Fditorial Nebraskan University ot Nebraska-Lincoln Mike Reilley, Editor, 472-1766 Jeanne Bourne, Editorial Page Editor Jann Nyffeler, Associate Neivs Editor Scott Harrah, Night Neivs Editor Joan Rezac, Copy Desk Chief Linda Hartmann, Wire Editor | Charles Lieurance, Asst. A & E Editor Not ready to run Schroeder's one-liner campaign aver Pat Schroeder, a 15-year veteran of the House of Representatives, has an nounced she will not run for the 1988 Democratic nomination for president. This was a very good decision on her part. She was not ready to run. She had not done enough nationally to raise the kind of money needed or the support needed. Her reason for running was unclear. Some said she was testing the waters to find out if a woman could win the nomina tion this time. During the last four months of her “Run Pat Run” fund-raisers, her campaign did not seem too serious. Her campaign was seem ingly based on one-liners. For example, when someone asked if she was running as the woman candidate, she replied, “Do I have a choice?” This summer, Schroeder told supporters that she had set out to see if it was too late to mount a serious campaign not based on symbolism. During a tearful announcement Schroeder said, “I could not fig ure out how to run and not be • separated from those I served." She said she wanted to see whether it was possible to run a campaign where honesty was not a slogan. Schroeder’s decision not to run once again shows how the election/primary process weeds out those who are not read ‘o run. Farm crisis concerns Problems still acute i “For in a real sense, history isn’t the discussing? podl. It’s a posture in the present toward the future. It exists to the extent that a community self-consciously sees its future . . .as something that has to be fetched.” Lawrene Weshler, “Running from History,” “In These Times," Nov. 12-18, 1987. “The American Family Farm: Is It Worth Saving?” The Lincoln Star Sept. 24, 1987 Few events in this decade have gripped the American imagination as much as the depression in farming. Six years have gone by since the deflation ary policies of the Federal Reserve Board and the Reagan Administration started doubling the number of farmers being driven from their land. Countless Guest Opinion citizens, galvanized by the grief of those displaced and revolted by the ferocious pace, can never look at this world through the same eyes again. Men and women sacrificed family and career to join farmers and friends because the ii\justice was too deep to bear. The family farm: Is it worth • saving? News services started noticing the accelerated attrition of family farms by 1982 and showed a surprising attention span for the story. At first, the report ing focused on the human toll this latest “shakeout” exacted. It was sad, but inevitable, that so many good peo ple were being sacrificed for progress. Lately, however, the tone has changed. A week does not pass without someone like Mike Harper of ConAgra trumpet ing for the press the imminent return of prosperity to agriculture. Successful Farming magazine admonishes its readers to pay attention' to the great opportunities available in agriculture. NBC News announces that the real cri sis is budget busting federal handouts to agriculture. The New York Times bemoans the disproportionate role that agriculture plays in the Iowa primary. The American family farm: Is it worth The problems in agriculture remain acute. Deflated commodity prices, ever declining land values, punishing indebt edness translate to the loss of a family farm every seven minutes. To tolerate this kind of attrition is to renounce our history'. Unless this powerful trend is diverted we will be practicing an agri culture as politically backward, socially explosive and economically concen trated as any our ancestors sought to flee. The fundamental issue facing us in the heartland today is who will own the land and who will control the means of production. This conflict is not new, but has been accelerated in the 1980s. So far, the choice has been clear. Land ownership and agricultural production is rapidly concentrating into a rela tively few hands. Dr. James B. Ken drick, Jr., vice president emeritus of. agriculture and natural resources of me iiuvriMi) ui \ aiiiumici, pieuieut that the largest farms, those grossing $250,000 or more, will increase in number from 86,000 in 1982 to 370,000 by the year 2000. That jump represents an increase from 4 percent in 1982 to 2 percent in 2000. He further projects that 60,000 largest of these land barons will market 76 percent of our mtyor farm products. That’s up from the cur rent estimates: 6 percent of these superfarms account for 49 of the gross sales in agriculture. At the same time he expects 700,000 fewer small- and medium-sized farmers producing in the next century: a drop from 87 percent of the current farming population to 68 percent. This ‘‘bimodai’’ image of future farm production is a scenario almost everyone in agriculture shares. The American family farm: Is it worth stealing? We used to know what kind of society this kind of farming created. In this culture would live the landed gen try who own the land and capital, tenants to support the lord, and a class of yeoman tilling their plots under the shadow of the estate. We are witness ing the creation of the agriculture that enriched Battista in Cuba, Somoza in Nicaragua and Marcos in the Philip pines. American values: Are they worth selling? Garbiel A. Hegyes agronomy graduate student Hoots, honks unwanted Harassment not halted by laws recent government report shows women now earn 70 cents for eve ry dollar a man earns. Women are now entering medical and law schools in greater numbers. We have Nebraska’s first woman governor now in office. We even have one woman dean at the University of Nebraska Lincoln. These achievements can be considered small but significant tri umphs over sexual discrimination. I will consider them large triumphs when they are not regarded as out of the ordinary, when they are commonplace and expected. But a larger issue in this same vein still looms over our heads. Beyond sexual discrimination, we must eradicate sexual harassment in order to really move ahead. There are laws prohibiting sexual discrimination but sexual harassment is based on an attitude that no laws can change. To purge our society of this disease will be a hundred times more difficult than changing the laws. Because it is so deeply embedded in our socialization and so ingrained in our lives sometimes we don’t realize what is happening. Some men don’t even realize they are doing anything wrong. (Yes, 1 realize women harass men as well.) Women endure a sexual harassment every day. We just take it for granted and often don’t stop to think, “This is wrong.” A few weeks ago I called the univer sity operator to get a student’s phone number. When the male operator came back on the line, he said, “You’re in luck, he’s single.” Of course we all know that a wom an's sole goal in life is to find a hus band. Why do you think they let us into the university anyway? Women can’t walk down the street without comments, hoots, honks and whistles from passing cars and men. 1 was in a philosophy class once when a man said women wear short skirts and tight jeans just so men will oggle them. But women are hooted at no matter what they wear. A Middle Eastern friend of mine said even women with full length veils are harassed on the streets of his hometown. I asked a few of my friends what they thought about “on the street harass ment.” One friend said she thought men think they are complimenting women with their hoots and whistles. I would rather be complimented for my intelligence than for my legs. I guess it’s Jeanne Bourne t asking too much for men to shout on the street, "Ooh, nice brain.” One woman said she has become so defensive about these comments that she can hardly accept a compliment about her body from her boyfriend. A male friend told me, guys who whistle and hoot are just showing off in front of their buddies. Another male friend said guys are taking out their frustrations at women they know they can’t "have.” Last summer 1 went to a bar with a female friend. We hadn’t seen each other for some time and simply wanted to talk. We consciously seated ourselves in the back to avoid harassment. Still, a couple guys asked us to dance, inter rupting our conversation. We declined. They proceeded to question our motives of why we were there. We could talk at home, they said. I realize not all men act like this but what makes them think we were there for their use? These events and many others like them happen every day, but women have become so accustomed to it they often don't consider them insulting enough to take action. My experience with the operator is a prime example. I thought it was an unnecessary and inappropriate comment, but not bad enought to report. We women have taught ourselves or have been taught by society to turn a deaf ear, artfully dodge grabbing hands in bars, never make eye contact and learn to avoid situations we know will cause trouble. I would like to think it is the prob lem of socialization and not the indi viduals who are to blame. I think in some cases the harassers don’t realize they are causing anyone any grief. Last week while thinking about this column I stopped to talk to a police officer about his views. He said he didn’t notice the problem while walk ing his beat downtown. But he was once told that something he did would be considered sexual harassment. He said he kissed his finger and put it to a fellow officer’s nose, a woman. He said he didn’t consider that to be sexual harassment. That, I believe, is the core of the problem. What people don’t know can hurt them and others. Women who are so used to being harassed don’t bother to report these everyday incidents. If they aren’t reported or thwarted, the people who perpetuate these acts will never know the difference and sexual harassment will go on. Colleen Daniels of the Affirmative Action office said for the number of people we have on this campus we don’t have a problem with sexual harassment. However, she said, even one case is too many and they don’t take it lightly. A spokesperson for the Women’s Resource Center said they receive mam unofficial complaints about sexua harassment. This may be a sign that women don' take the harassment seriously enough® to make a formal complaint. The change in laws forbidding se*» ual discrimination and the numbers