4
Wednesday, July 26, 1989 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Senate past still haunts us in election appeal hearings
The ghost of Student Senate past has returned, reeking havoc on Student Senate present and the student body it serves.
The elections review board last semester fined the Common Cause coalition, led by student body president B. Jake White, $150 for overspending during the campaign. Members of one of the losing coalitions, Certain Impact, appealed the decision to the University Judiciary Board, a panel of five chosen from a pool of faculty, staff and students.
But no students sat on the board that heard the appeal Friday. It seems last year's student body president, Brook Menees, failed to appoint a student representative to the board. Add that to the list of bungling moves by Senate past.
White and Jeff Morris, student body vice president, have admitted to the overspending. They say that Jane Hutchinson, then Student Senate Executive Committee chairman, interred her as a friend of them. StudEx is charged with interpreting Senate rules.
Another misadventure in the never-ending saga of Senate goof-ups occurred when the elections review board last semester voted to fine Common Cause without a majority present. Only two of six voting members and the non-voting chair man bothered to show up when it was time to make the decision.
Common Cause members spent hours of effort to win last semester's election. Unfortunately, last year's Senate and its officers did not respect the need to contribute as much effort to do their jobs.
It can only be hoped that the Senate poltergerist has been exorcised and that the bunglings of its officers can be repaired.
Jill Jess for the editorial board
Bush nominee a bad choice
William Lucas is not a qualified nominee for assistant attorney general for civil rights. As a matter of fact, going beyond qualifications, Lucas does not have any business being a public servant. He is a blatant liar.
The New York Times reported last week that "the opposition of Mr. Lucas by civil rights, legal and women's groups has centered on his lack of experience as a lawyer." This claim of inexperience is true for he has never tried a criminal or civil case, nor has he ever filed an appeal or a brief since he began practicing law in 1987. Regardless of his qualifications and because of his deceptive nature Lucas has no place as a federal civil rights leader.
Lucas has been less than forright in many of his dealings since 1963. One of his falsehoods ironically evolved around his work experience at the Justice Department. When applying to the New York state bar examination in 1981, Lucas wrote that he was once a U.S. attorney. He also wrote that he had never been a bar associate. He had never been a U.S. attorney. In fact he was in the justice Department in 1963 until it was learned he had the D.C. bar examination and was asked to resign.
It's hard not to feel sorry for a grown man who is so inclined to tell lies. In 1985, Lucas neglected to declare over $8,500 worth of jewelry and clothing he bought during a family trip to the Far East. Needless to say, Lucas was caught in this lie just as he seems to have been caught in others.
Another reflection of his character can be seen during the years he served as sheriff in Wayne County, Mich. As sheriff, Lucas was named as a defendant in more than 100 suits. One case regarded his failure to implement a court-ordered improvement of tail conditions.
Even Rep. John Conyers, the Michigan Democrat who introduced Lucas to the Senate Judicial Committee, withdrew his support of the nominee when Lucas said that recent Supreme Court rulings were not a setback for civil rights
Kathy Walsh for the editorial board
President Bush's disregard for civil rights has only been accentuated by his nomination of Lucas. Republicans claim the only reason Conyers and other Democrats are withdrawing their support of Lucas is because of the pressure they are getting from their fellow party members who would rather see a liberal appointed to that position. If conservatives believe that Lucas has lost the support of Democrats for this reason, the conservatives do not place much value on moral integrity and are blind to deception.
The editors in this column are the opinion of the editorial board. The editorial board consists of Jill Jess, Ric Brack, Kathy Walsh and Kirsten Bosnak.
News staff
Meas. ... Edito.
Ric Brockett ... Managing editor
Stan Diel ... Campus editor
Kelly Lamson ... Photo editor
Stephen Kline ... Graphics editor
Tom Ehlin ... General manager
Business staff
Scott Frater...Business manager
Jerre Medford...Business sales manager
Lori Pearson...Campus manager
Adam Pfeffer...Production manager
Mike Lohman...Classified manager
Jeanne Hines...Sales and management
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and less than 200 words and russt include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University of Kansas, please include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They are caniled or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall, Letters, columns and cartoons are the opinion of the writer or cartoonist and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daily Kansan. Editorials, which appear in the left-hand column, are the opinion of the Kansan editorial board.
The University Daily Kansas (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60405, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods and Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage is paid in Lawrence, Kan. 60404 Annual subscriptions by mail are $50. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
Postmaster: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Stauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Ken 66045.
Burning the flag no threat Amendment would be more harmful
T the flame of furor about flag burning seems to be dwindling. But the threat to the Constitution still exists.
Members of Congress reported that constituent response to the recent Supreme Court decision proclaimed flag burners he was heavy just after the session was announced. But now they say that the fire is under control.
But the battle against freedom continues.
President Bush and Congressional conservatives are backing a Constitutional amendment banning flag burning. It seems they were protected in the decision that the First Amendment protection unpatriotic pyrotechnics.
Jill Jess Editor
So much for checks and balances. Perhaps Bush would like all U.S. children to start each school day by draping themselves in the flag, saying a pledge of allegiance and bowing their heads for a morning prayer.
The flag does not need protection from desecration. In fact, true patriots should challenge desecration not by banning it, but by welcoming it. Let dissenters show their disrespect for the Colors. True patriots know that the country is great because the dissenters have that right.
Old Glory should not be placed on a pedestal. The true symbolism of the flag is in the fact that it can be burned, stomped on, shot at and decried and still come through in one piece.
The right to burn the flag is as symbolic as the flag itself. It is symbolic speech against our government. If we restricit, that right, we are restricting the Constitution and all that it stands for.
Bush and his buddies are speaking symbolically as well. They are saying, "Look what great patriots we have," and those Those Democrats hate Old Glory."
If past political moves by Bush are any indication of what he could do with the proposed flag amendment, the president would be prepared to defend their patriotism.
Pure partisan patriotism.
The Caped Crusader
The Constitution is not a political plaything. It is the basis of everything that is vital to our nation. The Constitution will kill of Rights should not be tolerated.
In the presidential race, Bush jumped all over the veto by Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis of a conservative party. In tandem the pledge of allegiance in
Massachusetts schools. By concentrating on the "issue," Bush managed to mask his stands on and divert the nation's attention from real issues such as his role in the Iran-contra scandal.
Bush has once again grabbed onto an emotional issue and taken the side that will appeal to superficial voters. But he also has this tactic understand that flag
burning is a legitimate form of speech that must be protected.
It is the people who have fallen for the political ploy that worry me. They are the ones who take politicians and their predictable rhetoric value and fail to realize when the wool is being pulled over their eyes.
These are the people who elected Ronald Reagan and his successor
George Bush. Both have been presidents of all flash and no substance
If there is any hope for the United States, it lies with people who understand that the Constitution cannot be hurt by burning a flag. It is the backers of the amendment that are threatening the Constitution.
Jill Jess is a Lawrence senior majoring in journalism.
K·A·N·S·A·N
MAILBOX
Misconceived idea
The purpose of this letter is to clear up a few misconceptions (no pun intended) presented by Brad Hansen in his letter published July 19. I appreciate his attempt to make public what he sees as a civil injustice, but I'm not sure I see the logic in many of his arguments.
Hansen claims that most pro-choice advocates are "liberals who (are) supporting many worthwhile causes like civil rights and an end to oppression." While I'm sure that many pro-choice advocates are "liberals," I don't see why one has to be "liberal" to support the right of a woman to her reproductive freedom. If a woman loses that right, she loses many other rights by means of necessity. We were to become pregnant tomorrow, most likely have to drop out of school to support myself and my child. Since my odds of finding a job that would provide comfortably for me would be rather slim, so much for my right to control my own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Hansen also states that if abortion is made illegal, "many women will say they were raped just to save face." If this statement is true and more women would begin to file rape suits, wouldn't it be more difficult for a woman to prove she was raped? The rape
victim would be further traumatized by the failure of the court system to prosecute the offender.
Finally, Hansen's choice of wording seems to indicate that he believes that many pro-choice advocates are pro-pro abortion. I can't believe it, but when I prompt a woman to become pregnant just so that she could get an abortion. Abortion comes into play as an option when it becomes a necessity, and, unfortunately, the Supreme Court has made it more for a woman to have an abortion when she has no other options.
I don't understand why Brad Hansen feels that he will change the minds of the members of the pro-choice movement with a few changes. And you need to read you to read this letter with an open mind; I'm sure you've already formulated an opinion. But if you've decided that women's right to reproductive freedom is important, write your legislator today.
Jean Carter Wichita sophomore
Pro-life logic fails
This letter is in response to Brad Hansen's letter condemning the pro-choice movement. Mr. Hansen, from reading this letter and letters from you in the past issues of the Kansan on other blogs, only people you would grant civil rights to would be white, heterosexual men. Most of the points you made were so ridiculous that they
simply made me chuckle. Your comparison between the life of a fetus and a lab rat, a white one no less, is an interesting and amusing example of your bizarre reasoning skills.
However, saying that many women will claim to be rape victims to "save face" was too much. Rape is a physically and emotionally traumatic crime. What woman would put herself in the position of a grueling physical examination and possible extension of her pain just to get an abortion? Obviously they are at all aware of the effects and consequences of rape that victims must endure.
You also suggest that rape victims who actually do become pregnant should have the child. Come on, Brad, you can't be serious. You're saying that if you were to be married and your wife became pregnant from a rape, you would expect her to carry the physical burden of the crime for nine years. And you wouldn't want to claim this child as your own once it was born? If so, I feel very sorry for the woman you happen to marry. Not only are you sexist, you are also sadistic.
Shannon Teuscher
Lawrence sophomore
Humane abortion
That number harrifies me as well. The thought of this many unwanted children being born is sickening. Some of these would
This letter is to those who are horrified at the 1.5 million fetuses who are aborted in the United States each year.
probably be adopted by loving parents, but many would face lives of poverty, neglect or abuse. Older children, minority children and children with special needs are especially likely to find no escape from institutions or the perpetual insecurity of foster care.
My parents have taken in a number of foster children over the years, but even good foster parents cannot erase the scars these children bear. How you see them is different when he tells you that his mother abandoned him because she doesn't love him anymore? Have you seen the pain and low self-esteem of the teen-ager who realizes that no one gives a damn about her appearance when she gets into a sexual relationship too young because she just wants someone to love her.
When a pregnant woman knows that she does not have the economic or emotional resources to care for a child, an abortion may be the most humane solution. Whatever possible physical pain the mother experiences is capable of perforating mercifully short compared to the misery of a child who has to live for years without love and security.
It should be obvious that we are unwilling to allocate the resources to care decently for the poor, the homeless and other powerless people already living in this country. Adding 1.5 million to their number each year by denying women abortions shows an incredible lack of compassion and plain common sense.
Tricia Peavler Waverly senior