monday, february 5, 1979
page 4
daily nebraskan
Brainwash theory touted
incommutation of Hearst
0DilDiO
r m m lira m
V. " LtMt fell M
f mm
M ytfl n
President Carter's commutation of
Patty Hearst's prison sentence is
bound to be criticized by a few hard
core holdouts who remain convinced
that money and prestige, not justice,
prevail.
And the president's decision is
being roundly applauded by many
who see the move as simply a charit
able one. But perhaps the import
ance of the commutation is being
clouded by pro and con sentimental
ity. When President Carter exercised
his power of executive clemency he
also became, intentionally or not, an
advocate of the brainwashing theory.
It is quite possible that the events in
Jonestown, Guyana helped the presi
dent make the decision; if 900
people can be persuaded to kill each
other and themselves, certainly it's
possible for 20-year-old girl to be
persuaded by her kidnappers to be
come a slogan-spewing, gun-toting,
bank-robbing Tania.
If a small, collectively unstable
group of malcontents like the Symbi
onese Liberation Army (SLA) can
apply brainwashing techniques so
successfully, the human mind does
have, in Patty Hearst's own words, a
"disquieting vulnerability."
Hearst probably was ripe for the
plucking by the SLA. She may have
been the stereotypical rich girl, lack
ing some of the things money won't
buy. The SLA preyed on her needs
and perhaps gave her a sense of
purpose in a formerly purposeless
life.
There are a lot of people out
there, rich and poor, who are waiting
for something or someone to come
along and fill their empty lives. If the
mind is as vulnerable as many would
have us believe, we haven't seen the
last of the Jonestown and the Patty
Hearsts.
Education department would give feds policy control
I suppose there may be some bureau
cratic efficiencies that have resulted from
the creation of the Department of Energy.
But bureaucratic efficiency was not the
reason for creating the department. Presi
dent Carter wanted to pull together the
bits and pieces of energy programs scat
tered throughout the federal bureaucracy
for one principal reason: so that the federal
government could bring a unified approach
to energy-so it could get a handle on
energy policy.
william
raspberry
Similarly, there might be some efficien
cies that would result from the creation of
a Department of Education, though I
doubt it.
Government grip
But don't kid yourself for one second
that efficiency is the reason the backers of
the idea are so fervent about it. The real
reason is that pulling together the bits and
pieces of education-linked programs
presently scattered throughout the federal
bureaucracy would give the federal govern-ment-and
those who could reasonably ex
pect to influence the new department a
handle on educational policy.
The difference between the two things
is this: We were pretty well agreed that we
needed a rational, consistent federal policy
on energy. But we are by no means agreed
that we want a federal policy on education,
with Washington taking over more of the
policy function now relegated to state and
local officials.
Policy question
We aren't agreed because we haven't
even debated the question. We haven't
understood that the creation of a Depart
ment of Education is in fact a policy ques
tion, not merely a matter of efficiency.
Do we want a federal policy on educa
tion? The impulse is to say: Why not?
Standards (for high school graduation, for
instance) vary so much from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction that a diploma cannot be
taken at face value. Why not a single, fed
eral standard?
Wouldn't it make sense to have consist
ent standards to determine what and how
much children should be expected to learn
at every grade level? After all, we already
have nationally standardized tests to see
what they've absorbed.
First day applause
"That's easy enough for you nonedu
cators to say," one government official
tokl me. "But if one of us said it, I can pre
dict what would happen."
"The first day, there would be ap
plause. The second day, the unions and
chief state school officials and the school
board would attack.
"And the third day, the same people
who thought it such a wonderful idea on
Day One would begin saying, 'On second
thought. .
The scenario might not be far off. The
teachers' unions-including members of the
National Education Association, one of the
major lobbyists for the proposed department-would
quickly learn that national
standards for what and how much should
be taught would naturally lead to national
standards for determining who is qualified
to teach. All teachers' colleges are not
created equal.
The state and county school authorities
would attack because they are responsible
for running some of these bad schools. The
school boards would resent the federal
usurpation of their policy-making role.
Okay, I know that the supporters of the
proposed department don't anticipate
federal standard -setting and policy-making.
Their dubious rationale is that a President
would pay more attention to education if
its interests were articulated at the cabinet
level. Thus, a Department of Education
would enhance the visibility and prestige
of education within the federal establish
ment. But visibility and prestige for what? For
greater federal outlays? Is there any reason
to suppose that creation of the department
would in fact increase the amount of
federal money available? And if it did, do
they think for one moment that they could
get more Washington money without more
Washington standard -setting?
Maybe we ought to have a national stan
dards and educational policy. The point is.
you cannot create a Department of tdu
cation first and decide the question of
policy and standards later.
The creation of the department is a
policy decision-even if it masquerades as
reorganization for bureaucratic efficiency.
We ought to keep that in mind when the
proposal is taken up again, probably later
this month.
Copyright 1979, The Washington Post
Company
Winning questions illustrate student losses
By Michael Gibson
I was quite surprised by the number of
entries I received in the mail last week for
my "Ask Uncle Michael" contest, especial
ly since I hadn't announced it yet. For next
month's contest, send your questions
about UNL to me, in care of this news
paper. First prize this week, a full, four year
scholarship to Harvard of the Plains Univer
sity, goes to Kennie M. Soar, who writes:
"I keep having nightmares, and I need
your help. I dream that I'm forced to go to
a school with the second highest tuition in
the conference, the second lowest average
teachers' salaries, and student fees which
aren't controlled by students. What can I
do to keep this dream from coming true?"
Dear Kennie: Don't wake up.
Second prize, a Stein way upright piano,
goes to Sigmund E. Pilson of Lincoln, who
wants to know what a bonfire is.
Dear Siggie: A bonfire is the traditional
manner by which UNL students display
their outstanding maturity and responsi
bility (as well as their capacity for alcohol)
by practicing their Boy Scout fire-starting
skills in the middle of 1 6th Street. During
the highly organized event, deep philoso
phical topics are discussed such as "Why do
the Regents think we're children?"
Our third prize is a savings account in
the ASUN Credit Union, and goes to Ernie
K. of Omaha. Emie says he is treasurer of a
UNL organization, and wants to know
where his group should open their savings
account.
Dear Ernie: Student banking in the
Union is not your best choice, but it's your
only one according to UNL regulations.
They offer such great services as a 50 cent
monthly service charge (plus 10 cents a
transaction) on all savings accounts, and
they have the lowest annual interest pay
able by law-exactly nothing.
Fourth prize: a pair of binoculars and a-dollar-a-game
increase in the price of his
student football ticket goes to an anonym
ous CBA freshman, who writes:
"All those people who are unhappy that
the Regents are spending money on
athletics and not academics are wrong, be
cause no tax money is being used for the
new stadium addition. When I read their
letters, I knew they were wrong, so I
decided to check out the facts. What do
you think of this?"
Dear Anonymous: I think I usually
check the facts out first, and then decide
if someone's wrong. Be that as it may, I
think you've missed the point. It's not the
tax dollars will be used to fund the stadium
addition, it's that perhaps the Regents
should spend a bit more time thinking
about academics instead of athletics.
Honorable Mention: from Stew Dent
Body of Lincoln, who asks:
I'm a typical UNL student who's very
unhappy. I spend most evenings complain
ing to my friends about all the problems
UNL has. You see, I want to hear political
speakers; I want to be able to share a drink
or two with a good friend; I want to get rid
of the teacher I've got whose lectures are as
dry as the Gobi desert, and I want student
government to have more power. But
neither the Regents nor the Administration
will listen to me. Why?"
Dear Stew: Maybe you're not
whispering loud enough.
And finally, a confidential to R.
Roskens, Lincoln: the National Weather
Service knows a lot more about weather in
Michigan than I do.
to ftEie editor
Throughout this winter I have been
telling my friends and family how pleased I
am that we have such an efficient road
crew in Lincoln, that they have done an
excellent job getting out with the sand
trucks and snow removal almost immediat
ely. I have also mentioned repeatedly that I
intended to write and tell them so. Now,
after reading "Snow removal charges
invalid' on page 8 of the Jan. 24 Daily
Nebraskan, I am motivated to comment. I
do believe Richard Baker's complaints are
unjustified.
During December and January I have
had visitors from out-of-state and they also
mentioned how remarkable it was to see
the streets so well taken care of as
compared to Phoenix, Chicago, Sioux City.
Indianapolis, or Toledo. 1 think our city's
Public Works Roads and Street Mainten
ance Division deserves a world of praise for
the fine job they are doing to make our
mobility as easy as possible.
Continued on page 5
Effie Johnson
