4A
Wednesday, July 5, 1995
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
THE ISSUE: DRUG REHABILITATION
Strawberry still a role model
Following a highly publicized stint in a chemical-dependency treatment center, Darryl Strawberry is back in professional baseball thanks to a second chance from New York Yankee's owner George Steinbrenner.
We now have every reason to believe that his addiction is under control. He has successfully completed a rehabilitation program and is regularly subjected to drug tests.
In spite of this, some people want to deny him the chance to play baseball again because they believe he will send children the wrong message.
Unfortunately, many in our society are operating under a misconception about chemical dependency.
It is not a moral failure or an individual weakness that makes an addict addicted. Chemical dependency is a disease recognized by the American Medical Association, the federal government and our own University.
Strawberry isn't a bad role model. He is a real role
The baseball player's attempt to recover from drug addiction should be an inspiration to children, sports fans.
model.
Fighting back from drug addiction requires soul searching and brutal honesty. It is a life-long process that demands great courage and strength if one is to remain sober.
By staying in recovery, Strawberry can do just that.
No one is condoning drug use by allowing him to play ball. Cocaine nearly ruined his life and career, but he is trying to overcome it. Strawberry's story is one of success, strength and courage. It is a story that can help children, not harm them.
Strawberry should be commended for his desire to live sober, and Steinbrenner should be commended for giving him another chance. Instead of criticizing their decision, we as fans and parents should be encouraging their success.
TODD HIATT FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Proposal would burn freedoms
THE ISSUE: FLAG BURNING
Last week the House of Representatives passed a proposed amendment to the U. S. Constitution saying: "The Congress and the States shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."
This amendment would be an assault on basic civil liberties protected by the First Amendment.
If the amendment passes the Senate, it still would need the approval of 38 states to be added to the Constitution.
Desecration is an ambiguous concept, too.
Supporters of the bill, including American Legion Commander William Detweiler, said the bill would clarify the importance of the flag and revive national patriotism. However, mandated respect is neither earned nor deserved.
The bill would not affect Americans who "desecrate" a replica of the flag for nonpolitical reasons. Examples include faded, American-flag bumper stickers,flag bikinis or flag cakes. It would only be
The new amendment would ban desecration of the U.S. flag, but it also would destroy our Constitutional rights.
used against protesters expressing anti-American thoughts.
The fact that the bill would criminalize ideas, not acts, is frightening.
In this same vein, the bill would not be used against Americans who burn soiled or worn flags as an honorable means to dispose of them.
Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan addressed this opinion in a previous ruling.
Brennan said, "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
This bill would do exactly that and tinkers with a fundamental freedom that the First Amendment guarantees, the right to disagree with society.
JAMIE MUNN FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
GERRY FEY
Editor
ASHLEY MILLER
Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
CATHERINE ELLSWORTH
Technology coordinator
Editorial ... Jamie Munn
Campus ... Jenni Carlson
... Virginia Marghelm
Photo ... Jay Thornton
Design ... David Johnson
Graphics ... Noah Musser
Copy Chief ... Melinda Dia
J. J.COOK
Cook
Business manager
MATT SHAW
Retail sales manager
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
PAT BOYLE
Accountant
Business Staff
Campus mgr ...Courtney Becks
Regional mgr ...Jody Groton
National mgr ...N.J. Cook
Special Sections mgr ..Stephanie UH
Prod...mgr
Marketing director ...Matt Shaw
Creative director ...Anne Laurenzo
Classified mgr ..Heather Valle
Rob Taplev / KANSAN
Flight to truth would have prevented conflicts seen in Enola Gay exhibit
Pursuing the truth is a noble mission. It's what I strive for as a journalist.
And I was almost ready to praise protesters of the recent Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian Institute until they were arrested Sunday for destroying government property.
The way they were trying to bring out the truth actually hurts their message, one that I had supported.
To protest the exhibit, a group lagged behind a tour and poured a red liquid and ashes onto the displayed portion of the aircraft. Chanting "We repent. We regret," more protesters handed out pamphlets and unfurled a banner reading, "Never again! Never again!"
With these actions, I lost the respect for them that I had been forming. Their goal of increasing debate on the exhibit was good, but their method was wrong.
Granted, the exhibit is one-sided. Debate on what would be displayed lasted for months. The bitter controversy between veterans groups and anti-war demonstrators eventually
EDITORIAL EDITOR
cost museum director Martin Harwit his job.
The display now focuses only on the aircraft and its crew. With a mss s a g e amounting to: "This is the Enola Gay. It dropped the bomb that ended the war," the exhibit is incomplete and cannot
represent a truthful portrayal of what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Missing from the display are accounts and graphic depictions of the damage and deaths caused by the first atomic bomb dropped on Aug. 6, 1945. Original plans, which included such accounts, drew criticism from veterans who said the museum would be portraying the Japanese as innocent victims of American aggression without
acknowledging Japan's atrocious or its attack on Pearl Harbor.
In the present exhibit, there are no issues of morality. There is no inclusion of the implication of using nuclear weapons.
And what the display ultimately lacks, a free discussion of facts and various interpretations, has been further hindered by the unwillingness of both sides to compromise their positions.
Veterans groups pressured the museum to back down on its original plans, and now anti-war supporters are grabbing the spotlight with their actions.
Both groups need to take a lesson from John Milton, whose *Apeopagitica* was a landmark for public debate.
Milton argued that opinions should be placed out in the open, in a marketplace of ideas from which the public may choose. Only when this is accomplished will individuals be able to purchase the version of facts, the version of the truth, that they want to believe.
in the Enola Gay case, the search for truth was limited when anti-war views were eliminated from the display.
Now what the public is seeing is anti-war groups using shock tactics to get their point across. These methods, however, are more likely to shun audiences rather than persuade them.
But neither group has succeeded in allowing the public to make its own decision on the historical and ethical ramifications of the event.
In a videotape presentation at the exhibit, Enola Gay navigator Theodore J. Van Kirk sums up his mission. Hopefully, his quote foreshadows a conclusion to this disaster of a discussion.
"We succeeded in bringing that carnage to an end so everybody got to go home."
the protesters and veterans should go home and leave the truth 'or the public to decide.
Jamie Munn is an Enid, Okla., graduate student in journalism.
Racism still lives in reversed word, situation
It's my belief that this world is full of good people, for the most part. Sure, there are hard-core criminals who enjoy watching others suffer. But if everyone was like that, then prisons would outnumber houses.
For this reason, and because many people share my view, the reality that racism still exists in the United States may seem impossible — until you have experienced it.
I'm not just talking about racism against Blacks and minorities either. Racism against whites can be just as damaging.
The other night I was dropped off at my apartment and found — much to my dismay — that I didn't have my key. And, of course, my roommates were nowhere to be found. That meant one thing: a long walk to the Kwik Shop was ahead.
After making a few telephone calls from the store and finally locating my keys, I sat on the curb to smoke a cigarette and wait for my ride.
KANSAN EDITOR
It was 3:30 a.m., and a convenience store is not the coolest hangout spot. Obviously, I felt stupid and a bit dweebish.
The parking lot was empty as a car pulled in and parked about 30 feet away from me. A Black male and female stepped out of the car and walked into the building.
But before they entered, the male looked at me and spoke one word. The female laughed.
I wasn't sure what he said, but I figured that it was derogatory.
I ignored it. Why? I don't know. Maybe because sitting on the curb with a backpack and cigarettes was lame enough, and getting into a fight would have been absolutely humiliating.
First of all, it wouldn't have been a pretty fight — for me that is. And secondly, my name associated in a Kwik Shop brawl would not have been the best career move.
As the couple exited, the male called me the same word, the woman giggled again and I was fuming.
The man probably wouldn't have said anything to me if I wasn't a scrawny, 125-pound guy all by myself. But he did, and I didn't do anything about it.
Discrimination and racism are words that blow around as commonly as the wind. People complain about racism on the news. Politicians rant and rave about discrimination during Affirmative-Action debates. But the definitions are too abstract to understand. The words 'true meanings never hit home until you are on the receiving end of a racial slur.
Granted, this Kwik Shop example is somewhat weak — I didn't get
shot or beat up in a fight, but it made me realize how damaging a word can be. As silly as it may sound, the slur made me look at myself and how pathetic sitting on the curb was. The reason racial slurs are so damaging is because they cut at the very fibers of who a person is. That can cause a chain reaction powerful enough to shatter anybody's self-esteem.
If I was in the same shoes as this man outside the convenience store, I know I wouldn't call a minority a name. However, even though the word isn't verbalized, are we thinking it to ourselves?
Not throwing around racial slurs is a good start because people are not hurt. But just thinking the word means racism still exists as strong as ever.
Keeping it muffled inside does not make it right.
Gerry Fey is a Omaha, Neb., senior in Journalism.
Emmie Hsu/ KANSAN
How to submit letters and guest columns
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the authors signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and hometown if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
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 Stauffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the absolute right edit, cut to length or out-right reject all submissions. For any questions, call Jamie Munn, editorial page editor, at 864-4810.