Opinion Netsskan
V^X XX 1 XVyl 1 Thursday, Juna 24,1993
Netjraskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Jeff Singer..Editor, 472-1766
Jeremy Fitzpatrick. .Features Editor
Jeff Zeleny. ........Copy Desk Chief
Sam Kepfield.. ..Columnist
Anne Sleyer. .Staff Reporter
-1_I
Tuition quandaries
Five percent increase raises questions
The NU Board of Regents’ unanimous approval last
Saturday of a 5 percent tuition increase might cause
some occasional grumbling from pan of UNL’s student
body, but the raise is warranted if the extra fees go to helping
save departments and university jobs.
But the question is will it?
The majority of students who will be affected by the in
crease will be resident undergraduates, whose tuition will go up
from $61.50 to $64.50 per credit hour.
But the University of Nebraska-Lincoln is ranked 10th
among its 11-member peer group in 1992-93 for basic cost of
attendance, with only the University of Kansas being cheaper.
Overall last year, Nebraska was $1085 less expensive in
basic costs as compared to its fellow counterparts in the
Midwest.
So UNL students’ complaints about the upcoming tuition
raise are unjustified.
Unless, of course, if departments continue to be cut and
university employees continue to be eliminated.
With the recent cuts to several UNL departments and 36
faculty, administrative and support staff positions being
eliminated at the end of the month, it would seem that funds
created from the tuition increase could help not only save some
of these areas, but future areas as well that will no doubt feel
the blade of the budget-cutting axe in the near future.
True, the fees that will be generated from the tuition hike
probably would not be able to save all departments from cuts
or all of the employees from receiving their final UNL pay
checks next week, but it could help alleviate some of the
financial burden that are causing these cuts.
The Nebraska Legislature’s recommendation in April for the
tuition raise was believed to be a necessity to keep the high
quality of faculty and staff at the stale’s largest academic
institution.
UNL student regent Keith Benes said at the regent meeting
last weekend that “we’re doing what we have to do to maintain
the quality of programs at the university.”
But in order for UNL’s student body to see these tuition
hikes as vital and justified, something positive and productive
must come from them.
And cutting departments and firing employees on the eve of
their implementation in the fall isn’t the way to do it.
-VuiJL-LL 1
Suff editorials represent the official policy of the Summer 1993 Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set
by the Daily Nebraskan Ldilorial Board. Ldilorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the
university, its employ ccs, the sludcnlsorlhcNU Board of Regents. Ldilorial columns represent
the opinion of the author. The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UN'L
Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper. According to policy set by
the regenu, responsibility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of
its students.
.f - - - ——-—
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others.
Ixllcrs will be selected for publication on the basis of clarity, originality, timeliness and space
available. The Daily Nebraskan rcuins the right to edit or reject all material submitted. Renters
also arc welcome to submit material as guest opinions. Ihc editor decides whether material
should run as a guest opinion. Loners and guest opinions sent to the newspaper become the
property of the Daily Nebraskan and cannot be relumed. Anonymous submissions will not be
published. Letters should ihcludcd 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
Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
me
MORE
I
WHAT ARC WB n
THE gUDGiFT T)
Tka^s
an
hT *
c
V
ee. i
| - r -" --- -
Hormones, not harassment
Teenagers looking lustfully at
one another, making teasing
remarks. Guys “accidentally”
brushing against girls in the hallways.
Both sexes grabbing one another.
Sounds like the high school I went to
15 years ago. Sounds like any normal
high school in America today, with
normal teenagers.
But, now, horror of horrors, we
learn that this activity, formerly at
tributed to racing hormones, is in fact
the vilest form of behavior known to
our society today, sexual harassment.
According to a study by the Ameri
can Association of University Women,
85 percent of girls say they have expe
rienced harassment. Surprisingly, 76
percent of boys said they had as well.
While praised by radical feminists
as proving how girls are being op
pressed by men, a closer look at the
study shows that it is social science
research at its worst, akin to studies
showing blacks as genetically infe
rior to whites.
The AAUW cast its net far too
broadly, including such things as be
ing the subject of graffiti on restroom
walls, or being looked at wrong. De
fining mere looks or comments as
sexual harassment docs not fit the
definition of real harassment. When
all of the politically correct gobblcdy
gook is taken away, the rates for being
forced into unwanted sex arc roughly
the national average. Even then, it
might be claimed that such behavior
is sexual assault, but “date rape” is
another can of worms.
Someone ought to take these re
searchers aside and shout a few words
of common sense into their ears. IT’S
HORMONES, NOT HARASS
MENT!!
Adolescents are, by definition, in
capable of thinking straight. That first
powerful rush of hormones overrides
all other brain processes. It’s a left
over from more primitive days when
We bombard kids
with sox on TV, In
movies and In print all
day long, and we
claim to be surprised
when they (or their
hormones) act on
those messages.
a boy was a man at 15 and ready to
procreate after killing his first wild
beast, with no delayed development
through high school.
And, notice if you will, it occurs on
both sides. While 66 percent of boys
admitted to this behavior, 52 percent
of fcirls said they had sexually ha
rassed others. But, of course, all we
hear about in this study is how girls
are affected, how they drop out be
cause of low self-esteem aggravated
by sexual harassment. Is it because
boys arc such brutish louts that they
aren’t affected?
The AAUW had an objective in
mind when they began this study, and
they worked backward from that to
rationalize their findings. Nan Stein
of Wellesley College, a big advocate
of this sort of research, has called
playground antics such as boys lifting
up girls’ skirls “gender terrorism,” in
politically correct/radical feminist
lingo. Stein and the AAUW arc part of
what author Christina Hoff Summer
called “the gender bias industry,”
people and organizations who exist
solely to find sexism, real or (mostly)
imagined, and pimish it.
The sad thing is that some schools
already take this seriously. Listening
toagpoupof counselors on “Nightline"
detail their heroic rescue of a victim
and the banishment of the tormentor
to re-education, one almost thought
they were making themselves out to
be comic-book superheroes. I can see
it now — the new Sensitivity Police
Liberal Action Team (SPLAT) Comix
from DC! If only this were a comic,
then we could laugh at it.
Hannah Arenat once aennea a to
talitarian regime as one where the
lines between public and private be
havior are blurred. This seems a per
fect description of what the AAUW
and NOW are trying to do. They seek
to publicly regulate every little nu
ance, every word, between the sexes
to fit their own twisted agenda. Rela
tions between the sexes are coming to
resemble the elaborate court protocol
of Louis XIV’s court at Versailles.
If there is a problem, it’s one of a
general breakdown in order and disci
pline in schools and society. We bom
bard kids with sex on TV, in movies
and in primal! day long, and we claim
to be surprised when they (or their
hormones) act on those messages.
Funny thing is, those who wanted to
“liberate” speech and remove censor
ship are those who are now crying the
loudest about its aftereffects.
Dan yuayie ana Katuucnanan were
criticized about wanting to politicize
private behavior—abortion and “re
production." But this little bit of stu
pidity from the AAUW ought to show
that the knife cuts the other way, that
the totalitarian leanings of NOW and
Big Mother are a far more pernicious
threat to individual liberty.
Kepfldd la a graduate student in history,
an alumnus of the UNL College of Law and a
Summer Daily Nebraskan columnist.
