OCR Text |
Show OPINION BRANDON SCHRAND | COMMENTARY DERK Journal 1-23-98 i . The no-crime rate at SUU Current fairy tales many people subscribe to: Santa Claus, a geocentric universe, abstinence from all things “bad” and no-crime rate at SUU. While such notions are as comfy as a cup of cocoa, they really don’t help us much in the plane of thought called reality. The no-crime rate at SUU is a real mind puzzler. As of late SUUSA has been debating this issue during heated talks of allocating funds for an additional Blue Phone on campus. For those of you who are not familiar with this issue, allow me to explain. Blue Phones are security phones you see on every university campus in the state of Utah, except SUU. Campus Planning calls for a total of nine security phones dispersed evenly on campus. Thus far we have four to be installed in the spring. The debates are over an additional phone and the subsequent cost entailed. How much money are we talking about here? $5,000 to be exact. The arguments: A.) “It's too expensive.” I don’t know about you, but I would never want to be the person to place a dollar value on a human'’s life or safety. If Campus Planning calls for a total of nine Blue Phones anyway, and SUU has the highest growth rate in Utah, it might be prudent to spend now. In five years, we may want to spend money on academic facilities when in the influx of students is much greater as well as the subsequent demands of a larger campus (i.e. more computers, books, etc.) The idea of putting off the allocation is nothing shy of dismissing responsibility. We have a handful of senators with real experience trying to tackle real problems and they are at a virtual stalemate with the other senators who are adamant about not looking after their students’ safety. Argument B.) “We don’t want our campus to have a negative image because of all these security phones.” Good point. I would really like to purchase a Jaguar but it comes with seat belts and seat belts give me a negative image of cars. I like the image factor because the alternative to having security phones is much better. Rapes or attacks that potentially could have been prevented are much better press than Blue Phones. I've never seen an institution s0 obsessed with image. SUU is like a giant supermodel: beautiful on the outside, but inside there are some serious health problems. Maybe we should call our school SMU (SuperModel University). Argument C.) “We want to measure the effectiveness of four Blue Phones first...” Yes. I'm sure this is the answer. What increments of measure shall we use? Cups, gallons, pounds, or lives? Argument D.) “Well, things like that [rapes, attacks, what have you] really don’t happen here.” I hope whoever said this is a gambling person by nature because it's a pretty bold statement. I'd like to know who feels comfortable with being elected by the students and then denying them a certain, inherent safety. God forbid a student gets attacked and their parents start asking questions as to why their son or daughter’s situation wasn’t prevented. God forbid they find out some student senators placed the value of $5,000 above the safety of their child. Sweet dreams, senators. Sweet dreams in the land of fairy tales and a no-crime rate SMU. Brandon R, Schrand is a senior English major. UNIVERSITY _ OURNAL Campus Editor Consulting Sports Editors STUDENT STAFF AND DESK PHONE NUMBERS: Associate Editors D.W. Anderson 865-8225, 586-7750 Ben Winslow 865-8225, 586-7750 586-5488 Sports Editor Chad Lamb 865-8443 Advertising Manager Maggie Neisen 5867758 Advertising Designer Gemmie Cole 586-7758 REPORTERS' DESK 586-7757 and Friday of the academic year as a The University fournal is published every Monday, Wednesday and the SUU Student publication of Southern Utah University, its department of arecommunication those of individual writers and do not in the fournal Association. The views and opinions expressedor any entity of the university. Letters to the editor must be necessarily reflect the opinion of the fournal name will be printed. Names will not be typed and include the name and phone number. Only the by reserves editing privileges. Letters must be submitted withheld under any circumstances and the editor and Thursdays for Friday editions. editions Wednesday noon Fridays for Monday editions, Tucsdays for the to first problem such direct should fournal the against Grievances: Any individual with a grievance editor. If unresolved, that grievance should then be directed to the Journal Steering Committee, which is chaired by Dr, Frain G. Pearson, 586-7971 University Journal: Offices in SUU Technology Building 003. Mail at SUU Box 9384, Cedar City, Utah 84720 FAX (435] 586.5487. E-mail address: K 7 7 journal@suu.edu (YRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER. PLEASE RECYCLE THIS COPY. TODAY'S MAN... KATHLEEN PARKER COMMENTARY Clinton’s child-care program a failure Add to your list of caveats: Beware politicians who announce new government programs while holding the hand of a child. Such was my thought as I watched President Clinton, surrounded by children and walking hand-in-hand with one, announce his proposed $21 billion child-care package. You could almost hear Raffi singing in the background. On the surface, Clinton’s proposal looks great, promising to help families by offering increased tax credits to working parents with kids in day care, as well as to businesses offering on-site day care. The plan also calls for funds to train childcare workers and to subsidize after-school care. What’s wrong with that? Everything. Mostly wrong are the assumptions. The Clintons, who amazingly have convinced Americans that they’re not, let me repeat, not socialists, mistakenly assume that Americans want their kids in day care. They assume that even if parents wanted to stay home, they can't. They assume—and this is key—that Americans morally wrong in pursuing a course of action that Editor Anna Turpin STUDENT, CO-WORKER, WIFE, MOTHER ,,, phically wrong in their assumptions; they're PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND DESK PHONE NUMBERS: Arts Editor WOMAN want government to step in and help where mere parents have failed. The Clintons are wrong. They’re philoso- SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVERSITY AP Wire Editor Kami Egan 586.7759 Copy Editor Tiana Tew 586-5488 Opinion Director Brandon Rhodes 586-1992 Photo Editor John Guertler 586-7759 TODAY'S WEARS MANY HATS - runs counter to everything we know about what's best for children. New studies have reinforced what attentive parents already knew—that a child’s first three years, best spent with a parent, are critical in developing intelligence and emotional attachments. Even studies that purported to support day care concluded that kids do better the more time they spend with their parents. One study that got lots of media hype—by the National Institute for Child Health and Development—prompted headlines around the country to the effect that day care wasn’t bad for “kids. Time magazine’s headline—"The Kids Are All Right”—typified the spirit, if not the actual content, of the study’s conclusions. What the NICHD study found was that good day care is better than bad day care, and that the more time children spend away from.their mothers means less sensitive play between mother and child (otherwise known as bonding), and that what happens at home is more important than what happens at day care. In other words, time spent with mom and/or dad is most important to a child’s happiness and development. The government’s proposal to train child-care workers, meanwhile, raises the specter of faux parents overstimulating babies with flash cards and computer images when what they really need is a warm body, a loving voice and the cooing of a real parent as he or she reads to them. Supporters of the government-as-parent plan always point to the alleged facts of life: It takes two incomes to support a modern family; half of American households are headed by a single parent who doesn’t have the “choice” to stay home; people getting off the welfare rolls need subsidized day care. And so on. Truth: It does take two incomes to support a modern household that includes possessions once considered luxury items. But what about families who postpone material gratification for the sake of their kids? Truth: Single parents don’t have the choice to stay home. Been there, done that. What I needed as a single parent was flex-time to work around my child’s needs and more money (less taxation) to spend on the in-home child care I preferred. Truth: Welfare families need help. Agreed. Leave the rest of us alone. Before it’s too late, we need to adjust our assumptions to reflect what's best for children. If being at home with mom or dad is what children need, why spend $21 billion to do otherwise? If we can come up with that kind of money, surely we can rearrange resources so parents get the tax breaks they need to stay home or to work fewer, more flexible hours. That’s what American families really need, not to be confused with what government wants. Kathleen Parker columnist. is a nationally syndicated |