Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 1, 1967)
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
WEDNESDAY, MARCH I, 1967
Mandate For A Better Future
Nebraskans, today is your birthday!
How apropos a sort of eulogy would
be, glorifying t h e building of a grand
graceful prairies cleared and culti
vated to raise food for the nation,
rugged pioneers bearing the hard
ships of untamed nature in order to set
tle our land and build our towns,
unspoiled politicians and artists rep
resenting the views of midwesterners to
the country and the nation,
friendly common folk charming
We will be hearing these things and
much more about Nebraska's First 100
Years in the following Centennial. We will
see beards and Queen's balls and health
shows and art exhibitions. We will put
Centennial stamps on Centennial station
ery and we will wear Centennial buttons
on Centennial tee-shirts for the glory of
We are about to become drugged in
nostalgia of the past
But, truly, it's not a bad thing. There
is fascination in learning the history of
a state that built a sophisticated civiliza
tion from a land of primitive Indians in
a little over a century. Young Nebras
kans should understand the tradition
which too often they quickly criticize. It
is to the credit of civic leaders across the
state, particularly Centennial Director
Don Shriner, for organizing this fantas
tic celebration. Centennial planner for the
University, Elaine Kallos, is also to be
But what should we make of the Cen
tennial, except a big party?
It is a mandate for a better future.
Can young Nebraskans build a state
so the next Centennial does not have to
close its eyes to ugly history of discrimi
nation in its cities, ignored slums, lag
ging institutions of education? Can we
bnild better roads so travelers will not
wince as they hurriedly pass through our
state? Can we create an attitude in our
people which will willingly recognize the
necessity of strong state government
built upon an adequate tax base?
Most important, can we realize that
these problems are ours?
The saddest thing about the Centen
nial is that the most celebrated product
of the state, the young people, exodus
across the borders while the shouting is
on. It is the responsibility of today's youth
to prevent this irony when in 2067 the
celebrations begin again. They must stay
in Nebraska and help develop the indus
try, strengthen the school systems, sup
port a stronger government, build better
While they are building their futures
out of untapped potential, they will lay
the foundations for a state which, in the
next 100 years, will really have some
thing to shout about.
rm tK OUT TJG Vfefcw.
PoSTTio F Tut
t2fclxnv& To TUG.
V JLA . .af III
X 'pAy Fo? TikH.
Blackboard In Einstein's Study
By J. Paul Ronln
Symbolic chalk marks questing.
New thought-voyages dared.
Deduction on deduction.
E equals MC-squared
Equation on equation.
Fiercely blazing wonder.
Shrieking, in this quiet room.
Planets burst asunder.
But stars keep old appointments
Every hostile hour
For time is still
And the Glory
And the power.
Vol. W If. M
March 1, 196J
Second-clan portm paid at LhMota. Neb.
TELEPHONE: 477711. ExtOTliona JMfc V
SabMrirtk rate ra M per emeter r M fcr tt aamle yer. Pub
Mud MMday. Wedndy, Thrdy M FrMajr durtag flit cnool year, excert
dorlDf vacation, and enm period, by th atoocnta of tht Uniwraity of Nebraska
voder tb Jnrtadtcttoa of th Faculty Sobcwnmttte ea Student Publication..
Pnbllcattona shall b Ire from eenorWp by th. gobcommitt. or any persna
atatd tb Untwrsltr. Member of th NebrakB art retpoMtbla for what they
ante to bt printed.
Member AMorttted Colletlate Vnm. National AdwrtHtaf Srvi. Incor
porated. FnbUahed at Room 91. Nebrarta UaJoa. Uaeota, Neb., W518.
Editor Way Kreoacberi Manaimf Editor Brae GUen New Editor Jan
Wdn; Nlfht New Editor Pel Bennett! Editorial Pa Aaatatant Scale Pheliw:
Sport Editor Ed Icenodei Aaaiatant Sport Editor Terry Graamkk; Senior
Buff Writer. Jnll Morris. Cheryl Tritt, Randy Ireyi Junior Staff Writer.
Mick Lowe. David Bantala, Roter Boy. Jim Evinger. Daa Looker, Paul Eaton.
Mark Gordo. Chria Carbon: New AaaiiUW Elleea Wirthi Photographer. Mike
Human. Dou Kelittr; Copy Editor Romney Rentzel, Lynn Ana Gottachalk.
Marty Dietrich, Jckt Glascock. Chria Stockweti. DUn Llndquiat. Ann Hocee
meyer. BUSINESS STAFF
Buaiiws Manaier Bob Glnn: National Advertising- Manarer Roger Boye;
Production Manager Charlie Baxter) Classified Advertising ManBgen Janet
Boatman, John Flemmlng; Secretary Amy Bouska; Business Assistant Bob
Carter, Glenn Frlendt. Russ Fuller, Chris Lougee, Kathy Scbooley. Linda Jeffrey!
Subscription Manager Jim Bunti; Clrcuriatlon Manager Lynn Ralhjeni Clrcula.
Uoa Assistant Gary Meyer; Bookkeeping Craig Martinson.
Law Student Prepares Memorandum ... .
Student Affairs Office Accused Of Disregarding Regents' Rules
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The University Office of Stndent
Affairs is not complying with Board of Regents by-laws
and rules in the area of stndent housing, according to the
following legal memorandum prepared by John Klein. A
senior in the University Law College, Klein also adds his
own personal opinions concerning the present housing regulations.)
In view of the recent furor which has arisen concern
ing University housing policies it appears that there are a
number of issues which should properly be brought to the
surface for examination and discussion.
Those issues involve such things as the authority which
the University has to regulate and dictate student hous
ing, Board of Regents by-laws and rules with respect there
to, the Interpretation which the dean of student affairs has
given to his grant of authority and the rational basis for
At the outset it may be helpful to print the relevant
Board of Regents by-laws and Nebraska Statutes.
Chapter II, Section 6 "Student Affairs"
"The Dean of Student Affairs shall have general sup
ervision of all relationships between students and the
University. Without being restrictive, such supervision
shall include the following administrative offices and func
tions: . . . housing . . . student activities. . . ."
Chapter III, Section 2
"Residence of Undergraduate Women"
"Subject to exceptions hereinafter made, undergrad
uate women who are freshmen shall be required to live
in University residence halls for an academic year and
all other undergraduate women whose legal residence is
not in the city of Lincoln are required to reside in Uni
versity residence halls, or cooperative dormitories, or so
rority houses or rooming houses listed by the Office of
Dean of Student Affairs. Exceptions deemed necessary
may be made by the Dean of Student Affairs."
Chapter III, Section 3
"Residence of Undergraduate Men"
"Subject to exceptions hereinafter made, undergrad
uate men who are freshmen may be required to live in
University residence halls for an academic year, and all
other undergraduate men whose legal residence is not in
the city of Lincoln are required to reside in University resi
dence halls, or cooperative dormitories, or fraternity
houses, or rooming houses listed and approved by the Of
fice of the Dean of Student Affairs. Exceptions deemed
necessary may be made by th Dean of Student Affairs."
Nebraska Revised Statutes 1943
"85-106 Board of Regents; general powers; . . . The
Board of Regents shall have power (1) to enact laws for
the government of the university; (2) to elect a chan
cellor, deans, professors, associate professors, assistant
professors, instructors, other members of the faculty staff
and employees generally of the university; (3) to pre
scribe duties of such persons; (4) . . ."
Under the common law the court cases have quite
generally held, with respect to both public and private
colleges and universities, that the institution has a very
broad authority to regulate students and establish condi
tions for their attendance at the institution.
For example in 1947 the Board of Regents df the Uni
versity of Oklahoma adopted a resolution which, with cer
tain exceptions, required all students to live in university
dormitories fc the extent such facilities were available.
That resolution was tested in the Federal District Court
in the case of Peate v. Board of Regents, 102 F. Supp.
407 (1951), in which the court said that the university had
such interests in the education, well being, morals,
health, safety and convenience of the students and in the
financing of facilities at the institution that the rule was
valid in achieving those ends.
In some areas of student rights, such as the right to
notice and hearing in discipline and expulsion cases, the
courts have become more favorable to students and it it
probably a fair speculation that in the future universi
ties will encounter limitations on their authority and be
held to stricter and stricter standards in areas involv
ing student civil rights. However, in the area of housing
it is probably accurate to say that according to common
law today the university has the right to impose various
rules and restrictions so long as such are not unreason
able or capricious.
But who has that authority? After consultation with
the dean of student affairs it appears that he feels that
in the absence of any Board of Regents provision he would
be free to exercise this general authority at his discretion
in the best interests of the students and the University.
He is probably correct.
In addition the Board of Regents, pursuant to Nebras
ka Statute 85-106 (2) and (3), have prescribed the duties
of the dean of student affairs, (Chapter II .Section 6 of
the Board of Regents by-laws). Under that provision the
dean is given a general grant of authority almost parallel
to the authority he would have in his capacity as dean
under the case law.
But the Board of Regents have not stopped with this
vague general grant of power. Under Chapter III, Sec
tions 2 and 3 tht Regents have made specific provisions
for student housing and the authority possessed by the dean
of student affairs with respect thereto. In interpretation
a specific provision must always take precedence over
a broad general provision, otherwise there would be no
purpose in a specific provision.
Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter III are specific provisions
and must be regarded as limiting the general grant of
authority afforded the dean of student affairs under Chap
ter II, Section 6 and under the common law.
Sections 2 and 3 of Chapter III of the Board of Re
gents Rules therefore set down the following requirements:
1. All freshmen women shall live m University resi
dence halls for one academic year. (Chapter III, Sec. 2).
The requirement is mandatory leaving no discretion with
the dean of student affairs. The requirement is subject
to individual exceptions under Chapter II, Sec. 2, sen
May Be Required
2. All freshmen men may be rquired to live in Uni
versity residence halls for one academic year (Chapter III,
Sec. 3). This requirement is at the discretion of the
dean's office and is likewise subject to individual ex
ceptions made ly that office (Chapter III, Sec. 3, sen
3. Sophomore, junior and senior undergraduate men
and women students whose residence is in the city of Lin
coln do not come under the provision.
4. Sophomore, junior and senior undergraduate men
and women students whose legal residence is outside the
city of Lincoln are required to live in one of four types
1. University residence halls
2. Cooperative dormitories
$ s. rraiernuy or sorority nouses
4. Rooming houses
This provision is mandatory to the extent that the dean
of student affairs must require all sophomore, junior and
senior students to live in one of the four types of housing.
It is quite specific in setting out the four types of housing
from which the students must choose.
Four Types Required
The fact that the provision establishes four types of
housing in which the dean of student affairs must require
all sophomore, junior and senior students to live and does
not give the dean the authority to compel a strdent to
live in one type rather than another must be interpreted
as meaning that so long as a student lives in one of the
four types of housing he has complied with the required
If this specificity in delineating the four types of
housing is to have any significance at all then the dean
of itudent affairs has no authority to barge in and apply
a general grant of power in compelling a student to live
in any one type of housing as opposed to another. Of course,
under the second sentence of both Sections 2 and 3, Chap
ter III, the dean of student affairs can make individual
exception to the requirement and permit students to live
in something other than one of the four types of hous
ing. But one should examine more closely the provision
for rooming houses. Chapter III, Section 2 with respect to
undergraduate women states, ". . . rooming houses listed
by the Office of the Dean of Student Affairs." Chapter
III, Sec. 3 with respect to undergraduate men states,
". . . rooming houses listed and approved by the Office
of the Dean of Student Affairs."
In talking with Mr. Byran he indicated that the hous
ing office will list, with few exceptions, any property a
renter submits for listing. He also indicated that the
housing office has certain requirements which must be
met before property will be approved.
In many circles women are deemed capable of as
suming responsibility much earlier than men, thus could
it be that the Board of Regents in their wisdom recognized
a greater maturity and responsibility of women as op
posed to men of the same age and therefore gave them
greater latitude in selection of their housing? This is
pretty clearly what the Board of Regents Rules provide.
Mr. Bryan would like to interpret "listed" in Sec. 2
as meaning "listed and approved" as in Sec. 3. This clear
ly is not tenable. "Listed" obviously has a separate and
distinct meaning from "approved." Otherwise the Board
of Regents would have used either "listed," "approved"
or "listed and approved" in both Sections 2 and 3. As
now written there is clearly more leniency afforded wom
en students in selection of housing.
But let us assume that "listed" in Section 2 does mean
"listed and approved" as in Section 3 just as the housing
office urges. Both sections would then be identical. This can
only mean that at a minimum undergraduate sophomore,
junior and senior men and women students are to be
treated identically and without discrimination in housing
policy. The dean of student affairs and more particularly
Miss Snyder have long ignored this provision and held
women to a more stringent standard then men, contrary
to the Regents Rules.
In talking with the dean of student affairs he indi
cated that absent any Regents' by-laws, he would not do
anything much different than at present and that he
regarded the by-laws as being more in the nature of guide
lines. This argument can be pretty well eliminated by
quoting one sentence from the introduction of the Board
of Regents by-laws and Rules:
"In accordance with the power thus granted by law
to the Regents, the following by-laws and rules have been
enacted to govern the University and the acts of the
Board of Regents In connection therewith."
Guidelines imply discretion in application, by-laws and
rules which govern imply compulsion. The Board of Re
gents statement would indicate that a specific provision
of the by-laws would have vastly more force and effect
than some sort of vague guideline. In as much as the by
laws are designed to govern they are much more compell
ing than the dean perceives.
But even if the dean of itudent affairs were operat
ing within the Board of Regents by-laws and rules, which
he clearly is not, there would still be strong arguments
as to why such regulation is inadvisable.
Of major importance are economic reasons. One can
provide himself with room and board in an apartment
for any amount upward of $450 to $500 per academic year.
Many are currently doing so. With dorm rates mcrsas
ing $75 for a total of $800 for the 1967-68 academic year
apartment living can be a significant saving to many stu
dents. Permitting students to select the type of housing
that best relates to their economic position could put many
dollars in hands of those attending college on lim
ited funds and create the equivalent of a vast schol
arship and financial aids program which would clearly
be going to those in greatest need.
For those students who are more affluent and could
afford to pay the $800 dormitory rate there is little ques
tion that they could live in considerably better off campus
facilities for the same price.
But what about these big monstrous dorn ies that
would be standing vacant? The dean of stud, t affairs
tells me that there is a provision in the bonding con
tracts stating that the University will require students to
live in the dormitories to pay off the bonds. Paying for
the University housing and keeping it filled however are
administrative not student problems.
Choice Is Unfair
A student at the University should not have to make a
choice between contributing $250 or $300 per year to dor
mitory bond payment or not going to school. All students
should be permitted to select the housing that best fits
their economic status.
The Board of Regents have repeatedly stated that en
rollment should not be restricted at the University. Under
a general limitation on enrollment both rich and poor
would be excluded. Under the present system only the
poor are excluded because they cannot kick in $250 or $300
to solve what is essentially an administrative problem.
If the University cannot fill the residence halls vol
untarily this must be interpreted as a gross admission of
administrative failure. To provide a remedy may involve
abandoning the half-baked ed-psyche approach to dormi
tory living. It may involve constructing something other
than cell-block type of campus housine. But clearly it
should not embrace any policy which disregards the stu
dents' needs and wants and forces occupancy contrary
to the economic ability of the students and their parents
to pay the cost.
To Pay Bonds
It is quite clear I think that the present living require
ments exist essentially as an expediency In the demon
stration of ability to pay off construction bonds. But the
dean of student affairs and more particularly Miss Snyder
continually chant something about an educational experi
ence with on campus living as being part of one's total
. rSSSK0"? ft mere even year" of experience as
a resident and staff member in the dormitory system
I can say that the opportunity for any typt rfSE
J?hE W?V learning t0 take piicVin the Xms
is highly limited. In short order the vast majority of knowl
edgable residents ignore the childish acKes and ed
psyche residence hall administrators and Si hat is
referred to by the more gullible as apatheSc
1p J!K? K0Uld ttiat learnh experience be? Is it
learning how to become accustomed to the filth in the dorm
bath rooms and common areas? Is it learning ho -to g?ow
wails? Is it learning how to break lounge furniture and
carve elevator walls with indifference? Is it accSSce of
lower scholastic achievement due to poor study conSns '
Etc. Hardly necessary learning upSonS
Only One Year
But even if there was something to be learned in dor
one year or less. Miss Snyder clearly cannot iustifv in
Suv0 &eterienCe te rmptZSSJ&to
aent live in the dormitory more than one year.
medtethr,nHibe dKneJ The 8tudentl1 ould im-
Jl .e?UMe "talawr.ua, to 1 3
ttYXr' VSZS ? tbe power, pMesSed by
lam way of grinding out students and student requests.
Powered by Open ONI