thurrJry, cctcbcr 21, 1073
' . pinion a
I I A -
Nebraskans should vote
for amendment six
A summer U.S. Supreme Court decision should
help clear the way for the addition of proposed
amendment six (part one) to Nebraska's Consti
tution. The amendment would allow private schools
to be reimbursed for money spent to educate
handicapped children.
The Supreme Court in June sanctioned a
broader form of aid to private schools. It held
that a Maryland law granting aid to private
schools for non-sectarian purposes was consti
tutional as long as the law has a secular legis
lative purpose and the primary effect of the
law is not to advance or inhibit religion.
Nebraska's proposed amendment would violate
neither of these stipulations. The amendment
would make workable a 1 973 law (LB403)
which mandated school districts in Nebraska
to offer special education programs for handicap
ped children. To provide this education, the
schools can contract with other school districts
or offices of mental retardation. The state then
will reimburse, according to the law, ninety per
cent of the excess costs the schools incur by pro
viding these special education programs.
The amendment will alter the state Consti
tution to allow private schools to be reimbursed
for the amount spent to educate the handicapped
children.
With these stipulations attached, this amend
ment would violate none of the many good rea
sons for not providing financial aid to sectarian
schools.
In enacting LB403, the Legislature intended
that all children in the state, regardless of their
mental or physical abilities, should have a good
education. Not to provide reimbursement for
handicapped children attending private schools
would be to deny these children something the
state has long held a fundamental right.
Rather than breaching the U.S. Constitution's
prohibition against combining church and state,
this amendment would assure each student gets
the education due him.
Applicable here are Supreme Court Justice
Harry Blackmun s words on the Maryland
case. "Religious institutions need not be quar
antined from public benefits available to all."
letters
. . - , .
Advice on homecoming
This letter relates to an editorial purported toJe a
news item on the front page of the Oct. 14 DcZyNeb
rcskan. Feeling that the Alpha Tau Omega (ATO) frater
nity was done a disservice in your newspaper we wouJ
Lie to reply.
On ATO's homecoming display last year, most of our
' materials were donated by Use alumni, which is legal
according to the "rules". Secondly, no one ever asked us
or any house how much they spent.
The people who cited figures on our display didn't
even assume that they were trying to disfavor Alpha Tau
Omega with the judging committee.
Apparently your paper feels the purpose of the dis
plays is to win a prize after judging. V7e must disagree! Ve
feel that a project of this nature is designed to draw the
members of the house together, provide entertainment
for those Lmcolnites who make the special trip to cam
pus to see the projects and to boost the homecoming
spirit on campus something your paper ought try for a
change. .
In closing, we noticed that after our winning display
last year, several houses followed suit with larger displays
this year. That was our intent -to get homecoming back
: into prominence! We have certainly accomplished that!
Case closed!
The Men of Alpha Tau Omega fraternity,
Gamma Theta Chapter.
Show 'cm they're wrong
I have been observing with increased interest the con
troversy surrounding KFMQ and I am hereby setting forth
the proposition that, contrary to the opinba of KFUQ's
I rarely listen to KFMQ, mainly because I enjoy Es
tening to god3 music too much. When I do fctea to
radio, KQ33 from Council Cuffs is defisitdy the best ia
FEJrock, at bast around here. '
H2y musical taste runs a wile gsmut, bet it decs net'
include regurgitated Top 40 pep nr-q-jrrflrg as "pro
gressive rock." I have absolutely zero need for any RI
station which is still stumbling around ra the Great
Amerkan AM Ozone.
The best advice to the real imivc-hms sta!2g the
angry streets of this football-fethhfd town in refuge from
KR'Q pbs (hcrrcr-cf-fccrrors!) that Greet Azsexkaa
Tum-Off, KLJ.1S, is this: Good stereo equipment, espec
ially if you have an antenna "aimed" toward the Omaha
Councfl Huffs area, should gbe decent receptiea of
KQ93, next to 98 on the BJ dial (a bit to the right oa my
Kenwood.)
Quality reception cannot be guaranteed, especially if
you Eve in a bad area in terms of interference from other,
less-desirable broadcasting sources. I never listea to any
thing else but KQ93 for Fit rock. KFMQ is stO good far
keeping in touch with the Aid scene, thecgh.
If you doat have the resources to break cut from
under the KFMQ tyranny, write the folks there and tell
them how you fed shout all this. They actuary believe
that their audience is somewhat stspii obvious by the
level of musk they play. They also believe that they have
a captive market ia Lincoln for "progressive FU music.
How about showing them they are wrong?
Dewey Carter
orion
vrau7N
XCStEp :
$chmdz
' J?
By Nicholas Von Hoffisan
When the government raised the antitrust question visa-vis
the television networks during the Nixon years, there
was so much feeling the motive was political that the
Federal Communications Commission couldn't pursue the
matter.
Now it has been raised again by the Westinghouse
Broadcasting Co. which is saying, "The networks
dorninate the television industry. They exercise effective
control over most of the time on affiliated stations; they
influence over-all advertising rates and practices; they
sidevise
absorb a disproportionate share of revenue and profits,
and they work a major impact on economic conditions in
the industry. The total effect of the action and practices
is inconsistent with the spirit of the antitrust laws.
With five major market TV stations (Philadelphia,
Boston, Pittsburgh, San Francisco and Baltimore),
Westinghouse is perhaps the most important of the non
network owned chains.
. ' Schlock outfit
The company has a reputation in the industry as a
schlock outfit of no distinction, so that its complaints
against the networks-one or another of its stations are
affiliated with all three of them-donV arise out of
anguish over the poor quality of network goods, but only
out of a healthy desire for profit That doesn't make
what Westmghouse is charging less valid, merely less
heroic
The Westinghouse complaint, recently lodged with the
Federal Ccnmunkations Conrsissioa (FCCX explains
why it is so difficult for a local station to keep crime and
. sat ia some kind cf reasonable- limits.
The company ssys that local stations art gh"sn previews
cf the shears the networks are going to send them so soon
before they are to be aired, a station menr doesn't
hive the time to find a substitute and promote it
ssIHatly to kepa to get an tu
pioop
WBk Aim, m. W J
it iiftifiym
y u Xesr www
n
The complaint also alleges that local stations are
finding it more and more difficult to buy substitute
material that isn't directly or indirectly controlled by the
networks.
During the heyday of radio and through; the 1950s,
the networks in effect sold blocks of time to the advertis
ing agencies which produced the shows, hired the stars
and had responsibility for much that went on the air.
The complaints about this system were many and
varied. The ad agencies cranked out an ineffable amount
of dull junk which was at least less violent-old re-runs
like Perry Mason. But credit may not belong with the
agencies, only with the era which might not have tolerated
the sort of programs routinely aired now.
The argument also can be made that, when the agencies
instead of any three network offices controlled program
production, the simple multiplicity of sources encouraged
variety and the possibility of quality.
Whatever the reasons, drama and entertainment on
TV 20 years ago was sometimes extraordinarily good.
Nothing new
Without buying the argument that letting the ad
agencies control program content would improve it,
there's no doubt that giving power to the three networks
consolidates the dissemination of identical monochro
matic material and reduces the possibility of local sta
tions making any king of unique or different contribu
tion. 'The networks are trying to change local stations into
mere extensions of the national network program pipe
line, the Westinghouse petition to the FCC alleges. uEach
year local affiliated stations have less involvement in and
responsibility for the totality of the programming carried
over their equipment to the public ia thsir comxiunitxtL
If this is allowed to continue, local affiliated stations will
ultimately perform functions little different ficm cable
TV outlets. V
The isrrsediate shspe of this quarrel concerns the
probability that tha networks will go to hour-long evening
mm prccrrns soon. Whit Westix.House fssrs is that the
extra hdfhcur won't ccsne out cf pr&se time but cut cf
ths ne cow ussd by the loed sUtkss for their own
cesrs. -
According to Westiriouse, sch a changj would
tncrers nstwctk profits by S75 rdllioa a ytu with a
corresponding loss to local stations. This, coupled with
the revenues the networks get from the stations they
themselves own, would give ABC, CBS and NEC over
half the revenues of the entire industry to go along with
their control cf over two-thirds cf the air time.
.. Three eetwceksdassoBS
Local station owners have been so bad, so cheap, so
vulgarly reactionary they have made the networks lock
like the good guys. It's not easy to defend these
characters, but no one ever claimed that the advantages
and safeguards attached to diversified ownership and
decentralized control are either obvious or instantly
apparent.
Nevertheless, yea don't even have to be as smart as
Spiro Agnew to realize that, whether they're good guys or
rotten eggs, having three networks and at most a few
hundred people be the major purveyors of news and
entertainment is inherently too dangerous.
Westinghouse wants the Congress andor FCC to give
local stations help in order to balance the power between
them and the networks. This might protect
Westinghouse's profits against network encroachment; it
might also lower the level of police drama violence, but
it wouldn't open up the industry much and it certainly
wouldn't encourage that diversity of voices which the
theory says a democracy ought to have..
There are many ways that could be done in this
industry, where government power has been used to
create the three network informational oligopoly.
Ccia-cptratsdTV?-
Networks could be forbidden to own television
stations; no station could be allowed to braodcast more
than three hours of material a day from the same network
thereby making the commerce base for two or three new
competing networks; the present structure could be hft
intact but all the legs! barriers to pay-TV, meet of which
have been fostered by outfits like Westhouse wcrkrg
ia cahoots with the networks, could be eliminated.
Now is the time to reduce and dscentrtlse network
power. We're ia a iu2, a qukt period. If it fca't done near,
the next Agnew may do it ia a menner we rrit not the,
or the next Nixon, cognizant of the tdvsntts cf
centralized broadcast centre! for extncczsiituticsil
government, may just tell them what to scy.