Opinion
Bye bye Big Bird?
Senators should keep funding public TV
The debate over federal funding of art projects through the
National Endowment for the Arts has produced an
unlikely offspring: the “Sesame Street” controversy.
Last week conservative senators brought up their concerns
over funding of the Public Broadcasting System. Amazingly
enough, one of the programs they targeted for complete re
moval of funding was the perennial childhood favorite “Sesame
Street.”
Apparently, income generated from products that feature the
“Sesame Street” characters has led some senators to think the
show’s producing agency, The Children’s Television Work
shop, is overfunded.
Hardly. In fact, Ellen Morgenstcm, a spokeswoman for Chil
dren’s Television Workshop, said “Sesame Street” was near
extinction from a lack of money 10 years ago. That led the
workshop to allow the licensing of some characters for com
mercial products to keep the show alive.
Republican Leader Bob Dole of Kansas and Sen. Jesse
Helms, R-N.C., arc leading the charge against PBS. The talk is
likely to heat up this week, if debate begins on a bill to author
ize the existence of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
The corporation handles funding for PBS, National Public
Radio and local public radio and television stations.
Along with criticizing “Sesame Street,” the conservative
senators last week brought up funding for “Tongues Untied,”
which was offered through PBS programming last year. The
film drew criticism and praise for its portrayal of the lives of
African-American gay men.
While “Tongues Untied” was offered to PBS affiliates na
tionwide, many local program directors, including the director
in Lincoln, decided not to show the program because of its con
troversial nature. The film included some profanity and nudity.
But whether the senators agree with such programming is
not the issue. Instead, the issue is simply the survival of public
broadcasting as we know it.
While the senators said they did not want to destroy public
broadcasting, they do want to examine its funding and, conse
quently, remove portions they deem unacceptable. Tbal would
mark a change from the hands-off relationship with govern
ment PBS now has.
Part of the success of public broadcasting is that it is not
government-controlled. PBS receives 17 percent of its money
from tax dollars, but that funding comes without restriction.
Most of the rest of PBS money comes from private donations.
Its standards for programming arc controlled locally, just as
legal standards of obscenity arc determined by local tastes. Yet
PBS doesn’t rely entirely on advertising or corporate sponsor
ship for programming, as do private networks.
For all intents and purposes, PBS is the most satisfactory of
television worlds. It has the freedom to operate without com
mercial restraints yet docs not rely on government control.
The overbearing NEA debate must remain within its own
boundaries.
Instead of messing with a good system, senators should
leave “Sesame Street” to the real children.
Resignation story one-sided
Wc arc writing in response to the
article regarding the resignation of
women’s swim coach Ray Huppert
(“Controversy not only reason for
resignation, NU coach says,” DN,
March 5). We feel the article was
biased and failed to show both sides
of the controversy by only interview
ing one member of the swim team.
We feel someone ofThomas Clouse’s
position (as senior editor) should know
how to represent both sides of an
argument and present a more bal
anced article. Michelle Butcher’s
comments do not reded the views of
the entire women’s swim team. We,
as members of the swim team, respect
Ray’s ability as a coach, and credit
him for building such a strong pro
gram over the past 17 years. It is now
important that our team moves on and
looks toward the future.
Kelly Christensen
sophomore
international business
Kristie Klein
freshman
undeclared
Julie Ricgal
sophomore
business administration
Editor's note: The reporter at
tempted to contact other swimmers
but they were unavailable for com
ment.
-EDITORIAL POLICY
Staff editorials represent the offi
cial policy of the Spring 1992 Daily
Nebraskan. Policy is set by the Daily
Nebraskan Editorial Board. Its mem
bers are: Jana Pedersen, editor; Alan
Phelps, opinion page editor; Kara
Wells, managing editor; Roger Price,
wire editor; Wendy Navratil, copy
desk chief; Brian Shellito, cartoon
ist; Jeremy Fitzpatrick, senior re
porter.
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.
J ' /’• ;v \
I '!
ALAN PHELPS
Mutation no answer for crime
On Friday, a judge in Houston
approved a child molester’s
request to be surgically cas
trated to avoid a prison sentence on
the charge of raping a 13-ycar-old
girl last year.
What at first seems like a simple
use of the ancient cyc-for-an-cyc
punishment sets up many moral ques
tions about our responsibilities to the
criminally insane.
While it is true that the American
justice system should reform crimi
nals rather than simply incarcerate
them, whether we should mutilate
them in the process is another matter.
Slate District Judge Mike MeSpad
den approved the unusual request from
Steven Allen Butler, 28, who brought
up the topic alter reading about
MeSpadden’s support of castration
for some sex offenders.
Apparently, the arrangement also
will spare the girl from testifying
against Butler at a trial.
Butler will be on probation for 10
years after the operation. If he doesn’t
get into any trouble during that lime,
the charges against him will be dropped.
MeSpadden said the procedure must
be surgical rather than chemical, so it
will be irreversible.
"I would insist upon surgical .. .
because (with) the chemical, after the
10 years on probation, I would have
no control on him and I could not
guarantee that the injections would
be given after that time,” MeSpadden
said.
Butler will undergo an orchiec
tomy, or the removal of both testicles,
which produce the male hormone
testosterone. While castration docs
not necessarily eliminate a man’s
ability to have an erection, it docs
greatly diminish the sexual drive.
The decision immediately was
called barbaric by critics. Philip Reilly,
who has written a book on the history
of involuntary sterilization of the
United States, brought up an obvious
point:
‘‘Would you allow an 18-ycar-old
boy who stole a car three times to say,
‘Cut my hands off so I won’t do it
again?”’
Reilly is not considering, however,
that the boy’s hands did not cause him
to steal cars but only helped him to
break the law. In Butler’s case, his
sexual overdrive might have caused
him to rape a girl.
But whcilicr surgery will help Butler
is debatable. It could be argued that a
powerful sex drive doesn’t necessar
ily cause a person to rape little girls.
There arc a lot of guys out there with
, .'(• : . ■
The crux, of this,
question is how far
OUL government
should be allowed to
go in rehabilitating
those members of
society who have
stepped bevond the
rules we have set.
mighty powerful sex drives.
In all probability, pari of what
makes Butler a criminal in our soci
ety is in his head. Rape is not sex, it is
violence. Culling off an the offensive
body part of a criminal docs not seem
like the work of an advanced culture.
The fact is. we don ’ t know for sure
that this procedure will really help
Butler at all, aside from getting him
out of jail.
It is doubtful that the judge is an
expert of what makes Steven Butler
lick. Before Butler is permanently
altered, he should be studied by quali
fied psychologists. Perhaps what Butler
and those like him really need isa mix
of psychological and chemical treat
ment.
However, in dealing with moral
rations, it is necessary to think about
extremes, even if they seem a bit
outlandish.
When thinking of extreme ex
amples, it is difficult to rule out sur
gery as a device to reform criminals
entirely. If a man had, say, a tumor in
his head that caused him to become
insane and fire a gun into a crowd of
people, it could be argued that he
should be forced to undergo the sur
gery that would cure him, if doctors
were convinced of the procedure’s
rehabilitating effects.
However, this is a very scary power
to give to the government — the
forced lobotomics on some mental
patients of the 1950s conic to mind.
for instance.
Forced drug injections by the au
thorities don’t seem a whole lot better
than forced surgery. While some would
argue that drugs are, at least, revers
ible, that is not the case if the govern
ment doesn’t allow a person to dis
continue treatment.
The crux of this question is how
far our government shou Id be al lowed
logo in rehabilitating those members
of society who have stepped beyond
the rules we have set. Although ex
amples exist in history and today of
both chemical and surgical treatments
imposed on members of society against
their will, is it morally right?
Some criminals arc bom criminals
because they have something physi
cally wrong with them, such as chemi
cal imbalances. Our bodies arc in
credibly sensitive to minute changes
in the chemicals that flow through
our veins. To make some criminals
“normal,” it is necessary to physi
cally change them, cither through drugs
or surgery.
It would obviously be a great mis
take to let society define what is nor
mal and then allow it to remake those
who don’t fall into its guidelines. But
as we Icam more and more about the
human body, as we realize what we
can do through various treatments,
we must face many difficult ques
tions.
The case of Steven Butler is not so
difficult in itself. The justice system
has gone too far. Butler’s testicles
were not the only reason he did what
he did, and condoning this type of
revenge will not help him or anyone.
The decision is repugnant and
should not stand. A person who is
demonstrably insane should not be
allowed to cut off parts of his body to
avoid other punishment.
‘ The message that this case sends
to the rest of the nation is that rapists
are rapists solely because of their
testicles. And that is simply wrong.
The other, more fundamental ques
tions the case asks when law and
medicine mix are almost impossible
to answer. While there are extreme
arguments for both sides, medical
treatment could be an option for deal
ing with some cases.
But judges shouldn’t make these
decisions lightly, and certainly not
without hearing testimony from quali
fied experts. A man volunteering to
be castrated is not a shining example
of American justice at work.
Phelps is a sophomore news-editor Ini ma
jor, the Dally Nebraskan opinion page editor
and a columnist.