Opinion
Lawrence Journal-World l LJWorld.com l Thursday, March 13, 2014
EDITORIALS
Legislative logic? Even when they are trying to address specific legislative priorities, KU officials’ requests for funding continue to fall on deaf ears in the Kansas Legislature.
K
ansas University officials must be a little puzzled by the reaction they are getting from state legislators. On two occasions this week, legislators have stripped from budget bills KU funding requests directed at goals specifically set forth by legislators. In both cases, KU officials made a compelling case for how the funding would benefit the state and, in both cases, legislators applied what appeared to be capricious justifications for denying the requests. First came the action of a Senate budget subcommittee which deleted $2 million earmarked for an institute to help KU collaborate with private pharmaceutical companies in the development of new technologies and drugs. KU’s research in this field already has yielded significant benefit for the state, and, as Sen. Laura Kelly, a member of the subcommittee, pointed out, “This program will do exactly what we have been pounding the regents to do, working with the private sector.” Her comment came as she was asking Sen. Tom Arpke why he and Sen. Steve Abrams would single the KU institute out for deletion, saying the move “looks like a personal vendetta.” Arpke denied that charge and spouted some random assertion about the cut being justified because of declining enrollment at KU. KU officials said they hoped the funding would be restored by the full Senate Ways and Means Committee, but that committee took its own shot at KU on Tuesday by denying any funding assistance for a new medical education building at the KU Medical Center. The building is needed not only to accommodate larger medical school classes — to help address legislators’ concern about a state doctor shortage — but also to make sure the school can keep its vital accreditation. Dr. Doug Girod, executive vice chancellor of the medical center, told committee members that the medical school’s accrediting body already had cited KU for noncompliance because of its facilities and that losing its accreditation would be a huge setback for the school. Again, it seemed like a compelling case, but it was easily dismissed by the committee, whose chairman, Sen. Ty Masterson, said after the meeting “I don’t feel the accreditation is in jeopardy. If it were, we could reconsider what we need to reconsider.” What accrediting group did Masterson talk to? What does he know that Girod doesn’t? On what does he base his seemingly baseless conclusion that the school’s accreditation isn’t in jeopardy? KU officials are showing admirable restraint in the face of adversity, but they have a right to feel frustrated by the response they are receiving from legislators on issues of vital importance to the university. The people of Kansas need to hold their legislators accountable for capricious or vindictive KU budget decisions that will hurt the state as a whole.
Letters Policy
Letters to the Public Forum should be 250 words or less, be of public interest and should avoid name-calling and libelous language. The Journal-World reserves the right to edit letters, as long as viewpoints are not altered. By submitting letters, you grant the Journal-World a nonexclusive license to publish, copy and distribute your work, while acknowledging that you are the author of the work. Letters must bear the name, address and telephone number of the writer. Letters may be submitted by mail to Box 888, Lawrence Ks. 66044 or by email to: letters@ljworld.com
LAWRENCE
Journal-World
®
Established 1891
W.C. Simons (1871-1952) Publisher, 1891-1944 Dolph Simons Sr. (1904-1989) Publisher, 1944-1962; Editor, 1950-1979
Dolph C. Simons Jr., Editor Julie Wright, Managing Editor Ed Ciambrone, Production Manager
Mike Countryman, Director of Circulation
Ann Gardner, Editorial Page Editor
THE WORLD COMPANY
Dolph C. Simons Jr., Chairman Dolph C. Simons III, Dan C. Simons, President, President, Newspapers Division
Electronics Division
Suzanne Schlicht, Chief Operating Officer Scott Stanford, General Manager
9A
Compromise in Ukraine unlikely Washington — It’s still possible to imagine a fuzzy, face-saving compromise in Ukraine: Crimea would have a new, quasi-autonomous administrative status blessed by Moscow and Kiev. The problem is that few analysts think Russian President Vladimir Putin will swallow this diplomatic pill. Secretary of State John Kerry will make one more try, seeing his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in London on Friday; Kerry hasn’t ruled out traveling on to see Putin himself. But that’s unlikely to stop the planned referendum this Sunday in which Crimeans are almost certain to vote to break away from Ukraine. What happens next, if Putin doesn’t take Kerry’s “offramp”? That’s quite literally a guessing game for the Obama administration. Officials can’t be sure how the Russian leader will move; they hope the West will stay united in imposing punitive sanctions, but that unity can’t be guaranteed. Above all, U.S. officials are assessing whether the Ukraine crisis will mean a real breach in U.S.-Russian relations — one that could torpedo joint diplomatic efforts over Syria and Iran — or whether common interests can prevail. You hear two strains of opinion about Putin from administration officials and other foreign policy analysts. For simplicity’s sake, let’s summarize these two views as “Putin is strong” and “Putin is weak.”
David Ignatius
davidignatius@washpost.com
“
The Ukraine showdown, in a sense, has been a confrontation, as Kerry argues, between a 19th-century worldview and a 21stcentury approach.” Those who see the Russian leader playing a strong hand argue that he has been readying such a military intervention for more than a decade. He invaded Georgia in 2008 and faced little Western opposition. He has now used military force to protect Russia’s interests in Ukraine and, perhaps, other neighboring states — prompting talk of sanctions but no serious military response. He has shown that a dictator’s bullying tactics can be successful. The alternative view of a weak Putin begins with the fundamentals: Russia is in political, economic and social decline. Putin’s abrasive tactics, far from intimidating Ukraine, led its people to depose Russian-backed President Viktor Yanukovych last month and form a new gov-
ernment. By his truculent behavior, Putin has driven Russia’s neighbors closer to NATO. A weak Putin, in this view, has stumbled into the very situation he most fears. My guess is that Putin will be a winner only in the short run. The negatives for Russia have probably increased because of the events of the past month. Russia has likely lost most of Ukraine as a buffer state, even if it claims Crimea as a consolation prize. The world simply isn’t moving Russia’s way. A small sign of Putin’s long-term problem is that both China and Japan have pulled back from Moscow, thanks to the Crimea adventure. China fears that the Crimean secessionist movement could be a model for Tibet; Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who had been warming to Putin, has shown solidarity with America and Europe. Will the Ukraine crisis prove a major turning point, tipping the world toward a new cold war? Despite the obvious dangers of confrontation, many analysts say that’s unlikely. Should Crimeans endorse independence as expected, the Russian parliament may up the ante by voting to annex the region. But what may follow is a period in which the region’s status is legally undefined, and the U.S. continues to seek a compromise between Kiev and Moscow. Putin could disrupt that by encouraging unrest in Russian-speaking cities
of eastern Ukraine, such as Donetsk and Kharkiv — and threatening further intervention. But that risky course is unlikely. U.S. officials also doubt that Russia will sabotage the chemical-weapons disposal agreement in Syria or the P5+1 negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program. Putin has a personal stake in both, and they are symbols of Russia’s influence. If Putin were to scuttle such diplomacy, it would deepen Russia’s isolation. Putin must also be careful about the domestic consequences of his Crimea putsch. Yes, it has brought him popularity in Russia as a tough, nationalistic leader. But it may also encourage secessionists in Dagestan, Chechnya and other potential breakaway regions. The Ukraine showdown, in a sense, has been a confrontation, as Kerry argues, between a 19th-century worldview and a 21st-century approach. Putin’s moves on the ground have been decisive, with immediate impact. The U.S.-led response has been collective, deliberative and slower to emerge. The world was impressed initially by the “shock and awe” of America’s military intervention in Iraq in 2003. One thing on which Putin and President Obama can agree is that the benefits of that military intervention didn’t last. — David Ignatius is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group.
OLD HOME TOWN
100
From the L a w r e n c e Daily Journal-World for years March 13, 1914: ago “Catching the IN 1914 Lawrence spirit of getting busy early this year, the brick plant will open for work next Monday. Fifty men will be employed. The plant does not usually open until April but this year it will give men work about three weeks before the regular time.” — Compiled by Sarah St. John
Read more Old Home Town at LJWorld.com/news/lawrence/ history/old_home_town.
Gun policies ignore common sense A few words about Nathan Entingh’s hand gun. Meaning, you should understand, not a gun you hold in your hand, but rather, the hand itself, thumb cocked and index finger extended to resemble a pistol. One afternoon late last month, Entingh, who goes to school in Columbus, Ohio, was goofing off in science class when he raised such a “hand gun,” pointed it at another kid’s head, and said, “Boom.” Not a good thing to do and Entingh, who is 10, should certainly have been reprimanded. Instead, he was suspended for three days. His father, Paul, says he’s been told that if it happens again, the next suspension may be permanent. Nobody involved has accused the boy of making a serious threat, posing a serious danger or indeed, of being anything except an average adolescent. Doesn’t matter. Ohio, you see, has a “zero tolerance” policy toward guns or look-alike guns in schools, “zero tolerance” being the favored new millennium approach to keeping schools safe. As in, remove human judgment from the equation. Pretend all infractions are created equal. Treat the girl who brings Midol to class like a heroin dealer. Treat the kindergartner who kisses a
Leonard Pitts Jr. lpitts@miamiherald.com
“
If you think that’s crazy, you probably don’t want to hear about the Maryland second-grader who was suspended last year for chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a pistol.”
classmate on the cheek like a sexual predator. And send Nathan Entingh home because, like virtually every American boy who ever existed has done at one time or another, he pointed his finger and made shooting sounds. If you think that’s crazy, you probably don’t want to hear about the Maryland second-grader who was suspended last year for chewing a Pop Tart into the shape of a pistol. Surely we will all sleep more peacefully tonight, knowing our schools are safe from pointing fingers
and Pop Tart violence. In the meantime, laws protecting Americans from real guns are marked by an appalling flaccidity that countenances firearms in bars, churches, schools, backyards — Florida seems poised to arm teachers — essentially every nook and cranny of daily life. There is not simply something wrong with that picture. There is something bizarre, something that speaks and reeks of the irresolution of unserious people, unable to grapple thoughtfully with, and devise intelligent solutions for, the problems that press us. Nathan is only the latest person to pay the price for that failure. His suspension is manifestly unfair. Consider: The average kid spends about 30 hours a week in front of the television. By the age of 18, researchers say, he or she has seen 200,000 acts of violence and 16,000 murders. Maybe you’re skeptical of those statistics. Maybe you suspect researchers of using a model that draws no distinction between Wile E. Coyote falling off a cliff and a shootout on “Breaking Bad.” Fair enough. Cut the numbers in half. That’s still a lot of violence, most of it gun-related. And we haven’t even mentioned video games yet.
The argument here is not that video games or violent television “cause” school violence. Rather, it’s that there is a stark disconnect when as a society we spend so much time making guns seem deeply cool, darkly dangerous and ever present — and then punish a child for being enticed by them. Nathan is confused by what happened to him and well he should be. His confusion reflects our confusion, our inability to find consensus. There are many things we could do if we were serious about combating school violence. We could beef up mental-health services and in-school counseling for troubled kids, we could require real gun-safety training and real background checks for gun owners, we could mandate they carry insurance on their weapons. Instead, we crack down on boys making finger guns and shooting sounds. A reporter from the Columbus Dispatch asked Nathan about his suspension. He said, “I was thinking it was dumb.” It says something that a 10-year-old can see what many of us obviously cannot. — Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald.