tuesday, September 1, 1981
page 4
daily nebraskan
Suggestions to reduce
crime won't materialize
Once presidents assume office
it's customary for them to assign
commissions or task forces , to
study relevant issues of American
society.
This helps define the issues the
president must address as well as
advise him on what course of
action to take to solve the prob
lems. And as part of President
Reagan's efforts to mount a war
on crime, the administration's
Task Force on Violent Crime has
recently issued its suggestions to
make America safe again.
The task force was co-chaired
by former Attorney General
Griffin Bell and Illinois Gov. Jim
Thompson. Among the 60 recom
mendations in the 192-page report
are some sincere efforts to protect
people from being victimized by
crime and some simplistic
solutions that threaten civil libert
ies. The most understandable goal,
yet most unattainable, is the re
quest for the government to
finance the building of more pri
sons. Under the proposal, the
government would pay 75 percent
of the costs - about $2 billion
over four years to relieve the prob
lem of overcrowded prisons.
But an administration that
chooses to cut spending despite
what it may do to the poor and
elderly in our society, will no
doubt reject a plan to make life
softer for criminals.
The recommendations that
worry civil libertarians the most
are the proposals for bail reform
and the lessening of the exclus
ionary rule.
The task force said judges
should have the ability to deny
bail to a person based on the per
son's "dangerousness" and not
just on .whether the person is
likely to flee before the trial date.
Advocates say this would result
in uniform sentencing from state
to state but critics say determining
who is dangerous is an arbitrary
task better left undone.
By far the most appalling goal is
the weakening of the exclusionary
rule, which prohibits illegally
obtained evidence from being used
in court.
The task force would allow the
evidence to be presented in court
only if the police said they were
acting "in good faith." The task
force reasons that people have hid
behind legal technicalities that
have helped them get off.
Trouncing over the Fourth
Amendment is not an advisable
way to fight crime. Being hard on
criminals is good, but limiting the
average citizen's constitutional
rights is clearly not a step in the
right direction.
(
The task force would also
tighten loopholes allowing the
importing of parts to be used in
the construction of handguns or
"Saturday Night Specials."
They would require a waiting
period to check firearm applicants
for criminal records which is only
sensible and probably why Reagan
will reject it.
But Reagan is likely to oppose
any attempts to strengthen the
1968 Gun Control Act as he
always has.
Overall, building more prisons
won't stop crime. They will just
fill up with prisoners. Making fed
eral policies on crime, which are
normally left to the states, seem
to go against the Reagan philoso
phy of getting the government off
the backs of people.
'Minority' label changes person to minor symbol
If I hear another label thrown at me, making me some
kind of non-person, I think I'll scream.
As a student attending the university, I find that I am
no longer an individual, but a symbol. 1 have become a
"minority."
Minor: Lesser in size, extent or importance.
o
o
diaries
I find that not only have I been given a label designat
ing me as somehow less important, but that everything I
do is also of lesser importance.
As a "minority'' student, I'm entitled to "minority"
counseling, I can take "minority" classes, and belong to
"minority' organizations.
Upon investigating the University Program Council's
allocation of student fees, I find that I am only entitled to
a minor percentage of fees for programming.
These few pennies are somehow to be divided up
between other designated "minority" groups, so that
everybody has enough for their minor programs. (Too bad
I can't reduce my non-resident tuition to a more minor
fee.)
Being designated this inferior status, I am expected to
somehow accept the majority's definition of me, and am
expected to act accordingly. Not only do professors
assume that 1 must have come from a poor ghetto com
munity, but that I probably received inferior schooling
and can't speak intelligible English.
Being tall and slender, Fm also probably an athlete.
How else can "minorities" get through college, if not by
athletic scholarships or financial aid for the poverty
stricken? Nevertheless, being a minor person, I find that 1 am
somehow supposed to be an expert on minorityness. Peo
ple continue to tell me about openings for "minority"
reporters, the need for more "minority" news. What the
heck is minority news? I was under the mistaken impres
sion that all people's lives were of equal importance.
I continually find myself in situations in which I'm
expected to represent the "minority" point of view on
issues. Has any white person in class ever stood up and
said, "Well, speaking in behalf of the white race . . ." Yet,
a professor thinks nothing of turning to me and sayingi
"Well, what do blacks think about this issue?"
Not only have I been reduced to a symbol, I find that I
also have been desexualized. In discussions of issues such
as Affirmative Action or discrimination, references to
"women and minorities" keep coming up.
The implication is that a person is either one or the
other. Or that women only come in one color. So what
does that make me?
As I ponder this new status of minor importance given
to me, I wonder, why am I being defined according to the
distorted preceptions of another group of people?
Just who benefits from terminology which designates
others as somehow less deserving of equal regard?
The implication that certain people are somehow of
lesser importance seems to justify the present system of
allocating less money, providing less services and giving
less consideration to those groups. There has to be a
better way to define people who have a common problem
without implying that they are somehow inferior.
Why not choose a term which defines the problem, in
stead of the group's position in society? Instead of
"minority" groups, why not call them "oppressed"
groups?
This, of course, indicates there is an "oppressor",
which puts the cause of the problem in its proper per
spective. Perhaps if more responsibility was given to those who
perpetuate the situation it might be a little less easy to
excuse.
Defense dollars aid missile Monopoly
ffl nebraskan
It's easy enough to argue about the social programs
that have been axed by the Reagan administration. You
know how you feel about Neighborhood Legal Services,
school lunches and CETA jobs.
mimjD raspberry
It's not much harder to form an opinion on the presi
dent's tax program. Either you are for helping the rich,
confident that the benefits will trickle down, or you're
not.
- It's the defense expenditures that defy rational discus
sion. The same Reagan people who have slashed all kinds
of programs, from student aid to food stamps, want to
spend $1.5 trillion for defense over the next five years.
But there is no way for a layman to look at those
brain-numbing figures and reach any useful conclusion.
You can be for Head Start, or against Head Start, or pro
visionally for Head Start, depending on whether you think
the program is useful, affordable, and an appropriate con
cern for the federal government.
The pattern doesn't work for matters of defense. No
rational American can be against national defense, not
even provisionally. No cost is too high to pay if the alter
native is nuclear annihilation.
The troublesome thing about defense budgets - and
not just Reagan's - is that no one can be sure what the
money goes for, or whether the expenditures buy any
thing worth their cost.
It's easy to say yes to the notion that we ought to be
stronger than the Soviets; it's hard to know whether MX
missiles or B-l bombers make sense. You cannot judge
defense outlays the way you judge proposals for, say,
guaranteed annual income.
You cannot speak intelligently of giving the military
Continued on Page 5
UPSP 144-180
Editorials do not necessarily express the opinions of the Daily
Nebraskan 's publishers, the NU Board of Regents, the University
of Nebraska and its e.nployees or the student body.
Editor: Tom Prentiss; Managing editor: Kathy Stokebrand;
News editor: Steve Miller; Associate news editors: Dan Epp, Kim
Hachiya. Alice Hrnicek; Night news editor: Martha Murdock;
Entertainment editor: Pat Clark; Sports editor: Larry Sparks; Art
director: Dave Luebke; Photography chief: Mark Billingslev.
Copy editors: Linnea Fredrickson. Patti Gallagher, Bill Graf.
Melanie Gray. Deb Norton. Betsy Millet, Janice Pigaga, Phv"'S
Schroeder, Reid Warren, Tricia Waters.
Business manager: Anne Shank-Volk; Production manager:
Kitty Policky; Advertising manager: Art K. Small; Assistant
advertising manager: Jerry Sqott.
Publications Board chairperson: Margy McCleery, 472-2454.
Professional 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.. 68510.
