4
Thursday, April 13, 1989 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
To get quality education, we've got to pay the price
To ensure the quality of Kansas universities, the Board of Regents needs more money. The money must come from a
The Special Committee on Tuition and Fees, composed of Board of Regents members, university officials and students, recommended last week a 6-percent tuition increase for instate students and a 10-percent increase for out-of-state residents. A $15 application fee also was recommended.
Next week, the proposals will go to the Regents. Final action isn't expected until Mav.
Although tuition has increased each year for the last eight years at the University of Kansas and at six other state schools, an additional increase is needed. Even with money supplied by the Margin of Excellence, teacher salaries are low, classes are crowded and space on campus is limited. Committee endorsements came from those who recommended that the additional money be used to supplement the Margin.
Kansas schools are among the most affordable in the country, especially considering the high quality. In-state tuition is considerably lower than other state schools. KU's out-of-state tuition is comparable to many state's in-state rates.
KU's peer institutions are more expensive, also. According to 1986-1987 figures, in-state residents at the University of Colorado at Boulder, for example, paid $1,779 to KU's $1,290 for a year of school. Out-of-state students at CU paid $6,559, whereas KU's non-residents paid $2,200
A tuition increase is never welcomed by students. No one wants to pay more than they have to; but in this case, we have to. If we expect to get a quality education, we must expect to pay more.
Grace Hobson for the editorial board
Financing Royals provides more than just baseball team
Kansas City does not have the geographical makeup to have a major-league baseball team, according to Royals co-owner Avron Fogelman.
Baseball fans have been given fair warning
If having a major league baseball team is important to Kansas City, legislators in Jackson County, Mo., and the state of Missouri should thoughtfully consider what Fogelman has said.
He said, among other things, that the team needed a new lease at Royals Stadium, a lease in which the club no longer would be responsible for maintaining the ballpark.
Fogelman, who is from Memphis, Tenn., gave many people in the Kansas City area a scare last week when comments he made were taken to mean that he wanted to move the team.
The Royals are the only major league team that maintains its own stadium and also pays rent. The team pays almost $5 million each year in maintenance. And, according to Fogelman, the team lost money in 1987 and 1988.
In addition, Kansas City is one of the smallest television markets in the major leagues. The Royals receive only $3 million a year in local broadcasting revenue, but teams such as the New York Yankees may get as much as $20 million or $40 million.
Fogelman insists he doesn't want to move the team, and he should be taken at his word. He simply was voicing his concerns before the end of the Missouri State Legislature's session in May. His past actions indicate that he wants nothing more than for the team to succeed in Kansas City.
Several cities, such as St. Petersburg and Washington, D.C., are willing to do just about anything to attract franchises to surrounding areas. Some have gone as far to finance and build stadiums before getting a team.
Voters in Jackson County decided more than 20 years ago that major league sports were important enough to pay for the construction of the Truman Sports Complex.
Since then, the Royals have provided a boon to the area economy and given the citizens a sense of identity and pride
The legislators and voters in the Kansas City area now should consider whether investing a few more dollars to maintain the stadium is worth keeping the Royals in Kansas City.
Jeff Euston for the editorial board
News staff
Julie Adam ... Editor
Karen Boring ... Managing editor
Jaren Larson ... New editor
Deb Gaver ... Planning editor
James Farquhar ... Editorial editor
Elaine Sung ... Campus editor
Tom Simpson .. Sports editor
Jannine Swiatowski .. Photo editor
Dave Eames .. Graphics editor
Neil Gerrard .. Art/Feature editor
Tom Ebm .. General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Debra Cole...Business manager
Pamela Noe...Retail sales manager
Kevin Martin...Campus sales manager
Scott Frankish...Sales manager
Michelle Garland...Promotions manager
Brad Lenhart...Sales development manager
Linda Hop...Production manager
Debra Martin...Assst. production manager
Kim Coleman...Co-op sales manager
Cary Cressler...Classified manager
Debra Morgan...Sales and finance
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and less than 200 words and must 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 can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newroom. 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 Kansan (USP5 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuart Fink Fall Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60045, 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. 60044. 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, Kan. 66045
MAGNEY Oncagf1-bone
Thousand Mile Island
FSX fighter project a big mistake Sharing military secrets with Japanese could jeopardize U.S. security
In what one U.S. military official called "the most damaging diversion of high-tech to the Soviets in decades," the Japanese company of Toshiba was implicated nearly two years ago in a scandal that saw critical U.S. submarine technology being sold to the Soviet
Now our government is headed toward participating in a joint project with the Japanese firm of Mitsubishi to build a new attack fighter, the FSX, for Japan.
I think that the decision is a serious mistake. The proposed飞机, similar to the American F-16, would utilize sensitive U.S. technology that could not be found anywhere in the world. The technology, much of which deals with "source codes" that fly and control the plane, is our most advanced and should not be compromised for any reason.
The Japanese predictably have assured our government that sensitive information would not be at risk and have claimed that the FSX project is "a good deal for both sides."
But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, D-Calif., like many others in Congress who are concerned about our technological future, doesn't buy the Japanese assertions — and with good reason.
Christopher Wilson Staff columnist
The Japanese have betrayed our trust in the past and have taken advantage of our liberal policies regarding all sorts of technology, only to undercut our markets. Previous safeguards, such as the ones President Bush proposed, have been trapic failures.
Rohrabaecher was correct in saying that we can no longer afford to extend an altruistic hand to our competitors and that, "it is about time that
we quit playing the fool for the Japanese."
My concerns, however, range far wider than simply the FXS project. Quite simply, I do not trust the Japanese government I doubt its allegations and I question its intentions.
Japanese Prime Minister Noboru Takeshita said just before President Bush's recent visit to Japan that "only history can judge" whether or not Japan was the aggressor in World War II. Many efforts also have been undertaken to delete Japanese war crimes from 20th March, from Japan's history books.
And quite coincidentally, it seems that as Japanese economic fortunes have increased, theirboldness regarding military issues has followed suit.
Presently, Japanese military financing ranks sixth in the world, but a swift jump to third is expected by the end of 1980. That is no surprise as Japan's military superpower was the spector of Japan striving for the status of a military superpower is inevitable, due to its economic emergence. And author David Burstein, an expert on Japan, said pointedly, "I see Japan becoming a major military power in the
I think that it is in the best interest of the
United States, however, to place a roadblock in the path of Japan's present course toward remilitarization. Japanese "Self-Defense Forces," as they are called, must be strictly limited to the conventional defense of their island.
The reasons for this are three-fold. First, a Japanese military with advanced offensive capabilities, such as aircraft carriers or nuclear weapons, would surely prompt a substantial Asian arms race. Most of the areas nations, including China, are still wary of the Japanese. Second, the Soviets would surely respond to such a move by expanding their regional forces, which would spur further military buildup. And finally, Japan, the United States should ensure without question that our shores will never again have to be defended from Japanese attack.
Am I doubtful of the United States' future? Absolutely not. But I strongly believe that future problems can be avoided if we stop Japanese military expansion now. We should encourage them to channel their money in other areas, such as increased unconditional aid to developing nations, which would relieve some of our overall financial burden
We should of course continue to consider Japan as our ally. But in doing so, the United States should look at the Japanese with an extremely skeptical eye in all areas of policy, including the proposed FXS project. Otherwise, we may someday regret it — if we don't already.
Christopher Wilson is an Olathe senior majoring in political science and personnel management.
K·A·N·S·A·N
MAILBOX
No gay marriages
Whoever invented the concept of homophobia found a wonderful propoganda tool. If anyone dares to oppose any of the various demands of gays and lesbians, they are simply labeled homophobic. Then the focus of the debate is whether homophobia is toward the problem of homophobia. I am willing to admit that there are some individuals who could be described as homophobic. But to label an entire class of opinion as homophobic is really nothing but an ad hominem argument. That is to say the charge of homophobia is self-identified individual, not an attack against his or her argument.
Take for example the issue of civil recognition of same sex marriages which the Kanans recently endorsed. I happen to believe it would be a mistake for society to recognize gay marriages as if they were legally no different than more traditional marriages. Yet I emphatically deny that either I or my opinions are homophobic.
than more traditional marriage. The family is a vitally important social institution for, among other reasons, raising the next generation in as stable and as loving and environment as is possible. Whatever reasons there are for gay marriage, one of them clearly is not procreation between the marriage partners.
Gay marriages are fundamentally different
Therefore, one of the most important and unique elements of marriage is impossible in gay marriages. Our society has decided that the traditional family is important and that is why there are state subsidized family insurance plans and (sometimes) tax incentives.
Civil recognition of gay marriage would in effect be an exploitation of social respect for the family and would further erode the role of the family in society. Gay marriage says in effect that society should endorse as a legal marriage whatever kind of activity occurs between consenting adults. Just imagine the inevitable divorce cases. How could the courts even consider denying a "divorce" in the case of same sex marriage?
The family structure is changing. But that doesn't mean society has to willingly embrace radical change. Our society tolerates gay behavior but we don't have to endorse it or allow homophobic, or in any event wrong, with denying social recognition to gay marriage.
Ben Casad Lawrence senior
Senate priorities
I would like to thank Student Senate for financing KU's Hum and Satire Magazine, PINCH. Sadly, though, the only funny thing I found about the magazine was the fact that this was perhaps the biggest waste of money ever allocated by the Senate. I find it hard to believe that people would save financing while groups that want to do something important and give KU some prestige, like the KU Space Program, flounder in the wind because of a lack of money.
I ask, is this what we want our Student Seate to be? Does everyone agree that something like PINCH should be financed while something like KUSP is on the verge of failure for lack of funds. The people I know do not agree with actions such as these. I feel that while PINCH was intended to be a humor magazine it actually has raised serious questions about what the Senate should and should not finance. I do not believe that the Senate should have financed PINCH after an excellent group like KUSP was rejected.
Michael D. Peck Jr.
Olathe sophomore
BLOOM COUNTY
by Berke Breathed