,4 Eric Pfanner, Editor, 472-1766
JJ^lJy Bob Nelson, Editorial Page Editor
T 1 J *• _ Victoria Ayotte, Managing Editor
I^lJ A C glj Jana Pederstat, Associate News Editor
A r JL, AJLlfcJ-i-I. Emily Rosenbaum, Associate News Editor
University of Nebraska-Uncoln Diane Brayton, Copy Desk Chief
Editorial Board Brian Shel!,u>*Arl Director
I
Let’s get on with it
Coordinating Commission issue, not regents
In November, Nebraska voters said with a constitutional
amendment that they wanted to create an additional level
of governance in the state’s higher education system.
Around the same time, the University of Nebraska’s elected
governing body, the NU Board of Regents, hired a new presi
dent. The board came under fire for its handling of the situ
ation. '
As state Sen. Eric Will of Omaha said, “You’d have to live
under a rock in the Sandhills someplace not to know of the
controversy that exists.”
Most Nebraska voters were not hiding in the Sandhills. They
were registering their anger over Lhe regents’ handling of the
presidency. And in newspaper polls, they indicated by over
whelming margins that they wanted the regents to remain
elected — and therefore accountable.
Voters should have lhat right.
A resolution introduced in the Legislature by Will would
take that right away. His LR6 calls for the regents to be ap
pointed by the governor. Their terms would be shortened from
six to four years.
In theory, Will’s idea is not a bad one. He points out that in
I many other states, the governing bodies for higher education
are appointed, not elected. Popularly elected officials are not
necessarily experts in their fields, as the performance of some
NU regents proves.
bui me consiuuuonai amendment ior a new anu improved
coordinating commission also calls for appointed officials. If
the regents were appointed, they would become merely a
I second level of bureaucracy, enforcing the decisions of other
appointed officials.
Ideally, perhaps, members of the coordinating commission
I would be elected, because under the amendment, they will be
j come the policymaking board. Regents, the day-to-day supervi
; sors of university governance, could then be appointed.
But the one ballot issue took long enough. The coordinating
| commission still won’t have its duties assigned until the Legis
lature passes an implementing bill. The impetus for change
l began two years ago, when an in-depth study of higher educa
tion was authorized.
It’s time for senators to get on with the business at hand —
f the implementation bill for the coordinating commission.
That bill, LB663, would give the commission the power to
review the budgets and programs of Nebraska’s universities
and state and community colleges.
Whether that function is called “coordination” or “govern
ance” is not the issue. Nebraska voters decided that they
(wanted the commission to be an intermediary between the
Legislature and the institutional boards.
The Legislature needs to implement LB663; it also needs to
keep some accountability in the hands of the voters.
—E.F.P.
-LETTERSTSe editor
Law responds, war or no war
It’s around midnight, and for the
last hour a person unknown to you has
been walking around your house or
business for no apparent reason. If
you had been watching, would this be
a “suspicious activity?” I think so.
It was this type of activity ob
served by an UNL Police Officer that
was responsible for the contact of the
author of a letter titled “Terrorism
suspect says country paranoid” (DN,
Feb.5). After reading that letter, I fell
it important to point out some facts to
the author, and others, who may share
his concerns and ideas.
Officers of the UNL Police De
partment contact individuals nightly
to check on their welfare and inten
tions. This type of contact did not
come with the war in the Middle East
nor will it end when that war does. It
has been a method used by police all
over the world to meet the responsi
bility of protecting the citizens of
their communities since police offi
cers were given that charge. One must
realize there are other groups in this
country and the world that were
committing acts of vandalism or vio
lence in the name of various causes
many years before the war started, as
well as individuals who wait for an
opportunity to force themselves on
unprepared or weaker members of
the society. The war has not brought
this one, it merely added another
dimension to an existing problem.
Had the author of the letter needed
help and not been contacted by an
officer driving by, his letter would
probably have been much different in
its content.
It is not “paranoia,” as stated by
the author, which made the officer
contact him. It was a vigilance and
dedication to the job we have as po
lice officers; providing the safest
campus possible for all members and
property of the university commu
nity. We will contact many more people
who have reasonable explanations for
their “suspicious” activities, like the
author did, than we will those who
have negative intentions in their minds.
However, we will continue to stop
and ask questions when the situation
warrants it. To do less would be to
shirk the responsibilities we all ac
cept and attempt to meet when we
enter the law enforcement profession.
The negative comments come with
the job and are accepted because we
know the majority of our community
is more at ease because we arc out
there doing our job.
K.W. Cauble
Chief of Police
University Police Department
PAT PINSLAGE
Love takes work, not romance
It’s the great American love day
— St. Valentine’s. We’re sup
posed to send a card or some
other token to our lover.
Then, 3 1/2 months later, it’s the
wedding month, and we’re supposed
to send wedding invitations. That’s a
pretty fast move from sweetheart to
spouse. Maybe too fast, as the divorce
rate shows.
The United States is one of the few
countries in which young people are
allowed — or forced — to choose
their own life partners, without much
advice or help.
When we hear about countries in
which families, parents or professional
matchmakers do the choosing, we
shudder. We think about the type of
person our parents would pick out for
us, and we shudder some more.
But those countries often have lower
divorce rates than we do. Why? Is it
because divorce just isn’t allowed?
I think it’s because the couple are
not expected to be in love when they
marry. How can that work?
that it’s the day-to-day living that
forms the bond that keeps two people
together for a lifetime; that the initial
“romance rush” is not solid ground on
which to build a marriage.
The trouble is that, unlike other
choices we make in America, such as
the choices of our leaders, laws or
careers, the choice of a spouse is
often not an informed one.
Why do we put less planning into
choosing the person with whom to
share our lives than we do into choos
ing how we cam a living?
Why do we set higher, more con
crete criteria for who will run our
country than we do for the person
who will mold our children?
Why do we become more inter
ested in discovering the origins and
family life of a favorite rock star than
in discovering the environment in
which our intended spouse grew up
— the environment that has a direct
effect on what he or she expects from
a marriage partner?
And why do we leave the whole
thing to chance, expecting love to
drop out of the sky, like bird drop
pings, suddenly hitting us between
the eyes?
I think it’s because we are told the
Great Lie, the myth that all we need is
true love to make everything work
out and live happily ever after. Our
movies, literature, songs and even
families tell us the Lie.
When the romantic rush slipsaway
and reality intrudes, we blame it on
Mavbe those cul
tures have found
that it’s the dav-to
dav livine that
forms the bond that
keeps two people to
gether for a life
time: that the ini
tial_“romance
rush” is not soM
around on which to
build a marriage.
our husband or wife — somehow,
they arc not living up to their part of
the bargain, giving us emotionally all
we want and need. It always happens.
The lucky couples work through it.
Reality hits when a quiet evening
at home means he falls asleep at 9:30
and snores so loud you can’t hear the
television.
Reality hits when you realize she’s
one of those chccrf ul morning people,
and you don’t function on any level
until 9 a.m. on three cups of coffee.
And you realize you’re not going to
be able to mold him or her.
True love — or the romantic love
you had when you stood at the altar—
can’t change reality, solve the prob
lems or lessen the irritations involved
in living with someone day after day,
week after week, month after month.
Tru« love can’t get you more money
or stretch further the money you’ve
got. And when the baby arrives —
which society says should be within
two years or everyone begins to ques
tion potency and/or fertility — true
love doesn’t get the diapers changed
The only thing this kind of roman
tic love does is give us the courage tc
get married in the first place. From
there on in, if we made a good choice
of a partner, and our expectations of
that person aren’t too high, we begin
to learn real love.
How do we avoid this reality intru
sion? How do we stav married to
someone who is not the god or god
dess we thought they were? Do we
want to?
What is it that our parents, grand
parents or other long-married couples
know that keeps them together? What’s
the secret?
I think the secret is that they worked
at it. They talked when they needed
to, whether they wanted to or not.
They listened to and laughed at the
same tired jokes hundreds of times.
They fought fair. They encouraged
each other to grow and change, then
accepted those changes. They did not
expect each other to fill all needs,
wants and desires all the time.
Most of all, I think they made the
decision to stay together over and
over. They stay married because they
want to be with each other, not be
cause some piece of paper said they
owned each other or had to stay. They
worked to build something between
them that would not disappear during
tough times.
No one tells the prospective bride
and groom that the real work is just
beginning when they get married and
that each of them has to decide, every
day of their marriage, whether the
work is worth it.
When two people stand at the al
tar, they have no idea what’s involved
in succeeding in a long-term relation
ship because they haven’t had one
before.
Rather than viewing marriage as
“living happily ever after,” the couple
must view marriage as a commitment
to try — to work harder at this than
they have worked at anything before.
The effort involved in achieving ca
reer success pales in comparison to
the work needed to achieve marital
success.
Maybe America, which is based
on the family, is afraid that if our
young couples are convinced of how
much work marriage is, they will
decide not to get married and the
American family unit will disappear.
The family won’t vanish ifcouples
are told the truth. Maybe there won’t
be as many June weddings. But maybe
there won’t be as many divorces, ei
ther.
Dinslage Is a senior news-editorial major
and a Dally Nebraskan night news editor and
columnist.
