page 4
friday, march 28, 1980
daily nebraskan
ASXJN's housing office condemnation: a m
The UNL Housing Office this
week took "highly unusual" action
against the residents of Heppner.
Three, ordering nearly all of them to
move because of their highly unusual
behavior.
Some residents of the floor were
involved in causing about $1,000
damage this semester.
The questions at this point are
whether the vandalism merits moving
the students - with only five weeks
of classes left - and whether the
housing office has taken steps to
avoid arbitrary punitive measures
against students not involved.
Residents of the floor do not deny
that, the damage occured. They do,
however, contend that several stu
dents not involved in the vandalism
are being moved and that the hous
ing office has denied any appeal of
the action.
Technically, because students sign
housing contracts, their rights are
limited somewhat by landlord-tenant
law.
Clearly, if students are being
moved to other dorms arbitrarily,
and those students have no avenue of
appeal, the housing office decision
would smaek of injustice and total
itarianism.
But this is not the case. Steps have
been taken to ensure that students
not involved in the damage will not
suffer.
The UNL ombudsman is the final
step in a three-step procedure open
to Heppner Three residents who feel
they have been mistreated.
First, the housing office gathered
a list from students on the floor,
naming students not involved in the
vandalism. Lists also were made by
the floor's student assistant, the
residence director and the complex
program director. From those lists,
the housing office tried to determine
who should move and who should
stay.
If a student was told to move, but
felt the order unjust, he was to go to
the residence director. If the RD dis
agreed with the student, he was to go
to the director of housing. If the stu
dent still was dissatisfied, the
ombudsman, whose job exists for
just such cases, could be brought
into the individual case.
The establishment of this pro
cedure clears the housing office of
charges of totalitarianism. It also
demonstrates that a sincere effort
was made to avoid injustice.
Still, it is possible that a student
not involved could be moved.
The housing director apparently
realizes that, but because of the
seriousness of the repeated vandalism
on the floor, was willing to take that
risk.
We disagree, strongly, with
ASUN's condemnation Wednesday
of the housing office's decision.
While ASUN has the responsibility of
protecting students rights, it, in this
case, acted too quickly, apparently
without seriously considering the
difficult position of the housing
office in a complex issue that needed
to be addressed.
The students whose studies were
disrupted by the vandalism also need
to have their rights protected, and
that was the intention of the
decision to relocate Heppner Three
students.
The housing office had to take
action, and any action short of mov
ing the students would have been
meaningless and ineffective.
For the sake of innocent students
on the floor and adjoining floors, the
vandalism had to stop. Some stu
dents place a higher priority on
studying than on throwing doors out
windows.
The housing office was more than
tolerant. It issued several verbal and
written warnings. An assistant hous
ing officer held a meeting at Hep
pner, encouraging an end to the van
dalism. But some of the men of Heppner
Three caused $400 damage after
that meeting. Now they complain
that there is no appeal process -when
there is - when in fact they
could be facing criminal charges.
Heppner Three residents have
complained that the floor is unclean
and unsafe. An assistant state fire
marshall toured the floor Wednes
day, and found one violation, which
the university will correct.
As far as cleanliness is concerned,
it seems that residents of the floor
have some responsibility to provide
an atmosphere in which cleanliness
is possible.
It also seems that the housing
office acted in the most just and
appropriate way it could. Hopefully,
students will be responsible and
respectful enough not to bring about
the need for such a decision again.
Randy Essex
Come on down! It's
appropriations time
By Julie Bird
It's appropriation bill time at the Legislature. Crowd
dispersal and prestige license plates take a back seat to the
extremely complicated appropriation and revenue bills.
The atmosphere is suddenly very intense, and the
rotunda is full of lobbyists extremely concerned about
whether their organizations are going to get the money
they had planned on. Senators frown and scribble and
smoke even more than usual.
In the midst of the tension, it took an eight-year-old
to remind me that things are only as serious as you make
them.
I saw the little fellow the other morning as I tried
desperately to understand property tax relief, mill levies
and a state aid to education formula. He was calmly look
ing at a pair of blue agate stones State Treasurer Frank
Marsh had given him.
As he moved under the light to examine the stones, I
asked him what he thought of all this hubbub in the
chambers.
He replied that it was interesting, but not as "neat" as
his blue agates. He then told me his name was Chad, that
he was eight, and he had a half rupee and 20 centavos in
his pocket.
Just then Lieutenant Gov. Roland Luedtke called for a
vote and rang the customary bell to signal opening of the
voting board. The bell got Chad's attention, and he looked
up to see the green and crimson bulbs light up on the
board.
"What is this?" he asked. "That bell and those lights
make it seem like a game show !"
And how right he was. "Let's Make a Deal" was pro
ceeding at breakneck speed, as senators tried to "Beat the
Clock." After today there will be only eight working days
left in the session.
At issue Wednesday morning was a proposal to take
any money left over at the end of the fiscal year and in
crease aid to school districts. The limit on that money
would be $32 million, to which senators decided "The
Price is Right."
The entire budget is a $653,735389 Pyramid," and
lawmakers must play "The Percentage Game" to decide
where it all goes.
Lincoln Sen. Dave Landis said he felt like he was
spinning the "Wheel of Fortune."
"And here we go, and around and around, and we end
up on ... $32 million!" All the while, however, some
fiscal-minded legislators are yelling "Come on down!"
Somehow, through all that, we end up with a coherent
state appropriations formula, and everyone breathes a sigh
of relief and goes home.
m ftr
AMI
to tide editor
How ironic was the fact that your editorial (Daily Ne
braskan, March 26) concerning student leadership appear
ed directly above Brad Belt's guest opinion. Many of your
points concerning student apathy showed a great deal of
insight and in the past seven years that I have been a stu
dent at UNL, it was one of the best editorials I have read.
However, this editorial did not go far enough in examining
the reasons for student apathy at this university, but Brad
Belt's guest opinion indirectly provided a glimpse at a rea
son for this apathy.
I agree with Mr. Belt's statement that the Student
Court erred; however their error was that the injunction in
question, should never have been issued. When a court is
asked to enjoin an election, it should only take action if
the complaining party states reasons that are tantamount
to voter fraud. Otherwise, a court will be forced in
the future with arguments that are beyond its jurisdiction.
For example, assume the Student Court enjoined the
election because 500 voters were confused concerning the
ballot system. What would happen next year-if 50 voters
were confused, another election? 1 am not defending the
Hare System, just the fact that the candidates knew that
it would be used and that if it was confusing, it was their
duty to see that the voters who would vote for them
would not make mistakes. I simply do not understand
why ASUN candidates attempt to win in the Student
Court what they could not win at the polls because in the
past five years, there have been four election challenges.
Losing candidates obviously do not realize that when an
election is challenged, the legitimacy of the elective pro
cess is questioned; and that repeated challenges will lead
an outsider or non-voting student to discount the legiti
macy of the government that these candidates represent,
which results in continuing apathy.
It appears to me that the only allegation made that
approaches voter fraud is the fact that the ballots that
were used did not contain the correct number of write
in ballots. This omission was inexcusable and should not
happen again. The only defense to this charge is that the
persons most seriously injured, the write-in candidates,
did not join in the complaint. I personally do not believe
that a court should nullify an election when the injured
candidates do not join in the petition. Thus, the Student
Court erred when the injunction was issued, I just hope
that, next year, the same mistakes are not repeated by the
Court, the Electoral Commission, and most of all, by the
candidates. The Board of Regents support of our student
government is tenuous at best, therefore the ASUN's
credibility should not be brought into question by frivo
lous lawsuits.
Finally, I would like to respond to Brad "Hit Below
the" Belt's vindictive attacks on Justices Cook, Young and
Langland. These attacks do not deserve a direct response,
Continued on Page 5