UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN editorials
Unsigned editors represent the opinion of the Kansan editorial staff. Signed columns represent the views of
APRIL 10, 1979
Park solution closer
After years of bitter feeding, there is new hope that supporters and opponents of a Tallgrass Prairie National Park in Kansas finally will be able to agree on a general proposal for the park.
REP. LARRY Winn Jr., R-Kan, who is sponsoring the legislation, hopes that the new bill can eliminate the opposition to the park from Flint Hills landowners by simultaneously
The new proposal would allow land to be passed down from one family generation to another. But once land goes on the open market, the federal government would have the first chance to purchase it.
That proposal, which will be submitted to Congress later this year, would remove the process of condemnation as a means of acquiring land for the park. That method has been at the core of much of the opposition to the park.
preserving both the tallgrass prairie and the way of life in the Flint Hills.
Of course, there are problems with Winn's approach. By waiting until the land is for sale, the park may be overgrown. Winn said it could even be 100 years.
But the alternative--booting land-owners from land that has been in their family for generations—is not a pleasant one.
CONSIDERING the heated battles that have been precipitated by mention of a prairie park, it appears that Winn might be on what one observer called a "soft road to conservation." And most anyone can tell us that reason and understanding, rather than anger and force, will get the best results.
And if the new proposal is good enough to preserve the prairie land and bring a tallgrass park to Kansas without disenfranchising the landowners, it will be worth the wait, whether that wait is for 10 years or 100.
Dick Clark was considered in November 1978, after his first term in office, to be one of the most effective liberal senators to enter the U.S. Congress for some time. He was a strong supporter of the rights of his own Democratic party, but also by Republicans.
Interest groups block representation
Indeed, Clark's positions on an overwhelming number of issues were supported by voters in his home state of Iowa when they went to the polls last November. But Clark last week issued a statement on one issue—abortion laws. One issue defended him.
Clark's early death in the political arena has, unfortunately, become an ever-increasing occurrence. And the reason for the demise of many young politicians is their desire to become the pawns of single-issue, special interest groups.
A NUMBER of people have warned for years about this new phenomenon of the "special interest state," which was brought about primarily by the decline of political parties. In a special interest state, the enormous power of special interest groups to control public policy in their own interests less interest provides national solutions to national problems.
With an abundance of special interest groups, the ability of the citizen to be represented and served by our political system dwindles—and does so rapidly. This is an alarming trend in a country that has prided itself on its ability to maintain its citizens and to strive for a higher national purpose, instead of only the most powerful and working for their purposes.
The driving force behind these groups is money—and lots of it. Interest group contributors admit proudly that they are making a political investment. That explains why such a large percentage of the political contributions go to congressional incumbents, who are fully aware of the ramifications of accepting large sums of money.
THE DEPENDENCE of many politicians on these contributors has left them indebted to a small number of other public officials.
unresponsive to a larger number. In fact, the power of special interest groups may be so dominant that the popular sentiment of the people is not only ignored, but trampled upon.
One example is the consistent and overwhelming support of handgun registration and regulation by Americans, as shown in Table 13.2. The laws decades. Yet despite this obvious concern, the gun lobby, led by the extremely powerful National Rifle Association, has not stopped the assaults.
The American Medical Association is another group that, although small in size when compared to the 210 million U.S. citizens, wields tremendous clout. The AMA led the list of interest group givers to congressional campaigns in 1974 and 1976—more than $3 billion was given to House and Senate candidates in that period.
THE AMA and hospital groups oppose legislation that would place a "cap" on the annual rise in the cost of hospitalization, a move that is supported by a majority of physicians. The cap is proposed through time getting through the vital House Ways and Means health subcommittee. The reason may be found in the correspondence to the eight members of that subcommittee in 1974 and 1975.
When the clout of American political parties began to decline in the 1950s and 1980s, something was bound to fail. However, special interest groups do not adequately fill it. They do not begin to serve the interests of the large numbers of citizens that the parties served in their prime.
Somewhat else, then, is obviously needed. And something else, in fact, does exist—the citizen action group.
THE PRIME example of a citizen action group is Common Cause, which has been the primary force behind the implementation of public financing of presidential candidates and the public financing of congressional races, among other things.
However, Common Cause and the public face an uphill battle in that area.
Common Cause has been credited, even by its critics, with increased reform in both state and federal government. A much desired, but still not achieved, part of that reform is the decrease of the influence of special interest groups by the establishment of public financing laws for congressional campaigns.
Jack Germand, a Washington columnist, warns, "As the special interest contributions increase in geometric proportions, it will become increasingly difficult for incumbents to turn off the tap. A committee chairman who is going to more as a campaign not 'for his reelection bid is likely to give it difficulty to generate much enthusiasm for reform."
YET DESPITE that fact, Common Cause continues fighting. and it does so on a variety of reissue issues.
its success in issues such as public financing of presidential campaigns, House and Senate committee reform, open meeting rules in Congress and new ethics policies, and Senate and Senate has been praised by both critics and supporters.
As the special interest groups tighten their grip on members of Congress, we should look for some sort of alternative—for something that will strive more for a higher national purpose than for a selfish purpose.
Common Cause and other citizen action groups may be the right answer. At the very least, they are the best alternative to often ineffective political parties and self-oriented special interest groups.
Law to spare rod can spoil families
From one of the most liberated and socially inventive countries of the world comes an innovation—no spanking.
Starting July 1, parents in Sweden may not strike their children or treat them in any other humiliating way. This isn't a child-abuse statute, because the mistreatment of children is covered under the offense. Rather, it is a law against the spank. Spanking is now out.
"It is a totally absurd, totally ridiculous law, the kind of thing that means nothing and cannot be interpreted or enforced," said Alicer Kerdik, one of those who voted against it. The father of men to go on administering his own family of justice.
But Bertil Ekdahl, a magistrate who wrote the law and its appendix feels differently. He says the new law is based on commission hearings in which expert testimony "showed overwhelming that children just do not respond when they are hit or threatened." He added, "Their reaction is the opposite. They think in terms of revenge, and they can live in fear."
INTERESTINGLY, the law does not suggest punishment for offenders, on the assumption, according to Ekdahl, that complaints would be handled by the police and social workers, with referrals to family courts.
"We have tried to make it clear that this is a pedagogic law," said Sten Lindberg, a Ministry of Justice spokesman. "We hope to use the law to change attitudes. If we launched a bag campaign on climate change in our year. But the law stays, and it enters the public consciousness."
Will hirdes of young, glassy-eyed children with tales of horror line up at police stations and social service offices to complain about their parents? Will the other children of the world, when they are taught the new Swedish measure, plead to their elders to do the same?
THE LIEKLHOOD of either of the two scenarios occurring is, at best, extremely unlikely. But the ramifications of the new measure do pose some interesting questions that must be dealt with.
As Lindberg stated, one of the purposes of the law is to increase the level of consciousness in parent-child relationships. With the high rate of child abuse cases reported in this country, parents need for some consciousness raising becomes more apparent.
But by allowing the government to make it as unlawful for parents to hit their own children, a dangerous precedent may be created.
if a government can be given the authority to tell parents that they cannot hit their own children, it doesn't seem at all unlikely that they will be telling them other things—such as what to feed and how to cloth their children.
Essentially by legislating appropriate behavior for the parent and the child, the natural bond between the two is threatened
Of course, there were times when I felt afraid and even hated my parents for punishing me. But the hate and fear I felt were usually short-lived, for my parents had a way of explaining their action once it was over.
HAVING BEEN reared under the "spare the rod, spoil the child" philosophy, I can say unequivocally that in the days of my youth I had no idea of what I was doing.
Perhaps I'm a bit old-fashioned in this regard, but an occasional swat, coupled with some love and understanding, can do a lot.
But, in retrospect, I feel that those brief moments of pain, when strap and flesh come together in a harmonious clap, were all part of the process.
Minority transition foremost priority
To the editor:
The editorial page of March 28 was a most interesting collection of ideas. Jonathan Kozol addressed functional illiteracy among adults. He advocates a 5-million volunteer program to teach 23 to 30 million others enough English for them to cope with the challenges of examples of Brazil, Cuba and Israel are presented to prove that such a scheme is practical.
Phil Garcia highlighted "Latin Week" and cited several statistics to demonstrate the significance of the Latino population in the United States. "The Latinos still hold firm to their religion and family," and "". Latinos no doubt will add to the country's vitality", and following some dismal education statistics, the government is considering for the advancement of America's latinos."
These two authors recognize the correct problem—any advancement or success in this society will be measured by the standards of the White Anglo Saxon Protestant Church, and the judges also will be WASFs. The editorial author Jordan insured this work in their lead editorial.
I can appreciate the desire of the editorial staff (and many other well-intentioned people) to the transition from a child's perspective to an adult's. The society made as easy as possible. The ease
Proficiency in English is the only hope of a minority-language student. The options are exploitation by those who are bilingual and unfamiliar with the language of the family home or the shetto streets.
of the transition, however, must be second priority. First priority is that the transition must be made. Have we learned nothing linguistically divided neighbor Canada?
There are unoubtedly many things that teachers and school district administrators must consider when children into our society. The catch words "bilingual" and "multicultural" will only grow more important as they mature.
The children involved are on a one-way street to their future. It is neither fair nor benign for them to learn about the realities of our society by using mirrors of their language or reflections of their
Lawrence graduate student
M. B. Kimbrough
The members of the KU Committee on South Africa were shocked that during ourally recently the University administration's police were allowed to set up an observation post in the Chancellor's office. The very presence of an anonymous
To the editor:
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
(UPSP 60-640) Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and holidays during June and July except Saturday, and Sunday and holiday weekends. Purchases may be made by delivery or postal快递 $15 for six months or $2 a year in Douglas County and $1 for six months or $3 a year county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, passed through the student activity menu.
Monitoring restricts freedom of speech
Above all, a university is supposed to foster the free interplay of ideas. We hope and presume that in the future, Chancellor Schultz will urge the institution obligation to protect the democratic expression of students, faculty members and campus workers. At future rallies (and we may well have more) we expect there will be an important display of intentionally chilling camerawork.
We were not informed that the rally would be videotaped. Consequently we had no idea who was behind the camera, why they were behind the camera, or what was going to be done with the film. Surely the University realized the inhibiting effect that has on us and we are required to speak. We have many foreign students on this campus who quite rightly fear for their safety and for the safety of their families. We have many American students who do not want their names entered on secret police dossiers. What if the FBI or any other agency were able to record of campus protests? Would the Chancellor's office be open to them as well?
Further, it is disturbing to be treated as criminals or potential criminals. All of the people at the rally were lawfully and peacefully assembling to engage in a constitutionally protected activity. Why not have police cameras mounted all over the city, never know when some abberant individual will commit a criminal act. Why not have the entire University community under constant police surveillance?
Send changes of address to the University Daily Kansan, Flint Halt. 101
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 60045
The KU Committee on South Africa
Managing Editor Direk Steimel
Editor
Harry Massey
police camera monitoring people engaged in lawful activities is deeply disturbing.
General Manager Riek Musser
Business Manager
Karen Wenderott
Editorial Editor
John Whitesider
Advertising Adviser Chuck Chowins
To the editor:
Paranoia too evident in KU leadership
May I add a few comments in amplification of Laurie Wokley's excellent coverage of the anti-apartheid rally held before Strong Hall last Friday?
Kenneth Brouhard, who voiced blue-cou-
s support for the campaign to end University
support of American investment in con-
stitutionally racist South Africa. is identified in the Kansas report as "a former steamfitter for KU's facilities operations." In fact, until last month Kenny Brouhard had worked 17 years as a KU steamfitter, and had received consistently laudatory fitness reports all those years.
More accurately, Kenny Brouhard is the leader and one of the founding members of the union representing KU's blue-collar workforce against discrimination is voiced against background of his own experience fighting the KU administration's efforts to break that union. Himself a near-fatal victim of labor action, Kenny has a constant defender of the workers against favoritism, harassment and exploitation. Kenny has engendered in the bosses at Facilities Operations and at Strong Hall a collection of what they call "personal differences."
Once one understands how the KU administration's union-busting tactics are akin to the legalized prohibitions against black workers in South Africa, one also understands both blue-collar concern for other oppressed persons and the KU administration's firm resistance to dissent from its announced and unannounced policies.
In similar manner, the University's concern to ensure that the rally in question remained peaceful was implemented by videotaping the actions of participants. It is a consummate irony that the video camera was installed in the window of the building where the person who ought to have advised the administration of the impropriety of that invasion of privacy and of the fraudulent nature of the claim that taking someone's picture will prevent him from doing violence. Everyone should understand that surveillance of this sort is a form of threat. It is a warning to those that they are watching. The University Attorney watching. Why are they watching? Whom are they watching?
Do they watch pep rallies "for problems like shoveling or other disturbances?" Are they just watching back because we are watching them?
Carl Leban
associate professor of East Arian Studies East Asian studies
Full access frivolous to handicapped
By SAM SCHRAEGER N.Y. Times Feature
ASBURY PARK, N.J. - Between 1963 and 1985, I was city editor of a small daily paper in nearby Long Branch and, whenever the rear door was unlocked, I dirtied, creaked freight elevator to the third floor, when the newsroom was located.
So did a reporter with cardiovascular problems. I wear leg braces because I had palo in childhood. The reporter and I were grateful when we didn't have to climb the steep stairway at the front of the newspaper building.
On a recent television news show, a young man in a wheelchair said that his rights were being violated because he had to use a ramp at the rear of a New York City office building to visit a state agency.
Certain representatives of hand-dicapped veterans and other physically impaired people object to van service. The committee has recognized the disabled from the rest of society.
What difference should it make to me or any other disabled person that we enter a building through the rear or the side rather than the front—as long as we
THEY CONSIDER the lower cost of such service, as compared to making virtually all transportation accessible to those who need it most in importance. They even discount the greater convenience and the increased mobility it would provide as negligible.
what's the use? They're never going to be satisfied!"
a perplexed audience. Just as significant elements of the public and private arenas of power, such as the needs of the disabled, a few handicapped people and some who purport to speak for many of them are not perceived by the audience and stridency of irrelevant demands.
An ever-growing concern should be that those working to remove barriers to access and travel will throw up their hands some day and say, in effect: "Oh
If a van gets to my job, my doctor's appointment or to some other engagement on time, why should I be upset because my fellow passengers have been in the hospital on society's Short trips—car, bus, subway or van—are rarely social occasions.
THOSE WHO speak for the disabled should apply the pressure where there are needs:
On the airlines, to make air travel more convenient and comfortable for the handcapped because it is impractical to provide parallel service for them.
On hotel, motel and apartment house operators to provide quarters the handicapped find accessible and livable.
on employers, public and private, to make work opportunities available to qualified handicapped people and to pay them on an equal basis with the able-
Every person -disabled or not - deserves an opportunity to earn a living through meaningful work. All handicapped people should be able to freely in and out buildings and through comfortable and pleasant modes of transport.
However, badgering the owners of buildings about the location of access to the building is not a good idea; every subway station and every bus be usable by any disabled person. To insist on the unimportant, despite price incentives, the city today can afford, to a court defeat.
Sam Schraeger, a former assistant city editor of The World-Telegram and Sun, writes about the disabled for The Asbury Park Press.