4
Wednesday, July 8, 1987
Kansan Summer Weekly
Opinions and Editorials
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY
KANSAN
SUMMER
WEEKLY
EDITION
Don't sling mud at Bork
President Reagan recently nominated Robert H. Bork, an appeals court judge, to the Supreme Court. Bork is a staunch conservative, and if confirmed, might be the vote that swings the Court back to the right.
Bork was nominated to succeed Justice Lewis F. Powell, who recently announced his retirement because of health problems.
Bork has said that the Supreme Court's 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade was a classic instance of the Court imposing its morality on local jurisdictions. This desire for municipalities to dictate and enforce abortion legislation ignores past bombings of abortion clinics and the long history of local vigilantism in the United States. The thought of abortion laws that differ from one state to the next can be frightening and confusing.
Because Justice Powell has cast the deciding vote in recent years on issues as diverse as affirmative action, school prayer and the rights of the accused, this does not mean that a Court with Bork on the bench would automatically overturn these decisions in future cases.
Civil libertarians, however, argue that a man with a predisposition to lean to the right would not serve the United States with an open mind. They fear that Bork's tendency to decide cases to the letter of the law will not allow him the flexibility to mold the law to fit a country that has changed during the past 200 years.
Even if the Senate should reject Bork, the fight for the nomination would have revealed a disturbing factor: the shameless complaining by
people or groups with special interests in mind.
Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., upset about Republican stalling on defense authorization and campaign spending bills, said last week, "If the current Republican strategy of delaying the Senate is still in vogue, then I will expect some quid pro quo on the nomination."
Other groups oppose Bork for more noble, but still biased, reasons. Consumer activist, Ralph Nader, and AFL-CIO president, Lane Kirkland, have launched campaigns to prevent the Bork nomination because, as Nader said, "He is the pre-eminent judge for big government and big business and for excluding the rights of consumers, taxpayers and citizens to challenge these power structures in court."
Art Kropp, executive director of the civil liberties group. People for the American Way, has pledged to spend "several hundred thousand dollars" to lobby against the Bork nomination.
Sen, Strom Thurmond, R.S.C., expressed only lukewarm praise for Bork after President Reagan ignored his advice to choose a southerner for the Court.
Just as it is the right of President Reagan to nominate a conservative judge to the Supreme Court, it is the right of these groups to oppose the nomination. Also, it is the duty of the Senate to review this nomination and decide whether to accept another conservative appointment to the high court. All parties involved should do what their conscience dictates without slinging mud or making judgments based on scant evidence.
NCAA tomfoolery
The coaches did cut the number of recruiting visits for prospective basketball players from 18 to 15, and reduced the number of paid-recruiting visits from 95 to 85 in an academic year.
Coaches and athletic directors voted down tightening their belts in favor of allowing the programs to continue to expand.
It cost the NCAA $1.8 million to decide that it really doesn't want to cut corners in athletic programs after all. Sports has become big business for colleges and universities, and unfortunately, neither the NCAA nor universities are taking the necessary steps to stop this growth.
They defeated several proposals which would have resulted in cutbacks, although these cutbacks were reasonable suggestions and would not have crippled any program. For example, the NCAA's President's Commission recommended reducing the number of football scholarships from 95 to 90.
The convention really did not accomplish much except to teach coaches and athletic directors how to spend $1.8 million while doing nearly nothing. The coaches and athletic directors succeeded in stalling NCAA goals to cut programs.
The motto of "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play" is quickly being changed to "It's not whether a coach wins or loses, but how much money the sport will make."
The coaches and athletic directors are forgetting the purpose of sports — to have fun. Sports can be an outlet for athletes' energy, and can be a way to demonstrate cooperation and teamwork in preparation for the real world. Athletes shouldn't feel the pressure of the "win at all costs" attitude. They have enough pressure trying to get an education.
News staff
John Benner ... Editor
Dawn O'Malley ... Managing editor
Jane Zachman ... News editor
Pam Miller ... Campus editor
Tim Hamilton ... Sports editor
Darcy Chang ... Photo editor
Connie Sheridan ... Graphics editor
Tom Eblen ... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Business start
Lisa Weems ... Business manager
Lisa Osentm ... Retail sales manager
Sally Depew ... Campus sales manager
Dan Pennington ... Classified manager
Greg Knipp ... Production
Truck Rotbulut ... National sales manager
Jeanne Hines ... Sales and marketing adviser
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 shots 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 and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
Letters, guest shots and columns are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daily Kansan. Editorials are
The University Dailly Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stairwater-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 60045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and final periods, and Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 60044. Subscriptions by mail are $15 for six months or $27 a year in Douglas County and $18 for six months and $35 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 Stauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045.
God bless schizophrenic America
Glover Bless a slightly schizophrenic America. We have a lot to celebrate as we acknowledge the very beginnings of one of the world's longest-running, albeit somewhat battered, democracies.
And when we gained these freedoms that we celebrate, we gained a country with a way of life that bests all others (no matter what other countries' citizens may tell us). But it's a schizophrenic's way of life, and at no time has it been more obvious on this last Fourth of July.
So, on the day when families and friends enjoy themselves watching parades and fireworks, picnicking in the park and reveling in the spirit of our independence, it's only natural that some people also take the time to recognize and celebrate the birthdays of Phyllis Diller and Spam.
Phyllis Diller And Spam2
It's ironic — as well as schizophrenic — to take two entities which should be far from anyone's reverence and celebrate their birthdays on the most patriotically revered holiday of the year.
I laughed when I first heard about it. Come on, when someone thinks of Phyllis Diller with her frenzied cackle, crazy hair, her long cigarette in its equally long holder and her string of plastic surgeries, who doesn't smirk a little? And when someone thinks of Spam (especially those in my grandfather's generation), who doesn't shudder?
And yet, the more I think about it, the more I realize that the celebrations are very analogous to the essence of what America is celebrating.
After all, Phyllis Diller turns 70 later this month, which is no small feat for anyone. This lady is the self-admitted queen of plastic surgery.
But she is more than just a prime example of excessive vanity. She also can be seen as a symbol of perseverance, the end product of a series of tucks and lifts on top of tucks and lifts, returning to her surgeon unfailingly when something has fallen loose.
Now is she 72? She really doesn't look that old. She just looks the way she always has.
If "preserved" applies to Diller, it applies to Spam as well. Despite the ridicule that the processed "mystery meat" has endured, the product has reached age 50.
And people in Austin, Minn., home of the Hormel Meat Packing Plant where Spam is produced, celebrated that fact with festivities such as a Spam cook-off and a Spam parade. A local McDonald's even had Spam McMuffins.
All this festivity for a food that has been criticized for "clogging up" America's arteries with fat, salts and preservatives.
But in the midst of this festivity were 850 fired meat packers who protested the celebration of a processed pork product made by a company that has left them with no job. The strife led to slashed tires and threatening phone calls to Spam supporters. The joy was not shared by all.
Where does the analogy fall into place, you ask? Consider America, still following the rules laid down 200 years ago by a bunch of guys in white wigs. This country has been through its own kind of facelifts and ridicule and our democracy, too, has been accused of "clogging up" America's arteries.
America in many ways does not seem as old as its 200 years. But our country still needs needing those "facelips"." Why? Because a lot of people protest a country has left them without a job, among other things.
America is not always pretty, like Fourth of July fireworks, but it's enduring. And as long as it's there, we can keep trying to improve.
So that's why I say our country is slightly schizophrenic — where else can you draw a connection between America, a 70-year-old comedienne and processed pork?
They're just as American as baseball, apple pie and mom — especially my mom, who still seems to love me even though I forgot her birthday.
Gouging: as American as designer jeans
God Bless America, Phyllis Diller and Spam
And you too. Morr.
We might as well dispute whether it is the upper or the under blade of a pair of scissors that cuts a piece of paper, as whether value is governed by utility or by cost of production. — Alfred Marshall.
Value: 1. A fair price in return for goods or services. 2. Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor. — The American Heritage Dictionary.
The pursuit of things and of services is a game, though not originated in the United States, that is played by this nation with the greatest skill in the world. Our national motto might be: How much is it? Or perhaps: What's it in for me?
How is it that a society that is obsessed with material goods is so unconcerned with value? Why not ask instead: What's it worth?
Before I go any further, I should say that I have been known to use plastic money once or twice, and I believe in a free market system. But, as the consumate consumer, I want to get what I pay for.
--shows, we can herd a few of the moviegoing masses in early to relieve later congestion. Furthermore, we don't have to give anyone a price break. We're just being nice guys."
Let's start small. What is the value of going to the movies? I said value, not cost. Let us assume that the market will bear an outrageous price of $4. If we are willing to pay that much, then is that what attending the film is worth? Why does it cost $2.50 to see the same movie at the matinee showing?
I've never noticed that the service by the theater employees was any less skilled at the earlier showing. They still leave the garbage waist-high in the aisles between shows. The product is the same, so why is the price lower? We all know the pat answer, "If everyone wants to go to the later
I think a really nice guy would charge $2.50 for every show, but I'm just a consumer trying to get my money's worth. I don't have to pay the theater rent or placate the employees with sub-$4-an-hour wages.
Let's look at a few more examples, staying small for the moment. Many videotape rental outlets in town charge $1 Monday through Thursday, but gouge the viewer for $2.50 Friday through Sunday. Is the tape worth 2½ times as much three days a
America is a land of gougers. Examples of man's (fiscal) inhumanity to man are many, if not important. The only problem I have with market demand setting the price of a good or service is that so many consumers are willing to take it on the chin. Some are willingly led down the primrose path of excess, and arriving at the object of their desire, offer to pay extra.
week? Is the derived pleasure 2½ times greater?
Are these establishments simply trying to herd customers toward the "low-traffic" days of the week?
I don't think they're doing anything we're not allowing them to do. Businesses charge more for one simple reason: They can.
Instances of gougery are present in all facets of life. Gas costs more on the turnipke. Food costs more at the ballgame. Drinks cost more at a popular bar or club.
other gouging follows a schedule as do movie prices. Airline tickets are more expensive during the holidays. Hotel prices and cruise prices also fluctuate seasonally.
Telephone calls have an even more sophisticated tier of prices, and all based on convenience - the convenience of the phone company, that is.
Probably the most incredible example of gougng is in the "designer" clothing industry. The Coca-Cola Co. should pay us to wear shirts with their logo, making ourselves tiny billboards advertising their product. Instead, undiscriminating consumers who care more about being chic than they do about the cost, quality, or comfort of clothing, set prices.
On campus, students regularly pay ridiculous prices for textbooks and parking fines. (Perhaps parking fines would be better left to a future column.)
Look for moderation in Bork's judicial record
To those people I have only two things to say: 1. "Designer" reprints of this column are available from me at a cost of only $1,000. 2. Make the check payable to me.
The resignation of Associate Justice Lewis Powell from the Supreme Court of the United States, where he has served long (15 years) and moderately (he's been the Court's swing man) may lead to much clearer jurisprudence — but also much worse. His designated successor, Robert Bork, should be judged on his record and his views and not on the enthusiasm he inspires among right-wing ideologues or the separate-bat-equal hysteries from the left. One way to assess what a Robert Bork would contribute to the Court, or take away from it, is to measure him against the jurist he would succeed.
Paul Greenberg
Syndicated Columnist
Lewis Powell was seldom known for the clarity of his views; he was moderate not only in the ideas, but in their expression. In perhaps his best-known swing vote, he ruled against racial quotas in college admissions as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, but left the door open for racial preferences in the interest of the state. That may be less than consistent, but so was Lewis F. Powell.
Many of Lewis Powell's decisions were determined by his strong preference for things as they vaguely are. One of the few strong, clear and consistent positions he took, for which the nation can be grateful, was in favor of the separation of church and state. He stuck by that principle even in what seemed to others to be minor matters. He did so, as his decisions make clear, not because of any great sensitivity to the injustice involved, but out of a warranted fear about where such small intrusions would lead: to greater ones, until the religious peace that has marked American society is replaced by strife.
is Teachable. Lewis Powell will be remembered as a jurist who valued stability, even if his devotion to that quality often led him simply to stick with the status quo. Yet, on those occasions when his love of peace combined with his understanding of justice, Justice Powell was capable of demonstrating great vision. That usually happened when the issue was education, a field in which he had particular knowledge and experience. He had been a member
of the Richmond, Va., school board when the old capital of the Confederacy peacefully integrated its schools. Justice Powell could have written no better words to be remembered by than his opinion upholding the right of children to an education, even if they happened to be the children of illegal aliens.
"The classification at issue," he wrote in Plyter v. Doe five years ago, "deprived a group of children of the opportunity for an education afforded all other children simply because they have been assigned a legal status due to a violation of the law by their parents. These children thus have been singled out for a lifelong penalty and sigma. A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents cannot be reconciled with one of the fundamental purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment."
One might wish that the rest of his law reflected as clear a sense of justice and of the future, but his country can be grateful for those occasions when Justice Powell set aside his usual caretaker's view of the law and spoke out like a prophet come to judgment.
There is no doubt that of the many U.S.institutions Lewis Powell values, he loves the Supreme Court itself the most. That may explain why he believed in using its powers sparingly to shield it from the kind of assaults that a firm exercise of judicial power invariably provokes. If judicial
resrant is the measure by which one values members of the Court, he may have been its most valuable. Lewis Powell was surely the most popular member of the Supreme Court among his fellow justices, not just because his vote would prove decisive so often, but because of his devotion to the Court as an institution. If only he had loved the Court less, and justice more.
But those who love both may soon have cause to miss him if he is succeeded by a narrow ideologue, however clear or consistent. Whatever their opinions of his law, his fellow citizens can agree that Lewis F. Powell Jr. met his own standards well.
Justice Powell understood almost instinctively what Oliver Wendell Holmes put so well, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed."
Lewis Powell was not as clear or as forceful as Justice Holmes in expounding that view. Few jurists are. Too often his moderation was inchoate, uncertain and imprecise; too vague to shed a light for future generations. But it was moderation. He did attempt to channel and tame the felt necessities of his time and place them under law. To replace his moderation with abstract theory, with the strained syllogisms of some political theology, and give the prejudices of the time unbridled reign and even legal justification... that would be to punish the country and the Court. It would separate the law from Justice Holmes's great teacher, experience. The felt necessities of the time would be forced into new and dangerous channels without moderating influences, and theory would replace sense.
Whatever the shortcoming of Lewis Powell's kind of constraint, it sure beats fervor, however consistent or brilliant.