Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (March 29, 1971)
It i- -! f, - 1 - i - T 1 1 i.xmrjoyspK. AUSCHWITZ OVEtjg pf) S y WERE GOOD BOYS TRAINED ID KILL, ORDERED 70 . . PERHAPS THEY TRIED TOO HARD' MYtAJ VEFEMSB m&RN& War debate begins U of Wisconsin Cardinal: The child of crisis The War in Southeast Asia goes on. Each new day brings with it the news of still more death and a greater escalation of the fighting. Nixon claims he is getting us out of the war, but the impression be and his advisers give is an Orwellian one. Allied forces invade Laos, and we read "incursion." The war is expanded to include a country long ravaged by U.S. bombing missions, and we hear that it is a tactic to permit further troop withdrawal. American soldiers are photographed in Vietnamese uniforms inside Laos, and we are shown a photo of a sign warning U.S. personnel not to transgress the border War is peace, life is death. With each new day, it PAGE 4 becomes more and more evident that, in fact, Nixon is trying desperately to win the war in Southeast Asia. If an invasion of Cambodia doesn't do the trick, there is an invasion of Laos. Today, the Laotian invasion is floundering - what next? Bombings, an invasion of North Vietnam, perhaps tactical nuclear weapons. What began in the early sixties as a few pencil advisers helping a decadent Vietnamese regime, is now inescapably revealed as a determined (sometimes verging on fanatical) effort to crush once and for all the Southeast Asian revolution and restore the semi-colonial status of yesterdav What has marked me tragedy of that effort is something that can never penetrate the rhetoric of this nation's government: that to destroy the revolution transcends the killing of a few guerillas, and stopping the "outside agitation" of the North Vietnamese. To destroy the revolution in Southeast Asia, this country will have to kill many millions more Asians and completely destroy their homeland. They are now apparently ready to operate on the assumption that the antiwar movement has been consumed by the tests to which it is continuously put. This attitude is a fatal one - to millions of Asians and thousands of American troops stationed there. THE DAILY NEBRASKAN MICK MORIARTY. editor CONNIE WINKLER, managing editor JOHN DVORAK, news editor GENE HILLM AN, advertising manager JAMES HORNER, chairman, publications committee EDITORIAL STAFF Staff writers: Gary Seacrest, Bill Smitherman, Jim Pederten, Steve Straer, Dave Brink, Marsha Bangert, Carol Cioettchius, Charlie Harptter, Bart Becker, Mike Wilktnt, Denim Snyder, Marsha Kahm, Koxanne Rogers, Vickt Pulot, Ann Hedersen. Sports editor: Jim Johnston. Sports writers: Warren Obr, Steve Kadel. Photographers: Mike Hayman, Gail f-olda. Kntertainment editor: Larry Kuhert. Literary editor: Alan Boye. hast campus editor: Marlene Timmerman. Artists: Linda Lake, Greg Scott. Design editor: Jim Gray. Copy editors: Tom La ns worth, Don Kussell, Laura Willers. Nlybt editor: Leo Schleicher. Night news assistant: Kodney Wort man. BUSINESS STAFF Coordinator: Sandra Carter. Salesmen: Steve Yates, Jane Kidwell, Greg Scott, Harry Pilger, lorn Hafel, Cindy leld, Ken Sevenker. Business assistants: Janice Stapleman, Charlotte Ownes. Telephones editor: 472-2568. news: 2589, advertising: 2590. Second class postage rates paid at Lincoln, Nebr. Subscription rates are $5 per semester or S8.50 per year. Published Monday through i-riday during the school year except during vacation and exam periods. Member of the Intercollegiate Press, National Fducational Averting Service, College Press Service. The Da3y Nebrasiuui is a student publication, independent of the University of Nebraska's administration, faculty and student government. Address: The Daily Nebreskan, 34 Nebraska Union, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508. The issue of the Vietnam War has finally arrived at the Nebraska Legislature. Sen. John DeCamp of Neligh has introduced a resolution calling for the withdrawal of all American troops from Vietnam by April 1 , 1 972. Decamp's resolution calls for: -Congress to refuse appropriation of funds to be expended in Vietnam after Jan. 1, 1972. -Congress to appropriate funds only for the use of exchanging prisoners and safely withdraw ing American troops. -And for Congress to withdraw all American troops by April 1, 1972. All of DeCamp's requests are qualified by phrases saying that if President Nixon needs more time or money to guarantee a safe withdrawal of U.S. troops he may have both. Admittedly the resolution is weak. For instance, even some of the military vanguard would like to see the troops out" today. After all, the military has suffered as much, if not more, as any institution in this country because of the war. The military has had to spend increasing amounts on advertising and public relations (The Selling of the Pentagon-CBS), for example. Perhaps "advertising" is a misnomer. Many advertisers, say flatly that it's propaganda. But nevertheless, the military has to bear the burden for and with the politicians. The resolution is also weak in that it allows the President to receive more money for the war whenever he can rationalize needing money to prevent a blood bath of South Vietnam. However, the final parts of DeCamp's three-page resolution add teeth to the document. Those parts petition Congress to prohibit U.S. air strikes into Laos and Cambodia and prevent the anticipated invasion of North Vietnam. Perhaps there's not much sense spelling out more specifics of the resolution. Most of the legislators will want to shirk their responsibility of speaking out on the war. Many will say that they don't want to tie the hands of the President. Others will argue they can't support this resolution because they don't have the secret information that the President has. And the rest of the rhetoric will be along the lines that the President is doing everything he can to end the war. What won't be argued or debated is the ugly fact that nearly 400 Nebraskans have been killed in Indochina. Nor will there be much debate concerning expenditures, although it is estimated that Nebraskans will pay about $70 million of federal income taxes in 1971 to support the war-a war which President Nixon is scaling down? And you could almost wager a million dollars that no State Senator will amend the resolution to read, "Whereas the youth of Nebraska do not want to volunteer to fight in an immoral war, be it resolved that the over-40 silent majority Nebraskans make themselves available to the Selective Service to show their patriotic pride for however long President Nixon thinks it necessary." Regarding the points that will be argued, it makes no sense to say that this type of resolutin would tie the hands of the President. Certainly there would be no adverse effect on the negotiations, since there isn't, nor has their been any negotiating in Paris. Nor would the resolution, if enacted into law, tie the President's hands in any logistical sense, since provisions are made to allow the President to carry out his mandate and his promise of bringing U.S. troops home safely and as soon as possible. And in response to the ever popular "secret information" argument, any civilian can see the evils of the Indochina war. You do not need to have a security . clearance to digest "392 NEBRASKANS KILLED - INDOCHINA WAR." In addition to the waste of human resources, there is also the waste of much needed finances. Do we need secret information to comment on the wasted $70 million? Furthermore, the President has already promised to end the war. Perhaps if he realized the depth of the sentiment against the war, he might hasten his efforts to bring about that desired goal. Finally, one of the most crucial arguments we must look at the possible effects of such a resolution. If it passes, it can do nothing more than express the feelings of Nebraskans concerning the brutality of the war. And perhaps it will have a profound influence on the President if he learns that people in Nebraska are concerned about the loss of their children, in more than just a superficial sense. If it fails, that can also have political significance for the President. There is absolutely no guarantee how he will interpret it. . -, -JL dear editor. . de'r editor. . .dear editor. . .dear ecor... ...uec.r editor, dear editor. . .dear editor,, .devr .editor ;Ie;r editor. . .dear editor. . .aear editor. . .dear edi tor dear editor. . .dear editor. . .deaz editor. .. .deal editor dear editor. . .dear editor. . .dear editor... de ar euitor dear editor. . .dear editor. . .der.r editor.. Dear editor. Students should not take heart at your overly optimistic article on the job market. A bleaker picture emerges from conversations with the placement chairmen in departments in the social sciences and liberal arts. This department of history has eleven Ph. D.s-to-be on the block, but none has received an offer to date. The problem is not local for Berkeley's history department is disgorging 95 unemployed PH.D.s and A.B.D.S. This year's new Ph.D.s -and last year's left-overs are a drag on the market. Nor is the problem merely at the doctoral level. Teachers College Placement Director De Jonge's 360 ncw' jobs cannot be interpreted as a 30 increase in employment opportunities. Many of these openings were created by, and will be filled by, persons shuffling around in the system. Even if these were new openings, the 360 jobs pale when compared with the 519 bachelor's degrees granted by Teachers College in June 1970. Will more than 30 of those certified to teach go unemployed this year? Probably, for other states are also suffering from the depression and the taxpayers' revolt. The predicament of the teaching profession at ?11 levels deserves a more accurate assessment than was given by your article. The economic malaise of schools and colleges and the propensity for overproduction eventually may satisfy even State Farm's appetite for liberal arts d'-grees. Sincerely, David R. Carr (Hapless A.B.D.) THE DAILY NEBRASKAN WITH MAX SHULMAN Tenure; or Old Teachers Never Die Today let ns discuss tenure, an academic custom which stipulates t&at if a college doeaat fire a teacher fast enough, they are stuck with him forever. The roles of tea Tire vsry from campus to campus, but in cetera!, a teacher gets tenure when be reaches the rank of associate professor or, failing that, when he completes eight years on the faculty. There after, be cannot be fired except for two rigidly defined causes: a) if be is habitually nude during lectures; or b) if the college can prove he has been dead for more than one semester. Small wonder, then, that colleges are so careful about granting tenure. Who wants to be saddled with a dull teacher for the rest of his lumpish life? For let us speak frankly even among a group as glit tering as teachers, you wiD find an occasional deadaead. Take, for ex ample, Ralph J. Stagnant. Mr. Stagnant was not only dull, he was stupefying. Believe me, I would never say such a mean thing, true though it is, if he were a sensi tive man, but he is not. In fact, if you want an example of how intensi fise he is, be wrote his entire Ph. D. thesis on a chair that had a nail sticking through the seat. And if you want further evidence of his dullness, the thesis was called "The Dynamics of Luggage." But even so, the academic job market was booming at the time Mr. Stagnant got bis doctorate, and he soon found employment. WhaTs more, by blending with the ivy and always walking on tiptoe, he managed never to attract the Dean's ytfrratwn and thus got rehired every year. But finally came Year No. 8, and Mr. Stagnant knew his luck had run out. This time rehiring would mean tenure and naturally the Dean would first take a good hard look. How, thought Mr. Stagnant with a sinking heart, could he persuade the Dean be was worth keeping? Well air, as everyone knows, the way to impress Deans is to pub lish books. So Mr. Stagnant, who thus far had been tco sluggish even to attempt book, now began turning them out at a frantic rate The Fool Locktr Through Historg. . .Valiae end tin Single Girl ... If SatchA, Right or Wrong. Alas, the publisher rejected them alL Finally, ia desperation, Mr. Stagnant tried a novel, but tkk fared no better. "We are herewith returning your corcbaH novel, wrote the publisher. "Are you kidding with this stuff? Can you seriously believe that in this modern day and age anybody would want to read a tear jerker about a rich Harvard boy who rnarries a poor Radcliff e girl who dies of leukemia? And so, alas, Mr. Stagnant was find. Today, a broken man, he lives m a Mew Oriesns slum, working partthne as a praline. There is a powerful lesson here for all of nc if yon want tenure, don't be duQ. Take, tor instance. Miller High Life Beer. Do you think that if Miller had been dull, it would have enjoyed a tenure of 115 years so far? Of course not. Miller abides because it is the very cpposHe of dull; it is lively, sparkling, vivacious, animated, sprightly, buoyant, spry, ardent, sportive and waggish. Just pour s Miller and the hills are alive with the sound of music, and there's a bright golden baza cs the mead ow, and every cloud has a silver lining, and zing! go the strings of your heart. Perhaps you think I'm being a bit effusive about MuV- Ffc Life. If you do, I ask you to remember cae thing: to me Miller L ioore thaV just a beer; it is also an employer. If true. We, (he brewers of Miller High Life, bring you (hit column, r cry week, eonuUmes nerwotulg. And ,ter dag, olwoyt confidently, we bring you MiOer High Life. 1 you're got the time, we we got the beer, in can, bottlet and luge and all wage falirifvi. i ' If .- i . MONDAY., MARCH 29, 1971 PAGE 5 I MONDAY, MARCH 29, 1971
