Tuesday, October 15, 1985
Pag 4
Daily Nebraskan
Law students
show university
still competitive
espite budget cuts that have threatened UNL's pro
grams and reputation, the accomplishments of uni
versity law school graduates may help re-establish
UNL as the "Harvard of the Plains."
UNL college of law officials' announced last week
that 92 percent of the school's 1985 graduates passed the bar
exam this summer. The last time this many law graduates
passed was in 1980, when 93 percent passed the 16-hour exam.
Last summer, only 76 percent passed the bar, said Bonnie
Kimble, interim assistant dean of the law college. But accord
ing to Ruth Witherspoon, assistant law college dean, the law
classes aren't getting harder and the exam isn't getting any
easier.
The UNL law scholars' success does not end with the per
centage passing the bar exam.
For the past 10 years, Kimble said, about 91 percent of UNL
law school grads got jobs. In 1984, about 116 out of 126
graduates surveyed were employed, Kimble said. Most had jobs
in Lincoln with private law firms or work in business and
industry.
"People are beginning to see that our grads are sharp,"
Kimble said. .
The number of UNL law school graduates who find jobs is
slightly higher than the national average, Kimble said.
This success rate should give the UNL law college some
needed and deserved recognition.
Potential college students who write off Nebraska's law
program need to take another look. Law firms and other
businesses that didn't send representatives to UNL to inter
view law graduates should reconsider their schedules.
Some of the students' employment success rate can be
attributed to the law school's career placement office. Kimble
said there is supposed to be a glut of lawyers in the work force
now. Yet, the placement office continues to find jobs for UNL
graduates by looking at the non-traditional legal positions with
business and industry.
Considering UNL's tight budget and the potential for quality
decline that exists, the law college should be commended.
mm- -
basis oi loyalty
Editorial policy
Unsigned editorials represent official policy of the fall 1985 Daily
Nebraskan. Policy is set by the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Its
members are Vicki Ruhga, editor in chief; Jonathan Taylor, editorial page
editor, Ad Hudler, news editor; Suzanne Teten, campus editor and Lauri
Hopple, copy desk chief.
Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the university, its
employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents.
The Daily Nebraskan's publishers are the regents, who established the
UNL Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper.
According to policy set by the regents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of its student editors.
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
ART DIRECTOR
. GENERAL MANAGER
PRODUCTION MANAGER
ASSISTANT
PRODUCTION MANAGER
ADVERTISING MANAGER
ASSISTANT
ADVERTISING MANAGER
CIRCULATION MANAGER
PUBLICATIONS BOARD
CHAIRPERSON
Vlcki Ruhga, 472-1766
Ad Hudler
Suzanne Teten
Kathleen Green
Jonathan Taylor
Michlela Thuman
Laurt Hopple
Chris Welsch
Boh Asmussen
Bill Allen
Kurt Eherhardt
Daniel Shattil
Katherlne Policky
Barb Branda
Sandi Stuewe
Mary Hupf
Brian Hoglund
Joe Thomsen
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 ideas and 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, 1 400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448. Second-class postage paid
at Lincoln, NE 68510.
ALL MATERIAL COPYRIGHT 1S25 DAILY NEBRASKAN
Iba ease tests
Harry Blamires has written of what
he calls "The false virtue of loy
alty." The brunt of his statement
is that loyalty to a person, a group or a
cause simply because it is that person,
group or cause, is not virtue, but
tyranny.
James
Sennett
Let me give you his reasoning, then
discuss a recent incident on the UNL
campus which, I believe, brings his
point home in a way that many of us
may not want to hear.
Blamires', a theologian, says that the
only legitimate reason for loyalty to a
person, group or cause is that the one
to whom loyalty is given represents
that which is good or fair or equitable.
In other words, we back ideas because
we believe those ideas to uphold cer
tain notions of proper behavior among
responsible human beings.
But here, he notes, the real loyalty is
not to the person, group or cause, but
to the good which it represents. For
example, we are not primarily loyal to a
political candidate, but to the plat
form on which she runs. We believe the
ideas to be good, and therefore devote
our allegience to them and the one who
represents them.
Failure to recognize this notion of
good as the only proper object of our
devotion can lead to sinister conse
quences. The idea that loyalty in and of
itself is a virtue forces us to back peo
ple, groups and causes, even after they
have ceased to represent and even
turned their backs on the good which
generated their initial activity.
The prevalent bumperstickers of a
generation ago, "My Country Right
or Wrong," were demonic. I will pledge
my loyalty to this country as long as it
stands for the higher ideas to which I
pledge myself. But neither this country
or any other contingent expression of
our search for humanity will ever
represent the supreme goal of my
allegience.
Now to that current event I promised
you. This paper has undergone quite a
bit of attack in the last week from
administration and student body alike
because of alleged "disloyalty" to the
school in the form of the now infamous
"Moe Iba incident." But after all the
debates about the role of a university
daily and the dictates of freedom of the
press, we must ask ourselves, are any of
us called to be loyal to this university
or any other institution simply because
it is what it is?
I believe in UNL. Unlike many, I
believe that I am getting and will con
tinue to get an excellent education
here. I am thankful for the opportuni
ties, and I don't spend a lot of time
griping about what all the other schools
have that we don't have. But my thank
fulness for this school does not trans
late into carte blanche approval of
everything that goes on here. This uni
versity and everyone within it is subject
to higher standards of right and wrong.
If the basketball team was violating
rules, it was wrong. The alleged fact
that "everyone else is doing it" does
not keep it from being wrong. The fact
that sports fans, so used to the football
team's success, have been frustrated
by the feeble efforts of the roundballers
does not keep it from being wrong. That
the Daily Nebraskan reported the inci
dent does not keep it from being wrong.
The focus must be on the act itself
not on why it was done or who is to
blame for airing it out.
I applaud my colleagues for their,
courage in opening this can of worms.
They could not have done so believ ing
it would make them candidates for
"Nice Guys of the Year." I will not say
that there were not ulterior motives
involved on some levels.
Nevertheless, I applaud the act,
because it reminds us that we are
bigger than our collective expediency.
And true love for this university for
all it is and can be demands from
each of us the willingness to be just as
scrutinizing, just as willing to blow the
whistle, just as expectant of right
behavior and as intolerant of wrong.
Sennett Is a UNL graduate stud nt in
philosophy and campus minister of the
College-Career Christian Fellowship
President's health the nation's business
Last month, the White House
announced that President Reagan
would stop off at Bethesda Naval
Hospital on his way to Camp David "for
the first of his normal and routine
postoperative exams." The press release
said those exams would include chest
x-rays and blood tests and that the
results would be announced the follow
ing week. That was Sept. 18. As of
today, there has been no announcement.
Richard
Cohen
Instead, the results of the various
tests have been characterized. The first
characterization came from the presi
dent. Emerging from the hospital fol
lowing his examination, he replied to a
shouted question that he had made "a
100-percent complete recovery."
Either by coincidence or orchestration,
those were precisely the words the
White House later used in quoting the
president's doctors and in describing
the results of their tests. It said the
results were normal and that the presi
dent, at the age of 74, had made a
complete recovery from both cancer
and the operation to remove it.
Let us hope that is the case. But
hope is all we have so far, since the test
results the White House said would be
forthcoming, have been withheld. When
presidential spokesman Larry Speakes
is asked about the results of the presi
dent's examination, he says he has
nothing to say. In private, other White
House aides say Speakes is adhering to
Nancy Reagan's policy. She considers
detailed reports about her husband's
health to be nothing less than an inva
sion of privacy.
Now may be the time to say why this
column is being written. It is not that I
know or suspect or have heard that
Reagan's cancer has reoccured or that
he is sick in some other way a way
that would become obvious if the med
ical reports were made public. There is
every reason to believe the reports are
as described clean bills of health.
The president, knock on wood, is
standing tall.
But if that is the case, then there is
no reason not to release the reports.
Not only would that be consistent with
the policy of candor adopted when the
president underwent surgery, but it
would dispel some of the cynicism
resulting from the later attempt to
conceal the president's skin cancer.
Candor, like virtue, is its own reward.
In July, the country was confident it
knew all there was to know.
That is not the case now and no
desire for privacy, no matter how sin
cere; changes any of that. In the first
place, the first family's privacy is
invaded all the time often to their
advantage. We have seen pictures of a
vigorous and ruddy president chopping
wood and swimming in the surf. The
press covers White House dinners. Nancy
Reagan permitted a television crew
into the Santa Barbara ranch house and
also allowed it to film a staff meetina.
It's not that there is no such thing as
invasion of privacy. We are not entitled
to know things of a strictly personal
nature that have nothing to do with the
way the country is governed. For
instance, it would be interesting to
know if Michael Reagan and Nancy
Reagan are getting along, but you can
hardly insist on some First Amendment
right to know it. Juicy is not the same
as germane.
The president's health is a different
matter. We all have a stake in it. It
affects the future of everyone in terms
that are so obvious they go without
saying. But there is yet another, less
tangible, stake the public has, too.
Ronald Reagan is our president Even
his critics
Please sea COHEN on 5
