The
Nebraskan
question
In the not too distant future, it appears that the
Board of Regents will be conducting a poll on the
issue of mandatory student fees to the Daily
Nebraskan.
Although the Regents have not yet specified
what type of poll they will be conducting, their
public directive seems to suggest that it will be one
of an eitheror nature. Either you favor or you
oppose the use of student fees to support a student
newspaper. It is also possible that the Regents will
solicit opinions on other aspects of the paper.
Rather than reduce this question to a simple
eitheror situation, the Daily Nebraskan believes
that it would be more beneficial if the Regents
decided to take some action in assisting the
newspaper in becoming an independent student
daily. ,.
However, this type of arrangement would
undoubtedly cause many procedural problems.
First, it would take at least three years to
change over from student-fee subsidy to none at
all. And then after three years, there's no promise
that the paper would be able to survive on its own.
In addition, there's no promise of what type of
newspaper the students would have, since the
paper would no longer be affiliated with the
University. And the reliability factor for the paper
would necessarily be low, since there would be no
guarantees that the paper would not go bankrupt
due to mismanagement or some other pitfall of
non-professionals. But as was pointed out, these
are only a few of the problems of the independent
newspaper on a college campus. To be sure,
marketing analysis would suggest many more
problems associated with the independent college
newspapers, and local market analysis would easily
entail more work than the average doctoral thesis
in marketing. .
But despite all the problems, it would be a
noble goal for students to aim for. And if enough
thought and work went into such a study, the goal
could be achieved. Without question, there is the
best alternative available.
Others which have been suggested include
having the University School of Journalism
produce the paper. But there are hang-ups there
also. One is that the paper would probably still
require subsidy. Another is that censorship would
probably be employed. After all, University
professors are not going to go out of their way to
attack their employer and publisher, the
University.
The other popular alternative is simply to cut
off all student fees, in effect, stop publishing the
paper. That really isn't much of a solution, as it
would seem to present many more problems:
yellow (sensational) journalism, political
propaganda and irresponsible reporting.
Thus, although it is with some regret, the . Daily
Nebraskan favors the continuation of the use of
student fees. But ultimately the decision will be
made by the students.
In the meantime, if there are still areas which
you feel confused about or specific questins about
newspaper policy which you want answered, just
call, write or visit.
President asks for legislation to higher education
By CHERYL M. FIELDS
Noting that most basic higher
education legislation is due to
expire at the end of June, President
Nixon has again asked Congress to
enact a broad restructuring of the
laws.
In a special message recently, the
President emphasized that his
proposals were aimed at equaliziang
opportunities for all youths to
attend college regardless of family
income, and at broadening reform
and innovation in high education
through a National Foundation for
Higher Education. Existing
categorical grant programs also
would be extended.
Spokesmen for several higher
education associations said they
wanted time to study the proposed
bills before commenting, but a few
expressed doubt that the measures
really would provide enough aid to
all the low-and middle-income
students who needed it.
Administration sources,
however, contended that the
President's fiscal 1972 budget
requests would provide enough to
cover eligible students whose family
incomes were $ 1 0,000.
Under the new student aid
proposals, the most controversial
section of the President's plan,
students from families with
adjusted incomes of $10,000 or less
would be elibible for a package of
grants, work-study payments, and
subsidized loans. Students from the
very-lowest-income families could
get maximum grants of $1,000 and
subsidized loans of up to $400.
As their income increased,
families would be expected to make
greater contributions toward
student support, and the amounts
of grant and work-study money to
the students would decline. Most
students could still get $400 in
subsidized loans.
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17. S971
Officials emphasized that the
famfly-income ceiling the expected
family contribution could vary
from year to year. They said that
the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare would issue a new
schedule of aid and
family-contribution levels each
year.
In addition, the subsidized loan
plan this year would incorporate
features of the popular National
Defense student loans, which would
then cease to exist separately.
Under the new plan, students
would pay no interest while in
school and 3 per cent thereafter,
with the government paying the
difference between 3 per cent and
the total interest rate.
In addition, students eligible for
subsidized loans who wanted to
attend schools costing more than
$1,400 annually could borrow up
to $1,500 more in subsidized
"cost-of-education" loans. This
provision, according to
Commissioner of Education Sidney
P. Marland, Jr., would keep needy
students from being excluded from
higher-cost institutions.
As in last year's bill, most
students from families earning more
that $10,000, unless they had
several children or unusual family
expenses, would be elibible only for
federally guaranteed, unsubsidized
loans. There would be no interest
ceiling on these loans, but,
according to government officials,
"Lenders would be required to
allow the student to defer
payments of both interest and
principal while the student was in
college.
In the House of Representatives,
Rep. Edith Green (D-Ore.),
chairman of the Special
Subcommittee on Education, and
Rep. Carl D. Perkins (D-Ky.), head
of the Education and Labor
Committee, criticized the
Administration plan for lacking aid
to private colleges and universities,
a frequent complaint about last
year's legislation.
Commissioner Marland
acknowledged the institutions' need
for general support, saying: "It is a
need. There is no question that it's
a need. I hope the time is not far
off when federal money can be
turned to this grave and dangerous -situation."
However, he said that for the
present student aid had been given
a spending priority and that no
satisfactory formula had yet been
derived that would fairly
compensate all the nations diverse
institutions.
Marland suggested that the
proposed national foundation could
study this question, along with
developing good models for career
education programs, one area
dropped from this year's higher
education proposals.
The foundation, proposed in a
separate bill, would concentrate on
financing promising programs
designed to encourage excellence
and reform in postsecondary
education, to open postsecondary
opportunities to people of all ages
and circumstances, and to
strengthen the individuality and
"sense of mission" of
postsecondary institutions, officials
said.
In his message to Congress,
President Nixon said the
foundation "would have as its
mandate a review of the overall
needs of the American people for
postsecondary education. It
would have as its operating premises
the principles of selectivity and
flexibility."
The President asked an
appropriation of $100-millkn for
the foundation. It would not take
over the authority to finance several
existing categorical grant programs
as was proposed last year, a
suggestion which prompted strong
criticism form the higher education
community
Other important provisions
contained in the President's
proposed "Higher Education
Opportunity Act of 1971"
included:
A two-year extension of
community service and continuing
education programs.
A five-year extension of
programs for strengthening
developing institutions.
A five-year extension of
programs for strengthen
developing institutions.
A five-year authorization for the
student aid programs. Matching
requirements for institutions would
be dropped for educational
opportunity grants, but work-study
matching requirements would
remain. They could be waived,
however, for institutions or work
programs they might hamper.
A five-year extension of the
Education Professions Development
Act.
A two-year extension of the
Higher Education Facilities Act.
Authority for construction grants
would be extended, although the
Administration has not requested
funding for fiscal 1972. The federal
quarantee for construction loans
obtained in the private market
would be extended to private,
nonprofit institutions.
A two-year extension of the
language-training and area-studies
provisions of the National Defense
Education Act.
A new prohibition of
discrimination on the basis of sex in
ary federally assisted education
program, "except where sex is a
bona fide ground for differential
treatment."
Reprinted with permissoi-f
The Chronicle of Hitter Education.
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN " PAGE