™@ PUBLIC FORUM, AA-2 @ READER ADVOCATE, AA-2 Mi ROLLY REPORT, AA-3 SUNDAY, MARCH 11, 2001 OUR VIEW The Salt Lake Tribune’s Editorial Position City Plan Is Best Star-gazing is entertaining and aweinspiring, but it is also about learning and science. A planetarium should be aboutall of those things, tog. While its shows should be entertaining, a planetarium is primarily an educational in- stitution. That’s why Mayor Rocky Anderson’s plan to move Hansen Planetarium to Salt LakeCity’s Library Square as part of a larger science and technology center makes a world of sense. Most planetariums around the nation are organized that way. The competing proposal to locate the planetarium in the Gateway developmentin conjunction with the Children’s Museum of Utah would emphasize the planetarium’s entertainment function over education. That's backwards. What’s more, the large-format film theater that also would be located there (MAX is the best-known brand name) actually would draw audiences away from the planetarium. While there undoubtedly would be cross-over between the planetarium audiences andthe Children’s Museum at the Gateway, the planetarium’s emphasis on_ science, space exploration, astrophysics and technology would be much more at home in the context of the proposed SciTech Center at the Library Block. It simply would be betterfit in terms ofpurpose. Proponents ofGateway argue that the throngs of tourists and shoppers there will flock to the planetarium, but consultant studies show that planetarium audiences in general are nottourists and shoppers. Rather, they are scienceoriented adults who enjoy the planetarium themselves and are eager to share the experience with their children. Those are precisely the same people to whom the SciTech Center would be appealing. e SciTechease which would be housed in the old library building, is. itself an exciting proposal. Utah has nothing like an interactive, experiential science and technology institution now. Combining it with a new $4.5 million building for the planetarium dome, to be located betweenthe old library and the new one now under construction, holds tremendouspromise. True, there are many questions about this plan that remain unanswered. SciTech is a new organization without a track record, and it mustraise $10 million to $15 million in Hee funds to get off the ground. But it has $220,000 in planning funds from the Legislature, and since the planetarium is at a crossroads, now maybe the timeto launch. TheSalt Lake County Council should put the brakes on the plan to invest $20 million in taxpayer funds on the Gateway pro- posal and throwits weight behind-creating an integrated science center, including the planetarium,on Library Square. GoodLegislation It is never a good idea for correction officers to have sexual relations with inmates. For everyone’s safety, the relationship between guard and prisoner mustbe professional, and to a significant degree distant. The reality, however, is that people who spend most of their waking hours together occasionally develop sexual attractions. Whetherfolks are in an office setting or ina prison,that is just a part of the human condition. The debate continues whether such fraternization is acceptable in the workplace, but there is no question about the problems caused by inmates having sex with guards or inmnates having sex with each otherinprison.It causes problerts, and allowing any form of the practice tends to victimize female inmates more than male inmates. Sen. Paula Julander, D-Salt Lake City, recognized the state prison system’s problem. The law was not clear on the matter. She sponsored a measure designed to protect female inmates from sexual abuse by making any sexual contact between officer and inmate illegal. The bill was passed by both houses and was signed by Gov. Mike Leavitt last week. Custodial sexual relations and custodial sexual misconduct statutes now cover inappropriate acts committed by a corrections or police officer, and treat them as third-degree felonies. The new law,which goesintoeffect July 1, covers all forms of sexual abuse, such as oral sex, and specifically states that an officer cannot use consensual sex as a defense. Amnesty International USA praised the law andlauded the measure for including in the law various locations where inmates and correction officers might havecontact, such as hospitals and clinics. Clearly, it is a good law and Julander andherfellow legislators are to be congratulated for their work. Lawsand strong penalties for sexual abuse by Correction officers — along with consistent training for guards — are a critical part of reducing the incidents of sexual abuse in Utah jails. Julander has correctly noted this progressive step isn’t the last improvement needed in the correctionofficer’s code of conduct. She plans to induce a measure next year to similarly protect juveniles whoare in custody. Thatis another nec- essary step in protecting prisoners. The Legislature and governorshould support her measure next year justlike they did this year. Tawdry Tuition Hikes Atfirst blush,it's hard to argue with the tuition hikes Utah’s four-year colleges and universities want to implément for the upcoming academic year. Utah lawmakers have never been as generous with higher education as they are with public education. However, there is something tawdry about these proposed tuition hikes. They far exceed therateofinflation and, more importantly, are taking advantage of a largely captive audience to accomplish whatthe Legislature andall of the state's citizenry are responsible for doing. Whatis particularly gallingis the fact that lawmakers themselves have provided the vehicle for these increases, apparently deciding that Utah’s cash- strapped college students are better suited to finance the state’s higher education system. Utah's higher education governing board, the Board of Regents, some time adopted a 4 percent base hike. The er education system may add as muchas 2 percent on top ofthis to comply with an unwritten legislative policy that tuition finance a fourth of faculty pay. In addition, legislators have approved a schemeadopted lastfall by the regents in which the schools can adopt tuition hikes on top of the systemwide ones, ‘Thestate's four-year colleges and two research universities plan to take advantage of it. Fast-growing Utah Valley State College is.thinking of a 7 percent increase on top of an expected statewide 5.5 percent rise while Weber State University is thinking of imposing a 1.5 percentsurcharge. While it can be argued that students should bear a significant portion of the cost of their higher education, it can be argued even more legitimately that if lawmakers think students should pay significant tuition like those attending private schools, then the state should reduce the numberofits colleges and universities — a benefit to all taxpayers — andlet privateinstitutions fill the void. ‘igher educationis a privilege that students should be expected and willingly pay for, then lawmakers should start closing some of Utah's higher education institutions down and save taxpayers somereal money. Other states with muchlarger populations than Utah get by just fine with fewer state-supported institutions offering four-year degrees. Florida, for example, has but four such schools while Utah seven. Onthe other hand,if Utah'sofficials think seven schoolsoffering baccalaureate or higher degrees is not excessive, they should fund them adequately enough that the schools do not have to get’out their students what they cannot seem to getout of the Legislature. TheSalt LakeTribune UTAH'S INDEPENDENT VOICESINCE1871 PAST PUBLISHERS cot PUBLISHER John F. Fitzpatrick (1924-1960) ‘Dominic Welch John W. Gallivan (1960-1983) EDITOR Jerry O'Brien (1983-1994) James E. Shelledy KEARNS-TRIBUNE CORPORATION,143 8. MAIN ST. SALT LAKE CITY, M111 The Debate on Campaign Finance Reform Is Heating up Now That BushIsin the Fray WASHINGTON — Shortly before 7 o’clock on Saturday morning, Feb. 10, Davip BRODER President Bush, up early as usual, read a New York Times editorial titled “Mr, Hagel’s Reform Ruse,” ripping a campaign finance reform bill sponsored by Sen. Chuck Hagel, a Nebraska Republican. According to the editorial, the Hagel bill, arival to the McCain-Feingold legislation that would ban “soft money”contributionsto political parties outright, “would open more loopholes than it attempts to close and would do nothing to stop the flow ofcorrupt money into the system.” Bush picked up the phone and awakened his top political aide, Karl Rove. “Call Hagel, and tell: him to keep going,” were the words that Rove heard. That phonecall signaled an important shift in the dynamics ofthe coming debate on overhaul of the campaign finance system, scheduled to hit the Senate floor before the Easter recess, With Democratic Senate gainslast November, fresh support from such previous opponents as Republican Sen. Thad Cochran ofMississippi, and the momentum the issue acquired from the last campaign and the recent Clinton pardons controversy, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain and his Democratic partner, Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold, appeared poised for victory. Their bill, banningall those big soft moneycontributions from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals to the political parties, twice has passed the House and twice has received majority support in the Senate,onlyto fall victim to a threatened filibuster. Now, it appears, McCain and Feingold have the 60 votes needed to cutoffa filibuster. But Bush does not like the McCainFeingoldbill. Pressed by McCain during the primaries last year, Bush said he would be willing to ban soft money from labor and business butnot from individuals. Still, the decision to veto a major campaign finance reform bill — as his father did before him — would not be a comfortable one politically, given the heightened publicsensitivity to the issue. Enter Chuck Hagel, who supported McCainoverBushfor the nomination but differs with the Arizonan on the essentials of campaign finance reform. He proposed a substitute for McCain-Feingold in the last Congress,butit drewlittle notice. With Bush’s backing, and some Democratic co-sponsors, it now becomes the main alternative — or threat — to McCain-Feingold. McCain andhis fellow reformers inside and outside Congress say the heart of the campaign finance problem lies in unrestricted soft money contributions, which give donors special access to policymakers and create at least an appearance — andperhaps a reality — of special favors being granted in return. They would end the practice — even though both parties have become increasingly dependenton soft money to finance campaignsfortheir candidates. Hagel has a different view. He thinks the real threat comes notfrom soft money contributionsto the parties, but from independent expenditures and ads paid for by wealthy individuals or affluent organizations whoconceal their identity from the public. “We know who’s giving and getting soft money,” he told me, “and we can judge their motives and their actions.” Hagel would bow to public opinion Sr enough to cap the,soft money tions at $60,000 (orless,if that would help pass his bill), but he would not ban them. A ban,hesays, would simplydivert that moneyinto other channels, where there wouldbe less visibility and less account- ability for the spending. Reform groups like Common Cause regard the Hagel bill as a Trojan horse, one that could give some wavering senators an excuse not to vote for McCainFeingold. But many senators worry more about facing an unexpected barrage of ads, financed by an unknown interest group orindividual, than they do about their party collecting soft money to spend on campaigns. From whatRovetells me, Bush shares their view. “He wants to strengthen the political parties,” Rove said, “and not outside interest groups. Like Hagel, he realizes that moneywill find its way into the political system, and he thinks it ought to be done in a way that makes it visible, not invisible.” The debateis get- ting serious — andit will become more pointed, now that everyone including the presidentis in the act. Media FeedsNarcissism of Young People; Wild Attention Leads to Youth Violence “Another school shooting,” said the airport lot attendant as he wearily punched myticket. “Sameol’, sameol’.” Thus I learned aboutthe recent school shooting in. Santee, Calif., which, wearily-wearily, isn't even the latest. Faster than you can say copy-cat, another student picked up a gun the following day and shota classmatein Williamsport, Pa. The now-routineness of school shootings and the subsequent cynicism they provoke may provide some insight into the causes we so desperately seek, as we wonder why children are killing children. Conspicuously absent from the laundry list of usual suspects — inattentive parents, bullies, access to guns — is the role of the media. Notthe R-rated flicks or bloody adult-rated video games, though these surely contribute to the moral deterioration of a deranged mind. Rather’ the media that can't stop talking about the latest tragedy, creating larger-than-life mythologies around the strange megalomaniacs who solve personal problems with violence — today the quickest, sure-fire ticket to instant star- dom. ‘The parkinglot attendant’s ennui may be owing less to the repetition of tragedy than to the media saturation such tragedies inevitably provoke. Some spineless little slug murders his teachers or classmates and he's not a spineless little slug any more. He's a victim in handcuffs on KATHLEEN PARKER TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES the coverofTime; a sad face ontelevision, details at 6 p.m.; a national figure and face, An ImportantPerson.A star! In the 24 to 36 hours afterlittle what'shis‘name murdered two children and wounded 13 others at Santana High School, you couldn't escape him and his story. Suddenly we knew his name, his background,friends, familyand teachers. For two days at least, talk-show hosts led hand-wringing discussions about the whys and wherefores of violent children. Not one I caught, from evening talk to morning schlock, mentioned the possible role of their own excessive coverage in contributing to recent events and foretelling future ones, Yet somewhere, you just know, some loser with a chip on his shoulder is thinking: Hey, that could be me! The nar- cissist wants nothing more than the attention we give him in return for his abomination. You want to feed and nurture a murderer compelled by selfobsession andfaux self-esteem? Offer him a TV camera,bold type andprimetime. Of coursé I feel sorry for any 15-yearold so miserable he effectively commits suicide, though my sympathies are diminished by the lives he takes with him. One can't help noting, too, that many children transcend personal miseries far more challenging and corrosive than those posed by classroom bullies. In the context of narcissism, the mystery of children killing becomes less mysterious. That we have more such killers than we used to isn't so much about guns and bullies as it is about our Me-First culture, a convenient mechanism of whichis media fame. Chicago psychologist Barbara Lerner nailed it two years ago following the Columbine shootings: “We have more wan: ton school boykillers today because we have more narcissists," she said. “And the step from being a narcissist to a wanton killer is a short one, especially in adolescence.” Especially given the immediate rewards. When you're a nobody and want to be a somebody, nothing works like a .22 pistol and a compliant media. Clearly we can't ignore the miniature thugs among usnorthe stories they script with blood, but we can abridge them with contempt and we should minimize their celebrity with inattention.