4
Tuesday, September 28. 1993
OPINION
UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
VIEWPOINT
THE ISSUE
President Clinton signed into law the new AmeriCorps program providing students an opportunity to pay back loans through volunteering.
THE BACKGROUND
The AmeriCorps program will allow students to pay for college either through community service or by having a fixed percentage deducted from a student's postgraduation income until the loan amount is paid off.
Community benefits from student aid plan
President Clinton's new AmeriCorps program is a good program, because it gives students options when paying off their student loans — options that did not exist in the past.
THE OPINION
AmeriCorps gives students up to $4,725 a year for two years that they can use for college tuition. If students choose the community service option, they will receive $7,400 a year for living expenses. If students cooperate in supporting this program, more federal money can be spent on it in the future.
For many students who cannot afford college, financial aid loans can snowball into huge debts that can take up to 20 years to pay off, and the interest on student loans also can be prohibitive.
The best part of Clinton's plan is the community service. Students often overlook the underdeveloped, undernourished communities that desperately need the services of doctors, engineers, social workers, pharmacists and lawyers. Students can use their knowledge and expertise in various communities and in turn, give something to society.
Imagine how an engineering graduate can help construct a bridge in an area deprived of technological expertise; how a doctor, who may have easily collected a debt of over $100,000, can treat sick people; and how a social worker can help the abused and the neglected. Such service should be an honor, and it would be temporary. AmeriCorps is a small step, but at least, it is a step in the right direction.
MUNEERA NASEER FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
PBS and government should find compromise
Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., has proposed cutting all government funding for the Public Broadcasting Service's child education programs such as "Sesame Street" and "Barney." A better option would be requiring shows to pay back a percentage of their proceeds to the government.
The basis of Sen. Dole's argument is that the revenue from the shows' merchandise would allow the programs to be self-supportive and provide their own financing for production.
The shows should continue to use government financing for production costs while contributing a percentage of their merchandise revenue back to the government.
This would allow the shows to maintain the same production quality while possibly reimbursing the government for all of its contributions.
An added bonus to continuing government support for PBS educational programming is allowing new shows an opportunity to get off the drawing board. Meanwhile, successful shows like "Barney" and "Sesame Street" could support themselves and give some back to the government.
DAVID BURGETT FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
KANSAN STAFF
KC TRAUER, Editor
KC TRAUER, Editor
JOE HARDER, CHRISTINE LAUE
Managing editors
TOM EBLEN
General manager, news adviser
BILL SKEET, Systems coordinator
Editors
Assistant to the editor ... J.R. Clairborne
News ... Stacy Friedman
Editorial ... Terrilyn McCormick
Campus ... Ben Grove
Sports ... Kristi Fogler
Photo ... Klp Chin, Renee Kneiber
Features ... Erza Wolf
Graphics ... John Paul Fogel
AMY CASEY
Business manager
AMY STUMBO
Retail sales manager
JEANNE HINES
Sales and marketing adviser
Business Staff
Business Star
Campus sales mgr .. Ed Schager
Regional sales mgr .. Jennifer Perrier
National sales mgr .. Jennifer Evanson
Co-op sales mgr .. Blythe Focht
Production mgrs .. Brian Blowey
Kate Burgess
Marketing director .. Shelly McConnell
Creative director .. Brian Fuco
Glassel mgr .. Janice Davis
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and homeотten, or faculty or staff position. Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be
The Kansan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansan newsroom, 111 Stauffer-Flint Hall.
Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be photographed.
The Kansan editorial on Thursday seriously misrepresented the facts concerning GTA unionization. The Kansan does not strike strikes and picket lines: It should know that GTAs are attempting to organize as public employees, and under Kansas law public employees have no right to strike. Indeed, GTAs acknowledge this as one of the benefits of organizing as public employees.
Unions could improve relations between University and GTAs
It is true that at a small number of state universities GTAs have gone on strike. But that has always been in response to an administrative refusal to acknowledge them as public employees. Significantly, KU GTAs did not strike when the administration refused to acknowledge them as public employees. Rather, KU GTAs resolved themselves in a professional manner to settle the disagreement before the appropriate governmental agency — the Kansas Public Employee Relations Board. As the hearing on the issue draws to a close, it appears that KU GTAs may succeed in peacefully forcing the administration to acknowledge that under Kansas law GTAs are public employees.
Worries about strikes and picket lines at KU have no basis in fact. The law precluded public employees (and GTAs if they are found to be public
important to remember what "collegiality" means. Webster's dictionary defines collegiality as sharing power equally among colleagues. Employees of course, rarely share power equally with employers. But they can and often do approach the ideal of collegiality. Perhaps the administration should recognize KU GTAs as public employees and should allow GTAs to debate the impact that collective bargaining would have on collegiality at KU.
employees) from striking. And KU GTAs have demonstrated that they do not prefer strikes as a means of advancing their interests.
The Kansan viewpoint states that high GTA turnover will make the formation of a GTA union difficult to administer. Of course, most GTAs serve KU for several years during their graduate studies. Further, unionized GTAs at the Universities of Oregon, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida, among others, seem able to sustain GTA unions without difficulty. Turnover is simply a red herring.
As it stands, GTAs have no institutional status as a group. There is no structure within which GTAs and administrators can share power or work together to address the concerns either economic or otherwise. I am, of course, open to persuasion provided the arguments advanced are based upon facts and reason and not knee-jerk anti-union sentiments.
What does lead to an adversarial employer/employee relationship is when an employer offers arguments that can barely be made with a straight face and attempts to prevent employees from exercising their statutory rights. Indeed, during the hearing last week, even the administration's "expert" witness acknowledged during cross examination that refusing to acknowledge GTAs as public employees in an effort to avoid collective bargaining can do more damage to the administration's relationship with the GTAs than any amount of collective bargaining. Had collegiality been a top priority for the administration, it would not have denied that KU GTAs are public employees, a position rejected by every branch of university governance that has considered the question. Also a position at odds with any reasonable interpretation of the state statute defining public employees.
The Kansan correctly states that GTAs and administrators ought to work together to improve the terms and conditions of GTA employment at KU. I believe that is what a GTA union, organized under Kansas public employees statutes, will enable GTAs to do.
and amicable employer/employee relations. And by all accounts, the statutes serve that end. Despite the decline in private sector unionization, public sector unionization has continued to rise in recent years.
The Kansan editorial board states that it believes unionization will lead to an adversarial relationship between administrators and GTAs. The laws governing public sector labor relations, however, are designed to encourage professional
Human rights violated outside China
Last week, the International Olympic Committee decided that in seven years the Olympics will be in Sydney, Australia, and not Beijing. The reason, simply put, was China's atrocious human-rights record. While I agree with the committee's decision, I think that invoking "human rights" when deciding where to hold the Olympics can become problematic.
To be sure, KU GTAs remain committed to professional and collegial relations with the administration. It is
David Reidy is a lawrence philosophy doctoral candidate.
Take the 1996 Olympics, which are going to be in Atlanta. If the committee had looked at our human rights record, they might have come across Brett Kimberlin. In 1988, Kimberlin, a convicted felon, attempted to hold a news conference to announce that he once sold marijuana to Dan Quayle. The conference was canceled at the last moment, and Kimberlin was placed in special confinement. Recently, the Justice Department concluded that though Kimberlin received "disparate treatment" further investigation wasn't warranted. I
Or there's the case of Randy Weaver, a self-proclaimed white separatist in Idaho. The FBI arrested him for selling a sawed-off shotgun. When he failed to show up for court, they went to his farm. (Weaver was given the wrong date for the trial.) A shootout ensued, during which FBI agents killed his son and wife. Because an FBI agent was also killed, when the siege ended, the FBI prosecuted him
guess this means that free speech doesn't extend to criminals.
The decision to reject China for the Olympics is a step in the right direction, but we shouldn't be satisfied with this "victory." Instead, we should use it to take a look at ourselves and not just blame others.
Asset forfeiture laws are another example of this country's strange ideas on human rights. Under the laws, police can seize property and assets from people suspected of selling or possessing drugs. The seized money is given to the police and prosecutors. In California, the laws require the suspect to prove the assets were obtained legally — a far cry from "innocent until proven guilty." In 1992, for example, a woman who possessed approximately a grain of salt worth of methamphetamine had $1,013 seized from her. She failed to get her money back because the form had to be signed in two places, and she signed it only in one.
While arguing about forfeiture laws before the Supreme Court this summer, the government, according to the New York Times, "argued that forfeiture actions are not punitive but
'remedial' and that the guilt or innocence of the property owner is 'constitutionally irrelevant.'" It's frightening that the Government would ever believe that guilt or innocence is "constitutionally irrelevant." Fortunately, the Court did hold that asset forfeiture laws violate the "excessive fines" clause of the Eighth Amendment.
And of course there's the death penalty. Amnesty International continues to include the United States in its list of human rights violators because we are the only developed nation in the world that still has the death penalty.
for murder. His acquittal doesn't replace his family.
Nathan Olson is a Chicago graduate student in English.
For the Birds
by Jeff Fitzpatrick