editorial
Uncampaign gets unendorsement
This year's ASUN elections could have marked the
beginning of a new phase of campus politics a phase
in which ASUN elections became something more
than the first in a long s.eries of fun and games
culminating in spring. There was a glimmer of hope
that students, now electing a student regent as well as
an ASUN president, would be presented with a
serious campaign, competent candidates and fresh
outlooks.
Any chance of that died early in the campaign.
Or was there a campaign? Never have so many
(three parties and enough independents to form a
football team) said so little about such an important
election. The candidates, it seems, were trying so hard
to be serious that saying anything at all took on
aspects of self-incrimination.
Part of the problem lies with the ASUN Electoral
Commission and Electoral Commissioner Gary Hall.
This was the year ASUN elections were supposed to
be as close to the real thing as possible, a by-product
of electing a student regent. This, unfortunately, was
the year the electoral process fell apart.
First, there was the question of just who was a
party and who wasn't. The Pro-Apathy Party (PAP)
and the Amurica Party (AMP) failed to obtain the
required 500 signatures to run as a group, a new
requirement that made party status difficult and
independent candidacies appealing (or necessary).
PAP and AMP spent most of the campaign appealing
the electoral commission's decision, hardly an activity
, as profitable as soliciting votes.
Then there was the question of what constituted a
legal campaign poster. The electoral commission was
straightforward about it-no posters or signs over 100
square inches each. The parties were devious. The
United Student Effort (USE) party put a lot of little
posters together to look like one big one, and some of
their opponents, rather than argue, did likewise.
If we learn nothing else from this campaign, let us
learn that an examination needs to be made of ASUN
election rules and how they are enforced.
The real blame for this year's lackluster elections,
however, lies with the candidates and parties
themselves. Campaigning was sparse, debating was
erratic and posters were a lost art. This year we don't
have a chance to choose between the good, the bad
and the ugly. None of the candidates have been
willing to step forward and expose themselves.
Take the USE (Jim Say, president; Mary Jenkins,
first vice president; Paul Morrison, second vice
president). USE is trying a new thing in platforms this
year-no platform at all. Voting for USE is like
betting on a roulette wheel with tape over the
numbers-you don't know what you've got until it's
too late.
What campaigning USE has done has not been so
much against this year's opponents as against last
year's USE party. They have, at least, revealed
support for alcohol on campus and a clarification of
the regents' religion policy.
The Sons of Liberty (SOL) party (Del Custafson,
president; Randall G. Jauken, first vice president;
David M. Hamilton, second vice president) at least,
has a platform. But the platform has only one
plank-opposition to collecting and allocating
mandatory student fees-and that is a bit too narrow
for an entire party to stand on.
SOL seems to be advocating a process of natural
selection for groups now receiving student fees
support. Students should support only those groups
they want to support, SOL says. In other words,
those groups big enough and popular enough to
attract support (survival of the fittest?) live, and the
others die.
The Cut the Crap (CTC) party (David Thomas
Ware, president; Stephen Roger Dager, first vice
president; Drey Samuelson, second vice president)
comes closest to having a platform-revise the fees
structure, support student cooperatives, etc.
But they too support a restructuring of the fees
systenf'that would quite probably leave some student
group with eager members and meager bankroll.
PAP (IBM 360, president; Ray Walden, first vice
president; Rick Horton, second vice president), whose
candidates will appear on the ballot as independents,
was handicapped by the election process and a
presidential candidate (an IBM computer) which is
probably logical, but certainly too mechanical for
ASUNTs flexible needs.
The other would-be party, AMP (Dennis Snyder,
president; Peggy Olson, first vice president), also
never got much beyond arguing with the Electoral
Commission.
That leaves only the independent candidates:
Vince Powers and "Big Red" (Charles Rosvold) for
president; Clay Statmore for first vice president. Not
having the advantage of a party, they have been
forced, at times, to be everything from inane to
articulate without revealing which they are most
consistently.
The problem with this year's campaign is not that
there are no qualified candidates but that the
candidates have given no identification as to who the
qualified ones are. The Daily Nebraskan can endorse
no one in today's elections.
Wes Albers
Dave Madsen
Rebecca Brite
Randy Gordon
Abel Associative living program enlightening
In thf cnn'nft rf 1 Q7A tUa XinnrA nf T3,. 4 r- i- -.i .1
In the sorine of 1974. the Board of Repents
adopted the differentiated housing proposal for UNL
residence halls. A section of that proposal allowed the
establishment of the Associative Living program.
Associative Living, which had first been proposed
several years earlier, allows males and. females to live
on the same floor with each sex residing on different
halves of the floor. The living arrangement uses the
second and third floors of Abel Hall, with the
possibility of extension to other floors.
Having had the opportunity to live as a resident
and serve as a Student Assistant on an Associative
Living floor this year, I can only call the experience
fantastically fulfilling and enlightening.
There was a marked contrast between the
Assocative Living floor and the all-male floors that I
have lived on in the past. The atmosphere has been
freer and more open this year than anything I have
experienced.
It is common to find groups sitting in the halls
talking or playing cards. Students have been more
willing to leave their doors open as an invitation for
others to drop in.
The increased opportunities for , daily personal
contacts between men and women on a "live-in" basis
has helped to modify attitudes towards the sexes.
Co-ed living makes it impossible to maintain the old
"I've got to look my best at all times in order to be
attractive to the opposite sex" attitude. In a living
environment such as Associative Living, people
cannot always look dateable.
Pe livine with other neonle come to an
unders. g that others will accept them whether
their ha ., in curlers, they are in bathrobes, or
whatever. This, I think, has been one of the most
healthy and encouraging aspects of Associative
Living. Rigid sex roles are undermined by the
necessity of knowing and living with people as they
truly are and facilitates accepting them as individuals
with their own worth and potentials.
rickjohnson
m
rnumes and reasons
Since attitudes have been indoctrinated into us
each and every day they cannot be reversed
overnight, but simplistic and naive sexual attitudes
are difficult to maintain when one sees
counter-instances every day.
A related aspect of Associative Living is the
opportunity for close male-female non-dating
relationships to develop. Civen the pervasiveness of
dating in the university community and in society in
general, the chances for close non-dating relationships
are limited.
While some dating has occurred, close friendships
have developed and thrived across sex lines. Bevond
personal friendships, the diversity and spontaneity of
group activities has been almost limitless.
In short, people have come to feel comfortable
living with other people -not men, not women-but
people. Since we live and work with males and
females every day, it seems somewhat unnatural to be
cloistered in a dormitory. It seems that Associative
Living has restored a naturalness to University living
that is often missing.
The residents of Associative Living have proved
beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt that they
are capable of handling the responsibilities inherent in
co-ed living. Therefore it seems that the Housing
Office and Regents must before very long face the
problem of visitation stipulations.
Associative Living floors have 14 hours of
visitation per day. The imposition of such a time line
breaks up the positive interaction that this type of
living is developing. Obviously card games and rap
sessions in hallways and lounges do not involve illicit
sex.
Beyond this problem, other hassles such as noise
have been limited, and far outweighed by the
experience of personal growth that Associative Living
offers.
There is nothing that I would like better than to
see the Associative Living program expanded-which
it will be if there is a demand.
Associative Living fills a need for living
arrangements that have been clearly lacking at UNL.
Sfi'itellfl " 1
3sy v ' " fjtj V
page 4
daily nebraskan
Wednesday, march 19, 1975