4A
Monday, October 30,1995
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
THE ISSUE: GRADING
Students need new appeal system
First, the proposed revisions shrink the students' options for appeal. One hearing, one ruling, and that's it. If there is an error in judgment, students have no route for recourse.
The right of a student to appeal his grade would be damaged by the proposed revisions to the University of Kansas grievance procedures. The revisions will, purposely or not, deconstruct a fair appeal system. Now, students first appeal their grade to a board of professors from the academic department where the grievance originated. If students aren't satisfied with the result of the initial hearing, the Judicial Board then will hear the appeal.
The second problem is that of professor bias. If the hearing is held within
The proposed revisions would eliminate the option of a second appeal to the Judicial Board. The revisions are an attempt to eliminate red tape and increase efficiency. However, they create two significant problems.
Students should have grade grievances heard by an unbiased committee of other students and professors.
an academic department, it is reasonable to assume that professors on the board interact daily with the professor whose grading practices are in question. This could make it hard for the board to rule in favor of the student. Conversely, the board may rule in favor of the student because of personal issues between faculty members.
The Student Senate Executive Committee already has objected to the proposal on the basis of professor bias. The committee intends to draft a different proposal that allows students an unbiased, extensive route of appeal. Perhaps they should consider a standing committee composed of students and professors.
Whatever the proposal is, it must ensure that students are given a fair route to appeal.
MARK POTTER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Unfortunately, most property owners in
Landlords should consider pets
THE ISSUE: LANDLORDS
Lawrence do not allow pets. Property owners should consider creating pet deposit policies that would create an avenue for responsible students to own a pet.
Property owners' rejection of allowing pets is understandable. In the past, students have let their animals urinate on carpet, claw doors and destroy property at costs that far exceed their security deposits. But an outright ban on pets is not the only way to combat the problem.
If property owners collected an additional pet security deposit from students with animals, then they would not be stuck with repair costs if the animal destroyed property. Also, the deposit would encourage students to be diligent about training and supervising their pet because they would stand to lose a lot of money.
Provided students give landlords a pet deposit pets should be allowed for both companionship and safety reasons.
Students who are not serious about the responsibilities of owning a pet would be deterred by the high-priced deposits, and pet abandonment and property destruction would decrease.
Because of the inflexible stances that many property owners take on pet ownership, some students sneak in a pet. But residents would be more likely to cooperate with apartment managers and report these delinquent pet owners if the management made some allowances for rule-abiding tenants to have a pet.
Property owners should consider creating pet deposits to allow responsible students to enjoy the safety and companionship pets provide. In the end, the interests of the property owners, the pets and the tenants would be best served.
IAN RITTER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
COLLEEN MCCAIN
Editor
DAVID WILSON
Managing editor, news
ASHLEY MILLER
Managing editor, planning & design
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Editors
STEPHANIE UTLEY
Business manager
MATT SHAW
Retail sales manager
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
Shawn Trimble / KANSAN
News & Special Sections: Deedra Allison
Editorial      Heather Lawrenc
Associate Editorial  Sarah Morrison
Associate Faculty  Emily Kelsey
Associate Campus   Teresa Venessy
Associate Campus   Paul Todd
Associate Sports   Alexandra
Associate Sports   Tom Brisson
Photo         Paul Katz
Wild          Robert Allen
Video        Danny Cohen
Business Staff
Campus mgr ... Meredith Hennong
Regional mgr ... Tom Dulac
mgr ... Noah伯曼 Bannee
Special Relations mgr ... Kerry Eason
Production mgr ... Ninny Eason
Marketing director ... Kenneth Hye
Public Relations director ... Beth Calebi
Creative director ... Ben Miquelman
Internals/so-on mgr ... Kelly Connolly
can bat. 300, shoot, catch, or hit a ball doesn't make them any less prone to make errors in judgment. Athletes are only human.
The reason people in society think all athletes, especially football players, are criminals is because the media transform the tiniest slip-up into earth-shattering news. As Mr. Rogers said, "Everyone makes mistakes." But only athletes are forced to answer a jury of thousands for their mistakes.
The media are prone to make mistakes as well. It is easy to print the sensational story of the latest athlete arrest on the front page and not to consider the consequences such a story might have in that person's life. Chances are, if you got stopped tonight for a misdemeanor crime, your name would not appear in any publication. The only judge you would face would be the one in the courtroom.
Jenny Wideke is an Evergreen, Colo.
Junior in Journalism.
Media gives unfair image of athletes as criminals
Open any paper and student athletes no longer are confined to the sports page. They are now Page One news with enormous headlines reporting their weekend criminal actions. Never mind the rest of the students — they have their place in an obscure section toward the back. Only athletes' mistakes are important enough to make the front page.
The media are like a flock of vultures, ready to sweop and devour athletes for the tiniest mistake they make. Some crimes definitely are serious and need to be reported, but some are published unnecessarily. At the University of Nebraska, it was published that one of its football players had an unpaid parking ticket. This is what the media consider newsworthy.
Imagine if the local paper wanted to feature a story on you and your hideous crime of parking in a red zone because you're a member of the glee club — this seems extreme and unfair. Why should students' extracurricular activities dictate
Consistently, student athletes are held to a higher standard than the regular student. The pressure is on them to perform on, and now off, the field. Student athletes live their lives under a microscope that parallels that of a professional athlete or politician. Is it fair to hold student athletes to this higher standard? If an athlete jaywalks, why should it become frontpage news the next day?
STAFF COLUMNIST
Any crime is inexcusable. I am in no way saying that athletes are above the law — and believe me, they know this. An athlete is just as prone to make a mistake as any other person. Just because people
how their personal life is viewed?
Dredging hurts quality of water
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The Kansas River Valley from Junction City to the Kansas City metropolitan area is home to almost 40 percent of the state's population. Without the river, none of us would be living here today. Yet the river that gives life to so many of us is dying from industrial and agricultural abuse.
The Kansas River from DeSoto to the Missouri River confluence has been transformed into an industrial ditch that we all should be ashamed of. While there are many industries responsible for the degradation of the Kansas River, one industry deserves to be singled out. The hydraulic sand dredging companies have done more to destroy the physical characteristics of the river corridor than all other industries combined.
The sand dredging companies now want to move up the river into a previously undredged and pristine section between Topeka and Lawrence. This area of the river is the most popular in the state. It is the winter home for hundreds of
bald eagles and thousands of migratory water fowl. It also provides a myriad of recreational opportunities. The integrity of this part of the river will be destroyed by the onslaught of dredging.
Kansas is one of only two states that has no protected rivers within its boundaries. With help from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Kansas Legislature, the industries have reduced the water quality in the rivers to that of some developing Third World countries. Our water quality ranks at or near the bottom of the list for all states. By the year 2000, visitors may be advised not to drink the water. How embarrassing!
You can help. Write, fax or telephone Gov. Bill Graves and your state legislators. Tell them you want no more dredging in the Kansas River. Tell them you are tired of our state government and industry working hand in hand to reduce the quality of our water to Third World standards. If we don't speak out now, another 30 miles of the Kansas River will be lost forever.
Sam Segraves Lawrence resident
Names of teams shouldn't be issue
The front page story about the offensive names of this year's World Series teams prompts a few observations. The first observation is that team names are honorifics, which are intended to signify something about the institutions' spirits. Teams usually are named after respected entities that exemplify fierce physical prowess or present some desirable quality or feature.
Today's politically correct mob would do well to do something memorable by addressing real problems instead of invented ones. Rather than concern themselves with the horrors connected with team names, perhaps they could address issues such as female circumcision or Third World hunger and illness. Or they could address problems closer to home, such as abolishing the welfare system, revamping the penal system or reinstating education in our schools.
Sheldon Todd Wilson Laurence graduate student
Education will eliminate stereotypes about AIDS
Reports indicate that some states are considering mandatory AIDS testing. These states' concerns are legitimate because of the serious nature of the AIDS epidemic. While action to stop the spread of AIDS is needed, mandatory AIDS testing may not be the
may not be the right solution.
STAFF COLUMNIST
The reality is, no
AIDS still is a stigmatized disease. Some parents fear sending their children to school with an infected classmate. And the epitome of ignorance occurs among those who think that AIDS only affects drug users and gay men.
matter how many suburban housewives contract the deadly HIV virus that leads to AIDS, some people still believe they are immune to it.
Some people who believe they are not immune still refuse to accept that they could get the virus or could have it now. Behavior patterns indicate that people are not knowledgeable or are not applying that knowledge to their lives.
KU students still admit to having unprotected, casual sex.
Because this stigma still exists, because people still display unwarranted paranoia and because others are not aware of the dangers, fighting ignorance should be our first priority.
We have to reach out to those who still are unclear about how the disease is transmitted and those who don't realize that their partners may not be honest with them.
Until we educate these people thoroughly, mandatory AIDS testing will be an exercise in chaos and disaster. Mandatory testing only would fuel the fire of discrimination and unnecessary fears.
Assuming that we have educated everyone, serious questions about mandatory testing still remain unanswered.
How would this work? Would all babies be tested? Would their parents have to be informed of the child's condition? Would all engaged couples have to be tested and reveal the results before receiving a marriage license? Would children have to be tested annually to attend school? Would their results be disclosed to the school system? Finally, we have to consider who would pay for all of this.
Beyond the questions of practicality, mandatory testing also raises a variety of ethical and moral questions.
The intention of mandatory testing is to prevent the spread of the virus. However, should the state, or anyone else, have the right to force someone to find out they are dying? Shouldn't a person have the responsibility for his own health and health care?
However, HIV carriers' rights aren't the only ones to be considered. If our ultimate concern is for the potential victims of AIDS, should people be allowed to be negligent in informing their sex partners? Should someone have the right to carry the disease unknowingly and spread it to others? Should someone have the right to intentionally spread the disease?
As mandatory AIDS testing reaches the political agendas of the future, these questions need to be answered. But before we can even consider mandatory testing as an option, we have to educate in homes, schools and communities.
Nicole Kennedy is an Olathe Junior in Journalism.
SUBJECT TO CHANGE
By Shawn Trimble