4
University Daily Kansan/Tuesday, November 19, 1991
OPINION
Comic strip debate
Withholding 'Doonesbury' strip hypocritical
Garry Trudeau has done some outrageous things with his "Doonesbury" strip before. There was his satire of "The Silent Scream" in 1985. There was Trudeau's depiction of bleak living conditions for troops during the Persian Gulf war. There was "Ron Headrest," which satirized former President Ronald Reagan. And now, Trudeau has taken aim at the favorite whipping boy of political satirists, Dan Quayle, with a new strip in which Quayle is implicated in a cocaine cover-up.
Naturally, a controversy has sprung up about Trudeau's handling of the strip. Has he gone too far? Some newspapers think so. The Chicago Tribune,
the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and the Buffalo (N.Y.) News are newspapers refusing to run the strip for reasons ranging from feeling that it is an "unfair shot" at Quayle to accusations that the strip "masquerades as reporting."
What the editors of these newspapers are actually doing is censoring Trudeau because his strip does not echo their political sentiments. The editors of such newspapers as the the Chicago Tribune have exposed themselves as a group of hypocrites who, on one hand, are quite content to run stories about the "Doonesbury" strip, while they withhold the strip from their readers. Presumably, the editors know what is best
for the public.
Whether Trudeau exceeded the bounds of good taste can only be determined individually. To decide, however, that the public should not see "Doonesbury" on a particular week because it is done in poor taste or that the public will confuse one cartoonist's opinion with factual reporting is the newspaper's right.
But if the newspaper is willing to print an article about the content of "Doonesbury," it is hypocritical not to print the strip itself.
Kevin Bartels for the editorial board.
Credit card use
Legislating low interest rates is not the answer
Legislators are talking about limiting the interest rates that banks can charge their credit card customers. While what money costs in other mediums of credit continues to decline, the price of plastic has stayed high. The banks say that in these bad economic times there are more bankruptcies and that somebody has to absorb the loss.
This philosophy may be OK, but it is not by chance that banks target the card-carrying customer. During bad economic times, many people decide to live on their Visa. While lower cardrates may get a few people through the current recession, a great number of people are digging themselves holes they may never get out of.
The banks know that they hold the trump card because more people will apply for cards in lieu of the cash they
will make during the much-awaited economic recovery. This is a bad plan.
The government should not legislate an interest rate on credit cards. Only the market can successfully determine cardrates. Legislated interest rates will only create an artificial environment more disastrous than simply allowing people to go into debt.
The answer to exorbitant credit cards rates lies in an educated population. Other legislation now being considered by Congress would require a more complete disclosure of a credit card company's financial status and demand 30 days notice before rates could be raised. This is a much more responsible step than hitting the panic button of interest rate ceilings.
Student consumers just need to be aware. If you buy that winter coat with
plastic and wait four years until you graduate to pay for it, you are going to owe about twice the original price. Why do you think the college student is bombarded with credit card applications?
Legislation is not the answer. Common sense is the way to bring down credit card interest rates. Using a credit card less will force the rates downward. But if irresponsible consumers continue to abuse their credit, the rates will have to stay up.
Michael Dick for the editorial board
LETTERS to the EDITOR
Problems exist in communication
The caption to the photograph that accompanied Thursday's article "Students say racism hinders progress" is misleading. What the student says are the Men of Today, Black Student Union, UJIMA and do we say that?
1. The media, specifically the Kansan, are racially biased.
Kansas, the University of Kansas' informative brochures are not representative of the student population.
3. KU's administration poorly represents racial minority students and, as Carlos F'leming said, "does it offer them if they need to get a good education."
These are fascinating claims. Not one of these issues represents a problem of communication between "white students" and "racial minorities." The article doesn't examine the "progress of racial minorities."
However, Jennifer Bach wrote that the meeting was "to discuss improving communication between white and minority students." The so-called solutions to this problem listed in the article were:
1. Improving the representation of the media set up by the University, which was proposed by James Bau-
com.
2. Implementing recommendations "that will last," which was proposed by Baucom.
3. Establishing a student cultural center to give "them the opportunity to learn about other cultures," which was proposed by Baucom.
This article is a perfect example of poor communication. Did the Kansan choose an inaccurate headline and outline? Was the editorial intention to make a politically correct statement? Did the meeting really just address grips concerning Darren Fulcher's and James Turner's media exposure, or did it contain no office of minority affairs? Were the students involved trying to justify racial separation? I am sure these are not the only questions raised by this article. The problem is that only questions and no conclusions about racism on our campus would be fair, because the communication is so unclear.
The first step attempts to improve communication between minority students, the *Kansan* and the administration. The second merely asks the University to do what it is told. The third solution seems to offer the best remedy for improving communication between students. But Fleming's statement that concludes the article claims that the center would provide "a place where we could feel at home," and the statement seems to indicate that the Union is not adequate for that purpose. I thought separate but equal was rejected in 1954 by the Supreme Court in Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education. Surely the representatives are not asking a public institution to perpetuate racism and separation.
Gwendolyn Lietzen Salt Lake City junior
Ending racism must begin with the Kansan
After reading Jennifer Bach's article "Students say racism hinders progress" in Thursday's Kansas, I felt that it was necessary to clarify some of the statements made by my colleagues and myself. I would like to start by saying that our intention is not to harm this University; we are simply trying to make KU a more enjoyful place for students. We are trying to improve the quality of life at the University of Kansas and help it to become the flagship university it claims to be. The fact is, in 1991, KU is behind the times.
We have yet to implement programs that encourage diversity, unlike other universities such as Iowa State University, the University of Wisconsin and the University of Michigan. Education is not simply a product of going to class, but it requires a commitment to understanding our surroundings. My fear is that our community will stagnate if we do not address the pervasive issues that surround us daily. It is important to understand that almost everyone is discriminated against, whether it is because of race, gender, height, weight, attractiveness, sexual orientation, etc. If this is true, then we must deal with discrimination and incriminations. I am not exempt from this assessment; therefore, I must also challenge myself to combat the ills of our society. Justaasa friend showed me that my Cleveland Indians baseball cap perpetuated racist beliefs about American Indians, our panel attempted to enlighten the KU community on some of the University's shortcomings.
In our interview with Jennifer Bach, the main point was not simply that "the media perpetuate unfair myths about African-American's." This is self-evident. We must dig deeper than that; the myth is two-fold: 1) Those who harbor racist beliefs are not necessarily sheet-wearing, KKK-card-holding, cross-burning, ignorant talking big-eyed; and 2) Diced beliefs are not always white. If we can understand the fact that we are all programmed in a society built on racist ideologies (e.g. slavery, Jim Crowism, Asian concentration camps, etc.), then it is easy to infer that everyone has acquired some kind
Carlos
Fleming
Guest
columnist
of discriminatory beliefs. Because minorities historically have been the object of these beliefs, they remain victims of the more advanced forms of subtle discrimination today. We also see examples of minority discrimination against other minorities because everyone has been afflicted. I must add that minority racism against whites is less likely, because it is extremely difficult for the oppressed to oppress the oppressor. Through this assessment, one might argue that everyone is racist. I prefer to argue that we all participate in racially biased ideologies; therefore, we must collectively increase our knowledge of our surroundings.
Finally, our panel did not defend Skip Turner's actions; however, we did disagree with the initial coverage Oct. 23, when his picture was put on the front page pursuant to unsubstantiated allegations from an accused murderer. Shankel made statements supporting Turner, and I felt his (or Brinkman's) picture could have replaced Turner's picture. Instead, Brinkman and Shankel were both pictured defending law professors who were being investigated by the ACLU for multiple sexual harassment cases. To add insult to injury, when Dan White tried to drug abuse, we find this on the lastpage of the book. I don't believe that every blunder by the Kansan is intentional, nor do I believe that Jennifer Bach's intention was to misrepresent our position; however, I do believe that the Kansan must become more sensitive to racial issues, and, as media representatives, has an obligation to create trends that enlighten and improve our community. One step should be selecting a Black to a long-term position on their advisory board.
Carlos Fleming is a Cleveland junior majoring in political science.
KANSAN STAFF
HOLLY LAWTON
Editor
by Mike Romane
JENNIFER REYNOLDS Managing editor
TOM EBLEN General manager,news adviser
Editors
Editors
News Erik Schutz
Editorial Karen Park
Planning Sarah Davis
Campus Eric Goraki
Sports Mike Andrews
Photo Brian Scheoni
Features Tiffany Harness
Graphics Melissa Unterberg
KATIE STADER Business manager
RICHHARSHBARGER Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
business staff
Campus sales mgr. Benny Bryant
Regional sales mgr. Jennifer Claxton
National sales mgr. David McWilaine
Co-op sales mgr. Lia Keeler
Production mgrs. Jay Steiner.
Marketing director. Wendy Stertz
Creative director. David Habiger
Classified mgr. Jennifer Jacount
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include their email address.
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Slaver-Flint Hall
Last Hurrahs
0