4
Monday. January 31, 1977
University Dally Kansan
Comment
Opinions on this page do not necessarily reflect the views of the University of Kansas or the School of Journalism
ERA odds improve
In the long, hard and often bitter battle over adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment. peace may be at hand.
Indiana recently became the 35th state to ratify the amendment; three more states must ratify by 1979 for the ERA to become law. And there are at least a handful of states where the odds for ratification are good. The Constitution of the United States could have its 27th amendment as early as this summer.
NOW THINGS are looking up for supporters of the ERA. That's a switch. They've had a rough time during the past couple years.
1972. When the ERA was sent to the states in
1972, it seemed a sho-in as the 27th
amendment gave it the right to poll
the electorate and the public forced the
ERA 3 to 1; within three years 34 states had ratified it.
But then, seemingly out of the blue, the ERA hit a snag. The anti-ERA forces lobbies and conducted massive public relations campaigns in several states.
AS A RESULT, Nebraska and Tennessee rescinded their ratification in 1975—an action of questionable legality. Efforts to rescind the ERA cropped up in other states, including Kansas. State equal rights amendments in New York have led to state elections. Until the Indiana ratification two weeks ago, the ERA appeared to be headed for its grave.
Indiana has given the amendment a new lease on life. But if proponents of the amendment suddenly gain fresh momentum, then opponents have a new reason to take up the call to arms.
The arguments pro and con are old hat by now; Supporters say the ERA will, among other things, eliminate discriminatory hiring and firing practices and disparate salary levels; the anti-ERA people say the amendment will force women into the labor market, endanger such women's privileges as maternity benefits and banish labor laws. Extremists who could legalize marriages and prohibit separate public restrooms; middle-of-the-roaders say the ERA is too vaguely worded and should be clarified before becoming law.
IT IS UNCERTAIN exactly what impact the ERA, if adopted, will have on American life. It will have to undergo court tests to determine where and when the law applies, rights of free speech, free press, and innumerable other 'guarantees' have been tested.
No one knows yet whether the law would force women to work (since when are men forced?), or whether we'll all have to go to the bathroom together, or whether women will lose their maternity benefits (it might, instead, result in more paternity benefits). None of these things becomes automatic with the passage of the amendment.
The only certainty is that the law will grant—in writing—equal protection under the law, period.
The nation is three states away from earning that protection. Two hundred years after the Constitution was drafted, it's high time.
The Kansan's editorial page has always been a lot of different things to a lot of different people.
During the late 60s and early 70s, it was simultaneously accused of being a radical house organ that had helped enslave the black people in Kansas Union fire and of being a toadie to the University establishment. At other times, it has been accused of being hevemonly pro or anti-Greek, senator or Senate, pro- and God, etc.
We're open-minded, mostly
THE MAIN recurring accusation, however, has been that the Kansas editorial page offers only a narrow range of opinions and is, fundamentally, a liberal-Democratic creature. The fact that such a curation has recurred is that it has some basis in truth.
Kansan editorial writers are hardly a diverse group. Almost all of them are white, male seniors majoring in journalism. Of the 16 editorial writers and students on the page the past three semesters, 10 have been white male seniors majoring in journalism. Three were white female seniors majoring in journalism, one was a white male graduate student in journalism, one was a black male senior in journalism and one was a white male junior majoring in journalism.
NOT ALL these writers were liberal Democrats. Some were independents, some were a woke politician, and actually conservative
How did we find out?
We didn't. Who's Who Among American High School Students told us. This ChiCago-based publishing organization, which owns the school juniors and seniors cited by their schools' principals and counselors for their leadership and academic ability, polled them and came up with the aftermath ofclusions.
we are delighted to inform you that tomorrow's leaders don't use drugs, don't smoke cigarettes, want to remain calm, they use smarts and think the world is a peachy-keen place.
Survev reveals who isn't
THE 285,000 students listed in this 10th annual "Who's Who" represent about 4 per cent of the 6.5 million high school juniors and seniors in the United States during school year 1975-76. Of the 24,000 surveyed, 98 per cent had B or better grade averages.
The authors of the survey hasten to point out that "this is not a survey of the average students." The authors hasten to add, as if qualifying a qualifier, "THESE STUDENTS ARE AGRICULTURAL (The authors also hasten to use capital letters.)"
cent never drink beer, 46 per cent never drink wine, and 50 per cent never drink the hard stuff.
the things their counterparts
reported they didn't do. Forty
per cent admit that they have
fear of being punished and
54 per cent say it has
EIGHTY-NINE per cent have
Of tomorrow's leaders, 47 per
never smoked marijuana; 80
per cent have never smoked
anything.
Sixty-one per cent of the boys and 78 per cent of the girls have never had sexual intercourse, and 40 per cent of the boys and 67 per cent of the girls have not been married. They are married. Eight-two per cent favor a traditional marriage.
Bill Sniffen
Editorial Writer
BUT ALAS, all is not right at Goody Two-shoes High School
Eighty-one per cent consider themselves members of an organized religion; 64 per cent attend weekly services. Eighty-four per cent believe in a Supreme Being.
Goody two-shoes High School.
Fifty thousand questionnaires were mailed; fewer than half were returned. Maybe the students who didn't return their questionnaires were out doing
become an accepted part of the "teen lifestyle". Yet 64 per cent oppose its legalization. (They must be great fun at parties; they probably bust their pot-smoking friends.)
IN AN effort to clear the air, the Kanas heroically took on the bank of surveying the army didn't. Ninety-eight per cent
reported GPA's of C average or lower. Some had no GPA at all
The result overwhelming 93 per cent feel that the paper cup played a significant role in the American Revolution. Seventy-six per cent don't carry sack lunches to school. Only 28 per cent clip their toenails regularly.
SIXTY-ONE per cent agreed with the statement, "Sports, next to religion, is the greatest thing on earth." Thirty-four per cent of the boys and 78 per cent of the girls have hair salon and be a reward for it and 78 per cent think movies with English subtitles are boring.
But don't be too alarmed. This is NOT a survey of the average student. THESE ARE TOMORROW'S FAILURES.
The most revealing statistic of the Kansan's poll: 99 per cent think high school student surveys are a waste of time.
Republicans. But enough of them have been liberal Democrats to give the appearance of a united front.
Ideally, the Kansas would hire a broad and diverse group of editorial writers, with different backgrounds and
Whatever the maybe or the
Editor's Note
Iim Bates
Sometimes the Kansan editorial staff will try to solicit outside editors, particularly when we think a certain faculty or group of people light on a topic we know absolutely nothing about. The people we ask don't always have the time or the desire to write anything new, so we won't worth asking them. If we don't ask, we should.
political views. The lead editorial might present a united front, but at least the columns and other articles on the page would tell of other viewpoints and other visions.
But in reality, people with really different visions don't apply for the job. Maybe it is just that non-journalism, non-liberal people don't notice the Kansan job application notices
perhaps, the Kansas often ends up with a rather uniform editorial page staff.
Does this mean that opposing viewpoints are doomed?
NOT UNLESS the people who read the Karan want it that way. Because it is for just such a situation that letters to the editor and guest editorials were invented.
So if you get sickened by the Kansan editorial page this semester because you're convinced it is being dominated by a clique of insane close friends to your roommate. Dig out your typewriter and let us know what we're full of and why.
To be perfectly schmalty, I could say, "i you don't do it, it won't get done." In fact, to be perfectly schmalty, I just did. In this case it happens to be true.
Letters to the editor are welcomed and even hoped for. Getting letters means that, for better or worse, someone is reading the Kansan. Lack of space or Kansan style quicks may sometimes mean the letter is too extensive, but that doesn't mean their meaning will be changed or that they aren't wanted.
If you're thinking about writing a letter, write one. And if you're going to write one, type a message or a greeting for every concern youaster for everyone concerned.
GUEST EDITORIALS are something a little different. If you have written something that you think deserves publication, come and see Stewart Bram, the Kansan's writer. It is in what written and, especially, if it is about a topic or point of view not seen on the page before, he'll run it.
It is the right of anyone to choose this lifestyle. But Nancy, if you are dismayed by the prejudices of the people you live with, I suggest that you have a more open mind and broader
Letters
Greek system not open
To the editor:
I read with interest Nancy Tolleson's letter deploring the racism exhibited during sorrisy ruth. Although very sympathetic to her, not to anger her or not condemn her sisters so quickly. They were merely following the principle that such organizations could onset in minded, the reason for their existence): Exclusion.
Perhaps I should not criticize a lifestyle which I have not experienced. I can understand why applicants are so carefully examined and screened. Any person would want to live with someone comfortable, comfortable. Unexpected, different and contradictory opinions in others can be very unpleasant and even frightening. It's perfectly natural that the women in your sorority want to be protected from the world or look differently from themselves. But this helps foster "we-they" thinking. If sororities and fraternities were interested in a broad spectrum of views and social backgrounds they would choose their members randomly, different races, religions and economic standings. Do they? Look at their membership.
interests than your sisters. I think that perhaps you are ready for life in the real world, where we all must rub shoulders with people that we don't like. Try a dormitory or off-campus housing—they let anybody in.
Budget distresses
To the editor:
10 to the editor:
After reading Gov. Bennett's budget recommendations to the
Governor realizes that a loaf of bread that we buy costs us just as much as it costs people who make it, higher percentage increase.
legislature, I find myself very much distressed. A 2.5 per cent pay increase in addition to the merit increase was recommended for classified employees for the University of Kansas. As in the past, employers who have served the State of Kansas for at least five years or more are being penalized again, since they have increased their pay because they are on their top pay bracket, and would receive only a 2.5 per cent increase.
When will the legislature and the Governor realize that we deserve fair treatment? Any business besides the State of Kansas recognizes that long-time employees are valuable and acts accordingly towards their employees.
I wonder whether the
Gerda Brouhard Secretary, Psychological Clinic
Ron was sour, nasty—but right
Ron Nessen, former presidential press secretary, left Washington last week with the agency's attention at the capital's press corps.
He said some nasty things about poor reporting of the prestigious campaign against official child reporters for oversimplifying
the news and for stressing trivia during the campaign. He said "junk news" threatened to out drive substantial news.
It may have been sour grapes
take stands, much as some journalists would have American celebrities reams of posh papers on every imaginable
Jerry Seib Editorial Writer
from a loser. But the motive doesn't really matter, because Roni is right.
REPORTING OF the presidential campaign and the subsequent change of command can be summarized in one word: shallow. There were bright spots to be sure -Johnny Reagan, Paul Ryan, and the New York Times is an example. But the stars barely shined from beneath a mountain of second-rate material.
Intelligent readers learned to learn more about Jimmy Carter and, more importantly, what a Jimmy Carter presidency was like. You know exactly what had happened during Carter's rule in Georgia. But the wires were too full of stories about softball games and lemonade stands to room for material like that.
It wasn't that Carter didn't
VOTERS WONDERED whether Jimmy Carter's tax proposals were feasible, whether tax experts gave them any chance of working should he decide what curious whether Carter did reorganize the government in Georgia and whether it really became more efficient. But front pages were filled with tips about Playboy interviews and Playboy Carter's gas station.
NEVER HEARD about the position papers? Blame the "Boy on the Bus" mentality of the American political reporter.
topic and made them readily available. If nothing else, they wanted to stop all the editorial chat about Carter's vagueness.
"The Boys on the Bus" is both the title of a book by reporter Timothy Crouse and the name of reporters that follows presidential candidates. Crouse was one of the boys during the 1972 campaign, and he wrote about it. Jessen lessen has been talking about.
Crouse told about how reporters were content to follow candidates from speech to speech, filling stories each night in a mock trial. The same speeches that were replained in yesterday's story.
how no one was very aggressive because they were all going to do about the same stories about the same events. The same, sad to say, held true in 1976.
CROUSE EXPLAINED how reporters felt comfortable in their camaraderie on the bus,
There were stories about polls, speeches, rallies, speeches, magazine interviews, polls, speeches, polls, speeches, polls, speeches.
BUT WHERE was the content?
When did some enterprising reporter hop off the bus for a day or two and do some digging, talk to someone besides the candidates? Why did everyone feel compelled to publish three stories a week in order to meanerdings when it would have been vastly better to have one good story with some real information once a week?
They are questions that the American press has four years to ponder—again. And they are questions that could just as easily be applied to reporting the Carter administration.
THE FACT that journalists no longer realize the dangers of the "beautiful girl" gives a glimmer of hope. Maybe reporters and editors will recognize the dangers of "the virtues of quality before 1980."
In the meantime, we all should listen to Ron Nessen, like it or not. Because he's right.
Ea
TH Callal his ow helps
MICRO
SHOP
drama
famil
mer 0
Parka
A S
budge
prove
better
1
CAI thrille queen