Readers deride Lied, DN, disagree on war protests
Lied’s accessibility
to handicapped
called appalling
A story in the Feb. 2, the Lincoln
Star reveals that the only elevator
providing access for people with
physical disabilities in the Lied Cen
ter was shut down about a month after
the facility opened last February
because it is unsafe. The article also
states that the elevator does not have
space for a person to accompany a
person in a wheelchair, nor does it
have a safety gate, “which could cause
a wheelchair to become caught in
elevator apparatus or cause a person
in a wheelchair to catch a hand, for
example, between the chair and the
wall of the lift.” I am appalled that
such a dangerous inadequate appara
tus was chosen for installation in a
brand new multimillion dollar build
ing on the UNL campus and that it
could be inoperable for nearly a year
with officials unable or unwilling to
either fix it or install a safe, workable
elevator.
Although, as the story points out,
access to the Lied has been available
through the Johnny Carson Theater,
no one seems to have realized that
this still causes severe problems for
some people. The only handicapped
parking at the Lied is near the front
door; therefore, a person must walk
the entire block, up a ramp, and then
several hundred yards within the build
ing to get to her or his seat. Such a
walk leaves some people exhausted
and frustrated; some people with heart
problems simply may not be able to
do it. When I called the Lied to ask
about this, a spokesperson told me
that there was no handicapped park
ing near the Johnny Carson Theater
because “those people” usually have
someone else drive them! He did not
know that some of “those people”
drive themselves.
I call on university officials to
rectify this situation immediately. Their
actions so far show no real under
standing of what accessibility means
or why it is important.
• Barbara J. Di Bernard
associate professor
English
Soldiers regard
war protests
as personal attack
In response to Jon Dokter’s letter
(DN, Feb. 12), you are totally wrong
about a soldier’s feelings. Contrary to
your beliefs, protests do affect sol
diers. I was an active duty army sol
dier for three years. I know how a
soldier thinks and feels. When you
and your peacenik friends protest, the
soldier secs it as a personal attack on
him or herself.
The soldier is in the military to
protect your freedom and rights. When
they see a protester jumping up and
down yelling “No Blood for Oil,” it
affects them in a very profound way.
You see, it’s the soldier’s blood that
might be spilled. The soldier is will
ing to die for you. Yet you will spit on
them when they come home. So you
and your peacenik friends just keep
on protesting. Don’t worry, the sol
dier WILL protect your freedom and
rights. Just don’t act like you know
how a soldier feels, because you
don’t!!! .
Adam Tyrrell
freshman
computer science
‘Support troops’
slogan becoming
ambiguous, unclear
What, precisely, does “supporting
the troops’’ mean? A lot of people
keep saying it lately, even those who
don’t support the war. But how can
anyone “support the troops by at
tacking the war they’re fighting?
Does “supporting the troops” mean
that we should hang Hags from every
slick and cover the country with
hundreds of thousands of yellow rib
bons?
-LETTERStoe editor
Does “supporting the troops” mean
we should — at all costs — avoid
another Vieuiam and the shameful
treatment of its veterans? And to this
end, should we fall on Iraq like a
wrathful host of metal and fire furies,
destroying as much as we can, as
quick as we can?
How far must we go? Does “sup
porting the troops” require us to hate
Iraqi people, as our soldiers are taught?
It bothers me that people insist we
“support the troops” by supporting
the war, as if the two were synony
mous. They’re not.
As citizens of a participant de
mocracy, is it not only a right, but an
obligation of each of us to let our
minds be known? And, if we honestly
disagree with the war, for which our
troops are dying and killing, shouldn’t
we say so?
It seems a queer sort of logic, don’t
iyou think, to say that we should
“support the troops” to lift their mo
rale, yet it is obvious that the best
possible thing for their morale would
be to come home alive!
Joe Bowman
senior
anthropology
First Amendment
freedoms precious
but not absolute
A lot of debate has taken place on
the editorial page concerning the right
to debate. While I happen to support
our current action in the Persian Gulf,
I also fully support the right to protest
for those who wish to do so. How
ever, I feel certain distinctions need
to be made. Not all methods of pro
testing are entitled to special protec
tion.
First Amendment freedoms are
precious. They ought to be defended.
People who use their freedom of speech
to debate the policies of their govern
ment have a constitutionally protected
right to do so.
Opponents of government policies
who bring honest, reasoned arguments
to the debate are entitled to be treated
with respect.
However, waving a banner calling
for victory by Saddam Hussein, as
some protesters did during an anti
war demonstration in Washington, is
a gross abuse of the freedom of speech.
So is asserting that the president of
the United States is a murderer who
steered the country into war to im
prove his reelection prospects, or to
divert the country’s attention from
domestic economic problems.
Those aren’t statements of opin
ion. Those are lies, and lies have no
place in the national debate over U.S.
policy in the Middle East.
Not cverytning said or done in the
name of dissent deserves constitu
tional protection. As Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes wrote in 1919, “The
most stringent protection of free speech
would not protect a man in falsely
shouting fire in a theater and causing
a panic.”
Justice Holmes wrote those words
as part of a unanimous opinion in
which the U.S. Supreme Court up
held the conviction of defendants who
had promoted draft resistance during
World War I. Justice Holmes sai<i the
Constitution doesn’t protect words
that “create a clear and present dan
ger dial they will bring about evils
that Congress has a right to prevent.”
Things have been done in the name
of dissent that went far beyond the
bounds of constitutionally protected
expressions of opinion. The bombing
of campus buildings to protest the
Vietnam War was one. The vandaliz
ing of missile sites in the 1980s was
anodier. The First Amendment doesn’t
guarantee the right to take the law
into one’s own hands.
Just as there are legal bounds, there
are also bounds of taste. War protest
ers who shout down lecturers whose
opinions about U.S. foreign policy
are not the same as the “Politically
Correct” campus view, do not enjoy
special privileges. Nor should cretins
who boo the singing of the national
an them at the football game enjoy
any special protection. They ought to
be escorted promptly from the sta
dium.
Andrew Meyer
junior
pre-med
Reader restates
views on protest,
freedom of speech
This is in response to Jim Friend’s
letter (DN, Feb. 8).
It appears that you m issed the point
of my last letter. I seriously doubt you
want to reread the letter, so let me
restate the points so they are perfectly
clear.
1) Assumptions and labels do noth
ing to further your argument, espe
cially when they don’t fit. You la
beled others as “loud-mouthed, long
haired, unkempt professional protest
ers” for holding some of your own
views. That, Jim, is hypocrisy. Un
less, of course, you label them that for
only holding some of your views and
not all. That would not be hypocrisy,
but it would be something much worse.
(I won’t specify since you seem to
take my views personally).
2) I he world is not black and white,
and there is no right or wrong. Dis
senters are not wrong; they simply
dissent And yes, it is possible to
support the troops and not support the
reason they are there. I support the
troops and wish for them to quickly
succeed and return home. That doesn’t
mean I think they should have been
sent in the first place. Another ques
tion I have, though, is do they know
you have been appointed to represent
their views? Are we to take it on blind
faith that they find my position unten
able?
3) Yes, Jim, you have a right to
express your views. If you had read
my letter you would have seen that I
did not question that. What I said was
that others have a right to express
their views without being labeled
treasonous or unpatriotic. I find your
analogy to flag burning and the KKK
marches in Skokie, 111., troubling. Are
you suggesting that the right exists,
but that no one should be able to
practice that right because it is
“wrong?” If so, then it would be a
pretty illusory right. And the seman
tics are oxymoronic if a “right” can
be “wrong.” But I digress.
4) As for the “blatant manipula
tion and misrepresentation,” I hardly
think so. Show me where I misrepre
sented or manipulated anything you
said. If you can, then I will apologize.
5) Lastly, the attacks were not
1~»*~A~A __-_A I __
iiiiviiuvu iu uv i wiiui , aiiu i am
sorry if you took them to be. You
either ignored or disbelieved me when
I wrote that I respect you and your
convictions. If I wanted to attack you,
I would have called you various names,
some of them probably libelous (that
is, of course, if they were untrue). I
didn’t. I challenged your views. I do
respect you, Jim, and I understand
your views. I just disagree with you.
And I ask that even if you cannot
respect my convictions and those of
the protesters, at least try to under
stand them before you attack them.
B. Gail Steen
junior
College of Law
DN should run
in-depth story
on fundamentalist
I, too, know of a young man like
Simon, whose story was given in the
last Friday’s Daily Nebraskan. I’ll
call him Paul.
Paul’s life was miserable, a seem
ing “hell on earth,” as Simon de
scribed his junior-high-school years.
There seemed to be no purpose to
Paul’s life. He just didn’t fit. Friends
made fun of him, calling him “sissy”
a lot. Frequent remarks were made
about him behind his back and even
to his face. People wondered if he
would ever have a date. Paul couldn’t
handle all the cruelty that seemed to
find him wherever he went.
He cried out for help and finally
found what he was looking for; a
genuine love and acceptance that he
had desired was now a reality. He
faced his pain directly and found re
lief from it.
So Paul wanted to tell people to
“come out of the closet,” so to speak.
Yet, like Simon, he feared rejection.
“What would people think? ” ques
tioned this young man, “What would
they say? They will still treat me like
I’ve always been treated.”
So the young man finally mus
tered up the courage to tell others his
story. True, he experienced rejection,
but at least he was free, no longer
concealing the true person within.
So why would we not read a full
page story on this young man? Be
cause he is what so many people call
a fundamentalist. This man came into
a personal relationship with Jesus
Christ. But, for some reason, we can
read about the plight of Simon, feel
sorry for him and applaud his courage
to come forth, but we cann jt offer the
same courtesy to the young man who
admitted who he really was inside.
We call Simon brave. We call Paul
narrow-minded. We praise Simon’s
fortitude. We think Paul is ignorant.
We make Simon a hero. We make
Paul a homophobe.
Please try not to place all Chris
tians in the same box and label it
“hypocrite.” Maybe someone will soon
do a story for their depth-reporting
class on the struggle to be a Christian.
Kevin W. Shinn
Lincoln
Oi! spill disaster
makes war hell
for ‘progressives’
To paraphrase George Will: War
really IS hell for “progressives” when
the opponent of American military
intervention creates an environmental
disaster.
Henry Eugene Brass
Lincoln
5-8 P.M. ONLY Lj\
3 Tacos or 3 Softshells i
for only
TACO !
'BELL !
245 N. 13th St. I
j FREE drink refills anytime Location Only j
I Now! 3 Value Menus.
