Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 22, 1975)
monday, September 22 lo- page 4 daily nebraskan rvineorv ioeosiz.t?D nicyivi n v I Nearly a month has passed since James Zumberge startled the university community and the entire state by announcing his resignation as UNL chancellor. ' That the shock waves still are being felt is evi denced in the Sunday Journal and Star column, "Nebraska's Fourth Estate," which reports on' Norfolk Daily News and Omaha World-Herald editorials addressed to the question of whether the Legislature or the Board of Regents governs NU a question Zumberge stressed in his resignation. It is vital that this and other problems drama tized by Zumberge's departure continue to be examined, for the future of the NU system depends on resolving these issues. Gov. J. James Exon, reacting to the loss of Zum berge, has told the Daily Nebraskan he believes it is to NU's credit that so many top educators and administrators have seen fit to stop at Nebraska on their way to educational pinnacles. According to Exon, NU should be proud that such officials as Zumberge, Duane Acker, Virginia TrotterMelvin George and others have thought enougn ol NU to use it as a steppmgstone to more prestigious positions. What a self-serving and evasive defense of an indefensible situation are those statements! No one connected with this institution, no resi dent of this state should be satisfied with a "steppingstone" university, an educational middle ground. To do so is to idealize mediocrity and give up hope of achieving quality. . Instead of being proud that good educators use NU as one rung on their climbs to success, we should be asking why Nebraska is not the top of the ladder. Our goal should not be, as Exon put it, to remain "competitive within the Big 8 schools, but to ' be the highest of those universities in all things. How we might reach that goal is a question that cannot even be approached until both the Board of Regents and the Legislature decide they are willing to give up the security of being average. (Don't miss Wednesday's editorial, wnerein we "J .J. and the '49ers. A giant step: The mayor of Austin, Tex., Jeff Friedman, Friday inaugurated a program under which persons caught possessing four ounces or less of marijuana will be ticketed rather than jailed. " ; The move is especially brave in the light of Texas's harsh state laws against possession, which H5 kilo, my, Mr nm is tiM mm ,1 t JliJ.hK TV VUt I j - . t li - , tl nur vrt nn nf "MnnpV Makes tile WOHQ . DreSCIlDe a IWU-VCttl wmtuwMu; wn iu Uiicnse. Go 'Round," featuring that famous juggling act, Rebecca Bnte innocent bystander Milton one step behind each disaster usual, ahead of Milton. By 1971 Milton was ready to speak out in favor of with drawing from Vietnam. But no one listened as they were too busy worrying about the generation gap, the sexual re volution and women's lib. At a buffet supper just last week, Milton startled every one present by suddenly shouting, "I think Nixon is too a crook!" The other guests yawned and turned away. He began to sob. I drew him aside and told him frankly that his problem was that he worried about the. wrong things. "But aren't Communists, nuclear annihilation, missile gaps, civil rights violations, pollution, the energy crisis and corruption potential threats to our way of life?" he asked hopefully. "Of course they are, Milton," I assured him. "But these days everybody's worried about the economy instead." . He sighed. "Okay. What should we do about it !" He thought about this and then beamed. "Then," he cried triumphantly, "there's no sense worrying about it!" , Milton is still shunned by civilized society. But, as I say, he's a happy man today. He hasn't got a worry in the world. lyopyrignt enronicia ruDltshing Co. iS7oi By Arthur Hoppe My friend Milton Haberdash, who used to be shunned by civilized society, is a happy man today. like any good citizen, Milton always worried about potential disasters facing the nation. Unfortunately, he always worried about them at the wrong time. I first met Milton at a dinner party during the Berlin Crisis of 1961. "What I fear most," he told the others grimly, "is Communist subversion of our democratic in stitutions." " The guests were shocked, the hostess stunned. "Really, Milton," she said coldly, "no one has worried about Com munist subversion for years. What we worry about today is nuclear annihilation." And she never invited him back. Milton manfully boned -up on the threat of nuclear annihilation, but by the time he was prepared to speak on the subject at cocktail parties, everybody was talking about the missile gap instead. At a picnic in 1964, Milton came out strongly in favor of developing an anti-Chinese ballistic missile. As the other revelers were intently discussing civil rights in the South by then, he was, of course, totally ignored. No sooner had' he amassed facts on civil rights in the. South than everyone was talking about race riots in the North, a subject quickly replaced by Vietnam-one jump, as WELL IT CERWINU & MCE TO MEET A FRIENDLY FACE ON. nis muNimsm. 1 HOUUOJU) yof LIKE TO JOIN ME FOP A CUP OF COFFEE fiT WE UNION? I ut 1 NT OH, m FLH WER MO MEET v m vim. ft B vf per " i h a wi n-wJLJU-J 'LI, .,r --L-- ...--i-LJ cynics corner cuufiuffiiu in&un&s reminiscent ot 7 929 By Bruce Nelson " Neither you nor I, nor economists "know the whys be hind our economic woes, but the question of what has, happened is a little easier to answer. First there was aa economic theory called capitalism, which said people had, the right to make their living In t free market. Each person could own, buy or sell goods foi his own liking and profit without government intervention Private property, private profit and maximum freedom were the main Ingredients. It seemed like a good recipe But capitalism had a probhm: alternating depression and inflation Hence it wasn't stable and stability is a requisite for any economic model. ' , Capitalism's problems hit an all-time high with thai Great Depression, when :pcoplo began to wonder if there wasnt a better system. Then I man named John Maynard Keynes (rhymes with "reigns") said he had found and solved the problem. Instability, it seemed, was inherent in capitalistic theory. Classic capitalism had taught thst stability would be maintained through the operation of Say'a Law. Say's Law said every cost of mm produced good was iomeone's income. These two factors were equivalent, so whea all incomes were spent they would bo equal to the cost of all produced goods. But what if people saved instead of spent? The classical economists thought they had the answer to that, too j .Kii"8 w.cro related t0 Merest rates in that the higher the rates, the more people would save IHe more people saved, the more business would have to Invest. tavestment"' WeW tctuaUy 8Pndin8 in the form of This cycle theoretically guaranteed stability. The Great Depression seemed to prove it didn't. Keynes argued that savings, Interest and investment were not necessarily related. Saving, he said, was primarily a function of income. The higher the income, the more saved He also said investment was a function of profit exrectal tions. No matter how much money was saved or how lot the kterest rates on loans, no businessman is going to invest if he can't make a profit. 8 - 3h,woud explaln, why classlc" capitalism wasn't stable. What s worse, added Keynes, is that the economy 1 like an elevator, able to stop or stabilize at any wKn eq.f?ibriT coul? bt rcached whert farmeri were killing catU while people were starving In the cities which happened in the '30s.' ; ' 111,41 The answer, Keynes said, was for government td step In, stimulate the economy and balance it at a higher level. Between 1936 (when Keynes's book was published) and 1965, almost everyone embraced Keynesian economics. ire only exceptions were conservative diehards in love with Wssez-faire capitalism and Marxists, who believed Keynesian theory to be only a. bandage on the dying American economy. , Both groups were rather subdued, however, since the Keyneslwu were doing to well. Indeed, in the early '60s, seemed economic! would become an exact science after . tn,.,9tf' economy, to the distress of the Keynesians, inexplicably began falling apart. But because of VS. ; S!ef 'nVictnam, it was to be several years before ' mo pwblic would be iwsre of it; wJv. 88 us 10 Ul Present. The conservatives and StaJ JSig We teying gky that theories were vtZnl Nationl Rview article pointed out that a few HZ S h V ,ad'1"Wa m KeynsslMi." Now it is wLS4.?1 I10,01" 13 Xeynesian. terminf h? completely true, it does seem tliat in Umt ofconomlc theory, we are back in 1929.
