OPINION
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
PUBLISHED DAILY SINCE 1912
MARK OZMEEK, Business manager
DENNIS HAUPT, Retail sales manager
JUSTIN KNUPP, Technology coordinator
JAY STEINER, Soles and marketing adviser
Amy Miller / KANSAN
Editorials
Gun owners should keep safety awareness as their top priorities
During the next few weeks, representatives in the Kansas Legislature will debate whether Kansas citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Proposed legislation would make it legal for Kansans to carry a concealed handgun.
A number of statistics and figures about gun-related deaths will come into play during the debate. Regardless of your stance on an individual's rights and gun ownership, it is important to be aware of the power of these weapons. Guns kill, and statistics show that they don't only kill intruders and criminals.
According to a recent issue of Mother Jones magazine, a gun in the house makes it three times more probable that a person with a gun in his or her home will be killed by a family member or intimate partner. In addition, a 1984 article in the New York Times stated
As with all privileges, gun ownership carries an added responsibility.
that an average of 14 minors are killed daily by guns. Statistics show that 50 percent of accidental handgun deaths occur in the victim's home and 38 percent occur in the homes of friends or relatives.
What do these statistics mean to U.S. citizens who have the right to own and use guns for their defense? Do these statistics indicate that private citizens should not own guns at all? Opinions differ on the matter, but it is clear that many gun owners are not being cautious enough with their deadly weapons. After all, guns don't kill people. People kill people, and they often do so.
out of carelessness and a lack of understanding of the danger of guns.
As with all privileges, the privilege of gun ownership carries added responsibilities. If you have a gun in the house, keep it out of reach of children and young teens. Be certain that you know how to operate, clean and store your weapon properly. Read books or take a course on gun safety. Above all, always look, listen and think before you shoot. Otherwise you may end up killing those you mean to protect.
It is legal to own and use guns in the United States, and it is possible that adults in Kansas may soon have the right to carry a concealed gun. If you choose to own and operate a gun, that is your choice, but you should always be careful and safe. If you're not, it could be your life or the life of a loved one that is caught in the sights.
BEN SHOCKEY FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Rhetoric does not stop spread of AIDS
Recently, a 12 member committee appointed by the National Institute of Health has advocated the use of certain programs to help control the spread of AIDS.
These programs include safe-sex education and needle exchanges. Many feel that these programs are unethical and unwarranted. However, AIDS knows no ethical limitations when it kills thousands each year. Educating and helping people to protect themselves is necessary to stop this disease from killing even more.
Many people feel that supporting needle exchange programs will compromise their moral objections to drug use. But these programs do not advocate intravenous drug use, they simply attempt to prevent users from spreading the HIV virus.
One such program exists in
We must provide people with the tools to make the right decisions about sex.
Rochester, NY. This program is called Harm Reduction and provides clean needles in exchange for used ones. It also provides AIDS education, free confidential HIV testing, referrals to treatment programs and counseling.
Chastity is a noble idea, but it is obviously one that is not embraced by many at risk teen-agers. Abstinence is the most effective way to avoid contracting HIV, but we are doing a poor job of force-feeding this concept to pubescent teenagers.
A second controversial program that the 12 member committee supports is sex education. Federal welfare law permits the teaching of abstinence, not safe sex. David Reiss, committee chairman, said that the safe-sex education program that the committee proposes would recommend the use condoms and limits on sexual partners in order to reduce the spread of AIDS.
But if not these programs, then which ones? Is moral rhetoric really curbing the spread of HIV? Studies suggest that it is not, and this is why the National Institute of Health is trying to find more effective ways of educating all citizens on how to protect themselves, either by using clean needles or condoms, more effectively.
We must provide these children with the proper tools to make an intelligent decision about sex, which may include abstinence or the use of a condom.
These proposals espouse what is immoral to many Americans.
NEWS EDITORS
NICK ZALLER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
LA TINA SULLIVAN . . . Associate Editorial
KRISTIE BLASH . . . News
NOVELDA SOMMERS . . . News
LESLIE TAYLOR . . . News
AMANDA TRAUGHBER . . . News
TARA TRENARY . . . News
DAVID TESKA . . . Online
SPENCER DUNCAN . . Sports
GINA THORNBURG . . Associate Sports
BRADLEY BROOKS . . Campus
LINSDSE HENRY . . Campus
DAVE BRETTENSTEIN . Features
PAM DISIMAN . . Photo
TYLER WIRKEN . Photo
BRYAN VOLK . . Design
ANDY ROHRBACK . . Graphics
ANDREA ALBRIGHT . . Wire
LZ MUSSER . Special sections
AERICA VEAZEY . . News clerk
ADVERTISING MANAGERS
ADVERTISING STORE
HEATHER VALLER . Assistant retail
JULIE PEDLAR . Campus
DANA CENTENO . Regional
ANNETTE HOVER . National
BRIAN PAGEL . Marketing
SARAH SCHERWINSKI . Internet
DARIC MCLAIN . Production
DENA PISCOTTE . Production
ALLISON PIERCE . Special sections
SARA ROSE . Creative
DANA LAUVETZ . Public relations
BRIAN LEPEVRE . Classified
RACHEL RUBIN . Assistant classified
BRIDGET COLYLLER . Zone
JULIE DEWITT . Zone
CHRIST HAGHIRIAN . Zone
LZ HESS . Zone
ANTHONY MIGLIAZZO . Zone
MARIA CRIST . Senior account executive
Letters: Should be double-spaced typed and fewer than 200 words. Letters must include the author's signature, name, address and telephone number plus class and hometown if a University student. Faculty or staff must identify their positions.
How to submit letters and guest columns
Guest columns: Should be double-spaced typed with fewer than 700 words. The writer must be willing to be photographed for the column to run.
All letter and guest columns should be submitted to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Staffer-Flint Hall. The Kansan reserves the right to edit, cut to length or reject all submissions. For any questions, call Kim Crabtreat (opinion@kansan.com) or LaTina Sullivan (lsullivan@kansan.com) at 864-4810.
Column
Hollywood should make love,not war
If you hack off a breast in a movie, make it R-rated. If you lick it, make it X-rated.
If it's sexual, then it's obscene. If it's violent, then it's acceptable.
This is a simplified version of how movies get their ratings and acceptance from the powers that be in Hollywood.
You can watch Arnold Schwarzenegger waste a hundred people in Total Recall or The Terminator in any neighborhood theater, but if you show two fully naked people in the natural act of
production, the movie is banished to a dark,
sleazy porno house. This is shameful hypocrisy,
and it is indicative of what we value as a society
and what we want to teach our children.
I'm not planning to have children in the near future, but I am intrigued by the messages I received as a child. And I am concerned about what we continue to teach our children.
I now know that sex is an exhilarating, natural act and that violence rarely is an effective means of conflict resolution.
But for most of my youth, I was shown a different picture. This picture portrayed sex as something that was forbidden, rare and in need of concealment while violence was acceptable and even admirable — something to be broadcast to America's children every day.
I'm not blaming Hollywood for anyone's violent tendencies, but the fact that I saw a few thousand people murdered on television before I had the faintest clue about sex is disturbing.
As a teen-ager it was easy to rent Faces of Death and watch hundreds graphically die in pain, but I couldn't view two people graphically enjoying carnal pleasure. Can this hypocrisy be tolerated?
The idea that the movie industry and our society view explicit sex in cinema as something obscene is ridiculous. Even with outrageous population growth and the threat of AIDS, sex is paramount
to our survival and shouldn't be treated as something distasteful.
Sex, or something that resembles sex, is continuously edited to make a film rated R or PG-13, but murder can't possibly be portrayed in a more graphic and abhorrent manner in mainstream movies and television. How is this justified?
Sex creates life. Murder destroys life. If there is one area in cinema that should be controlled, it's violence, not sex.
I am not advocating that children should be able to watch skin flicks on Saturday mornings. Nor am I suggesting that pornographic movies are productive or should be more widespread. I agree with feminists who say that many forms of pornography portray women in a degrading and unhealthy manner.
The movie rating system that evaluates a film's sexual content but pays little attention to its violent content really is a symptom of a broader problem. Although our society's views of sex have changed tremendously in the last 30 years, it still is a taboo topic.
I am merely trying to highlight that the entertainment industry and our society portray violence as acceptable and sex as taboo. With this dichotomy, it's no wonder that we are so violent and hateful.
Puritanical beliefs about sex still exist, and for what? These beliefs and the resulting censorship haven't stopped people from having sex and never will. These archaic ideas only help perpetuate our ignorance about the joys and dangers of sex.
We shouldn't hide sex or sex-related topics from each other or from our children under the cloak of morality and decency.
With teen-age pregnancy, AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases at epidemic levels, we are doomed if we perpetuate our ignorance by burying our children's heads in the sand and praying that it will all go away.
Colin Gotham is a Kansas, City Kan., first year law student.
Guest column
Aggressive candidates violate students' rights
In the time that I have spent at the University of Kansas, I often have heard or read about the calls for change concerning the student electoral system.
Yet during this same period, we have seen little progress and even more frustration on the part of student voters.
The result? An average voter turnout of 16 percent during the past five years. That's right, less than one-fifth of the student population votes. There are no two ways to slice this cookie — the electoral process as it stands is unacceptable, and it must change immediately.
There are several reasons why voter turnout is so low, and a couple of them have to do with how the elections are run.
The Elections Commission is in charge of ensuring fair and unbiased campaigns and elections. It is responsible for formulating the rules of the game, not only so that there is fairness for candidates but also for the benefit of voters. The commission formulates a hearing board and has the power to issue sanctions.
The concept of voter fairness, however, has been largely ignored at the University for some time, and efforts to fix certain problems have had little impact.
One such problem is the practice by some candidates who corner students walking on campus. If candidates are merely trying to speak about their views, distribute information or carry out any other free speech activity that does not obstruct a person's right of way, then there is no problem — they are engaging in constitutionally protected activities.
A person who is annoyed by this and does not want to listen to what the candidates have to say is able to avoid them and continue on his or her way.
Students have complained that they cannot avoid candidates' advances because candidates block sidewalks and paths, which eliminates the students' option of listening or ignoring those
But the scenario I just mentioned is not consistent with what happens at the University.
The commission cannot permit activities to occur during elections that violate the rights of the student, and the commission must act if these activities endanger the integrity of the electoral process.
This type of conduct goes well beyond the annoyance that some people have mentioned and is not constitutionally protected.
Several constitutional issues that deal with how the process would inhibit freedom of speech were raised regarding the proposed Elections Code at the Rule Complaint Hearing, and I commend those who voiced their opinions — for these are people who undoubtedly care about fair elections.
candidates.
Based on this hearing, advising from the General Counsel and the commission's own evaluations and research, we have found a way to ensure students' right of free travel across campus during elections, permit greater voter access and answer constitutional concerns while still allowing large areas for candidates to exercise their rights.
The new policy allows candidates to campaign during voting hours only on nonpaved areas of campus. The campaigners may talk to students on the pavement if the student's consent is given.
This rule would strike down one of the largest problems this school has when elections take place, and I am proud that the commission has made this bold first step in improving the Student Senate electoral system.
Now students will not have to avoid poll sites for fear of what they would face before entering and exiting these areas. Those who wish to express their views still will be able to address students on campus and in high-traffic locations.
Is this rule constitutional? Yes. The rule is specific, fair and overdue.
The commission is doing what it can to remedy this, and it is doing it now. The code is by no means the answer to all of the problems surrounding student elections, but it is a clear step in the right direction.
*rease feel free to call me at 864-4060 or e-mail to me at mcomm@eadle.cc.ukans.edu
Chad Perto is an Englewood, Colo., senior and Elections Commissioner.
Letter
Kansan's response no wav to honor a guest
It would be unfortunate if Kansan readers thought that your coverage of Spike Lee's talk had anything at all to do with what really occurred there. What occurred was that some 2000 people all came together to enjoy a conversation with one of America's most creative film makers. Lee satisfied and gratified his audience with a personal glimpse into his life, career, his purpose as a film maker and insights into
some of his 10 films.
His story about Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan and others who underwrote the completion of Malcolm X brought much laughter.
The frequent laughter and applause throughout both the talk and the question period showed the audience's pleasure.
It is inevitable that Lee will not find total agreement with all his public stands. However, the size of his audience confirms that he is widely respected by young men and
women of all colors. The audience found Lee informative in depicting a world that few of us in Lawrence know much about.
In the eyes of your audience, contrary to your headline, there were no dumb questions—and certainly no dumb answers. Maybe the problem is that it is hard for some people to do the right thing when covering a story on Spike Lee.
This is no way for a university to honor its invited guest.
Herman Leon Professor of Social Welfare