OPINION
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
PUBLISHED DAILY SINCE 1912
CRAIG LANG, Editor
SUSANSA LOOF, Managing editor
KIMBERLY CRAFTRET, Editorial editor
TOM EBLEN, General manager, news adviser
MARK OZIMER, Business manager
DENNIS HAJTUP, Retail sales manager
JUSTIN KNUPPE, Technology coordinator
JAY STEINER, Sales and marketing adviser
Friday, April 18, 1997
Amy Miller / KANSAN
Editorials
New Student Senate must act upon campaign promise, rhetoric
Another election and another poor voter turnout. It would seem that 85 percent of students at the University still do not think that Student Senate can make a significant impact on their lives.
Many students are sick of hearing rhetoric briefly filled with sincerity during campaigns.
And finally, students are annoyed by the in-your-face campaign tactics still adopted by many Senate candidates.
Luckily for these students, those annoying senators will go away once they are elected, not to be heard from until the next election.
But this year all of this could change. After all, both the Unite and Delta Force coalitions vehemently preached about the necessity for change. But will they follow through with their promises?
This past was filled with pledges of activism and the rare theme at the University — to change the apathy on campus to empathy. But students remain skeptical and still believe candidates will say anything to bolster their resumes.
Senators have the means to correct students' indifference toward Senate.
The uniqueness of this campaign is not unlike elections of the past. This year, like years past, senators have an opportunity to make a difference and create more student involvement within Senate. Both coalitions cited the lack of student involvement as their main concern.
But instead of exacerbating this problem by sequestering themselves in the OAC offices in the Kansas Union, senators should make good on their campaign promises to create a more comprehensive Senate Web page to inform students of Senate's actions, setting up information tables in front of the Union or Wescoe, and placing informational advertisements in the Kansan about committee meetings and how to get involved.
The more visible senators are, the more students will be able to see that they are indeed trying to make a difference, and students may even shock a few people by getting involved.
Senators have the means to correct students' indifference toward Senate. The question is, will they take advantage of their unique opportunity to mobilize students in support of positive change, or will they disappear, taking their promises with them? Senators should make their presence known and pave the way for more student involvement.
NICK ZALLER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Student merits praise for Law Day
What do you want to be when you grow up? Remember that question? At first it may have been a truck driver or a ballerina, but for many those dreams have faded.
The next time that this question came up, perhaps a doctor or lawyer was the response. Of course, few children know what they actually will make of themselves, but giving them more insight into this decision is the best approach.
This is exactly what the Thurgood Marshall Law Day Program is trying to accomplish. This program was established by Richard Prince, a second-year law student at the University of Kansas, and it took place this past week.
Prince said that he had wanted to be a lawyer since he was in the sixth grade. However, he didn't know what it took. He attended a similar program in junior high, and it showed him how professionals acted.
We should give children the opportunity to test, explore the future.
Prince said that the experience had had a positive effect on him and that he hoped to give the same experiences to children today.
He established the program to give children a glance into the daily life and activities of a lawyer.
officers. The idea was to show youth that police officers are responsible for helping the community and should not be feared.
The children were shown how professionals acted. For this, he can only be commended.
The program, which was sponsored by the Black Law Student Association, the School of Law and the Lawrence Police Department, also allowed students to meet some Lawrence police
With speakers like police officers and law professors, hopefully children will gain a better understanding of how the legal web works as a large, interrelated system. Children even participated in a mock court, with eight-graders serving as jury members.
This program is a wonderful idea.
It is never too early for children to look toward the future. Hopefully, other departments and schools at the University will follow the lead of the Thurgood Marshall Law Day Program. How often are youth given an opportunity to test their future out today? If we can give them that chance, we are helping to give the future a slight push forward.
This program is a wonderful idea.
KANSAN STAFF
CODY SIMMS FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NEWS EDITORS
LATINA SULJIAN ... Associate Editorial
KRISTIE BLAST ... News
NOVELDA SOMMERS ... News
LESLIE TAYLOR ... News
AMANDA TRAUGHBER ... News
TARA TRENARY ... News
DAVID TESKA ... Online
SPENCER DUNCAN ... Sports
GINA THORNBURG ... Associate Sports
BRADLEY BROOKS ... Campus
LINDSHEY HENRY ... Campus
DAVE BRETTENSTEIN ... Features
PAM DISIMAN ... Photo
TYLER WIRKEN ... Photo
BRYAN VOLK ... Design
ANDY ROHRBACK ... Graphics
ANDREA ALBRIGHT ... Wire
LIZ MUSSER ... Special sections
AERICA VAZEY ... News clerk
ADVERTISING MINISTRY
HEATHER VALLER . Assistant retail
JULIE PEDLAR . Campus
DANA CENTENO . Regional
ANNETTE HOVER . National
BRIAN PAGEL . Marketing
SARAH SCHERWINSKI . Internet
DARCI MCLAIN . Production
DENA PISCOTTI . Production
ALLISON PIERCE . Special sections
SARA ROSE . Creative
DANA LAUETZ . Public relations
BRIAN LEFEVRE . Classified
RACHEL RUBIN . Assistant classified
BRIDGET COLLYER . Zone
JULIE DEWITT . Zone
CHRIS HAGHIRIAN . Zone
LIZ HESS . Zone
ANTHONY MIGLIAZZO . Zone
MARIA CRIST . Senior account executive
ADVERTISING MANAGERS
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
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.
All letter and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stuaffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Kim Crabtree (opinion@kansan.com) or LaTina Sullivan (sulliankan@kansan.com) at 864-4810.
Columns
E-mail ban violates Constitutional rights
First it was the elections commission's decision to restrict candidates' speech during the election, now the University is taking its fight against student liberties into cyberspace by limiting what messages can be sent electronically using University computers.
The first draft of the KU Electronic Mail policy restricts the use of the University e-mail system to mission-related purposes, defined as teaching, research and public service.
This type of governmental regulation of basic liberties — rights considered so basic by the framers of the Constitution that they didn't even include them in the original document — is the antithesis
of democracy. The right to speak, write and freely communicate ideas is more fundamental to our political system than the three branches of government. The way to siphon repugnant, annoying or discriminatory messages from the pool of ideas, whether in newspapers, written letters or electronic communication, is not to establish government-sanctioned content guidelines, but to allow them to compete for acceptance in the marketplace.
The University is certainly within its province to restrict its employees from discriminatory practices such as wearing political buttons or distributing religious materials. The University is a public institution and must offer everyone equal protection. The irony is that this policy will deny the rights of the very people it is aimed at protecting.
In establishing and maintaining a computer system for students, faculty and staff, the University
is simply providing a support service no different from the U.S. government providing a U.S. mail service. Restricting content in electronic messages is no different than if the Postal Service were to dictate what one may scrawl on a post card. Just because the words are electronic does not make them inherently more powerful than written ones nor does the fact that they are communicated using public means imply a governmental endorsement.
The University balances annoyance against First Amendment concerns in its recent actions. "If you're being harassed by somebody online, what rights do you have?" said William Crowe, vice chancellor for Information Services. Answer: The same rights you have when you find a copy of The Watchtower on your doorstep or when some zealot gives you a flower in an airport. You can ignore it.
The University's argument is bunk and policies based on it should be perforated and put on a roll. I'll bet Vice Chancellor Crowe my copy of the First Amendment that I can find offensive, discriminating and even obscene books in his libraries. What is more "proselytizing" than writing a whole book about your take on an issue? While a book on a library shelf is not as affronting as an email message or a written letter, the University still is allowing the ideas in that book to compete in the marketplace. What's the difference between allowing a book to sit on a shelf and allowing a message to sit in a mailbox? Nothing.
The University should feel as stupid as it looks in light of the recent decision of the elections commission and the proposed e-mail policy. Such actions are usually promulgated by jackbooted, brown-shirted thugs, not educated University officials.
Andy Obermueller is a Liberal, Kan. Junior in Journalism
Whining doesn't matter in ineffectual campaign
A long time ago, I thought that college was a place of learning. A place where children go to mature into adults. Boy, was I wrong.
As it happens, college is a comfy-cozy place to hide out from the real world. Basically, it's high school with ashtrays. And the maturity level of some students here rivals only Montessori preschool.
This has been made apparent in the past few weeks by the zany antics of those kooky Student Senate kids. Every year, they hit the sidewalks, holding Wescoe Hall under siege, making me take alternative routes to classes so I don't have to deal with the perfume sprayers of college politics.
Yes, I do mind if you talk with me for a while. No, you may not walk with me to class.
This year, both coalitions got in a little trouble, and instead of behaving like the genteel boys and girls they are, they resembled seasoned veterans of the political arena.
Oh, how I long for the dog days of November and mud-slinging by professionals. If I am going to be forced to watch all this pompous name-calling, at least do it well. Take notes from the big boys.
Both Unite and Delta Force should be ashamed of their behavior during the recent election. Whiny trash-talking isn't supposed to go on here. This is an institution of higher learning where we are supposed to try to change the ills of the world.
If we can't even hold a civil student election, how are we going to fix the world with our idealistic ideas?
Can't we just all get along?
But the bottom line is it's a student election, here people. It's not the end-all-be-all of politics, and let's face it, no one cares anyway.
Student elections are like everything else in college — they don't count; they're not real. The only thing they provide are resume boosts to the winners.
From the time we enter the hallowed halls of the University until the time we leave, what we do here (with the exception of committing a major felony) just doesn't matter. In the scheme of things, this election means nothing to the cosmic order, or for that matter to me.
Only 15 percent of the student population turned out to vote. Wow. Now, that's impressive.
I view Student Senate elections as a chance for the greek community to have a popularity contest, and then get drunk. Maybe that's why voter turnout was so low, because the Greeks are apparently the only vocal voters.
Now, I know that others vote, and in fact, I have voted in the past. But this year, because of all the showboating and name-calling from the Senate sand-box, I decided to keep my vote. Not that it mattered.
Apparently, the campaigns were run under, shall we say, "inventive" methods, and now the time has come to pay up. But what cannot be erased with monetary fines is the damage done to the campus.
Don't get me wrong, it was kind of fun watching you guys go at each other like mothers at a Beanie Baby sale.
You behaved like spoiled brats, and worst of all,
you are getting away with it. But that's OK.
Because it just doesn't matter.
Ashlee Roll is a Raleigh, N.C., senior in Journalism
Letter
Abortion isn't risky or mentally harmful
In response to Nicole Skalla's editorial regarding the Right to Know Act, I think that it is important to correct a few generalizations Skalla made.
First, abortion is not a dangerous, risky and mentally harmful procedure. Quite to the contrary, abortion is one of the safest and most commonly performed surgically procedures in the United States. Women experience complication in less than a 1/2 percent of abortions. Abortion is twice as safe as having your tonsils out and 11 times safer than giving birth. Women who give birth are 100 times more likely to need major abdominal surgery because of result of complications.
The main factor that puts women at risk for complication is the lack of adequate providers nationwide. Although abortion is legal in all 50 states, 54 percent of all urban counties have no abortion providers. It is also difficult for young, poor and
Any abortion facility operating under the professional standards is required to counsel before the procedure. Specially trained counselors or nurses talk to each woman about her choices—abortion, parenting and nurses. The procedure is described in detail and a friend or family member is allowed to be present to ensure, comfort the woman. If abortion is chosen, the staff person discusses legal and medical issues.
The reason that the doctor performs the procedure doesn't always counsel patients is because it is safe. It doesn't warrant infringing on the doctor's time, which may be better spent attending to the needs of patients in actual operating room. It would be the equivalent of a doctor taking blood or
women of color to pull together the resources needed to implement the abortion decision. Because of the timely nature of the procedure, it is a must that it be performed as soon as possible. These are the times when abortion becomes as Skalla puts it: dangerous, risky and mentally harmful.
I strongly recommend any woman who is contemplating an abortion to contact her local Planned Parenthood.
My abortion experience was relatively comfortable thanks to the warmth, discretion and openness of the Planned Parenthood staff. Full counseling and medical care was provided—before and after. It was not dangerous, risky or mentally harmful to me in any way. But then, I was lucky enough to afford the procedure, locate a professional provider and turn to family and friends.
In 1960, before abortion was legalized thousands of women died each year and many were sexually harassed by their physician.
Now, that's what I call dangerous, risky and mentally harmful.
Amy Row Pensacola, Fla. graduate student