About The Red and Black (Athens, Ga.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 26, 1994)
t \ < ) 1 ■ QUOTABLE 4 « The Red and Black « Wednesday, January 26, 1994 OPINIONS The Red & Black Established in 1893 - Incorporated 1980 An independent student newspaper not affiliated with the University of Georgia Theresa Walsh/Editor-in-Chief Melanie Thomas/Managing Editor Travis Rice/Opinions Editor ■ EDITORIAL Bookstore thieves and management disappoint. The recent arrests of three University Bookstore stu dent employees and one full-time employee for stealing more than $31,000 is absolutely shocking. One is almost in disbelief as one reads that bookstore employees scammed the University Bookstore out of such a large sum - from right under its nose. And with such ease. In ripping off the bookstore, these employees didn’t have to repel from the roof and climb through an open window under the cover of darkness. Nor did they use complicated computer transactions, fake bank accounts and high level bribes. To steal from their own University, all these jerks had to do was void out a purchase once the customer left, and then pocket the money. You pay for your $45 bookbag from your tight col lege budget. You walk out of the bookstore. Then, the thief behind the counter voids the purchase, takes your $45 and the cash register thinks it never happened. “But wait,” you say, “Surely routine checks of inven tory would uncover a scam which cost the University $31,000. “If the Bookstore orders 50 bookbags at the begin ning of the quarter, and at the. end of the quarter has 30 bookbags, then wouldn’t someone keeping the books would notice that they only had transactions for 10 of these bookbags and deduce that something was amiss?” Good question. One we’d like to know the answer to as well. The bookstore no longer has to use spiral notebooks and pencils to keep it’s books. Tbday everything is bar- coded and computerized. Yet still $31,000 goes unno ticed. That’s a lot of bookbags. The bookstore is implementing new measures to prevent anything like this fiasco from happening again. To have let it happen in the first place the management was either naive or incompetent. Let’s hope it was the former. Blatant crime by fellow students However, the truly disappointing truth revealed by this incident is that crime is inescapable. Students stealing from students. Don’t think that the bookstore was just absorbing the cost of the tens-of-thousands of lost dollars. Although it is not-for-profit, the bookstore does operate at a certain rate of return. The losses are passed on to students in the form of higher prices. What audacity these crooks had to blatantly steal in front of everyone - customers, co-workers and supervi sors. They would literally pocket the stolen cash. Unbelievable! And we suspect that more than a few co-workers knew or at least suspected what was going on, yet turned a blind eye. Often, when a big entity like a university or corpo ration is being taken for a ride by its employees, many of the employees know what is going on and sometimes even reveal in it. We urge the University to be aggressive in prosecut ing the crooks and diligent in it’s effort to restructure the way the bookstore operates. Don’t shy away from sweeping action if that is what is needed to clean up this ugly mess. Come down hard on both the criminals and the management that let this happen. STAFF NEWS: 543-1809 Nmi Editor: CatNeon Egan Sports Editors: Marti Schiabach. B'ad Schradc Ent arts In moot Editor: Brian Garber Associate Nows Editor: Ruts Bynum front Page Copy Editor: tara Creoty, ion Wicchman Irtoldo Copy Editors: Bomec Jung, Shoianda McBride. Holly Rosen. Jana Stnckland Editorial Assistant: Aileen Verge* Now Writer* Editor Maura Corrigan OrapAlco Editor: David Vinson Pttotograpby Editor: w h Oakot CNo< Biotagrapber Mary Samt Reporters: Jennifer Baker Stacey Bryant. Sharon Egan. Kerry Henoiy, Jaton Hobbs. Neill larmore. Crystal Paulk, Kathleen Ragan. Eric Rayburn. Wylie Schwartz. Chnt Stanford. Wendy Woifenbarger Sports Writers: Tommy Heffron. Josh Kendall. Ted Kian Sports Stringers J.J. Cooper. Holly Entrokin. Sean Look Entertainment Writers: Gront Goggant, Joneli Hobson, Scott Tobias Opinions expressed m The Red and Bier*, other than unstgnod editonais are the opinions of the wriers of sgped columns and not necessarily those of The Red and Wecfc Publishing Company Inc. AH rights reserved Reprints by permission of the editors ADVERTISING: 543 1791 Student Managers: Quinn Crevey. Henry Johnson Advertising Assistants: Hilary Dorns. Denise Magyar Advertising Representatives: Marc Brancaccio, Tommy Carroll. Blair Hillman. Lauren Niehaus, Anne Mar.e Partridge, Brandon Putzer. Travis Randan, Jana Richen, Joy Shuitleworth, Melissa Sims, Marty Suarez Ctaeoiled Representative: Pam Jackson Spedrt Protects Coordinator: Susan Cheatham Aaat. Production Manager: Matt Vesscii Production staff Huberi Kang. Katrina Ledbetter, Seen O'Keefe. Pasha Souvonn Publisher: Horry Montevideo Oflee Manager Mary Straub Production Manager Lonn Marsh Advertising Director Cathy Kaufman Receptionist: Kristen Yen Credit Manager: John Carter The Red and Blech is published Monday through Friday fall thougfi sonng quarters and each Thursday dunng summer quarter, with the exceptions of holidays and exam panods, by The Red and Black Publishing Company inc a nonprofit campus newspaper not eT filiated wttn the University of Georgia. 123 N Jackson St., Athens. Ga 301501. Third dess postage paid at Athens. Ga Subscription rate: $30 par year "Your mother wouldn't set up a condom machine in your home, would she?” - Radio talk show host Barbara Dooley on why she is opposed to condom vending machines in the Residence Halls. SPORTS Tennis Invitational wrap-up 6 Georgia basketball update 6 I ENTERTAINMENT Screen: 'Intersection' and ‘iron Will’ reviewed .....5 The Red & Black An mdt pendent Midini ntsnpoptr lervinp Mr University of Gtorpid community I TOMORROW Gwen O'Looney taking your r—1 Weather [—, High - It Lew . 41 ft High - II lew • 40 TUESDAY, JANUARY 25,1994 • ATHENS, GEORGIA • VOLUME 101, ISSUE 64 Do we need athletic gender equity? Football feeds other sports The biggest prob lem with gender equi ty is that everyone seems to think col lege athletics is “big business.” Actually, college football is the big business that the rest of intercollegiate sports feed off of. As the gender eq uity debate rages on, some of the more ex treme women’s groups ore demand ing football be includ ed in the overall scholarship pool that determines “equity” in intercolle giate athletics. They hope football scholarships will be reduced to 50 or 60, enabling more funds to go to women’s athletics. But the reality is that if the structure of college football is destroyed, all revenues will be re duced. College football is king, especially in the South. At the University of Georgia in the 1992-93 fiscal year, actual rev enues created from football totaled over $8 million (this does not include television or radio revenues, SEC Championship shares and over $800,000 from the Citrus Bowl appearance). Georgia spent close to $3.5 million on operating expenses last year, creating a profit of close to $6 million. Eliminating college football scholarships will reduce the quality of the game, creating the possibility of reduced attendance and television and radio revenues. Eliminating scholarships cuts ofT the the hand that feeds all college athletics. If you could imagine college athletics as a business you would have a greater understanding of gender equity proponents’ reasoning. It is not a chauvinistic belief, its simply a realistic one. Picture Georgia athletics as a multi-facet corporation, one like IBM or Coca-Cola. Your leading revenue comes from your largest division, foot ball. It is the largest division in employees and has the. highest operat ing costs but generates close to $10 million a year. Eighty thousand or so fans pack your stadium five or six Saturdays a year, spending anywhere from $20 to $500 a ticket and another $50 on concessions. Your season ticket holders contribute over $4 million just to hold their tickets every year. On the other side of the nation (or campus), you have another division, in this case men’s basketball. This division actually generates profits, so it’s more of an asset than a liability. But then you run into a problem. Your other divisions (women’s bas ketball, gymnastics, track, etc.) are spending more on operating costs than they’re bringing in. Your first reaction is to eliminate these divi sions, they’re only costing you money and cutting your profits (women’s basketball’s expenditures totaled $463,506.76 in the 1992-93 fiscal year, while it created revenues of $7,128.77, a total loss of $456,377.99). But due to federal law, you’re required to keep them. And now those same federal laws may force you to reduce your largest profit-making division. As a business man, you’re obviously not going to accept this without a fight. But by resisting these demands you’re labeled a chauvinist or be ing “unfair” or “unequal”. Don’t get me wrong I’m in favor of gender equity to an extent but not when it reduces the quality and spirit of college football. By doing this, you’re killing the hen who lays the golden egg. Eliminating football schol arships to add women’s archery, synchronized swimming and squash is ridiculous. Mark Schlabach is Co-Sports Editor of the Red & Black. Yes, equity can be achieved It is indisputable that some fashion of gender equity will be implemented within intercollegiate athlet ics. Of key impor tance is that athletics have a meaningful role in that imple mentation process. In 1982, Washington State University began that effort, and we re vised it in 1987. The responsibility and the goal of Washington State University was to have a ratio of financial aid and participation that equaled the ratio of male students to female students in the undergraduate population. The concerns of gender-equi ty critics, and the hopes of gender-equity proponents, currently being ex pressed were present at Washington State and to a great extent have been addressed. Jim Livengood Without question, the implementation choice of increasing opportuni ties for female student-athletes in an attempt to reach a gender-equitable program, as opposed to eliminating opportunities for male student-ath letes, takes a tremendous commitment of fiscal resources and facility sharing. However, the goals of all student-athletes, regardless of their gender, can be addressed, and gender equity should not be looked on as a messenger of intercollegiate athletics’ demise as we know it. The essence of this movement stems from the undeniable fact that stu dent-athletes represent their institutions of higher education. Financial aid represents the opportunity for the student to obtain a post secondary education. Participation is the accompanying opportunity for a student to benefit from all of the positive aspects that intercollegiate administrators know athletics offer. Not to have these opportunities available on a gender-equitable basis flies directly in the face of an in stitution’s role and mission. The logical conclusion, which is supported by the Knight Foundation Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, is for the central administration to embrace an athletics department within the overall spectrum of cam pus-wide responsibility on the part of the institution. To do so certainly will require difficult decisions at the athletic-department level. However, if it is approached as an extension of what higher education hopes to ac complish, and with recognition that athletics is included within the spec trum of higher education, then gender equity becomes a forgone conclu sion. If we look at financial aid within the context of education, a broad range of funding sources become applicable. Washington State is fortunate in having a central administration that supports student-athletics , a legislature that appreciates the importance of gender equity and a staff that agrees on what is in the best interest of student-athletes. With this support, we have developed the creditability necessary to warrant our involvement in implementing the decisions nec essary to obtain gender equity. It will not happen by isolation or by as suming that the effort will incapacitate men’s sports. The greatest difficulty has been attempting this effort within a singu lar institution. If we address gender equity nationally, then we can con trol the impact and maintain the competitive nature that is currently en joyed in men’s sports, while improving the quality and competitiveness of women’s sports. Jim Liuengood is Athletic Director at the University of Arizona and while AD. at Washington State was a consultant to NCAA Gender Equity Task Force. This column was originally published in The NCAA News, and is being used by permission of the author. Tipping is one big rip-off. . . Businesses should pay for good customer service The economy wasn’t on my side this past summer as far as having a couple of jobs to choose from. As a matter of fact, for the first time since I was 13, I faced the prospect of my first jobless summer. I spent the first Monday of summer break job shopping, and I was interviewed, processed and thankfully hired in one day. For three months, five days a week and seven hours a day. . .(keep in mind I was desperate). . . I was going to be a hypocrite. I don’t know how long I’ve been against the tradition of tipping, but tor the summer of 1993, the general purnic was going to pay my salary, (which is the very reason I oppose forced gratu ities). Why should customers, the ones receiving the service, be obligated to pay the salary of their servers? Because tipping is so inbred into our society that businesses and their owners have taken advantage of, first and most impor tantly, their customers by placing the burden of payrolls and supervising on them; and second ly, on their employees, by only paying them a little more than $2 an hour, making them de pend mostly on the customer for the rest of their salary. A gratuity is defined in Webster’s as, “some thing given voluntarily or beyond obligation, usually in return for, or in anticipation of some service.” That means, if I feel tne waiter was pleasant and courteous enough, or the cab driv er made all the best turns and brought me safe ly to my destination, or the hairdresser did me justice, only then might I be inspired to give them an added bonus of a couple bucks. But the customer should never feel pressured to do so. However, some may say if tipping didn’t ex ist, and the servers depended solely on the restaurant for their wages, then they would slack ofT and provide poor customer service. Well, just as a manager would reprimand a lazy clerk at a clothing store, so should a man ager step in at a restaurant if one of their servers was lackadaisical. Tipping forces the customer to watch their server and assess whether they deserve their 15 percent, a burden which should fall in the hands of management. Waiters and waitresses are the epitome of customer service (the golden rule for service providing businesses). That’s why it’s unfair to make the customer pay both the bill and the paycheck. Servers are the direct link between the customer and the restaurant. So, for restau rants to pay their customer servers less than half of the minimum wage would almost be an oxymoron. Our society has got to get real - tipping a grocery store bag person? Come on. That’s what that person was hired for. I never got tipped as a cashier for ringing up a transaction real fast. Businesses must reas sume payroll responsibilities for their employ ees and quit getting a free ride off of their cus tomers. Cathleen Egan is News Editor for the Red ABlack.
