"1 - 4L.,
Wednesday, April 7, 1982
page 4
Daily Nebraskan
Editorial
Poet laureate search using
politics in recognition of art
The naming of a poet laureate for Nebra
ska grows more suspect with each mention
of the process. The most recent was an
article in the March 30 Daily Schraskan.
What is suspect is the information that
the Nebraska Committee for the Humanit
ies "leaks." When the process to name a
new poet laureate started in November
1981, letters sent to several poets said,
". . . as an official symbol of Nebraska's
cultural life . . . the poet laureate must be
willing to continue to write for and about
Nebraska as long as heshe lives." But in
the Daily cbraskan article. Anne Cognard,
associate dircctoi of the humanities com
mittee, said the position is not limited to a
poet and would not have to last for life.
Another aspect of this process that is
suspect is the way the committee has react
ed to the position taken by many of the
writers being considered for poet laureate.
In November 1981, when opposition to the
search was fust voiced, the committee's
reaction was to ignore this opposition.
When a group of writers opposed to the
Mill w I 1 1 1 a iv i iv i i w 1 1 iv vwiunuiivv in
early March 19X2 asking it to end the
search, the committee maintained its
stance of silent ignorance.
or award the poet laureate honor on an
annual basis." This statement makes it
seem the committee no longer supports
any guidelines in its search for a Nebraska
poet laureate. Instead of admitting to the
committee's backing away from its original
position, Cognard labels the opposing writ
ers "misinformed."
Marshall Jamison, a member of the five
person review board, said in the Daily Ar
hraskan article, "Recognition of the arts in
Nebraska is our fust priority." Those writ
ers opposing the selection of a poet
laureate cannot disagree with the intention
of the humanities committee to recognize
the arts in Nebraska. Hut is this what the
committee is doing? By picking up the
Ict's-sclect-a-new-poet-laurcate ball in Nov
ember, running over the opposition until
the end of March and only then deciding
that the opposition hasn't been told how
to play properly, is the committee further
iim Nebraska's cultural life?
At the end of March the committee
finally decided to address the opposition,
but the rules had changed. Cognard said in
the Daily .Xchraskan article, 'The live peo
ple who are reviewing writings . . . may
select several writers to serve as a council
It seems the art being recognized by the
humanities committee is the art of politics
who will speak and who will not, when
to speak and when to remain silent, which
issues to address and which to ignore, and
which group of constituents to heed and
which group to dismiss.
Granted, politics is a part of Nebraska
culture, but as an art form, it can, and will,
exist very nicely -without drafting one, five
or 50 civilian writers.
Rob Wilbom
Nancy Drew: 'the girl sleuth 9 for all generations
As an author she had a stable of names.
She was Laura Lee Hope and Franklin Dixon and
Victor Appleton, but above all others, she was Carolyn
Keenc. She wrote about the Bobbsey Twins and Hardy
Ellen Goodman
Boys and Dana Girls. But above all, she cared about
Nancy Drew.
As a 9-year-old fan, 1 never got a clue about the real
name of the lady who died March 27 at 89 years of age.
Without a cipher, I would never have deduced that
Carolyn Keene was Harriet Stratemeyer Adams.
But I knew her cast of characters: Bess, the slightly
overweight blonde; George, the girl who loved her name;
Ned Nickerson, college football player and boyfriend.
And most of all I knew Nancy, the "titian-haired" detec
tive who figured things out for herself.
1 can't remember why I read all the way through the
Nancy Drew series in those years. I didn't much like mys
teries then and I haven't read one since The Clue in the
Crumbling Wall. As literature, Nancy Drew never made
the list of great masterpieces.
But I guess it was Nancy who intrigued me. Harriet
Adams' "girl sleuth" led me, as she has led 70 million
others over half-a-ccntury, into one adventure and out
the next.
Nancy was different from the other characters who
dotted my childhood. In the fairy talcs on my shelves,
girls waited to be rescued from their sleep or their cinders
by princes. On the movie screens of my Saturday after
noons, men in black hats and white hats fought it out
while girls stood by helplessly. I didn't have enough sense
to realize that the weakness lay in the literature and not
in the women.
But Nancy Drew rescued herself. Nancy Drew solved
problems. Nancy Drew behaved the way a child of 9
wants to believe she will behave at 18: sensibly, com
petently, independently.
She traveled the world in pursuit of puzzles as if it
were the most ordinary thing to do. She saved victims
from drowning and escaped from car trunks and boats and
planes. She was treated as an equal and an expert in a
world of police chiefs and lawyers. Above all, she was
blissfully self-confident. The way we wanted to be.
"I like to think I brought up Nancy Drew the way I
brought up my own children and they brought up theirs."
Harriet Adams said once.
But the author's own youth was not so straightfor
ward. She was born in 1894 to Ldward Stratemeyer, the
writer who originated Horatio Alger and a host of other
children's scries. Stratemeyer didn't approve of women
writers or workers. As a Wellcslcy graduate, his daughter
badgered him into letting her edit manuscripts at home.
But after her marriage, Stratemeyer wouldn't give her
work to do.
Continued on Page 5
Gay rights quest infringes upon non-gays 'rights
I'd like to respond to the March 31 guest opinion by
James Holloway about homosexual rights. Holloway ap
peals for gay rights by saying, "All gays want is the right
to live and work in peace, a right we were born with as
Americans." He then goes on in hopes of giving us a grea
ter comprehensive understanding, because we have "in
complete knowledge of the concept of homosexuality."
Guest Opinion
I believe Holloway is the one with the incomplete
knowledge. There isn't any problem in the gays' public
relations department. Rather, the problem lies with both
sides' perceptions of manhood and womanhood. Com
pound this with the fact that most people find the homo
sexual physical act beyond comprehension and sickening,
and you've got a genuine hot potato in the oven despite
efforts to dilute it as "A simple expression of showing you
care for someone."
I don't think the gay community realizes what a pow
erful force sexual identity is to many people, and let's
face it, whether directly or indirectly, they're asking soc
iety to completely redefine its concepts of morals, val
ues and sexual identity. That's a pretty tall order.
I don't believe in denying anyone rights for equal hou
sing, jobs, etc., but the gays' quest for rights is unlike
that of women and blacks who want their share of the
American pie. Gays want to go beyond the piece of pie:
they want to take us into their bedrooms and force us to
be aware of all the details. They want to invade our per
sonal inner privacy and identity by making us aware of
their lifestyle. They want us to accept their behavior and
sanction it as normal and moral. Holloway says people
have no right to force their morality and values on others,
and 1 agree, but there comes a point where that works
two ways.
Gays claim their lifestyle doesn't affect straights, and
that is where we definitely part company. If you're
straight, do you know what it feels like to have a gay put
his arm around you when you're at a bar or make a pass
at you in an airport in front of a crowd of people? Do you
know how that can make a person feel who considers that
type of lifestyle repulsive? Where are our rights when a
gay makes us feel anxious or appear effeminate by making
a pass because we've caught his eye? Where are my rights
if my brother dies and they want to adopt his chidren, or
mine if I die? Where are my rights?
The gays say we shouldn't feel the way we do, we have
an attitude problem. Of course, there's nothing wrong
with their attitude, is there? If all else fails, just blame it
on society for "training us to be half persons," as Hollo
way says. They want us to take their feelings into consi
deration, but do they care about ours?
Holloway explains the homosexual orientation as a
result of "exceedingly complex chemical, biological, chro
mosomal, hormonal, environmental and developmental
factors." That's fine, but don't forget straights' sexual
identity is just as powerful as yours, derived from similar
exceedingly complex factors.
Also, I wonder if the gays fully
mendous force they're up against.
Rights Amendment or the Equal
(which would give not only women
the same nondiscriminatory rights)
discrimination.
comprehend the tre
Gays believe a Gay
Rights Amendment
but also homosexuals
is going to eliminate
Let's be realistic. The prejudice and discrimination
will remain just as strong as before, because gays are not
changing the real root of the problem: People's morals,
values and sexual identity are different than their's. Those
are virtually unchangeable and will probably be passed on
to their children. Without empathy from the public, the
gays' hot potato patch is going to be difficult to hoe. And
when they take the next step of wanting the right to
marry and adopt children (after they get their basic
rights), it's only going to make matters worse.
As said, this is a complex problem and not a simple
one. Regardless, the fact is that gays are here to stay, and
I believe it's only a matter of time before they get what
they want. But let's not forget there are rights on both
sides to consider. I don't know if a compromise is even a
realistic concept, but like it or not, this is an important
issue and a solution should come forth in a constructive
manner. If only one side gets what it wants, all could
be potential losers.
Doug Landon
Sophomore
Psychology