Opinion
Passing the buck
Administration shells ‘the Hill’ again
For weeks, President Bush has tried to play on
voters’ frustrations with Congress by complaining
that he can’t get anything done because of those
stubborn people “up on the Hill.”
Cantankerous Capitol Hill residents prevented early
approval of unemployment benefits, Bush said, making
him look as though he had no compassion for Americans
who have no jobs.
Last week, finally, an agreement was reached on
jobless benefits. Also last week, Congress tried to heed
Bush’s call on a different domestic issue.
The Senate endorsed a plan to place a floating cap on
credit card interest rates. It did so only after Bush on
Tuesday urged banks to lower rates from the 18-19
percent range. Lower interest rates, he said, would make
people spend again. That could bring the economy out of
recession.
On Friday, the stock market experienced a mini-crash,
the fifth-worst drop in its history. Many economists
blamed the collapse on the enthusiasm for the ceiling on
credit cards. Eliminating usurious interest rates, they said,
would dry up the easy credit that makes economic growth
possible. With no plastic, people wouldn’t spend because
they couldn’t spend.
But the Bush administration tried to sidestep blame for
the stock decline.
Jack Kemp, secretary of housing and urban develop
ment, argued that the Senate was actually at fault. Bush’s
appeal for lower interest rates, Kemp said, was merely a
request for bankers to act voluntarily, not for increased
government regulation such as the Senate plan.
But if Bush really believed that bankers would slash the
interest rates merely because he said it would be nice if
they did, he is either naive or he doesn’t understand a
capitalist system.
Banks exist because they can make money. Right now,
however, banks are hurting. Because of the large number
of bank failures recently — many brought on by even
riskier loans made during the 1980s — money lenders
must earn all they can from credit cards.
High credit card interest rates are a risky but profitable
way of making some money to alleviate the financial hurt.
Banks won’t drop their rates simply because the president
fusses about the high price of plastic money.
If Congress passes some sort of flexible ceiling on these
interest rates, Bush once again will have achieved part of
a backhanded domestic agenda. Once again, however, he
will also be able to blame the negative side effects, such
as the stock market drop, on the Democratic Congress.
— E.F.P.
Trading Apollo spacecraft
preserves space heritage
On behalf of the Nebraskans for
the Advancement of Space Develop
ment, I would like to state that we
were gratified to sec your positive
stand regarding the trading of Apollo
009 for a number of valuable space
artifacts. It is in the best interest of
this spacecraft that it be restored by
the Kansas Cosmosphcrc for future
generations to enjoy. We should always
remember that this spacecraft docs
not belong to us as Nebraskans, but it
belongs to all citizens of the United
States whose taxes paid for its devel
opment and to the people of the world
who share in the promise of space.
On the other hand, the altitude
shown in the letter from David Davis
(“UNL bungled Apollo 009 barter,”
DN, Nov. 18) typifies the sad lack of
knowledge about our heritage that is
all too common in regard to not only
the space program in the United States
but also to the efforts of nations around
the world.
Davis may be new to UNL, but he
is also totally uninformed as to space
history. Apollo 009 was a test capsule
used in a sub-orbital flight. It did not
go to the Moon, nor did it have any
crew. It was simply a test vehicle.
The items the Cosmosphcrc has of
fered arc of such historic and educa
tional value as to be deemed price
less. For instance, the Apollo 13
computer is the device that literally
saved the lives of three astronauts.
When a pressurized lank on their craft
ruptured, the injured spacecraft was
already on the way to the Moon, thou
sands of miles from Earth. This on
board computer was used to navigate
Apollo 13 to a safe return to Earth. I
doubt Jim Lovall, Rusty Swigert or
Fred Haisc — the crew of Apollo 13
— would have considered their com
puter to be a piece of “trivial space
junk.”
Craig Cleaver
president
Nebraskans for the Advancement of
Space Development
-LETTER POLICY
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief letters to the editor from all
readers.
Anonymous submissions will not
be considered for publication. Let
ters should include the author’s
name, year in school, major and
group affiliation, if any. Requests to
withhold names will not be granted.
Submit material to the Daily Ne
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R
St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
' f
rs SHE
YiftfCWG.
K
^\UA 7
WALTER GHOLSON
Colleges should remove blinders
One of the most complex issues
facing university administra
tors these days is how to re
tool their institutions to reflect state
and federal mandates for cultural, racial
and gender diversity.
This problem is not going to be
easy to solve because of the long
history of excluding these groups from
mainstream American institutions.
Affirmative action guidelines at
most universities arc at best long
range promises to achieve racial and
gender equity by some far-off date
that has passed several times since
the document was written.
The guidelines arc usually huge
volumeschock full of grandiose plans
for implementing the almost impos
sible dream of equal opportunity for
all Americans regardless of race, creed,
color, sex and sexual orientation, re
ligion, national origin and just about
everything else that has been used to
discriminate against minority groups.
For the most part, they arc collec
tions of wishful-thinking documents
designed to appease federal inspec
tions. In short, they arc hundreds of
words saying the university is “plan
ning” to become an equal-opportu
nity employer as soon as it can locate
some “qualified” people.
Ana lor years, the elusive question
of qualification has been used as the
main reason why most of these “lib
eral” institutions cannot find anyone
from these under-represented groups
whom they believe has the education
and experience to become a member
of their elite academic country club.
As a result of being forced to find
qualified members from those tar
geted groups, the institutions say their
standards must be lowered to find
someone or risk losing funding and
accreditation.
At this point in the game, the old
boys’ network starts to chant “quotas,
quotas” while its spokesmen make
speeches about how unfair it is to
have to hire a person just because of
race or gender.
Maybe I missed something, but
isn’t that the main reason for all those
pages of plans affirming the actions
of universities to provide equal op
Affirmative action
guidelines at most uni
versities are at best
long-range promises
la achieve racial and
sender equity bv some
far-off date that has
passed several times
since the document
mi written.
portunitics for those who have been
locked out of mainstream education
for centuries?
After all, it seems perfectly clear
to me that if all the ducks in the pond
happen to be orange and male, and all
the ducks outside of the pond arc
purple and female, the solution would
be simply to make room for the other
ducks before they forget how to swim.
But in the university pond, the prob
lem seems not to be in the choice of
ducks, but in the size of the pond.
The prevailing fear is that in order
to include qualified ducks of other
genders and colors in the pond of
qualified swimmers, either the pond
must be enlarged or some of the old
boy network ducks must get out of the
water.
And this seems to be one of the
major problems facing our educa
tional institutions when it comes to
implementing their plans for equal
ity: The fear that draining the pond to
enlarge it will uncover those ducks
who haven’t been swimming, just
treading water for the last 20 years;
the fear that after such long and illus
trious careers in pursuit of academic
stagnation, many of these “qualified”
professionals have developed some
thing to replace their webbed feet —
a permanent set of blinders that pre
vents any peripheral vision and keeps
their attention on the security of their
elitism.
As a result, they have become non
functional fixtures in the ivory towers
of academia and arc having a difficult
time with anybody’s suggestions that
they have to change.
But change they must if they arc
seriously committed to providing
challenging educational experiences
for today’s students. To prepare these
students for a future that is not color
or gender-blind, they will have to
undergo some radical surgery.
The real problem here seems obvi
ous. These old ducks have grown
quite fond of their ivory-tower blind
ers and many of them really don’t
want to swim with the landlocked
ducks.
The other day one of my favorite
professors said that if American uni
versities arc really interested in chang
ing their image, they should discard
all that affirmative action jargon. He
said they should just come out front
and say they need a Native American,
a Mexican, an African-American and
a female.
ui course, nc was rignt, out sum
talk means that he runs the risk ol
being labeled quota-happy.
For me, the need for such a simple
solution is also easy to understand.
It’s like being in a race where every
one has been issued track shoes ex
cept you. By the time you get your
shoes, the other runners arc half-way
around the track.
No one wants to talk about why
you weren’t issued shoes, but if you
happen to gel close to the other run
ner, everybody wants to know how
you got your shoes, not why you got
them late.
(i hoi son is a senior news-editorial major
and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.
-:-EDITORIAL POLICY
signed suut editorials represent
the official policy of the Fall 1991
Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by the
Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Its
members are: Jana Pedersen, editor;
Eric Pfanner, editorial page editor;
Diane Brayton, managing editor;
Walter Gholson, columnist; Paul
Domcier, copy desk chief; Brian
•
Shclliio, cartoonist; Jeremy Fitzpa
trick, senior reporter.
Editorials do not necessarily re
flect the views of the university, its
employees, the students or the NU
Board of Regents.
Editorial columns represent the
opinion of the author.
The Daily Nebraskan’s publishers
are the regents, who established the
UNL Publications Board to super
vise the daily production of the pa
per. (
According to policy set by the re
gents, responsibility for the editorial
content of the newspaper lies solely
in the hands of its students.