(' editorial Qpkmn peg J
Fees reports
Two of the student fees task forces
delivered reports to Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs Ken Bader Monday.
The Student Fees Administration Task
Force's lengthy report proposes a
reorganization of the student fees structure
and represents a conscientious effort to fulfill
the responsibilities with which the group was
charged by Chancellor Zumberge.
The members of-affhe student fees task
forces deserve sincere appreciation from the
University community for the time and toil
which have gone into the preparation of their
reports. And if their work is to be of any
consequence, a period for the expression of
student reactions to the reports must begin
immediately. Careful scrutiny of the task
forces' final statements already reveals several
unanswered questions.
In its preliminary report, the Facilities and
Other Fee Users Task Force makes four
recommendations, some of which relate only
peripherally to the group's charge. The task
force called for the establishment of a student
fees advisory board, the planning for a
recreational building, improvement of health
care and planning for a cultural arts center.
Some of the questions raised in the
conclusion of the report include the same
issues which this group was charged to
investigate. Hopefully, the final draft of the
task force's recommendations will deal more
significantly with those issues.
Among the documents which the facilities
task force lists as resources are progress
reports on the work of the Student Fees
Administration Task Force and the Student
Programming Fees Task Force. Last week
Daily Nebraskan reporters were told tnat the
main reason that the task forces did their
work in executive session, i.e., in secret, was
to enable the groups to avoid being influenced
by the work done and direction taken by the
other task forces. The exchange of progress
reports among the task forces voids that
argument.
The Student Fees Administration Task
Force, in its final report, recommends the
scrapping of the current UNL student fees
structure and the establishment of a
reorganized system based primarily on the
concept of zero-base budget planning
administered by a UNL Program and Facilities
Allocation Board. Also recommended was
that the term "student fees" be changed to
UNL Program and Facilities Fees.
A March 1972 Council on Student Life
(CSL) study of student fees recommended
that tuition payments and activities-services
fees be combined and referred to as "tuition"
and be expressed as a single amount in
University publications-specifically, the
Campus Handbook. But the current task force
chose not to endorse this recommendation
made by CSL, the body which now deals with
several fees-related issues including new
requests for student fees support. Every
fees-supported activity or organization should
be aware that the continuation of this
separate status for tuition and student fees
perpetuates the possibility of legal challenges
to the whole concept of fees collection.
Under the zero-base budget planning
proposed by the report, some on-going
programs may be in jeopardy of losing their
financial backing. According to a literal
interpretation of the proposal, every program
would be required to be successful within one
fiscal year in order to be re-funded.
The report calls for student government
terms of office and budget allocations to
operate on a fiscal rather than an academic
year. Such a recommendation appears not to
recognize the fact that a majority of students
who plan and develop programs are on
campus only during the academic year.
These are only a few of the questions
raised by this task force report. Perhaps it
could be argued that continuous public
response and input while the task force was at
work would have aided in the preparation of a
report in need of fewer clarifications.
Tomorrow and Friday, the Daily
Nebraskan will take further editorial looks at
the student fees task forces' reports.
Tom Lansworth
jv p y (4 -
Plastic
proves
popular
in 2001
s
A If A W$l ' J SCT
Such prodigies of journalism as the Sunday
supplements cf the Lincoln and Omaha papers and
the Ladies' Home Journal quite regularly print
features about "Life in the Next Century" or "Will
Sex Be the Same in 2525?" Following these
examples, it is fitting for the Daily Nebraskan to
publish such an article.
I would like to examine life in 2001 by comparing
the cosmetics and clothing of men today with what
these things will be like in the future. Of course, I
must mention the great intellectual debt I owe to the
German sociologist I. Cant and his noted work,
Bcitracga zu den algomeinan Charakteristiken des
menschlichen Kulturs urn Jahre 1973 im Gegensatz
zu Affen und anderen Wesen mit gesunden
Tierenverstand. However, before I do this,
background on the social origins of cosmetics and
clothing is necessary.
' bob russell
When God created the earth, he also created man
(for what reason, be it temporary insanity or an
engineering mor, we'll never know). Unfortunately
for God, the first man he created, Adam, was dumb.
Adam didn't know what to do with himself.
Therefore, God took one of Adam's ribs and created
Eve with this rib. Now Eve, being the smarter of the
two, took a bite of the apple from the Tree of
VKnowledge and thereby figured out what they should
do with themselves.
Adam was overjoyed with this new knowledge, but
found he could not restrain himself at all times in the
presence of Eve. He soon began grabbing whatever
shrubbery happened to be near him and covered
himself with it, so as to conceal his lack of restraint
from Eve.
Although Eve found Adam's new behavior a bit
weird, she could sympathize with Adam's problems.
She realized that, with his inherent and God-given
dumbness, he would think of some stupid stunt like
clothing. She also sympathized with Adam's more
practical problem of the spines and prickles in most
available shrubbery, because these artifacts of nature
stuck Adam in sensitive areas. Adam was inspired to
use animal skins as clothing.
It wasn't long before Eve succumbed to the notion
of covering herself. Soon both Adam and Eve refined .
their dress. Adam used mastadon grease in his hair,
whereas Eve, having a finer sense of things, used
flowers to conceal her natural odors.
Although it is no mere hop, skip and jump to
1973, we can see that our modern cosmetics and
clothing are direct descendants of Adam's animal
skins and grease, and Eve's scents. I will mention a
few cosmetic and clothing items of today and will
predict what form they will take in 2001.
First, the naked human body and its pungencies.
Men of 1973 use spray deodorants to stifle odors that
arise within or around their armpits. However, this
practice has obvious drawbacks. These deodorants
and their magic ingredients tend to fail at crucial
moments. A person also becomes a walking
advertisement for whatever deodorant one is wearing.
In 2001, men will have tiny spray devices installed
underneath their arms. Whenever one of those
moments arises, all one needs to do is lightly raise
one's arms for these devices to stamp out those
horrendous smells.
Nowadays, if one has the face of a Quasimodo, all
one can do is have a face lift, or at worst, wear a
paper bag over one's head in public. In 2001, this will
be unnecessary, as the "Mission Impossible" plastic
mask technique will allow anyone to have a mask to
fit over an unsightly face. No one need ever see the
"real" you. In 2001, a person will own a wide variety
of these plastic masks, suitable for all occasions.
Of course, only a slight stretch of the imagination
will lead you to the conclusion that if plastic masks
are possible, why not plastic body masks? Although
certain technological difficulties are evident, the
progress of modern science should enable anybody to
fit into these plastic body masks, no matter how
dumpy or misshapen the body may be.
In clothing, the trends for the future are not quite
so apparent. However, one can be sure that the men
of 2001 will not be wearing cast-offs from the armed
forces because there will be no military. It is not
possible to forecast whose cast-offs they will wear.
Not all men of today wear cast offs. We find some
men wearing unwieldly and hazardous pants known
as "baggies" and equally hazardous high-heedled,
two-toned shoes. (One notices increased traffic deaths
because of young men tripping over their pants in the
middle of busy streets.) In the future, men will not
wear such silly clothes.
The year 2001 looks bright indeed. Besides being
able to replace our physical qualities, technology will
progress in other areas. We will no longer have to put
up with such inconveniences as plants (we will have
plastic plants that never die and don't need watered)
or dogs (mechanical devices that don't defecate will
replace dogs, although defecation may be retained as
an optional feature on these devices). Although I
don't like to make hasty predictions, I would say that
humans will be retained on earth for some time to
come, even with their obvious malfi inrlirnc anri
inefficiencies. We've come a long way since Adam.. ' J
page 4
daily nebraskan
Wednesday, february 14, 1973
-