4A
Wednesday, February 28, 1996
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Colorado proves releasing evaluations can be affordable
If and when students' evaluations of faculty are made available for general consumption, several reforms should be made to increase accessibility.
A good model for the University of Kansas is the system followed at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
"Everyone has access to a standardized system of evaluations, everyone. We put them on line, and we also publish a paper document on over 4,000 courses, which is made available to students at the time of registration," said Lou McClelland, Director of Student Affairs Research at Colorado. "There was a large push in 1980 on the part of students to gain this kind of access, which resulted in a mandate for freedom of information. If the students had not spoken up, this would have never happened."
McClelland said the document originally was financed by students.
However, now that the book has accepted advertising, there is no extra cost to students for the service.
Students at the University
THE ISSUE:
Instructor evaluations
should show more interest in gaining access to these documents. Several years ago, evaluations were open to students for their use.
The system ended because of a combination of factors. Faculty wanted more privacy and students seemed less inclined to speak out against moves to curtail their right to view information pertaining to their education. A large factor in making evaluations public will be the active participation of students.
Initially, the Student Senate could help by providing funding for a publication like that at Colorado. In the end, as Colorado proves, the system could fund itself. On-line services would cost virtually nothing, said Wesley Hubert, assistant director of academic computing.
The bottom line is that if the University of Kansas wants to be a leader, then why can it not do what the University of Colorado is doing now?
TOM MOORE FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Banning credit card payment of tuition could hurt students
Students make many of their purchase decisions based on convenience and attainability. For many students, the use of credit cards for payment of tuition makes an education easier to attain, but the costs credit cards impose on the state may force the University of Kansas to revoke its credit policy.
The University is financed by both tuition and state general funding. Creditcard processing fees take an annual chunk of $900,000 out of the tuition funds. The state fills this void by covering the costs.
The state no longer wants to pick up the check, leaving the University one year to devise a plan.
Ray Hauke, regents budget director, said various options were being discussed. One option involves a student connecting with a third party, which would pay the University in installments.
Another option, which
Hauke said has been called
THE ISSUE:
Paying tuition
the Amoco concept, uses differential rates for cash and credit payments. A higher rate, charged for credit payments, would capture the loss from processing fees.
Richard Mann, University director of administration, said credit card companies did not allow differential rates for cash and credit, but the one-year grace period may enable the University to restructure this policy.
If a solution is not reached, Chancellor Robert Hemenway said the only choice was to ban the use of credit cards.
He said the University could not take away from the classrooms to cover these costs.
The state and University must compromise, finding a solution that does not inhibit a student's access to education.
ERIN KRIST FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Shawn Trimble / KANSAN
Telecommunications Act reaches out, grabs student
Although I have never considered our political system to be perfect, I always have valued living in a country where freedom of speech and expression are allowed and encouraged. I was both shocked and horrified in social studies classes when we learned about countries where citizens constantly had to watch what they said, fearing repercussions from the government. To me, a spoiled American used to freedom, this other way of life seemed incomprehensible.
The reason for this? She was the recipient of an e-mail expressing displeasure over the new Telecommunications Act signed into law by President Clinton. Not only did the message criticize our illustrious leader, it also contained the word abortion. Shocking! Such a dangerous topic - the student surely must be a terrorist.
A KU student was forced to comprehend this reality last week. No, she was not studying abroad in some backward, fascist nation — she was in the Ellsworth Residence Hall Computer Lab. The freshman was checking her e-mail when she was approached by a small group of KU police and Secret Service agents. She was taken by these agents to a quiet room where they proceeded to interrogate her about her political affiliation and intentions to harm the president.
KANSAN STAFF
All joking aside, under the new act, anyone caught discussing abortion on the Internet was to be treated as a common criminal — slapped with a hefty fine and possibly sent to jail. I thought this was America, land of the free, home of the brave. It is starting to sound like the land of the oppressed, home of the fascist. Thankfully, an American Civil Liberties Union press release on Friday
HEATHER NIEHAUS
Business manager
KONAN HAUSER
Retail sales manager
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUPP
Technology coordinator
tions such as, "Are you affiliated with the Communist Party?" She is not, but why would it make a difference if she were? I don't see the connection between discussing abortion on the Internet, harming the president and Communism. Besides, she has a right to subscribe to any political belief she wishes; the era of Red hunting supposedly ended.
Not to mention that the agents were way out of line with their questioning. They asked the student ques-
STAFF COLUMNIST
If anything, the government should be monitoring its own actions. The Telecommunications Act sounds suspiciously fascist to me. For all our country's hatred of the former U.S.S.R.'s pseudo-Communist regime and its policies, our government is starting to mirror the regime's oppressive conduct. First it restricts our freedom of expression, then it sends out its version of the KGB to harass innocent college students. Don't these agents have anything better to do with their time? If the government is so worried about terrorists and threats to the president, I'm sure there are more dangerous criminals than the menace to society it apprehended last week at the University.
stated that the restrictions on abortion speech were declared unconstitutional, but the very fact that they were included in the act frightens me. I was under the impression that most members of Congress didn't want so-called big government. Many of them are ardent in their
Business Staff
Campus mgr ... Karen Geroch
Regional mgr ... Kelly Connetty
National mgr ... Mark Oldmank
Administrative mgr ... Raymond Gilliland
Production mgr ... Raquel Gallill
Heather Valler
Marketing director
Public Relations dir ... Angie Adamson
Creative director ... Ed Kowalski
Technical dir ... Edward Kwolke
Internship/oo-op mgr ... T.J. Glark
When I learned the Telecommunications Act had been signed into law, I was frightened for our country. When I learned of this incident, I was downright terrified. I am glad the abortion speech restrictions were declared unconstitutional, but that doesn't change knowing that the act was passed with those restrictions in the first place or that they were so shockingly enforced at our own University. I would advise Americans to be very careful who they vote into office in the future. The basic principles and freedoms our country was founded upon are at stake.
beliefs that Americans should not be subject to gun control laws because those laws violate citizens' rights to bear arms. I find it profoundly disturbing, then, that they would pass an act that restricts freedom of speech. Is the word abortion really more dangerous than a loaded weapon?
Apparently the government thinks so, judging by the behavior of the Secret Service agents who visited the University. I fail to understand how the students who sent and received the e-mail in question were viewed as a threat to President Clinton. The agents even went as far as to forbid both the sender and recipient from being within 50 miles of the president. I myself read the message and found it to be perfectly harmless. It merely stated the facts — that discussing abortion on the Internet now was illegal — and urged recipients to express their displeasure to the president in a perfectly legal, non-threatening manner. I certainly don't think it warranted a visit from the Secret Service.
Steph Brower is a Cary, N.C. freshman in pre-journalism
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Money should go to enhance academics
I would like to voice my support for the thousands of KU students who neither need nor want a new recreation center on campus. It looks as if the University is following in the footsteps of Lawrence city commissioners who are throwing money into projects that on the surface represent an
ASHLEY MILLER
Editor
VIRGINIA MARGHEIM
Managing editor
ROBERT ALLEN
News editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Campus    Joann Birk
        Phillip Brownlee
Editorial    Paul Todd
Associate editorial    Craig Lang
Features    Matt Wood
Team Broken    Trevor Mackenzie
Associate sports    Bill Petulla
Photo    Andy Rulestad
        Matt Flinker
Graphics    Noah Moser
Special sections  November Humphrey
        Jon Humphrey
Wire    Tara Ternary
Illustration  Micah Laaker
attempt to enhance opportunities for local residents.
Editors
Rather, they represent attempts to deflect the all too real fact of peer envy. Lawrence officials want us to be a junior Johnson County. Proponents of a new recreation center want us to be the University of Colorado. Tax money, student fees, what's the difference? What people, particularly students, don't want is to have more money taken out of
their pockets, particularly if the money doesn't directly benefit them.
Why not a referendum to increase fees to enhance the academic infrastructure of the University of Kansas? But then, how often is spending money on academic enhancements given top priority here?
David R. Benson, Jr.
Assistant professor, chemistry
To the majority, the belief in student rights appears to be a foggy notion that there are some actions
Finally, we need to all listen to each other and ask the administration to listen to us.
As Chancellor Robert Hemenway has said, "Students make up this university."
Just as our national government is mandated to provide and protect the
We cannot allow the good of the many to be overshadowed by the fear of the few.
As we strive to define our rights more clearly we need to challenge our problems and uphold our virtues.
Access to instructor evaluations should be a milestone in our struggle, not a destination.
Perhaps the clearest way to define student rights is to use a comparison with our human rights.
Student rights at stake in the battle for access to evaluations
To some, it is something to be chuckled at and dismissed. To others, it represents administrative lip service to student activism.
Student rights — a term that elicits as many different re-sponses as interpretations of its meaning.
Despite all their hard work and the importance of the students' will, its resolutions often are left unanswered.
We need to retake control of our university and remind our administrators and faculty that teaching and commitment of freedom is sacred and that secrecy regarding our future is outrageous. It is time that we as students draw a line in the sand and say, "This is our right, and we will protect that right by any means possible."
or protections that are necessary to a functioning and healthy university.
GUEST COLUMNIST
While our federal government has the responsibility to provide an atmosphere in which its citizens are nourished physically, our university has a responsibility to provide an atmosphere where its students are nourished academically.
rights of its citizens, a university has a duty to provide and protect the rights of its students.
Student Senate acts as the representative body for more than 20,000 students.
Unfortunately, sometimes our rights are infringed upon. Whether it be by another student, a faculty member or the administration, when our rights are challenged, we are challenged.
To meet this challenge, we are called to define our rights in order to protect our collective and individual interests. Despite living in an academic community where intellectualism is encouraged, reason often is heard and freedom is cherished, it appears that our administrators are unwilling to act or even listen to our arguments and grievances.
Its constituents pay thousands of dollars each year to attend the University of Kansas, and its senators spend endless hours in meetings, researching and writing, doing their best to represent their constituents' best interests.
Fortunately, the students' right to access of information regarding their instructors does not only have the support of strong reason and cherished freedom, but it also has the support of the law.
Scott Sullivan is a Leawood junior in political science
OUT FROM THE CRACKS
By Jeremy Patnoi