4
University Daily Kansan
Opinion
Thursday, Jan. 30, 1986
Costly retreat
Fifty-six members of the Student Senate tried to get away from it all last weekend.
But controversy followed them on a retreat to the Doubletree Hotel in Overland Park.
The retreat, highly praised by most members of the Senate, had as a primary goal getting senators organized and acquainted, in hopes of staving off some of the in-fighting that plagued the Senate last semester.
Some senators have questioned the value of the Senate spending $1,789 of its budget to go to a hotel for the weekend.
Senators attended workshops and spent Saturday night at the hotel.
The idea of a retreat is a good one. The chance to get
away from the daily pressures of Student Senate is a healthy move for senators.
But the cost of the retreat tarnishes its benefits.
The fact that the retreat came in $211 under its allotted $2,000 budget matters little.
A less expensive location could have been chosen. The Doubletree is one of the nicer hotels in the greater Kansas City area. The Senate did not necessarily have to go all the way to Overland Park to get away from it all.
More important, the money could have been used directly to solve a problem around Student Senate or its offices, instead of indirectly for the Senate to go somewhere else to think about how to solve its problems.
Others are waiting
A sandy-haired, blue-eyed, new-born boy was found abandoned here last week. He was wrapped in blankets in a small box in the stairwell of an apartment. The plight of the small child touched the people of Lawrence and offers to adopt him came pouring in.
It's easy to see how people can respond positively to such a dramatic event. But there are hundreds of children waiting for adoption — some of them no longer babies, some of mixed races and some handicapped. But people are not standing in line to adopt them.
This says several things about our society that bear thinking about. For one, it's sad that so many people are willing to share their home with a child who is healthy, but not with a child who isn't.
Next, there's the question of racial preferences. Precious few families are willing to bring a child of different racial origin into the fold of their family.
We justify this by saying that
children are best kept in their own cultural context. But countless parents of different racial or cultural backgrounds raise happy, well-adjusted children rich in the variety of experiences to which they've been exposed.
Then there's the question of age preferences. Babies are cute, which makes them "adoptable."
But the children who most need adoptive parents are often older children whose lives have been disrupted by traumatic changes. That they are shunned in favor of younger children adds to their psychological burden.
Finally, the plight of the abandoned baby points home our inertia. Many parents, who can afford the economic or emotional expense of adopting a child, only reach out and make the effort to respond if the media forces them to listen to the children's plight. How sad this is for the less fortunate children who don't make it on the front page or on the TV.
Distancing not enough
Already there is evidence that the Philippine government is paying bribes to influence votes.
The Reagan administration has made a good move in distancing itself from the corrupt forces of the Ferdinand Marcos' regime.
Although the administration has made moves away from supporting Marcos, its official position on the election still is to remain neutral.
That neutrality should begin to sway with recent developments in the Philippine campaign: murder of various election officials, bribes and the allegations of Marcos' participation in a Japanese black market.
But it is not enough for the Reagan administration to distance itself from Marcos and simply call for a free and fair election. It is obvious that a free and fair election is not possible in a nation that has not known one in the last 10 years of martial rule under Marcos.
Under Marcos, the country
is wrought with corruption and Marcos has proven incapable of taking political, military or economic means to hold off a growing communist insurgency.
Marcos knows, as does the United States, that any communist insurgence could jeopardize U.S. bases there. But a continuance of the Marcos rule will not stave off communism.
A few years ago, the Reagan Administration applauded the democracy in the Philippines.
Vice President George Bush said when he visited Manila in 1981: "We love your adherence to democratic principle and democratic processes. We will not leave you in isolation."
Now, it is obvious that that adherence to democratic processes has grown weary. And it is time to leave that government in its own isolation of corruption.
Marcos is no longer simply the "alternative to a large communist movement to take over the Philippines."
News staff
News staff
Michael Totty ... Editor
Lauretta McMillen ... Managing editor
Chrissa Barber ... Editorial editor
Cindy Cindy ... Campus editor
David Giles ... Sports editor
Brice Waddell ... Photo editor
Susanne Shaw ... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Brett McCabe ... Business manager
David Nixon ... Retail sales manager
Jim Williamson ... Campus manager
Eckert Evans ... Classified manager
Caroline Innes ... Production manager
Pallen Lee ... National 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
The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Staffer Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final periods, and on Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage paid at post offices in the county, and at the university; students in Douglas County and $18 for six months and $34 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118 Staufer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan '66045.
America inspires mixed impressions
Almost a year and a half has passed since I came to the United States. Frankly, I longed for America before I arrived here. When I was in Korea, I thought simply that America looked beautiful and was somewhat luxurious. Yet, certain vague images I had about America were considerably different from the real power I felt during my stay of 18 months in this country.
My stay has given me an opportunity to observe and speculate about America, even though in a limited sense.
One thing I noticed during my stay is a deep, broad and sustained concept of freedom. Freedom is the most direct noun that can symbolize America.
What they really yearned for was a spring called freedom. Freedom has played an important role in building a certain image of America. On the other hand, the concept of freedom may lose its limited direction because its applications are endlessly vast. An example of this is last spring when I saw several nude men swimming and playing in the Chi Omega fountain. Who can say that such behavior is freedom?
During World War II, many German-Jewish intellectuals, scientists and philosophers came to the United States to escape the pressure and misrule of the Nazis. Also, many dissidents from the Soviet Union and other communist countries have sought political asylum in America.
Definitely it is self-indulgence. Viewed from this perspective, some American's concept of freedom is based on disorder and temporary
Guest shot
Tae Youl Paek
convenience rather than mutual understandings and invisible constraint.
The second point I would like to make is about human rights. All mankind's history can be seen as a struggle for living a human life. The United States has always emphasized human rights in dealing with other nations, especially under the Carter administration. It is well-known that the basic tenet of human rights is a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy.
Why does the United States continually place so much emphasis on human rights? Does it mean that human rights should be constructed and interpreted on the foundation of the American dream and democracy? Probably not.
Americans may feel a great sense of guilt largely because the white man has oppressed Indians, blacks and other minorities throughout American history. In my opinion, the United States' emphasis on human rights seems to aim at compensating for such psychological pressure, primarily derived from the historical and ethnic background of America.
Nevertheless, the United States has been successful to some degree in coping with ethnic problems connected with the issue of human rights. In the event that these were not remedied, the United States hasn't hesitated to take certain kinds
of economic or diplomatic sanctions or actions against them.
Although it is relegatable that human rights are continually trampled in this world, does the United States have any qualification or right to allege to that concern for human rights or even to correct them? Certainly, this can lead to interference in the domestic affairs of other nations.
The United States needs to pay more attention to critical problems regarding human rights at home such as racial discrimination.
The third point I would like to mention is something political. In the year that I arrived here, there was a presidential election. As a student of political science, it was a great joy to watch the campaign directly through the diverse mass media.
In particular, what excited me were the television debates between the two candidates. What was particularly impressive was not the content of the debate, but its atmosphere, which allowed the two to show the American people their qualities and capabilities as presidential candidates.
Both Reagan and Mondale were winners. They demonstrated well what they had and yielded to a considerate decision by the American people. Americans displayed one aspect of their powerful democracy to most undemocratic and totalitarian governments.
I was envious of that. Americans should realize that many countries including my own do not have a regular and fair presidential election.
Finally, it seems to me that many
Americans have a deep interest in Japan. Why is this? About 40 years ago, the United States subjugated Japan at the end of World War II.
After 40 years, the situation has changed. Japan was quite successful in reconstructing after the defeat and devastation of war. The United States probably never expected Japan's tremendous prosperity. Many Japanese goods and items — TVs, cars and electronics — sweep not only the American market but the rest of the world.
At last, it looks like the United States regards Japan as a reliable partner in the world economy. The United States may be afraid of Japan's continuing economic progress and is taking strict precautions against Japan through a higher barrier of protectionism.
Some important abstract assets — such as freedom and concern for human rights — that the United States has established and developed by are much more strong and durable than economic indices such as GNP and per capita income. Other nations can't build them as easily, within as short a period as the United States. But the United States doesn't need to boast of them. If the word America is translated into Korean, it means a beautiful country.
America will remain a beautiful country as long as it pursues inherent assets such as freedom and concern for human rights and bolsters her spirit in the future. That is my version of the American dream.
Tae Youl Peak is a graduate student in political science from Seoul, South Korea.
Mailbox
Let students stand
This letter is in response to the threat from Monte Johnson, director of athletics, and Tony Redwood, chairman of the Kansas University Athletic Corporation Board. At the KU-Louisville basketball game Saturday, Johnson and Redwood had distributed letters to the student seating sections warning us to remain seated during the basketball games "except for spontaneous reaction to an outstanding play by the team." If we do not receive your full cooperation during the Louisville game, all student seating in the lower arena will be permanently moved to the upper levels of Allen Field House."
For what reason is the University of Kansas men's basketball team here? Is it for the alumni and to enjoy themselves for an afternoon or evening? No, I don't think so. The team is here for the players and for the students of KU. We are the sponsors of the team, not Pizza Hut, Coca-Cola or rich friends of the University. If it were not for the students, there would be no KU basketball team to cheer for.
It probably would make you happier. Mr. Johnson, if there were no students at all. Then you could sell our tickets for a higher price and make more money for yourselves. Or just don't sell any student tickets, period. That would solve all your problems.
Then all the "fans" could show up 10 minutes before the game started. You might be able to get a few to stand up for the National Anthem. Everyone certainly would be seated before the tip-off. And the only yelling and clapping would come from the coaches and players on the benches. The Jayhawks would start losing because they would have no incentive to win. For some reason (the dead silence maybe?) they just
A few students might try to sneak in and cheer. But they would quickly learn that Allen Field House is a place to sit and be quiet. A funeral is about to be held. Once the "Hawks lose a few games, the "fans" would start to miss the games. Pretty soon, it'll look like a practice session.
I have a suggestion for you. Why don't you move the faculty, staff and rich alumni all into one section where they won't be bothered by standing students. And give the students of KU their proper places to sit. The sides of the lower arena, not just the ends. Why do you want to move the students, the reason for this campus, this field house and this team into the rafters? Just for the sake of money?
couldn't get into the game.
Someone has his priorities mixed up. I will stand and cheer for my team whenever and wherever I feel like it. It just might have to be at home where I can do what I want. If you think the students are going to take this sitting down, Mr. Johnson, you have another thing coming.
Tom Smith Stilwell junior
KUAC threat unfair
A recent article in the Kansan threatening student seating arrangements seems totally unfair. I believe that the tremendous involvement in the game against Oklahoma helped our basketball team to overcome the Sooners. This game, in comparison with Saturday's game against Louisville, showed a drastic difference in crowd enthusiasm. I believe this was the result of letters circulated at that game. I think it is sad when our athletic department has to tell our home crowd to control their excitement because some of the reserved ticket holders wish to sit. If they want to calmly view a basketball game then they should watch it on television.
None of the students actions have changed, yet we stand to lose seating privileges. Certainly, the most important group that the lack of enthusiasm will affect will be the basketball team, because if student support ceases there will be no meaning to the term "home court advantage."
I'm sure that since KU's basketball tradition began students have been standing to support their team, but all of a sudden threats are pouring in to remove our seating sections that the athletic department installed for increased revenue.
Laurie Leiker Great Bend sophomore Respect others' rights
It is not only the public that is outraged by the few but very obnoxious students who insist on standing throughout the entire KU basketball games. There are also many students who are mature and considerate of others that find this practice inexcusable. Also, it is not only the group of students that sits behind the bench that has this propensity for standing. The same thing has happened to me in the rafters on the southwest side of Allen Field House.
I happen to be short (and in the words of Billy Tubbs, “… we can’t grow”) and as soon as everyone stands, I can only see about half of the court (if I’m lucky). There seems to be an inordinate number of immature and selfish students this year. Besides the students who stand, I have witnessed dangerous “tomfooley” with pompons and thrown pear, pashing and shoving. Four students insisted on taking six seats during the packed Oklahoma game. (“We don’t want to be too crowded.” Also, many people stand on the bench in front of them although they don't need the extra height.
I'd like to respond to Rick
Loehrike's comment in Monday's Kansan that he can't cheer the way he wants unless he is standing. I, among many others, find that my vocal cords and hands work the same whether I'm sitting or standing. (And I, too, love to stand when the time is appropriate.) His idea of converting one side of the field house to alumni seating does not change the situation one bit. To Rick and all the other students who insist on standing, imagine yourself standing in the midst of a sea of people 6 to 12 inches taller than you and think for a minute of how you would like it. If these students are justifying their behavior by calling themselves "diehard" fans, it doesn't hold water. The field house is full of adamant fans who are considerate of others and who typify the "Pride of the Jayhawks."
I'm proud of Larry Brown, our basketball team and the majority of the fans. Let's make it all of the fans! Mary Koel
Marty Kirk
Lawrence graduate student
Praise for our fans
Allow me the space to applaud the student body and other fans at the KU-OU basketball shootout Tuesday night (Jan. 21).
I was impressed by the enthusiasm and unity of the crowd (not to mention the size and volume level). Mostly, however, I was impressed by the traditional cheers.
You were loud and relentless. I don't think fans should be judged by whether they "cheer for" or "boo against" the other team. The fans at KU probably did both. But the reason you are among the best in the nation is because you stay involved in the game.
You made an impact on the game and a strong, positive impression on this observer.
Douglas Ferguson sports editor The Oklahoma Daily