Editorial
Daily
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Amy Edwards, Editor, 472-1766
Lee Rood, Editorial Page Editor
Jane Hilt, Managing Editor
Brandon Loomis, Associate News Editor
Brian Svoboda, Columnist
Bob Nelson, Columnist
Jerry Guenther, Senior Reporter
] What others think
Drunken behavior, fur trade criticized
This is a bad time to be in the fur business. Industry
profits have stagnated in recent years, and this
month, animal-rights activists are preparing their
most aggressive campaign against furriers and people who
buy furs.
Starting on the busiest shopping day of the year -- the
day after Thanksgiving — the People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals will stage dozens of anti-fur dem
onstrations all over the nation, including a parade down
the middle of Fifth Avenue in New York City. The group
hopes that their au-out assault will communicate the
message that the fur industry is built on cruelty and
vanity, and to buy or wear fur is to support those hollow
principles.
The dedication of groups like PETA and Trans-Species
Unlimited to the anti-fur cause is unswerving; they are
completely committed to driving all fur retailers from the
marketplace, drawing attention to the cause through
organized civil disobedience.
The public needs to know the practices involved in
ranching and trapping animals for their pelts. If the truth
were publicized about the industry’s disregard for the
suffering that animals like the lynx, mink, raccoon, sable
and fox are subjected to, fur sales would be irreparably
damaged.
Already, there is reason to believe people are grasping
the social implications of buying a fur garment.
“Profits are plunging,” says PETA spokesperson
IChantal Hoffman. ‘‘As people realize this is a business of
cruelty and greed, furs will go out of fashion. It won’t be
long before all fur retailers are gone.”
~ The Dally Iowan
University of towa
Early last Saturday morning, an argument got started
inside O’Malley’s Tavern. When it got a little heated, it
was taken outside. There, it turned into a stabbing that put
a Gainesville man in the hospital.
Deja vu.
In just one weekend this month, four students were
arrested for disorderly conduct and underage drinking. A
bouncer at another bar was beaten with a bottle as he tried
removing a rowdy patron. Another student was arrested
and charged with battery, disorderly conduct, intoxication
and underage drinking after an incident in a Krystal
parking lot.
It seems fights, beatings and violence go hand in hand
with kamikazes, pitchers and Long Island ice teas.
Students continually complain about unfair laws that
restrict the drinking age, bar hours, and open containers of
alcohol. But when we continually cause alcohol-related
disturbances, our complaining is without merit.
With our words we say that we are old enough and
responsible enough to exercise our right to drink alcohol.
Yet, with our actions, we tell quite another story.
- I he- Red & Black
University of Georgia
Minorities aren’t ‘crying wolf’
Dave Codr’s letter (DN, Nov. 14)
typifies the fear of white America.
Dave Codr seems to feel that minori
ties have no reason to speak out
against the fear and oppression that
dominates our society.
Codr reinforces those altitudes
with this quote from his letter,
“Minority groups seem to be com
plaining that everyone is against
them. The ‘out to gel us’ attitude only
causes problems.
Yes, that docs .cause problems,
more so than any T-shirt dispute
could. People speaking out against
racism, sexism and prejudice arc not
“screaming for blood” as he pul it.
Codr suggested in his letter, “I
suggest the minority groups who arc
complaining follow in the footsteps
of recovering alcoholics who don’t
complain about alcoholic T-shirts...
“ Alcoholics who win their personal
battles, and have conquered their
own limitations, need not worry
about who can sell what T-shirt.
People of color, of religious mi
norities, gays, lesbians and others
have not yet conquered their limita
tions. These limitations arc fear and
prejudice. Quit holding us back! I
hardly call this “crying wolf.”
Rich Higgins
junior
art
CfSte ®*>’
//-It X>al
Leaders must act responsibly
Vision is needed if regents to be more involved in decisions
Last Friday was not a particu
larly good day for the NU
Board of Regents.
Struggling to “find itself’ after
the tumultuous July firing of NU
President Ronald Roskens, the board
at its November meeting continued
taking steps toward greater regent
involvement in university decision
making.
Two stories from Friday’s meet
ing, however, say much about the
limits and potential impact of that
involvement.
The regents’ debate over demoli
tion of the Woodruff Printing Co.
building at 1 Oth and Q streets revived
the question of to what extent the
regents really run the university.
And comments from two board
members about the need for a liberal
arts program at the University of
Nebraska at Omaha made one won
der whether some regents ought to be
running a university at all.
Friday’s meeting saw discussion
of a proposal from UNL administra
tors seeking to acquire and demolish
the old Woodruff building and create
a parking lot for the Lied Center for
Performing Arts.
With that proposal came a report
from UNL Vice Chancellor for Busi
ness and Finance John Goebel stating
that the building “has no particular or
aesthetic value, (and no) particular
place in the heritage of the city.”
The regents agreed with Goebel
and voted 7-0 to demolish the build
ing (Regent Nancy Hoch was absent).
But after the vote, concerns were
raised by some that Goebel and other
administrau/fs had not provided the
regents with a full range of informa
tion on the issue.
A comprehensive packet re
quested earlier by the regents and put
together by UNL College of Archi
tecture faculty was not delivered to
all the regents until during the vole,
despite having been ready for some
lime.
Much of the information in the
packet supported the positions taken
by UNL student Regent Bryan Hill
and others who had opposed the
building’s demolition, causing some
to wonder whether there was a reason
for the packet’s untimely delivery.
More disturbing than the apparent
maneuvering behind the Woodruff
vote, however, were the bizarre
comments made by two regents about
the need for a liberal arts program at
UNO.
While discussing a study of exist
ing programs mandated by the Ne
braska Coordinating Commission on
Postsecondary Education, Regents
Robert Allen and Margaret Robinson
questioned the usefulness of a UNO
liberal arts program in theater.
Allen commented that the pro
grams produced few graduates and
were not “cost-effective.” Robinson
questioned the ability of the pro
gram’s graduates to find jobs in the
real world.
The two regents’ comments cre
ated considerable alarm among those
who felt the university should be
more than a degree factory providing
workers for Nebraska businesses.
UNO Chancellor Del Weber was
quick to differ with the assessments
made by Allen and Robinson, saying
that liberal arts were “the heart and
soul’.’ of a university or college, and
that their curtailment would prove
disastrous to the university.
So, in the end, what do these two
stories Irom last Friday’s meeting say
about the regents?
The Woodruff incident illustrates
the hurdles the regents yet have to
clear as they try to become more
involved in university decision-mak
ing.
Since the elections of Don Blank,
Rosemary Skrupa, Robinson and
Allen to the board, the regents have
seemed more eager to take an active,
rather than passive, role in policy
making. Ronald Roskens, in fact, was
one of the first casualties of that ea
gerness.
But the constant presence of paid
administrators, and the fact that such
administrators often have their own
agendas, makes it difficult for the
regents to make the sort of involved,
informed decisions they now seem to
desire.
The debate over the liberal arLs
program suggests that such involve
ment on the part of the regents could
have its consequences.
As the regents take on a greater
role in making policy, the personali
ties and perspectives of the individual
regents assume greater importance in
the shaping of university policy. The
ignorance shown by Allen and
Robinson about the need for the thea
ter program at UNO shows that an
empowered board could threaten as
well as promote the university as an
institution.
Serious changes await the NU
Board of Regents in the coming
months. For democracy’s sake, one
would hope that the regents continue
to increase their role in university
decision-making.
But with power comes responsi
bility. If the regents are to make more
of their own decisions, they must!
make them wisely. A broad, open-1
minded perspective is crucial to thel
governance of a university. As thel
board becomes more active, let ul
hope that regents such as Allen and
Robinson prove capable of such vi
sion.
Svohoda is a senior political science and Rus
sian major, and a Daily Nebraskan colum
nist.
letter—!_
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief letters to the editor from all
readers and interested others.
Submit material to the Daily Nc*
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 14(H) R
St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
editqSHi,
Editorial columns represent the
opinion of the author.
The Daily Nebraskan’s publishers
are the regents, who established the
UNL Publications Board to supervise
the daily production of the paper.
According to policy set by the re
gents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely in
the hands of its student editors.
