I
!
a
I
I
ft
J
ft
it
t
t
I
J
I
I
I
: ft
Page 2
EDiTORIAL
Thursday, November 15, 1962
OPINIONS DIFFER . . .
Does NU Need $37 Million?!
One again the University faces the
state represented by their legislators
in the biennial difference of opinion be
tween what the school feels it needs in
money to operate during the next two
years and what the people of the state
think it should have.
In 1961 the difference of opinion was
striking amounting to a $8,895,987 dif
ference. In 1959 the difference of opinion
amounted to $5,605,893. In 1957, $5,894,
160. These figures do not represent the
differences in total operating budgets for
the University, but only the differences
in the amount of money the University
has requested from the state's general
fund, which is what the legislature has
control over. Another $10 million is in
cluded in the budget for the next two
years from tuition, University hospital in
come, federal funds and other funds to
make the total operating budget pro
posed for the 1963-65 biennium as $47,
083,905. '
This part of the budget usually
doesn't change and is of no concern of
the legislature which has no control over
It in other words, the legislature cannot
reduce this amount. It is the money re
quested from the state's general fund
that suffers from the difference of opin
ion. This year's increase of $8.9 million
represents the difference between what
the University was given in 1961 and what
it is asking for from the state in 1963.
What about the difference in what the
University is asking this year and what
it asked for in 1960 which resulted in
the $28 million allocation? The University
is asking for a great increase in the
next biennium, but how does it com
pare with what it asked for prior to the
biennium ending this year?
In 1960 the University sent a budget
request of $30,701,893 from the general
fund. The legislature, after hearing the
tight fisted recommendations of their
budget committee and after hearing the
unpresidented complete support given by
the Governor's office (it was the first
time in state history that the governor
went before the legislature in person and
asked that they give the University just
exactly what it wanted), followed the
committee's recommendations cutting the
budget by $3 million. This was called
severe at the time and it was for it
represented a decrease of the requested
increase of $5.6 million to an actual in
crease of $2.8 million right in half.
Now the University faces the same
budget committee with the same gover
nor in office with a requested increase
over the last biennium of $8.9 million. In
comparing with the requested increase in
1960 with the requested increase made
last week, it seems the University's budg
et makers figure the situation has
changed enough to warrant another try.
Let's look at the figures. In 1960 the
University requested $30,701,893 it got
$28 million. Last week the University re
quested $36,991,987 from the state's gen
eral fund: an increase over the 1960 request
by $6,260,094.
Why would the University submit a
budget request which topped by some
$6.3 million a similar request made two
years ago which the legislature trimmed
by $3 million? They must face the same
legislature, committee and governor.
And besides, every state institution
wants more and more money each year.
What makes the University think it will
be one of the few who has their request
only slightly trimmed. In 1961 it was
hacked in two. Why?
No one would ever suggest that the
legislature rubber stamp the University's
request. The senators have the obligation
to their state to scrutinize the requests
of all its institutions closely for inflated
importance in some areas. This it does,
mainly through the budget committee,
which holds lengthy sessions with inter
ested parties and public hearings. How
ever, the budget requests should not be
scrutinized too closely as was the case in
1961. When a University is left for two
years without adequate funds to improve
salaries of its faculties and offer salaries
respectable enough to attract top educa
tors to the University then this can be
called too tight of control over the state's
purse strings. Notice the word "respec
table" was used in connection with sal
ary, not "high enough." No educator ex
pects to make a fortune teaching, other
wise they wouldn't stay in the field of
education very long. They feel their are
other ways to be rewarded. But they do
need respectable salaries to live.
The budget request has been made.
It has been called high by some. It is,
but not in respect to the beating the pres
ent budget took in 1961. Would this
year's request for general funds show
such a high increase if in 1961 the legis
lators would have been more liberal. We
doubt it. The University is trying to, or
hoping to, gain lost ground; or attain
the place it hoped to reach in this bien
nium but couldn't because the funds given
to it were not adequate. They weren't
even close. Yet the University has contin
ued to grow and expand. It has done well
with the funds given it. It has earned
more. The question is not will the Uni
versity grow, but at what rate. The ex
plosion of this year's enrollment has
shown that the rate has been too slow.
Now that the request is in to the
State Tax Commission a long hard proc
ess of getting an approved budget be
gins. Hearings, reports, conferences out
side the legislative chambers cram the
calendars of educator, administrator and
legislator alike. When the budget com
mittee presents its recommendation to
the legislature in session next summer
the difference of opinion becomes acute.
The only thing that can help is to be
sure all facts are known and understood.
This last consideration is where stu
dents can really play a big roll. In
groups they can take an interest in the
state legislature and its senators. As in
dividuals they must act as students of a
fine University.
A Staffer Speaks Out
Just what is the administration's attl.
tude toward sub-rosas? After reading the
"official statement" in the Monday issue
of the Nebraskan, I am more conlused
than ever.
The administration outlined six areas
in which the sub-rosas do not conform
with University standards.
Number 1 "Creation of suspicion
among students and faculty." This is
certainly a clear statement of policy.
This statement could be applied to the
Innocents Society or Mortar Boards in
their selection of members just as easily
as to sub-rosas
Number 2 "Division of student groups
precipitating the loss of student leader
ship." According to this, a student might
assume that student leaders could be
members of sub-rosas. For if it divides
student groups with a loss of leadership,
leaders of such a group must come from
sub-rosa members as well as non-members.
But I thought the administration
didn't want any sub-rosa member to be
a leader certainly this can be inferred
from their recent actions. Yet they seem
to recognize by this statement that this
type leader does exist and that this is
not wrong in itself (that these leaders are
sub-rosa members) but rather the idea
that they are responsible for a division.
This is indeed interesting. Certainly
Young Democrats and Young Republi
cans are responsible for a "division of
student groups, individuals or opinion."
Student Council also divides leadership
take, for example, last year's resolution
on the National Student Association in
which the final vote was 19-10; thus
splitting leadership, Dean Ross?
Number 3 "Acts of dishonesty."
Naturally, if we infer correctly, the ad
ministration feels that only sub-rosa mem
bers are guilty of lying? No one would
support such an absurd interpretation. No
student on this campus can claim his
record is free of "acts of dishonesty."
Surely, to suppose that sub-rosa members
should be dealt with so strongly for a com
mon fault is also absurd.
Number 4 "Acts of vandalism." Ob
viously, this must refer to the "sign paint
ing" episodes of recent concern. I'm
rather sure that most every student on the
campus has sometime in his life com
mitted a "minor vandalism" of some sort
What student can say he hasn t, ou 1
windows on Halloween (some of the more
adventurous may have also had a hand
in moving certain small, wooden
houses . . .) or "T-P-ed" some friend's
home. Sign-painting, it appears to me,
also fits in this class. Again the punish
ment is too harsh.
Number 5 "Unlawful consumption of
alcoholic beverages." Off hand, I can
think of approximately 6,000 University
students, who have some time in their
college career, been guilty of this offense.
Furthermore, I cannot believe the admin
istration is no naive as to think only sub
rosa members are guilty of this violation.
Yet why why are they so harshly dealt
with?
Granted, it is against the law. And
granted, a punishment is appropriate. But
ruining an entire college career and possi
bly a lifetime, is simply just too much.
Number 6 "Failure to assume respon
sibility for acts or statements." I suppose
this refers to such things as vandalism
(covered in the above paragraph) and the
Pixie Press.
A few words concerning this infamous
newspaper. The statements are libelous
supposedly. Does this mean that I think
those same statements are true?
Perhaps a better word would be satire.
The Pixie Press is, by most of its "read
ers", considered to be very clever and an
instrument of real worth if taken with a
grain of salt, as I'm sure most readers
do take it.
Granted, viewed from the outside,
some of the statements could be con
strued as libelous. But this is a college
community one in which we attempt to
live (somewhat unsuccessfully, by the
way) a forthright life in other words, we
try not to be "phony." Perhaps this pa
per helps us to see ourselves and our
campus in true perspective. Perhaps not.
But it certainly does make us all stop and
think. And thinking, to my knowledge, has
never been punished on any college cam
pus. It may be argued that, taken together,
the violations are serious enough to war
rant suspension. For my part, I refer to a
letter that appeared in the Nebraskan a
few days ago from a noteworthy profes
sor in the University Faculty: He felt that
we all do silly things, and furthermore
we have the right to these idiosyncracies.
Suspension from the University, how
ever . . . (J.m.)
7lsJ)AaAkarL
New members of Orchesis:
Nancy Risler, Linda Leding
ham, Marty Greenhou, Susie
lAnderstrom, Karlyn Ebner,
iBillie Smith, Linda Stadheim,
Elizabeth Menne, Susie Ga
bies, Jane Reeder, Gayle
Luff, Gwen Luff, Sandy Stef
anison, Judy Heilig, Susie
fAyres and Donna Block.
Pre-orchesis members:
fLynn Jiracek, Kathy Duff,
Molly Dow, Kathy Cochrane,
K a r e n Hoppee, Connie
iSharpe, Roberta K r i z and
f Carol jbarnall.
1 The following 23 girls who
were recently initiated into
Vquaquettes: Linda Batt,
Judy Baxter, Shirley Bottorff,
fCamie DeVriendt, Beth Dros
kin, Lynn Eden, Judi Heilig,
Debby Holden, Sandy Lane,
Margie Larson, Gayle Luff,
Gwen Luff, Sandy Palmer,
Marilyn Petersen, Ann
IPierce, Ellen Reifschneider,
ISusan Skarda, Janet South
fwick, Cindy Tenhulzen, Bar
bara Trltes, Jean Wagner,
Charlotte Walter, and Greta
Woodward.
i The new president and
schairman of Phi Beta Lamb-
Ida, a national fraternity for
:ollege students majoring in
secretarial and business edu
cation. I Mary Sellentin will serve as
the new president, while the
:ommittee chairmen are: Su
san Wood, historian; Judv
Gant, publicity; Ann Bartholo- About Letters I
IIIV I f UWllVWI.WtOJ , Vvl i. 111V
fjXewton, photographer; and
Sharon Maclay, membership.
Dorothy Hazel, assistant
professor of business educa
tion will act as chapter ad
is viser.
Buzz, Buzz, Buzz
Sub Rosa Rumors
Fly About Campus
Interspersed among us
The sick, ever destroying
Plot of the underground,
Unseen, but strongly
There
Psychologically
Destroying the faith of
Human beings in one
Another.
Destroying integrous
Organization, Loyalty
And friendship.
One accuses another,
And he in turn accuses
Another.
Who can say?
Who can accuse?
With what proof?
Flagstone, slate
And Cement
Painted yellow
destruction,
Compared to the wieldy
Psychological destruction
Of the unity of people
Gathered together
To live.
Now, to live
In constant strife,
Suspicion
And hate
There being no concrete
basis
Usually
1
i r i m n
How can one, who
Only the psychological
Belief
That everyone is a guilty
One.
These are the forces that
destroy men.
They have destroyed
And they will destroy more,
Whether they know it or
or not.
Says he is not
Ever expect belief
When suspicions whisper:
"They're built on false
hoods, They thrive on falsehoods,
They lie,
They're interspersed among
us."
Sincerely,
Sue Blevens
Quotable
Quips
Editor's note: The follow
ing "daffynUiunS," quotes
and song dedications are
a conglomeration of ma
terial from other collegi
ate newspapers and the
unlimited minds of the
editorial staff. (Thank
you.) ,
Honor student: Any
freshman who has not
taken his first mid-term
exam.
Exchanges: A social
way of doing what nature
would get around to soon
er or later anyhow.
Drop slips: Small slips
of paper which can save
students, frustrate in
structors, and keep some
publisher happy.
Local bank account: An
imaginary bottle which
has a small hole at the
top for use by parents,
and a large hole at the
bottom for use by the stu
dent. The chance of finding a
good parking place:
Roughly equivalent to
catching a tiger shark in
Omaha's Carter Lake with
a flyrod.
Rock-and-roll on stereo:
Overlapping nausea.
The freshman: An in
telligent young person
whose desire for knowl
edge is a shining beacon
in the dark.
The sophomore: A
somewhat more worldly
individual whose beacon
has developed a flicker.
The junior: A cynical
youth who enjoys an occa
sional non-intellectual beer
party in the twilight.
The senior: A some
what worried individual
who sits in the dark writ
ing application letters.
The pipe: First thing
the freshmen buy. Their
trouble usually comes
when they try to use to
bacco in it.
Victory party: Respon
sible, according to some
authorities, for at least
half of the support given
to the team.
Price of books and sup
plies: The only thing
presently higher than the
Russian astronauts.
Quarter break: An offi
cial time-out designed to
allow professors a sani
tarium treatment,
groundsmen a chance to
repair the damage to the
campus, and students a
chance to get their eyes
uncrossed.
SPECIAL STUDENT DISCOUNT
I SANTA SAYS HURRY
TO
! KAUFMAN's Jewelers
Your Credit is Welcome
1332 O Guaranteed Better Quality
j Diamonds Watches Jewelry
KEEPSAKE 1.0(,1IS BULOVA
1
piiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiimt
Daily
Nebraskan
SEVENTY-SECOND
YEAR OF
PUBLICATION
I Telephone 432-7631
, ext. 4225, 4226, 4227
Member Associated Col-
legiate Press, Internation-
al Press Representative,
National Advertising
i Service, Incorporated.
Published at: Room 51,
1 Student Union, Lincoln 8,
Nebraska.
3 Entered eeeond rlisi matter.
mun paM. al the post "let ia
Lincoln. Nebraska.
The Dallr Nebraska li published
Monday. Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday during the uhool rear, ex-
cent vacation and exam periods.
and ece darlnt August br sludenta
ml the University or Nebraska under
the authorisation at the Committee
on Student Affairs as an expression
H of student opinion. Publication
s di-r the Jurisdiction of the subcom-
s mitte Student Publications shall
be free from editorial censorship
on the part af the subcommittee or
3 on the part af any person outside
the University. The members of the
3 Dally Nebraskan staff are person-
S ally responsible for what they say
or da. ar cans ta ha printed.
3 February . IMS.
BUSINESS STAFF
Business Manager John Zellincer
3 Assistant Bnslness Managers:
3 BUI Gonlicke, Bob Cunningham
E Tom Fitchett
3 Circulation Manager.... Jim Trastar
The Dally Nebraska Invites
readers to as H far expressions S
of opinion on current topics regard-
less of viewpoint. Letters must be
j signed, contain a verifiable ad- rz
dress, and be free of libelous ma-
terlal Pen names may be In-
r: eluded and will bo released anon
rz written reauesi.
E Brevity and legibility Increase
the chance af publication. Lengthy
letters may be edited ar omitted
E Absolutely none will be returned.
Illillllllllllllllllllllllllllllilllilltlllllllllllllltlllllllli
NEBRASKA vs. O.U.
Nov. 21 at Norman, Okla.
Reserve your room NOW at
PLANET INN MOTEL
6821 S.E. 29th., Oklahoma City
PRIVATE CLUB FIVE FOOD
25 Minute from the game
uw
aaKpftaannBBW ana SBBBnh
'jpt miiiiiiioii iMirjiniimimiQiiii iiiairiiiiiiiiiiidiiiiiiiiiiiinisiiiiiiiiiiiiDiii inaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiitiniimiiii'1
COLLEGE SPECIAL - j
I YOUR KEY TO SOCIAL SUCCESS
5 HOURS PRIVATE INSTRUCTION
L.uiLtL.t (JLAoocS S5 PER HOUR) $1 ft en
NO CONTRACTS VU
DON'S SCHOOL OF DANCNG 4009 A ST. I
3
PHONE 459-2581
LESSONS AT FRATS AND SORORITIES UPON REQUEST
iiiiiiiiiaiiHiiiiiiKiaiiiiiiiiiniaii imia iiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiaiaiiiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiMiaMiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiMiaiiiiininiial
iimmmt (mm tmmmm
UUUW U iJ
V
&m fita
