Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 5, 1990)
Editorial (Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board University of Nebraska-Lincoln Amy Edwards, Editor, 472-1766 Bob Nelson, Editorial Page Editor Ryan Steeves, Managing Editor Eric Pfanner, Associate News Editor Lisa Donovan, Associate News Editor Brandon Loomis, Wire Editor Jana Pedersen, Night News Editor Board’s vote selfish Power concerns prove change needed Predictably, the NU Board of Regents voted Friday to oppose two bills in the Legislature designed to improve the governance of higher education in Nebraska. The regents voted to oppose both the higher education restructuring proposal and a resolution that would give one of the three student regents a vote on the board. The regents, in their statement opposing the higher edu cation proposal, said LR239CA and LB 1141 would make the regents an advisory board because they could not control the budget. They also said there would be too I many boards created and too many of the members would be appointed, not elected. Concerning the student regent vote, the regents said they consistently have opposed a change in the Nebraska Constitution for a voting student regent. The statement said, “The board continues to believe that such a change is not in the best interests of the university and the state.” University of Nebraska-Lincoln Student Regent Bryan Hill chastised the board for their selfish fight against constructive change by saying the votes reflected the regents’ “highly vested interest in maintaining the status quo.” IHill said the vote on the restructuring Din was a reflection of their lack of desire or their inability to realize significant problems in the present governance structure.” On the student regent vote, Hill said the regents were focusing on a minor technicality to avoid addressing student concerns. The board has cited a 1986 attorney general’s opinion that a proposal to divide the one student regent vote into thirds would cause constitutional prob lems. The current proposal does not divide student votes into thirds, Hill said, but rather gives only one of the three* regents full voting powers. Hill is right about the motive of the regents. With both | of the board’s votes, they have proven that the only “best interests” they are concerned about are their own. It’s sad that the regents are unable to consider anything more than the protection of their own power. Their reac | tionary attitude should be further proof of a need for J change. Senators and voters must realize that the regents’ rhetoric is pure self-interest and should respond by ignor ing the board’s statements. •« Bob NeUon for the Daily Nebraskan opiafiffi Everyone entitled to education I am writing concerning Mike McCoy’s letter to the Daily Nebras kan on Jan. 31 concerning gay/lcs bian scholarships. Mike, you arc entitled to your opinion, homophobic as it may be, but so am I. This is a free country (the last I heard), and if someone wants to set up a scholarship fund, whatever the criteria, good for them. Every scholarship has criteria, whether aca demic, athletic, financial, cultural or otherwise. If you want to set up a scholarship for “straight” people, Mike, go ahead. I may even apply. Everyone deserves the right to get an education. As far as I am con cerned, I hope the scholarship fund increases and Rodney Bell is able to award scholarships to gays and lesbi ans. If you don’t like that, Mike, that’s fine, but don’t decide if other people's lifestyles arc “immoral.” You really don’t sound like an impartial judge. Tami Terryberry sophomore secondary education Arguments demonstrate bigotry 1 am responding to the letter pub lished Jan. 30 in the Daily Nebraskan from Mike McCoy staling that the new scholarship for gay/lcsbian stu dents would promote immorality. McCoy’s arguments arc a fright ening display of bigotry at its worst. Ill-informed and unsupported opin ions about the worth and value of fellow human beings have no place in a center of higher learning. I saw with dismay that the writer’s vitriolic blurb took no account of the idea that it is the “fear.of the different” that cre ates an atmosphere of intolerance and hatred. It is ludicrous to suppose that a person’s sexual orientation deter mines his or her worth. The problem with McCoy’s re marks is that they reflect the ongoing and persistent bigotry that flourishes, even in places like the University of Nebraska-Lincoln -- dedicated to the expansion and enhancement of the human mind and spirit. Daniel Kurck Ann Van Allen Pat Donovan graduate students music ^ " weu. , I’ve maps the African national CONGRESS LEGAL... PO^T UX>£ SO SMOG.THE V>.5. AND BRITAIN ARE CONGRATULATING US. AFRICANS ARE DANCING IN the streets , meanwhile we still. have the noting power IN THE RICHEST COUNTRY IN AFRICA... ALL IN ALU IT 'S SEEN A GOOD WEEK. IN POLITICS. ,|||-|f ^ . W > . <r\ s~<\T y <0 ?*£ SOUTH 'Si |’%RICf\ O 19% MAr«sV*n Even flag burners, KKK have rights When actions and words are stifled, ideas and beliefs are next I he KKK look my baby away. — The Ramones hat’s a quote from a super cool, long-haired, classic punk — band. When I was in high school, that line used to bounce around my head as 1 walked from speech and drama class to creative writing or geometry (“They took her away, away from me”). Sometimes it inhibited my ability to concentrate on geome try. Sometimes it helped me in crea tive writing. It was a catchy tunc. But why did the KKK take Joey’s girl? Just because it rhymed? I don’t think so. The Ramones easily could have sung about the PTA taking their babies away. It still would have re verberated in my skull, and it even might have made me laugh. But the PTA doesn’t put the fear of God in young boys, at least not in those who aren’t too deviant. Words and letters, depending on their usage, arc power ful. The KKK is scary. The song conjured concrete images. Last week in my communications law class, we talked about the First Amendment, as one might expect. Specifically, we were asked whether we would allow the KKK to hold a rally at Benson Park in Omaha. Ben son Park is in a predominately black part of the city. i agrcca wun many ol my com rades that no mailer whai the subject of speech, organizations should be permitted to demonstrate so long as they do so on either their own or public property and do not personally harass individual bystanders. Surprisingly, at least for me, some of my fellow journalists disagreed. They protested that such a rally was sure to incite a riot, and that the city would have a justified interest in protecting its citizens from such vio lence. They had a good argument. The government is there to protect its citi zens, and 1 like safety as much as anyone else. The dissenters pointed to the vagueness of the First Amend ment and gave good reasons why it should be applied differently in dif fcrcntcascs. Given the quality of their arguments, it’s hard for me to say that I’m absolutely right and they’re wrong. I will anyway. In the 1960s, blacks were strug gling for basic human rights. Martin Luther King, Jr., among others, or ganized many rallies, marches and assorted protests. The purposes were many, but one big one was to prod whites into violence against them. Not only would the televised vio lence evoke sympathy from North erners, but it would force the federal government into action against the white supremacists. Knowing these things, King as sembled demonstrators and had them march and protest in downtown Bir mingham, Ala. - a place where vio lent reaction was virtually assured. It came, and King accomplished his objectives. The city was forced to negotiate segregation and employ ment. Who among us would have told King that he did not have the right to Brandon Loomis demonstrate in downtown Birming ham simply because there was a dan ger of violence? Not I. Some of you might argue that King’s cause justified the action. I agree, but it is not my responsibility -- or anyone else’s — to decide whose cause is right and whose is not. Klansmcn arc evil in my book. Klansmcn arc not evil in their book, and I don’t have to read their book. If they rally in Ben son Park, I will call them stupid, but not outlaws. ror a long umc, many judges, in tellectuals and University of Nebraska Lincoln journalism professors have espoused the doctrine of a free mar ketplace of ideas. The idea is that the remedy for bad speech is good speech, not suppression of speech. This is a freedom which is much more impor tant to me than the freedom I enjoy in the marketplace of goods. Capital ism, schmapitalism. As long as I can think and speak for myself I’ll stay in this country. My religious beliefs arc consid erably different from those of what I perceive to be the majority in this country. When I was a young boy attending Sunday school at a baptist church, my brother and I were told that blacks descended from Cain — who 1 guess is this really shady char acter. My best friend at the time was black. Since then, I’ve had little use for religion and have gravitated toward agnosticism. Even though the majority of people in this country think agnostics are nuts, I have the right to voice my minority opinion in the Daily Nebras kan. I even have the right to say that everyone else should be like me. Although I would never use that right, I like having it. It makes me feel like a full citizen. Klansmcn may be of a minority opinion, but so long as those indi victuals cto not promote tncir views with violence, I will treat them as full, evil citizens. I don’t want anybody stepping on my toes, so I won’t step on theirs. I think everybody probably has a toe or two waiting to be stomped. Last week, UNL was treated to a First Amendment debate between two experts from opposite sides of the universe. Nat Hentoff, a writer for the liberal newspaper The Village Voice, argued that the amendment protects the expression rights of all individu als. William Rusher, publisher of the National Review, agreed, but said that expression, which is deliberately and unnecessarily offensive to oth ers’ beliefs, may be restricted. Everything Hentoff said was cool. Some of what Rusher said was gar bage. If I were to bum an American Hag, I clearly would be deliberately offending the values of others. Bui would it be unnecessary? If I feel strongly enough toexpress my dislike for some policy or other, would it be enough for me to say, “I feel strongly enough to burn this flag, but I guess I won’t because it will offend your values?” Maybe the policy unneces sarily offends my values. I believe it would not be out of line for me to offend the values of those who offend mine. r-'_.1_n_I__ l/lnnr K Ul lllv I lllvJI v, lld^ I'll I IiV-l 31 men and general jerks probably do more to bring out the best in us than to seriously threaten our values. When the Hag-burning thing erupted, most Americans rallied around the Hag with a renewed sense of nationalism. Whether that is good or not, we seem to think it is, and we have only the Hag burners to thank for it. When the KKK acquired a time slot on a public-access television sta tion in Kansas City, Mo., the commu nity was outraged and the city council put an end to the show. The courts to this point, however, have rightly upheld the KIan’s right to broadcast. If the KKK couldn’t have a show, if it couldn’t rally in Benson Park, if it were told that it had to succumb in its speech to the will of the majority, we would cease to worry. We would cease to care. We would erroneously be lieve that society is perfect. The power of words and expres sions scares people. It shouldn’t. Words and expressions arc what make us human. If people who disagreed with me were forced to keep their mouths shut, I would have no reason to think. I hope the KKK keeps throwing ma terial at me. Loomis is a senior news-editorial major, the Daily Nebraskan wire editor and an edi torial columnist.