4
Tuesday, March 22, 1988 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Students must ask questions to avoid apartment problems
Let the buyer, or leaser, beware.
That's the best advice for students searching for off-campus housing for the next school year.
housing for the next school year. Students need to know what they are renting, not what they think they are renting. This means asking questions, lots of questions.
Prospective tenants should decide what type of housing best suits them, and they should know what they want before they start looking.
if economy is important, students should research the apartment's past utility bills. If they have cars, they should ask about how much parking is provided. Guest parking also might be an important consideration. Often in student complexes, just having the number of spaces the city requires is not enough, especially if each apartment has three or four cars.
The type of residents a complex attracts also might be important. The studious apartment hunter not want upstairs neighbors who blare Whitesnake at all hours.
This may all seem like common sense. But too often, students overlook the most basic of questions in their search.
By questioning now, students will avoid problems later. Alison Young for the editorial board
Alison Young for the editorial board
Regents owe thanks to House
The Kansas House of Representatives last week took a big step toward enhancing education at Board of Regents schools by approving the Regents $788 million budget.
The University of Kansas stands to benefit greatly from the House's version of the budget. KU would get $207.2 million and an additional $17.27 million in capital improvements.
The House followed Gov. Mike Hayden's recommendation and approved a 4 percent salary increase for classified employees and student employees and a 5 percent increase for faculty. The legislators did not stop there. They also voted to give salary increases to faculty who do research or work in various University programs and services.
ine House did not, however, pass an amendment to put an additional $4.5 million into the budget for the Margin of Excellence program. KU would have received about $2 million of that money for "mission enhancements" that would have improved the quality of education at KU.
The Senate should follow the House's lead and approve the Regents budget. But state senators should reinstate the $4.5-million chunk that the House left out before giving the budget final approval.
Editorials in this column are the opinions of the editorial board
Other Voices
Indiana shouldn't legislate morality
The Indiana House of Representatives voted recently for a bill that would require public schools to teach that abstinence from sex is the "expected standard."
This goes beyond practical classroom advice and allows schools to teach moral standards, a job better left to families.
schools to teach moral studies, a practical advice given anywhere is helpful. But fear of the disease must not be exploited by the government in order to impose or legislate morality.
The proviso in the House bill that abstinence should be taught as the "expected standard" seems a result of AIDS hysteria.
AIDS is a legitimate concern. Thousands have died since the disease was first identified, and fear is certainly understandable. But when fear is exploited instead of understood, it is a perfect opportunity for some in government to impose morality.
When a crisis arises, like AIDS, it's easy to think that teaching what only seems like common sense — abstinence from sex to avoid the disease — is the right thing to do.
But to teach anything as an expected standard is not right. The schools should concentrate on educating students fully about AIDS, about teen pregnancy and its consequences, and about all options involved.
Presenting options and how to make the correct choice on their own is more valuable than telling students that what is expected of them is what the government wants.
Richard J. Nagy
The Indiana Daily Student
Bloomington, Ind.
News staff
Alison Young...Editor
Todd Cohen...Managing editor
Rob Knapp...News editor
Alan Player...Editorial editor
Joseph Rebello...Campus editor
Jennifer Rowland...Planning editor
Anne Luscombe...Sports editor
Stephen Wade...Photo editor
Richard Stewart...Graphics editor
Tom Elkins...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 Messersmith...Production manager
Greg Knopp...National manager
Kris Schnoor...Traffic manager
Immily Coleman...Classified manager
Jennee 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 letter is affiliated with the University of Kansas, please include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
writer Win McKenna reserves the right to reject or edit letters and guest columns. They may not be brought in the Kansas newsman. 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The
under will be photographed.
Letters, guest columns and columns are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of University Dialy Kansas. Editors are the university editorial board.
The University Dailly Kansas (USPS 605-840) is published at the University of Kansas, 118 Strauffer-Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 6045, 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, Kan. 6044. Annual subscriptions by mail are $50. Studentcriptions are $3 and are paid through the student activity fee.
student
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to the University Daily Kansan, 118
Staffer Flint Hall, Lawrence, Kan. 66045.
Welfare 'reform' adds to problems
Poverty workers benefit most from legislation designed to help the poor
When Dr. Samuel Johnson defined patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel, he may have overlooked the rich possibilities of the word "reform." The $4.3 billion bill that got past the House of Representatives, for example, was supposed to reform the welfare system, even though it raised costs. It's supposed to save money eventually just like the War on Poverty was. We all know how that turned out.
Whatever this approach does for poverty, it's going to be a boon to poverty workers, the one class that benefits most from anti-poverty programs. They'll be the ones running the classrooms, job training sessions, work programs and child-care centers authorized by this bill — all in the name of making the poor independent. Some early studies have shown that any training beyond the most basic seldom gets people off the dole. But the "reformers" have pushed ahead with this new, $4.3 billion expansion of the poverty industry, which is anything but poor.
Back when government actually put millions to work — through the Works Progress Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps and a spate of other New Deal programs — job preparation might consist of showing up and being handed a shovel. Yet the country is still rich in libraries built, roads paved and lands reforested that way. One presidential candidate this year, Paul Simon of Illinois, wants to resurrect the Works Progress Administration — though the idea is considered unbeabyquilt quaint by today's sophisticates. Sen. Simon would have an even better idea if he were to suggest not just adding a WPA but having it replace much of the current hodgepodge of anti-poverty programs.
Paul Greenberg Syndicated Columnist
It could even be argued that many anti-poverty programs have done more to perpetuate poverty than eliminate it. The outstanding example is Aid to Families with Dependent Children, which started in 1935 as a program to help widows keep their families together; it now has spawned a whole subculture of illegitimacy. According to a
recent study, "almost 90 percent of AFDC children have able-bodied but absent fathers."
The approach endorsed by the House would require parents of children who are three or older to work, attend school or be trained for a job while the state takes responsibility for child care. The day-care centers aren't in place and neither are the jobs, but why bother about details? Pay now and learn later, which is how AFDC grew into a monster.
John Paul Hammerschmidt, the congressman from Arkansas' 3rd District, was one of the minority that opposed this bill. "It's far too expensive," he said. "Eighty percent of the funding goes to benefit increases and expanded eligibility." A congressman from Colorado, Hank Brown, called the bill "a grand slam" because it "increases costs, restricts job referrals, increases bureaucracy and increases taxes." The bill hijacks what was left of a good idea — requiring those who get government aid to work for it — by limiting enrollment in local workforce programs to six months.
Whether or not this new approach will do much for the poor, it's bound to do a lot for the poverty industry, which is already thriving. Although anti-poverty programs do some good (Head Start is an outstanding example), they also encourage a culture of dependency that is changing American life, and not for the better. Here are some figures compiled by Stuart Butler and Anna Kondratas, who have been studying poverty in America so long it's a wonder that they both haven't been done in by terminal frustration.
According to their calculations:
"If the United States took all the money spent each year on anti-poverty programs — about $130 billion — and divided it by the number of Americans categorized by government as poor — about 32 million — each poor person would receive over $4000; each family of four over $16,000. Even if we subtracted a reasonable amount for administrative costs, there would still be more than enough to lift all welfare families above the poverty-income threshold: $11,203 for a family of four in 1986."
Instead, most of this money goes to army of bureaucrats "fighting" poverty. This latest bill may only exacerbate that trend. The country hasn't been able to eliminate poverty but we've found a way to professionalize it. Poverty seems to have increased in lockstep with anti-poverty programs, at least as poverty is vaguely defined by shifting government statistics. When the War on Poverty began under the Johnson Administration, the country was warned that, without it, the poverty rate could climb as high as 13 percent. That's where it stood when Jimmy Carter left office some years after the War on Poverty had been waged and lost.
Something is very wrong with this country's approach to helping the poor, and this latest bill does not significantly differ from the same old, tried-and-failed remedies. Typically, the bill provides more job-training for the poor but not necessarily more jobs, more burrows, or more workfare. We have here is another approach for poverty workers, not necessarily for the poor.
Here and there a genuine reform may be tucked into this bill — like an attempt to track down absent fathers and make them pay child support — but for the most part this is not a reform but an aggravation of old mistakes.
Those who support this $4.3 billion complexity might do better to invest in a copy of "Out of the Poverty Trap" by Stuart Butler and Anna Kondrasa. It's only $7.91 list.
Writing instructors lead
I did not find anything enlightening in Catherine Weed's column (Mar. 9). What I did find was a disgruntled student taking a swing at an entire department: students and teachers alike.
I am seeking an English degree in creative writing and am insulted by Weed's column. I, too, have taken Fiction Writing I and II. I also enjoyed Poetry I and II, as well as a directed study in novel writing. I have not found that my classmates write "uninteresting trash," and I do not consider my own work to be in that category. Her comments concerning the people who teach these classes were nonsense. Many talented educators who are also writers and scholars "lead" the students in furthering their
development as writers. The list of these people includes James Gunn, Alan Lichter, Margaret Arnold and Victor Contoski; a complete list would be far too long to be printed here.
If Weed truly thinks she can learn nothing from these classes, she should stay home. I am sure that there are students who would enjoy these types of classes and appreciate the labor they demand of students and professors.
Linda Noll Fairway senior
Sharing has barriers
I was pleased to see your story on the possibility of the sharing of periodical subscriptions by midwestern libraries (Kansan, March 2) and your editorial endorsing this concept (Kansan March 9). We are actively discussing this idea with other libraries, but I would like to point out that there are a number of practical difficulties in implementing it.
The most serious of these is that high-cost periodicals, which are the most logical choices for sharing, generally also are the periodicals that are of central importance to their subject area and are most heavily used by faculty and students. Although we might save acquisitions money by canceling high-priced journals, the cost to library users in terms of inconvenience and lack of access to needed materials could be very high.
Also, it is helpful to understand that most high-cost journals are sold by commercial publishers who are trying to make a profit. These publishers have, for obvious economic reasons, taken steps to ensure demand for their product. One of the most effective of these is the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976. Under the terms of this act, libraries are forbidden to borrow more than six articles a year from the last five years of any single journal title. This restriction constitutes a highly effective barrier to certain kinds of resource sharing by libraries.
Clinton Howard Assistant Dean For Technical Services
BLOOM COUNTY
by Berke Breathed