OCR Text |
Show - ·- Ii THE UNIVERSITY J0lJRN:AL • SOUTHERN UTAH UNIVER'SITY; •' WEDNESDAY, MA::og 27, 1~~8 OPINION ~- LETTERS ~, <'le <J" " I , \. '( i Try and get the facts first • As a rebuttal to Veronica admissions or in school Garner's commentary in the relations are permitted to help Wednesday, May 20, edition of students register for upcoming the University Journal, I would classes. There is a highly visible like to offer to her and all the sign posted that displays this students on this campus the very infonnation to studens. following information, so that Another problem with Ms. Garner's commentary is a result you all have the facts. In addition to being a student, of her lack of responsibility, not I also work in the Admissions that of the staff members at the Off ice, which is . - - - - - - - - - -..,,,, Cashier's Office. next to the regisStuden~_!_SUU trar, so_l can see - are toid from day first hand what one that they need kind of situations to have their studevelop there. dent identification The Registrar's A,V'11~'fflO.•'Ap'e to transact any Office has four ~~ii;.,.-;·~ l;;i.:.U ~ school-re l ated available windows, ... 1:. • , business. This which typically requirement is to have at least two provide protection staff members o ii;.,.11 I . ! for the individual working there at ,.;fl~o '.~ student's records all times. During !.1..1.1./-' ~ .i:.u. and accounts. the busier hours, Jn. 'I 1:. ~ The majority of when there are 10 J,; '' '.l.J. tll~ students here are or more people .:I. " ,'I. " appreciative of the waiting in line for additional securassistance, there ity of knowing are three or four i.:,H UJ/.' that no one else people working. fflVmO,._,....L , on campus can The large desk t uU1. . access any of their situated directly personal inforbehind the regismation. Having to trar's windows belongs to bring their I.D. doesn't seem to school relations. The person or bother any of them. It has been my experience that persons working at that desk are not able to help students with it's better to inform myself of registration concerns. They the facts before I shoot off my don't have the access nor the mouth. Obviously, Ms. Garner training required to register is severely lacking in t h is students. department. These are, undoubtedly, the Perhaps this is an area that people Ms. Garner w i tnessed Veronica Gamer could use a few "eating a snack and kind of lessons in; hopefully, these milling around." lessons will also bring about a The other three windows small measure 6£ maturity belong the Admissions Office, along with them. as well as school relations. Chris Proctor Again, neither the staff in L .,,..-- m ~ I ·1r:na~ <X) N t II) Ill C L.. :, 1my 0 ...., ':,L Cl: ~ -u:i..at it s b-nttbw,, +o use· of . . .,p.cts' be,,.ore I cLoot """' 6 Kl V ~ R S I_ T Y J9u1l~1 PROFESSION AL STAfF AND DESK PHONE NUMBERS: Editor Campu, Editor Con.1uhing Sporu Edlton I.any Baku 586-7751 Jim Robinson 586-1997 Neil Cardncr 586-7753 Bren Jewkes 586-7751 STIJDENTSTAFF AND DESK PHONE NUMBERS: A.uoclate Editon Vt-ronlca Gamu 865-822.S, 586-7750 Bnuidon Rboclca 586-7750, 586-1992 AP Wire Editor Kam! Epn 586-7759 Copy Editor TllUU Tew 586-5488 Photo Editor John Cucnlcr 586-7759 Art• Editor Anra Turpin 586-5488 Sport, Editor Chad Lamb 865·8443 Ad ..rtuins Mauser M•ggle N<iJCn 586-7758 REPORTERS' DESK 586-7757 The Unive.rsi ty fournol i, published every Mond.ty, Wedn...S•y and Fri.by of the audcmlc ycu •• • public.ulon of S<>u1hcrn Uub Univcnlty, lu dep,nment of communication snd the SUU Student A..ociatlon. The view, and oplnloru exprnscd In the fournaJ arc thOtc of lndivid111l wri1cn and do not neccu.uily 1cJ!cc1 the opinion ol the foum,,I 0< any cnlity ol the Wllvcnlty. Lcttc.n to the editor mlllt be typed and includc the nffllc and phone number. Only the name will be prlnttd. Name, will not be withheld under any clrcumst.tncca and the edi1or reacrvco cdlt;l~ privileges. Lener, mu.i be 1u~lttcd by noon fri<bya for Mon<byedit!OCIJ, Tu«d,y1 /or Wednesday edittoM and Thurod.tys for fn<by editions. Crlevane<1: Any individual wilh • grievance agains1 the /oumo/ lhould direct ~uch problem fim '!' the editor. If umcsolvcd, that grievance: "'®Id thm be directed to the fownol S1«nng Committee, which b clwrcd by Dr. Frain C. Pcanon, 586-7971. Uafruslrr f oarn.J: Oflicu in SUU Tcc.bnology BuildJni 003. M&ll at SUU Box 9334, Ccd.u City, Utah B-4720. FAX t4JSJ 586-~87. E-nwl addreu: jowru.10.uu.cdu Q rJU1',T[l)ON llt.CYCUO PAPU. PUASt ll£CYCLt rnJS COPY. KATHLEEN PARKER COMMENTARY Family autonomy is endangered again Brace yourself. In a rare turn suggesting the possibility of a latent bipolar personality, I find myself agreeing with the usually silly American Civil Liberties Union. Rather than defending the "rights, 11 say, of pregnant girls to be cheerleaders or the "rights" of children to dress like prostitutes, the ACLU apparently took some Viagra and is standing up for parents' rights. Specifically, the right to determine the company their kids keep. At first glance, anyone with a kernel of common sense might wonder why the ACLU has to take a position on such a clear issue. Haven't parents always had a say when it comes to their precious darlings' associates? Certainly my father never hesitated to voice his opinion about my choice of companions. During my teen years, I spent weeks in "time out" plotting my future literary revenge when the old man blocked my "right" to consort_with certain individuals who left me breathless and h im gasping. As a college student home one weekend with a boyfriend and my four dogs, my dad greeted us at the front door. Taking in my entourage, he said: "Well, I see you brought home all your dogs." My father was exercising his parental right and duty to inform my nascent discriminatory powers, to teach me to separate the chaff from the wheat in that great weed-choked garden known as humanity. · No more. Parents now must defend their choices in court if other people decide they want to see the children. No matter that Mom and Dad have decided it's in their child's best interests not to spend time with them. These other people have the "right" to challenge that decision by virtue of... what? Think hard on this one. How could anyone have the "right" to take your children from you and spend hours or days with them against your will? How could any court permi t s u ch a travesty against parents protecting their children? The answer is obvious: By virtue of nothing, by no right. Yet these people can and do, and they're the last people one would expect to cause harm to children and their families. They're called grandparents. The burgeoning "grandparents rights" movement, characterized by "grandparent visitation" lawsuits against uncooperative parents, is fast becoming the El Nino of the American family. Every new lawsuit challenging parental preference is another battering wave eroding the undergirdings of family autonomy. Some cases that have wound up in court in recent years have been over such insipid questions as what movies children should watch. Some parents may be wrong to deny grandparents access to their grandchildren. They may regret their decision some day. But parents ultimately are responsible for their children; their child-rearing decisions---absent abuse, of coursemust be respected and protected. So says the ACLU, which fact causes me enormous concern for my future as a columnist. I count on the ACLU to be ridiculous. All 50 states now have some grandparent visitation law on the books. Many only permit challenges to parental authority in cases of divorce or the death of a parent. Still others allow challenges to intact families. It's a sad situation for all, difficult to fathom for most of us. But fundamenta lly, we're talking about a personal disagreement among adults that only they should resolve. Practically speaking, no child ordered to see grandparents against his parents' will is going to have a happy experience. That fact alone cancels out any "best interest of the child" argument favoring grandparents. Finally, we've got to stop this absurd dash to court every time we're unable to resolve a family conflict. To do otherwise is eventually to hand over to government the rearing of our children. Grandparents truly concerned about thei r grandchildren might keep that in mind as they examine why their kids don't want them around. Kathleen Parker is a nationally syndicated columnist. ...- |