Thursday, February 20, 1986
Page 4
Daily Nebraskan
TT J
Nebn&kan
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
It does't serve UNL
The Committee on Fees Allo
cation justifiably voted
against continuing UNL stu
dent fee support for the Nebraska
State Student Association. UNL
participation in NSSA simply
does not promote the interests of
the university or its students.
UNL is unique among post
secondary educational institu
tions in Nebraska. The mandate
to be a research institution sig
nificantly alters the environment
and tenor of the school as com
pared with other Nebraska insti
tutions. Here the pursuit of ex
cellence comes not only through
good teaching, but also from
these same teachers being on
and developing the academic
cutting edge of their respective
disciplines.
The structure of NSSA is in
sufficient to promote this core
concern of UNL. NSSA seeks to
promote only those interests
common to all member institu
tions. To that extent, then, it
cannot and will not strengthen
the unique attributes that make
UNL a vital and special institu
tion of learning.
NSSA submerges UNL inter
ests and assumes an institutional
continuity that does not exist in
reality. While NSSA may be
appropriate for non-UNL post
secondary schools, it isn't here,
given UNL's unique concerns.
Research jeopardized
Universities need U.S. investments
U.S. corporations are too
oriented toward the short
term. A truly competitive
spirit is based upon long-run
planning; essential to long-run
planning is investment in basic
research and development.
U.S. corporations so lack such
a committment that their con
tributions for basic research at
U.S. universities lags significantly
when compared with investments
by foreign corporations.
' Washington University law pro
fessor Bernard Reams recently
pointed out that over the last
five years there has been "a
significant increase in scientific-research
agreements among
prestigious American universities
and foreign corporations."
These agreements, Reams says,
many times extend over decades
and involve tens of millions of
dollars. In contrast, U.S. corpor
ations typically support only
short-term work and then do not
invest in basic research and
development because of the un
certainty of immediate corporate
gratification on the investment.
The long-term competitive edge
of U.S. business is threatened by
their own near-sighted research
sponsorship. First, the U.S. in
ternational economic advantage
or at least what's left of it
lies in information and tech
nology. If U.S. business loses the
Vicki Ruhga, Editor, 472-1766
Thorn Gabrukiewicz, Managing Editor
Ad Hudler, Editorial Page Editor
James Rogers, Editorial Associate
Chris Welsch, Copy Desk Chief
Second, UNL already has groups
specifically charged with prom
oting the institution's and stu
dents' political interests.
These are the Government Liai
son Committee and ASUN. NSSA
usurps these organizations' func
tions when it claims to represent
UNL students. Only ASUN and
GLC are officially charged with
looking out for the interests of
UNL students.
Finally, there's the money:
$24,000 isn't chicken feed.
Whether UNL actually gets that
much return on the investment
is problematic at best. At the
least, the money could be better
spent in the hands of ASUN or
GLC.
CFA can do no wrong if it cuts
NSSA funding: On the one hand.
If NSSA is considered to be a
valuable group by UNL students,
then they will voluntarily join
the group and pay the organiza
tion's fees. NSSA wouldn't lose
much. On the other hand, if CFA '
cuts NSSA funding and students
do not join, then CFA correctly
gauged the fact that students
are not interested in the group
and do not wish to fund it.
Given either choice, the CFA
action is appropriate because it
forces NSSA to stand upon its
own merits in order to get its
funding.
technological race, they will lose
the world to their more farsighted
foreign competitors.
A second factor magnifying
such a loss, is that while U.S.
corporations lose their tech
nological edge, foreign corpora
tions directly gain exactly that
which U.S. firms lose: Research
contracts between foreign cor
porations and U.S. universities
give the foreign firms priority
with respect to the commercial
development , of any resulting
discoveries.
Reams wrote: "Advances in
high technology are coming at a
rapid pace, often faster than U.S
scientists had expected. Cor
porate America is going to find
itself contractually shut out of
much of this action unless it gets
more involved in long-term R&D.
efforts in the academic sector."
Currently, less than 5 percent
of university research funding
comes from U.S. corporations
and that figure does not indicate
the instability of the funds for
specific projects.
In this case, what's good for
business is good for the university:
Long-term competitive survival
requires that U.S. firms once
again assume responsibility for
their own futures and become
the risk-taking entrepreneurs that
placed U.S. firms in their once
advantageous competitive positions.
iji,iirin,iMi"'il'M'Ti Hi-nrm i '"" ' 11111 11 - 11 "'' 1 " " inn
W 1L. V f FIRED
he 'chic
We may believe that we're better, but often we're not
r ne of the issues raised during the
I I rnntrnvprsv over "Hail Marv"
J (Wait! This is not a column about
the film, so please don't run and hide
behind the nearest cryptic personal)
was the suggestion of a possible differ-
ence in social acceptability between
racial slur and religious slur. Though
such discrepancy may not have been at
play in this particular instance, it cer
tainly does represent i general social
flaw. I call such a phenomenon "chic
ethics," and it is one of the oldest
games around. Allow me to elaborate,
Consider for a moment 7-year-old
situation comedy reruns. You know the
kind I'm talking about. They come on
between 4 and 6 p.m. (when you're
supposed to be studying) and between
10 p.m. and midnight (when you're
supposed to be sleeping). These pro
grams reflect the victories of the 'GOs
and 70s over racial prejudice. There
are black and ethnic co-stars, a lack of
racial slur and subject matter dealing
with the problems of racism.
What these shows don't reflect is the
current sensitivity over sexual prefer
ence discrimination. Gays are stereo
typed, laughed at, and made the sub
jects of lighthearted (and curel) plot
twists. Yet, in 1978 we were convinced
that we were not a prejudiced people.
We had come through 20 years of biog
try contiousness, and we just knew
that we had rid ourselves of that primi
tive fault. It was not vogue in 1978 to be
racially prejudiced. But, since we
couldn't laugh at blacks anymore, we
decided to laugh at gays.
Today, of course, we have overcome
such pathetic narrowmindedness. The
past few years have taught us that gays
are people, too. We are so proud of
ourselves for finally having really over-
come bigotry. Our situation comedies
Aldermen should share Marcos'
defense: 'But I fight Commies!'
Slats Grobnik put aside his beer
stained newspaper and said: "I
just figured out the perfect defense
for all of the Chicago aldermen who are
being investigated for pocket-stuffing."
Let me guess. They plead innocent
on the grounds that they were mentally
impaired, the proof of which is that
they were stupid enough to get caught.
"Hey, that's not bad. But the perfect
defense is this guy Marcos in the
Phillipines."
What does he have to do with it? He
didn't steal any votes in Chicago.
"No, but tell me this: Is there any
Chicago alderman who can compare to
Marcos?"
Compare in what way?
"Well, how about as a thief?"
Of course not. All the aldermen in
the city's history didn't put together a
stash as big as Marcos. He has exten
ethic
5 pi
I 1?
M
don't poke fun at gays anymore. Now we
onlv Doke fun at religious fanatics, poor
people and rural Americans. I'm so
glad we finally ripped the last vestiges
of favoritism from our selectively
superior psyches,
Another example of such chic ethics
is our attitude toward certain lifestyle
practices. Thirty years ago it was the
height of cool for Humphrey Bogart to
have a cigarette hanging off his lip.
Today, we warn against the dangers of
cigarette smoking and urge people to
quit. We also warn against the dangers
of alcohol abuse and urge people to
James
Sennett
drink responsibly. I wonder why we
never speak of "responsible smoking"?
Social drinking is in vogue smoking
is not. (Do not let it be said that I am
defending smoking. But I do believe
that smokers are as much victims of
Pi
chic ethics as gays were a decade ago. Our passion for current trends in respon
Or is the drinkers who are really the sible behavior leads us to overestimate
victims?)
What can we learn from this? Two
things at least. First we must come face
to face with the truth. We do not
represent the final synthesis in man-
kind's search for ethical purity and try-
ing to discover further areas where we
fail. Our thinking is often as clouded
and prejudicial as those of our ances
tors, though we have learned to be
quite subtle and sophisticated about
it. Prejudice against ignorance and
bigotry are, after all, the last two
sive real estate holdings in New York
and other big investments. The man is
generally acknowledged to have piled
up a fortune in the hundred of millions.
Maybe billions. Most of our guys are
happy to pocket the price of a vacation
in Miami.
"What about as a mug?"
Mike
Royko
No comparison. Even the most in
sensitive of our aldermen don't have
their opponents bumped off, especially
in the presence of TV cameras, as Mar
cos has done. He, or at least his follow
t
enosnenon
strongholds of intellectual snobbery.
We can also learn not to commit the
fallacy of anachronistic accusation.
The recent controversy over "The
Adventures of Huckeberry Finn" illus
trates this common arrogance. We have
decided that racism is wrong (whic h, of
course, it is), so we now believe t hat we
have the right to project our current
understanding of proper race relations
backward in time. Anyone who did not
see things exactly as we do now is
racist, and our children should be pro
tected from them.
Such synchronic myopia will inti
mately lead to the conclusion that the
past has nothing to offer, since the
attitudes and actions of those in the
past will always be in some sense infe
rior to ours. Let's just totally rewrite
history while we're at it, so no one will
ever have to know that times were ever
any different from the way they are
now. Such a line of thought is, after all,
completely consistent with the illusion
mentioned above that we are the per
fect culmination of human moral
development.
What appears to be ethical advance
ment can so easily (and ironically) lead
to elitism of the most dangerous kind,
the importance of our own time and
station and understand the importance
of others. Everyone says we're not per
fect, and no one believes it. Well, start
believing it. Ours is at best the latest
word in an incomplete dialogue. Proper
appreciation for our contributions does
not demand (in fact it screams out
against) deification of ourcurrent level
of understanding.
Sennett is a UNL graduate student in
philosophy and campus minister of the
College Career Christian Fellowship.
ers, take politics so seriously that they
zap the opposition after the voting is
over and they've won. They know how t o
hold a grudge.
"And how is he as a liar?"
Once again, Marcos is in his own
class. Historians recently discovered
that he concocted almost completely
his heroic World War II record. He got
himself a chest full of medals for lead
ing a resistance group that didn't even
exist. He's even suspected of having
collaborated with the Japanese. A few
of our aldermen have police records,
but that's expected of them.
"That's what I mean. Here's a world
class bum. Murder, stealing money,
stealing elections, faking his back
ground. And how long has he been
doing this stuff."
See ROYKO on 5