Editorial
Nebraskan
University of Nebraska
Mike Reilley, Editor, 472-1766
Diana Johnson, Editorial Pagt’Editor
Jen Deselms, Managing Editor
Curt Wagner, Associate News Editor
Scott Harrah, Night News Editor
Joan Rezac, Copy Desk Chief
Joel Carlson, Columnist
Loan forgiveness
LB 1204 could remove loan pressure
Graduates who have to
repay a student loan
could have part of the
loan forgiven under a bill intro
duced by state Sen. Ron Withem
of Papillion.
But on the flip side of the
coin, a Dec. 7 Daily Nebraskan
story cited instances where stu
dents' cars, televisions and
other items were repossessed
because they failed to pay back
their government loans.
LB1204 would create
“higher education loan forgive
ness,” which would be admini
stered by the Coordinating
Commission for Poslsccondary
Education.
The fund would make money
available for graduates who
want to apply to reduce their
loan. Reduction would be
granted on a first-come, first
served basis. Payments would
be sent directly to the lender and
could not total more than half of
the graduate’s loan obligation.
But according to Assistant
U.S. Attorney Douglas R. Sem
isch, 75 percent of the civil ac
tions at his Omaha office con
cern student loan defaults.
The lawsuits arc a result of
the U.S. Justice Department’s
emphasis on collecting loans,
according to Christopher
Hagen, U.S. Attorney and head
of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in
Des Moines, Iowa.
The federal government sues
for the amount of the promis
sory note signed by the student
when the loan was taken out.
With several repayment options
available, a judgment by the
government is rendered against
the student. Hagen admits that
most students work out some
sort of payment plan with the
U.S. Attorney’s Office. But if
the student doesn’t respond,
more drastic measures may be
taken.
Perhaps Wi them’s proposal
is an attempt to curtail the num
ber of lawsuits and give some
students a financial break.
Working on a first-come,
first-served basis doesn’t seem
entirely fair, and the proposed
bill also raises some questions
about economic logic. But it
might help some students who
are unable to find substantially
salaried work in their fields fol
lowing graduation. It doesn’t let
students off the hook entirely,
but it might help in extreme
circumstances.
Osborne credited; gay programs praised
Reader says athletes
‘get a free ride’
Generally, I don’t write letters to
the editor, but I’vc decided to make an
exception. When I read the letter from
Val Novak, a Nebraska volleyball
player (Letters, Jan. 18), I fell com
pelled to reply.
I l
In her letter, Novak argued that the
public is wrong for thinking that ath
letes get a free ride. The reason the
public thinks this, though, is because
it is true. To say that athletes get less
than minimum wage, if one divides
the total value of an athletic scholar
ship by the hours devoted to the given
sport, is a feeble argument. If one
aivided the amount of tuition by the
total amount of hours spent on school
work, one would discover that most of
us pay to go to school. What a novel
concept.
If the only reason she can find for
participating in volleyball is to enter
tain the public, and if Novak really
believes that an athletic scholarship is
not sufficient reimbursement for ath
letic participation, perhaps she should
re-evaluate her commitment to that
activity. Novak posed the rhetorical
question, “What else would people do
on Saturday afternoons than watch
Nebraska football?” Not speaking for
others, of course, but I have never had
any difficulty finding something todo
besides watch Nebraska football,
especially in the middle of January.
Novak also suggested that scholar
ship athletes, such as herself, endure
the hardships of practice and other
things for paltry compensation and
simply for the entertainment of the
public. I’m not convinced that her
purpose is so selfless. Athletes play
sports for what they gel out of it — free
education, glory and recognition. If
the benefits to athletic participation
were non-existent, so would the par
ticipation.
Greg Coffey
senior
speech communication
UNL fortunate to have
Osborne as head coach
I was appalled to read the Daily
Nebraskan’s tacky editorial regarding
Tom Osborne’s salary increase. Quite
obviously, you have no idea of how
important Osborne is to the state of
Nebraska and to the university.
If it wasn’t for Osborne and his
assistant coaches’ outstanding suc
cess, the slate and the university
would lose millions of dollars that the
football program generates. And
don’t forget titc football program
supports other non-revenuc-produc
ing sports at the university.
Ninety-nine percent of the univer
sities in the country would give their
right eye teeth to have Osborne as their
coach. We should be glad he has
stayed here in Nebraska despite re
ceiving lucrative offers to coach else
where.
If the editors of the DN can’t give
their wholehearted support to the
sccond-winningcsl active coach in the
country, 1 suggest they move to Dallas
and support SMU football and Icam
just how good we have it here.
RachelIc Ackerman
Milford
Gay/lesbian committee
‘cause for celebration'
The existence of a Gay/Lesbian
Program m ing Com m itice as a compo
nent of Campus Activities and Pro
grams is a cause for celebration of
diversity and an exciting first step in
human understanding. The travesty at
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln is
that this committee was purposely or
inadvertently robbed of funds to pro
vide adequate programming. The
funds were to be used in co-sponsor
ship with two other committees were
spent by these committees.
The lack of available funds for a
Gay/Lesbian Programming Commit
tee leaves it quasi-impotent. Without
funding, the GLPC is hindered from
expression of ideas and a creation of
tolerance of dramatically sligmali/cd
minority. So where’s the beef? This is
the question to ask the executive
committee of the University FYogram
Council and the Association of Stu
dents of the University of Nebraska.
It doesn’t appear that student lead
ers who could remedy this situation
have any guts.
The gay/lesbian community and
GLSA have provided many, many
quality programs at UNL in the past
several years. Some excellent pro
grams have included gay/lcsnian
concert performers, a play, Gay/Les
bian Student Month, UNL Condom
Day and various educational pro
grams.
Last year, several students, both
gay and straight, fought for this com
mittee. We were under the impression
that this committee would be able to
do quality programming. We were
wrong. The obstacles to successful
programming arc slill there— lack of
funds and cooperation of UPC com
mittees in co-sponsorship.
The solution is funding of GLPC
and the cooperation of AS UN and
other UPC committees.
The university thinks this commit
tee is controversial. What will they do
when a Gay/Lesbian Alumni Associa
tion forms?
Rodney A. Bell II
. alumnus and former UNL GLSA
president
Grand Island
Women ’ s basketball
boring, reader says
In reference to Chuck Green’s
column (Daily Nebraskan, Jan. 20) on
women’s basketball and the lack of
attendance in women’s sports, I have
attended many Nebraska men’s and
women’s games and found no com
parison between the two.
In women’s basketball, there are
few really exciting moments, such as
breakaway slam dunks, massive
blocked shots, arms above the back
board, super quickness (Maurtice Ivy
is an exception), and thoroughbred
speed. You are not going to see, from
a fan’s point of view, the same game
with women as you will sec with men
in a comparative sport.
Simple knowledge and genetics
prove women arc not comparable to
men in size and strength — something
Tennis magazine did a story on re
cently.
Just ask the roughly 8,(XX) people
who left after the Nebraska-Missouri
men’s game and didn’t stay to watch
the women’s game afterward. My
guess is a majority would say the same
thing: How can you compare the two
games, and therefore, why stick
around to watch it?
Bill Connors
UNL alumnus
Osborne earns credit
for football recruits
After coming in from yet another
frigid Nebraska day, the criticism by
Daily Nebraskan sports columnist
Chuck Green of Nebraska’s coach
Tom Osborne and his staff on every
aspect of Nebraska’s football pro
gram, seems especially ignorant and
reveals his immaturity as a sports
writer.
Not recruiting Nebraska high
school players (other than offensive
linemen) is top priority on Green’s
agenda.
Great players such as Bret Clark,
Jim Skow, Tom Ralhman, Danny
Noonan and all-Big Eight player
Steve Forch and Keith Jones have all
graced Nebraska high schools.
After 25 years in the football pro
gram, I think Osborne can evaluate a
recruit belter than Green can.
Overlooked by many, but not by
Nebraska coaches, were Irving Fryar,
Mike Rozier, Marc Munford and Neil
Smith, who undoubtedly will make a
fine pro player.
Give Osborne a break. Our state
doesn’t border Texas like Oklahoma.
Nor docs it have glorious beaches and
warm ocean breezes like Miami. We
have cornfields. Pioneers Park and a
heck of a coach. Without Osborne,
we’d be in serious trouble as the
Kansas schools to the south of us are.
Mark Tvrdy
Lincoln
First Amendment in jeopardy
U.S. Supreme Court's double standards may endanger learning
1 shouldn’t have been sur
prised. I should have known
it’s just a sign of the limes.
But I get frightened when the docu
ment on which life in the United Slates
is based has been struck down and
made to be nothing more than a lie.
And the U.S. Supreme Court is to
blame. The Supreme Court ruled two
weeks ago that high school newspa
pers can be censored by principals
who deem certain stories unsuitable
for teen-agers in their school. A Ha
zelwood, mo., high school principal
had refused to allow the student paper
to run an article on teen pregnancies
and the effects of divorce on children.
On the surface, the ruling is the
opinion of the majority of the eight
people on the high court right now.
They call themselves justices, but
what came out of this ruling wasn’t
necessarily justice.
Byron White, the justice chosen to
write the majority opinion, wrote that
high school newspapers arc a “super
vised learning experience for journal
ism students,” and not a public forum
like all newspapers usually arc sup
posed to be. But what is it the students
are supposed to learn? There are, of
course, all the basics of journalism
that can be learned in the classroom.
But are they also supposed to leam
that in the United States there really is
no freedom of the press as long as the
Supreme Court creates double stan
dards?
The court actually is creating a
division between papers which are
done for commercial profit and those
which are done for the educational
experience. When it comes to the
news, though, there is no difference.
They all report news.
The same is true with student re
porters. Just because they arc younger
and less experienced than most jour
nalists doesn’t mean they can’t report
as well.
The decision even created a differ
ence between public and private high
schools, saying that private schools
would not come under the ruling. That
means public schools arc censored
and private ones arc free to print what
they want.
It is bad enough when school prin
cipals have the power to kill stories
they believe to be “inconsistent with
its educational mission,” as While
said was the case in Hazelwood.
What’s just as bad is when the Su
preme Court allows the labeling of
certain publications and not of others,
thus striking down freedom of the
press as guaranteed in the First
Amendment.
The Court said the Hazelwood case
was an issue of maintaining authority
in the classroom and not one of press
freedom. But when they are talking
about using that authority on a news
paper, it quickly becomes one of the
media.
But all this is nothing more than the
veneer on the woodwork.
When you look a little deeper into
the grain of the issue, you’ll discover
that the Supreme Court is just follow
ing President Ronald Reagan’s
agenda.
The Supreme Court includes two
Reagan appointees — Sandra Day
O’Connor and Antonin Scalia—who
arc more right-wing than the people
they replaced. For example, Lewis
Powell, former holder of the now
vacant scat on the court, was always
considered a swing vote. None of
Reagan’s three nominees could be
considered likewise. Reagan under
standably wants the court to reflect
himself. But he is definitely not a
swing vote.
William Rchnquisl, originally a
Nixon nominee, was promoted by
Reagan to chief justice. Reagan could
not have found a better person to fill
thepost to fulfill his agenda.
On top of this, if any of Reagan’s
three most recent infamous nominees
— Robert Bork, Douglas Ginsburg
and Anthony Kennedy — had been
confirmed at the lime of the vote, the
5-3 decision would have been even
more lopsided.
It makes a little more sense now.
We can expect nothing better when
the court has been so influenced.
While Newsweek recently boldly
declared that the 1980s and all its
greed arc now history, we are still
under the direction of the man who led
us through these times. But we must
remember that these arc the times in
which we have seen Reagan also cre
ate divisions between rich and poor,
black and white, man and woman.
These are the limes which have seen
an explosion of the national deficit
while the defense budget grows just as
maniacally.
Only William Brennan, Thurgood
Marshall and Harry Blackmun saw
through the muck and dissented.
Apparently Reagan hasn’t finished his
job yet.
Despite their noble intentions,
these three arc not enough to forestall
Reagan.
Nonetheless, the Constitution
doesn’t really mean anything as long
as the Supreme Court insists on over
turning it. Reagan may not really in
tend to dismantle the Constitution
with his selections to the court. He
says he firmly believes in the freedom
of the press, but he docs little to uphold
that pledge. He may not have actually
cast one of the votes, but it was his 1
court which voted. It was his court
which denied.
And I’m not surprised.
Fry is a graduate news-editorial student
and is the editor of The Sower, the Daily
Nebraskan’s depth supplement.