| OCR Text |
Show OPINI WEDNESDAY 225 TAGt Daily Utah Chronicle THE CHRONICLE'S VIEW Y&0 Religious groups should be funded by ASUU Associated Students of the of Utah Senate Assembly have recently tackled an issue that may have constitutional ramifications. The question is whether or not religious student groups may receive funding from the ASUU legislative bodies for various religious activi- of government, it is not a part of either federal or state government. It is generally good policy for ASUU to follow constitutional rules, such as preserving the right to free speech. But as it pertains to funding guidelines, ASUU should not subject to the laws found in both the state and U.S. Constitu- ties. tions. ASUU has an annual budget of more than $1 million, some of which is used to fund student groups. But these funds are generated entirely from student fees, not from state funds. Therefore, even if The In the ASUU Constitution, Article IV, Section 3 states that "ASUU will not fund religious activities." This is based on Article I, Section 4 of the Utah State Constitution, which provides that "The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Some ASUU senators and Assembly representatives are concerned that if the two groups continue to even partially honor religious groups' funding requests, they will be in direct violation of the ASUU, state and U.S. Constitutions. It's the o common all-to- and-sta- separation-of-churc- h te debate only this time, resurrected within the walls of ASUU. The real intent of the constitutional amendment is still open to interpretation. But all of the fuss over funding religious groups is completely unnecessary. Although ASUU is the U's form of "student government," and though it is structured after the executive, legislative and judicial branches the intent of the separation clause is to completely separate church and state, it has no relevance in the case of religious groups being funded by ASUU. Religious groups at the U provide a significant contribution to campus life. They plan worthwhile events that are generally open to the entire student body. Cutting funding for these groups will paralyze most of them, preventing them from servicing the needs of their members and reaching out to other students on campus who wish to participate. With any hope, the voices of reason in ASUU which seek to strike the cause preventing the funding religious organizations will overpower those who blindly see ASUU as an extension of state and federal government. Unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of The Daily Utah Chronicle Editorial Board. Editorial columns and letters to the editor are strictly the opinions of the author. The forum created on the Opinion Page is one based on vigorous debate, while at the same time demanding tolerance and respect. Material defamatory to an individual or group because of race, ethnic background, gender, appearance or sexual orientation will be edited or will not be published. Look . Tlf?... I VVWEjmT 1r-- LETTERS TO V BSjvi V . .. - THE EDITOR Liberals not to blame for education woes Editor: As a teacher and a student, I read with great interest the Feb. 18 point counterpoint discussion about funding issues and public education ("Finding the best solution for public education problems"). My letter is written in response to the column written by Jasyn Jones. Overall, I found his argument contradictory at best and completely unfounded at worst. I was taken aback by the statement that all teachers are only interested in "indoctrinating students in liberal propaphilosophy and ganda." I would welcome him to visit my classroom any day of the week, where he will find my students actively engaged in what he terms proven educational methods. In fact, it is my personal experience that teachers don't have adequate time left-win- g to meet simple curriculum goals, let alone have time to indoctrinate their students with such concepts as Marxism and moral relativism Jones wrote that liberals are foolish to believe that "every problem can be solved by spending money," but then he closed by pointing out that Republicans not Democrats have "more than doubled educational funding" since they gained the majority in 1994. It seems that his view is somewhat hypocritical: Blame the liberals for wanting to increase funding, yet hail the conservatives as heroes when the funding increases actually happen. Jones also said that liberals are "setting the policies and planning curriculum" and suggests that conservatives have somehow been left out of the loop when it comes to the educational reform. Consider this: No Child Left Behind was authored completely by conservatives in the Bush administration without a liberal agenda-sette- r (or a teacher, I might add) at the table. I wonder how Jones felt when the state Le- gislaturea historically conservative attempted last week to exour state from Bush's attempt empt at education reform. It seems to me that conservatives aren't all together sure themselves of the proper solution for the problems facing educa- body tion. Oversimplified answers that blame one side of the political aisle are not welcome in a discussion that is as vast and complex as public education. Blaming liberals for all of society's ills is only taking the easy way out. Annie Schmutz Skeem Master's of Education Candidate Minority population deserves freedom, too Editor: As a loyal reader of the Opinion section of The Daily Utah Chronicle, I have read hundreds of letters nearly all biased by the egocentric or ethnocentric ideology of the authors. Reading Ryan Jolley's Feb. 18 letter ("Liberal rhetoric is out of hand"), I realized that this is just another attempt by the majority population to suppress the minority's freedom. I am not sure if everyone is aware, but there was a time when women and African Americans couldn't vote. If it weren't for "progressive" ideology, we'd still be a nation run solely by the white, male Protestant By Jolley's argument, African Americans would still have to sit in the back of the bus, allowing only white Americans (the majority) the opportunity to sit in front. Obviously, this attack on liberals requires a great deal more thought. In regards to Christina Axson Flynn's fight for virtue against the theater department, I applaud her decision to stand up for her beliefs, but I think it is hypocritical of her to ask the department to change in order to appease her personal views on morality. I left the theater program for the same reasons as she, but what right do we have to ask other people not to express them- that allows us, as Americans, to and function as a society. If you don't agree with how some people express themselves, that's fine. But when you ask them not to express themselves, you are denying the very foundations that this nation was built upon. While I am morally opposed to homosexuality and believe it to be wrong, I see no reason to deny those who practice it the right to express their love for each other through marriage. Like Rosa Parks before them, they have every right to express their outrage for the situation they've been presented co-exi- st with. selves? It is this freedom of expression Wes Stapley Freshman, Undeclared point counter point Are demonstrators were silent during the Clinton years Yes Ml activists motivated by political persuasion? anti-wa- r anti-w- ar are hypocrites. stark contrast to their strident rhetoric, the "peace" movement is mostly political comprised of two-bchiselers, craven opportunists and cowardly leftists. rhetoric is Their anti-wnothing more than a convenient pose. They are not merely Their only purpose is to attack President Bush. Proof is astoundingly easy to come . A it ar anti-wa- r, by. In 1993, President Clinton turned what had been a humanitarian exercise dispensing food to starving Soma-li- s into a hunt and-destr- mission. Warlord Muhammad Farah Idid became the focus of U.S. Special Forces raids. In one day, in Mogadishu, 19 Americans died, along with activ1,000 Somalis. Anti-wists were silent. In 1994, U.S. forces invaded Haiti to restore a deposed dictator to power. This dictator, Jean Bertrand Aristide, was a brutal thug known for "necklacing" his opponents, ar tires putting gasoline-fille- d around their necks and setting them afire. Clinton's gift to Haiti was a decade-lon- g nightmare of tyranny and terror. The island is currently embroiled in civil war, one set in motion by Clinton's failed policies. Once again, anti-wactivists said nothing. In 1995, the United States invaded Bosnia, without U.N. permission, in order ar to support a unilateral U.S. peace process. What began as a peacekeeping mission turned into a war as Clinton ordered U.S. airstrikes. These airstrikcs killed hundreds of innocent civilians. Anti-wactivists raised no objections to these deaths. In 1999, we bombed Yugoslavian Kosovo, without U.N. ar Jasyn Jones Opinion Columnist permission. Under Wesley Clark's incompetent command, we bombed hospitals, neighborhoods, passenger trains, diplomatic residences and the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. Nearly 300 civilians were killed as "collateral damage." Once again, "antiwar" activists stood mute or, in the case of Susan Sontag and others, openly advocated war. Over the years, Clinton had bombed Iraqi troops, Afghani camps and an aspirin factory in the Sudan. After all of this violence and war, peace activists remained quiet The Clinton administration invaded foreign countries without U.N. approval pursued a unilateral foreign policy and waged war at the drop of a hat, on flimsy evidence that was later proven false. The Sudanese aspirin factory was said to manufacture chemical weapons of mass destruction it didn't. Serbs were alleged to have killed 100,000 civilians and buried their bodies in mass graves. After the invasion, only 3,000 were they when Haiti was invaded? Where were they when Somalia became a war zone? Where were the bitter and disapproving letters to the editor? Where were the mass protests, the marches on Washington? Where were the editorials, protesting the lives of the innocent civilians taken by the heartless U.S. military? Where was the mass condemnation of the "warmonger" president? Where, in short, were all the peace activists? Apparently, peace activists are only anti-wwhen it suits them, when a Republican is in office. Even my vaunted rhetorical skills are ar insufficient to convey my utter contempt for the political opportunists who cover their partisan political ambitions with the convenient hypocrisy of "anti war" activism. Now these hypocritical leftists are in an uproar about the War on Terror. They openly weep at the death of a single Iraqi child, alleging that this makes the liberation of Iraq meaningless. Where were their tears when Clinton's wars were killing innocent children? Peace activists have compromised their moral author- ruined their reputation and shredded their credibility, yet expect us to take their arguments seriously. Their pretend principles are nothing more than partisan tools to be wielded against political bodies were found most opponents. Political victories are all that matter to them. belonged to soldiers, not inWar and death mean nocent civilians. In the face of all this, peace activists stood nothing to these hypocritir cal activists. If they in utter silence. The question is simple: if cared, the activists would where have raised objections during they're really Clinton's years of wars and were they? Where were invasions. Their hypocrisy is they when the bombs fell in ity, anti-wa- anti-wa- r, Kosovo, Bosnia, the Sudan, Iraq and Afghanistan? Where overwhelming. letters chronicle. Utah, edu No Clinton was clearly criticized in foreign affairs peace lengthy censuring American presidents. During the Vietnam era, presidents of both parties received the brunt of remarkable public outrage. With the end of the Cold War, the international atmosphere calmed dramatically. Consequently, protests decreased in intensity and frequency during the 1980s and 1990s. But recent leaders of both parties have contine demued to face onstrators voicing opposition to public policy. Understandably, peace protesters voice their outrage about the war in Iraq. Demonstrating against the war does not mean activists worship all Democrats and vilify all Republicans. If anything, peace activists view both parties with contempt as they march for change. Most protesters criticize Democrats and Republicans alike for abandoning nonviolent principles they hold dear. Compared to President Bush, President Clinton's international actions did not galvanize as many protesters to action because, plainly, they were not as controversial. Clinton's actions were never as ruthless, and most people did not view his motives as questionable. In Yugoslavia, the United States acted with international support in circumstances much more complex than today's situation. Plus, the global climate was much less precarious during the Clinton administration, so the public had less cause for concern. Yet peace activists were Historically, large-scal- hardly "silent." Clinton was extensively criticized for his actions in the international arena. Activists were out in full force during much of his Kathleen Gurr Opinion Columnist administration, livid about Clinton's lack of intervention in Rwanda. Many peace activists openly blamed him for violence in Haiti. NATO's bombing in Yugoslavia was greeted with numerous protests nationwide, and many groups criticized Clinton for coddling Milosevic and intensifying the conflict in Kosovo. The antiwar movement picks up speed when wars are unsuccessful and unpopular: Iraq is both, while many of Clinton's policies were neither. That's not a reflection on activists' double standards, but a reflection of general public reaction. Though peace activists criticize both parties, they justifiably take greater issue with Republicans as the worse of two evils. Bush deceived the public about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, launching an unprovoked war in spite of widespread international opposition. Naturally, peace activists are outraged by Bush's behavior. While the country grappled with a stammering economy, he unilaterally invaded Iraq. While the United States struggled to fight terrorism at home, Bush diverted valuable money, time and effort into a senseless conflict thousands of miles away. Bush's haughty arrogance is every peace protestor's worst nightmare: a powerful, aggressive leader thumbing his nose at international agreements, invading countries and aggravating proliferation. There is nothing hypocritical about the peaceful public's furious reaction to the Bush administration. But speaking of hypocrites, how about the shifting Republican position on war and patriotism? People who once scoffed at Clinton's justification for action in Kosovo now condemn anyone who criticizes American military action as unpatriotic. For example, conservative Sean Hannity adamantly opposed U.S. action in Kosovo, asking liberals to explain to parents of soldiers that "may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life." Today, he scorns identical sentiments as inappropriate and "un American." The double standards are obvious: Conservatives support war when it's their war and they play the peace card when they aren't in charge. Though his foreign policies were not as divisive as Bush's, Clinton was still widely criticized. It is an obvious lie to say that peace activists "stood in utter silence" when, in reality, they protested military action in Kosovo, Haiti and Yugoslavia. But the current situation is much more controversial and much more prolonged. Activists are rightly outraged at Bush's absurd, unprovoked action in Iraq and will continue to voice their anger as the conflict extends. Demonstrating against war doesn't make protesters hypocrites it makes them active citizens whose involvement is commendable, whether one agrees with their principles or not. tetters c 'chronicle, utjh. edu |
