools. Unfortunately, that's not quite what happened, and therein lies the problem that teachers and administrators have been wrestling with ever since.
What this decision actually declared unconstitutional was mandatory, state- or school-sponsored prayer. That is, schools cannot require students to pray against their will, and they especially cannot make students use prayers that are written by school districts or the state.
Beyond that, everything else is pretty much
ran game, and extremists on both sides of the debate have been shouting at each other ad nauseum. Extreme religious conservatives blame Engel for every social ill under the sun, from lower test scores to teenage pregnancy to drug abuse. Liberal extremists use Engel to justify the complete removal of anything that even sounds religious from public schools, no matter what.
Flash forward to Texas
Flash forward to Texas 1999. Cheerleader Marian Ward wanted to lead her peers in a prayer before a football game. The principal of Santa Fe High School, where Marian attends, said that such a thing wouldn't be permitted. "The students will be disciplined just as if they had cursed," he was quoted as saving.
Jennifer Roush guest columnist opinion @karan.com
Although a court order stopped the threatened expulsion, and the prayer went off without a hitch or a complaint, such intervention shouldn't have been necessary. Since when have Americans been afraid of ideas? Or more accurately, why should we have to be afraid of ideas such as religion and prayer? We may
not be a Christian nation, as some on the right have claimed, but we are a deeply spiritual nation. Poll after poll shows that at least 90 percent of us believe in some sort of supreme spiritual being.
So why does a deeply religious man, like the Texas high school principal, threaten to expel a student for leading a voluntary prayer at a football game?
Fear. Fear of lawsuits, and fear born of an ignorance of what the law truly is.
Liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union have put the fear of God, so to speak, into America's public school officials. Teachers are afraid to teach anything about the nation's religious roots or the ideals of our Founding Fathers. Administrators are afraid to allow children to pray or read religious texts on school property.
What the ACLU has done in the years since Engel vs. Vitale is essentially to align itself, in the minds of the American public, against any sort of display of religious belief in American classrooms. While this isn't quite what the organization believes, the perception is there and won't be leaving any time soon.
In its zeal to protect children of minority faiths or no faith at all from the tyranny of the majority, the ACLU has set the scene for the backlash that is occurring right now in classrooms and school board meetings across the country. Many people are so afraid that they'll be sued by the ACLU for allowing religious expression that they either censor it all or, worse yet, they work harder to cram their seemingly besieged beliefs down the throats of bewildered schoolchildren.
This isn't fair to students, parents or religion. And it says bad things about an organization with such lofty goals.
As long as there are tests, the old joke goes, there will be prayer in schools. Let us hope that the ACLU doesn't bully students out of that too.
Roush is a Lawrence senior in journalism.
Kansan
Julie Wood, Editor
Laura Roddy, Managing editor
Cory Graham, Managing editor
Tom Eblen, General manager, news adviser
Published daily since 1912
Chad Bettes . . . Editorial
Seth Hoffman . Associate editorial
Carl Kaminski . . . Neus
Juan H. Heath . Online
Chris Fickett . Sports
Brad Hallier . Associate sports
Nadia Mustafa . Campus
Heather Woodward . Campus
Steph Brewer . Features
Dan Curry . Associate features
Matt Daugherty . Photo
Kristi Elliott . Design, graphics
T.J. Johnson . Wire
Melody Ard . Special sections
News editors
Brandi Byram, Business manager
Shauntae Blue. Retail sales manager
Dan Simon, Sales and marketing adviser
Scott Vallier, Technology coordinator
Advertising managers
Becky LaBranch ... Special sections
Thad Crane ... Campus
Will Baxter ... Regional
Jon Schlitt ... National
Danny Pumpelly ... Online sales
Micah Kaftiz ... Marketing
Emily Knowles ... Production
Jenny Wever ... Production
Matt Thomas ... Creative
Kelly Heffernan ... Classified
Juliana Moreira ... Zone
Chad Hale ... Zone
Brad Bolyard ... Zone
Amy Miller ... Zone
Advertising managers
I have watched with increasing disbelief as the furor over a misleading UDK article has grown to ridiculous extremes. In answer to an inquiry from Nathan Willis (UDK, Aug. 26) I expressed concern about the increasing amount of commercial "advertising" that was covering campus — not only in chalk writing on the walkals, but on walls of buildings, as well. I also said — and it was reported in that article — that any policy changes concerning commercial advertising via chalk would come from university governance, not from me. Nothing I said to Mr. Willis pertained to private speech, and I certainly was not thinking of private speech when I responded to Mr. Willis' inquiry.
Feedback Free speech not under fire at KU
I hope this letter will find the same wide distribution that has been afforded the unfounded rumors that free speech is under fire at this University. If individuals wish to express themselves by writing on the sidewalk, I may not agree with their sentiments, but certainly defend their rights to do so. My
David E. Shulenburger
Provost
defense does not extend to defacing public buildings or using University spaces as one vast billboard for commercial ventures.
Broaden your mind: Today's quote "Logic is in the eye of the logician." —Gloria Steinem
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-spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
4
All letters and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Chad Bettes or Seth Hoffman at 864-4924.
If you have comments, e-mail the staff (opinion@kansan.com) or call 864-4924.
1