EDITORIAL THE MARSTON MESS Only time will tell whether Carter's decision to dump U.S. Attorney David W. Marston will leave the President with egg on his face. The decision of the Justice Department was that Carter and Chief Justice Griffin Bell had no knowledge of the Eilberg probe when making the decision to fire Marston, but the biggest problem is selling this to the American public. The Carter Administration blames Marston's use of Dress conferences to build his image as his demise. Marston, on the other hand, feels that Eilberg's knowledge of the probe about his dealings with the Hahnemann Hospital in Philadelphia led to his firing. Whatever the reasoning, one can be assured that this event doesn't look good after Carter's campaign promise to keep politics out of the Justice Department. Now that all eyes will be on Marston's replacement, Carter must make sure that he picks a competent and honest replacement. If this is done the whole matter may blow over; if not, Carter's integrity will be in dire straights. But no matter who is assigned to fill the vacancy, the Eilberg probe can by no means be forgotten. It must be caried through to completion. Crixtttirt 13 illtqlti weu..,Nota itiol Scots. 15 to Off OF 70, NORMAL( AN "F . t NOW, I'VE REBALANCED THE sages OUT DOES THIS SCORE MEIN? BY CREATING A NEW MEDIAN IMNIOI of the Pennsylvania State University The Capitol Campus RTE. 230, Middletown, Pa., 17057 Editors-in-Chief Editorial Page Editor— Layout Editor Copy Editor Arts Editor Peggy Hartzel, Rick Haythornthwaite, Nell Landes, Frank Lynch, Randy Myers, John Stachowlak, Sandy Stem, Maureen Doyle Manager The Capitol Campus Reader is the school newspaper of Penn State's Capitol Campus. It is published by the students who attend this school. We of the Reader Staff try to accurately represent the voice of the students, and keep them informed as to current events and relevant issues. We are published on a weekly basis. Capitol Campus Reader Office W-129-131 Phone (717) 944-4970 Doug GeorgA --------Jim Musselman Business and Advertising In response to H. Geiger's derogatory comment on the Equal Rights Amendment in the January 19 issue of the C.C. Reader, I would like to list some of the benefits women have received since the 1971 passage of the Pennsylvania ERA: 1. A wife can now sue for consortium (loss of affection, companionship and services) if her husband is injured or incapacitated. Formerly, only men had this right because wives were regarded as property. 2. Husbands and wives now have joint ownership of property whereas before all property was considered to be the husband's, unless the wife could prove otherwise. 3. A married women can retain her maiden name or change back to it if she so desires. 4. Many more careers have opened up to women under the Pennsylvania Discriminatory practices, such as height regulations, have been challenged in courts. Women have become more aware of discrimination be cause of the ERA. 5. Girls in school can play on boys' teams if they choose to do so. 6. In rape trials, a provision hasi been abolished that formerly allowed the judge to give special instructions to the jury suggesting that the victim's testimony is not as credible as the defendants because of the type of crime involved. One objection to women's suffrage was the belief that the American family would be destroyed if women gainea such a right. Women have been voting for over fifty years and the family is still a basic structure in America. Since the early 1970's people have been using the same type of argument against the ERA. Many people still persist in saying that the ERA will destroy the family, create unisex facilities and force women to solely support their family. Even though the ERA has been passed by 35 states, family life has not disappeared from American life, nor has any of the other predictions about the ERA come true. Using these senseless argu ments against the ERA is just another excuse to prevent women from gaining the full rights they deserve as human beings. Brian McDonough Jeff Stout What's happening??? Do we realize the time has come? You ask the time for what? The time for Caring! Have you noticed the general level of apathy in our student body? I have, and this is causing me great concern. d McKeown Carol Andress 811 l Konlsolic3 Lately I have heard an undercurrent on campus. This undercurrent deals with the quality of the C.C. Reader. Students and Faculty are voicing their opinion that the Reader is not up to a college chives Page Barbara Tarvydas LETTERS EDITOR I'd like to comment on the column the Candidates written by Mr. Lynch. Being involved in politics I welcomed a column dealing with the various individuals seeking the office of Governor of this . Commonwealth. An unbiased look at the candidates would and should help a voter make a decision however the column in the C.C. Reader on January 19 is not unbiased. It reeks of political overtones. Mr. Lynch in discussing Robert P. Casey uses the term "magical" to describe Mr. Casey's name. He then editori alizes and declares Robert P. Casey Governor 'of Pa. In reality he may not receive his parties nomination. A recent poll showed Mr. Flaherty as the leading candidate for the Democratic primary. Mr. Lynch, the column is a good idea and could be of interest, but refrain from injecting your own biases into it. In writing an article of this nature objectivity must be used. Don Cernugel Dear Editor, I am amazed to see the unfounded fears that three short sentences have evoked. Herwith, the Equal Rights Amendment in it's entirety. Section 1, Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. Section 2, The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Section 3, This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. How good or evil are these words? Judge for yourself! For equality, Linda Weaver paper. Have we as students and faculty forgotten that the paper is a part of all of us? It exists as an outlet for all of our opinion on any subject. The Reader's quality can only reflect the quality/quanti ty of the involvement by us all! Are you aware that the Reader still needs staff people? Writers, photographers, secre taries, or anyone who has some interest to donate. There is an irony in all of this that would strike me as Geiger's arguments against the ERA are remarkably similar to the ridiculous scare-tactic arguments used by other anti-ERA groups in their fight to prevent half the population from receiving e quality under the law. His or her first falsehood is contained in the statement: "Overlooked are the following facts about ERA." The "facts" as listed are merely possible :though highly improbable) interpretations of the ERA. By no means can these be called facts! Let's look at Geiger's first allegation - that the ERA will invalidate all state laws which require a husband to support his wife. The ERA might conceivably eliminate laws which require one partner in a marriage to support another or be fined and imprisoned. It will not, however, outlaw voluntary. support of a spouse by either husband or wife. I know of no happy, well adjusted family where the supporting spouse rendered support because there was a law that said he/she had to, or where either husband or wife would refuse to lend a hand in supporting the other should the need arise. For most, no law is needed to force one to support the other. The allegation that this will be the death blow to the family is ludicrous, to say the least. Parents will not be exempted from supporting their children. Rather, who contributes what in terms of money and time will most probably be up to the parents. Perhaps men will not be forced to support and provide a wife with a home, but, again, there will be no law against a husband voluntarily supporting a wife or vice-versa. Geiger seems to draw quite a few elaborate and ridiculous assumptions of equality for all persons. I certainly do not take these allegations seriously. They fail to persuade me that the ERA is not a needed declaration of equality. Anniken Howell [Editor's Note: We would like to apologize to Ms. Howell for not printing her entire letter. Due to the phenomenal length we were not able to print it in its entirety and still be able to fit the other letters on the page. We ask anyone who would like their letters printed to please limit the length to a reasonable size.] funny if it weren't true. This irony has to do with education. You get an education so that you may contribute to society. After graduation our involve ment will be as engineers, accountants,... How can we get involved after graduation, if we don't learn to get involved now? Involvement is caring. Show your care now. The C.C. Reader needs YOU! By Sandy Mancuso Community Services . , Committee
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers