Recent Kansas editorials

The Kansas City Star, Feb. 16

What if your loved one’s final resting place wasn’t as restful as promised? What if a bulldozer nearby gave way to new building construction?

That could be the case for families all across Kansas if a bill before the Legislature uproots decades, indeed centuries, of thought on what a cemetery is about.

Senate Bill 389 would amend Kansas law to define “sepulture” - which, in common usage means a final resting place - to include “facilities for visitation, committal or funeral services; mortuary and embalming facilities; and other such purposes and uses necessary or incidental thereto.”

What does that mean, exactly? It sure sounds like funeral homes and other buildings popping up alongside gravesites.

“The proposals in SB 389 potentially open a door that could allow corporations to ignore the recorded plat and construct buildings where they please,” Mary Sabatini, legislative and communications director for Senate Majority Leader Jim Denning told The Star. “To put it plainly, this new definition might allow a building to go up two feet from your plot, which you bought to lie-in-rest next to your parents.”

“The word Sepulture dates back as far as the 14th century and was used in the Bible to describe Jacob’s grave,” Christopher Holland, managing funeral director for Penwell-Gabel Cremations, Funerals & Receptions in Olathe, wrote to Denning. “In no way does the term refer to facilities of commercial enterprise, such as facilities for visitation and funeral services, or mortuary and embalming facilities.”

Holland, whose company dates to 1893 and owns two cemeteries, says he doesn’t know what entity may be behind the bill.

Who can speak up for the deceased in this case, except their relatives and descendants, and those who protect them?

“I stand before you as the voice for those that no longer have their own voice,” Holland wrote Denning. “I stand before you to represent the countless people buried in cemeteries all across Kansas who purchased property in these cemeteries with the intention of having a peaceful final resting place without interference from commercial enterprise.”

No one should ever be put in the position of having to protect the family plot from corporate ambition, whatever the intent. Of all folks, funeral home directors should understand the value of maintaining a respectful distance.

As Sabatini notes, “Kansans have purchased plots with the intention of having a meaningful resting place and shouldn’t have to worry about interference from commercial facilities.”

Look, we all understand this is the age of convenience. Drive-throughs, smartphones, gourmet food by mail. And while that kind of ease and efficiency might be inspiring the idea of building funeral homes and “other such purposes and uses necessary or incidental thereto” right on cemetery sites, it’s a fairly repulsive notion.

Bury it, to rest for all time.

_____

The Manhattan Mercury, Feb. 13

An advocacy group is connecting the dots between a right-wing student organization on the K-State campus and white nationalists trying to build a national movement.

Those dots might be real and they might not.

What we have to say at the moment is pretty simple: A student group that has a particular political point of view has every right to operate on campus. If it’s part of a national movement to influence policy in one direction or another, so be it.

In that sense, the university’s position on this matter is right on the mark. K-State spokesman Jeff Morris said Wednesday that the university supports “free and open inquiry, debate and deliberation.”

Hear hear. In this era of “free speech zones” and “safe zones” on campuses around the country, it’s been refreshing and heartening to see K-State take such a solid position. As you probably know, the idea of a “free speech zone” is a frightening concept that free speech ought to somehow be allowed only in certain designated areas.

White nationalism is a disgusting concept, and, we would argue, a horrible path for the country to follow. It’s basically the notion that the United States should try to protect a white-majority society. From that idea flows policies against immigration and integration of various sorts. That’s the path of the Nazis.

That does not mean, of course, that people in favor of more restrictive immigration policies are fascists, or that they should be banned from expressing their views. Not at all. We ought to be able to have a discussion and debate based on facts, including all points of view on that issue.

The advocacy group in question is a Kansas City outfit called the Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights. Its mission is to “stand against bigotry and defend democracy and human rights.” It tracks far-right organizations, and asserts in a recent report that national figures see a new student organization at K-State - America First Students - as a new offensive in a national campaign. The advocacy group’s report was given front-page attention in the Kansas City Star the same day it was issued. The student group’s leader, Jaden McNeil, called the Star’s reporting on it “libelous,” and said it has no evidence to support it. He did not specifically deny anything in the report.

We tip our cap to the Star for its reporting, which brought to light the advocacy group’s work. Whether that work is really accurate or not remains to be seen.

In the meantime, the best answer to a far-right organization’s efforts on campus is pretty simple: Let them express their views. Then let their adversaries express their ideas. Students and others will decide which ideas are best, and everybody will learn from it. That’s what a university is for.

_____

The Topeka Capital-Journal, Feb. 16

Addressing the cost of higher education in Kansas is important. Those who graduate from college have better career prospects, but they shouldn’t be burdened by lifelong, crushing debt.

That being said, a proposal in the Kansas Legislature that would allow K-12 school districts to cover college tuition costs for dually enrolled students is the wrong way to go. Money from the state general fund allocated to our public schools should be spent on our public schools, and on educating students in these early years.

That doesn’t mean the concept of allowing high school students to get a jump on college classes is bad or unworkable. Testimony from the executive director of public affairs for Wichita Public Schools suggests great promise for the idea. It would target and assist students who might be at risk of not attending college.

“These are students who are in the middle,” said Terrell Davis, the public affairs director. “They have potential, but they could just as easily fall through the cracks. They sit in classrooms making anywhere from a 2.5 to 3.0 GPA. They get in trouble from time to time - not because they are bad kids but because they are bored.”

Graduating them from high school with a sheaf of completed college classes would be a way to jumpstart their education.

And again, this seems like a worthy goal. But it’s ultimately not what the general fund education dollars are for. The state also funds higher education, and that’s the appropriate source of funding for encouraging students toward college and university degrees.

We understand. Spending money on colleges and universities isn’t always politically popular. Not everyone attends, and legislators might complain that graduates leave the state anyway or - much worse - become liberals. But the facts are the facts. College degrees (and we’re including two-year associate’s degrees in this category) make a lifelong difference.

At the same time, the House Commerce Committee moved to pass the Kansas Promise Scholarship Act, a $10 million bill that would direct aid toward students enrolled in two-year or technical degree programs in specific fields. It also would carry a residency requirement. We’re not ready to endorse that legislation, but it shows that there are other approaches and ideas in the air that don’t require cannibalizing K-12 support.

If we want to encourage college attendance, money to do that should come from higher education funds. It’s as simple and straightforward as that.