Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 23, 1971)
Rock reversal dear editor . . . dear editor Rozrnan writes legislators Dear Senators, This is a reply to your resolution supporting the Board of Regents against me. Thousands of people have already made unwarranted and uninformed comments about this case. Do twenty-nine more really make a difference? 1 think they do when they, form the majority of our state legislature. We, the voters, have the right to expect that our representatives be fully informed about a matter before they vote on it. I know for a fact that you were not so informed in this case. When 1 appeared before the education committee to testify on LB 445, Senator Barnett asked me whether I would be willing to appear before the committee at a later date, in executive session, to explain my side of thf case. I told him yes, and expressed by appreciation for his apparent fair-mindedness. Such a session never took place; but you twenty-nine legislators nonetheless went ahead and passed judgment without ikearing from me. This is nothing new for me. In fact, I have come to expect this procedure. The Spelts Committee acted this way. The Board of Regents acted this way. And now the list has become still more illustrious. Perhaps you should have followed the advice of Senator Skarda, who warned that you might be "prejudging" the case, without sufficient information. Why Skarda voted in favor of prejudging, and thus became one of the twenty-nine, I really don't know. Of course, I am aware that this hasty action is an exception to your normal way of doing things. When you deal with matters that are vital to With the movement by a group of University students to prohibit the 1971 Nebraska State Fair, it looks like the Legislature is getting more than it bargained for out of LB63. The original intent of LB 63 was that the bill would provide the machinery necessary for farmers to stop those obscene and immoral rock festivals from coming to Nebraska. However, there is now a fight underway to see who will hold the trump card, the students or the farmers. The provisions of the bill state that 50 persons may petition a county board to prevent a future public gathering if the petitioners believe that the event will endanger the public health or welfare. The bill also provides that the county boards of Nebraska can hold hearings or go to local courts for injunctions. the well-being of the citizens of the state of Nebraska, I am certain that you are very careful to gather all of the facts and to hear from all sides before acting. What I find most disheartening is not your negative position toward me, but your scornful attitude toward the students who peacefully marched from the campus to the capitol to petition for a redress of grievances. When students become disruptive, you react with scorn and tell them to work through the system. When they heed your advice, you react with similar scorn and contempt. What do you think you are accomplishing by reminding students that they don't pay the full cost of their educations, and then telling them that because of this they would be aloof from the hiring and firing practices of the Board of Regents. Aren't faculty hired because of students? Without students, would there be any reason to have faculty? Given this situation, shouldn't students have some say as to who comes, who stays, and who goes? Whether you realize it or not, you are proving no alternative to further mistrust and alienation on the part of students. In effect, you are contributing to further polarization at a time when this country needs less polarization and more understanding. The students have approached you with dignity and have tried to communicate. When they sought your respect and understanding, they received only your rebuke and contempt. I am certain it is not your intention, but your actions are serving to weaken the moderates and stengthen Since there is not a clear definition of what the Legislature means by "public health and welfare," the bill is subject to many intcrpretations whencc the students to stop the state fair. The students' petition reads: "The Nebraska State Fair is an undesirable public exhibition-a potential menace to the citizens of Lincoln." They continue by saying, the fair attracts lewd entertainment which is cheap and immoral, and that the fair brings non-local people, of questionable character to Lincoln. State Fair Board Secretary Henry Brandt has said it's "too bad" the students arc picking on the state fair. Brandt, along with many others, seems to think that the protest is all symbolic, that its simply youthful revenge. But is it? Besides the arguments presented by the hand of the radicals. Sincerely yours, Stephen L. Rozrnan Assistant Professor of Political Science Opposes editorial Dear editor. As a member of the right and a supporter of Nixon's policies in Vietnam, I feel personally insulted by the editorial signed by you which appeared in Friday's paper. A teach-in which presents only one side of a question is bad enough, (how would you feel if one of your instructors tried it?) but one where the opposing side is presented as badly as it will be if present plans go through, is worse, because of its inherent dishonesty. ". There are articulate, vocal supporters of Nixon's policies as well as critics, but our state representatives are not exactly famous among them. Hruska, Curtis, Thone, etc. would most likely be torn to pieces, which is apparently the object of the whole thing. Giving the burden of supporting all of Nixon's policies against such noted and practiced opposition is simply unfair. Is ASUN, then, trying to indoctrinate the students here by presenting only hal" of the story? If it were actually interested in a fair fight, there are many prominent people who could be invited. (If it is interested in indroctrination, perhaps YAF, of which I am not a member, has a point in fighting mandatory fees for stu dent government. If ASUN is working against my best interests why should I pay for it?) Is it possible that the same person who less than two weeks ago was vehemently protesting the "repression of the viewpoint of Stephen Rozrnan" is now condoning the students trying to stop the next State Fair, there are others which strongly suggest that there's more than just vindication involved on the part of the students. For example, there is also the question of pollution. Where do all the wastes from the State Fair go? You guessed it. Salt Creek. And there's nothing symbolic about that. It's a very real and legitimate complaint. Reasonable complaints can focus on the safety features of the State Fair.Ot hers can legitimately be brought against the "fixed" games. And still others can question the sanitation and quality of food served at the fair. Moreover, countrary to the cry of public officials that the fair is nice, clean family entertainment, there is a lot of evidence which suggests the State Fair is no Disneyland. . . . dear editor . . . and even gloating ove, the coming unfair debate? Can he support the "repression of someone else's viewpoint even as he objects to the repression of one closer to his own? I dare him to give me a straight and public answer. Sincerely, Mary Cannon (no relation to Terry) Ryan corrects Rag Dear editor, On Wednesday, February 17, the ASUN Senate voted to "denounce" the decision of the Board of Regents regarding Stephen Rozrnan. On Thursday the Daily Nebraskxn referred to the word "denounce" as a compromise. That word was clearly no compromise. Rather, the Senate chose "denounce," after lengthy discussion, in preference to the less clear term "censure" in preference to the weaker phrase "strongly disapprove." Sen. Nancy Ryan 'Insulation' Dear editor, It is said that the Regents should insulate the operation of the University as much as possible from political influence. I agree, but go further: the responsibility for this insulation devolves upon all of us, and the insulation must be from all politics. Especially where academic freedom is concerned, the difference between right and left is the illusory difference of a mirror image: both paths lead to an official dogma enforced by secret police. A free academia must keep itself pure of both pollutions. As soon as either end of the political spectrum is allowed to obtrude upon academia, the other is thereby put on notice that academia is fair game. If we a re to keep our university free of political influence, and ourselves free to ieach-and learn-our political acts must be done without attempting to attach the name of the university to one's own political viewpoint: such acts must be done in our capacity as citizens, and not in our capacity as professors or even as students. Otherwise the fortunes of the entire university can be tied to the fate of a private viewpoint; the consequences of the act can redound upon us in the same capacity as we acted in, and the university can become a political battlefield in which academic freedom will have become two words. (It maybe a sign of progress that last Thursday's petitioners were distinctly noted as people and as citizens.) Those who must enhance their civil rights with political influence should offer their services (or direct their anger) to the local organization of one of the parties, leaving the University cleanly outside of their politics. The preservation of academic freedom lies in an apolitical academia. Trying to get one's own opinion installed as the official opinion of the University is abhorrent to academic liberty in the first place, and what is just as bad, it invites political intrusion from the opposite persuasion. In sum, to let anyone politicize the University is to create or to invite political influence upon the University, political control of the University, and finally, political control of what we teach. Sincerely, Thomas N. Winter PAGE 4 THE DAILY NEBRASKAN TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23. 1971