4
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
Wednesday, July 23, 1986
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Drug test all, or none
Knee-jerk reaction to the indictment of Richard Von Ende, executive secretary to the chancellor, on charges of cocaine distribution may threaten the freedoms of all of us at state universities in Kansas.
Moreover, Hayden said he would be "open-minded" to a testing program for all 37,500 state employees, including university faculty members.
Even before the indictment, the death from cocaine of college basketball star Len Bias had aroused demands for drug testing. Mike Hayden, speaker of the Kansas House of Representatives and Republican candidate for governor, last week called for mandatory drug testing of all athletes at state universities.
Hayden said people around the state had told him that they wanted their tax dollars to support drug-free programs. We students at state universities, who pay tuition that covers only 25 percent of our education costs while the state pays the rest, may find that line of thought quickly applied to us.
A terrible drug problem exists in our society, that cannot be denied. But drug abuse, especially of cocaine, the middle-class drug, is spread throughout our society. Lawrence authorities expect to arrest 22 people from all walks of life in this latest case. The death of a college star and the indictment of a college administrator don't justify picking certain groups to scrutinize.
If the best solution to the drug problem is to end the demand and if the best way to end the demand is testing, then testing should be done throughout the population. Singling out athletes, state employees or students isn't fair and hardly seems constitutional. Drug testing should be adopted only if all of us are willing to undergo the inconvenience and loss of privacy.
We suspect that few of those who want their taxes to support drug-free programs would like having to prove two or three months a year that they are drug-free.
For Cobb, money not all
The evidence that money rules our world is overwhelming sometimes. Corporate executives rip off our nation for millions of dollars in defense contracts and call it "chicken fat." Spies betray us for seemingly paltry sums because they are broke. More people than the law can keep up with are willing to profit on the human misery of drugs.
These are some of the more tragic examples. Everyday examples abound. Money leads many of us across the country, leaving friends and family behind for better jobs. Parents turn their children over to the care of others because they both must work to make ends meet or because they want the things that extra money will buy.
Even students are affected. We think we must choose a career quickly. We concentrate. We specialize. We have little time to learn about the
world at large. Liberal arts and social issues are out; business and computer science are in. "Teach me what I need to know to get a good job and make a top salary," might be our refrain.
But Robert Cobb, executive vice chancellor, showed us another world last week. He gave up KU's second-highest administrative position to return to teaching in the English department. His decision probably will cost him about $25,000 a year.
As executive vice chancellor, Cobb's salary in 1986 was $77,155. The top salaries in the English department were in the range of $50,000.
It's nice to be reminded that money doesn't mean everything to everybody. The real reward for Professor Cobb will be finding students as dedicated to learning as he is to teaching.
Make a fair trade
Verification has been the sticking point for years in nuclear arms talks with the Soviet Union, and rightly so In any treaty our negotiators forge with the Soviet Union, verification that both sides are complying must be complete and guaranteed.
Soviet leaders, however, have been adamant about the privacy of their state, if not about the privacy of their citizens.
We should respond by trading away deployment of President Reagan's pet project, Star Wars. The only thing guaranteed about Star Wars, also called Strategic Defense Initiative, is that it will cost us
billions of dollars. The system, which is supposed to protect us from Soviet nuclear weapons some day, may never work. Even its proponents admit Star Wars won't protect us from all of the Soviet's missiles, and the Soviets haven't even started developing countermeasures.
But recently the Soviets allowed a private U.S. group to set up monitors around the Soviet site for underground nuclear testing. No guarantee exists that the Soviets will allow the group to stay or record significant information, but it is a first step. A step we should respond to.
Meanwhile, Star Wars is standing in the way of what may be a chance to end the arms race. The Soviets, seeking a comprehensive ban on nuclear武器 weapons, have stopped their underground explosions for a year. Early this year Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev offered a 50 percent reduction in nuclear warheads. Recently he even compromised on Star Wars, agreeing to continued research and testing if deployment were restricted for 10 years.
Gorbachev sounds serious about arms control. Let's throw Star Wars into the pot, demand on-site verification and find out.
News staff
News staff
Cindy McCurry...Editor
Kady McMaster...Managing editor
Shawn Aday...Editor
Grant Biltner...Campus editor
Dawn O'Malley...Sports editor
Shawna Norfleet...Photo editor
Tom Eblen...General manager, news adviser
Business staff
David Nixon...Business/production manager
Beverly Kastena...Retail sales manager
Denise Stephens...Campus sales/bank to school manager
Classified manager
John Oberzan...Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words and should include the writer's name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University, include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position. Guest shots should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The
writer will be photographed. The Kansas newsroom right reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can be brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Stairwater-Fint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuart Fint-Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045, daily during the regular school year, incl Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods, and on Wednesday during the summer session. Students receive a $15 for six months or $27 a year in Lawrence, Kan. 66045, and $15 for six months or $27 a year in Dodgeville, Kan. 66045 and $18 for six months and $3a year outside the county. Student expenses are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
POSTMAST-FAST are so are paid through the quarterly subscription to the University Daykan, 118 Stuffer-Fast Lawn, Lawrence, KG, 60454. Send
Torture a job for experts in S. Africa
In South Africa, the word helicopter has several meanings. It denotes a type of aircraft, of course. But it also denotes a method of torture devised by South African police: The prisoner is placed on a hung upside down on a pole inserted between the knees, spun around and beaten.
Other examples of the utility in South African police include electrical shocks to the genitals, partial suffocation and beatings with sticks and whips. The police are particularly fond of rhinoceros-hide whips called sjamboks. Amnesty International issued a report in March 1986 that described the use of sjamboks and other tortures.
"They made me sit on the floor with my hands handcuffed behind by back and forced my legs open by beating the insides of my thighs with sjamboks," he said. "They then attempted repeatedly to kick me in my private parts."
other to hire.
In the report, Vusumzi George, a trade unionist, described how the police tortured him.
George's torture session continued with punches to his kidneys and two-fisted blows to his shoulders. The beatings ceased when George began screaming. The police men screamed and wrapped themselves around his head and face. While the towel was suffocating George, the police resumed the
Bill Foreman
beating.
Guest columnist
I don't think George's torturers were unsupervised whos wholet their frustrations and sadistic passions get the best of them. Rather, they were servants of the state, paid and trained to use torture as a means to suppress dissent. The sophistication of the techniques indicate the torturers are professionals, well-practiced veterans.
Yunis Shaik, a lawyer, was detained in the Duran area. He told Amnesty that the police stripped him naked and placed a canvas bag over his head. Then a police officer curried him and tried to pressure he was applied to his kidneys, causing excruciating pain. Shaik also was released without charges.
The method of torture endured by Shak is favored by torturers because it produces intense pain without leaving bruises scars or wounds. Wounds can be used as evidence against torturers if the government decides to
improve its public image by placing turtlers on tour. Governments that rely on tourism — perhaps not South Africa at the moment — are particularly concerned about the telltale marks of torture. A scarred and disfigured populace undermines a facade of peace, justice and stability and attracts human-rights investigators.
An alternative to physical torture is psychokalical torture. Mock executions are common. South African police have threatened detainees by pressing pistols to the detainees' temples. After enduring mock execution, the prisoners' minds, rather than their bodies, are scarred.
Johnny Mashiane, a 15-year-old schoolboy, was held in misconduct for a month. Before his detention Johnny was in good health. After his release, however, he was dismissed and was admitted to a hospital. We can only guess what happened to Johnny during his detention.
These accounts of tortures occurred before Dr. Wendy Orr, a surgeon, submitted evidence of widespread and regular torture and ill-treatment of detainees to the South African Supreme Court on Sept. 25, 1985. Her evidence included sworn statements from 40 people.
the court issued an order restraining police from assaulting detainees held under emergency regulations.
Under the ruling, police who assault or threaten to assault detainees have no immunity from prosecution.
The ruling fails to convince me that the torture problem is solved: Amnesty International says these guidelines constitute little more than a resatement of earlier guidelines which had proved ineffective. For example, in November 1962 the government issued guidelines that prohibited security police from torturing detainees. The scars that cover George's body attest to the ineffectiveness of guidelines.
forture thrives in secrecy, behind the doors of detention centers or behind the facade of government guidelines. Few governments call press conferences to discuss their actions because they adamantly deny accusations. They discredit documented reports. They pass mock reforms.
One would think that if the leaders of South Africa were reasonable and sincere, they would disprove accusations of torture by inviting an impartial committee to investigate allegations of abuses.
I don't think that will happen. It will be a while before helicopter in South Africa means only a type of aircraft.
Foreman, a senior in philosophy and English, is a member of the KU chapter of Amnesty International.
Reagan pursuing arms,not arms talks
Ronald Reagan's recent scraping of Salt II and his reluctance to join the Soviets in a ban on nuclear weapons in 1985, amid stockpiling of nuclear weapons.
Reagan is foresaking Salt II because he claims that the Soviets have cheated and gained an edge in the arms race. His ostensible objection to a test-ban treaty has treated him as a claim that it didn't belong. As is often the case with Reagan, his claim of unverifiability does not comport with reality.
According to Thomas Cochran, a member of the Natural Resource Defense Council, a private group based in Washington, nuclear testing can be detected by seismic monitoring equipment.
Reagan's record on arms control is abysmal. In fact, he is the only president since Truman to fail to produce an arms agreement with the Soviets. Reagan's poor record recently prompted Ted Turner, owner of the Turner Broadcast System which televised the Good News from Moscow, to call him the "best president in the history of country." That is a profound indictment, when you consider that Turner is a fellow conservative.
Instead of arms control, Reagan
Christian Colbert Staff columnist
has pursued an unprecedented and unwarranted nuclear arms buildup, adding another vicious cycle to the already insane arms competition. Cleverly using spurious CIA estimates, Reagan convinced many Americans in the beginning of his first term that the Soviets' unrestrained growth in military spending had opened a "window of vulnerability in U.S. defenses."
Only after Reagan convinced Congress to vote for large increases in the defense budget did the CIA retract its previous estimate, saying it had overestimated Soviet military growth.
This is a common dynamic of the arms race. First, the United States overestimates the military capacity of the Soviet Union. Next, out of the fear of losing the "nuclear edge," U.S. strategists call for an increase in defense appropriations to close the phantom gap.
pfronton gap. "Gaposis" is especially virulent around budget time. In the 1960s, for example, a "bomber gap" supposedly existed. Our experts feared that the Soviets would have 600 to 700 long-range bombers by 1960. The Soviets actually had 190 bombers by 1960. The United States always had at least 300 more bombers than the Soviets.
In 1960, the fear turned to intercontinental missiles — the Soviets would have 500 to 1,000 of them by 1961. The Soviets actually had 10. Also in the 1960s, the Soviets were expected to have 10,000 interceptor planes in a national air battalion missile force. We later discovered that the actual count was 64, and these were for defense against bombers, not missiles.
There are many more examples of U.S. overestimates, but it would be redundant to list them all. The point is, U.S. overestimates of Soviet military capacity the arms race. In actuality, it's the Soviets who are trying to play catch-up, not the other way around.
All this talk about nuclear superiority is meaningless when one considers that both superpowers have over 20,000 nuclear warheads pointed at each other. Even if one side had a numerical advantage of a million warheads, the advantage wouldn't make any difference.
Therefore, the only sensible thing for the United States to do now is agree on a comprehensive nuclear test-ban with the Soviet Union. Contrary to the Reagan administration, a test-ban is verifiable and if agreed upon, in effect, end the arms race.
In a display of sincerity, the Soviets have even initiated a yearlong moratorium on nuclear testing, which expires next month. The Soviets have also allowed U.S. scientists to install a monitoring station near one of their nuclear test sites.
Nuclear deterrence was achieved a long time ago. The only purpose of the arms race now is to line the pockets of General Dynamics and other large defense contractors.
The Soviet Union seems sincere about a verifiable, comprehensive nuclear war-ban. But it makes little difference, because Reagan definitely isn't sincere. As a result, the United States will continue to blindly ignore all chances to negotiate an end to the arms race. Thus guaranteeing the continuation of our thunderous march well beyond nuclear overkill.
MS. BADGER by A.D. Lang "Beginning today, The New York Times will use Ms.'s as an honorific, in its news and editorial columns."
"Until now, It's not had been used because of the belief that it had not passed sufficiently into the language to be accepted as common usage."
Mailbox
Lumping the religious
After reading several of Christian Calbert's columns, I have come away with a "clear and distinct" impression. That impression is this: Anyone holding to the orthodoxy of Christianity (creation, redemption, the revelation of God in Christ with scripture as record) or to Jesus as the world for that matter, is an intellectual, political or ethical Neanderthal.
Furthermore, anyone who acts on such a base politically is a member of the "Religious Right," opposing legislation against child and wife abuse. If you don't fit this paradigm, it doesn't matter; you have been declared to fit it. After all, everyone knows that such injunctions as husbanding an infant were just as Christendom the church and gave himself up for her" and "fathers, do not exasperate your children" result inexorably and logically in child and wife abuse and the opposing of anti-abuse legislation.
Beyond this, I have discovered that if one disagrees with the Roe vs. Wade decision (legalizing abortion), one is a political extremist, closing ranks with another radical extremist, Hippocrates.
I find it a little curious that a person who is so imminently concerned with child abuse doesn't consider destroying a child in the womb to be the least bit abusive, not to mention dumping it into a galvanized pail if it survives or selling its protein to provide a base for a cosmetic treatment. If this is "reowned" enlightened by freedom, "I think we could learn something from the dead Neanderthals, who buried their dead with flower petals.
Christian, because your pigeon holes are too small and too simple, a lot of reality is shipping through. If you loosen them, up you may find yourself more consistent than your present space-time box allows your
Kirk Allison
Lawrence graduate student
Gullible folk exposed
My personal thanks to Christian Colbert for finally exposing me as the truly "gulblie folk" that I am (Kansan, July 16), because I believe that the God who engineered the entire universe could actually have caused Jonah to survive being swallowed by a whale.
Kenneth Demarest Assistant professor, electrical and computer engineering
Maybe I, too, can become a true intellectual and be convinced, as is Colbert, that America need "not return to the God of the Bible, but rather to outgrow him." By contrast, if you suddenly be intellectual enough to not be bound by the laws of physics, but rather to outgrow them.
No political agenda
In Christian Colbert's column,
"Religious Right threatens free society,"
(Kansan, July 16) he made many alarming generalizations about fundamentalism that aren't true.
is a person who believes the Bible and practices its teachings in every area of his life; spiritual, social and political.
The greatest error of his column was in assuming that fundamentalism is synonymous with the political agenda of the Religious Right. Fundamentalism isn't a political agenda, but a set of conservative Christian doctrines. The major tenet of fundamentalism is the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. A fundamentalist Christian, at his best
Fundamentalism doesn't place a person in a political straitjacket of right-wing politics. Anyone who believes that it does is obviously misinformed and is building a straw, man on the actions of a few who have made headlines. Rather, each person orders his life and beliefs around the Bible and not the manmade agenda of a political machine.
Far from being a doctrine of authoritarianism and intolerance as, Colbert's column suggests, fun-damentalism promotes individuality, equality and personal freedom. Colbert should review his own article in evaluating intolerant views or make any other than the he be made any understanding fundamen-talist beliefs or has he only relied on media newsflashes?
Rather than a cause for alarm, fundamentalist teaching should be welcomed as a platform for fairness and freedom to each individual. The society's opinion should not dictate the society's opinion of all fundamentalists.
Valerie Isaac
Lawrence freshman
.