Editorial
NetSaskan
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Mike Reillcy, Editor 472-1766
Diana Johnson, Editorial Page Editor
Jen Deselms, Managing Editor
Curt V'agner, Associatee News Editor
Chris Anderson, Associate News Editor
Joan Rezac, Copy Desk Chief
Joel Carlson, Columnist
Lots of pants on fire
Study of students finds cheating common
he days of honesty in busi
ness and politics left ages
ago. Now it seems even
Oliver North can lie to Con
gress and become a folk hero. It
doesn’t matter if Pinocchio’s
nose grows anymore. So long as
his deception goes unnoticed
and unpunished, the world re
mains status quo.
With lies ami cheating com
monplace in the world, the
ruche of university life holds no
antidote to cheating. A recent
New York Times magazine ar
ticle examined the problem
of cheating within the
nation’s sclxxil systems, quot
ing some people associated
with the University of Nc
braska-Lincoln.
One UNL psychology pro
fessor, Richard Dienstbier,
quoted in the New York Times
article, said he and his col
leagues are noticing a “higher
percentage of classroom cheat
ing.”
A study by the University of
California at Los Angeles ech
oes Dienstbier’s observations.
The study of 290,000 college
freshmen discovered 30.4 per
cent of the freshman'class had
cheated on a test in their last
year of high school. Contrast
this with a 1966 study that
found 20.6 percent admitted to
cheating.
A spokesman for the UNI,
chancellor’s office said the of
ficc has noi received any com- I
plaint of a rise in academic dis
honesty.
Although studies such as
UCLA’s give an ideaol the pro
portions of the cheating prob
lem, exact numbers are difficult
to find. Finding out how many
students cheat is about as easy
as finding the needles tn a stack
of hay. Everyone knows the
needles exist, yet finding them
is the real problem.
Even college newspapers
recognize cheating in college as
a noticeable protalcm. Last fall
Dartmouth College’s campus
paper devoted an entire issue to
the growing problem of college
cheating.
Experts disagree on the the
causes or solutions of cheating
in the classroom. Some argue I
that a lackadaisical attitude to
life spurs cheating. Others be
lieve the pressure of the yuppie
generation forces people to
cheat to succeed.
But the problem doesn’t start
or finish in college. The prob
lem with cheating starts earlier
— maybe with parents cheating
on expenses, lying to friends
and fudging on income-tax re
turns. And the problem proba
bly will continue past any col
lege exam. Yet cheating is
cheating, and like fool’s gold, it
looks good to begin with, but in
the end the only loser is the
cheat.
State senator says joke issue
in the DN extremelv offensive
Your so-called “spoof’ in the
Daily Nebraskan on April 1 is ex
tremely offensive from my point of
view. It appalls me to think our poten
tial future journalists have sunk to
such a low in the name of spoofing. It
seems obvious they were uncomfort
able too, or they would not have used
pseudonyms. To print such material
in the name of humor indicates to me
that the apparent attempt at spoofing
** has reached a new low.
It would seem to me that the aim of
high journalistic endeavor should
attempt to uplift and strive for objec
tive communication, true entertain
ment and enlightenment. I fail to see
what your issue can possibly do to
y
attain any such responsible journal
ism.
Worst of all perhaps is the effect on
potential students who may be con
sidering the University of Nebraska
Lincoln for the future. Although it
may not be “news” to pre-college
students, it is certainly not raising up
any ideals and values of a college
education.
I truly hope someday these so
called writers will look back and
wonder why they ever let their minds
spend their valuable education time in
such a wasteful manner.
Roger Wehrbein
state senator
Student says UNL chancellor
should resign from position
In a story in the April 12 Daily
Nebraskan, University of Ncbraska
Lincoln Chancellor Martin Massen
^ gale said he thought the findings of
the New York Times survey were
positive and that he was not disap
pointed by an average rating for UNL.
If Massengale really feels this
way, then we as students should be
disappointed with him and ask for his
resignation. Wc hear stories every
day that say America is no longer No.
This attitude coming from a uni
versity chancellor may be an undcrly
ing reason. Whatever happened to the
push for excellence? Are we satisfied
w ith violations at corruption we see in
federal government? I think not. It’s
quite evident that Massengalc has
accomplished his goals here and
should move aside for someone with
fresh *deas and drive. We want to be
known for something other than great
in the social category. What about
science, teaching and art?
Robert E. Summers
freshman
undeclared
%
__—A6TlpENOS? I’M A&AINST IWEM
rl MY AGENT SAYS -TUCY AREN'T
’ 6lG ENOUGH TO PAY THE
INSURANCE ON MY
TRANS AM .
i... J
__
Strength vs. goodness
This year's presidential choices offer neither
When Jesse Jackson spoke on
campus last year, he ended
with the very stirring and
challenging words: “It is not enough
that we be a strong nation; we must be
a good nation.”
This dichotomy struck a chord
with me. It helped me to sort out many
jf the supposedly conflicting or even
contradictory feelings that I have had
concerning national politics over the
last 20 years or so.
If we cannot be both, I would pre
fer that we be good. If we must be
strong or nothing, I would prefer that
we be strong. But above all, I have
desired that we be both, and there has
been little opportunity for such a
combination in my lifetime.
Perhaps John Kennedy was the last
chance we had. There was a feeling
then that the country was headed
toward both strength and goodness—
yea, a strength that arose naturally
from just the right kind of goodness.
But our dreams died on the streets of
Dallas, ana we usnerca in me jonnson
administration — the quintessential
“strength at all costs” administration.
The price we paid was the Vietnam
War, nuclear proliferation and a tidal
wave of popular protest and rebellion.
Then came Nixon. Aided by the
strongest third-party bid in modem
history since George Wallace, Nixon
took the While House and promptly
introduced reforms to get us out of
Vietnam and back on the road to
sanity — maybe even the road to
goodness. The success of his fust term
v/as shown by his landslide re-elec
tion victory in 1972.
But then the biggest scandal in
American political history broke.
Nixon and his cronies gave fresh evi
dence lor the old adage concerning
power and corruption, as “Water
gate” became more of a household
word than “Agncw” ever was. In
successive years, America experi
enced the resignations of a sitting vice
president and a sitting president —
both unprecedented events.
The Ford years followed, and
America did exactly what it needed to
do: nothing — more than two years of
sweet, post-traumatic stress syn
drome nothing. And Gerald Ford was
definitely the man to lead such a game
plan. Not strong. Not good. Just...
nothing. Saigon fell, and we did noth
ing. John Wooden retired from the
University of California at Los Ange
les, and we did nothing. Blank stares,
slow healing, nothing.
Then in 1976, we sensed the need
to move again. Apathy can be addic
tive, and a Southerner named
“Jimmy” warned us that we must
break out now and elect “Leaders, For
a Change.”
By the skin of our teeth, we voted
to resume the quest for goodness. We
elected a good man — a very good
man. And we sought to become good
ourselves.
But Carter may have proved once
and lor all that a good person cannot
succeed as president. I think history
will show that a large reason for the
disaster of the Carter administration
was, ironically, his basic goodness.
Carter honestly believed one could
be president and still choose to exam
ine issues closely, treat people fairly
and try to get the best result for every
one involved.
The image such philosophy deliv
ered to the American people, how
ever, was weak, indecisive, wishy
washy failure. The Iran hostage crisis
destroyed an already beleaguered
president, and all he was trying to do
was be a good person and create a
good nation.
So we elected Reagan. In 1980
there was very little call for goodness
and strength. There was only a call for
strength. We were tired of trying to be
good, tired of trying to help, tired of
attempting to establish fairness and
equality across the nation and the
world. We just didn’t want to feel
weak anymore. “Let’s make America
great again!” Law and order. We’re
No. 1. Look out, world, the bitch is
back.
Jackson’s quotation helped me
realize, in retrospect, that I voted for
each of the three options alluded to
above in the three presidential elec
tions in which I have cast my ballot.
I voted for Jimmy Carter — twice.
To this day I am not ashamed of it. I
voted for Carter the first time because
I thought he could make us good again
and strong again. I really thought his
vision of government with integrity
could work. I guess I was just as
deluded by the short-lived post-Wa
tergate morality as anyone.
By 1980,1 was convinced Carter
would never make us strong again.
But still I believed his programs rep
resented the only viable option for
goodness in the 1980jcampaign. So, I
and a handful of die-hard moralists
pulled the “James Earl” lever and
were buried under an avalanche of
resurgent saber-rattling. In 19801 had
a choice: I could vote for goodness, or
I could vote for strength. I could not
do both. I unhesitatingly chose good
ness.
Then, in 1984,1 did something that
I am not proud of. I closed my eyes, I
clenched my teeth and 1 voted for
Reagan. I did so because I saw no
goodness option. The outmoded spe
cial-interest rhetoric of the Mondale
campaign was the way to chaos and
retrenchment, not goodness. I had no
choice in 1984 It was strength or
nothing, and 1 reluctantly chose
strength.
My fear for 1988 is that I will not
even have that choice. We are down to
five people. Realistically, only three.
For all intonts and purposes, the big
two. The election in November will
dc Dciwecn ueorgc t»usn ana miuiuci
Dukakis. I sec no chance for strength
or goodness on either side. I will be
forced to choose between shallow
leftovers of an already aging era in
American history and a facade of
progressiveness that hides a staunch
refusal to admit that America will
never again be as it was at the height
of the New Deal.
We had our chance. We had the
chance to continue the power trip —
Bob Dole could do it for us in spades.
We even had chances for goodness,
represented perhaps best of all in
Jackson. But he will not be nomi
nated. The colorblind, affirmative
action Democratic machine will see
to that. So there will be neither good
ness nor strength before us. There will :
simply be . . . nothing. In 1974 we
needed that. In 1989 it may
destroy us.
My only hope is that futurologist
John Naisbit is right, and it really
doesn’t matter who is in the While
House anymore. Naisbit holds that
the real political power of the future is
in state and local governments and
that the federal level is slowly reced- j
ing into the traditional role of defense
provision. I can think of no greater
boost to such a movement than the
options we have this year.
Sennett is a graduate student in philoso
phy and campus minister with Collegc-C a
reer Christian Fellowship.
