Opinion
Peer pressure
UNL falling behind in faculty salaries
If the University of Ncbraska-Lincoln’s current peer group
is something from an educator’s dream, the comparison
group forwarded last year by a legislative consultant is a
nightmare.
Presently UNL ranks 10th in its 11-member comparison
group for faculty salaries, trailing universities such as Purdue,
Ohio State and Penn State.
As nice as it would be to compare UNL to these schools, it
is simply unrealistic. Nebraska legislators, in particular, have
complained that UNL doesn’t compare to its current peer group
in terms of money spent on research, student enrollment, the
faculty size or state population.
Ranking low wasn’t the problem with the comparison group
presented to the Legislature last year by Boulder, Colo., con
sultant Denis Jones. UNL ranked third in Jones’ group, trailing
only Iowa State University and the University of Massachusetts
Amherst.
But, if finishing in the cellar is bad, leading the pack is
worse.
“Faculty, to a large extent, still believe the existing peer
group is a realistic one because it recognizes the fact that
institutions in the group arc the ones we compete with for
faculty,’’ Academic Senate President George Tuck said in
December.
So with two inadequate choices available, the search goes on
for an adequate group in which to rank UNL.
For UNL, ranking in the cellar isn’t necessarily bad. The
faculty, and the university as a whole, stand to gain if UNL’s
peer group allows for salary increases. But the group must be
realistic.
This week, the university will take its biggest step toward a
happy medium when a consulting team composed of the retired
presidents of Penn State University, the University of Florida
and the University of Tennessee visit Nebraska.
Everyone involved must remember that statistics from other
schools arc not good enough to establish faculty salaries. If the
Legislature is honestly committed to improving education at
UNL, faculty salaries will continue to increase as well.
Censorship no cure for racism
A picture of a man being arrested
for a crime is not sensationalism.
However, trying to draw the readers’
attention away from the severity of a
crime by listing the accused individ
ual’s good points is. The fact of the
matter is that a crime was committed
and the DN was fortunate enough to
be the only news agency to get a
picture of the alleged perpetrator at
the scene. The DN was not being
“insensitive” or “inhumane” or any
other “in.” The DN simply was re
porting the news. I find it hilariously
ironic that at a college where freedom
of speech is taken so seriously, and
where we arc all supposed to be fight
ing racism, some individuals would
immediately resort to censorship and
racial bias at the very first negative
connotation associated with a minor
ity
I suggest that all of those individu
als who feel that Scott Baldwin was
dehumanized by that photograph go
tell him so. Stand by his side and
support him. B ul please, quit try ing to
be armchair newspaper editors. I will
interpret what I read and watch. And
when a person gets arrested for what
ever, I don’t want to see a picture of a
touchdown, a great reception, or even
a 3.0 GPA report card. „
Thomas K. Eads
sophomore
computer science
DN critics’ assertions absurd
Wouldn’t you know it, the Daily
Nebraskan finally gels its hands on
some indisputably front-page news,
and the editors are lambasted for
deciding to forsake tradition and ac
tually print news. The same thing
happened last year after the DN re
ported that during the Greek Fight
Night fund-raiser, a fight broke out
(go figure).
Strangely, the same argument was
used in both cases. People closest to
thercally-big-allegcdly-violcnt-guys
implored the DN to print the good
things that happened, as well as the
bad — supposedly to balance the
assortment of facts.
I equate absurdity with the asser
tion that the DN should have accom
panied Monday’s (Jan. 20) photo
graph with a shot of Baldwin majesti
cally running for a touchdown. Bald
win’s excellent football statistics and
academic performance arc not rele
vant.
The people most disturbed by the
sight of a nude and bound Baldwin on
the front page of the DN complain
that the press doesn’t care about the
average day of Scott Baldwin. They
claim that “stereotypes have been
encouraged by this article and photo
graph.”
The logical extent of their reason
ing is that all public and quasi-public
actions should be screened for racial,
gender or ethnic implications so that
we can all overcome prejudice, ra
cism, sexism, injustice, discourage
ment, low self-esteem, confusion,
poverty and halitosis — through ig
norance.
The premise that reporting this event
will perpetuate racism is false. Un
fortunately, among the readers of the
DN are people who are racist and who
will continue to be racist whether the
DN reports this event. It is not as if the
photograph pushed teetering photo
racists over the brink.
Nevertheless, because Scott Bald
win is black we arc expected to white
wash the news on Martin Luther King
Day. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke
eloquently against violence, racism
and injustice. He was not noted for
campaigning against an informed
citizenry.
The DN reports newsworthy events.
As citizens, it is our task to process
the information we receive intelli
gently. Simply because some people
arc not up to this task is no reason for
the DN to cease relating newsworthy
events.
The truth shall set you free.
Pohl Longsinc
senior
mathematics and computer science
Hcw'w 1WR PNWEi?.
VW (vOT-rN BE K
GiOOV EnIGLBSIA
SPEkKlN’
HOMBRE- "Tf\
6iT 114 'ERE/
BRIAN ALLEN
Jobless need work, not charity
Areoccurring topic that emerges
from time to time is welfare
reform. Periodically, differ
ent state legislatures propose various
reform packages that invariably fail
to address the real problem with to
day’s welfare system: If you give
people money not to work, you can’t
expect them to try to find a job.
What we should provide to people
in need is not welfare, and not a check
in the mail on the firstof every month.
This type of system caters to the slug
gards of this world and is demeaning
to decent people who want to work
but simply cannot find jobs. It gives
no sense of pride or accomplishment.
People on welfare need jobs, not
handouts. Instead of simply mailing
out billions of dollars every month
and raking the taxpayers over the
coals, the United States must use the
welfare budget to create jobs for needy
people.
If people are laid off or lose their
jobs and need help for a while, such a
system would give them welfare jobs.
They wouldn’t be glamourous jobs.
The pay would be poor and the work
hard to encourage people to find jobs
not dependent on the government.
But people who were in need and
willing to work would gel help.
The idea behind any welfare sys
tem is to help those in genuine need of
assistance while keeping the number
of moochers and freeloaders to an
absolute minimum. Some people are
simply down on their luck momentar
ily and need help for a short time, and
we should help these people — espe
cially if they have children.
Unfortunately, some people abuse
the system — people who arc per
fectly capable of supporting them
selves but who arc simply loo lazy or
unmotivated to do so.
The problem is how to sort the two
groups, how to provide help where
and when it’s needed while keeping
the loafers out of the system.
Problem solved: All we must do is
make welfare recipients work for their
money. People who need help will
still be able to get it and anyone loo
lazy to work will be cut from the
system.
It wouldn’t cost the taxpayers any
more money. They’re already giving
money away; let’s at least make wel
fare recipients cam it. This would
give help to those who need it and arc
willing to work for it, and would keep
the slackers out of the system and off
the taxpayers’ backs.
This is not by any means a new
idea. From 1933to 1942 hundreds of
The need tor welfare
reform and the need
to da somethine
about dwindling
landfill space are two
negatives, (hun which
we could make a
positive — the reelOi
motion of valuable
recyclable resources,
thousands of people worked in a sort
of government welfare program called
the Civilian Conservation Corps. Those
who needed help got work, and the
country benefited from the planting
of millions of trees and the comple
tion of numerous drainage and soil
conservation projects. The thing that
puzzles me is why we ever let welfare
programs change and become the
system of handouts they arc today.
Some may ask, “ What about single
mothers with small children? They
can’t afford to pay for day care for
their kids while working for your new
welfare system.”
Look at that — we just found jobs
for the 10 percent of our nation’s
welfare recipients who prove to be
the most qualified to lake care of
children. These workers could care
for the children of the other 90 per
cent of the recipients.
Now all that remains is to find jobs
for that other 90 percent.
While the Civilian Conservation
Corps was a great idea, planting trees
is out. Not only would it jeopardize
the jobs of many people already in the
nursery/horticulture business (and the
last thing we want to do is to put more
people out of work), but let’s face it,
our slate doesn’t have that much land
in need of reforestation. Much of the
land not being tilled or grazed already
cither has trees on it or is valuable
prairie or wetland wildlife habitat.
What we need is a job which meets
several very specific requirements. It
must be pcrformable by people with
varying degrees of education or train
ing. It must be pcrformable by the
majority of the working-age popula
tion, regardless of sex or physical
build (i.c. no heavy lifting). It must be
capable of absorbing millions of
man(woman)-hours of labor. It must
be at a permanent location, prefera
bly near public transportation routes
so people without cars can get to
work. It must be a job that currently
employs very few people, so as not to
put anyone else out of work. It must
be useful, and if not self-sustaining,
at least capable of paying for a por
tion of the welfare system’s budget.
Actually, it was my brother who
came up with the perfect job: “Pul
them lo work sorting garbage,” he
said. “The deadbeats won’t do it, and
we can cut them from the welfare
budget. The rest would perform a
useful function by sorting rccyclables
thatarcgoing to landfills. They would
be helping the environment, and the
work would be distasteful enough lo
encourage them to find other jobs.
Plus, the rccyclables could be sold
and help pay for the program.”
Here we have a unique opportu
nity to create a solution to two prob
lems. The need for welfare reform
and the need to do something about
dwindling landfill space are two
negatives from which we could make
a positive — the reclamation of valu
able recyclable resources. Sort of like
killing two birds with one stone, we
would solve two social problems with
one program and deriving a benefit
from the process.
According to the UNL Environ
mental Resource Center, our country
produces an average of 160 million
tons of garbage a year. While 80
percent of this waste is recyclable,
only about 10 percent of that is being
recycled and 1 percent is being com
posted.
The other 69 percent of recyclable
materials is not being reclaimed be
cause of the cost. It is not cost-effec
tive to sort out any bui the most valu
able recyclable products.
If we put welfare recipients to work
sorting garbage, it still won’t be cosl
cffcctivc. The program won’t make
any money, but it would certainly be
better than throwing rccyclables away
and mailing out money for nothing.
Ai least taxpayers would gel some
return on the welfare dollar, which is
infinitely better lhan the return they
arc getting now.
Allen Is a senior mechanical engineering
major and a Daily Nebraskan columnist.
