IN THE IVORY FLOWER by Steve Tiwald
"Any person who alters, forges,
knowingly destroys, knowingly muti
lates or in any manner changes
this certificate may be fined not to ex
ceed $10,000 or imprisoned for not more
than five years, or both."
Any way you look at it, this is a
tremendous penalty for a young man
to pay for burning his draft card. Even
with anti-war sentiment as widespread
as it is now, the deliberate destruction
of a draft card is a very personal
decision that carries a very personal
responsibility.
Larry Zink, a former University of
Nebraska engineering student chose that
path a year ago and now faces poten
tially 10 years in prison (for burning
both his Selective Service System
classification notice and registration
certificate), plus he has not yet been
prosecuted for his further act of refusing
induction.
MOST PEOPLE would consider Larry
Zink's defiance a very radical action.
However, refusal to cooperate with the
military should be recognized for what
it is a deeply conservative action.
War means death and destruction, and
refusal to go to war confirms life and
conserving life.
Hopefully some day all the people in
the world will agree to refuse to go
to war; then we can put all-out efforts
into enhancing life rather than destroy
ing it.
While the action of Larry Zink and
the thousands of other draft card
burners and induction refusers is thus
philosophically based, these young men
hope to influence the policies of our
nation.
THE GOVERNMENT does not respond
positively to acts of violent revolution.
Carrying guns and bombing buildings
only adds to an atmosphere of tension,
fear, and repression.
The millions of young people who are
working for non-violent change should
therefore be respected. President Nixon
in his campaign said he wanted to listen
to young people. He decried violence
and said "Let us reason together."
Reason rather than castigation. He pro
mised a volunteer army. Let's get on
with it, so people need not unwillingly
sacrifice themselves on a battlefield or
in a prison cell.
RAPPING
"fr -jV
To the Editor:
The story concerning my
testimony before the Council on
Student Life does not ac
curately reflect my position.
First, I do not believe that
students have been treated un
fairly by the Office of Student
Affairs. Indeed, I believe that
in some cases the Office of
Student Affairs has been too
lenient.
My criticism is solely con
cerned with the existing rules
and procedures. Under the ex
isting rules, a student may not
raise issues either of fact or of
law. (The Office of Student Af
fairs takes the position that
they proceed against only those
persons who admit guilt and,
therefore, no fact-finding
hearing is necessary.)
Moreover, students cannot
raise issues of law (such as il
legal search or seizure or the
obtaining of an illegal con
fession) because the hearings
that he has are counseling
hearings and it always seems
Inappropriate to raise legal
issues during such pro
cedures. Clearly, it would be better for
both the students and the Ad
ministration to recognize that
in some instances their
respective interests are oppos
ed. Accordingly they should
provide for a hearing during
which the University would
have to prove an offense and
during which the student might
claim that (1) the confession
was illegally taken, (2) that the
evidence was illegally obtained,
(3) that he has already been
punished and the offense does
not affect the University or (4)
that he did not do what was
charged.
I recognize that counseling is
Important but it can exist only
when the parties involved trust
one another. Thus, if the
University intends to take
punitive action against
students, it should not use
counseling techniques to obtain
Information from them.
Sincerely yours,
Wallace M. Rudolph
Professor of Law
Dear Mr. Pederson:
Your picture of the present
situation in the Inter Dormitory
Association was very accurate.
(Daily Nebraskan, February
13, 1970). If I may, I would like
to accent a few points made.
Not denying the fact that an
all residence hall coordinating
body has its merits, there seem
to be a large number of
misconceptions about its
assumed existence.
THE PEOPLE who are
serving on the council are all
officers in their own halls.
Furthermore, earlier this fall,
IDA placed in the hands of the
individual residence halls the
right to self-determination of
their own social regula
tions. This big step and the other
big step involving the
legislative-policemaking chan
nel of the Housing Policy
Committee and the Council on
Student Life are alone reason
enough for IDA to get out of the
originator-legislator role.
THE NEXT step towards
approval would be a review
type approach to IDA solely for
communicative purposes
towards the other hails on
campus. In reality, the first
approval to be sought should be
the Housing Policy Committee.
In turn, if the ten-day review
period is rejected or not taken
advantage of by the CSL, the
proposal would become
University policy.
This year IDA has had its
problems, primarily in the
specific areas of leadership
and acceptance of progressive
ideas.
THROUGH all this we have
seen no element coming up
with counterproposals, not even
the loyal opposition or the
president. It appears that the
only reasons for the excellent
attendance at council meetings
lie with defeating or at least
arguing very bitterly with
Harper's and Smith's pro
posals. IDA now has before it a new
constitution for consideration.
One thing we may ask of them
is to please consider it as it is,
not because the non-productive
Constitutional Revision Com
mittee didn't write it, but
because it offers a new hope for
the organization.
IDA, please be honest with
yourselves. The campus could
use something like you!
Sincerely,
Barry Pilger
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1970
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
PAGE 5
