Thursday, February 13, 1986
Page 4
Daily Nebraskan
Vicki Ruh(?a, Editor, 472-1766
Thorn Gabrukiewicz, Managing Editor
Ad Hudlcr, Editorial Page Editor
James Rogers, Editorial Associate
Chris Welsch, Copy Desr Chief
Nebraskan
Unwtwty of Nebrasiia-lincoin
Spire
ry
Students deserve a vote
Attorney General Robert
Spire's decision ruling that
the proposed student regent
vote violates the law has proba
bly sunk any hope of its passage
during this legislative session.
The decision really doesn't
merit such impact because one
of the problems it identifies
could be easily dealt with through
the amendment process and the
other is highly suspect.
The attorney general's office
was asked to provide an opinion
on whether the federal principle
of "one man, one vote" was vio
lated by the bill. The opinion
held that this principle was not
violated, but that the U.S. Con
stitution's equal protection
clause would be violated.
The opinion argues that the
14th Amendment is violated be
cause of the vote sharing scheme
the bill sought to implement
between the three student re
gents. The opinion, however, merely
asserts that a "distinction based
on student status or an appointed
status is arbitrary and invidious."
No case is cited nor is even the
most rudimentary of arguments
posited in favor of these bald
assertions.
According to the opinion, the
only way to salvage the proposal
would be to give each student
regent one full vote. In turn,
such a proposal, even if politi
cally feasible, is prohibited by
the Nebraska constitution, which
limits the number of regents sit
ting on the board to a total of
eight,
Additionally; the opinion's
equal protection assertion is
questionable. The legal term
"arbitrary and invidious" simply
means that distinctions or clas
A silver
Student regents
Even the darkest of clouds
has a silver lining. Several
years ago NU took away the
choice of paying student body
presidents under the pretence
that they were student regents
as well. Consequently, as with
other regents, they were consti
tutionally prohibited from receiv
ing pay for their service.
Even though the declaration
was legally questionable in the
extreme, thaNUBoard of Regents
apparently M a grudge, against:
the then disliked ASUN student
body president and decjdeplftajj
all student regentspresidents
should receive no pay. On other
campuses, subordinate executive
officers still receive pay.
The attorney general's opin
ion persuasively argues that stu
dent regents, as currently con
Editorial policy
Unsigned editorials represent
official policy of the spring 1986
Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial
Board. Its members are Vicki
Eufcga, editor; Ad Hudler, edi
torial rge editor; Thorn Gabru-.
sifications cannot exist for no
good reason.
In summarizing the legal
criteria upon which distinctions
must be judged, legal theorist
Geoffrey Marshall wrote: "In the
jurisprudence of equal treat
ment...argument begins with the
acknowledgment that equality
before the law does not require
any person to be treated in the
same way but only similar treat
ment in similar circumstances,
or an absence of discriminatory
treatment except for those in
different circumstances."
The important question, then,
is whether representation of
students rather than other citi
zens is a reasonable enough
classification to withstand con
stitutional muster. While the
opinion asserted not, common
sense informs reasonable minds
otherwise.
Students do not merit control
of the board the voters of
Nebraska are those who fund the
university, and they deserve the
dominant voice. The regent pro
posal only says that student
bodies deserve some real voice
on the board, and sets up a
regent classification that reason
ably provides such a voice.
There are obvious and reaso
nable distinctions between stu
dent regents and the other re
gents elected by geographical
district. A distinction made on
these conditions can hardly be
said to exist in an "arbitrary and
inviduous" manner.
The opinion evidences only
superficial thought and cursory
treatment of a matter of some
important to students. NU stu
dents deserve better than the
stacked deck dealt to them by
the attorney general's office.
lining)
should be paid
stituted, are not the same regents
to which the salary prohibition
applies. The opinion notes: "The
Board of Regents consist of eight
regents and three student mem
bers. The student members are
not regents. They have no duties
or powers prescribed by law."
The NU system should imme
diately begin paying campus
presidents and issue an apology
to the presidents of the last few.
jyears whov;haye serypcj; their j
respective student bodies only''
at great financial cost to them-
The attorney general's opin
ion clearly pierced the veil of
personal pettiness and skuldug
gery that clouded the earlier
denial of payment. It's time to
compensate those who serve as
student advocates.
kiewicz, managing editor; James
Rogers, editorial associate and
Chris Welsch, copy desk chief.
Editorials do not necessarily
reflect the views of the university,
its employees, the students or
the NU Board of Regents.
c2 mJim w fete
6UMUM GLAD WR6 RWAIW IN TOUCH WITH THea
NEGATIVE F&UNGS MOU HAVE FOR IXMB W SNAKE,,,
Abortion activists switch roles
Pro-lifers use reason quietly while pro-choicers rant
The relative strength of an
argument is in inverse propor
tion to the level of volume to
which the voice is raised to make
it.
SennetVs Second Law of Rhe
torical Communication
Well, Jan. 22 is long past, "Hail,
Mary" has stolen our collective
attention, and I haven't heard
the words Roe vs. Wade for more than
three weeks. So, I guess it is now possi
ble to say a word or two about abortion
that people may actually listen to. (It
has been my experience that no one
listens when everyone is shouting; con
sequently, I hesitate to speak to a sub
ject that is "really hot.")
James
Sennett
Let me say right up front, just so you
don't have to skip to the last paragraph
to see how it turns out, that I am
unashamedly (Pick the label you can
most readily stereotype me with): pro
life, anti-abortion, anti-choice. I really
don't like that last one, though many
people think they are saying something
significant by pinning it on me. I am
actually very pro-choice. I just happen
to believe that there are right and
wrong choices. I also happen to believe
that the real choices in the matter of
abortion come earlier than pregnancy,
and have to do with personal responsi
bility and lifestyle, rather than with
personal rights or convenience. But
that's another column.
The television show "Cagney and
Lacey" recently treated the issue of
abortion in what I thought was basi
cally a fair and compassionate way. The
interesting twist was that the free, fun
. loving "today's woman" Chris Cagney
' 'wai' opposed to ', abortion while the
mother, wife, "Suzie homemaker'.'Mary,
.Beth lacey was fdr it. What f 'obje'cted"
to, however, was the portrayal of the
Letters
Pi
h
Offended Christians shouldn't prevent viewing of film
Lastyearwhenthemovie"TheGods profitability don't show on commercial mentioned
Must Be Crazy was struck from the screens in Lincoln. Ifthis sort of material offends Chris
Sheldon Film Theater schedule little tians i suggest they not the film,
concemovercensorshipwasexpressed, Having seen "Hail, Mary" it seems However, it seems improper for them to
partly because the movie was sche- incredible to me that those of Catholic take measure to prevent others from
duled to be shown commercially. Peo- orthodoxy, and other adherents of the seeing it. To do so, no matter what
pie who follow the film theater sche- Christian myth system, find the film brand of double-speak receivers of
dule were aware i of this, and understood offensive. It is a story about a young Christ offer, amounts to censorship,
they would not be denied an opportun- man and his girlfriend who becomes
ity to view the movie. pregnant. At no point in the movie is ' Tom Gable
Such is inot the xase for Hail, Mary": Catholicism, Christ or the Pope sub- alumnus
foreign films with subtitles and little jected to religious ridicule or even chemistry
issue as one of calm, rational thinking
(pro-choice) against gut-level, irrational,
unexplainable "feeling" (pro-life). At
one point in the show, Cagney said to
Lacey something to the effect, "I know
all the arguments and reasons, Mary
Beth but this one just doesn't feel
right." That is, I suspect, the kindest
sentiment that most pro-choicers have
for pro-lifers.
1 resent the constant implication
that pro-choice is the position of
rationality while pro-life just comes
"from the gut." While there is much in
my gut that wretches at the thought of
abortion, that is not where I, or where
any intelligent pro-lifer, get the prim
ary justification for the position. An
anti-abortion stance has very rational,
well-thought out, and defensible argu
ments behind it. The columns in this
paper that drew so much flak a few
weeks ago demonstrated that the pro
life position can be defended in sensi
ble English, not just in grunts and
groans. There is no room for condes
cension on either side of the issue. If
you don't agree with my position, fine.
But don't think me an idiot.
The recent abortion debate in the
Daily Nebraskan reflected what I see to
be a fascinating turn of events in the
debate as a whole. It was amazing, to
me that the pro-life columns expressed
clear arguments presented in a calm,
matter-of-fact format that called for
rational response and discussion. What
they received from pro-choicers, how
ever, were letters of hot rhetoric, name
calling and other irrational modes of
communication.
It is interesting that, 1 0 years ago, it
was pro-choicers who were talking
calmly, calling for discussion, and gen
erally acting civil about the whole mat
ter, while the pro-lifers mostly yelled,
screamed and threw things. Now the
roles appear to have been reversed. A
decade of medical research and philo
sophical dialogue has uncovered much,
evidence' supporting the pro-life posi
f tipn, lifting it out of the realm of the!
; gut. Np.w;,wjtfy justification at an all-time
high and polls 'swinging consist
ently to the pro-life position, it is the
fFTTft
pro-lifers who are able to call for intel
ligent discussion, while the pro-choicers
resort more and more to yelling,
screaming, and throwing things. Just
when the pro-lifers are finally ready to
talk, the pro-choicers don't seem to
have anything to talk about.
(Incidentally, don't give me the
"They're bombing clinics!" line. There
is no evidence whatsoever linking clinic
bombings to organized pro-life efforts.
This country is full of demented minds
that hold all kinds of positions on dif
ferent issues. Besides, it is yet another
demonstration of my whole point that
pro-choicers, losing more and more
ground in the debate, must resort more
often to such emotionally based argu
ments.) I would like to close this little jaunt
into forbidden waters with a couple
more, somewhat unrelated observations
about the recent debate in this paper.
First, let it be said up front that pro
lifers are not all talk and no action.
This country and this city is
filled with caring, loving people who
devote hours every day to working with
pregnant women to provide alterna
tives to abortion that the women can
live with. If you are pro-life and all you
are doing is talking, either shut up or
get with the program. There are a lot of
hurting people, and a lot of sacrificial
work that needs to be done.
Finally, I would like to thank all the
conservatives on campus for absolutely
nothing. From the letters to the editor,
one would think this paper is filled
with nothing but communist, pinko,
Democrat, liberal homosexuals (I hope
I got all the categories in). Yet when
the DN ran back-to-back columns against
abortion, and bore the heat of enraged
pro-choicers, not one of the self-righteous
right-wingers, who are so quick to
condemn, wrote in to say, "Thanks, DN,
for giving time to both sides." Let's be a
little consistent in the future, shall we?
Jf disagreement jnerits scorn, certainly
f agreement .merits a j little ; acknow-.
jedgeraejitv';(,
f sophy and campus minister with College
Career Christian Fellowship.
