Page 4
Daily Nebraskan
Tuesday, October 1, 1985
m start uwm rfgh k
SPORTS tfe
AM pleas selffislh? not selfless
Itoria
JLL C
selff-descripMon
ast spring the UNL Publications Board added sexual
orientation to the list of groups that cannot be dis-
h lniiiiaicu against in auvt'i using, dui uuaru uitmutTS
jA allowed the roommate policy to include only stated
preference of men or women roommates.
The policy led to a lawsuit filed last Friday by two gay
students whose ads were rejected.
Pam Pearn's ad for another lesbian or someone who would
not object to living with lesbians was denied in the fall of 1984.
Michael Sinn, the other student who filed the suit, tried to
place an ad identifying himself as gay and also was denied.
The current policy reads: "The Daily Nebraskan will not
print any advertisement which discriminates against any per
son on the basis of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age,
disability, marital status or national origin. The Daily Nebras
kan recognizes and respects the right of persons to specify a
preference of gender when looking for a roommate and will not
prohibit stating such a preference."
The current policy was meant to prohibit discrimination on
the basis of religious and sexual preferences, but it falls short
of the goal.
Even publications board members were not satisfied with
the policy they adopted because they knew it probably would
not satisfy the university's gay community, said Daniel Shattil,
DN general manager.
One solution to the policy dilemma would be to allow people
to describe themselves in roommate ads. For example, an ad
such as: "Gay man seeking roommate" would discriminate
against no one, yet would describe the lifestyle the man
prefers.
A self-description policy also could eliminate confronta
tions between heterosexuals and gays.
A "malefemale, smokingnon-smoking" description is too
vague to base preliminary roommate selections on.
Roommate selection is a personal decision and people
deserve to know as much about their potential roommates as
possible. People must know information such as sexual orien
tation before arrangements are made and uncomfortable situa
tions arise.
Another alternative would be a policy with no restrictions.
But ads that include preferences of Christian, Nazi or white
roommates would blatantly discriminate.
A no-restriction policy is unacceptable because it would
make the Daily Nebraskan a forum for discrimination.
By revising the ad policy to permit self-descriptions, the
publications board could avoid a costly lawsuit and set a
precedent for other college newspapers.
The Daily Nebraskan
34 Nebraska Union
1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448
EDITOR
NEWS EDITOR
CAMPUS EDITOR
ASSOCIATE NEWS
EDITOR
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
WIRE EDITOR
COPY DESK CHIEFS
SPORTS EDITOR
ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT
EDITOR
WEATHER EDITOR
PHOTO CHIEF
ASSISTANT PHOTO CHIEF
ART DIRECTOR
ASSISTANT ART DIRECTOR
GENERAL MANAGER
PRODUCTION MANAGER
ASSISTANT
PRODUCTION MANAGER
ADVERTISING MANAGER
ASSISTANT
ADVERTISING MANAGER
CIRCULATION MANAGER
. PUBLICATIONS BOARD
CHAIRPERSON
PROFESSIONAL ADVISER
VickiRuhga, 472-1766
Ad Hudler
Suzanne Teten
Kathleen Green
Jonathan Taylor
Michlela Thuman
Lauri Hopple
Chris Welsch
Bob Asmussen
Bill Allen
Barb Branda
Davit Creamer
Mark Davis
Kurt Eberhardt
Phil Tsai
Daniel Shattil
Katherine Policky
Barb Branda
Sandi Stuewe
Mary Hupf
Brian Hoglund
Jo Thomsen
Don Walton, 473-7301
The Daily Nebraskan (USPS 144-080) is published by the UNL Publica
tions Board Monday through Friday in the fall and spring semesters and
Tuesdays and Fridays in the summer sessions, except during vacations.
Readers are encouraged to submit story ideasand comments to the Daily
Nebraskan by phoning 472-1763 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday
through Friday. The public also has access to the Publications Board. For
information, contact Joe Thomsen.
Subscription price is $35 for one year.
Postmaster: Send address changes to the Daily Nebraskan, Nebraska
Union 34, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. Second-class postage paid
at Lincoln, NE 68510.
ALL MATERIAL COPYRIGHT 1SS5 DAILY NEBRASKAN
Remember the Muscular Dystrophy
Telethon? Once upon a time, that
was the only time celebrities got
together to pre-empt our favorite TV
shows with live entertainment and
pleas to help a worthy cause.
Now we ve got telethons coming out
of our ears, plus a new special drive
every time another celebrity starts feel
ing guilty. Regardless of their success,
such cultural phenomena as LiveAid
and FarmAid say some significant things
about lifestyle in the 1980s.
The media has been calling it "The
New Idealistic Altruism." That sounds
wonderful, and I should really feel good
about a movement so named. But, as a
bom cynic (it's a requirement for this
job), 1 have some grave doubts about
whether we are as good as we re mak
ing ourselves think we are. The
celebrity-backed entertainment fund
raisers do say several things about our
culture, but I don't like what I hear.
First, I see the programs as yet
another extension of our epidemic of
celebrity worship. It is no accident that
such programs are sponsored by your
favorite singer, sleezy actress or talk
show host rather than by your next door
neighbor or physics professor. Celebrity
sells. We'll do anything those guys ask
us to do. We give to African relief for
the same reason we buy pantyhose or
light beer some joker in a glitter
jacket with a Gold Album told us to.
Second, it is very telling that tele
thons and concerts work where intense
appeals concentrating on the need do
not. These programs give us only
momentary glimpses of the needs being
met, interspersed midst hours of self
centered indulgence. We can't take the
gloom for very long; we have to spend
most of our time with some good old
American entertainment to make us
feel good enough to help. The telethon
mentality reflects the way we live; we
will feel bad for a few minutes, (a
very few minutes) so we can feel good
for hours.
w V
James
Sennett
Third, this movement is yet another
testimony to the fact that we have to be
entertained and coaxed into doing
anything especially helping oth
ers. We can't even dip into our abund
ant resources to save children from
starving without asking the age-old
question, "What's in it for me? Sing for
me; dance for me; tell me how great I
am to throw my crumbs to the millions.
Then maybe just maybe I'll
consider a small donation." That does
not spell benevolence in my book.
Finally, our willingness to give in
this way helps us to justify and excuse
our extravagant First-World lifestyles.
If we give just a little to help those in
need, we don't have to feel so bad about
forgetting them all the other times
while we spend the world's resources
. in frivolous ways. It is so very lucky (the
hand of God?) that we have these boun
tiful resources so that we can dip into
the coffers and give to those who need.
Why, if we didn't have many times more
than we needed, it might cost us some
thing to give. That would be sacrifice.
That would be true altruism. That
would be un-American.
The battlecry of philanthropy is "Give
from your abundance you won't even
miss it!" The plea of humanitarianism
is "Give from your poverty give till it
hurts. You'll sacrifice possessions and
materialism for a true taste of what it
means to be a part of the human race."
A new altruism? I don't think so. The
money will still spend, and those in
need are being helped, and for that I
praise God. But it is being done in a
most sinister fashion. The selfish
extravagances that have contributed to
the economic imbalance in the first
place are finding a way to relieve them
selves of the guilt without having to
undergo the radical changes needed to
rectify the problems once and for all.
And who can question the motivations
of benevolence? Well, I just did.
Sennett is a UNL graduate student in
philosophy and campus minister of the
College-Career Christian Fellowship.
Virtue of Miss Liberty at stake;
ad rights prostitute her purpose
I keep in my office a picture of my
grandmother and me standing before
the Statue of Liberty. The picture
shows a boy in short pants, maybe 5 or
6, and an old woman, stocky and strong
a peasant who, like millions of oth
ers, first glimpsed the statue as a pas
senger in steerage. My grandmother
steamed into New York harbor an
fV Richard
Cohen
immigrant and walked down the gang
plank an American. For that, the boy
holding her hand has always been
grateful.
It is for that reason that I have
almost a proprietary interest in the
Statue of Liberty. I have been following
with a somewhat jaundiced eye the
campaign to refurbish it. As almost
everyone knows, the statue is under
repair in anticipation of its centennial
next year. Something like $230 million
will be needed. At the moment, she is
girdled with scaffolding and her fam
ous torch rests in a warehouse where
artisans are duplicating it.
I know the exact whereabouts of the
torch from a newspaper ad placed by
the Statue of LibertyEllis Island
Foundation, the group raising the res
toration funds. The ad is yet another
plea for donations "If you still
believe in me, help me finish the job"
and includes the standard coupon
to check off the amount of your
contribution or, if you see fit, the
number of your Mastercard, Visa or
American Express card. America did
not welsh on its promise. Emma Lazarus's
"wretched refuse" now carry plastic.
So far so good. But in exchange for
pledging various amounts of money,
participating corporations have the
right to use the statue in their advertis
ing. Thus, American Airlines, one of
nine "Official Sponsors," used the plight
of the statue to announce that if you
flew American, it would make an
unspecified donation to the restoration
fund. No other airline could make that
claim, if only because no other airline
gets to use the Statue of Liberty in its
promotions. You have to pay for that.
If all this sounds vaguely familiar, it
is. It is the same method used to fran
chise the Olympics a system that
resulted in Subaru becoming the offi
cial car of an American team. As with
the Olympics, the federal government
is leaving everything to private enter
prise. Some companies pledge money;
others pledge services. In the Age of
the Entrepreneur, such a scheme is
supposed to be above criticism yet
another example of Americans doing
without big, bad government.
But with apologies in advance to
those firms whose interest in the statue
is wholly unselfish, let me point out
that the Statue of Liberty is not the
Olympics not a game, not a sport,
not entertainment but a genuine
piece of the national heritage, our Big
Ben, our Eiffel Tower all of that and
more. It should not be for sale not to
an airline, not to anyone. Even in the
Reagan Era, there have to be some
things the government ought to do for
itself.
I suppose that eventually private
enterprise will raise all the money it
needs and the statue will be repaired.
Then everyone will toot a horn to capi
talism, the head of the project will be
mentioned for the Senate (maybe
who knows? Time magazine's Man of
the Year), and everyone will overlook
the fact that absolutely nothing has
been proved. I hate to think of what
Please see COHEN on 5