4
Tuesday, March 27, 1990 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Mandatory retirement
Lifting rule could benefit students by allowing tenured faculty to retire when they are ready
The lifting of the mandatory retirement age for tenured faculty in 1994 could have a positive impact on the University if the administration takes steps to prepare for the changes that accompany such actions.
An exception to the Age Discrimination in Employment Amendments of 1986 permits compulsory retirement for tenured faculty at age 70. That exception will terminate in 1993, leaving the retirement age open.
Even though Judith Ramaley, executive vice chancellor, has said that other universities that voluntarily eliminated mandatory retirement had experienced little change and that most faculty still retired between ages 65 and 70, this represents a significant opportunity for faculty who are not ready to retire.
The United States long has been guilty of ignoring the talents and wisdom of its older population; this will be a step in the right direction to changing this prejudice in our country, even if only a small segment of the retirement-age population is affected. Renewed respect for these valuable contributors to our
society could only be a bonus.
Fears that leaving the retirement age open will lead tenured but incompetent faculty to teach for an unlimited amount of time are not justified. E. Peter Johnsen, president of the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors, explained that tenure protects academic freedom and due process, not incompetency.
However, Johnsen said in a recent AAUP report that the University should prepare for any consequences of the change by providing early retirement options. Ray Moore, co-chairman of the Campus Planning Advisory Committee, said CPAC may make alternative retirement recommendations in six to nine months.
As long as the University plans ahead and attempts to prevent any foreseeable problems with lifting the mandatory retirement age, there should be a smooth transition to this change that could benefit faculty and students alike.
Angela Baughman for the editorial board
Who's responsible?
Hazelwood got away with murder in oil spill
Former Capt. Joseph Hazelwood is off the hook. Facing felony charges that could have landed him in jail for seven years, the most prominent figure in the Exxon-Valdez oil spill walked out of the courtroom last week nearly uncatted.
The man whom many labeled as responsible for the nation's worst environmental disaster will serve no time in jail. Instead, he has been sentenced to pay Alaska $50,000 and spend 1,000 hours cleaning the beaches that were soiled when his ship struck a marked reef near Prince William Sound one year ago.
Hazelwood was not on the bridge when his ship ran aground, and prosecutors alleged that he was intoxicated at the time of the incident. The skipper's lawyers, despite his lean sentence, plan to appeal his conviction.
Hazelwood's defense is doing little more than following Exxon's lead. Company officials, after being indicted last month on criminal 'charges that totalled more than $700 million in fines, vowed to fight their indictment. They, like Hazelwood, claimed that penalties for the
"accident" were too harsh. They said they were sorry for what happened, but that they should not be forced to pay for the entire clean-up.
It seems strange that no one can be held responsible for a disaster that killed more than 36,000 migratory birds, smeared oil along an estimated 1,000 miles of pristine shoreline and wreaked havoc with one of the world's richest salmon fisheries.
Exxon officials already have thrown Hazelwood to the wolves. The wayward captain caused the company to become entangled in several years' worth of civil lawsuits, in addition to criminal charges. These Exxon officials saw a scapegoat in Hazelwood, and they used him well.
State prosecutors said the less-than-harsh verdict against Hazelwood could help Exxon officials to defend themselves. As they continuously try to dodge responsibility, the officials certainly will try to use the ruling in their favor. With luck, they will not succeed.
Chris Evans for the editorial board
Spending refund can be taxing
I finally filed my tax forms with state and federal governments last week. I used to file early and use the refund to pay for spring break, but I didn't expect much of a return this year, so I kept putting it off. Now that I know how much money I will get from the government, I have to decide how to spend it. All 68 cents of it.
Of course it's not really 68 cents. It cost me 25 cents for a stamp to mail the form to the tax center in Texas, and my real return is a whopping 43 cents.
I thought about ignoring my civic duty, not filing a return, and never claiming the 43 cents which is rightfully mine. But the thought of a computer somewhere kicking out my name under the heading "bad citizen" and the image of an Internal Revenue Service man knocking on my door dissuaded me. And besides, with interest compounded daily in just a few years the government could buy a nuclear missile, an aircraft carrier, a screwdriver or start a useless social program with my 43 cents. I couldn't allow that to happen.
Stan
Diel
Staff columnist
I also thought about the embarrassment of cashing the check when it finally arrives. Won't the girl at the bank laugh at me? "Oooh, that big investment in cubic zirconia finally paid off, did it?" she'll say. Then I remembered my grandmother. She owns an oil well in Oklahoma and
gets a check every year for about 50 cents. "I was afraid that if I didn't cash it, I'd screw up their books," she said. So I have to cash my check. I wouldn't want the government's books to be unbalanced because I was too embarrassed to cash my refund check. Government accountants wear power ties and gray suits, looking for the error. "Oh my God, we're 68 cents off, what'll we tell the president?" they say.
I also thought about returning the check to the government with a note: "Just want to do my part to reduce the deficit." But as I learned in an economics class, when government revenue goes up, spending goes up, regardless of the deficit. The government would spend my 43 cents, plus interest, and because government spending is less efficient than private sector spending, the economy would tailspin into a recession. I can't allow that to happen to my country. I love my country. I must cash that check.
Now I am left with the decision about how to spend the windfall. The vending machine down the hall yields no answers, everything in it except
gum is at least 45 cents. If I bought
gum, that would leave me with only 8
cents. You can't buy anything for 8
cents.
I thought about checking the "Chickadee Check-off" box on the state return, and doing my part to save the birds, but it has a one dollar minimum so I would be 57 cents in the hole.
I thought about buying a condom. But the KU administration chose to ignore last year's referendum, so there are no vending machines on campus. I have no use for one anyway, and they don't make good food.
"I'll invest it!" I thought, visualizing myself as the next Donald Trump, standing in front of "Stan Tower." But the cheapest stock I could find was 50 cents a share. That's 7 cents beyond my means and more than that if you consider the brokerage fees, which would probably exceed 15 cents. I suppose I could search under the cushions on the couch and under my car seats and find enough loose change for the brokerage fees and the extra 7 cents, but this is a matter of principle.
I may never find anything that costs 43 cents, but I can take heart in the fact that the government probably spent more than that processing my return. At least it's a bigger waste of their time than it is mine.
> Stan Diel Is a "Hutchinson senior majoring in economics and journalism.
LETTERS to the EDITOR
As a Student Senator and a concerned student, I wanted to express my concern about the significant forthcoming fee increase and its potential effect on students of the University of Kansas.
Tuition increase
My primary concern stems from the fact that " tuition and fees, which were $725 this academic year for in-state undergraduate students, will increase by $71 next year. The increase carries over to out-of-state students as well as graduate and law students.
While I support the Student Senate for its effort to consider the interests of the student body above all other interests, I do not believe that the tuition and fee increases are prudent at this time.
Higher tuition will increase women's sports and non-revenue sports fees, the margin of Excellence, operating costs for the Kansas Union and funds for the remaining Union renovation.
As a governing body, the Student Senate occasionally has a difficult time representing the myriad interests on our campus, and the same may be said of most governing bodies and their constituencies. Although it is true that every effort is made to sympathize with student concerns, it is impossible for us to empathize with all of those concerns. Since students are sometimes unaware of what Student Senate does, we are often allowed to get away with inadvertently neglecting the interest of some students.
The student body should be aware of the forthcoming increases, and I firmly believe that Student Senate should be accountable for its actions. You may support our actions. You may detest our actions. Let us know how you feel.
Micahal Diggs Off-campus Student Senator
News staff
Richard Brick ... Editor
Daniel Niemi ... Managing editor
Christopher R. Raiston ... News editor
Lisa Moes ... Planning editor
John Milburn ... Editorial editor
Candy Niemann ... Campus editor
Mike Consalde ... Sports editor
E. Joseph Zurga ... Photo editor
Graphica editor
Kris Bergraul ... Art/Feature editor
Tom Ebn ... General manager, news adviser
Margaret Townsend...Business manager
Tami Rank...Retail sales manager
Misay Miller...Campus sales manager
Kathy Stolle...Professional sales manager
Mike Lenneman...National sales manager
Mindy Morris...Co-op sales manager
Nate Stamos...Production manager
Mindy Land...Assistant product manager
Carrie Blencott...Marketing director
James Ginnapp...Creative director
Janet Rorholm...Classified manager
Wendy Stertz...Tech salesman
Alma Marmot...Sales and marketing adviser
Business staff
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 Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsletter, 111 Stuffer-Fall Halt. Hall, columns and cartoons are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University Daly Kansan. Editorials are the opinion of the Kansan editorial board.
Trial allows Reagan to remain elusive
I chuckled to myself as I watched this buffoon display his talents on national television. Then I remembered that this buffoon was once the president of the United States, leader of the free world, and controller of the world's largest conventional and nuclear arsenal. Suddenly, it wasn't so funny.
I guess I never doubted the fact that Reagan was the man behind the scam. I was certain that at some point someone would blow the whistle and tell the world exactly who knew what. I felt that the Reagan administration was inevitably falling, that Reagan's impeachment or resignation was a foregone conclusion. But the Iran-contra affair blew over without claiming any casualties, save the people of this country who feel that disregard for law and justice should never go unpunished.
When the hearings began in 1986, 1
Ronald Reagan is laughing now. He got away with the largest scandal since Watergate and has peacefully retired to a life of soliciting Japanese business giants and forgetting details of the eight years that he spent in the nation's highest office. Yes, we snicker at the awkward buffoonery of his testimony in Poindexter's trial. But the last laugh is on us as he skates away from accountability, leaving the nation wondering what exactly happened to justice in our government.
Dan Grossman
Staff columnist
eagerly waited to find out who would spill the proverbial beans. When Reagan's former National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane had a nervous breakdown, I thought he would be the one to break under the pressure of congressional inquiry. But he regained his composure and refused to implicate Reagan.
When Lt. Col. Oliver North took the floor and demanded immunity, I thought for a moment that his self-interest had convinced him to point to Reagan. But Brian was equally loyal to the Glipper and he too refused to point the finger.
But when Poindexter glared at Special Prosecutor Arthur Limon and Sen. Daniel Inouye and said soberly, "The buck stops here," all hopes for truth and justice were dashed.
And then it was Admiral John Poindexter's turn before the committee. Reagan's adviser for National Security Affairs was the missing link between the scandal and our beloved former president.
The criminal trials of McFarlane,
North and Poindexter have all been forgone conclusions. It was impossible to believe that any of them would go to prison. When the congressional committee granted North and the others limited immunity, excluding any testimony given in the hearings from criminal proceedings, Congress took a gamble.
The committee hoped that by granting the three blind mice limited immunity, they would implicate Reagan as the ringleader. But McFarlane, North and Poindexter had some good lawyers. They realized that they could avoid bringing down Reagan in the congressional hearings by accepting full responsibility for the scam, knowing that anything they said there could not be used against them in a criminal proceeding. When those trials began, the three would change their tune, claiming every illegal act that they committed was given executive approval.
That is exactly what Oliver North did. In front of the committee he defiantly proclaimed that the scam to divert the profits from the arms sale to Iran to the Nicaraguan contrasts at a time when the Boland Amendment prohibited such funding was his and Poindexter's idea and that Reagan was completely ignorant about the entire affair.
But when North was indicted on charges of conspiracy and lying to Congress, his attorneys insisted that
Ronald Reagan's testimony was essential to his defense since every he did was done under executive sanction. Judge Gessel disagreed, but it didn't matter. North was let off with a slap on the wrist.
And now it is Poindexter's turn to change his tune from renegade freedom defender to diligent executor of his commander in chief's desires. Reagan's befuddled testimony doesn't seem to be helping Poindexter's case any. What little the senile former President does remember about the whole affair does nothing to support Poindexter's claim that he was just following orders. But does it really matter?
McFarlane pleaded guilty to four misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress and was let off with a fine. North was convicted on charges of lying to Conferencers and was sent through the fingers of the judicial process. So why should Poindexter's case be any different?
Whether Poindexter and North acted on their own or with executive approval, juries don't feel that their crimes warrant incarceration. That is unfortunate. Their crimes against law, justice, and government ought to alienate a large number of U.S. citizens. Why shouldn't they do time?
Dan Grossman is a Denver senior majoring in political science.
CAMP UHNEELY
No. LOOK. YOU REALLY
IT SAYS THAT SHOULDN'T
I'M ENROLLED SKIP CLASSES
IN A CLASS THIS PACKARD.
SEMESTER THAT
I HAVEN'T EVEN
ATTENDED
BY SCOTT PATTY