Editorials
Friday, May 22, 1998

Require deposit fees
for school textbooks

FOR years we've heard horror stories about a lack of textbooks in the public schools. The other side of the story is that thousands of textbooks are lost every year because students fail to turn them in at the end of the course.

In the 1996-97 school year, more than 16,000 textbooks were reported lost. The Department of Education spent $1.1 million on textbooks for that year. How much of that money went to replace books that were not returned wasn't known, but it must have been substantial.

The DOE is at a loss for ways to deal with the problem without denying the students' right to education. Schools are prohibited from withholding a student's class schedule or diploma. Officials say it will take more than denying offending students parking passes or banning them from walking in the graduation procession.

When books aren't returned, most schools notify students that they are responsible for the return or cost of the book, but clearly that doesn't work very well. Legislation passed at the last session authorizes the Board of Education to require deposit fees for books. Such a requirement might be a hardship for low-income families with several children, but if the system worked as intended they would get the money back at the end of the school year -- and the school would get the books.

The shortage of textbooks should be given a high priority among problems to be addressed by the school board. How can students learn without texts? However, spending a lot of money on books that are soon lost can't be justified. Let's get serious about this. A sizable deposit fee should go far toward solving the problem.

Indonesia’s new leader

PRESIDENT Suharto's decision to resign, effective immediately rather than at some indefinite future date, as previously announced, should give Indonesia breathing room to recover from the turmoil of the last two weeks. But the new president, Bacharrudin Jusuf Habibie, is a protege of Suharto and can hardly be expected to reverse Suharto's policies.

Nor is it likely that the protesters who forced Suharto out will be satisfied with a victory that is merely symbolic. Sooner or later, they will probably apply the same sort of pressure on Habibie to clean up the government and make it more democratic.

Habibie owed his positions as minister of research and technology and more recently as vice president to Suharto. He appears to have no political power base of his own, and could be a vulnerable target unless the army decides to support him fully.

Suharto announced that Habibie would serve out the remainder of his five-year term, which extends to March 2003, but this seems unlikely. Habibie would be wise to call a conference at which all political parties would be represented to revise the constitution as a prelude to new elections. Otherwise he faces the prospect of renewed protests.

The victory of the opposition in forcing Suharto out has come at a high price, setting back if not totally nullifying the efforts to revive the economy. The protests have taken more than 500 lives and an estimated $1 billion in damage in Jakarta alone. Foreign business executives and diplomats have been evacuated and factories closed. The International Monetary Fund has suspended loans until the situation stabilizes.

And it could get worse if the demonstrations continue, or resume after a short lull. Habibie probably has only a short time to put a program together that will take the initiative away from the opposition and prevent Indonesia from sliding further into chaos.

Celebrity shield

ACTOR Michael J. Fox complained to a U.S. House committee that he and other celebrities are "fair game" for news photographers "any time, any place, including within the confines of their own homes." Not in Hawaii and in many other states, because state laws already make it a crime for anyone, not only journalists, to stalk or harass anyone, not just celebrities. A bill supported by Fox that is aimed at cracking down on aggressive tabloid photographers would provide an intrusive federal shield for celebrities while state protection already exists.

Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif., the bill's sponsor, says it would preserve the right to photograph celebrities in public but not to engage in actions "that would jeopardize their safety." The notion that anyone now can legally jeopardize someone else's safety or trespass on their property may be true in some faraway land but not in the United States.

In Hawaii and we assume every other state, a person's uninvited presence on another person's premises is called trespass. Outside the home, numerous laws protect people from offenses ranging from reckless endangering to terroristic threatening to unlawful imprisonment to harassment, including stalking.

If that is not enough, a law against violation of privacy prohibits a wide range of actions, including "trespasses on property for the purpose of subjecting anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place." In unusual circumstances in which criminal laws may not apply, civil courts are available.

The federal legislation undoubtedly was prompted by the traffic death of Princess Diana while being chased by paparazzi in Paris. Diana was mentioned several times in the hearing. However, her death was directly caused not by the paparazzi -- however aggressive their behavior might have been -- but by the response of the driver of Diana's limousine, who was drunk.

A federal law aimed at a small number of tabloid photographers could intrude on the First Amendment protection of all of the news media. It isn't needed. If there is a problem, the solution is stronger enforcement of existing state laws.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor