tuesday, October 7, 1980
page 4
daily nebraskan
(2p
a r
FOcIf
Remarks are gloomy comment on NU's Mure
Last week UNL Interim Chancellor Robert
Rutford had some good news for the Lincoln
Chamber of Commerce: "The university is not
going to fall apart."
With no malice toward Mr. Rutford, who has
inherited a difficult job in financially troubled
times, we find it a bit unfortunate that
optimism about UNL is now expressed in such
dismal terms.
As a disclaimer, it should be noted that Rut
ford made some excellent comments about the
faculty and research, which will be discussed
later.
But the comment that "We may not be able
to have some things that we would like to have,
but we will still be here," is gloomy comment
ary on this university's survival as a land-grant
institution dedicated to the education of its
young people.
It is contradictory to the NU Board of
Regents' continuing lip service to "excellence,"
a term that has become almost as meaningless
and clearly unattainable as Harvard of the
Plains.
The chancellor's comments bring to memory
a resolution the regents passed last spring,
thanking the state for the 10 percent budget
increase it granted, after the university had
argued it needed 15 percent just to stay even.
This semester, the Daily Nebraskan has
argued that the state is largely to blame for
UNL's financial woes, in that fiscal conserva
tism has overridden the desire expressed in the
constitution to have a quality institution of
higher learning.
It is obvious that each sector of the univer
sity, from the regents to the students, including
the faculty and administration, must do every
thing in its power to convince the state of the
need for commitment from state government.
Now, UNL sends a message to the state: We
give up. We've been telling you we need this
money if you want a quality institution, but
you haven't listened, so, (and this is good
,wc vrn won't destroy us. We'll survive
While that probably was not Rutford 's in
tent, we hope that legislators don't read those
connotations into his comments. We hope that
the Legislature does, for the first time in recent
years, recognize the imperative need to make
UNL and the NU system comparable to other
land-grant schools.
Rutford 's comments about faculty illustrate
why this is needed. UNL attracts good faculty,
he said, but loses them because other schools
can pay them more. Granted, private industry
will always offer more than educational in
stitutions, so some good faculty will be lost.
But money is needed to prevent program cuts
and deficient pay scales that contribute to
making UNL a stepping stone to a better job.
Yes, the university will be here next year,
and the year after that. It won't fall apart. But
that is not the goal the state had in mind when
the school was created.
(mm
Birth control view
needs amending
BOSTON-It is almost a year since Pope John II began
his visit here with renewed hope and closed it with old
warnings.
It is almost a year now since this charming man played
kindly Polish politician for the overture, and stern tra
ditional Father for the finale.
It is almost a year since he told American Catholics
again that birth control was evil.
What has happened in these 12 months? Did American
Catholics throw away their contraceptives? Did husbands
and wives turn away from each other in the middle of the
night, fearful that pleasure without procreation was a sin?
Hardly.
Perhaps the pope hammered a wedge of guilt between
some loving bodies. But most shook their heads and con
tinued living at an emotional distance from their church,
picking and choosing from its teachings for their lives. As
one woman said to me last October, "The pope is in
Rome and I am on the pill."
Now, 12 months later, the American bishops are trying
again to bridge this gap. In a delicate speech of loyal dis
sent, Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco told the
Vatican this week that "a very large number of men and
women of goodwill do not accept the teaching on the in
trinsic evil of each and evjry use of contraceptives."
He was understating it. In this country, a full 76.5 per
cent of Catholic women are using birth control and
almost all of them are using a form condemned by the
pope.
The bishop said that the "impasse on this moral teach
ing ... is harmful to the church." Moreover, he mention
ed reality: "We cannot credibly treat the problem of
contraception without clear and honest recognition of the
grave demographic problem of our times."
There is a tendency to ignore this argument, as if two
ancient enemies were still carrying on an endless debate in
exile. But it isn't irrelevant when we think about the
power of the church in the bulging Third World or when
we think about our own fate.
The profound controversy is about the future and
about our past, our behavior and our psyche. It is about
birth control versus sex control.
The dominant attitude of the Catholic Church, which
was, after all, the Christian Church throughout the Middle
Ages, was that sexual love was evil. Even inside marriage.
t)0 DON'T
rAtST" OUR.
STANDARDS
There are examples sprinkled through church history
of theologians excommunicated for preaching that marri
age was as virtuous as virginity. There were theologians
who believed it would be better for the human race to die
out than to continue reproducing through sin.
It wasn't only St. Augustine who described the marital
sexual act as innocent, but passion as sinful. To Gregory
the Great, pleasure was also the evil in the sexual act.
Repression then, was the original birth control method
advocated by the church. That is not too surprising: It
was, for one thing, the only reliable method.
Even today, it is not hard to read the anxiety of the
celibate male Catholic hierarchy. There is the fear that
when pregnancy is under control, sex is out of control:
the belief is that sex, the powerful human urge, should be
contained, not its "natural consequence."
In industrialized countries, only two or three genera
tions have been able to experience their sexuality with
less fear of pregnancy. These new freedoms also bring
choices and sometimes anxieties. We've had to find our
way through new realities, struggling for a new set of
values. Living with "freedom," we have had to create our
own limits.
But we are not going back, because we do not want to
4 tilhie editoB1
I'm writing concerning the editorial about the "Moral
Majority" on Oct. 2. Yes, the evangelical bloc will be a
powerful force in the near future politically. Why, does
that scare you? We as a group will be powerful because we
care, we know what we believe, and best of all we know
why.
I am a Christian first; my beliefs in and knowledge of
God are the basis of everything else I believe. Because of
my faith in God I have opinions about political as well as
religious subjects. My religious beliefs are primary, but
that doesn't make my political convictions invalid.
The editorial also implied that some group of lofty
clergy is at the top of this movement. I disagree. I believe
God is at the top of it, and is in the process of motivating
all his followers to stand for what they believe. I haven't
seen any pre-punched voter ballots being passed around
Christian circles and probably wouldn't pay too much
attention if I did. Yet we hold some basic common
beliefs.
Concerning gay rights and the ERA, these are religious
issues, not because I say so, but because God does. The
Continued on Page 5
go back. The question is whether our choices will be
shared with the poor, overpopulated countries where each
new child may mean less food for the existing children -where
new life can really mean marginal life, even
starvation.
The Vatican surely believes it is favoring morality over
secular "reality." The pope votes for "self-control" and
against birth control.
The American bishops have asked the Vatican to listen,
just to listen, to the opinions of men in the church. But
the church must also open its ears to the oldest longings
of people to both free their sexual feelings and control
their lives.
(c) 1980, The Boston Globe Newspaper Company
Washington Post Writers Group
Editor in chief: Randy Essex Managing editor: Bob Lannin;
News editor: Barb Richardson; Associate news editor: Kathy
Chenault; Assistant news editors: Tom Prentiss and Shelley
Smith; Night news editors: Sue Brown, Nancy Ellis, Bill Graf;
Assistant night news editor: Ifejika Okonkwo; Entertainment
editor: Casey McCabe; Sports editor: Shelley Smith; Photo
graphy chief: Mark Billingsley; Art director: David Luebke;
Magazine editor: Diane Andersen.
Copy editors: Sue Brown, Nancy Ellis, Maureen Hutfless. Lori
McGinnis. Tom McNeil. Jeanne Mohatt. Lisa Paulson. Kathy
Sjuhn. Kent Warneke. Patricia Waters.
p i- !!,,ne? mana9er: Ar" Shank; Production manager: Kitty
roncky; Advertising manager: Art Small; Assistant advertising
manager: Jeff Pike.
Publications Board chairman: Mark Bowen, 475-1081. Pro
fessional adviser: Don Walton. 473-7301.
rJtm !iv Nebrkin is published by the UNL Publications
.M.?V .throu9h F'Wav during the fall and spring semes
ters, except during vacations
rt.-eLPaiiy Nebraskan. 34 Nebraska Union. 14th and R
Sii r?3,n' NIb- 68588- Telephone: 472-2588.
to th SS "HfX. b9 "tinted without permission If attributed
C!JiLVl Nebfaskan- except material covered by a copyright
second class postage paid at Lincoln. Neb.. 68510.
