4A
Thursday, March 21, 1996
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
New student loan program could overwork University
The Direct Student Loan Program, which allows institutions of higher learning to lend money, is not an improvement on borrowing from banks. Until institutions are able to prove they competently can administrate, lend and deal with an increased work load, direct lending will create more problems than it was created to solve.
Pending congressional approval, the University of Kansas will become a direct student lender for the 1996-97 academic school year. Direct student lending places all of the money and loan responsibility in the hands of educational institutions.
The process of applying for loans will be no different and will not change for the student. Direct lending only allows students to receive their funds faster. The University has the power to initiate the promissory note immediately after a loan is decided upon.
THE ISSUE:
New loan program
This considerably speeds
up the process and allows the student more repayment options than he would have with the bank.
It sounds like a beneficial plan, but will the University be able to handle the increased workload? It is hard to believe that individual institutions have the ability to manage and serve as overseers.
Educational institutions have proven that they have the ability to disperse funds, but they lack the staff and time to collect outstanding student debts.
The Direct Student Loan Program essentially gives the University more control, and it eliminates the problems and hassles that dealing with both the bank and the University can create. But until the University can prove that it can manage this program effectively, many will remain skeptical about its advantages.
TARA FITZPATRICK FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Abdul-Rauf should follow NBA's rules and regulations
On March 13, the NBA suspended Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf, player for the Denver Nuggets, indefinitely. Abdul-Rauf, who changed his name from Chris Jackson after converting to the Moslem religion, was unwilling to stand at attention during the playing of the national anthem because of his personal religious beliefs.
Abdul-Rauf finally did agree to stand during the playing of the national anthem on March 14, and in turn the NBA lifted the suspension. He said, however, that he would continue to pray while he stood.
Abdul-Rauf seemed more interested in making much ado about nothing than truly expressing his religion. Using religious beliefs as an excuse not to stand during the national anthem is an argument that lacks credibility. Abdul-Rauf, who converted to Islam in 1993, did not mention that such practice was against his religious beliefs until November 1995, when he stopped standing at attention during the national anthem.
THE ISSUE:
Sports and religion
If Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf agreed to take money for playing in the NBA, then he should have to follow its policies.
For more than four years, he had not complained about this NBA tradition.
As a result, claiming that such practice is against his religion is ludicrous.
Abdul-Rauf signed a contract with the NBA, and thereby agreed to adhere to its policies, which include standing during the playing of the national anthem.
The Denver Nugget knew the rules when he entered the NBA. If he is willing to take the money offered to him to play professional basketball, then he should be willing to stand during the few minutes Americans take to honor their country before every game.
HENRI BLANC FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Chan Lowe / FT. LAUDRDALE SUN-SENTINE
Academy's nominations reflect Hollywood racism
WASHINGTON — For a while, I was wondering if it was just me who noticed something conspicuously missing from this year's Academy Award nominees.
I am talking about people of color.
I am talking about people of color. For example, as the 69th annual Oscar ceremonies approach, just about everyone is talking about the beauty, grace and wonder of Best Picture nominee Sense and Sensibility, based on the Jane Austen novel. Yet director Ang Lee, who is of Asian descent, was not nominated.
And the title tune from the hit Waiting to Exhale, sung by Whitney Houston and produced by Babyface, was the nation's No.1 hit for several weeks, but it received no Oscar nomination — even though it sold more copies than any other song nominated.
While African Americans make up 12 percent of the U.S. population and 25 percent of the movie-going audience, the magazine reports:
But this year it turns out that I am not alone. In its March 18 issue, People magazine published a cover story that blows the lid off the notion that non-Caucasians are getting an even break in so-called liberal Hollywood.
After a four-month team investigation, the magazine reports that, in proportion to percentage of the U.S. population, African Americans in particular continue to be under-represented, underpaid and under-recognized in Hollywood.
By now I've become so accustomed to African Americans being under-represented in the Oscars that I hardly noticed the absence of them among this year's nominees. My motto is: Expect the worst, and you won't be disappointed.
Only one of this year's 166 Academy Award nominees is African American, and that is the director of a live-action short film.
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
member union of backstage personnel, are African American.
Of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' 5,043 members, nominate and choose the Oscar winners, fewer than 200 — or 3 percent — are African American.
Only 2.3 percent of the Directors Guild, 2.6 percent of the Writers Guild and less than 2 percent of the Local 44, a 4.000-
Even though Quincy Jones will direct this year's Oscar telecast from backstage while Whoopi Goldberg hosts, Jones told People that he was appalled that Ang Lee and so many other non-Caucasian talents were passed up.
"There's a lot of racism going on, and I'd be lying if I said there wasn't," Jones said.
"Is it racism or is it coincidence? Many would love to agree with three-time Oscar nominee Morgan Freeman that Hollywood movie decisions are predicated completely on money, not race."
But as the Waiting to Exhale example shows, even bankable African Americans have a hard time breaking through the industry's lasting prejudices. These prejudices actually inhibit Hollywood from making money.
Part of it simply is the industry's tightly knit "old boys" network, a paradox amply symbolized by the dinner party President Clinton attended in February at the home of record and movie boss David Geffen. The guests, who included other moguls such as Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzen-
berg, all were white males, according to People.
Some will find it hard to believe that a subtle form of white supremacy continues to permeate Hollywood, even in this, the era of Spike Lee, Eddie Murphy, Whitney Houston and other popular African-American stars, I, on the other hand, find it hard to believe that anyone still finds it hard to believe.
White skin still has its privileges in most areas of American life.
Why should the movies be any different?
Ironically, the presence of so many happy scenes of people of different races getting along on the screen deludes many of us into thinking that the races are, in reality, mixing more successfully than they really are. Unfortunately, real life does not affect reel life in this regard, not even in the movie industry's own studios.
To its credit, People, which is owned by Time Warner Inc., reported its own record on minority hiring and promotions, including its shortcomings. In a letter to readers, managing editor Landon Y. Jones reported that the magazine's editorial staff of 255 is composed of 22 percent minorities, but only a small percentage of its managers are minorities.
And some news makers, such as filmmaker Reginald Hudlin, complained that "We're never profiled unless the issue is race."
The film industry is, compared to other media, a steamboat among speedboats. It does not change direction unless pushed by tremendous, irresistible forces, like the power of the dollar.
Remember that the next time you go to the movies.
Clarence Page is a columnist at the Chicago Tribune
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Editorial implies history months are in competition
Tara Fitzpatrick's editorial on African-American and Women's history months argues that African-American contributions to American history and culture are less appreciated than women's contributions, and therefore Women's History Month is not as necessary as African-American History Month.
two groups? Is there a competition that I am not aware of?
I also take exception to the statement that most Caucasian women haven't experienced the extreme hatred that the African-American race has experienced.
Is this editorial saying that Women's History Month is unnecessary? If not, why compare the levels of discrimination against
Women from all racial and cultural groups have experienced hatred in various forms, from sexual stereotyping to sexual harassment to the ultimate display of hatred against women, sexual assault.
Karen Thomas Solomon
Lawrence graduate student
How to submit letters
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.
For any questions, call Paul Todd, editorial page editor,
or Craig Lang, associate editorial editor, at 864-4810.
I remember sitting in a class at my high school two and a half years ago, l.tening to my teacher talk about the horrendous lack of human-rights policies that existed in China. At that time, there were rumors of revoking China's Most Favored Nation status to stop these policies.
STAFF COLUMNIST
favor of other new and exciting ideas.
The idea never came into erect, and slowly the fervor died down in
U.S. — China trade relations promote lack of human rights
However, every once in a while, China's human-rights record comes back into the limelight, and the whole country once again joins the argument.
As I read The Kansas City Star a few weeks ago, an article concerning this topic caught my eye.
It seems the time may have come again.
The United States should not be playing Big Brother.
Placing trade sanctions on China would not interfere with the Chinese government's right to govern. It merely would be pointing out that in the United States, we do not condone. By continuing to trade with China, we quietly are supporting the actions of the government. We also are proving just how greedy we are.
The article went on to say, however, that while the report was critical of these behaviors, nothing will be done about it: no new threats about revoking the Most Favored Nation status and no trade restrictions of any sort. It seems that although the State Department does not like the situation, it is not making suggestions to make it better.
It said the State Department had found not only that conditions in China had not improved but also that they were worse than two or three years ago. The situation has worsened to the point that more repression, rampant mistreatment of prisoners and an overall increase in human-rights violations now exist.
It seems that in the United States, many people will do anything for money. The same people only look at short-term returns while ignoring long-term consequences. Our unwillingness to give up what may or may not be a fruitful trade partner in exchange for improving the lives and health of millions of innocent people is downright disgusting.
For some people, the United States is doing the right thing. Poor treatment by the Chinese government falls once again under the category of "none of our business." Furthermore, China is becoming more important as a trade partner, and many people do not want to end what could be a fruitful relationship.
The situation in China has deteriorated in the past three years. Basic freedoms that citizens of the United States take for granted are stifled. Prisoners are tortured and forced into confessions.
However, that does not matter, because trade with the oppressors may help us make a dollar or two. And unfortunately, it looks as if we are not going to take the necessary steps to stop it.
Stacy Nagy is a Topeka sophomore in Russian
KANSAN STAFF
ASHLEY MILLER
Editor
VIRGINIA MARGHEIM
Managing editor
ROBERT ALLEN
News editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Editors
Campus ... Joen Birk
... Phillip Brownlee
Editorial ... Paul Todd
Associate editorial ... Craig Lang
Marketing ... Mark Wilson
Sports ... Tom Brickson
Associate sports ... Bill Petulla
Photo ... Matt Flocker
Graphics ... Noah Musser
Social exclosures ... Novayla Vescova
Wire ... Tara Ternsy
Illustration ... Micael Leaker
HEATHER NEIAHUS
Business manager
KONAN HAUSER
Retail sales manager
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUPP
Technology coordinator
Business Staff
Campus mgr ... Karen Geresch
Regional mgr ... Kelly Comessy
Mgt ... Mark Otdeskm
Special Sections mgrs ... Olivia
Production mgrs ... Rachel Gahli
Marketing director ... Heather Walker
Public Relations dir. ... Angle Adamson
Directive director ... Ed Kowalczyk
Director ... Steve Warner
Internship/oo-mp ... T.J. Clark
HUBIE
By Greg Hardin