Thursday, April 23, 1037
Pago 4
Daily Ncbraskan
Diilv A
University ol Nebraska-Lincoln
Washington blasts NOFAG
Just when you think an "issue"
is dead another college
newspaper stumbles upon it
and is compelled to comment
editorially. At least The Daily,
the student newspaper at the
University of Washington, did
when they came across the Daily
Nebraskan article concerning the
announcement of the "NOFAG"
party for ASUN elections. We
exchange papers with several
other universities.
Basically, the Daily condemned
the three candidates and chas
tised the DN for running the
article. Apparently The Daily
missed our editorial the follow
ing day and Charles Lieurance's
column the following Monday.
When all is said and done it's
nice to know that students from
other universities are reading
our papers. We just wish they
would read them more thoroughly.
O The DN reported last Wed
nesday that a survey of 350 stu
dents showed a lack of aware
ness among students on what
services the unions provide on
East and City campuses. The
survey was presented to Union
Board. The results are alarming.
It's unfortunate because the
unions have a lot to offer if only
V&JCSS WHAT 1 D? AU, TVfOSe
pResicwcy yet w Twe
Letters
Reader: Men not to
In response to Jayne Stratton's let
ter (DN, April 22) I would like to say
that not only was it philosophically
offensive, it was also contradictory and
illogical. Stratton seems to have missed
the point of James N. Hanna's letter.
In the first paragraph of her letter
she states that males are the source of
sexism. While this may seem obvious to
some, let's examine its basis. Some
males hold sexist attitudes, this is
true; but some females also hold these
very same values. These views are
ingrained in children starting at birth
by their parents and by the society
t around them. As Stratton admits, today's
men did not create our present patriar
chal society; and though some may
perpetuate it, not all do. People cannot
be declared guilty by association, for
that is the basis for all bigotry: judging
somebody by a group.
As for sexist language, usage is
changing, but changing the language
takes time. Many people use phrases
us? f ml--bay
yW w ocr tetfe
JetTKorbelik, Editor, 472-1766
James Rogers, Editorial Page Editor
Use Olsen, Associate News Editor
Mike Reilley, Night News Editor
Joan Rezac, Copy lksk Chief
s audi pio1fcs
students would take the time to
investigate.
O Tax Freedom Day is May 4.
That's the day the Tax Founda
tion predicted that the typical
American will have to work to
pay up for 1987. The Associated
Press reported that economists
at the non-partisan research organ
ization calculate that if every
cent a worker earned during the
first part of the year were ear
marked for federal, state and local
taxes, he or she would have to
work an extra 19 days after the
1986 taxes were due. An average
person will have to work two
hours and 43 minutes of each
eight-hour day to pay taxes. That's
kind of like working part time for
the federal and state governments.
O Sen. Jerome Warner did the
correct thing when he sponsored
an amendment to the 65-mph
speed limit bill. The amendment
eliminated the 5-mph cushion
that would have prevented an
assessment of points on the driv
ing records of people exceeding
65 mph by less than 5 mph.
Warner said the cushion would
encourage people to travel fas
ter, making the interstate more
dangerous. He's absolutely right.
WHO fWN'T CfcOAReD fvR THS
fmnmeR i "
blame for sexism
like "going out with the girlsboys" to
refer to a group of adults. That is a
symptom of not wanting to grow up, not
sexism.
In the final two paragraphs of the
letter, Stratton's credibility is greatly
diminished. Stratton proceeds to make
sexist comments about men by assum
ing that all they think about is sports
and sex, thus committing the very sin
she is condemning. She then degener
ates to personal attacks on Hanna by
referring to him as "superficial," a
whining child and "a rude, sexist
idiot." She finally blames males as the
sole perpetrators of lower women's
wages and sexist advertising.
If Stratton would show more wil
lingness to work with men, instead of
against them, she would find many wil
ling to join her in her worthy fight
against sexism.
Samuel W. Schimek
senior
theatre arts
Public sclwols ' overcommitment to openness silences virtue
An Open Letter to Lincoln Pub
lic School Superintendent Phil
lip Schoo:
Your recent discussion of censor
ship and the schools has caused a
modest amount of reflection on
my part. On one level, there's no
question that I agree with you and
frown upon attempts by some parents
of LPS students to force the withdrawal
of disputed literature from the schools.
Such individuals seem to maintain a
rather parochial attitude to what con
stitutes worthwhile literature, and they
certainly don't understand the broader
context of what such a precedent
would do to the Lincoln public schools.
Nonetheless, I'm not sure that such
attempts to withdraw books from schools
are not a manifestation of a deeper and,
as yet, a more inchoate concern. That is
to say, I'm not sure that the fundamen
tal issue with such parents is over the
propriety of censorship in the public
schools. It could be the case that these
parents sense a real problem in the
schools, but have sadly grasped upon
an illegitimate and objectionable mode
in which to communicate their con
cerns. Let me see if I can explain.
All societies have an end-in-view for
state action: they have a vision of the
virtuous individual and seek to struc
ture their society to conform with that
vision. One method of promoting such
norms is through state-run schools.
There have been many visions in many
societies many visions even in the
short history of the United States. I
think that University of Chicago philo
sopher Allan Bloom hit the nail on the
head in a National Public Radio speech
given several years ago which evidently
was the basis for his recently released
book, "The Closing of the American
Mind." Bloom argued that the primary
virtue that dominant education philos
ophies seek to inculcate is openness,
In itself, such a commitment is
obviously non-objectionable: After all,
many respected visions of the virtuous
man include an element of tolerance.
But Bloom argues that the current
commitment to "openness" extends
much further than the past inclusions
National spy hysteria
of the 'Cuban-brigade
Remember the Soviet brigade in
Cuba? In the summer of 1979,
President Carter submitted the
SALT II treaty to the Senate for ratifi
cation. At which point Sen. Frank
Church, chairman of the Foreign Rela
tions Committee, discovered a Soviet
brigade in Cuba To meet the "crisis,"
Salt II hearings were postponed. The
president was put on the defensive, the
atomosphere was poisoned, the treaty
was delayed and then sunk by the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Then it
turned out that the brigade had been
there for 16 years. It was the non-issue
of the decade. But it did its damage.
Every decade has its bogus Cuban
brigade. Now we have ours: the embassy
spy hysteria.
The greatest deliberative body in the
world is again in an arms-control mood,
pushing for treaties test ban, SDI,
even a revived SALT II from a
weakened president. So, a weakened
president, desperate to shore himself
up politically and within sight of a
Euromissile treaty, prepares to dis
patch his secretary of state to Moscow
for crucial arms-control talks. And
what happens? The Senate discovers
that the Soviets have been spying on
our embassy in Moscow and that our
new embassy there is riddled with
bugs. Shocked, it passes a resolution
urging Secretary Shultz to stay home
rather than negotiate with such cheaters.
The Soviets called the American reac
tion to the embassy story "spy hyste
ria." The Kremlin is. not often right.
This case is an exception. Jlysteria it is.
There is absolutely nothing new here.
The Soviets have been building their
hill-top, spy-nest Washington embassy
of tolerance. The modern understanding
has extended so far that it has, in
effect, resulted in the closing of the
American mind. The reason, as the title
of his NPR speech suggests, is that at
root it expresses an "easygoing nih
ilism." How did this come about? A com
mitment to openness as the virtue to
be exalted above all others destroys
the basis for learned argument and
discussion. If some proponent of a view
is continually hushed from advocacy by
the admonition that in his "single
minded" commitment to truth he is
intolerant (the worst insult under this
regime), the natural reaction
is simply to remain silent. Mill's justi
fication of free speech is that through
the cacophony of reasoned dissent,
Jim Rogers
truth will emerge. But this presupposes
a group of individuals committed to
their vision of the truth to such an
extent that they bother to attempt per
suasion. The presupposition of the
dominant view of tolerance, as Bloom
argues much better than I, is nihilism.
No culture is superior, none inferior.
Given this, what does Plato have to
teach? Given this, why persuade? Why
try to induce others by argument away
from a world view as admittedly "valid"
as one's own?
The next obvious question is this: If
schools are not primarily committed to
imbuing their students with an open
ness resulting in the silence of infinite
tolerance, what virtues should they be
engaged in imbuing? Whose virtue?
Who gets to decide? I'm completely
willing to grant the force of this ques
tion. Yet the question of "whose virtue"
can be easily turned. For example, why
yours, now? (I'm personifying you as
the expression of Lincoln's educational
establishment.) Of all the educational
visions of the virtuous citizen (from
fundamentalist to Marxist), why is the
status quo's vision so right?
I'm also willing to grant the argu
ment that public schools cannot polit
for 10 years. Anyone who drives by can
see the forest of antennas atop the
buildings from which the Soviets can
listen in on any conversation they
please.
We have long known that our new
Moscow embassy was bugged right
down to the concrete foundation. Sen.
Moynihan, for one, has been complain
ing about the embassy problems for
years. Every administration since Nixon
has ignored it. What happens? A couple
of Marine guards in Moscow betray
their country and let in the Soviets in
exchange for the favors of a KGB Mata
Hari, and Washington goes bonkers.
Charles
Krauthamitit
"Sordid tricks," an "affront," an
"assault on U.S. embassy security,"
complained the Wall Street Journal. A
"rape of our national privacy," gasped
William Safire. This country is "damned
upset," claimed Secretary of State
Shultz. The Soviets have trespassed
"beyond the bounds of reason," agreed
the president of the United States. And
my favorite: Evans and Novak bravely
called for "a full-scale exposure of
Soviet (spy) practices whatever the
impact on arms control." Since they
generally view arms control as an infec
tion in need of a vaccine, they win the
1987 Brer Rabbit "Please please please
don't fling me in dat briar patch")
If '
ically or logically cater to each parent's
vision of what the good is for his child.
The Lincoln School Board can grant
book-banning requests in this case
without risking a torrent of such re
quests from all other "interest groups."
Yet if it is impossible for the public
schools to imbue their students with
any vision of substantive virtue, per
haps it is time to adopt an educational
structure that will permit it. The most
obvious alternative to the status quo is
a voucher system of paying for education.
Voucher opponents are fond of term
ing voucher advocates as beholden to
insular, sectarian interests. But given
Bloom's paradigm, this argument can
no longer wash. The current educa
tional system silences due to its com
mitment to infinite "openness." In
contrast, by fomenting communities
that are vibrantly committed to visions
of the truth, the good and the beautiful,
a chorus of social discussion will arise
that is the only sure indication of a
society that treats important questions
as they deserve to be treated.
The time is now gone where the de
facto Protestant consensus can be
thought to undergird public school sys
tems. America today is more diverse
than it has ever been in the past. The
modern public school cannot address
this diversity in a socially helpful
fashion. But why should we expect it to
since it was developed specifically
with an insular population in mind?
Majoritarian control of the educa
tional process is no longer a viable
alternative for America today. We can
have a society committed to tolerance
and virtue, but only with an educa
tional system that recognized that both
must exist together. And only a voucher
system can do that.
Superintendent Schoo, please don't
rest content with simply sighting the
easy targets of parents embracing cen
sorship in your policy guns. Their
approach is wrong and their perspec
tive naive, but that doesn't mean all is
well and good in the government school.
Rogers is an economics graduate, law
student and Daily Nebraskan editorial
page editor.
a symptom
syndrome'
Award.
"The Soviets," complained Lawrence
Eagleburger, "just go too far." Really?
The FBI tried to tunnel into the base
ment of the Soviet consulate in San
Francisco in the early '70s. I wish they
had made it. If FBI counter-intelligence
is not trying to seduce, blackmail and
"turn" Soviet agents in this country, it
should have its appropriations re
scinded. Espionage does not play by
Miss Manners.
Yet Washington has reacted as if the
Soviets had, say, taken over a small
Central American country. (Bad exam
ple: Washington is fairly calm about
that prospect. Say, as if the Soviets had
cheated at Olympic hockey.) The Senate,
joined by a bevy of columnists, urges
Secretary Shultz not to go to Moscow
for arms-control talks. Why? Because
the embassy is not secure? But it has
never been secure. To register a protest
against Soviet "penetration" of our
embassy (an unfortunate metaphor,
given the circumstances)?
To his credit, Shultz went to Moscow
and made considerable progress. The
hysteria will now shortly blow itself
out. What will remain are questions not
about American security but about
American seriousness. If Congress pre
tends to making high national policy
on things like arms control, it had bet
ter stop these absurd about-faces. Just
when negotiations are heating up, to
suggest boycotting talks over an issue
that would be utterly peripheral if it
were not phony is a demonstration of
high unseriousness.
1987, Washington Post Writers Group
Krauthammer is a senior editor for the
New Republic.
