Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 15, 1967)
Page 2 The Daily Nebraskan WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 1961 1 mm mmm Lost Cool By Liz Aitken Why is the University's budget al ways cut? That is a question that has been haunting me all year, to finally I decided to do something about it. I made an excursion to the Statehouse and there talked to some of the senators who are most conversant with the University budget and its problems. No, I didn't find the answer but I did get bits and pieces of an explanation and would like to pass them on to you. There is, of course, the factor that the Legislator who ultimately votes on the approval of the budget is bound by a dual representation. He not only is dedi cated to what is best for the state, but al so what is best for the citizens of the district which he represents; and we all know that big budgets mean high taxes, an area in which the average Nebraskan is just as conservative as he is in every other part of his life. Another factor, and one that I would like to discuss most fully here, is that of the University's presentation of its bien nial budget. This presentation takes on special importance when one realizes the relationship between the University and the Budget Committee. This Legislative committee is the Uni versity's representative on the floor of the Unicameral. If the University does not give the committee all the pertinent facts behind their request, they are merely cut ting their own throats for without the proper facts, the committee can only function inadequately, at best. As a specific example of the handi cap imposed by a lack of full knowledge, let me cite the situation two years ago when a member of the budget Commit tee was being challenged on a point con cerning the University's building pro gram. He had not been informed that the University officials had employed experts to study the most efficient utilization of university buildings and had to field sena tors' questions while lacking the full per spective. Even today he feels that the miss ing information would have helped the committee's case for the University's bud get. This withholding of facts from the committee, unintentional or otherwise, stems from a feeling that runs nation-wide the more penalties the budget will incure with the legislators. This lack of trust may or may not be founded on past sit uations, I don't know. But I do know that an attitude which holds that pertinent in formation must be withheld in order to gain certain objectives is a self-defeating one and should be discarded, no matter what the imagined penalties. What I am going to say next may seem contradictory of what I have just proposed, but another problem with the University's budget is that there are too ing but confuse the men who are trying to evaluate the University's needs. The justification alone for this biennium's bud get runs to ten volumes ten volumes! Can. you imagine many senators wading through all that? I can't, but I can pic ture a number of senators voting against a budget simply because they can't make sense out of pages and pages of figures and words. One senator put it more directly: "The more facts, papers, and reports that the University presents without clarifica tion, the less they will achieve." And sadly enough this year's budget promises to contain more details than ever and to prove more complicated than ever to the senators. This is not entirely the fault of the get. They prepare their report under a subcommittee of the Department of Ad ministrative Services of Nebraska. This department carries out two functions, ac counting and budgeting, and has tradi tionally stressed the former rather than the latter. So, instead of casting light on the problem, the mountain of facts they compile only tend to obscure it. So what is to be done? In the words of a senator, "The University should not come before the committee with an iron curtain of conversation and volumnious reports. They should come armed with more than figures." Perhaps the moun tainous reports ought to be on hand for reference purposes but the University of ficials should prepare a concise dossier, containing all the pertinent facts for their case and a brief resume of the philosophy behind their requests. I agree that this is a Herculean task but it is one which must be undertaken. Some of the senators called for more participation by the Buard of Regents. They pointed out that the Board should act as middleman between the public and the University. Instead, at the moment the Board of Regents plays only an "in significant, minute part" in the Univer sity's budget request and is "less able to understand Legislative problems than the Administration (of the University)." This situation was termed a "major tragedy" by one of the senators. In an effort to augment its understand ing of the University's needs, the budget committee is currently visiting the cam pus. Yesterday, the committee met with officials of the University to quietly dis cuss general, overall problems. Today the committee is visiting the Liberal Arts di visions of the University to talk with Deans, heads of departments and mem bers of the faculty. Tomorrow the com mittee will go to the Science and Engi neering areas and Friday it will be on East Campus to talk with Agricultural personnel. Four years ago a program of this na ture was carried out with subcommittees, but this is the first time a program of this extent has been tried. I'm sure that I am not alone in hoping that this experi ment will be successful; as one senator said "information at crowd-packed hear-;", ings is less effective and less impressive than on-the-spot observations." In the same tenor, at least two mem bers of the committee stated that they would like to come to campus next week and talk with students. They felt a healthy discussion with students would be help ful where the students could discuss what kind of education they are getting and what problems they face at the Uni versity. These personal meetings with the bud get committee are at least a beginning towards the understanding and the co operation which we need so badly between University and Legislature. That's What It Says "Is there something really wrong with today's crop of college kids" ... so begins a recent editorial in the Peoria Journal Star. But this editorial didn't ramble on for a thousand words and then end without drawing a conclusion. In deed, it pinned down the very thing which affects today's college students so adverse ly. You say college students aren't strange? Well, then, the Peoria Journal Star asks, why is it that a group of University of Illinois students wanted the dean of students to meet with them so they could confront him with questions like these: Why does the University have the authority to tell you where to live until you're 23 years old? Why is the University an accom plice in deciding which students 'qualify' to be sent to Vietnam (i.e. reporting stu dents' grades)? Why can the Navy, Marines, etc., use the 'Student' Union and not the un recognized student group, the W.E.B. Du Bois Club? When will graduate students be given significant voice in the decision of the University? What Is (are) the established chan nel (s) for voicing student grievances and obtaining meaningful action? The Journal Star goes on to say that these, questions point up two significant characteristics about the students who ask them: 'IThey are bothered by discipline whetEer it be the discipline of military service; university police, or the studies they are taking. They don't even know bow r where to complain e.g. their last question)." The editorial goes on to say that It docin't know how Deuu Miiiett consoled "these youngsters" but it hopes he told them to bury their sorrow by hitting the books a little harder. "Whatever," (what ever that means) the Journal said, "the fact remains that these college kids are a different breed." And what did the Journal point the finger at for corrupting America's col lege "youngsters" for making them a different breed? A plot by the Commies? or by floridation proponents? SMERSH? or SPECTRE? No, it was television! Because Mickey Mouse made kids in to young adult Mousketeers who think that society exists to entertain them. Because children raised in the elec tronic world of "white hats" and "black hats" can't be expected to conclude that anything counts but the "fast draw." Because kids who watched news pro grams showing South American students spitting on Nixon, and Southern Ameri cans disobeying federal laws, automati cally conclude that it is okay to spit on their college deans and to disregard Uni versity rules. Because who can believe that kids "who saw Independence and chaos go hand In hand in the Congo" would not think that "the mob scene was the highest expression of liberty?" Why hasn't anyone thought of this be fore? With all the sociologists, psychia trists and whatever else there are on the University payroll, someone should have come up with the brilliant idea before an editorial writer for a downstate newspa per. Why not even Solomon with all his wisdom . . . Looking back on these foolish student protests of the past, it is hard to imagine that students ever thought they should be concerned with where and how they live, whether or not they would have to spend several years in military service, whether or not they have a voice in the Univer sity, whether or not they pay fee money for all sort of ridiculous buildings, or have an established channel for voicing grievances. Not even the staunchest critic of Stan Millet could ever claim that, his- mind addled by television, he ever thought of paying any attention to these silly kids who object to things that are none of their business. tiD You Kuoto "Yuvr This column is aimed at every man, woman and pencil-packing child at the University. I don't care if you're an Ag Campus freshman or a PhD candidate in physics, what I will be saying applies directly to you. Why Because SNATCH is going to grab hold of great issues. SNATCH is go ing to try, at least, to talk about what is most relevant to you as a human being. a Begin with sex (God did didn't He) I don't think one column last semester ever talked about sex. Why? Sex is certainly more relevant to most of us right now than the Student Bill of Rights, Black Power or Free University. I'll not hit this deal all semester, but it's a good place to start. If psychologists are right this should smooth a solution to all other problems too. Hot Dog! "So!! Is "Playboy" magazine really the manifesto of the Sexual Revolution? Dear reader, is there really such a thing as the Sexual Revolution or is this term a cunning counter-revolutionary suber fuge? I will tell you how these questions came to lodge themselves in my mind. A seminary friend of mine wrote a letter to "Playboy" last summer in which he suggested that "Playboy" was more relevant to most people than God. Semi nary officials weren't pleased to see his letter published so much relevance at once I guess nevertheless the point stood: No one goes around saying '"Playboy is dead." That got me to thinking! First, just because no one has the guts to say "x" doesn't mean "x" isn't true. Dictatorship of Chairman Mao is no more stultifying to Chinese kids than Dictatorship of Chair man Conformity is to American kids. Idolatry of any kind prolongs anxiety. Secondly, to admit "x" as fact is not to approve of "x." Fact is we spread na palm on Vietnam kids and LBJ wants more of my tax money to pay for It, but if you think I've got to approve you must really take me for a fool. Enough said! So the time has come for the final and ultimate secular blasphemy 'and a new school of sexalogians) reader, Colum nist says: "Playboy is Dead." "Playboy" is dead because its philos ophy is basically anti-sexual and anti-human. It encourages the psychological hangup (i.e. sickness) of voyeurism (i.e. "Looky here, heh, heh) which isolates a person in his private lust behind goopy syrup of "cool stud." In short, "Playboy" philosophy makes average guy envious, withdrawn, smug and dull the very opposite of outgoing sexual hero Tom Jones. A sexual person has an alert aware ness toward life, a readiness to love his qwn mystex.Us Jiatalie Wood. .does. with.. ITer eyes) anff share that of others. Aware-" ness not cerebralization or talk is the key word. The moment this uncalculating total consciousness is lost and one divides him self, focusing and limiting attention to re productive organs for instance, then grove is lost-and-the spell is broken. An em- -embarrassed awkwardness sets in, as if a graceful dancer suddenly broke rhythm and stopped to belabor simplest steps. "Playboy" is ridiculous! Can you imagine Tom Jones reading "Playboy" "Playboy" is a magazine to tltilate eun uchs who haven't wherewithal (i.e. sim ply self-awareness) to be Tom Jones's. Am I prudish and reactionary to de clare this? Henry Miller said pretty much the same thing in an '"Esquire" inter view last spring and Allen Ginsberg said at the University last year let it come from the heart baby, not the brain. But these are courageous men, men incomprehensible to Average Guy. Av erage Guy is duped by that slogan: "Keep your cool!" which means, "keep up de fenses, keep up that wall between your public and private selves, keep up that mask of cynical boredom until even you forget the quivering mystery hidden with in you." I wish someone could prove to me that the Sexual Revolution isn't a sham, but I'm afraid they can't. The most irre futable proof of the Great Emasculation plot Is this: American society Is afraid of real emotions, real sex, real love. All these things are to be hidden and repressed as unsophisticated and dirty 'also to be enjoyed as dirty, with a rath er nervous, unconfident joy). In place of the real is substituted the synthetic; in place of emotions is substituted callow sensationalisms; in place of sex is sub stituted drunken lust; in place of love is substituted selfish and febrile emptiness of the lonely crowd all of this is "Play boy" voyeurism writ large on billboards. (Dailu Tlebrash ma Vol. tO, No. M Feb. IS, 1967 This is good to know. t Secood-claaa poatage paid at Lincoln. Neb. TELEPHONE: 477-5711, Zxteiulong IMS. 2589 and 2380. SubecrlpUon ratea art 14 per aemee tr or 5 for the academic year. Hh liahed Monday, Wednesday, Thuraday and Friday during the achuol year, except during vacallona and exam perioda , by the etudenta of the I'm verelty of Nebraaka under the Jurladic Uon of the Family Subcommittee on Student Publication. Publication! ihall be free from renaorahlp by the Kub rommlllee or any pi-raun ouUlde the tniverally. Mtmbere of the NcbraakaB are reaponalble for what they cauae to be printed. Member Aaaoclaled Collegiate Preaa, National Advertlalng Service, Incor porated. Published at Room 91, Nebraaka Union, Lincoln, Neb.. . EDITORIAL gTAFF fcdiior Wayne Kreuachen Managing Editor Bmce Gllees New Keillor Jan Itkini Night Newa Edltoi Ulll Minitiri Editorial Page Aeelnlanl Suile I'helpaj Sporta Editor Ed Irenoglei Aaalatant Srta Editor Terry Graamicki 8-nlor guff Wtitera. Julie Morrla, C'boryi 1 rill. Randy Ireyi Junior Siaf Wrltera, Mirk Inve, David Huntaln. Roger Boye. Jin Kvlnner, Dan Looker. Paul Eaton, Murk Gordon, Chrie Cannon: Newe AealMant Eileen Wlrlh; Phutographere, Mike dayman, Doug Kelatrei Copy Edltore Komney IteutHl, Lynn Ann Gnttarhalk, Marty Dietrich. Jackie Glaaoock, Chile Stockwell. Diana Unduulat, Peg Ben nett BUtUNEW HTAFF Buiilneae Manager Bob titnnt Na tional Adverliaiiie Manager Roger Boye I Production Manager L'harle Ilaaleri Claaalfled Advertlalng Manag ers Janet Boatman, John Flemmlng; Secretary Amy Bouakal Bualneaa Ae alatanta Bob Carter, Glenn Friundt, lluao Fuller, Chrla lyiuxee, Kathy Schnoley, Linda Jeffrey I Subecrlntlou Manager Jim Buntit Circulation Man tt Lynn Hlh.i-n; circulation AohIhI. ant Gary Meyer; Bookkeeper Craig MeiUneon. IIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIIIIIDIIIIIIIIIIIiailllM MATC1H1 ! ... BY STEVE ABBOTT I Cornhusker Publicity Poor Dear Editor: Recently selections have been made for the Cornhusk er's Eligible Bachelor candidates. We understand that this project's purpose is to promote Cornhusker sales, but we also believe that it must be conducted in an open and democratic manner. Although we realize that slightly less than 15 per cent of the men residing in campus live In this unit, the fact that no publicity or information has been received, eith er before or after the sales competition is still hard to rationalize. The Eligible Bachelor contest is probably more rep resentative of the male population on this campus than any other competition, we say this because it receives more space in the Cornhusker, and therefore more publici ty present and future, than any other activity of this type. It seems that the Cornhusker has taken its responsi bility as the sponsor and publisher of this contest rather lightly. We have been able to uncover the fact that 25 Cornhusker sales must be credited to a unit before it is eligible to present a candidate, and for each additional 25 Cornhusker sales an additional candidate is allowed. The Cornhusker editor tells us that only eleven Corn huskcr sales were credited to Cather, thereby setting our number of candidates at zero. Due to the lack of publicity we were not able to inform our residents that they should be sure their purchase was credited to Cather Hall, but even considering the publicity the eleven sales credited to us is ridiculous. Over 75 Cornhuskers were purchased by Cather residents, either in their rooms or in the first floor lobby. We see no reason why our unit is not entitled to have credit on these sales, even though our residents may not have stipulated who should get the credit for them. We wonder how many other men's residences or fraternities have had this same problem. We realize it is hard for the Cornhusker staff to con tend with the time factor involved but it would be nice if at least alightly representative of the men on this campus. The purpose of this letter is not merely to protest the Cornhusker staff, but to show the bad management that we are afraid is an example of how many University ac tivities are handled, these activities lose any purpose or value they might have if handled in such a manner. Cather Hall Executive Council -... Jim Ludwig, president ; piiinniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiM'iiiiiiiiiiiiiiM ..NUtes 1 Sliaren ffo (Bcnnet a "These boots were made for walkin' . . ." Ever notice how energetic and vivacious most music majors are on this campus? Of course, Nebraskans are naturally healthy, vigorous people (so I'm told every time my New Jersey sinuses give me a hard time). But music majors have got to be the healthiest. If you are both on-campus and earless you will be guaranteed a frisky fifty-mile (well ... six or seven blocks, one way anyway) hike from day to day. Even at other colleges and universities I've seen the music building alway gets erected at one of the far corn ers of campus usually the farthest far corner. And why is the physical education building always always at the opposite far corner. The best NU exercise yet Is a schedule that cleverly sandwiches a 501-building-type-gym-course between two music courses, the last of which is just before that empty walk back to the residency for lunch. Such thoughtful plan ning Is guaranteed to make you hungry and healthy as long as you keep walking to work off all those extra cal orics. Now that the new music building Is home base it's even farther to strut. But down deep (even to the cal loused soles of the feet) we're not complaining. A new building is a great way to bong in a new year and a new semester. It really gives you that "second chance" feel ing when you move to fresher quarters. Actually we made the switch right after Christmas State Santa Claus finally delivered. Except for some labor problems it would have been a Labor Day gift. We're so glad to be there at last that it doesn't really matter which present it was. What a haven to make music In! It's roomy, well lighted, and scientifically designed to be kind to musical sounds and the ears that hear them. The newest benefits the majors appreciate most include: bigger lockers! Even the small ones will hold a violin, guitar, heavy coat, boots, shoe bag, metronome, scarf, earmuffs, textbooks and music galore. I tried and it only took a little shove to close It leaving an inch to spare here and there. Other delights include numerous new pianos with keys that all play; private practice rooms with greater soundproof-ability and tinier windows which prevent persistent peeping. Now even the super-shy-self-conscious folks feel free enough to practice even the screechlest, scratchiest assignments without worrying about an unwanted audi ence. The atmosphere is great for concentration: It's much quieter in the halls and better lighted in all the rooms. Even the professors are more jovial now that they have such nice plush studios to call home away from home. Oh yes! The luxury of all luxuries "MEN" and "WOMEN" on EVERY floor! Only one problem. Now with eight lavoratories, fifty practice rooms, and numerous ensemble rooms to pick from (Not to mention all' the classrooms and studios), your only hope for "running into" someone is class. It takes an efficient advance appointment-time, latitude and Iongitude-to find any one musical friend, unless he's a special assistant or grad student with his own office-and-name-on-the-door-on-the-third-floor. But a little search party now and then is a micro scopic price to pay for a really superb place to learn musicianship. Every one should have it so good! W'V- fc -a -- -4 -,- . " t,,'.-iv:,!.-'.--'