[ ]
AC
OPINION
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
PUBLISHED DAILY SINCE 1912
*
CRAG LANG, Editor MARK OZMKE, Business manager SUSANA LOOP, Managing editor DENNIS HAUPT, Retail sales manager KIMBERLY CRABELTREE, Editorial editor JUSTIN KNUPP, Technology coordinator TOM EBILEN, General manager, news adviser JAY STENNER, Sales and marketing adviser
Tuesday, April 29, 1997
Jeff MacNetly / CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Editorials
Commissioner's resignation should not surprise anyone
Someone should buy Chad Perlov a drink.
Perlov, Englewood, Colo., senior and former Student Senate elections commissioner, has put up with more madness than probably any individual on campus.
Perlov resigned from the commission last week after becoming disgusted with the seediness of Senate politics.
Similar to national television anchor Ted Koppel's walking out of the Republican National Convention last year, Perlov just couldn't live with his commission's actions any more.
And who can blame him?
First of all, he was in charge of overseeing the biggest flasco on campus — Student Senate elections. And for many reasons, dealing with Senate elections isn't pretty.
Senators from both coalitions were constantly complaining about violations that their competitors were supposedly committing. Actual violations
Chad Perlov is perhaps the most ethical person involved in this election.
were committed, and Perlov had to enforce penalties for those violations. Plus, being in charge of actually running the election, which includes training volunteers, distributing ballots and performing numerous other tasks so students can actually vote, is a bit task.
But Perlov had to deal with more than just his actual job this semester. He was threatened by a Student Senate that seemed to care more about watching out for tits own members than actually serving students at the University.
One penalty that the commission decided to enforce upon the newly elected Senate was to have an elections commissioner speak to the body as a whole about campaign violations. But
Jamie Johnson, former student body vice president, making one of the most blatant politically motivated moves possible, would not allow a commissioner to speak at Senate.
On top of that, once punishments were decided, other members of the elections commission decided to reconsider the earlier punishments for members of the Unite coalition, and thus be less harsh in their reprimanding. That was too much for Perlov.
So he did what anyone would do to save his or her sanity. He quit.
And in quitting he learned an important lesson: too many student senators aren't worried about serving the student body and instead are more concerned with serving themselves.
By standing up for what he believed in and quitting rather than go along with actions he didn't believe in, Chad Perlov's actions are perhaps the most commendable that students have seen during this election.
IAN RITTER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Dining halls should donate leftovers
Each day, KU dining halls serve thousands of students. At as any good cafeteria, food is prepared in excess of what is expected to be used so that in no event will the dining hall run out of food. However, at the end of each day much of the food that is left over is thrown away. It is safe to say that several hundred servings of unspoiled, unserved food goes into dumpsters every night at KU dining halls.
But it is not the waste of food that is such a shame. The real shame comes in the fact that the University of Kansas is allowed and even encouraged by state and federal regulations to donate left-over food to charity, but it doesn't.
Last year the federal government enacted the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, a law that states that no individual or organization can be held liable for donations made
The Good Samaritan Food Donation Act removes liability from food donors.
to charitable organizations. This law in effect encourages organizations to donate food by removing the major concern of food donors.
Other university dining halls, like those at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, donate food to charitable organizations. Harvesters of Kansas City even provides containers in which UMKC can place leftover food for donation.
As for record keeping, there is no clear reason why donating food would require more record keeping than throwing it in the dumpster does. The truth is that throwing away safe and sanitary food rather than donating it to charity is more than a waste of decent food. It deprives shelters and charity organizations in Lawrence of much-needed resources.
Officials at the University of Kansas argue that they throw away leftover food rather than donating it because they do not want to deal with transporting, repackaging and record keeping on donated food. This argument is weak.
Chances are that many area organizations would gladly provide containers and even labor for packaging and transporting the leftover food to a place where those who need it can use it.
The University should seriously reconsider its policy on leftover food. If it will not, the issue needs to be addressed stronger by students and community members. Certainly there is a better use for perfectly good food than simply sending it to rot in a landfill.
BEN SHOCKEY FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
LA TINA SULLIAN . . . Associate Editorial
KRISTE BLASI . . . News
NOVELDA SOMMERS . . . News
LESLEY TAYLOR . . . News
AMANDA TRAUGHER . . . News
TARA TRENAY . . . News
DAVID TESKA . . . Online
SPENCER DUNCAN . . . Sports
GINA THORNBURG . . . Associate Sports
BRADLEY BROOKS . . . Campus
LINDSEY HENRY . . . Campus
DAVE BRETTENSTEIN . Features
PAM DISIMMAN . . Photo
TYLER WIRKEN . Photo
BRYAN VOLK . Design
ANDY ROHEBACK . Graphics
ANDREA ALBRIGHT . Wire
LIZ MUSSER . Special sections
AERICA VEAZEY . News clerk
ADVERTISING MANAGERS
HEATHER VALLER ... Assistant retail
JULIE PEDLAR ... Campus
DANA CENTENO ... Regional
ANNETTE HOVER ... National
BRIAN PAGEL ... Marketing
SARAH SCHERWINSKI ... Internet
DARCI MCLAIN ... Production
DENA PISICOTTE ... Production
ALLIESON PIERCE ... Special sections
SARA ROSE ... Creative
DANA LAUETZ ... Public relations
BRIAN LEFEVRE ... Classified
RACHEL RUBIN ... Assistant classified
BRIDGET COLLYER ... Zone
JULIE DEWITT ... Zone
CHRIS HAGHRIAN ... Zone
LIZ HESS ... Zone
ANTHOh MIGLIAZCO ... Zone
MARIA MIGLIAZCO ... Senior account executive
NEWS EDITORS
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.
How to submit letters and guest columns
All letters 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 Kimberly Crabtree (opinion@kansan.com) or LaTina Sullivan (isulli-van@kansan.com) at 864-4810.
Guest columns: For this semester are no longer being accepted because of time constraints.
Columns
Passiveness prevents us from taking action
The first occurrence was on the basketball court, which is a place I always have considered a safe haven from the earth's petty problems. Hit a jumper, and you've got instant respect from complete strangers. All's well in the world when you're driving hard to the hoop and dishing a bullet pass to a teammate.
I recently had two shocking, random encounters that spoke deafening volumes about the world and my indifferent place in it.
On this sunny day, I was sitting on the court catching my breath in between games with nine other bushed ballplayers. One guy — a shirtless muscle man — starts jabbing about a date he's got in a few days. I could feel myself tensing up, sensing the innocent basketball world giving way to
"So what should I do with this girl I'm taking out Friday?" he asked one in particular.
something much more complicated.
The big guy sprung up on to the rim, smiling. "Well, yeah. Of course I'm going to @#* her. But what else should I do with her?" he grunted. I cringed, speechless, aware that people say such things all the time. Yet the speaker's casual tone — and the fact that it was uttered to strangers — led me to believe that the overt display of sexism was a date-rape waiting to happen. I'm positive it has since occurred somewhere in this town.
"F@**!" a smaller guy bellowed, casually flipping the ball toward the hoop. I closed my eyes and heard the rest of the guys laugh heartily in approval.
Within 10 minutes, my body was sprinting up and down the court with these oafs, again highfiving them like brothers.
A few days ago, another disturbing moment came as I was walking down Mississippi Street. I had my head buried in a newspaper when I heard a sickening thump and a blood-boiling
Yet I kept playing.
scream. Looking down the street, I spied a woman in her car, her fingers pushing down on the top of her head, stabbing the air with painful yelps.
She'd run over a cat. Not just run over it; crushed it. The cat was misshapen and flopping around on the pavement, enduring spasms that sent it flying five feet off the ground. I gritted my teeth and watched the cat's contorted body repeatedly bounce off the road, shooting blood in all directions in front of Spencer Art Museum.
I was confused. There wasn't a scratch on her car, no twisted vehicle sandwiched against it, no cracked windshield, no sign of anything amiss. Yet she went on screaming unintelligible words as her car slowed down to a halt. And then I saw it
I've since spent hours thinking about the beings involved in these scenes: A poor, unsuspecting woman facing a hulking man who won't take no for an answer. A pumped-up meathead with followers to feed his ego and encourage attack. An animal living its last moments in spasmodic agony. A woman undoubtedly having nightmares about the split second she crushed an animal's life.
But I kept walking.
I went back to my newspaper and walked home, never even finding out if the cat lived or died. I was too busy trying to forget the blood, the convulsions and the young woman's howls.
But instead, we look up only in fleeting interest and half-hearted disgust before going on with our lives. We close our eyes and ears to painful moments and claim we don't have the time — or emotion — to spare.
We'd all like to believe we possess the moral strength to stand up to the would-be rapist and his chums on the court. Instead we condone their behavior in fear of embarrassment, rejection or a fight. Or even worse, because we simply enjoy playing basketball with them. And most anyone would claim they'd instinctively help a suffering animal.
Next time I hope I find the strength to act.
And passive people like me.
Jeff Ruby is a Wichita graduate student in Journalism.
Letters
Women have the right to choose abstinence
When you talk to women today about their thoughts on abortion, almost unanimously the reply ends with "women should have a right to choose." I would agree that this statement is true, but it is used in the wrong context. The choice I am talking about is not whether to have the baby, because that choice was never given to us. That power lies only in the hands of God. The choice that women do have is the right to choose to abstain. The child is not where that "right to choose" is to be applied because the child is actually the consequence of an irresponsible choice.
The only solution for eliminating abortion is abstinence. I believe liberation for women is in the right to choose to abstain. Some may argue that this is completely unrealistic. The reality is the fact that one day our generation will have to give an account before God for all the unborn.
Lara Izokaitis St. Joseph, Mich., senior
Student politicians should lose offices
. . . .
I'm not usually a letter writer, but I feel strongly enough about this issue that I felt I had to voice my concern. I'm referring to the recent Student Senate election and the many violations of the newly-elected student body president and vice president.
One common response when justifying abortion is, "What about the future of the child...Crack babies? Birth defects? Criminals?" My only response to that question is, who are we to determine the destiny of another?
What brothers we most is that despite the elections commission determining that the violations were in fact committed, the offenders still hold office. The offenders will have to pay fines and take out ads in the University newspaper outlining the offenses.
What kind of messages are we sending to the rest of the student body, and indirectly, to the community at large? It seems to me that the messages are clear: The end justifies the means, and, if one has enough money, one can get away with anything. Why would the elections commission think that attitude is representative of the majority of KU students? Why would the elections commission think that the majority of students want to be represented by someone who is guilty of corruption?
Renee Williams-Reeb support services coordinator
Scientist gave his unreasoned opinion
A Hindu proverb says: "A monkey wearing silk is still a monkey." Osvaldo Munoz should remember these words when commenting on his interview with creation scientist Robert Brooks in the April 22 Kansan. A creationist with test tubes is still a creationist. That is, he is not a scientist in the same way as others, people whose religious beliefs do not dictate their conclusions.
The solution seems quite clear: Let the students vote again, now that they truly know who and what they are voting for. Not for all the seats won, but certainly for those held by students committing major election violations. The penalties should also still stand, regardless of whether the offenders continue to hold office. I am fully aware that the people discussed herein are students, and are still learning. However, with leadership comes responsibility. Minor violations are just that: minor. But major violations are different. The penalties need to send a message that the student body will not tolerate its leaders, and therefore themselves, being held to less than the highest standards, standards that cannot be bought.
Because science demands that the scientist accept the results of honest research, even if those results are contrary to what he believes.
I am not arguing that Brooks is not a scientist at all. I'm sure he's a fine entomologist.
And after decades of research supporting the probability of evolution, creation scientists like Brooks will not accept the results.
Why is Brooks' creationist take on the origin of humanity unscientific?
Because Brooks is a scientist in one field does not mean we should accept his opinion on any subject as a scientific statement, as Munoz apparently does in his column.
But speaking on human evolution, not an insect specialist's area of expertise, Brooks expresses an opinion, and not a scientifically reasoned one.
Delta Force, not Unite was victim of bias
Rachel Naas Baldwin City junior
We are writing in response to the letter by Aimee Mitchell, Margot Herster, Heather Mitchell and Becky Limanni. We are also liberal, non-greek, politically educated (whatever
that means) students, who voted for the Delta Force coalition. Their letter was an unforgivable distortion of reality. The four allege unfair coverage of the campaign that favored Delta Force. The Kansan had the obligation to report the allegations of misconduct by the Unite coalition, just as it reported the Delta Force graftif incident. The fact that the Travis Harrod story won a large spot on the Kansan's front page, as opposed to the smaller frontpage story about vandalism, was merely common sense. The fact that the four call the vandalism a more severe violation than the allegations against Unite show that they are grossly misinformed. The vandalism is categorized as a minor campaign violation, but profiting from unreported professional help is categorized as a major violation. The vandalism had only the potential to be punished by a small fine. The professional help is a big enough violation to disqualify an entire coalition, and result in fines of more than $630 and an ad in the Kansan.
The four complain that the Kansan has denied Unite fair representation by taking the emphasis off the issues. The Kansan had an entire series of articles concerning the candidates' viewpoints on issues. The fact that Unite's alleged violations also appeared on the front page is just the Kansan reporting news. After all, no paper waits until a trial to report a crime. The news of the violations printed after elections would have been utterly useless. It would not have allowed the campus to consider the separate coalitions' integrity and how their respective campaigns were run. The manner in which a coalition runs its campaign is an issue. We do not believe that the Kansan was biased in any way against the Unite campaign. If you'll recall, its editorial board did endorse Unite. In truth, the Delta Force campaign appeared to be discriminated against, witnessed by the Kansan not running a counter opinion in the same issue as the Andy Obermueller column.
As the letter stated: "When students pick up the Kansan, they believe what they read."
This may be true, but we don't believe all students were brainwashed by a pro-Unite Kansan. Any sensible voter would surely realize that it was actually the Delta Force coalition that got the shaft.
Mike Schindler Kansas City, Mo., sophomore
mike scammon
Kansas City, Mo., sophomore
Derek John
Topeka freshman
a