Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 10, 1971)
i I "I J t Process but not due f 1 i t t, n" a SIKBbeIs&bb! Despite Administration talk about freedom, about justice and about due process, it looks like the faculty is going to lose another member of its flock. The reasons given for this newest firing of a non-tenured faculty member, Duke Hubbard, assistant professor of educational administration, are apparently more incredible than thos hung around the nect of Stephen Rozman. First, Hubbard is being fired for publicly stating he would not attend departmental meetings unless they were meaningful. Hubbard's superiors did not appreciate his remarks about their meetings. Presumably he did not have the right to make those remarks. However, as it turns out, Hubbard's record of attendance at those meetings was probably better than any member of his department. Another reason Hubbard is being fired is because he distributed petitions.within his department. These petitions called for educational reform, one thing the Regents and chancellor of this University have told us they are working to achieve. If fair play were involved and if the Hubbard case, like the Rozman case were void of politics, as University spokesmen say, then the Regents and the chancellor would be at the side of Hubbard. They would be paying for his expensive legal fees and they would be helping him, if only to receive a day in public court. But the reasonable men have not rushed to his side. The other reasons given for the firing of Hubbard include 1 ) that he asked why a student teacher was dismissed from his job and 2) that he called himself a "consultant to the President" in letters he mailed to some of his friends seeking financial support of John F. Kennedy College. Concerning these reasons, the first is true. Hubbard did ask why a student was dismissed. But that is all he did. And that does not break any rule in this University. As to the latter reason, it is not rue. According to Hubbard, those words never appeared on any letters he sent to his friends. Even if they had appeared they would not be sufficient reason to fire a faculty member. As may well be clear to faculty members, both the Hubbard and Rozman case present many serious implications. If the precedents are set at this University that faculty members can lose their jobs for reasons like those given in the Rozman and Hubbard cases, how safe is it to be on the faculty of this University? Perhaps if a professor passes out literature that is not sympathetic to conservative politics and traditional education, then that faculty member may be endangering his job. And it might also be the case that if a professor does not have tenure, then he is not privileged to ask questions about the decision-making process in this university. Moreover, it should not be difficult for a faculty member to empathize with either Hubbard or Rozman. Few non-tenured faculty members have the money to set aside to wage legal fights with the University. And it's doubtful that any faculty members have the political power to successfully contest his or her firing. How many faculty members have to receive letters like the following before something is done? "According to established and emerging procedures it is my responsibility to inform you that you might not be reemployed by the University of Nebraska for the 3 970-7 1 academic year. MICK MORIARTY editor CONNIE WINKLER managing editor JOHN DVORAK news editor PAT DINATALE advertising manager JAMES HORNER chairman, publications committee Telephone: editor: 472 288, news: 2589, advertising: 2590. Second clan postage rates paid at Line iln, Web. Subscription rates are $5 per semester or $8.50 per year. Published Monday through Friday during the school year eicoept during wacetion end exam periods. Member of The Intercollegiate Press, National Educational Advertising Service. The Daily Nabraskan is a student publication, independent of trie University of Nebraska's administration, faculty and student government. Address: The Daily Nabraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508. 1 ei tsm s An O Ben Letter The following is an open letter to the University community concerning the Regents' decision not to rehire Stephen Rozman, assistant professor of political science. 77?r seven NU faculty members (four are unlenured) who signed the letter say they, like Rozman, did not leave the Military and Naval Science Building that morning of May 5 after President Joseph Soshnik declared that the anti-war occupation was disruptive. They ask why was Rozman singled out. The major reasons the Regents give for firing Professor Stephen Rozman are his not leaving the ROTC building after President Joseph Soshnik had read an announcement declaring that University classes were being disrupted and his not encouraging students to leave the building. A considerable number of professors remained an the building after President Soshnik read bis statement. We remained for a variety of reasons :some of us did not think that the remarks 'were addressed to anyone but the students since President Soshnik did not refer to anyone else;' some wished to remain as objective witnesses to the events; some questioned the basis of the request- that a disruption was occurring-because no disruption could be seen; some questioned the procedure upon which the statement to leave was based-when and how the decision had been made and by whom. These are some of the reasons faculty members did not leave. There arc various reasons why the faculty did not urge the students to leave: some of us did mot believe we had a contractual, pedagogical, or moral obligation to do so; some thought it would only weaken whatever influence faculty members might have with the students; some were not convinced the students should leave; some thought that urging students to go might redouble their resolve to stay. Some of us now feel that if it were our duty to ask students to leave, then it was also the duty of those faculty members, administrators, and regents who knew the students were in the building, but who had refrained from coming in. to enter the building ant? ask the students to leave; something they did mot do. We want to know why Mr. Rozman was singled out from among this group of faculty who did not leave andor urge students to leave; why, if this considered grounds for dismissal, no efforts have been made to determine who else is guilty; why, if these are the grounds, ibey mere not included in the charges; why, if these are the grounds, ait expensive fact-finding committee was set up since it was never contested that Professor Rozman, as well as a number of other professors, remained in the building. We do not believe that a faculty member's failing to urge students to leave or remaining in the ROTC building is sufficient grounds for firing him. The Regents do. Why then have they fired one out of many? Stephen S. Milliard, assistant professor of English (tenured) June Levne. assistant professor of English Paul A. Olson, professor of English (tenured ) Lawrence yV'olfley, instructor in English Edward Becker, assistant professor of Philosophy Edgar Pearlsiein. professor of Physics (tenured IL Scott Morgan, assistant professor of English William F. Buckley , Jr Indochina crisis Everybody is storming the doors of the White House endeavoring to find out just what is going on in Indochina, what exactly are we up to. It is significant that there are no reports of newsmen besieging President Thieu in Saigon for answers to these questions. And why not? What is Vietnamization, anyway? Fifteen months ago, back from a trip to that area, I wrote that Vietnamization will not work unless the term en braces the devolution of political as well as military authority to the government of South Vietnam. The reasoning behind thatanaly sis is as simple as that nobody in the world would pay any attention to South Vietnamese troops slipping over Laotian or Cambodian boundaries, except that that area of the world is predesignated as a great theatre of big power confrontations. As long as China and the Soviet Union are provisioning one side, and the United States is provisioning the other side, any action that appears to tilt the situation toward escalation constitutes big news. As we all know, headlines not only reflect major events, they cause major events: and many great intransigencies have directly resulted from the news provocation to a major power. What if there were no headlines? That, really, is the direction toward which we raust move. Pre-Nixon, the situation was as follows: the Russians and the Chinese arm the North Vietnamese who reach outside their own borders to wage guerrilla war against South Vietnam, and. less directly, against Laos: while dominating the foreign policy cf Cambodia. The United States provisions the South Vietnamese and sends a half million Americans to help with the fighting. But - a very important but - the United States forbids the use of any troops, whether South Vietnamese or American, to be used outside South Vietnam's borders. No amphibious landings in North Vietnam, no expeditionary force to sever the Ho Chi Minh trail, no Dieppe raid on Sihanoukville. The war goes on and on and on. Enter Nixon, and the concept of Vietnamization, by which little by little the Vietnamese will replace American soldiers. Then the Cambodian venture, using native and American troops, followed by Mr. Nixon's promise fortified by Congressional resolution that U. S. troops will not again venture outside South Vietnam. Now all of this is easy enough to understand, except that the entire world continues to believe that the White House is running the entire ware, and is responsible for every decision being made in the war. That may be true, though one doubts it. The President and military staff of the Republic of South Vietnam are not children, and they have been known in the past to resist pressure from the United States. The question is the extent to which the White House is cooperating with a true Vietnamization of the war. At this point, it should be President Thieu answering the questions of the reporters. The position of the United States government ought to be that we are continuing to help supply the government of South Vietnam, whose purposes are defensive; even as the Russians are supplying the armies of North Vietnam, whose purposes are aggressive. But that it is being left strictly up to the South Vietnamese military how to conduct the war. As we begin to persuade the world that we are disengaged from the tactics and strategy of the South Vietnamese military, we slip quietly out of the headlines, for the simple reason that foreign troops drawn osmotically into Laos in defense of their own country make a very small headline if they are South Vietnamese, and a very large headline only if they are American, or if they are being directed by Americans. Sure, Russia and China will continue to rant about the forces of imperialism, even as they step up their aid to the North Vietnamese imperialists; but it would clearly mean the localization of the war, because the world community would not doubt that the South Vietnamese were engaged in doing the militarily obvious thing in the pursuit of their own security. But the entire show is given away when the White House and the Pentagon behave as though it were quite natural that the reporters should expect to get the news from Washington. desir editoF Dear Editor, A challenge has been issued. A banner has been raised. The only problem is that the banner is being used as a shoddy cheesecloth disguised to cover up that challenge. The Daily Nebraskan's right to exist through the use of a student fee levied on all students is being called into question. The Nebraskan's reply is a cry of suppression of freedom of expression and the press. In the process, it calls its challengers motives into question. For some reason, the Nebraskan is avoiding the issue. Motives can be questioned but they are not what is at issue. Perhaps there is no one on the Nebraskan capable of providing a satisfactory reply. A newspaper, any newspaper, under normal circumstances has a right to print what its people think the truth is. It is stepping out of line a bit to call it a newspaper when editorial tidbits are inserted into the news sections. Compliments to KeJJey Baker on improving this situation somewhat in the Nebraskan as compared to previous years. If such infractions of journalistic ethics exist, they are permissible under normal circumstances. The editorial page, however, is allowed to be quite a bit more liberal in combining facts and opinions. THE DAILY NEBRASKAN This, again, is under normal circumstances. Now what are the normal circumstances? They are found by observing the crucial difference between newspapers such as the Journal and World Herald and the one before us. if we don't like the format or disagree with the opinions expressed in the former we can remove our financial support from them. We are free to do so and, yet, we have not infringed on any of the newspapers right to freedom of expression or to be printed. With the Nebraskan, however, we cannot remove that support and may in some cases actually to have to support a voice in favor of aa issue to which we are personally opposed and may be actively working to challenge. A possible offering by the Nebr&iLan staff might be that we should "throw the rascals out" of their positions of power on the paper if we are opposed to them and somehow insert ourselves in their places. And then do what? Become rascals ourselves for others? No this would not suffice. For replacing those of particular biases with those who hold other biases does not yield an answer to the challenge. Students would rtiU have to provide financial support for viewpoints that may, in their estimation, be working against them. The challenge issued is not one of political shadings. The cheesecloth banner will continue to ware in front of our eyes, gently slapping us in the face whenever an ill wind blows its way, as long as there is no one at the Nebraskan with courage enough to pull it away and let us examine the real issue. ,. Tom Card well Dear editor, I enjoyed reading the February 3 issue of the Daily Nebraskan. I want to congratulate you and your staff on the fine coverage of a broad variety of activities pertaining to the University. I have a lot of confidence in the student body. We have some constituents that have been rather critical of the students and the University in general because of questionable conduct on the part of a real small minority. I am sure that most of you are attending the University to obtain a good education. Enjoy some fun along with your work and gain experience that will help you enjoy a full, rich, happy life for many years to come. I am sure that if students do their part the taxpayers who support the University will do their best to help you. Sincerely Willard H. Waldo State Senator 31st District PAGE 5 1 it i ft 4 u PAGE 4 THE DAILY NEBRASKAN WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10. 1971 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 1971
