4
Thursday, January 22, 1987 / University Daily Kansan
Improving selectively
Enrollment at the University of Kansas has been soaring. The latest figures released indicate that on the first day of spring enrollment, 24,563 students enrolled at the KU campuses. This is 1,196 more students than a year ago.
It is a great feeling to know that our enrollment continues to increase. The quality of education is beginning to suffer, though, because the University does not have the financial resources to adequately accommodate the increase of students. The University of Kansas must begin to look at alternatives to solving some of its enrollment problems.
One possible alternative is to raise the entrance requirements for in-state and out-of-state students. According to the 14th edition of "Profiles of American Colleges," KU is classified as a competitive school. This means that the
University will accept students with at least a C average and an ACT score of 23 or better. However, the University apparently does not strictly adhere to this policy.
KU is a quality university that should expect more from its students and potential students. When many out-of-state students simply choose this University because their grade point averages are too low to gain admittance to their own state universities, this should be some clue as to how they will perform in college. The University cannot afford to open classes and hire instructors for many students who will not put adequate time or effort into their classes.
Math scores don't add up
The University needs to continue to provide its students with the same quality education that it has in the past. To accomplish this, the University should seriously consider raising its admission standards.
After half a decade of successive government reports describing the U.S. education system as producing a "tide of mediocrity," an international research team this month issued its newest report on mathematical instruction in this country.
The results are not startling. American children are deficient in mathematics, from arithmetic to calculus in grades one through 12, compared with students from 20 other industrialized nations.
Today, over 50 percent of the United State's jobs relate to information processing. This requires developed skills in mathematics, science and communications. Clearly, our schools are not meeting this need.
However, even marginal reforms suggested in the federal reports have scarcely
been put into practice. Only 10 states mandate three years of high school math and only three require three years of science. Despite a national campaign to lengthen the school year comparable to foreign systems, seven states have shortened them.
Meanwhile, technologically advanced industries overseas are squeezing U.S. industry from the international market. The demand for the technologically adept is soaring. Universities report that as many as half of their teaching assistant positions in engineering and computer science go unfilled, and many often are filled with foreign students.
Unless we, as a nation, are willing to adapt our current educational system to the reality of a technological age, we may find ourselves overtaken by this rising tide of mediocrity.
A contract is a contract
A couple is unable to have a baby. A woman needs a few thousand dollars.
So they make a deal.
But in some cases, surrogate motherhood becomes a battle over a baby.
This type of situation led to the start of surrogate motherhood in the United States. The parents-to-be hire another woman to have their baby. After being artificially inseminated, the woman carries the child and then gives it up.
The two parties had reached an agreement. However,
A change of heart tossed one such case into the hands of a New Jersey court, with a childless couple and a surrogate mother fighting over "Baby M."
"Baby M's" birth shed a different light on the situation. The surrogate mother refused to give up "her" baby.
Surrogate motherhood may not be the ideal way to have a baby, but an agreement is an agreement. One party cannot break it without the consent of the other. Surrogate mothers should not have the right to change their minds. If they start a job, they must finish it.
The problems arising from surrogate motherhood have no easy solutions, especially because human feelings are involved. Until states draw up legislation, an agreement between a couple and a surrogate mother should be treated like any other legal contract.
Otherwise battles over babies will continue.
News staff
News staff
Frank Hansel ... Editor
Jennifer Benjamin ... Managing editor
Jill Warren ... News editor
Brian Katherine ... Editorial editor
Sandra Engelland ... Campus editor
Mark Siebert ... Sports editor
Diane Dulmeier ... Photo editor
Bill Skeet ... Graphics editor
Tom Eblen ... General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Lisa Weems ... Business manager
Bonnie Hardy ... Ad director
Denise Stephens ... Retail sales manager
Kelli Schuster ... Campus sales manager
Duncan Calhoun ... Marketing manager
Lori Copple ... Classified manager
Jennifer Lumianski ... Production manager
David Nixon ... National sales manager
Jeanne Hines ... Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be type, 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 Kansan reserves the right reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can
The Kansan reserves the right reject or edit letters and guest shots. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staffer-Flint Hall*
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stuffer-Fill Hall, Lawn, Kaneb, 66045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods, and on Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage paid in Louisville, 66044. Subscriptions by mail are $40 per year in Douglas County and $50 per year in Lawrence. 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. 660**
Opinions
IRANSCAM: AMERICA HELD HOSTAGE
Distributed by King Features Syndicate
North guilty of doing duty
Before the current tuss over the Iran arms sale broke, the only people who had heard about Lt. Col. Oliver North were close followers of the National Security Council, his friends and associates. But after months of investigating by a plethora of bodies and a scandal-hungry media, North's name has become a household word.
Paul Campbell Columnist
first national address on the Iran affair.
North was brought before an investigating committee of the Congress, at which time he took the Fifth Amendment. Later it was reported that he had shredded various documents that might have answered some of the questions. Congressional leaders opined that he is one of "Reagan's cowboys," irresponsibly refusing to testify.
At the briefest glance, North's role in what is seen as incompetence at the highest level is simply a case of covering the presidential rear-end. A closer look shows North as a committed anti-terrorist, acting in the best interests of the country.
According to North, the Soviet Union was instilling confidence in the Teheran leadership over a planned annual final offensive in its war with Iraq. Anticipating an Iranian military failure, Soviet-supported proxies would siege the government in Teheran and call in Soviet troops, a large number of which were conveniently on maneuvers on the Iranian border to protect the provisional government. We could call this Afghanistan II: The Adventure Continues.
In a recent edition of National Review magazine, Neil Livingstone, author of books on terrorism and president of the Institute on Terrorism and Subnational Conflict, recounts a conversation he had with North just after President Reagan's
Should the proxies have failed, the Soviets were prepared to sponsor a revolt in Azerbaijan, located in the northwestern Iran conveniently bordering the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic. This would not be without precedent. The Soviet Army did order all Russian troops into World War II and planned to incorporate Iranian Azerbaijan into the Soviet Union.
The Soviet goal throughout this affair, as old as the czars, was to extend its influence into the Persian Gulf region. To prevent this from happening, the American goal was to increase contacts with Iranian moderates, who are best defined as people who are pragmatic about the survival of an independent Iran.
Not only were weapons delivered to Iran, but U.S. intelligence provided the Iranian government with bleak prospects of an Iranian military victory.
The deal then was not exactly arms for hostages, but arms to bolster the Iranian military against a possible Soviet invasion. Iranian aid at securing the hostages would have been a bonus of sorts. Insight magazine recently reported that many of the weapons sent by the United States were deployed on the Soviet, not Iraqi, border.
North's role in the affair was probably to facilitate communication between Teheran and Washington. This deal certainly does not imply that the U.S. condones Iranian terrorist activities, but increased communication with the Iranian government is in our interests.
Why is Lt. Col. Oliver North such an easy mark? Because he represents something that the media has always had a problem with: secret diplomacy.
Nations need secret diplomacy to achieve their national objectives in touchy and uncertain situations. If the information North is keeping to himself has to remain secret for U.S. interests, then it should remain so.
The difference between what the administration has said and done, once brought out, is enough to convict it in the minds of many of its critics. All that L. Col. North is guilty of is the failure for a geographical risk in an inherently fictional region where getting the job done depends on quiet.
His sentence...how about a promotion?
Senators gloat over Giants win
WASHINGTON — In their eagerness to lord it over the Washington Redskins, Sens. Frank Lautenberg and Bill Bradley couldn't even wait for the wind to die down.
Steve Gerstel (IPI Commentary
Less than 48 hours after the Giants wind-whipped the Redskins into submission, there they were, these two New Jersey Democrats with their matching smiles, introducing a resolution congratulating the new National Football Conference champions.
Now, it isn't unusual for senators, some of whom couldn't care less about any sport not played on a campaign trail, to offer resolutions of salutations for a home-state team. It's almost mandatory politics.
Last fall, senators did the same for the New York Mets when they won the World Series and, before that, for the Boston Red Sox, who postponed their annual swoon from August until October.
prompted Congress to beef up security around the nation's Capitol.
But this was different. This resolution involved the Redskins, who play their home games only about a 20 shotgun shot from the Senate chamber.
Never mind the Iranians. Never mind the Libyans. Neither are as dangerous as a Redskins fan who has been all unaligned - especially after a defeat.
The resolution itself was inoffensive. It never mentioned the Redskins. But Lautenberg couldn't keep himself from twisting the knife.
Maybe it was the anticipation of such a Lautenberg-Bradley blasphemy in the nation's capital, that
Lautenberg said the Redskins "played quite a good game... the second best of the champions" and grudgingly said, "All of us have a certain affection for the Washington Redskins."
Maybe the entire Lautenberg-Bradley show had nothing to do with the Skins at all. Maybe it was just a small difference between New Jersey and New York.
Everywhere in the country, the Giants are known as the New York Giants, except in New Jersey, where they are known as the New Jersey Giants.
The Giants, who dwelled in New York for many, many years, in 1976 moved their games to a place called Rutherford Glen. They the East Rutherford Giants
The two-state war over the Giants' breeding flared even in the delirium of victory when New York City Mayor Ed Koch refused to spring for a
ticker ticker parade should the split personality team win the Super Bowl
The Giants, who did all the teaching on the field, could take some lessons from Washington on how to hold victory parades. When the Redskins won the Super Bowl, more than 70 percent of the terminal rain to watch their heroes ride by in buses, their faces almost totally obscured.
Absent when Bradley and Lautenberg speared the Redskins with their resolution were Sens. Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., and Daniel Moynihan, D-N.Y., who have yet to bestow their blessings on the Giants.
Washington could not offer a defense even in the Senate. The District of Columbia does not have a representative there.
As a result, it was up to Sen. Spark Matsunaga, an American of Japanese descent from Hawaii, to put the game in perspective.
A courteous and knowledgeable gentleman at all times. Matsumaga university.
"Perhaps they played a little harder, but the god or goddess of wind surely played in favor of the Giants," Matsunaga said. "Had it not been for the fact that the wind was against the Redskins, I think the Redskins would be going to the Super Bowl."
Surrogate motherhood for felines?
An ugly legal and moral crisis has erupted in my home, and I don't know what to do.
One of my cats, Festus, decided about three months ago that he wanted to be a father. I knew he would make a good one — he's strong, sensitive and wise — but the
Bob Hart Columnist
cat he's been seeing steadily for some time proved unable to conceive. This had Festus in the dumps until he came up with what he thought was a great idea.
He had a talk with my other cat Skitty Bear, and offered her $10,000 to be a surrogate mother. Skitty had her doubts at first, but she was sympathetic to Festus and his lady friend, and, well, $10,000 is a lot of money to a cat trying to make ends meet. So she said "Okay," and they both put their paw-prints on a contract. Skitty agreed to turn the kittens over to Festus as soon as they weaned. Festus agreed to accept all responsibility, financial and otherwise, from that point on. In addition to the cash payment, he also promised to keep Skitty Bear in food and litter for the duration of the pregnancy.
Everything was fine until the kitties were born. How could Skitty have known that tremendous attachment she would feel to those cute little creatures? How could she give up her own flesh and blood? Sure Festus was a nice cat, and he had a lot of money to provide for the kitties in a way in which she could not. But they were her kitties! "Oh, what have I done?" I heard her howl one night. The next morning she was gone. In desperation, she had taken the kitties and fled.
I felt sorry for Skitty Bear. Although I thought she should have considered these strong maternal feelings earlier, she did have a point. And she, too, would make an excellent parent. Besides, if she had needed the money so badly, she'd have never agreed to the whole situation in the first place. Wasn't this all a great, big plot to exploit lower-income female cats?
Festus didn't see it that way. Understandably miffed, he hired a private investigator to track down his little investments. The investigator found Skitty and her offspring just a whisker away, under the kitch en sink. A court order returned them to Festus' home in the closet. Skitty is allowed to visit them twice a week
Now it is left to me to decide the fate of Kitties M, N, O and P. Do they stay with Festus, or are they returned to Skitty? Before我 I see two parents, equally loving and, I assume, capable of caring for their children. One has more money than the other, but I don't think that should matter. One backed out of a contractual agreement, but was the contract fair and legally binding in the first place?
Do you know what I wish I had said to my cats when this whole idea was proposed? I wish I had said, "Festus. I understand your strong desire to be a father and your devotion to your infertile companion. But I don't approve of your solution to the problem. If you weren't so insistent on having healthy, Persian kitties, there would be other options.
: "And Skitty is, is this a decision you are absolutely certain you won't regret? Can you put a price on the love you are bound to feel for your kitties? Do you need the money that bad?"
Correction
The year of the Goldwater Johnson presidential election was incorrectly stated in a column that appeared in Tuesday's Kansan, Lyndon B. Johnson defeated Barry Goldwater in 1964.
BLOOM COUNTY
- 1977 Washington Post Co
by Berke Breathed