Wednesday, april 22, 1981
paga4
daily nebraskan
i-n
V I If o ,
rni h) h ro n 0,1 u
Meager salaries leave Nebraskans hungering
The NU system and Nebraska lawmakers can
not hope to establish UNL as a quality learning
institution by throwing a scattering of crumbs in
the form of salaries and benefits to the faculty.
But that, sadly, is an accurate assessment of the
economic plight facing professors and instructors
on this campus because of Nebraska's reluctance
to realize a strong, sound faculty is the lifeblood
flowing'through the veins of a vibrant university.
Somewhere along the line the simple equation
that competitive salaries plus an environment en
couraging growth equals a quality university pro
viding quality education was forgotten. Although
that equation seems fairly basic, it must not be
widely known.
UNL ranks seventh of Big Eight schools in the
area of faculty salaries. The showing made by this
university in comparison to a sampling of nine
other major midwestern universities is just as dismal.
been made between faculty
salaries and benefits offered at Purdue University,
University of Minnesota, Ohio State University,
University of Illinois-Urbana, University of Wis
consin, Michigan State University, Iowa State
University, University of Missouri at Columbia
and UNL. , , . . 4l .
In those comparisons, UNL ranked eighth in
professor salaries, and last in salaries paid to
associate professors, assistant professors and
instructors. , .
Nationally, faculty salaries at UNL rank in the
bottom 30 percentile of salaries paid to faculty
members at universities.
This is not a record the state can or should be
proud of.
The effects of the pittance paid to UNL faculty
in comparison to other institutions of higher ed
ucation is not just felt in the pocketbooks of
UNL faculty members. Students and the uni-
versity itself are pinched directly 'and the citizens
of Nebraska suffer indirectly from this inadequate
pay scale.
Expanding student enrollments in some
colleges on campus and the inability for deans in
those schools to increase teaching staffs propor
tionately translates into a declining level of qual
ity instruction in many classrooms. Unless ade
quate financial resources are channeled into the
NU system-specifically to its largest component
UNL-the propects of keeping this institution
alive and growing will be bleak at best.
Recently, faculty salaries on this campus have
not kept pace with inflation. This sad situation
will have to be remedied before UNL can grow
into a university featuring top-notch education
and research to benefit the students in the class
room and the citizens of Nebraska.
ny INSURANCE
COMPAQ5
tiKMYftSOH UK
OF COURS, rt
Mi
Cooke's actions not typical of press
t .1 Un4 nt a aUaI fliA trttiVx nUt K -
Within the last vear the oress has come under some
heavy criticism. Some of the criticism is well-deserved.
For instance, the minute-by-minute coverage of the host
ages' return to free land. And don't be quick to think
we've heard the last about the hostages. There will be
more, including an overkill of the first anniversary of the
hostages' release.
The "You-are-Here" coverage of the recent assassina
tion attempt left much to be desired in the area of
accuracy. We were told that Reagan wasn't shot. And Jim
Brady was supposed to have died.
richardlsoG?
News of Brady's death was followed by a Dan Rather
commentary that made Brady sound like the unwanted
ugly duckling of the White House. Last but not least,
Frank Reynolds added to the television frenzy with his
unstable presentation of his need to say, "Oh, my God."
Pretty professional.
Despite these problems, there is one instance in which
the whole press should not be considered responsible for
the unprofessional behavior that was shown. That is the
so-called misrepresentation of Janet Cooke. Because
Cooke decided to lie about a story that was so well
written that it won a Pulitzer Prize, some people have
chosen to blame the press in general and specifically the
Washington Post.
Perhaps the trouble all began when the Post hired
Cooke. According to news reports, the Post didn't bother
to check out Cooke's resume. If they had, they would
have found that she stretched the truth about her lite
experiences.
The Post's Ombudsman Bill Green also points out that
the editors could have been tougher on Cooke. They
could have asked stronger and more direct questions.
The Post can continue to comment on things they
could have done, but the bottom line is that Cooke was
missing the professional ethics and integrity that are in
grained in journalists. And she should assume the blame
for possibly tarnishing a profession and moreover, the
prestige of the Pulitzer Prize.
Editors should be able to trust the professionalism of
reporters. Just as people trust what they read in news
papers to be true. Likewise, reporters should have the
trust of their editors to keep secret sources: real secret
sources. Despite what some people may think, there are
instances in which reporters cannot let their sources be
known even to their editors. The reporter could risk losing
the confidence of not only one source, but future sources.
Moreover, if the issue were to go before a judge, the re
porter and editors would be in court because all would
know who the supposed secret source was. Who would
run the newspaper, one of the editors' mothers?
Newspapers would set a poor policy if they required
reporters, in every situation, to reveal their sources to
their editors. A policy such as that would be very un
realistic. Last week was sad for journalism because it proved
that there are people who can't have the same ideals and
morals that are shared by most true journalists. However,
all journalists should not feel responsible for a person who
decided to manipulate journalism practices for her own
persona gain.
Journalism starts with people. People who are capable
and responsible enough to fulfill very high professonal
standards. Janet Cooke was not one of those people.
Successful Columbia evokes nostalgia and loss
The space shuttle Columbia is home safely. In its dust,
some observations:
The Meaning-Whatever scientific or technological
goals may or may not have been met by the flight of
Columbia, it succeeded in carrying out yet another
Reagan-era mission of making Americans feel better about
themselves.
In a way it is done with mirrors: You set yourself a
goal you know you can achieve, you stress the dangers in
herent in meeting the goal, you stock the spaceship with
human cargo to up the ante by implying the possibility of
death-and then when you carry it out successfully, a sigh
of relief can be heard across the country.
o o
o.
We all know that. And yet it works. When the space
craft landed safely in California, people felt good and
proud. Whether this says more about the flight itself, or
about our national psychic needs, is a point that can be
argued.
The Show-To take a cynical view for a moment, it
probably would be possible to create almost as much
tension if you covered the flight of a Boeing 747 from
New York to Los Angeles the same way television covered
the flight of Columbia.
Not to belittle the Columbia flight. But as NASA re
cognizes, the show's the thing, and if the space adventues
over the years have been anything, they've been good tele
vision. The Missing Element-In the early days of the space
launches, we used to take it pretty much on faith that the
accomplishments in the outer atmosphere were going to
bring a better life on Earth.
NASA still pays lip service to that theory, but no one
really seems to believe it anymore. The space shuttle's
major contribution will be to the defense industry, and
that has always been the least likely area of government to
help human beings in the way they lead their daily lives.
We used to say, "If we can send men to the moon, why
can't we cure hunger on Earth?" The question hasn't been
answered; it just doesn't get asked any longer. Yet, we can
send men to the moon. No, we can't cure hunger at home.
Now shut up and watch the beautiful pictures of the
liftoff.
The Old Hands-You could almost taste the good feel
ing of reunion between the NASA folks and the veteran
reporters who were once again covering a space launch for
the newspapers and television.
Science reporters don't often get the banner headlines,
and a lot of them have spent a long time missing the days
when their beat-the space beat-was the most glamorous
of them all.
The old space hands clearly were having a grand time
covering the Columbia voyage. The stories they reported
were important to them, but it was being back at Cape
Canaveral that was really essential.
The Agency-We all love NASA so much, it's the one
area of government no one really wants to criticize.
Normally when we read about the federal government,
it is with a jaundiced eye.-
But NASA has always gotten a pass from us. The space
agency is the Disneyland of the government bureaucracy
it's supposed to be the happy place. So one of the most
instructive things about the Columbia mission is how, in
the years after Watergate, it reminded us that once in
awhile, we can feel as if we are partners with the govern
ment instead of adversaries.
The Yearning-Just below the surface of the Columbia
mission was an almost palpable nostalgia for the Alan
Shepard-John Glenn days of the very first space shots
Back then at the dawn of the space age, we truly felt
that by propelling our fellow Americans into the sky, we
were seeking a nobler world. It was as if when they return
ed to Earth, we would all be a little better for it.
For all our enthusiasm over Columbia, we knew that
after John Young and Robert Crippen returned from the
voyage, our lives would go on the way they always have.
About the best we would hope for is that when Young
and Crippen emerged from the spacecraft out on the
desert, there was no loner in a trenchcoat lurking there
to shoot one of them in the head. We all grow older . . .
(c) 1981 Field Enterprises, Inc.
n
o
o
y nsforaslian
UPSP 144-080
Editor: Kathy Chen&jlt; Managing Editor: Tom McNeil; News
editor: Steve Miller; Associate news editors: Diane Andersen, Bob
Lannin; Night news editor: Kathy Stokebrand; Magazine editor:
Mary Kempkes; Entertainment editor: Casey McCabe; Sports
editor: Larry Sparks; Art director: Dave Luebke; Photography
chief: Mark Billingsley; Assistant photography chief: Mitch
Hrdlicka. Editorial page assistant: Tom Prentiss.
Copy editors: Mike Bartels, Sue Brown, Pat Clark, Nancy Ellis.
Dan Epp, Beth Headrick, Maureen Hutfless, Alice Hrnicek, Jeanne
Mohatt, Janice Pigaga, Tricia Waters.
Business manager: Ann Shank; Production manager: Kitty
Policky; Advertising manager: Art K, Small ; Assistant advertising
manager: Jeff Pike.
Publications Board chairman: Mark Bowen,' 473-0212. Pro
fessional adviser: Don Walton, 473-7301.
The Daily Nebraskan is published by the UNL Publications
Board Monday through Friday during the fall and spring semes
ters, except during vacations.
Address: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 14th and R
streets, Lincoln, Neb., 68588. Telephone: 472-2588.
Material may be reprinted without permission if attributed to
the Daily Nebraskan, except material covered by a copyright.
Second class postage paid at Lincoln, Neb., 6851 0.
