Good We, Joe
The
loss
of a
President
The loss of a president, what does it mean?
There's no simple answer, but there are a
number of areas which deserve some
evaluation at this time.
As most people are well aware, the
functions of university presidents and
administrators have changed considerably in
the past few years of campus conflict..
Traditionally, the job of president of a
university was one of prestige. The president
of a university was respected. The notions of
prestige and respect were popular, if not
appropriate, because of the traditionally
apolitical nature of the job of the president.
University presidents of days gone-by were
above the filth of politics. Today they cannot
escape thepolitical liabilities and
responsibilites of academic institutions-enter
the politicans and mediators.
It would be nice for the record if we could
say that President Joseph Soshnik left the
University because he had become disgusted
with the politics and frustrated with the
moral compromises which were forced upon
him. If these were the reasons, we could all
sympathize with President Soshnik. And
perhaps more importantly, if these were the
reasons, we could all profit from such a bad
commentary on the University.
Unfortunately, however, we don't know
the exact reasons for President Soshnik's
leaving. We can only speculate. We can only
wonder why a man who has dedicated his life
to improving education, a man who during his
years of tenure at our university fought hard
to thwart the depersonalizing trends of
education, would want to leave.
dear editor
Dear editor,
This letter is in response to
the article in last Friday's Daily
Nebraskan by the Women's
Action Group. Even though
anybody or any group in this
country has the right to say
what they feel about the
actions of other persons or
groups, such as the window art
done by the Delta Upsilon
fraternity men, is all this noise
really going to do any good
when directed towards these
people (not all the DU men, I
might add)?
1 sincerely believe that
unless a law is passed making it
illegal to regard women as "sex
objects" in the form of
thinking, writing or "art" (art
in quotes considering the DU
pictures), one really is not
going to change the person's
outward expression or his way
of thinking.
I also might add that the
possibility of passing such a
law is highly unlikely. There
will always be men who
consider women as sex objects,
I really think that
men are more vocal in
expressing their sexuality than
are women, but 1 also believe
that there are women who
think in these same terms.
Two wrongs don't make a
right, so to speak, but there's
no law that prohibits a sorority
or other women's -group from
retaliating with a party
advertised in the same orm as
the DU's did, only considering
men as the sex objects in this
case. It would be interesting to
note what kind of reaction
ensued.
I agreed with a lot of the
positions held by women's lib,
but I keep pondering to myself
the question of where , then is
the identity of a man and a
woman? I personally feel that
it's permissable to be able to
tell a woman from a man in
some other ways besides the
fact that they look different,
and I don't consider myself a
"male chauvinist, either.
Scott Yahnke
Dear editor,
Responsible journalism
practices require that reporters
give accurate accounts of
events they cover. When an
account of a meeting is
published, names of thoss who
spoke must be correctly
connected with the things they
said.
In the account of the March
5 meeting of the Arts and
Sciences faculty that appeared
in the March 8 Daily
Nebraskan, the reporter was
not careful in note-taking. At
no time during the meeting did
I speak in opposition to the
motion to postpone action on
Professor Lyon's motion
regarding Professor Rozman
and the Regents. Neither did I
at any time express frustration
that 1 have had no chance at
faculty meetings to vote on a
resolution that expressed an
opinion of the Regents' action.
Such statements were made at
the meeting, but I did not
makethem, nor do I agree with
them.
For publishing a reporting
error of this kind. I expect a
published p ! o p. y "r
correction of the story.
William J. Wayne
Assoiate professor
of geology
March 5, 1971
Dear editor:
In my article in The
Nebraskan of Tuesday, March
2, there was omitted a single
paragraph. That paragraph
follows: "At almost the very
hour that Chancellor Varner
was consoling the faculty over
the Rozman case and claiming
a real concern for improving
the procedure by which
Rozmanases will be handled
in the future, the University's
counsel, Flavel Wright, was
down at the legislature
removing safeguards for faculty
from the law proposed by
Senator Holmquist of Oakland.
Mr. Wright's amendments took
away the right to a hearing for
an untenured faculty member
who was fired because he took
part in campus disorders."
I hope we will hear more
about this attempt to eliminate
elementary due process for
university people from state
law. It should be added that
faculty committee
represenatives were unable to
find out in advance what
position the University
Corporation lawyers would
take on the Holmquist Bill, and
that the Corporation counsel
even denied the request of
faculty representatives to tee
what the proposed
amendments were, at the time
they were proposed. This kind
of action by the University
counsel contradicts Chancellor
Varner's expressed concern
that there be proper procedure
in faculty disciplinary actions
Nelson Potter
It was back in the happier years when I first met
Joseph Soshnik. He was the first administrator I ever
interviewed as a reporter for the Daily Nebraskan. I can't
remember exactly what we talked about during that
afternoon in February 1968. It was inconsequential. But I
remember being awed by such an influential man, at the
time the vice chancellor for business and corporation
secretary for the Board of Regents, who would take more
than an hour to explain a complicate budget matter to a
young reporter.
Those were the years when he had time to talk to
student reporters. Those were times when the University
and its chief administrators were not under almost daily fire
from the governor, the Unicameral, the people and the
demonstrators.
After Soshnik became president I increased my
professional and personal associations with him. We talked
frequently throughout 1969 and the early months of 1970.
It was obvious that I was not talking to the same
Soshnik-he just wasn't the same man who in 1968 savored
every minute of his job and showed it. Of course there were
challenges and problems back then, but nothing he and the
University couldn't handle. By last year at this time I could
see the gray creep into his hair and the lines find their home
on his face. He lost the relaxed manner that charcterized
him several years ago, and he began to show the
nervousness his job bred.
I think the end began last May, when in anger over
Nixon's invasion of Cambodia hundreds of students
occupied the Military and Naval Science Building. By
midnight that fateful night, the President was forced into
long, hasty, emotional, loud and bitter negotiations with
the occupiers. It was a new experience for him, and it was
just not the way Joe Soshnik did business.
The tradegy was that Soshnik sympathized with much of
what the students were saying. But they didn't know it and
he couldn't get it across to them. They were demanding
reforms-many of them good reforms that Soshnik
advocated and believed in-but things that he as President
could not hope to deliver. And on the war, students didn't
realize that Soshnik was as against it as they were. But his
convictions against taking a public stand on Vietnam, or
any issue he felt was political, were so longfelt that his
integrity would not permit him to be pushed into
something he felt would harm the University of Nebraska.
gttXPAYERj CARD
Sf We JVlONTH
y nss
S f l VIM
Throughout the frightful ROTC occupation and the days
later when the University was filled with protest, I could
see that Soshnik was a different man. Perhaps his greatest
problem was his greatest quality-immense sensitivity. He
was sensitive to the students and their likes and dislikes.
When they cursed him and screamed at him it cut deeply.
He was also extremely sensitive to internal criticism from
the Board of Regents on the handling of the May protest.
When the hate mail began coming in from the citizens of
Nebraska, that too cut deeply.
The repercussions from May were continuing when the
Michael Davis case arose this fall. Without regard to proper
procedure, the Board of Regents decided to halt the
pending appointment of the Michigan graduate student to a
post in the Lincoln campus' philosophy department. Hardly
had that episode died down when the Stephen L. Rozman
case hit-and it was with this case, far more than in the
Davis or Duke Hubbard affairs, that Soshnik caught the
most flack from his campus community.
Some teachers and deans felt betrayed because their
President had' let the Board of Regents, again without
regard to proper procedure, reach onto the campus and
make a political scapegoat out of Stephen Rozman, a
respected teacher who had done nothing wrong. Although I
felt Soshnik could have handled the affiar more forcefully,
he knew that he could have stood on the Broyhill Fountain
and proclaimed support for Rozman without changing the
outcome of the affair. His voice would only have been
added to others that were already too loud.
But I think the one incident that may well have
convinced Soshnik to resign was a hunger protest staged
outside of his Love Library several days after the Rozman
firing. It concluded with the campus police, directed by
Soshnik, arresting Ron Kurtenbach for trespassing. For
more than an hour before the arrest I stood beside Soshnik,
watching him almost in tears go through the formal
disciplinary procedures before the arrest was made. I'm
convinced that sorry incident, more than anything else in
Soshnik's reign as president, persuaded him to become an
investment banker.
Soshnik made his resignation decision some time before
the budget war really broke out; he could foresee the
coming of the biggest battle in the history of the
institution. And he had put up with enough fighting.
John Dvorak
News Editor
William F. Buckley Jr.
President-talk
Concerning the presidential contest, a
few observations.
I. The disparagement of Mr. Nixon is
concentrated, but somehow unimpassioned.
It cannot compare with the quality of the
disparagement of Lyndon Johnson a year
before the 1968 primaries. On the other
hand, Lyndon Johnson established at least
temporarily a tradition of presidential
instability which although the circumstances
are greatly changed, endangers Mr. Nixon.
Johnson was tumbled by his own party,
following the New Hampshire primaries.
There is no foreseen challenge to Richard
Nixon from the Republican Party. Even so,
the shakiness of Johnson carries implications
of instability for any incumbent. In that
sense Mr. Nixon is shakier than normally a
President is at the completion of his first
term; or so it would appear.
The formal popularity of Mr. Nixon is
put at 49 per cent, down 10 points over a
year ago. The obvious reason for the drop is
natural public restiveness. A particular
reason is the internalization of American
distress during the past season. A year ago
the campuses were exploding, and the
intellectuals were signing their manifestos of
estrangement. Now we undergo what has
been called the Cooling of America.
The Cooling of America
This means two things. For one, the
agitators are exercising restraint, whether
because they believe it to be strategically
useful or because they are worn out doesn't
matter; the fact is, their resentment is
unshaken. For another, those who respond
to defend the stability of American
institutions feel a certain release. It becomes
less necessary to defend the establishment if
you believe that the essential stability of the
republic is not being challenged. This means
that many Americans will be looking to Mr.
Nixon in the ensuing months demanding
that he seduce their support, rather than
extending it to him automatically as a
gesture of resistance to the agitators.
2. Senator Muskie's strength and his
weakness issue from the same attributes. He
is this season's Liberal Alternative, which
puts him in the mainstream, and does not
rouse the anti-revolutionary enzymes. It is as
safe-the typical American voter who tends
to go Democratic will reason-to vote for
Muskie, as it was to vote for Humphrey, and
before that for, say,Truman.
On the other hand, the romantics are
bound to find him wanting, and it is unlikely
that a year from now the youthful legions
will flock to New Hampshire to be
Well-Brcd-For-Ed. He has a little latitude,
i.e., he could permit his rhetoric to take a
slightly more jaeobinical and pacifist turn,
but if he goes foo far, he will lose his
institutional Democratic support. Besides
that, a position to his left will, by New
Hampshire-time, have been pretty well
staked out by, say, (Krge McCJovern. And,
even more likely, by John Lindsay.
The new Kennedy
3. John Lindsay. He is the Bobby
Kennedy of 1972, by authority of the
relationship of forces. Even his background
as a Republican, which I have said he
became only as a matter of baptismal
affirmation, makes him sort of glamorous,
even as, once the dark datum was
assimilated, it became glamorous that Jack
and Bobby Kennedy had once been
McCarthyites. Granted, he lacks the formal
dynastic designation. If only, on the same
day that he changes his registration to
Democrat, he would change his name to
Kennedy. But when last heard from, his
advisers had rejected this proposal, by a
narrow vote. Then too, as I say, there is
fleorge McGovern, who is determined not to
let any grass grow on his left, and before
New Hampshire will probably be calling for
the removal of our bases from Hawaii.
But Lindsay's strength as the natural
left-candidate is hard to dissipate. For one
thing. Lindsay says nothing. It is a minority
of Americans who know that he says
nothing because he has nothing to say. The
kids will wring from that silence a trance-like
communion between Lindsay and their
common muses, which he dare not interrupt,
lest his afflatus as savior of the republic be
only half-received. So that they will applaud
his continued silence, which others who have
heard him speak will also applaud, if for
other reasons. But at some point he will be
heard from, and if I were Mr. Nixon, I would
look forward to that day most happily.
I n n C
J ULju UL7
begins?
MICK MORIARTY. editor
CONNIE WINKLER, managing editor
JOHN DVORAK, news editor
GENE HILLMAN, advertising manager
JAMES HORNER, chairman, publications committee
EDITORIAL STAFF
Staff writers: Gary Seacrest, BiH Smitberman, Jim
Pedersen, Steve Strasser, Dave Brink, Marsha Bangert. Carol
Goetschius, Charlie Harpster, Mike Wilkins, Jim Carver,
Marsha Kahm, Bart Becker, Dennis Snyder, Vicki Pulos,
Roxanne Rogers, Ann Pedersen. East campus editor: Marlene
Timmerman, Sports editor: Jim Johnston. Sports writers:
Steve Kadei, Warren Obr. Photographers: Mike Hayman, Gaii
Folds. Entertainment editor: Larry Kubert. Literary editor:
Alan Boye, Artists. Linda Lake. Greg Scott. Design editor:
Jim Gray. Copy editors: Tom Lansworth, Laura Willers. Don
Russell. Night news editor: Leo Schleicher.Night news ass't:
Rodney Wortmann.
BUSINESS STAFF
Coordinator: Sandra Carter, Salesmen: Steve Yates, Jane
Kid well, Greg Scott, Ray Pyle, Bill Coley. Business
assistant: Pam Baker. Distribution manager: Barry Pilger,
John Waggoner, John Ingwerson.
Telephones: editor: 472-2588, news:2589 , advertising:
2590. Second class postage rates paid at Lincoln, Nebr.
Subscription rates are $5 per semester or $8.50 per year.
Published Monday through Friday during the school year
except during vacation and exam periods. Member of the
Intercollegiate Press, National Educational Advertising
Service.
The Daily Nebraskan is a student publication, independent
of the University of Nebraska's administration, faculty and
student government.
Address: The Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union,
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.
n
PAGE 4
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1971
...MONDAY; MARCH 15, 1971
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
PAGE 5