4
Friday, April 8, 1988 / University Daily Kansan
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Opinion
Preserve Lawrence history by protecting old buildings
Lawrence is a city with a fascinating history. Back in 1856, the "Sack of Lawrence" made front-page news in publications across the country. A few years later, William Quantrill and his band of raiders wreaked havoc on the free-state town again. In more than a century, the flamboyant and the not-so-flamboyant have made their mark upon the city.
But, like any city, Lawrence has grown and changed, and few things have endured as monuments to its history. Among those things, its buildings are the most visible and significant to its citizens.
The Lawrence City Commission has the chance to do something good about the preservation of historical Lawrence. An ordinance before the commission would protect historic homes from demolition while regulating significant alteration. Lawrence would set up its own historic register to determine which houses would be involved.
The ordinance would also encourage the renovation of historic homes rather than demolition to make way for new buildings.
Lawrence needs a regulation such as this. As the University of Kansas population swells to overflow, so does the number of apartment complexes springing up all over town. Most are ugly, boxy things, and it's a shame to see them taking over green space in Lawrence, much less space formerly occupied by beautiful old buildings.
bearer.
Lewrance has a fine and varied collection of architecture, and the owners of such buildings should understand that they have a responsibility to posterity. The Gothic mansions and the crude stone survivors of the 1850s and '60s should survive.
Stateley Carolinian homes and Victorian houses decorated with colorful curlicues should survive. The leaded glass windows that provide a view of streets lined with bricks stamped "Lawrence, Kansas," should survive.
It would be more than a shame if the town became nothing but a collection of shoddy, garish apartment buildings. Robbing future generations of the enjoyment of a town with history and personality would be a crime.
Katy Monk for the editorial board
The Kansas Legislature is finally waking up to the fact that many welfare recipients can and should work.
KanWork would benefit state
A bill currently in a state conference committee would require all recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children who have children over the age of three to participate in a KANWork program. The program would require welfare recipients to undergo job training or work at a government agency, such as a state hospital or at a state-sponsored daycare center.
The Senate has already passed the bill unanimously. The House should follow suit to get this program under way.
Since welfare programs were instituted during the Depression years of the 1930s, they have developed into a giant thorn for the taxpayers who must support them and a boon for down-and-out people who need the help.
However, the programs also have allowed many to take advantage of the system. These recipients find it easier to sit at home and collect their checks than to go out and get training and find a job.
Under the KanWork program, the department of social and rehabilitation services would provide job referral and placement services, employment counseling, job training, community work experience, vocational training and remedial education. Day-care services and monthly transportation costs to and from work would also be provided.
The bill covers all grounds, leaving no reason for able-bodied Kansas citizens to stay at home. Recipients will receive job experience and training that will lead to better jobs.
The Legislature is moving ahead in welfare reform. The Senate-House conference committee should iron out the differences and pass this bill for the good of all Kansans.
Jody Dickson for the editorial board
Editorials in this column are the opinions of the editorial board
The editorial board consists of Alison Young, Todd Cohen, Alan Player, Jody Dickson, Katy Monk, Van Jenerette and Russell Gray.
News staff
Alison Young...Editor
Todd Cohen...Managing editor
Rob Knapp...News editor
Atlan Player...Editorial editor
Joseph Rebello...Campus editor
Jennifer Rowland...Planning editor
Anne Luscombe...Sports editor
Stephen Wade...Photo editor
Richard Stewart...Graphics editor
Tom Eblen...General manager, news adviser
Business staff
Kelly Scherer...Business manager
Clark Massad...Retail sales manager
Brad Lenhart...Campus sales manager
Robert Hughes...Marketing manager
Kurt Messermath...Production manager
Greg Knipp...National manager
Kyle Schroemm...Traffic manager
Kimberly Coleman...Classified 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 columna should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The water will be photored.
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters and guest columns. They can be mailled or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 113 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
Letters, guest columns and columns are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Dairy Kansas. Editorials are the opinion of the writers.
The University Dailly Kansean (USPS 650-640) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Stauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, KA, 60454, daily during the regular school year, excluding Saturday, Sunday, holidays and finals periods, and Wednesday during the summer session. Second-class postage is paid in Lawrence, KA, 60444. Annual subscriptions by mail are $50. Student subscriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansas, 118 Stauffer-Filtt Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045.
"OH COME ON, HOWARD...THE NEW TAX FORM CANT BE THAT BAD..."
Congress can't fairly regulate trade
Executive branch is free of regional biases and can see what's best for U.S.
Tariffs promise to be a big issue in this presidential election. They shouldn't be. If
Tariffs promise to be a big issue in this presidential election. They shouldn't be. If there is one responsibility of government that ought to be handled by expert negotiators rather than rival candidates, it is the regulation of international trade. Instead, that responsibility is about to be left to the passions of a mass democracy. In practice, that means the best-organized interests get to dominate the debate, and the general welfare is left with the afterthoughts. Result: a new wave of protectionism that will leave only U.S. consumers unprotected.
There may be a case for specific instances of retaliation against countries competing unfairly with U.S. products. It's not very emotionally satisfying, but carefully considered and strictly limited tariffs are the most effective tool in such cases. Nothing seems to get the attention of a foreign government like a limited response — with the threat of stronger action to come unless changes its ways. But the kind of sweepingief legislation that lignifies trade wars is not likely to help this country or other nation. Unfortunately, the speciality of Congress. The executive branch of government is best equipped to regulate trade; it has the necessary organization, flexibility and freedom from popular passions and local interests. Congress doesn't, as history amply demonstrates.
history shape. In the past presidential election of '88, between George Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison, the protective tariff was a big issue, along with the oppression of Ireland, sectional grudges left over from the War Between the States and that staple of 19th century politics: political patronage. A professional civil service still was a new and revolutionary idea among U.S. politicians then, much like having professionals regulate international trade now.
Paul
Greenberg
Syndicated Columnist
Good arguments in favor of the general welfare were driven out of 19th century U.S. politics by bad ones on behalf of specific industries, parties, and interest groups. A kind of Gresham's Law of
ideas set in. The notion of fair and flexible tariffs was lost in the profusion of demands from every special interest wanting protection from foreign competition. That it's not entirely unlike what is happening in this developing campaign. Indeed, the comment of historian John A. Garraty on the role of the tariff in the campaign of 1888 remains relevant a hundred years later:
"A powerful argument could have been made . . . for scientific rate-making that would adjust duties to actual conditions and avoid overprotection. The Democrats professed to believe in moderation, but whenever party leaders tried to revise the tariff downward. Democratic congressmen from industrial states like Pennsylvania and New York deserted them and sided with the Republicans. Many Republicans also endorsed tariff reform in principle, but when particular schedules came up for discussion, most of them demanded the highest possible rates for industries in their own districts and traded votes shamelessly with colleagues representing other interests to get what they wanted. Every new tariff bill became an occasion for logrolling, lobbying, and outrageous politicking rather than for same discussion and careful evaluation of the true public interest."
when succeeded mainly in deepening the Depression. In our own time, the Gephardt Amendment proposes to ease our frustrations with the world economy by bashing Japan. The result is not likely to be much happier than that wrought by Smoot-Hawley.
That's how the late 19th century produced the McKinley Tariff of 1880, which protected even items the United States didn't produce, such as timplate, or that had no foreign competition, such as eggs and potatoes. By 1931 the country was taking out its Depression-era frustrations by passing the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff.
William Brock, formerly the country's chief trade negotiator, pointed out not long ago that the Japanese were scarcely responsible for mediocre standards of education, the deteriorating quality of U.S. products, tax laws that encouraged inefficiency, or various other reasons the U.S. economy has problems competing. But it's simpler to pass a satisfyingly vindictive tariff on Japanese goods than to rebuild the economy.
As protectionist fever mounts, the U.S. voter is going to hear a lot of nonsense in the coming months. It might help to keep in mind some basic facts about the voting process by Congressman Ron Chandler of Washington:
- Fair Trade: The state of affairs in which one's own country envises a trade surplus.
- Protectionism: Erecting barriers to trade to protect jobs in another congressional district.
- Smoot-Hawley: See Gephardt Amendment.
- Tariff: A marketing device to make medium-quality foreign imports sell like exclusive luxury items.
That brief list should prove a foretaste of what the candidates will really be saying when they discuss international trade in 1988. What is developing is not a new trade policy but a new cynicism. At a time when the executive branch should be given a freer hand to negotiate with trading partners, Congress could transform itself into an unwieldy committee of 535 to impose protective tariffs that don't protect for long. The surest result, as with Smoot-Hawley, would be retaliatory tariffs and a trade war that benefits no one. It would be a big mistake to let Congress supplant the executive branch as the regulator of foreign trade. But it wasn't easy to sell that view in 1888 either.
Mission was lost
Tuesday, April 15, 1988, will be cited as the day that the administration of this University clearly said through actions, rather than empty words, that education and learning are not the most important activities that we are engaged in. The individuals responsible for canceling all classes this day have clearly stated that it was more important to celebrate an admittedly joyous event than carry out what was the historical prime mission of the institution.
The decision to cancel classes shows no apparent concern for the short-term disruption of the education and learning mission of the University nor any understanding of the long term consequences. Plans and schedules made by students and faculty have been upset at a time in the semester when there is little opportunity to make appropriate adjustment. Missing one class meeting does have consequence.
quence for those that believe that a useful function is served by meeting class. If one class meeting is unimportant, then why not miss two or three or four or . . . ?
The University has many missions, and although education and learning have historically been believed to be the most important, there are others. Students do learn useful knowledge, skills and values from activities other than in class or the laboratory or the library or at the computer or reading. Their social life is an important part of attending a University. But, so is the ability to have a good time and still meet your other responsibilities.
Students learn by the example that we on the staff of the University set. Each decision that each of us makes communicates better than many realize the values that we have. The values that have been communicated by canceling classes are clear. Athletic victories and parties are more important than education and learning. Those that agree with this decision might ask themselves, Why don't we cancel classes for a week? Or perhaps the whole semester and give everyone As? Or maybe just give all the students their degrees? If you believe that it would be wrong to do any of these things, then you might ask the question what lasting symbol has been created by doing
something similar only once?
Finally, as an avid sports fan, and one who thoroughly enjoyed the game and its outcome, I can't help but observe that the decision to cancel classes is a bush league action. The basketball team and everyone associated with it have my sincere congratulations and thanks. I can't help but wonder how many work days they canceled as they went about achieving their goal.
Lawrence A. Sherr Chancellors Club distinguished professor of business
Here's to Larry Brown
assessors.
Not every school is as fortunate as the University of Kansas to have a basketball coach who can skillfully outsmart the entire NCAA coaching ranks. Not only is he intelligent, but he is uplifting as well. He has taken an underdog team and formed his players into NCAA champions. His brilliance, spirit and support have made the NCAA Jayhawks the ultimate winners. Thank you for being the finest coach in the country. We love you, Larry Brown! Congratulations to you and your NCAA Jayhawk champions.
A message to Larry Brown.
Nancy J. Hedrick Lawrence resident
BLOOM COUNTY
by Berke Breathed