4
Thursday, November 18, 1993
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
b=d=e
VIEWPOINT
Consensus for grading needed to discern GPA
The average grade point average at the University of Kansas increased from 2.69 in 1982 to 2.81 in 1992. Regardless of the rise in the GPA, the importance of grades in and of themselves is the real issue. Attributing the rise to an increase in overachievers, faculty fears of poor evaluations, or students having the option to withdraw from a class, mean nothing without a basic consensus on whether the current grading system accurately distinguishes an excellent student from a mediocre one.
Dave Shulenburger, vice chancellor for academic affairs, pointed out a disheartening fact when he said, "I suspect there will never be much anyone can do to affect grading practices of a school." This sentiment suggests that many inconsistencies do exist in the grading system, and in turn, an accurate evaluation of a student's performance is extremely difficult. Disparities in test difficulty within the same departments as well as the criterion used to grade subjective material vary widely and add to this pervading querulous attitude.
There should be some sort of consensus formed in order to establish what exactly an "A" means versus a "B" and so on. In clarifying the distinction between grades, class attendance may be one factor that should be considered, since many times students are able to score well on tests while attending a particular class infrequently. What kind of standard does this set, especially for students who faithfully attend their classes? An increase in the GPA means very little without a consensus about what grades actually measure.
NATHAN NASSIF FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
U.N. war tribunal seeks guilty, raises questions
Examine the war crimes in former Yugoslavia. This court of justice had its opening ceremony in The Hague, Netherlands, yesterday. It consists of a prosecutor and an international panel of judges. The only participants missing in this judicial process are the criminals, mainly the Serbs.
They are missing because they are hidden and unreachable as the war continues.
This U.N. action has been long awaited by the victims of such Serb-led crimes as mass murders, mass rapes and torture. Still, some questions do arise.
One question is whether Serb President Slobodon Milosevich and Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic will be held accountable for any of the war crimes. Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger once identified both these men as war criminals.
And just how long will the court keep up with this judicial process? Will victims and their families have to wait decades before justice is done? Will the criminals flee like those from the Holocaust of World War II did?
Perhaps the biggest question is how committed is the U.N. to this mission of justice? Is this an act to soothe the anger and pain of peoples, but one that will eventually lose momentum or a sincere effort for justice?
Only time will tell.
MUNEERA NASEER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
KCTRAUER, Editor
JOE HARDER, CHRISTINE LAUE Managing editors
TOM EBLEN General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Systems coordinator Editors
AMY CASEY Business manager
AMY STUMBO Retail sales manager
Assistant to the editor ... J.R. Clairbom
News ... Stacy Friedman
Editorial ... Terrilyn McCormick
Campus ... Ben Grove
Sports ... Kristi Fogler
Photo ... Kip Chin, Renee Kneeber
Features ... Extra Wolfe
Graphics ... John Paul Fogel
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
Campus sales mgr ... Ed Schager
Regional Sales mgr ... Jennifer Perrier
National sales mgr ... Jennifer Evanson
Co-op sales mgr ... Blythe Focht
Production mgr ... Jennifer Blowey
Kats Burgess
Marketing director ... Shelly McConnell
Creative director ... Brian Fusco
Classified mgr .. Gustavan Kattaraldschuh
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and homework, or faculty or staff position.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
TheKansasnewsletterwillbeusedtowritetherighttorejectoreditletters,guestcolumnsandcartoons.Theycanbemarkedorbrushtowheaksnewroom.111StafferFlintHall.
The Great Fishing Expedition
NAFTA debate became spectacle of pathetic politics, job paranoia
COLUMNIST
This week is moment-of-truth time for the North American Free Trade Agreement. So far the debate has been one of the worst examples of American politics in recent years. Each side has done its best to scare the American people on the issue of jobs. The pro-NAFTA forces, ted jointly by, believe it or not, President Clinton and Sen. Bob Dole, warn of long-term economic doom if the treaty fails. Since they believe that the benefits of the treaty are not obvious enough, they have resorted to playing on our economic fears of Japan by bringing up the sinister possibility of Japan making a similar treaty of NAFTA is defeated. Meanwhile, Ross Perot is flying all over the country imitating a Hoover vacuum in front of thousands of people who for some reason show up to watch him. A self-appointed demagogue on a scale that even Rush Limbaugh can't compare to, he is waging a campaign of fear that has been brutally effective. He has convinced nearly every factory worker that their employer can't wait to ditch them in favor of a $1-an-hour Mexican worker by New Year's Day.
Few people stand to benefit as much from NAFTA's passage as Perot. While he campaigns loudly against it, his companies are positioning themselves to take full advantage of it if passed.
Caught in the middle of course are the esteemed members of Congress. No one involved in the debate looks worse than they do. Their only concern about the effect of NAFTA is which vote will cost them their jobs. They have never looked so petty, transparent and self-serving as they have on this issue. They have never made the case for term limits stronger.
There are plenty of good arguments
against the treaty besides its effect on jobs. One of the best is environmental. A company is as likely to move to Mexico to escape the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations as high U.S. wages. An excellent example is a foundry. Foundries make metal objects by pouring molten iron or steel into molds. As you might guess, this process produces a lot of pollution. In recent years the EPA has cracked down on these types of businesses. U.S. foundries with union workers pay between $10 and $20 an hour while their Mexican counterparts pay around $2.50 an hour. That might seem like huge savings for a company relocating to Mexico, but much of these savings will be lost in transportation costs. What really makes the move cost-effective is the almost complete lack of enforcement in the Mexican environmental laws. Foundries moving to Mexico don't have to equip their smoke stacks with scrubbers or clean their waste water. The same can be said of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's regulations. Despite the
promises made in the NAFTA side agreements, little can be expected to change with the current level of corruption in the Mexiican government. Do we really want companies to move a few hundred miles south and pollute as much as they want? What kind of long-term effect will that have on our economy when we are expected to pay for the clean up? How much pollution will find its way back north?
It is likely that NAFTA will be defeated this week and for all the wrong reasons — paranolia over job loss and politicians interested only in re-election. That makes a renegotiation treaty, with the flaws in this one removed, unlikely. The concept of free trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico is important. If steps are taken to protect workers, the environment as well as corporate profits, free trade could benefit us all. Without these steps we may become more like Mexico instead of Mexico becoming more like us.
Jim Kimmel is a McLouth junior majoring in history and sociology.
Criticism of SUA's organization of Chomsky speech is misplaced
The Noam Chomsky lecture on Friday, Nov. 12, in the Kansas Union Ballroom and Jayhawk Room was criticized in a Kansan editorial printed Nov. 15. However, Student Union Activities takes issue with the assertion that the lecture's overcrowding problem occurred as a result of a "failure" in planning. It seems ironic that a lecture that dealt with media as an organ that repeatedly reports misinformation would be followed by an irresponsible editorial.
There are many inaccuracies in the criticism of SUA's handling of the forum. Contrary to what was reported in the editorial, the tickets were distributed exactly at the announced time of 7 p.m. All general admission tickets were distributed by 7:20. Another inaccuracy was the editorialist's assertion that student activity fees directly funded the lecture. We recognize the service that SUA provides to the students of this campus, and we will continue our work to fulfill this responsibility.
The editorialist also suggested impossible improvements for handling the lecture. For example, the
editorialist's suggestion that SUA could have made adjustments to the lecture venue to accommodate the audience overflow was unrealistic.
When this lecture was secured, Nov. 12 was the only night that was possible for Chomsky. The Ballroom was the largest venue available on campus for this event. The Lied Center had been booked by a conference and Allen Field House also was unavailable. Both SUA and the Union worked overtime the day of the lecture to expand the seating capacity by purchasing the necessary equipment to have the simulcast in the Jayhawk Room. This would not have been technically possible to do in the Big
Eight Room, as was suggested in the editorial. Nothing more could be done to expand the number of seats available for that night.
Inappropriate suggestions for ticket adjustment were given by the editorialist as well. The editorialist asserted that releasing the tickets in advance would have solved the problem of students waiting in line for this lecture. While this has been done in the past, it was found to be ineffective because seats could be left empty by people who had tickets but chose not to attend the lecture. Fire code dictates the limited capacity of the ballroom, including standing room on the ballroom balcony.
Imagine students' reaction to being told they could not attend a lecture even if there were 100 empty seats remaining. By releasing tickets that evening, we guaranteed the maximum attendance possible, while insuring that fire codes would not be violated. Additionally, it was recommended that tickets be limited to students and faculty. However, SUA has never limited lecture attendance to a certain population because this
would prohibit the attendance of spouses and children of KU students, staff and faculty members.
Finally, students should become more involved in SUA if they believe that we are doing something wrong. Hundreds of student volunteer hours were invested into putting on a lecture of this magnitude. Despite the high costs of the lecture, it was made free through the co-sponsorships sought and secured by SUA. More than nine hundred people saw the lecture that night, and five hundred were able to see Chomsky's linguistics lecture that afternoon.
The fact the Chomsky came to the University of Kansas is directly attributable to the excellent planning of SUA and the Forums committee. This was not an opportunity to come by easily, because Chomsky usually books lectures two years in advance. Thanks to the efforts of SUA and its co-sponsors, this lecture became a reality.
David Stevens is the Student Union Association Forums Committee chair.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Public university needs to serve all its members
Having recently returned from a sabbatical year in a foreign country, I am struck by just how nonpublic this university is in some respects. The recent Noam Chomsky visit is a good example. It is not clear to me how a public university and the sponsoring units within that university could justify paying thousands of dollars (according to the press) to bring a well-known scholar to campus to speak to no more than 900 individuals in a public lecture. It is
true that every member of the university community had an equal opportunity to show up at 6 p.m. to wait in line for tickets to be given out at 7 p.m. for an 8 p.m. lecture. Ticket distribution method aside, the real point is that only 900 out of 26,000 students and countless faculty, staff and citizens could ultimately gain access. This seems particularly inexcusable when technology exists to use closed circuit TV to extend the availability of such events. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon sponsoring organizations to find the means to make such an
event open to as many people as possible.
For what purpose is the new Lied Center? Is it not for public events or is it yet another instance of a private domain within a public university? It is a truly beautiful building, but the ticket prices for events make the arts accessible to only certain segments of the public. Although I understand the benefits of the numerous "private" corporations that exist within the University of Kansas, it seems that their ultimate purpose is to support the mission of the University as a whole, which is,
at least in part, to serve the citizens of the state of Kansas in ways beyond just providing low tuition rates for students. Co-curricular events are one way in which the University attempts to do this. When this ceases to be the case, or when the university serves only certain segments of a state, perhaps it is time to critically re-examine what it means to be a public university.
Susan Twombly Associate Professor Educational Policy and Leadership