Editorial
(Dctlly Amy Edwards, Editor, 472-1766
Tk T | Lee Rood, Editorial Page Editor
[\J |-| Y C k X TH Jane Hitt, Managing Editor
w A d. JCVOL A ft. Brandon Loorms, Associate News Editor
University of Nebrasku-Uncoln Victoria Ayotte, Wire Page Editor
Dcannc Nelson, Copy Desk Chief
Drug plan unrealistic
Politicians should face all sides of war j
When President George Bush announced his pro
posal for a $7.9 billion war on narcotics, he called
drugs the “gravest domestic threat facing our
nation.”
He asked for tougher penalties on users, more money
for prisons, treatment programs and education.
He told the nation, from his posh Oval Office, that
every American should refuse to turn their backs on drug
abuse.
Swell.
Bush’s newest attack on the “war on drugs” is well
planned, but just because it is more expensive and more
elaborate than previous plans doesn’t mean it is any more
realistic.
Ronald Reagan declared an all-out war on drugs, too.
Now a lot of kids know how to “just say no” to sub
stances they’ve never seen, and millions of Americans
know what their brains look like on drugs. But can anyone
prove that it is any less profitable to sell drugs today than
it was during Reagan’s regime?
■ Presidents can promise a drug-free America until
thftv’m in fh* fa/'#* hut until fh#>ir rnneHhw>nt< ar#»
ready to quit supplying the demand it won’t work.
Bush and his aides would have done better to ask them
selves whether or not the so-called ‘‘war on drugs” is
really a winnable war at all.
Politicians must realize that people will do drugs no
matter how strict the penalties are. People will sell drugs
even if it means a jail sentence. Selling drugs is a profit
able business, and in a country where people thrive on
money, it is a difficult business to turn down — especially
when the alternative is making minimum wage.
The police departments in this country don’t have the
manpower to track down all arenas of the drug market.
The money involved is powerful, and can buy its way out
of a lot of court cases.
People are afraid of the power and the viciousness of
people involved in buying and selling drugs. When their
families’ lives are at stake, standing up to a person high
on crack does not seem such a wise idea, even if the
president thinks it could make a difference in the nation’s
future.
The enemy in this war has a thousand faces, and unless
politicians can stand up to every one of those faces, they
will lose the war.
-- Lee Rood and Amy Edwards
for the Daily Nebraskan
Do not supress free thought
Dear Mr. Silly Sophomore (DN,
Sept. 6): Just like Jesse Helms, 1 see
you have too much time on your
hands. Comparing the NEA to Dcf
Leppard is one of the most ignorant
statements I’ve heard of. You’ve
obviously watched too many Jim
Bakkcr ravings on TV. I trust that you
are right now denouncing him. Good.
The NEA is and has denounced
frauds like Hustler and Penthouse.
Observe the contrasts and understand
l
that art (if you know what that is) does
not take religious bias into every art
gallery in the United Slates. If you
and all religious maniacs arc upset
about the NEA, then start your own
religiously-biased art galleries.
Don’t pul chains on free thought.
That is what Hitler did.
Aaron Eckelbecker
art
sophomore
i
Reader asks for tolerance, acceptance
At long last - someone at
ASUN is taking notice of the
homophobia that’s plaguing our
campus. What’s more encourag
ing is that he has the courage to do
something about it. Thanks Bryan
Hill - we need that voice and that
commitment
This summer I attended a work
shop/camp for gays and lesbians.
For the First time in my life, I was
a minority in my sexual orienta
tion. Being one of the two straight
women in that workshop, the thing
that impressed me most was that I
wasn't ridiculed or condemned for
my sexual orientation. I found,
instead, tolerance, acceptance and
appreciation of my sexuality
among my homosexual friends. Is
it then too much to ask that we
heterosexuals show the same toler
ance, acceptance and appreciation
of gays and lesbians? After all -
we are living in the land of the free,
aren’t we?
Sim Boey
graduate student
English education
WeY MAteC
You’o. Meep starcuy
To 6jcr that
To WpKK] qw/j
~ "TS*
Present chaos sure to worsen
Omaha, Lincoln campuses feud while Massengale ponders action
ust when I thought we’d never
find out why Ronald Roskens
got fired, the University of
raska at Omaha’s student news
paper, Gateway, solved the whole
mystery.
“We know why the Board of
Regents removed NU President
Ronald Roskens from office, and
why they’re being so silent about it,’’
the paper declared with supreme
confidence. “The regents are plan
ning to tear down central administra
tion. The University of Nebraska
Lincoln will be the heir apparent...
And regardless of who (the next NU
President) is, he or she will have the
suDDorl of the Husker-crazed flap
ship-frenzied, party-school faction,
and accept the crown from the joyous
regents.”
Try again, folks.
Yes, the University of Nebraska
probably will see some serious
changes in the coming year. Bui
nobody knows exactly what these
changes will be.
Like the Russians after Joseph
Stalin, the university after Ronald
Roskcns is embroiled in some major
chaos, and a power struggle to boot.
And all bets are off as to how it all will
work out.
To get a sense of how this all
started, one needs to understand how
the Board of Reccnts chanted noliti.
cally in this past year. Until very
recently, Roskens had a solid major
ity of support on the board and was
allowed a great deal of latitude in
making university policy.
Then things changed.
In November 1988, Robert Allen
and Rosemary Skrupa defeated Re
gents Robert Koefoot and James
Moylan, two long-time supporters of
Roskens and central administration.
These elections, along with the 1986
defeat of Robert Simmons by Don
Blank, decimated the solid pro
Roskens majority on the board.
Thus the stage was set for a grow
ing disillusionment on the part of the
regents with respect to Roskens, par
ticularly as the newer regents sought
to reassert the role of the board as the
maker of policy.
One of the first major battles be
tween Roskens and board members
came in 1988 when the board nar
rowly rejected a central administra
tion plan to buy a $5 million IBM
computer, dividing between the
newer regents and the long time
Roskens supporters.
Regents were pul off by specific
instances in which Roskens was seen
as making policy, rather than imple
menting directives of the board.
According to the Omaha World-Her
ald, Blank felt that Roskens lied to
him when the Nebraska Legislature
voted to close the technical agricul
ture campus at Curtis.
Regent Donald Fricke was said to
feel that Roskens, a former UNO
chancellor with strong ties to the
Omaha business elite, did not give
enough support to the Lincoln cam
pus.
I--1
And Regent Nancy Hoch was said
to have been left twisting in the wind
by Roskens while testifying before
the Legislature’s Appropriations
Committee on the Fall 1988 com
puter decision.
The proposed merger of Kearney
State College with the university
system fueled the fires started by
these incidents. Reports surfaced that
Roskens did not faithfully implement
the regents’ position on the merger,
working behind the scenes to pro
mote Kearney Slate’s inclusion.
And so, in June 1989, the regents’
executive subcommittee began its
annual review of Roskens’ perform
ance, and the decision was secretly
made to begin negotiations toward
Roskens’ early retirement.
By this time, a solid majority of
the board - Hoch, Margaret Robin
son, Allen, Fricke and Blank - ap
peared ready to vote for Roskens’
removal. Omaha regents Skrupa and
Hansen presumably counted the
votes and went along - probably
because of the board’s apparent long
eld belief in decision-making by
consensus, possibly because they
were afraid of antagonizing col
leagues^ toward future policy propos
als such as the addition of doctorate
programs on the UNO campus.
Alter the July regents’ meeting
failed to produce a seulement be
tween the regents and Roskens, the
regents called the now-infamous July
31 emergency meeting that resulted
in Roskens’ firing and UNL chancel
lor Martin Masscngale’s promotion
to interim NU president.
Now, in the aftermath of Roskens’
firing, the regents and the university
community find themselves em
broiled in two levels of high-stakes
political combat.
The first level is external. The
regents desperately need to repair
their relationships with the Legisla
ture and the general public. This will
be extremely difficult. The regents’
silence on their reasons for firing
Roskens has presented an easy cause
for legislators and citizens to rally
around.
The second level is internal. The
great divide between the Lincoln and
Omaha campuses threatens to widen
even farther. The current push by
UNO administrators and the Omaha
regents for the addition of doctoral
degrees at UNO (UNL currently is
the only campus offering doctoral
degrees) is an implicit challenge to
Massengale as UNL chancellor and
system president
At first glance, Massengale is ina
no-win situation. If he supports the
UNO doctoral program, he accepts a
policy which many sec as a threat to
the UNL campus. If he opposes the
proposal, he reinforces the fear held
by many Omahans that Massengale
would favor UNL as system presi
dent.
So now the political terrain in the
university system looks like a mine
field. The regents may have wrested
control of the university empire bac*
from their president, but now they arc
under assault from the outside.
Meanwhile, the Omaha and Lin
coln campuses are busy fighting ft*
turf, while Massengale is caught m
the crossfire as interim president
With a comprehensive study of th®
state s higher education system in the
works, state senators talking abjjt
appointing the regents and the 19W
legislative session and election*
waiting in the wings, the best may
yet to come.
Stay tuned.
Svobodfi is a ^nlor poimc*1^* JjJ
Russian m^Jor, and a Dally Neb
jmnist.
