4
Thursday, March 29, 1990 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Lithuania
Communication is vital for real democracy in Soviet republics that demand independence
lithuanians are finding out the hard way that the Soviet Union is not ready to allow its empire to splinter and die.
When the tiny Baltic state declared its independence March 11, it was only a matter of time before a strong Soviet response. President Milchail Gorbachev went to Lithuania to urge the people to fall in line and seek a peaceful solution. When the country didn't, the Soviets began moving troops near the border and, in the past week, into the capital of Vilnius.
The Soviet military has begun to round up deserters and occupy Communist Party buildings. Some of the deserters have been beaten.
Neither side wants a civil war, and both would like to find a peaceful solution. For the Soviets, that means showing force but not using it to get Lithuania back in line.
The move toward democracy in Eastern Europe and the Soviet republics has occurred at a torrental place. Historic changes take place daily. But it appears that in the case of Lithuania, the democratic movement was not at a pace compatible with the Soviets.
Lithuanian independence can be compared to secession of one of the United States. In fact, Vermont recently put the matter to an informal vote and decided to leave the Union. Residents cited the growing national debt, efforts by the state to preserve the environment and social progress as reasons for leaving. Obviously, if tomorrow the United States woke up without Vermont, such action would not be met with smiles by the federal government.
The point being, if a Soviet republic is to become a free and independent nation, proper lines of communication must be kept. Both sides must come to terms on an agreement for peace or independence. Gorbachev has expressed a willingness to work with his people to gain reforms. Lithuania should work things out with Gorbachev to prevent bloodshed and to keep the democratic movement alive.
Without caution, the changes of the past year could be overturned by a foolish show of military force. It is a course that the world can do without.
John P. Milburn for the editorial board
Willner dismissal
Although unprecedented, KU made right choice
The University made the right decision in dismissing anthropology professor Dorothy Willner.
The Faculty Senate Committee on Tenure and Related Problems, after nearly three months of reviewing evidence, announced its unprecedented decision yesterday that Willner should be dismissed for failure to carry out academic duties and violation of professional ethics. The decision is the first of its kind in the University's 124-year history.
The evidence weighed heavily against Willner during the dismissal hearings that took place from Oct. 16 to Dec. 18. Willner never testified in defense of herself, which says more than any amount of testimony given by witnesses presented by Rose Marino, associate general counsel for the chancellor.
Nearly the entire department of anthropology and former departmental secretaries testified against Willner. Most testified that the professor, who joined the faculty in 1966 and received tenure in 1967, had created a hostile environment within the department and that its reputation had suffered because of her actions.
Willner unsuccessfully sued the University in 1982, claiming sex discrimination and other
civil rights violations. Department members testified that a fear of lawsuits caused relations to be strained with Willner and within the department.
Chancellor Gene A. Budig's prepared testimony, given on Oct. 30, 1989, summed up the complaints against her: "More than a decade of correspondence and actions has left no doubt about her inability to work within the academic community. A university can tolerate diversity in scholarly opinions. However, it cannot be under siege by one of its own members so that its academic mission is made more difficult."
The committee said in its decision, "... Willner failed in significant ways to carry out her academic responsibilities and . . . engaged in behavior that violates commonly accepted standards of professional ethics."
The committee took more than enough time to weigh the evidence thoroughly and make a fair decision. Considering the overwhelming evidence in the testimony of the many witnesses whose lives have been affected by Willner, the right decision has been made, setting an important precedent for KU and perhaps for universities everywhere.
Angela Baughman for the editorial board
News ITEM; HOMELESSARE COUNTED...
AND SOON FOREGOTTEN.
War on drugs is a war on us
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that U.S. law enforcement officials and customs agents need not be constrained by Fourth Amendment limitations when searching buildings on foreign soil. One of the arguments used to decide this case concerned the United States' so-called war on drugs. Unfortunately, this war is not being waged against drugs but against our most cherished institution, the Bill of Rights.
By ruling as the Court did, it destroyed a little bit of what we regard as due process. To hold others to different standards of justice and fairness is hypocrisy at its worst. The principles that we hold dear in our Constitution lose their meaning when we begin to exclude others from the rights and liberties we ourselves deem fundamental.
A disturbing trend is ever so slowly chipping away at our common heritage. It is best described by one scholar as the drug exception to the Bill of Rights.
In recent years, there has been a sharp increase in the amount of legislation to fight the war on drugs. One can even make the claim that our politicians have a drug-law addiction. Most of this legislation, however, is only a reaction to the drughype hysteria that much of the public seems to crave. Polls have shown that many people would be willing to give up some of their rights to stop drugs. Policy makers have bought into this and have acted according to
Guest columnist
Eddie Lorenzo
popular opinion.
Street sweeps, a method of randomly stopping and frisk-searching people, have become popular with the police and the public. In New York City, tactical narcotics teams frequently have stopped and frisked innocent bystanders within the vicinity of an undercover sting despite having no probable cause that the bystanders posed any danger to the public or that illegal substances were being carried by them. If not for the public's fanaticism to stop drug use at all costs, this method of stopping and frisking certainly would be repudiated. Unfortunately, the public, more than ever, is willing to tolerate this.
The public also is willing to tolerate the punishment of those not even involved in committing crimes. In some cities, ordinations allow for the punishment of parents whose children deal drugs. A new Department of Housing and Urban Development policy provides eviction procedures for people suspected of drug-related activities. In Delaware, one woman faced eviction because her son was charged with a drug offense that was not even committed in the proximity
of her housing project. The punishment of those who do not commit crimes ought to raise questions of due process. The general public, however, is unwilling to raise these issues because of its rigid ideological goals.
This should have been expected, however. It historically has been the case that people have been willing to suspend the Bill of Rights as some sort of panacea for whatever social ill is prevalent at the time. The modern day war on drugs is no exception.
If we are to curb drug use and prevent all the unintended consequences of current drug policies, then we must rethink the substance of our existing and proposed laws. Butchering the Constitution certainly is no way to achieve this end.
The public is blinded by what it believes to be a cure. The long-term consequence of our so-called solutions may prove to be a much worse enemy than our immediate problem of drugs. Our philosophical beliefs of correct justice are changing before our very eyes. Our concepts of fair treatment are changing as well. No longer are they basic and fundamental.
The war on drugs is not. It is a war on us. We must stop the trend of eroding our Bill of Rights before it festers beyond our control.
Eddie Lorenzo is a Kansas City, Mo., junior majoring in philosophy and political science.
LETTERS to the EDITOR
Attacks must end
With the waning of the Cold War in Europe, the United States has increased the intensity of its attacks against the government of Cuba.
this Voice of America-run station will not broadcast truth and democracy to the Cuban people but lies and distortions intended to undermine the sovereignty of their government.
In violation of an international law that prohibits the broadcast of television signals across national borders, the United States has begun to broadcast "TV Marti" into Cuba. If the past five years of experience with "Radio Marti," which is also illegally broadcast into Cuba on an AM radio frequency, is any indication,
The use of Cuban independence hero Jose Marti for these stations is a classic example of the U.S. government's doublespeak. Marti fought against U.S. imperialism and interference in his country, which he used as his name by the United States to violate the sovereignty of Cuba.
If the United States expects the Soviet Union to respect the independence of Lithuania, the United States must do the same for Cuba. Cold War attacks on Cuban sovereignty must stop.
Marc Becker Lawrence graduate student
News staff
Richard Brack ... Editor
Daniel Niemi ... Managing editor
Christopher R. Ralston ... News editor
Liam Moreau ... Media editor
John Milburn ... Editorial editor
Candy Nieman ... Campus editor
Mike Sargent ... Report editor
E. Joseph Zurge ... Photo editor
Stephen Kline ... Graphics editor
Kris Bergquelt ... Animal field specialist
Tam Estridge ... General manager, news advertiser
Margaret Townsend...Business manager
Tami Rank...Retail sales manager
Misey Miller...Campus sales manager
Juice Burke...Regional sales manager
Mike Lehman...National sales manager
Mindy Morris...Co-op sales manager
Nate Stamos...Production manager
Mind Lund...Assistant product manager
Cary Blanithia...Marketing director
James Glaasen...Creative director
Janee Rorholin...Classified manager
Wendy Bertz...Teammanager
Jae Hui...Sales and marketing adviser
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsletter, 113 Stuifler-Fall Halt, Letters, columns and cartoons are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Dale Kansan. Editorialists are the opinion of the Kansan editorial board.
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 column should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer will
Bush, media vegetate in broccoli hype
If the 1992 elections were today, the media would feast on the preferences of the presidential palate.
In a bold but prudent move, "Broccoli-ban" Bush last week legged headlines by eliminating the vegetable from the presidential menu aboard Air Force One. After more than 60 years of obedience to outside pressure, he just said no at this juncture to the healthful plants.
"I do not like broccoli and I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it and I'm president of the United States and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli," Bush said, clinching the all-important pre-teen vote.
Media representatives immediately pouced on the announcement
Derek Schmidt
Staff columnist
and, in the proud tradition of Woodward and Bernstein, sought deepthroat sources knowledgeable about the president's diet.
The Associated Press on Monday released this related story from Falls Church, Va. :
"Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and Sens, Mark Hatfield, R-Ore., and James McClure, R-Idaho, and their wives joined the Bushes on the outing to the Chinese restaurant in this suburb 10 miles outside the capital.
"President Bush and his wife, Barbara, returned to one of their favorite spots, the Peking Gourmet Inn, for dinner Monday night.
"The Bushes frequented the restaurant before he became president and have returned about a half-dozen times in the past 15 months."
The story did not specify what the president ate, but KU culinary experts say that Chinese food in the United States often includes broccoli.
'I do not like broccoli, and I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it.'
George Bush
Further investigation is needed to unearth such vital information crucial to the survival of the republic.
the broccoli forces Monday launched a retaliatory five-ton salvo of broccoli at the White House, pilling the veggies by the presidential estate and milling about while sporting broccoli boutonnieres. Barbara Bush held a broccoli bouquet, and First Dog Millle lounged among crates of the vegetable.
Food historically has played a key role in presidential politics. George Washington often dined on crabmeat soup. Abe Lincoln devoured fricassee chicken. Thomas Jefferson invented baked Alaska. Lyndon Johnson relished canned green peas, juice and all. Bush has endorsed pork rinds. But no other commander-in-chief has so publicly declared war on a food.
Hundreds of reporters turned out to witness the dietary schism in the First Family as Barbara and the kids lined up against the president.
"You probably wouldn't have come if we'd come out to talk about the food bank," Barbara Bush told the throng of reporters.
Of course, she was correct. Without such a sexy angle, none of the national media would have reported a shipment of five tons of food to Washington soup kitchens and homeless shelters. That's where the broccoli will go.
The motivation for the broccoli brouhaha remains a mystery. Armchair psychoanalysts suggest that Bush finally has snipped his mother's apron strings. Pundits think this was another carefully orchestrated step in the blue-blooded president's efforts to portrait himself as a commoner.
None of that really matters. In the final analysis, the episode made the nation chuckle, bolstered the position of a rightwing agenda and fed some hungry people.
Not bad for a childish tantrum.
CAMP UHNEELY
Derek Schmidt is an Independence senior majoring in journalism.
So, PACKARD, YOU EXPECT ME TO BEELIVE TRUST YOU HAVEN'T ATTENDED MY CLASS BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW YOU WERE ENROLLED IN
AND YOU WANT ME TO
EXCUSE YOU FROM
PRIOR CLASS PERIODS
AND LET YOU COMPLETE
THE COURSE?
BY SCOTT PATTY
1