To the editor:
Although we do not oppose the development of a conference center at Clinton Lake, we do object to the proposed location as identified in the Aug. 25 Journal-World article for the following reasons:
- It sets a bad precedent: Locating the conference center so close to the shore will compromise the anti-shoreline development policy that the Army Corps of Engineers has tried to maintain at Clinton Lake. By not allowing private docks, the Corps has prevented the Clinton Lake shoreline from becoming an overdeveloped eyesore.
- Poor access and heavy traffic: The area surrounding the Clinton Lake Marina in the state park is already the busiest part of the lake due to nearby boat ramps, windsurfing and jet ski activity. With long lines developing on summer weekends, conference center traffic will exacerbate traffic problems in and around the marina.
- Environmentally damaging: We take exception to the comments made by Kansas Wildlife and Parks Secretary, Mr. Steve Williams, that suggest the development will result in little or no environmental damage. The proposed location for the conference center will have multiple negative environmental impacts. Eagles typically use the trees along the shoreline, precisely where the conference center's marina is proposed, for winter roosts. During the winter these trees offer excellent eagle viewing opportunities. It is likely that these trees, as well as many others, will be removed. Hiking and biking trails will be destroyed. Trash and litter will increase along the shoreline. Oily runoff from parking areas will end up in the lake. Construction of the resort and access roads will destroy habitat and cause erosion.
We propose that the state and developer identify a better location for the conference center. Like the campgrounds, a conference center can be built near Clinton Lake and its many amenities, yet further away from the wooded shoreline. By locating the conference center in an area where open space and easy access already exist, the development will cost less and will result in fewer negative impacts.
Stanley and Teresa Rasmussen,
Lawrence.
Callous decision
To the editor:
I am writing in response to your article about Mr. Stan Roth, former biology teacher in the Lawrence school district.
First of all, you should know that I believe in evolution and I'm a Christian.
I'm continually amazed at the incompetent people in positions of authority that make such callous decisions. The handling of the termination of Mr. Roth is just another example.
It would appear that little effort was made to reward Mr. Roth for his career at Lawrence High School as an outstanding biology teacher. His transfer to Free State High School would seem to be a deliberate slap in the face. The decision to force Mr. Roth into an almost untenable position by demoting him one year before his retirement indicates the school administration exhibited a lack of compassion for a loyal employee.
The administration's obvious mean-spirited approach to this situation should alert all teachers and employees to what they may expect from the school district. I suggest concerned school officials and parents monitor the actions of all the coaches in all sports in the district to make sure all statements and actions made during practice and game situations are not offending to their students.
In my opinion, the school administrators caved in to the comments of a very small group of people. I'm confident Mr. Roth will recover from this humiliating experience. The big problem is that the devious, scheming school administrators are still safe and secure in their positions. One can only hope their careers end in the same manner.
Rex E. Hubbard,
Lawrence.
No defense needed
To the editor:
I often check the web site of the Journal-World. Of course, the recent headline regarding the end of Stan Roth's teaching career caught my attention. The article contained much of what I would expect to read about the Stan Roth that I know and respect. It was the explanation of the events that led to his decision to retire earlier than he had planned that prompts me to write this letter.
I am not writing to defend Stan Roth. He does not need to be defended. Any professional educator would take great pride if the successes of his or her former students were at the level of the former students of Stan Roth. It was my privilege to have Stan Roth as a professional colleague for eight years. Not only was I very impressed with his passion for teaching, but also his willingness to spend many hours outside the normal school schedule to supplement the work in the classroom. Many weekend and vacation days were used for field experiences to enhance the educational opportunities for the students. He was willing to spend the time necessary to help students meet his high expectations.
I know that Stan Roth had many opportunities to teach and conduct research at the college and university level, but his desire was to work with the high school-age students. His loyalty to his students was matched by his loyalty to Lawrence High School and his colleagues. He was a willing contributor of his time and talents to the activity programs of the students and the school. He was one of many teachers at Lawrence High School who had high expectations for students and were loyal to the school and district.
It is very difficult for me to believe that Stan Roth would say or do anything that would justify denying him the opportunity to teach in the classroom for the one more year he had planned before retiring. It seems to me that his loyalty to the students and school district was not reciprocated by those responsible for the administration of the school and district.
Bill Medley,
Winfield.
No backbone
To the editor:
Not satisfied with the watering down of the state's science standards at the hands of the State Board of Education, I see that our local school district has decided to lower the bar even further for Lawrence students by removing Stan Roth from the classroom. Although his occasionally confrontational style was interpreted by some as ridicule, it was in actuality a challenge to students to get off their duffs and do some thinking for themselves. Neither religious nor scientific dogma were welcome in his classroom. The beauty of his classroom experience was that it left you not with mere volumes of facts, but rather with increased ability for critical thinking. Such skills are highly valuable in any area of study and greatly prized by future employers.
Stan Roth allowed students to disagree with him, and at no time during my experience in his classroom (or in that of my classmates) did I observe intolerance for a student's faith or moral covictions. However, he appropriately drew the line on letting the students dictate the content of his class. Should any creation theory grounded in actual science have ever been brought up in class, I have no doubt it would have been accepted into discussion in Mr. Roth's classroom (the key here is SCIENCE-based creation theory). However, I have never seen any such material produced by either the center for creation "science" in Missouri or any other source.
The present administration at both Free State High School and in the superintendent's office should be ashamed for giving Mr. Roth the heave-ho with so little due process. In subjecting Mr. Roth to the equivalent of the farcical "double-secret probation" employed by the college dean in the film Animal House, the district has made a mockery of the science classroom and displayed the collective backbone of a bucket of annelids (If you don't know what those are, ask Stan Roth -- he could certainly teach you).
Derek VanSchmus,
Lawrence
Who are the twits?
To the editor:
As a former student of Stan Roth and a near-lifetime resident of Lawrence, I am quite familiar with Mr. Roth's approach to the obligations of both education and citizenship. Although he was often lacking in tact and occasionally short on patience, he possessed (and certainly still possesses) a full complement of integrity and an undeniable zest for teaching.
When faced with the back-alley resolution of the school district administrators, he even resigned rather than drag the school system that he had served well and faithfully for 40 years through the mess of a (by all appearances) well-deserved challenge to its administrators' entirely dishonorable actions. I'm sure everything was scrupulously legal but that has no bearing on its honorableness, a distinction of which I can only hope they all are still aware of.
While I have been forced to accept the fact that integrity is worth far less than charm in our society (in spite of Mr. Roth's anachronistic lessons to the contrary), I am still shocked that someone whose major fault was an intolerance for falseness and laziness, and whose virtues included devoted service both in and out of the classroom (e.g., at the several decades' worth of LHS football games that he watched from the easternmost gate at Haskell Stadium), would be treated with the kind of respect I reserve for chewing gum that finds its way to my shoe.
The Lawrence school system should be ashamed of itself. Not for taking some kind of action against a teacher who had a long history of being a much-needed challenger to administrators' policy proposals, but for taking the kind of action it did. (For some reason, the phrase "twits and hooligans" keeps popping into my head.)
I'm sure the school district administrators' way of resolving this issue was much easier than a good old-fashioned negotiation (particularly after the grim issue of creation "science" had wormed its way into the situation). And I can only assume that they meant it as an example of how their current and former students should deal with the challenges we will encounter in life. However, as our education at the hands of USD 497 continues, I for one will do my best to unlearn this particular lesson.
David Slade,
Lawrence.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.