jonet
white
H?J1
-
li4
editorial mMm (pg)
Elks' dodge
A-W0O6HT1H05E
Long critics of discrimination at any level,
members of the Human Relations Insight League
(HRIL) are at it again. They recently wrote a letter to
the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks Lodge
No. 80 in Lincoln expressing their continuing
displeasure with the Elks Club's "whites only"
membership clause.
In the communique, HRIL recognized the
"positive contributions Elks Lodge No. 80 has made
to the Lincoln community," and said they also would
"prefer not to challenge the Elks Club's liquor license
"this year," and would "prefer not to continue our
court action."
The letter went on to cite the difficulty which
HRIL members have in accepting the fact that the
Lincoln lodge indeed supports the deletion of the
racist membership clause from the Elks national
constitution, but at the same time closes its doors to
certain people on the basis of skin color.
The Elks Club responded to the letter from HRIL
by noting that the entire Nebraska delegation
attending the July 1971 national Elk convention led
the fight to encourage passage of an amendment to
the Elks national constitution. The amendment
would have deleted the racial clause pertaining to
membership. The amendment failed to pass, however,
since a two-thirds margin was needed and only 55 per
cent of the national delegates favored it.
The Lincoln Elks Lodge also cited the fact that
they feel more comfortable working "within the
organization" in order to change it, since the
withdrawal of affiliation from the national
organization would rule out participation at the
national level. Apparently the Lincoln lodge has been
successful in initiating some community programs
that have been adopted nationwide.
While the efforts of Nebraska Elks and efforts of
members of Lincoln Lodge No. 80 to eliminate
discrimination from their organization can be
applauded, other situations deserve much less favor.
The" Elks still discriminate 'against women in
addition to racial minorities. Nowhere does the Elks
constitution state that women can participate in Elks
club functions without the sponsorship of a man.
Any non-white may participate with the sponsorship
of a member.
It remains clear that our society still has a hard
time interpreting that age old phrase, "all men (and
women) are created equal." Erasure of discriminatory
membership clauses in civic organizations ..is. "a. 'start.
The HRIL is to be commended for its efforts to
bring this problem to the attention of the
community, and to the Elks Lodge itself repeatedly.
Although it may take every effort short of
confrontation to change the Elks national
constitution, the Lincoln Elks Lodge should prepare
themselves to do just that.
Barry Pi!ger
More happened at Saturday NU
Board of Regents meeting than reporters
reported, cameras filmed or participants
realized. Confrontation politics brought
events to an impasse.
The confrontation began when
supporters of Milton White took the
floor. The climax of tension and pressure
came at the end of White's delivery,
exceptionally articulate and persuasive,
when he challenged the Board of Regents
with this question: "Is there a regent who
can say he represents these people?" He
gestured to about 100 of his supporters
sitting in rows behind the brightly lit
meeting table. The question was repeated
three times, followed each time by
vacuous silence.
Motionless, eyes averted, the regents
and University administrators were
wordless. There was an almost tangible
expectation that they would remain
silent. People had become the prisoners
of a sequence of events, puppets in an
irreversible melodrama. Its conclusion was
the formation of the people's regents-a
gallant paper tiger that struggled to its
feet in an impromptu meeting called by
White.
As the people's regents made uncertain
nominations, the Board of Regents
adjourned and dissipated, along with the
cameras, the reporters, and the rest in
attendance. It was as though the audience
had walked out while the actors were still
playing. Out of the spotlight the group
made an earnest pretense of having
newfound power, but every face mirrored
the unmistakable loss of valuable political
leverage.
The scenario is a rich one. It does not
indict either side, but it illustrates a
situation where two parties have
progressively become unable to respond
to each other.
Confrontation is limited as a means of
implementing reform or grassroots
change. Its advantage and intent is to
enlist the coverage of the mass media,
calling the public attention to some
inequity, and pressuring power structures
to respond appropriately.
The negative effects of confrontations
can be devastating. A confrontation may
be considered a public argument where
each party is more concerned with
justifying himself to the audience than he
is in resolving conflict of interest.
Intelligent bargaining becomes impossible
as each party makes more and more rigid
demands of the other.
Confrontations are tension-producing
situations. They engender emotional,
short-sighted reactions to pressure.
The disadvantages of confrontations
are obvious. Yet flexible and humanized
reform methods are rarely employed,
perhaps because reformers are unable to
free themselves from traditional political
tactics. Another reason is that alternatives
to confrontation and demonstrations
offer much less self-satisfaction and group
momentum.
There is little intoxicating power in
convincing your mother and father that
Communism has both strong and weak
point, - as does capitalism. There is little
exhiliration in non-violent
communication that acknowledges partial
truth in the opposition's argument.
The task of changing attitudes is
indispensable groundwork for any
widespread political reform. Traditional
reform tactics may secure short-term,
temporarily-satisfying goals, but if they
retard attitude change their positive
effects are neutralized. The confrontation
has a dangerous potential for becoming a
tactic of procrastination rather than an
instrument for meaningful reform.
PAGE
THE DAILY NEB RASKAN
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 1972
