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.