4
Friday, March 30, 1990 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Positive vandalism
Anti-rape sidewalk slogans make people think; politician's comment shows thinking is needed
Clayton Williams, Texas Republican gubernatorial candidate, stood in a billholder debate at a little town for
reportably brize shh. I dump the group on Saturday. In attempt to make light of the inclement weather he said that it was a woman being raped: "If it's *in inevitable, just relax and enjoy it."
Rape. It happens every hour of every day, but how often do we stop and think about this or any other crime of violence? Clayton Williams obviously has not. If he had, he would have realized how destructive the crime of rape can be to a victim, and he would have thought twice before trivializing its effects.
Last week someone tried to make us think. This may have disturbed some people on campus, but it may have saved someone from the trauma of rape.
By speckling the campus sidewalks with spray-painted slogans condemning rape, these vandals were able to draw attention to the subject in a more effective way than any poster or speaker could. Posters on bulletin boards get lost in the sea of bar advertisements; speakers only are heard by those who make the effort to hear them.
People saw these slogans whether they wanted to or not. It made some stop and think about what it means when a woman says "NO."
There is no doubt that this was an act of vandalism. But it was constructive vandalism
vandalism. But it was constructive vandalism — vandalism with a positive purpose. If it makes one man stop and think the next time a woman tells him "no," then someone has been educated, and the painters have succeeded. After all, education is what we are here for.
This should not be construed as an open invitation to every little group to decorate the sidewalks with their opinions because then the sidewalks become no more than bulletin boards on the ground. It is not an invitation for these same people to continue their sidewalk commentary either. It is a commendation for thinking and causing others to think.
Williams apologized Sunday. And people someday will forget his comment, but the victims of rape never forget. Maybe it would be different if Williams and others would just stop and think.
Stephen Kline for the editorial board
Cuban television
TV Marti broadcasts violate Cuban sovereignty
The U.S. decision to broadcast U.S. television to Cuba last week was an aggressive way to produce further backends in the United States-U.C.B. relationship.
the already strained U.S.-Cuban relationship. The testing of the long-planned TV Marti programs, including MTV videos, a 1971 World Series tape and an old episode of "Kate and Allie," violated Cuban sovereignty.
Whether the United States realized it or not, the action will bring justified retaliations by the Cuban government. Beaming the programs without Cuba's consent is an intrusion of the island's air space.
International law stipulates that a nation Cuba for that matter has sovereignty over its territorial waters and air space. No one, including the imperialistic United States, can interfere with its national space.
It is understandable that the United States is trying to share some Western culture with a
Cuban population that has been without objective news for more than 30 years, but the Bush administration is missing the point. Beaming U.S. television to Cuba is not the best way to promote democracy and influence Cuban public opinion.
As expected, Fidel Castro is extremely dissatisfied with the action, and his government will continue to retaliate and jam the programs. A week ago, Cuba broadcast a radio speech by Castro that disturbed stations in the southeast United States. This is just the beginning. Possible retaliation measures include a suspension of air and telephone links between the two countries.
After beaming U.S. programs supposedly to determine the technical feasibility of TV Marti, the U.S. government can only wait for more deterioration of the two countries' relations.
Andres Cavelier for the editorial board
Abortion issue revisited
Anti-abortion measure demands Idaho's response
T The U.S. legal and legislative systems work in mysterious, yet sometimes predictable, wavs
A recent rash of legislation has been aimed at forcing the Supreme Court to further define the power of the states in restricting abortion. These proposals seek to clarify the July 1989 Webster vs. Missouri Reproductive Health Services decision, which affords the states the power to restrict public financing for abortion. These proposals also seek to outlaw abortion.
These proposals also seek to outlaw abortion. It was only a matter of time after the Webster decision that some state's legislators would try to challenge the verdict by banning abortion completely. The governor of Idaho is expected to sign a bill into law that would basically ban abortion. The law would be the most restrictive passed by any state.
In a resolution that passed the Idaho legislature last week, abortions would be banned except in cases of: incest, when the victim is under 18 years of age (can't anyone over the age of 18 be a victim of incest?); non-statutory rape reported within seven days (not all rapes are reported, many times at the victim's preference); severe fetal deformity or a threat to the life or physical health of the mother.
This most restrictive of state abortion laws in itself could be seen as a threat to the life or physical health of the mother. Such a threat is posed when a woman is forced to obtain an illegal, unsanitary abortion by an unlicensed clinic or, worse yet, a "back-alley" abortion.
Outlawing abortion will not make it go away; outlawing abortion will only make more women outlaws, and eventually more women will suffer infections and possibly die as a result.
Molly Yard, president of the National Organization for Women, said she would attempt to organize a boycott of Idaho products at the NOW national conference in June. This boycott would not hit the legislators; it would only hit the people at the bottom of the economic ladder. The boycott should not be supported. Instead, the battle should be fought at the grassroots level to heighten legislators' awareness of the demands of their constituents, if indeed the majority of Idahoans disagree with their legislators' actions.
The Idaho legislation is aimed directly at Sandra Day O'Connor, who was seen as the swing vote in the 5-4 Webster decision.
Idaho governor Cecil Andrus, who earlier in his career proposed imprisoning women and doctors who were involved in abortion procedures, will not think twice about signing this bill.
What will happen if this same legislative action is taken in Kansas? KU students, and anyone else concerned about the rights of women, need to start contacting their congressmen and voicing their opinions on this issue.
Liz Hueben' for the editorial board
LETTERS to the EDITOR Unborn rights
The unborn child is not considered a "person" because our Supreme Court has drawn an arbitrary line at birth, separating "persons" from "non-persons." Tragically, even Justice Blackmun, the author of Roe vs. Wade, admitted that he could not define "person" with clarity. If there is any doubt about the "personhood" of an unborn child, wouldn't it be more sensible to assume that the child is a person and preserve the child's life, at least until someone can say definitively that he or she is not a "person?"
Abortion involves not only the pregnant woman, but her unborn child as well. Medical evidence indicating that a small, fragile life is present from the moment of fertilization is overwhelming.
It is also necessary to remember
that the overwhelming majority of unborn children that are aborted are girls. Why are they not protected by "women's" rights groups? Without a right to life, don't all other rights become trivial and revocable?
Stephen J. Ternes President, KU Students for Life
Character unsafe
I found the character in the past week's "Camp Unely" comic strip to be quite irresponsible. Maybe if he were to take a more adult and competent attitude toward the fire .codes, "Big Brother" would leave him alone.
The firemen of this city are here to protect us and make sure we have safe living environments. I appreciate them for their wisdom. Obviously, they have seen more devastation due to lack of proper safety measures than any of us can ever imagine. Look at what happened recently to a New York City night club.
Is that what Scott Patty wants for his little "Camp Uneely" friend?
Ann Reaney Music and dance secretary
News staff
Richard Breck ... Editor
Daniel Nieml ... Managing editor
Christopher R. Rataton ... News editor
Lisa Mose ... Planning editor
John Milburn ... Editorial editor
Candy Niemann ... Campus editor
Mike Considine ... Sports editor
E. Joseph Zurga ... Photo editor
Graham Killip ... Graphic designer
Kris Bergquist ... Arts/Features editor
Tom Eben ... General manager, news advert
Business staff
Margaret Townsend...Business manager
Tami Rank...Retail sales manager
Miyayi Miller...Compus sales manager
Kathy Bollinger...National sales manager
Mike Lehman...National sales manager
Mindy Morris...Co-op sales manager
Hate Stamos...Production manager
Mindy Lundar...Assistant product经理
Carrie Slainkis...Marketing director
James Glanapp...Creative director
Janet Rotholm...Classified manager
Werry Steger...Travel advisor
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 columns should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer will
The Kanasa reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kanasa newsletter, 111 Staffer-Fall Hail. Letters, columns and cartoons are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Dally Kanasa. Editorials are the opinion of the Kanasa editorial board.
Student fee hikes add up to big bucks
"S students of KU Beware," read a recent letter to
should win the award for understatement of the year. Tuition increases and double talk have become the norm in Student Senate.
Student Senate recently decided to raise fees by $13. This increase was divided so that $5 will go to women's and non-revenue sports, $2 for day-to-day operation of the Kansas Union and $6 to renovate the third and fourth floors of the Union. Most senators thought these proposals were modest increases for much-needed services. The important point of this is that these are only increases. In order to show the real context in which these fee increases were approved, I have listed all of the student fees as a result of past Student Senate action:
Education Opportunity Fund — $6.
The total charge to each student currently is $147 every semester!
Last spring, Student Senate approved a new $11.25 fee for Robinson Center and a new $2.25 sports fee to begin next fall. All totaled, students will pay $173 each semester in
Student activity fees (student organizations) -- $28
- Kansas and Burge Union fees (operations and renovations) — $41.
- Student health fees (Watkins Memorial Health Center) — $71.
- Women's and non-revenue sports — $14.
Bill
Moseley
Guest columnist
Senate did not consider the total impact that these fee increases have on students' ability to attend college. A recent replacement senator even had the gall to refer to these increases as costing less than he spends on an average night for a pitcher of beer. I really doubt that comparing fee increases to pitchers of beer is the best way to look at the impact on the average KU student. When Senate approved these increases, it ignored the needs of students and several important facts that affect them.
First, in the last ten years tuition and fees have increased more than 240 percent. This outrageous increase has outpaced all economic indicators of a student's ability to pay for higher education. For example, the median family income in Kansas has risen less than 50 percent. If you are a resident of Kansas and a senior, your tuition and fees have risen $296 since you entered KU.
fees alone. Student Senate approved the Union and athletic fees knowing that their vote would raise the cost of peripheral activities at KU.
Small incremental increases, like the Union and athletic fees, eventually amount to big bucks.
Second, KU is not the K mart of education. Several times senators referred to the low cost of education at KU as a justification for the increase. But who is KU a bargain for? If they mean the upper-middle income families, the Senate is right. However, is KU a bargain for the poor family, or the independent student or those ethnic groups already under-represented at KU? Clearly not. Tuition and fee increases make higher education even more difficult for the students who already were having a difficult time.
Third, while tuition and fees have gone through the roof and the under-represented have become even more so, financial aid to students has risen only 35 percent in ten years. That is far less than the rate of inflation. Students, like me, now find themselves $10,000 in debt after college. The most needy students at KU will have the satisfaction of knowing that a portion of their debt went to pay for pretty furniture in the Union and the athletic department's debt problems. But these debt-ridden students are not even the most needy. The student really in need of financial aid and unable to match fee increases is the one who was attending college and now is working at his hometown fast food restaurant.
Student Senate ignored all these
If you are a resident of Kansas and a senior, your tuition and fees have risen $296 since you entered KU. Small incremental increases amount to big bucks.
facts. Senate looked at $13 and thought, "Oh, the price of a beer. I can stay home a night for a pretty Union." While many students are saying, "Another fee increase! I'll have to stay home permanently."
To voters and those who aspire to continue or start on Student Senate, I offer this last observation. Tuition and fee increases should be considered in the light of past increases and with a vision of the future. Anyone who says, "It is just a small increase," the same person actively denying higher education to the most needy. Improvements in campus diversity are not possible until the diverse student can afford our University.
While I am finishing my last term on Student Senate, I wanted to voice a warning. Student Senate, wake up and smell the coffee. Your short-sightedness is depriving students of an education.
▶ Bill Mosely is a College of Liberal Arts and Science Senator.
CAMP UHNEELY
PROFESSOR
ENNUI,
THANKS
FOR
LETTING ME
STATE MY
CASE.
WELL, MR.
HEWLIT, SINCE
You CLAIM YOU
DON'T KNOW
You WERE
ENROLLED IN
this CLASS I'M
GONNA GIVE YOU
A BREAK.
I'M SURE STILL, IT'S I CAN, SIR. A LOT OF I JUST HAVE MATERIAL To CATCH TO UP ON THE COVER. READING.
BY SCOTT PATTY
Y