A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
Loveland Reporter-Herald, May 7, on the prosecution for hazing suspects in Florida:
Robert Champion Jr. was living a lifelong dream as a musician in Florida. He had earned a role as a drum major for one of the most famous marching bands in the country, Florida A&M University’s Marching 100.
What he did not know is that behind the facade of his dream was the nightmarish price of admission. To earn such honor required a price to be paid through the ritual of hazing.
Champion paid that price with his life.
Prosecutors in Florida have accused 13 members of the university band of hazing Champion. Eleven of them face felony hazing charges—mainly because proving manslaughter or a more serious crime would prove to be too difficult for prosecutors. Two more face misdemeanors.
While the defendants in the case are facing only allegations—none has been convicted in a court of law—Champion, a 26-year-old student, is dead. He died Nov. 19 after a series of blows to his head, neck and body. Prosecutors cannot say which blow killed him, only that they added up to his demise.
Hazing is a felony crime in Florida for a reason. In 2001, an intoxicated University of Miami student died while trying to swim across a lake at the urging of fellow members of his fraternity. Over the years, police have taken reports of hazing by members of the FAMU band as well as other bands across the state and region. The message of hazing’s often dangerous nature never sunk in.
For the Marching 100, it certainly will. The band is on indefinite suspension, and some are saying it might never march again. If there are other groups out there that have “initiation rites” that include such behavior, the writing is on the wall. Change now, or your activity might be taken away.
For Robert Champion Jr.’s family, what was taken away hurts much worse.
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, May 7, on the Keystone XL Pipeline:
It wasn’t just the Obama administration that expressed doubts about the original Keystone XL pipeline proposal, which would transport heavy crude oil from Canadian “tar sands” to refineries along the Gulf of Mexico and has become a bone of contention in the presidential race. The state of Nebraska last year told TransCanada that its proposed route through that state needed adjustment, too.
Now TransCanada has returned with a revised plan that skirts the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region, adding about 100 miles to the route, and avoids areas where groundwater in the Ogallala aquifer is less than 5 feet from the surface.
The case for the pipeline has always been compelling if environmental concerns could be satisfied, and now that case is even stronger. If the president is re-elected this fall, it’s hard to see how his administration could be justified in again finding grounds to deny a permit for the project, as it did earlier this year.
Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman, who supports the pipeline if it avoids the Sand Hills, signed legislation last month allowing his state to restart a review of the project. So it’s probably only a matter of time before the ball lands squarely in the federal government’s court—with a final decision coming after November.
Protagonists on both sides of the Keystone debate have not exactly covered themselves in glory in the past few months. Although concerns regarding the Sand Hills are understandable, many in the environmental community are intent on killing the pipeline no matter what route is chosen. Their primary worry is tar sands development itself, which they object to because of the greenhouse gas emissions.
But killing the Keystone pipeline will not stop tar sands development. The Canadian government is committed to production, and if shipments to refineries on the Gulf Coast are blocked, then the heavy crude will be diverted to Asia. With world demand for oil expected to continue to grow and prices to remain lofty, tar sands production will suffer no shortage of customers for years to come.
Meanwhile, those Gulf refineries will still import crude oil, only from the Middle East. Surely it makes more sense for them to depend on Canada rather than oppressive and often volatile regimes halfway around the world.
Republicans, who have the better arguments on the merits of the pipeline, have unfortunately exaggerated the likely number of jobs it would create and even portrayed it as essential to economic recovery.
Sorry, but Keystone is not a silver bullet for our sluggish economy. It should be supported, yes, because its benefits—at least in its revised configuration—appear to outweigh its possible costs. But a few thousand construction jobs, as desirable as they might be, do not a recovery make.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Coloradoan, May 8, on a CSU brawl:
When prosecutors charged three CSU football players with disorderly conduct, and made the same charge against the student they allegedly pummeled, we—like a lot of you—were outraged.
But with Friday’s news that Colorado State University officially expelled teammates Nordly Capi, Mike Orakpo and Colton Palhaus, we’re convinced justice is being served.
Commenters on our website and letters to the editor wondered how the same charge could be leveled against the alleged assailants as well as the victim. Once you set emotion aside, though, we can understand how prosecutors reached the decision. According to police reports, the football players shouted at freshman Donny Gocha and his friends. Gocha shouted back, and the football players piled out of their SUV.
The report detailed an uneven brawl in which Gocha suffered a painful and intense beating. As hard as this is to hear, had Gocha taken the high road and not responded, the brawl would have been avoided; someone who picks a fight doesn’t always come out the winner.
At the same time, we were uneasy with the then-equal penalty for the assailants and the victim, which is why we were relieved to see CSU acting so decisively in expelling the three football players for the alleged incident and leaving Gocha free to continue his education at the university.
We applaud Athletic Director Jack Graham for his clear message: “You’re not allowed to fight if you’re going to be on the football team,” he told the Coloradoan on Friday. “You must walk away.”
There will be more to come in this story—police haven’t yet decided what to do about suspected steroids and marijuana found in the players’ off-campus apartments, and the players have until May 15 to appeal the decision. But, until that happens, we are glad we don’t have to wait for a months-long investigation on all of the counts before we can see the beginnings of closure.
The alleged brawl has caused rifts on the team and in the community. And it undoubtedly has created complications for new Rams head coach Jim McElwain, who likely would rather be focusing on honing his new team’s performance.
Making this decision as rapidly as it was made will allow the team, the community and—most importantly—Gocha’s wounds to heal.
Editorial:
———
The Daily Sentinel, May 7, on the civil unions bill:
The bill to allow civil unions among gay couples in Colorado faces its final obstacle in the state House of Representatives this week.
Or it will if Speaker Frank McNulty and other House Republican leaders allow the full House to debate and vote on the bill.
According to an article in The Denver Post Monday, McNulty was contemplating allowing the bill to die by not moving it to the House floor before the Legislature adjourns Wednesday.
That would be a colossal mistake.
To put it as straightforwardly as possible, all Colorado lawmakers need to vote on this difficult issue, and their constituents need to know where they stand.
Members of the Colorado Senate have already taken a stand on the civil unions bill. They passed it 23-12 last month, with several Republicans joining Democrats to support it.
McNulty should allow those in the House to also take a public position on the bill with their votes, and let their constituents and history judge whether they have done the right thing.
For the speaker to essentially stick the bill in his back pocket to prevent any action on it before the Legislature adjourns would make a mockery of the representative process that he is supposed to oversee in the House.
It would also be a chicken move—an indication that McNulty fears he doesn’t have the votes to kill a measure that he has long opposed but, which, according to recent surveys, a majority of Coloradans support.
The Daily Sentinel has made clear its support for the civil unions bill several times in the last two years. We believe it is a commonsense measure that allows people in committed homosexual relationships to enjoy many of the rights and remedies that heterosexual couples do. It would authorize them to make medical decisions for each other if one partner becomes incapacitated, share retirement and medical benefits, inherit real estate and personal property if there is no will, and more.
It does not authorize gay marriage, which is not allowed under the Colorado Constitution. But many opponents fear it allows something so close to marriage as to be indistinguishable.
For the record, we believe it makes sense for the government to get out of the businesses of sanctioning marriage entirely. The state should allow civil unions between heterosexual as well as homosexual couples. But those who want a sanctioned marriage should go to the church or religious organization of their choice for that.
What SB 2 does authorize is a contract between two people to share benefits, medical decisions, inheritance and other things, and to obtain a license that recognizes that contract. No one should view this as sanctioning easy, unserious relationships. If partners want to end the relationship, they will have to go through a judicial dissolution to do so.
We see no valid reason for Speaker McNulty and other Republican leaders to prevent a vote on Senate Bill 2.
Editorial:
