OPINION
Net)raskan
WMlnMday, October 20,1003
Net?raskan
Editorial Board
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Jeremy Fitzpatrick. .
Kathy Steinauer....
Wendy Mott.
Todd Cooper.
Chris Hopfensperger
Kim Spurlock.
Kiley Timperley....
. . . Editor, 472-1766
Opinion Page Editor
. . . Managing Editor
.Sports Editor
... .Copy Desk Chief
.Sower Editor
Senior Photographer
I 1)1 IOKI \l
Five alive
New teaching program would benefit UNL
The University of Ncbraska-Lincoln is leaving itself out of a
national trend in teaching programs. Some universities
have started a mandatory five-year program for their
education majors, but not UNL.
The longer program has some advantages, such as a chance for
these students to pursue internships without delaying graduation.
The fifth year also allows students to earn credit toward a master’s
degree.
Both have clear benefits. Internships teach students whether or
not they want to pursue teaching because they experience the job
more than student teaching allows. Mike Angelotti, associate dean
of the College of Education at the University of Oklahoma at
Norman, said the internships give students a better understanding
of what they teach.
Master’s degrees are in high demand in the career world. Any
credit toward a master’s can get the student off to a running start
should he or she decide to pursue a master’s or doctorate degree.
UNL should consider extending its Teachers College program
to five years. Students currently stay around five years on the
average but do not receive the additional benefits of other
schools’ five-year programs, such as internships and graduate
school credit.
One Teachers College student said she thought a five-year
program might deter future students from attending UNL, despite
the benefits. This should not prevent UNL from implementing the
program. Any student who will not attend a university because the
program is too demanding is not the type of student UNL should
want to attract in the first place.
Get out, stay out
No U.S. troops should remain in Somalia
The White House announced Tuesday that 750 members of
an Army Ranger unit would be pulled out of Somalia
within the next few days. Those being pulled had the
training to participate in the now-aborted hunt for Somali warlord
Mohamed Farrah Aidid.
The withdrawal reflects the Clinton administration’s desire for
a new focus in Somalia. The current goal is not a military one but
is instead centered on politics.
The withdrawal of the Army Rangers from Somalia makes a lot
of sense. If the Rangers’ mission has ended, those troops no
longer need to be risking their lives in Somalia.
But the move is not entirely positive.
The White House said the troops were being ordered out
because the 3,600 Marines Clinton ordered to patrol the Somali
coast had arrived. Clinton is staying with the plan he announced
earlier this month to increase the total U.S. force in Somalia from
4,700 to more than 10,000 troops. Then all U.S. troops arc
scheduled to be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31.
The removal of the 750 Rangers is not the needed removal of
troops it appears to be. Instead, the U.S. presence in Somalia will
increase by nearly 4,000 people because of the Marines. The
Rangers’ move appears to be a removal step, which is what many
in Congress and the public want. Instead, it is only part of
Clinton’s plan announced earlier this month.
Rather than shuffling the troops around Somalia, Clinton
should focus on removing all troops. The U.S. presence is no
longer welcome, and no troops should remain in Somalia.
I m mm \i i*< h k n
Staff editorials represent the official policy of the Fall 1993 Daily Nebraskan. Policy is set by
the Daily Nebraskan Editorial Board. Editorials do not necessarily reflect the views of the
university, its employees, the students or the NU Board of Regents. Editorial columns represent
the opinion of the author. The regents publish the Daily Nebraskan. They establish the UNL
Publications Board to supervise the daily production of the paper. According to policy set by
the regents, reaponsioility for the editorial content of the newspaper lies solely in the hands of
its students.
I I I I I It I'OI It \
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes brief letters to the editor from all readers and interested others.
Letters will be selected forpublication on the basis of clarity, originality, timeliness and space
available. The Daily Nebraskan retains the right to edit or rejectall material submitted Readers
also are welcome to submit material as guest opinions. The editor decides whether material
should ran as a guest opinion. Letters and guest opinions sent to the newspaper become the
property of the Daily Nebraskan and caqpot be returned. Anonymous submissions will not be
published. Letters should included 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.
wmmm. mmm
’SL
pWEl IT
mmwmm
iddwsouno^to
M \KK 1|A1 DKIIH.i:
Coercion costs winners, losers
1 think it’s time to talk about coer
cion.
It's a game that takes subtle
forms; we can be bound and led with
out being any the wiser. There arc
ways to make people comply that
have nothing to do with official chan
nels.
One way to play is through the
manipulation of language.
Everyone knows the bad guys in
Somalia are “warlords,” but what ex
actly does that word mean? How does
a warlord differ from, say, a “political
strong man”?
And isn’t that what Noriega was, a
strong man? Until later, when he be
came a “druglord” and then a “narco
gangster," whatever that is.
Why was he never “the sovereign
of a foreign nation," or even a “dicta
tor” or “CIA spook"?
The Persian GulfWar was a “Desert
Storm,” like some Hollywood pro
duction — complete with killer spe
cial effects.
The Iranians who held American
hostages in our own embassy were
“students.”
So were the martyrs at Tiananmen
Square, all of them. What kind of
extra credit were these two very dif
ferent groups of students working on?
When a presidential candidate in
Panama was savagely beaten, at least
two of the big three networks called
the attackers “goons” from the get
go*
Now, if I were as cynical as some
people claim I am, I’d suspect that
someone out there wanted me to think
of those goons as goons.
They want me to be sympathetic to
the students, but not the goons, to like
Desert Storm, but hate the warlords.
What does that mean?
It means that someone benefits
from manipulating my attention and
the attention of our country—some
one powerful enough to control the
media.
That’s more power than a presi
dent has, by a long shot.
Somewhere in the shadows the real
powers pull the strings, and all their
puppets dance.
It’saform of coercion. It’s not that
we’re not allowed to think otherwise
—it’s just that the terms of debate arc
limited at the outset by players not
entirely in the foreground
But in trying so hard to hide, they
tip their hand: Once we catch on to
their ploy we can determine who’s
who and what’s really at stake.
All you have todo is figure out who
has the most to win from the idcolog
All you have to do is figure out
who has the most to win from the
ideological containment of large
numbers of people. You read the
spin of the story back to the
doctor who spun it.
ical containment of large numbers of
Whole volumes arc spoken in that
single obfuscating term, “warlords.’'
But one doesn't have to marshal
the combined forces of the media to
play the coercion game.
A very easy way to win is to put
opposing players in a lose-lose situa
tion.
You can feed them information,
even facts, formulated in such a way
that it shapes the way they react.
For instance. I'd guess that 70 per
cent of the adult population in this
country “knows” tnat:
A) You can’t get AIDS from casual
contact.
B) Everyone is at risk for AIDS.
They’ve picked this up from ads
and posters they’ve been exposed to.
But, strictly speaking, both of these
statements can’t be true at the same
lime and in the same way, though a
single group propagates them without
comment. It’s never questioned.
Buying the first statement keeps us
from hating and fearing the victim of
AIDS.
The second fills us with an
unfocusable dread — very handy if
you have a certain agenda.
Myself, I’m for more research into
AIDS and for protection of those with
the disease —just like I rooted for the
Chinese people while Tiananmen
Square was going down.
But I dislike being manipulated,
and so should you.
It’s hard enough to keep track of
the facts without thus covert manipu
lation of them by people with hidden
motives.
And there arc still subtler forms of
coercion. They have to do with setting
up the question so as to incriminate
the respondent.
This version of the game doesn’t
require enormous resources; anyone
with a microphone can play.
When George Bush was asked to
guess the price of a loaf of bread, it
was a master stroke.
No answer would be sufficient. No
matter what number he gave, he was
trapped — because there is no one
price, and any hesitation on his part
would show he was only guessing
anyway.
1 really admire the demonic sim-,
plicity of that question.
Another way of playing the “heads
I-win-tails-you-lose” game is to po
larize a complex issue into simple
black and white alternatives.
A perfect example comes to hand
right here at UNL. *
Regardless of its intentions, the
Office of Affirmative Action has
pulled off something pretty smooth
with its “safe place” stickers.
When an official organ of the uni
versity hands out such stickers to pro
fessors, the profs are automatically
stuck with two alternatives.
If they post the stickers, the office
that produced them wins.
But gay students will be watching,
we all will. We can*t help but watch to
sec who fails to post the sticker.
It's nothing as clear-cut as evi
dence of homophobia; it’s just a little
hint, a little indicator of the profes
sor's stance on the issue.
The same kinds of tactics are used
in fascist states to bring the sheep
gently into the fold.
If 1 were a professor, and I imagine
1 will be one day, 1 would never
submit to that kind of blackmail —
though Pm certainly open to talking
about sex and sexual orientation. It’s
one of my favorite topics.
To resort to self-parody for a mo
ment — some of my best friends are
gay. In fact, two or my three closest
friends in all the world are gay.
But it's my contention that coer
cion should be resisted. It’s never fair,
and it’s never right to play that game.
Because where you stand on the
issues doesn't matter—whether you
side with the “warlords,” etc., or
against them.
In the game of coercion, all those
who play are ultimately losers.
Baldridfe b a icalor EagMih major, a
Dally Nebraikaa art* aid aalartala meat M
aiar reporter aad a colaaiaiit.
P.S. Write Back
The Daily Nebrakan wants to hear from you. If you want to voice your opinion about an article that appears
in the newspaper, let us know. Just write abriefletter to the editor and sign it (don’t forget your student ID number)
and mail it to the Daily Nebraska, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400'R'Street, Lincoln, NE 68588-0448, or stop by the
office in the basement of the Nebraska Union and visit with us. We're all cars.
