Tuesday, January 23. 2001
The University Daily Kansan
Section A · Page 5
Letters to the Editor
Many scholarship hall residents support Watkins Hall lawsuit
Interim director of university relations Lynn Bretz is cited in Wednesday's issue of the Kansan ("Bank challenges hall lawsuit") as arguing that the lawsuit filed by residents of Watkins Scholarship Hall didn't necessarily represent the feelings of those who lived in the scholarship halls.
Well, it's true that it doesn't necessarily represent our feelings — the Department of Student Housing hasn't exactly been polling us for our views - but that statement makes the residents sound like extremists.
I'm confident that many, if not most, scholarship hall residents are in full support of our sisters in Watkins. They have a legitimate position, and their dedication to the spirit of Watkins is made clear in their tenacious persistence in the face of University and Bank of America opposition.
The scholarship halls are not divided in our dedication to the preservation of our living community, and it is for that preservation that the Watkins women wage legal war.
Aaron D. Profitt
resident of Grace Pearson Scholarship Hall
If University has nothing to hide why not open Watkins records?
Hello, my name is Cheryl Funke, and I am proud to say that I am an alumna of the University and of the scholarship hall system. I had the opportunity and pleasure to live in Miller Hall for 31/2 years during my tenure at KU. I now live in Menlo Park, Calif., where I regularly read the Kansas through the Web site.
I was glad to see that the lawsuit filed by the women of Watkins was gaining some recognition on campus. I do not agree with Lynn Bretz's comment regarding the handling of the trust. Both of these buildings are very old, yet a very important part of the University history.
Without proper maintenance and remodeling, they will face major structural and living condition problems in the future. They are two of the very few buildings on campus that still do not have central air (or even window units in most of the buildings), yet they probably have the most money behind them to provide that amenity.
I also do not agree with Ms. Bretz's comment that this was filed by a few women and does not represent everyone's feelings. She is correct to an extent that all of the women may not be concerned, but there is a large number of Miller and Watkins current residents and alumni who are very concerned about the future of those halls.
The women who have filed the lawsuit are not seeking to gain total control of the trust, as some university officials have implied. They are seeking the right to have a look at the books and see where the money is being spent and have their voices heard for major decisions.
If the University, the housing department and the bank have nothing to hide, what is the harm in letting qualified alumni look at the books?
Cheryl Funke 1998 graduate
'Armchair Aristotle' in Free for All shows blatant disregard for elderly
Story about Watkins lawsuit told only University's side of story
What a biased report on the suit by Watkins Scholarship Hall residents against the Bank of America's administration of the trust for the hall! You quoted the bank's attorney and the interim director of University Relations.
Nancy Marie Wood
I occasionally check out the Free for All column in search of the rare pearl of wisdom buried in the muck that you dredge from the murky depths of a few very shallow minds. Most of the peurle musings elicit a yawn, but a comment in Wednesday's column really raised my hackles.
It seems one armchair Aristotle believes that "the problem with Lawrence is there are no old ladies to spit on." Perhaps the caller was simply trying to impress your readers with his rapier wilt, or perhaps he was truly venting a hatred of our elders. No matter his motivation, that the Kansan would publish such dreek is disappointing.
The residents themselves may rightly refuse to comment, but what about their attorney, Donald Strole? Did you contact him? You don't even name him.
Editor's note: The reporter attempted repeatedly to reach Donald Strole, but he was on vacation and unable to be reached for comment.
Had the caller targeted a particular ethnic group or the disabled, we'd be outraged by his comment, and justifiably so. I suspect, however, that most readers were not outraged by the comment, supporting my thesis that deprivation of the elderly is still acceptable to many in this culture.
William O. Scott professor of English
Let me remind the caller that many of those same old ladies that he so reviles probably changed his nappies, taught him his ABCs and have paid taxes, which help support the university, which provides him his forum to spew his hateful commentary. If fate is kind, he, too, might one day be elderly. I hope for his sake that he will be afforded more respect than he apparently affords our elders.
lecturer in English as a second language
Opinion editor's column reflects liberal leanings of Kansan staff
When Chris Borniger equated George W. Bush with a monkey (such in-depth, professional opinion writing) in the first issue of the Kansan ("2001; the year Dubya blasts into space") this semester, I knew it was going to be another long semester for conservatives on campus. Wednesday's editorial ("Cabinet choices place Bush on divisive path") only confirms this.
Claims that Bush's cabinet leans heavily to the right ignore such moderate appointees as Colin Powell, Christine Todd Whitman, and Condoleezza Rice. Moreover, why should Ashcroft's faith and beliefs prevent him from leading the Justice Department?
When Joe Lieberman was selected as a candidate for vice president, no one questioned whether his devout Jewish beliefs would interfere with his duty to the country. Why can Ashcroft not be given the same chance? While in the Senate it was his right to express his personal beliefs while trying to shape laws; the Attorney General, however, must objectively enforce all laws on the books, and Ashcroft knows this.
The question that be asked to be asked is, why did the people of Missouri (a "toss-up" state in terms of liberal vs. conservative) elect this "radical religious conservative" attorney general and senator? Why didn't they ship him back to the Third Reich, where he apparently belongs?
Liberals out there who are clamoring for Bush to be nice to them should remember that bipartisanship is a two-way street (their support for it seemed to last almost two days). They're not after cooperation, though. As Patrick Burger noted ("Texas record displays Bush's power to unite," Wednesday), they only want to see a Republican president fail. If they want conservatives to cooperate with them, perhaps they should accept the hand that is extended to them, rather than labeling its owner a racist, sexist, overzealous Christian.
Andy Miner Beloit sophomore
Housing ordinance would make rental prices in Lawrence skyrocket
This is a reply to an article written by Robert Chamberlain about the housing ordinance ("Stop whining about the housing ordinance." Thursday).
Your argument makes sense, but it has one major flaw — the economic effects of this change both to students and nonstudents. As a business major, I have a good knowledge of supply and demand. Therefore, if you lower the supply (decrease living space) and increase demand (ordinance will increase people looking), prices will skyrocket.
with roommates.
Theoretically, if you cut supply in half, prices would double. Aren't rising tuition costs and expensive books enough pain for us, the students? I can barely afford my apartment at current prices, and I am sure there are a lot of people in the same boat as I am, even
This ordinance will induce students to work more (to pay the bills) and thereby reducing the grade point average of the school in proportion to the increase in students working. Most parents have a hard time paying what they do now. Therefore, the city is making a choice between the welfare of the parents or that of the students, and that is neither fair nor right.
As far as the homeowners, they decided to live in a college town, and they know what that entails. Yes, there some noisy parties and the like, but those have little to do with the number of people living there. If homeowners feel the value of their homes is lower because of students' actions, then they need to talk to their homeowners association, ACC or whatever. They are the people responsible for the communities. If someone is in violation, then citations/fines should occur.
By the way, my home is here in Lawrence, I pay taxes to Douglas County, and I am registered to vote here, too.
Russell Warren Lawrence junior
Editorial board's negative response to Ashcroft regurgitates liberal lies
It is quite clear that the Kansan editorial board leans to the left on the political spectrum, and whether they agree or disagree, most KU students could have easily guessed the board's position on John Ashcroft's nomination even before Thursday's editorial.
So why did you bother writing it? We already knew where you stood. Thursday's editorial simply restates all the liberal arguments we've heard for the past few weeks. The purpose of an editorial is to inform and persuade its readers, but you're going to have to do a lot more than regurgitate the liberal mantra if you want to do either.
If you want to convince me that John Ashcroft should not be confirmed, you're going to have to stop ignoring and start dealing with the very compelling facts that belie your position.
Your editorial clearly implies that Ashcroft opposed the confirmation of a Missouri justice to a seat on the federal bench simply because that justice was black. Yet you ignore the now well-known fact that Ashcroft voted to confirm the vast majority of African-American appointees to the federal bench he was presented with. Your inability to deal with all the facts makes your editorials come off as propaganda.
David Dixon
Topeka senior
Corporations pose the real threat to survival of small family farms
I grew up on a farm in rural Kansas and would love to keep the family farm going. One statement in Sarah Smarsh's article about family farms bothered me ("Students struggle with leaving family farms," Friday). She said the exasperated mentality of today's potential farmers may pose a threat to family farms. This is inaccurate. While we may be exasperated, that mentality is not a threat posed to family farming.
The frustrating reality of the agricultural economy is a better description of why farm kids don't continue the family tradition. Chadd Clary said he's not going into farming for practical reasons. Private farming is not a practical career choice for most of us potential farmers. Here's why.
Bill Wood said corporate farming was the main threat to family farms. He was right. A corporation has advantages a private farmer doesn't. A farm manager could compete with corporate farms if his operation was as large as the corporation's and he owned the machinery used on it. A small new combine costs about $140,000; a good used one is about $85,000. It takes a long time to pay off a loan that large.
This is why my heart will always be on our family farm, but my livelihood is in the city.
Bush needs to continue Clinton's respect for all types of people
JuliAnn Schmidt
Esbon senior
During an event at the National Mall, one could not ignore the backdrop chosen by President William Jefferson Clinton. The National Mall in Washington, D.C., is home to memorials commemorating
presidents Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, as well as Korean War and Vietnam veterans. President Clinton, however, stood before the monument of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The F.D.R. Memorial is extensive, featuring four outdoor rooms — one for each of Roosevelt's presidential terms. President Clinton stood next to the statue of Roosevelt in his wheelchair.
most of us will never understand what it's like to be handicapped or disabled like President Roosevelt. Few of us can comprehend the overt and subtle discrimination that attends such a status. Of President Roosevelt, it is frequently said that he never would have been president had the American public been able to see him on television in a wheelchair.
This statement echoes on into today by looking up the opposites "ability" and "disability" in any thesaurus. The negative connotations of disability and handicap are endless. Nowhere in the thesaurus entry for disability is "Roosevelt-esque" or "Helen Keller-like."
For President Clinton, there is not a note of hypocrisy in standing before this monument. During his two terms in office, he has been a consistent advocate of dignity for all people. The president has stood against discrimination in all of its forms. The landscape is changing in Washington, D.C. Saturday, President George W. Bush proceeded down Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House.
We should all invite the new president to continue the tenure of respect for individuals of all types. Perhaps he, too, will find himself inspired by the memorials on the National Mall, including that memorable statue of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Jason Smart
executive director, The Lawrence Alliance
Supreme Court didn't overstep its bounds in *Roe v. Wade* ruling
Undermining democracy? If columnist Robert Chamberlain claims that Roe v. Wade undermines democracy ("Roe v. Wade undermines democracy," yesterday), maybe this right-wing conservative should open his eyes to our newly appointed president. George W. Bush won the electoral vote, but more than half of the popular vote voted for the other guy. Is that "ignoring" the opinion of more than half of America?
Another thing that is absolutely redundant is the view of our president himself. He thinks that our country is not at the right time to completely abolish abortion, yet he believes he would like something done about it during his term in office. When will these high government officials realize that it is a woman's body and that it should always be a woman's choice?
Chamberlain said it himself. "The Supreme Court is designed to interpret the Constitution, not to create laws." So he determined the Court should intervene to destroy laws and create a tolerance to outlaw abortion completely?
Furthermore, Chamberlain asserts that a woman's right to choose is a "fictitious right." This "fictitious right" is as logical as any other freedom. It would be a sad state of affairs if our future generations of daughter's bodies were to be controlled the government because their rights were taken away by our generation. That is what I fear above all, Mr. Chamberlain.
Jayme A. Aschemeyer
Aurora, Colo., freshman
Housing ordinance is just attempt to discriminate against students
Robert Chamberlain's opinion on the students lacking reasons to speak out against the housing ordinance sounds great ("Stop whining about the housing ordinance." Thursday), except for one small factor.
Yes, the students don't vote, they don't maintain their property very well, and rentals do in fact drop property values. The problem is that this ordinance is blatantly discriminatory. No more than two unrelated residents? Who else does that apply to other than students?
The city is attempting to mandate directly against a specific group. But because it is "self-righteous" students, rather than Blacks or gays or labor union officials, nobody seems to mind stepping on a few civil rights. It is disgraceful for the governing body of an otherwise open-minded community to ignore the discrimination this regulation represents.
Jared Grillot alumnus
---
Photo ID required for R movies