editorial
o o
Pace problems
Students who . strongly supported the
Program for Active Commitment to
Education (PACE) got a surprise when they
opened their tuition statements this weekend.
Many students were surprised to note that the
form of the PACE section of the statements
had changed.
Last year, the student who wished to
donate his $3.50 for the program had only to
pay the amount shown on the computer total.
Those who did not wish to donate could
subtract $3.50 from that total.
This year, however, students noted that in
place of the old system was one which clearly
disfavors PACE. Instead of reflecting the cost
of tuition, fees and PACE, the computer total
included only donation and fees. Thus, if a
student wishes to donate his $3.50 to PACE,
he must add on the charge himself.
Because of this, it can be expected that a
much larger segment of students will neglect
PACE in this, its critical second year.
Unthinkingly, thousands of students will pay
the printed-out computer total, never
realizing that they are neglecting a vital,
student-initiated project.
Under the old system, students were forced
to at least consider donating to PACE and
make a conscious effort to remove their
support from the program, if that was their
choice.
This year, multitudes will mistakenly
discard the PACE program as though it were
another piece of junk mail. And that could be
disastrous.
If the PACE program is to die from student
neglect this year, it would simply prove a
theory set forward by large numbers of
administrators, legislators and outstate
citizens-that students are incapable of
initiating mature, public-oriented programs
and carrying them through to success.
If PACE is discarded because of monetary
problems, the first such program will become
a laughing stock-and so will the students'
rights cause.
sk ceas saoe ,3 m
Without a hitch
Advice to would-be hitchhikers: don't.
At least not for the time being.
As some have found rather painfully,
Lincoln police have begun a zealous
crackdown on hitchhiking, a major student
transportation form. What this means is that
any person police see hitching will, under a
Lincoln city ordinance, be ticketed for first
offense hitching.
Previously, first-time offenders were issued
warnings while hardened hitchers were issued
violation slips.
In reaction to the arrests, a group of
students has proposed an ordinance to the
Lincoln City Council, which would alter the
current, rather arbitrary law.
Under the new plan, definite restrictions
would be placed on hitching. It would
disallow hitchhiking in certain
heavily-trafficked business districts, require
hitchhikers to wear light clothing at night,
require hitchhikers to get in the car on the
curb side of the street and not permit
standing within the traffic portion of the
roadway.
Ordinance guidelines for drivers would
permit stopping for hitchhikers only if it is
safe to do so, prohibit rapid lane changes to
pick up riders and instruct hitchers to fasten
safety belts.
The main objection made by anti-hitching
forces-that hitchhiking causes extreme traffic
problems-seems to have been more than
adequately taken care of by the new plan.
Another anti-hitching charge is that giving
rides to strangers can lead to an increase in
crimes against drivers. The hitchers
themselves, hitch-haters claim, are in extreme
danger from those who pick them up.
This, however, is mere speculation. In a
city the size of Lincoln, it is doubtful that
anything as minor as hitchhiking could cause
a major crime wave.
If those who give and accept rides are so
depraved when hitching is allowed, it is
difficult to imagine why they become
innocent lambs when students hoof it.
Hitchhikers can only hope that the city
council will give a thumbs-up to the new
ordinance and clear away the current obstacle
to one of the most popular modes of student
transportation.
Jim Gray
Dear editor,
I had free food (not out of machines), free live tunes with
dinner, free films and free bowling at the Union last Monday
night. All it took was a nice shirt and a little cheek. Got to see
Bob Devaney, too. What I didn't see were other students and
regents not up for re-election.
Who paid for this 1000 -meal extravaganza? If it was
"Regents Reception" why don't the regents foot the bill? Or
why didn't they come, for that matter? Or if the whole thing
was as dumb as it looked, why wasn't everybody invited? Or
why didn't they invite themselves?
John A. Hansen, Jr.
Dear editor,
In the Sept. 11 issue, I read an interesting letter by CM.
Max Dalrymple. I only want to comment on the part of his
letter concerning the Angela Davis-Alexander Solzhenitsyn
cartoon.
I believe Dalrymple missed the cartoon's point. The point,
as it appears to me, is, why is Angela Davis a heroine in
socialist countries for her views when these same countries
imprison their own intellectuals for trying to express their
views?
What we need is a campaign to free these intellectuals. The
reason for this is that they have no recourse in their legal
system whereas Angela Davis did.
I believe the cartoon's artist wanted us to have compassion
for those like Solzhenitsyn and Pasternak, because they're the
real victims of the war for basic human liberties and rights.
Barry Deal
At least we agree on something . . . !'
J
page 4
daily nebraskan
monday, September 18, 1972