daily nebraskan
monday, march 10, 1980
Di(g(9JffO
poo
( ( mi
NX im1 imi M
Student group creates
chance for involvement
UNL students who continually
complain about unresponsive re
gent decisions now have a chance
to try and change some of that- .
if. they get involved, that is.
A recently formed political ac
tion committee. First in Respon
sible Education (FIRH), seems like
an excellent idea to get more stu
dent control in university deci
sions. According to the organization's
goals, regent candidates who are
supportive of student wishes and
who will remain visible on issues
concerning students will be elec
ted to the NU Board of Regents
during this year's elections.
Fund raising and active cam
paigning in outstate districts are
being planned by FIRE organizer
Mark Hirschfeld.
What better way of getting stu
dents involved in the political pro
cess, exposing student views, or ul
timately obtaining regents who are
responsive to the desires of the
people they are serving the UNL
student body?
It would seem that such a poli
tical action committee could make
up for much of the lost student
input which has unsuccessfully
been thrown at Regents Hall for
so long.
Too often, voters look for a
familiar name rather than the
regent candidate who is sympa
thetic to the university's needs.
It's hard to be representative of
both the university anil district
taxpayers when regents don't hear
Lincoln's side of the issue.
Perhaps a successful venture by
FIRE will be a start in correcting
what has been perceived by manv
students as an unresponsive Board
of Regents.
Campaigning will give students
an opportunity to become in
volved in the political process.
And if they are successful, it will
give them a ready contact on the
Board of Regents through which
to voice opinions.
As Hirschfeld has said, even if
FIRE does not succeed in getting
a candidate elected, it will be a vic
tory if students participate in the
political process.
This is something which hasn't
been done at the regents level for
quite some time.
Harry Allen Strunk
English professors respond to Regent Prokop
Mr. Prokop's "Counterpoint" to the question of Mr.
Strunk's plagiarism is sincerely distressing-not because he
completely distorts the true issues involved (which he
does), not because he unjustly blasts the strongest teach
ing department in this university (which the English
department is), and not because he himself once was
found guilty of indulging in the same type of literary im
propriety (which he was-or has everyone forgotten?).
Rather, Mr. Prokop's "Counterpoint" is distressing
because he has used the power and authority of his office
to endorse and to stamp a deplorable type of academic
dishonesty as not only excusable, but commendable (the
article's subtitle reads: "He should be praised").
Mr. Prokop asserts that if Mr. Strunk "were selling that
work to someone else, then the charges could be consider
ed serious." But as an employee paid for his writing and
editing, is this not exactly what Mr. Strunk has done?
Mr. Prokop concludes by claiming Mr. Strunk is under
attack only because he "is not of the same cloth ."But is
that again not precisely the point? It is because Mr.
Strunk holds the prestige and authority of Editor-in-chief
that we expect more of him than we might of some mis
guided freshman. It is because Mr. Prokop holds the title
and respect of Regent that wc expect more of him than
some misguided businessman who believes that anything
goes in a dog-eat-dog world.
Both Mr. Strunk and Mr. Prokop fail us, and miserably,
not because of what they have written and plagiarized,
but because of the shoddy example they have given when
they should have done otherwise. Wc should not be anger
ed but profoundly saddened and shamed by such a failure
of leadership from those who should have known better.
David hiblcr, MAMA
Asst. Professor of English
Pull together
From comments of "the Harvard of the Plains" to un
becomingly sarcastic defenses of plagiarism of Daily
Nebraskan editorials, it would appear that some members
of the NU Board of Regents would prefer to promote
dissension on the UNL campuses rather than uphold its
stated purpose as a representative body of the public
trust in supporting and promoting this state's only public
university.
Dr. Prokop chooses to defend Mr. Strunk's editorial as
acceptable journalistic behavior when, by any academical
ly acceptable definition of plagiarism, it is just that.
Credibility is imperative for paper
By Liz Austin
If there is one thing a newspaper can't exist without, it
is credibility.
For a newspaper to be considered credible it must print
only believable, reliable and trustworthy material. In its
more glorified sense, to have credibility means one's
actions are honorable and lacking in disgrace .
. H a newspaper is going to maintain its credibility, it
cannot breach the trust its readers have in the newspaper.
Readers rightfully expect the news stories they read to
be true or at least the newspaper's honest attempt at
truth.
A repeated breach of the trust usually results in a loss
of readers and a newspaper can't exist without readers
This all boils down to the question, "Has the Daily Ne
braskan lost its credibility?"
One act of plagiarism by one editor shouldn't result in
a total loss of credibility for the Daily Nebraskan.
Unfortunately, it has resulted in a loss of some credibil
ity and some readers. It is hoped these readers will give
the Daily Nebraskan a second chance.
The Daily Nebraskan also wUl be under closer scrutiny
by its readers and other newspapers. Another mistake of
this magnitude probably wouldn't be tolerated.
But the impact of the incident will carry over into
future semesters and from it has come a valuable learning
experience.
Readers should give the Daily Nebraskan a second
chance. Everyone should be given a chance to prove what
he has learned.
Whether, as Mr. Strunk states in his defense, his act was
unintentional, or whether it was overt, the fact remains
the same. Without denigrating his intelligence or editorial
expertise in any way, Mr.. Strunk simply could have
recognized that "Time magazine stated that. . ." and be
done with it. No one expects Mr. Strunk to be an acknow
ledged expert on national affairs. Mr. Strunk's defense of
himself was as weak as that of Dr. Prokop. An admission
of error or lack of foresight does not harm anyone; rather
may indeed elevate that individual in the public
confidence.
Dr. Prokop's recent letter is unconscionably sarcastic.
Such overt sarcasm is unbecoming of anyone of Dr.
Prokop's obvious academic prowess (holder of a pro
fessional and academic doctorate), or of his present
position as a representative of the NU System. Undoubt
edly, Dr. Prokop wrote his letter out of insufficient fore
sight and anger and may be excused because of it.
One hundred and twenty -two years ago, Abraham
Lincoln said, paraphrasing Saint Mark, "a house divided
against itself cannot stand." By analogy , a university with
the potential of NU cannot long tolerate such internal
dissension as has been shown in recent Daily Nebraskan
exchanges. Let us work with one another, rather than
against ourselves, toward the betterment of UNL.
Lyle W Morgan II
Instructor
Department of English
Minority spokesman?
At last the most maligned of minority groups has
found an advocate on the Board of Regents. There can'oe
no question that this minority group is routinely dis
criminated against b professors, and that the Department
of English is notoriously bigoted in this way.
, Some teachers actively deride plagiarists in class, or
at least belittle them by innuendo, and have been known
to fail the work of such people without judging it on its
own merits.
It may seem that Dr. Prokop goes slightly out of his
way to maul the English department, some of whose
members, if we can believe the evidence, may actually
read Time magazine. But then no one who defines
plagiarism as Unoriginal work" needs to learn anything
from that department.
Dr. P:okop himself had reason, as I recall, io look up
the definition of the word back in the winter of 19",
and no doubt can speak with some sensitivity on the issue
of plagiarists' liberation.
R.D. Stock
Professor of English