4A
Monday, February 12, 1996
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
Fire safety is priority, excuses do not matter
University officials and fire personnel seriously should be concerned about the fire alarms in Tower A of the Jayhawker Towers, but nobody seems to be taking responsibility for the problem. Regardless of whose fault it is, officials need to correct the problem immediately before it causes a tragedy.
On the morning of Jan. 31, there was a fire in the elevator of Tower A that many residents were unaware of because they did not hear the alarms. Fortunately, nobody was injured, but next time residents may not be as lucky.
Many students who complained about not hearing the alarms live at the ends of the wing, where it was hard to hear them. It should not matter where residents live or where they are located in the building. It is essential that they are able to hear the alarms at all times.
There are not just one or two students who did not hear the alarm, there are many, so obviously there
THE ISSUE:
Fire alarms
is a major problem. The bottom line is the alarms are not loud enough.
The excuse that the alarms sound so frequently that students become immune to them is not valid. Alarms should be so loud that students are unable to ignore them.
It is frightening that many students were unaware of the fire. Officials are coming up with all kinds of excuses and scenarios as to what may have happened, but it does not matter. Someone needs to repair the alarm system or replace it so everyone is safe at all times.
Fire safety should be of the utmost concern to University officials, and it is the right of the residents to always feel safe. Fires are a real threat, and the necessary precautions should be taken to avoid future mishaps.
TARA FITZPATRICK FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
New position of poet laureate not a necessity for Kansas
Kansas has everything a person could want, and now it will even have its own poet. In a unanimous vote earlier this month, the Kansas State Senate unanimously voted to create the position of state poet laureate. This governor-appointed position will receive $2,500 a year to hold a two-year term.
Why? Because 12 other states have one, so why shouldn't we? At least, that's the justification from the Statehouse. Kansas has to be seen to have just as much interest in the arts as New York or California, and that's a fine and noble goal.
But why should every state have its own baird?
"The issue here is not honoring a particular poet, but honoring poetry," says Michael Johnson, chairman of the department of English. "We need to raise the level of awareness of poetry in Kansas. Kansans don't read or buy that much poetry."
Johnson proposes that the installment of a poet laureate for the state probably would increase interest in poetry.
THE ISSUE:
State poet laureate
Johnson said poets need to have their egos boosted.
"They need to see that poetry is supported. People need to see that it is supported because it is such an intangible thing," said Johnson, who is a poet himself. "Poets and people who like poetry often feel that it is invisible."
Support for the arts is one thing, yet having every state in the union adopt its own poet is a bit silly. The cost is small, $2,500 a year for a two-year appointment. However, the function of the state government is not to console artists who are not published or who see their art form in decline. In a state and a nation where talk of fiscally-sound policies is en vogue with the political leadership, and cuts in education and the environment are popular subjects of discussion, why has poetry suddenly become a priority?
TOM MOORE FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
ASHLEY MILLER
Editor
VIRGINIA MARGHEIM
Managing editor
ROBERT ALLEN
News editor
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
Editore
HEATHER NIEHAUS
Business manager
KONAN HAUSER
Retail sales manager
JAY STEINER
Sales and marketing adviser
JUSTIN KNUPP
Technology coordinator
Campus ... Joann Birk
... Phillip Brownlee
Editorial ... Paul Todd
Associate editorial ... Craig Lang
Anneune ... Tom Brickson
Sports ... Tom Brickson
Associate sports ... Bill Potella
Photo ... Andy Ruelletter
Matt Flokner
Graphics ... Moeh Miccos
Special sessions ... Nerva Sommer
Ambushy
Wire ... Tara Trenny
Illustration ... Moih Leaker
Marko Fields / KANSAN
Business Staff
Campus mgr ... Karen Gerch
Regional mgr ... Katie Conleyen
National mgr ... Mark Oxdmek
Special Section mgrs ... Norm Blow
Production mgrs ... Rachel Cahill
Marketing director ... Cary Bresoff
Bioinnovator in BioArt America
Creative director ... E.Kawauk
Classified mgr ... Stacey Weygarton
Internship/oop mgr ... T.J. Clark
Personally, I do not believe in 100 percent of the ideas that this type of feminism upholds, but then again, I rarely believe 100 percent of anything I hear. However, it is not the only type of feminism that exists in today's world. To assume it is, is ignorant.
It is a shame that many people feel too intimidated by the structure to follow their beliefs. But it is amazing that enough people are willing to fight against a patriarchy that has been in existence for thousands of years and that we have made as many strides as we have. Keep up the good work.
Women have come a long way in the fight for equality. We have progressed far beyond where we were when Wollstonecraft, or even de Beauvoir, wrote. But we still have a long way to go.
Many people in my group, including at least half of the women, believed that feminism is the idea that women are better then men. Even the women who didn't believe this saw that it is the mainstream view of feminism, and consequently refused to call themselves feminists.
I am a feminist
Sure, this is one view of feminism. It is the type that happens to have taken center stage for the time. And it is also a productive form of working for equality, or even a reverse in the present male dominated structure.
Stacy Nagy is a Topeka sophomore in English
Class discussion brings up feminism, exposes ignorance
Okay, I feel better now that I have that off of my chest. I have listened to feminism take a lot of heat in the past week. I have watched it get a bad rap, and for everyone who has been offended because of this cause, I have gotten offended. And for some reason, I have felt like a minority.
Maybe I am. In high school, I was most certainly a minority, lost in a hallway among students who thought that "feminism" was a dirty word and that Gloria Steinem was the incarnation of the devil himself. But I always thought that when I arrived at a college as large as the University of Kansas, the stigma of being a feminist would go away. I was surprised and disappointed to find out last week that it hasn't.
In my Western Civilization class, we were studying two famous women — Mary Wollstonecraft and Simone de Beauvoir. Both are noted feminists; the former wrote in the late 18th century, and the latter in the mid-20th century. However, the two of them have been lumped together as one for the purpose of learning about feminism in a class where almost every week is devoted to a single author. This alone should have told me that it was going to be a long week.
Nonetheless, there I sat in discussion, prepared to discuss with 10 intelligent people the merits, as well as the weaknesses, of these two strong women. And although the
Chaplain did his duty addressing ethical issues
STAFF COLUMNIST
John Wilson's Feb. 1 editorial condemning guest chaplain Joe Wright's session-opening prayer to the Kansas House misses the point.
discussion began that way, it moved into areas that are much more sensitive. All of a sudden, I found myself on the defensive.
required to look good to be hired at jobs where appearance should not have any relation to her ability to do the job. We also agreed that the same standard does not necessarily exist for men. However, many people in our group did not see a problem with this type of attitude. Needless to say, I did.
Two ideas emerged that bothered me. The first concerned the discussion of physical appearance. The group agreed that sometimes, women are
Feminism is many things, and can have radically different definitions depending on the source.
I do not presume to speak for all the feminists out there, but personally, as a feminist, I strive to make the world a better place through equality between the sexes. Rather idealistic of me, but many people I know would agree that this definition does describe how they feel. They just don't all consider themselves feminists. This was the other idea that emerged from our discussion.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Rather than a political address as Wilson alleges, Rev. Wright's words are in the grand American tradition of religious leaders speaking out on what they perceive to be the state of faith and morality in the nation.
The issues Wilson calls political I would say are ethical issues entirely appropriate for a man of the cloth to address.
Just as the abolitionist ministers prior to the Civil War waved the "bloody shirt" to outrage and
energize congregations and political leaders against slavery, Wright appears to be addressing some of the hot button issues of today.
In expressing his concerns, is Wright any different from the Berrigan brothers in their campaign against the Vietnam War and nuclear weapons?
The one big difference is that Wright hasn't broken the law in expressing his ideals.
ial, Wilson wrote: "Wright overstepped the bounds of prayer, blasting many of the evils of the state."
If Wilson is acknowledging the fact that the subjects addressed were evil, then Wright fulfilled his duties as a minister in speaking against them.
In the conclusion of his editor:
Incidentally, regulations restricting a guest chaplain's words in the House session opening prayer, as Wilson calls for in his closing sentence, would be unconstitutional.
Glen E. Sharp II Lawrence second year law student
Name of Dole Center needs to be changed
Some students call it the Death Star.
To them, it lingers menacingly on the south side of campus. But the Death Star isn't considered evil because of it's contents, its more of a symbolic evil—the name of the building.
The Dole Center for Human Development bears the name of GOP leader Bob Dole, one who may profess to be supporter of students, but who is actually an opponent to overall education.
STAFF COLUMNIST
The Dole Center was named in 1988. Dole didn't make it to the ground-breaking ceremony.
"He has been a tireless champion of individuals with physical, mental and developmental disabilities and is recognized as their most forceful public spokesman." said former chancellor Gene A. Budig, explaining why the building was named after Dole.
Maybe that's true. But how many politicians don't publicly support those issues?
I'm not really a betting person, but I'd say that the building was named after Dole because of financing.
Of the $12 million with which the Dole Center was built, $9 million of it came from federal sources — I wonder if Dole had anything to do with that?
Besides, most buildings on campus are named after former chancellors or other University-related educators: Strong, Wescoe, Fraser, Malot. But that's not really the point.
And what about Danny Manning? He's probably brought more money to the University than any given individual. Even the John Brown Center for Human Development would be better. At least the guy seemed to have an interesting personality.
Not only is the Dole Center not named after an educator from the University, it can be argued that the Center is named after an opponent of education.
But Bob Dole — I don't think so. Money is one thing, but a respect for education should be a prerequisite for getting your name on a building at the University.
First of all, Dole is in favor of cutting general education.
The Republican Congress' 1996 budget called for cutting general education by about $10 billion, including various federal grants and aid for college students.
Ted Miller, member of KU Young Democrats, made an interesting observation referring to Dole cutting student aid.
"I think he could have been a little more observant of the fact that if there weren't veterans programs, he couldn't have finished his education," he said, referring to Dole's degree from Washburn University in Topeka.
So the University should consider giving the Dole Center a different name—a name that would seem to promote education, not discourage it.
And isn't it ironic that the Dole Center houses broadcast journalism? Dole was highly in favor of the telecommunications bill that passed last week, which promotes the mysterious chip that would be installed to block certain programming.
Langston Hughes lived in Lawrence. Sure, he may not have gone to the University of Kansas or given any money to the Dole Center, but he probably wouldn't support cuts in education instead of cuts in defense.
Plus, Darth Vader was never the good guy.
HUBIE
ian Ritter is an Overland Park senior in journalism
By Greg Hardin