The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current, July 11, 1991, Summer, Page 4, Image 4

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    v - - „, .
It’s about time
Residency requirements should be raised
Regent Don Blank’s push to heighten residency re
quirements is long overdue.
The requirements are too easy to meet. Out-of
state students are coming to Nebraska for tuition rates that
are cheaper than those in their own states, putting an
undue burden on the university’s resources.
“It is a sham,” Blank said. He is right on the money.
Nebraska citizens pay taxes, and those taxes should go
to support Nebraska students’ educations, not subsidize
out-of-state students. All out-of-state students can prove
residency merely by living in the state for six months and
getting a few credentials, such as a driver’s license and
checking account.
These credentials are simply too easy to obtain. And an
out-of-state student who has lived in the state for six
months is simply not a resident. These students are com
ing to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for a cheap
quality education and taking money from taxpayers.
Nebraska students attending out-of-state universities don’t
find the same benefits.
UNL is already strapped for funds from the state.
Liberal residency requirements exacerbate the situation.
Upping the requirements might deter a few potential
out-of-state students, who are valuable to a diverse uni
versity atmosphere. But out-of-state students should be
attracted by UNL’s quality, not its cheap tuition.
Changing residency requirements would make the
system more fair to Nebraskans and put their tax dollars
to the use they were meant for — educating Nebraskans.
— Victoria Ayoltc
__ f0T it* Daily Nebraskan
Trickle down
Regents should examine hiring methods
The gender equity committee established by the NU
Board of Regents has made a strong start by calling
for accountability from the top.
Regent Charles Wilson of Lincoln, who leads the com
mittee, at its latest meeting urged examining the hiring
and promotion practices of administrators.
Such performance reviews would be sure to pinpoint
where the problems are and what is needed to solve them.
The university, like every bureaucracy, is structured
from the top down. To make significant change in a
system that has women achieving far less salary and
promotion levels than men must start where the decisions
are made.
Such a move might make administrators defensive, but
it would be certain to make them look at their behavior.
Such a review also would prompt those lower down to
* examine their practices.
This trickle down theory would be do more than pay lip
service to gender equity. It would provoke results.
— Victoria Ayotte
for the Daily Nebraskan
editorials represent me opinion oi
the Summer Daily Nebraskan.
The Daily Nebraskan’s publisher
is the NU Board of Regents, which
established the University of Nebraska
Lincoln ruoiicauuiiJ* duoiu iu mi^ui
vise the paper. According to the board
policy, responsibility for the editorii
content lies solely in the hands of th
newspaper’s student editors.
* Is I
Conservative court will assault precedents
Wirnin a penoa oi one year me
highest judicial authority in
the United Slates has sharply
curtailed the rights of the convicted,
fully granted hitherto restricted pow
ers to law enforcement authorities,
muted discussion of the abortion al
ternative in clinics, ruled that news
organizations are not protected under
the First Amendment when violating
promises of confidentiality, and al
lowed states to prohibit nude danc
This recent spate of Supreme Court
decisions can only be described as the
beginning of a massive conservative
challenge to the body of progressive
rulings built up by the Warren and
Burger courts of the past 40 years. In
the words of departing Justice Thur
good Marshal], it is a prelude to “a far
reaching assault upon this court’s
As a political institution, the court
is the most authoritarian branch of a
democratic government. Presidents
may be voted out of office or im
peached. Members of Congress, too,
can be voted out. But justices of the
Supreme Court are members for life
once appointed by the president and
confirmed by Congress. The only check
on judicial power is the Constitution,
which is notoriously subject to inter
pretation and often simply docs not
ftivak In f'vr'rv i«np nn'vnnif'H lv>fnn»
the court.
Largely isolated from checks on
power, the court decides matters of
paramount import. Both Brown vs.
Board of Education, the landmark
decision that forced desegregation in
schools, and Roc vs. Wade, which
struck down state laws that prohib
ited abortion, attest to the court’s ability
to adjudicate matters that strike at the
heart of every one of our lives.
But for all their importance, the
court’s decisions go largely unno
ticed. They do not captivate as presi
dential wars and congressional scan
dals do. Their legalistic phraseology
- more often draws yawns than inter
est, even when enlivened by the news
* media. As a result, a massive change
s in the legal framework of our nation
1‘ proceeds unhindered by public allcn
e lion.
After the reforming Warren Court
The recent mate. q£
Supreme Court deci
sions can only be de
scribed as the begin
nine of a massive con
servative challenge...
of the ’50s and ’60s initiated desegre
gation, enhanced civil liberties, and
disallowed school prayer, the pro
gressive Burger Court of the ’70s
upheld forced student busing to achieve
racial integration, clamped restric
tions on the death penally, and struck
down laws forbidding abortion. But
now the progressive majority of the
court has flagged. Two of the last
stalwarts of old guard progress, Jus
tices Brennan and Marshall, recently
have left the bench. Slocked wilh the
appointees of Presidents Nixon, Re
agan, and Bush, the court has edged
closer to a conservative majority.
Recent rulings confirm thisasscss
mcnt. The most striking of these have
been in the area of criminal law. Even
while videotapes of police beatings in
Los Angeles and Houston reveal what
must be only a liny fraction of all
police brutality, the court is extend
ing even more power to law enforce
ment authorities and steadily eroding
civil liberties. In the case of Florida
vs. Bostic, it ruled that law enforce
ment officials may board buses and
search luggage at random after ask
ing permission. In Arizona vs. Fulmi
nantc, it ruled that coerced confes
sions do not automatically invalidate
convictions. In County of Riverside
vs. McLaughlin, it ruled that persons
may be held in jail for as long as 48
nows w luiuui d tuui wan am.
The Court’s criminal law rulings
have been most striking, but perhaps
equally ominous are its rulings on
free speech. In Rust vs. Sullivan, it
upheld with a slim 5-4 majority fed
eral regulations that prohibit even the
mention of abortion in family plan
ning clinics that may receive federal
funds. Not only does this clamp limits
on a doctor’s free speech, it also in
vades the hitherto sacred doctor-pa
tient relationship. In Cohen vs. Cowles
Media, the court ruled that news or
ganizations are not protected by the
First Amendment if they break prom
ises of confidentiality to sources.
Practically, this means that sources in
places bf power may remain unnamed
when revealing crucial information,
which may be dubious in such a shroud
of anonymity. In Barnes vs. Glen
Theater, the court allowed states to
prohibit nude dancing, an art form
admittedly on the fringe of what rea
sonably may be construed as free
speech, but nonetheless close enough
to make the ruling worrisome.
The vacancy on the court left by
Marshall is soon to be filled by a Bush
nominee who will doubtless be con
servative and inclined to join the recent
a^.xiuiui un ^lu^ivooifv pivwviv....
Barring some scandal, Congress almost
certainly will confirm Bush’s first
nominee, Judge Clarence Thomas.
Invariably described as a conserva
tive, Thomas is a black man who rose
from poverty and racial oppression to
the highest echelons of the legal pro
fession. The nation could doubtless
expect highly judicious and humane
decisions from Thomas, but his oppo
sition to Affirmative Action may
threaten recent strides made toward
racial equity.
With the new Bush appointee, the
court’s composition will be fixed for
a long period. A conservative altitude
will quicken and reactionary majori
ties will solidify as the conservative
court continues to overturn the prece
dents of the Warren and Burger courts.
And Americans can only sit back and
Potter Is a senior physics, philosophy,
math and history mqJor