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