Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Jan. 28, 1974)
.,..... rttttttttttt tt ts?r;jttfr??ffjWsrrrTrs:itsiis?:::::r:t:t: -t r editoriQ I Growing pains Students once again are chanting the Bogrd of Regents blues, as yet more dissatisfaction with board edicts has resurfaced. The issue again is dormitory visitation. Harper Hall hours were rescinded temporarily last week because some residents violated the open door policy, which stipulates that doors must be open when guests of the opposite sex are visiting. Such chastisement takes the form of junior high solemnities (the innocent must suffer with the guilty), but should serve: to rally students to the greater issue at hand -the inadequate, punitive and archaic visitation policy itself. The torch for liberalizing the policy has been passed from student to student for four years. Efforts to alter the regents' efforts so far have been "like water dripping on stones," as one faculty member recently put it. Through a letter-writing campaign, students once more are implementing "proper channels" in an attempt to effect change. This time the regents must seriously consider the wishes of those persons directly affected by outdated visitation rules-the dormitory residents themselves. This issue should hot be forced to the point where peaceful, "legal" means df protest are exhausted. But that point is almost at hand. Only the regents themselves can avert more'drastic displays of di-content. If students are exhorted to behave like adults, they should be treated like adults. If the regents honestly are concerned with making' the dormitories more attractive to students, they wil) do away with the open door policy and further give students the opportunity to determine for themselves, which visitation rules are fair. Mary Voboril rfs ... - y 0k A 7 If, V ' J ' a Hi ,1 !-".! lit I : IP . ...... , A "11 VYt t ting a 1 1 .mi i 1 nit n j 1 4i W-IT .-1, Nixon prosperity: Two cars in every oarage and two gallons in every tank. Open door blame falls to regents, not others Editor's nofe. David Madsen is a Harper Hail senator. W f" , 1 . Ml , By David Madsen I fee! I must respond to Mary Cannon's column, Cannon Law, (Dai'y Nebraskan, Jan. 24). Cannon said the regents often take abuse from persons who make up in fury what they Jack in factual knowledge. This Is the case with her column. The open door policy and its enforcement are not the responsibility of the dormitory staff, specifically the, student assistant whom Cannon criticizes. According to Cannon, "the SAs had no intention of . really enforcing the rule." The Residence Hall Assoc. (RHA) policy, as presented to each dormitory government at the beginning of the year, gives the responsibility of . implementing and enforcing the open door policy to the dormitory government. It is the duty of the RHA sponsor to enforce this nils, which I agree is relatively unenforceable. Any action taken against a violator of this rule must come from the sponsor. The staff will not enter the picture . unless asked to by the sponsor, Thus, when Cannon said the SAs ignored the rule, and the warning, she was speaking without all trie facts. Most of the SAs nude the problem clear to the residents of their floors. The timing of the hours suspension may rvot have been very good, but the action isn't appalling. If Complex Program Director Marie Hansen hadn't taken this action, someone higher in tiie Housing Office hierarchy probably would have. , it is not fair to say Hansen made the threat to the government knowing "perfectly weli that it would be ignored." A copy of the minutes of each government meeting is made available to each resident of the hall. I challenge Cannon's statement that many residents never knew of the warning. If such is the case, how is it possible that a large group of students turned out for the next meeting when Hansen was to make her decision? How did they find out? The decision was not based on suspicion and innuendo. I am one of several persons who would be the first to say that I didn't observe the rule c Hansen's warning. When one stands in the dormitory lobby and watches girls go upstairs with a male companion, and then one ..walks the halls of the dormitory as Hansen did, and doesn't see the door open, that is good enough for me. I'm not supporting Hansen's decision or the punishment. But why students lambast her for a rule she must enforce because of her position is unbelievable. It is true that everybody knows the rule isn't being '4 Bounty act Dear editor: We, the Council of American Indian Students, would like to respond to the editorial "Un-bounty ful" (Daily Nebraskan, Jan. 24). LB131 i is totally unacceptable in any form, am?ndsd or not. .for anyone. Deleting the term "Indian" and inserting the term "indigent" does not change the percentage of arrests in Thurston County. Rather, it opens season on blacks, Chicanos, hippies, freaks, poor whites and any p3$ser-through. The yvhole concept behind LB131 is Ir humane in its practice. - Perhaps our lawmakers need creativity in funding. It U ironic that the Student Bar Assoc. is recruiting these same minorities to fund Nebraska jails. We Indians have been called a lot of things-but never "indigents." Don't amend the Indian. Bounty Act; repeal the Indian Act. ' ' The Council of American Indian Students Editor's note: Both tha editorial and the Student . Bar Assoc. supported LB 131 which would repeal, not amend, the Indian Bounty Act. Crime and punishment Dear editor: "Hanser and the three residence directors ... acted as jjdge, jury, prosecutor. . ." ("Cannon Law," Daily Nebraskan Jan. 24). You got that right! At a meeting in Schramm Hail, Marie Hansen leveled her threat of suspending visitation rights, backing it up with such convincing logic as, "I know what's going on." Not once did she name anyone who had vioiated the open docr policy. People violate the open door policy ad people break civil laws, but apparently according to the "Hansen obeyed. Why can't studsnts work toward changing the rule, rather than ridicule Hansen for trying to enforce it? It is not the complex program director's place, nor the residence directors' place, nor the SAs place to take action against individual who violate the rule. Hansen has made suggestions as to what can be done to prevent another penalty from being imposed. Once again, the punishment of an entire dormitory is not fitting for an individual's wrongdoing, but in her position, what else could Hansen do? One reason the open door policy ts still in existence, given "the consensus that exists about" it. Is just that. All that exists is a consensus. The vast majority of students merely gripe and blame everyone except those who are responsible for the rule, if students would put their gripes on paper and mail them to the regents, it just might do some good. The answer is politics, as Cannon suggests. Students have more power than they realize. Most students are on this campus for more than the one year the apparently representative Smith Hall student stated. , Carlnon is correct when she says the regents are responsible for the problems on this campus. Students, however, can have a positive impact on decisions made by tne "higher ups." The letter writing campaign now under way across campus is a positive approach. If all students would write their regent, something might happen. After all, don't acuuse subordinates, such as Hansen, for the actions of the regents. Let's give credit where credit is due. . 1 . syicm ui law ttinuivcuiciii one J . as one would in civil actions. She said we should work through the channels to change the policy. Why doesn't she work through channels (a violator is caught, hier name is sent to the residence director, etc.) to prosecute the violators? According to Hansen, we damn near all are guilty and now we have to prove our innocence. I hope she doesn't run for regent because there's no way anyone with her logic could lose. Jim Baiters Corny Dear editor: I couldn't agree more with your "Mascot madness" editorial (Daily Nebraikan, Jan. 17). I'm ready to switch bark to the old mascot if that's the only choice. The problem is difficult, and like most I can offer nothing new. In my 11 years here, the best seems to have been the giant ear of corn that preceded the last two odd creatures. A miniature, highly mobile mock up of a corn picker instead of the fire engine also might be an improvement. Herman W. Knoche, page 4 daily nebfjiskan -olay, Janu-.ry ?n, 1 974 Jt. V . -V . "