fx Be
r
The
bad
trip
The
bummer
Not al! of the news this week will be bad news.
To the contrary, the twelve returning alumni in the Rasters
Week program bring some rays of sunshine to the campus.
The masters will be on campus today and tomorrow. A
schedule of when and where the masters will be is printed in
today's Daily Nebraskan
The masters have given up their valuable time to come back
to the University to spend their time talking with students.
Among them will be prominent Nebraskans, as well as
others who have won their laurels outside of Nebraska.
Who are the Masters? They are former students from the
University who have succeeded in their professions. Many of
them are recent graduates, which suggests that it may not be
too far in the distant future when some of today's students
will be returning to their alma mater, not to impart wisdom,
but to share ideas and maybe give students some helpful
advice.
The theme of the Masters Program will be
"Communication-A Key to Understanding." Hopefully, with
the participation of everybody in the community, all of us will
be given a chance to find that key to understanding.
Meanwhile, keys to understanding seem to be seriously
lacking between the students and the Regents and the faculty
and the Regents.
Over the weekend the University lost another professor. He
wasn't fired for participating in anti-war activities, although
Professor Duke Hubbard has spoken against war. And
apparently Professor Hubbard wasn't fired for professional
incompetence, at least according to what students and faculty
. have been told.
Then, too, Hubbard wasn't fired for not attending
departmental meetings, because he attended as many, if not
more, than any ot the other protessors. Certainly he wasn t
fired for circulating his ideas within the department, ideas
which merely question the decision-making process within his
department. Therefore, we should all assume that he wasn't
fired for any of those reasons, because none of those reasons,
constitute grounds for firing. Or do they?
If you are a student or a faculty member, you should be
interested in finding out the answer to that question. The
Daily Nebraskan has had little success in finding it out, but if
Dr. Dale Hayes( Hubbard's departmental chairman) received a
few more letters of interest, he might be willing to give a few
reasons.
If inquiries are made, the response can be no worse than a
"no comment.
p
6H5-CrCS
TravtltAjjfc Road o excellence t WiqWr
Vuvrtotf CxA.&c
William F. Buckley, Jr .
Questions for Senator Javits
What does Senator Javits
want? Or for that matter
Senator Saxbe, let alone all
the Democratic senators
who are pounding away at
Nixon because the South
Vietnamese incursion into
Laos is not being greeted by
little girls strewing roses,
and the surrender of the
entire North Vietnamese
army? Senator Javits is
saying that if all United
States forces aren't out of
South Vietnam by. the
middle of 1972, Richard
Nixon will lose the election.
That is at once a prediction
and a threat. As a
prediction, it can be put
alongside Javits' prediction
in 1963 that Goldwater
would not be nominated in
1964, and his prediction in
1966 that Richard Nixon
would not be nominated in
1968. As a threat, it would
appear that Javits et al are
asking far too many
questions, and that the time
has come to ask Javits some
questions.
Question Number One. .
Does Senator Javits
recommend the liquidation
of the SEATO Treaty? That
is the treaty that calls on
the United States to give aid
to the signatory nations, in
the event of armed
aggression by another
nation. It was extended, by
codicil, to South Vietnam.
Now Mr. Nixon's
Vietnamization plan turned
the United States in the
proper direction, by
specifying that aid should
be, primarily, in the form of
material', not American
fighting men.
But one cannot go from
A to Z without passing
through the alphabet. Mr.
Nixon has met every
deadline he promised in
reducing the size of
American troop
involvement. But to commit
himself to withdrawing all
American troops means very
simply to commit himself to
undermining the SEATO
Treaty. Because realistic aid
cannot be given without the
use of military personnel to,
for instance, fly the
airplanes, maintain the
trucks, and transport the
troops.
If Senator Javits means
that no American should be
left in South Vietnam after
the summer of 1972, then
he is saying that we should
unilaterally rescind the
SEATO Treaty. If that is
what he means to say, let
him say it. And let him, and
the world, meditate the
consequences of saying it.
Senator Javits is precisely
engaged in substantiating
the doubts of Europeans -and
of Israelis - who believe
that the United States will
not, in the crunch, discharge
its obligations. Let all the
leaders in Asia, and in
Europe, and in the Middle
East, unite in their distrust
of American commitments,
and we shall have the
international chaos,
followed by the gradual
satellization of the free
world, that Senator Javits is
unlikely to associate himself
with the causes of. And yet,
as we have all been taught,
Who says A, must say B.
Question No. 2. What is
the role of the professional
army? I mean, not the
conscripts, whose
ambiguous situation in
South Vietnam is a principal
cause of the general
.confusion:, but the
professional army, units of
which we have maintained
in Europe, and in Korea,
and in Australia, for a dozen
and more years? It is one
thing to call on Mr. Nixon,
as others (myself included)
have done for 18 months
and more, to put a quick
end to the program that
sends to South Vietnam
American draftees who do
not want to go there. It is
something else to declare
that men who have
voluntarily signed up to do
duty in the army, air force,
and navy, shall not be
quartered where the
commander-in-chief believes
they should be quartered, in
order to maintain the
scaffolding of our foreign
policy. Does Mr. Javits
distinguish between the two
categories? There is no
suggestion, anywhere, that
he does.
Question No. 3. As we
reduce, steadily, American
casualties while South
Vietnamese casualties
continue to mount, where
do we reach a moral
equilibrium? If every
American soldier who is
killed or wounded in South
Vietnam comes from the
ranks of Americans who
voluntarily joined the armed
services, don't we then have
an entirely different moral
problem from the one we
had before? It is not the
purpose of a professional
armed force to direct itself
towards suicide. But it is
inherent in an armed force
that in times of acute stress
its members will be exposed
to physical danger. Senator
Javits, by his demagogic
invocation of easy solutions
is asking that we get what
we want for nothing. That
we achieve international
respect, by renouncing our
obligations; that we have
peace in the world by
renouncing the function of
deterrent forces; that we
impress the people of the
world by indulging ourselves
in betrayal. -
Frank Mankiewilz and TomBraden
WASHINGTON-Vivien
Harris told a New York jury
that he had sold an
undercover police officer a
bag of baking powder in
order to obtain $12. He had
taken the stand in his own
defense in order to avoid
going to jail on a charge of
selling heroin.
When his testimony was
finished, the prosecutor
began his cross-examination.
He read from a statement
which Harris had made at
the time of arrest. In the
statement, Harris admitted
receiving $12 from the
officer to buy two bags of
heroin from a third person.
He also admitted keeping
some of the heroin for
himself.
The New York jury
convicted Harris and he
appealed to the Supreme
Court. The result is the first
great victory for Chief
Justice Burger and for the
Nixon court. It is also a
first-rate defeat for the
precedents established
during the Warren years.
It is trueas precise
reporters are saying-that
the decision does not
overthrow the famous case
of Miranda vs. Arizona, but
it is a legal proof, a truth
that does not matter to any
man on trial.
The practical truth is
that to all those too poor to
think of lawyers, or too
unaccustomed, or too
The end of Miranda
frightened, the Supreme
Court of the United States
has said in effect, "It
doesn't matter that you
were frightened, or that you
didn't have a lawyer, or that
you were not warned, or
even that the police bullied
you into saying something
that isn't true. Whatever
you told the police when
they arrested you may be
used against you if you
testify at your own trial."
Harris asked the Supreme
Court to overturn his
conviction because the
statement which the
prosecutor used on his
cross-examination had been
made without a prior
warning which the famous
Miranda decision describes.
He had not been told that
he could have a lawyer or
that he didn't have to say
anything, or that whatever
he said might be held
against him.
Chief Justice Burger's
opinion in which Justices
Black, Harlan. Stewart and
White joined did not deny
that the Miranda warning
must precede any statement
subsequently used by the
prosecution is making its
case. But, said the court, the
Miranda warnings are not
necessary for statements
used by the prosecution in
cross-examination.
The point is a finr one.
and it will open police
stations for the kind of
intimidation and
deceitfulness which Miranda
outlawed. As any defense
lawyer knows, it is very
difficult to win a case for a
defendant who you cannot
put on the stand. Policemen
know this too. They will be
tempted to forget about the
warnings and try to get the
confession first.
For practical purposes
then, Miranda has been
overthrown, and President
Nixon's ''strict
constructionism" will be the
law for many years to come.
Justice Brennan in his
dissent called it "monstrous
that courts should aid or
abet the law-breaking police
officer." But now that the
Burger decision is the law,
police stations may once
again revert to their ancient
customs. At worst, those
customs can be called the
"third degree." At best,
they are a kind of pre-trial,
a trial without any of the
safeguards which the
Constitution provides for
the later and more polite
scenario which will take
place in court.
Justice Brennan pointed
ou that Miranda was aimed
at deterring police practices
in disregard of the
Constitution. "The court
today tells the police that
they may freely interrogate
an accused incommunicado
and without counsel..."
He must have
remembered the famous
remark of Sir John
Wigmore, the celebrated
authority on the law of
evidence. "AH of these rules
have in mind," Sir John
said, "the remark of the
British police chief in India:
'It is easier to tie the poor
beggar down and throw red
pepper in his eyes than it is
to go out in the hot sun
looking for evidence."
tfPMfl?ft flSBB flSISfe.
MICK MORIARTY
editor
CONNIE WINKLER
managing editor
JOHN DVORAK
news editor
GENE HILLMAN
advertising manager
JAMES HORNER
chairman, publications committee
Telephones: editor: 472-2588. news: 2589. advertising: 2590. Sacond
class portaga rates paid at Lincoln. Nab.
Subscription rata ara $5 par semester or $8.50 par yaar. Publish ad
Monday through Friday during tha school yaar axcapt during vacation and
exam partods. Mambar of tha Intarcoltagiata Prats, National Educational
Advertising Service.
The Daily Nabraskan is a student publication, independent of tha
University of Nebraska's administration, faculty and student government.
: Tt D''V Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union. University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.
Mr. Dan. L. Cuda, President
Student Veterans Organization
University of Nebraska
Nebraska Union
Lincoln, Nebraska 68S08
Dear Dan:
Student veterans toExon
Governor of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska
Dear Governor Exon:
The Student Veterans Organization of the University of Nebraska hereby
requests that you reconsider your budget proposal for the University of
Nebraska.
This country is in a decade in which education is a vital instrument in its
continued prosperity and should be placed as one of its top priorities. Any
downgrading of the University constitutes a downgrading of the state of
Nebraska and of the nation. Any such degradation is contrary to the
principles for which we served.
We therefore urge you to give this request your due consideration.
Sincerely yours,
Dan L. Cuda
President
Exon to student veterans
We obviously agree that we must continue to have a fine University. However,
we evidently do not concur over which road we travel to that desired end.
A concern of mine. ..clearly proven in the Carnegie ReDort. the
recommendations by former Boston College President Arlan ChristJaner , the
recent disclosures by the University of Southern California and the wholesale
failures of many institutions of higher learning...is that unless we intelligently
examine the skyrocketing costs today there may be no tomorrow m higher
education for other than the wealthy.
As an intelligent person. I ask you to review the following:
TOTAL FUNDS UNIVERSITY
Amounts Appropriated
Years in Millions of Dollars
1963-65 57,825
1965-67 62,305
1967-69 93,445
1969-71 150,173
Percentage of Increase
8
50
61
Since we are now essentially on yearly budgets, you may wish to compare last
year's total of $71,885 million for the University with our recommendation of
$78,038 million for next year which is up 8.5 but down drastically from their
requested jump of over 32.
Can you agree with me that something -must be done to prevent higher
education from destroying itself with spending? Is it possible for us to
accomplish our goals by traveling the road to excellence in education in a Ford
station wagon with more room for all than in a luxurious Cadillac complete with
stereo music?
Contrary to some misleading stories, I have never suggested limiting
enrollment. If one Nebraska student is turned aside it is the University's decision
because, as of now, they reject our detailed suggestions for increased efficiency
and more dedication from all.
We believe our wishes will prevail to the benefit rather than the detriment of
higher education in Nebraska over the long pull.
May I sugguest that to equate spending with improvement is an unprovable
equation. We do not presume to have all the answers, but we are seeking them.
Thanks,therefore,for your sentiments.
Yours very truly,
James Exon
Governor
THE DAILYNEBRASKAN
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
PAGE 5
MONDAY.hVIARCH 8,11971
MONDAY, MARCH 8. 1971
PAGE 4
