Pr FrHfnri^l NelVraskan
f JL lr JL JL OL JL Tuesday, April 17,1990
(Daily
Nebraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Amy Edwards, Editor, 472-1766
Bob Nelson, Editorial Page Editor
Ryan Steeves, Managing Editor
Erie [’fanner, Associate News Editor
Lisa Donovan, Associate News Editor
Brandon Loomis, Wire Editor
Jana Pedersen, Night News Editor
Divestment needed
Ties with racists, though, aren’t needed
Monday, African National Congress representative
Shuping Coapogc urged students to pressure the
university to drop its tics with companies that do
business in South Africa.
Those of us who arc concerned about the actions of our
community should follow his advice.
Last week, NU Foundation President Terry’ Fairfield said the
foundation has some minor South African investments with no
plans to divest them.
Students who arc serious about the cultural pluralism touted
y on this campus should lake offense at Fairfield’s and the
foundation’s stance.
Investing in corporations that play under South Africa’s
rules is lending consent to the practices of the South African
government. Those practices - while there recently has been
much talk to the contrary -- still tightly adhere to policies of
apartheid.
Ana a university -- especially one tnat screams so louaiy
against racism -- is no place jfor ties with a racist government.
At face, wc cannot stop corporations from doing business in
South Africa. After all, companies that continue to concern
themselves with South Africa are doing so to make money,
f choosing to ignore the problems they help to foster.
Wc can, however, cut our tics with those corporations to
f show tnat we will not tolerate either apartheid or condoning
apartheid Through that means, with time, those corporate cx
I ecutives may realize the flaws in their South African business
| practices.
But unless people begin the process in their own communi
ties, that message never will get through.
While wc gather against racial discrimination on our own
campus, wc are, in effect, supporting the most blatant form of
racial discrimination in the world today.
| Only by forcing our own leaders to divest from those
interests can we honestly say that wc. arc concerned about the
struggle toward cultural pluralism.
- Amy Edwards
for the Daily Nebraskan
Sale of Pro-Choice T-shirts
provokes student’s response
I would like to respond to Bruce A
Gregg’s letter to the editor (DN, April
13). As a devout Episcopalian and a
Wesleyan alumni (the class of 1989),
1 feel with respect that Mr. Gregg is
right in protesting that the T-shirts do
indeed offend some Catholics and
other Protestants like me. However, 1
would like to point out that freedom
of speech is a fundamental right we
exercise in our daily lives, no matter
what college we arc in. What Mr.
Gregg said about being a Christian
and as a firm believer in c;vil rights
moved me a lot. 1 do believe in civil
rights as a cause to change the world
in the 1990s. 1 had an interesting talk
with a friend the other day. We dis
cussed the question, “Why arc the
1990sdifferent?” My friend said that
the reason for this is that the world is
changing so much and it affects eve
rything. Yes, we are going through a
tough time of searching for the Truth.
We all feel that the selling of T-shirts
poses a question of whether social
conscientiousness causes it to be valid
or invalid.
Perhaps Mr. Gregg is very careful
in not spreading his beliefs to the
people. Truth is very significant in
discussions with others in order to
solve the dilemma. I know abortion is
a difficult topic we tend to avoid
ourselves, but the Students for Choice
is sometimes insensitive to others’
beliefs and values by satirizing His
Holiness Pope John Paul II in a de
meaning way. What if the Archbishop
of Canterbury, the spiritual leader of
three million Anglicans around the
world, secs his image on the T-shirt
made by the same group? Yes, His
Grace would feel really offended by
il and demand an official apology
from the group. The Students for
Choice needs to learn that it must use
Truth in dealing w ilh what il wants to
say to the university students. Free
speech helps us to organize our feel
ings and opinions in a mature and
rcspons.olc manner so others can
respect it in the near future.
Let me return to the question of
whether the issue of selling the T
shirts is valid or invalid. I would say
that the issue merits a valid matter
because it is indeed protected by the
First Amendment. No matter how my
Christian and non-Christian friends
feel about the selling of T-shins, the
First Amendment is a cornerstone in
shaping the values and beliefs our
nation instills in our children and
grandchildren. The valid matter can
not hurt our feelings toward others
who disagree with the ideals we be
lieve in. The true reason is that we
will always love each other despite
our differences, according to the Holy
Bible. I do like my dear friends, both
at the university and at Nebraska
Wesleyan University, for what they
arc, and 1 admire them for their won
derful ideals and values they leach
me to accept.
1 pray that my letter will inspire
many friends and others to look be
yond in their later lives. Thank you
very much.
Thomas J. Heeren
graduate student
joumalism/English
T>*'\
:f/f '
\u -
Restructuring bill compromised
Legislature’s knee-jerk reactions leave important issues hanging
The 91st Nebraska Legislature
recently completed its second
session, which could have gone
down as the most unproductive gath
ering of lawmakers in history.
Instead, senators tried to redeem
themselves at the close of the session
by passing several important pieces
of legislation, including LB 1141,
which will create a stronger Coordi
nating Commission for Posisccondarv
Education if Nebraska voters approve.
Although the bill appears to be a
step forward in improving the coordi
nation of higher education in Ne
braska, it is nowhere near the im
provement proposed by another piece
of lcgislauon, LR239CA, which wasn’t
approved.
LR239CA would have created a
board of trustees for each of seven
higher education institutions in Ne
braska, including the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln. It also would have
replaced the existing NU Board of
Regents and the State College Board
of Trustees with a single board of
regents for all seven institutions.
I attended the meeting last fall
where the basis for the restructuring
proposal in LR239CA was suggested
by the Chicago-based consulting firm
Widmaycr and Associates. The con
sultants’ report was the result of a
lengthy study conducted by the firm
as called for by the Legislature.
The request for a study of Ne
braska higher education was called
for in legislation that was supposed to
add Kearney State College to the
University of Nebraska system.
I went to last fall’s meeting ex
pecting Widmaycr and Associates to
explain why or why not KSC should
become part of N U. Instead, the con
sultants shed light on something en
tirely new for Nebraska higher edu
cation - there is a difference between
coordinauon and governance, and those
different duties should be taken care
of by different entities.
Tbc separation dealt with one aspect
in particular: budget control. The
consultants said a coordinating board
should have no direct authority over
budget. Budget is something that
should be reserved for a governing
board.
There was almost no mention of
KSC in the consultants’ report. But if
Nebraska higher education were re
structured as the consultants suggested,
there would have been no NU system
for KSC to join. All seven of the
largest Nebraska institutions would
have been in the same coordinating
system.
The immediate reaction to the
consultants’ study on the day of its
release w as less than enthusiastic, to
say the least. There were a lot o(
astonished looks, shaken heads and
“we’ll take a look at il”s.
And as 1 sal there thinking what a
great concept the separation of coor
dination and governance was, I also
thought to myself, “The Legislature
will never go for it.” A few days
later, my instincts seemed wrong,
some senators gave initial support to
the idea.
Later, legislation was introduced
and debate ensued over the proposed
restructuring, which would require a
constitutional amendment.
Arguments that the proposal was a
knee-jerk reaction to last year’s firing
of former NU President Ronald
Roskens surfaced. And some didn’t
think the governor should appoint so
many of the members of the various
boards. Others felt the restructuring
would create an unwieldy bureauc
racy, w ith each trustee board fighting
for its own territory instead of work
mg together.
In my mind, I wrote off all the
arguments in favor of the separate
coordination and governance ideal.
Dispelling the knee-jerk accusa
tions was easy. Those who came up
with the restructuring idea were
members of an outside consulting firm
who wouldn’t have been influenced
by Roskens’ firing. The intent of getting
an outside opinion was to avoid knee
jerk political reactions.
Although I wasn’t entirely sure
appointment of so many board mem
bers was a great idea, 1 told myself
election ol board mcmlx'rs sometimes
is a popularity contest that doesn’t
always produce the most qualified
contributors. I hoped, perhaps naively,
that a governor would be smart enough
to select more qualified appointees.
And having a board that governs
only UNL would be an asset, bringing
governance closer to home. Accusa
tions of territoriality occur under the
present system of governance and
will occur under any system of gov
ernance. At least I would be able to
bring my problems to a multiple
member board instead of a non-vot
ing student regent.
Plus, there was talk of giving stu
dents an official vote on the board.
Finally, there was hope of the repre
sentation students had fought lor and
deserved. My support grew stronger
than ever.
Amendments were added to the
restructuring proposal, includn gone
to reduce the number of trustee hoard
members to five and one to add a
voting student member. But there still
wcrccomplaints, the loudest of which
came from the regents, who didn’t
like the proposal for the new board of
regents to have no real budgetary
power.
The end of the session drew nearer,
and the Legislature couldn’t get away
from abortion bills. It looked like the
restructuring proposal was doomed.
Until the final day. After bargain
ing with unhappy regents, a compro
mise was reached in LB 1141, and
everyone seemed to be happy with
getting a little of what they wanted.
Except me.
Where, in all the mess of amend
ments and compromises, had the ideal
of separation of coordination and
governance gone? Where was the
official vote for students? What hap
pened to the Kearney State issue?
LB 1141 gives more power to the
coordinating commission and takes
some away from the regents. But each
group would have some budgetary
power a failure of the coordination
vs. governance ideal.
And there is no mention ol a vot
ing student commission member or
regent, or what to do with KSC in
LB1141.
It seems to me that the result ol all
thiscompromisc is nothing more than
a knee-jerk reaction to the end ol
session deadline. In an effort to get
something, anything accomplished,
legislators gave up on the important
issues. Once again, politics prevails
over progress.
Senators were unable to initiate
what could have been a positive change
in Nebraska higher education. Now',
separation of coordination and gov
ernance seems dead, the official stu
dent vote issue seems lost, and the
addition of KSC to NU still is up in
the air.
It’s a shame that a year’s worth ol
work had to be scrapped in its most
crucial moments. It’s a bigger shame
that Nebraska legislators were will
ing to compromise the most impor
tantelcments of the restructuring plan
just to gel something done.
Pedersen is a sophomore advertising
major and a l>aily Nebraskan night news
editor and columnist.