i iiimiiMi in minim i nun ni..alnrr ip n riirrinnrtiaaiteiiSmmrm'Mim, t , yrfr
The Daily Nebraskah
Friday, April 26, 1968
Page 2
THE DAILY N EBRASKAN
to
y-r -n-i-. ,.J-.'VW- -)eilvykli4
3
i
Commentary
Editorials
'I
V
: J
1
-
ft
v
.
5
: i
1
J r.
.4
1
-?
l.v
Equal voice
or appeasement?
'The special Faculty Senate meeting Thursday
showed that with a little shove students can acquire
the voice they deserve in academic matters but to
chahge many faculty members' attitudes about the
grading system will require some other method.
The meeting was called in an attempt to settle
the dust that was stirred after the Faculty Senate
unexpectedly passed a new grading system April
7 without conferring with students or the great ma
jority of faculty members.
the Student Senate advisor presented two stu
dent instigated resolutions to the faculty members.
One asked for a student-faculty committee to con
duct continuing evaluations of the grading system.
The other resolution asked for a reconsidera
tion of the "plus" grading system which already
has become effective.
The resolution to create the faculty-student com
mittee was passed by voice vote but the "ayes"
were by no means a thundering roar of approval.
The formation of this committee, however, can
not be degraded. It was exactly what the Student
Senate asked for and it will insure that the appalling
procedure by which the new grading system was
carried out will not occur again.
It will be interesting to observe what faculty
members are appointed to his committee and how
they are selected. The committee should organize
immediately, although it would be a little unrealis
tic "to hope that the group could move as fast as
the ad hoc committee which proposed the new
grading system.
The committee however, should meet this se
mester to analyze the "emergency" scholastic sit
uation which exists and early next fall present rea
sonable solutions to end the parade of grading
changes the University is leading.
While the student-faculty committee was a fav
orable consequence of the meeting and idealistical
ly could be an important test of student power at
the-University, the faculty's stubborn refusal to re
consider their vote on the new grading system left
much to be desired.
iFirst the conditions under which the vote oc
curred were questionable to say the last. The vot
ing was very close with the faculty members vot
ing for the measure sitting in the front and for
the most part the Administration's backbenchers
in the rear of the room. A correct count was never
agreed upon by the several "hand counters" but
the difference was no more than 10 votes.
'It is understandable that many of the Faculty
members did not want to lose face or incur the
wrath of the Administration by reconsidering the
vote. It is also understandable that the Administra
tion would be adamantly opposed to a reconsider
ation and possibility of a change back to the for
me( system when they are spending thousands of
dollars to recompute programs.
It is not understandable however, that the Fac
ulty Senate could think the abrupt change in the
grafling system was valid when students were not
consulted about the switch.
Tt also will not be understandable next fall when
the Faculty Senate will probably turn down any al
terations in the system that the new faculty-student
committee might suggest. This was evident Thurs
day after the negative vote to reconsider the sys
tem now when the process would have been much
simpler rather than next fall after the system is
more entrenched. So, realistically the formation of
the faculty-student committee might prove in the
long run to have been nothing more than an act
of appeasement.
Cheryl Tritt
John Reiser
ItS Tc?
William F. Buckley
The deterioration of McCarthy
It was a very bad weekend
for Senator Eugene McCar
thy, illustrative of the almost
inevitable appeal, once you
get out of that left wing, to
radicalize your politics so as
to attempt an end run around
your opponent.. What the sen
ator desires, is to replace
Bobby in the affections of the
tough left
As things stood when he en
tered the race, McCarthy had
Johnson on his right, and Ken
nedy on his left. Why? It isn't
really fair, in American po
litics, to demand that one
exactly justify a politician's
situation on the spectrum. He
occupies it as a matter of the
relations of forces.
But now, with the emerg
ence of Hubert Humphrey who
will commandeer the right
wing of the Democratic Party,
McCarthy needs to build up
his left, particularly in chal
lenging Kennedy in Indiana.
Accordingly, McCarthy has
made a string of statements
especially appealing to our
old friend the knee-jerk lib
eral. Then Senator McCarthy
suggested that secretary Rusk
resign. He was even so ob
liging as to designate his uc
cesor, Senator Mansfield. It
is interesting to see a man
who has so steadfastly in the
past defended the preroga
tives of the chief executive,
forwarding advice to the
President in tones that recall
the peremptoriness with
which Thaddeus Stevens used
to address Andrew Johnson.
The notion that Rusk's resig
nation is critical to the suc
cess of the negotiations with
North Vietnam is, of course,
politician's voodoo.
Senator McCarthy should
be gently reminded that he
has won neither the nomina
tion, nor the election; and he
might also be reminded that
almost one half of those who
voted for him in New Hamp
shire, did so believing him to
be hawkier than Lyndon John
son; even as it has recently
transpired that many of those
who propose in Indiana to
vote for Kennedy, will be do
ing so because, in the words
of one interviewee, "hell
bomb the hell out of North
Vietnam and end this war."
And then, finally, the ico
noclast's pilgrimage to the
shrine of the defamers of J.
Edgar Hoover. Senator Mc
Carthy tried half-heartedly
to protect- himself from ut
terly abandoned impiety by
saying that his proposal that
J. Edgar Hoover be fired had
nothing to do with "the man."
McCarthy is too skillful a
practitioner to deal so care
lessly with the language.
If he had meant to com
pliment Mr. Hoover on his
accomplishments, he'd have
done so. If he had meant to
make a case for the automa
tic retirement of all public
servants at, say, age 70, he
could simultaneously have
proposed the retirement of
Earl Warren and John Mc-Cormack.
The last hope Professors Speak
For the health and well-heinff nf flip Tfpnnhli.
can party, the importance of nominating someone
who can win the White House is obvious, but con
sider the importance of it to the nation.
None of the three Democratic candidates for
the Presidency ought to win and the GOP owes it
to the country to whip whichever one of them is
nominated.
Bobby Kennedy has so far succeeded only in
proving that he cannot do that which he considers
most important unify a divided country. The dis
trust and dislike of the man has astonished casual
observers.
Particularly distressing is the contempt In
which RFK is held by the business community, a
group a successful President must enlist to help
combat the problems of our cities and of the poverty-stricken.
The campaign of the unlikely Gene McCarthy
is getting a little boring. If his Lincoln appearance
is an indicator, his best strategy would be to go
hide somewhere and make no further speeches.
McCarthy's principle qualification seems to be
that he had the "courage" to come out against
Johnson before Kennedy did, but how much cour
age did that really take?
I'p te the time he announced for the Presides
cy, McCarthy had nothing but a singularly undis
tinguished Senatorial career which was going ab
solutely nowhere. Hew much courage does it take
to risk loss when yon have nothing to lose?
Finally, there is triple-H. Humphrey is identi
fied so closely with the administration as to blunt
his ability to seek new solutions to our problems.
As evidence of this, note the Vice President's
mimic of the President's cold-shoulder treatment
of the Kerner Commission Report on Civil Disor
ders. To suggest Humphrey, who has been one of
the administration's chief apologists, as the man
to provide new leadership to a nation sick of the
administration seems a little absurd. Nor am I
charmed by the idea of John McKeithen as Hu
bert's running mate, as is now widely-reported to
be a probability.
Unless the Republican party nominates Rocke
feller, however, I still think the country will have
one of the three Democrat as President (Actnal
'J' m, imt worried about any serious possi
bility of McCarthy being nominated. )
Rockefeller has a solid base of support among
young people, although not of the crusading, fren
zied type enjoyed by McCarthy or Kennedy. But
Rockefeller seems the only candidate young people
can share with their elders, who will, we must re
member, also participate in choosing the next Presi
dent Militant opposition to Rockefeller comes only
from a handful of right-wing types who are still
waiting for results of a recount of 1964 ballots. In
more troubled times, the public seems ready to
discount the candidate's personal life as a factor
in making the decision.
At any rate, my view is that the Americas peo-
Ele deserve better than Kennedy, McCarthy or
umphrey. The question is whether they win be of
fered a logical alternative.
Editors Note: Dr. Lawrence
Posten, this week's contri
butor to Professors Speak
is an associate professor in
the Department of English.
At the beginning of April,
Bob Zucker sent me the fac
ulty evaluation forms to be
used in my classes. The fol
lowing week the Faculty Sen
ate voted down overwhelming
ly a substitute motion by my
colleague Robert Narveson to
institute a High Pass-Pass-Fail
system at the university.
The two events illuminate
each other, I think, because
both show that a very large
percentage cf the university
community, faculty and stu
dents, have failed to t h 1 n k
their way out of their present
self-entrapment in the grad
ing system.
First, the action of the Fac
ulty Senate before the holi
days. The intention of Mr.
Narveson's motion was to re
tain the faculty's right to fail
students but to replace t b e
present A through D system
with a simpler system that at
tempted only to separate per
fectly acceptable students
from students capable of
going on to graduate work.
(Obviously the system would
require a different interpre
tation in the Graduate Col
leee.) Mr. Narveson's motion, far
from being revolutionary, was
a modest and sensible at
tempt to counter the carious
theory that the more levels of
grade you can use, the more
accurate the grading Is.
While this may state the
case accurately in some
technical subjects where
numerical exams are the
most appropriate means of
testing, it hardly applies to
the humanities or even. I sus
pect, to the more imaglaative-ly-taught
sciences.
The absence of any serious
discussion on Mr. Narveson's
proposal showed that not only
are most of us faculty wed to
the paternalism we decry in
administrators, but we art
A problem in evaluation
unwilling even to relax the in
sistently hierarchical nature
of the present system.
I am writing this before the
special session of the Faculty
Senate called for this week.
That session may tell m o r e
about whether there win be
any basic changes in faculty
attitudes in the near future.
The present faculty evalua
tion form yes, I'm using it
turns the tables on the facul
ty neatly. What it does is per
petuate the insidious ranking
which now pervades the uni
versity grading system. The
teacher is ranked against
eight other Instructors whom
the student has had most re
cently at this university.
The instructor is graded
against the other eight in
eight different categories.
While some of the categories
are a little silly, they are prob
ably no sillier than some of
the criteria to which students
have occasionally been sub
jected by faculty.
The trouble with elaborate
rankings, whether of students
or of faculty, is that they of
ten r e s u 1 1 in hierarchies
which bear little resemblance
to reality. Should an interest
ed but inexperienced non-major
in English be subjected,
in his exams and papers, to
the same criteria as the dis
tinguished English major in
the same class?
Similarly, is a student tal
ented in science but not in En
glish really in a position to
compare meaningfully the
"scholarship" of a faculty
member in his own field with
one in English? Or even to
evaluate how successfully the
two men guide a class toward
"clearly understood goals?"
Indeed, the faculty evalua
tion form goes beyond the
dangers of the grading sys
tem to some brand new ones.
One question, for instance,
reads: "How many of the in
structors (listed) are more
sensitive to and appreciative
of the personal circumstances
of the individual student than
Your Instructor is?"
Now the trouble with that
question is that a student who
never once ventures into my
office to find out if I'm hu
man may very well avoid me
because he thinks 111 be in
sensitive to his problems. It's
all rather circular, you see,
but it knocks down My Grade.
Take another one: "C o m
pared to Your Instructor, bow
many -of the instructors at the
left contributed more to your
own intellectual maturity and
more to your ability to deal
effectively with important
problems in life?"
There are two very differ
ent questions here. The ques
tion of Intellectual maturity is
something which, as I point
ed out to Mr. Zucker, I'm only
Daily Nebra&kan
VL tU Ka. 181
April J. UN
eonnd-Haai pMtuc paid at tttwrmi, nim.
TELEPHONES Editor 472 SIM Newt 47M5M. Bod 47J-JSW.
abK-npaw rate are 84 pet ermeeter er M far fa arademee nar. Punllahed
Monday Wedneade . Tharada ami Prloay durta the arhool eeer, extent Imitif
vacation and ram period, bv the etud-nta at the Unhrentt af Nehratka under
the fcirtadlctlo e the Pwnlt Aobmmmittee an student Pnhfleationi piih'iratlona
hall be tree from eemorahlp bv the Subcommittee r an aerana antaide the
(Jmveretty. Member af the Nebraaku are reaponelbia lor what tber caiue la be
printed.
Member AaaocUtad Conedate Pr. National (Education a! Advarttaiae; lerrica.
RDmiftUL MTAPf
tdttor Cherel Tritt i Marurmi Editor lac Todd; New editor Cd leeaofle;
rflfht New fcottor L rliirdt. editorial Pan AHletaat Jane Waconari AaeMiant
NlgM New Editor Wilbur Gealsyi gporte Editor Ceorae Kaulmaai Aaatetant Onon
Eaitor Doom FVmlmo: hrw Aattatant l.ynn Ptaci: Stafl Writer Jim Evtner.
Barn Martin, Mart Ciorson, In Parma Jnaa Mrmikwrh. Janet Maxwell, Andy
Cuantairham. Jlrr Pederaea, Monica Ookornr Phylll Arikteeoa, Kent Oafkva,
Brent Strinner. Naur Wood Jobo Dvorak. Kettk William! Senior Cm Rdilbr
Lma Gutowtiatk; Cop Editor Dave FillpL J ana Ikeya, Molly MarraU; Photo
grapher Htm Ladei and Jun Shew.
USINEaH rMr
ButB Maaaicr Oteim rteadt; production Mmarer Charlie Itattari Ra
tional Ad Mauacer Laeta Marheri Bookkeeper and etaaaiHad ada mananr Car
HrHlineaiMirthi Bealneea fiepretar Jan hoatmant Muharrtirtjon Manaeer Jane lloa:
Baiaainee tan unci, uaa Lauaer, atauor ureno, load bluiiw. hobbm
Jei iwvla. Lym eVomacgua.
now beginning to be able to
assess in regard to instruc
tors whom I had at the Uni
versity of Oklahoma some ten
years ago.
As for dealing effectively
with important problems in
life, a literature course does
this, if at all, by indirection.
I should hope that the read
ing of literature develops a
certain broadness of perspec
tive, even a moral under
standing, but that's by no
means guaranteed by anyone
in my department (Goebbels,
after all, is said to have liked
Mozart.)
In other words, the first
question Is virtually unan
serable in any mature sense
at the end of a term, and the
second one is, for my pur
pose as a teacher, largely ir
relevant My plea here is for more
understanding among both
faculty and student; as to
what grades do and what they
don't do. Within the system,
of course, some of are find
ing ways to experiment in, I
trust an academically respon
sible manner. All of us must,
however, face up to the fact
that the American university
is to a very large degree act
ing as a testing agency for fu
ture employers.
Universities in Europe, I
believe, have managed to
limp along for several h u n
dred years without undue em
phasis oa frequent testing and
grades, just as they have
managed to limp along with
out setting op large dormi
tories which they then have to
police. Is it really so impos
sible for ns faculty to make
some modest simplifications?
Students, too, can contri
bute to a change in the cli
mate. They can refuse to per
petuate, in their own academ
ic and social lives, the un
necessary complexities of a
system which is often not
genuinely evaluative, but
merely detrimental to the ed
ucational process.
Dan Looker
Grim realities:
call to action
When Richard Nixon came before the cameras
and microphones last Saturday in Minneapolis, his
carefully cultivated good cheer was on the grim
side. He was going to talk about the problems of
the cities this time.
He talked of a "financial crisis" and said,
. . . for any candidate ... to come before the
American people and tell the poor that right now
the Federal Government is going to massively in
crease spending programs is dishonest, a cruel de
lusion, and I am not going to join in the game,
whether it costs the election or not."
Nixon was taking the easy way out, by simply
having no civil rights program.
The hard truth is that our oldest, biggest, and
most threatening national problem is not the dollar
or Vietnam, but the ghetto and racial hatred. Nixon
ignores it and McCarthy and Kennedy have tended
to gloss over it What really needs to be done is
so difficult that it is risky for any candidate out
line it
Keeping Order. No one argues with this in prin
ciple but the methods used. Congress has done
little except to pass a few ridiculous bills about
crossing state lines. ,
For the long range, gun control legislation is
imperative and should involve some constitutional
changes. In an age of tanks, mortar, rockets, and
helicopters an individuals right to carry a rifle is
ludicrous. The job of keeping order should be left
to police and the army not old west style vigilante
committees roaming the suburbs. For this summer
there should be a temporary ban on all sales of
ammunition.
Police need to hire more Negroes; they need
to employ more non-lethal weapons in an un
antagonistic manner and they need to do more community-relations
work. An this takes money, and
it will take federal aid.
Massive federal and private programs. We
have the resources for this, contrary to what Rich
ard Nixon says, but we have to make some choices.
We don't need highway beauttfication programs,
superhighways in the desert, or a superossic trans,
port, for example, when ten million Americans are
starving.
To be effective, both Industry and the govern
ment will have to be involved. The areas that need
attention include:
Education. This area should include exten
sion of early childhood programs, federal aid to
public schools, and more scholarship programs for
colleges. Here we are not dealing with today's gen
eration but tomorrow's. We can't afford another
generation of disadvantaged, bitter Negroes and
poor whites.
-Jobs. This will be up to industry for the most
part, with federal prodding and encouragement'
-Welfare Programs. These need complete re
vamping. Present programs encourage broken
homes, illegitimacy, and breed resentment. A mini
mum income is needed. It is true that a handout
discourages initiative, but federal income assist
ance at the subsistence level that Just keeps a fam
ily from starving is not a handout
Housing. This win include restoring slum
housing and building new housing units. This will
be expensive and win require tax raises, but in
the long run it wUl be the cost of saving our na
tion. In order to Implement these programs we most
cut back on military spending now, get out of Viet,
nam soon, and raise taxes. We must face the pros,
pert of national austerity and this is what politi.
cal candidates with a conscience must be willing
to admit.
Breaking np the ghettos. This Involves getting
the Negroes who can afford it to move out, moving
whites into the ghettos and building federal housing
outside of the ghettoes. But all the open housing
lawn and programs that Congress could pass won't
solve this last barrier. Private groups from real
estate agencies to churches, and the ever-important
individual will have to be Involved.
In the final analysis, the ghetto and racism is
not the government's problem it is everyone's
problem.