editorial
z
Footnote on fees
Daily Nebraskan editorial policy is the
product of an editorial board consisting of
tditor-tn-chief Jim Gray, Managing tditor
Tom Lansworth and News tditor Randy
Beam. Individual editorials represent the
views of the writer but not necessarily those
of all editorial board members.
Footnote to Friday's editorial on student
fees:
It's amazing how fast information Dours in
when one complains about its unavailability.
Immediately after Fridays breakdown of
student fees was published, it , became
apparent more fee confusion exists than
earlier was imagined as more and more
conflicting and confusing data dropped in.
According to Heter G. Wirtz. coordinator of
student activities, the $1.95 of "unallocated
monies mentioned in the editorial aoes to
four major areas dictated by the chancellor's
office: the student activities office, the
placement office, the new student orientation
program and an area called special projects.
Included in the last area is ASUN which,
you will remember, receives 30 cents Der
student a semester in direct fee allocation.
This year, ASUN received 50 cents a student
from the unallocated funds, bringing ASUN's
total allotment to 80 cents a semester per
student.
This information is. of course, heloful in
determining propriety of fee use. But it does
not answer an obiection voiced in Friday s
editorial: that $1.95 of each student's money
each semester arbitrarily is being allocated by
the administration.
I n a second area of fee concern, added data
simply made comprehension more difficult. It
seems tne listings ot $9.50 and $5 for student
union and other bonded indebtedness
retirement should have been lumped together
into one $14.50 figure. The 514.50. t
appears, all goes into the same bond-payment
pot, along with several other revenues.
Both administration and student officials
said the total bond package includes both
dormitory and married student housina as .
well as the University Health Center and the
.student unions.
None of the sources were certain whether
any of the student funds overlapped into
dormitory or other areas. So it may be
possible that now, or In the future, all
students may be paying for these housing
units which benefit only a few.
Nobody knows for sure. Which fairly well
backs up the premise that the current fee
system is unbelievably confused and
thoroughly appalling.
To the bearers of information: thanks. But
the criticism stands-student fees are a mess.
Governance study
Sunday, the Board of Regents met, with
members of the press present, to discuss the
report of the Univeristy Governance
Commission.
Created in 1970 as a direct or indirect
result of the student strike, and legal and
administrative hassles, the commission
worked for over a year, held public hearings
and submitted its final report July 21.
The main purpose of the report was to
re-define lines of authority within the
University, including the role of the Board of
Regents. The document also discusses the
internal structure of the University, assessing
the relation of students, professional staff,
faculty and business management at NU.
This report is a well thought-out and
t rational approach to changing and clearing up
authority bases within the University. It
contains a good deal of thought and public
opinion obtained at open hearing, which is
important due to the far-reaching
consequences the document may have.
Because, of this, it is vital that the public,
especially students, follow the report through
to adoption; : .
Oct. 6 thej'regents will hold a public
trusting to diisS intricacies of the report.
AJnfortunatelyfhe meeting will be held on
the UNO camp, making it difficult for UNL
students to attend.
It is the, responsibility of all UNL students
to take rjUterest in the report and attend
the Omaha meeting. If they do not, they can
only blame themselves for the consequences.
w I! .... -
TheVattymask
M
an
MELVIN LRlRD,
FAMED CCRCK OF THE RfcMY, NAVY.
RlR FORCE, F4MO HRjNE TERMS, ON
DEFENSE, CRND MORE RECENTLY,
OFFENSE'S HAS HD RM UNDEFERTD
SERSOH THUS FflR,By REUEVIN6
HIS RUNNING GAME. AND BY
USING THE doABON
EVERY PLRY1
4-
Republicans'
new majority
unrealistic
opinion
page 4
The following column is contributed by John Hum ice k and
Patrick Donahoe, graduate students in educational psychology.
Both are graduate assistants in Abel Hall.
With six weeks remaining in the 1972 presidential
campaign, pollsters, journalists and Republican politicians
predict a decisive victory for Richard Nixon over George
McGovern. This was the opinion expressed last week in John
Vihstadt's article, 'Different Drummer." We feel it is
imperative for readers to have an election viewpoint diffei it
from Vihstadt's.
Starting with this, it is necessary to challenge Vihstadt's
opinions point by point. He uses the recent Gallup and Harris
polls to infer that the American people have already made a
final choice. He ignores that the Gallup Poll qualifies President
Nixon's current lead by stating there is a "soft" 30 per cent
within that lead which could switch.
The idea that the Republicans will create a new majority
party in November borders on extreme idealism. A "new
Republican majority' would mean both the House of
Representatives and the Senate would have to be controlled by
Republican! after November. However, another recent Gallup
Poll shows that in fall Congressional races, Democrats lead
Republican candidates by 46 per cent to 41 per cent.
The assumption that the Republican party is becoming
more open and representative would have to be supported by a
switch-over preference of minority groups from McGovern to
Nixon. A recent Gallup Poll shows McGovern is favored among
black voters by a margin of more than four to one, roughly the
same support as Humphrey had in 1968 over Nixon. A token 4
per cent black representation at a national convention can
hardly be taken as a move toward great changes. This in itself
is maliciously misleading.
An interesting phenomenon of this election year has been
the ability of the Republicans and Democrats to make
campaign errors. However, while the Democrats have been
willing to share the background of their mistakes, the
Republicans have been unwilling to make anything "perfectly
daily nebraskan
clear." As a result of this, justifiable doubt can be shown
against the administration.
It is unnerving for us to believe anyone can believe in
President Nixon and his party "now mora than ever" when
close identification has been established between top campaign
advisors and the bugging at Watergate. The ooverup job given
the International Telephone and Telegraph affair and the
Republican party cannot be justified as well as the United
States Department of Agriculture giving out information to
grain corporations prior to the wheat deal.
If Republicans and President Nixon feel he is the people's
choice, why doesn't he come out and speak to the American
people? Thus far, he has only been seen at events where the
fat-cats are. This is not an example of a man and his party
cominq out to the people.
While President Nixon has hidden himself In the White
House, we are barraged day after day by the speeches of
doen$ of administration officials hired to do something other
than this. It is unfortunate that Richard Nixon has seen fit to
use the men in his Cabinet in this fashion.
When he took office in 1969, he said the officials he was
hiring were not to be yes-men. However, this is what we have
seen over the last three-and-a-half years. The case involving
Wally Hickel, former Secretary of the Interior, clearly shows
the unwillingness of the President to allow diversity of views.
This cannot be permitted to continue.
We cannot believe in Richard Nixon because of the way in
which he has consistently worked against the people of this
country. The continual catering to Big Business, the political
manipulation of the judicial system and the relentless bombing
of North Vietnam rfiow a direction contrary to the principles
upon which this country was founded. We do not have and
will not have a government for the people at long as Richard
Nixon is president.
We do agree with Richard Nixon on on rininttk!.
year will offer the voters a clear choice, and In our minds the
cnoice is certainly not Hichard Nixon.
monday, September 25, 1972