Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 16, 1968)
Page 2 The Daily Nebraskan WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 1968 NEBRASKAN itoriak An open letter to Hal Brown Portrait of a yippie, hippie radical newspaper: Two large pictures of a football game which the University lost two days before. , One long story on an Australian hitchhiker. One story on a member of the administration speaking at the Newman center. A story on a computer to assist in job placement opportunities. A feature on the opening play of the University theatre. A story on a Christmas party for underprivileged children. A story on the student tribunal. One item concerning a medical specialist working at the University Health Center. THAT, OR SO quasi-sports writer Hal Brown of the Lincoln Star would have us believe, is the kind of stuff you find in a house organ printed for the "hippies" of the University of Nebraska. Two years ago Hal, who is hardly the darling of the Nebraska athletic establishment himself, at tacked Charlie Greene for not wanting to run one frigid day in Wisconsin. No one saw master Hal out there trotting around in his track togs. Nor will you find him trying to analyze or report the events of an immensely complex multi university today. He would rather sit around and gripe because someone else didn't want to freeze to death or because someone else decided not to run some stale and disappointing news. Please, Hal, spare us your gripes. Go cover a kite-in. An athlete Ross defends administration Dear Jack: - As you and those students who see the Daily Nebraskan know, it is atypical for staff at the University to write letters to you or others of the DN staff to correct errors or to present an alternate set of inferences and innuendos. Several times this fall I have felt that the over 7000 new students in our campus might get the impression that the faculty and staff here was tightly dug in so as to resist change if the tone and flavor of the DN were taken to heart. Actually for many years before your and my time, a clear record of student involvement and change was ac cumulated. C "YOUR EDITORIAL of Monday, October 14, which states that the "administration is not listen ing" once again leaves a reader with the feeling that administrators don't care what students feel and think. I don't know how many administrators you know and talked with prior to the editorial you" wrote, but they must be a different set of people than the ones I know and work with on a daily basis. " As a matter of fact, after visiting and eating in living units last week, after having breakfast and lunch with students in the Nebraska Union and listening carefully to them, I have a hunch that I may listen more to students on this campus than you do. I challenge you to (1) eat one meal a day tor 10 days in different living units and listen to the students there, and (2) talk with Dr. Harry Canon, Dr. Russell Brown and Deans Davis and Magrath as representatives of academic and stu dent affairs administrators to determine their will ingness to listen. " You may be interested that in my life ex perience when I earnestly and urgently wanted $omeone to listen to me, I have found that their willingness to do so was related to my attitude toward them. Sincerely, G. Robert Ross ;; Vice Cbanncellor for Student Affairs Freedom for whom? by John Dietz Aren't we utterly fantastic-? Imagine, 500 of us, three percent of the persons on this campus, took off two hours from fun and studies so we coold march-walklaugh over to City Hall, flay all white America and ourselves with that grand ad jective, "racist," then squeal at His Hon-or the May-or to threaten with the full force of the law those persons who, while trying to rent their own property, honestly admit their racism. ' We so grandly did our thing, perhaps we should make it into a grand monthly, semi-monthly or quarterly happening. And bring a grand guitarist to sing those oldy-moldy civil rights songs. Until finally, one Christmas eve, the Counc-il and the May-or will illegalize public displays of racism. Then, Stars and Stripes to the fore, flanked by banners of Love and Law, blacks and whites will join hands and parade through the snowy streets of Lincoln, rejoicing at the good news. .'. Just what is the fairness that we 500 are pro posing? Is our dedication confined to fairness regardless of only race, religion, national origin? Really- if a man owns a piece of property, doesn't that give him the right to dispose of it as he sees tit? Or if he is not free to discriminate, was the property ever really his? If we tell a man ire must follow our criterion for disposal of his property or be subject to punishment, then we ar saying that that property is not truly private. Is this not discrimination on our part? I will work for open housing legislation in this cityJftis state and this nation. It is the work whichf regard as important, specific legislation only marking the route toward the goal. The goals? Changing the hearts and minds of men, a new vatoeCTystem for this nation, an awakening of real consciousness, etc. At this point, we 500 are not serious. Our Thursday action merely raised the question of open housing in a serious manner. Let us be clear on this "point. That question has been raised at least twice before in the last six months. Fine, but when we decide that we really want an open housing policy adopted in this city, baby, we gotta work. "The ASUN Human Rights Subcommittee doesn't need Blacks; it needs workers. US. If you give a damn, bring some friends to the next meetin' this Thursday at 7 p.m. Commentary Dick Gregory . Sj-mMk. i .r-a. -"Na mm-m aMn, .ar-n, L SI M-k. TUfXifL B t B S"B dt Tt I' M UM WUUt 'llltZSO IU I VUfJ I'tM'tt'fJif, ST&MD OP FOR Our man Hoppe . . . The new Nixon with catsup on it In his First Inaugural Address delivered March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln said: "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it ..." It is a curious statement by one of our greatest Americans to be read at a time when the demand for law and order is being used to suppress the right of dissent. A RECURRING question these days, which has become almost as popular in the national vocabulary as the cry for law and order, is 4 'What do these revolutionaries want?" Black militants, New Left radicals and student revolutionaries are increasingly faulted for not having a blueprint for the kind of social and political order they envision. "These revolu tionaries," people are fond of saying, "merely want to tear the country down but they have nothing to erect in its place." It seems curiously interesting to me that no one asked George Washington and the Sons of Liberty what their Constitution would look like before the American Revolution. Certainly the Declaration of Independence was no blueprint for a reconstructed society. It was more in tune with Lincoln's suggestion that people sometimes "grow weary of the existing government." Such weariness produces an active alienation which demands the overthrowing or dismembering of that government. The Sons of Liberty undertook their Revolution seeking only to break the bonds of oppression inflicted by an unjust government. They had no idea whether or not they would win. It was a "do or die" struggle and overthrowing the existing government was the first step. Only after victory was theirs did the Sons of Liberty sit down to draw up the new governmental struc ture. The wearness to which Lincoln refers is part of the natural process of evolution, which is slow and gradual change. The fulfillment of evolution is revolution, or quick change. WHEN A WOMAN becomes pregnant, the nine month gestation period is part of the process of evolution. But at the end of the nine months, revolution quick change follows. And all the National Guardsmen or federal troops in the world cannot keep that baby from coming forth. The revolutionary activity in America today' by Arthur Hoppe One of the great debates now dividing America i s whether The New Nixon is any different than The Old Nixon. After campaigning with The New Nixon through Southern California and the Midwest, I can report that the changes are marked. For one thing, as Mr. Walter Lippmann has so ac curately pointed out, The New Nixon is eight years older than The Old Nixon was in 1960, though he doesn't look it. FOR ANOTHER, his speak-, ing style has changed radi cally. Never once in 1960 did The Old Nixon attack the current administration and issue a clarion call for ''new leadership" as he now does three and four times a day. No, that was The Old Nixon in 1962. And never did The Old Nixon raise both arms above his head, fingers extended in the V-for-Victory sign, as he now does a dozen times a rally at least he never did before he met Ike and Winston Churchill. (There is some minor dispute a s whether he does this to ex pose his well-muscled forearms or to hide his five o'clock shadow under his col lar, into which it invariably disappears.) But if a clincher should be needed as to the radical changes in the man, there Is the matter of what The New Nixon eats for lunch. Now The Old Nixon, as we Old Nixon campaigners can testify, lunched whenever possible on a hamburger and a chocolate malt. It was as American as cherry pie, which he publicly recalled in virtually every speech. Now The New Nixon. The New Nixon lunches today whenever possible on cottage cheese with and I have this on the highest authority catsup on it. STAFF AIDES weakly ex plain that Mr. Nixon eats cottage cheese to lose weight. But why catsup on it? "Because it's better," says Mr. Nixon himself -with simple candor when asked this question flat out, "than without catsup on it." While a bold statement like this on the issue may cost Mr. Nixon the Wisconsin vote, it goes a long way to ex plaining the radical changes in The New Nixon. Is it any wonder he never once mentions his mom's great cherry pies any more? Is it any wonder that reporters see him exuding a new glowing confidence? Could a man who daily faces up to a bowlful of cottage cheese with catsup on it face the future with anything less? And talk about sincerity. When a man who eats cottage cheese with catsup on it pledges "A Change for America A New Path to Progress," you'd better believe it. So we have The New Nixon a daring innovator, a bold planner, sophisticated, confi dent, sincere and yet still as American as well, as American as cottage cheese with catsup on it. Chronicle Features 1 - - Hamilton fans voice support Dear Editor: Democratic Congressional candidate Clair C a 1 1 a n recently stated that "The first thing you have to remember is that a member of Congress has no direct effect on Viet nam policy except for voting on appropriations." I think that this statement exemplifies the fact that Callan considers the role of a congressman to be one of relatively little responsiblity. On the contrary, a con gressman has a right to as much responsiblity as he is willing to delegate to himself. We can no longer say that only those who are more powerful than we have a right to determine the destiny of our country. All of us are responsible for what our country does and, irrespective of our degree of power, our action is contingent with direct change. I BELIEVE that our coun try must adopt such positive thinking, and in order to organize this thinking politically we need a leader like Bruce Hamilton. Even though he is against the war In Vietnam, he feels responsible for it. As a result, he wants to represent those individuals who believe that the war is immoral, and who presently have no voice in American politics. For these reasons it would be to the direct advantage of the First District if it sup ported Hamilton. Linda Hughes Dear Editor: If we believed the discourse of the leading candidates in the First District we would have the, idea that the pursual of office is an economic ex periment. They concentrate on the economic condition of their district,. even though the problems we are faced with are not only monetary. Therefore, I think that we need a candidate who will face the issues of racism, poverty and war. Bruce Hamilton is such a candidate; and, therefore, I encourage the First District to support him. Nancy Brickson Dear Sir: I have been Republican for as long as I can remember, and I was a strong backer of Nelson Rockefeller. Needless to say, I was quite disappointed in my party when they failed to listen to the voice of the people which was embodied in Rockefeller. So I waited for the Democratic Convention hop ing they would listen to the late Senator Kennedy backers or to Senator George Daily Nebraskan Second-class noataee naio at Lincoln Neh TEI.EPHONES Editor 472-2588, News 7WS8, Binkna 472-3590. Subscription rate are 84 per eemester or t for the academic year. Published Monday Wednesday Thursday and ""rlday during the school war except rturinr vacations and exam periods, by the students of the llnlvercity of Nebraska under the tanadlctiofi of the Faculty Subcommittee an Student Publications Publications shall be free firnn oeneorshle by the Subcommittee or any person outside the University. Members ef the Nebraskan era responsible for what they eauxelo be printed. Member Aaaocialed Collegia' " National educational Advertising Service. Editorial Staff Editor Jack Todd; Mantling Editor Ed Icenoglei News Editor Lynn Gottschafki Night News Editor Kent Cocksom Editorial Page Assistant Molly Murrelli Assistant Night News Editor John Kranda; Sports Editor Mark Gordon, Assistant Sports Editor Randy Vork; Senior Start Writers' John Dvorak. I J try Eclkholt. George Kaufman. Julie Morris. Jim Pedareea. Junior Staff Writers Terry Croba, Roily Soaenberger, Bill Smitberman. Connie) Winkler. Senior Copy Editor Joan Wagoner; Copy Editors Phyllis Adlaeson, Dave FiUpi, Jane Wagoner. Andrea Woods; Photograph Chief Daa Ladely; Photographer Jim Shaw; Artists Brent Skinner and Gail Pieaamaa. Business Staff Busmen Manager J. L. Schmidt: Bookkeeper Roger Doye; Production Manager John Fleming; National Ad Manager Frit .Shoemaker; Busineaa Secretary and Classified Ads Linda 1 1 rich; Subscription Manager Jan Boatman; Circulate Man agers Ron Pavelka. Rick Dnran; Advertising Representatives Met Brown. Joel Davie, Ciena Friend, Nancy Cuilliatt. Daa Looker. Todd Siaiujhter. McGovern, but again I was disappointed as were many others. The parties have been run by politicians representing the Establishment not the people. That is why I believe in Bruce Hamilton he will represent the people and fight for causes ha believes are right. That is why I will be more than proud to vote for Hamilton this November to coin a phrase he "Gives a Damn." Sincerely, Jean Hoemann Dear Sir: Thank goodness for Eugene McCarthy and Bruce Hamilton! It's nice to know there are still a few politicians who are not afraid to stand up against the en trenched Establishment and speak out for what they really believe. Hamilton and McCarthy have one dominate trait in common: They're both against the war, and they're both laying their political futures on the line to say so. If this is what Americans are made of, I'm proud to be one and will be proud to cast my vote this November for the one man on the ballot who stands for true moral courage Bruce Hamilton. Sincerely, JanTurpin is part of the same natural process. Once the idea of freedom becomes impregnated in the na tional body, the evolutionary process leading toward the fulfillment of revolution has already begun. If a woman wants an abortion, she must have it oerformed during the early stages of her pregnancy. The longer she wait the greater the chance of death for both the mother and the child So it is also with a national body impregnated ; with the idea of freedom. America is already well into this pregnancy and to try to perform an abor - tion now, in the form of repression and thwarting of dissent, will surely mean death for both the mother country and her children. It is frightening to see so many people attempt to resist the natural forces at work in the evolution of American society. Student radicals and revolu tionaries are viewed with horror and their campus take-overs are termed disgraceful. But for years students have been going to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, during their spring vacation and rioting on the beaches. National concensus viewed these acts as just part of the process of kids growing up. It was the same when college . students were conducting pantie raids, swallowing goldfish and cramming into telephone booths. Such acts were excused as the irresponsible foolishness which accompanies the growing up process. ,. . ..; Now that revolution is in the air on college - campuses all over the country, national consensus is of a different sort. There is a general feeling that today's campus disorders should be thwarted and students disciplined. Yet college students today are asking, indeed demanding, more responsibility rather than engaging in irresponsible actions. COLLEGE STUDENTS are seeking the responsibility of self-government and a voice in determining the forms which will define their education. They are refusing to accept an ir responsible role. At the same time unions, for example, are demanding less responsibility; more money for a shorter work week. And in our increasingly liesure oriented, technological society, the union demand is jusi maeea. But the question remains: When will national consensus applaud the moral demands of college students to the same degree that it approves the economic gains of unions? Up-tight grown-ups fear their children by George Kaufman (Editor's note the following episode is true. The names have not been changed because we don't know yet who's innocent.) The scene is Memorial Stadium, Saturday, Oct. 12. It is haltyme of the Kansas-Nebraska game (not to be confused with the Act of the same name). Some young, enthusiastic student types wander down to the track in order to carry a banner proclaiming the candidacy of Bruce Hamilton, first district hopeful. Sign-carrying is the custom at halftime of the Great Event. It has been done many times before. So the students are somewhat surprised to find, upon reaching the track, that they cannot participate "because it is political." The Man giving orders is asked why, today, it is not allowed. He does not know, it just is not allowed. And that is that. SO THE candidacy of Bruce Hamilton is not proclaimed before the 67,000 spectators. The issues of Viet Nam, Racism, Poverty, etc. are too "political." Instead, the gathered masses are allowed to see such important things as "Susie Sorority for Queen of the Campus," "Fred Great for Prince Kollege," "All Fi Thigh Alums Invited to Tea after the Game." There was a slip-up, however, as one sign pushed the first amendment lauding sufferage for 19-year-olds. I guess it wasn't political enough to be banned. A small thing, yes. But entirely too typical of this college's administration and this community. They were up tight earlier this fall because some people actually got together on this campus to talk about Movement Politics. The Campus Police flooded the Union on that day, their guns protruding from their hips as they watched from behind doorways. More recently, a bunch of students gathered to march to City Hall in order to help voice ap proval of any means to procure open housing to make the American Dream come true after so many years. Just that nothing "radical," nothing "subversive." Just idealism. The Mayor of Lincoln who, according to a letter to visitors in the booklet "Around Lincoln," is always in his office to help anyone, was asked to speak to the students. He was "in conference" and couldn't make it. Yet he later talked to a reporter about the bad things he had "heard" at the march and muttered things about the S.D.S. being infiltrated with Communists. What this had to do with open housing in Lincoln was never made quite clear. THEN THE most recent An article in a newspaper Saturday. A local sports editor attacks the student, paper as being made up of "hippies' and "yippies," ambiguous bogey-man phrases. This community must wake up to the fact that the students are their sons and daughters, not a bunch of imported animals which they must corral on a fenced-in campus in the Capital City and mix with only briefly on Football Saturdays. Part of the lack of dialogue and understanding is because of the students themselves, but a greater Prt lies in the hesitancy of adults and leaders of the community and state to sit and talk instead of attacking from their offices. The students are enthusiastic and willing to worfor congressional candidates, presidential candidates and open housing laws. Combined, the forces of student enthusiasm and adult leadership could get things done. It's too bad the grown-ups are so up-tight and afraid of their children.