WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 1969
PAGE 2
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
1! .
!
: i
I
i
:&
yi
?
ffifflrroya
itf inr ,mwmm,mmmmKwmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmwmmmmmmmmmhmmr
Mr. President
Consider Craig Dreeszen.
By resigning today as president of ASUS, he is making
a crucial comment on student government.
His resignation, though prompted by varied and personal
reasons, can be traced to two critical flaws in the University's
student government.
FIRST, THE president's position is unrewarding to him
monetarily and costly to him academically. The salary allotted
by Student Senate ($500 for the year) earns the ASUN chief
executive about 25 cents per hour, at best; the duties and
responsibilities outside the office cut into academic pursuit.
Second, the presidency of ASUN a government com
peting for authority in the University system, but lacking
unity can be not only disappointing, but extremely frustrating
and discouraging.
THESE TWO flaws within the structure of the ASUN
presidency deter many qualified students from seeking the
high post.
What is needed is not such high pay or unlimited power
that the presidency becomes an end in itself, but sufficient
...- salary and authority that the president can function effi
''" ciently.
This man's army
EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is taken from
the publication "Selective Service."
-1 ft I
1-
III
n
The United States Army, at Fort Riley, Kansas,
on October 25, 1842, issued the following General
Order Number 2:
1. Members of the command will when shooting
buffalo on the parade ground be careful not to
fire in the direction of the Commanding Officer's
quarters.
2. The troop officer having the best trained
remount for this year, will be awarded one barrel
of rye whiskey.
3. Student officers will discontinue the practice
of roping and riding buffalos.
4. Attention is called to paragraph i J7, Uniform
Army Regulations in which it provides that all
officers shall wear beards.
DAILY NEBRASKAN
Socoiid class pntute paid at Lincoln, Neb.
Telephone; Editor, 472-25d, News 472-2589. Buines 472-2590.
Subscription raid are $4 per semester or ts per academic year. Published Monday.
. Wednesday. Thursday and Friday dtinni the school year except during vacations
t Editorial Staff
Editor Ed Icenotle; Managing Editor Lynn Gottschalk; News Editor Jim Eviiwer;
NiKht News Editor Kent Corkson; Editorial Page Editor June Wagoner; Assistant News
Editor Andy Wood; Sport Editor Mark Gordon; Nebraskan Stall Writers John Dvorak,
Jim Pedersen. Connie Winkler, Susan Jenkim, Bill Smitherman, Sue Schljchtemeier,
Sue Peltey. Ron Taleott, Joanelle Ackerman. Bachitlar Singh; Photographers Ran
Ladely. Linda Kennedy, Mike Hayinan: Reporter-Photographers Ed Anson, John
Nollendoris; Copy Editors J. L. Schmidt, Joan Wagoner. Phyllis Adkiason, Dave
FUipi, Sara Schweider.
Business Staff
Business Manager Roger Boye; Local Ad Manager Joel Davis; Production Manager
Randy Irey; Bookkeeper Hon Bowlin; Secretary Janet Boatman; Classiired Ads Jean
Baer; Subscription Manager Linda I'trich; Circulation Manasers Ron Pavelka, Rick
Doran, James Slelzer; Advertising Representatives Meg Brown, Gary Grahnquiit,
Linda Robinson, J. L. Schmidt, Fritz Shoemaker, Charlotte Walker.
KB
The Daily Nebraskan is solely a student
publication, independent of the University of
Nebraska's administration, faculty and student
government. Opinion expressed on the editorial
page is that only of the Nebraskan's editorial
staff.
Fulbright E
ogers axis
Between spring
and last fall
Between the spring riots of Columbia and the fall eruptions
"at San Francisco State, the University of Nebraska has con
tinued with an orderly succession of students.
Public attention has focused on the disquiet in the faraway
campuses. National interest has been forced to reckon with
.the growing power of the University community. And although
"the underlying complexities of young people disturbed about
the war, racial militancy and a host of other problems deserve
this close scrutiny, students at schools such as the University
can lose sight of other, important considerations.
A RIOT does not sancitify a cause, nor does every valuable
cause need a riot. But students in the world today have
discovered the political power that they have never had.
Perhaps the value of the campus disturbances is that
they have opened the doors of student power (political and
academic) at all colleges. Administrators and faculty
throughout the nation can view the recent uprising, and
conduct their future business, if not accordingly, at least
with them in mind.
Last spring's riot at Columbia to effect specific changes
at that school should make it possible for students, faculty
and administrators at the University of Nebraska to reason
together and solve the problems here.
EVEN IN this year of "law and order," the valuable
contributions of the schools which underwent turmoil can
be seen.
And from this the question follows:
What form of agitation for new ideas will be effective
in changing NU?
If it is granted (and most will) that a riot situation
is impossible at the University of Nebrakska, the question
remains how to bring about change.
The role of students at a school such as this must be
one of responsible pressure for the changes badly needed.
in '
tew
III
-MP-''-- " ft I II
Campus Opinion ...
Thanks and two raps to the system
I wish to congratulate and thank
Mr. Jack Todd and the entire staff
for publishing a high quality,
thought provoking and controversial
student newspaper this semester.
The special Dec. 20, 1968, issue on
War and Peace was outstanding, a
fitting culmination of a semester's
efforts.
While agreeing with you only
about 99 per cent of the time, I can
honestly state that this was the first
semester of my seven years at the
University that I have made cer
tain that I did not miss a single
' edition of the Nebraskan. I have
respected the editor's efforts,
however, not because I agreed with
what was said (although that is
always pleasing), but because this
was one of the too few times when
the paper presented anything which
called for either agreement or
disagreement.
IN SHORT. Mr. Todd has been
willing to confront the issues,
present his case, defend his point of
view. This. I know, has not been
accomplished without having to
confront strong opposing pressures.
Therefore, that Mr. Todd has never
compromised his beliefs is worthy
of the greatest of admiration.
Respectfully yours,
H. Bruce Hamilton
Editor-in-Chief
The Nebraska Law Review
Editor:
It is part of man's nature to delay
the returning of borrowed items to
the rightful owner. Man is forgetful
and nothing in the whole world is
going to change his nature.
The University library at this
moment is capitalizing on man's
forgetfulness by exploiting
students who fail to return books on
time. This exploitation is in the
form of ridiculously high library
fines.
A single book overdue for a
month can cost vou between $20
and $30. It could be a lot worse if
you had 10 books checked out for a
research project and pro
crastinated returning them for a
month and a half. $300. You might
say, "The university has the stiff
fines so that the books can be
returned for the benefit of other
students." Hell no. Students have
had to still pay fines of $1C0 when
they have lost the books. Why won"t
the officials just accept enough
money to pay for the cost of the
books?
The UNIVERSITY library has
exercised ingenious methods
to exploit the students. First of all,
they have made no attempt to ade
quately inform the student about
the stiff fines. There are no signs in
the library advertising the stiff
fines for overdue books.
Secondly, the library does not
send out notices of overdue books
for some time after they are
overdue. Very sneaky. On the
overdue notices there is no mention
of the library fine rates. Also very
sneaky.
The University library is not
working for the interests of the
students. They are working towards
ruthless exploitation of the
students. This is clear from the
high fines charged. They must need
this money bad. Yes. but they have
no right to exploit you and I to ob
tain it. A boycott on borrowing of
books would put the pressure on
them to revise the system, wouldn't
it?
Students you have power. Your
voice is strong. This institution
should be responsible to vour in
terests. If you speak out they will
have to listen because your masses
are undefeatable.
Chris Malcolm
.
Editor:
It would seem clear that the
cardinal rule for all critical
judgement and dissent is an
alternative to displace what is.
Without this, alternate criticism is
practically invalid. So what is here,
in essence, is a remainder o f a
solution that would still fall within
the realm of partriotism: a
marginal virtue, but still one of
necessity.
Realizing the necessity for
service, and the obligations therein
entailed, this is not the fact I con
test. What I do contest is the means
to that end of preparing young men
to become Our Boys over there.
I CANNOT appreciate the in
stitution which sanctifies .the
regimentation of men and un
derwrites their, expenses while
pursuing an education through a
curriculum whose sole purpose is to
prepare men for war. If the goal of
higher education is to produce
creative young thingers, a con
tradiction seems apparent. I would
not pretend to deny the inevitability
of war, for man is a warring
animal; but the pursuit of ex
cellence as one is a disgrace to my
idea of "higher" education.
I could not either pretend to be
the original anti-ROTC proponent
likewise my solution is far from
original. The solution which would
rid campuses nationwide of the
junior Militia has included among
its main proponents D. D.
Eisenhower, and the late
Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. It would
replace this campus OCS by in
itiating a universal draft aimed at
the relatively eager high school
grad. The obligation would be all
inclusive without exception or
deferment. The length of conscrip
tion would probably be 18 to 24
months.
If after two years of service as an
enlisted man, the recruit chose the
Armed Forces for a career, his
preparation as an enlisted man
would endow him with an
awareness unattainable by 18 hrs.
of ROTC "labs." He could then
submit himself to further training
on a college level with the end
result, and one more vividly of his
choosing, as a commissioned of
ficer. F. V. Shoemaker
by Rowland Evans and Robert Novak
Sen J W Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, is not the same man who one year
aeo flatly refused to take testimony behind closed doors
from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, insisting on public
testimony or none at all. , , r r.
When Rusk's Republican successor, William P. Rogers,
came to Capitol Hill for routine questioning on his confirma
tion, Fulbright actually OFFERED a closed-door session to
spare him any possible embarrassment. ,
This is just one piece of evidence to show how sharply
the view of the State Department has changed as seen from
Fulbright's musty, elegant old Foreign Relations Committee
room in the Capitol. There are may other pieces.
SHORTYLY AFTER the election, for example, Richard
M. Nixon telephoned Fulbright, just elected to his fifth Senate
term from Arkansas, for mutual congratualtions. But the
exchange was pregnant with inneuendo about the relationship
between Fulbright, whose sharp criticism contributed to
President Johnson's fall, and the new Administration.
That wasn't their last private talk. After making his
early December surprise decision to name Rogers Secretary
of State, Mr. Nixon discussed that and other appointments
in detail with Fulbright.
Since then, the relationship has sweetened, creating a
mood of civility and cooperation between Fulbright and the
State Department dramatically different from the last three
years of acrimony.
ONE REASON for this unusual atmosphere is Fulbright'.
high estimate of ooth Roger's ability and his power in
the Administration. RogTs has more influence with Mr. Nixon
over the control of top-level appointments than any other
Cabinet member. Confides a White House aide: "Bill Rogers
put a hands-off sign at the State Department, and the politi
cians know he can enforce it."
Thus, Mr. Nixon's campaign pledge to clean out the
department from top to bottom is a dead letter, and Fulbright
gives Rogers much of the credit.
Far more important, Fulbright is convinced that Rogers'
view of the war in Vietnam (which destroyed his relationship
with Rusk) is close to his own. Having spent the last three
years in limbo far outside the perimeter of the Johnson
administration, Fulbright is now doing some highly unusual
things to make life easier for Republican Rogers and his
Administration.
FOR INSTANCE, Fulbright is scrupulously rejecting all
the Sunday TV quiz shows, on the ground that-he might
inadvertently say something embarrassing to the Nixon ad
ministration on Vietnam.
When pressure for more U.S. help to victims of the
civil war in Nigeria reached a new peak, Rogers offered
to come before Fulbright's committee and review what could
be done. Fulbright said thanks, but the testimony wasn't needed.
The real reason: he knew Rogers didn't have the time.
Fulbright has also quietly offered to help Rogers and
the President sell their solution to the Vietnam war so long
as he remains convinced that the Administration really means
to push the Paris negotiations without reescalating the war,
no matter how painful and long those negotiations may be.
Thus, Fulbright has drawn back from the resolution he
pushed through the Foreign Relations Committee last year,
aimed squarely at President Johnson, to put the Senate orl
record that no President should commit American troops
abroad without first clearing it with the Senate. Although
he will reintroduce this resolution, he will not make it a
big issue as of today.
STATE DEPARTMENT skeptics wonder how long "today"
will last. They give the Rogers-Fulbright honeymoon about
three months and see a path ahead that is strewn with
booby traps. The President is under strong pressure from some
military experts including Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster,
deputy commander in Vietnam who has been here counselling
Mr. Nixon to win a military victory in Vietnam.
If the President resists that pressure, Fulbright will stay
in line, opening up an era of bipartisanship not seen here
since John Foster Dulles used to take Sen. Walter George
to lunch every other week in his State Department office.
For the Nixon administration, the stakes are large. I!
Fulbright breaks with the President over Vietnam, he could
unleash against Mr. Nixon the full fury of the liberal-intellectual-youth
lobby that forced Lyndon Johnson out of politics.
(cl 19 Publisher Hall Synd.
Behind the front lines
Nebraska is located halfway across America. Safe between
Eastern seaboard intellectualism and Pacific western
liberalism, we are in the habit of doing things half way.
Or maybe only twenty percent; and if Nebraskans can
get by, we will try to get something for nothing.
Today's paper is full of budgets. The governor's, the
Regents', state agencies',' you name it there's a budget.
Or half a budget.
There's something suspicious about these slashed budgets.
Since the state can only do things half way, then state
agencies must request double their budgets, and the
Unicameral must automatically halve the governor's budget,
which is half of the doubled request. Kind of like reflecting
a reflection of a reflection in a mirror
Regretfully, while budget halvers play their one
hXS?n f g4ame.its tne state that loses. A state left
halfway into the twentieth century.
MVP
AMP
eU)f7
TO GO,
m
AWPflOJ)
mm,
m?
PCM
IT.
CcfcEAL A0F
0ffCFAST
IhBLc.
hour pIaws
fe law,
pick?
SPEECH, m
upa covpie
OF BOOK
. mem we
U THfT
mm House.
s
A 600CL
met
om6oowm$ivew
JsJf!
t
- ..- i -..', '.4-. -v.'