Recent Kansas editorials

Manhattan Mercury, Sept. 25

The transition question non-question

Quite a bit’s been made of President Trump’s refusal to commit this past week to a peaceful transfer of power after the election.

Too much, in our opinion.

Look, if Donald Trump loses the election, Joe Biden will be the next president. There’s not going to be some sort of banana republic scene involving four-star generals dragging the ex-president out of the executive mansion by his ankles.

People who dislike Mr. Trump tend to strongly dislike him, and they seem to think he would do anything to stay in power. It’s almost understandable, since he’s willing to say anything that he thinks will immediately benefit himself. But it’s still too much of a stretch.

It’s important to distinguish between what Mr. Trump says and what he does. And it’s important to think about exactly why he says what he says.

This past week he said that “we’re going to have to see what happens,” in response to a reporter’s question about committing to a peaceful transfer of power. “You know that I’ve been complaining very strongly about the ballots, and the ballots are a disaster.”

He was referring to mail-in ballots, which he has been saying — without any justification — could be fraudulent.

Why is he saying that? He’s saying that because he thinks it immediately benefits himself somehow. It doesn’t matter whether it’s true or not — he thinks saying it will help his own political standing. That could be because it will discourage people from voting in advance by mail — giving himself more time to make up ground in the polls, and tilting participation slightly more in favor of a Republican than a Democrat. Or possibly because it will allow him to have a convenient excuse if he loses. Either way, doesn’t matter. That’s all the statement is about. He took the same tack last time, and ultimately it worked — he beat Hillary Clinton.

Also, if Mr. Trump said, “Sure, I would accept whatever the American people decide,” he would be conceding the chance that the will of the people would be to boot him from office. He’s never, ever going to portray himself as a loser. He doesn’t see that as immediately beneficial to himself, so he just wouldn’t accept that framework.

But let’s say he does lose. Maybe there’s a protracted court fight, and maybe a repeat of 2000. But even if it’s that, we’re not talking about civil war. We’re talking about a court case.

And, should he lose, he’ll walk out of that office and the new guy will come in. Mr. Trump will no doubt go on tweeting about fraud, and he’ll continue to try to make himself the center of attention for years afterward. It will no doubt be ugly.

But there will be a peaceful transition. Don’t lose any sleep over that.

_____

The Topeka Capital-Journal, Sept. 26

The state’s Office of Rural Prosperity and the Kansas Sampler Foundation announced an important partnership over the summer that may have gone overlooked by some. Kansas Power Up and Go is targeted at young professionals and aims to collect information about how they want to live and work - all with the goal of revitalizing our state’s rural areas.

It’s a most worthwhile goal.

After all, Kansas is a state with a storied legacy of farms and frontier families, folks braving the odds to create new lives for themselves on the plains. Our state’s history is one of determination and bravery, and of embracing this unique, windswept place.

Sadly, however, the state has struggled for decades with an exodus of young people. They have either left Kansas altogether or deserted rural areas for the more densely populated Northeast corridor. The new initiative aims, quite simply, to find out why.

Or as Sampler foundation executive director Marci Penner put it in a news release announcing the project: “It is an asset to be young! Why not round up the ideas, energy, talents, and vision of this age group? Instead of ignoring the perspective they bring to our state, let’s capitalize on it. If we can make the state more attractive to the under-40 group, it would make Kansas stronger and better for everyone.”

It can be easy to dismiss these perspectives. After all, the nature of youth is to rebel against or reject tradition - and valuing rural land and lifestyles is nothing if not traditional.

But traditions are a mixed bag. Sometimes they nourish and sustain. At other times they can hold back or choke off growth. That’s why gathering fresh perspectives is essential if we hope to transform rural Kansas into a growing, thriving, exciting piece of our state.

Participating in the ongoing data-gathering project is easy. According to the foundation, “For individuals who are 21-39, identify as rural, and would like to be interviewed, please contact the Kansas Sampler Foundation at marci@kansassampler.org or 620-585-2374.”

So add your voice. Let our state’s leaders and advocates know what you would like to see and do in a revitalized rural sector. With the COVID-19 pandemic prompting many to rethink their lives and careers in dense urban spaces, now is an opportune time to consider the wide variety of living options in the nation and our state.

Let’s respect and expand upon the rural legacy of Kansas.

—-

The Wichita Eagle, Sept. 28

Last we checked, Wichita State was a public university funded with public dollars.

But both the hiring and the sudden departure of President Jay Golden were shrouded in secrecy and anything but public.

WSU students, faculty, taxpayers and the Wichita community deserve better.

We deserve answers.

Last year the Kansas Board of Regents, which oversees state universities and colleges, decided that the search for late President John Bardo’s replacement would be closed to the public.

The university spent about $129,000 to recruit and interview potential candidates. Most members of a 20-person search committee - all except chairman Steve Clark, a Wichita real estate developer - were under a gag order and prohibited from discussing the search.

Regents met out of state, in a hotel conference room near the Kansas City airport, to interview finalists. Reporters were asked to leave the room. The finalists’ names were never released.

Then last Halloween, immediately following a vote by the regents at Wichita State, Golden was introduced as WSU’s new president.

It was telling - or foreboding, or perhaps just ironic? - that Golden vowed to move the university forward with transparency, shared governance, inclusion and respect.

“I hope that I work hard to be able to earn the trust and respect of people in the community,” he said last fall.

Now, less than a year after taking over, Golden is gone. His resignation came without warning or explanation following a hastily-called Regents meeting. And once again, no one is talking.

Jon Rolph, a Wichita restaurant owner and member of the Board of Regents, said the resignation was not related to Golden’s decision last spring to downplay a virtual commencement speech by Ivanka Trump.

But you can’t blame folks for presuming that was a factor.

Clark - a longtime booster, namesake of WSU’s new YMCA and Student Wellness Center and chairman of that secret search committee - said major donors had threatened to pull support from the university if Golden didn’t go.

The new president appeared to survive that flap in June. But why the silent, “nothing to see here” approach now?

Wichita State’s president is one of the most prominent, powerful and highest paid education leaders in the state. Closed searches for public university presidents are a recent phenomenon - and a mistake.

So that was bad enough. Now, Golden’s sudden departure comes as a shock to many, including high ranking members of WSU’s faculty and student government.

The Regents or Golden should spell out the reasons behind the resignation, and they should pledge to demystify the process for finding and hiring a replacement.

Kansas should return to its previous practice of open searches for public university presidents, allowing candidates to be introduced and thoroughly vetted by the public. That’s the best way to ensure integrity in the process, that a variety of well-qualified candidates receives consideration, and that the person who emerges is the right choice.

If universities don’t want to be upfront and open, state lawmakers should demand transparency.

Enough with the secrets. Public universities should answer to the public.