4
Wednesday, December 3, 1986 / University Daily Kansan
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
What Reagan has to lose
Whom can we trust?
For three weeks now, the Reagan administration has been struggling with the Iran arms debacle. At first, there were no shipments. Then, there were "minimal, token shipments of defensive weapons." The contradictions in policy were startling; White House staffers and National Security personnel were tripping over each other, pointing fingers and making excuses.
Then those "token shipments" turned out to be multimillion dollar sales, with the proceeds going to the Nicaraguan rebels. Contradictions compounded the contradictions; Poindexter and North were fired, more finger pointing and nobody knew anything about funneling money to the contras.
A staggering America pleaded for a straight answer. Instead, we were served a double helping of bureaucratic mumbo jumbo with our Thanksgiving turkey.
Panic has set in, and the White House has reacted as if the only thing they learned from Watergate was to build a stone wall between the Oval Office and the press room. "Burn the tapes" must have been etched on the president's desk, or at least in his mind.
But the president has forgotten that the most precious commodity of the presidency is what he has surely begun to lose: the trust of the U.S. people.
Reagan, Regan, Bush,
Shultz, North and Poindexter
let the situation overwhelm
them. It took more effort to
cover the trail than it would
have been to expose all as soon
as it was known.
The results of their stalling have been recurring questions
about criminal violations, shredded documents and the enactment of post-Watergate legislation which will lead to the appointment of an outside counsel to investigate the mess.
An initial mistake was to allow Edwin Meese, Keagan's legal lap dog, to begin an investigation of the affair. In a case where from the start the investigation should have been headed by a person with unimpeachable integrity, a team player was chosen.
Who will tell us the truth?
How will we know?
It's exasperating to watch an entire country slip back into a melancholia of cynicism and political despair. But it has begun again and until the Iran-arms affair is finished, a president will be dragged through the mud he created — taking all of us with him.
President Reagan's choice for his review board to study the National Security Council was also tainted with problems of conflict of interest. The men selected are of good character, but the man heading the committee, former Senator John Tower has been put in an ethical quagmire. It so happens that Robert "Bud" McParlane, the former national security adviser who made the covert arms delivery to Tehran, was formerly a member of Tower's staff.
The appointment of an independent counsel is the first positive step since the entire episode began. And Congress should act upon Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole's call for a special session to investigate the links between the NSC, Iran and the contrains.
To use a phrase the president used to wear so well: Here we go again.
Ending compliance with SALT II will in no way improve the national security of the United States. Its potential negative effects are serious.
We've passed the SALT
A new acceleration of the arms race is likely. The idea
The United States' deployment of another bomber equipped to carry cruise missiles ordinarily wouldn't attract much attention. But the arrival of this particular B-52 at an Air Force base in Texas represented an illogical and unnecessary arms race escalation that is likely to inhibit the potential progress on arms control.
Although the United States has accused the Soviets of many violations of arms-limitation pacts, it has not charged them with deploying more weapons than SALT II permits. The U.S. Senate never ratified SALT II, but both superpowers had honored their agreement not to exceed the weapons ceilings it imposed — until last week.
The bomber is the 131st U.S. warplane modified to carry cruise missiles, vaulting the United States over the limit of 1.320 multiple-warhead weapons set by the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union.
that a larger pile of weapons means greater security is an obvious fallacy in this age of nuclear redundancy, but the Soviets could easily use the U.S. violation as an excuse to break through the SALT II ceiling themselves.
President Reagan said in 1980 that he disapproved of SALT II because it capped the number of weapons at too high a level. That view makes violating the treaty all the more illogical. Matching the Soviets missile-for-missile isn't necessary to maintain the much-more-than-adequate deterrent capability of the U.S. arsenal. Provoking the Soviets into a new round of can-you-tip this? is equally senseless.
But if the Soviets are astute, they won't bother to match the United States' new deployment. They stand to gain considerable favor worldwide by portraying themselves as the only real peace-loving treaty-keepers.
It's tough for a nation to negotiate arms-control agreements when it's breaking the ones that exist. Congress should demand a reversal of this dangerous policy when it reconvenes in January.
News staff
Lauretta McMillen...Editor
Kady McMaster...Managing editor
Tad Clarke...News editor
David Silverman...Editorial editor
John Hanna...Campus editor
Frank Hansel...Sports editor
Jacki Kelly...Photo editor
Tom Eblen...General manager, news adviser
Business staff
David Nixon...Business manager
Gregory Kaul...Retail sales manager
Denise Stephens...Campus sales manager
Judy Donnelly...Classified manager
Lisa Weems...Production manager
Duncan Calthoun...National sales manager
Beverly Kastens...Traffic 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
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
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 be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staffer-Fint Hall.
The University Daily Kansan (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, Kansan 187 Stairwater Fitt-Hall Law, Kansean, K6045, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods, and on Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage paid at the United States Postal Service in the following counties: 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-Fint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045.
Opinions
While expressing dismay with the most recent Iran-armas disclosures, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W. Va., made a startling accusation.
A bilgeful from the White House
Byrd said, "The president does not know what is going on in the basement of the White House."
I found that hard to believe, so I phoned a White House spokesman and asked whether this could be true.
I should be fine.
Do mean to say the president didn't know what Adm. Poindexter
Mike Royko
Chicago
Tribune
and Col. North were doing in the White House basement?
That's shocking
"Not at all," the spokesman said. "Let me ask you this: Do you know what is going on in your own basement at this very moment?"
Distributed by King Features Syndicate
what he said.
"There could be hordes of ants running around your basement floor, and you wouldn't know it, right?"
I suppose so.
"You could have a pesky leak in the laundry room faucet and you wouldn't know it, right?"
"Yes. Haven't you ever had trouble with your sump pump?"
The sump pump?
That's possible.
"Of course you have. Most people who have sump pumps in the basement have occasional problems."
"See? The fact is, most people don't always know what's going on in their basements. Especially in a big house like this one. Have you seen the size of this basement? You could get down down there and never find your old tennis racket or golf clubs."
"I believe the president thought Poindexter was working on the sump pump."
But what did the president think pointdexter and other were doing in the early months of his presidency?
From time to time.
But how much time could Poinexi
ter have spent on the sump pump?
"Well, except for the good cotton shirts, it's silly to send things out to be laundered. Especially with so
"There's also the water heater. The president thought Poindexter was working on that too."
many permanent press fabrics on the market today."
"Yes. If you've ever lived in an old house like this one, with aging plumbing, you know what a nuisance the water heater can be. Some mornings the president will be trying to shave, and Nancy will be yelling, 'Ron, don't use the hot water. I'm taking a nap.' Terrible way to start the day."
Yes, but what about Col. North?
But there could only be so much laundry.
"True. But the president thought that Col. North was also straightening up the toolroom, the workbench, that sort of thing."
I see. The tools.
"Yes, it's incredible how they get mixed up. You go looking for a pair of pliers or a wrench and it's never where you thought you put it that last time you used it. Or sandpaper. Have you ever noticed how the sandpaper is never in the drawer where you keep the sandpaper?"
And that's what the president thought Col. North was doing?
"That plus the traps
What traps?
"For the mice. The president thought Col. North was in the basement setting mousetraps. This is the worst time of year for the little rascals, when the weather turns cold. If you don't get them now, they'll soon be upstairs giving the womenkof a terrible fright."
I see. So what you're saying is that the president didn't know that Poindexter and North were in the White House basement setting up a deal to shift the weapons payments into the unit-Sandhina contras in Nicaragua.
"No, he knew absolutely nothing about that."
What has been the president's reaction to this?
"He's damned angry."
Because they might have violated the law?
"No, because the sump pump and the water heater are still on the fritz."
Mailbox
Thinking of You
We are writing in response to the column titled "Campus religion: Can you believe it?" by Christopher Cunnyngham. We respect Cunnyngham's right to voice his opinions in print but we consider this last column to be more than a little bit out of line. Why did he feel compelled to blast those of us who call ourselves by the name of Christ?
Did one too many of us hand him a "cheap ditto pamphlet"? Did something such as this push him over the edge? Perhaps there was an element of truth in one of these which disturbed him. Whatever the case, there is no excuse for writing such an article.
Even though he did make one valid criticism of an isolated incident involving the Campus Crusade for Christ at Duke University, we should all know by now that it is grossly unfair to categorize a group of people by the actions of a few. If we were beaten senseless by a group of black men, would that give us the right to write a cruel article calling black people thieves and murderers? As responsible and moral individuals, if not as a Christians, we would not write such an article.
So where did this unprovoked at tack come from?
Unexcused as it was, we think that it probably came from an intrinsic element of Christianity: the need to "make disciples of all nations." And though Cumynngham may not be able to accept the challenges we put before the world, it is our place to try to accomplish that which Jesus said.
He pleaded with us at the conclusion of his column to "Keep it (the gospel) to yourself and be happy." Well, we're sorry sir. We and hundreds of others on this campus believe firmly that Jesus can make one's life new. Though it is Cunningham's personal testimonial that he is pretty cheerful without God, it is ours that Christ could multiply his cheer tenfold.
So then, although we are sure that the persecution of Christians will continue until Christ returns, we would have thought that the Kansan would have had the good taste not to print such bitter sarcasm passed off as some form of journalism.
Joe Hekes
Salina junior
Jeff Lilley
Prairie Village junior
A Stalwart critique
The first issue of a new super-conservative student newspaper, the Kansas University Stalwart, has been distributed free on the campus, and at least three minor comments on it are surely in order.
First, the very first line of the paper, set apart between the heavy black lines, consists of a quote attributed to Winston Churchill, to the effect that "The worst crime is not to tell the truth to the public." Inlight of this, the writer asks the wonder whether a copy of the paper has been sent to President Reagan.
**next, on page four, editor Victor**
**pasturestates" states: "As far as we know**
**from the book, you can read."**
funded, conservatively opinionated student newspaper at KU." Since Webster's Dictionary defines "opinionated" as "holding unreasonably or obstinate to one's own opinion," there can be no argument as to the correctness of that statement.
Finally, on page 10, Victor Goodpasture editorializes further about a "socialist professor (who) can be driving around KU in his new Chrysler LeBaron convertible." First, the car is not new; it's a 1982 model. Secondly, Victor forgot to check whether the car actually belongs to the professor, and it so happens that it does not.
But then, Victor has never bothered much with facts or truth, as long as propoganda can take its place. In any case, his statement seems to indicate that socialists are not necessarily opposed to convertibles.
Harry G. Shaffer Professor of Soviet and East European Studies
What's in a name?
I would like to applaud Roger Holden on his column "Prejudice on the playing field" which appeared in the Nov. 25 Kansan.
I would also like to know who let something so trivial be published in a usually decent college newspaper.
I'm glad that Roger is sensitive to prejudice. It's good to see that he understands the impact of a mentally aberrant national attitude that is antipodes to American ideas of freedom and independence.
I just wish he would spend his obvious intelligence and energy in more useful directions.
To begin with, the names of football teams, any football team, are completely desensitized of impact, for reasons he clearly states. The team name "Redskins" has no weighted response because it is a nickname, a gimmick, a gadget.
When professional football started, team owners named their teams after strong, easily identifiable images — the Giants, the Bears, the Titans, beneficent heroes all. And they also helped to remember the demise of Native America, they chose another strong, respected name — The Redskins.
I'm not defending the word itself. Native Americans have every right to be offended by a term they consider a slur. But the meaning intended by the name was not a slur. After all, who would call their team the Washington Whites? You name a football team after an image everybody would want to root for.
Do you think Miamians are aware they are rooting for a team named after a sea-going mammal barely smarter than a dog? Since team names really don't mean anything and it wasn't intended as a slur to begin with, Roger, don't you think that makes it as least a little trivial?
Keep up the good work, though. Prejudice does still exist, and does need to be eradicated entirely. America was founded on much higher values than depreciation of an individual because of his heritage.
New Port Richey, Fla., senior
Where have all the classes gone
What's going on here? Has the economy gotten so bad that students must now be the victims of an education spending cut crunch?
Even though I am a freshman, I got lucky because I was one of the first freshmen to enroll. I enrolled on Nov. 13, which was in the middle of the enrollment period. But I was unable to take two classes because they were already closed. I was fortunate enough to obtain a class-opener for one, but the other was non-negotiable. Ironically, it was also one of my most vital courses: Coms 150. All the communications classes were already closed.
I'm not usually a complainer, but I got to thinking: If communications is closed now, what are sophomores and juniors who enroll after me going to do? What if I cannot get in next year, when I will be forced to take it to qualify for the SAT? The school would have to take communications, but are forced from classes due to budget cuts, cuts in instructor hiring and cuts in the individual departments of the University?
I was even more amazed at the end of the enrollment period. My roommate had to re-enroll on Nov. 25 (as did I and half the rest of the undergraduate population) because she was cut out of several of the classes she had originally signed up for. She also had to settle for classes with different times and instructors than she planned. A friend of mine was only able to enroll in one course that he'd signed up for, a big five hours. Another friend had been cut out of Math 115, and
"get class, English 102." "English 102 is a required course." I thought in
shock. English 102 is the second step to completing the English requirement set by this esteemed university. How in the world can it be explained why a freshman (or any other student) has been closed out of a required course. The closing of Math 115 is bad enough, but English 102?
That's like someone saying. "Let's get rid of the KU basketball teams."
It's like asking for immediate confusion and dissatisfaction, which the University does not need if it wants to attract good quality students from out of state and keep the in-staters in the state.
What is it that the officials want from the students?
You set the requirements, which we students scramble to complete. Yet you do not not provide enough instructors or class sections for us. Is this a mistake? If it is, it's also one heck of a tasteless joke
Students stuck with re-enrollment were desperate enough to take any class — if it was open — at any time. We are not demanding classes at ideal times. We just need the classes.
Why must education suffer continually? Nationally, education is suffering to enhance the military. What is taking the more away from the educational system of Kansas?
Here it is, a reported 3.8 percent across the board budget cut in the state of Kansas, and the Department of Education and the Board of Regents are losing a total of $36.3 million. KU stands to lose $3 million from its budget. A hiring freeze is expected for KU as well.
What else will be cut next? The economics department? The entire English department? The communications department is suffering as it is; why not put an end to its misery byiring some of its instructors to save money?
The University officials are so concerned with maintaining and enhancing the reputation of this school. KU stands proudly as one of the top-quality public universities in the country. It has (more like had) a wonderful curriculum, a star set of instructors and an excellent sports program. If these budget cuts (proposed by none other than Republican Governor-elect Mike Hayden) are allowed to go through, KU and the rest of the schools in Kansas cannot expect to maintain and upgrade their reputations among out-of-staters, and certainly cannot expect to keep the native Kansans in the state.
Back in New York, where I come from, I'm proud to say that education is one of the state's strengths.
I may not be aware of what else Kansas has to allocate funds for, but why is education allowed to suffer like this? Why do nearly two-thirds of the proposed cuts involve education? New York is concerned with the education our students are served, I'm sorry to see that Kansas does not see it that way. And if I cannot get the education I both expected and deserve here, I will merely become one of many who will leave to find it elsewhere.
Elaine Sung Rochester, N.Y., freshman
1