4 University Daily Kansan/Tuesday, October 22, 1991 OPINION Thomas hearings U.S. Senate failed to address real issues The process that the U.S Senate used to question Anita Hill concerning the nomination of Clarence Thomas was too long and unfair to both parties involved. Senators conducting the Thomas proceedings last week stressed that in no way was the inquiry into the sexual harassment charge against Thomas a trial, yet the procedure of questioning used by the Senate clearly put Thomas and Hill in a position where they were forced to defend themselves. Most senators opted to avoid the real issue of sexual harassment and instead dwelled on the extent of the relationship between Hill and Thomas or why Hill decided to make these facts public now. In the rare instances when the senators pursued the issue of sexual harass ment, they never really defined what sexual harassment was or the implications of having a candidate for Justice of the Supreme Court with such a reputation. No experts were brought in to testify. Thomas, Hill and U.S. citizens were victims of a judicial process that needs review. The status of a Supreme Court Justice is an important aspect of the U.S. judicial system. All that was accomplished by Thomas' confirmation was to make us realize that there has to be a better way to deal with these issues. Senators applauded the depth to which Thomas was questioned, and they were pleased with the confirmation. Why is that? Could it be that during the process the Thomas publicly called for a time of healing from the pain of this process and its issues, but how can he, Hill and millions of U.S. citizens begin a healing process when the Senate failed to address the issue of sexual harassment that made the hearings so contentious? Perhaps the healing could begin if the Senate revamps its processes so a debacle such as this cannot occur again. issue concerning whether Thomas could do the job turned to an exploration of the integrity of Thomas' and Hill's character, and the Senate vote reflected only that? Frank Williams for the editorial board Thomas hearings allow more presidential rhetoric A gentle help in mourning soned well with selective amnesia has been the favored political cuisine served up by the last two U.S. presidential administrations. Some people have dined readily. Many, however, have not been inclined to fill themselves with junk food. ins situation is not new, but in the past weeks the rhetoric issued by the White House has become particularly transparent and must have been accompanied by the hope that the American people had taken their cue and would play the "I can't remember" game. Because of a glaring lapse in judgment and good taste, President George Bush blasted Professor Anita Hill's statement as a vicious "smear" at the very hour of her testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. When Hill was giving her testimony and the rest of the nation was interested in gathering the facts about her charges, the administration attempted the shameful upstaging of Hill's testimony and empowering the process into a propagated power play. Regardless of whether Hill or Clarence Thomas was lying, the president and his administration disgarded the truth and hid behind their own political agenda to disrupt Hill's testimony and the nation's attempts to discern the facts gathered by the convoluted subcommittee, which already was sharply divided by reactionary partisan allegiance. Jeff Listerman Guest columnist The President's statements were salt in our nation's wounds, injurious to the people's well-being and clear thinking and the very antithesis of true leadership. The unavoidable implication is to diminish the importance of the issue of sexual harassment as a "smear" against men. Now that Thomas has been confirmed, the president and his handlers have attained the vantage point that allows the luxury of sensitivity. 'Taking a kinder and gentler position than in the last days before the final vote on Thomas. Bush sounded as absurd as a parrot in an echo chamber when he claimed that he hoped for a heightened national awareness of sexual harassment. Everyone from Democrats and Republicans to political analysts, feminists and people in the street have been very well documented in the press since Hill's charges were made public. Most, including Michael Dick for the Kansan editorial board, touted the heightened awareness as a silver lining to the cloud that hung over the nation — a cloud that the administration continues to keep with calculation. So the president's statements last week were not only bleached mimicry of public sentiment, but a direct contradiction to his previously proclaimed awareness of the specific issue as "smear." A bit of the administration's patented ammeia and a steady dose of sleeping pills might be just what the doctor ordered to ease our confusion. But concern on issues preside is president stands on issues has become so regular that overdose is possible. The president has accused others of using sort on crime while engaging in heavy-handed attacks to veto an anticrime bill that includes a ban on semi-automatic weapons. He apparently is more sensitive to the gun lobbies than to the victims of violent crime such as those in Killeen, Texas, Bush's home state. And underscoring Bush's one-sided interest in supporting the wealthy, the president recently vetoed a bill passed jointly in the Senate Representatives and the Senate that would have extended unemployment benefits for jobless U.S. citizens. In these recent actions and in numerous others, the president has shown that he is out of touch with the masses. He has proved that his professed desire for a kinder and gentler nation is pure rhetoric. It is a pretty paint job on an ugly machine that continues to ignore fundamental problems in the nation while driving us deeper into them. This is evident unless we perpetually forget yesterday, faithfully take our sleepy pillows and swallow big spoonfuls of hype as prescribed. Jeff Listerman is a Lawrence senior majoring in ceramics. LETTERS to the EDITOR Problem in recall vote not apathy A front-page article by Blaine Kimry in the Oct. 11 Kansan attributed the inability or slowness of the Students for Justice to collect sufficient signatures for a recall vote on the student president to apathy. Such an interpretation is unstudied and erroneous. It is not apathy but an unwillingness or discomfort of a vast number of the students to identify themselves with a movement or group working against the president. The Students for Justice was actually founded to remove or recall the president from office through direct student voting. One of its officers was quoted in the article as saying, "The group would continue to collect signatures if the Judicial Board decided in favor of the president." The logic that those not sympathetic with this group's aim are also given a chance to express their voice accordingly in the recall vote is purely a rational argument. But it is not the way people respond in feelings. That it is not student apathy on this issue is clear from the vast numbers who packed the Union ballroom at the first public hearing, the large number of responses on either side in the Kansan, and, more significantly, the fact that another neutral group calling for a referendum without taking any position was issued to collect the few. The Student Senate, however, rejected this other group's petition for other reasons. T. S. David If feel a little silly reducing the entire political correctness debate to one corny saying, but here goes: You just can't please everybody, no matter how hard you try. Case in point: Dinessh D'Souza's recent visit to our campus, D'Souza, as far as I can tell, was warning educators not to abandon Shakespeare in American socialist peasant women in collegiate curricula. Fair enough. D'Souza hinted that departments specializing in women's studies were nothing more than academic wing of a political movement. He's probably right. He said that affirmative action admissions engaged in the very racism they aim to abolish. I'll give him that. "It's wrong when those who dissent or disagree are classified as bigotrists," he said. Obviously Fast forward to the question-and-answer session after his talk. A Lyle Loveitt-like look took the microphone and complained that the ROTC gets too much money. They probably do. A succession of Nat X's pointed out that the interpretation of history was stilled in favor of white people. It probably is. bearded professor chose to ignore every D'Souza said and angriily took him to task for some things he and his staff said while putting out the Dartmouth Review. His anger was justified. Little recipe cards left on each seat by members of the Women's Student Union read, "This is offensive to women." Some of Dinesh D'Souza's remarks were offensive to women. While I was busy agreeing with everyone, I came to a realization. Any time educators attempt to apply a particular ideology to a curriculum, somebody isn't going to like it. Even if educators don't try to apply an ideology to a curriculum, somebody isn't going to like it. Especially with literature and humanities, areas of education that are naturally biased. D'Souza's downfall came about when he started reading in deeper philosophical waters. He tried to define education, and in doing so, incriminated himself. The attentive listener came to understand that stu- denies everywhere from Stanford to KU shouldn't 'rely on a group of liberal professors, Dinesh D'Souza, or anyone but themselves to decide what they read and how it interpreted. I guess D'Souza's stalk made me little skeptical of the political correctness backlash. Jokes about short people being "vertically challenged" are funny, but what's wrong with a little sensitivity, I'd like to know? When Billy Bob rants that he'd like to kill all "niggers" and "faggots," are we to embrace him and say, "Well, Billy, your politically incorrect views are certainly brave, and we admire you for being an intelligent dissenter. Have you written any books lately? We'd like to use them in our curriculum." If that's the kind of free discourse you're looking for, just drop in on your local high school locker room. Granted, the vocabulary isn't as agile and extensive as D'Souza's, but the ideas are similar. Contrain to James Baucom's recent editorial, students can't be taught how to think. Saying so is as sily as, well, I can't think of anything as witty and appropriate as the Richard Prylight bulb analogy, but you see my point. Students can only be given things to think about. Nobody is trying to imply that nobody is witty. Didn't George Will use the very same word to make the opposite argument? Take it all with a grain of salt, kids. David Wilson Kansas City, Mo., freshman Discrimination in jobs needs to end I would like to begin by saying that I believe that everyone should receive equal treatment, rights, salary and opportunity regardless of their race, religion or sex. To clarify that, I don't think a person should be hired or denied employment because they are a minority. I am sorry, but I am sick, sick, sick of all these protests with people screaming. "Hire more women, hire more African-American, hire more American, hire more non-communal." I know this is a new concept, but why don't we hire people who are qualified for these positions? You know, hire people with the education, employment experience and skills that are required to do the job. I have to say that hiring someone simply to meet a minority quota is an act of prejudice. America is the great melting pot. Most of us are a Heinz 57 combination. Every race, religion and sex has added to the great culture of this country. I'm not saying that we don't all deserve the same opportunities, but when it comes down to the wire, the person who is most qualified for the position should be the one hired for the position, regardless of his religion, race or sex. The fact that you are a woman or Asian or Catholic does not instantaneously make you a qualified doctor, teacher or secretary. It is our individual education, work experience and common sense that makes us more or less desirable for various employment opportunities. In a nutshell, people should not be hired simply to fill a minority quota. They should be hired because they are qualified for the position. Lisa Werner KU staff member Bennett may be new Mike Royko Although the residents of Ottawa may not have appreciated it, I felt Rich Bennett's Hoch fund-raising idea was a boot! I believe we have a Mike Royko in the making and look forward to more Bennett humor. Bob Lewis Radio/TV producer University Relations KANSAN STAFF HOLLY LAWTON Editor JENNIFERREYNOLDS Managing editor TOM EBLEN General manager, newsadviser News . . . . . KATIE STADER Business manager RICH HARSHBARGER Retail sales manager JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser Business Staff Business Staff Campus sales mgr. Lennard Bryan Regional sales mgr. Jennifer Claxton National sales mgr. David McWilaine Co-ops sales mgr. Lisa Kaefer Production mgrs. Jay Steiner, Marketing director. Wendy Stertz Creative director. David Habigler Classified mgr. Jennifer Jaquinto Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers are affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and homework, or faculty or staff position. Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be pho- topical The Kauai reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or the Kauai newroom, 111 Staffer-Flint Hall. must include a title and font, for the letters of the names Guest columns must be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be pho- Last Hurrahs by Mike Romane 200s Help Wanted Comic strip character needed badly. Must be neatly drawn, uncontroversial and willing to work for low pay. Original material required. Superheroes and Far Side farm animals need not apply. Send resumes to Last Hurrahs -