Page 4 Daily Nebraskan Monday, April 1 2, 1 982
Editorial
That score again:
Fans 1, Students 0
Followers of college sports should take a look at two
telling articles in the April 7 edition of The Chronicle of
Higher Education.
The first, carrying the headline "Scholars Consider the
'Embarrassing State' of Big-Time College Sports," outlines
the discussion of about 50 scholars who attended a recent
conference on "sport and society" at Clemson University.
One of the participants, Benjamin G. Rader of the
UNL Department of History, told the Chronicle that
when intercollegiate athletics began in the 1850s, profes
sional coaches and athletic scholarships did not exist. The
level of training for student athletes was not high; those
participating were real amateurs.
However, in ensuing years collegiate sports became
more sophisticated. Today, millions of dollars go into
events that are essentially "sporting spectacles," Rader
said. Rather than being student-centered, sports have be
come spectator-centered, he explained.
As was pointed out at the conference, sports mania
supports huge athletic programs, national television cov
erage and special school products, sucli as "Clemson Na
tional Champions Orange Soda, Official Drink of the Tig
ers" and "Huskers' Choice."
Rader said in the Chronicle article that many univer
sity officials across the country "maintain the rhetoric of
amateurism" but use successful athletic programs to garner
money and support for their schools. He said they have a
"vested interest" in making intercollegiate sports spectator-oriented.
Just below this first article is one carrying the headline
"When Budgets Are Cut, Money for Sports Should Be the
First To Go, Officials Say." In a national study conducted
by the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Penn
sylvania State University, 3,000 college and university ad
ministrators were asked which funds should be cut first
and which last in a budget crunch.
Listed first by 61.4 percent of the administrators was
money for sports. Most rated money for teaching, faculty
salaries, financial aid to students and libraries as funds
that should be cut only as a last resort.
These two articles, set one on top of the other, make
an interesting point. Although collegiate sports have devel
oped to an almost professional level in everything but pay
for players (although Sen. Ernest Chambers of Omaha has
argued that scholarships and other perks college athletes
receive qualify as pay), those portioning out the bucks
seem prepared to cut off the flow of funds if necessary.
What exactly this means for college athletics is hard to
determine. Unlike many schools in this country, UNL has
an athletic department that is self-supporting. So, there is
no danger that administrators will cut funds for athletics
in order to save academics.
But even if Nebraska's athletic program were funded
with university money, administrators here would pro
bably be hesitant to cut those funds. UNL is the classic
example of a school that has built its name with athletics,
namely football.
That's not necessarily bad. But shouldn't our school be
known for more? Sure, Nebraska athletes should be
lauded for their achievements. After all, UNL does have a
strong football team and a champion gymnastics team.
But in addition, UNL has outstanding students, faculty
members and research'ers. Shouldn't these people be
lauded? Shouldn't their programs be supported with
just as much enthusiasm? Perhaps a reputation built on
academics would be a more lasting one, one that would
not waver with the prospects of a team or two.
Falklands: Marx Brothers war
You will excuse me, I know, if I tell you that images of
Groucho Marx keep running through my head. I see him
in the movie Duck Soup in which he played Rufus T. Fire
fly, the dictator of Freedonia, a mythical state which
went to war (in black and vvliite) to the song "To war, to
war, the country's gone to war." Groucho sings it and
Chico sings it and Harpo does his best -- a wonderful,
zany put-down of war and the mentality that produces it.
I am not sure at the moment if Argentina or Britain is
Freedonia. It is clear, though, that both countries are
Richard Cohen
suffering from creeping Freedonia-ism, singing their own
versions of "To war, to war" - the former in Spanish, the
latter in English. The only trouble is that this movie is in
color, real lives arc at stake and in either language a bullet
can amount to the same thing.
Already, several Argentina soldiers have died in the
taking of the Falkland Islands. Already, Britain's foreign
minister has resigned. Margaret Thatcher wobbles on her
parliamentary throne and England has put to sea the
largest armada at its command. It will take some days to
reach its destination. The world has time to go for pop
corn. In the House of Lords, peers of the realm yell for war.
In Argentina, fascists certified by our government with
the human rights seal of approval, vow they will never give
up the Falklands. The Argentine president, Lieut. Gen.
Leopold F. Galticri put it this way: "Let it be made very
clear to all the international community, that if the
Argentine people are attacked by military, naval, land or
air means, the Argentine nation in arms, with all the
means at its disposal, will present battle." Present battle?
He's Margaret Dumont in drag.
On the Falklands itself, you can be sure it is raining. It
either rains or snows something like 250 days a year - a
climate acceptable only to the English. And England
happens to be the place where most of the island's land
owners live. The rest of the Flaklanders, about 1,800
strong, raise sheep and call themselves "kelpers" after the
local seaweed that gorws up to 50 feet long. For this the
British have dispatched the fleet.
What. a lot of nonsense. The Falklands are British
today because of an imperialist past. Still, the Argentines
were wrong to use force to settle the dispute with Eng
land, and the English would be just as wrong to use force
in response. Their strategic interests are not at stake. The
Falklands are not Gibraltar and the next domino to fall, if
one does, will be . . . what? Antarctica. It is time to settle
this dispute once and for all. Let the Argentines have the
islands.
How would you like to be some British soldier contem
plating death on the Falklands? How would you like to be
in that armada, considering the prospect of dying for
750,000 sheep or world-class seaweed or the land itself
fit only for penguins? How would you like to compose
a letter of condolence to some British mother whose son
has fallen in the battle for the capital, Stanley? Stanley!
. The Argentines, we are told, took the islands to divert
attention from internal political troubles. The generals are
in trouble. The Argentine economy is a mess. The people
were pressing and so the generals, short of bread and lack
ing the wit to furnish a circus, gave them war. Now,
Thatcher is about to respond in kind. There is pressure on
her, too. Britain, which did nothing to avoid the crisis,
now declares itself humiliated.
But not really. Britain is no longer an empire. It is no
longer the fleet and Light Brigades and stupid little wars
over inconsequential countries. It is, instead, an econom
ically embattled democracy and it ought to use its re
sources to improve the lives of Britons, not to fight
Argentina over some islands it does not need and probably
should not have.
The pride of Britain should be its morality, its dignity,
its refusal to waste lives in some international version of a
macho street brawl - to sink to the level of the Argentine
despots. It ought to bomb Buenos Aires with cream pies.
Instead, it seems intent on becoming a comic-opera
nation, out to fight a silly war over some silly island for
reasons that were not worth the life of one man. It's a
tragedy. It's a farce. Send in the fleet.
Freedonia rules the waves.
(c) 1982, The Washington Post Company
Economic policy harms education
Ronald Reagan, his voice freshly
tanned, came on the radio Saturday from
Barbados and reassured thousands of
American students that they would receive
a "veritable laundry list" of aid under his
student loan proposals.
(jfc- Reid
p Warren
Reagan said the total volume of student
loans will go up even if his revisions are en
acted. He also said students have been
deliberately misled that the government
was "snatching away" their loans.
He was so reassuring, in fact, that he led
Rep. Paul Simon, D-Ill., to say, "These are
the facts. Under the proposal, more than
two million college students will be denied
loans andor grants in the upcoming school
year, not counting those who are losing
Social Security help."
Now, I happen to agree with Reagan
that his proposed student loan cuts are re
ceiving too much attention .
But not for the same reasons. When you
weigh the options, Reagan's economic
policy will be far more disastrous to higher
education than any of his proposed student
loan cuts.
Reagan's economic policies are going to
have the most disastrous effect on higher
education because they are going to decline
the very quality of that education.
(Granted, Reagan's student loan pro
posals are part of his economic policy, but
the idealist in me says students always will
be able to make it into college; who can
deny an American dream?)
Reagan's economic policies will not
only affect where students go to college,
but also the level of teaching they receive.
When the popular perception is that no
one can afford to send their children to the
best institutions, then the unpleasant re
sult is that the total quality of education
will decline.
In the immediate future, because of the
economy, choices in higher education are
going to be made on the basis of what is
economically convenient, rather than on
what is educationally beneficial.
Economically convenient means going
to hometown schools, junior colleges and
community colleges. That change in itself
isn't necessarily bad, but it will contribute
to a chain reaction of declining teaching
quality.
It goes like this: When students can't
go to the best schools, they won't receive
the best education. And because students
are our future teaching force, if they don't
receive the best education, they won't be
good teachers.
Eve always thought that, discounting
self-made geniuses, a student learns only
what his teacher inspires (or forces, de
pending on how you look at it) him to
learn.
Reagan's student loan cuts are critical,
sure, but not as critical as the quality of
our future teaching force. That force must
not only be equal to present levels, it must
be better; American technology is depend
ent on that teaching force if it is to
challenge the Japanese et al, for the world's
economic market.
That's why I think Reagan's student aid
cuts, evil as they may be, are still the lesser
of a far great evil: the decline of education
through the decline of the economy.
Nebraskan
Editorials do not necessarily express the
opinions of the Daily Nebraskan's publishers, the
NU Board of Regents, the University of Nebraska
and its employees or the student body.
USPS 144-080
Editor: Martha Murdock; Managing editor:
Janice Pigaga; News editor: Kathy Stokebrand;
Associate news editors: Patti Gallagher, Bob
Glissmann; Editorial assistant: Pat Clark; Night
news editor: Kate Kopischke; Assistant night
news editor: Tom Hassing; Entertainment editor:
Bob Crisler; Sports editor: Larry Sparks; Assist
ant .ports editor: Cindy Gardner; Art director:
Dave Luebke; Photography chief: D. Eric Kirch
er; Graphic designer: John G. Goecke.
Business manager: Anne Shank-Volk; Pro
duction manager: Kitty Policky; Advertising
manager: Art K. Small; Assistant advertising
manager: Jerry Scott.
Publications Board chairperson: Margy Mc
Cleery, 472-2454.
The Daily Nebraskan is published by the UNL
Publications Board Monday through Friday
during the (all and spring semesters, except
during vacation Address: Daily Nebraskan, 34
Nebraska Union. 1400 R St., Lincoln. Neb.,
68588 Telephone 472 2588.
All material in the Daily Nebraskan is covered
by copyright
"POSTMASTER. Send address changes to
Daily Nobrankan. 34 Nebraska Union. 1400 R
St.. Lincoln, Niftj. ,08588 "