PAGE 2
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1969
Campus parking:
it's still a mess
The University enters its third week of school
and the parking situation remains just as bad as
ever. What seems to be worse is that University
administrators are either praising the fairground
lot or are remaining quiet, taking the all is well
attitude.
Capt. Gall Gade of the University Police De
partment said "the fairgrounds lot is working out
very well." This is not the consensus of virtually
every person interviewed by the Daily Nebraskan
last week.
Complaints have been coming from students,
faculty and football fans. Students have termed the
fairground lot ridiculous, horrible and too much
trouble. "My car got banged up, the dust is horrible
and I was a half-hour late for classes," said one
student, referring to the fairground lot.
One faculty member, about ten minutes late for
a class, was reported to have given a five minute
lecture on poor parking on campus. Most football
fans interviewed spoke negatively of the parking,
many wanting garages or underground units.
iCvery student interviewed by the Daily Ne
braskan was willing to pay an additional fee for
convenient parking garages or underground units.
Parking garages would cost about $2,000 per
stall. Some students interviewed were willing to
pay as much as $50 per year for parking con
veniently located. Added to the revenue that could
accrue from renting the units to football fans or
businesses during the summer, the buildings could
be paid for in less than 40 years.
There seemingly has been little interest among
University administrators in the past two weeks to
do anything to alleviate the parking problem. Hope
fully, administrators will take the initiative to do
some immediate replanning.
Prices go up, up, up;
no solutions come
by Sen. Edmund Muskle
Consumers can take little comfort from news
on the inflation front. Federal Reserve Board
Chairman William McC. Martin says he sees signs
of a slow-down in the economy and rising prices,
but two respected New York economic counselling
firms one headed by a campaign adviser to
President Nixon have recently predicted that
there are no real prospects for a halt in price
boosts.
The Administration has told us that tight
money, curtailed employment and reduced govern
ement spending can end inflation and Improve the
health of our economy.
But tight money has driven up Interest rates,
Increased the cost of housing and boosted the cost
of government and other services, without showing
signs of cutting the cost of living.
There are serious doubts as to the utility of
the Federal Reserve Board's policies in combatting
inflation in an economy with so many credit sources
not much affected by interest rates. The impact
of the Board's policies is uneven and may well
aggravate our economic difficulties rather than
reducing them.
Curtailing employment has never appealed to
we as a humane or socially useful method of
halting or reducing inflation. It puts the burden
of economic adjustment on those who can least
afford to pay the cost. In addition, it ignores the
role of manpower in driving up the cost of living.
We have seen this in the cost of services in the
past few years, including doctors, medical person
nel, plumbers, electronic technicians, teachers and
public administrators. In many cases, vacant jobs
feed the fires of inflation.
Blanket proposals for cuts in government spen
ding fall into the same trap. Cutting back on
highway construction will not release workers for
easy transfer to home construction. Cutting funds
for medical service programs will not reduce
medical costs.
In short, we are no longer dealing with a
simple economy where simple, across the board
actions are adequate.
It is true, as it always has ben, hat inflation
Is the product of too much money pursuing too
few goods and services. But before we take that
simple proposition as a guide to Federal economic
policy, we need to get a better grasp of the money
sources and the reason for shortages in different
goods and services.
First, we need to substitute selective cuts in
government spending in place of blanket reductions,
aiming at a budget based on national priorities.
We need to cut military spending, which is going
up every year with or without the Vietnam
war. We need to re-examine the priorities for such
programs as space exploration and the supersonic
transport. We need to take a fresh look at the
farm subsidy program and other government
subsidies.
Reductions in spending need to be matched
by tax reform which Increases revenues,
particularly from those taxpayers Individuals
and corporations who are n"t paying their fair
share.
Finally, we need to re-examine the techniques
available for placing restraints on the private sec
tor, where capital investment demands are going
up In spite of credit restrictions, where price in
creases are being issued by basic industries without
much sign of concern on the part of the Ad
ministration, and where low and fixed Income
groups continue to bear the brunt of higher prices.
Today we are in danger of suffering from
runaway inflation and a recession.
Similar problems developed In the 1950's when
tight money and Increased unemployment were us
ed s anti-inflation tools. It Is time the Administra
tion took another look at the acts of our economy
and offered a plan which Is designed to meet
the need of people, not molded to fit in economic
theory which appears to be out of date.
ladar tyntfkat. Inc.
liiiiiiiiiuiiiiiHiiiuuimniiuimiiiiiiWHittiuiniiiiiiiiHtNiimiiiimuitniitimiiiunM
i Letter policy
1
To have letters to the editor printed in
the paper, readers will be asked to follow
several rules:
Signed with the writers full name. A
pen name or initials will be used upon re
quest. Any student, faculty member or
administrator may obtain the name of a
person writing under a pen name or initi
als If he submits a request in writing to
the editor.
Typed, double spaced.
Addressed to Editor. 34 Nebraska Un
ion, or brought to the office.
The editor reserves the right to edit
letters submitted.
Ctlfr TkQPPIC Moated
Riot manual stirs dispute in OEO
By Rowland Evans
and Robert Novak
Washington Without the knowledge and
against the wishes of their Nixon-appointed
superiors, poverty program bureaucrats have
drafted and distributed a manual listing
demonstrations, economic boycotts and, ultimately,
violence as legitimate weapons of the poor.
The manual, which despite lack of official
sanction is now circulating through the network
of local Community Action groups, merely puts
in writing what is reality in the field.
Regional officials of the Office of Economic
Opportunity (OEO) have been prodding local Com
munity Action leaders many of them public
spirited, middle-class professional men to stir
up the poor in revolt against the establishment.
The fact that this violates the clear orders
of Donald Rumsfeld, OEO's new director, has pro
ved no inhibition.
Thus, the 37-year-old Rumsfeld, who surren
dered a safe Congressional seat from Illinois to
run the government's most battle-scarred program,
has collided with a permanent political fact of
life: the difficulty of a Presidential appointee to
enforce his wishes on an entrenched bureaucracy.
What makes OEO different is that many of its
bureaucrats feel their function is less to generate
jobs for the poor than to promote social revolu
tion. Revolutionary OEO
The revolutionary bent, more than any other
cause, is what has contributed to the poverty prl
gram's loss of public support since 1964. In his
effort to clear the bomb-throwers out of OEO policy,
making posts, Rumsfeld has been stymied by civil
service regulations and unbreakable written con
tracts with non-government consultants.
The provocative manual Is a direct result of
Rumsfeld's Inability to completely clean house.
Completed this summer by a mixed group of
OEO employees and contract consultants, a draft
copy of "A Trainer's Manual For Community Action
Agency Boards" last month was mailed around
the country to several local Community Action
groups for comment. Although this draft was widely
reproduced and distributed in poverty program
channels, Rumsfeld had not even heard about it
until we informed him.
What he has now seen runs almost directly
contrary to his stated policy of opposition to high
pressure tact Irs by he pr,
Says the manual: "The power strategies that
community organization (sic) may apply to make
their presence known and felt are: (1) vote power;
(2) numbers power; (3) dollar power; and (4)
threat power."
In discussing "vote power," the manual sug.
gests community programs review "the positions
of elected officials" in guiding the vote of t h e
poor directly conflicting with OEO's Con
gressional mandate. "Numbers power" is defined
as direct action Including "peaceful demonstra
tion, parades, picketing (and) rallies."
The manual's analysis of "dollar power" car
ries a hint of even stronger pressure: "It (dollar
power) can be significant in the very ability to
withdraw dollars: therefore, boycotts and strikes
can both act as dollar leverages for the application
of power by a community organization."
Blackmail threat
Where the manual has lifted most eyebrows,
however, is its declaration that "the ultimate threat
power is the riot" a clear threat of blackmail.
While asserting that rioting is illegal, the manual
adds that Community Action board members should
"recognize the threat power of rioting as a very
real power and possibility."
It suggests that the threat of a riot can force
concessions from the community after all else has
failed. The manual's language is ambiguous enough
to make unclear whether it is merely reporting
fact er endorsing a tactic
The manual dovetails with repeated urgings
by OEO regional officials that Community Action
leaders mobilize the poor in direct action an
activity which has spawned complaints both to
Rumsfeld and Congressional offices.
One Midwestern Congressman sympathetic to
the poverty program last week received a complaint
from a Community Action chairman in his district
that a regional OEO official in Chicago "has been
subtly prodding us into organizing the poor to con
duct marches, picketing, boycotts, and demonstra
tions." Simultaneously, a black Negro Community
Action leader from Arkansas got word to his Con
gressman that two white OEO officials from Texas
had recommended getting poor Negroes into the
streets as demonstrators.
Bill languishes
Such reports do not help the OEO renewal
bill now languishing in the House Labor Committee.
They add fuel to demands by Rep. Edith Green
of Oregon that state governments be granted
greater control over anti-poverty efforts, a move
that would eviscerate the poverty program in the
opinion of both Rumsfeld and its Congressional
backers.
A common phenomenon during OEO's troubled
five-year history has been IEO employees acting
in this fashion as the program's own worst
enemies.
Moreover, some of the bureaucratic holdovers
have been busy in recent weeks trying to plant
factually inaccurate anti-Rumsfeld stories in the
press. That's another reason why Rumsfeld, who
has been working hard to reorganize OEO, cannot
hope to bring order out of the chaos he inherited
until some heads roll.
NU grad
Home Canada
(This article is reprinted from the "Ap
prise and Dissent" column of the Lincoln
Evening Journal. It was published Sep
tember 25, 1969.)
By Douglas R. Mllander
The author is a 1969 graduate of the
University of Nebraska who emigrated to
Canada three days after his graduation and
three days before he was to report for induction
Into the armed forces. He now Is an employe
of the Morris Emerson Journal in Manitoba.
Canada, specifically southeast Manitoba, is
my new home. As a landed immigrant, along with
my wife Mary, I have joined the ranks of thousands
of young Americans who have resisted the Selective
Service System by leaving the country before in
duction. My wife and I follow two other University
of Nebraska students I know .who have moved
to Canada since March. One now works for a
large metropolitan newspaper; the other for a radio
station in Ontario.
Speaking for myself and these two fellow im.
migrants, we have no regrets for being here.
Canada, to me, is not an escape from the draft.
It Is an alternative. Either I swore the oath of
allegiance to the Unived States and wore Its
uniform, or I would go to prison for five years,
maybe less If I was lucky.
To me, taking the oath of allegiance means
saying, in effect, that I support U.S. foreign policy
and Washington's self-acclaimed role to determine
the destiny of the world by use of military might.
This is a policy for which Americans criticize the
Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia.
The oath means I am willing to follow leaders
who have taken America down the path of bloodsh
ed and ruthlessness in Vietnam, in violation of
international law and moral decency.
It means I believe In the adage "My country,
right or wrong." Such unquestioning faith in one's
country was once the foundation of a Nazi
Germany. When a nation stops asking why,
democracy dies.
No Alternative
My country, or rather, my ex-country, gave
me no alternative but Canada. I could have served
In the Army, and probably with my college
background I would have never seen an enemy
soldier on a battlefield. But to me, saying yes
to Uncle Sam would have been wrong.
I could have stayed and fought the draft, as
did Steve Abbott, among many other brave young
Americans. But I would have lost. The cards are
stacked against us "traitors" in the pseudo
democracy of the United States.
So here I am. This is home for my wife and
I. not a refugee center. We have a comfortable
apartment, both have jobs and are making new
friends. The winters are somewhat longer and a
little colder, but as a friend of mine in the states
said, "the draft isn't so bad."
The purpose of this account is not to brag
about my bravery (it is those like Steve Abbott
whose courage demands respect).
Rather, it is to remove any doubt In one's
mind that Canada is an unattainable dream for
those facing the draft when their conscience says
no. The borders are not closed now, nor will they
be in the future.
Welcome
Canada, for diplomatic reasons, does not of
ficially invite draft resistors to immigrate. But
they do warmly welcome skilled. Intelligent young
Americans, especially college graduates.
To Canadian officials, you are a potential im
migrant, not a "draft dodger." You Intend to
become a good Canadian citizen (and why not?),
not merely a transplanted American.
There is a third alternative to the Selective
Service. For myself, and many others, there was
Canada. For the resistor who stays in the United
States, there is prison.
And. of course, there is the standard, easiest
approach take the draft. For those who select
this choice: My country right or wrong! (And may
you be lucky enough to outlive such blind fait
In a dying case.)
Dear Editor:
Concerning the article on
this year's Union film series
in the Daily Nebraskan, 1
would like to clarify several
points that are causing some
misunderstanding.
Iast year's film series was
disappointing to its members
for a variety of reasons:
quality of films; cancella
tions because of lack of firm
contracts; a poor NU
Cinema; and a mediocre
Weekend Film Series.
This summer, great pains
were taken to select an ex
cellent, diversified Foreign
Film Series. All the films
have firm contracts. No
cancellations are anticipated.
NU Cinema, the film
society's review booklet, has,
at last, been revamped and
will be a definite asset to the
movie-goer.
The weekend series, con
trary to the article, does not
have nine "first run" show
ings. It does have nine films
which were released within
the last three years. It does
have nine old classics which
had a significant effect on
the development of the mo
tion picture. It does have two
"first run" showings of
underground films.
The Foreign Film Series
and The Community Concert
Series are two of the cultural
resources available to the
people of this community. I
sincerely hope that the
students of the community
take advantage of these pro
grams. Tom Lonqulst
Film Area Director
The Nebraska Union
Dear Editor:
In response to Alan Eder'a
letter of Sept. 23, 1 would like
firii of all to commend him
for a well-written reply. If
our "Outside the Tower"
column can continue provoke
such literature response, I
will be gratified indeed.
Open forum
However, Mr. Eder seems
to rest his criticism of our
column upon our apparent
inability to name the pro
ponents of the relevantist
position.
We assumed that most
students had, in fact, en
countered these views before.
Mr. Eder seems to have
led a sheltered life, and is to
be envied, but the rest of us
have not been so fortunate. I
assure him that these people
do exist.
Just last semester I at
tended a course on this
campus which purported to
be a class in political
philosophy, but In fact
degenerated into the in
s true tor's (and other
students') discussion of our
Inept Defense Department.
Mr. Eder was further
bothered by our oblique
reference to John Dewey. By
stating that relevantism is
the "outgrowth of the
educational philosophy of . . .
John Dewey," we meant,
obviously, that at least part
of his philosophy was seized
by educational progressives.
It Is quite true that In some
instances Dewey criticized
these progressives, but this
does not deny that relevan
tism Is the outgrowth of his
thought. Dewey's opinion of
our heritage of knowledge Is
quite clear, however.
In R econstructlon In
Philosophy, he writes it oft
as "the systematiied
mistakes and prejudices of
our ancestors." and that it is
"musty with antiquity." This
sounds terribly like today's
relevantist who cries
"anachronism" at every
mention of the past.
Furthermore, Mr. Eder
does not seem to understand
the nature of an editorial
column. In the space allotted
it Is no more possible to give
a complete defense of liberal
education than it is to ade
quately defend (or criticize)
John Dewey. Indeed, Mr.
Eder was allowed greater
space for his letter than were
we for our column.
Rather, the purpose Is to
state the opinion of the
authors.
If Mr. Eder and other
readers would care to read
more thorough analyses of
traditional education and
related educational pro
blems, I heartily recommend
two books: The Abolition of
Maa by C. S. Lewis and The
Enemies of the Permanent
Things by Russell Kirk.
I further promise Mr. Eder
a column outlining what we
mean by "traditional liberal
education."
Tom SledeU
DAILY NEBRASKAN
ae tint aottaaa Ml 1 Hiatal, X-a.
Mr OT-tSM. Nm 47V1SM. tnhMM CMl
mriita run ar M aar nwd, vtw m,
tmbtr al lirtaraaitaflal Prtn, Mtttuml HaacaHvMl MvarRamj
Vm Bally IMrKM ll I alnlaa, n,nL
Uaan at NaUrwM MM hMt 7
r Imr Saw Maaawaa, loixr Km! Car Ma.
Jim nmtk NlqM Nm m j. L. twnMt. Dm
tM Ant Man hmxiwi Antticm hm
Jmmt MnnKi SaarM MM v .. . ... - T
Wman Jhs Imt, am tmlMarwiM. tar, loajiaiijuT
taacraal, Sv Stmialr. tMKar imTIZTZZ:
arrow. Saa Par lirtvia tta. a wtMMaa, Car
P-. I-. mIk. JM oJaaTTZ
" . - taar llwi lM Janata.
Mat CaaMa KlaHfer, taaaa ScMcMatnabjr, val Markm
Hlat,
altar
Itaff
ar.
