editorial pMm pg
di(oflCil
Keep it clean
Less than a month ago this editorial space was
devoted to a discussion of the approaching ASUN
election campaign. The final paragraph called for
"honest, mature, sincere and above-ground"
campaigns. It noted that the candidate that ran that
type of campaign would be the most "deserving of
victory."
Now that the campaigns have expired, whether or
not they met this criteria can be determined.
The quality of the four party campaigns remained
on a very respectable level until late Monday evening.
Then the All University Party (AUP) headed by
presidential candidate Roy Baldwin began
distributing leaflets that the whole campaign could
have done well without. They were expressly
designed to discredit the opposition, rather than
further the cause of the party.
The party that succeeds in the election today
should be the one that ran the best campaign. A rival
party distributed literature Tuesday that said, "As
any party grows uncertain of its stability, it may
resort to slander and mud slinging in a final effort to
gain your vote." " wm
This is just what has been done by the AUP.
Students know better than to believe that. It is hoped
they'll vote accordingly.
In addition to ASUN and advisory board
candidates and the proposed ASUN constitution,
there are other issues that will require the perusal of
every student voting.
The Nebraska Public Interest Research Group is
asking for a refundable tuition assessment to finance
its consumer interest organization. If NEBPIRG is to.
succeed, then an affirmative, vote is necessary on the
ballot.
The whole student fee question also appears on
the ballot. Every one of the itemized areas listed on
the ballot deserve the fee support they are now
receiving. The vote on these items should be "yes".
Fees are now being studied and recommendations
concerning their fate are forthcoming.
The issues have been presented; and are being
debated. It is hoped that many students will Vote for
them. The ASUN election procedure is the only
chance students get regularly to participate in their
University and its operation.
Barry Pilger
Editor's note: Letters to the editor referring to
previously published letters are normally not printed.
. However, due to widespread interest in Larry
Wolfley's Faculty Senate motion concerning
plagiarism, the following letters are being published.
. Wolfley censure, not dismissal
Dear editor:
I want to thank Richard Boohar for making a
serious response to the Prokop censure question. In
particular, more thought should be given to the
possibility that a question of due process may be
involved here.
The wording of my original resolution merely asks
for "censure", not "dismissal," which is the word
Boohar used in his letter. Censure is a mild term. It
means the Faculty Senate doesn't like the man, :!at
he is not our kind of person, that he hasn't been
playing by the rules we consider fair. To me it means
that I wouldn't let Prokop enroll in one of my
, courses-for obvious reasons.
Boohar doesn't name "the pertinent reasons for
voting against my resolution, which have nothing to
do with cowardice or fear of economic repercussion."
If he is referring to the due process question, I
maintain the issue is open for debate and remains to
be decided. I would like to know Boohar's other
reasons for being against my resolution.
They might include strong agreement with
Prokop's politics and his views on homosexuality and
an overriding desire to maintain good (i.e. submissive)
relations with the regents at any cost.
Boohar does not deny that Prokop plagiarized, but
says it was a "single offense" (but so might murder
be). We come down to the fact that what Prokop did
was morally and legally wrong.
Further, Boohar's idea that Prokop is not a
member of the academic community, and therefore is
not bound by the rules enforced in it, is totally
absurd. Prokop is a member-he never lets anyone
forget he is a real PhD. Not only that, everyone in
our society is bound by common-sense rules against
plagiarism.
Finally, my resolution is not politically motivated.
For instance, I approve of Regent Schwartzkopf i
political stand, but if he had plagiarized instead of
Prokop, my response would have been the same.
Prokop as an individual did something wrong in an
attempt to maintain public support for his elected
position ruling over the academic community. We
should have the moral strength to stand up and say
we simply do not like it.
Larry Wolfley
Department of English
Academic community members
Dear editor:
Richard Boohar's letter -in the March 20 Daily
Nebraskan seems to me to ignore the basic issue in
the controversy surrounding Regent Prokop's sermon
against homosexuality. In the first place, he writes as
if Larry Wolfley's resolution and the handout
concerning it were one document, and that he and his
colleagues were being asked to support one in
supporting the other. I thought the handout was silly
and juvenile; I do not think the issue addressed by the
resolution is.
There may well be reasonable doubt whether the
Faculty Senate should occupy itself with censuring or
approving various statements or actions by local or
national figures. But it comes as a shock to hear from
Richard Boohar that the officers of the University are
not members of the academic community. (I suppose
secretaries and students aren't either.
I see nothing in the resoltuion involving due
process one way or the other, but I find Boohar's
implication that non-members of the academic
community are free of the rules which bind members
to be rather amusing in this case.
Plagiarism, as one of my colleagues put it, may or
may not be morally an "offense," but it is legally a
crime, out of the academic community as well as in.
Frederick M. Link
Professor of English
Radical law number one
Dear editor:
As a member of the English Department, I should
like to support Richard Boohar's excellent criticism
of Wolfley and Company's Campus Crusade against
Prokop. I do not defend plagiarism, whether
conscious or unconscious, but I find equally
distasteful the eagerness with which leftist students
and even tome faculty members impugn the moral
characters of those who presume to disagree with
them, especially when the same individuals can justify
breaking the law when it suits their own interests
(e.g., the use of marijuana).
That Wolfley's witch-hunt is - not politically
motiviated is ridiculous on its face. What we see being
implemented is Radical Law number one: "Thou
shalt zap the blue meenies whenever
possible"-regardless of how trivial the offense or
what laws of due process must be dispensed with.
R. D. Stock.
Assistant Professor of English
Thought control
Dear editor:
First of aU I'd tike to thank the Daily Nebraskan
and particularly its "different drummer" for clearly
outlining some of the implications of the proposed
ASUN constitution.
This could be a good lesson to all of us. Often
reforms supposedly in the interest of streamlining and
simplifying governmental activities can lead to the
development of undemocratic oligarchies, responsive
primarily to themselves. , . . ,
Perhaps CSL, or, the regents, or whoever, is
planning on appointing a "big nurse" who'll decide
when our - poor misguided hopheads have mended
their ways and -can be released from personal
counseling. Beware of those -who seek to control your
thoughts, or we're all through.
Mark Dalton
Constitution misconceptions
Dear editor:
It seems necessary to clear up some
misconceptions about the new ASUN Constitution
that were in Monday's editorial. In no place in the
new constitution is there any mention of a "secret'!
recall procedure. The writers of the editorial seem tJ
be confusing recall with impeachment. ;
The new constitution states that impeachment
proceedings are initiated by a two-thirds secret- vote
of the body. This means that the person will be
brought before the Student Court to be tried on
charges of malfeasance in office. Impeachment is
applicable only to officers of the association-it does
not include committee appointments. This does not
mean that the Executive Board can secretly recall
anyone it pleases.
The new constitution states that procedures
. should be established for the appointment and recall
of represents ives to the Faculty Senate and
All-University committees. This is intended to make
student appointees responsible to the student body.
One problem ASUN now has is that students who are
appointed to various committees, including CSL,
sometimes are not diligent in performing committee
work or even in attending meetings. There must be a
means to replace these people-this is all the
constitution states.
The new constitution is a major improvement over
the current system. Students have complained that
the current ASUN Senate is purposeless. The new
constitution give? senate a purpose: it would make it
an effective body to represent student views.
Steve Fowler
ASUN President
Class-construction conflict
Dear editor:
A situation on this campus that should, be
corrected involves the conflict created each time a
construction project begins near classrooms.
Presently I am in a sociology class on the second
floor of Richards Hall, directly across the street from
Memorial Stadium. With the construction work going
on at the stadium's south end the teacher's lecture is
impossible to hear.
If the University is going to conduct classes and
construction projects concurrently, each classroom
near a construction site should be equipped with a
good quality public address system, and teachers
should be ordered to use it.
Charlie Brosan
J
PAGE 4
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22. 1972