_M Eric Pfanner, Editor, 472-1766
OailV Bob Nelson, Editorial Page Editor
T { J 1 Victoria Ayotle, Managing Editor
£5 nrn C Bef" ^-1 Be Jana Pedersen, Associate News Editor
X W JL €4u»3r-CWBL*. B. Emily Rosenbaum, Associate News Editor
University of Nebraska-Uncoin Diane Brayton, Copy Desk Chief
Brian Shellito, Art Director
. Skewed logic
Women deserve equal military schooling
In the afterglow of the military orgasm in the Persian Gulf,
it may be considered bad form to criticize any aspect of
the armed forces. The war was heralded as the beginning
] of a new type technologically and morally impeccable U.S.
J armed forces.
Part of the new family fighting machine was the increasingly
important role played by women. One woman became the first
female U.S. prisoner of war.
But even as the nation welcomes her back along with the
I other swaggering heroes, questions remain about the military
mindset toward women. The armed forces have not been
emasculated.
Two state-supported military academies, Virginia Military
Institute and the Citadel in South Carolina, still have male-only
i admissions policies. A trial of VMI’s policy began this week,
challenged in court by the U.S. government.
The issue is a simple case of discrimination. It should not
| even be in court; women should have been allowed into the
■ institution a long time ago.
But strangely, the arguments in the case are not even about
discriminatory policy. They are about another type of discrimi
I nation — the harassment women face at other military institu
! tions.
i Admitting women to VMI, a lawyer said last week, would
open women to the kind of harassment they have been the
victims of at West Point and the U.S. Army’s academy. He
I said 150 incidents of harassment had occurred there since 1976,
| when women first were admitted.
VMI’s argument goes as follows: Because women arc
| harassed at West Point, they should not be admitted to the
I Virginia school. Government lawyers counter that the incidents
j are exaggerated, and that women fit in fine at West Point.
Both sides use the same skewed logic that attempts to justify
2 rape in our society. Instead of punishing the perpetrators of the
1 wrongdoing, we make the victims responsible. If women arc
| harassed at military institutions, the harassment should be
\ stopped, not the women’s attendance.
And, despite the protestations of government lawyers, har
assment does occur in the military. On Wednesday, a Navy in
| vestigative team released a 500-page report, saying that sexual
harassment is common in the service.
Over the last three years, the number of reported rapes at
Navy bases has increased by 55 percent, according to the
investigation, which was prompted by incidents last fall at the
| Naval Training Center in Orlando, Fla., and at the U.S. Naval
Academy in Annapolis, Md.
VMI says the best way to avoid such problems is to keep the
j women away. Its glossed-over justification: Women would de
| stroy male camaraderie and privacy. Thai’s a reckless position
that only perpetuates sexual harassment and rape by tacitly
| allowing it.
Until conservative military minds admit that a problem
| exists, the men of VMI will fail to receive a complete educa
Ition. And rape will continue to be just an aggressive form of
male bonding. _E.F.P.
DN editorial distorts law
your editorial criticizing i,niei
Justice Rehnquist and the other
“conservative” justices for seemingly
favoring coerced confessions in crimi
nal trials seriously distorts the law
and those justices’ policy (DN, April
2).
Coerced confessions have been
inadmissible evidence in criminal trials
since the late 19th century. They will
be inadmissible for centuries to come
even if there are eight more justices
on the Supreme Court to the right of
even Rehnquist.
You seem shocked for those jus
' tices’ stating that admitting evidence
of a coerced confession might some
times be a harmless error in a crimi
nal trial. You ignore long-standing
policy that holds the admission of
other kinds of unconstitutionally ob
tained evidence to sometimes have
been harmless error as well.
For example, evidence that the
police obtain by illegal searches
sometimes gets before the jury even
though it should not; nevertheless,
reviewing courts consider the “dam
age” such evidence does to a defen
dant’s trial by harmless error stan
dards.
Also, even if a defendant success
fully suppresses his out-of-court
admissions before the trial begins, if
he decides to testify in his own de
fense, the prosecutor is free to use
those same suppressed statements to
impeach the defendant’s credibility.
This also has been standard policy for
about 20 years. Is that shocking to
you aiso:
It is very possible that the errone
ous admission at trial of a defendant's
out-of-court statements completely
spoils his chances for a fair trial.
Personally, I agree with your edi
torial and I think it is reasonable to
say that whenever a prosecutor uses
such evidence when he or she should
not have, the whole trial should be
thrown out.
However, it is also reasonable to
give some consideration to the ho|>e
lessly overworked judges, prosecu
tors and public defenders. In typical
cases, hearings on whether to sup
press defendants’ statements cither
lake place shortly before the trial
begins, or are heard by judges as
signed solely to hear dozens of mo
tions a day. In neither docs the judge
really have enough time to decide as
carefully she would like.
Is it fair then to have the convic
tion of that defendant thrown out years
later on the appellate judges’ more
leisurely second-guess of the trial
judge’s hasty decision when there
otherwise was overwhelming corrobo
rating evidence of guilt? Maybe it is
not.
Perhaps the Daily Nebraskan edi
tors should visit a big city court sys
tem in operation, such as in Kansas
City, Chicago or St. Louis, before
they make such easy editorials about
our rights.
Stanford L. Sipple
Lincoln
DAVID DALTON
Religion meets supply, demand
Surprisingly enough, religion is
hot copy lately. Hell made the
cover of U.S. News and World
Report’s March 25 issue. And in
December, Newsweek ran a special
report on the growing number of
American churchgoers.
Despite my first impulses, I have
to think it would be a little hasty to
write this off as more of the pulpish
sort of newsmaking we’ve inherited
from USA Today, et al. The maga
zines have got to be hearing this stuff
somewhere. Is America really in the
throes of revival?
If so, it’s hard to see. The United
States is just about neck and neck
with Europe as forerunner for the
most pagan culture on the planet.
At any rate, religion is not a vital
and dynamic element in our society
any more than, say, public television.
It is not the font that gives forth our
great an, great music or our great
thought. Not because the potential
isn’t there — religion, and not only
that of the Christian tradition, has
elsewhere and clscwhcn been the single
most powerful creative force in cul
ture. However, the fact of the matter
is that most of what religion is simply
does not speak to the post-modern,
Western consciousness.
In our world the focus is not on
salvation, but on self-actualization.
Not on meditation, but on aerobics.
In the ’60s, when John Lennon
said the Beatles were more popular
than Christ, he was probably right. It
was really a very salient observation.
Teenagers then, like today, probably
weren't responding with tears and
screams of euphoria when their par
ents woke them for church on Sunday
mornings.
Of course, the other half of this
story is that by and large, nobody took
Lennon’s words simply at face value.
Many people read them as heresy,
and the resulting anger erupted in
Beatles album bonfires — an inter
esting comment in itself. Today you’d
be lucky to raise an eyebrow with so
tepid — by today’s standards — a
statement.
The point is that if the figures of a
I
Increasingly.
churches have
adopted the busi
ness. tactic of
modifvine their
product to coin
cide with de
mand. If the old
line isn’t getting
them in the pews.
then theylll find
something that
does.
more churched America arc supposed
lo reflect some major turnaround in
public sentiment, we’re a long way
off.
This being the case, the back-to
church trend would seem somewhat
perplexing, that is, if you assume the
religion being picked up today is the
same one that fell by the wayside
years ago. Rest assured, it is not.
For example, Americans are now
interested in self-awareness and shar
ing emotions and support groups. So
church and religion are becoming these
things. Not that emotion sharing and
group supporting are bad; they’re just
ridiculous. Moreover, they have noth
ing to do with religion.
Instead, these and other “extras”
have the effect of sapping the life out
of religion by diverting attention from
its core of beliefs. Rather than being a
means of communicating some per
ceived truth, religion becomes more
likea social organization with a meta
physical rubber stamp.
It’s a testament to our high level of
sophistication. We’ve reached the stage
where we’re so open-minded and
uncritical that our ideas have lost all
their fire. Such things as value and
merit have become outdated, and we
now esteem things primarily on the
basis of their utility to societv or to
one’s own self. If a religion is better
or worse, it’s not because of any in
trinsic factors (Is it true?), but rather
because of its effects (What does it
provide lor me?).
Along these lines, going back to
God is made even easier in our soci
ety by the diversity of choices we
have on the theological buffet. If
Unitarianism seems too abstract and
Catholicism too strict, maybe you
could try a little Methodist with a side
of Episcopalian. Or if you like some
thing that’s a little better aged, Luth
eranism may be just the vintage for
you.
Increasingly, churches have adopted
the business tactic of modifying their
product to coincide with demand. If
the old line isn’t getting them in the
pews, then they’ll find something that
does.
Americans have taken the rules of
a market economy and applied them
to the gamut of belief systems, ex
pecting to be able to find the perfect
religion for them, form-fitted and tailor
made. The justification being, I guess,
that it doesn’t matter what your reli
gion is, as long as you’ve got it.
This pick-and-choose illogic
doesn’t end once a person gets inside
the door, however. It runs all the way
down through every last point ol
doctrine. Churchgoers, accommodated
by ministers who want most to fill
their churches, take from the faith
what they want and leave the rest.
And this, really, is the heart ol the
problem.
“Religion without dogma,” says
G. K. Chesterton, “is like a body
without bones.” If so, then, to put it
blandly, there’s a lot of mush out
there.
And if that’s all that the institution
of religion is going to be, why even
have it?
Dalton is a Junior education major and a
Daily Nebraskan columnist.
-LETTER POLICY
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief letters to the editor from all
readers. Letters will be selected for
publication on the basis of clarity,
originality, timeliness and space
readability. The Daily Nebraskan
retains the right to edit letters.
Letters should be typewritten and
less than 500 words.
Anonymous submissions will not
be published. Letters should include
the author’s name, address, phone
number, year in school and group af
filiation, if any.
Submit material to the Daily Ne
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R
St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.