V
' X
a
'I
n
i
ifjHE FULLV -AUTOMATED, HU-WATIN
s.iew I A kaftl III"
Mot
n
I
'.I
3
.i
I
1
6
. .1
i
II
-A
1
4 i
t
)
'.-.I
' i
'
4-
Appropriate power
Once again it's time to talk about happenings in the
Greek system of this University. Actually, the action to
be discussed is nothing new; the legacy of adviser
intervention is strong. But this time there's a difference.
Recently it was decided that sorority membership
quotas would be reduced from 90 to 85. In effect this
closes open rush to those houses with 85 or more
members.
The quota reduction stems from the fact that some
houses are not full at this time. It is argued that the
reduction will encourage a more even distribution of
members in all sorority houses.
Perhaps this logic is valid. The success of this tactic
will not be known until spring or possibly next fall. So
we can only wait. It could be pointed out mat this fall
all girls were asked to look at all houses during open
houses in hopes that membership numbers would
equalize themselves. Obviously, this did not work.
It may, in fact, be true that the student panhellenic
delegates would have come to the same decision. The
real problem here is how the decision of limited quotas
was made.
It is unfortunate that Mrs. Jayne Anderson,
panhellenic adviser, asked for "the support" of
panhellenic after making the decision to limit
membership in each of the sororities. It should be made
clear here that Mrs. Anderson is an employee of the
University, her title being Assistant in Student Affairs.
This decision was made by asking for the support of
panhellenic delegates who are elected representatives of
each sorority. There was no opportunity for each
delegate to return to her house to determine the popular
opinion of each group. In the great tradition of
representative government, these delegates should
consistently tap the opinions of their constituencies.
What is even sadder is the atmosphere which allowed
the "approval" to be registered. Panhellenic is, after all,
a student group. It has student officers. But for years,
groups of officers have come and gone, taking their roles
from the status quo and office atmosphere. They have
been weak.
Panhellenic should be run by stronger, responsive
student officers. Until this is a reality, policies of that
organization will be nothing more than rubber stamped
student concessions to University wishes.
Laura Willers
jwiy
iYirnr n
rrar7
Editor: Gary Seecrest. Managing Editor: Laura Will an. Naw
Editor: Sttva Strasser. Advertising Manager: Barry Pitgar.
Publications Committal Chairman: Jama Hornar.
Staff writers: Bill Smith erman. Carol S tragi ar, Bart Becker, Linda
Larion, Roxenn Rogars, H.J. Cummim, Randy Beam, Ouana
Lei bh art, Steve Arvenette, Chary) Westcott. Sport editor: Jim
Johnston. Photographers: Bill Genial, Gail Potda. Entertainment
editor: Larry Kubert. Literary editors: Alan Boye, Lucy
JCerchberger. East Campus writer: Terri Bedient Artist: A! Chan.
Copy editors: Tom Lensworth, Jim demons. Sere Tresk, Jim Grey.
Night editor: Leo Schleicher. News assistant: Carolyn Hull.
Coordinator: Jeri Haussier. Ad eteff: Greg Scott, Beth
Meieehock, Jene Kid wall. Mick Morlarty, Jeff Aden, Steve Vates,
OJ. Neson, Suzi Goetoei, Phil Merrynveether, Larry Swanson, Laurel
Marsh, Kris Collins, Secretary: Kathy Cook.
Telephone: editor: 472 2588, newe: 472-2589, advertising
472-2590. Second dees postage rata paid at Lincoln, Nebraska.
Subscription rate ar SS par same iter or S9 per year. Published
Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday during the school year
icea g vacation and a nam period. Member of the
I ntercofa r-i Press, National Educational Advertising Service.
The Daily Nebreeken to a student publication, editorially
independent of the Oniveristy of Nebraska's administration, faculty
and student government.
Address: The Daily Nebresken, 34 Nebraska Union, University of
Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.
QtUDIO TUNED
TO KUN
(DSOWS RADIO
ON KJFOR.
MOM'S fcMHO
3CT VU.M3.
SPAR.E RADIO
5CVErn.ij!r
COFFEE.
NO-DOX.
)SOMlNEX (JO
COUNTERACT
COFFEE MO-DOZ
AFTER. GKEv).
OPTIONAL).
doug vocglor
Coed visitation
Over 5,000 students, almost
one-fourth of the University
population, lives in
dormitories. Liberalization of
coed visitation is an issue
which will directly affect all of
them.
Few issues have been so
persistently followed through
by students. All aspects of
student government have
become involved: the
Residence Hall Association, the
Council on Student Life, and
ASUN.
There can be no question in
anyone's mind that students
are overwhelmingly in favor of
self-determination over the
non-academic aspects of their
University experience. Last
May, a poll taken by The Daily
Nebraskan showed 77 of the
students responding favored
the concept of liberalized coed
visitation. Seven thousand
letters sent out to parents last
Spring, showed 56 of the
2,200 who responded
supported the students'
position.
The usually large numbers
of students who have attended
various meetings when coed
visitation was on the agenda is
another indication of interest
over this matter. For example.
In October over 200 students
attended a CSL meeting at
Abel Hatl on coed visitation.
Finally, the commitment of
students on this issue has been
shown by the serious
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
contemplation of massive
protests of the current
visitation policy.
Determination has also been
shown in the discussion of legal
action, which can be both slow
and costly.
At their November meeting,
the Board of Regents
apparently responded to
increasing student pressure and
reopened the visitation door,
shut in the student's face last
July. A committee was
appointed, and efforts are now
being directed toward the
formuation of some form of
coed visitation policy that can
be submitted for approval.
Any proposed policy will be
contingent upon parental
support President Varner has
stated that if over 50 per cent
of the parents respond
favorably to the new policy, he
will recommend it to the
Regents, and it is assumed that
in this case they would go
along with it
It is very important for
students to maintain a
concerted effort at informing
and educating their parents
about the new coed visitation
policy when it comes out.
Students must dispell the many
fears parents might have and
point out the advantages of the
new policy over the present
system.
Student pressure certainly is
an important means in bringing
student problems and needs to
the Regents' attention. But as
they have decided to perceive
their roles as elected state
officials, the paramount
obligation for them is to the
voters who supply the
institution's finances. They
have many concerns and
interests to balance and they
walk a political tightrope.
Ultimately, the Regents
make the decision whether the
students will have coed
visitation or not They have the
authority to say "yes" or
"no." By making the adoption
of any proposed policy
conditional upon 50 parental
support they are shifting the
making of this decision (on the
surface) elsewhere. It will then
be politically viable for them
to say that they can't endorse
coed visitation because parent's
do not support it or have not
shown enough interest If
parents do support it then
there is no problem in
answering outstate critics of
the new policy.
Students have worked long
and hrd for liberalized coed
visitation. They have taken a
sensible approach to the matter
and their efforts have shown
great maturity and deserve to
be commended. Their past
efforts are testimony that they
will not fail in this new task of
securing parental support
PAGE 4
FRIDAY. DECEMBER 3, ?97 1