Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Sept. 28, 1987)
Editorial Nebraskan University of Nebraska-Lincoln Mike Reilley, Editor, 472-1766 Jeanne Bourne, Editorial Page Editor Jann Nyffeler, Associate News Editor Scott Harrah, Night News Editor Joan Rezac, Copy Desk Chiqf Linda Hartmann, Wire Editor Charles Lieurance, Asst. A & E Editor Under fire again Landmark decision could be appealed Three years ago, the Daily Ne braskan drew the line con cerning its classified advertis ing policy. And on Friday the move painted a firm definition of the freedom of campus journalists. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Daily Ne braskan can refuse classified ad vertising in whic advertisers de scribe their sexual orientation. The ruling has given campus editors the right to say what they do and do not want to run in their newspapers — with no strings attached. A three-judge panel said the DN could refuse to publish "roommate wanted” advertisements placed in the fall of 1984 and January 1985 by two then-University of Nebraska Lincoln students who requested ho mosexual roommates. The students — Pam Pearn and Michael Sinn — sued the DN, alleg ing that their First Amendment rights to free expression had been violated. They also sued the state, saying that the Publications Board that is responsible for the DN’s pol icy was created by the regents of the state-owned university. The appeals court backed an ear lier decision by U.S. District Judge Warren Urbom. "In his opinion, Judge Urbom noted that the First Amendment applies to the states and hence to the campus newspaper of a state supported university,” the appeals court said. "Accordingly, he rea soned that the editors of a campus newspaper are entitled to the free dom of expression necessary to choose what the newspaper will publish and reject. “Judge Urbom stated that the Daily Nebraskan would therefore be penalized were it compelled to pub lish what it otherwise chose to withhold.” The high court also cited Urbom’s “careful exploration” of ways in which the DN maintains editorial freedom from the state. The DN’s discriminatory-ad pol icy, which was revised in January 1985 by the Publications Board, states that the DN “will not print any advertisement which discrimi nates against any person on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, age disability, mari tal status or national origin. The Daily Nebraskan recognizes and re spects the right of persons to spec ify a preference of gender when looking for a roommate and will not prohibit stating such a preference." The DN editorial board believes this is a fair policy. The board believes that allowing sexual des cription would lead to several prob lems, including: —opening those who place the ads to unwarranted crank calls and insults. —obligating the paper to allow possible racist and other descrip tions in the classified section. The Nebraska Civil Liberties Union, which sponsored the lawsuit, will discuss this week whether to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. But for now, the DN has set a precedent in terms of freedom of expression for campus newspapers. Letters Student says ‘Platoon’ exceptional film I am writing to defend the movie "Platoon,” which was the victim of cvergeneralization in Charles Lieur ance’s column (Daily Nebraskan, Sept. 23). He wrote, “ ‘Platoon,’ Hamburger Hill’ and ‘Go Tell the Spartans’ are war movies. The nature of good and evil enter into them only as melodrama. These are Hollywood films, full of cheap thrills and paced for the average joe.” Lieurance assumes that to be a war movie, a film must contain blood, bombs and no moral or intellectual substance. He is revoltingly quick to classify "Platoon” as a genre film which does not promote deep thought. "Platoon,” an exceptionally good movie of its kind, possibly the best, stands as the most powerful anti war statement recently presented to the masses on celluloid. The intense horroi of the Vietnam War is aptly portrayed ir this unforgettable film. It is not the story of good vs. evil, it is the'disturbing insane reality of the Vietnam War. Such a provocative film forces one te question one’s politics and moral values Just where does war fit into my beliefs' Does it fit in at all? It demands self inspection and a lot of long, hare thought. “Genre films do not encourage deef thoughts” is a very good example o; Lieurance’s seeming closed-minded ness. He would have us believe thai "Platoon" is just another “war film.’ Those of us who have seen the movie know differently. Joe (average) Bowman undeclared freshman Beliefs cannot coexist without balance If those of us who wish to be scientists would remember that we don’t know everything and the crea tionists would remember the Gospel according to Luke 5:17, then Chris Mc Cubbin wouldn’t have to beat this par ticular dead horse. I liked McCubbin's editorial (Daily Nebraskan, Sept. 25), but until someone figures out a way to balance emotional ism and empiricism, the two mtyoi views cannot coexist without getting wrapped around the axle. I like the idea of keeping religion references in the textbooks non-sectar ian. That way the faithful can argut about working, while the rest of us loot for the truth in our own fashion. Steven Blacketei arts and science! Letter Policy The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others. I II **•»*»•<*»•»* • »«'!'•“* 1 • »• ‘ Submit material to the Daily Ne braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, MOOR St. Lincoln, Neb. 68688^0448. S rA y s k a i 97 TAtAf* Wr111- *1 HTPl H w " the poppies /\rp th£R£ in me (M/c$,... enceer pop Tne pit euu, '" The good, bad and the ugly FarmAid gives false impression; government control not needed For a brief time, FarmAid III made Memorial Stadium famous for something other than football. With the event now in the history books, evaluating its impact is probably more timely when all the glamour is gone. It’s time to talk about it all — the good, the bad and the ugly. The Good: No one can dispute the concert’s success. A good mixture of country, rock and alternative music ensured that everyone would be entertained. The services provided by FarmAid money have proven to be helpful. Coun seling and legal services have given some farmers a place to turn for help. More importantly, the focus on the plight of struggling farmers is still needed, as the farm crisis is far from over. My farm is still deep in dept, despite an increase in income over the last few years. The attention helped to illustrate that farming is more than just a bus iness. Emotional ties to the land make losing a farm like losing a close relative. Nebraska's motto, “The Good Life,” is based on the family farm institution 1 that so many admire. FarmAid made us aware that this lifestyle is being threatened. inenaci: With all the positives come some aspects of FarmAid that deserve sharp criticism. Unfortunately, the focus on farmers is colored by many unrelated influences, which do not reflect the view of most farmers. The pop-culture world has turned mainstream agricul ture into a FarmAid culture. It's a FarmAid culture where nuclear activists try to tie their message into ! the problems on the farm. Many have been critical of the fact that FarmAid money has gone to such groups as Nebraskans for Peace. In Washington, John Denver unveiled a music video on the farm crisis. The beginning told the stoiy of troubled farmers, but the video soon turned to a focus on the nuclear arms race. Two U.S. senators from the Midwest were scheduled to be with Denver for the press conference. However, both found convenient excuses for not appearing after they had screened the video. The concern offered by entertainers to farmers is appreciated. What most farmers do not appreciate are efforts by famous people to orchestrate sympathy for farmers only to use it as a vehicle to display their views on other issues. Medium-range missiles in western Europe have little to do with whether my Simmental cattle are ready for market. It’s a FarmAid culture where fingers are pointed at the Reagan administra tion as the cause of the problems on the farm. The finger pointing is an easy way to avoid talk about the underlying problems. First, the reasons for the farm crisis are as numerous as one has fingers and toes to point. The recession in the early ’80s and the trade war are among more overriding reasons than just farm policy. Second, farm policy is developed by a consensus over many years. It’s diffi cult to single out Reagan when Demo Carlson _ ....... ....... ^ crats outnumber Republicans in Con gress. It’s even more difficult to single out Reagan when the basic concepts of farm policy have been around since World War 11. What is even more disturbing is some of the people who point the fingers. Actresses Jessica Lange and Sissy Spacek testified before the House Agriculture Committee on farm policy. Since when does portraying farm wives in Hollywood movies give people expert status to testify on farm policy? The Ugly: The advocates of FarmAid culture give a false impression that all is bad on the farm. While some farms are being lost, there are some nositive signs that the farm economy is turning around. Farm income is up and will reach record levels for the third straight year. Farm debt is being paid off and interest rates have declined dramatically. Ex ports of farm products have seen a significant increase with expectations of continued success. Unfortunately, these advocates con tinue to beat a pessimistic drum in order to rally support. By painting a negative picture, they seek to develop a defeatist attitude that the farmer can not survive unless the government comes to the rescue. They advocate that the federal gov ernment play a larger role. They argue that government should mandate pro duction controls in order to artificially raise prices. The concept does raise farm income, but only in the short run. These mandatory production controls are not favored by most farmers. A recent Iowa State University survey indicated that only 23 percent of farmers support such a concept, while 68 percent want to "stay the course" with the current farm policy. Mandatory production controls have never proven effective. The Soviets and the Chinese have found such Marxist policies inefficient and have found more success by implementing capital ism in their agriculture systems. As a result, China is now a m^jor exporter. Mandatory production controls would result in a loss of our export markets, m By artificially raising the price, other ' countries would be able to undersell the United States and have every in centive to produce more crops. At a time of large surpluses, we need to control world production — not just domestic production. Mandatoiy production controls would essentially isolate a few producers at the expense of others. Agriculture is delicately balanced and interdepen dent, and would suffer if one segment is favored over the other. For example, higher com prices result in an increased cost to the livestock feeder. Mandatory production controls aiso would result in a scaled-down agri culture that would require fewer farmers to meet a domestic market. Jobs in rural communities would be lost as well since fewer agribusinesses would be needed. With a reduced emphasis on agriculture, this university would lose valuable research dollars. This alternative farm policy will not work in an agriculture that is a multi faceted, international industry. How ever, this is the message of this FarmAid culture, which is colored by outside interests and committed to dwell on the negatives, but it makes good press. The message that myself and others involved in agriculture want to present gets little press. That is: Agriculture is a healthy, dynamic industry that needs less government control — not more. Concert tickets go on sale in a week. Any takers? Carlson is a third-year law student. Editorial Policy Unsigned editorials represent offi cial policy of the fall 1087 Daily Nebras kan. Policy is set by the Daily Nebras kan Editorial Board. Its members are Mike Reilley, editor, Jeanne Bourne, editorial page editor; Joan Rezac, copy desk chief; Jann Nyffeler, associate news editor, Charles Lieurance, assist ant arts and entertainment editor; Scott Harrah, night news editor and Linda Hartmann, wire editor. Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the university, its em ployees, the students or the NU Board of Regents.
